Fake News: Wind Tops Coal & Nuclear for First Time in US History

Guest “Situational statistics” by David Middleton

Who else used to play Strat-O-Matic Baseball? One of my Moneyballtype strategies was to draft players with great situational statistics. I remember two players, in particular. We were drafting based on the 1989 Major League Baseball rosters. Paul O’Neill, then with the Cincinnati Reds hit .455 against righthanded pitchers and Fred Manrique, a utility infielder with the Texas Rangers, had nearly a .500 batting average with runners in scoring position.

Strategically platooning Paul O’Neill against righthanded pitching and using Fred Manrique exclusively as a pinch-hitter with runners in scoring position, racked up some impressive Strat-O-Matic results, but bore very little resemblance to reality, just like wind’s one day second place finish.

The Bloomberg headline (article pay-walled) is fake news on steroids:

Wind Passed Coal, Nuclear Power in U.S. for First Time on Record

Clickbait dominated the headlines:

The E&E article, posted on Unscientific Unamerican is less misleading, but still fake news:

In a First, Wind Generation Tops Coal and Nuclear Power for a Day
The milestone showed both how far renewable energy has come and the lengths the country must go to reach President Joe Biden’s climate goals

By Benjamin Storrow, E&E News on April 15, 2022

Wind was the second-largest source of power generation in the country on March 29, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported yesterday, marking the first time wind output had ever simultaneously exceeded coal and nuclear over a 24-hour period.


The surge in wind output on March 29 was driven by the Great Plains states. The Southwest Power Pool, the regional grid operator for 14 states stretching from Oklahoma to North Dakota, reported that renewable generation accounted for 90 percent of its electricity production on March 29, with nearly all of that coming from wind.


Unscientific Unamerican

The Unsci-Unam article links to this EIA article:

APRIL 14, 2022
Wind was second-largest source of U.S. electricity generation on March 29

On Tuesday, March 29, wind turbines in the Lower 48 states produced 2,017 gigawatthours (GWh) of electricity, making wind the second-largest source of electric generation for the day, only behind natural gas, according to our Hourly Electric Grid Monitor. Daily wind-powered electricity had surpassed coal-fired and nuclear electricity generation separately on other days earlier this year but had not surpassed both sources on a single day.

Consistent growth in the installed capacity of wind turbines in the United States has led to more wind-powered electricity generation. In September 2019, U.S. wind capacity surpassed nuclear capacity, but wind still generated less electricity than nuclear because of differences in those technologies’ utilization.

The average capacity factor of U.S. wind generators (35% in 2021) is lower than the average capacity factor of nuclear generators (93% in 2021), which are designed to run at or near full output, which they typically do. Wind turbines currently rank as the third-largest source of generating capacity in the United States, behind natural gas-fired generators and coal-fired generators.

In the United States, wind speeds, and correspondingly, wind-powered electricity generation, often peak during spring. On March 29, the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), which covers parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and neighboring states, and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) both reported new wind penetration records. Wind penetration represents the share of electric demand satisfied by wind generation. SPP reported wind penetration of 88.5% on March 29, and ERCOT reported wind penetration of 67.2% for the same day.

Because electricity demand tends to be lowest in the spring and fall months, some generators—including both nuclear and coal—reduce their output or scheduled maintenance during these months. Also, on days when weather patterns lead to more wind generation, competing coal-fired and natural gas-fired generators often are called upon to reduce their output so that overall electricity supply matches demand.

The natural variation of wind speeds contributes to very different amounts of wind generation, depending on the time of day or season. Wind first ranked as the second-largest source of U.S. electricity generation for an hour in late March 2021.

On a monthly basis, we have had less wind generation in the United States than natural gas-fired generationcoal-fired generation, or nuclear generation. We do not expect wind to surpass either coal-fired or nuclear generation for any month in 2022 or 2023, based on our most recent Short-Term Energy Outlook forecast.

Our Hourly Electric Grid Monitor publishes electric generation from generators that are metered within reporting balancing authorities. Typically, balancing authorities do not meter generators on the distribution system—both large-scale resources and small-scale distributed resources, such as rooftop solar photovoltaic systems. The data series in our Electric Power Monthly represent our official statistical reports and include both large-scale and small-scale resources in the generation data.

Principal contributors: Jonathan DeVilbiss, M. Tyson Brown

Tags: generation, coal, electricity, natural gas, nuclear, renewables, wind


On a particularly windy spring day, when thermal power plants are gearing down for a low demand season, in the windiest season of the year, wind edged out nuclear and coal generation on one day.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Hourly Electric Grid Monitor

This “milestone” was largely driven by the Southwest Power Pool (SWPP), a region with phenomenal wind resources and a lot of installed wind capacity.

At this time of year, wind is often the top generation source in the SWPP…

It would be interesting to see how much wind power had to be curtailed and how many migratory birds were killed on March 29.

Putting this into context and we can see that wind is still in a distant fourth place:

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly

Wind works OK where it works, when it works, unless you happen to be a migratory bird… In which case it works best when it doesn’t work, which is most of the time in most places. Fake news isn’t necessarily false… It’s often an un-newsworthy headline story, reported breathlessly by the media because it fits their worldview.

4.9 43 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 17, 2022 6:12 pm

Soooo, for the other 364 days it sucked as usual ! D’oh !

Great post David.

Tom Halla
April 17, 2022 6:22 pm

As Texas realized February 2021, wind is not dispatchable. The week before, admittedly in a lower demand situation, wind had provided some thirty percent of the grid supply.
Then, we had freezing rain, and the coldest temperatures since 1913. Wind was a failure, and despite gaslighting, no amount of weatherizing will make a wind turbine work in freezing rain and still air. The major deleterious effect of wind was to divert investment away from dispatshable sources, as ERCOT did not penalize wind for it’s unreliability.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 17, 2022 9:48 pm

Friends come through for you when you need them most. Wind is not our friend!

