Wind power battling economic headwinds

Interestingly enough, on the picture above, if you look carefully you will see "acciona" written on those wind mills.

They have been built by a European company which finances its projects essentially also outside the US.

What the author of this article fails to notice is that there is a difference between the fact of building wind-parks and the question who builds it. It is correct that US alternative energy companies will find it difficult to receive credit in the short term. But actually, the aeolian industry works at 100% production capacity utilisation and the order backlog is so huge that either somebody else will build these windmills in the US using non-US financing or the same installations will be exported to eg China but still generate the same amount of alternative energy, just elsewhere, and still maintain US jobs in the industry and provide for more if the US wants to expand windmill production capacity.

The next administration should start work programs funded by congress similar to TVA in which the unemployed can work building wind, solar and hydro-powered farms to kick-start the growth in that area.

I am very interested in wind power, I wouldn't mind having a personal wind tower for my own energy consumption, but the only incentives/credits/grants I have found are geared toward towns and non-profits. If the government wants to increase interest in wind power, I think they need to make it more personal to the average consumer.

What happened to, "We can do it..."  Already I'm hearing a "defeatest" attitude in the article. If the USA can spend $10 Billion a month on war, surely we can find the where-withal to fund this wind power, don't you think. It's a matter of "Willingness to do..."

Exxon spends less than 1% of revenue on renewables. Big oil COULD get behind this without the need for financing.

 Just because Exxon or any other oil company has money in the bank does not mean they should invest it outside their expertise.  Apple Computer has a strong balance sheet - - does that mean they should invest in either wind power or solar energy??

 There will be pleanty of money available when the economics of wind, solar and other alternative energy sources make sense.  Oil and natural gas need to cost more for that to happen.  Simple economics.

 Any company, including Exxon, should invest to make money for their shareholders and not worry about pleasing the Tree Hugger lobby.

Peter is right - that's why a viable government energy policy is a must.  We can drill baby drill or we can invest in wind and solar.  You get to choose next Tuesday.

I find it interesting that this article (and others) always comes back to the idea of huge farms with central distribution of power....so that we have to build huge transmission lines across vast spaces.

This is absolutely the time to size the wind farms for the area that they are located in and MINIMIZE the transmission losses by minimizing the distances that the electricity is transported.  

My understanding is that 1/2 to 2/3 the energy generated is lost in transmission losses.   Placing wind (or other electricity generation facililities) RIGHT NEXT to the area where they are needed.....and then using the grid as a buffer.....seems a much better way to get the energy we need and minimize the resources required to get it.

Theresa

The article adds that people balk because they dont want to live under high power lines, while my comment may seem a little too logical for some, why dont we bury the lines (electric, cable, phone, etc) and not only add to keeping the mess of wires from polluting the view but saving resources on poles and steel for supports? This also helps with insulating the lighting and wind  caused "knock outs".

Most of europe buries their lines, why cant we?  I can not fathom why a country who used to pride itself on innovation, continues to do things just because "thats the way its always been done". People were nay sayers with the car and email too, saying they didnt trust the horseless carriage, or that Email was "scary" (we all see what happened there), why should advances in power be any different?

We continue to give huge breaks to oil companies who have created the biggest transfer of wealth in the hisotry of mankind to other nations, while US held oil companies stuff away billions in profit.

Oil has ruled our life and infa structure for a very long time.  It has effected how we interact with the rest of the world as a whole.  Oil has given us the life of "fear factor living"--every twitch in oil price sends us reeling for one reason or the other.

It's about time we look to and support alternative energy sources of all kinds and give them the same support we do oil men.  In fact we are about 35 years behind minimum.  Did we not learn a thing in the 70's ?

Let us look to other countries, some large and some small, who have made huge inroads with energy programs.  They do not tought themselves as the greatest nation in the world but they have instituted some pretty dramatic changes in enerergy.

Hey if General Motors can build cars for South American countries that run on alternatives to oil, then it should be no major hill to step up and supply Americans with the same vehicles.

We all know that it is the consumer who dictates the product.

The ONLY way alternative energy will emerge in vehicles is if the price of gasoline stays high, otherwise the populace will go back to it's old habits-----pain in the "pocket nerve" is the ONLY way to achieve change.

We all know that it is the consumer who dictates the product.

The ONLY way alternative energy will emerge in vehicles is if the price of gasoline stays high, otherwise the populace will go back to it's old habits-----pain in the "pocket nerve" is the ONLY way to achieve change.

