U.S. Wind Energy Industry Hurting Bad

[nec209]

We commented just yesterday about how the Chinese are ahead of the U.S. in things like high speed rail, and now a new report from the wind energy sector reconfirms how we continue to lag behind a growing competitor on the world stage. Just released data from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) suggests the U.S. wind industry reported its slowest quarter since 2007, while China installed nearly three times as much new power from this form of renewable energy.

 

Read more http://www.earthtechling.com/2010/10/u-s-wind-energy-industry-hurting-bad/

================

 

 

Note CNN today had talk about how the US is going in stone age if people do not stop this liberal and conservative bashing and start to work to gether !! Well that is want Obama will like every one to do.

[CaptainPanic]

It is interesting how apparently the Chinese have a different opinion about the cost effectiveness of wind energy...

Although they have a plan based economy, they too will do an economic analysis and make an estimate of the value of wind power. They must have arrived at a very different conclusion.

 

It worries me that the economy, which is the argumentation for almost every decision in our world, is apparently a very subjective thing.

[padren]

It worries me that the economy, which is the argumentation for almost every decision in our world, is apparently a very subjective thing.

The potential rewards for becoming the predominant provider of wind power technology is huge, but far more long term than any American firm can likely ride out to critical mass. China is probably taking an initial loss and will for some time simply to gain the best possible position down the road.

 

America could actually invest like this if we wanted to, and considering the jobs market and the erosion of our leading-edge technology exports it could be a good idea: shovel-ready and large future benefits. Unfortunately, it would cost a lot of money and no politician could survive pushing such a plan that would take more than 2-4 years to see returns. The one thing it lacks is instant-gratification, which is pretty much a requirement in our current political climate.

 

 

It is still possible that America could jump into a leading role by making a technological leap - and there are some very interesting wind power generation systems that promise to be far more efficient, low profile, low impact, and lower maintenance than the traditional turbine structure.

 

However, the factors that have enabled the US to make such leaps ahead of countries like China are definitely in decline, while China has more Universities apparently now than the US has university students. I think it mostly depends on how long it takes us to get out of our current economic/political mess, so we can get back to how we grow within the world stage.

[nec209]

It is interesting how apparently the Chinese have a different opinion about the cost effectiveness of wind energy...

Although they have a plan based economy, they too will do an economic analysis and make an estimate of the value of wind power. They must have arrived at a very different conclusion.

 

It worries me that the economy, which is the argumentation for almost every decision in our world, is apparently a very subjective thing.

 

 

Get the book on Al Gore it will answer the energy problem and gives the solution!!

 

 

Front cover of the book.Check amzone or your local book store if they do not have it they can order it.

http://www.ecorazzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ourchoice.jpg

 

 

it funny how the conservatives say there is no option but fossl fule and this book proves there is solution.

[lemur]

Imagine that just a few centuries ago, fleets of wind-powered ships sailed the globe carrying everything from cinnamon to slaves. Colonialism got a bad name for obvious reasons but it remains impressive that so much cargo was moved around by wind-power, and that was without modern technologies of food-preservation and medicine. Of course, I don't know if I'd want to see the rates of casualties on those ships, even not counting the people chained in a single position for weeks on end.

 

Today if wind-shipping was re-introduced, it would be interesting to see what the cost-benefit analysis would look like. Surely it would require a lot more labor-hours per shipping unit, but it would also be a way of employing people with zero CO2 emissions, zero fuel-consumption, and a way for people to combine their work with travel. If couples and families could incorporate as owner-operators of wind vessels, they could basically live on the ocean - assuming they could secure their routes from pirates, weather calamities, etc. I realize this sounds very idealistic, but it's the only way I could imagine people voluntarily committing to the long voyages and heavy work that would be required for manning a sailing ship large enough to transport cargo intercontinentally.

[Mr Skeptic]

It is interesting how apparently the Chinese have a different opinion about the cost effectiveness of wind energy...

Although they have a plan based economy, they too will do an economic analysis and make an estimate of the value of wind power. They must have arrived at a very different conclusion.

 

Well they get a front row seat to the nasties of coal power. Their coal mines are deadly, the local smoke from burning it also deadly. I doubt they care too much about global warming, but they have their own local problems with similar sources.

[Pangloss]

That wind-powered shipping notion from lemur above is an interesting idea.

 

I suspect the largest cost in overseas shipping is already human labor, not oil. If memory serves, shipping typically uses barely-refined, near-crude oil that's dirt cheap to make. Of course they consume a LOT of it and costs have risen in recent years so maybe it does exceed labor cost. So even if you had to add more crew you could still be saving a lot of money.

 

I also wonder about traffic at sea ports, which I've heard gets pretty significant. What good is it to be able to cross the ocean at 40 km/hr if you're going to have to sit outside your destination for a day or two when you get there?

 

But I'm just rambling here, obviously more info would be needed. Interesting idea, though.

[Skye]

Windjammers still carried long distance cargo during the first half of the 20th century. They could be sailed with around 20 crew at around 15 knots, which is similar to modern cargo ships. However they'd do this following the wind along certain routes, and it's still not as reliable as a powered ship. It would be interesting to see what a modern ship design could achieve though.

[CaptainPanic]

Well they get a front row seat to the nasties of coal power. Their coal mines are deadly, the local smoke from burning it also deadly. I doubt they care too much about global warming, but they have their own local problems with similar sources.

It's cheaper to invest in state-of-the-art gas cleaning systems.

 

Although the pollution definitely plays a role, I believe that economic arguments will be the most important (note the use of the word "believe", which suggests that I just stated an opinion, not a fact).

[CharonY]

Actually one should take the infrastructure in China into account. There are still a lot of (large) villages that are not or only have limited access to a central grid. Considering relatively low energy consumptions, building wind turbines in those areas could provide sufficient energy and be more economic than building a more productive coal plant.

Remember, China has the unique potential that it can (and has to) create a completely new infrastructure in many areas. This gives them more flexibility compared to other more thoroughly industrialized countries that often are limited to optimization of existing (suboptimal) structures.