Dovetail Solar & Wind is a company with a bright future

Kous – I am familiar with vertical axis wind turbines, but was not aware of this particular research.

Seded7 – I am not sure what you are trying to say.

There may be arguments to be made for investing in research & development, to make improvements on solar and wind power generating technologies. I would support any such reasonable efforts.

There is no excuse, however, for wasting money propping up commercial efforts to implement current technology that is demonstrably ineffective.

Face-Ripper Monkey - Thanks for the back-up. I appreciate the comments.

reloadron - Already have this info and much more at the ready.

BTW I sent the comments above in an e-mail to Dovetail, to see it they want to repsond. I am also in direct contact with the folks at the Cuyahoha County Fairgrounds regarding their wind turbine, and Sun News and Dr. Robert Lee at Kenston Schools regarding the Kenston wind turbine.

1st up on the Dovetail website list of example installations is the 225 KW solar panel system on the car port roof at the Athens Community Center. This system cost $1.9 million, paid for by state grants and federal stimulus funds.

I would guess it will produce in the neighborhood of 200,000 KWH of electricity per year.
225 KW x 8760 hrs/year x 10% capacity factor = 197,100 KWH/year
This is a value of maybe $20,000 per year; making the ROI for the $1.9 million about 95 years. In other words, there will NEVER be a payback on the investment; not even close.

If the panels really produce 200,000 KWH (200 MWH) per year, and this eliminates 200 MWH of coal production (it won’t), this could eliminate 200,000 kg of CO2 emissions per year.
Comparison to CCGT:
$1.9 million could have provided 1.73 MW of CCGT capacity
1.73 MW x 8760 hrs/year x 90% = 13,640 MWH per year
13,640 MWH/year x 600 kg/MWH = 8,184,000 kg of CO2 emissions eliminated.
Investing the same amount of money in CCGT generation would provide more than 68 times the electricity and eliminate more than 40 times the CO2 emissions.

I have submitted many comments critical of taxpayer subsidized wind turbines and solar panels. From the Great Lakes Wind Project some years ago, to my more recent commentary involving the wind turbines at the Cuyahoga County Fairgrounds and the GLCS, and the solar panels at the First Unitarian Church; I have demonstrated how these wind turbines and solar panels make no financial sense because their inherently poor energy generation capability results in failure to produce enough reliable electrical energy to pay back the disproportionately large investments. I have also pointed out that there are far more effective ways of reducing CO2 emissions than wind or solar generation. For example Closed Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) generation is far more efficient and could be used to eliminate coal and CO2 far more effectively.

How is what Alan Frasz is doing at Dovetail Solar and Wind different? What, if any, wind and solar technology improvements can he point to that change the story and make solar and wind generation effective?? If it makes sense, please tell me how.

Here is what I have seen. Here are the numbers for some of the specific cases from the Cleveland area. Please understand that I feel I am being deliberately overly generous to the case of the wind turbines and solar panels with these numbers. Also consider that the electricity credited to the wind turbines and solar panels will not be consistent or reliable, and will need to be continuously backed up by some form of traditional power generation (running in an inefficient manner) to balance this variability.

BACKGROUND BALLPARK FIGURES FOR CCGT & COAL
General Investment Cost for CCGT: $1,100,000 per MW (ref. EIA)
Capacity Factor for CCGT: 90%
CO2 emission from CCGT: 400 kg per MWh (ref. X-Environnement.org)
CO2 emission from coal: 1000 kg per MWh (ref. X-Environnement.org)
CCGT reduces CO2 emission by 600 kg per MWH, as compared to coal.

SOLAR PANELS AT KENT STATE:
Per the numbers in the PD article a $1,500,000 solar array is going to provide 500,000 KWH of electricity per year, or in other words 500 MWH. If this eliminates 500 MWH of coal generation entirely (it won’t), this represents 500,000 kg of CO2 emissions.
Comparison to CCGT
$1,500,000 could provide about 1.4 MW of CCGT capacity.
1.4 MW x 8760 hours/year x 90% = 11,000 MWh per year
11,000 MWh x 600 kg/MWh = 6,600,000 kg of CO2 eliminated
Investing the same amount of money in CCGT generation would provide more than 22 times the electricity and eliminate more than 13 times the CO2 emissions.

