What Coal?

Denmark's wind farms generated 140% of the country's electricity needs yesterdayThe extra energy was exported to Germany, Norway, and Sweden.QZ.COM|BY SVATI KIRSTEN NARULA

GA! I vote for this technology. I have not yet forgot the self-induced natural gas and gasoline shortages when I was a kid back in the early seventies and I am sure that once we become dependent on NG the price will skyrocket and the supply will diminish.

Sabotaged by a fracker, no doubt.

I think it was hit by a large bird.....revenge

Trying to compare that to a single oil spill, refinery explosion, coal ash spill, tank car derailment, or mercury poisoning (not even bothering to mention the CO2 emissions, except that then I did - D'oh!). Yep, I'd rather have the wind turbine failure

It seems that investors disagree.

nice graph but incomplete data. investors are't always your best metric....just ask any of the people that lost trillions this year in the Chinese stock market.

wind has a place in a system of power generation but the roi numbers don't always spell jackpot even when wind is steady. take a look, maybe some of your wealthy investors bit on this gem in Mass.the Cape Wind website itself; which currently offers an updating display indicating that about 11,588,000 MWh of energy could have been produced since wind monitoring commenced. This seems like an impressive number until you divide it by the 8+ years of monitoring, and you get 1449 GWh/year.

Considering the annual average wholesale value of electricity in Massachusetts is also about $50/MWh per the DOE EIA, the annual energy generated by Cape Wind will be worth about $70 million per year; and subtracting annual operating and maintenance costs may leave about $50 million per year of this revenue.ve about $50 million per year of this revenue. Again, this sounds impressive, until it is compared to the $2 billion that the project is expected to cost.

Well Fredski, that just illustrates one of the major shifts in thinking that needs to occur. Electricity, is becoming an necessity of modern life. More a of a service than a luxury. So the "for profit" model will need to change in the next 100 years or less in order to power the world without bankrupting it.

Next thought, I agree that currently alternative energy systems can not replace every kilowatt on the grid, every little bit helps to reduce the amount of toxins thrown into the atmosphere and damage done to the ground level environment by the mining, drilling, extracting, spilling, leaking, etc.

Storage is coming, including batteries and Ice Bear's technology for freezing water during the night:

"In an unusual competition in California, proposals for energy storage systems beat out hundreds of bids to construct new power plants as a way to meet peak power needs."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/business/energy-environment/california-picks-energy-storage-over-some-new-power-plant-bids.html?_r=0

A dream? Are you confusing wind with fusion?

Wind is practical right now, but it is just not the only solution. As you say, it needs storage, but North Dakota already produces over 17% of its energy using wind. Storage will certainly make it even more practical. California and Tesla are leading the nation in that direction.

Let's use wind farms to power giant pumps to shoot chemicals into the ground and harvest the gas produced by the earthquakes it causes.

The trucks used to haul water to the people whose water supply has been contaminated by the fracking chemicals can be powered by the gas harvested by the fracking.

We could put wind turbines on the trucks to make more power.

Denmark can produce some high percentages of wind energy but does rely on heavy subsidies and export of its excess power when they cannot consume what they generate. The 140% is well off the average mark but can be reached during a very windy period. Not normal as 20% or less is a likely figure. Some even claim the real energy is 7% from wind. More than any other country but does rely on subsidies.

They are tied into Germany as well as Norway and Sweden energy grids. As a result they can sell excesses to countries with hydro electric generation where the excess can be stored. However, they then must buy it back during periods of low wind generation. Denmark still relies on fossil fuels for energy as a primary source. The net result is that the consumer pays the highest rates for energy (2014 was 0.33 USD/ Kwh plus an additional delivery fee of about 0.15 USD/kwh) and additionally wind receives subsidies from tax dollars. I spent time in Denmark and the tax rate for many middle class is 76%. The upside for Denmark is that they are world leaders in wind technology and are developing a robust turbine export.

