Texas Approves a $4.93 Billion Wind-Power Project

[boutons_]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/spacer.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox/printerfriendly.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox/2008/FSLwidget.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=46a9b98b/89aac644&camp=foxsearch2008_emailtools_810905d-nyt5&ad=FSLwidget.gif&goto=http://foxsearchlight.com/networkwidget/index.php)

July 19, 2008

Texas Approves a $4.93 Billion Wind-Power Project

By KATE GALBRAITH

Texas (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/texas/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) regulators have approved a $4.93 billion wind-power transmission project, providing a major lift to the development of wind energy in the state.

The planned web of transmission lines will carry electricity from remote western parts of the state to major population centers like Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio. The lines can handle 18,500 megawatts of power, enough for 3.7 million homes on a hot day when air-conditioners are running.

The project will ease a bottleneck that has become a major obstacle to development of the wind-rich Texas Panhandle and other areas suitable for wind generation.

Texas is already the largest producer of wind power, with 5,300 installed megawatts — more than double the installed capacity of California, the next closest state. And Texas is fast expanding its capacity.

“This project will almost put Texas ahead of Germany in installed wind,” said Greg Wortham, executive director of the West Texas Wind Energy Consortium.

Transmission companies will pay the upfront costs of the project. They will recoup the money from power users, at a rate of about $4 a month for residential customers.

Details of the plan will be completed by Aug. 15, according to Damon Withrow, director of government relations at the Public Utility Commission, which voted 2 to 1 to go ahead with the transmission plan. The lines will not be fully constructed until 2013.

Wind developers reacted favorably.

“The lack of transmission has been a fundamental issue in Texas, and it’s becoming more and more of an issue elsewhere,” said Vanessa Kellogg, the Southwest regional development director for Horizon Wind Energy, which operates the Lone Star Wind Farm in West Texas and has more wind generation under development. “This is a great step in the right direction.”
Ms. Kellogg said that the project would be a boon for Texas power customers, whose electricity costs have risen in conjunction with soaring natural gas prices across the state. “There’s nothing volatile about the wind in terms of the price, because it’s free,” she said.

The Texas office of the consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/p/public_citizen/index.html?inline=nyt-org) also lauded the news.

“We think it’s going to lower costs, lower pollution and create jobs. We think that for every $3 invested, we’ll probably see about an $8 reduction in electric costs,” said Tom Smith, the state director.

The transmission problem is so acute in Texas that turbines are sometimes shut off even when the wind is blowing.

“When the amount of generation exceeds the export capacity, you have to start turning off wind generators” to keep things in balance, said Hunter Armistead, head of the renewable energy division in North America at Babcock & Brown, a large wind developer and transmission provider. “We’ve reached that point in West Texas.”

Jay Rosser, a spokesman for Boone Pickens, the legendary Texas oilman who plans to build what has been called the world’s largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle, welcomed the announcement.

But because about a quarter of the Pickens project capacity will come online by 2011, two years before the Texas lines are fully ready, “we will move forward with plans to build our own transmission,” he said.
Lack of transmission is a severe problem in a number of states that, like Texas, want to develop their wind resources.

Wind now accounts for 1 percent of the nation’s electricity generation but could rise to 20 percent by 2030, according to a recent Department of Energy report, if transmission lines are built and other challenges met.

But other states may find the Texas model difficult to emulate. The state is unique in having its own electricity grid. All other states fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_energy_regulatory_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org), adding an extra layer of bureaucracy to any transmission proposals.

The exact route of the transmission lines has yet to be determined because the state has not yet acquired right-of-way, according to Mr. Withrow of the utility commission.

The project will almost certainly face concerns from landowners reluctant to have wires cutting across their property. “I would anticipate that some of these companies will have to use eminent domain,” he said, speaking of the companies that will be building the transmission lines.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/business/19wind.html?pagewanted=print

==========

The future begins to take shape. Somehow I don't see electricity bills dropping in 2013.

[remingtonbo2001]

Yep.

So, what are you going to do about it?

Have fun with your half wit remarks.

[MannyIsGod]

We got our own grid, bitches!

[xrayzebra]

Yep on T. Bones Pickens done did his thing in Texas. Now all we have to do is build a back-up for the windmills so when they aint working we still got the same amount of power. Or you forgot about that? Otherwise when wind aint blowing you can still work and run those a/c's and tv's. Wind power is what it is. Wind.

[ElNono]

Yep on T. Bones Pickens done did his thing in Texas. Now all we have to do is build a back-up for the windmills so when they aint working we still got the same amount of power. Or you forgot about that? Otherwise when wind aint blowing you can still work and run those a/c's and tv's. Wind power is what it is. Wind.

Ever heard of batteries?

[xrayzebra]

Ever heard of batteries?

The caliber of our posters is shown by ElNono. What a brain.

[ElNono]

The caliber of our posters is shown by ElNono. What a brain.

Can you read?

Utility Will Use Batteries to Store Wind Power

By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: September 11, 2007

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 — American Electric Power, a coal-burning utility company that is looking for ways to connect more wind power to its grid, plans to announce on Tuesday that it will install huge banks of high-technology batteries.

The batteries are costly and their use at such a big scale has not been demonstrated, but they may be an essential complement to renewable power, experts say.

“We’re looking at what we believe the grid of the future is going to be,” said Carl L. English, president of A.E.P. “We’re going to need a significant amount of storage if for no other reason than to take greatest advantage of alternative energy sources like wind power.”

The investment would position the company well if any of the 11 states in its service territory establish a minimum quota for renewable energy, or if Congress sets a national standard, company executives said; it would also help if carbon controls were instituted and wind power were to gain a financial advantage over coal.

An expert not involved in the program, Edgar DeMeo of Renewable Energy Consulting Services, said, “They must think there’s enough potential there so they want get a better handle on how it works.” But Mr. DeMeo and others said that wind energy had substantial room to grow before storage became necessary.

American Electric Power’s batteries will be used to smooth the power delivery from wind turbines. They can charge at night, when the wind is strong but prices are low, and give the electricity back the next afternoon, when there is hardly any wind but power prices are many times higher, company officials said. That strategy would reduce the amount of power generated from inefficient peak-demand units.

The batteries can also insert energy into the grid during brief voltage drops, reducing the chance of a blackout and stabilizing the grid for all users. They may also delay or eliminate the need for transmission upgrades in some areas, the company said.

At least at this stage, saving money by storing a windmill’s production for peak-price hours will be difficult. The cost is very high, $27 million for six megawatts of capacity, or about $4,500 a kilowatt, including the price of substation improvements. Building a gas turbine of that size to meet peak needs would cost substantially less. But the battery system would be able to store power made from wind, a form of generation that does not produce any carbon dioxide.

The batteries can each deliver one megawatt of power — enough to run a medium-size shopping center — for a little more than seven hours. Replenished nightly, they give back about 80 percent of the electricity put into them. Each is the size of a double-decker bus, and installation is not permanent; they can be moved to another site as the need arises.

The batteries will be built by NGK Insulators Ltd. of Japan. They use a sodium sulfur chemistry and operate at temperatures of more than 800 degrees Fahrenheit.

And while the batteries are large by the standards of previous installations, they are small relative to wind production; one battery would hold about as much energy as a single large wind machine could produce in a day, Mr. DeMeo pointed out. And they are small relative to total energy demand.

But, he said, “If we ever really do get cheap storage, and that’s a possibility, that’s a game changer.”

A.E.P. intends to have 1,000 megawatts of energy storage on its system in the next decade, according to the company, and at least 25 megawatts from batteries of this type.

A range of options is available for the remainder of the storage, including the use of plug-in hybrid cars, Mr. English said. The idea behind plug-in hybrids is that the owner of a car would charge the batteries every night when demand and cost of electricity were low. The next day, under a contract between the utility company and the driver, the car would be left plugged when not in use, and the power company could reverse the flow of electricity and draw power out of its batteries during times of peak demand. Enough power would be left in the batteries to start the engine, so that a driver returning to a drained car could still run it on gasoline until the batteries could be charged again at night. It would take more than 1,000 such vehicles to equal one of the sodium-sulfur batteries, however.

LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/business/11battery.html)

[boutons_]

2.5% for these batteries for the storage of total 1000 Mw.

So what's the storage technology for the other 97.5%?

Batteries for wind/solar storage at grid-scale or utlility-scale don't look very feasible with current technology.

[xrayzebra]

Yeah ElNono. That would prove very interesting. Huge banks of high-technology batteries. They would definitely be that. Hugh and Hi-tech. And as far as I know never tried as stated in the article. It may happen one of these days. But it isn't anything that will occur in the immediate future.

[ElNono]

Yeah ElNono. That would prove very interesting. Huge banks of high-technology batteries. They would definitely be that. Hugh and Hi-tech. And as far as I know never tried as stated in the article. It may happen one of these days. But it isn't anything that will occur in the immediate future.