WIND TURBINE AT CUYAHOGA COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS
The 500 KW (0.5 MW) wind turbine at the fairgrounds cost $1.675 million and can be expected to provide less than 721 MWh of non-continuous electricity per year. Assuming this directly displaces 721 MWh of coal fired generation; this will eliminate approximately 721,000 kg of CO2 emissions per year. This assumes that wind turbine generation eliminates the coal use entirely (which it won’t).
Comparison to CCGT
$1.675 million could provide 1.5 MW of CCGT capacity.
1.5 MW x 8760 hours/year x 90% = 11,826 MWh per year
11,826 MWh x 600 kg/MWh = 7,095,600 kg of CO2 eliminated
Investing the same amount of money in CCGT generation would provide more than 16 times the electricity and eliminate nearly10 times the CO2 emissions.

SOLAR PANELS AT FIRST UNITARIAN CHURCH:
Per the numbers in the PD article a $500,000 solar array is going to provide 91KW of generating peak capacity, which will provide about $10,000 or 100 MWH of electricity per year. If this eliminates100 MWh of coal generation entirely (it won’t), this represents 100,000 kg of CO2 emissions.
Comparison to CCGT
$500,000 could provide 455KW of CCGT capacity.
455 KW x 8760 hours/year x 90% = 3,587 MWh per year
3.587 MWh x 600 kg/MWh = 2,152,200 kg of CO2 eliminated
Investing the same amount of money in CCGT generation would provide more than 35 times the electricity and eliminate more than 21 times the CO2 emissions.

WIND TURBINE AT KENSTON SCHOOLS
The 750 KW (0.750 MW) wind turbine at Kenston cost $1.958 million and can be expected to provide less than 1600 MWh of non-continuous electricity per year. Assuming this directly displaces 1600 MWh of coal fired generation; this will eliminate approximately 1,600,000 kg of CO2 emissions per year. This assumes that wind turbine generation eliminates the coal use entirely (which it won’t).
Comparison to CCGT
$1.958 million could provide 1.78 MW of CCGT capacity.
1.78 MW x 8760 hours/year x 90% = 14,033 MWh per year
14,033 MWh x 600 kg/MWh = 8,420,000 kg of CO2 eliminated
Investing the same amount of money in CCGT generation would provide almost 9 times the electricity and eliminate more than 5 times the CO2 emissions.

GLEDTF & LEEDCO LAKE ERIE WIND PILOT PROJECT:
Numbers presented by GLEDTF & LEEDCO in 2010 indicated that an investment of $100 million will provide 53,137 MWh per year. If this eliminates 53,137 MWh of coal generation entirely (it won’t), this represents 53,137,000 kg of CO2 emissions.
Comparison to CCGT
$100 million could provide 91 MW of CCGT capacity
91 MW x 8760 hours/year x 90% = 717,444 MWh per year
717,444 MWh x 600kg/MWh = 430,466,400 kg of CO2 eliminated
Investing the same amount of money in CCGT generation would provide more than 13 times the electricity and eliminate more than 8 times the CO2 emissions.

OTHER POSSIBILITES
In addition to natural gas generation, development and improvement of nuclear fission technology, improvements to our distribution system to promote efficiency and reduce loss, and development of nuclear fusion technology are examples of longer-term initiatives that have promise.

My point is (and always has been) that there are better ways to invest our resources to improve our energy strategy and deliver electricity with the reliability and density we need.

COMPARISON TO CLOSED CYCLE GAS TURBINE (CCGT) GENERATION

BALLPARK FIGURES FOR CCGT & COAL
General Investment Cost for CCGT: $1,100,000 per MW (ref. EIA)
Capacity Factor for CCGT: 90%
CO2 emission from CCGT: 400 kg per MWh (ref. X-Environnement.org)
CO2 emission from coal: 1000 kg per MWh (ref. X-Environnement.org)
CCGT reduces CO2 emission by 600 kg per MWH, as compared to coal.

Wind Turbine at Kenston
The 750 KW (0.750 MW) wind turbine at the fairgrounds cost $1.958 million and can be expected to provide less than 1600 MWh of non-continuous electricity per year. Assuming this directly displaces 1600 MWh of coal fired generation; this will eliminate approximately 1,600,000 kg of CO2 emissions per year. This assumes that wind turbine generation eliminates the coal use entirely (which it won’t).

