In the intro, the article currently says "The intermittency of wind seldom creates problems when using wind power to supply a low proportion of total demand. Where wind is to be used for a moderate fraction of demand, additional costs for compensation of intermittency are considered to be modest.". I have no doubt that some people hold that opinion (particularly the first sentence), but can it really be stated as fact? It smells a little of bias to me. Moreover, the citation given doesn't seem to strongly support the view, and says something along the lines of "studies are ongoing" and avoids any strong conclusions. TastyCakes (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-11-17T20:28:00.000Z","author":"TastyCakes","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-TastyCakes-2008-11-17T20:28:00.000Z-Intermittency","replies":["c-Richerman-2008-11-17T23:34:00.000Z-TastyCakes-2008-11-17T20:28:00.000Z"]}}-->
Yes it is a fact - just read the other references - from National Grid UK, to the IEA etc. Engineman (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-11-18T02:10:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2008-11-18T02:10:00.000Z-Intermittency","replies":["c-TastyCakes-2008-11-18T15:40:00.000Z-Engineman-2008-11-18T02:10:00.000Z"]}}-->
modelling Are people aware of Dr Gregor Czisch's work on modeling the costs and effects of a European hvdc power grid and various combinations of renewables?
He concludes from memory, amongst other things:
70% wind, 30% waste biomass chp plus existing hydro storage would provide 100% renewable electricity at today's power prices. Concentrating solar nor pv are anywhere near as economic as wind power. His work has been presented at a number of gatherings of experts at governmental level and has not as far as i am aware been faulted.
The EU has recently announced plans for such a super grid, mainly to outwit the Russians. In the US Al Gore, and Obama are planning a similar country wide grid. Wind power is the fastest growing form of power generation - 25% per annum.Engineman (talk) 03:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Dr Mark Barratt of UCL Dr Mark Barrett, Principal RCUK Academic Research Fellow Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/markbarrett/Index.html has reached similar conclusions looking at the UK only. (I think he includes a bit of tidal and wave power)
Barrats model works by running an entire real UK weather scenario over the UK, and then optimizing the required mix of basically wind and biomassede powered chp. I think he needs an 8GW inter connector compared to the present 2 GW.
Is this the extent of the "consensus" you claim experts on the issues facing high levels of wind penetration have reached? TastyCakes (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC).
Dear Tastycakes - is there any consensus with published papers or from independanmt experts showing that intermittency is a problem with high levels of wind penetration? Engineman (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-12-22T08:14:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2008-12-22T08:14:00.000Z-issues_facing_high_levels_of_wind_penetration","replies":["c-Teratornis-2008-12-23T08:29:00.000Z-Engineman-2008-12-22T08:14:00.000Z"]}}-->
{{cite web}}
|month=
Interesting - Czisch has us connected to new hydro in Iceland and existing hydro in Norway - does Mackay assume this? In a high wind scenario, why not just use the retained and already built coal plant for the 5 percent of the year when there is no wind - 5% carbon as opposed to 100% carbon seems good enough to me. And the cost of keeping a coal plant idle, is tiny since most of the cost of coal power is the fuel not the capital or maintenance and operation.Engineman (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-01-01T10:14:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2009-01-01T10:14:00.000Z-issues_facing_high_levels_of_wind_penetration","replies":["c-Wwoods-2009-01-02T21:14:00.000Z-Engineman-2009-01-01T10:14:00.000Z"]}}-->
I was thinking more of coal since you can stockpile months of the stuff, and start coal stations well within the weather forecesasting window and we have loads of them in the UK already built. Gas of course can be used just as well, assuming the Russkies let us have the stuff.05:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Would it make more sense to put this subsection under the utilization section, since it seems as if they are more closely related? Penetration really measures the percent of the energy generated by wind power in an area, correct? \
This article seems a bit awkwardly designed. II | (t - c) 00:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-01-10T00:12:00.000Z","author":"ImperfectlyInformed","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-ImperfectlyInformed-2009-01-10T00:12:00.000Z-Penetration_and_utilization","replies":["c-Wtshymanski-2009-01-10T02:58:00.000Z-ImperfectlyInformed-2009-01-10T00:12:00.000Z"],"displayName":"II"}}-->
Could any body add a new column in the Utiliztion section, so that the data from 2008 can be added.Calvingao (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-01-26T02:35:00.000Z","author":"Calvingao","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Calvingao-2009-01-26T02:35:00.000Z-2008_Data","replies":["c-Rmhermen-2009-01-28T14:55:00.000Z-Calvingao-2009-01-26T02:35:00.000Z"]}}-->
I propose to delete the 2005 data from tables of Utilization of wind power and move them to the Installed wind power capacity. Also create a similar table for the energy generated as well. Also please complete the data of 2007 and 2008 in both tables, because these two tables are essential to the rescent growth of the wind power.Calvingao (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-02-16T18:30:00.000Z","author":"Calvingao","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Calvingao-2009-02-16T18:30:00.000Z-Delete_the_2005_data_and_Complete_2007_and_2008","replies":["c-Delphi234-2009-02-22T15:16:00.000Z-Calvingao-2009-02-16T18:30:00.000Z"]}}-->
{{editsemiprotected}} Some of the 2008 figures can be updated from,[1] in particular, the world total, 121.2 GW (instead of 120.8 in the lead) (121,187.9 MW), so 120,791 should be replaced with 121,188 (2 places). Spain should be 16,740 instead of 16,754, India should be 9,587 instead of 9,645, United Kingdom should be 3,288 instead of 3,241, Denmark 3,160, instead of 3,180, Australia 1,494 instead of 1,306, Sweden 1,067 instead of 1,021, Ireland 1,245 instead of 1,002, Greece 990 instead of 985, Turkey 333, instead of 433 (if a reference can be found that 433 is correct, it should be so indicated), Belgium 384 instead of 382, Egypt 390, instead of 365, Brazil 338 instead of 341, New Zealand 325 instead of 326, South Korea 278 instead of 236, Finland 140 instead of 143, Morocco 125 instead of 134, Iran 82 instead of 85, and Costa Rica 74 instead of 70. 199.125.109.56 (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-03-17T18:14:00.000Z","author":"199.125.109.56","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-199.125.109.56-2009-03-17T18:14:00.000Z-Delete_the_2005_data_and_Complete_2007_and_2008","replies":["c-199.125.109.33-2009-03-27T15:26:00.000Z-199.125.109.56-2009-03-17T18:14:00.000Z"]}}-->
{{editsemiprotected}}
Can someone tell me why the old intro, which gave the amount of wind power generated as a % of world total as well as its growth rate, has been replaced with a number of gigawatts that is, for most people, completely without reference? Gee, 120GW, is that enough to run a car, a city, a country? Can we please restore the previous information that was useful for giving people a sense of perspective. TastyCakes (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-03-12T20:25:00.000Z","author":"TastyCakes","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-TastyCakes-2009-03-12T20:25:00.000Z-Intro","replies":["c-Wtshymanski-2009-03-12T21:48:00.000Z-TastyCakes-2009-03-12T20:25:00.000Z"]}}-->
The following was removed: "However, the wind is not easy to predict and matching supply and demand of electricity is difficult. Conventional thermal power stations are still needed to back up the power supply. Most wind power projects are subsidised by government owing to the high capital costs of installation." For one thing, wind in general is predicted every day, and while it varies a lot, it is "non-dispatchable", meaning you have to take whatever is available, but matching supply and demand is continuously done, by turning on and off other sources, such as hydro. High cost is in itself never a reason for subsidy, if it was, Gucci handbags and Rolex watches would be subsidized. The reason it is subsidized is to encourage growth, and the reason you would want to do that is to stop global warming and pollution. 199.125.109.56 (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-03-15T21:08:00.000Z","author":"199.125.109.56","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-199.125.109.56-2009-03-15T21:08:00.000Z-Intro","replies":["c-Teratornis-2009-04-14T17:08:00.000Z-199.125.109.56-2009-03-15T21:08:00.000Z"]}}-->
The statement that wind power is the world's fastest growing energy source needs to be qualified. It may be correct in terms of greatest added capacity, if China has stopped building a new coal power plant a week, or two, but it is not true in terms of rate of increase, as wind power is doubling every three years, about a 28%/year increase, but photovoltaics is doubling every two years, about a 48%/year increase. Photovoltaics is starting with a much smaller installed base, about 15.2 GWp in 2008 vs. an installed base of 121.188 GWp of wind power in 2008. The two are not directly comparable because each has a different capacity factor, but neglecting capacity factor, if the same rates continue solar will catch up with wind in 14.3 years, at which time each will provide about 5% of current energy consumption, with wind a little more because of the better capacity factor. If I might add a blatant plug here, this is no where near fast enough to make a significant dent either into global warming, or a replacement for collapsing oil production due to peak oil, so in fact each rate needs to be doubled from current growth rates. 199.125.109.33 (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-03-27T15:49:00.000Z","author":"199.125.109.33","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-199.125.109.33-2009-03-27T15:49:00.000Z-Fastest_growing_energy_source","replies":["c-TastyCakes-2009-03-27T15:57:00.000Z-199.125.109.33-2009-03-27T15:49:00.000Z"]}}-->
Test Driving India's Electric Car
16 April 2009
On 16 April, representatives from REVA electric car company, which is based in Bangalore, India, brought two REVA vehicles to the IEA for Executive Director Tanaka to take a test drive. The REVA electric car, which was launched in 2001, was designed in California and manufactured in India. Over 2000 vehicles are on the road. The vehicle can go up to 80km on a single charge. Indian Ambassador to France, Hon. Ranjan Mathai (pictured here with Mr. Tanaka) came to the IEA for the test drive.[3]
Adding to Arnold Reinhold's comments about electric vehicles. A large & sustained rise in the price of oil would stimulate the production of electric battery vehicles. What is really needed are suburban runabouts & commercial delivery vehicles with a range of say 70 km. Such vehicles are already practical. I envisage, in the US, the production of say 100 million suburban runabouts in 15 years. ---DavidJErskine (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-04-20T12:14:00.000Z","author":"DavidJErskine","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-DavidJErskine-2009-04-20T12:14:00.000Z-Fastest_growing_energy_source","replies":[]}}-->
The title should be change to electricity production. Utilization of wind power is the idea of this whole article- to use wind power. Also it should not contain contry specific paragraphs and it should be an overview of the power industry with few words mention specific countries like German, US and China and direct to the specific countries.Calvingao (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-04-17T05:06:00.000Z","author":"Calvingao","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Calvingao-2009-04-17T05:06:00.000Z-Utilization_of_wind_power_should_be_changed","replies":["c-Teratornis-2009-04-17T20:24:00.000Z-Calvingao-2009-04-17T05:06:00.000Z"]}}-->
I recently deleted some of the criticisms in this section and my edit was reverted. Having personally visited a wind farm I can say from personal experience that noise is not a problem. The part about using natural gas I believe is also wrong. Jim Oswald is a biased source because he is trying to promote natural gas. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-02-15T05:37:00.000Z","author":"TeH nOmInAtOr","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-TeH_nOmInAtOr-2009-02-15T05:37:00.000Z-Environmental_Effects_Section","replies":["c-Teratornis-2009-03-06T22:24:00.000Z-TeH_nOmInAtOr-2009-02-15T05:37:00.000Z","c-Delphi234-2009-02-22T15:03:00.000Z-TeH_nOmInAtOr-2009-02-15T05:37:00.000Z"]}}-->
"Danger to birds and bats is often the main complaint against the installation of a wind turbine." I can't believe this, surely the main complaint is the fact that they are an eye sore and spoil the countryside? Dave clark86 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-05-20T11:37:00.000Z","author":"Dave clark86","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dave_clark86-2009-05-20T11:37:00.000Z-Environmental_Effects_Section","replies":[]}}-->
This paper and associated email discussion might interest people.Engineman (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-04-20T14:09:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2009-04-20T14:09:00.000Z-Discussion_on_Danish_wind_power_export_etc","replies":[]}}-->
Hugh Sharman's paper on wind energy in Denmark
http://www.claverton-energy.com/energy-experts-library/downloads/windenergy.
