# Oh No! 2009 record amounts of new US wind power **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 11, 2010, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702 "2010-04-11T05:01:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/21 "2010-04-11T16:02:52Z")
Laugh all you want, but fusion is the endgame. Once we have that, we’ll never need another source of energy. _Fusion power - 1,000,000,000,000,000 suns can’t be wrong._ ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/22 "2010-04-11T16:04:38Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Laugh all you want, but fusion is the endgame. Once we have that, we’ll never need another source of energy. > > _Fusion power - 1,000,000,000,000,000 suns can’t be wrong._ Let’s cut to the chase then, what you’re advocating is solar power. We agree. ---
**Author:** ![MysteryFellow63427](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@MysteryFellow63427](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysteryFellow63427)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/23 "2010-04-11T16:12:52Z")
Wind power is [an inefficient wreck](http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx). Because of its variability, it has to be supplemented by lots of coal or other power. Anyone who thinks wind is a big part of the answer to future energy needs is ignorant or a fool, or both, as in the case of the OP. Also, my understanding (and someone please correct me if I’m wrong) is that a big reason nuke plants aren’t going online is that it from blueprint to cooling tower, it takes ~9 years (give or take a year or two) to go through the numerous regulatory hoops, and finish construction on the project. It’s difficult to get the necessary capital for a large construction project of that length, especially when a smaller and less expensive gas or coal plant can be brought online in far less time. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/24 "2010-04-11T16:16:25Z")
OP is a jackass. 'nuff said. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/25 "2010-04-11T16:18:18Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Coal. America has lots of coal, and it does scale up Aha! But how many people in the U.S. have died in coal-related accidents compared to nuclear accidents? Oh, wait… . ---
**Author:** ![Dan\_Norder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4af34b/32.png) [@Dan\_Norder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dan_Norder)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/26 "2010-04-11T16:20:07Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Right. If we had only kept up with nuclear power we would not only have fusion, but we’d have warp drives and have colonized the galaxy by now. :rolleyes: The science behind fusion is real and known. We know what it is and what it does. Based upon the progress historically in other cases where we understood the physics (or chemistry or biology) and developed practical implementations, it is extremely likely to be attainable within a generation or two. There’s no way to know, but it seems very likely that it could have already been discovered by now if it weren’t for fear mongers and idiots trying to stop all progress in the field. Fusion is real, not fantasy, and based upon the massive amount of energy involved it’s one of the most important goals science needs to be pursuing. The energy crisis and global warming make it even more imperative. Comparing fusion to FTL is like saying we could never develop technology to send messages around the world because angels do not exist and aren’t going to act as our messengers. You might as well paint a big scarlet “I” on your head if you show up on this board and make ridiculous arguments like that. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/27 "2010-04-11T16:21:55Z")
> [@neuroman](#): > > Wind power is [an inefficient wreck](http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx). Because of its variability, it has to be supplemented by lots of coal or other power. Anyone who thinks wind is a big part of the answer to future energy needs is ignorant or a fool, or both, as in the case of the OP. > > Also, my understanding (and someone please correct me if I’m wrong) is that a big reason nuke plants aren’t going online is that it from blueprint to cooling tower, it takes ~9 years (give or take a year or two) to go through the numerous regulatory hoops, and finish construction on the project. It’s difficult to get the necessary capital for a large construction project of that length, especially when a smaller and less expensive gas or coal plant can be brought online in far less time. Try this: [The Staggering Cost of New Nuclear Power](http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/01/nuclear_power.html). ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/28 "2010-04-11T16:28:09Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Meanwhile, nuclear energy has supplied not a single watt of new power in the US in the past 30 years… [This is so easily and quickly proven false that I really don’t know what else to say, other than folks should click on this link and see that yes, there have been significant increases in nuclear generation over the last decade. Sure it’s true that almost no new plants came online in the US but that’s not what the OP alleged, and you’ll forgive me if on the Straight Dope I call people out on those things.](http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html) ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/29 "2010-04-11T16:33:03Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m looking forward to superconducting transmission technology, myself. A considerable amount of generated electricty is lost in the grid itself… This is not true. I’ve debunked this several times on here. Annual Energy Review, page 225, see the Sankey diagram, divide T&D losses into net generation. 7.4% is not a considerable amount, and the realities of replacing enough lines in the US to make a difference in this is on the level of making fusion power possible. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/30 "2010-04-11T16:39:49Z")
Given what the OP wants, his username is incomplete. It ought to be **The Second Stone Age**. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/31 "2010-04-11T16:40:53Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Let’s cut to the chase then, what you’re advocating is solar power. We agree. Solar energy takes up huge amounts of space, produces a limited amount of power, and can be stopped by a cloud. It’s nice if you’re building a space station, but for the real world? No thanks. I like my power sources when they aren’t seperated from me by millions of miles of space. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/32 "2010-04-11T16:41:42Z")
> [@Dan\_Norder](#): > > Comparing fusion to FTL is like saying we could never develop technology to send messages around the world because angels do not exist and aren’t going to act as our messengers. You might as well paint a big scarlet “I” on your head if you show up on this board and make ridiculous arguments like that. No, equating more nuclear with fusion is a ridiculous statement, and doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously. If we’re talking about nuclear and fusion, we’re talking about things that will do no good for decades, cost ridiculously more than proponents will ever admit, and in the case of fusion, the most wild-eyed optimistic prediction is 50 years out, and much more likely 100 years. Let’s not forget nuclear was originally billed and promised as free and unlimited. Fusion was promised to be free and unlimited and should have been online by the year 2000. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/33 "2010-04-11T16:42:10Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > This is not true. I’ve debunked this several times on here. > > Annual Energy Review, page 225, see the Sankey diagram, divide T&D losses into net generation. 7.4% is not a considerable amount Well, _I’d_ still consider it… 7.4% is _something_. But I’ll concede that I’m heavily influenced by the sheer gee-whizzery of the idea, as presented in _Popular Science_ and such. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/34 "2010-04-11T16:45:42Z")
NIMBYs of all types help keep nuclear plants from being built. I love them, built them in your neighborhood not mine. A lot of people talk about them, but fight like hell when it is near them. How much trouble are we having over finding a place for nuclear waste? ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/35 "2010-04-11T16:48:40Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Coal. America has lots of coal, and it does scale up - it’s more polluting than nuclear and contributes to global warming, but it doesn’t have the anti-nuclear fanatics blocking it. That’s likely to be the legacy people like you leave the country and the world; an America dotted with coal plants spewing pollution. > > But at least they aren’t nuclear! We can choke on coal particulates with a clean conscience (if not clean lungs). :rolleyes: The _main_ and overriding concern with coal is the GHG emissions impact, which is both huge and undeniable, and is what will kill coal off. Particulates are a red herring. And coal has its anti-coal protesters too, who are indeed getting coal plant plans scrapped. Of the last 50+ conceptual designs I’ve been a consultant on, exactly 2 have gone to construction, neither of them in the US. I still have to go and give testimony at the meetings and have to face the anti-coal protesters and have to read and debunk their fact-starved and outright lying position statements they deliver to PUCs.\* And I don’t mind the fact that they’re against the coal plants, but I do mind their disconnect with reality. One exchange at a recent meeting went like this: Protester: “Besides, coal is actually more expensive than wind or even solar.” Commissioner: “I really don’t believe those facts are correct.” Protester: “They are. The coal industry is deliberately driving the cost of wind and solar up by secret back door deals with Dick Cheney.” (note this is 2010…who’s in office now?) Once you hear that, there’s no point in even paying attention. - (Oh wait, I forgot, some mental midget on here once said because he couldn’t find a protest I said I was at in Gooooooooooooooogle, he accused me of lying and said “no one” on the SDMB should ever listen to me on energy matters, since my decades of professional experience couldn’t trump basement-dwelling shitheels who get their facts from some teenager’s blog, and no I’m not talking about you Der Trihs; you’ve never done that, I’m just venting). ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/36 "2010-04-11T16:53:58Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > \I predict in the next five years, not a single nuke plant will break ground in the US,\ For your own sakes, I hope this isn’t true. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/37 "2010-04-11T16:54:10Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, _I’d_ still consider it… 7.4% is _something_. > > But I’ll concede that I’m heavily influenced by the sheer gee-whizzery of the idea, as presented in _Popular Science_ and such. By one standpoint it might sound like that, but there is a practical matter - the first one is that 7.4% is essentially busbar to meter losses, and many of the plans for superconducting cables are focused on the main HT 125+ kV lines, which ironically, due to their high voltage, are not losing the majority of the power. What I mean is, you’re sort of facing a diminishing returns factor which comes into play very quickly. Now I’m not a T&D expert so do not take what I say here as gospel, but IIRC (again, anecdote, not fact) replacing the entire mainline grid only gets us back about 1-2% of the total, which on a US scale is a lot of power, but compared to the cost and effort is a large amount for little gain. A lot of power is lost in the residential neighborhoods - that “final mile”, a lot is lost in multiple transformers (even if some are 99.5% efficient), etc. While getting back 1-2% of the power generated is a lot of GWh, we also have to consider are there much lower hanging fruits on the tree. And that was my point. ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/38 "2010-04-11T17:03:35Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > Why can’t the government just take a stance that basically says “We’ve examined our energy situation and have determined that going forward that nuclear energy is the most efficient, clean and reliable source of new electric production. We’ve conducted studies that have concluded the best locations for new nuclear power plants. _We’re building these things, and there’s fuck all any of you environmentalist groups and your lawyers can do about it!_”? Nothing but an old piece of paper: [QUOTE=Constitution of the United States, Amendment 1] Congress shall make no law […] and **to petition the Government for a redress of grievances**. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/39 "2010-04-11T17:07:16Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > While getting back 1-2% of the power generated is a lot of GWh, we also have to consider are there much lower hanging fruits on the tree. And that was my point. This may be a hijack, but what benefits (if any) do you see in pursuing the development of [Smart Grid](http://www.oe.energy.gov/smartgrid.htm)? ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/40 "2010-04-11T17:10:39Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Solar energy takes up huge amounts of space, produces a limited amount of power, and can be stopped by a cloud. It’s nice if you’re building a space station, but for the real world? No thanks. I like my power sources when they aren’t seperated from me by millions of miles of space. No serious person is proposing the entire world get its energy from solar anytime in the near future. If we’re going to play that game, then to do the same thing with nuke we’re going to have to start bringing one new nuke plant online everyday, starting right now. Realistic? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702.md?page=3)