wind power's capacity utilization is STILL - just 25%.
Wind is
unreliable.
It's been unreliable for the last 7 years I've been here listening to "wind is an alternative to coal" tripe.
Wind isn't even an alternative to dangerous natural
gas.
In the 7 years I've been here, we've had bourgeois types with poor educations, little insight, and no concern whatsoever for the lives of the downtrodden selling bottles of snake oil on this subject.
The results are here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.htmlThe total wind power can't even keep pace with the
growth of dangerous fossil fuels.
The same patent medicine selling snake oil salesmen here have been selling this particular oil for 7 years that I've been here, a period in which the concentration of dangerous fossil fuel waste in the atmosphere has risen from 373 ppm to 386 ppm, while the
same snake oil salemen rail endlessly against the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy.
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
Being bourgeois brats with no educations, of course they are not interested in observational data, but only in repeating endlessly their
dogma.
Wind is a failure, just like solar. It can't produce even one exajoule, never mind the 23 produced by coal in this country. If it
did produce one exajoule it's external costs would be obviated, at which point all the happy talk shit would go out the window in a shower of whooping crane feathers.
Tell it to T. Boone Pickens.
Oh, and it will be interesting to see which bourgeois brats on this website who are so willing to let the poor live in the dark whenever the wind is not blowing actually do so themselves.
The number of such bourgeois brats here who talk the big talk who actually live with batteries and big backyard molten solar tanks and compressed air tanks and hydrogen tanks is ZERO.