The lengthy header is an email from someone , who appears to know nothing about Danish wind power but is nevertheless writing a book about it, with comment's from another person interspersed.Engineman (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-04-20T14:17:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2009-04-20T14:17:00.000Z-Discussion_on_Danish_wind_power_export_etc","replies":[]}}-->
The lengthy header is an email from Robert Bryce, who appears to know nothing about Danish wind power but is nevertheless writing a book about it, with Hugh Sharman, who does, comment's interspersed.Engineman (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Engineman (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-04-20T14:17:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2009-04-20T14:17:00.000Z-Discussion_on_Danish_wind_power_export_etc-1","replies":["c-Wwoods-2009-04-24T18:40:00.000Z-Engineman-2009-04-20T14:17:00.000Z"]}}-->
This article disputes the David Millborrow article claiming wind is reliable.
Is_Wind_Power_Reliable_by_D_Milborrow1.doc[8]
http://www.claverton-energy.com/energy-experts-library/downloads/windenergy
Engineman (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-04-20T14:43:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2009-04-20T14:43:00.000Z-is_wind_power_reliable?","replies":["c-199.125.109.33-2009-04-20T15:50:00.000Z-Engineman-2009-04-20T14:43:00.000Z","c-Tony1-2009-06-22T08:05:00.000Z-Engineman-2009-04-20T14:43:00.000Z"]}}-->
[9] Tony (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-06-22T08:11:00.000Z","author":"Tony1","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tony1-2009-06-22T08:11:00.000Z-anyone_got_an_opinion_on_this?","replies":["c-Teratornis-2009-06-22T19:27:00.000Z-Tony1-2009-06-22T08:11:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Tony"}}-->
Am I missing something here? According to the article:
Another growing market is Brazil, with a wind potential of 143 GW.[72] The federal government has created an incentive program, called Proinfa,[73] to build production capacity of 3300 MW of renewable energy for 2008, of which 1422 MW through wind energy. The program seeks to produce 10% of Brazilian electricity through renewable sources.
But Itaipu alone produces 19% of Brazil's power (it used to be higher last time I checked, guess their energy demand has been climbing since then, but I digress). Is hydro power not considered renewable, is it an additional 10%, 10% ignoring Itaipu, or what am I missing?
121.90.186.160 (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-06-23T01:46:00.000Z","author":"121.90.186.160","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-121.90.186.160-2009-06-23T01:46:00.000Z-Brazil_and_renewable_percentage","replies":["c-121.90.253.74-2009-06-24T01:38:00.000Z-121.90.186.160-2009-06-23T01:46:00.000Z"]}}-->
"Wind power, along with solar power, is non-dispatchable, meaning that for economic operation all of the available output must be taken when it is available, and other resources, such as hydropower, must be used to match supply with demand. The intermittency of wind seldom creates problems when using wind power to supply a low proportion of total demand. Where wind is to be used for a moderate fraction of demand, additional costs for compensation of intermittency are considered to be modest.[3]"
First, does ref. 3 cover all of these claims? Second, "non-dispatchable" needs to be explained to non-experts, and the current attempt doesn't convince me on logical grounds. "The intermittency ..." is a grand claim; who says it doesn't create problems when supplying only a low proportion of demand? And who says that the marginal costs for the compensation of intermittency are "modest"? It's not only intermittency, but the larger issue of "capacity value" to the grid, surely. See Sindon's excellent 2003 article on this matter in the UK. Tony (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-06-14T06:34:00.000Z","author":"Tony1","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tony1-2009-06-14T06:34:00.000Z-Last_para_in_lead_needs_a_good_work-over","replies":["c-Wwoods-2009-06-22T17:56:00.000Z-Tony1-2009-06-14T06:34:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Tony"}}-->
have removed reference to solar energy, since this articel is about wind power. Solar energy is in any case dispatchable in certain cases if it has a molten salt heat store which is readilly availalbe.Engineman (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-06-28T19:34:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2009-06-28T19:34:00.000Z-solar_energy","replies":["c-199.125.109.33-2009-07-17T15:34:00.000Z-Engineman-2009-06-28T19:34:00.000Z"]}}-->
Why has this paragraoh been removed - this article needs a paragraph giving the relative costs of competeing soources of power? Engineman (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC) When comparing renewable energy sources with each other and with conventional power sources three main factors have to be considered:__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-07-28T18:58:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2009-07-28T18:58:00.000Z-Relative_cost_of_electricity_by_generation_source","replies":["c-Wtshymanski-2009-07-29T14:18:00.000Z-Engineman-2009-07-28T18:58:00.000Z","c-Tony1-2009-07-29T14:36:00.000Z-Engineman-2009-07-28T18:58:00.000Z"]}}-->
These costs are all brought together using discounted cash flow here.[1] and here [2]Inherently renewables are on a decreasing cost curve, while non-renewables are on an increasing cost curve.[3] In 2009, costs are comparable between wind, nuclear, coal, and natural gas, but CSP - concentrating solar power, and PV - photvoltaics are somewhat higher.
There are additional costs for renewables in terms of increased grid interconnection to allow for diversity of weather and load, but these have been shown in the pan - european case to be quite low, showing that overall wind energy costs about the same as present day power.[4]
I think that the para withymanski deleted is a perfectly acceptable start for comparing the published costs of competing sources. Particularly the one by Millborrow. I intend to reinstate the article unless you can come up with some better reasons.Engineman (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-07-29T20:41:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2009-07-29T20:41:00.000Z-Relative_cost_of_electricity_by_generation_source","replies":[]}}-->
In 2008, wind power produced about 1.5% of worldwide electricity usage;[5][6] and is growing rapidly, having doubled in the three years between 2005 and 2008.
Wind power doubled? (Seems vague). Or that 1.5% figure doubled (from 0.75%)?
Can someone clear this up?
--Wtshymanski (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-07-29T15:28:00.000Z","author":"Wtshymanski","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Wtshymanski-2009-07-29T15:28:00.000Z-Queries_about_the_text","replies":[]}}-->
Where wind is to be used for a moderate fraction of demand, additional costs for compensation of intermittency are considered to be modest.[7]
This seems to be a rather sweeping claim; the reference appears to be based on one summary paper, Adelaide, 2006, based on a slender sample. I suggest this claim be toned down. Tony (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-07-29T14:50:00.000Z","author":"Tony1","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tony1-2009-07-29T14:50:00.000Z-Queries_about_the_text","replies":["c-Wtshymanski-2009-07-29T15:28:00.000Z-Tony1-2009-07-29T14:50:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Tony"}}-->
The recently added 3 papers are looking at 40% wind energy generated in the UK, not capacity - that is considered moderate and the costs are a few percent extra.
The Czisch paper is looking at 70% for europe and shows there is no extra costs.
The article fails to mention the effect of large scale production of the components of wind turbines. China has now emerged as the factory of the world, & a huge increase in the production of the components of wind turbines will eventually lead to a sharp reduction in the price. Economies of scale apply to manufactured items such as cars & paperclips. The economics of wind power is dominated by the purchase price of wind turbines. ----DavidJErskine (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-04-20T12:21:00.000Z","author":"DavidJErskine","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-DavidJErskine-2009-04-20T12:21:00.000Z-Economies_of_scale_in_the_production_of_wind_turbine_components","replies":["c-Teratornis-2009-06-13T18:42:00.000Z-DavidJErskine-2009-04-20T12:21:00.000Z"]}}-->
(undent) More about Three Gorges: according to our article, Three Gorges alone outproduces (at 80 TWh/yr) the entire U.S. wind power industry (at 52 TWh/yr counting projects completed through 2008). The dam is projected to produce 100 TWh/yr when the reservoir is full. The total project cost was just under $30 billion. U.S. wind power investment has been higher than that. The addition in 2008 of 8,500 MW of nameplate capacity cost $17 billion. Big hydro costs less per watt of nameplate capacity than wind power currently, typically has a somewhat higher capacity factor, and hydroelectric plants can last several times as long as wind turbines. Further developments in wind turbines may lower their costs, but it's going to be hard for wind to catch big hydro. We build wind farms because we don't have enough suitable hydro sites. On the negative side for hydro, Three Gorges displaced more than one million people - I don't think that would be acceptable in a country like the U.S. --Teratornis (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-07-19T01:59:00.000Z","author":"Teratornis","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Teratornis-2009-07-19T01:59:00.000Z-Economies_of_scale_in_the_production_of_wind_turbine_components","replies":["c-DavidJErskine-2009-07-19T08:40:00.000Z-Teratornis-2009-07-19T01:59:00.000Z"]}}-->
please don't arbirarily delete this paragrpah again. Costs are pretty meaningless unless they compare other power sources on s aimilar basis which the cited reference clearly attempt to do. All the otehr later paragraphs merely obsucre the picture.Engineman (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-08-18T15:00:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2009-08-18T15:00:00.000Z-Comparative_costs","replies":["c-Wtshymanski-2009-08-18T17:49:00.000Z-Engineman-2009-08-18T15:00:00.000Z"]}}-->
Claverton is not a wind power advocacy site.; It is a discussion group for professionally qualified people, many, but by no means all who support wind power on the basis of advancing actual facts. the paragraph may well need some work, but it is a start. references comparing differnt power source costs are clearly needed for this article to be useful.Engineman (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-08-18T22:40:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2009-08-18T22:40:00.000Z-Comparative_costs","replies":[]}}-->
Even if Claverton were a wind advocacy site, that is irrelvanet since the article is merely reporting on three independent authored, by experts, one is the National Grid of Uk, and one is an ex CEGB expert, and Pyry is an independant consultancy organisation, and they all pretty much agree.
Main article Economics of electricity When looking at the costs of electric power, competing sources may be compared on a similar basis of calculation. When comparing renewable and conventional power sources several internal cost factors have to be considered:
All plants need decomissioning costs if they are to internalize all costs.
what about water rights for hydro plants? Payments to landowners for siting of turbines ?
--Wtshymanski (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-08-19T02:27:00.000Z","author":"Wtshymanski","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Wtshymanski-2009-08-19T02:27:00.000Z-Move_editorializing_to_talk_page_and_out_of_article_comments","replies":[]}}-->
Annual Wind Power Generation (TWh) and total electricity consumption(TWh) for 10 largest countries. This table is still incomplete, althrough we are well into 2009. Please complete it if you can find the source and the number.Calvingao (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-08-22T15:43:00.000Z","author":"Calvingao","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Calvingao-2009-08-22T15:43:00.000Z-Please_complete_the_table","replies":["c-Teratornis-2009-08-24T04:08:00.000Z-Calvingao-2009-08-22T15:43:00.000Z"]}}-->
The last section in Environmental Effects seems misplaced. Whether the construction of a windfarm has been delayed due to concerns for aesthetics or some village finds the turbines impressive looking is not exactly an environmental effect. Aesthetics probably deserve mentioning somewhere but not here... SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 21:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-08-18T21:52:00.000Z","author":"Splette","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Splette-2009-08-18T21:52:00.000Z-Aesthetics!=Environmental_Effect","replies":["c-Teratornis-2009-09-01T07:12:00.000Z-Splette-2009-08-18T21:52:00.000Z"]}}-->
The electricity generation section could perhaps be spun out as Wind power grid integration, to make this article a little more compact. A very short summary would be left here. Similarly, until someone writes the Economics of electric power article, perhaps all the economics could be spun out into Economics of wind power with a one-line summary left here. We did this with history a while ago, and it's one strategy for keeping this article under 100 kb. Any thoughts? --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-08-19T03:25:00.000Z","author":"Wtshymanski","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Wtshymanski-2009-08-19T03:25:00.000Z-Spin_out_economics_and_electricity_generation?","replies":[]}}-->
Thats a possiblity, but it seems to me that a lot of the stuff in the article is far to detailed - a sort of collections almost of random facts for and agains wind energy.
i would expect users of the article to get some quick conclusions and over view and at the moment the published authoritative references, all show that wind power even including the externalities is on a par with the costs of other power sources - within the limits of accuracy anywayl. so why does there have to be some much stuff about the detail?09:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Engineman (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-08-19T09:38:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2009-08-19T09:38:00.000Z-Spin_out_economics_and_electricity_generation?","replies":["c-Wtshymanski-2009-09-08T03:06:00.000Z-Engineman-2009-08-19T09:38:00.000Z"]}}-->
"Economics and feasibility"
I think the section has a number of problems:
I've added the new sub-section "full costs and lobbying" to try and counter some of this bias. Enescot (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-09-06T20:22:00.000Z","author":"Enescot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Enescot-2009-09-06T20:22:00.000Z-Neutrality_and_lack_of_independent_sources","replies":["c-John_Quiggin-2009-09-12T07:47:00.000Z-Enescot-2009-09-06T20:22:00.000Z"]}}-->
Why has the edit saying that wind is dispatchable been reverted? ?It is self evident, that in any concentration, but particularly high concentrations, wind farms can be contrained of to a certain extent, That is obvious in and of itslef to it doesnt need a reference.Engineman (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-10-09T22:32:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2009-10-09T22:32:00.000Z-Despatchability","replies":["c-Digitiki-2009-10-09T23:13:00.000Z-Engineman-2009-10-09T22:32:00.000Z","c-Digitiki-2009-10-10T03:29:00.000Z-Engineman-2009-10-09T22:32:00.000Z"]}}-->
I suggest e need to move on - wind is growing world wide at 30% per annum, and you can't necessarily discuss large scale wind using only the old concepts of grid management that were applied to conventional plant and somehow point to their inabili9ty to fit into the old paradigms as an inherent fault.
This is a definition of Dispatchability from the article on Intermittent energy source -
Dispatchability [12] or maneuverability is the ability of a given power source to increase and/or decrease output quickly on demand. The concept is distinct from intermittency; maneuverability is one of several ways grid operators match output (supply) to system demand.[16]
Constraining off wind power seems to fit into this definition perfectly.
The fact that wind is not actually despatched in Ireland doesn't undermine the point that wind is or could be despatchable in the correctly designed markets and in high penetrations.
Putting the issue of despatchablity in the lead paragraph is a distraction or red herring - and should probably be in a detail lower down, since it is not of crucial importance. Czisch has shown that a European supergrid,[13] allowing the connection of distant grids, and utilizing existing European hydro - 6 weeks full load output storage, means that wind can provide power at todays prices. there is no need to connect Argentina to US - US already spans 6 time zones and has existent long distance HVDC - it just needs to be built up. Thus the non despatchability of wind or otherwise is not the killer defect that seems to be implied.
All plants have limits on their despatchability - OCGT may take 20 minutes to meet full output, but a wind turbine can be de constrained off (or on in seconds and minutes. With sufficient concentration of wind turbines the despatchable power, in MW will obviously equal say a 50 MW OCGT. OCGTs cannot be repeatedly stopped and started whereas wind can be repeated constrained and de constrained.Engineman (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-10-11T10:41:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2009-10-11T10:41:00.000Z-Old_thinking_about_power_grids","replies":[]}}-->
Some time ago, the article wind energy conversion system was deleted. The aim of this article was to make clear that both purely mechanical aswell as electricity generation wind harvesters exist. Aldough I can understand why it has been deleted (a search with a search engine for these terms, aldough acurate, generate little results). However, aldough I thus don't mind this article is deleted, the images I made to clarify this were removed aswell. Perhaps that a gallery, or better yet a new section at this article, is thus made instead. The images are:
KVDP (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-10-28T12:15:00.000Z","author":"KVDP","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-KVDP-2009-10-28T12:15:00.000Z-Wind_power_devices","replies":["c-Teratornis-2009-11-27T06:06:00.000Z-KVDP-2009-10-28T12:15:00.000Z"]}}-->
I removed the following statement from the article:
...because it was not supported by the two provided references.
The first reference claims that 20% (not 70%!) of electricity could be generated from wind without major changes to the grid and therefore without cost increases.
The second reference is far less credible, since it reads like a persuasive essay complete with exaggerations of various kinds. However, even that reference claims that average prices, with 70% of energy from wind, is "relatively close" to current costs, and lower than the price of electricity on a particular day on an energy exchange in Germany.
Neither study completely supports the statement, and the more credible study comes nowhere close.
Also, there was not a "series of detailed modelling studies" to support the statement. Instead, the second reference has a simulation in which different sets of parameters are fed in to generate results for different scenarios. However that is not a series of studies (which implies some kind of academic consensus) but a series of simulation runs by a single set of researchers for one paper.
I'm not sure we should produce any statement from the 2nd reference alone. That reference appears to be discrepant with others and is cited far less than the 1st. I'm not sure the conclusions of the 2nd paper are generally accepted, in which case it would be undue weight to present it as if it were a series of detailed studies. Twerges (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-11-22T06:02:00.000Z","author":"Twerges","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Twerges-2009-11-22T06:02:00.000Z-Removed_statement","replies":["c-Greglocock-2009-11-22T10:22:00.000Z-Twerges-2009-11-22T06:02:00.000Z"]}}-->
Someone deleted the mention of added costs if standby power is retained to back up wind power. It is axiomatic that doubling the number of power generation units, for the same output, will increase electrical costs. This time I have used an actual quote from the Telford report - proving that standby power and balancing loads will increase costs. The sentence now reads:
Wind power advocates argue that these periods of low wind can be dealt with by simply restarting existing power stations that have been held in readiness or interlinking with HVDC, but this would increase electrical prices due to standby power and load balancing costs.
I would be grateful for no more deletions of this. Narwhal2 (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-12-22T20:47:00.000Z","author":"Narwhal2","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Narwhal2-2009-12-22T20:47:00.000Z-Added_costs_of_standby_power","replies":[]}}-->
The article doesn't tells what is the best choice, in terms of KW/US$. A big wind turbine or some smaller wind turbines, must be bought and installed? I read in a Cuban book that turbines at about 200-300 KW are the best in terms of price for each KW, but the book was writen more than 20 years ago. What size of wind turbine is the best in terms of price today? Agre22 (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)agre22__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-12-19T16:25:00.000Z","author":"Agre22","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Agre22-2009-12-19T16:25:00.000Z-What_size_is_the_cheapest?","replies":["c-GNOJED3891-2009-12-28T16:17:00.000Z-Agre22-2009-12-19T16:25:00.000Z"]}}-->
I am not happy with the following statement.
Thus, the 2 GW Dinorwig pumped storage plant adds costs to nuclear energy in the UK for which it was built, but not to all the power produced from the 30 or so GW of nuclear plants in the UK.
Firstly, Dinorwig affects ALL power suppliers in the UK, not just nuclear power plants.
Secondly, Dinorwig (First Hydro) would deny that this plant 'increases costs', rather it decreases costs. Without Dinorwig, base-load suppliers would have to supply (and possibly waste) much higher capacities of electricity to cover electrical demand increases. The presence of Dinorwig evens out demand peaks, and allows base-load suppliers to run more efficiently.
I propose that this sentence is amended to:
The 2 GW Dinorwig pumped storage plant in Wales evens out electrical demand peaks, and allows base-load suppliers to run their plant more efficiently. Although pumped storage power systems are only about 75% efficient, and have high installation costs, their low running costs and ability to reduce the required electrical base-load can save both fuel and total electrical generation costs. [8] [9] Narwhal2 (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-12-20T11:51:00.000Z","author":"Narwhal2","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Narwhal2-2009-12-20T11:51:00.000Z-Amendment_to_Dinorwig_sentence","replies":["c-Wtshymanski-2009-12-20T16:22:00.000Z-Narwhal2-2009-12-20T11:51:00.000Z"]}}-->
I've reverted some recent additions [14] which were either unsourced, poorly sourced, or not quite right. For example, wind turbine prices have actually decreased in recent times, see Wind Turbine Prices Move Down, Shows New Price Index from NEF. The 21% capacity factor figure is for Europe only, not Europe and America as stated, see Capacity factor of wind power realized values vs. estimates.
When writing about contentious issues, it is best to use reliable published sources and avoid unpublished PowerPoint presentations such as this: [15]. Citations should include relevant page numbers of reports and articles wherever possible. Johnfos (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-12-29T20:39:00.000Z","author":"Johnfos","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Johnfos-2009-12-29T20:39:00.000Z-Recent_additions","replies":["c-N2e-2009-12-29T23:19:00.000Z-Johnfos-2009-12-29T20:39:00.000Z","c-GNOJED3891-2010-01-01T22:21:00.000Z-Johnfos-2009-12-29T20:39:00.000Z"]}}-->
Earlier today, 2009-10-22T11:46:51, User:Sgitheanach made a good faith major update to the Wind_power#Wind_power_usage section of the article. While updating historical installed capacity data for many of the countries in the list, several existing citations -- which may well have sourced some other assertions in the existing table -- were removed. I have have not yet taken the time to crawl through the substantial deletions and see what might have been lost, I do think that some one (or several) of the editors interested in this article will need to do that. In other words, I have no problem with the sourced and cited changes of numerical data in the table. However, I have considerable reservations about the deletion of the several thousand characters and sources that were, formerly, at the top of the table. What do other editors think? N2e (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC) ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.216.236.131 (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-10-22T15:02:00.000Z","author":"N2e","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-N2e-2009-10-22T15:02:00.000Z-Substantial_deletion_of_existing_citations_in_the_Wind_power_usage_section","replies":[]}}-->
"However, studies show that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is negligible compared to the number that die as a result of other human activities, and especially the environmental impacts of using non-clean power sources"
Indeed, other human activities cost many many times as much bird lives; one just has to think of celebrating Christmas and of egg-farming (where as good as all male new born birds are killed). But is this relevant in this article? As far as a comparision is made to other ways of generating electricity yes, but not in general. So it might be better to change the relative sentence in:
"However, studies show that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is negligible compared to the number that die as a result of certain other ways of generating electricity, and especially of the environmental impacts of using non-clean power sources".
"CERTAIN other ways", because for instance generating solar energy seems to cost no bird (or fish) lives at all. --VKing (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-01-24T23:40:00.000Z","author":"VKing","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-VKing-2010-01-24T23:40:00.000Z-Questionable_relevance_of_comparision","replies":["c-VKing-2010-01-26T02:21:00.000Z-VKing-2010-01-24T23:40:00.000Z"]}}-->
A few thoughts:
Overall: it seems that someone needs to take a fresh look at the overall structure of the article (which i'm happy to do when I have more time). Any suggestions? GNOJED3891 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-01-01T22:23:00.000Z","author":"GNOJED3891","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-GNOJED3891-2010-01-01T22:23:00.000Z-Economics_of_wind_power_-_Neutrality_issue","replies":["c-Enescot-2010-01-28T02:01:00.000Z-GNOJED3891-2010-01-01T22:23:00.000Z"]}}-->
The article missed a discussion on migration. Birds will avoid turbines and likely will avoid areas on the far side of turbines. If there is no research, I'd expect that there would be a comment at the least.
With migrating birds avoiding turbine areas, and that hawks and bats will be discouraged to hunt near turbines, the ecosystem will change (e.g., an increase in the mouse population, which causes a decrease in ___ population...). If there is no research, then a comment would be appropriate.
