Failure to supply significant power amid record Texas heat this summer puts wind energy's lack of reliability and economic viability on stark display.
Manhattan Institute senior fellow Robert Bryce notes for National Review Online that on an "unspeakably hot" Aug. 24 in Texas, 10,135 megawatts of wind-generation capacity supplied just 880 megawatts of power "when electricity was needed the most" -- in the afternoon, when wind subsides while heat and electricity demand rise.
An inherently losing proposition, wind power is even more so in Texas, which has "far more super-hot days than ... frigid ones," as Mr. Bryce observes.
He notes that the U.S. Energy Information Administration says wind energy costs about 50 percent more than reliable electricity generated by burning natural gas, which is abundant in Texas. Consumers there thus pay needlessly high electricity bills.
With $6.79 billion in new wind-power transmission lines planned, those bills will rise even more.
No Democrat has held statewide Texas office since 1999, Bryce reminds. It was Govs. George W. Bush and Rick Perry — Republicans who should know better — who endorsed renewable-energy mandates.
It's wind-power folly writ large. But hey, everything's bigger in Texas, right?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Authorities recover rifle used to kill Westmoreland police officer
- Kane turns to former Maryland attorney general to lead porn email probe
- Chicago mayor fires police chief in wake of video release
- Founder of Z&M Cycle Sales in Hempfield killed in Florida motorcycle crash
- Starkey: Tomlin lived in his fears
- Film session: Long shots dotted Steelers’ passing game
- 2,200 union employees of ATI lose coverage
- Steelers receiver Wheaton takes advantage of opportunity in breakout game
- Slain St. Clair officer walked into ‘worst nightmare’ for police
- Woman gets probation in deadly shooting outside Pittsburgh bar
- Increasing player salaries pinch financial flexibility of Pirates