Wouldn't be convinced without a full accounting. Does that include production subsidies? What development costs are being amortized? But NONE of that really matters. Have you ever seen a Daily production chart for a wind farm? A WELL-SITED offshore Danish Wind farm for example?
THAT -- is not "an alternative" to anything. It's barely a supplement. Because you have to eat the WASTE of idling a full service plant while the wind blows for 20 minutes.. You can't turn huge generation on/off like a light switch.. Can't make contracts to deliver it -- because you can't schedule it. You cannot EXPAND capacity of the GRID relying on wind. You just can really rely on it at all.
BTW --- in the chart above, the 400,000 mark is the Installled capacity figure for that wind farm.. The number that eco-fraud toss about to brag about how much of this shit is installed or "doubled" -- Like you just did..
I think you're yelling at the wrong quote here, but I was tired and didn't go into the depth I wanted to last night so here's more:
Chugach Electric is a member owned corporation that provides nearly (basically all save private household solar/wind/etc) electrical power for the biggest city in Alaska. When our state gov jumped on the green energy bandwagon and decided we /must/ have 50% green energy we kind of spazed out frankly. None of this shit has been really tested up here, and it's, frankly, an annoyance for an oil and natural gas rich state... Regardless, we didn't have much choice, the words were on the page and all. So we went with the Fire Island Wind Project as part of our attempt to meet an uncomfortably close deadline for the green energy usage mandate.
What we found almost immediately (within less than a year) is that wind is unreliable (and Fire Island was the best possible option for steady winds near Anchorage.) We are also unable to store the electricity it produces, so basically if the wind blows at night, most of that power goes to waste because folks aren't using it, if the wind does /not/ blow during the day, there's nothing... One might want to argue that we should have batteries to store said "waste" electricity, but the problem, as always, in Alaska, is that batteries don't like the cold - these are the exact same problems we have with solar power btw - reliability and storage. The amount of money we'd have to put into a battery storage system would far, far outweigh the cost of the wasted electricity from Fire Island. We lose around 3000 megawatts of electricity from Fire Island a year, so it's not /that/ big a deal in the grand scope of things, but it is still a concern for the viability of wind power here.
I'd like to mention that electricity is not something we fuck around with up here; losing power up here can very easily result in billions in property damage from frozen pipes and loss of life, along with the spoiled food, etc. that typically come with power outages in the lower 48. One has to understand that "there is only one", there is no /other grid/ that we might take power off of in a situation - We have our grid and that is /all there is/, so if our grid isn't making the power we need, we don't have power, there is no alternative, no safety net. So when it comes to wind power and it's unreliability, we're not real keen to say the least... If you visit here Fire Island Wind Output | Chugach Electric Association, Inc. and flip through the past four years of output from FIW you'll notice that every month there is at least one day where there is zero output - aka no wind. THIS is not acceptable at all. When it's -30 outside and the airs dead still, we are /not/ going to suffer without power just to use "green energy" sorry, not fucking happening.
Now, despite us consumer owners immediate concerns with Fire Island's viability in 2013, CIRI (the owner of the wind farm) wanted to take advantage of a Fed tax credit for green energy, to the tune of $15million dollars, and double the capacity of Fire Island. The problem with their plan (as noted in the article I linked) was that Chugach wasn't sure if it /wanted/ to buy more electricity from the unreliable and cost ineffective wind plant.
Chugach said thanks but no thanks... (CIRI did not expand Fire Island, still hasn't, and very likely never will.)
What have we found after (now 4 years) with wind power? Well, it currently costs between $1-$40/month extra /per customer/ for the wind farm, and worse, the only reason the added cost is even that low is because of "green energy" cert sales. See Chugach earns "Renewable Energy Certificates" for every megawatt hour of wind power (which because of the contract we gave CIRI is /all/ of it regardless if we need it or not), we sell those certs on a national/retail market for cash, which we then use those profits to offset the extra cost of wind power - and DESPITE doing that, it /still/ costs us more per month.
I mean, it's a buck or two, and we get a shiny "green energy" sticker, but it is /not/ a fiscally sound investment in the slightest. IF the REC program goes away, we're going to lose our ass on wind power, and we'll still have the reliability and storage issues. Wind Power, despite our very best efforts in Alaska, is simply /not/ viable.