I'm very distant from this subject so I leave it for regular editors to consider how to include the content. M) (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-19T14:33:00.000Z","author":"Mbubel","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mbubel-2010-03-19T14:33:00.000Z-The_impacts_to_migration_and_the_ecosystem_is_missing","replies":["c-Wwoods-2010-03-19T18:08:00.000Z-Mbubel-2010-03-19T14:33:00.000Z"],"displayName":"M)"}}-->
Hi people. I am not well versed into these matters but is not there some inconsistency between the following two claims from the article about the cost of wind generated electricity, pay attention to the values in the bold font: "Cost per unit of energy produced was estimated in 2006 to be comparable to the cost of new generating capacity in the US for coal and natural gas: wind cost was estimated at $55.80 per MW·h, coal at $53.10/MW·h and natural gas at $52.50.[89]" and "In 2004, wind energy cost a fifth of what it did in the 1980s, and some expected that downward trend to continue as larger multi-megawatt turbines were mass-produced.[90] However, installed cost averaged €1,300 a kW in 2007,[91] compared to €1,100 a kW in 2005.[92]" As I understand one kW is a much smaller amount of power than one MW.h, and yet according to these claims it takes much more money to produce one kW than one MW.h (more than 1,100 euros compared to less than 54 $). 1 MW.h = 1000 kW.h, and 1 kW.h amounts to 3600 kW. --Atlaspasifik (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-08T11:10:00.000Z","author":"Atlaspasifik","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Atlaspasifik-2010-03-08T11:10:00.000Z-An_inconsistency_about_the_production_cost?","replies":["c-Wtshymanski-2010-03-08T14:39:00.000Z-Atlaspasifik-2010-03-08T11:10:00.000Z","c-ImperfectlyInformed-2010-04-23T18:40:00.000Z-Atlaspasifik-2010-03-08T11:10:00.000Z","c-ImperfectlyInformed-2010-04-23T18:52:00.000Z-Atlaspasifik-2010-03-08T11:10:00.000Z"]}}-->
Paragraphs that present wind as attractive, clean, an abundant without attribution are the very definition of weasel-wording. They also do readers a disservice, as the text fails to speak to the very real problems with using wind power to fill more than a small percentage of overall energy needs. Writing overly optimistic statements without attribution is a violation of WP:NPOV. Fell Gleaming(talk) 17:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-04-23T17:13:00.000Z","author":"FellGleaming","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-FellGleaming-2010-04-23T17:13:00.000Z-Weasel_wording","replies":["c-Wtshymanski-2010-04-23T18:03:00.000Z-FellGleaming-2010-04-23T17:13:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Fell Gleaming"}}-->
Currently an edit war, or a 'healthy debate' depending on your P.O.V. is underway in the spur article: Environmental effects of wind power. One editor (FellGleaming) has made several repeated changes to the article casting wind power in a more negative light and stated that it uses 'many more times' the 'resources' than power from nuclear power plants. Another editor (myself) has asserted that key changes made to the article's lede were done using a citation and data related to 1990s era wind turbines which were far less efficient than current ones, and has reverted those changes as being unsupported by contemporary data. This evening an individual I believe may be a possible associate of the former again made the same changes to the article to state that wind power uses many more times the resources than nuclear power, and also stated in his/her edit summary: 'tell it like it is'.
Contributors interested in ensuring that the article uses reliable, accurate sources and maintains a N.P.O.V. are invited to view the dialogue here and joint the discussion. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-04-25T04:15:00.000Z","author":"Harryzilber","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Harryzilber-2010-04-25T04:15:00.000Z-Environmental_effects_of_wind_power:_nuclear_power_is_better_than_wind?","replies":[]}}-->
EDF Energy powered
I would agree that the Safety section is out of place in the Environmental Issues article. --71.214.221.153 (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-04-30T21:14:00.000Z","author":"71.214.221.153","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-71.214.221.153-2010-04-30T21:14:00.000Z-Merging_Safety_section_of_Environmental_Issues_into_Wind_Power","replies":[]}}-->
The two tables about the installed capacity and the electricity output are getting too big. I propose to archive the first two years (2005, 2006) and show only 07~ 09. There is already the Installed wind power capacity, if needed, we should make a new article called, list of countries by electricity from wind power.Calvingao (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-01T18:23:00.000Z","author":"Calvingao","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Calvingao-2010-05-01T18:23:00.000Z-Need_to_Archive_the_Table","replies":["c-Cruickshanks-2010-07-11T05:59:00.000Z-Calvingao-2010-05-01T18:23:00.000Z","c-Aflafla1-2010-07-24T00:50:00.000Z-Calvingao-2010-05-01T18:23:00.000Z"]}}-->
I was wondering for a while, but now I am pretty sure that: Quote from Wikipedia "at the end of 2009, worldwide nameplate capacity of wind-powered generators was 159.2 gigawatts (GW)" must be replaced by megawatt (MW).
Check http://www.gwec.net/fileadmin/documents/PressReleases/PR_stats_annex_table_2nd_feb_final_final.pdf
Please also check whether units on quote: "Energy production was 340 TWh, which is about 2% of worldwide electricity usage" have to be revised.
Thanks
Lars-Petter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.226.3 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-15T17:37:00.000Z","author":"85.177.226.3","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-85.177.226.3-2010-05-15T17:37:00.000Z-Wrong_unit_-_Please_revise_!","replies":[]}}-->
Sorry, wrong alert. In germany we do use a comma for the decimal point and vice versa (point for thousands). Thats why I got confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.224.180 (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-15T17:56:00.000Z","author":"85.177.224.180","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-85.177.224.180-2010-05-15T17:56:00.000Z-Wrong_unit_-_Please_revise_!","replies":[]}}-->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Environmental_effects has a couple of [citation needed]s. i can't add any because the article is locked. could someone with an account copy the citation from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_wind_power#Carbon_dioxide_emissions_and_pollution . thanks 87.127.117.246 (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-16T18:55:00.000Z","author":"87.127.117.246","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-87.127.117.246-2010-05-16T18:55:00.000Z-citations_for_Environmental_effects_section","replies":[]}}-->
The latest edit made today by IP editor 87.112.177.193 was possibly serendipitous, since it also eliminated a common problem for this encyclopedia which is accessed by diverse cultures world-wide: avoiding the use of certain long and short units of measure above 'million', since units such as billion, trillion, etc... have very different meanings in different areas of the world. Thus, one 'million-million watts' is the preferred form of usage, over one 'trillion watts', which has two different, and conflicting definitions.
Wikipedia's Manual of Style on large numbers is actually unhelpful in this instance, since it mandates the usage of Short Scale definitions for large numbers (billion and trillion), which of course doesn't help lay readers world-wide avoid misunderstanding the actual values being described. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-07-19T15:04:00.000Z","author":"Harryzilber","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Harryzilber-2010-07-19T15:04:00.000Z-Avoiding_confusing_units_of_measure","replies":["c-Nailedtooth-2010-07-20T01:50:00.000Z-Harryzilber-2010-07-19T15:04:00.000Z"]}}-->
Agreed that the MOS styles take precedence when writing or editing an article ––but the point above being that since English is the most widely used language in the world, many hundreds of millions of users for whom English is a second or third language will be looking at numbers in our articles, such as 'three trillion watts', with many not realizing that the number refers to 3 x 1012, but instead believing it means the much larger 3 x 1018 value. However if the number is instead written as 'three million million' (same value as 'three trillion') watts then 100% of the readership will understand the correct value from the getgo. I believe the WP article on long and short scales also makes that suggestion. HarryZilber (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-07-20T03:23:00.000Z","author":"Harryzilber","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Harryzilber-2010-07-20T03:23:00.000Z-Avoiding_confusing_units_of_measure","replies":["c-E8-2010-07-20T03:37:00.000Z-Harryzilber-2010-07-20T03:23:00.000Z"]}}-->
The section title "Intermittency and penetration limits" is obscure and likely baffling to lay readers. I'd recommend an improved, simpler title for that section, such as "Energy storage and supply levelling". Comments? HarryZilber (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-10-29T15:26:00.000Z","author":"Harryzilber","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Harryzilber-2010-10-29T15:26:00.000Z-Change_to_section_heading","replies":[]}}-->
{{edit semi-protected}}
Wind power, also known as Aeolic (or Eolian or Æolian) energy
94.66.94.74 (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-11-21T10:20:00.000Z","author":"94.66.94.74","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-94.66.94.74-2010-11-21T10:20:00.000Z-Edit_request_from_94.66.94.74,_21_November_2010","replies":[]}}-->
Not done: All of the sources I see using that term are doing it because they are referring to companies like Aeolis--that is, it doesn't seem to be a commonly used term. If you can find reliable sources using the term outside of references to these companies, we could reconsider. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-11-21T11:37:00.000Z","author":"Qwyrxian","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Qwyrxian-2010-11-21T11:37:00.000Z-Edit_request_from_94.66.94.74,_21_November_2010","replies":[]}}-->
Wind power is non-dispatchable, meaning that for economic operation, all of the available output must be taken when it is available. Other resources, such as hydropower, and load management techniques must be used to match supply with demand.
I've moved this unsourced text from the lead for discussion. The main problem here is one of overgeneralization, but also the insistent use of two "musts" makes it POV. With reference to the first sentence, who says that for economic operation, all of the available output must be taken when it is available? There are examples of wind farms which are economic even when not all available output is taken. With reference to the second sentence there are several desalination plants supplied by dedicated wind farms not far from here, where matching electricity supply with demand is just not an issue. Johnfos (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-17T00:19:00.000Z","author":"Johnfos","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Johnfos-2011-01-17T00:19:00.000Z-Text_for_discussion","replies":["c-Wtshymanski-2011-01-17T15:28:00.000Z-Johnfos-2011-01-17T00:19:00.000Z"]}}-->
China is probably now leading in installed capacity. However, my reference has data originating from two different sources.[17] Are we to wait for a single source before adding to the article or can we run with this? Rmhermen (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-17T19:12:00.000Z","author":"Rmhermen","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rmhermen-2011-01-17T19:12:00.000Z-China_in_the_lead","replies":[]}}-->
It is widely discussed by apparent experts, that during high wind conditions, wind output could be contrained off. this means that wind can provide spinning reserve or fast response thus generatring revenue by not generating.Engineman (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-17T20:48:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2011-01-17T20:48:00.000Z-constrained_off","replies":["c-Wtshymanski-2011-01-17T16:07:00.000Z-Engineman-2011-01-17T20:48:00.000Z"]}}-->
The spinning reserve and fast response markets are dynamic - so wind turbine wouldn't offer the service in one of your hot still July afternoons - they would be offering it on very windy winters....and could obvious do it at a lower cost than an old coal plant part loaded........Engineman (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-17T20:48:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2011-01-17T20:48:00.000Z-constrained_off-1","replies":[]}}-->
Why does it need a reference it is patently obvious? but I'll find one.Engineman (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-17T20:48:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2011-01-17T20:48:00.000Z-constrained_off-2","replies":["c-Wtshymanski-2011-01-17T21:29:00.000Z-Engineman-2011-01-17T20:48:00.000Z"]}}-->
This paper implies that curtailement is seen as an optoin for spinning reserve.