About the people denying that fact, Thomas Sowell is a straight shooting friend:

It is usually futile to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying
a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

Tee Shanny
Reply to  Old Man Winter
April 19, 2022 8:44 am

“…a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance” CERTAINLY describes true-believing Christians, Jews, Buddhist, islamists or any religious group, as well as conservatives aligned because of ignorance against conservation and/or acceptance of scientifically proven, factually demonstrable AGW, anthropogenic global warming.

This is yet another ridiculous, easily debunked and exposed play from the conservative/Nazi / GOP/Trump disinformation playbook, called “projection”: “Accuse your opponent of the same thing you yourself are doing.” — Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment

There’s a great website on AGW that demonstrate virtually every claim and argument posted on WUWT, “the most viewed” (NOT most scientifically accurate or truthful, you should note) website on climate change, is merely a reworking or regurgitation of Echo Chamber anti-environment, anti-science BS: skepticalscience.com

What’s so frightening to you anti-science “true believers” about FACTS?? Why persist in beliefs about hogwash when the facts and the evidence and the science is so readily available and easy to research? This is one of the true mysteries of why websites like WUWT exist and thrive. (Other than the typical Richie conservative tendency to rip off gullible people with ads for unnecessary, sometimes outright fake, products like survivalist equipment/supplies or alleged nutritional or weight loss supplements that ONLY line the pockets of their producers with ill-gotten cash. (Anyone recall the marvelous, yet now DEBUNKED, claimed benefits of Garcinia Cambogia? YEAH, THAT HAPPENED.)

Last edited 11 months ago by Tee Shanny
Old Man Winter
Reply to  Tee Shanny
April 21, 2022 6:16 am

I’m doing this in two parts. PART 1

Tee, your analysis isn’t too bad as you were totally right about some
things, possibly right about other things, & totally wrong about the
rest. Since you’re human like me, that’s often par for the course,
with only the percentages of each case varying. Let me explain.

We’re all humans who can brainwash ourselves into being emotionally-
not rationally- attached to what we believe to be true. What’s worse
is that we can’t see our own hypocrisy which we can readily see in
others. Secondly, we’re all religious- whether we want to be or not-
our conscience- by which we accuse/excuse ourselves & others- is our
basis of being religious. Since we can be blind to our own behavior,
no belief system can always keep us from being like “those other evil
people”. This is why some of the groups you listed did the stupid/nasty
things I know about, too. There’s no sense in me wasting time trying
to defend those things. They did what humans, unfortunately, are wont
to do! Like Pogo said, “We have met the enemy & he is us”!

A good test to see if you’re at somewhat objective is whether you can
list a couple of stupid/nasty things the groups you most identify with
did. If you can’t, then you’re not that objective but are a lot more
religiously/emotionally attached to what you see as truth. The more
zealous & emotional you are, the less objective you are. The angrier
you get, the more you’ve already self-brainwashed for whatever
utilitarian reason. Eventually, you are a True Believer™, not a rational
thinker, being more arrogant & self-righteous than you realize- probably
more ignorant & nasty, too. Extreme Right & Left groups are like this.

You’re still doing a lot of projecting because a lot of the claims you make
can be easily debunked. Let me start with an easy one- “ignorance against
conservation”. Did you ever notice conservative & conservation are spelled
similarly? The Hippies thought they were “revolutionaries” when they
“discovered” recycling. If they had ever bothered doing any research on a
farm, they would’ve realized they were “late to the party” as they would’ve
seen partially recycled 50+ yr old rusty junk in the woods & elsewhere.

Anti-environment- Most people who use this term have an over-inflated view
of how “environmentally friendly” they are & the things they support. They
also have an unrealistic view of what it is in the first place. We all
pollute a lot more than we realize cuz we have to in order to live. I
assume you’re like me & do your best to recycle what’s worth/necessary to
do. There still is a lot of stuff left over that I think would be better
to be burned in nearby high-temperature power plants as so much energy’s
wasted in the useless recycling of paper & glass & hauling garbage half
way around the,world. A lot of virtue signalling for nothing!

EVs, wind & solar panels production involves a lot of pollution.
Disposing of them does, too, especially solar panels which are like
disposing of electronics. Wind blades can’t even be recycled. What are
they going to do with all those lithium batteries- the ones needing
3000 gallons H2O & 24 hrs to extinguish a fire vs 300 gallons with usual
car fires? What about all those dead bald eagles & the rare white-
throated needletail? They’re not as eco friendly as advertised!

Secondly, few environmentalists actually have busted their butts
working on a farm & know little about what goes into growing crops &
raising animals. Farming is both labor & capital intensive. Bad
environmental & husbandry methods cost a lot of money so farmers have
motivation to do the right thing. As for corporate “industrial
agriculture”, a lot of that is lost as wealthy owners, like Bill Gates
& the Chinese, have hirelings who may not be as concerned about that.
As for “sustainable agriculture”, it’s just an idealistic myth
as it’s very hard to get enough natural fertilizer necessary to make
enough money necessary to buy the expensive land.

As for organic, I grew up using mostly organic practices. Most people
don’t realize produce grown on nutrient poor organic soil may be less
healthy than that grown on good non-organic soil. How do they think
nutrients enter produce if it isn’t in the soil it grows in? Secondly,
even though organic costs a lot more, the farmers will have more than
earned it. Cultivating weeds costs a lot more in time & money than
using herbicides. Poorer pest control lower yields. There are more
dead animals due to medical limitations. It’s not EZ to farm that way!

