The 0.002% Solution :: Wind-Farm.org :: Windfarm, = windfarms and wind turbine information

The=20 0.002% Solution

Posted by : Kerberos = on=20 Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 04:14 PM = GMT=20

= According to the=20 U.S. Department of Energy, less than 2.4% = of our=20 electricity is generated by burning oil. = Yet it is=20 common for the wind-power salesmen to = insist that=20 their product will make us less dependent = on=20 foreign oil. The amount of our oil = consumption=20 that goes towards generating electricity = is also=20 less than 2.4%, or less than 0.06% of our = total=20 energy use. . . . .

Let's say they = get=20 their way and 5% of our electricity is = generated=20 by a few hundred thousand giant windmills. = That=20 would theoretically replace (if we ignore = the=20 typical 2% annual growth in consumption) = 5% of our=20 current sources of electricity, 2.4% of = which is=20 oil. So at best it would reduce oil's = share to=20 just under 2.3%. It would reduce our total = use of=20 oil -- only some of which is imported from = troublesome regions such as the Middle = East -- by=20 0.1%. It would reduce oil's share of = electricity=20 generation by 0.002%.

Now the = salesmen=20 would say that every little bit helps, = thinking we=20 will overlook that billions of dollars = spent to=20 install hundreds of thousands of giant = windmills=20 blighting our every landscape must = ultimately be a=20 rather embarrassing way to help a very = "little=20 bit." They would also forget their = original plea=20 about foreign oil and talk about domestic = coal=20 instead.

Coal-burning plants = are=20 continually developing to be more = efficient and=20 cleaner. But the prospect of significant = amounts=20 of wind power on the grid requires keeping = on the=20 older dirtier plants -- and even building = new ones=20 -- because only they are able to respond = quickly=20 enough to the unpredictable fluctuations = of=20 wind-generated power to keep the grid = supply=20 steady. That is, large-scale wind thwarts = cleaner=20 coal.

Coal mining is a dreadful = business, and the more we can move away = from it=20 the better (it is the source of over 50% = of our=20 electricity), but wind power does not move = us away=20 from it and in fact perpetuates the worst = use of=20 it.

So they move on to the = fluctuations=20 of natural gas prices, as if a few = percentage=20 points of wind power in the grid (should = it ever=20 actually get that far) would have any = effect on=20 another market altogether (only a quarter = of our=20 natural gas use is for = electricity.)

So=20 they point to the dangers of nuclear = power.=20 Denmark, which has shunned nuclear power = and=20 claims that 20% of their electricity comes = from=20 wind (in fact, it's more like 3% -- the = rest is=20 exported because it's produced when demand = is=20 already being met), now has to buy=20 nuclear-generated power from its neighbors = because=20 their faith in wind leaves them in need so = often=20 (when there is demand, the wind is = rarely=20 blowing in proportion). In other words, = wind power=20 won't replace any nuclear power here, = either, and=20 may well make us more dependent on=20 it.

Sad to say, wind power = won't=20 replace or even reduce any more = dependable=20 source of electricity. The only way to = reduce=20 fossil and nuclear fuel use is to reduce=20 consumption -- not just of electricity but = also=20 the energy for heating and transport. = Efficiency=20 and conservation will take us a long way = towards=20 solving our energy problems. The = depredations of=20 the wind industry won't even point us in = the right=20 direction.

[Data source: = Energy=20 Information Administration, U.S. = Department of=20 Energy. Figures are for the year 2002.] =

Related links=20 =

=B7 More=20 about Concerns and information regarding = the=20 = Environment
=B7 News=20 by Kerberos

Most=20 read story in Concerns and information = regarding=20 the Environment:
The=20 New Loch Ness = Monsters

Rate article=20 =

This article has not been=20 = rated

The=20 0.002% Solution | = Login/Create an=20 account | 1 = Comment

Comments=20 are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for = their=20 content.

Correction: the = 0.05%=20 solution (Score: 1) =
by Kerberos=20 (kerberos@kerberos.net) on = Nov 17,=20 2004 - 11:43 PM
(User=20 info | Send=20 a Message)

I seem to have got carried = away and=20 multiplied too many fractions.

Oil used for = generating=20 electricity represents just under 1% (not = 0.06%) of the=20 total energy consumed in the U.S.

Getting 5% = of our=20 electricity from a new source, such as wind, would = reduce=20 oil's share of total energy consumption by 0.05% = (not=20 0.002%).

Here are the consumption numbers = involved=20 (year 2002, in quadrillion btu's):=20

total energy: 97.644
total = electricity:=20 38.177
total oil: 38.401
oil used for = electricity:=20 0.908 (2.38% of total electricity, 0.93% of total = energy)=20
5% less oil used for electricity: 0.863 (2.26% = of total=20 electricity, 0.88% of total energy)=20