" This portfolio would result in 0.02% wind curtailment for reasons other than the provision of spinning reserve." http://www.icrepq.com/icrepq'10/665-Finn.pdf Increased Penetration of Renewable Energy using Demand Side Management:Immersion Heater Analysis .Engineman (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-18T20:48:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2011-01-18T20:48:00.000Z-constrained_off","replies":[]}}-->
here is a better one: Regulatory Authorities’ Discussion on Policy for Large-Scale, Intermittent Non-Diverse Generation
http://www.allislandproject.org/GetAttachment.aspx?id=3fa7415a-8c43-4205-b304-76fbbeb9492b " · Constraints: The issue of non-firm access notwithstanding, it is the view of EirGrid and SONI that reductions in the output of wind farms because of limitations in the transmission infrastructure (network congestion) and for provision of system services (constraining down for reserve, for example) should be treated no differently to conventional generation, which are subject to the same constraints;" .Engineman (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-18T20:48:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2011-01-18T20:48:00.000Z-constrained_off-1","replies":[]}}-->
Abstract Electricity markets are currently evolving to accommodate large scale penetration of wind generation. In this research, potential changes to the classification and role of wind generators in the Single Electricity Market (SEM), the market for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, are examined. The effect of wind generators opting to become price-making and the potential for wind generators to provide positive spinning reserve is investigated. By submitting bids for available generation, price-making wind generators can increase their revenues from the market and influence the average electricity price. Results also show reduced emissions and systems costs arise in allowing wind to provide spinning reserve.(talk) 20:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC) http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F5577387%2F5588047%2F05590007.pdf%3Farnumber%3D5590007&authDecision=-203 (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-18T20:48:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2011-01-18T20:48:00.000Z-constrained_off-2","replies":[]}}-->
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1583744
"Wind turbines emulating inertia and supporting primary" frequency control Abstract
"The increasing penetration of variable-speed wind turbines in the electricity grid will result in a reduction of the number of connected conventional power plants. This will require changes in the way the grid frequency is controlled. In this letter, a method is proposed to let variable-speed wind turbines emulate inertia and support primary frequency control. The required power is obtained from the kinetic energy stored in the rotating mass of the turbine blades".(talk) 20:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC) From: "Enercon Inertial Emulatoin improves frequency stability" Windblatt 03 / 2010 p 9 (talk) 20:48, 18 Enercon are actually offering this as a commercial benefit of their plant.....__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-18T20:48:00.000Z","author":"Engineman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Engineman-2011-01-18T20:48:00.000Z-wind_turbines_can_control_freqency","replies":[]}}-->
The installed wind power for 2010 is wrong as you can see from http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php there is a graphic with the installed capacity in june 2010 and it is completely different than what is shown in the wikipedia page.
World Wind Energy Association is a reputable source. Thank you MaiqueSa (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-02-15T12:17:00.000Z","author":"MaiqueSa","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MaiqueSa-2011-02-15T12:17:00.000Z-Edit_request_from_MaiqueSa,_15_February_2011","replies":["c-Ernestfax-2011-02-15T15:37:00.000Z-MaiqueSa-2011-02-15T12:17:00.000Z"]}}-->
This story may be worth tracking: "Study yields better turbine spacing for large wind farms" (2011). This is probably related: "Wind farm wakes" (2010). —WWoods (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-02-20T06:29:00.000Z","author":"Wwoods","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Wwoods-2011-02-20T06:29:00.000Z-Wind_turbine_spacing?","replies":[],"displayName":"\u2014WWoods"}}-->
Since this topic is locked, could an Editor with authority please provide
the internal link Unconventional wind turbines in this Wind Power's See Also section
CasualVisitor (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-03-04T19:45:00.000Z","author":"CasualVisitor","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-CasualVisitor-2011-03-04T19:45:00.000Z-Include_link_to_Unconventional_wind_turbines","replies":["c-Wtshymanski-2011-03-04T20:03:00.000Z-CasualVisitor-2011-03-04T19:45:00.000Z"]}}-->
Why is a three blade design preferable? Why not two? Or many like the old farm windmills? What is the underlying theory? Is it material savings or better efficiency? Is it a tradeoff? 12.25.75.72 (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-03-07T20:27:00.000Z","author":"12.25.75.72","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-12.25.75.72-2011-03-07T20:27:00.000Z-Three_Blade_Design","replies":["c-E8-2011-03-07T20:39:00.000Z-12.25.75.72-2011-03-07T20:27:00.000Z","c-Wtshymanski-2011-03-07T22:22:00.000Z-12.25.75.72-2011-03-07T20:27:00.000Z"]}}-->
How can you possibly say that.Some of the most beautifull countryside has been destroyed by these monsters. I found the whole piece in favour of wind turbines with very little balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnrhowson (talk • contribs) 07:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-04-01T07:37:00.000Z","author":"Johnrhowson","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Johnrhowson-2011-04-01T07:37:00.000Z-\"the_environmental_effects_of_wind_power_are_relatively_minor.\"","replies":["c-Harryzilber-2011-04-03T03:26:00.000Z-Johnrhowson-2011-04-01T07:37:00.000Z","c-Ernestfax-2011-04-03T08:54:00.000Z-Johnrhowson-2011-04-01T07:37:00.000Z"]}}-->
The sentence "According to a town councillor in Ardrossan, Scotland, the overwhelming majority of locals believe that the Ardrossan Wind Farm has enhanced the area, saying that the turbines are impressive looking and bring a calming effect to the town." should be removed because it is only a personal opinion of a "town coucillor" and not a fact. Otherwise you have to look for an opposite opinion about wind farms, a negative opinion about the visual impact of wind turbines I mean, and put it in this article. 84.151.189.230 (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-04-30T21:45:00.000Z","author":"84.151.189.230","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-84.151.189.230-2011-04-30T21:45:00.000Z-\"the_environmental_effects_of_wind_power_are_relatively_minor.\"","replies":[]}}-->
The "Cost trends" heading of the "Economics of Wind Power" section contains the following claim:
The marginal cost of wind energy once a plant is constructed is usually less than 1 cent per kW·h.[69] In 2004, wind energy cost a fifth of what it did in the 1980s, and some expected that downward trend to continue as larger multi-megawatt turbines were mass-produced.[70] However, installed cost averaged €1,300 a kW in 2007,[53][not in citation given] compared to €1,100 a kW in 2005.[71][clarification needed] Not as many facilities can produce large modern turbines and their towers and foundations, so constraints develop in the supply of turbines resulting in higher costs.[72]
This claim is totally unsupported by the citations given. Furthermore, it is at odds with reality and demonstrably false. Coal costs around $2/W (or $2000/kW, don't mean for this to be precise but a ballpark figure). At $1.1 euro / W, wind power would be way cheaper than coal and there would be no economic reason to keep using fossil fuels. Intuitively, we know that wind power is way more expensive than fossil fuels (otherwise we would not use fossil fuel in the first place), so it is obvious that these figures must be wrong.
In reality, wind costs are closer to $7/W.
Since I don't have an account I can't fix this myself. Someone please do so for me.
128.135.100.102 (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-06-05T22:50:00.000Z","author":"128.135.100.102","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-128.135.100.102-2011-06-05T22:50:00.000Z-Economics_of_wind_power_claim:_1300_euro_\/_kW,_1100_euro_\/_kW","replies":["c-Wtshymanski-2011-06-05T23:36:00.000Z-128.135.100.102-2011-06-05T22:50:00.000Z","c-Will_Beback-2011-06-06T01:06:00.000Z-128.135.100.102-2011-06-05T22:50:00.000Z"]}}-->
Under Economics -> Cost Trends the following sentence is inprecise and not supported by citations, I request it be deleted: "Other sources in various studies have estimated wind to be more expensive than other sources." Also a sentence might be added: "The DOE aggreed in 2010 that the price MW·h for Wind power is comparable to Coal and other fosil fuels." The report can be found here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html It also already cited in this wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Yes, in a physics lecture hall, if the lecturer snaps on a nameplate on the generator which rates it at twice the power, suddenly the capacity factor has dropped in half. But people who actually build wind power plants rate the generators at the peak power that can be obtained at the site (or a little less), and can't afford to buy double-size generators just to make the capacity factor look smaller. For a given site, the height of the tower matters a lot more than if you've installed a 250 kW turbine and generator or a 300 kW turbine and generator(with proportionately larger blades). --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-06-14T15:26:00.000Z","author":"Wtshymanski","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Wtshymanski-2011-06-14T15:26:00.000Z-Capacity_factor","replies":["c-Rememberway-2011-06-14T16:05:00.000Z-Wtshymanski-2011-06-14T15:26:00.000Z"]}}-->
Are there any studies of the maintanance requirements of wind turbines? How does it compare in man hours with conventional power plants including mining and transportation etc.? 12.25.75.72 (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-03-07T20:27:00.000Z","author":"12.25.75.72","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-12.25.75.72-2011-03-07T20:27:00.000Z-Life-cycle_of_wind_turbine","replies":["c-71.214.212.206-2011-06-16T21:30:00.000Z-12.25.75.72-2011-03-07T20:27:00.000Z"]}}-->
I changed the title of this topic from "maintenance" to life cycle. The purpose is - all systems have a life-cycle cost. Research (concept), design and development, production, sustaining (maintenance) and finally disposal or end-of-life. Each phase isn't free. This has to be part of the article, or else it's just selling "free energy" without the fine print.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Italic text__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-04-06T00:36:00.000Z","author":"74.107.74.39","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-74.107.74.39-2011-04-06T00:36:00.000Z-Life-cycle_of_wind_turbine","replies":[]}}-->
The statement about gas turbine plants running primarily as peakers appears to be dated. Relatively recent (2009) reductions in price of natural gas and the fact that gas turbines provide 20% of U.S. electricity indicate that plants are often run as load followers. --Aflafla1 (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-06-16T21:56:00.000Z","author":"Aflafla1","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Aflafla1-2011-06-16T21:56:00.000Z-Gas_turbines_run_as_peakers","replies":[]}}-->
I refer to this edit [19], which I have reverted. Much of this additional material is poorly sourced, and contrary to what has been said, the U.S. Department of Energy’s report 20% Wind Energy by 2030 envisioned that wind power could supply 20% of all U.S. electricity, which included a contribution of 4% from offshore wind power.[10]
It seems that as time goes on integrating wind power is becoming less of a problem, and there are now many ways to address the challenges of intermittency. Mark A. Delucchi and Mark Z. Jacobson report that there are at least seven ways to design and operate variable renewable energy systems so that they will reliably satisfy electricity demand:[11]
These are discussed in the Intermittency article. Johnfos (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-06-26T01:22:00.000Z","author":"Johnfos","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Johnfos-2011-06-26T01:22:00.000Z-New_Limitations_section_is_problematic","replies":["c-Ernestfax-2011-06-30T16:44:00.000Z-Johnfos-2011-06-26T01:22:00.000Z"]}}-->
For lobbying the article shows wind lobbying to be 5 million $ and nuclear to be 650 million. Some problems after investigating the source 79 and 80 (well the source of their sources)
1) it compares 10 years to 1 for nuclear it was 84 million $ that year
2) it only compares one lobbying group (though there are more) to the spending power of 20 (found so far). If an equivalent group is used (biggest lobby group vs biggest lobby group) the result is 4.5 million $ vs 13.45 million $
I sure this was not deliberate as the sources don't mention these numbers though their sources do. Any comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.167.42 (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-07-28T19:12:00.000Z","author":"109.151.167.42","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-109.151.167.42-2011-07-28T19:12:00.000Z-POV?","replies":[]}}-->
|answered=
|ans=
The table entitled "Top 10 wind power countries (February 2011)" reports data from 2010, but from a document published in 2011. I think the date is misleading and should be changed to 2010.
The table entitled "Top 10 electricity generation EU countries (March 2011)" reports data from 2010, but from a document published in 2011. I think the date is misleading and should be changed to 2010
71.235.237.14 (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-08-22T14:14:00.000Z","author":"71.235.237.14","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-71.235.237.14-2011-08-22T14:14:00.000Z-Edit_request_from_71.235.237.14,_22_August_2011","replies":["c-Samwb123-2011-08-22T18:12:00.000Z-71.235.237.14-2011-08-22T14:14:00.000Z"]}}-->
In the paragraph Penetration:
-First line: 'total available generation capacity' would include reserved capacity. Would it not be better to use 'System demand' here?