Anti-science- It’s just a loaded term to describe people who don’t
believe what it’s user believes to be true. Since science is best defined
as “our knowledge of the physical world that hasn’t been disproven YET”,
that means anyone who believes “science is settled” is wrong- probably
another sign of a YUGE blindspot! Life is full of surprises!!!

If you’re feeling a bit miffed, that’s a sure sign of your attached
beliefs being more emotional than rational. While what I said may
not be totally correct- like everyone else in this world- it’s a lot
closer to the truth than what most environmentalists advocate.

Last edited 11 months ago by Old Man Winter
Old Man Winter
Reply to  Tee Shanny
April 21, 2022 6:22 am


Before I comment about CAGW- on the 1st website you can check out the
Climategate Emails (upper RH corner). Since this world is 24/7/365
“trust, but verify” it’s important to know the integrity of who you
listen to. In reading them, you’ll find some of your heroes willing to
lie, cheat & steal to “win”- something that’s a part of political
science, not real science. Fudging temp records & keeping legitimate
papers from getting published, as well as using “tricks” to “hide the
decline” like the Mannchild™ did to create his “Hokey Schtick” (caught
by McIntyre & McKitrick), are dishonest.


As for the facts about CAGW, look at the picture below. You’ll see temps
& CO2 levels both high & low while the other one is both high & low.
That’s not a good sign of a high correlation. (Remember, correlation
doesn’t necessarily mean causation, another fact working against the
CAGW theory.) The temperature over the last 600M yrs is quite stable-
varying only ±3%. Amazing!

About 400Mya, the CO2 was >4000 ppm- ~10X today’s level- when the
temp was a bit colder than today. Since then, a lot of carbon’s been
sequestered in rock that was formerly seabed (the ocean & its floor
are two areas with the most carbon) & the wonderful 24/7 solar-
“battery” included”- that formed during the Carboniferous Period.
In reality, the amount of carbon that can be extracted will, at most,
only get the CO2 level up to maybe 1500 ppm. Since temperature rise
vs CO2 is logarithmic, that’s < two doublings, which is quite tiny.
Maybe that’s part of the reason why the global temp didn’t go
through the roof 500Mya when CO2 was ~7000!

Warmistas will tell you that being hotter, colder, wetter, drier,
etc., are all signs of GW. For a theory to be valid there must be
data that can disprove it. Since everything is claimed to be a sign
of GW, there’s nothing left by which it can be disproven. Thus, the
MSM meme is pure BeeEss! QED!!!!

The real CAGW theory used by scientists leads to a signature hot spot
in the tropopause which is notably absent & no one has found the heat,
thus debunking the theory as being invalid. Unless they change the
theory or find the missing heat, it REMAINS debunked. QED!!!!!

The facts show CO2 isn’t the driver of climate. So what is? Based on
knowing that most systems use fluids to move a lot of heat- in this
case, from the tropics to the poles- the most obvious choice is H2O,
in its many forms. Given the very stable global temperature, Willis
Eschenbach proposed the climate is controlled like a thermostat, with
H2O as its fluid. The process starts with tropical seawater evaporating
@ ~77F, which forms clouds which slow down the evaporation rate. At
77F the heat transfer is turned ON- below it’s quite slow; above it’s
much, much faster. The seawater albedo’s low but a cloud’s very high.
Both of these are non-linear responses which are very, very hard to
model. Also, if the global temp’s historically low, this allows it
to warm up enough before this effect limits the ocean maximum
temperature to ~82F in open water. Willis & Rick Will have many more
articles/comments on this topic. If they aren’t exactly right, they
most certainly point in the right direction. I double-dog dare you to
prove them wrong!

As for ads, I think the web host decides on them. Both climate
science & health/medicine are rife with fraud & full of quackery.
Good catch!

AFAIK, skepticalscience.com & other sites that are True Believers™
usually don’t allow us “evil climate deniers” to post- WUWT lets
anyone post there. Also, True Believers™ rarely will debate but
will say a lot of things without proof. Another thing, using name
calling- which the Warmistas started first- is quite effective as
no one can prove they aren’t what they;re being called. Also, it
gets their cult followers to get angry at those #$%!$#s, reinforcing
the emotional appeal that binds cults together. So you may want to
determine how much you believe is rational vs how much is emotional.
I stumbled onto my understanding of how we believe what we do ~15
yrs ago & it’s served me well to clear out a lot of my irrational
thinking. Hope you try it & get similar results. Take care!

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Old Man Winter
April 21, 2022 6:43 am

OOPS- It’s like a pig’s tail- too early- & I forgot to post the picture. 😉

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 18, 2022 2:00 am

The entire problem in Texas was failure of natural gas plant due to lack of winterisation.

You could have avoided the entire thing if the repeated warnings over winterisation had been heeded. This would have happened in a 100% fossil fuel grid

Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 2:50 am

The point is, intermittency.

You can see this from the SWPP chart. Look at the wind output around March 31. They managed in this case to make up the failure of wind by ramping up gas. The chart also shows they ramped up or turned down coal, to accommodate wind intermittency.

Activists argue that the fact that there is a short term wind peak at very high levels means that wind is a viable alternative to conventional or nuclear.

It actually means exactly the reverse. The scale of the fluctuations means that you cannot run a pure renewable system. You cannot buy or deploy enough storage to supply constant demand during calm winter evenings. I doubt you could even afford enough storage to deliver what gas delivered over March 31 – April 1.

Therefore the only systems you can deploy are hybrid ones, a mixture of coal and gas and wind. In effect you are deploying a conventional grid supplemented by wind.

What you then have to show, and I know of no studies showing this, is that its more cost effective to have such a hybrid system than to have a simple conventional system. Wind after all is not only intermittent, which imposes considerable costs on the conventional part of the system, but its also very expensive to deploy and complex and expensive to service.

