The 58% limit expressed has everything to do with wind’s capacity factor, for that is the most performance that can be squeezed from its rated capacity as wind machines work vainly (actually fairly efficiently) to convert their energy diffuse fuel into modern power quality. Given that increasing wind variability imposes substantially increasing dysfunction on any grid, the lower wind capacity factors, the better for grid performance–both for consumer’s wallets and for carbon emissions. All things being equal–that is, no increase in nuclear, natural gas, hydro, or demand–the more wind, the greater use of coal….

Marlowe is most disingenuous here when he attempts to compare the rare unplanned outages of coal plants with the existential outages of wind plants. Any conventional generator that fails to performance as expected even twice would be quickly taken off line and replaced. Moreover, while any grid has “reserve capacity”–both in the form of regulating and spinning operating reserves on hand to backstop the largest single generating unit–it is simply irresponsible to claim that this security measure should be engaged to handle wind instability. Aside from risking overall grid security, this kind of inanity can only increase costs and thermal activity.

Second, the statistics of wind production are not as steady as they are for coal; however, they do have statistically quantifiable behavior and our knowledge of this behavior is improving. The following information is from PJM themselves:
“Large Wind” – ELCC is quantifiable
PJM experience shows following:
80% chance that wind speed will be within ±10% one hour later
60% chance of same tolerance level five hours later
PJM’s Planning purpose – 20% of rated capacity can be used for ELCC

If you don’t know what ELCC is then you probably are not in a position to contribute to this discussion. While not intending to be confrontational, the underlying argument being made by the column is not supported by PJM and is fundamentally flawed.

Thank you,

We have to realize that the statement “wind powering homes” is a very intentional misnomer pulsed over and over by the wind lobby. Fulfilling the precise energy flow needs of a fixed number of modern homes – refrigerators and all – with bursts and lulls of wind energy, makes as much sense as professing you can derive your year’s supply of potassium and vitamin C from a shipment of very ripe bananas which arrives on January first, with no further processing or preservation methods at your disposal.

The “slogan” of powering homes might or might not assume any number of unrealistic side show caveats such as man-made-global-wind-regime increases due to climate change, or some yet-to-be invented electricity storage technique that overcomes unavoidable entropic and frictional losses associated with energy conversion from one state to another and back again.

It’s encouraging to see people like you challenging the propositions of industry stakeholders. Your diligence reminds me of the ad campaign “For a Better Life,” the punch line for this episode is perhaps “Accountability – Pass it On.”

Aside from their demonic ability to kill Eagles and raptors during the rare periods of operation, Altamont Pass should be viewed as a living laboratory of the futility of wind power.

Its near neighbor, the Livermore Lab, is another matter. A recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/29/MN5K1BOF4V.DTL ) reported: “Scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory reported Thursday they have taken a major step toward harnessing the forces that power the sun in an effort to create unlimited energy on Earth.”

There it is in a nutshell. On the one hand, the supposed scientifically enlightened pursue a very limited, costly, and as common sense demonstrates, futile method of meeting burgeoning energy needs. On the other hand, science is just taking baby steps to develop nuclear power production, which assuredly will one day become the means of satisfying mankind’s ever increasing energy needs. One direction leads nowhere while fueling the cry that what must be done is for mankind to stop economic progress. The other direction unleashes the potential for mankind to achieve economic security for all, thereby reducing the need for politicians and their acolytes to preside over the division of shrinking resources.

We know which road politicians will choose, so common sense (and science) must lead us to choose the other.

In checking the Energy Information Administration’s web page on wind turbine installed capacity and annual generation I found that the capacity factor for 2008, the latest year for which data is available, was 24.9%. Then I reviewed the American Wind Energy Association 2009 annual report and see no mention of the capacity factor, just a lot of information on the name plate capacity installed. Hmmm, wonder why?

According to numerous news accounts and many wind energy publications, the current 35GW of installed base is enough to theoretically supply enough power for 9 million homes. Again looking at the EIA site for data, we find that the average home in the U.S. consumes 11,232 KwH/Year. If one applies that to the 35GW installed base and uses the historical capacity factor, 24.9%, we find that the theoretical number of homes that could be supported would be about 6.7 million. Any of you smart people out there have any idea of where the 9 million figure came from?

Another question for industry experts, to reach the 180,000 MW of installed turbines by 2020 and starting the process on 1/1/2010, working 6 days/week the industry would be required to install 16-17 2.5MW turbines/day, a little over 13,000 Mw/Year. I would observe that in 2009 over 9,000 Mw of capacity was brought on line but don’t know how much was actually installed. Do we have the manufacturing capacity and enough skilled labor available to accomplish the task? What labor to design and install the connectivity infrastructure?

What happens when the underlying rationale for all this “investment” is finally realized to be totally invalid? It simply will not accomplish what is claimed for it and at tremendous cost. Don’t even try to hide behind the 21st century industry development and job creation need. Industrial wind power will not deliver. Too many big players globally will be chasing a market that cannot support them.

We will have created another financial “bubble”, which has been projected to be larger than the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, involving even the small investor. Considering how close we may have come to financial system collapse last time, it is hard to imagine how we will withstand it when this one bursts.

The average cost of electricity for residential customers in Denmark is about 35¢/KWH!

This is what we want to duplicate?

Note how often the NYT, REL, AWEA mention that fact.