Talk:Wind power/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Does anyone have some better images? I like this one which I know is from San Gorgonio Pass, but I'm not sure of its provenance. Nrcprm2026 21:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversy reorganization

I organized the Controversy section into sub-sub headings for what were previously bullets and bullets for what were previously indentations. This makes it a lot easier to see the general area of the claims of opponents/proponents and the different specific claims in those areas. I think we might want to cut down on this section just a tad. This seems to be one of the worst cases of Wikipedia becoming more of a polemic instead of an encyclopedia, as we have every possible argument and counter argument and counter-counter argument. However, we seem to be missing quite a bit of information on the biggest argument of proponents of wind power-- the fact that wind power is renewable (benefit over fossil fuels which are bound to run out) and the fact that it is nonpolluting (another benefit over fossil fuels). Bonus Onus 23:21, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I moved in the discussion of energy extraction from the wind turbine article since I thought it made this article flow a lot better. It still needs a section on economics. One limitation to wind use on an interconnected network is the stability of the system; I understand a rule of thumb is that wind capacity should not exceed one-third of the network generation.--Wtshymanski 16:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I took this out of the controversy section. How is it relevant?

• Detractors often fail to mention that Nuclear power is deeply subsidizes and could not compete without the 3 Billion dollar Insurance subsidy provided by the Price-anderson act. Wind power by contrast does not require a liability waiver to be economic.

70.66.48.96 02:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Classes of wind resources

Can someone write up what wind developers meann by "Class 6", etc. wind areas? This would be useful. --Wtshymanski 15:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) Done! weeks ago, too. Thanks to User:Iain.mcclatchie. --Wtshymanski 17:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

World windpower map

I found this map interesting [1]. Maybe someone who understands German can decide if it is copyrighted? More graphs here [2]. Ultramarine 18:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The USA map should anyway be taken off. This article is not about Wind power in the United States! deeptrivia (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

A worldwide wind power map would be good, but would lose a lot of detail. The US map is the best freely available example I've seen, but I'd be happy to see something better. Iain McClatchie 19:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

OK, my POV meter just broke, the arcticle barely covers the disadvantages of wind power, while the 'supporter' section is full of nonsense like:

* Wind turbines are beautiful, graceful machines that symbolise humans in harmony with the natural world. As a form of sculpture, wind turbines are a dynamic (moving) art form. Urban wind turbines like the 750 kW Lagerwey in Toronto can actually be popular gathering places.

* Wind turbines make the process of producing electricity visible.

--Berkut 20:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the lyrical stuff is in the section clearly marked "arguments of supporters". What disadvantages of wind power are you thinking of, that are not described in the article? I, myself, took out something that objected to the power used by the wind-farm itself, as being ill-founded. Station service for a wind farm is lower than any other power plant of comparable rating; even hydro plants need more station service power than a wind farm. Would you list some objections, so we've got a basis to expand the article? --Wtshymanski 21:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ill probably tweek the artcile a little, and if everyone agrees, I'll remove the POV notice --Berkut 02:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And yet its missing the main argument in favor of wind power: that its clean and renewable. Yeah, please remove all that graceful crap. Bonus Onus 02:46, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Could you please hurry up and point out this bias? If there is a specific point you want to add to the list of arguments, please do. But don't just slap a Template on a page when you feel it isn't up to par. Edit a page, when you feel it isn't up to par.

And since the aesthetics srgument is made by supporters, it is just as valid as the argument about visual pollution, and never POV. -- Ec5618 06:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

The article itself needs a major rewrite with much more prose. There's no need for "Supporters" and "Opponents". It should have have a format of something like "Opponents argue that the turbines can be an eyesore, while supporters contend that all power sources, such as thermal and nuclear power plants and dams can be visually unappealing." and so on. I'll just make a couple of tweaks and remove the POV notice, my English skills are not up to the task of major rewrite. --Berkut 07:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wind turbines are beautiful, graceful machines that symbolise humans in harmony with the natural world. Well - I think they look great. It's the most eye-catching large scale human intrusion into the natural world I can imagine. I prefer to see a hillside littered with these things, because it's a direct statement that that very same hillside HASN'T been scooped out and fed rock by rock into a coal power plant. As a form of sculpture, wind turbines are a dynamic (moving) art form. Urban wind turbines like the 750 kW Lagerwey in Toronto can actually be popular gathering places. Well? IS it a popular gathering place? If it IS, then you 'argument' amounts to little more than incredulity... which is scarcely a non-fallacious argument.

