Hiya Balogh et al.  In this debate I agree with George Monbiot.  As long as wind power is just a piece in a policy of endless "growth", it will do nothing to prevent the problems it is supposed to help with.  We'll still build more nuclear and coal plants, etc.  On the other hand, if we were to make NOW the drastic reductions in demand that we'll have to do eventually anyway...

In other words, to quote Albert Bartlett, we don't have an energy crisis, we have an energy scarcity leading to a cultural crisis.  Until we attack the "demand" directly, we're not dealing with the real crisis.  Yes I use electricity from the grid, but about 1/5 of the typical US household, and I do that easily and without any hardship: CFL bulbs, turn lights off when leaving a room, no constant outdoor lighting, recent model fridge, heat water on something other than electricity, no air conditioning.  If half of Americans did the same, we'd have enough electrical power for a long time...

Another issue here is the insistence of the wind power developers on using the technology that maximizes profits, without regard for anything else.  In other words, the same mindset that got us into trouble with the other energy schemes.  We can have plenty of wind power without the problems that those mega-turbines bring, by doing the following:

• Use smaller turbines.  In the 10-100KW range.   (Of course we'll need to build more of them.)

• Build them at lower elevations.  (This is relevant to the current debate in Vermont, where the proposals are to build them on the tops of the highest ridges.)

Yes, this will approximately double the money cost per KWH.   (The reduction in the need for large transmission lines, thanks to more distributed generators, helps minimize the difference.)  If we used the electricity sparingly, as if we appreciated the miraculous gift that it is, that price would be good enough, and it would minimize the other, non-monetary costs.

Finally, unless we stop population growth, ALL is lost.  Say goodby to the planet, even if they all drive hybrids recharged on wind power.  Food from where?  We'll have draconian birth control, or we'll have wholesale death.  Pick your choice.

As I said up there, the 10% effective capacity figure is from an analysis by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority: "The effects of integrating wind power on transmission system planning, reliability, and operations," March 4, 2005, prepared by GE Energy Consulting (an odd choice, since GE Wind is profiting greatly from public policies supporting wind power, but it does make the 10% figure all the more believable and even generous).

The Royal Academy of Engineering in the U.K., the Irish Grid, and a couple of studies in Germany (according to grid manager Eon Netz) all calculate that the effective capacity of wind is about a third of its average capacity.

If you account for the higher losses from power transmission from wind-mills located who-knows-where, the losses for maintaining a spinning reserve or from enforced pumped storage, the thermodynamic losses of rapidly ramping up or down reserve capacity and all others related to wind power variability, the overall efficiency will be well south of 20%.