Figuring things out at least of this site isn't too hard because most folks are so desperate with their cause that they have resorted to red herring issues and even inventing issues (like Anne) to obscure their underlying issue - just plain old not likeing the impact to their sightline.

First of all - I never said that coal fired power plants would be shut down. Since wind produces but a small percentage of power - that would be a crazy position to take. In fact I've invested in a number of technology companies that target the coal emission reduction niche because I know they're not going away and that environmental pressure is going to increase over time.

Next, flaw in your bike analogy: Which burns more fuel - an engine idling or an engine at a higher RPM level? Do you really - really think that power plants operate at full capacity regardless of the load? There are even specility companies that help optimize the profitability of company by allowing plants to size to the demand/load. If you don't believe that power companies scale to the load - here's one that specializes in these same controls. http://www.poweronline.com/storefronts/abbpower.html

Market lesson 101 - supply and demand.
There is a reason that spot electricty markets exist. On the buy side - utilities buy electricity because its either cheaper than they can produce or because their demand exceed capacity. In both cases wind provides a role. Implicit is the utilities ability to scale their output. Many Utility companies have hired "trader types" that do nothing but buy and sell on the spot market. If this model didn't exist - then wind companies wouldn't have a profit model. They're not operating out of the kindness of their hearts and can't operate on the RPS stipend.

GAO PDF - How much electricty is produced.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04756.pdf

NREL - National Renewable Energy Lab has a number of fact sheets. Here's two. There is a lot more in their folders.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37602.pdf http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37657.pdf
Notice that I kept with two sites that are pure govt. agencies. sites. No wind industry influence.

Here's a snippet of a senate hearing.
It is found on the first NREL link. I think it accurately describes the benefits of wind power. Click on the link for the full details.

September 3, 2004 Letter
The Honorable Tom Harkin
Ranking Democratic Member
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
United States Senate
Dear Senator Harkin:
Wind-generated electricity—wind power—has the potential to provide
electricity to homes and businesses without causing air pollution or
depleting nonrenewable resources, unlike electricity generated by fossil
fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil). Furthermore, because wind power has no
fuel costs—wind power depends on the energy of the wind—its operating
costs are lower than the costs for power produced from fossil fuels,1
although its capital costs are greater. Wind power relies on frequent, strong
winds to turn the blades of power-generating turbines. In the United States,
a wind turbine with generating capacity of 2 megawatts (MW),2 placed on a
tower situated on a farm, ranch, or other rural land, can generate enough
electricity in a year—about 6 million kilowatt hours (kWh) 3—to serve the
needs of 500 to 600 average U.S. households. Figure 1 shows part of a wind
power project, also referred to as a wind farm, in Lake Benton, Minnesota.
In addition to environmental benefits, wind power has the potential to
contribute significantly to America’s growing energy needs while providing
economic benefits to farms and communities in rural America.4 In this
connection, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) “Wind Powering America”
program has set a goal of producing 5 percent of the nation’s electricity
from wind by 2020. DOE estimates that achieving this goal would add $60
billion in capital investment in rural America, provide $1.2 billion in new
income for farmers and rural landowners, and create 80,000 new jobs by that year.

Potential. It's always about potential.

An actual study of the Maple Ridge facility, for example, found that it is producing less than 10% capacity. More importantly, it produced NOTHING AT ALL for three months of 2006 - July, Aug and Sept when electricity demands were at peak.

But go ahead and shout potential some more.

The GAO link had actual power figures that were produced a few years ago. It was all I could readily find. The potential aspect is that wind is still largely an untapped resource in this country. I understand Effie's argument about summer peak. But in reality if you reduce the load in off peak hours or months its still reducing the same amount as if you had reduced it in peak times.

Effie, can you please share with us the maple ridge data? It would be interesting reading.

"Visitor"

Still nothing. Yawn, NREL theories (no wind industry influence - you are kidding right?). You have produced not one shred of evidence that industrial wind turbines to date have reduced either fossil fuel use or GHG.

Why is that do you imagine?

Not theories. All those links are govt. sites. I imagine that really you don't want to hear this. Here though is one site that details the reduction - at least at a local level. I have a feeling the more I post - the more you'll deny. Anyway - here it goes... http://live.psu.edu/story/2392

Actually - I would appreciate if Formosa provided any govt. or professional material as I have that says that wind generation farms don't reduce greenhouse gases? I'm open minded. Lets see what you come up with. Remember - I had one site that detailed the power generation, another Govt site that touted the benefits of wind power and lastly just a plain old college that only uses wind and details the emission benefits.

How about a professional report by a Danish researcher?

Danish Wind: Too Good to be True? by David J. White.

"Visitor",

"Touting" benefits does not prove anything just wishful thinking. Don't give me this untapped crap ---You've had 20 years of industrial wind. And 5 years of "1MW and larger units" running in large scale wind farms 40,000MW nameplate in europe --- and you are saying that it's up to *me* to provide you with any data? I have plenty of data that GHG is going up year after year, and plenty of data that not a single conventional power plant has been decommissioned due to industrial wind.

As far as your college, we aren't discussing small scale wind off the grid. I completely agree with small scale wind and support it --- it's grid tied large scale wind which is the issue.

Your opinion that they reduce GHG and fossil fuel use remains just that, not fact, but rather opinion.

Its fact not opinion. I've provided GAO actual electric generation number, material again from the govt about the benefits of wind. Even a university who buys "green" energy from a supplier and they detailed the greenhouse gas avoidance number. You - you provided nothing but your own opinion which isn't backed up by anything. Tell me Formosa - just why does Greenpeace, The Sierra Club and the Audobon Society back this technology --- ingorant opinons again? OK - I'm providing three additional links. A State of Arizona Study and two PHDs from Berkley and the Govt of Australia. http://www.ieer.org/reports/wind/cashcrop/
http://www.skmconsulting.com/news/2002/Wind_Farms_help_Australian_Greenhouse_Targets.htm http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/vr96rpt/chap2.html

Basically the concept is each megawatt generated by Wind is one less generated by power plants. The benefit depends upon the Grid mixture of Coal, Hydro and Nuclear. I'm finished here.

You are clearly confused. I have read in detail every document you provided. To a document, not a single piece of data. The greenhouse gas avoidance number you quote is a PREDICTION, not an actuality. The fossil fuel reduction is a PREDICTION, not anything that has occured.

Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and Audobon back this because they "believe" the story that these industrial turbines actually reduce GHG and fossil fuel use. They have no concept and aren't being told that to date, no benefits in these areas been realized.

I fully understand the "concept" --- and to DATE the "concept" remains just that.
After 20 years and 60,000 turbines ---

The GAO site were acutal numbers - not predications as well as the university site - actual estimates not predictions. And this isn't small scale - they buying green energy not setting some small scale turbines on top of some campus roof. Since you're not reading the material - here is a quote. And it was a 2003 story - so actual numbers my friend.

University officials estimate the environmental benefits of purchasing the output of more than four, 220-foot-tall wind turbines are equivalent to saving 59 million pounds of coal usage, taking some 29,000 cars off the road or planting more than 28,712 acres of trees each year.

University officials estimate the environmental benefits of purchasing the output of more than four, 220-foot-tall wind turbines are equivalent to saving 59 million pounds of coal usage, taking some 29,000 cars off the road or planting more than 28,712 acres of trees each year.

Now your turn. I have provided actual evidence. What do you have - nothing I bet --- really nothing.

And that was in 2003 - not the future but a past event. So unless you're saying this is predicting the past - which would be a little weird - these are bonafide actual estimated numbers for a past event. Again - how about showing the counter to this - that wind generation doesn't offset as the Berkley professors note or even evidence that these things pollute? Time to produce something yourself. I don't think you can.

This isn't grid based so your evidence is false, grid based wind has shown NO reduction of coal usage or emissions. I said clearly that I support off grid local wind (or small wind as most people call it). The two applications are vastly different. I own/ operate a wind turbine and live off the grid so let's not start going down that path.

Secondly, you are citing "avoidance" figures, not reduction.

University officials "estimate"? Estimate all you want to that doesn't make it so.

DOE/EIA - Consumption figures 2000-2006. Period.

Formosa

Come on Formosa, I started to have to spoon feed you. Let me point out a number of facts about the penn state green purchase - which WAS in the data I already provided:
a) They bought from http://www.newwindenergy.com/windfarm_millrun.html Which is 110 miles from Penn State. The grid is the only delivery method.
B) That company uses 1.5 GE industrial turbines - god bless them

C) I have to now correct your use of english. Avoidance and Prevention are intechangable terms. Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus - Cite This Source Main Entry: avoidance Part of Speech: noun Definition: eluding Synonyms: abstention, circumvention, delay, departure, dodge, dodging, elusion, escape, escapism, eschewal, evasion, flight, forbearance, nonparticipation, parry, passive resistance, prevention, recession, recoil, restraint, retreat, run-around, self-restraint, shirking, shunning Antonyms: confronting, embrace, facing Source: Roget's New Millennium™

Green energy PREVENTED co2 emissions.

Now that spoon feeding is over - how about presenting me with your "FACTS". You've been silent for good reason every time I've asked.

I have responded numerous times and am done with you. You obviously don't understand reality vs. symbolizm. Penn state is NOT receiving wind energy. They are buying the "market" of wind energy. This does not REDUCE anything. I said avoidance is not reduction and stand by that. Where you came up with the word "prevention" is absurd. Have I even used the word prevention?

Penn State does not have wind turbines at Penn State. They have purchased a "block" of energy for the "market" of output from a set of wind turbines, and if you read the fine print that's all it is. So, has Wholefoods, Dave Matthews band, etc...

So answer me how the grid funnels the output from the turbines 110 miles directly to Penn State on the public grid? Answer me what happens when the turbines are not producing enough power to support Penn State's demand? Do the lights go out across the campus? Whatever coal, natural gas, nuclear plant that was serving Penn State prior to thier "paper purchase" is still serving Penn State's demand (and the rest of the grid) and has not REDUCED fuel use, or emissions. Answer us how often you think those turbines are supplying the demand for Penn State? 100% of the time, 75%, 50%, 25%?

Go ahead and ride your bike to work, while your friend drives your car to carry your laptop - and declare that you have "prevented" (your word) anything. Sounds good, will make a great newspaper article and photo op, but you haven't saved anything. But you'll keep telling us you have.

Nice symbolism. No reality. Visitor - if you want facts go visit the DOE/EIA site for historical COAL CONSUMPTION, NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION, and EMISSIONS OUTPUT. Secondly, you think I'm silent? You've got to be kidding me, come visit cohoctonclean.blogspot.com, I'm just not going to continue to spend my time arguing with someone who obviously doesn't understand the difference between data and wishful thinking.

You've made the point of my challenge several times over. You have nothing to back your opinion that industrial wind reduces fossil fuel use or/and reduces emission except Penn State "buying" the "market" of wind turbine output (aka; RE-Certs).

Formosa

I provided the data and you said it wasn't even grid based (what else didn't you bother to read?). I proved it was grid now you're back to spouting our opion that isn't backed by anything. Here's yet another educational too. http://www.windpower.org/media(502,1033)/Green_credits_from_cradle_to_grave.pdf Which is the same lecture but given by a professinal on how the spot market and green credits operate. And whoeveer said that they must buy their power only from once source? Of course when the wind doesn't blow that Penn state buys from normal sources. The university provided the data, as did the NREL site and a number of other studies that I provided. I feel any data that I provide - you'll just try and shrug it off or shout it off. The good thing is that readers see that I provide data while you provide nothing but rhetoric that isn't backed up by anything as well as someone who hasn't bothered to read what was provide (really - just where did you come up with saying that Penn state didn't buy from the grid?). If this is your style of winning aruguments and trying to sway to populace of your town - well - you had better have a good plan B. One that involves actually presenting some data of your own - not your own self serving opinions that aren't backed up by anything but your own sharp tongue. I say it again - show some data. But I know you can't.

I said I'm done with you and I mean it. The challenge was to you to provide data to back _your_ claims, which you have not.

I'm not the one going around making your statements that wind reduces coal and reduces GHG. The owness is on you making those false claims not me.

I have data from the DOE/EIA that shows there is no reduction of Coal or Emissions after 60,000 industrial wind turbines and many years of operation.

My comment regarding Penn State not buying from the grid is an article that talks about "the Penn State" turbines, talking about them as if Penn State had it's own turbines. That clearly is incorrect, it was the author's phrasing that made it unclear.

Here is the quote from the article:
"The three Penn State University turbines will supply 13.2 million kWh of the annual electrical needs of Penn State’s University Park campus."

I also now understand by reading other articles that they only agreed to puchase 5% of their power from the wind market.

As for the rest of your post, I have no comment. You have officially lost the challenge.

Formosa

Nice Try Formosa, but your not the judge of anything. Also the energy provider was named in that article - guess you missed that too. I've lost nothing. What's interesting is that I think my observation about you ingoring data hit the mark. I've read your own site and its telling. Now Effie - Formosa asked for this and I'm not name calling - just cut and paste from his own blog which he kindly provided us.

Excerpts about Formosa from his own site:

-snipped-

Now Effie - I’m not attacking Formosa. This is supposed to be a place where we can exchange data and viees. Formosa continues to make claims and do victory laps without reading content that I had provided (for example on the grid issue - the name of the provider was right there in the article - guess he just missed that and misread the rest). Formosa's own web site is mostly monologue after monologue with zero comments but those that do have a common thread. Formosa presents zero data of his own while taking comfort in ignoring facts presented to him along with making extreme comparisions - like well show me the coal plant that closed. Very weak arguments that are just rationaliztions that aren't backed up with detail. On the other hand Effie - you do provide some content and contrast. Formosa - show to the readers that you have any data. Point us to the study that backs up your theory that wind doesn't offset GHE. I'll read it Again - I don't think you're up to your own challenge. And I'm not alone in my opinion of your willingness to review data. A number of folks in your own town evidently feels that way.

So Formosa do you listen and can you back up you own views with something? Anything?

Yes, you are attacking. Anyone interested in reading formosa's site can do so. I, too, wish he would present more data. On the other hand, when you are presented with data, you refuse to believe it. Even reports that you post are riddled with questions, problems and concerns which you ignore. So what's the value in doing so?

I continue to back my postions with some type of data Effie and open them up to comments and repore as with Dan on another thread and often with you. I put them in to illustate how a person on his own site was noted and often about how he ingored data while presenting no information of his own. Really nothing. And about how other who actually know him felt that way too. I'm sorry you felt that I had crossed some line.

BTW, does this mean that you'll stop calling me a corp rep or corp stooge?

This is really something. Visitor doesn't have any data to provde the effectiveness of industrial wind to date. And yet *I'm* the one that is responsible to provide data? Did you ever hear of Occam's Razor? It's well used in the scientific community.

What data have I ignored??? Predictions of industrial wind? That wasn't the question. The question was proof/historical data to back your claims.

I will state for the last time, the owness was on you, not me. I'm not the one promoting them!

DOE/EIA has all the data you may desire. How many times do I have to write it?

So, let's just be clear on Visitor's position. Visitor is going around telling all of us that it's a fact that wind turbines reduce GHG and reduce fossil fuel and we are just NIMBY's. When we question visitor, they turn it on us to provide data that it doesn't.

This is a little shrill. It's one thing to believe in the promise of industrial wind, it's another thing altogether to proclaim it's benefits indisputible as facts. Don't you think if there was _any_ data supporting these reductions the wind industry would be publishing them on the front page of each local town newspaper? I again go to Occam's Razor.

As far as others in my town, or your take on my site, again you take too much credit for yourself.

Formosa

My challenge remains open - I challenge anyone to provide empirical historical evidence that industrial wind has reduced fossil fuel or GHG's to date and I will donate $1,000 and change my position on the issue, publically taking out a full page ad in the Valley News declaring my support for my local Cohocton industrial wind project.

Formosa

Visitor, since you think I haven't read your material Provide me the direct "statements" that you think from your NREL/gov sites that is the historical evidence.

Is it? "projects. In
addition, wind power does not create the pollution or greenhouse gas
emissions associated with fossil fuel power generation, and expanded use
of renewable energy sources such as wind power can help reduce the
nation’s dependence on imported fossil fuels. Still, according to DOE and
industry sources, the principal factor encouraging investment in wind
power projects will be the continued availability of the federal production
tax credit."

Can help?

Or this one?
"Wind displaces electricity that would otherwise be produced by burning natural gas, thus helping to reduce gas demand and limit gas price hikes. According to the American Wind Energy Association, the current U.S. gas shortage amounts to approximately 3 to 4 billion cubic feet (Bcf) per day. By the end of 2004, wind plants were generating about 17 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) annually, or the equivalent of nearly 0.5 Bcf/day of natural gas.6 In most areas of the country, every kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by wind power helps reduce the demand for natural gas used to generate electricity. Lower demand for natural gas helps mitigate rising costs of consumer heating and electricity, industrial processes, and chemical and agricultural feedstocks."

This is marketing potential talk. Not historical data.
Equivilents? Notice the word is "helps" rather than "helped".

Or this one? "In fact, some studies predict the accompanying decrease in demand for conventional fuels will reduce fuel prices enough to fully compensate for slightly higher costs for renewables. In the New York study mentioned above, wind displaced energy from both coal and natural gas plants. Rates decreased, and harmful emissions from the coal and gas plants were reduced as well."

"Some studies PREDICT?" FYI, "predict" means it hasn't happened.

FYI, your gov sites include references to the AWEA - the American Wind Energy Association - the MARKETING arm of the wind industry.

None of this is data.

Formosa

Sounds like a good challange Formosa. Just curious - who is going to judge this? You (now that's a joke). If you really believed this you'd have the editor of the newspaper be the judge.

Have a nice day Visitor.

Formosa

I'm going to give everyone a break from me for awhile. I'll come back at a later point to see how your blog/manefesto is maturing. Hope you got a good plan B.

Wow! Just read this thread. Interesting how, in the other thread visitoragain challenges me to come up with a pro-"Industrial Wind Power Plants in residential communities" site says that Wind Turbines "reduce our reliance on foreign oil," while in this thread links to government documents that contain a synonymous phrase ("renewable energy sources such as wind power can help reduce the nation’s dependence on imported fossil fuels.")...priceless.

Did some other snooping:

• UPC Wind: "Wind energy generates power from a renewable and inexhaustible resource. It reduces dependence on fossil fuel imports and diversifies the energy supply." (bottom of page)
  
• Horizon Wind: "Wind energy is 'homegrown' energy that can extend non-renewable energy sources, helping to secure our energy future, reduce energy costs, and reduce our dependence on foreign energy."
  
• Noble : "Wind also lowers consumers’ exposure to the price volatility associated with most fossil fuels, and helps to reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil and natural gas."
  
• AWEA: "Everyone will share the benefits wind energy provides--an improved environment, new jobs, less dependence on foreign oil, and a strong foothold in booming international markets." (quoting Karl Gawell, AWEA's director of governmental affairs).