Excuse me. "I think"? If that is not blatantly POV then what is? I have seen pages get NPOV tags for far less than that sort of statement.

--The1exile 19:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

As you have failed to respond to my criticisms, and you fail to sign your comments, I have no way of telling why this is. I therefore conclude that this one-sided argument has been won by me. You are indeed violating NPOV. --The1exile 17:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Alternative technology

The "power fence"

Not sure which article to put this in, but a guy named Alvin Marks got a patent in 1980 for a wind power generation device with no moving parts. It is U.S. patent 4,206,396: Charged aerosol generator with uni-electrode source I don't know if one was ever built or if it even works, but I uploaded a picture and other people can help research it now. - Omegatron 02:53, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

This would be the vaneless ion wind generator, right? Put it there. Iain McClatchie 03:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Where? - Omegatron 14:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

The article on vaneless ion wind generator. Done it. -- Ec5618 10:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

:-) - Omegatron 18:11, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Energy Audit of wind turbines.

Can anyone cite definitive sources that demonstrate that the energy balace sheet for wind turbines is positive? I understand that if the energy cost of manufacture, deployment, and site clearance is properly accounted for, it amounts to 3 0r 4 times the total energy produced by a typical turbine in its 20 year desigh life. If this is so, then it is outageous that they are being promoted as 'green' energy. Even if on balance, they break even in energy terms, then there can be no justification for the despoilment of wild places that they inflict. There must be a clear and significant energy advantage before they can be justified, otherwise we are all being conned, and the environment is being harmed. (SJ from Wales)

No definitive sources exist, nor can exist, because this figure is different for different locations. And, though this comment might not have much sway, any wind turbine placement is a step in the right direction, as experience is gleaned. -- Ec5618 10:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

If the technology cannot produce more energy than it takes to create the device, how does experience help? This sounds like the 'First National Change' bank from Saturday Night Live, where all they do is give you change, and claim to make money through 'volume'. More experience for a technology that doesn't create more power than it takes is still on the wrong side of the energy curve. If, however, the energy costs of construction can be significantly reduced, that should be the message here, not the ethereal 'get more experience' argument. Keeping the article on-track with that message will serve the effort of getting accurate information out there better. - Chairboy 16:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Note also that such devices (windmills) are among a handfull which even have the potential for a net positive energy balance sheet. Cars do not, Tractors, toys, homes, industry, oil wells, NG power stations. None produce energy, some of them may collect energy stores which have already been produced or convert them into other forms of energy. PV, Wind, and Hydro (Plants and Photo-Plankton) are among a short list of technologies which are capable of capturing short term forms of solar energy for such that we can then use or abuse them producing all these other net negative products. --D0li0 16:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Devils advocate mode, oil and NG are actually other forms of solar energy, just with a slightly longer cycle time. This isn't an attempt to rationalize oil consumption, just a heads up so you are not caught unawares by others in debate. The other items you listed are not considered energy production methods, so the argument is moot. Finally, windmills do not produce energy any more then oil wells. They merely collect solar energy in the form of wind. Nuclear Fusion produces energy, and is noticably missing from your list. - Chairboy 16:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, It's all solar, even nuclear is the producto of solar processes which created such heavy atoms. The important consideration is the time frame and effeciency of these various forms. PV is the most direct, 13% eff PV collects 13% of the potential, directly. Wind requires the light be converted into heat, thermals, jet streams, etc and then be captured, I would say that it too is highly effecient 10%-30% or so (it doesn't really matter, so long as there is enough potential, and there is [3] ). Hydro is similarly rather direct and effecient, evaporation, condensation... All of these forms range from instant solar energy to days or perhaps weeks old energy. To contrast Coal is the newest of FF forms, all of which rely on photosynthesis which is 0.3% to 1.0% up to 3% to 11% for sugar cane. Oil and NG represent a staggering cumulation of plant matter which starts off with substantial losses [4]. Anyway, I've considered a wide range of ideas and Wind is one of the best I've seen, there is 5 times current consumption worth of economical wind resources, this from our current level of technology 80M towers, and not considering off-shore resources. -Wtshymanski, Kudos on the energy payback figures of 17 to 40 times, Which I suppose is dependent on the maturity, power, reliability, etc of the windmills. As tech advances so to should these figures.--D0li0 08:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Money represents at *least* the value of the stored energy implicit in the structure. Any windmill that makes money must then have a net positive energy balance. I can probably find numbers but let's say a 2 MW turbine lasts 20 years and has a .33 load factor - so in its economic life it will make about 115,000 megawatthours. The total weight of materials used to make the turbine is less than 1000 tons, say 1MWH/ton (steel making takes around 700 kWH, for example, and concrete is a bit less - high-tech composite blades I haven't seen numbers for, but they don't weigh much compared to the tower and foundation), so 1000 megawatthours to build the unit in the first place. The "energy payback" is then on the order of a few months of the turbine's design life.