-The use of 'At present' is confusing. It is when the writer wrote it but the reader reads it as 'NOW'. Better would be 'As off 2005' or '2006'
-The value for the Irish annual wind-penetration is quite old. Mentioned is 'over 6%' while the value expected for 2011 is 14%. (mentioned already two times in this article)
-The value for the Spanish Peak-penetration is half demand, but should be 53%
-A clear distinction has to be made between the first and the last values in the paragraph. The first values are annual values, while the last one is an instant Peak value. (If values are mingled, the result is a apple with pear comparison)
-I suggest to break the paragraph in two. deal with the annual values in the first and with the Peak-values in the second part. Comparison of the Spanish peak value can be done with the Irish peak-value of 54.19% which was reached 0:30 hour at 6 September 2011 (Source: My own results from Eirgrid data (wind-gen./system demand). See also: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=1973372250425
For now I don't have edit rights. So I hope someone who has will do the editing.
Thanks in advance
EdH Ire (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-09-20T20:03:00.000Z","author":"EdH Ire","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-EdH_Ire-2011-09-20T20:03:00.000Z-Edir_requests_from_EdH_Ire_(talk)_20:03,_20_September_2011_(UTC)","replies":["c-Aflafla1-2011-09-26T06:37:00.000Z-EdH_Ire-2011-09-20T20:03:00.000Z"]}}-->
EdH Ire (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Thank you Aflafla1 for your willingness and time.__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-09-26T22:13:00.000Z","author":"EdH Ire","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-EdH_Ire-2011-09-26T22:13:00.000Z-Edir_requests_from_EdH_Ire_(talk)_20:03,_20_September_2011_(UTC)","replies":[]}}-->
I have some points to talk about, but an Eirgrid Sustainability Manager has expressed he wanted to talk to me in relation to 6 Sept value. As his input might influence my response, I prefer to wait for his call or contact him. That talk was quite informative. Instantaneous Penetration (IP) values I calculate from .csv Data from Eirgrids web. The 15 min. data values are integrations over that time. In general 'system demand' values are a bit lower than actual, but so are 'wind generation' values, because all TS is counted and most of DS, but not all, all the time. Overall there is a good match between web data and TSO's internal IP data. For the data I provide I would add '(+/-2%)' after the IP value.
On your Q about 100% IP he told me that he recons that the tech. max. would be 75% in the 'All Ireland' Context (but he included future wave power into that figure. and for wind the 'Buzz word' was 'Frequency control') That value is pretty high, but it is the use of the right technology that enables that.
In Europe (Spain, Portugal and Denmark) that value could be higher, because they have better grid stability by being connected to a continental grid. Ireland only has DC-interconnector(s) with the UK and is therefore a small frequency island. Advantage: no freq. propagation to far. Disadvantage, no freq. stabilization from far, so our generators have keep the generation/demand balance @1, if not the frequency runs away and trips are activated.(maybe to simple)
For the US values you mentioned, I consider that max. 20% quite low. I have sensed that the US energy industry 'drives a car while pressing the brakes', while it should invest in a stronger grid with RE and energy storage capabilities. Texas blames wind as the cause for their black out, but the resent blackout in Arizona etc. was caused by switch-gear and freq. propagation. Not wind neither Nuclear although the last was involved and extended the blackout.
Spinning reserve: If a NG is designed to run most efficient at 80% cap. than it has a margin of 20+% for higher output and even more for lower outputs. Pumped storage Hydro has an almost instant capability to cope with excess demand or cover for time-lag of starting-up standby power. Coal is less flexible than NG-turbines and Nuclear is a beast in this respect, because of its Xeon poisoning properties in the power reducing trajectory. (please feel free to verify this. As I will not hide that I am a No Nuke man, even in Energy) The MOX fuel variant I believe takes quite some time to get going. than you just let it go for a year till its 100 tons of fuel degrades or other problem occurs. let the radiation reduce for weeks or months and open it to change fuel and do maintenance. So in fact base-load machines with long intermittency times, and also needs other generation sources to cover daily demand variations in the grid, alike RE.
Difference is that the grid is historically built around the properties of Nuclear and not around those of RE.
Once again Nuclear has proven to be potentially dangerous and if I imagine an EPR in the same multi-disaster situation, than I'm afraid it would not have made much difference for the environment.
As for my Nuke rant, take what you like from it But I understand and respect that the article has to maintain its objectivity.
Small things on your otherwise well formulated text:
-:Wind energy "penetration" may refer to several different things: would leave the word energy out because you later split and take power and energy separate. -I have used the word 'Peak' but the use of max. or IP in this context might be preferred. The first separation is the place to explain IP to the reader. -'total available generation capacity' as I said before includes 'spinning reserve' Maybe acceptable from the US perspective, but not from the European perspective. From Spanish data I conclude that P = 100 * sum( Wind gen. + Negative Hydro + Export)/ Generation mix, with the last as total of all the producing sources. Non producing sources are not included. Should they be or should the US work to get their innovation act together ? (Taking into account that world leaders have said they take 'climate change' seriously, I'm inclined to say 'US' don't drag but start moving to achieve that goal. and 'Yes' Infrastructural changes cost money and time, but pay of in the end. Feed-in-tariff is needed to initiate and accelerate change, but can be reduced when that change has been accomplished)
-For separation 2, I also make the distinction between eg 'calender-day' P and 'Rolling 24h P' Eirgrid even does not use that. On one side its makes sense, while on the other it makes it confusing for the reader, because the values don't differ that much and are equal at the time switch. (here at 24:00)
- 14% has been mentioned several times. Maybe mention that Ireland's goal is 37% by 2020.
Enough for today, take what you like EdH_Eire 02:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdH Ire (talk • contribs)
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/solar-wind/4324331?click=pop_more 10 Wind Turbines That Push the Limits of Design], excerpt ...
The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) released their 20% Wind Report Card on July 8, following up on a study in which the Department of Energy proposed a goal where 20 percent of U.S. electricity comes from wind energy by 2030. The AWEA gave the overall U.S. push for wind power a “solid B”—high marks from an advocacy group that grades U.S. infrastructure. The highest letter in the report was an A- awarded for “Technology Development.” This is no big surprise—for years now, the government, alternative-energy researchers and entrepreneurs have been putting time and money into making better tech for cleaner, more efficient energy production. Here are 10 wind turbine designs that push the limits of the current design and may help the U.S. get back to being an A student by 2030.
by Lisa Merolla Popular Mechanics December 18, 2009 3:28 AM
97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-12-08T23:14:00.000Z","author":"97.87.29.188","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-97.87.29.188-2011-12-08T23:14:00.000Z-potential_resource","replies":[]}}-->
Between the sections "Small-scale Wind Power" and "See Also" instead of there being no section please change it so that there is the following:
==Research== Recent research into technologies to improve power output from wind turbines include those such as the wind lens or leading edge tubercle's on the blade.
A Wind lens is a modification made to a wind turbine to more efficiently capture wind energy. The modification is a ring structure called a shroud or wind lens which surrounds the blades, diverting air away from the exhaust outflow behind the blades. The effect created as a result of the new configuration creates a low pressure zone behind the turbine, causing greater wind to pass through the turbine, and this, in turn, increases blade rotation and energy output. Wind lenses are being researched in Japan [12] where it is claimed that a wind lens may increase wind power output between 2-4 times depending on the turbine scale and shroud design. Additionally, the shroud acts to dampen noise created at the blade tips.
The blade itself can be designed to locally utilise the same concept in fluid dynamics as the wind lens. Blade designs modelled from the humpback whale flippers to include leading edge tubercle's has been shown to yield an additional 20% power output. This result was determined from field trial and detailed in an independent report </ref> http://www.whalepower.com/drupal/files/PDFs/Dr_Lauren_Howles_Analysis_of_WEICan_Report.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)</ref>
|title=
These two technologies could theoretically be combined to give a synergistically enhanced power output. Assuming an estimated average Energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) of 20:1 for current wind power[13], this number could potentially be increased to over 80:1 for small scale wind power. Wind power at 80:1 EROEI would be more economical and cost competitive than any current fossil fuel or nuclear technology.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dartangelo (talk • contribs) 00:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-01-22T00:09:00.000Z","author":"Dartangelo","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dartangelo-2012-01-22T00:09:00.000Z-Edit_request_on_21_January_2012","replies":[]}}-->
86.21.120.152 (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-01-21T21:57:00.000Z","author":"86.21.120.152","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-86.21.120.152-2012-01-21T21:57:00.000Z-Edit_request_on_21_January_2012","replies":["c-Jac16888-2012-01-21T22:00:00.000Z-86.21.120.152-2012-01-21T21:57:00.000Z"]}}-->
Partly done: The text may get removed as original research since the sources are primary sources instead of the secondary sources which are preferred. I left out the last paragraph since the source does not present the conclusion which is made in that paragraph. I think the conclusion steps well into original research. Celestra (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-02-04T06:22:00.000Z","author":"Celestra","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Celestra-2012-02-04T06:22:00.000Z-Edit_request_on_21_January_2012","replies":["c-Johnfos-2012-02-13T09:44:00.000Z-Celestra-2012-02-04T06:22:00.000Z"]}}-->
The new report has been published and the new statistics is available. Can someone update the country data? One interesting point is Portugal taking over the 10th place from Denmark.Windstats (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-02-09T03:04:00.000Z","author":"Windstats","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Windstats-2012-02-09T03:04:00.000Z-Updating_the_statistics","replies":["c-Aflafla1-2012-03-15T03:46:00.000Z-Windstats-2012-02-09T03:04:00.000Z"]}}-->
The article appears to be very biased towards promoting wind power. I can only assume the fact the page is semi-protected means that there have been several disagreements over this is the past. But to me at least, the article seems very one-sided. Here in the UK, generating power by wind is very expensive, which has to be subsidised by the govenment, which is ultimately from the population as a whole.
I could find numerous references to an opposing view. For example, a recent article in the Sunday Telegraph from one of its editors states "Scarcely a week goes by when I am not asked by a local campaign group to publicise their fight against some scheme to build one of those increasingly hated wind farms."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/9120756/How-much-profit-will-a-turbine-turn.html
I don't wish to get into an editing war, which I know can happen with pages like this, but I think the balance needs adressing. Drkirkby (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-03-06T11:16:00.000Z","author":"Drkirkby","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Drkirkby-2012-03-06T11:16:00.000Z-Undue_weight_to_promoting_wind_power.","replies":["c-Teapeat-2012-03-06T14:25:00.000Z-Drkirkby-2012-03-06T11:16:00.000Z","c-Aflafla1-2012-03-15T02:31:00.000Z-Drkirkby-2012-03-06T11:16:00.000Z"]}}-->
The Wikipedia article currently says "The total amount of economically extractable power available from the wind is considerably more than present human power use from all sources." and gives a web reference to this link.
http://www.claverton-energy.com/where-does-the-wind-come-from-and-how-much-is-there.html
writen by Brian Hurley. Nowhere on that page is the word "economically" used. If we read the web page written by Brian Hurley, we see a "See also" section, which provides a link to another topic written by the same author.
http://www.claverton-energy.com/how-much-wind-energy-is-there-brian-hurley-wind-site-evaluation-ltd.html
We see that this author has connections with "Wind Site Evaluation Ltd". He is hardly a neutral source. So there are at least two issues with this reference in the article. Firstly the link does not state what is claimed in the Wikipeda article, and secondly the source is not credable. Apart from those two things, the link is fine!!! I'm no expert on this topic, and it's not high on my lists of interests, but just looking at the whole article, it seems very biased.
BTW, there a chemist who lives where I do, who used to question whether extracting energy from the wind has any effect on the planet. At first I used to think he was mad, but when I thought about it more, perhaps he does have a point. We can't extract oil, gas or coal without having an effect on the planet. Why should be believe that extracting large amounts of wind energy has no effect? Does it for example change the weather? Drkirkby (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-03-06T11:55:00.000Z","author":"Drkirkby","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Drkirkby-2012-03-06T11:55:00.000Z-One_of_numerous_dubious_statements","replies":["c-Harryzilber-2012-03-06T17:07:00.000Z-Drkirkby-2012-03-06T11:55:00.000Z","c-70.58.13.84-2012-03-11T03:57:00.000Z-Drkirkby-2012-03-06T11:55:00.000Z"]}}-->
I was a little surprised that my recent addition on the National Trust's opposition to a wind farm near a heritage site was moved to a new section on Community debate which seems to put forward a series of convincing arguments in favour of wind power which are not fully reflected elsewhere. While I myself am a strong proponent of new energy sources, including wind power, I think we should keep the article balanced by presenting arguments against as well as those in favour. This latest addition seems only to distort the picture even further. Would it not perhaps be useful to have a section specifically devoted to arguments against the advantages of wind power, some of which appear fully justified? - Ipigott (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-03-20T21:56:00.000Z","author":"Ipigott","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ipigott-2012-03-20T21:56:00.000Z-Community_debate_possibly_one-sided","replies":["c-KimDabelsteinPetersen-2012-03-20T23:21:00.000Z-Ipigott-2012-03-20T21:56:00.000Z","c-Johnfos-2012-03-21T00:35:00.000Z-Ipigott-2012-03-20T21:56:00.000Z","c-Johnfos-2012-03-21T00:55:00.000Z-Ipigott-2012-03-20T21:56:00.000Z"]}}-->
Over the past five years (2010 data) the average annual growth in new installations has been 27.6 percent. Wind power market penetration is expected to reach 3.35 percent by 2013 and 8 percent by 2018.[14][15] Several countries have already achieved relatively high levels of wind power penetration, such as 21% of stationary electricity production in Denmark,[5] 18% in Portugal,[5] 16% in Spain,[5] 14% in Ireland[16] and 9% in Germany in 2010.[5][17] As of 2011, 83 countries around the world are using wind power on a commercial basis.[17]
I do not believe either the World Wind Energy Association (WWEA) http://www.wwindea.org/ or the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) http://www.gwec.net/ can be considered reliable neutral sources.
The Claverton Energy Research Group makes no claims to be pro or against wind, in fact, they state the opposite: "The Claverton Group is neither pro or anti any particular technology or policy – however from time to time, self forming informal sub groups do all agree on a particular issue (whilst other members may still disagree)." Personally, I feel from looking at the Claverton Energy Research Group's web site, they are very pro "alternative" energy sources, but they are certainly not blatantly claiming to be pro-wind like both the WWEA and GWEC do.
I've put the POV tag back, and this is my justification for doing so.
If I'd be dumb enough to write my Ph.D. dissertation like this article is written, I doubt I would have ever got one. The vast majority of the references are to sources which are at best questionable, and in many cases to sources which openly state they promote the technology.
Here are the first 10. are:
Down at number 17 we have Encyclopaedia Britannica, at 30, we have a reference to a peer reviewed journal, and there are a few more scattered in the over 100 references.
How this article ever got a B-class I will never know. The bias, which is apparent to many, and the poor quality of the references leaves a lot to be desired. Drkirkby (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-03-23T02:48:00.000Z","author":"Drkirkby","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Drkirkby-2012-03-23T02:48:00.000Z-Poor_quality_of_references.","replies":["c-Sunray-2012-03-23T20:06:00.000Z-Drkirkby-2012-03-23T02:48:00.000Z"]}}-->
I've stuck the POV tag on the page again. I put it a few days ago, and someone said I was the only one to feel it, so it was removed. But on the ToDo list above we have:
"Per Wikipedia guidelines, this entire Wind Power writeup should be edited to be from a Neutral perspective, rather than its present promotional status."
So I'm not the only one thinking this article is unbalanced. Drkirkby (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-03-11T00:29:00.000Z","author":"Drkirkby","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Drkirkby-2012-03-11T00:29:00.000Z-POV_tag_put_back","replies":["c-Teapeat-2012-03-11T01:16:00.000Z-Drkirkby-2012-03-11T00:29:00.000Z"]}}-->
I add the "POV" tag, but it got removed, as apparently I was the only one disputing the neutrality. Now there are several people here disputing the neutrality.
As such, why should the POV tag not be put on the article now and removed after the issues are resolved? Any random user will get an overly optimistic view of the technology, and have no idea that the neutrality is disputed. I agree the best solution is to make the article more balanced, but until that is done, why should the POV tag not be on the article? I'm personally not going to add it again, as I'll just be accused of geting into an editing war, but someone else should. Drkirkby (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-03-21T10:06:00.000Z","author":"Drkirkby","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Drkirkby-2012-03-21T10:06:00.000Z-Why_should_the_\"POV\"_tag_not_be_added_now,_and_removed_when_the_neutrality_dispu","replies":[]}}-->
Aye, the lede is POV let alone the rest of this shambles. I'll tag it just for the last para of the lede, a blatant piece of soapboxing. Greglocock (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-03-21T10:44:00.000Z","author":"Greglocock","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Greglocock-2012-03-21T10:44:00.000Z-Why_should_the_\"POV\"_tag_not_be_added_now,_and_removed_when_the_neutrality_dispu","replies":["c-Drkirkby-2012-03-21T11:00:00.000Z-Greglocock-2012-03-21T10:44:00.000Z"]}}-->
It doesn't matter what editors claim, it matters what they can prove. If you have any reliably sourced evidence then give it, otherwise this is just you trying to bias the article to agree with your personal opinion, as opposed to agreeing with the literature, which is the gold standard that Wikipedia holds to.Teapeat (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-03-21T15:38:00.000Z","author":"Teapeat","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Teapeat-2012-03-21T15:38:00.000Z-Why_should_the_\"POV\"_tag_not_be_added_now,_and_removed_when_the_neutrality_dispu","replies":["c-Johnfos-2012-03-21T21:41:00.000Z-Teapeat-2012-03-21T15:38:00.000Z"]}}-->
I think that if we want to make some sensible progress on the issue, the best way to go about it would be to work on developing a section on the possible disadvantages of wind power. I suggest we start with some of the points presented here or here. There are probably many other good sources too. One way to go about it would be to develop a draft in a sandbox. If you wish, I could try to make a start myself and give everyone interested access to the sandbox. Is this a good way to go forward? - Ipigott (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-03-21T17:04:00.000Z","author":"Ipigott","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ipigott-2012-03-21T17:04:00.000Z-Possible_disadvantages_section?","replies":["c-Johnfos-2012-03-21T17:25:00.000Z-Ipigott-2012-03-21T17:04:00.000Z","c-Aflafla1-2012-03-28T06:40:00.000Z-Ipigott-2012-03-21T17:04:00.000Z"]}}-->
In most cases, wind power has strong advantages over traditional sources of energy. In some cases, though, its detrimental environmental effects (noise, unsightliness of the turbines, comparative advantages of, for example, solar or other developing sources) are important enough to be taken into account. In particular, the appropriate siting of wind farms is a key criterion. The need for far better storage systems is also a factor to be taken more seriously into account.
I've stuck some information about the UK government view, and in particular the climbdown of the prime minister. I have just posted inline links for now, as I expect it will get deleted, but if it remains there for 48 hours, I'll take the trouble to make the references better. Drkirkby (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-03-24T18:23:00.000Z","author":"Drkirkby","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Drkirkby-2012-03-24T18:23:00.000Z-UK_Government_view","replies":["c-KimDabelsteinPetersen-2012-03-24T19:10:00.000Z-Drkirkby-2012-03-24T18:23:00.000Z"]}}-->
Hi all: in the 'Wind power capacity and production' section are two excellent, highly useful charts:
The obvious disconnect is that the first chart to the left reflects countries worldwide, while the second chart to the right reflects only EU countries, and should actually be placed in Wind power in the European Union, since this article reflects wind power in general worldwide. Unless there are good reasons not to, I'll convert the second chart on the right side to reflect countries worldwide instead on only countries in the EU. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-03-29T12:49:00.000Z","author":"Harryzilber","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Harryzilber-2012-03-29T12:49:00.000Z-Worldwide_Wind_power_capacity_and_production_charts","replies":["c-Harryzilber-2012-03-29T20:18:00.000Z-Harryzilber-2012-03-29T12:49:00.000Z"]}}-->
These are wind power opposition groups that we hear about sometimes. If they are notable, then they should have an article on WP... Johnfos (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-03-30T16:10:00.000Z","author":"Johnfos","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Johnfos-2012-03-30T16:10:00.000Z-Wind_Watch_and_Wind_Action","replies":["c-Johnfos-2012-03-31T14:38:00.000Z-Johnfos-2012-03-30T16:10:00.000Z"]}}-->
As I've been writing in the sections above it has struck me that there are several important aspects of wind power that we hear little about in the media. More particularly, some of these are not adequately covered yet in this article, or on WP more generally, but I have collected together a few wikilinks that might be helpful for those who are interested.
Public opinion surveys around the globe have shown high levels of public support and social acceptance of wind power.
-- Johnfos (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-03-31T18:41:00.000Z","author":"Johnfos","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Johnfos-2012-03-31T18:41:00.000Z-Public_opinion_surveys","replies":["c-E8-2012-04-01T03:12:00.000Z-Johnfos-2012-03-31T18:41:00.000Z"]}}-->
Many communities around the globe are financing and building their own wind farms, see:
Especially in Europe, offshore wind power is a growth industry, see:
Some wind farms have become tourist attractions, including several in Canada.[19] The Whitelee Wind Farm Visitor Centre in Scotland has an exhibition room, a learning hub, a café with a viewing deck and also a shop. It is run by the Glasgow Science Centre.[20]
-- Johnfos (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-03-31T18:41:00.000Z","author":"Johnfos","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Johnfos-2012-03-31T18:41:00.000Z-Wind_farms_as_tourist_attractions","replies":["c-E8-2012-04-01T03:08:00.000Z-Johnfos-2012-03-31T18:41:00.000Z"]}}-->
Hello all. I've been asked to comment in this discussion of Wind power. How can I help?Jobberone (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-03-30T00:00:00.000Z","author":"Jobberone","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jobberone-2012-03-30T00:00:00.000Z-I've_been_asked_to_comment","replies":["c-Ipigott-2012-03-30T16:34:00.000Z-Jobberone-2012-03-30T00:00:00.000Z"]}}-->
I really try to stay objective in my comments as part of the RfC. In fact I try very hard to always be fair and neutral when I edit. I really don't have a side in this topic. Again I encourage all to advance the article presenting all the issues. This is an encyclopedia and readers deserve to hear all the issues, how those issues developed and perhaps how they will be solved. Expand and improve the article. There is no need to fight about what is included. If done in a fair and balanced way most readers will weigh things appropriately. Solar and wind conversion to energy will be about as friendly to man and the earth as we can get. I hope some will work on the problem of energy use and production as to how it relates now and in the future to the overall balance of heat on earth. To User:Johnfos, I shouldn't have to spoon feed you or anyone else here what the problems are. I assume all here are educated and reasonable editors who wish Wikipedia to be as best as it can be. Surely you can take some objective input and look at the examples I've cited and work to improve the article with your own balanced input. Good luck!Jobberone (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-03-31T12:04:00.000Z","author":"Jobberone","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jobberone-2012-03-31T12:04:00.000Z-I've_been_asked_to_comment","replies":["c-Johnfos-2012-03-31T14:24:00.000Z-Jobberone-2012-03-31T12:04:00.000Z"]}}-->
This section reads like a minority report from those who are unwilling or unable to accept the findings of the RfC above. The RfC presents a consensus view that the article is neutral and does not need a POV tag. Johnfos (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-03-31T01:50:00.000Z","author":"Johnfos","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Johnfos-2012-03-31T01:50:00.000Z-I've_been_asked_to_comment","replies":["c-Richerman-2012-03-31T09:37:00.000Z-Johnfos-2012-03-31T01:50:00.000Z"]}}-->
A note on process: Jobberone made no mention of the RfC when he started this section and has taken on the role of de-facto mediator outside the RfC. As I've said above, this section reads like a minority report from those who are unwilling or unable to accept the findings of the RfC above. The RfC presents a consensus view that the article is neutral and does not need a POV tag. Johnfos (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-03-31T14:30:00.000Z","author":"Johnfos","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Johnfos-2012-03-31T14:30:00.000Z-I've_been_asked_to_comment","replies":["c-Richerman-2012-03-31T15:37:00.000Z-Johnfos-2012-03-31T14:30:00.000Z"]}}-->
There is balance in the article, which says:
And then there is a link to Renewable energy debate#Community debate about wind farms which provides further details.
