The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Governors Urge Congress to Renew Wind Energy Production Tax Credit

Vince Font, Contributing Editor
November 13, 2012  |  88 Comments

With the expiration of the wind energy Production Tax Credit looming and the clock ticking rapidly away to the end of 2012, a bipartisan group of U.S. governors is urging Congress to act now to save jobs. In a joint press conference held today, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) stressed that uncertainty over the extension of the wind energy Production Tax Credit (PTC) is already beginning to have an impact on renewable energy jobs.

“The uncertainty about the future of this tax incentive,” Grassley said, “hurts the economic good that these policies do.” Grassley, who authored the original wind energy PTC in 1992 and has also sponsored Senate bill (S. 3521), which aims to extend the tax credit for at least another year, pointed to the expiration of the biodiesel tax credit in 2010 as an example that he says resulted in 23,000 jobs being “put on hold.” This is a situation that all involved are keen to prevent from happening to wind energy in their states.

Governor Terry Branstad (R-IA) also cited uncertainty about the wind energy PTC’s fate as a major playing factor in the decision of some companies to have already begun eliminating jobs. “Due to the uncertainty,” Branstad said, “we’ve begun to see a negative economic impact and loss of jobs in our states. In Iowa, Siemens recently announced the layoff of 400 employees at their plant in Fort Madison, and Clipper Windpower laid off 100 workers at their plant in Cedar Rapids. We have literally thousands of wind energy related jobs in our state. These are high tech, high paying jobs.” Branstad says he remains hopeful that Congress will act quickly to extend the PTC.

Branstad is the chair of the Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition, which is a group comprised of 28 state governors who all share the goal of leveraging wind energy resources as a way to pursue the long-held goal of lasting energy independence.

“Nationally, wind energy drives about $10 to $20 billion a year in private sector capital investment and employs almost 75,000 Americans,” said John Kitzhaber (D-OR), Governor of Oregon and vice chair of the Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition. Kitzhaber used Oregon’s own Sherman County as an example of how rural communities can utilize wind energy production to drive revenue. “The county now receives $33 million per year in revenue from wind farms,” Kitzhaber said. “That’s revenue that has proved essential to sustain schools, fire departments and road maintenance.”

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper (D-CO), also a member of the Governor’s Wind Energy Coalition, said the renewal of the PTC is critical to helping the country have “a realistic chance of being completely energy independent in the next 10 years.” Hickenlooper also cited widespread support of wind energy within Colorado as clear indication of its appeal. “The support comes from every demographic you could imagine,” Hickenlooper said. “It’s quite clearly the single largest and most popular initiative that we have in the energy sector.”

A failure by Congress to renew the wind energy Production Tax Credit, which expires as of January 1, could cause the wind industry’s momentum to stall and the unemployment rate to climb. According to Governor Sam Brownback (R-KS), the state of Kansas experienced “massive investment” in wind energy in 2012, but 2013 so far looks bleak, with layoffs announced at the Siemens wind power plant in the city of Hutchinson.

“We have virtually no new wind operations going in next year after nearly $3 billion in investment this past year,” Brownback said. “That shows just how dramatic the impact is of the Production Tax Credit.”

Grassley said that Congress will likely not have an opportunity to discuss the extension of the wind energy PTC until after Thanksgiving week, and discussions are more likely to occur in the four weeks leading up to the end of 2012.

Lead image: Wind turbines via Shutterstock

88 Comments

Register To Comment
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
November 29, 2012
@Grids01 You confuse ideology with policy that controls the mix of energy technologies. What I wonder is why people like you continue discussions here, when you think people aren't watching.

In any event, you are right that there are no free markets. But that is the problem. Government is distorting the market with tax incentives, mandates and subsidies. That is government not "the market." You are obviously trying to rationalize the use of uncompetitive technologies.

And of course, we talk to our politicians. But I don't need for you to tell me who else I should discuss these issues with, especially since our politicians respond to the opinions of the informed electorate, which obviously doesn't include you.
Chris Kapsambelis
Chris Kapsambelis
November 29, 2012
@Peter-b Your savings are as a result of cost shifting. The extra cost to support your system on the grid plus your savings come as a result of increased rates in your community.

Here is the explanation:
http://www.nreca.coop/issues/FuelsOtherResources/DistributedGeneration/Documents/Net%20Metering%20-%20An%20issue%20paper%20of%20the%20National%20Rural%20Electric%20Cooperative%20Association.pdf

To actually achieve the savings you claim, you need to disconnect from the grid and buy enough batteries to be self sufficient. Until then, you are "stealing" from your neighbors.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 29, 2012
Sand Gal, the reason for leasing, which is the standard arrangement folks can afford, makes panel degradation irrelevant. The vendor wants the power to sell, so will do its best to make an installation profitable & lasting.
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
November 29, 2012
Comment 82. There are serious issues with solar panel degradation. It was discussed at a Kern County planning hearing. A property owner who lives in the gridless community discussed the problem. Apparently silicon solar panels degrade over time, losing their efficiency. There's plenty of information on the web about it. By the way, in gridless communities, the residents collect energy using various types of batteries, like the ones used for golf carts. Others use a dozen or more car batteries linked together.
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
November 29, 2012
@ChrisKamp "... solar ignoring their ineffectiveness". My PV panels (cost under 2% of value of house) have generated 70% of our electricity needs over the last 3 years, and will soon have repeated that over another year. Effective.

@Grids alias Natty.
Yup, this discussion is mostly filled with garbage. I am leaving it.
Natty Bumpo
Natty Bumpo
November 29, 2012
Interesting mix of heavily ideological arguments with very lightly technical arguments. What I wonder is why people continue such discussions here, as if the world is watching and learning from them. In any event, I couldn't help but notice the mention of "market distortion." This implies that there is such a thing as a pure market, free from any sort of value-laden lenses. The reality s that there is no such thing as market distortion; everything - from the cost of resource extraction to manufacturing to tax incentives and mandates and subsidies - all of these are "the market." Economy does not exist in a vacuum. Nor do business decisions. If a business decides that a five-year investment horizon is most appropriate, that's a value-laden decision. If a nation decides to take a seven-generations perspective on energy sources, that's another value-laden decision. There is an Energy-Economy-Environment system, with a certain neglected but highly important thing called "wisdom" that is involved with long-term thinking (and which is generally utterly lacking in the relatively dumb short-term marketplace). One of you suggested that state RPS mandates are a "distortion" of the market. Well, expand your definition of "market" to the "market of values" and the "market of concerns about the impact we make upon the world," and you'll see that it's very much a part of the true market. If you don't like it, you'd better go talk to your governor and congressperson. Writing here is a distraction to your good work.
Chris Kapsambelis
Chris Kapsambelis
November 28, 2012
Energy storage would make wind and solar an alternative. But, as long as we reward wind and solar ignoring their ineffectiveness, energy storage research is going begging.

What we need is a less expensive alternative system to fossil fuel that will compel India and China to shun coal.
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
November 28, 2012
I agree with the mandate part, but I don't know how you can say "We do not have an alternative in wind and solar." There must be hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of possible technologies within wind, new turbine designs and batteries, and new materials for solar panels and storage, and also beyond including biomass, geothermal and cold fusion, to name a few. There is no end to technological innovation if the freedom and incentive to develop them is there.
Chris Kapsambelis
Chris Kapsambelis
November 28, 2012
We do not have an alternative in wind and solar. Their existence depends primarily on state RPS mandates. When you mandate (force) a counterproductive technology in the market place you stifle innovation
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
November 28, 2012
@Chris I didn't mean to say anything about the economics of dealing with climate change. Just as an example, I was comparing the scientific methodology involved with economics with scientific methodology involved with climate change (e.g., temperature change).

But your statement is largely true. However, that doesn't mean the problem can't be solved technologically and economically with the right economic systems. In the US, the utility monopoly has to go because it discourages innovation. Mandates, subsidies and environmental exemptions (for shale gas fraking) also distort the marketplace. Free markets and some developmental subsidies based on carbon savings (paid by carbon taxes) are likely the way to go.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 28, 2012
You mean like Sulfate emissions cap & trade in the US "double[d] the cost of energy, and ha[d] little to no effect", Chris?