This "payback" arguement I have seen in other energy contexts, but I've yet to see any commerical energy scheme which did *not* have a short payback time and which repaid its initial energy consumption scores or hundreds of times over in its life. People aren't stupid, you know...things don't get built unless they pay back, or else the utility quickly goes broke. --Wtshymanski 17:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Not three minuts after checking with Google, I found

[[5]] which addresses this question. You'll all be relieved to know that the example wind installations produced between 17 and 39 times as much energy as it took to build and run them. ( Hydro does better, of course, but I'm biassed.) --Wtshymanski 17:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Large Scale

There are now too many anecdotes in the Utilization/Large Scale section. Is Germany producing 25% or 40% of the world's windpower? This should all be ripped out and replaced by a table showing current windpower production by country, sorted by megawatt-hours per year, and the portion of that country's power produced thereby.

This would be a good place to say something about any infrastructure changes, if any, either Germany or Denmark has had to make to cope with generation variability.

Iain McClatchie 21:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Opposition POV's: Ecological disaster / global warming.

Ok, I'm not a geoscientist by any means, but just reading this article made me ponder .. what causes wind? The heating and cooling of the atmosphere by the sun. What happens if you had a global scale wind energy production system? Every kilowat of energy created by the wind would be a kilowat of energy sapped from the movement of the atmosphere. Without the free movement of the gasses in the atmosphere to cycle to cool and heat again, wouldn't we be superheating some areas and freezing other areas? I mean, it'd only be by a minute degree, but even the change of one or two degrees celcius could cause some rather drastic problems, no?

Why isn't this addressed in the article? If a moron like me can make that connection and ponder it, surely some of you intelligent gentlemen could address the issue from a much more scientific standpoint?  :)

211.30.72.208 21:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Per Earth's_energy_budget the solar radiation input number you're looking for is 174,000 TW (Terawatts), 70% of which is absorbed, 64% by the atmosphere, so about 111,360 TW is tied up in the atmosphere at any given moment. For comparison, our Fossil Fuel consumption is about 13TW, all of which is human added waste heat. We don't require that much electric energy, total global grid consumption is about 1.5 TW (mostly from coal and ng which are included in the FF figure). So replacing FF derived grid power with renew/systain-ables (wind, etc), and the remaining ineffecient transportation (~20% usefull work done) use of FF with more effecient transportation methods (EV and BEV) would reduce that energy requirement substantially. This transportation transition may require the doubeling of grid capacity to 3 TW (my rough estimate). So it might prove to help! Eliminating 13 TW of excess heat and instead obsorbing 3 TW of said excess energy (though I doubt it would work out so elegantly). Anyway, that 3 TW represents some 1/37120th or 0.00269% of the energy in the atmosphere. Of course I could be offbase and am no expert myself. --D0li0 22:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt these back of the envelope figures. I think there are more pressing concerns, were we to hypothetically replace all ng and ff electricity with windfarms, such as the amount of space required and the investment in steel and manufacturing required... it's interesting that people rarely include the energy-cost of BUILDING these gigantic steel monstrosities... steel, concrete, welding, surface treatment, moving parts, machinery etc... But, as far as reducing the amount of wind energy goes? - pfffft - nothing. A drop in the ocean.