Well, that article is 2 years old. And obviously an utility was investing on it. Now, I won't argue with you that the technology might not be there just yet (I just haven't followed it to know how they're doing), but things like this are always looked into. All of these utilities have a vested interest of cashing in on cheap electricity generation, and they sure as heck want to sell every kw they produce. Storage of excess energy is going to be a must.

[dallaskd]

so this is a good thing for us right?

[tomgraywind]

Yep on T. Bones Pickens done did his thing in Texas. Now all we have to do is build a back-up for the windmills so when they aint working we still got the same amount of power. Or you forgot about that? Otherwise when wind aint blowing you can still work and run those a/c's and tv's. Wind power is what it is. Wind.

It's true that in general, you still need other power plants (or energy efficiency) to meet peak demand periods. The thing is, they run a lot less of the time, using less fuel and emitting less greenhouse gases.

Wind power is readily available, affordable and abundant. Along with energy efficiency, it should be one of the first steps we take to respond to the threat of global warming.

For an authoritative look at what wind power can do, see the 20% by 2030 Technical Report from the U.S. Department of Energy at www.20percentwind.org.

Regards,
Thomas O. Gray
American Wind Energy Association
www.powerofwind.org
www.awea.org

[johnsmith]

I'm going to make a bundle off of this............hooray!!!!

[peewee's lovechild]

Yep on T. Bones Pickens done did his thing in Texas. Now all we have to do is build a back-up for the windmills so when they aint working we still got the same amount of power. Or you forgot about that? Otherwise when wind aint blowing you can still work and run those a/c's and tv's. Wind power is what it is. Wind.

You really do enjoy sucking that Middle Eastern cock, don't you?

[Anti.Hero]

You really do enjoy sucking that Middle Eastern cock, don't you?

Dims = cock blockers!

[Walter Cronkite]

Yep on T. Bones Pickens done did his thing in Texas. Now all we have to do is build a back-up for the windmills so when they aint working we still got the same amount of power. Or you forgot about that? Otherwise when wind aint blowing you can still work and run those a/c's and tv's. Wind power is what it is. Wind.

They could harness the farts coming out of your mouth, old man. That's enough methane to power the entire country.

[spursnatic]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/spacer.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox/printerfriendly.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox/2008/FSLwidget.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=46a9b98b/89aac644&camp=foxsearch2008_emailtools_810905d-nyt5&ad=FSLwidget.gif&goto=http://foxsearchlight.com/networkwidget/index.php)

July 19, 2008

Texas Approves a $4.93 Billion Wind-Power Project

By KATE GALBRAITH

Texas (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/texas/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) regulators have approved a $4.93 billion wind-power transmission project, providing a major lift to the development of wind energy in the state.

The planned web of transmission lines will carry electricity from remote western parts of the state to major population centers like Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio. The lines can handle 18,500 megawatts of power, enough for 3.7 million homes on a hot day when air-conditioners are running.

The project will ease a bottleneck that has become a major obstacle to development of the wind-rich Texas Panhandle and other areas suitable for wind generation.

Texas is already the largest producer of wind power, with 5,300 installed megawatts — more than double the installed capacity of California, the next closest state. And Texas is fast expanding its capacity.

“This project will almost put Texas ahead of Germany in installed wind,” said Greg Wortham, executive director of the West Texas Wind Energy Consortium.

Transmission companies will pay the upfront costs of the project. They will recoup the money from power users, at a rate of about $4 a month for residential customers.

Details of the plan will be completed by Aug. 15, according to Damon Withrow, director of government relations at the Public Utility Commission, which voted 2 to 1 to go ahead with the transmission plan. The lines will not be fully constructed until 2013.

Wind developers reacted favorably.

“The lack of transmission has been a fundamental issue in Texas, and it’s becoming more and more of an issue elsewhere,” said Vanessa Kellogg, the Southwest regional development director for Horizon Wind Energy, which operates the Lone Star Wind Farm in West Texas and has more wind generation under development. “This is a great step in the right direction.”
Ms. Kellogg said that the project would be a boon for Texas power customers, whose electricity costs have risen in conjunction with soaring natural gas prices across the state. “There’s nothing volatile about the wind in terms of the price, because it’s free,” she said.

The Texas office of the consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/p/public_citizen/index.html?inline=nyt-org) also lauded the news.

“We think it’s going to lower costs, lower pollution and create jobs. We think that for every $3 invested, we’ll probably see about an $8 reduction in electric costs,” said Tom Smith, the state director.

The transmission problem is so acute in Texas that turbines are sometimes shut off even when the wind is blowing.

“When the amount of generation exceeds the export capacity, you have to start turning off wind generators” to keep things in balance, said Hunter Armistead, head of the renewable energy division in North America at Babcock & Brown, a large wind developer and transmission provider. “We’ve reached that point in West Texas.”

Jay Rosser, a spokesman for Boone Pickens, the legendary Texas oilman who plans to build what has been called the world’s largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle, welcomed the announcement.

But because about a quarter of the Pickens project capacity will come online by 2011, two years before the Texas lines are fully ready, “we will move forward with plans to build our own transmission,” he said.
Lack of transmission is a severe problem in a number of states that, like Texas, want to develop their wind resources.

Wind now accounts for 1 percent of the nation’s electricity generation but could rise to 20 percent by 2030, according to a recent Department of Energy report, if transmission lines are built and other challenges met.

But other states may find the Texas model difficult to emulate. The state is unique in having its own electricity grid. All other states fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_energy_regulatory_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org), adding an extra layer of bureaucracy to any transmission proposals.

The exact route of the transmission lines has yet to be determined because the state has not yet acquired right-of-way, according to Mr. Withrow of the utility commission.

The project will almost certainly face concerns from landowners reluctant to have wires cutting across their property. “I would anticipate that some of these companies will have to use eminent domain,” he said, speaking of the companies that will be building the transmission lines.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/business/19wind.html?pagewanted=print

==========

The future begins to take shape. Somehow I don't see electricity bills dropping in 2013. Does anyone know who to get ahold of to be able to transport the blades to the windmill farms? I heard there is a shitload of money in transporting the blades?

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I hope they're equipping those turbines with the noise producing technology we use here in Virginia to keep birds and bats away, because wind farms reek havoc on avian populations

[boutons_]

I don't think there's any living thing up there in that flat moon-like desolation to kill.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I hope they're equipping those turbines with the noise producing technology we use here in Virginia to keep birds and bats away, because wind farms reek havoc on avian populations

:lol You've obviously never been to west Texas or the panhandle where they are putting in the farms.

[shelshor]

Lots of things grow out there
And if you're wearing jeans or a T-shirt, there's a real good chance the cotton was grown in either West Texas or the South Plains

[Wild Cobra]

Ever heard of batteries?

Care to calculate how large a battery facility needs to be to capture the extra power and supply it when the wind's not blowing? Calculate it at the current 1,850 installed megawatts and remember they plan to build more. Then there is the voltage convertion problems between AC to DC and back to DC at such power levels.

Do you really think they will use batteries?

[boutons_]

One of the advanatage of solar-thermal over solar-voltaic is that the thermal energy can be stored local to generation (best place for batteries is near to consumption) in high-temp liquid salts for quite a long time, then used to boil water to drive a turbine.

Why not a mixed solar-voltaic and solar-thermal farm, since the major solar-voltaic are in the southwest with high number of sunny days?

[T Park]

Put a shit load in El Paso.

Wind never stops blowing in that god forsaken place.

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't think there's any living thing up there in that flat moon-like desolation to kill.

I grew up in West Texas. When I took my wife there for the first time (She's from Minnesota), she thought it was ground zero at a nuke testing range.:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Care to calculate how large a battery facility needs to be to capture the extra power and supply it when the wind's not blowing? Calculate it at the current 1,850 installed megawatts and remember they plan to build more. Then there is the voltage convertion problems between AC to DC and back to DC at such power levels.

Do you really think they will use batteries?

What will be used until battery/fuel cell technology catches up:

Reserve generators run on coal or natural gas, more likely the latter.

Also another possibility:

Geothermal.
Click here for basic explanation. (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/powerplants.html)
Click here for the wiki bit that is a bit more balanced and includes some of the drawbacks. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power)

We can make great strides towards energy independence with a good balanced approach to renewables. At the very least it will free us from much of the price swings of fuels like coal, natural gas, and oil.
All you have to do is to see your electric bill over the last two years to know what kind of impact such price increases can have.

[RandomGuy]

One of the advanatage of solar-thermal over solar-voltaic is that the thermal energy can be stored local to generation (best place for batteries is near to consumption) in high-temp liquid salts for quite a long time, then used to boil water to drive a turbine.

Why not a mixed solar-voltaic and solar-thermal farm, since the major solar-voltaic are in the southwest with high number of sunny days?

That would be an excellent way to go.

Oddly enough, west texas is also pretty sunny from what I understand.

It would be interesting if Texas produced enough electricity to actually export to neighboring states.

If we got the price of electricity down enough, that would make desalinisation on the coast feasible to alleviate water shortages.

I think that an investment in such forms of power would have the same economic synergy that our investment in our highways did in the 50's and 60's.

[Winehole23]

I hope they're equipping those turbines with the noise producing technology we use here in Virginia to keep birds and bats away, because wind farms reek havoc on avian populationshttp://www.bloomberg.com/image/i1ffcYO5Vsdw.jpg

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-21/beware-the-blades-of-death-world-s-top-serial-bird-killers-.html

[SnakeBoy]

http://www.bloomberg.com/image/i1ffcYO5Vsdw.jpg

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-21/beware-the-blades-of-death-world-s-top-serial-bird-killers-.html

:rolleyes...because a sparrow flying into a window or being eaten by a cat is exactly the same as raptors and other large species being killed by wind turbines.

This would have been a hilarious sight to see...


Rare bird last seen in Britain 22 years ago reappears - only to be killed by wind turbine in front of a horrified crowd of birdwatchers

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2350267/Rare-bird-white-throated-needletail-killed-wind-turbine-crowd-twitchers.html#ixzz30G17OMis
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


:lol those poor greenie brits

[MannyIsGod]

A bird that lives in Australia and Asia killed in Britain? Oh no. Those damn turbines. Also, its a huge raptor. Huge. Fucking condor right there.

[MannyIsGod]

For discussion's sake, let's add the 67 eagle deaths a year at Altamont Pass to the 85 the study confirmed. Over a 15-and-a-half-year period, that would amount to 1,124 dead eagles. That sounds like a lot. But how does that compare with overall non-natural eagle deaths?When an eagle is killed and people find a carcass, FWS asks them to send it to the National Wildlife Property Repository near Denver. About 2,500 show up every year, according to FWS, although certainly more go unreported. Using that number as a benchmark, the number of dead eagles annually from 1997 through June 2012 would amount to approximately 38,750 birds. Based on these admittedly crude estimations, at least 97 percent of the eagle deaths were attributable to causes other than commercial, land-based wind turbines. Often FWS can't determine the exact cause of death, but apparently poachers, transmission lines, pesticides and lead poisoning from bullet-ridden carrion killed significantly more than turbines.

http://www.livescience.com/41644-wind-energy-threat-to-birds-overblown.html

Now I'll just sit back and wait for Snakeboy to tell us all he was just trolling and how he got me to reply again. I'm just his puppet.

[SnakeBoy]

Now I'll just sit back and wait for Snakeboy to tell us all he was just trolling and how he got me to reply again. I'm just his puppet.


Nah, I won't troll you until next winter when you pretend you're a professional climate scientist that spends his time on an internet forum debunking cold weather in winter.

Maybe you can use your scientific skills to compare the number of eagles killed by wind turbines to the number of eagles killed by kitty cats. Or better yet tell us how it is scientific to compare "bird" deaths without regard to species.

[SnakeBoy]

A bird that lives in Australia and Asia killed in Britain? Oh no. Those damn turbines. Also, its a huge raptor. Huge. Fucking condor right there.

Didn't say it was...just said it was funny story.

[MannyIsGod]

Nah, I won't troll you until next winter when you pretend you're a professional climate scientist that spends his time on an internet forum debunking cold weather in winter.

Maybe you can use your scientific skills to compare the number of eagles killed by wind turbines to the number of eagles killed by kitty cats. Or better yet tell us how it is scientific to compare "bird" deaths without regard to species.

I know you're stupid, but this is sad even for you. Reread the paragraph I quoted. Its only eagle deaths and it shows how small of a percentage turbine deaths are when compared to all unnatural deaths. I'm pretty sure comparing eagle deaths to eagle deaths is apples to apples but I'm just here pretending to know how to read.

[SnakeBoy]

I know you're stupid, but this is sad even for you. Reread the paragraph I quoted. Its only eagle deaths and it shows how small of a percentage turbine deaths are when compared to all unnatural deaths. I'm pretty sure comparing eagle deaths to eagle deaths is apples to apples but I'm just here pretending to know how to read.

lol I don't care about the article you quoted. I commented on the article WH posted. Typical response from Manny the scientist, he has an angry pavlovian response to something that he perceives as an attack on his global warming dogma and then when he can't back up his response he calls people stupid and tries to change the subject. lol professional scientist

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not going to argue how much the concern with birds and insects is or is not since I haven't acquired enough information for a valid opinion. All I can say is I don't like it the extra deaths.

My concern with wind mills is not only the cost for construction and maintenance, but something I said some time back that Random immortalized in his signature:

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra:
"it is possible that warming for windmills vs. CO2 is about equal, and that the windmills will change the wind/climate in ways worse than CO2 ever could."

This is based on some intensive reading I did some time back. The only studies that quantified the warming caused by windmills claimed approximately 1/6th the warming of the CO2 they replace from fossil fuel burning. Well of course, to make windmills sound like the better alternative, they use the higher of the alarmists CO2 warming numbers. This sounds good, right? Well, what if I am right, and CO2 warming isn't a fraction of what the alarmists claim? What if windmills are not only warming the atmosphere more than CO2 like I believe, but they actually act as a resistance to the wind, make it make minor path changes from altering the barometric pressure ever so slightly, and will undeniable cause some climate change.

What if...

[SnakeBoy]

I'm not going to argue how much the concern with birds and insects is or is not since I haven't acquired enough information for a valid opinion. All I can say is I don't like it the extra deaths.


I'm not arguing that either...I just pointed out that is not a valid argument to say because kitty cats & windows killed a bunch of sparrows we shouldn't care about the effects of wind farms on other more sensitive species. Manny the professional scientist disagrees apparently.

[MannyIsGod]

You don't know what your argument is because you don't know what the data is. Professional scientific opinion right there. Keep posting about how "sensitive species" are affected when the data shows its a minor influence.

Sincerely,
Manny the professional scientist (allegedly).

[boutons_deux]

I'm not arguing that either...I just pointed out that is not a valid argument to say because kitty cats & windows killed a bunch of sparrows we shouldn't care about the effects of wind farms on other more sensitive species. Manny the professional scientist disagrees apparently.

SB so touchy feely about the birdies? same empathy for Ms of tons of fauna, flora killed by BigOil's century-long degradation of the Gulf of MX?

BigOil can do whatever the fuck it wants, but put a few wind turbines? hell no, too environmentally destructive.

[Wild Cobra]

SB so touchy feely about the birdies? same empathy for Ms of tons of fauna, flora killed by BigOil's century-long degradation of the Gulf of MX?

BigOil can do whatever the fuck it wants, but put a few wind turbines? hell no, too environmentally destructive.

If you say so Larry:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO02JaT5QfU

[RandomGuy]

What if...

The only "what if" you never seem to consider is the one that ends in "... I am wrong?"

I would be interested to see the "study" you cite though. Feel free to post a link to it.

[Wild Cobra]

The only "what if" you never seem to consider is the one that ends in "... I am wrong?"

I would be interested to see the "study" you cite though. Feel free to post a link to it.
You copied my quote but didn't read the study? I'm pretty sure I linked it in that thread. Apparently, you thought my words had no basis and never read the link. Well, I'm not going to search for it again. That was what? Already more than two years ago?

[RobinsontoDuncan]

So I'm not sure why my comment about adding the noise making technology to these things is being mocked. I'm very much in favor of wind energy, I just think if we're going to do something to make the world a better place, we ought to make this change as positive as possible, with the least numbe of negative affects as possible.

[The Reckoning]

we need to put noise generators on our windows and cats too

[RandomGuy]

You copied my quote but didn't read the study? I'm pretty sure I linked it in that thread. Apparently, you thought my words had no basis and never read the link. Well, I'm not going to search for it again. That was what? Already more than two years ago?

I'm pretty sure you didn't link them in that thread, because until you can show me, I have to assume they don't exist. Your claim, your burden of proof. I can't know exactly what the fuck you read years ago that made you think any given stupid shit you seem to buy into.

It is your job to explain yourself clearly and substantiate your claims.

[RandomGuy]

But, since I am not a lazy shit I went looking for data.

The data, per par, doesn't say what WC thinks it does.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/12/relax_wind_power_isnt_a_new_source_of_climate_chan ge/

The quote I was attempting to find some support for:


it is possible that warming for windmills vs. CO2 is about equal, and that the windmills will change the wind/climate in ways worse than CO2 ever could."

What I found was:


However Prof Zhou pointed out the most extreme changes were just at night and the overall changes may be smaller.

Also, it is much smaller than the estimated change caused by other factors such as man made global warming.

“Overall, the warming effect reported in this study is local and is small compared to the strong background year-to-year land surface temperature changes,” he added.


The localised weather effects of wind-farms are just that – localised weather effects rather than climate-change engines in their own right, according to new research from Europe.



I guess if your metric for "possible" were low enough, sure it is "possible", simply because we can't fully exclude the possiblity. Nothing in science is, or should be fully 100% certain.

By the same token it is "possilble" that the moon landings were faked in a studio.


The bright line there though, is that there is no data that supports the either thesis to anybody who takes a reasonably objective look at the evidence.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm pretty sure you didn't link them in that thread, because until you can show me, I have to assume they don't exist. Your claim, your burden of proof. I can't know exactly what the fuck you read years ago that made you think any given stupid shit you seem to buy into.

It is your job to explain yourself clearly and substantiate your claims.
Well, I don't care if you believe me or not and I'm not going to search for the study again. My integrity is OK for the people I know personally. Over the years, do you have cause to call me a liar?

There was an alarmist study that was saying how good wind power was, and said the effects of changes in turbulence, evaporation, etc, only amounted to 1/6th the warming that CO2 causes. Now I didn't look up the study they referred to for CO2 warming, but I assume they used the IPCC levels which I am certain gives CO2 greater warming than it really does.

Now my contention is that the IPCC and others give a greater warming than is real, and the comment you have in your signature reflects that.

Seriously. What is I'm right about CO2 warming not being as high as claimed?

have you ever followed the studies that quantify CO2 sensitivity? They all refer to past studies that uses correlation = causation. there is no new work on CO2 sensitivity.

[Wild Cobra]

But, since I am not a lazy shit I went looking for data.

The data, per par, doesn't say what WC thinks it does.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/12/relax_wind_power_isnt_a_new_source_of_climate_chan ge/

The quote I was attempting to find some support for:



What I found was:







I guess if your metric for "possible" were low enough, sure it is "possible", simply because we can't fully exclude the possiblity. Nothing in science is, or should be fully 100% certain.

By the same token it is "possilble" that the moon landings were faked in a studio.


The bright line there though, is that there is no data that supports the either thesis to anybody who takes a reasonably objective look at the evidence.
Fine. Different studies will say different things.

Do you at least agree that wind mills cause a small degree of climate change in their own way?

[RandomGuy]

Fine. Different studies will say different things.

Do you at least agree that wind mills cause a small degree of climate change in their own way?

No, because that isn't what the data supports globally.

To claim otherwise is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest.

[Wild Cobra]

No, because that isn't what the data supports globally.

To claim otherwise is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest.
Locally, not globally.

Agreed or disagree.

[RandomGuy]

Locally, not globally.

Agreed or disagree.

Localized climate change: Agree. That is what the science supports, if the news story is accurate.
Global climate change: disagree, because that isn't what the science says.

Not making a distinction between the two is either ignorant or dishonest.

Which caused you not to make the distinction in your mentions of the studies you read, ignorance, or dishonesty?

[RandomGuy]

Well, I don't care if you believe me or not and I'm not going to search for the study again. My integrity is OK for the people I know personally. Over the years, do you have cause to call me a liar?


Liar, not quite. Not fully honest? Most assuredly. Misreading things? Yes.

You fight very very hard not to have to admit being wrong about anything, and that has forced you into some intellectually dishonest corners.

[RandomGuy]

There was an alarmist study that was saying how good wind power was, and said the effects of changes in turbulence, evaporation, etc, only amounted to 1/6th the warming that CO2 causes. Now I didn't look up the study they referred to for CO2 warming, but I assume they used the IPCC levels which I am certain gives CO2 greater warming than it really does.

Feel free to submit that theory to peer review. Until then your certainty means about as much as the theory that the moon landings were faked in a studio.

[Wild Cobra]

Localized climate change: Agree. That is what the science supports, if the news story is accurate.
Global climate change: disagree, because that isn't what the science says.

Not making a distinction between the two is either ignorant or dishonest.

Which caused you not to make the distinction in your mentions of the studies you read, ignorance, or dishonesty?
I made the distinction, you just didn't understand. That's not my fault, and it seems typical that you jump to conclusion.

The figure of wind power causing 1/6th the warming of CO2 is based on the amount of CO2 required to produce the same electricity as the wind power plants do.

I specifically said in post 36:

The only studies that quantified the warming caused by windmills claimed approximately 1/6th the warming of the CO2 they replace from fossil fuel burning.

What don't you get?

Need everything spelled out for you?

[Wild Cobra]

Liar, not quite. Not fully honest? Most assuredly. Misreading things? Yes.

You fight very very hard not to have to admit being wrong about anything, and that has forced you into some intellectually dishonest corners.
I am wrong on occasion, but dishonest? No. Please show me.

[boutons_deux]

Texas Breaks Wind Power Production Record

http://www.climatecentral.org/images/sized/images/sized/remote/assets-climatecentral-org-images-uploads-news-06_25_2014_Bobby_Magill_Texas_Wind_1-500x421.png


Texas, the nation’s largest wind power producer, hit a major milestone in March when it produced more wind power in a given moment than ever before, according to a new Energy Information Administration report (http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=16811).

It may have set a national record for a state’s wind power production, too.


The Lone Star State hit “peak wind” at 8:48 p.m. on March 26, when the state’s wind farms produced 10,296 megawatts of electricity. At that moment, wind turbines provided enough electricity to supply power for 29 percent of the total electricity load of the state’s main power grid.

Texas’ self-contained power grid, operated by ERCOT, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, supplies power to all the state’s major cities — about 85 percent of the state’s electric power customers — except El Paso, Amarillo, Lubbock and those along Texas' eastern border.

Though the March 26 wind power output record supplied 29 percent of ERCOT’s load at that moment, wind power has provided for a larger share — up to 38.43 percent — of the load at times of low demand, EIA industry economist April Lee said.

“Texas leads the nation in wind capacity (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/watch-how-fast-wind-farms-spread-across-u.s-17223), more than double the next state (California), so it’s safe to say that no other state has come close so far,” Lee said via email. “The recent peak is generally indicative of the increasing amount of wind capacity across the United States and the need for grid operators to manage growing volumes of wind power on their systems.”

Texas has more than 12,000 megawatts of total wind power capacity, but its turbines have never produced that much electricity at any given moment. The March 26 output record beat a record set the previous week by a few megawatt hours. Both of those blew past the state’s previous wind power record set in May 2013, when output reached 9,674 megawatts (one megawatt of wind power is enough energy to provide electricity to roughly 300 homes (http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/helpful-energy-comparisons-anyone)).

http://www.climatecentral.org/images/sized/images/sized/remote/assets-climatecentral-org-images-uploads-news-06_25_2014_Bobby_Magill_Texas_Wind_2-500x267.png
Total hourly wind power generation for Texas' self-contined power grid, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas grid, for the month of March 2014. On March 26, the state hit its all-time record for wind power generation, exceeding 10,000 megawatts in any given moment for the first time.
Credit: EIA (http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=16811)

Lee said she does not have information about any nationwide wind power output record because many electric regions do not publish wind generation data publicly.
Though Texas is the nation’s largest wind power producer, it’s also the nation’s largest producer of crude oil and biggest emitter of greenhouse (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/u.s.-greenhouse-emissions-fall-but-methane-complicates-picture-16642) gases, mainly from power plants. Renewables rank third for electric power generation in Texas behind natural gas and coal, but ahead of nuclear.

One of the reasons Texas is seeing growth in consumption of wind power is the completion of major renewable energy transmission line projects in 2013.

Since 2008, when the Texas Legislature named 10 companies to complete the transmission projects by the end of last year as part of the creation of competitive renewable energy zones, approximately 3,600 miles of 345 kilovolt power lines were built connecting West Texas renewable power source with eastern Texas cities, said Robbie Searcy, spokeswoman for ERCOT.

Wind power production in Texas is expected to increase as new wind farms come online. More than 7,000 megawatts of wind capacity were under construction at the end of 2013, and many of those wind farms are expected to be completed by the end of 2015.

Within ERCOT’s region alone, more than 26,000 megawatts of potential wind power generation capacity are under study, Searcy said.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/texas-wind-power-record-17650

[TDMVPDPOY]

if the state are errecting these wind power farms, shouldnt ur bills be decreasing since its not using fossil fuels?

[boutons_deux]

if the state are errecting these wind power farms, shouldnt ur bills be decreasing since its not using fossil fuels?

I read an article that said TX' electricity spot prices were held down by wind power while other states were having higher, more volatile spot prices.

