Laura is more right than you. Except for states like Hawaii, only a small fraction of energy today comes from burning oil, in total its less than 3% of total generation.

Most generation is from coal (about 50%), then nuclear and natural gas (20% each), then hydro and the rest (geothermal, wind etc. low single digit percent). But wind in Texas and California will not stop hawaii from burning oil and Texas doesnt burn oil for generation to begin with (heavy on nat gas and coal).

So it would be more appropriate to indicate how much coal or natural gas is saved with wind. Nuclear is as emissions-free and more efficient than wind in economic respects, and uses such little fuel for a lot of generation, so its hardly any ‘savings’ to show to compare wind to nuclear.

“Federal funding for solar and wind subsidies/research [under Bush] are higher than all previous administrations combined.” – I agree, and just note that this is an aspect of media blindness/bias that they wont acknowledge it.

Laura is more right than you. Except for states like Hawaii, only a small fraction of energy today comes from burning oil, in total its less than 3% of total generation.

Most generation is from coal (about 50%), then nuclear and natural gas (20% each), then hydro and the rest (geothermal, wind etc. low single digit percent). But wind in Texas and California will not stop hawaii from burning oil and Texas doesnt burn oil for generation to begin with (heavy on nat gas and coal).

So it would be more appropriate to indicate how much coal or natural gas is saved with wind. Nuclear is as emissions-free and more efficient than wind in economic respects, and uses such little fuel for a lot of generation, so its hardly any ‘savings’ to show to compare wind to nuclear.

“Federal funding for solar and wind subsidies/research [under Bush] are higher than all previous administrations combined.” – I agree, and just note that this is an aspect of media blindness/bias that they wont acknowledge it.

Your thinking is wrong. It would be idiotic to build them thus. You are probably confusing the effort to build more transmission infrastructure for new/future wind power installation. Texas has more installed wind power – on grid- than any other state! It was noted the number is 6,000MW… of the total 21,000MW in the US, this amounts to almost 30% of US installed base, in just Bush’s home state. The projections of 18,000MW is a further tripling in Texas alone. So someday Texas may have more windmill capacity than Germany.

Again, the Bush administration has been very supportive of wind power via subsidies etc.

“The Midwest used to almost entirely consist of trees and now is predominantly corn and soybean. ”

Wrong, the midwest was mostly prairie. your location may vary.

Your thinking is wrong. It would be idiotic to build them thus. You are probably confusing the effort to build more transmission infrastructure for new/future wind power installation. Texas has more installed wind power – on grid- than any other state! It was noted the number is 6,000MW… of the total 21,000MW in the US, this amounts to almost 30% of US installed base, in just Bush’s home state. The projections of 18,000MW is a further tripling in Texas alone. So someday Texas may have more windmill capacity than Germany.

Again, the Bush administration has been very supportive of wind power via subsidies etc.

“The Midwest used to almost entirely consist of trees and now is predominantly corn and soybean. ”

Wrong, the midwest was mostly prairie. your location may vary.

Your thinking is wrong. It would be idiotic to build them thus. You are probably confusing the effort to build more transmission infrastructure for new/future wind power installation. Texas has more installed wind power – on grid- than any other state! It was noted the number is 6,000MW… of the total 21,000MW in the US, this amounts to almost 30% of US installed base, in just Bush’s home state. The projections of 18,000MW is a further tripling in Texas alone. So someday Texas may have more windmill capacity than Germany.

Again, the Bush administration has been very supportive of wind power via subsidies etc.

“The Midwest used to almost entirely consist of trees and now is predominantly corn and soybean. ”

Wrong, the midwest was mostly prairie. your location may vary.

Correct. Bush has presided over many millions in subsidies for wind power (“After nearly a year of anticipation and uncertainty, Congress approved a one-year extension of the federal wind energy production tax credit (PTC), which enables utilities, wind energy developers and manufacturers to continue their investments in new wind farm construction in the U.S. “), and under Bush wind power installations doubled in only the past 2 years. The Bush administration has been a very supportive administration for wind energy and other clean energy sources, or they wouldnt have been able to tout the claims they have.

Correct. Bush has presided over many millions in subsidies for wind power (“After nearly a year of anticipation and uncertainty, Congress approved a one-year extension of the federal wind energy production tax credit (PTC), which enables utilities, wind energy developers and manufacturers to continue their investments in new wind farm construction in the U.S. “), and under Bush wind power installations doubled in only the past 2 years. The Bush administration has been a very supportive administration for wind energy and other clean energy sources, or they wouldnt have been able to tout the claims they have.

Correct. Bush has presided over many millions in subsidies for wind power (“After nearly a year of anticipation and uncertainty, Congress approved a one-year extension of the federal wind energy production tax credit (PTC), which enables utilities, wind energy developers and manufacturers to continue their investments in new wind farm construction in the U.S. “), and under Bush wind power installations doubled in only the past 2 years. The Bush administration has been a very supportive administration for wind energy and other clean energy sources, or they wouldnt have been able to tout the claims they have.

Thanks for the stats. I still think a more accurate picture is painted if we don’t bunch electricity and oil so tightly. Relating the two is really just a catchy way to correlate something that stirs up positive feelings (wind power) with something that brings up negative emotions (oil/foreign oil/energy dependence). And it’s not like adding wind power, in this case, will actually decrease the need for oil-fueled (typically peaking) units.

Thanks

Thanks for the stats. I still think a more accurate picture is painted if we don’t bunch electricity and oil so tightly. Relating the two is really just a catchy way to correlate something that stirs up positive feelings (wind power) with something that brings up negative emotions (oil/foreign oil/energy dependence). And it’s not like adding wind power, in this case, will actually decrease the need for oil-fueled (typically peaking) units.

Thanks

It is great that US makes progress, this is what US and the world needs.

However Steve, you need a reality check, the energy consumption of US is 6x that of Germany, so US has to do far more to get on par. I am looking forward to see this progressing in the coming years.

Comparing US to EU, that is more to scale, you should always factor in size and energy consumption. I invite you to start reading the wind power status reports.

Installed capacity end 2007

http://www.gwec.net/fileadmin/documents/test2/gwec-08-update-HR-14a.png

http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=90