pfffft - what? Option 1. Convert (FF) ancient Solar energy (in and of itself an ineffecient Solar storage mechanism) into work(25%) and mostly heat(75%), dump it all (100%) back into the atmosphere. Option 2. Use near instantanious Solar energy in the form of wind (And others...) to supply our energy requirements at exponentially higher effeciencys (No Solar->Carbon losses, no Carbon->Heat-Energy losses)? I like Option 2, and I too feel they are beautiful machines, works of art, a true display of human kinds inteligence and power to cleanly and effeciently harness but a fraction of the imense power of the Sun and Earth to satisfy all our energy requiremtns for some time into the future (not forever (Save the FF for then, perhaps)). As far as implamenting it, how much steel is required for an air craft carrier, or oil supertanker? So, do we invest in power consuming, death spreading, war machines and carbon-sink stealing and CO2 liberating super corperations? Or do we invest in sustainable energy collecting and freedom spreading technologies like windmills? Maybe we use new age carbonfiber materials rather than steel, perhaps a wind turbin manufacturing facility (and the community it supports) could be powered with wind energy? Take a look at economics/energy supply charts, abundant energy = strong economy = high standard of living. So plentifull wind power is a (Human kind) liberating technology (rather than CO2 liberating, climate changing), just what those few who currently hold all the power do not want anyone of us to have as individules or communities. This is mostly a political problem, IMHO. Given all the facts (POV as they may be) on both sides, and shown the alternatives (or current methods as they were) and asked to make choices for the next 100, 1000, and 10,000 and more years, what would the choice be? Option 1 or Option 2? --D0li0 10:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Detailed errors

Source on the part about the Supreme Court not ruling out the disaster potential of nuclear power?

The ratio of actual productivity in a year to this theoretical maximum is called the capacity factor. A well-sited wind generator will have a capacity factor of as much as 35%. When comparing the size of wind turbine plants to fueled power plants, it is important to note that 1000 kW of wind-turbine potential power would be expected to produce as much energy in a year as approximately 350 kW of fuel-fired generation

That can't be right. Conventional plants need downtime, due to abrupt failures or for scheduled maintenance. The Nuclear Energy Institute suggest 70% c.f. for coal, 90% for nuclear (though I suspect others would claim that to be optimistic) (http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=262); we are implicitly assuming conventional plant has 100% capacity factor!

Another charge is that output figures, such as "Denmark produces over 20% of its electricity from wind," do not account for electricity that is simply absorbed by the international grid because it is produced when demand is already being met by other sources that can't be turned off, such as base load and combined heat and power plants.

What is the point of this criticism? Energy "absorbed by the international grid" is still used and useful. [Not by Denmark, though. --Kerberos]

Existing European hydroelectric power plants can store enough energy to supply one month's worth of European energy consumption...

From context, this should almost certainly read electricity, rather than energy (which would include all the energy normally supplied by burning oil, gas, etc in cars, furnaces, kitchens, ...)

-- ti

Shaping, least expensive form of new power, and coverage stats

We need some good sources on "shaping," which I understand to mean back-up power for calm wind periods. I've read that when hydropower is used to shape electric power on a grid, the price increase amounts to 20%. This seems somewhat at odds with a rule of thumb estimate mentioned that no more than 1/3rd power on a grid should be wind. What is the actual premium involved in shaping wind power on a large (e.g. North American) grid?

What is the actual proportion of wind power beyond which shaping is inadequate for reliability?

Also I've read from the Rocky Mountain News that wind power is the least expensive form of new power, recently dipping below the per-kwh cost of coal. Does anyone dispute this?

Finally, I've calculated that the U.S. could serve 95% of its electrical demand (again, with grid shaping based on hydropower) with wind turbines on less than 3% of U.S. farmland. Does anyone want to challenge this assertion before I add it to the article? James P.S. 07:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

How did you determine this?

I first got the area of farmland from the CIA Factbook or something. I then went to www.windpower.org FAQ and looked up the power density per area for new installations. Then I found some PDF from the Electric Power Research Institute to get US demand. I came up with a quotient of 1.2% IIRC, then I used some extreme shaping and grid capacity assumptions to round up to 3%. Please check my work. —James S. 21:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you calculate how much acreage is needed for the pumped storage? Are you proposing to use existing dams in your equation, and finally at what point do we cross the line into Original Research here? I do believe the 3% number is the one occasionally throw around - specious though in a sense because wind towers don't really occupy the land, you can continue to farm the land with or without. Another approach to shaping is demand shaping - rather than supply increasing. Having a significant portion of the load prioritized can mitigate entirely the issue of fluctuating supply. Generally heaters are used, cooling ice can be used, etc ... obviously both will be used. Benjamin Gatti 21:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

James - I think, at first reading, your calculations, whilst possibly numerically accurate, are worthless because they do not take into account the (huge) transmission links (and their associated costs) that would be needed to make such a scheme work. Basically the pumped storage is in a different place to the wind which is in a different place to the load (cities). Bear in mind that 400/500 kV transmission links (double circuit, around 2 GW per circuit) cost around $1M per km or around $1.5M per mile - you'd need 1000's of miles of such lines in the US I reckon. --Apower 11:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have worked in the power industry for many years in the UK, and for many years in the field of intermittent power generation (wind et al). Can people with no detailed knowledge of power systems and their operation please stop contributing well-meaning nonsense? E.g. comment concerning "maintaining a.c. phase" which I'm just about to remove. Any half decent power engineer knows the phase difference across a transmission line is (approximately) proportional to the real power transmitted and is NOT constant across the system - if it were no power would flow! Generation is made equal to demand on a continuous basis by maintaining constant frequency - any visit to a control room will demonstrate this. --Apower 17:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)User:apower 17:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

In direct response to the original question, the most succinct answer I know is this, from the UK:

“The analysis suggests that:

– costs are negligible at low levels, indeed small amounts of intermittent generation cannot be detected by the system operator;

– costs are less than 0.1p/kWh for 10% of electricity from intermittents;

– costs are less than 0.2p/kWh for 20% of electricity from intermittents.”

Source: Cabinet Office, Performance and Innovation Unit, 2002, “The Energy Review” (full report can be found here: http://www.strategy.gov.uk/downloads/su/energy/TheEnergyReview.pdf - see page 100). These are costs per kWh generated by wind.

Quite where the figure of a 20% increase in cost comes from I don't know - 0.1p/kWh is around 2-4% of the current cost of wind power. I am especially surprised as hydro would be the cheapest form of balancing power available, and is generally viewed as an excellent complement to variable sources like wind.

In answer to the question of an 'upper limit' - at the moment there is no proof of a technical upper limit to the penetration of variable power sources like wind on power systems, the issues are more economic and regulatory. Regions such as western Denmark and parts of northern Germany gain a quarter or more of their overall power from wind, and at times have been running on 100% wind; there has yet to be a power cut in these areas caused by wind variability. Danish grid company Energinet is relaxed about further wind development in the country, though northern German grid co Eon Netz is more hostile (but then it's dealing within a balancing market environment that is stacked against wind). These regions are highly interconnected with the European power grid (particularly Denmark with Norway and its hydro-dominated generation system), which certainly helps, but these real-life examples show that high penetrations are possible.

Re the relative cost of wind and other power sources - it really depends on the site: for instance, in New Zealand, which has possibly the best wind resources in the world, wind slugs it out with all-comers, with no subsidies bar a small uplift from selling carbon reduction credits; Germany is still handing out about 8€¢/kWh fixed for 20 years because its wind resource is terrible. The cheaper-than-coal line is almost certainly true in the US, however, if it factors in the effect of the currently in force Production Tax Credit, worth 1.9¢/kWh. The effect of this benefit is to make the wind market in the US go bananas - 2,500MW of new wind power went in last year, roughly 5% of the total installed wind capacity in the world.