I accept that you are not anti-wind, if you say so, but have pointed out that you are very quick to pick up on sensationalist and one-sided media articles, and ignore public opinion surveys. With regard to the letter from the British MPS, I think you and Dr Kirkby have missed the basic point that the letter is only about onshore wind farms, and there is no questioning of the fast-growing offshore wind farm industry as far as I can see. And there is an important rebuff from David Cameron, which you failed to mention. Etc.
I have also pointed out that the so-called controversy about wind power pales into insignificance when compared with that of nuclear power, see anti-nuclear movement, anti-nuclear protests, and anti-nuclear groups. We don't even seem able to find a dedicated anti-wind group that is notable enough to write an article about. Johnfos (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-04-01T11:21:00.000Z","author":"Johnfos","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Johnfos-2012-04-01T11:21:00.000Z-I've_been_asked_to_comment","replies":["c-Richerman-2012-04-01T19:16:00.000Z-Johnfos-2012-04-01T11:21:00.000Z"]}}-->
In essence, I dispute the neutrality of the article, and feel any attempt to present an opposing view gets removed, or made to appear far less significant than it is. Drkirkby (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-04-01T00:21:00.000Z","author":"Drkirkby","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Drkirkby-2012-04-01T00:21:00.000Z-I've_been_asked_to_comment","replies":["c-E8-2012-04-01T03:29:00.000Z-Drkirkby-2012-04-01T00:21:00.000Z","c-Teapeat-2012-04-02T04:08:00.000Z-Drkirkby-2012-04-01T00:21:00.000Z"]}}-->
wwea
|author=
re
bt
eirgrid renewables
ren212011
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: Earl of Kincardine – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (January 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Earldom of Kincardineheld withEarldom of ElginOr, a saltire and chief gules on a canton argent a lion rampant azure armed and langu…
American professional wrestler Terry GordyBirth nameTerry Ray GordyBorn(1961-04-23)April 23, 1961Chattanooga, Tennessee, United StatesDiedJuly 16, 2001(2001-07-16) (aged 40)Soddy-Daisy, Tennessee, United StatesCause of deathHeart attackSpouse(s) Connie Gordy (m. 1979)Children3; including Ray GordyFamilyRichard Slinger (nephew)Professional wrestling careerRing name(s)The Executioner/Forest DruidTerry Bam Bam GordyTerry MeccaKaneBilled height6 ft 4 in …
Este artículo o sección necesita referencias que aparezcan en una publicación acreditada.Este aviso fue puesto el 16 de abril de 2023. Este artículo o sección necesita ser wikificado, por favor, edítalo para que cumpla con las convenciones de estilo.Este aviso fue puesto el 16 de abril de 2023. El vuelo del águila Serie de televisiónGénero TelenovelaCreado por Enrique KrauzeFausto Zerón MedinaGuion por Liliana Abud (adaptación - primera parte)Eduardo Gallegos (adaptación - primera pa…
British merchant navy ship History United Kingdom NameAtlantic Causeway OperatorCunard Line BuilderSwan Hunter, Tyne and Wear, United Kingdom Launched2 April 1969 Completed1969 IdentificationIMO number: 6913106 FateScrapped in 1986 General characteristics TypeContainer ship Tonnage14,946 tons Speed22 knots Atlantic Causeway was a container ship, operated by Cunard, and one of the merchant vessels requisitioned by the British government to support British forces in the Falklands War in 1982.…
Untuk kegunaan lain, lihat Tiket (disambiguasi). Artikel ini tidak memiliki referensi atau sumber tepercaya sehingga isinya tidak bisa dipastikan. Tolong bantu perbaiki artikel ini dengan menambahkan referensi yang layak. Tulisan tanpa sumber dapat dipertanyakan dan dihapus sewaktu-waktu.Cari sumber: Tiket grup musik – berita · surat kabar · buku · cendekiawan · JSTOR TiketAsalJakarta, IndonesiaGenrePost-Britpop,Rock alternatifTahun aktif 2000–2018…
Gerland Gerland (Frankreich) Staat Frankreich Region Bourgogne-Franche-Comté Département (Nr.) Côte-d’Or (21) Arrondissement Beaune Kanton Nuits-Saint-Georges Gemeindeverband Gevrey-Chambertin et de Nuits-Saint-Georges Koordinaten 47° 6′ N, 5° 0′ O47.0955.0072222222222Koordinaten: 47° 6′ N, 5° 0′ O Höhe 199–227 m Fläche 20,68 km² Einwohner 435 (1. Januar 2020) Bevölkerungsdichte 21 Einw./km² Postleitzahl 21700 INSEE-C…
بيغرام الإحداثيات 36°06′06″N 87°03′06″W / 36.101666666667°N 87.051666666667°W / 36.101666666667; -87.051666666667 [1] تقسيم إداري البلد الولايات المتحدة[2][3] التقسيم الأعلى مقاطعة تشيذام خصائص جغرافية المساحة 19.993241 كيلومتر مربع19.99324 كيلومتر مربع (1 أبريل 2010) ارتفا
يوسف رقيقي معلومات شخصية الميلاد 9 يناير 1990 (العمر 33 سنة)الجزائر العاصمة[1] الطول 172 سـم (5 قدم 8 بوصة) مركز اللعب ثاقب [لغات أخرى] الجنسية الجزائر الوزن 69 كـغ (152 رطل) الحياة العملية الفرق دايمنشن داتا (2013–2017)تيرينجانو سايكلنج تيم [لغات أ…
Composition for piano by Franz Liszt This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources.Find sources: Variation on a Waltz by Diabelli Liszt – news · newspapers · books…
У Вікіпедії є статті про інші значення цього терміна: Фавн. Фавн і Дафніс грають на флейті Пана (римська копія грецького оригіналу). У давньоримській релігії та міфології Фавн був рогатим божеством лісу, рівнин та полів. Коли він зробив худобу плідною, його прозвали Інуєм…
2006 single by Pink For other uses, see Who Knew (disambiguation). Who KnewSingle by Pinkfrom the album I'm Not Dead B-sideDisconnectedReleasedMay 8, 2006 (2006-05-08)StudioConway (Hollywood, California)GenrePop[1][2]Length3:28LabelLaFaceSongwriter(s) Pink Max Martin Lukasz Gottwald Producer(s) Max Martin Dr. Luke Pink singles chronology Stupid Girls (2006) Who Knew (2006) U + Ur Hand (2006) Music videoWho Knew on YouTube Who Knew is a song by American singer Pink …
马来西亚联邦首席大法官Ketua Hakim Negara MalaysiaChief Justice of Malaysia马来西亚国徽現任东姑麦润2019年5月2日就任马来西亚司法机构尊称最睿智的Yang Amat Arif(马来文)The Right Honourable(英文)[1]类别司法机构首脑所属马来西亚联邦法院直屬马来西亚最高元首機關所在地布城司法宫提名者马来西亚首相马来统治者会议任命者马来西亚最高元首任期无限制(需在65岁或之前退休)…
Double Phoenix Cover of first edition.AuthorEdmund Cooper and Roger Lancelyn Green; edited by Lin CarterCover artistGervasio GallardoCountryUnited StatesLanguageEnglishSeriesBallantine Adult Fantasy seriesGenreFantasyPublisherBallantine BooksPublication date1971Media typePrint (Paperback)ISBN0-345-02420-6OCLC39057470Preceded byThe Spawn of Cthulhu Followed byDiscoveries in Fantasy Double Phoenix is an anthology of two fantasy novellas by Edmund Cooper and Roger Lan…
Jewish financier and chief rabbi of England Autograph of Aaron of York Aaron of York or Aaron fil Josce, was a Jewish financier and chief rabbi of England. He was born in York before 1190 and died after 1253. He was probably the son of Josce of York, the leading figure in the York pogrom of 1190. Chief Rabbi Aaron appears to have obtained some of his father's money and commercial connection, for he was appointed Presbyter Judaeorum, or senior representative, of the Jews of England in 1237, in su…
Prime Minister of India from 1947 to 1964 Nehru redirects here. For other uses, see Nehru (disambiguation). Jawaharlal NehruNehru in 19471st Prime Minister of IndiaIn office15 August 1947 – 27 May 1964MonarchGeorge VI (until 1950)PresidentRajendra Prasad (from 1950)Sarvepalli RadhakrishnanGovernors GeneralLord MountbattenC. Rajagopalachari (until 1950)DeputyVallabhbhai Patel (until 1950)Preceded byPost establishedSucceeded byLal Bahadur Shastri[a]Minister of External Affai…
Pouligny-Saint-PierreNegara asalPrancisSumber susuKambingDipasteurisasiTidakTeksturLembutWaktu pematangan2-5 mingguSertifikasiAOC[1] Pouligny-Saint-Pierre adalah keju dari Prancis yang berbentuk piramida tumpul dan dibuat dengan menggunakan susu kambing mentah.[1] Keju ini dinamakan berdasarkan sebuah desa yang bernama sama.[1] Sisi bagian bawah dari keju ini memiliki panjang 9 sentimeter sedangkan sisi bagian atasnya 2.5 sentimeter serta tinggi 12 sentimeter.[2] …
هذه المقالة يتيمة إذ تصل إليها مقالات أخرى قليلة جدًا. فضلًا، ساعد بإضافة وصلة إليها في مقالات متعلقة بها. (يونيو 2020) اضغط هنا للاطلاع على كيفية قراءة التصنيف حجرية البذر عريضة الورق المرتبة التصنيفية نوع التصنيف العلمي فوق النطاق حيويات مملكة عليا حقيقيات ا…
Polish footballer Antoni Łyko Personal informationFull name Antoni Andrzej ŁykoDate of birth 27 May 1907Place of birth Kraków, Austria-HungaryDate of death 3 June 1941(1941-06-03) (aged 34)Place of death Auschwitz, Third ReichPosition(s) StrikerSenior career*Years Team Apps (Gls)0000–1929 Rakowiczanka 1930–1939 Wisła Kraków 108 (30)International career1937–1938 Poland 2 (0) *Club domestic league appearances and goals Antoni Andrzej Łyko (27 May 1907 – 3 June 1941) was a Polish…
Image Comics and Marvel superhero Not to be confused with Angel (Marvel Comics). Comics character AngelaTextless cover ofGuardians of the Galaxy #6 (September 2013)Art by Sara PichelliPublication informationPublisherImage Comics (1993–2000)Marvel Comics (2013–present)First appearanceImage Comics:Spawn #9 (March 1993)Marvel Comics:Age of Ultron #10 (June 2013)Created byNeil GaimanTodd McFarlaneIn-story informationAlter egoAldrif OdinsdottirSpeciesAsgardianPlace of originAsgardTeam affiliation…
Demographics of IsraelPopulation pyramid (numbers by age group) of Israel in 2023Population9,506,000 (95th)[1][2]Density431/km2 (6th)Growth rate1.9%Birth rate21.5 births/1,000 population (101st)Death rate5.2 deaths/1,000 population (174th)Life expectancy82.7 years (8th) • male80.7 years • female84.6 yearsFertility rate3.01 children born/woman (59th)Infant mortality rate4.03 deaths/1,000 live births (25th)Age structure0–14 years28%15–64 years60%65 and o…
Lokasi Pengunjung: 3.129.210.137