Wind power a costly alternative energy source [National Wind Watch]

...She rightly said that we have energy problems and accurately concluded that we need to take meaningful steps to “protect our air and water quality” through “cleaner, healthier and affordable energy alternatives.” These are excellent sentiments, that I (and I’m sure Mr. Bowers) fully support. (I am a physicist and energy expert).

The fatal flaw in Ms. Cornell’s solution though, is that she apparently believes that any alternative source of energy is better than existing fossil fuels. She also seems to think that all alternative energy sources are roughly equal. Unfortunately, for a variety of technical, economic and environmental reasons, both of these opinions are false.

The scientific facts are that just because an energy source is “renewable” doesn’t make it better (or even good), and that there are major differences between different alternative sources.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration recently concluded that: “Wind power is subsidized to the tune of $23 per megawatt-hour. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents per megawatt-hour, natural gas 25 cents, hydroelectric 67 cents, and nuclear power $1.59.” Does wind power sound like the “affordable” she is advocating?