The winter failures in Texas were due to two things, one to the failure of wind, two to their failure to winterize the main reliable element of their grid, the gas generation part. Without being able to ramp up gas they had a disaster.

Would the Texas failure have occurred in an all conventional + nuclear system? I don’t know. I suspect it would have been less catastrophic, but there would have been some failure. But that’s immaterial. The main goal of the activists is to turn off all gas and coal, and run on wind and solar exclusively.

What the SWPP chart, and the similar charts from the UK that I have previously posted links to show, is that it cannot be done. Its not just it cannot be afforded. It cannot be done. It is impossible to buy and install and maintain enough storage.

Tee Shanny
Reply to  michel
April 19, 2022 8:52 am

And you’re an expert on such systems, including wind and solar power generation, battery storage, and the entire energy grid?? What exactly are your qualifications and depth of such enlightening knowledge??

Which “Battery, Wind and Solar Power University” did you attend and obtain your PhD at??

Robert Hanson
Reply to  Tee Shanny
April 19, 2022 3:10 pm

Please supply a link to a battery system that can keep a regional grid up on it’s own for a mere 24 hours, anywhere in the world. Not to mention, at any price whatsoever.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  David Middleton
April 18, 2022 5:03 am

In any case, inadequate winterization is a fixable problem; intermittency is not.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Middleton
April 19, 2022 4:27 am

“However, the failure of wind power from the Red River to the Canadian border during the deep freeze, is a pretty good indication that a lack of winterization wasn’t the problem.”

Good point. Those cold-weather States didn’t do any better than Texas.

Tee Shanny
Reply to  David Middleton
April 19, 2022 8:59 am

You’re ALL posting “DUHHHH”-level analyses, quite obvious to anyone who has looked at wind power and its advantages versus disadvantages in the grid, for more than 5 minutes. But you haven’t mentioned the potential for storing power with batteries or other energy storage and maintenance sources such as flywheels, compressed air, pumped hydro and possibly others.

Also is everyone here ignorant of the new advances in carbon fiber battery technology? It promises to revolutionize the electric vehicle evolution, and could revolutionize ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles as well.

Carbon fiber batteries will be used in automobile frames to reduce weight, increase MPG or MPGe, expand internal cargo and passenger areas, and strengthen vehicle frames, all the same time.
Moreover, carbon is one of the most common elements on Earth and can be produced by burning (or better, harvesting burned wood from forest fires, for example); and carbon fiber doesn’t require nearly the energy-intensive input of mining and refining lithium and other rare earth metals currently required in the most efficient batteries.

Read and learn, please:


Last edited 11 months ago by Tee Shanny
Reply to  Tee Shanny
April 19, 2022 9:19 am

There’s no way that you can possibly be this stupid. Maybe you’re some sort of bot with a programming error.

Reply to  David Middleton
April 19, 2022 1:22 pm

Name seems somewhat familiar, with a matching style to the previous bot.

Reply to  David Middleton
April 19, 2022 1:31 pm

I’m reminded of the old “This is your brain on drugs” ad campaign.

Ken Irwin
Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 5:27 am

No Griff – the problem in Texas is too many people like you who believe in the Unicorn Fart powered future.

Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 5:45 am

Absolutely incorrect griff. The problem in Texas was a near complete failure of wind, combined with some winterization problems in some of the fossil fuel infrastructure.

Had the winterization problems not taken place, fossil fuels could have carried the load, as they do all around the continent each winter. Without fossil fuels, renewables wouldn’t have carried anything – they were useless.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 6:13 am

You would need to be twice as smart as you are to be a half-wit. The market in Texas was deliberately tilted in favor of renewables unreliables by establishing a demand market rather than a capacity market. You’ve been told this before, but as usual your tiny brain can’t hold onto facts, just greentard propaganda. In a capacity market, providers would be compensated for winterizing. In a demand market, they aren’t, so they don’t. Jeez, you are thick!

Joao Martins
Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 7:30 am

griff, with that verbiage of “winterisation” are you implying that what you call “climate” does depend fundamentally on the sun???

Gunga Din
Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 9:00 am

“The entire problem in Texas was failure of natural gas plant due to lack of winterisation.

You could have avoided the entire thing if the repeated warnings over winterisation had been heeded. This would have happened in a 100% fossil fuel grid”

But … but … , Griff!
Texas had windmills!
Why did they need fossil fueled backup?

Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 10:28 am


The problem is that too much money is being spent on unreliables and not enough on reliable, dispatchable energy sources. If more of the money spent on bird-choppers was spent on coal or nuclear (with on-site energy sources), the problem would not have happened. If more of the money spent on bird-choppers was spent on winterization, the problem would not have happened.

You’ve been schooled on this before. Pull your head out.

Rich Lentz
Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 10:41 am

@griff “ This would have happened in a 100% fossil fuel grid.”

With 30 plus years in the Commercial Electrical Power Industry and summer work dating back to 1957, I can attest to the fact that that is absolutely NOT the case or even slightly correct. Want proof? Google any Nuclear or coal powerplant, even large NG Steam plant (only a few) that are within the Planting Zones between 7A and 13 b of the US using the  Zone info on the following  ->  https://gilmour.com/planting-zones-hardiness-map&nbsp;
You c an easily see on the satellite view that the vast majority of them have no enclosure of any type over the steam turbine on the Turbin deck. An I say deck as there is no turbine Building just unenclosed Turbine Deck. You can also tell that the majority were built over ten years ago.
Do you actually believe any Electric Utility can afford to build an enclosure around all of their unenclosed turbine Decks in today economy or even in the next ten years. No future in it as loans would not be made for plants that are going to be shut down because Renewables are the King of loans and not old power plants. No creditor would loan them the money!