You are most correct about the need for storage. Wind is far from affordable until we develop the battery systems needed or hydro electric storage.

retiring them isn't free, it all adds up

http://www.wind-works.org/cms/index.php?id=340&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=538&cHash=e36d73ebc7d460e5de9cfccf219cb73a

This is a broken link, probably because it isn't true. The majority of Denmark's electricity production comes from coal and only 39% is from wind energy.

Without viable storage, wind energy requires 100% redundant backup (from fossil fuel) and fluctuations in both wind and demand for electricity require fancy foot-work in throttling the backup systems, usually at the expense of efficiency. Much of the time there are no fossil fuel savings during wind energy production but it is very difficult to find that data. It does need to be factored in, however.

Try this one:

http://qz.com/450737/denmarks-wind-farms-generated-140-of-the-countrys-electricity-needs-yesterday/

Thank you for the link, albeit misleading.

" It shows that a world powered 100% by renewable energy is no fantasy,"

That's like saying, "Because today is cooler, we are heading toward another ice age."

There is no data reporting the amount of fossil fuel used for electricity production for that day. Was it zero?

I hope they aren't dismantling their fossil fuel powered peaking plants just yet.

From Wikipedia:

"A report on Denmark's wind power noted that their wind power network provided less than 1% of average demand on 54 days during the year 2002.^[98] Wind power advocates argue that these periods of low wind can be dealt with by simply restarting existing power stations that have been held in readiness, or interlinking with HVDC.^[99] Electrical grids with slow-responding thermal power plants and without ties to networks with hydroelectric generation may have to limit the use of wind power.^[98] According to a 2007 Stanford University study published in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, interconnecting ten or more wind farms can allow an average of 33% of the total energy produced (i.e. about 8% of total nameplate capacity) to be used as reliable, baseload electric power which can be relied on to handle peak loads, as long as minimum criteria are met for wind speed and turbine height.^[100][101]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Variability

From Wikipedia:

39% is a pretty impressive number. Why do you use it as an argument against wind?

I have already posted a response to the idea that wind energy requires 100% redundant backup, and here is a reply to the fancy footwork argument:

"GE has installed a prototype wind turbine with onboard battery similar to that of an electric car, equivalent of 1 minute of production. Despite the small capacity, it is enough to guarantee that power output complies with forecast for 15 minutes, as the battery is used to eliminate the difference rather than provide full output. The increased predictability can be used to take wind power penetration from 20 to 30 or 40 per cent. The battery cost can be retrieved by selling burst power on demand and reducing backup needs from gas plants.^[97]"

My argument is not against wind power, it's against shallow claims. I have been excited about the prospect of wind generated electricity for 40 years, I even own a turbine in SW Minnesota. My problem with wind is the "Ready, Fire, Aim" deployment strategy.

How it works around here; I install a grid-tied wind generator. The utility is required by state law to purchase all it's power from me (net-metering). The utility may not need the power or even want it at that moment but they have to deal with it. They have to throttle up and down their peaking plants to keep the grid balanced which require as much fuel and man-power and more infrastructure as before the wind. The utility's costs are no less and sometimes more. So now they have increased operating costs by paying for the wind on top of normal costs and all this increases energy costs for everyone. The only one who wins is me because of my wind income and tax benefits.

If Wind generators had storage to provide clean power on demand, it would be viable, but we have generation without storage.

Also in Minnesota, we are being blessed with four new controversial 345kv and one 230kv transmission lines @ $2 Billion primarily because of our large wind installations. Someone has to pay for them and many of us have to live under them.

I completely agree with you. There are lots of unforeseen problems in any change in technology, and in spite of good intentions and best efforts not all of them turn out fairly. Hearing about the specific problems you describe is quite different from generalized statements about wind power.

Would that be a wind turbine along the Buffalo Ridge?

If so, we might be part time neighbors.

Yes it is. The Buffalo Ridge was a beautiful place until guys like me came along.

It may not be perfect, but it does address your issue to some degree. At least someone is trying which gives me hope.

http://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall

It must be true. I read it on the internet.

And the substantiation for your claims is??????????????

They are too busy making nasty smelling cheese in Denmark to use electricity, and besides they were all outside smoking pot with the A/C off.