America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

The thing with wind is, a farm is only "allowed" to pump so much power into the grid at once.


Wind would do fine against other energy sources if ALL subsidies to ALL industries were eliminated.

Another thing about wind is they need to do proper long term wind studies. There is a spot in northern MI where they put up 2 turbines about 10 years ago -- over a mile away from where the wind study predicted great potential for energy production. These 2 turbines barely make a profit for the owner.

I looked into those "subsidies" for other power sources. This is a gross myth. Those "subsidies" include things like roads, and tax breaks for energy produciong companies...which are no susidies at all. That is, unless, you consider basic modes of transportation subsidation for transporting oil and gas from one place to another.

That's like saying they build the railroad system to "subsidize" coal, because locomotives used coal as fuel. It's pure bunk.

However solar farms and wind farms ARE directly subsidiezed by taxpayer dollars...checks are cut from government entities to support these technologies, as well as laws being passed to mandate percentaged of annual energy production to be generated from these forms of power. There is no quibbling on the definition there...it is a subsidy. -- You don't consider tax breaks a subsidy? Yes, renewable energy has been getting a helluva lot of tax breaks and subsidies in the past 5 years or so, but if you compare that to the nearly 100 years of tax breaks and subsidies that fossil fuels have gotten...like I said, I don't think any of them should get special treatment, but to claim that tax breaks aren't a subsidy is like saying government housing projects aren't welfare.


And to be honest, cutting out the subsidy for wind and solar won't make them cost efficient, or even effective because a) the technology to farm them is grossly inefficient (solar panels, even more modern ones, are only some 15% efficient overall), b) the energy source tends to fluctuate hourly, and c) there is nothing where excess capacity can be stored. -- That may have been true in the past, but the technology is improving all the time. Megawatt-class wind turbines push 2500 KW and higher. Each. Most big turbines also produce LESS energy than they are capable of producing. Once you get a blade span of 100' or so, it takes very little wind to create grid-level energy output. And also as I said before, it all depends on where the wind farm is. If the wind study was done properly, energy output is actually quite predictable and stable.

Coal for elecrical generation doesn't store excess capacity; they either disconnect the generator from the grid, turn it doan, or something along those lines; However, unlike wind and solar, they can control when they start and stop producing energy. You can't do that when Mother Nature is in control. -- Refer to my previous response. It takes very little wind to turn 100' blades that are hollow and made of fiberglass. There are wind farms that never operate at even 90% capacity because they are producing too much electricity.

So, really, the only way these methods of power generation can be successful is if there is some sort of storage system that acts as a buffer, storing excess capacity, and releasing its charge when capacity is low. In short: it needs to charge a battery.

Unfortunately, Sears does not sell a 3 mile x 1 mile car battery, or a 370 ton Duracel coppertop. -- Once we do that, we could actually capture lightning bolts and store the energy. That would put oil, coal, wind, AND solar out of business.

So we'll just have to wait until they do... -- I'll bet anything that HockeyDad started researching new battery technology as soon as he read that.

My understanding is the gum-o-mint is going to buy them all, shut them off, and plant corn around them for ethanol.