Comparison to CCGT
$1.958 million could provide 1.78 MW of CCGT capacity.
1.78 MW x 8760 hours/year x 90% = 14,033 MWh per year
14,033 MWh x 600 kg/MWh = 8,420,000 kg of CO2 eliminated

Investing the same amount of money in CCGT generation would provide almost 9 times the electricity and eliminate more than 5 times the CO2 emissions.

Also recall that the analysis is actually overly generous to the winf turbine.

Real investment is $1,958,500

$160,000 is an overestimate. This is presumably based on approximately 1,600,000 KWh per year at $0.10 per KWh. They won't really get 1,600,000 KWh and they won't really get electricity at a value of $0.10. The real value of the electricity will probably be somewhere between the average wholesale value of the electricity ($0.05 per KWh) and the end customer cost of the electricity ($0.10 per KWh). Therefore, no ROI.

With regard to "green". We could eliminate many many more kg of annual CO2 and other emissions from coal if we invested this money in closed cycle natural gas generation technology. At the same time, we would also get much much more constant reliably electricity on demand.

Nevermind....I found it.....as reported by Sue Hoffman last year the total cost of the wind turbine project at Kenston schools is $1,958,500.

That is more realistic and means that, as expected, the wind turbine will never produce enough electricity in its entire functional life to pay for itself.

It is also true that we could produce much more reliable electricity (and displace much more CO2 emissions from coal) if we invested in other effective generation technologies; rather than unreliable and expensive (but politically correct) wind.

$1 million for a 750KW device? Really? I would expect the cost to be more, unless this is some special deal. Cuyahoga County Fairgrounds just spent $1.675 million for a 500KW wind turbine.

Is the total cost really only $1million??

Well, when you're right, you're right. It really doesn't matter who "cast the deciding vote" or if anyone did. They all voted for it, so they all need to be removed.

........."Larke Brown lobbed damaging accusations against Sherrod, then the Ohio Secretary of State, in her 1986 complaint for divorce:

“Plaintiff further states that Defendant has been guilty of gross neglect of duty and extreme cruelty toward her, by reason of which Plaintiff is entitled to an absolute divorce.”

“I am also intimidated by the Defendant and am in fear for the safety and well-being of myself and our children due to the Defendant’s physical violence and abusive nature,” Larke Brown wrote in her affidavit requesting a restraining order, dated May 12, 1986"...........................

In your wildest dreams can you imagine such allegations in the past of any Republican, or anyone with conservative views, being dismissed as irrelevent????????

I have heard it said that these accusations were given a "complete airing" at the time. I have been a voter in Ohio 30 years and, if I do say so myself, keep myself fairly well informed. This is the first time I have ever heard about these prior allegations by Brown's former wife. What exactly is the definition of "complete airing" being used here????

BALLPARK FIGURES FOR CCGT & COAL
General Investment Cost for CCGT: $1,100,000 per MW (ref. EIA)
Capacity Factor for CCGT: 90%
CO2 emission from CCGT: 400 kg per MWh (ref. X-Environnement.org)
CO2 emission from coal: 1000 kg per MWh (ref. X-Environnement.org)
CCGT reduces CO2 emission by 600 kg per MWH, as compared to coal.

SOLAR PANELS AT KENT STATE:
Per the numbers in the PD article a $1,500,000 solar array is going to provide 500,000 KWH of electricity per year, or in other words 500 MWH. If this eliminates 500 MWH of coal generation entirely (it won’t), this represents 500,000 kg of CO2 emissions.

COMPARISON:
$1,500,000 could provide about 1.4 MW of CCGT capacity.
1.4 MW x 8760 hours/year x 90% = 11,000 MWh per year
11,000 MWh x 600 kg/MWh = 6,600,000 kg of CO2 eliminated

Investing the same amount of money in CCGT generation would provide more than 22 times the electricity and eliminate more than 13 times the CO2 emissions.

Meanwhile we could be working on things like more efficient and safer nuclear fission, and ultimately nuclear fusion.

500,000 KWH of electricity is worth about $50,000 per year (consumer cost $0.10 per KWH))
$1.5 million divided by $50,000 per year is a 30 year payback.
The solar panels really won't produce 500,000 KWH per year.
The efficiency of the panel will degrade each year.
If the electricity is sold onto the grid at wholesale cost ($0.05 per KWH) the pay back period doubles.