Problem for you is not really using economic analysis in full fledge, long term, and over all costs.
Chris Kapsambelis
Chris Kapsambelis
November 28, 2012
The problem with the economics related to climate change is that the proposed solutions will more than double the cost of energy, and have little to no effect on climate change.
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
November 28, 2012
Economic parameters may be less clearly defined and obfuscated than scientific parameters in some or even many cases. Still, I have not seen scientific disagreement over the relationship between costs and economic growth and job creation, like I have seen over something like climate change.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 28, 2012
The problem for economists (thus for us) is that "costs" are poorly defined or even intentionally obfuscated, unlike scientific parameters.
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
November 28, 2012
Economics might be the dismal science but it is still a science. Economists have determined a clear relationship between costs and economic growth and job creation. Unfortunately, politicians, and not economists, run the economy and that is why there are so many disasters. Like scientists developed the atomic bomb but politicians ordered the dropping.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 28, 2012
"Every economist knows " -- that's why we have so many economic disasters!?
;]
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 28, 2012
Sand Gal, I agree except for local solar, which indeed enriches the economy wherever deployed and wherever manufactured.
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
November 28, 2012
@Sandcanyongal Every economist knows economic growth and job creation increases with lower input costs and decreases with higher costs. The high costs of wind and solar decrease economic growth and lose jobs in virtually all other US industries.
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
November 28, 2012
@ Anumakonda. Prove the wind and solar industry enriches the local economy. From where I stand in the Tehachapi Pass, just follow where the executives and investors of Oak Creek Energy live and spend their money to find where the real money is spent - Denmark (TerraGen), Japan (Marubeni). The people living in and around Tehachapi are failing miserably. My husband is a bankruptcy attorney. Even some of the wind energy technicians are filing. The wind and solar industy rotates their specialized personnel. They're not hiring the homeless and jobless. Those jobs are dangerous outdoor construction positions, and justifiably not entrusted to newbies who are clueless about safety.
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
November 28, 2012
@Mike. I've worked in human resources and staffing my entire adult life and have watched American jobs dry up, one after another. Many of the traditional scientific hubs like universities, aerospace, genome and pharmaceutical research and development are now "outsourced" to India, China and other countries. In a nutshell, this is the sole reason American scientific positions have dried up. To explain further, each time a company moves or sells their business to let's say China, intellectual property, every position related to R&D, executive, middle and line management positions, manufacturing, front and back office (payroll, payables, receivables, gl, etc.), distribution, fabrication, assembly positions, supplier positions are now performed by the workforce in that country. Take for example IBM's laptop business, now called Lenovo. It's still one of the best laptops made, but not made by American hands or scientically advanced by American professionals anymore. Lenovo now owns all the patents and produces jobs once held by American are now performed the the Chinese labor force. You and I are merely end consumers. Since the late 1970s banks started outsourcing their old legacy software maintenance development to TATA, India. Over the years, most computer related positions in the U.S. have been outsourced to India, Phillipines, Korea. Cheap labor, high profits for the investors. Then the outsourcing of electronic component development and just about everything that could be outsourced or moved where the labor is cheap was moved or sold to companies in those countries. Today, 2.5 million American jobs leave the U.S. every year.

Correct me please if I'm wrong but the reason the U.S. economy teeters between a recession and depression is simply because our traditional jobs are now in other countries leaving the American workforce sitting on our thumbs and blogging. Working age Americans are left out in the cold with 25% of the American workforce making $10/hr.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 28, 2012
Mike, this site's spam filter is kinda dumb, so when you've more than 1 or 2 URLs, write out the keys they trigger on, like "coloslashslash" and "dot". that's a pain, but it does the job.

The site also destroys paragraph formatting, when you choose to do an Edit.

These are examples of why software isn't engineering.
;]
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
November 26, 2012
No doubt China and Russia are authoritarian states to some degree, but the US is even less free in my opinion. There is no end
to the greed of big business and the rich buying elections, especially the Republicans, while the Democrats are also bought by those that favor socialism/communism/nationalization.

Now, the Republican greed will kill the spirit of the nation's youth by allowing scientists and engineers to emigrate to the US. America's young people have little incentive to pursue these demanding professions because the pay is not high enough. Instead of allowing supply and demand to increase wages, big business and the rich seek to bring in cheap foreign labor, which will discourage America's youth from studying hard for a brighter future. They might as well do this because US monopolies block technological innovation (the key to future prosperity) anyway. The US is doomed to fail.
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
November 26, 2012
I believe China is a communist country. USSR is also moving back toward communism. In fact, isn't Russia planning to nationalize some or all foreign owned companies in Russia? Aside from this you are correct about the U.S. corruption. The entire reason for all the unemployment in the U.S. is that jobs have been outsourced to China, Bangeladesh, India, Indonesia and wherever they can get cheapest labor with no pollution control. 2.5 million jobs leave the U.S. each year. Each time a company moves their operations offshore, let's say manufacturing, the jobs that evaporate are front office like payroll, a/r, a/p, g/l, personnel, information technology, customer service, purchasing, intellectual property (patents & company secrets), all the manufacturing related positions, like drafting, R&D, inventory, shop floor, fabricating, distribution, warehousing and all the jobs held by their suppliers as well. Over the last 32 years, there's a huge gap in working age population and available positions. Thus, huge American jobless numbers, with 1/4 of the working population now making $10/hr and about 1/4 of the population on food stamps. This is corporate and government greed that has broken the back of America with no end and no stop gaps. I write all the time about living in the middle of the Tehachapi Pass and the fact that all of the birds are gone...owls, raptors, songbirds, just empty skies. All that's left are sparrows and ravens. Not one single wind developer has looked into putting protective grills over the propellers. This is a key reason why the wind energy bubble will fail.
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
November 26, 2012
We have developed an answer also. But US utility monopolies are forcing us to help freer former communist countries of China and USSR develop the technology. I think many Americans have developed cheaper and cleaner energy technologies only to have them blocked by corrupt US fascist/monopolistic policies.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 26, 2012
Peter, just saw your comment on nuclear energy via supernovae -- very large, hot, young stars are also a source of heavy, fused nuclei, due to the extreme UV and higher radiation gradients they produce in surrounding mass clouds. So, indeed, nuclear fission is the release of electromechanical energy stored in 'batteries' fused long before our sun existed.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 26, 2012
Grids, yes, the Texas scams are among the 'best' (remember ENRON?). You obviously haven't read any references to what actually has gone on there. I gave one very recent summary, which points to others, so maybe it's time you studied up?

Start with p132 here... http://tinyurl.com/cxplxx3

If you want a PDF, give me an email -- but a real one, unlike your name here.
;]
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 26, 2012
Actually, Mike, we've had a solution for decades, which was the driving idea behind JFK's request for combustion-elimination in 1962: http colonslashslash tinyurl dot com/6xgpkfa

And, as solar PV has improved in cost & efficiency, we now have the ability to build out local generation, avoiding transmission waste & all land/species costs.

With EVs maturing as well, and electrical storage improving, there's no need for remote, subsidized, wasteful 'farms' of any sort.

So, we have plans like the Calif. "million solar homes" initiative, plus many city/county plans for local generation on offices, campuses, etc. Even NY City was LIDAR surveyed a while ago and found to have enough roof space to meet about 1/2 its highest daytime load in summer -- lots of people/equipment per NYC roof!

So, we have the opportunity to return to JFK's plan, diverted by Nixon, and employ both advanced nuclear and local solar to meet all our needs for thousands of years.

A statement about nuke safety -- it beats any other form of generation, over all its decades...

http colonslashslash tinyurl dot com/42wvr9l
http colonslashslash nextbigfuture dot com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
www dot forbes dot com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

And, it's carbon footprint, both construction & operation, is ~1/2 wind's. None of this should be surprising -- we lost 2 CA wind workers last year, but none from nuclear, not even in all its history (US or Calif.)

Reason: folks take it seriously. Folks don't seem to care about the thousands of citizens dying each year from combustion emissions, extraction, transportation & operation. But, if any nuke accident happens, even with no one hurt, hyperbolic talk ensues. Education is key -- both radiation & reactors are natural. There are several natural Uranium-fission reactors that ran in Gabon, long, long ago.

People who run reactors exhibit responsibility not seen elsewhere.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 26, 2012
Actually, Mike, we have had a solution for decades, which was the driving idea behind JFK's request for a combustion-elimination plan in 1962: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

And, as solar PV has continually improved in cost & efficiency, we now have the ability to build out local generation, avoiding transmission waste and all land/species costs.

With EVs maturing as well, and electrical storage improving, there's no need for remote, subsidized, wasteful 'farms' of any sort.

So, we have plans like the Calif. "million solar homes" initiative, plus many city/county plans for local generation on offices, campuses, etc. Even NY City was LIDAR surveyed a while ago and found to have enough roof space to meet about 1/2 its highest daytime load in summer -- lots of people/equipment per NYC roof!

So, we have the opportunity to return to JFK's plan, diverted by Nixon, and employ both advanced nuclear and local solar to meet all our needs for thousands of years.

Just a statement about nuclear safety -- it's better than any other form of generation, over all its decades...

http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

And, it's carbon footprint, for both construction & operation, is about 1/2 that of wind. None of this should be surprising -- we lost 2 wind workers in Calif. last year, but none from nuclear, not even in all its history (US or Calif.)

The reason: folks take it seriously. Folks don't seem to care about the thousands of citizens dying each year from combustion emissions, extraction, transportation & operation. But, if any nuke accident happens, even with no one hurt, hyperbolic talk ensues. Education is key -- both radiation & reactors are natural. There are several natural Uranium-fission reactors that ran in Gabon, long, long ago.

People who run reactors exhibit responsibility not seen elsewhere.
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
November 26, 2012
Currently, there are no good energy answers. Wind power is a scam with taxpayers forced to finance 2/3s of direct costs and ratepayers subsidizing the higher transmission and integration costs. Nuclear power is also very expensive due to regulations needed to provide safety against human error. Even fossil fuels are expensive when required to control emissions.

