This is misleading. Emissions for coal have been reduced by 75% since the 70's. Wind is not reliable and is dependent on back-up (usually coal) in order to exist. As a consequence, and what the anaylsis reveals is that where coal backs up wind, an increase in total carbon dioxide emissions is the actual result! See for further analysis, "Wind Integration vs. Air Emission Reductions: A Primer for Policymakers" June, 2010.
Listen to the first phrase: "In peak conditions..." How often will that be? How often will the wind not blow at all? Don't get me wrong, wind power is great and should be developed. But anyone who thinks it will replace coal, in this country (USA) of 300 million people who are used to 8 cents/kWh (or cheaper) power is dreaming. A better use of resources would be to upgrade existing coal plants with cleaner burning technology that now exists.
CLEAN COAL is a lie....a myth created by the coal companies and a great PR firm.
TheWAAngel 1 year ago
They should check the script before the reading...
"watts per hour"???
That would be a rate at which power plants are added to the grid?
BardlyG 1 year ago
This is misleading. Emissions for coal have been reduced by 75% since the 70's. Wind is not reliable and is dependent on back-up (usually coal) in order to exist. As a consequence, and what the anaylsis reveals is that where coal backs up wind, an increase in total carbon dioxide emissions is the actual result! See for further analysis, "Wind Integration vs. Air Emission Reductions: A Primer for Policymakers" June, 2010.
notinthelake 1 year ago
Listen to the first phrase: "In peak conditions..." How often will that be? How often will the wind not blow at all? Don't get me wrong, wind power is great and should be developed. But anyone who thinks it will replace coal, in this country (USA) of 300 million people who are used to 8 cents/kWh (or cheaper) power is dreaming. A better use of resources would be to upgrade existing coal plants with cleaner burning technology that now exists.
karlstifler 1 year ago