Randy's Comments

The "fact" regarding subsidies comes in two parts. When all direct/indirect subsidies to all generation sources are stopped, AND, all external costs are included, then we have an energy world where the cheapest and most socially beneficial will be developed. Renewables win hands down.
Wind alone was never intended to be the sole source, and works quite well with what's already built, and will be built as we move to a smarter grid.
no need to bring Godwin into the discussion, either.

Actually, Herr Westgard, the price of electricity for all consumers in Deutschland is now lower than if the investment in FIT technologies hadn't been made. Same in Denmark. This is because renewables, particularly wind, back off the most expensive plants at the margin.
Jurgen Grossmann has to make pineapple statements, because he's trying to protect RWE's investments in coal and nuclear, including unbelievably, new coal plants. But he's also lobbying for higher FITs and interconnection security for offshore wind at the same time.
The simple economic truth about energy comparisons is that until all external costs are included in cost of energy analysis, there are no real facts. And when they are included, renewables wins hands down. Not to mention real export job creation.

Dr. Felker has done and is doing excellent work at NTWC, but his view of Kenetech and the KVS series is not correct. As John Armstrong stated, there were earlier turbines with similar properties, which were known by the global wind engineering community. I'd already climbed the MS-1 on Orkney in 1983, and can attest to its design.

Kenetech did not 'close up shop,' it went bankrupt for good reason. Management had destroyed the finances of the company, while at the same time using skewed figures to record performance. Additionally, the highly competent engineers were overruled on engineering matters routinely, resulting in the the failed KVS-33. Questionable management practice was the major culprit, not the minor role of 'deregulation.'

The bankruptcy, and the accompanying black eye to the industry, damaged the US wind industry for years. Not least, by splitting apart the center of engineering knowledge which was the the heart of the company. (I know, I went through every single page of the discovery in a fraud allegation case.)

I won't go into details in a comment post, but journalists should independently verify such important factors when interviewing a participant on one side.

Glass half full? One could argue that the President's concurrent support of more nukes, more drilling and "clean coal" belies anything but "highlighting" renewables. Let's be clear, he missed a golden opportunity to highlight the role windpower plays in current new power generation in the US, with another record year, and the fact that the industry's jobs remained stable in a downturn at 85,000. That this was partly a result of of the quick implementation of his Stimulus bill should have made it obvious. But he was silent, instead nodding to the coal and conventional lobbies. Highlight? Shameful fits just as well.

Strong comments Brian. Add that the feed-in tariff in Denmark has been shown to not only pay for itself, but actually reduce electricity rates. the argument about wind not being baseload is a canard, for no one advocates wind alone. Living in Germany, it's sad to see how strong the coal lobby remains, much like in the US.