But all of these fuel sources could provide answers if there were incentives for innovation in the industry, which spends less on R&D than the dog food industry. The nation needs to open the electricity market with deregulation that includes leveling the playing field. States cannot be allowed to subvert competition by showering old coal and nuclear plants with excessive stranded costs and other favoritism.
Natty Bumpo
Natty Bumpo
November 26, 2012
DrAlex - If wind power is a scam, it sure is taking on large dimensions in places like Texas...

"The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the grid operator for most of the state, says it set a new wind energy record on Nov. 10.

Wind power output in ERCOT's territory reached 8.521 GW at 10:21 a.m., representing nearly 26% of system load at the time. This surpasses the previous instantaneous record, set the evening of June 19, 2012, by more than 150 MW.

"While added capacity is one reason for this growth, experience and improved tools also are enabling ERCOT to integrate this resource into the grid more effectively than ever before," notes Kent Saathoff, ERCOT's vice president of grid operations and system planning.

Nearly 7 GW of the new record included wind power from West Texas wind farms, followed by more than 1.1 GW from wind farms along the Texas coast.

ERCOT has more than 10 GW of wind power capacity, with nearly 21 GW of additional wind generation under review. Moreover, the completion of high-voltage transmission projects in Competitive Renewable Energy Zones by the end of 2013 will improve ERCOT's ability to move wind power from West Texas to metropolitan areas, where demand on the grid is highest, the grid operator says."
Chris Kapsambelis
Chris Kapsambelis
November 26, 2012
You Say – "As to the cost issues, although it is politically difficult, I think society as a whole has to start accounting for true life-time costs of the technologies we use". My point is that society will not gravitate in that direction until and unless a less expensive alternative to coal is developed. To proceed on a unilateral basis using the externalities of coal as justification will require unprecedented political force. The resulting economic damage to the local economy may outweigh the external cost of coal usage.

The U.S. government does not have jurisdiction over society as a whole. China India and others will only follow our lead if it leads to a better economy. Continuing to sacrifice our economic power, in the pursuit of ineffective renewable energy, only serves to diminish our influence on the world stage.

It is not that I disagree with the statement. It's that it is not achievable through politics. It is only achievable with the development of real alternative solutions. The unilateral forced march, proposed by environmental groups like the Sierra Club, are counterproductive and technologically premature.
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
November 26, 2012
@DrAlexC 'Wind is second-order solar power,' Nuclear power is all derived from nuclei formed in supernova explosions (they are above the energy minimum at around Fe) before the material of our solar system was all gathered. Fossil fuels are all derived from photosynthesis reactions from solar power in the very distant past, mainly the Carboniferous era, apart from Irish (and similar) peat bogs, a small and rarely used source, and even that is probably hundreds of years old. @Grids001 Thank you for your support on the response time of pumped-storage systems, which is about what I remember reading in the past. I also largely agree with your four-layered strategy. @Chris and others:- As to the cost issues, although it is politically difficult, I think society as a whole has to start accounting for true life-time costs of the technologies we use. The statistics for premature-death per year in the US caused by coal-burning pollution exceed by a factor of 10 the one-time premature deaths caused by Al Qaeda on that Sept 11th. The costs attributable to climate change and sea-level rise caused by fossil fuel burning are massive (never mind the 'Sandy' storm; California is looking at huge costs to improve the levee system, and poor old Bangladesh is looking at a huge potential disaster). Several islands in the Indian Ocean are threatened with disappearance, and the coral reefs in many parts of the world are showing severe damage from the increased acidity of the oceans (due to CO2). But I believe we can do this. The automobile manufacturers have survived such 'fatal' threats as adding seat belts, improving fuel economy, putting in smog controls, etc. The soft drink industry has survived the 'fatal' consequences of bottle deposits, the removal of CFC pollution seems not to have killed the refrigerator and air conditioner business, and California has survived (for a few days at least) the introduction of a carbon cap & trade law.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 25, 2012
"claims that wind+pumped storage 'is too expensive' is an assertion not backed up by any figures or detailed analysis" -- is itself false, I gave a ref or two that explain why wind farms are a waste of time, and long term energy.

Here's another excellent analysis from a Dartmouth prof. named Hargraves...
http://tinyurl.com/cxplxx3 (p132...)

But, as soon as one studies data sheets from any major wind-generator vendor, one sees the colossal dependence on fossil fueled processing of ~700 tons of ore, coal, limestone, etc. per rated MW -- or, per 0.3MW in reality.

Wind is second-order solar power, derived inefficiently from air movements which are themselves subject to climate change, as the Chinese have already observed. Wind is like fluffy hydro, where the dam has to be moved as climate changes. Another way to look at wind 'farms' is their deployments analogous to how 16th-century armies were deployed.

"The Wind Farm Scam" by Etherington is also a good analysis.
Natty Bumpo
Natty Bumpo
November 25, 2012
Chris, no one is claiming that wind alone can do it. But it can be a substantial part of the mix. And with all due respect, Chris, your claims that wind+pumped storage 'is too expensive' is an assertion not backed up by any figures or detailed analysis. I study this stuff every day, so am a bit more familiar with it. In any event, the fact that 'they do it, so we can do it, too' is not the posture of a mature nation, but of a kindergarten playground nation. We must take the lead. Impose a carbon tax on imported goods, whatever it takes. But if we can't 'compete,' it's not because our energy costs a few cents a kWH more, which probably makes relatively little difference to the total manufacturing costs of most goods and services. Rather, it's because our standard of living requires higher wages, benefits, and safety for employees (unlike, say, the Bangladesh clothing factory that burned down yesterday killing more than 100 people, a factory that supplies WalMart and JC Penney). It's also because our citizens go for cheapest, not best. It's because our corporations exist for profit, not the good of their own nation. So don't blame wind power - there are many many more factors ahead in line.
Chris Kapsambelis
Chris Kapsambelis
November 25, 2012
Grids – I must disagree with about all you say. To displace coal in the global market and leave it in the ground forever, the world needs a less expensive alternative. Wind alone can't do it, and wind plus pumped hydro is too expensive.

We are legislating coal out off the grid locally, but the coal will be exported to China India and elsewhere. Our energy cost will increase causing economic damage while our economic rivals prosper.

Unless you can avoid coal on a global scale, carbon avoidance will be unaffected.
Natty Bumpo
Natty Bumpo
November 25, 2012
Chris - It's unlikely that there is a single solution. No one says the nation can be fueled only by wind + pumped storage (well, Germany is trying, so we'll see). However, we do know that greenhouse gas emissions must be dramatically reduced, so coal is essentially out as a U.S. strategy. Natural gas prices are low right now, but no one really knows where they'll be in ten years, and natural gas is also a greenhouse fuel. Nuclear is stymied because of an irrational fear (shared by me, BTW) of any element that ends in "ium." It's also expensive to build nuclear, although long lasting. With wind turbines able to extract ever-more energy in lower wind regimes, capacity factors will be regularly in the upper 30's to the 50's in most of the places I mentioned. That means a competitive LCOE. When those giant windfarms are linked and integrated across a much wider grid, the fluctuations will be easier to manage and their output patterns can dovetail better, particularly with whatever solar's on the grid. That will make the job of pumped storage and other storage technologies even easier. That job? To leverage available renewable energy into as firm a delivery as possible with as little storage capacity as possible. A ratio of, say, 1 MW storage to 3 MW wind, would work well economically. What can't be accomplished by those is taken over by natural gas. In the long run, probably the lowest cost solution environmentally, economically, and pragmatically.
Chris Kapsambelis
Chris Kapsambelis
November 25, 2012
What I do not like about new pumped hydro is the economics. Its primary function is to provide firming capacity for wind and solar. Wind and solar are always cost compared on an LCOE basis directly with coal, gas, and nuclear.

In order to replace any existing power plants one needs to combine wind and solar with pumped hydro, or other storage means.

I suspect that even if it would be possible to physically provide enough pumped hydro to eliminate coal, gas and nuclear, it would be prohibitively expensive. Nations like China and India, who elect to expand the use of fossil fuel, will gain tremendous economic advantage in the global market at our expense.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 25, 2012
Grids, you choose not to use a real name, but we all need to choose real stats.

The Chinese have learned the vagaries of wind, the health costs of combustion and the serious limits of hydro. We know those as well, unless blinded by subsidy and specific personal gains from projects.

Myy figures for why local solar & new nuclear are sufficient simply derive from 2 facts:

1) Over 2% of Earth's land is now covered by human structure, thus able to supply all peak daytime power demand even with available 20%-efficient cells @ 20MW/acre -- wind yields avg power of ~1/3 peak rating, while nuclear yields full power >90% of 24/7, unaffected by climate.

The Chinese are aware of the limitations of 'renewables', especially the unfortunate weakness of wind 'farms', placed in fixed locations...

http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/a-less-mighty-wind
www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/us/21tttransmission.html?_r=1&hpw

And, they've no more water or places to build more 3 Gorges Dams. So, they move ahead very logically, as some other countries are, with nuclear...
ww.youtube.com/watch?v=iLX8jCKL9I4
http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/01/30/china-initiates-tmsr/#comments
www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/01/china_thorium_bet/
http://tinyurl.com/4t5ojdehttp://asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111

The combination of local solar, EVs, efficiency, storage & advanced nuclear are all we need for thousands of years into the future.
Natty Bumpo
Natty Bumpo
November 25, 2012
DrAlex - Yes, indeed. Avoid wasting energy. Not sure what you mean by the 100MW/90%/1/3 stats. The Chinese? Not sure what their overall strategy is, but I see they've got (a) lots of coal, (b) lots of wind power, and (c) lots of pumped storage development. In the long run, I see a four-layered strategy (too bad people don't act long-term though, huh?) Primarily layer is energy efficiency and demand response. Second layer is renewable energy, primarily wind and solar (the wind supported by new transmission infrastructure, as most of the wind would be in Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas), the solar more distributed (rooftops, etc.); the third layer in the new "dispatch order" would be storage, of several different kinds (long-duration like PS and CAES to short-duration types, depending on opportunity, location, need); the storage would be the resource bridge to the final and last part of the dispatch order, which is natural gas fired CT's and CCCT's, perhaps augmented by or replaced in the future by hydrogen fuel cells. This is, I think, the "2040 Sustainable Energy Scenario" for the US :-)
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 25, 2012
Yes, GRids, HDPE is polyethylene, as I mentioned. However, the black balls seen in one LA reservoir are also a mistake, because they absorb sunlight, thus converting even visible bands to IR, which then radiates upward, adding to GHG heating and local/global warming.

The key to real progress is to examine all alternatives carefully, and to avoid wasted energy of all sorts.

That's why pumped storage, long term, isn't a great help, especially if its 100MW in the space required for 1 windmill, and doing it 90% of the time instead of maybe 1/3 of the time.

The Chinese are well aware of all this and we'd do well to listen to them.
Natty Bumpo
Natty Bumpo
November 25, 2012
Dr. Alex - I believe the balls are made of HDPE, similar to milk jugs. They are black in color because that's apparently what reduces vulnerability to UV rays the most. At least for the alleged 15 year lifetime of the balls. As for pumped storage siting, few are aware that there are about 75 formally proposed new pumped storage sites now filed with FERC. Of these, most are not great sites - either too expensive, too sensitive, or not strategically located. But there are enough excellent ones, of a scale typically from 500 to 1,000 MW, at enough strategic points on the grid (particularly in the west, but some in the northeast) to address not only grid storage needs for some time, but a good bit of firm capacity need as well (in the 2018+ time frame that they'd be coming online). These best sites are either closed loop in design (no natural waterways) or are otherwise much lower in impact than the pumped storage projects of the old days. A 1,000 MW project in Kentucky would use mine space 1,000 feet below as the lower reservoir - and blow away the usual capital cost economics. A site proposed in the Tehachapi area (wind and solar city!), entirely closed loop, would use a 3,000 foot drop to be the most efficient in terms of water anywhere. A project in Wyoming, favored by the USBR long ago, has now been proposed as a key to integrating Wyoming wind and making far more efficient use of planned DC generation. Another proposed project in the Altamont Pass area would use treated wastewater for evaporation recovery, as would one south of Las Vegas. In short, there are quite a few top-notch pumped storage projects waiting in the wings. The only challenge is it takes some time to get them developed, and utilities need to commit. They don't necessarily make all the new storage technologies unnecessary; there is certainly a place for shorter-term, modular tools like flywheels, batteries, etc. (and, of course, pumped storage's many-houred brethren - salt-cavern based CAES).
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 25, 2012
Interesting numbers, Grids. I've see an LA reservoir covered with the plasti bballs you mention.

However, apart from any water loss, the question of plastic additves leaching into drinking water is a concern, so pure polyethylene is preferred there, and yet UV sunlight ruins unprotected materials, so some form of reflective coating, like flashed aluminum becomes necessary.

But, regardless of the tweaks to pumped storage for power, it remains very limited in siting, especially when new dams are environmentally unwise, and old ones are being removed.

The storage that utilities can indeed make responsive are the massive flywheels built to drop into generator bays in existing/new power plants. Here there's much higher in-out efficiency and instant available power. or load. It's also not dependent on climate variability. Beacon Power is an example vendor. For local, industrial storage, groups like Velkess are designing flywheel systems in the 200kwHr range that have 85% in-out efficiency and plug directly into a company's electrical service interface.
Natty Bumpo
Natty Bumpo
November 24, 2012
Some facts about pumped storage: (1) On efficiency: If you research the energy in/energy out of the older projects in the U.S. (mostly east coast), the efficiency ranges from about 70% to 82% (the latter being Bath County, VA). Most of the newer projects are expected to hit 80%, maybe a little more, if they don't have unusually long conduits. And especially if they use variable-speed pump-turbines, which can maintain optimal efficiency over a wider range of head as the reservoir levels fluctuate. (2) On response speed: pumped storage projects are about 3 times faster than the fastest gas turbines. They can easily ramp generation down and up - within seconds, literally - as wind rises and falls. You don't have to do a complete switch from generating to pumping to follow wind, nor vice-versa. BUT if you had to (very unlikely), you can swing from 500 or 1,000 MW of generating to 500 or 1,000 MW of pumping within 5-8 minutes with the new projects. You can go from Dead Stop to Full Gen within 5 minute, and from Spinning to Full Gen within less than 1 minutes. Dinorwig in Wales, one of the older and bigger projects, can put 1,800 MW on the grid in 12 seconds, from standby-status. And pumped storage can respond to grid fluctuations as fast as batteries. (3) Regarding water loss: It is now possible, in very dry places, to cover one or more reservoirs. LA is going to cover one of its drinking water reservoirs - 150 acres surface - with floating "shade balls" that cut 80% of evaporation and deter the attraction of the water to birds. Cost is pretty reasonable - something like $26 million. A newer design, called Phoenix Disks, cuts out 90% of evaporation. In some cases, a floating cover large enough can be technically and economically feasible, but requires more stringent conditions.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 21, 2012
PeterB on pumped storage, says: "Minute-by-minute load variations are, as you probably already know, are normally covered by having a generating plant running with a nominal 50% load, which can be quickly pushed up toward 100% or down to 0%"

There are only gas plants and gas turbines that can be quickly throttled the way you say, but they are very expensive to repair when such throttling is so quick. They cannot handle wind variations. But what do I know, with just a few degrees in EE and friends who are power engineers in Calif?
;]
And, pumped storage is not only much slower to throttle and reverse, it must be managed to the hour and day -- unlike a combustion plant, it cannot generate from any more than the water now behind the dam, which must be managed for future need, as well as for possible rainfall inputs. Apart from the lack of sites close to loads and the environmental damage of dams in general, the repeated fill/drain cycles are environmentally destructive.

Pumped storage has uses, if the sacrifices are accepted, but it's no panacea & not much expandable. The Swiss have used it very effectively, sacrificing some alpine lakes, by pumping water up at night, using French nuclear power, then draining & generating the next am, selling juice to the Italians. They at least avoid gas-fired peaking.

Your high-school work at GE may not have fully prepared you for the real world of overall transmission & generation systems.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 21, 2012
Peter (continued)... In fact, the 3MI accident led to an industry awakening that improved training and operating in cooperative ways among utilities, whose result was raising plant uptimes from ~65% to >90%. This also made more $. It was accomplished via WANO, INPO & IAEA, leading to worldwide increases in nuke efficiency, while maintaining zero emissions.

The "unexcpected" event at Chernobyl was a disaster, warned of for years, which is why the RBMK reactor design was and is illegal everywhere outside the USSR -- it's unstable. But, despite the staff screwup at Chernobyl, there remain several RBMKs running fine -- want a safe plane or cruise-ship ride? Choose competent captains & staff.

Fukushima's "unexpected" event was also expected. A friend was GE's safety engineer at the site years back and has much to say about TEPCO management ignoring recommended designs & procedures. The proof that Fukushima isn't simply a "nuke problem" is in the 6th reactor -- it was the only one with emergency power above tsunami level, so ok. The other expectation of the "unexpected" tsunami was the persistent warnings by geologists years back, that the Sendai region was subject to massive tsunami, including one clearly evidenced & recorded in 869AD. So combining TEPCO's traditionally poor management with Japanese govt's naive land-use policy and the regulator NISA's capture by the industry all together set the stage for a very expected disaster.

It's always important to probe an event until the root causes are determined. None of those tragic events were because of "nuclear power", just as wheels don't cause DUIs & vehicle injuries.

Fortunately, we've known for decades what the root cause of our present climate & sea problems is. And we've known for decades that solar & nuclear power can address it, if we use them properly. The combustion industry has also known this, at least that nuclear can eliminate their business.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 21, 2012
Peter, won't hold 1 neutron against you (it would decay in a few minutes anyway)!
;]
Since you seem afraid of nuclear systems & radiation, take a moment to consider that your body, like all of ours, contains enough natural Potassium40 to radiate you from inside most every cell, at the rate of ~4400 Becquerels (decays/second). These are both beta and gamma events. A banana is a 20Bq radiation device, and doctors prescribe it for its Potassium benefit. That K40 is only one of many naturally-radioactive elements inside us, from birth and through our growth.

