On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, 15 April 2019 18:32:53 UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 9:57:26 AM UTC-4, tabby wrote:

Wind farms displace zero generation as their output is too unreliable.. They are a huge consumer of resources per gigawatt for nothing of significant value. The power they produce could equally be produced by the other generation that must accompany them. Financially they are losers.

Where do you get your figures, or do you just make them up as needed?

Gridwatch is one source

There is an Iberdrola (Italian firm) wind farm in Columbia County, PA that is well over 90% operational, shutting down only for excessively high (80 mph+) speeds. It is on a mountain ridge, and is fully operational from 8 mph to 80 mph. And that is, as it happens, a somewhat older farm. And, also, as it happens, on a major raptor flyway - addressed by keeping the tip-speed (and rotational rpm) of the turbine within the reaction time of passing birds. Newer turbine designs can accommodate higher wind speeds, and with larger blades, lower tip speeds. But, 8 mph remains about the lower limit.

and that's the problem. Too much time is spent below 8mph. Not on the Iberdrola ridge. Average 'downtime' for low wind is under 4%. High winds are more of an issue in reality. And, not off Atlantic City, where the numbers are even better, day-to-day.

There is a sea-facing farm off of Atlantic City, NJ that has been in place since 2006, with a high-90s operational record. About the same, as it happens, as the typical nuke (45 days of maintenance & fueling every two years at minimum) or fossil-fuel plant (2-5 weeks of maintenance, depending on age, each year).

Cost is about $1,500/kw installed, (as compared to about $7,000 for nuke, $4,500 for fossil, $3,000 for solar.

Woah woah woah. Those figures may apply to nameplate capacity, but they are in no way comparable. Nukes can put out full capacity nearly 100% of the time. Wind puts out full capacity just a small percentage of the time.

Nukes are down, by necessity, approximately 45 days every two years. That is, no less than 6% of the time. Fossil Fuel, no less than 8% of the time. It is called "maintenance".


On-shore wind power is the cheapest form of renewable energy to install, to operate and to maintain.

If that were true everyone would be installing them without subsidies. No government would subsidise them.

a) They are, to some eyes, ugly.
b) Good locations are hard to find.
c) Cheap land, that is also a good location, is even harder to find.
d) The subsidies are much lower than solar - which, for some reason, has acquired a little-deserved cachet of being 'green'. Wait until the 10 and 20 meg farms start to wear out. That is when you will find out exactly how 'green' they are. And they will get the same treatment as so-called "mine remediation" got.

https://windexchange.energy.gov/maps-data/107 The Iberdrola farm is on the dark brown spot between Allentown and Williamsport.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA