First off, the "Green" industry recognizes that wind power loses money, hence the subsidies and the hiding of costs, be a bit patient and dont lose your cool I am going to post the fact to prove this.
EPRI, if those intials do not ring a bell I know much more than you. Energy, Power, and Research Institute. This is a group that does much work as a quasi government agency as well as a quasi commercial electrical corporation agency. They get funding from both groups. They do all sorts of things from studies, to engineering evaluations, to quality control standards, they do so much I wont pretend to know everything and it serves no purpose to post all they do.
I am proud to say that in my elite field I am EPRI certified in my job, I analyize data acquired at commercial nuclear power plants (thats got to hurt if you thought my posts were posted out of ignorance). The dogs bite is more damageing than his bark.
So I will site EPRI at this time. I have big problems with EPRI and must admit as an expert in my field I know they are idiots. That said, politically I cannot avoid them and being idiots they were stupid to put the following online.
In the near-future, it is likely that wind energy's primary market will be niches that recognize values in addition to cost.
Here we have a study by EPRI literally stating the public cannot look at the cost of Green energy, the Green industry must market an advantage that has nothing to do with the crippling cost of going Green. They also state niches, niches can only refer to the fact that Green energy can only be placed in very specific places and than the cost cannot be a factor, its the value.
power generation industry. Barring large policy changes, such as a carbon tax, the principal value of wind energy as an electric generator, without storage facilities, is as a fuel saver. That is, wind energy generation must be used when it is available, thereby displacing energy (and variable operating expenses) that would have otherwise been provided.
So Obama has promised change, EPRI study states policy change. Obama is pushing a carbon tax, as does this government study. Again the study states value, not cost. The study tells us this is a fuel saver/displacer. That is not a replacer or in addition to. A carbon tax will make competitive energy to expensive allowing the "value" of wind attractive, not cost effective.
Technically in political speak that is "Capicity credit issue. So windfarms only displace a fraction of the cost of other cheaper forms of energy. The study also states specifically "some", it does not compete with all convential sources of energy. So at best according to the people the "Greenies" trust, green energy is at best displacing a fraction of costs. No mention of profit, its lose, lose, lose.
Henry Kelley at the Office of Technology Assessment suggests that virtually any wind installation merits a capacity credit
So Henry Kelley wont say this energy makes a profit or that it merits a capity credit, he only suggests it merits a credit.
U.S. studies have shown that a 5 percent penetration level has virtually n o
effect on system operations, while estimates of the impact of larger numbers appear to be largely speculative. Othe r
work by Grubb and Halberg [2,3] in Europe confirmed that no absolute physical limit exists to the fraction of win d
penetration on a large power system. Rather, with increasing penetration, the fuel and capacity savings begin t o
decrease, so that the system limits are economic rather than physical. Regardless, as Grubb points out, the penetration
of wind energy in the U.S. must be much larger before its value begins to degrade in the electric system.
That last quote hurts, the value of wind energy degrade the larger the wind farm is.
I will take a break, first facts presented are the politics and propaganda. I will wait and see what next, maybe 60 windmills in a farm weighing in at over 150 tons each times 60 is 9000 metric tons given a metric ton equals 1,102 U.S. tons times that there 60 is 66,120 tons converted into lbs is 132,240,000 lbs of fiberglass.
So who did the homework and the math? 60 windmills, a tiny farm. See why I think its the bankers who will get rich.
So lets address the governments own admissions in the EPRI study first than the amount of carbon a 132,240,000 lbs of fiberglass will produce.
I left much out that is real damaging to wind powers cost. I will come back to it, maybe.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/pdfs/techchar.pdf
