LOCATION/TYPE

NEWS HOME


[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]

Archive
RSS

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

WHAT TO DO
when your community is targeted

Get weekly updates
RSS

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

Wind energy’s potential – and problems 

Reference the Nov. 8 columns "This wind farm is a good one" by John Passacantando and "Why wind power won’t fly" by Dennis T. Avery. I was disappointed with both pieces on the proposed Cape Wind project. Neither discussed what will ultimately be the core issues on alternate energy sources – reliability, ultimate costs to the consumer and greenhouse gases.

The issue of reliability is brushed aside. Cape Wind proposes to replace (Greenpeace citation) 75 percent of now-fossil-produced power to the area. Imagine what happens if the wind stops or becomes too brisk. In the former case, you had better have a source of standby power available immediately. In the case of too much wind, the effect is the same. The turbines are designed to "feather" to self-protect, but the result is the same as no wind at all.
Cost to the consumer is an issue both sides ducked. I have read of prices in Iowa (turbines in the middle of pastures and fields) in the 5.5 to 6 cents per kilowatt hour. If true, that is competitive with what we pay in Tidewater. However, there is a proposed wind farm project off Long Island. There, costs are cited as being slightly in excess of what Long Island consumers are currently paying (which is in the range of 20 cents per kWh). Offshore production is certainly more expensive. Maintenance is a huge issue.
Greenhouse gases are still a problem because the only way to ward off the second effect is to have standby power available. The old polluting power plants cited by Greenpeace would have to be replaced with gas turbines – the only sources that can go from standby to full power quickly. There is a net benefit in replacing an old polluting plant, but you are buying a new plant plus the turbines. And there is the necessity of obtaining a reliable gas supply on an intermittent basis. The plant will pay a premium for the privilege.
Wind energy has its place despite Avery’s comments. But Passacantando is dreaming.

Jim Hurst, Williamsburg

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Contributions
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)

Share:

e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share


News Watch Home

Get the Facts
CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.

 Follow:

Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky