Comments on: U.S. Ramping Up Wind Power Programs Even As Concerns Surface About Possible Declines In U.S. Wind Strength http://www.moneymorning.com/2009/06/19/wind-power-programs/ Investment News Provider Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:36:16 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Investment News Briefs http://www.moneymorning.com/2009/06/19/wind-power-programs/comment-page-1/#comment-24138 Investment News Briefs Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:01:38 +0000 http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=7771#comment-24138 [...] Billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens has delayed his plan to build the world’s largest wind farm in the Texas panhandle, blaming financing issues and transmission limitations. “I didn’t cancel it,” Pickens told Reuters after a press conference on Capitol Hill. “Financing is tough right now and so it’s going to be delayed a year or two.” Pickens’ plan calls for the installation of 4,000 megawatts of wind turbines at a site near Pampa, Texas, which could power 1.2 million average homes by 2014 at a cost of $8 billion. Money Morning reported a new study set for release next month suggests wind forces may be getting weaker. [...] [...] Billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens has delayed his plan to build the world’s largest wind farm in the Texas panhandle, blaming financing issues and transmission limitations. “I didn’t cancel it,” Pickens told Reuters after a press conference on Capitol Hill. “Financing is tough right now and so it’s going to be delayed a year or two.” Pickens’ plan calls for the installation of 4,000 megawatts of wind turbines at a site near Pampa, Texas, which could power 1.2 million average homes by 2014 at a cost of $8 billion. Money Morning reported a new study set for release next month suggests wind forces may be getting weaker. [...]

]]> By: Doyle http://www.moneymorning.com/2009/06/19/wind-power-programs/comment-page-1/#comment-23818 Doyle Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:53:40 +0000 http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=7771#comment-23818 A 30 year study of wind trends to discuss 'climate' changes is a joke. That's barely 3 sunspot cycles. Let me know when they publish 100 or 200 year data, with a real chart, not just some vague percentage numbers. I suspect multi-nodal climate drifts across that more realistic range, and that, yes, we might happen to currently be on the downside of a wind high, at least for some regions. Other regions could gain, as is hinted at in the article. I do agree that the notion should help curb wind-total-solution-mania, and advocate a reasoned mix that migrates us toward renewables across the next 50 years. While I would not agree with Bob's 50th parallel argument, other things equal, solar should be more predominant farther south, and in the wind-poor areas of the SE US. Barbara should learn to read her electric bill, paying special attention to the PCRF(fuel cost adjustment). In some areas of Texas, wind-generated energy can cause it to go negative. At other times, when we have to run the NATURAL GAS peaking plants, PCRF can go thru the roof. Producer cheap-Natural Gas-mania doesn't seem to trickle down to the consumer, so please, get real. All in all, a nice reminder to stay the course and avoid the extremes of reliance on few sources for energy. A 30 year study of wind trends to discuss ‘climate’ changes is a joke. That’s barely 3 sunspot cycles. Let me know when they publish 100 or 200 year data, with a real chart, not just some vague percentage numbers. I suspect multi-nodal climate drifts across that more realistic range, and that, yes, we might happen to currently be on the downside of a wind high, at least for some regions. Other regions could gain, as is hinted at in the article. I do agree that the notion should help curb wind-total-solution-mania, and advocate a reasoned mix that migrates us toward renewables across the next 50 years. While I would not agree with Bob’s 50th parallel argument, other things equal, solar should be more predominant farther south, and in the wind-poor areas of the SE US.

Barbara should learn to read her electric bill, paying special attention to the PCRF(fuel cost adjustment). In some areas of Texas, wind-generated energy can cause it to go negative. At other times, when we have to run the NATURAL GAS peaking plants, PCRF can go thru the roof. Producer cheap-Natural Gas-mania doesn’t seem to trickle down to the consumer, so please, get real.

All in all, a nice reminder to stay the course and avoid the extremes of reliance on few sources for energy.

]]> By: William Patalon III http://www.moneymorning.com/2009/06/19/wind-power-programs/comment-page-1/#comment-23527 William Patalon III Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:03:21 +0000 http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=7771#comment-23527 Bob: Reader comments are always welcomed. Here, however, in taking the time to highlight a couple of details, you actually missed the point of the story, in which I'm basically agreeing with your own point: Despite the hype and promise of wind power, it faces a plethora of challenges to become a mainstream power source. I even took the time to mention Betz's Law. In closing, however, let me also say that one of the pleasures of editing MM is that we're writing to a very informed, interested and engaged audience. And that's extremely gratifying. William Patalon III Bob:
Reader comments are always welcomed. Here, however, in taking the time to highlight a couple of details, you actually missed the point of the story, in which I’m basically agreeing with your own point: Despite the hype and promise of wind power, it faces a plethora of challenges to become a mainstream power source. I even took the time to mention Betz’s Law.
In closing, however, let me also say that one of the pleasures of editing MM is that we’re writing to a very informed, interested and engaged audience. And that’s extremely gratifying.
William Patalon III

