9 thoughts on “Is electricity from wind cheaper than coal?”

  1. Subsidies (financial inducements) that are being paid to “eco-friendly” alternative energy sources are being paid using money that was paid as taxes that were generated by economic endeavors that must have energy from coal and other fossil fuel sources of electricity generation if they are going to be able to generate the needed taxes.

    For any systemic analysis, it must be kept in mind that fiat money has no intrinsic real value — it can only act as a proxy for something that has real intrinsic value. Subsidies to alternative energy producers using Magic money that the Federal Reserve has conjured out of their magic hole in the air cannot be a sustainable method for paying subsidies and other financial inducements. No fossil fuels — not enough tax revenues to support our asininely expensive governments — subsidies for wind and solar would be just a small part of what could no longer exist.

  2. David G wrote “…wind generators don’t work well in winter when ice and snow makes the blades dangerously heavy and unbalanced.”

    Well, it seems Global Warming is the solution for that! Once we get rid of freezing temperatures (which kill many more people than heat waves), we can lock Paradise in place using our wind generators year-round!

  3. Wind Power isn’t available when wind is too strong or too weak. As most EU countries have discovered, wind generators don’t work well in winter when ice and snow makes the blades dangerously heavy and unbalanced.

    Solar Power only works when the sun is out and requires a lot of maintenance keeping the collectors clean. Efficiency is still in the single digits for most collectors which are affordable to individuals and small businesses. Higher priced collectors are still under 25% efficiency at best. Despite hundreds of promises from researchers for efficiencies as high at 75%, there has been very little progress in the last two decades.

    Both wind and solar require an energy storage system of some kind because they are not reliable. There is no economically viable, and certainly no environmentally clean, method for power storage at this time and no great breakthroughs are expected in the near future.

    Imagine for a moment the uproar from environmentalists when we start cranking up the lead mines and smelters along with so many ‘hazardous chemical’ production facilities to power the nation for just one day. Thus we have ‘backup generation sources’ which use fossil fuels.

    So, is the article even slightly true? Yes, every con-man uses a tiny bit of truth to sell a lie, but a lie is still a lie.

  4. I live in a cola state where industry pays a delivered cost of less than $70/MWH.

    The costs of all the renewables do no seem to take into consideration maintenance, transmission costs, cost of service, etc.

    If wind is really available for that cost we would buy. Reality is the availability surcharge for any form of renewable energy makes it a non-starter.

  5. Notice the tiny little caviat “does not take into account ———and backup generation cost associated with certain Alternative Energy technologies”.

  6. So I guess that this means that the NY Times would agree to end all subsidies and tax breaks for wind energy. I’m sure that would prove this canard.

  7. There’s an old saying, Steve – you get what you pay for. We all know that if we took this to heart and really relied on wind and solar energy, our grid would have the same reliability as that of a 3rd world country! The lights would have to go off at night, and God forbid you need heat or light during the winter months in the northern hemisphere!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.