If the same money was invested in closed cycle gas turbine(CCGT) technology we could produce far more reliable continuous electricity and, at the same time, eliminate far more carbon emmissions by eliminating dependence on coal.

CCGT isn't gee wiz cool, however, so let's make sure we do the right thing and go with the gee wiz cool stuff!!!!!

Catesby:

Did you READ the article that is the subject of this discussion???

The article states clearly that the solar array at the First Unitarian Church is costing $500,000. It also states that the array is to have a peak capacity of 91,000 watts (91 KW) and is expected to produce enough electricity to cover 80% of the Church’s annual bill of $12,000.

80% of $12,000 per year is $9600 per year; so I rounded up to $10,000 to be extra generous to the solar panels.

Since the average price of electricity is around $0.10 per KWh, this means that the energy generation must be around 100,000 KWh (100 MWH) per year of electricity.

One can confirm these estimates by taking the supposed 91 KW peak capacity and calculating the energy this could provide in one year, applying a typical capacity factor for photovoltaic cells (10 -15 %)

91 KW x 8760 hours/year x 12.5% = 100,000 KWh = 100 MWh

I have no idea what you are ranting on about with regard to your electric bill and $3000 for 370 KW?????? You seem to be confusing kilowatts (power) with kilowatt-hours (energy).

For a person who started this discussion by arrogantly accusing other people of being ignorant, and who has now accused me of making up numbers; you seem to be pretty ignorant yourself regarding the subject you are babbling about.

OK……..a quickie:

Per the number in the article $500,000 of solar panels going to provide 91KW of generating peak capacity, which will provide about $10,000 or 100 MWh of electricity per year. If this eliminated 100 MWh of coal generation entirely (it won’t), this represents 100,000 kg of CO2 emissions.

If $500,000 were invested into CCGT generation, we could provide approximately 600 KW of generating capacity, which would be capable of providing 4700 MWh of electricity per year. This would represent 2,820,000 kg of CO2 emissions eliminated. (I am assuming about $800,000 per MW and a 90% capacity factor for CCGT)

47 times the electricity and 28 times the CO2 elimination by investing in CCGT rather than solar.

catesby:

I made it clear from the beginning that the points I make are applicable to wind or solar. If the $500,000 invested in the solar panels were invested into CCGT generation, the same relative scenario would play out; we could eliminate more coal and get more electricity with the same money if we invested in natural gas generation.

Speaking about being "beside the point", why are you making another point about coal? My premise is that we can spend our money in more effective ways to replace coal.

Yes , the sun pours down photons all over the place; that is actuall part of the problem. The lack of energy density is a massive inherent drawback. Do I need to point out again..........$500,000 to get less than $10,000 worth of electricity per year!! Also, the electricity we will be getting from the solar panels will have to be continuously backed up by some other means of generation (probably coal).

With regard to nuclear fission, there are technology developments underway which can reduce the waste, improve efficiency, and promote safety. This is just one possibility that has more promise of providing the electricity we need with the reliability and density we need.

My first thought when looking at this stellar crew is to use a phrase I have used before:

"Throw in a mentally impaired kid with a banjo and we'd have the cast of 'Deliverance'."

However, upon further reflection, it certainly appears that they already have the mentally impaired part covered. I wonder if any of them play the banjo??

OWS must be so proud!!!!!

catesby - Solar (and wind) are neither cheap nor abundant; and Mr. Linscott's questions are very relevant and not ignorant at all.

tomee - You may also want to look at the following if your interested in eliminating coal.

I made the following comments regarding the wind turbine at the Cuyahoga Fairgrounds, but the same principle and issues apply to the solar panels:

I have submitted many comments to the Cleveland.com forum critical of spending on alternative energy projects involving subsidized wind turbines and solar panels. Beginning with the LEEDCO Great Lakes Energy Project some years ago, some of my more recent commentary involves the wind turbine at the Cuyahoga County Fairgrounds, the wind turbine at the GLCS, solar panels at the First Unitarian Church. In general I have demonstrated how these subsidized wind turbines and solar panels make no financial sense because their inherently poor energy generation capability results in failure to produce enough reliable electrical energy to pay back the disproportionately large investments. I also usually point out that I believe our money could be better spent promoting more effective improvements to our energy strategy.

While some people agree with my point of view, many have indicated disagreement, expressing a common belief that it is necessary to subsidize implementation of these alternative energy devices, despite the financial and performance failings, because of a need to reduce CO2 emissions. To address these concerns, I would like offer a different way of looking at what I have been saying; and I will use the 500KW wind turbine recently installed at the Cuyahoga County Fairgrounds as an example case:

The 500 KW (0.5 MW) wind turbine at the fairgrounds cost $1.675 million and can be expected to provide less than 721 MWh of non-continuous electricity per year. Assuming this directly displaces 721 MWh of coal fired generation; this will eliminate approximately 721,000 kg of CO2 emissions per year. This assumes that a coal generating facility emits about 1000 kg of CO2 per MWh, and that wind turbine generation eliminates this emission entirely (which it won’t).

In comparison, using round numbers, if $1.675 million were invested in closed cycle gas turbine (CCGT) generation, we would be able to provide approximately 2 MW of generating capacity and approximately 15,000 MWh of continuous and reliable electricity per year. If this directly displaced 15,000 MWh of coal fired generation (which it actually could), this would eliminate 9,000,000 kg of CO2 emissions per year. As before this assumes coal fired generation emits 1000 kg of CO2 per MWh, and also assumes CCGT generation emits about 400 kg of CO2 per MWh.

In other words, investing the same amount of money in CCGT generation would provide more than 20 times the electricity and eliminate more than 10 times the CO2 emissions.

Development and improvement of nuclear fission technology, improvements to our distribution system to promote efficiency and reduce loss, and development of nuclear fusion technology are examples of longer-term initiatives that have promise.

My point is that there are better ways to invest our resources to improve our energy strategy.

There are three separate issues here. Why are we mixing these topics???

All people have the absolute right to freedom of association. All consenting adults have the right to form relationships with, cohabitate with, enter into agreements with, have intimate contact with, etc. any other consenting adult or adults. To my knowledge, there is nothing in Ohio law or US law that inhibits this (if there are old blue laws still on the books regarding this, they need to be eliminated).

Churches can conduct whatever ceremonies they choose to conduct, and they can recognize whatever unions they choose to recognize. There is nothing in Ohio law or US law that inhibits churches in any way, in this regard. There should also not be any law that would force them to conduct a ceremony that they do not wish to conduct.

The State has a definition of a LEGAL marriage which establishes the criteria for marriage unions that will be legally recognized for the purpose of qualifying for legal and financial benefits and privileges (not rights) prescribed by law. This is a legislative matter, and in Ohio also a constitutional matter. Some of us disagree on the current legal definition; that is why we have a democratic legislative process. We voted before, and we’ll probably vote again.

Mr. John Funk has sent me an e-mail with the following information:

........"Jerry, the sentence reads "donate or sell." If Martens donates it, he will get a charity tax deduction. If he sells it, he'll get cash. Martens' second company is paying for the project now. And owning it. He's getting a 30 percent tax credit now. And he will sell the SRECS to a utility annually, at least through 2025. Martens did the same kind of project on the community center for the village of Valle View",,,,,,,,,,,

I want to thank John for taking the time to respond to me.

I guess I just don’t understand the magnitude of the 30% tax credit and the SRECS that Marten will get to sell, and how much this is worth to him.

Regardless, there is just something WRONG with this deal. This is a $500,000 investment which is going to return less than $10,000 of electricity per year. Somebody’s money is being dumped down a rat-hole somewhere.

If this were the Church's money or Martens' money, it would be none of my business and I wouldn't care. With tax credits and selling of SRECS involved, however, I suspect it is mostly taxpayer money being dumped in the rat-hole.

Big M,

This is a $500,000 investment, giving us less than $10,000 per year returned in electricity.

In anyone's wildest imagination, how can this be discussed as a wise use of money??????????????

I still want to know exactly where the $500,000 is coming from, and what incentives are propping this deal up.

OK. To be clear.......The array cannot make more than $10,000 of electricity per year; and the reality will probably be much less; so sale of electricity is NOT paying for a significant portion of the $500,000.

What I would like to know is what specific grants, subsidies, and tax incentives are being used to prop this up, because the business case for the array makes no financial sense at all??

A humorous story about northern Ohio I have heard indicates that, in 1796, the famed explorer and surveyor Moses Cleaveland pulled his expedition’s boats into the mouth of the Cuyahoga River and told his party “We’ll camp here until the clouds clear.”......... Thus the permanent settlement of Cleaveland, later spelled Cleveland, was founded. This, of course, is not necessarily historical fact; however, Ohio’s reputation for cloudiness and limited sunshine is well founded and documented. One would think that this would, at least, give pause to the proponents of massive expansion of solar power conversion projects in the area.