Rich Lentz
Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 10:51 am

@ griff – P.S. I live in the Southwestern Power Pool area And I suffered through the rotating outages to support sending any available power to Texas. All because Obama used a phony P2,5 excuse to force the shut down and closure of perfectly good, clean, Coal power Plants.

Do you enjoy resetting your WiFi Router and associated electronics every four hours? GET ACCUSTOMED TO IT

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 11:07 am

The entire problem is with fools not understanding the entire problem and instead focusing only on their self-serving “moral enlightenment” to the detriment of all others.

Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 1:57 pm

You lied again, there was a big upsurge in NG at the time before there was wind power, they would have had additional baseline support thus no shut down.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 3:01 pm

The entire problem in Texas was failure of natural gas plant due to lack of winterisation.

Amazingly enough, what griff wrote is actually correct!

The ‘winterization’ required is merely a return to running the pumps with natural gas. You know, the stuff that’s actually in the pipes already, instead of relying on unreliable wind power to drive electric pumps.

Why didn’t they have gas-driven pumps already, you may ask? Well, some idiot greenie decided that they weren’t ‘green’ enough, so had to be replaced by electric pumps. Which are supposed to be greener. But they didn’t work.

Why didn’t they work? Because wind power dramatically failed!

So how do we fix the problems caused by ignorant greenies who demand that the infrastructure relies on unreliable wind power? Build more wind power, of course! Every greenie knows that.


Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 4:05 pm

Do you ever state a provable fact? Darn near everything you say is codswallop.

April 17, 2022 6:23 pm

News is news because it’s unusual. Commonplace reality doesn’t make the news.

Chris Hanley
April 17, 2022 6:39 pm

Overall wind has a small extra part in total US energy consumption amounting to around 3%.

Last edited 11 months ago by Chris Hanley
April 17, 2022 6:50 pm

Wind is coming to your home….no longer just solar panels on your roof helped by those government subsidies… I have seen a picture of a home with a roof that has some sort of structure along the peak…it contains unseen many little windmills. What will they think of next?

Reply to  Anti-griff
April 17, 2022 7:15 pm

Yep. It looks like a Bernoulli device (qv) but it is put on backwards, eg facing upwind rather than downwind? Facing downwind of the most likely dominant wind (say, 60% probability), a Bernoulli vent acts like an aircraft wing, eg it provides lift due to the pressure differential, and can evacuate warm air from the interior. Works if there is actually a dominant wind, and the apex of the roof is high enough. In many modern locations the density of development pushes the airflow well above the ridge line.

No doubt this variant will turn out to be a bird chopper. In the tropics they will get bunged up by geckos etc.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  Anti-griff
April 17, 2022 7:58 pm

Next? Putting wind turbines on top of your car.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
April 18, 2022 9:00 am

Plain old sails might be better- virtually no parts to fail, cheap, and easy to repair.
I suspect, though, it would be likely most users, like Griff, couldn’t figure out how to “sail” a car.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Robert of Texas
April 18, 2022 9:06 am
Reply to  Anti-griff
April 17, 2022 8:24 pm

PowerPod wind turbines, and similar devices, have been around for at least a decade or two.

Reply to  Anti-griff
April 18, 2022 2:02 am

Well here are some folks building a wind turbine for their homes…

Bristol community secures funding to build tallest wind turbine in England | Energy | The Guardian

Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 2:08 am

You guys get dumber and dumber.

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 10:29 am

Flying in that part of the world because of the climate, including by birds, was already difficult and well established in WWII. Aeronautical charts have been getting too full of towers, even motionless ones.

Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 4:09 pm

Bet they are still connected to the grid though.

Robert Hanson
Reply to  Slowroll
April 19, 2022 3:39 pm

“The group of residents from Lawrence Weston, a deprived housing estate on the edge of the West Country city, have secured £4m…..The group estimates it will bring in at least £100,000 a year.”

Math was never my strong point, but is this saying it will pay for itself in 40 years? But probably need to be replaced @ 20 years? With that sort of financial planning no wonder it’s a “deprived estate”….

Paul Johnson
April 17, 2022 7:37 pm

It’s ironic that wind and PV power are referred to as having conventional “back-up” systems. Since they provide only about 35% of nameplate power, heavily subsidized intermittent sources are just skimming demand and profitability from core dispatchable power providers.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Paul Johnson
April 18, 2022 5:21 am

Succinct explanation of green fraud.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Paul Johnson
April 18, 2022 7:35 am

For years I argue with the climate fanatics that power is created by fossil, hydro and nuclear, those are the fundamental producers, NOT “back-ups”; and that the irregular, unpredictable sources, wind and PV, should be taken as a kind of eventual supplement. (and, by the way, “biomass”, i.e., burning wood, is an environmental catastrophe from several points of view but NOT because of “climate change”)

April 17, 2022 7:49 pm

Wind power is a percentage game and energy cannot rely on it. Whether or not it’s cost effective in the long run remains to be seen but so far they’re still experimenting.

Reply to  markl
April 17, 2022 8:05 pm

Actually, we now have decades of data. It’s not an experiment any more, it’s insanity.

william Johnston
Reply to  commieBob
April 18, 2022 5:32 am

Unless of course you happen to be an investor.

Smart Rock
April 17, 2022 7:56 pm

Also, on days when weather patterns lead to more wind generation, competing coal-fired and natural gas-fired generators often are called upon to reduce their output so that overall electricity supply matches demand

Coal- and gas-burning generation runs most efficiently at high capacity, and electricity from coal- and gas-burning plants becomes more expensive to produce as they run at lower capacity (fuel costs go down but all other costs remain the same). So why aren’t wind generators “called upon to reduce their output when weather patterns lead to more wind generation”??

Of course, that’s a rhetorical question, and we know the answer.

