Taking into account that offshore windfarms are the most expensive form of generation.
As I have said before, what is required is a method of energy storage. Batteries are good but we need to be able to cram more energy into less space.
The fact that tides are predictable is not a clear advantage. It might be OK for re-charging your electric car battery but in the office it would mean that you worked different times every day and had to work two shifts.
At present the powers that be have a huge disconnect between generating electricity and having it available at the precise instant that you need it. Without storage there is no flexibility. You may be able to generate 20MW but if no-one wants it then it is wasted. If your city is being supplied with 20MW less than it needs then what do you expect to happen? Will all the lights remain on but just be dimmer? Will your computer keep working but the internet bandwidth will reduce?
In reality, the power generator will notice that it is being overloaded and will detach itself from the problem - your city - until things get better.
When the blackouts start political opinions will be changed very quickly.
They only work when the wind blows in a very small range of speeds. It's often said they only produce power 1/6 of the time. At least one company that I know of uses computer weather models to determine the best locations for wind turbines such that wen one dies off, another picks up some wind. Of course, it's only a probability that it would work out statistically so wind turbines need to be matched to standby conventional power generation, preferably load following such as hydro or near load following such as natural gas turbines. Coal and conventional nuclear are not load following as it takes 12 hours to change their power levels however a molten salt reactor such as a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor would be load following.
It's not a great question. Any proper assessment of alternative energy solutions would consider the variability of wind as one issue of many, but only a hostile 'question' would go straight to this issue and then cite a blog! Surely you could make a little effort to find some better sources of information if you are really interested in whether wind power is viable?
No-one claims the future of mankind depends on wind power alone. Intelligent energy policy, necessarily turning away from fossil fuels, sees a mix of sustainable sources including wind, hydro, solar, tidal, geothermal and nuclear. Hydro is pretty constant, tidal is predictable, nuclear is constant and wind is variable.
With intelligent planning and a mix of generation types, power can be made available to meet demand. Focussing on variability of wind is pretty feeble and doesn't demonstrate genuine interest in how to solve our energy problems.
They only work when the wind blows in a very small range of speeds. It's often said they only produce power 1/6 of the time. At least one company that I know of uses computer weather models to determine the best locations for wind turbines such that wen one dies off, another picks up some wind. Of course, it's only a probability that it would work out statistically so wind turbines need to be matched to standby conventional power generation, preferably load following such as hydro or near load following such as natural gas turbines. Coal and conventional nuclear are not load following as it takes 12 hours to change their power levels however a molten salt reactor such as a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor would be load following.
Maxx? Oops, Kano. Not a good sign Kano.
Clearly wind doesn't always blow, although there are some areas of the planet where it's pretty consistent. But, of course, when you use notalotofpeopleknowthat as your source of proof, you really are grasping at straws.
What I liked best was that they picked 2 days. Considering their bias, the 2 days with the least wind they could find. And do you really expect that to have any credibility at all? ANY?
Considering "they only work 1/6 of the time", I've driven over the altamont pass many times, and I don't think I've ever seen none of them working. On the other hand, often most are working. I assume that there are usually a few that need maintenance, considering that there are thousands of 'em.
https://www.google.com/search?q=altamont...
John W. you are wrong about the flexibility of coal, I was an operator for many many years, typically a 500mw unit running at 250mw could raise to 500mw in about 20mins and reduce load much faster.
Also because of govenor operation the unit would automatically alter load to match demand (frequency)
I have done hot starts (shut down overnight) with a morning restart from shutdown to full load in about 1hr 30mins
calculators used to cost about $40 back in the '70s, now you can find them at a dollar store.
Wind Power Turbines, Solar Panels, will become cheaper to make and the energy is free!
Big Oil hates that
Not very. Wind farms are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, produce little electricity and are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. Alarmist love them though.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/not-much-wind-but-plenty-of-hot-air/
Taking into account that offshore windfarms are the most expensive form of generation.