Chugach signed onto a 25 year contract at the current price, if we had not then CIRI would go bankrupt right after the contract ended because there is absolutely zero chance that we will agree (again) to pay just under double the cost of nat gas energy costs (which we have more than enough nat gas.) We were told that this wind farm would provide 4% of our electrical needs, we were told that it would save us 4% of our nat gas usage, we were told a lot of shit - and it was exactly that "shit." Fire Island provides 2% of our power needs, and costs us 3 times as much as nat gas (with the REC sale profits it's just under twice the cost.) It is just not viable for us.
----
In the larger picture, wind power flat out will /not/ be viable for every situation/location, period. It is not the answer to "green energy" nor is solar power (we're cloudy a LOT), nor is geothermal, hydro, tidal, wave, whatever. There is no /one/ answer for every place, so the idea of /forcing/ everywhere to conform with a "green agenda" is bullshit and /not/ a solution. Every single city/state needs to look at their very specific individual needs and go from there, "green energy" needs to be 100% customized. For example, /if/ one has a lumber processing mill, then it /is/ smart to use their sawdust in a biomass generator. If one has a salmon processing plant, then a fish oil burning plant is a good idea. Trying to stick a "one-size fits all" solution on the entire planet regardless of individual needs and particulars is heavy handed, short sided, and lazy. And when we talk about how much crap is put into the air, it shouldn't be on a "per plant" basis, but more of a "state" basis. That way everyone gets the power they need, in the best way for them, AND we're still working toward putting less pollution into the air. That is a 'sustainable' and 'educated' approach to the issue, not the "fuck you use less" asshattery that is being pushed now.
I try to be reasonable/fair/understanding, because as an Alaskan blessed with very clean air, unimaginable wildlife and natural beauty, and I have a lot of respect for "nature" as a whole - not to mention my states dependence on tourists, and a hundred other reasons I like the idea of "green energy," but I swear, 90% of the time I listen to you guys yap it sounds like a kid throwing a temper tantrum and I just want to yell grow the fuck up. I feel like you guys don't actually /care/ about the environment, but rather you're suck on some fucked up train ride and can't see the light at the end of the tunnel. If you stop being so dooms-day, narrow focused, and... stupid about the little shit details, I think you'll find that 99% of the people in the country (hell maybe even the world) are actually cool with the "idea" of green energy. We just need to find the individualized solutions that work. This takes time, something you folks don't seem to get...
The "global warming scare" came about between the late 70's and the 90's depending on where you want to look. Since then we have not only researched and developed green energy tech, but reduced our fossil fuel reliance by an estimated 22% over the /entire planet/ (as of 2013) and it's fully expected that green energy conversion will increase at a fairly steady annual rate across the entire planet - especially as green energy production becomes more reliable and cost effective. In 1990 (earliest tracked stats from the IEA) the US used 2.3k terawatts per hour and put out 4.5k metric tons of CO2, as of 2012 we were using 4k terawatts per hour and putting our 5.1k metric tons of CO2. Our power use doubled, the CO2 output barely moved up - that's a massive improvement over the span of a mere 22 years. And that is /with/ all the major problems with green energy viability/reliability.
Have a little patience, it's going to get a lot better as we steadily improve on the reliability/viability/and cost factors of alternative energy
Your story is especially enlightening because of the Life/Death consequences of reliable power. And NO ONE wants to go green just to have tons of batteries to recycle every 10 years or so.
But seriously -- I've gone the whole list of "Green Energy" and found a LOT on that list are not actually clean or green and sometimes not so renewable. Where you are --- maybe "biomass conversion" which for you would be the same as garbage incineration might be an option. But it's NOT clean or green no matter what lists it shows up on..
So I've been following along for about 25 years now.. What GREEN miracles am I missing here?
BTW -- that American reduction in CO2 in recent years is NOT from Green magic, but because the only type of RELIABLE power that America is adding to the grid is NEW Natural Gas turbines, and decreasing the amount of coal and older less efficient nat gas plants.
No thanks to those "far sighted", "open-minded", Greenies you imagine -- who OPPOSED pipelines and fracking for Natural Gas every step of the way..
Last edited:
