Frozen Delaware bay

Unfortunately it cant, even with the massive government subsidies over the last 30+ years

Despite advocates’ claims to the contrary, wind and solar continue to be the most expensive sources of electricity. The New York Times recently reported that “wind power is currently more than 50 percent more expensive than power generated from a traditional coal plant.” [1] Energy Secretary Stephen Chu told the New York Times that solar technology would have to get five times better to be competitive in today’s energy market.[2] In spite of these reports and admissions, the public relations campaign for wind and solar powered electricity marches on.

For decades, representatives and advocates of wind and solar have claimed that their technology was near a competitive tipping point—but just needed a bit more subsidies, set-asides, and government aid to succeed. But even after 30 years of massive subsidies, wind and solar continue to be more expensive and contribute only a small amount of electricity. In 2008, wind produced 1.3% of the electrical generation in America and solar produced a meager 0.02%.[3]

 

first, I'm far from a liberal energy advocate. when you site 7-8 year old stats we leave ourselves wide open to being owned by the liberal lobby. Renewables are rapidly gaining while being heavily subsidized. soon they will have only the same benefits all businesses receive. my daughter's other family invested heavily to get Plymouth Mass's only functioning wind turbine. my last discussion with the owner was of a happy success. coal is gone, forget it. NY won't frack their nat gas. You in Pa. can buy wind as cheap as fossil fuel power. check it out. off shore wind is a waste, too costly. land based wind and solar are rapidly becoming competitive. then look at the roof top solar and solar city's stock. try paying $.26/kw with even the FF power, that our current mass rate!

 

I found the rest of it.

 

Here's the top of the Chesapeake

 

For those wondering what the NYT reported about relative engergy costs in 2014, as opposed to 2009, this is what it looked like:

Solar and Wind Energy Start to Win on Price vs. Conventional Fuels
By DIANE CARDWELLNOV. 23, 2014

Photo


A wind farm in Weatherford, Okla. In a study, the cost of wind power came in as low as 1.4 cents a kilowatt-hour. Credit Paul Hellstern for The New York Times

For the solar and wind industries in the United States, it has been a long-held dream: to produce energy at a cost equal to conventional sources like coal and natural gas.

That day appears to be dawning.

The cost of providing electricity from wind and solar power plants has plummeted over the last five years, so much so that in some markets renewable generation is now cheaper than coal or natural gas.

Utility executives say the trend has accelerated this year, with several companies signing contracts, known as power purchase agreements, for solar or wind at prices below that of natural gas, especially in the Great Plains and Southwest, where wind and sunlight are abundant.

Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies that could soon diminish or expire, but recent analyses show that even without those subsidies, alternative energies can often compete with traditional sources.

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And then, yesterday's NYT contains this little tidbit:

For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.

One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethica guidelines of the journals that published his work.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Big quote right here... "Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies that could soon diminish or expire"... it'll be far more interesting to see how the wind industry does when the guv isn't helping with monie$ ... that'll be just about the time all of these windmills will require very expensive maintenance too. I'm all for coming up with new & better ideas to make power, but artificially fluffing how great they're doing (because of tax payer's money given to them for being green) is just that... fluff.

 

the situation I'm familiar with is not receiving any overly extensive subs and one turbine does not make a farm. as more and more units come on line, the cost /kw will continue to be reduced. today the subsidy /kwh is very high compared to FF. that really is only a matter of numbers.

the Plymouth turbine was assessed a $120K charge to connect to the grid. the town of Kingston, Ma. found after all the preconstruction exercise that they would have to pay a rumored $2,000,000.00 to connect. their site had no local high voltage lines anywhere near their sighting. it went up in it's current location anyway?(great local planning and use of local tax $)

 

If you click through the link to the first article I linked above, you'll find more detailed information, such as this paragraph:

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And before you go too far out on that limb of referring to subsidized prices as "fluff," you might want to consider the tens of billions of dollars (just in the USA) of subsidies given to fossil fuel producers every year.

 

I'll get all warm & fuzzy with those numbers when the sun stays out 24/7 and the wind blows 24/7... so oil, coal, nuclear and bio mass electrical generators won't have to cover the lion's share. And as far as subsidies are concerned, I'd be fine if all of it stopped. Let the chips fall where they will. The businesses that people want will survive just fine. Gotta stop there cuz we can't get into the politics of all of this... and that's where most of the pollution is, on both sides.

 

NWS posted on twitter

 

Yeah, Maine's coastline is doing the same. Lots and lots of diesel being used to keep those waterways open. Crazy.

 

METEOROLOICAL SPRING MAR. 1ST.

 

Is that on the moon?
I thought the first day of spring was March 20th

 

yours is on the moon, it is astronomical spring 3/20/15. sunday mar 1 meteorologically spring.