Everyone is touting the "green energy" benefits of wind energy. But what isn't getting enough press is the dramatic and degrading effect wind farms have on ground-based radar systems. Huge turbines being built around radars continue to negate the detection and processing capabilities of radars. These radars are an integral component of the FAA's air traffic control capability, potentially jeopardizing safety of flight. Just as important, these same radars are a primary resource for America's Homeland Defense mission. As radar capabilities continue to be mitigated by wind turbines, it increases the opportunities for "non-cooperative" threat aircraft to penetrate our national defenses and reach lucrative targets of opportunity. The threat is real. The greedy corporations anxious to populate our homeland with wind farms, needs to realize there is a potentially tragic trade-off. Slow the over-saturation of wind farm growth and divert the money and engineering into fielding a radar system compatible with the impeding wind turbines - before its too late.

Everyone is touting the "green energy" benefits of wind energy. But what isn't getting enough press is the dramatic and degrading effect wind farms have on ground-based radar systems. Huge turbines being built around radars continue to negate the detection and processing capabilities of radars. These radars are an integral component of the FAA's air traffic control capability, potentially jeopardizing safety of flight. Just as important, these same radars are a primary resource for America's Homeland Defense mission. As radar capabilities continue to be mitigated by wind turbines, it increases the opportunities for "non-cooperative" threat aircraft to penetrate our national defenses and reach lucrative targets of opportunity. The threat is real. The greedy corporations anxious to populate our homeland with wind farms, needs to realize there is a potentially tragic trade-off. Slow the over-saturation of wind farm growth and divert the money and engineering into fielding a radar system compatible with the impeding wind turbines - before its too late.

Ok ...here's an idea..wind power may not be economical but the cost of land for the farms is astronomical.. so while the credit crunch is on...and it looks like Obama will win how about petitioning Ms Pelosi and Mr Ried to free up federal land in the Rockies for turbines in top of the front range and adjacent to Vail, Aspen, Teluride, Steamboat ski areas to top the ridges with those beautiful turbines made famous by the" Teletubies" to provide tons of power.. And can we ask them to make land available in the plains, and on Fed land all over the west for these farms... for free

Imagine how much cheaper the projects would be if the Feds and environmentalist would allow us to build there... It seems to me that the ones who are so in favor of this won't let the country use land that is free and empty... Or would we mar the lovely view..

We cannot have it both ways... We have the knowledge to do this and if the enviro-left wants it done...then go kick butt in Congress...We all "own that land"...

As a die hard moderate...I am incensed that the very people who are pushing alternative energy are stopping us from access to free and empty space to develop... Above San FRan the Mt's should be scattered even more with the pretty windmills...

Don't we ever learn? Isn't this what Americans have been asking for? Relief from everyone else, to be back on the cutting edge, come on!!!

It is ludicrous to consider building more transmission towers and lines that are so vulnerable to terrorist's attacks. Wind energy will always be a very expensive method to generate electricity. Initial costs are astronomical and maintenance is prohibitively expensive.

The smart thing to do is build nuclear generating plants adjacent to major cities thus eliminating the lengthy and vulnerable transmission lines. Shorter lines could service surrounding areas as they do today. Building Nuclear power plants will insure the job benefits remain in the US. The plant are more easily protected than long, exposed transmission lines passing through vacant rural areas. Our life style depends on uninterrupted electric power and don't think for a moment this is not apparent to terrorist organizations. Nuclear power is safe today as demonstrated by its use in other nations. It is our transmission system that is in-defensible. Modular nuclear power plants are less costly, smaller and more amenable to various requirements by different cities. It is a great "make work" program keeping jobs and profits in the US. The ultimate benefit will be the electric automobile which will have a cost and convenience advantage that will finally deliver us from the oil cartel manipulation of our lives at their whim. That makes this a win,win,win situation and takes the wind out of the sails of the billionaires who have conspired to buy properties and right-of-ways to make their fortunes on the popular "green" technology craze. It reminds me of the Railroad Barons of yesteryear. Nuclear will let John Q. Public get on board if it is managed properly.

.

A diverse supply of energy will help us as we depleat the oil reserves. Use every thing, wind,solar,geo thermal, bio mass, wave action, nuclear, natural gas, coal. This will also create millions of new USA jobs and improve national security.

utilizing wind,heat,high tides,dams etc. I believe is the right direction for dwelling energy needs. I'm sure everything is placed at most viable geo sectors for utmost deliverence output. my concern is, the same as medicene.It's not the doctors fees. Its the investors; hospitals,insurance industries that get awful greedy for financial gain.this is what is killing america. I believe,these industries should operated on a non-profit basis.with controls on upper management salaries.for a better american way of life.