What other kind of business venture is secure in the knowledge that everything it produces has a guaranteed purchaser at a guaranteed price? No penalties for low production, and no discount for over-production when it exceeds demand? No need to dump, or give away excess production for free? What a deal, plus you get tax breaks for investing in it? Isn’t crony capitalism wonderful?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Smart Rock
April 17, 2022 8:39 pm

Fuel costs barely go down because they are then running hugely inefficient
50..% output can still mean 75-80% fuel

Peter K
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
April 17, 2022 11:12 pm

Exactly. That’s the reason why Australia is shutting down coal plants earlier than planned. There is no money to be made when the AEMO keep restricting their output in favour of Solar and Wind generation, during the day. We will wait and see what happens after 2025, when NSW loses 50% of their 24/7 capacity.

Reply to  Peter K
April 18, 2022 12:26 am

I suspect we know what will happen. I, also, supect it won’t be pretty and people won’t be happy with the result.

Reply to  Smart Rock
April 18, 2022 2:03 am

Gas can easily be ramped up and down, especially if you have accurate advance wind prediction as in the UK and even better if you use grid storage to ease transition (don’t have to run gas plant so hard). That’s what the UK does (it hardly uses coal generation)

Old Man Winter
Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 5:16 am

So much for your accurate weather predictions. What you’re talking about are when there
are large areas of pressure where there are clear sunny days or continuous clouds,
without a mixture of different systems & fronts. Predicting where they will be in six hours
can be quite tricky. That’s why forecasters can miss because the different models differ
by a lot- predicting a foot of snow & we only get 2″; predicting 1″ of rain & we get 5″
because the front stalled right over us & the storms paralleled the frontal boundary.

I’ve taken landings down to 200′ minimums when it was supposed to be clear & +7 mi.
visibility. Given that you’re a big fan of believing in the GW hoax, it shouldn’t surprise
me that you think weather is always predictable, too. Hint: it’s chaotic & non-linear!!!

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 5:17 am


  1. You can only ramp up and down gas plants if you have them, which means some large percentage of your wind capacity must still be backed by fossil fuel sources even if you only use them occasionally.
  2. What “grid storage”? You say that as if it’s just a matter of placing an order and building some. The fact that nobody has installed even a small fraction of the storage required should be a hint.
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
April 19, 2022 4:41 am

“What “grid storage”?”

Exactly. Griff lives in his own little Dream World where unreliable electricity magically becomes reliable.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 8:37 am

griff have you read the the article by Dieter Helms, Professor of Economic Policy at Oxford University which I pointed out to you a few days ago?

He is by no means a climate change sceptic but much of his research has been into energy policy and he is pretty scathing about unreliables, particularly wind.

eg “A series of simple myths have been spun out to the wider population which are simply not true. It is not yet true that renewables are cheaper than than the main fossil fuels once intermittency is taken into account. Simply ignoring the need for back up in claims about renewables costs will not make them go away”

“It is not true that we can bask in cheap offshore wind. On the contrary two inconvenient facts remain. First whilst intermittency was not much of a problem when there was very little wind capacity in the system it now very much is. Second is those subsidies still have to be paid and now make up almost 25% of energy bills.”

“In the old fossil fuel-nuclear system total capacity requirements were of the order of 70-80GW For a system where wind sometimes produces all the energy demanded and sometimes very little, that firm capacity has to remain in place, plus the wind turbines too. We need a great deal more capacity to meet any given demand. That has to be paid for by someone.”

‘The first net zero energy crisis – someone has to pay’ (7 Jan 2022)


Last edited 11 months ago by Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 10:44 am


There is NO SUCH THING as grid storage.

You’ve been schooled on this before. Often you’re too stupid to understand even simple things, but in this case you’re just flat-out lying. Even you, Griffter, aren’t so stupid to believe that you can rely on something that doesn’t exist.

Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 4:37 pm

Ramping NG plants up and down to accommodate the varying output of renewables is a proven loser in real life as opposed to the fantasies of models.

“Crawford provided measurements showing that even on sunny days — when solar power is at its maximum output — more NOx pollution is released into the air than would occur if no solar electricity were used and natural gas were used instead.

That’s because traditional power plants — including cleaner burning natural gas plants — must scale back electric generation to accommodate solar energy surging onto the system when the sun rises, and power back up when the sun sets and solar energy dissipates. That starting and stopping reduces efficiency and incapacitates emission control devices, increasing pollutant levels.”

One would expect the situation to be the same with wind, maybe worse since the ramping up and down for the sun is primarily just in the morning and evening.

Robert of Texas
April 17, 2022 7:57 pm

I guess we all just sit in the dark when wind is barely working. Is that their strategy? That would be most of time.

If they keep pushing green energy half-baked solutions, I may just buy me some coal and use that to heat the house.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
April 17, 2022 8:28 pm

Until the CO2 police sniff you out.

Reply to  AndyHce
April 18, 2022 12:27 am

If Aussie’s CO2 police are as efficient as their Covid police, I suggest you invest in protective gear for the beatings you will be given.

John Hultquist
April 17, 2022 8:12 pm

In OR/WA/ID where the Bonneville Power Administration handles and reports on load and energy sources

BPA Balancing Authority Load and Total VER

“VER” seems to be “wind” plus some other variable sources.
Hydro contributes, nuclear contributes, thermal contributes, wind is a variable source the others must contend with. That is the green line that bounces near the bottom, close to zero for many hours the past 7 days.
Search up “Path 65” and “Path 66” to learn where PNW’s surplus electricity is used and how it gets there.