This project will never make financial sense. Thus my question from above; "Who is paying for this????"

Is Martens really DONATING a $500,000 solar array; paying for it out of his own pocket with no incentives or grants, when there is no hope that the investment will be returned????

A $500,000 system to generate maybe $8,000 to $10,000 of electricity per year.

Who is paying for this????????

ryanscav - Sorry. I did try to respond in detail, but the Cleveland PD site has failed to post my response twice now; as it has done in previous comment strings on multiple occasions. I can only assume this is because my conservation common sense does not comport with the expected politically correct point of view, and is therefore being blocked.

The wind turbine at the GLSC cost nearly $500,000 and apparently has produced an average of 145 MWh/year for the last two years.

At the average current cost of electricity ($100/MWh), the turbine in on track for payback after 34 years. If you look at it using the average wholesale cost of electricity ($50/WHh), the pay back is 68 years.

This ignores any operation and maintenance costs, and ignores the fact that the wind turbine will not last 30 years. In other words, no payback will ever occur.

The only remaining question is, who paid for this paricular boondoggle??? I hope it wasn't the taxpayers again.

Found the answers:

It cost nearly $500,000 and apparently has produced an average of 145 MWh/year for the last two years.

At the average current cost of electricity ($100/MWh), the turbine in on track for payback after 34 years. If you look at it using the average wholesale cost of electricity ($50/WHh), the pay back is 68 years.

This ignores any operation and maintenance costs, and ignores the fact that the wind turbine will not last 30 years. In other words no payback will ever occur.

The only remaining question is, who paid for this paricular boondoggle??? I hope it wasn't the taxpayers again.

How much did it cost?

How much electrical energy (KWh) has it produced since 2006?

The Plain Dealer Editorial Board is equating Mitt Romney’s comments about possible economic policy with Barack Obama’s covert whispering to foreign leaders about America’s military defenses. Are they kidding???!!!

Whether you agree or not everyone with half a brain knows that, if a more conservative Republican is elected, the Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, HUD, GSA, and other government bureaucracies are all “on the chopping block”. Also, Mr. Romney’s other comments regarding the possible elimination of tax deductions for wealthier people could hardly be considered controversial; except possibly to some of the very fund raisers he was talking to. These topics have been openly debated endlessly throughout the Republican primaries. The fact that these comments were “overheard” at a fund raiser meeting that was not open to the press seems rather incidental.

On the other hand, Mr. Obama was literally caught whispering to less than friendly foreign leaders about how he will have more flexibility to negotiate away America’s military advantages after he gets this upcoming pesky little democratic election behind him and can be re-crowned.

Who could possibly find equivalence between these things?????

Yes, it is true, the wind turbine will not produce enough electricity in its entire life to return so much as the original $1,675,000 investment to the taxpayers.

I have heard repeatedly that the purpose for this turbine is for “education”. Exactly what lessons will be learned and taught??
- Will the students and public be shown the reality that the wind turbine does not produce enough useful energy to pay for itself?
- Will the students and public be shown the reality that, at least in Ohio, wind turbines cannot provide electricity with the reliability and density necessary to include them as a viable component of our main energy strategy?

The point to take away from this is not that electricity cannot be derived from the wind. Obviously electrical energy can be generated from the wind, and in some cases individual point-of-use application of wind turbines may make sense (especially if energy storage technology is improved). However, the inherently poor energy density & reliability and other drawbacks make wind turbine implementation a poor contribution to our main-stream energy strategy in general. The analyses show that the currently available wind turbine devices, for both large scale and small scale applications, do not provide enough energy to pay for themselves, and are NOT effective at providing electricity with the energy density and reliability needed. Further, the benefit that they are advertised to provide (i.e. pollution reduction) is highly suspect, because there will be an endless need to maintain and operate traditional power generation methods in an inefficient manner to back-up the unreliable and variable wind generation.

Because emotional and political, rather than rational, decisions are being made; huge amounts of taxpayer resources are expended pursuing implementation of wind turbine technology, when it is not ready for implementation. Unfortunately, this wastes resources and money that could be better spent in other ways helping us to pursue other effective improvements to our energy strategy.