Gordon Edge

[Declaration of interest/expertise: I work for the British Wind Energy Association.] 82.138.219.238 21:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Gordon, I'm not arguing with you (really!) but figures like "Denmark produces over 25% of its power (energy) from wind" are grossly misleading when applied to arguments over the maximum penetration into a power system. Denmark (and Germany) is connected to, and is part of, the VAST UCPTE power system. Your comment "These regions are highly interconnected with the European power grid (particularly Denmark with Norway and its hydro-dominated generation system), which certainly helps" made me chuckle as it's like saying the invention of the Saturn 5 rocket "helped" with the moon landings. The proportion of wind energy on this (UCPTE) system is very small (I'd guess <2% without looking the figures up) which is why it's not a problem. I should declare I'm ex-National Grid, UK. --Apower 13:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Stationary fuel cells for storage

Here's a basis for current H2 electrolysis storage.

NPOV Question

This sentence from (economics) seems to assert that wind requires subsidies in order to compete with traditional energy; however, 97% of subsidies have gone to nuclear energy, while gas and oil get huge subsides in many ways not least of which is the free-ride on the health effects of pollution.

"* In order to compete with traditional sources of energy, wind power often receives financial incentives. In the United States, wind power receives a tax credit of 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour produced, with a year inflationary adjustment."

So I would propose perhaps changing it:

"Wind power requires far less government economic support than either fossil fuels or nuclear power, and for this reason is the fastest growing form of energy production available today." Benjamin Gatti 21:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Wind Power Land Usage

Hey, I was interested in how a wind farm compared to land usage vs. strip mining for coal, so I tracked down some data and did the math.

Coal mining: 40,000,000 short tons of coal / 1 mile^2 (USGS data for Montana strip mining area)

1000 mw coal plant = 4 mst coal / year (US DOE)
plant lifespan = 50 years
200 mst coal burned over lifetime
total stripmine area to produce coal = 5 miles^2

94 miles^2 = 1000mw wind plant coverage (AWEA)
only 5% of this is actually occupied by turbines (AWEA), or 4.7 miles^2

Thus the actual turbines for a 1000 mw wind farm would occupy less area than the strip mining required to run an equivalent coal plant for 50 years. However, the additional "buffer" zone around the turbine would be 20x the strip mining.

Still, it seems pretty good, especially when you calculate the resources in transporting coal and the emissions.

I wasn't sure whether or not to put this in the actual article.

• Interesting figures. It should be noted that the typical expected life of a wind turbine is 20 years (although if a facility proves viable the turbines would be upgraded after that). Also, AWEA's insistence that only 5% of the area of a wind farm is actually "used" is like saying a 747 only occupies only a few square feet of ground space (where its wheels sit). A wind turbine needs clearance around it and its visual and noise or vibrational impact are obviously widespread -- especially when they are erected on prominent ridgelines. Kerberos 23:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Yes - partly true, and not - you see, with subsidized wind turbines taking 5% of a farmers land, it still leaves the remaining 95% to grow subsidies corn, or raise subsidized pigs, so in the mid-west, this is true, however near urban areas, it would be a problem, but then nuclear plants and coal mines don't fit the model planned community very well either. Personally, I think wave energy is better for urban centers - its very close in most cases, doesn't intrude on the visuals, and protects the coastline. Benjamin Gatti 03:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

fastest growing

Can we substantiate whether or not wind power is the fastest growing source (on a percentage basis) of electricity produced in the United States? The EIA sort of supports that statement [6] as recently as 2004. However, note the following: 1) "commercial hydropower" grew faster, whatever that is; (2) the growth in solar is for utility generated solar (which is dominated by a plant in the mojave desert) -- off grid and/or grid connected electricity produced by non-utilities is not counted. So many qualifications seem to be required to substantiate this claim that I currently don't think it is a useful claim. Can we get data for the world as a whole? -- Chuck

Also, note that it is plausible that electricity production increased by 30-some-odd percent in 2004 over 2003 despite losing federal tax breaks due to latencies between when projects are started and when they start producing electricity. So I'm not sure that it's reasonable for us to suggest that wind power can grow rapidly even without the federal support. Of course, if we can get some 2005 electricity generation figures for the U.S. ... -- Chuck