Reply to  John Hultquist
April 18, 2022 8:48 am

VER means Variable Energy Resources, which are primarily wind and solar in the BPA BA
Content Manager for this page: Frank Puyleart, BPA Transmission Technical Operations

Frank from NoVA
April 17, 2022 9:58 pm

The ‘alpha and omega’ of wind and solar energy is that they are not dispatchable. Their economic viability only exists under the political aegis that they must be taken when available, and hence they are parasitical to the operation of the grid. Put these ‘resources’ on the same footing as gas, oil, coal and nuclear with respect to bidding energy into the grid and they will rapidly either disappear or be forced to partner with dispatchable resources, at which point their true economic costs will become apparent.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
April 17, 2022 10:50 pm

It’s a sad day when people celebrate our producing more unreliable & uneconomical power which
need total backup 24/7/365. The SWPP chart beginning 3/27 shows very little wind generation so
reliable sources had to pick up the slack @ midnight Mar 31 when winds were 0mph**. Even when
wind does work, there is a minimum amount of reliable energy needed to maintain a stable grid
frequency & voltage. Electric utilities make money on very hot, humid summer afternoons & very
cold winter nights, where their highest users pay a higher rate than do low users which is used to
keep the price of the electricity for the average user low. Unreliable alternative electricity is
expensive so everyone pays more all the time. Just because you can generate electricity, doesn’t
mean you can make enough money to stay in business!!! 😮

** @ Omaha, Nebraska

****You may want to bookmark this as you can pick a place & time- gives wind, temperature, & sky conditions.****


Last edited 11 months ago by Old Man Winter
Old Man Winter
Reply to  Old Man Winter
April 17, 2022 11:10 pm

< 5mph average- Pierre, SD; Omaha; Salinas, KS; & Oklahoma City, OK.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
April 18, 2022 5:21 am

This ^

April 17, 2022 10:46 pm

Here in the UK the BBC peddles this b******t whenever the wind blows – never mention anything when the wind isn’t blowing especially this last winter.

Adam Gallon
April 17, 2022 10:53 pm

We get this on a regular basis in the UK, records broken for renewables, best day ever, for the first time since …., no electricity produced by coal, etc.
Well, when there’s more & more added to the grid & more coal fired removed, it’s no surprise.
When the wind fails to blow & the c-27GW of installed wind, dribble out 0.18GW, there’s not a mention.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Adam Gallon
April 17, 2022 11:27 pm

Found something for you to help keep them honest. Unfortunately, they’re probably like Griffo
& ignore the facts. Right now wind’s @ 18% & solar’s peaking @ 1.5%!!! 😮 😉

**** You may want to bookmark these. They also give results in GWs.****


April 18, 2022 1:59 am

Well soon it will be two days, then a week, then a month, then the whole year…

Coal in the UK generated just 2% of electricity in each of last 3 years.

Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 2:16 am

Well soon every climate hysteric will be riding his/her/xer free pony…

Free ponies will solve all of our icky problems.

Last edited 11 months ago by CapitalistRoader
Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 3:01 am

You’re in denial about intermittency.

It will never be a whole year from intermittent generation. The amount of storage required to do that is impossible to buy and install. There is not enough lithium or manufacturing capacity in the world to do it.

It will be, at best, a hybrid system with conventional mostly gas, pointlessly supplemented by wind at vast expense.

Reply to  michel
April 18, 2022 8:31 am

My point was about the US and coal: they won’t miss it. UK doesn’t.

Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 10:49 am

Texas already missed coal during their deadly power crisis in 2021.

Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 12:05 pm

No, you are right in the sense that the UK has largely substituted gas generation for coal. Now, does it miss it? That’s a more complicated question.

First of all we have to reckon on the 450 sterling or so a year that each household is paying in the form of renewable subsidies. My source for this number is Paul Homewood. Its not precise but its not far off. That is one cost of moving away from coal. Drop the subsidies, free the market (no compulsory purchases) and there would be more than 10 billion a year to spend on really important services that are currently being starved.

Second, the key difference is that coal can be stockpiled at the plants. Gas, in enough quantities to get through an interruption, is much harder to do, and the UK has failed to do it. Gas is also dependent on production from some very undesirable regimes, not in the sense that they are politically incorrect and authoritarian, but in the sense that they really seriously dislike the UK (and the West generally).

So put it all together, and you see huge rises in gas bills, not just for gas boilers, but also because the UK grid is highly dependent on gas, and has to pass higher gas prices on to electricity customers.

This is missing coal already. But the time we will see the UK really miss coal is if they do go ahead with their EV plans and their heat pump plans. At that point, they will basically be running the country on gas, to generate all the electricity that is going to be needed. Wind and solar will be add-ons, maybe lower gas consumption a bit, but not diminish the dependence.

At that point the country will be super exposed to the gas market. And I suspect at that point coal will, sooner or later, start to look a lot more attractive. When the pipes get turned off, or when the price doubles, that’s when they will know they are missing coal all right.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 3:26 am

Griff, you can still take up the challenge to live your life with energy consumption matching wind output. I wish you would try it for a few months and write a few guest posts here I’d love to read of your experiences

Even today, a Bank Holiday with demand way down on a normal week day wind barely makes 11% of demand (3GW out of an installed 25GW which is slightly less than demand today). Probably because wind from Exeter to Wick is varying between 3 & 8 m/s which is cut in to not much use. When it falls below 3m/s then those turbines go offline.

You and reality don’t have a close relationship do you?

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
April 18, 2022 7:17 am


Reply to  Ben Vorlich
April 18, 2022 8:33 am

Supposing we get 300 or 310 or more days a year though when there is enough wind, solar and whatever?

The amount of offshore wind and solar already in the planning system, not to mention the 32GW of proposed grid storage, makes it increasingly likely we will achieve that as we move to 2030.

Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 10:58 am


Grid storage is measured in GW-hours. Your number is very misleading as it says NOTHING about how long this proposed system can provide that power level. In fact, if you see a grid storage system described by its peak power level, not its energy storage capacity, you know it’s a scam. There is NO GRID STORAGE system that can back up wind or solar ANYWHERE. Period.