]]> By: Barbara R http://www.moneymorning.com/2009/06/19/wind-power-programs/comment-page-1/#comment-23441 Barbara R Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:32:37 +0000 http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=7771#comment-23441 Another potential problem is how the government is so over-regulating EVERY ASPECT of life these days that the private sector has no incentive to get involved. I would not want anything to do with a government project that encourages private sector involvement BUT constantly changes the rules on the way it conducts business. The private sector is beholden to shareholders who have invested in it and when the government can step in at will and change the ways a company can do business and abrogate contracts and screw shareholders in the process (see Chrysler bondholders) then why should a private company TAKE PART IN ANY GOVERNMENT ENTERPRISE. If they are smart, they would go elsewhere and incorporate elsewhere in countries where capital and free markets are appreciated. I love Boone Pickens and think his plan has some merit but this administration just like the last one pays NO ATTENTION to him. Obama is not committed to natural gas - he NEVER mentions it - and without natural gas the Pickens plan is NOT going to work for all your focus on the wind part of the plan. We are sitting on an abundance of natural gas right now at ridiculously low prices THANKS to those companies (not government) who found a way to horizontally drill for it. However, this administration has proven totally BLIND to this. Natural gas is cleaner than many other options, it is local, it provides jobs in the US and it IS IGNORED. Now you are stating there are studies that say wind power may not be so readily available. Many other options are not viable at this time - including solar. Fuel cell batteries CAN'T power large trucks that carry supplies. NOT FEASIBLE! This government has no viable energy policy and its regulating to death the private (as opposed to government) sector should prevent (if they are smart) companies from getting involved in government programs. As a shareholder I would be very concerned about the terms of any company I own stock in doing business with THIS GOVERNMENT where rules change constantly and the law means nothing. Another potential problem is how the government is so over-regulating EVERY ASPECT of life these days that the private sector has no incentive to get involved. I would not want anything to do with a government project that encourages private sector involvement BUT constantly changes the rules on the way it conducts business. The private sector is beholden to shareholders who have invested in it and when the government can step in at will and change the ways a company can do business and abrogate contracts and screw shareholders in the process (see Chrysler bondholders) then why should a private company TAKE PART IN ANY GOVERNMENT ENTERPRISE. If they are smart, they would go elsewhere and incorporate elsewhere in countries where capital and free markets are appreciated. I love Boone Pickens and think his plan has some merit but this administration just like the last one pays NO ATTENTION to him. Obama is not committed to natural gas – he NEVER mentions it – and without natural gas the Pickens plan is NOT going to work for all your focus on the wind part of the plan. We are sitting on an abundance of natural gas right now at ridiculously low prices THANKS to those companies (not government) who found a way to horizontally drill for it. However, this administration has proven totally BLIND to this. Natural gas is cleaner than many other options, it is local, it provides jobs in the US and it IS IGNORED. Now you are stating there are studies that say wind power may not be so readily available. Many other options are not viable at this time – including solar. Fuel cell batteries CAN’T power large trucks that carry supplies. NOT FEASIBLE! This government has no viable energy policy and its regulating to death the private (as opposed to government) sector should prevent (if they are smart) companies from getting involved in government programs. As a shareholder I would be very concerned about the terms of any company I own stock in doing business with THIS GOVERNMENT where rules change constantly and the law means nothing.

]]> By: Bob Cluett http://www.moneymorning.com/2009/06/19/wind-power-programs/comment-page-1/#comment-23438 Bob Cluett Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:06:35 +0000 http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=7771#comment-23438 Mr. Patalon's article omits several important facts -- 1) The wind industry is fond of saying things like "The proposed wind farm will produce 120 megawatts, enough to power 30,000 homes." What never gets said is "30,000 homes when the turbines all produce at rated capacity." No wind turbine in recorded history has ever produced, over a year, more than 28% of its total rated capacity. 2) The numbers he quotes for Denmark, Spain and Portugal are for rated capacity, not for actual production. 3) A recent study concluded that in order for the U.K. to generate 20% of its power needs from wind, the Kingdom would require a farm of 2 megawatt towers the size of Wales. 4) Wind power is good and is economic in places like The North Sea, the north shore of Prince Edward Island, Hudson's Bay, and the central wind corridor of the USA. Elsewhere it does not justify the heavy subsidization it gets from pseudo-green politicians. South of the 50th parallel solar is cheaper, more reliable, and far less obtrusive and disturbing in developed areas. 5) Eighty per cent of the hype for windpower is subsidy-driven. It's not green energy, it's greed energy. Mr. Patalon’s article omits several important facts –
1) The wind industry is fond of saying things like “The proposed wind farm will produce 120 megawatts, enough to power 30,000 homes.” What never gets said is “30,000 homes when the turbines all produce at rated capacity.” No wind turbine in recorded history has ever produced, over a year, more than 28% of its total rated capacity.
2) The numbers he quotes for Denmark, Spain and Portugal are for rated capacity, not for actual production.
3) A recent study concluded that in order for the U.K. to generate 20% of its power needs from wind, the Kingdom would require a farm of 2 megawatt towers the size of Wales.
4) Wind power is good and is economic in places like The North Sea, the north shore of Prince Edward Island, Hudson’s Bay, and the central wind corridor of the USA. Elsewhere it does not justify the heavy subsidization it gets from pseudo-green politicians. South of the 50th parallel solar is cheaper, more reliable, and far less obtrusive and disturbing in developed areas.
5) Eighty per cent of the hype for windpower is subsidy-driven. It’s not green energy, it’s greed energy.

]]>