Another American Scam Part 2

This year with the price of gas hitting over $4.00 a gallon, tax breaks for the new green society, Al Gore making his case about global warming, using the wind and the sun, and all of a sudden America seems eager to kick its addiction to oil and other fossil fuels.

Yesterday I discussed solar. Today, let's look at the wind:

In 1854 Daniel Halladay develops America's first commercial windmills, with wooden blades that pivot as wind direction changes.

In the 1930s some 600,000 windmills dot rural America, grinding grain and pumping water.

Their use declines after the New Deal links rural communities to central electrical grids.

In 1941 the first wind turbine to supply power to a community was erected at Grandpa's Knob, a mountaintop near Rutland, Vermont.

In 1980 Congress increased tax credits for companies using solar, wind, and other renewable energies.

In 1985 wind turbines in California produce enough electricity to power 400,000 homes.

In 2006 the first sea-based wind farm in the U.S. was proposed off Cape Cod.

Wind currently accounts for only 1 percent of U.S. electrical production. Yet it's the fastest-growing energy source, representing a third of all new power generation in 2007.

The basic technology—a rotor to capture the wind's energy and a shaft to convert it—hasn't changed much since the Dutch used windmills to grind grain.

In the modern version, aerodynamic rotor blades grab the wind, and a generator converts the mechanical energy into electricity.

The Midwest and Plains states have the highest wind potential, with Texas already leading the way.

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg envisions an offshore wind farm that could supply 10 percent of the city's electricity needs within a decade.

The world's largest wind farm at Altamont Pass, California, USA, consists of 6,000 wind turbines generating 1 TWh of electricity per year.

Wind farms supply about 1.5% of California's electricity needs. To produce 1,200 megawatts of electricity (an output comparable with that of a nuclear power station), a wind farm would need to occupy around 370 sq km/140 sq mi.

Such generators tend to be noisy, and are therefore situated in thinly populated areas.

Their ecological credentials are otherwise considered to be good, but the amount of power generated per turbine is small.

Wind project proponents may face opposition from area residents concerned about sound level, light flicker, appearance, and the other impacts of wind turbine placement.


NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) spells trouble for wind. A field of whirring turbines can be loud and unsightly. In some communities, wind farms have pitted residents who lease their land to wind companies against neighbors with ruined views.


Change is definitely in the air when Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens announces he's building a wind farm likely to be the world's largest. Upon completion, in late 2014, Pickens's 4,000-megawatt farm will be able to power 1.3 million homes.

Generating wind energy is easier than getting it to customers: The infrastructure does not yet exist to bring energy from remote, high-wind regions into large numbers of homes.


The infrastructure that does not yet exist to bring energy from remote, high-wind regions into large numbers of homes will represent huge steel transmission towers with large wires. These will have to cross areas that people will not like, some of which will be through scenic areas.


Also of note as mentioned, to produce 1,200 megawatts of electricity (an output comparable with that of a nuclear power station), a wind farm would need to occupy around 370 sq km/140 sq mi so that should give you an idea of how much land Pickens's 4,000-megawatt farm will require.

2008 Congress is working to extend tax credits for solar and wind power set to expire at year's end.

I would bet you have heard all about solar and wind but you have not seen this quote from Patrick Moore, cochair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition:

"Nuclear energy is quite simply the only non-polluting energy source that can replace fossil fuels. It's a fairy tale that wind and solar can do the job."

I ask you, do you really think these are a more viable answer than fossil fuels and nuclear generation?

In closing, the other thing that is never mentioned is the fact that if there are cloudy days and days without wind, what will you think when you get home and flip on the light switch and you have no lights?

That's the part no one talks about. Even with wind and solar generation, the power companies will have to have other forms of generation on standby for those times. Standby means they are in operation idling so the generation can be increased as demands rise.

What that means is you will pay higher power bills than you do now because you will be paying for standby generation.

Hopefully these last two posts will enlighten you as to what I feel is another great American scam.