So, how can living cells survive such? How can microbes, far more intimately connected to their mineralogical environments, survive far higher natural radiation?

There are good books, by Englishmen, on the cellular-repair mechanisms each of our cells perform each second of each year of our lives -- perhaps "Radiation & Reason" by Wade Allison will be good to calm your fears.

And, remember that radioactivity is evidence of radioactive materials disappearing -- Iodine131 is half gone in ~8 days, Cesium137 in 30 days, Uranium235 in 700 million years, Thorium in 14 billion years (we thus still have lots of it all around us).

Chemicals, like PCBs, DDT, insecticides (as at Bhopal) rarely go away -- we design their chemistry for permanence. So, while some of the pollution from Chernobyl disappears each day, Bhopal's old Union Carbide plant's contamination is alive & 'well' after all these years, with the Indians entreating the new owner Dow to finally clean it up.

That brings up your reference to: "Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, continuations in many ways of the same fundamental pattern of unexpected consequences"

The "consequences" of not doing proper training and not having all control-room indicators well designed is exactly what happened at 3-Mile Island, yet no one was killed or injured -- my folks lived downwind....(continued)...
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
November 20, 2012
36 of 41, Peter, I didn't read this one. Wow. It must have been a great experience early in your career.
ROGER W.
ROGER W.
November 20, 2012
I apologize that when I attempted an edit to my previos comments the formatting screwed up and i could not fix it.
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
November 20, 2012
In response to Peter-Bradshaw re: pumped storage.

Pumped Water Storage Part 2.
Water for the initial fill and to make up evaporation losses would be obtained from the State Water Project (SWP) through the local water agencies. Means of routing the water from the SWP to the Pajuela Peak Pumped Storage reservoirs will be identified during the study phase.

Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District (TCCWD) is the lead agency for the Regional Urban Water Management Plan ( rUWMP.) This plan treats the entire Greater Tehachapi Area (GTA) as a single entity. TCCWD as "Water Master" manages the three adjudicated groundwater basins Brite, Cummings and Tehachapi. TCCWD is also the wholesale water agency for the other four agencies participating in the UWMP and provides SWP water to these agencies through a conjunctive use program. Any SWP water supplied for the project from the Tehachapi basin area would be through TCCWD. Given current water allocations, there does not appear to be enough water to divert for filling the reservoirs.

Assuming that the water for the project is obtained the maximum energy storage works out to about 8,000 megawatt-hours. At a power output of 250 megawatts, the maximum energy stored would provide about 32 hours of power without refilling the upper reservoir. However, the reservoir would never be completely drained. Typically, the system would produce power when electricity price was high and pump when price was low. Due to efficiency losses I would estimate about 1.23 watts are used for every watt produced. Hence a price difference in power greater than that degree would be needed to turn a profit.

There is also another pump storage project named Bison Peak Pumped Storage Project in play. This project would be located in the Tehachapi mountains south of Tehachapi Mountain Park. This project has an estimated power output of 1000 megawatts or four times Pajuela Peak.
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
November 20, 2012
Pumped Storage Part 1.
By Stephen F. Rudin

In November of 2010 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a permit to Pajuela Peak Hydro, LLC to study the feasibility of a project titled Pajuela Peak Pumped Storage Project. This proposed project would be located near the entranceway to Sand Canyon. The project is a pumped storage project with a 250 megawatt output. The basic plan requires two reservoirs. An upper reservoir with a maximum water surface elevation of 5,425 feet. A lower reservoir with a maximum water surface elevation of 4,060 feet. Both the upper and lower reservoir would have a storage capacity of 5,964 acre-feet of water.

Between the two reservoirs are tunnels and a powerhouse with turbines for generating electricity. The powerhouse located between the upper and lower reservoirs sits at an elevation about 3,800' and 850' below ground level. The turbines for generating power are reversible, able to pump water back to the upper reservoir. During peak demand the system would generate power by using water from the upper reservoir. During lows in demand the system would use electricity to pump water from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir.

Notice that 5,964 acre-feet is a lot of water. The Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan draft EIR provides estimates of current and future water usage. For Golden Hills in 2010 the total water usage for a year is 1,463 acre-feet. For the City of Tehachapi, total water use is shown as 2,024 acre-feet per year. Including all other uses the total Tehachapi Basin Service Area water usage is 5,592 acre-feet per year. It appears that one reservoir full of water could supply water to the entire Tehachapi Basin for a year.

The preliminary application to FERC states that he water would come from the State Water Project (SWP.)
ROGER W.
ROGER W.
November 20, 2012
Peter-Bradshaw http://www.energy.ca.gov/2011publications/CEC-500-2011-047/CEC-500-2011-047.pdf excerpt: 'Taking into account evaporation losses from the exposed water surface and electrical conversion losses, operators can regain approximately 70percent to 85percent of the electrical energy used to pump the water into the elevated reservoir (ESA, EPRI, 2010a, p. 4?2).' Probably the higher efficiency goes with larger scale ( and consequenly more environmental impact, fewer sites with suitable geography, generally longer transmission lines, longer regulatory delays, etc.). But at any rate, a higher inefficiency than you think. I would be willing to bet that Dr. AC is close, with 25% losses, to typically-sized projects. http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/2011/03/what-s-so-hard-about.html excerpt: 'A new pumped-storage facility has not been licensed and built in the U.S. for more than 15 years. The inability to easily quantify and value all the benefits of pumped storage combined with difficulty in obtaining approvals from regional transmission operational and utility regulatory processes has stymied many pumped-storage schemes.' 'Another set of challenges include the high development costs and long licensing, financing, and design timelines.' translation: damned expensive band-aid for the shortcomings inapropriate, intermitent, and non-dispatchable generation technologies that blight the skyline and impact the environment (ie, windfarms and new transmission lines maded necessary only by 'green' energy. Why would we let politicians make decisions like this???
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
November 20, 2012
@DrAlecC (contd)

The U234 was an "oops", it was late at night, I needed to be in bed already, I certainly meant U235. My nuclear physics textbooks from ~1960 certainly had all the information about the fission cycle and capabilities of U235 & U238 (via Pu isotopes for the latter). Several of my college friends (at a major university, notable for the efforts of Newton, Rutherford and many others, and where I went to hear a lecture by Dirac) went on to get PhDs in nuclear physics, though I did not. The above textbooks had nothing directly about the Thorium fission cycles, except in the table of element isotopes, so I know very little about that, but I have understood U fission (and H>He, He>C, and other fusion) reactions for decades now. The dangers of the processes have been clear to me for nearly as long. At high school, the father one of my Science class mates had worked at the UK nuclear research site, and was now living about as far away from it as one could in the UK. I am not sure why! But it might have been the Windscale accident, where C atoms displaced from their normal position in the graphite moderator by the slowing neutrons, started rushing back when the graphite got too hot, releasing the stored potential energy and heating the graphite (and the rest of the reactor), leading to a near-very-serious accident. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, continuations in many ways of the same fundamental pattern of unexpected consequences, have been much better covered, and the different causes, all among advanced technical societies, suggest that other such events may be expected in the future. The discovery of previously-unknown fault lines near Diablo Canyon, and the apparent success of PG&E to come up with a probably environmentally unacceptable method of exploring further, leave some of us nervous.

But, perhaps the all-knowing DrAlecC can reassure us...
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
November 20, 2012
"..don't know what literature you read on pumped storage"

When I was about 17 years old, I spent (as part of a high school course) a week or two at the English GE factory where they built hydro-electric turbines/pumps, among other big utility-scale items (transformers, etc.). I built a small tap wrench which I still have. While there, I read literature on the hydro-electric and pumped storage machines, and I remember the efficiency numbers because they were higher than I would have expected. I doubt if I still have them around, but data I have seen since seems to support the remembered values. As to distance, the Helms Pumped Storage plant in California, associated with the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, is about 200 miles from it, and both are about that far from the nearest main load centers served by PG&E, which operate them.

Minute-by-minute load variations are, as you probably already know, are normally covered by having a generating plant running with a nominal 50% load, which can be quickly pushed up toward 100% or down to 0% to handle such variations. Although any one wind turbine could have a very rapid variation of output, especially when the wind is light, I would expect this to be evened out quite a bit by the typical wind farm which extends over a significant distance. An alternative for a pumped storage quick-adjust might be to have on turbine-pump operating as a pump, and another as a turbine, so that under nominal conditions the net water flow is near zero, and the electricity flow is just due to imperfect inefficiencies (or vice versa), which should allow a quick change to near full generation or full storage very quickly.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 20, 2012
Mike & Sand -- thx for your comments. "peaking" by the way, is generally gas, since gas plants can thorttle relatively quickly. So, we don're really want to build more combustion plants just to support the shortcomings of windmills, adding even more to their own carbon debts.

I really advise reading thorough wind analyses, as in Hargraves, p132 ( www.thoriumenergycheaperthancoal.com/ ) and in Etherington's "The Wind Farm Scam". There are more, if you wish.
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
November 20, 2012
I'm not a wind power critic. I'm head on against another bird chopper being installed. Anyone who reads eirs and realizes the entire endangered species act has be dismantled for a few American and foreign developers should be outraged. If the PTC is extended, it's going to get real ugly. In a recent eir for Alta Infill (313 more turbines), Mojave Desert tortoises were removed and the text lays out that condors will be killed. Here I can't even pick up a raven feather and those jamokes have greased the pockets of Congress to decimate the most endangered birds on this planet. Friends, Bald eagles are our national bird, on most government seals, our money and the pillar of Americanism. I guess the profiteers think they're exempt from respecting our national treasures. By the way no one should eat almonds grown in the San Joaquin valley. Went to a hearing on 11/13 where farmers were complaining that their trees and crops are dying because oil companies are fracking below their fields and pumping chlorides into the ground water. The almonds are contaminated with cancer causing chemicals.
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
November 20, 2012
DrAlexC Wind power critics like us have to be careful with our criticism to maintain credibility. Wind power can most economically be backed up with some undocumented combination of load following and peaking. It makes sense that hydro and pumped storage systems cannot shut down and reverse quickly to meet peaking demands, but they should be able to provide load following.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 19, 2012
Peter, don't know what literature you read on pumped storage, but the Calif. Energy Commission and those in the utility business I know are clear about the turnaround time for pumped storage being too long to make up for the minute-by-minute vagaries of wind. If you want to sell windmills, go ahead. It likely won't be a contribution to anything long term but your bank account. But do stencil your name in big black letters on each wind tower, so folks some years from now will know whom to call when it's obsolete & it needs to come down, and its foundation dug up. ;] Your 2) loss is loss and again, a dam must be remote, so indeed transmission loss counts when making engineering & environmental decisions, so indeed, the overall efficiency, in-to-out for pumped storage is ~75%. Remember, what comes in comes from afar, and what goes out goes to afar, Peter. Your 3) 'As far as I know, only the U234 isotope can be used in fission ' -- so, you have courage to show you don;'t undersand nuclear fission, Peter. Gotta give you that! There are 4 fissile isotopes (meaning easily fissioned in typical reactors): U233, U235, Pu239 & Pu241. Note they are odd in nucleon counts and in pairs. U235 is indeed rare because of its 700 million year half life. >99% of Uranium ore is U238. U233 is gone, because of its 160k year half life. The Pus are made from U238 via neutron capture in a reactor (MOX fuel contains U235 & Pu239). U233 is made from Thorium, which is far more abundant than Uranium and all around us in soil & rock. Many beaches in India are about 4% Thorium. Thus the Indian aim to depend on Th & U233, not U235. Yes, we should use Th to make U233 in reactors, and we can separate the useful isotopes from our spent fuel, as the French do. In this sense, there's ~100 years of fission fuel available in the existing stocks of 'spent' fuel. And, if we move to the liquid-salt cycle, we can get higher efficiency, as well as almost zero waste. China is.
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
November 19, 2012
@sandcanyongal :-
1: ",,as much water as the entire City of Tehachapi uses in 1 year." So not a great deal of water! The California Aqueduct, which goes via the Tehachapi pass, carries a significant portion of the water used by the city of Los Angeles and its suburbs, a great deal higher!
2: "grid electricity would be used to pump the water to the upper tier." Yup, that is the whole point; the wind generation, and the pumped storage power, would be tied into the grid, with the storage system balancing the differences betweenthe supply and the demand.
3: "open standing water and mosquitoes. The threat of West Nile Virus would force pesticide treatment." The total area of the aforementioned California Aqueduct, and it's pumped storage (San Luis Reservoir etc. near Los Banos) and plain storage reservoirs (Castaic and others) would surely exceed that of the pumped storage system, which would not be "standing water" any more or less then the other.

@DrAlecC:-
1. "Pumped storage systems cannot shut down and reverse quickly enough without damage." That is not what the literature says. Pumped storage systems can be turned around very quickly. Hence their use with nuclear power plants, which you seem to favor, with very slow output changes.

2. "Add to that the at best 25% energy waste of pumped storage". In around 1957, the energy efficiency of hydroelectric generators made by the English GE was around 96%, and the efficiency of their pumping operation was around 92%. Overall efficiency ~88%, so 12% energy loss. Transmission loss would be extra, certainly, but that should not be attributed the the storage system.

3. As far as I know, only the U234 isotope can be used in fission reactions, and the U233 isotope is even rarer than U234 in ores. I do agree that the current usage of radioactive "waste" from reactors is not very smart, we should be extracting and using up the plutonium (coming from U238) at least.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 18, 2012
SandGal: You & your husband may be interested in this aneuritic DoE behavior...

DoE is about to waste >$500M to ruin our stockpile of U233, so you may be interested in helping the petition to leave it alone, until it can be productive in future reactors: http://wh.gov/kVkr
Like or Favorite the explanatory video...
http://youtu.be/-p49Sq7mbpE
For Tweeting, Liking, etc.
https://twitter.com/gordonmcdowell/status/261170492357103617
http://thoriumpetition.com/
ANONYMOUS
November 17, 2012
Surely by now the wind industry does not need tariffs. Its been around for over 20 years and is costing the US Government billions. Would it be not better to have waste to energy which would solve two problems and not add costs to electricity when most turbines have to have backup from some other source e.g.coal. It also is a problem with rusting turbines in California because you cannot recycle materials used in production along with the tons of concrete in the ground that is not moved. (around 13,500 turbines). Costly and inefficient. All the wind industry does is discredit and lie. This occurs in every country and is worse in Australia where opponents of the wind industry have been denigrated and continues to divide rural and agricultural communities. Soome people have been forced out of their homes while anyone who hosts and have been impacted are constrained by 'gag' clauses.
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
November 17, 2012
DrAlexC. Thanks for the website. My husband is an old MITer-studied nuclear physics is still pro nuclear. The people who decided on industria wind and solar had their heads up their back ends. Power generation research should have been the first step in determining the path, not profiteers who went to Congress with their hats in hand telling legislators that this is all have and either they use the old Enron concept and rip up the deserts for solar or the world will come to an end. I'm witness to realities and it's disgusting and intolerable to allow it to continue another 4 or 10 years. I'm not alone.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 17, 2012
Fogot to mention an excellent analysis of wind power in...
www.thoriumenergycheaperthancoal.com/ (p132...)

And it doesn't even include the 700 tons/MW peak of resources that must be processed via fossil fuels ro even erect that 1MW -- 1/3MW avg. at 1/6MW per acre, which is 1/3 what even common solar PV does, and DG PV uses no land or transmission!
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 17, 2012
Interesting comments, Roger & Sand-gal. These may be of interest...

www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/allan-farago-big-wind-s-inconvenient-truth
www.keepersoftheblueridge.com/environmental-impact.html?mid=538

And "The Wind Farm Scam" by Etherington.

My personal favorite...
http://tinyurl.com/bl9vlc7
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
November 16, 2012
DrAlexC. I live in the Tehachapi Pass. A company planned to put in 2-tiered pump storage. My husband calculated the amount of water to fill up the lower tank. It was as much water as the entire City of Tehachapi uses in 1 year. A few points to be made here: grid electricity would be used to pump the water to the upper tier. Another is having open standing water and mosquitoes. The threat of West Nile Virus would force pesticide treatment. None of this is "green" to me.
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/09/02/2010-21964/pajuela-peak-hydro-llc-notice-of-preliminary-permit-application-accepted-for-filing-and-soliciting
ROGER W.
ROGER W.
November 16, 2012
DrAlexC,

Thank you. And thank you too for your comments on issues with energy storage with hydro. I might add parenthetically that in Texas most of the wind is out west where water comes largely from the aquifers that are depleting from existing use. And where the wind is, and the windfarms are, there is a lot of flat terrain.... not mountainous with generous reservoir for storage of potential energy. so it would have to be shipped, again over long and expensive transmission lines to wherever the hydro storage capacity would be located.

In Texas, in fact, hydro capacity is one quarter of one percent of total generation capacity so the Transmission Lines would go out of Texas to find significant hydro storage/generation opportunity. Not likely since we are our own independent energy transmission network, ERCOT, not significantly interconnected to the Nation, and is not regulated by the Federales.

http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=9437
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
November 16, 2012
These Governors are bankrupting the nation. Total costs from wind energy are about triple those from natural gas generation, and increase costs for both ratepayers and taxpayers (through subsidies including the PTC, and federal and state accelerated depreciation). The US Energy Information Administration found direct costs for wind energy before subsidy are 10 to 15 cents per kWh compared to about 6 cents for natural gas (whose subsidies are miniscule on a per kWh basis in comparison). Moreover, because wind energy is intermittent, ratepayers are forced to pay additional indirect costs of about 5 cents more for transmission and integration. Higher costs for inputs, like wind energy, are stagnating economic growth and job creation in virtually all U.S. industries, especially manufacturing, and exploding the federal debt. And wind energy hasn't even been shown to have scientifically proven net environmental benefits.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 16, 2012
PeterB -- "pumped storage" is unfortunately not a solution for wind variability, because of wind's high-frequency variability.

Pumped storage systems cannot shut down and reverse quickly enough without damage.

Also, reservoirs whose levels fluctuate often, are environmentally damaging in the first place. Add to that the at best 25% energy waste of pumped storage and the question remains -- why?

We're removing dams in the US due to fishery needs. New ones just to allow solar/wind 'farm' investors to make subsidies from us aren't rational.

But, wind solves its own problem by being irrational, in the engineering sense, and unnecessary, in the environmental sense.
;]
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 16, 2012
RogerW, thanks for the info on gearboz issues. This may be of interest...
www.windpowermonthly.com/news/1133701/Vestas-V90-crisis-takes-new-twist-ZF-gearbox-failures/

And, the move to direct drive is motivated by failures, but brings new costs & resource dependencies outside the US.

From NREL...
The Alstom Eco 100 turbine employs a novel drive-train design that isolates the gearbox from rotor loads, putting less strain on the gearbox. That is a promising difference-maker because the wind industry worldwide has been addressing the problem of gearbox reliability for several years. NREL heads a consortium of turbine manufacturers, utilities and suppliers, the Gearbox Reliability Collaborative, that examines ways to improve designs and retrofits for gearboxes.
ROGER W.
ROGER W.
November 16, 2012
sandcanyongal,

I pretty much agree with your #14 comments... Government subsidies of windfarms or any other source of energy is corporate welfare to the already-wealthy. For example, with PTC subsidy West Texas windfarms were said to return twice a normal market ROI to investors, with much less volatility than the market, but only to investors with enough capital to build them in the first place... T. Boone Pickens comes to mind.

I am also appreciative of your comments regarding the tremendous negative environmental impact, not the least of which is caused by new transmission lines to make it work.

But your #19 comments... do you realize that by far and away most power generation in the US is privately-owned and always was? Only about 21M customers nationally are served by publicly-owned utilities, typically municipalities. In California about 3.2M customers.

http://www.publicpower.org/files/PDFs/PublicPowerDatabyState2010.pdf

Personally I would MUCH rather buy energy from a privately held company than a publicly owned company. When I lived in Austin Tx, the publically owned utility charged me a higher rate for electrical simply because i also had a natural gas connection. Why? Why not? They are the government monopoly and could get away with it!

Btw, love your avatar. A burning windmill is a good symbol for industrial-scale windfarm technology IMHO. Probably a gearbox failure ignited the oil... maybe the local field machining company can get the contract to fix it and another job is created - at taxpayer expense!
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
November 16, 2012
Privatizing our electricity generation is absurd. This is a common need in our society and it would be smart to keep it public. Personally, it's ridiculous to continue to enrich people like Warren Buffett and foreign companies with taxpayer money. This will bite us in the back end like privatizing away our treasury. My avatar is a photo of a wind turbine on fire here in the Tehachapi Pass.
ANONYMOUS
November 15, 2012
The argument that we should continue with the federal PTC because the wind industry provides jobs and economic activity is a bit simplistic. All industries provide jobs and economic activity.

The problem with the federal PTC is that it simply transfers tax money from one state to another. And in the end it does not result in any real net gain in jobs or economic growth. The federal PTC should be ended, and any further PTC's should be handled at the state level. This would be a much more equitable arrangement.
ROGER W.
ROGER W.
November 15, 2012
Tony Piwowarczyk (#7 above)works for a firm that does field machining and repair work. At his firm's website http://www.fieldsystems.com, Wind Turbine Repairs is specifically mentioned. That is not what makes his advocacy for subsidies of windfarms wrong, but it does help explain it.

I know a man who works at a prominent shipping firm in Houston who tipped me off that a surprisingly large number of replacement gear boxes are regularly being shipped to windfarms in Texas.... turns out they break pretty often. Oh, and Tony's employer lists Gearbox Repairs too, as another specialty!

Industrial-scale wind energy is intermittent,and as someone said, negatively correlates with demand; cannot be dispatched as conventional generation can; requires coventional backup generation but necessarily operates even it intermittently, resulting in zero net CO2 reductions; requires new expensive, and long new transmission lines; most often requiring excercises of eminent domain to strip landowner's rights away. These facts are plain physics and will not change no matter how hard you beat the numbers to say "grid parity."

But don't expect to convince Tony. He would rather keep his hand in your pocket. Nice work if you can get it....

Btw, I do like distributed wind generation. No need for eminent domain for new transmission, and is decided by property owners. No need for robbing taxpayers to pay industry insiders either, let the decisionmaker pay. I am in favor of no subsidies for any energy sources, including conventional. Let the market sort it out and get Tony's hand out of our pockets!
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
November 15, 2012
Thank you piwowarczyk-tony-344982 for being one of the few other voices pushing pumped-storage as the right storage mechanism for allowing increases in solar (especially) and wind power resources. In particular, the West coast, and to a lesser extent the East coast, of the US have significant hydro-electric power capacity, which can already be used to fill the holes in solar and (less easily) wind power sources. And once those sources become big enough, most hydro-electric systems can be converted to pumped-storage facilities. If the solar power is heavily of distributed origin, little or no changes need to be made to the grid system.
ANONYMOUS
November 15, 2012
The American Bird Conservancy supports wind power with the caveat that bird-friendly placement and design be primary factors in construction [source: ABC]. The Wisconsin Bird Initiative states that wind turbines have a "low impact" on avian mortality compared to window glass and communication towers [source: WBCI]. And in 2006, the Audubon Society gave its figurative seal of approval to the American Wind Energy Association. The president of the national organization is quoted by Renewable Energy World as stating, "When you look at a wind turbine, you can find the bird carcasses and count them. With a coal-fired power plant, you can't count the carcasses, but it's going to kill a lot more birds" [source: REW].

Man-made structure/ Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)
Windows (residential+commercial) 100 million to 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]
Wind Turbines 40,000 [source: American Bird Conservatory]

Now please, will everyone remove all the windows from their house, right away!
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
November 15, 2012
The average electric bill for 2 adults in a household in southern California is about $188 per month. I live in the most conservative county in the state, Kern. The people here don't believe in any sort of welfare, yet our politicians have bought into corporate welfare. What does this mean? You and I are paying 30% of the cost for foreign owned companies to rip up our prime farmland and pristine forests to put in open bladed technology that is causing mass extinction of our birds and bats. (If you don't understand their value, crack a book). The real money goes into the pockets of the CEOs, executives and giant financiers like Marubeni. I call this corporate welfare of the most unAmerican kind. As for jobs, how many of you qualify for employment at one of those jobsites? Those positions are specialized. The personnel rotate from jobsite to jobsite. I have never seen a job description that reaches out for homeless, African Americans or jobless individuals. Further, you don't qualify for a position if you're handicapped, accountants, lawyer, farmer, hotel worker or any of the multitude of positions. These are primarily outdoor, harsh condition jobs. Get real. This is just another bubble that will burst just like the recent housing and high tech bubbles. Daryl Issa interviewed members of the Department of Labor recently: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/08/labor-dept-counts-oil-lobbyists-garbage-men-bus-drivers-as-green-jobs-video/ Americans need to rebuild America for America, not China, Denmark, Germany or Japan.
THOMAS STACY
THOMAS STACY
November 15, 2012
There is really no such thing as 'grid parity' for intermittent resources with a negative correlation to demand cycles. Price parity for wind is this: LCOE wind must be equal to or below the cost of the fuel it saves plus about 5 to 10% of the capital cost of a conventional plant of equal size. That sum is about $40 to $60 per MWH. This is never going to happen, so wind shills should stop making this false claim because there is an enormous informal movement to inform Congress of exactly how to calculate wind's value. Most Congresspersons with basic mathematics skills already get it and all the wind lobby can do by lying to them on this front is to ruin their professional and personal reputation. It's time for real progress, not subsidized regression into obsolete forms of electrical capacity. Governors supporting wind are concerned that without the PTC, RPSs in place in their states will have an even more deleterious impact on electricity rates than they are already having. These states are "tin cupping" to the US treasury just the same as the wind industry itself. Jobs? Electricity rates are the real jobs lever.
Sherry Hellmuth
Sherry Hellmuth
November 15, 2012
This is the biggest sheer waste of taxpayer dollars. Quit giving BIG WIND CORPORATIOS American taxpayer dollars to send profits overseas and spend millions per paltry so-called job created. This is the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars. If wind is so great, let it make it on it's own through private investment. Quit thinking that wind is so eoc-friendly=--that is the last thing it is. If you don't consider the pollution in China where they extract the rare earth minerals needed and the pollution from the manufacture of the steel and cement that will never be reversed, you are blindly following as sheep. Wake up people, call your congressional representatives and tell them NO PTC extension--the jobs are not there. Go to PTCFacts.info and get the objective truth, not the skewed made up data supplied by Big Wind and AWEA.
TONY PIWOWARCZYK
TONY PIWOWARCZYK
November 15, 2012
In response to ChrisKapsamelis, I totally agree, hence the need for a unified approach encompassing a National strategy developed by a Manhattan-Project-esque styled think tank. Wind OEM's should be castigated for not being at the forefront of combining their technology with pumped storage or other effective storage means. I happen to like pumped storage because it has been around since the 1890's and the modern version of it was perfected in the 1930's, via reversible turbines. If anyone is aware of a wind turbine OEM actively investing in the storage issue, please alert me, because I am not aware of anything other than wind OEM's continued listening to only one radio station: WII-FM. (What's In It For Me). The consciousness I am attempting to bring to this friendly debate is a higher level of thought than: a) wind energy tax credits = bad, versus b) wind energy tax credits = good. As to davidcarl's thought that Federal money is 'other people's money' I have to disagree. All Fed money comes from state citizens. E.g.: Does anyone believe that a late 1920's era Arizona and Nevada could have conceived, planned, designed, and built the Hoover Dam on their own? Kicking energy policy down to a state level is exactly the inverse of 'Make no small plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably will not themselves be realized.'
David Carl
David Carl
November 15, 2012
If the governors of 28 states think this is a great idea why don't those governors implement plans for their own states? Or is it only a great idea when you are using other peoples money?
Chris Kapsambelis
Chris Kapsambelis
November 15, 2012
In response to #7,