Any cost advantage to TX wind power is pocketed by the electricity utilities, of course, not passed on to customers. TX electricity execs Have "To Put Food On Their Families"

[boutons_deux]

A New Wind Turbine Generates Back The Energy It Takes To Build It In Just 6 Months (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/27/3454229/wind-power-6-month-energy-payback-solar-pv/)

A new study (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140616093317.htm) finds that wind turbines have an energy payback of 6 months, which is comparable to the best solar photovoltaic systems. In other words, in their first six months of operation, large wind turbines produce the same total amount of energy that was needed to produce and install them.

That is the conclusion of a comprehensive life-cycle assessment of 2-megawatt wind turbines by Oregon State researchers in the International Journal of Sustainable Manufacturing (http://inderscience.metapress.com/content/k17805807g8426g2/) (subs. req’d).

The myth that wind and solar power are bad investments from an energy-payback perspective has been around for years. It even turned up in the error-riddled 2009 book “Superfreakonomics,” (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/10/14/204805/superfreakonomics-errors-nathan-myhrvold-intellectual-ventures-bill-gates-warren-buffet/) repeated by Nathan Myhrvold, former CTO of Microsoft.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/27/3454229/wind-power-6-month-energy-payback-solar-pv/

[boutons_deux]

if the state are errecting these wind power farms, shouldnt ur bills be decreasing since its not using fossil fuels?

Germany has an aggressive NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY POLICY. one result:

Germany’s New Coal Plants Push Power Glut to 4-Year High

Germany (http://topics.bloomberg.com/germany/) is headed for its biggest electricity glut since 2011 as new coal-fired plants start and generation of wind and solar energy increases, weighing on power prices that have already dropped for three years.

Utilities from RWE AG to EON SE are poised to bring units online from December that can supply 8.2 million homes, 20 percent of the nation’s total, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That will increase spare capacity in Europe (http://topics.bloomberg.com/europe/)’s biggest power market to 17 percent of peak demand, say the four companies that operate the nation’s high-voltage grids. The benchmark German electricity contract has slumped 36 percent since the end of 2010.

The new coal plants are starting as Germany aims to almost double renewable-power generation over the next decade. Wind and solar output has priority grid access by law and floods the market on sunny and breezy days, curbing running hours for nuclear, coal and gas plants, and pushing power prices lower.

The profit margin for eight utilities in Germany narrowed to 5.4 percent last year from 15 percent a decade ago.

Related: EU Seen Curbing Coal Use by Quadrupling Carbon Price (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-27/eu-seen-curbing-coal-use-by-quadrupling-carbon-price.html)

“The new plants will run at current prices, but they won’t cover their costs,” Ricardo Klimaschka, a power trader at Energieunion GmbH who has bought and sold electricity for 14 years, said June 25 by e-mail from Schwerin, Germany. “The utilities will make much less money than originally thought with their new units because they counted on higher power prices.”

Nine-Year Low

German power for delivery next year, a European benchmark, slumped to a nine-year low of 33.65 euros ($45.82) a megawatt-hour on April 3 on the European Energy Exchange AG in Leipzig, Germany, and settled at 34.45 euros today. The contract fell 5.6 percent this year, more than respective drops of 1.8 percent and 4.4 percent for the equivalent French and Nordic prices. German next-year electricity may reach 33.45 euros, according to Arendal, Norway-based energy-analysis firm Markedskraft ASA.
Confronting Coal (http://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/confronting-coal/)

Lower prices “leave a trail of blood in our balance sheet,” Bernhard Guenther, chief financial officer at RWE, Germany’s biggest power producer, said May 14 on a conference call after the company lowered its goal for annual net income.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-26/germany-s-new-coal-plants-push-power-glut-to-4-year-high.html

From above, it's easy to see why for-profit/capitalistic US electric utilities and Edison Electric Institute, are fighting like hell to kill disruptive distributed solar.

[TDMVPDPOY]

Germany has an aggressive NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY POLICY. one result:

Germany’s New Coal Plants Push Power Glut to 4-Year High

Germany (http://topics.bloomberg.com/germany/) is headed for its biggest electricity glut since 2011 as new coal-fired plants start and generation of wind and solar energy increases, weighing on power prices that have already dropped for three years.

Utilities from RWE AG to EON SE are poised to bring units online from December that can supply 8.2 million homes, 20 percent of the nation’s total, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That will increase spare capacity in Europe (http://topics.bloomberg.com/europe/)’s biggest power market to 17 percent of peak demand, say the four companies that operate the nation’s high-voltage grids. The benchmark German electricity contract has slumped 36 percent since the end of 2010.

The new coal plants are starting as Germany aims to almost double renewable-power generation over the next decade. Wind and solar output has priority grid access by law and floods the market on sunny and breezy days, curbing running hours for nuclear, coal and gas plants, and pushing power prices lower.

The profit margin for eight utilities in Germany narrowed to 5.4 percent last year from 15 percent a decade ago.

Related: EU Seen Curbing Coal Use by Quadrupling Carbon Price (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-27/eu-seen-curbing-coal-use-by-quadrupling-carbon-price.html)

“The new plants will run at current prices, but they won’t cover their costs,” Ricardo Klimaschka, a power trader at Energieunion GmbH who has bought and sold electricity for 14 years, said June 25 by e-mail from Schwerin, Germany. “The utilities will make much less money than originally thought with their new units because they counted on higher power prices.”

Nine-Year Low

German power for delivery next year, a European benchmark, slumped to a nine-year low of 33.65 euros ($45.82) a megawatt-hour on April 3 on the European Energy Exchange AG in Leipzig, Germany, and settled at 34.45 euros today. The contract fell 5.6 percent this year, more than respective drops of 1.8 percent and 4.4 percent for the equivalent French and Nordic prices. German next-year electricity may reach 33.45 euros, according to Arendal, Norway-based energy-analysis firm Markedskraft ASA.
Confronting Coal (http://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/confronting-coal/)

Lower prices “leave a trail of blood in our balance sheet,” Bernhard Guenther, chief financial officer at RWE, Germany’s biggest power producer, said May 14 on a conference call after the company lowered its goal for annual net income.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-26/germany-s-new-coal-plants-push-power-glut-to-4-year-high.html

From above, it's easy to see why for-profit/capitalistic US electric utilities and Edison Electric Institute, are fighting like hell to kill disruptive distributed solar.




it is not state or taxpayers job to protect these fkn morons bottom dollar, fkn already privatized and should be getting with the times....only possible reason why these fkn clowns continue to protected by the state with their business model is due to fkn oxymoron politicians who have a festive interest in these companies in regards to stockholdings...its fkn pathetic honestly...

5% or 1% profit is a still a profit, why are they complaining...fck them...

[boutons_deux]

4 New Energy Maps Show A Lot About Renewables

When the U.S. Energy Information Administration (http://www.eia.gov/state/maps.cfm) launched its new U.S. Energy Mapping System (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/eia-map-energy-installations-extreme-weather-17547) last fall and upgraded it for use on mobile devices in early June, it powered a system allowing anyone to visualize some of the reams of data the EIA compiles on all things energy-related in the country.That mapping system has a lot to show about renewables — critical to reducing climate change-driving greenhouse gas emissions — and the spread of renewables development across the continent.

Here are four cool things the new Energy Mapping System can show you about where renewable energy is being produced and where it has the potential to be generated in the future:

1. Wind Turbines Are Being Built In Places You May Not Expect

http://i2.wp.com/assets.climatecentral.org/images/uploads/news/06_18_2014_Bobby_Magill_Renewables_Wind_Map.png?re size=700%2C402 (http://www.eia.gov/state/maps.cfm)
The wind farms in the U.S. and the wind power production potential of each state. The darker the shade of brown, the lower the wind potential. The light blue signifies higher wind potential and the dark blue signifies the highest wind potential. Credit: EIA

Texas, Colorado, Wyoming and Oklahoma have huge wind power potential, and giant wind farms, too. Large swathes of the East have very low wind power potential. But because Appalachian ridge tops see high sustained winds, the EIA’s maps show the pattern of wind farms that have been built throughout the Northeast in regions that otherwise have little wind power potential.

This is especially true in Pennsylvania, where wind farms sprawl along ridge tops in regions that, at first blush, look like there is little wind potential at all. But Pennsylvania generated 2.1 million megawatt hours of wind power in 2012, about as much as windy New Mexico, EIA data show (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_03_17.html).BLUE New York, another Northeast state shown on the EIA map as having little wind potential, generated even more wind power than RED Pennsylvania in 2012.

New York produced nearly 3 million megawatt hours of wind power in 2012, about half that of Colorado.The maps also show large areas of the U.S. with high wind power potential going untapped, especially in South Dakota and along the Colorado Front Range near Denver. These areas are highlighted in bright blue on the map.


2. The Cloudier Northeast Has Its Share Of Solar Power

http://i0.wp.com/assets.climatecentral.org/images/uploads/news/06_18_2014_Bobby_Magill_Renewables_Solar_Map.png?r esize=700%2C414 (http://www.eia.gov/state/maps.cfm)

The solar power potential of the contiguous U.S. and the sites of most of the nation’s solar power generating facilities. The darker the shade of brown, the greater the solar power production potential of an area. Credit: EIA

The EIA’s map shows that many solar power plants are where you’d expect them to be — in Arizona, Nevada and California where sunny skies are the defining feature of the climate there. But solar power plants are also spread throughout New Jersey, New York and New England, where the solar power potential is fairly low.Sure, some of the nation’s largest solar power plants are in Arizona and California, but the map shows that, though the solar power plants in the Northeast are generally small, solar can be done there, too.3. Biomass Power Production Is All Over, But Mainly In The East And Midwest New Jersey, for example, produced about twice as much solar power in 2012 as sunny Colorado did and nearly a third more solar power in 2012 as Florida, where the solar power potential is significantly greater than anywhere in the Northeast.EIA data show (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_03_20.html) that New Jersey produced 304,000 megawatt hours of solar power that year, while Florida produced 194,000 megawatt hours and Colorado produced 165,000.http://i1.wp.com/assets.climatecentral.org/images/uploads/news/06_18_2014_Bobby_Magill_Renewables_Biomass_Map.png ?resize=700%2C406 (http://www.eia.gov/state/maps.cfm)

The biomass power production potential and biomass power plants scattered across the Lower 48 states. The darker the shade of green, the greater the biomass power production potential. Biomass power plants can be anything from solid waste incinerators to landfills generating power from burning methane emissions. Credit: EIA

Biomass energy comes from many different sources, primarily the burning of wood and wood products and capturing and burning landfill gas and other waste gases. Nationally, more than 57 million megawatt hours (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_03_18.html) of electricity were produced from biomass sources in 2012, with Florida and California producing the most biomass energy.But the EIA maps show that most facilities producing biomass electricity are concentrated in the Northeast, Upper Midwest and South, especially around Miami, Chicago, Detroit and New York City.The power plants shown on the EIA map use a wide range of sources of fuel to produce electricity. For example, The Covanta Essex Company’s 60 megawatt Covanta Essex resource recovery plant (http://www.covanta.com/facilities/facility-by-location/essex.aspx) in Essex County, N.J., produces electricity by burning more than 2,800 tons of municipal solid waste each day. An irrigation district in Turlock, Calif., burns methane produced from the treatment of wastewater to generate 1.2 megawatts of electricity.

4. The U.S. Has Great Geothermal Potential; Most Of It Is Untapped

http://i1.wp.com/assets.climatecentral.org/images/uploads/news/06_18_2014_Bobby_Magill_Renewables_Geothermal_Map. png?resize=700%2C397 (http://www.eia.gov/state/maps.cfm)
The geothermal power production potential across the country and the sites of current geothermal power plants in the U.S. The darker the shade of brown, the higher the geothermal power production potential of the area. Credit: EIA

Nevada, California, Utah, New Mexico, western Colorado are all places with large geothermal resources (heat from places where molten rock comes relatively close to the earth’s surface). But nationwide, there are only a handful of geothermal power plants, which in 2012 produced about 15.5 million megawatt hours (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_03_19.html) of electricity, mostly in California, where geothermal accounts for roughly 5 percent of the state’s power generation, according to EIA data (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_03_19.html).Geothermal power generation has been slow, according to EIA data, mainly because of the cost and risk involved (http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=3970) in building new geothermal power plants, which can take up to eight years longer to complete than wind and solar power generating facilities.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/30/new-energy-mapping-system-shows-lot-renewables/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

[cantthinkofanything]

4 New Energy Maps Show A Lot About RenewablesWhen the U.S. Energy Information Administration (http://www.eia.gov/state/maps.cfm) launched its new U.S. Energy Mapping System (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/eia-map-energy-installations-extreme-weather-17547)

good info from the Ministry of Truth

[Wild Cobra]

This is especially true in Pennsylvania, where wind farms sprawl along ridge tops in regions that, at first blush, look like there is little wind potential at all. But Pennsylvania generated 2.1 million megawatt hours of wind power in 2012, about as much as windy New Mexico, EIA data show (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_03_17.html).[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]BLUE New York, another Northeast state shown on the EIA map as having little wind potential, generated even more wind power than RED Pennsylvania in 2012.

Why are you always a partisan shit?

[RandomGuy]

[B][SIZE=3][FONT=arial][B]4 New Energy Maps Show A Lot About Renewables

Cool. Thanks. It was interesting reading.

[RandomGuy]

Why are you always a partisan shit?

http://global3.memecdn.com/oh-the-irony_o_637211.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Why are you always a partisan shit?

wattsa matta, can't handle the truth that your Repugs suck horribly, do NOTHING for America, and the Dems suck less?

[boutons_deux]

Why are you always a partisan shit?

Here another one:

Red states pump out more carbon pollution than blue ones


http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/redstatediffusioncartogram_production.jpg?w=470&h=714

http://grist.org/climate-energy/red-states-pump-out-more-carbon-pollution-than-blue-ones/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed

RED STATES SUCK, BLUE STATES DON'T

Repugs screw their states, their people, their environment.


?

[boutons_deux]

There's more!

New Study Finds 14 of The 15 Biggest ‘Moocher States’ Are Republican Controlled

http://edge1.politicususa.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/federal-gov-dependency.jpg

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/13/study-finds-14-15-biggest-moocher-states-republican-controlled.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol boutons
More massively flawed moonbat "analysis" from your logic - free moonbat feed.
Let's see if you even bothered to read this latest cut and paste bullshit.
1. Do you know what or how many years were used in this "analysis"?
2. Do you know how S'S and retirement disbursements were factored?
3. Do you know how Military and civilian agency disbursement were factored?
4. Were population distribution disparities weighted?

The answer to all of the above is "No".
Thats only 4 flawed elements of this shit "analysis". Perfect fodder for the non-thinking cut and paste hack tho.:rolleyes

[boutons_deux]

:lol boutons
More massively flawed moonbat "analysis" from your logic - free moonbat feed.
Let's see if you even bothered to read this latest cut and paste bullshit.
1. Do you know what or how many years were used in this "analysis"?
2. Do you know how S'S and retirement disbursements were factored?
3. Do you know how Military and civilian agency disbursement were factored?
4. Were population distribution disparities weighted?

The answer to all of the above is "No".
Thats only 4 flawed elements of this shit "analysis". Perfect fodder for the non-thinking cut and paste hack tho.:rolleyes

TB :lol Fill us in with the missing facts

[TeyshaBlue]

TB :lol Fill us in with the missing facts

Not surprised you don't understand your own post.
:lol boutons. Nothing to say.
1. 1 year. 2012. lol data set fail.
2. They weren't weighted. lol distribution fail.
3. They weren't weighted. See above.
4. No. More "analysis" fail.

Now back to your no content cut and paste fantasies. :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Bitch, meet slap.:lmao

[boutons_deux]

Bitch, meet slap.:lmao


you got no numbers, but Boutons really got your goat

[TeyshaBlue]

you got no numbers, but Boutons really got your goat

No. I just bitch slapped you. I didn't post a bullshit piece of "analysis". You did.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/daily_gifdump_20_zps7fc9ad5e.gif (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/daily_gifdump_20_zps7fc9ad5e.gif.html)

[Wild Cobra]

Here another one:

Red states pump out more carbon pollution than blue ones


http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/redstatediffusioncartogram_production.jpg?w=470&h=714

http://grist.org/climate-energy/red-states-pump-out-more-carbon-pollution-than-blue-ones/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed

RED STATES SUCK, BLUE STATES DON'T

Repugs screw their states, their people, their environment.


?
I wonder.

Is there anyone as partisan as you in these forums?

[Wild Cobra]

There's more!

New Study Finds 14 of The 15 Biggest ‘Moocher States’ Are Republican Controlled

http://edge1.politicususa.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/federal-gov-dependency.jpg

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/13/study-finds-14-15-biggest-moocher-states-republican-controlled.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29
This laughable shit again?

Red states are cheaper to live in. Wages are less for the same jobs because costs of living are lower. therefore, when the federal government does a one-size-fits-all for federal funds, red states get more.

[boutons_deux]

This laughable shit again?

Red states are cheaper to live in. Wages are less for the same jobs because costs of living are lower. therefore, when the federal government does a one-size-fits-all for federal funds, red states get more.

bullshit

not about cost of living, but $$ send to DC vs $$$ received from DC. eg, MS is 1:3, but those CONFEDERATE STATE RIGHTERS just HATE THE FEDS.

[TeyshaBlue]

bullshit

not about cost of living, but $$ send to DC vs $$$ received from DC. eg, MS is 1:3, but those CONFEDERATE STATE RIGHTERS just HATE THE FEDS.

Bullshit. I've destroyed this tired meme every time your rss feed compels you to post it.

[boutons_deux]

Is Texas Souring On Wind Power?

Texas has more wind power generation than any other state, so it’s only fitting that Texas regulators are starting to ask some tough questions about wind power subsidies. (http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/07/09/655388/)The head of the state’s Public Utility Commission, Donna Nelson, is calling for a study to consider whether wind generators should start paying their share of transmission costs.

Texas already invested $7 billion in high-capacity power lines that the state built to connect West Texas wind farms with the more populous cities in the east — such as Dallas and Houston. But wind power, as an intermittent resource, can create additional transmission costs, and those costs are borne by all the electricity customers in the deregulated market, which is about 85 percent of the state. Part of the study will determine the amount of the extra transmission costs and what, if any, remedy is needed, a PUC spokesman said.

Wind power developers warn that making wind companies pay the same transmission rates as other generators will destroy Texas’ lead in wind power and undermine the economics of wind generation. Nelson, however, claims that giving wind companies a pass is no longer necessary because the industry has been around long enough to figure out its economics.

In fact, Texas may actually have a greater supply of wind energy than the new transmission lines can handle, so it may be the perfect time to consider a little pruning. Already, other alternative energy supplies, such as solar power generators, have had difficulty accessing the publicly financed lines. (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/steffy/article/Austin-inaction-clouds-Houston-company-s-solar-4280116.php)

For Texas, the stakes are high. The issue isn’t just power, but also water. With much of the state in a years-long drought, Texas is looking for ways to conserve water, and wind power could go a long way to reducing the huge amounts of water currently used in generating electricity — but only if wind can compete.

What Nelson is considering is whether wind companies should be treated the same as other generators when it comes to accessing the grid. Texas has a fragmented and deeply troubled “deregulated” electric system. Generators compete to sell power to retailers, who in turn compete for customers. But the transmission portion of the grid remains regulated. That means that the PUC must approve new transmission lines or upgrades. The transmission companies then finance the construction, and they are allowed to recoup those costs through transmission fees that are ultimately passed on to the consumer. Wind power, of course, gets distributed across the grid the same as any other generation.

As a result, consumers in Texas are getting something of a double-whammy from wind. They pay the cost of maintaining the system in their bills, while paying part of their taxes to subsidize the construction of the additional lines to the wind farms.

The three-member PUC has been at odds over ways to improve the many failing of Texas’ deregulated electricity experiment. Nelson, for her part, has no been a big fan of renewables in general. It’s not clear how her fellow commissioners will feel about the wind subsidy study or what actions, if any, they might take.

But Nelson is right about one thing: it’s time to start asking some tough questions about wind power. Other states have been less generous in supporting it, and Congress last year refused to extend wind’s production tax credit, which caused wind farm construction to plummet. (http://www.realclearenergy.org/charticles/2014/07/09/wind_collapses_without_tax_credit_107878.html)

Consider what Warren Buffett (http://www.forbes.com/ebooks/warren-buffett-59-billion-philanthropist/) told his shareholders at Berkshire Hathaway (http://www.forbes.com/companies/berkshire-hathaway/) ’s annual meeting in Omaha this year:

On wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.


But what about wind generation that’s already built? Texans have already invested billions, and they deserve to know if wind power can stand on the same competitive footing as other forms of power generation. If can’t, the state will have to ask itself some other tough questions: what will it take to make it viable, and for how long will we be willing to pay the price?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorensteffy/2014/07/11/is-texas-souring-on-wind-power/

"capitalist tool" Forbes and the REPUG-tainted/corrupt Public Utility Commission want to kill wind power growth to protect TX's coal and nuclear campaign contributors.

TX gives about $20B in tax breaks and subsidies to TX established (BigCarbon) businesses, but newcomer/disrupter wind power must got it alone? GMAFB

[cantthinkofanything]

Is Texas Souring On Wind Power?

Texas has more wind power generation than any other state, so it’s only fitting that Texas regulators are starting to ask some tough questions about wind power subsidies. (http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/07/09/655388/)The head of the state’s Public Utility Commission, Donna Nelson, is calling for a study to consider whether wind generators should start paying their share of transmission costs.
http://media.tumblr.com/ae6ffd132fb0cbd2e17073bcba96e58f/tumblr_inline_mi8btlwrMx1qz4rgp.gif

Texas already invested $7 billion in high-capacity power lines that the state built to connect West Texas wind farms with the more populous cities in the east — such as Dallas and Houston. But wind power, as an intermittent resource, can create additional transmission costs, and those costs are borne by all the electricity customers in the deregulated market, which is about 85 percent of the state. Part of the study will determine the amount of the extra transmission costs and what, if any, remedy is needed, a PUC spokesman said.

Wind power developers warn that making wind companies pay the same transmission rates as other generators will destroy Texas’ lead in wind power and undermine the economics of wind generation. Nelson, however, claims that giving wind companies a pass is no longer necessary because the industry has been around long enough to figure out its economics.

In fact, Texas may actually have a greater supply of wind energy than the new transmission lines can handle, so it may be the perfect time to consider a little pruning. Already, other alternative energy supplies, such as solar power generators, have had difficulty accessing the publicly financed lines. (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/steffy/article/Austin-inaction-clouds-Houston-company-s-solar-4280116.php)

For Texas, the stakes are high. The issue isn’t just power, but also water. With much of the state in a years-long drought, Texas is looking for ways to conserve water, and wind power could go a long way to reducing the huge amounts of water currently used in generating electricity — but only if wind can compete.

What Nelson is considering is whether wind companies should be treated the same as other generators when it comes to accessing the grid. Texas has a fragmented and deeply troubled “deregulated” electric system. Generators compete to sell power to retailers, who in turn compete for customers. But the transmission portion of the grid remains regulated. That means that the PUC must approve new transmission lines or upgrades. The transmission companies then finance the construction, and they are allowed to recoup those costs through transmission fees that are ultimately passed on to the consumer. Wind power, of course, gets distributed across the grid the same as any other generation.

As a result, consumers in Texas are getting something of a double-whammy from wind. They pay the cost of maintaining the system in their bills, while paying part of their taxes to subsidize the construction of the additional lines to the wind farms.

The three-member PUC has been at odds over ways to improve the many failing of Texas’ deregulated electricity experiment. Nelson, for her part, has no been a big fan of renewables in general. It’s not clear how her fellow commissioners will feel about the wind subsidy study or what actions, if any, they might take.

But Nelson is right about one thing: it’s time to start asking some tough questions about wind power. Other states have been less generous in supporting it, and Congress last year refused to extend wind’s production tax credit, which caused wind farm construction to plummet. (http://www.realclearenergy.org/charticles/2014/07/09/wind_collapses_without_tax_credit_107878.html)

Consider what Warren Buffett (http://www.forbes.com/ebooks/warren-buffett-59-billion-philanthropist/) told his shareholders at Berkshire Hathaway (http://www.forbes.com/companies/berkshire-hathaway/) ’s annual meeting in Omaha this year:

On wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.

http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/883100/83074106.gif
But what about wind generation that’s already built? Texans have already invested billions, and they deserve to know if wind power can stand on the same competitive footing as other forms of power generation. If can’t, the state will have to ask itself some other tough questions: what will it take to make it viable, and for how long will we be willing to pay the price?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorensteffy/2014/07/11/is-texas-souring-on-wind-power/

"capitalist tool" Forbes and the REPUG-tainted/corrupt Public Utility Commission want to kill wind power growth to protect TX's coal and nuclear campaign contributors.

TX gives about $20B in tax breaks and subsidies to TX established (BigCarbon) businesses, but newcomer/disrupter wind power must got it alone? GMAFB


http://24.media.tumblr.com/4292537e5541e5bca543e526c8b3aa6f/tumblr_mmk32mPkDN1s8xl1ko1_400.gif

[boutons_deux]

Wind Turbine Manufacturer Hiring 800 People In Colorado As Orders Pile Up (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/21/3462155/wind-power-hiring-colorado-vestas/)


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/8610189113_2e9601521a_k-638x424.jpg


While the politics of fracking has taken hold (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/15/3460205/colorado-voters-fracking/) of election-year energy discussions in Colorado, the wind power industry is quietly surging. On Friday Vesta Wind Systems announced it was hiring 800 new workers, part of plans to fill 1,500 jobs this year in Colorado, after receiving orders for 370 turbines over the last few weeks. The jobs will be full-time, high-skilled jobs primarily in the manufacturing of blades and towers.

“We have received U.S. orders of 740 MW in the last month alone, so our North American factories are very busy, as are factories overseas,” Vestas spokesman Adam Serchuk told ThinkProgress.

“As far as I can see this will be the case at least through the end of 2015.”

At the end of June, Vestas, the world’s biggest wind turbine manufacturer with its U.S. headquarters in Portland, Oregon, announced (http://www.vestas.com/en/media/news#!140628_nr_uk_ame) orders for 450 megawatts worth of wind turbines for two U.S. wind farms. Totaling 225 machines, the farms will be in New Mexico and Kansas and scheduled for completion by the end of 2015. In early July the company received another order for 166 megawatts of wind turbines for a Minnesota wind farm. There was also one more order for 124 megawatts for a wind farm in North Dakota.

“By hosting turbines on their land, Colorado farmers, ranchers and other landowners receive upwards of $7.5 million a year in land lease payments from wind projects,” wrote (http://www.chieftain.com/opinion/2689453-120/wind-power-colorado-energy) Sarah Cottrell Propst, executive director of the Interwest Energy Alliance, a trade company representing the renewable energy industry, last week. “Communities gain from a broader tax base, and wind farms pay out millions a year, helping to pay for roads, schools, and other critical public projects.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/21/3462155/wind-power-hiring-colorado-vestas/

Vestas (Denmark) is considering leaving Portland OR for CO.

[boutons_deux]

Wind Farm Fires Far More Common Than Reported

http://spectrum.ieee.org/img/a9d37b7b-443a-43e6-882a-129507be85c6-1405958103853.jpg


Fires in wind turbines are happening ten times more often than they are reported, according to new research from Imperial College London (http://www.iafss.org/publications/fss/11/200), the University of Edinburgh and SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden.

The incidence of fire is still far less than in fossil fuel-based energy industries, such as oil and gas, which suffer thousands of fire accidents per year. The wind industry reports about 11 fires per year, but the researchers found there are more likely about 117 wind turbine fires annually across more than 200,000 turbines. For the wind industry, the fires are the second leading cause of accidents after blade failure.

Inside of the turbine’s nacelle, hydraulic oil and plastics share the same tight space as machinery and electrical wires. When there is overheating or faulty wiring it can catch fire. The nacelles are perched behind the turbines so high winds often fuel the flames.

Because the turbines are so tall (http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/first-commercial-floating-wind-turbine-hovers-above-alaska) and are often in remote areas, they are usually destroyed before the fire can be suppressed. In 90 percent of the cases, the fire leads to substantial downtime or a total loss of the wind turbine.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/green-tech/wind/wind-farm-fires-far-more-common-than-reported-study-finds?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IeeeSpectrumGreenTech+%28IEEE +Spectrum%3A+Green+Tech%29

[boutons_deux]

Thanks, Repugs!

As Congress Fails To Support Wind Power, More U.S.-Made Wind Turbines Are Being Sold Overseas (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/18/3472512/doe-wind-reports/)

A report released by the Department of Energy Monday shows a substantial increase in the percentage of American-made small wind turbines being sold to other countries, driven in part by Congress’ refusal to act on renewing a key subsidy for the U.S. wind industry, which has created uncertainty in the market.

A vast majority — 76 percent — of the small wind turbines manufactured in the United States were exported to other countries last year, the DOE’s 2013 Distributed Wind Market Report (http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/08/f18/2013%20Distributed%20Wind%20Market%20Report_0.pdf) said. That’s a big increase from 2012, when only 57 percent of U.S.-made small turbines were exported. The market for U.S. turbines is spread across the world, too — small wind turbines produced here were sold to more than 50 countries, the report said, with top export markets in Italy, Germany, China, and Mexico, among others.

“To compensate for weaker domestic sales, U.S. small wind turbine manufacturers shifted their focus to growing international markets,” The report read. “Importers interviewed for this report indicated that they spent their efforts in more promising international markets … as it was hard to justify sales efforts in the United States without consistent policy support at the federal, state, and utility levels.”

The wind energy industry has struggled to receive consistent policy support particularly within Congress, which most recently refused to revive (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/16/3438589/senate-kills-tax-extenders/) the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) — a $13 billion yearly tax break to the wind industry that has historically helped them compete with fossil fuels. The PTC for wind is a subsidy that’s been built into the tax code for years to encourage growth in the wind industry, but expired on January 1, 2014 (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/23/3098021/wind-ptc-expiring/) due to Congressional gridlock.

It was likely not the actual expiration of the PTC that caused manufacturers to move away from U.S. markets, though. Rather, it was the fact that Congress has repeatedly waited until the last minute to make a decision about whether to renew it. It was only at the very end of 2012 that the tax credit was renewed, uncertainty that proved to be too much for investors, who mostly chose to invest elsewhere in the face of that uncertainty (http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.12761).

The expiration of the PTC is far from the only thing making the domestic wind energy market “sluggish” though, the report noted. Wind’s distributed generation market competes with solar’s distributed generation market, which is improving with “substantial cost reductions” of solar photovoltaic systems. Federal, state, and local incentives for wind energy generation vary greatly — permitting barriers, unreliable performance predictions, and the lack of available financing also play a part.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/18/3472512/doe-wind-reports/

Thanks, Repugs, you constipating turds block EVERYTHING, block job creation, block company expansion, block investors, block, block, block.

[TDMVPDPOY]

why is it the gulf only charge its citizens for oil usage cheap ass rates, while everyone outside the gulf consumers pay market rates at the pump

even a big ass country like australia leading producer of LPG, we dont get concessions cheap ass prices compared to gulf consumers with oil, we pay market rates

down here we have 1000yrs worth of coal still un-mined, dont get me started with lpg reserves not fracked yet

lol was reading an article they the yanks in a partnership with some private companies down here have found another oil field on the west coasts which has reserves about 300m barrels...talk about fracking (since you clowns have a base down here and starting to move ur nuke subs and shit down here...when are u clowns going to colonize this place?)

[boutons_deux]

U.S. Wind Power Growth Stalled in 2013 as Prices Drop to All-Time Lows

A Department of Energy report (http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/08/f18/2013%20Wind%20Technologies%20Market%20Report_1.pdf ) on wind energy technologies and market status highlights dramatic cost reductions amidst a tenuous and uncertain future for the renewable energy source. Installations of wind power in the United States in 2013 didn't come close to matching the previous few years, and federal policy uncertainty points to a shaky outlook for continued growth.

The industry added 1087 megawatts of new wind capacity in 2013 in the United States, which is amazingly only eight percent of that added in 2012. By the end of 2013 the total installed capacity had reached about 61 gigawatts (http://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5059).

It was a down by another measure as well: wind power made up seven percent of all new electricity generating additions, compared with a six-year run before 2013 where that number ranged between 25 and 43 percent.

As 2013 came to a close, wind energy proponents mourned the death of the production tax credit (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-11/wind-power-tax-credit-dead-in-congress-this-year.html), the primary federal support mechanism to help spur growth in the industry (http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/policy/wind-energy-tax-credit-expiration-would-yield-job-losses-big-cuts-in-capacity).

The details of that death, however, suggest that the next few years will actually see amazing amounts of wind energy installed: the credit was available for any project that began construction by the end of 2013, meaning that everyone tried to jump into that pool instead of waiting until this year when it had dried up. The Energy Department's report highlights this, noting that an astonishing 114 gigawatts of wind is now officially in interconnection queues; not all of that will get built, but it does mean a big pile of turbines is on its way over the next two to three years.

Those projects are getting moving at the same that the industry is seeing wind power prices dropping to "all-time lows" according to the Energy Department.

Power purchase agreements for wind energy peaked (http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/green-tech/wind/despite-higher-installation-costs-wind-continues-to-surg) at almost US $70 per megawatt-hour in 2009, but those signed in 2013 averaged about $25/MWh. The report acknowledges that the price data is based on a limited sample size of projects that are largely in lower-cost areas of the country (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a), but even when compared to other generation sources wind power is proving to be cost competitive.

That being said, policy-based market drivers are probably still necessary to spur continued growth. With the federal tax credit now gone, it is state-based renewable energy portfolio requirements that will be the primary driver according to the report:

From 1999 through 2013, 69% of the wind power capacity built in the United States was located in states with RPS policies... In 2013, this proportion was 93%.


But unless those requirements are ramped up in big ways, or new states add them (we've been sitting on 29 plus Washington D.C. (http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/summarymaps/RPS_map.pdf) for some time now), they may prove insufficient to really drive much new capacity at all.

All in all, the picture is a muddled combination of rosy and bleak. The report concludes:

Despite the lower price of wind energy and the potential for further technological improvements and cost reductions, federal policy uncertainty—in concert with continued low natural gas prices, modest electricity demand growth, and the aforementioned slack in existing state policies—may put a damper on growth.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/green-tech/wind/us-wind-power-growth-stalled-in-2013-as-prices-drop-to-alltime-lows?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IeeeSpectrumEnergy+%28IEEE+Sp ectrum%3A+Energy%29

Thanks, Repugs!

Everything the Repugs touch turns to shit.