Has Wind Energy Paid Off?


Gov. Paul LePage wants to strip from state law goals for increasing the state’s wind energy capacity over the next two decades.
LePage’s energy director, Patrick Woodcock, made recommendations Thursday to rewrite the state’s 2008 Wind Energy Act, shifting focus from growing wind energy capacity to lowering electricity costs and making sure Maine sees an economic return on its wind energy investments.
The Maine Wind Energy Act, a priority of LePage’s predecessor, Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, sought to expedite wind energy development in Maine. The law zoned much of Maine’s Unorganized Territory as suitable for wind development and set goals for the state to have 2,000 megawatts of wind energy capacity by 2015, 3,000 by 2020 and 8,000 by 2030.

LePage wants wind energy goals out of Maine law — State — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine
Has wind energy lived up to its toted potential? My understanding is the costs actually are greater and provide little of the energy it was supposed to replace. States are finding that wind energy is an expensive proposition that fails to pan out in saving or real improvement in the environment.

Wind mills take up a lot of acreage and sit idle or reguire maintenance which soaks up revenues. Here and abroad the findings are that these edifices of “green power” have to be supplemented with more conventional methods of power acquisition. Some countries are rethinking their energy use.


The short answer to the Subject question is, “No!” Taken just a little further, “No! Not the 70s panacea-boondoggles, not the 00s-10s panacea-hyper-boondoggles!”

These pieces of … have to be subsidized. Utility companies have to be forced by regulatory and legislative quotas to buy “wind energy” at higher than market prices. They take up vast areas of land. Enviros claim they kill vast numbers of birds. They are intermittent, so conventional plants must be continually online so that the grid isn’t disrupted when the windmills are becalmed (or is too strong for windmills to operate safely!). Wind farms tend to be away from well-inhabited areas, which elevates both construction costs and maintenance costs.

Unlike EVs, which I think might have a chance of some day becoming technically feasible, practical, and economically viable - probably not in my lifetime - I don’t think wind energy will ever become suitable viable for base load power. The intermittency of the wind guarantees that. And that windmills have an upper wind velocity safety limit - well short of hurricane strength - exacerbates that fact. And the sooner government stops subsidizing technologies that are unsuitable and not viable, the sooner the resources used to produce what we know does not and cannot work can be devoted to research that might prove skeptic wrong (and I’m very willing to be wrong, I just hate my tax money being urinated away on building what is known not to work or be viable).


“For my plan to work, energy prices must skyrocket” - obama

Tell me, how in the hell did this guy get elected?


[quote=“natstew, post:3, topic:39440”]

Tell me, how in the hell did this guy get elected?


Either he was a strong candidate, or the people running against him were weak candidates.

Also I live in a hot sunny desert so solar energy ftw.


I’m still trying to figure out how he took West Virgina after saying he was going to bankrupt the coal industry.


He didn’t take West Virgina, he lost West Virgina by quite a bit…


Brain fart. My bad


It’s already a limited technology due to geography. I would rather see solar further developed (private sector).




Has wind energy paid off?

Well, yes and no.

For those companies whose principals (“invested”) contributed to electing Obama and other Dems - many of those companies have received chunks of your tax money and mine (subsidies) as “investments in the future”. For those folks I would say wind energy has paid off.

For the rest of us, not so much. Bottom line - wind energy has NOT proven to be a cost effective way of producing energy. Period. As ineffective as windmills are at meeting our energy needs, they are even more grotesque to look at.