If the combination of pumped storage hydro and wind energy is the solution, the PTC and state mandates are counterproductive because they reward wind and solar without the need for storage.
Penelope Gray
Penelope Gray
November 15, 2012
Wind sprawl (and that's the only word to describe it) is slated to take over three hundred miles of Maine's mountains. This is going to result in huge amounts of clear cutting for the miles of industrial roads, transmission lines and pad sites. Herbicide spraying to keep the trees from regrowing. Tremendous fire danger for the Maine woods. There is no greener object on this planet right now than a tree, yet we're cutting them down as fast as we can to put up these gigantic inefficient towers that are breaking federal laws with impunity by killing raptors and migratory birds and producing negligible amounts of electricity. My question is, where are the environmentalists? Why are we allowing this to happen to some of the planet's most valuable natural resources and beautiful viewsheds? Subsidize all energies equally or not at all. That's only fair.
TONY PIWOWARCZYK
TONY PIWOWARCZYK
November 15, 2012
"Wind energy is on a path to reach "grid parity" — the point where its cost is equal to the baseline price of power on the grid — starting in 2016. In the long run, in other words, wind can be expected to thrive without the tax credit." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-21/extend-wind-power-tax-credit-now-so-it-can-die-later.html

Many bleeding edge technologies that made a difference in the world were subsidized until they stood on their own–by University research grants, Federal government grants, private corporate R&D budgets, etc . . . To argue that "new technology" should never be subsidized is frankly, an ignorant position. Would any sane person argue that every state-funded University in America immediately stop all medical research that is not presently paying for itself?

The fact that wind does not meet peak loads is a tiresome argument, given that building more (1930's proven technology) pumped storage hydro units can store all the wind-generated peak load power necessary. The European Joint Research Commission together with University College Cork are forecasting that pumped storage hydo is about to get a massive lift in Europe. http://setis.ec.europa.eu/newsroom-items-folder/report-pumped-hydro-energy-storage-potential-for-transformation-from-single-dams

"Make no small plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably will not themselves be realized." as my fellow Chicagoan, Daniel Burnham is reported having said. The biggest problem I see with U.S. Energy Policy is small thinking-typical non-unified "how much will my piece of the pie be worth?" thinking. If you created a Manhattan Project-styled think tank to solve U.S. Energy problems, the problems would be over in four years.

As to the argument that government does not successfully subsidize projects into profitability, the $974 million Federal investment in the Upper Basin's Colorado River Storage Project returned $5 billion in power revenues-500% ROI.
Penelope Gray
Penelope Gray
November 15, 2012
How much is this costing the taxpayer and how much energy is actually being produced by these machines? Since the energy is not dispatchable, how many existing power plants have actually been shut down by these machines? I didn't realize so few people were employed nation wide in this industry. Here in Maine tourism is our biggest economic engine, employing over 175,000 people and bringing ten billion dollars a year into the state. Yet wind developers are staking claims on our ridgelines and mountains in spite of "poor to fair" wind quality and an average effeciency of 11-17% at the existing wind farms. Why? Because of the subsidies and PTC's. Wouldn't a sensible science based approach to our energy needs be smarter? Natural gas and hydropower and energy efficiency????
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 14, 2012
It would be too bad to continue subsidizing systems that waste ~10% of all generation and yield less than 40% of their claimed capacity ("nameplate")

The remark that Us has a wind: " installed capacity to 51,630 MW" is such a silly fib -- divide by at least 3 and discover that value 'replaces' only 8 typical generating plants of any other kind, and consumes many square miles of land.

The EROI for wind always fibs by ignoring the initial fossil-fueled resource handling/processing costs of ~700 tons of iron ore, limestone, coal, aggregate, etc. per installed peak MW (1/3 MW actual).

Local solar, with no land requirement, is not only more efficient and predictable, it avoids transmission loss while building a more robust grid that even fits well with EVs and local storage. These are some reasons behind, for instance, the Calif. "million solar homes" initiative, and the fast-growing deployment of local solar on municipal building, colleges, etc.

There's no need for wind 'farms' anywhere, not simply because of their subsidies & inefficiencies, but because of their environmental debts & threats.
tom clark
tom clark
November 14, 2012
Hickenhooper also cited 'widespread support of wind energy within Colorado'. Are the people of Rural Colorado really that naive and gullible or is there no Wind farms in Colorado yet? One can't help but wonder if this group of Governors are being 'paid off' or just display an amazing lack of due diligence.
Rich Barbarics
Rich Barbarics
November 14, 2012
Due to the economic slump begun by financial institution mishaps, the home construction business has lost a lot more in jobs (directly and indirectly) than any of the renewable segments. We need to balance tax incentive giveaways to where they'll do the most good. The PTC is only one of many possible generators to rekindle job expansion.
Anumakonda Jagadeesh
Anumakonda Jagadeesh
November 13, 2012
The U.S. wind industry generates tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of economic activity. Wind projects boost local tax bases, and revitalize the economy of rural communities by providing a steady income stream to farmers with wind turbines on their land. GE Energy is the largest domestic wind turbine manufacturer. In 2010, the wind power industry in the US received 42% ($4.986 billion) of all federal subsidies for electricity generation.
There were 10,312 MW across 30 states under construction in the second quarter of 2012 and 8,430 MW across 30 states and territories under construction in the third quarter of 2012, with less than 100 MW of new construction. The U.S. Department of Energy's report 20% Wind Energy by 2030 envisioned that wind power could supply 20% of all U.S. electricity, which included a contribution of 4% from offshore wind power.

It is hoped US administration will continue the incentives offered to Wind Energy through Wind Energy Production Tax Credit.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
Wind Energy Expert
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com
Anumakonda Jagadeesh
Anumakonda Jagadeesh
November 13, 2012
The use of wind power in the United States has expanded quickly over the last several years. Construction of new wind power generation capacity in the first three quarters of 2012 totaled 4,728 megawatts (MW) bringing the cumulative installed capacity to 51,630 MW.This capacity is exceeded only by China. For the 12 months from September 2011 to August 2012, the electricity produced from wind power in the United States amounted to 133 terawatt-hours, or 3.3% of all generated electrical energy. The United States produced enough electricity from wind in the 12 month period before July 2012 to power over 11 million US households annually or meet the total energy demands of the Netherlands.
New wind farms can produce electricity in the 5-8 cents per kWh range, making wind power competitive with the cost of fossil fuel electricity generation in many markets. Fifteen states have installed over 1,000 MW of wind capacity, and a total of 39 states now have installed at least some utility-scale wind power, with Nevada the latest in the 3Q of 2012.Texas, with 10,929 MW of capacity, has the most installed wind power capacity of any U.S. state, followed by California with 4,570 MW. The Alta Wind Energy Center in California is the largest wind farm in the United States with a capacity of 1020 MW of power.
Wind Energy in US is expanding in US and as such there is the need to Renew Wind Energy Production Tax Credit.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
Wind Energy Expert
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Vince Font

Vince Font

Vince Font is a professional freelance writer specializing in the fields of renewable energy, high tech, travel, and entertainment. Read his blog at www.vincefont.com or follow him on Twitter @vincefont.
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • America's Real Problem with Solar Energy
  • US, Australian Companies Taking Giant Steps for Global EGS Geothermal
  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Wind Power — Even without the Wind
  • Massachusetts Resets Its Solar Energy Bar, Four Years Early

Most Commented

  • 12
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 10
    No Easy Fix for Broken Wind Turbine at US High School
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    Wind Turbine Lubrication and Maintenance: Protecting Investments in Renewable Energy

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • The Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Inc.
  • Associated Renewable
  • Intertek
  • Everblue
  • Schneider Electric
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • 3TIER
  • Trojan Battery Company
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information