KELLY: Right idea, wrong fuel

What Eric Rosenbloom said (kirbymtn.blogspot.com | "20% wind by 2030"): The U.S. Department of Energy, in a recent report sponsored by the wind industry, says that it is possible to achieve 20% wind "penetration" by 2030. Accepting that possibility as valid (which it isn't without massively increasing grid interconnection and excess non-wind capacity), what does that mean? The Dept. of Energy estimates that electricity production will be 5,397 billion kilowatt-hours in 2030, or an average rate of 616,096 megawatts (MW). Twenty percent of that is 123,219 MW. With a capacity factor of 25% (the ratio of actual output to rated capacity), 492,877 MW of wind turbines would have to be installed. There is currently about 20,000 MW of wind capacity installed in the U.S. (according to the American Wind Energy Association, 16,818 MW were installed by the end of 2007). So more than 470,000 MW more is needed, more than 21,000 MW a year, a rate of building more than four times that of 2007's record breaker. Each megawatt of wind turbine capacity needs at least 50 acres around it. An installed capacity of 500,000 MW needs 25 million acres, or 39,000 square miles. With the space requirements, and because the machines are huge (now pushing 500 feet in total height), visually intrusive, and noisy, most of them would be erected in previously undeveloped rural and wild areas, along with heavy-duty roads, transformers, and new high-capacity transmission lines. And after 2030: then what? Electricity demand will continue to grow. If it grows 2% per year, then 10,000 MW -- and more each year -- of new wind turbines would have to be erected every year after 2030 to keep their nominal share at 20%. But here's the real futility: When the wind isn't blowing, we'll still need full-capacity backup generation -- the grid has to be planned as if the wind plant isn't even there, because quite often it won't be, especially at periods of peak demand. In other words, there won't be any less coal or nuclear, and probably a lot more natural gas (which is better suited to balancing the fluctuations of wind energy production). The call for 20% wind by 2030 is for a colossal boondoggle that would drastically alter the landscape, adversely affect wildlife, and not significantly change anything for the better.

Yes, yes, yes. As I just wrote, I agree using that using gas for transp. instead of electricity makes sense. And let us burn more coal and build more nuclear plants for the electric power instead.

"Hearts quickened in the Democratic Party because Mr. Pickens says in the ad: "this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of." Well, if you say so. But how are we going to get to the natural gas? Only short term answer is for us to drill our own oil.

I do not believe natural gas is a better vehicle fuel than either gasoline or methanol, though maybe it would be better than ethanol unless chemists learn how to make it in other than a batch process. Once, 35 years ago, natural gas was cleaner than gasoline but not since 1975. I think it is a myth that natural gas gives substantially lower exhaust emissions, not any longer, they are very low now. It would be an environmental reversal, maybe a disaster to burn natural gas in cars. It is better to use it for home heating, there it is cleaner.

Mr. Pickens believes that it’s a matter of demand exceeding supply that is mostly to blame for our current energy crisis and so his solution depends on Natural Gas Vehicles (NGV’s) reducing oil imports by 38%. Experts agree that we do have enough Natural Gas reserves to "bridge" us into a hydrogen future of sustainability. Analysts maintain that only few alternative fuels offer the distinct and unquestionable advantages of natural gas—It’s widely available, renewable, offers greenhouse gas reductions and produces fewer emissions compared to ALL other traditional and alternative fuels.

some information from Germany concerning windpower - for more information visit German website http://www.windstrom-kosten.de I will tell from the German experience in producing electricity from Wind: It is expensive, risky by causing blackouts and is is disturbing the country the price per kWh is app. 9 Cent, additionally app. 2 Cent for Grid-burdend overhead - i.e. incredibel expensive. Beside that, the major problem is that Windgenerators are neither helpful in case of low-voltage-ride-Through situations in the grid nor they are beeing volt-ampere-reactive, i.e. if there is volatilty in the grid one needs more blind-power (for generation of eclectricity). Even if General Electric and Enercon (Germany) the two biggest producers of control-systems for this environment are stating that they are capable to handle this sítuations, blackouts are showing that this is not true. To say it simple: conversion of windpower into electricity is nonsense. But if at a certain time there are to much companys involved into that business, politicians are no longer able to stop the nonsense.