You’ve been schooled on this before. Pull your head out.

Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 12:13 pm

You don’t and won’t ever get 300 or 310 or more days a year. Go check out the numbers. Check out the graphs here:

Wind power production

And the question is not GW. Its GWh. How much storage is going to be installed in GWh?

If there is not enough to back the whole renewable installed base for a couple of weeks, its not going to be a fit for purpose grid.

That means, back of the envelope, you’d have to have 14 days of supply of about 35GW.

That is 14 x 24 x 35 = 11,760.

That last number is GWh storage you have to have, and be able to supply. Figure out how much it will cost to build that.

Or, if you think my numbers are wrong, fine, put up your own.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 5:37 am

Looks like your great & wonderful wind is now down to 11% vs 18% earlier & <2% on the 14th. Boy,
that’s a lot & quite stable! Solar looks just as marvelous- 20% now, down from a ~ 25% peak
yesterday & a 6% on the 4th. They must be having some technical problems cuz it keeps falling
to 0% every day. Maybe they’ll eventually work the bugs out. It may just be their mushroom plan-
keep people in the dark & feed them BeeEss!!! 😮 😉

Reply to  Old Man Winter
April 18, 2022 8:34 am

Just look at it over a year and then look again with a list of wind and solar etc already building or firmly in the planning system.

The number of days on which there is enough renewables must rise.

Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 4:55 pm

Look at the number of days where output was virtually zero – no wind. March 23, 24, 28, et al. Chose any number for x and tell us what x times zero is. Three days out of six with no wind. In fact there was a ten day period, from Mar 1 through 9, where there was precious little wind. How do you cover that period?

Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 7:30 am

Griff-you skipped a step. First you must prove that renewables are needed. It’s a lot easier to debate when one starts their argument with a false premise….

Reply to  JimF
April 18, 2022 8:35 am

Well you see most of the world accepts the science, based as it is on irrefutable physics and masses of observed climate/temperature evidence.

paul courtney
Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 12:34 pm

To those who complain when Mr. griff posts once and then no replies- be careful what you wish for! Here, his replies are more silly gaslighting, each one worse than the last. At least he’s brief.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  paul courtney
April 19, 2022 5:12 am

I think Griff feels empowered by the headlines. He thinks his vision is coming go fruition and this is more evidence of it.

Griff doesn’t tell us how the problem of the wind not blowing can be solved. When the wind doesn’t blow, it doesn’t matter how many windmills you have, they won’t be producing enough electricity to power the Grid.

We are probably getting close to Peak Windmill in the UK and some other places. The problems will keep getting worse as more windmills are connected to the grid and conventional power plants are retired.

Meanwhile, my local coal-fired power plant located about 20 miles from here is keeping our lights on and keeping us warm and did so throughout the February 2021 arctic cold that paralyzed Texas and other parts of the nation because their windmills wouldn’t work under such extreme conditions. My coal-fired power plant worked just fine. Never missed a beat. My electricity stayed on the whole time. And am I glad: The temperatures got down to 12 below zero F, which was a record for around here. The coldest I had seen it around here before that time was 4 below zero F.

Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 4:01 pm

What evidence would that be,Griff? Remember, all supposed dire effects are simply computer generated and as such isn’t evidence. But thanks for the appeal to authority dodge. “Irrefutable physics”. So, can you show a simple physics experiment published anywhere that verifies that when an object emits LWIR, and CO2 absorbs and re-emits some of that LWIR that returns and warms the initial object more than a lesser amount of CO2 would-the agw theory? Hint-there isn’t one that doesn’t use models. It needs to be measured, not modeled

Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 4:15 pm

Irrefutable physics? They don’t even teach that to a climastrologist. Reality would get in the way of their lovely watermelon theories.

Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 5:08 pm

The point is not whether there is a climate emergency and a case for reducing emissions.

Whether there is or not, wind is not a viable method of generating power for the grid. It is, and always will be, barring so far non existent battery innovations, an expensive supplement to a grid which is basically powered by conventional sources.

This is because of intermittency. Look at the numbers. It doesn’t matter how many peak days there are or how high they are. The thing that dooms the project is the fluctuations and the days of dead calm in the coldest part of the year.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
April 19, 2022 4:57 am

“Well you see most of the world accepts the science”

Griff thinks he speaks for most of the world.

Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 9:29 am

What “2% Coal in the UK sees to mean is a lot cold, dark rooms.loa

If you could get 2 watts out of three you’d become an overnight sensation.

Now you are just a scoffing observer.

Reply to  griff
April 18, 2022 4:44 pm

Just a couple of weeks ago the UK was getting more power from coal than solar and wind combined. Get rid of everything but renewables. Go ahead. Make my day. I’ll make popcorn.

Reply to  Jtom
April 18, 2022 5:12 pm

Yes, but its not funny, really. What Griff is advocating is actually policy in the UK, and the results are the old and poor sitting in the cold because they cannot afford the heating. And still worse, not boiling a kettle for a hot water bottle because of the expense.

As I posted earlier, there are reliable stories that food banks are having problems giving away potatoes because of the cost of cooking them.

Its morally disgusting.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  michel
April 19, 2022 5:17 am

“Yes, but its not funny, really. What Griff is advocating is actually policy in the UK, and the results are the old and poor sitting in the cold because they cannot afford the heating.”

Good point. Griff doesn’t understand the damage his delusional viewpoint about CO2 is doing to ordinary people.

April 18, 2022 3:46 am

So, yet again these people are flat out lying. Lies are all they have.

Reply to  David Middleton
April 18, 2022 5:50 am

If it is not the truth it is a lie, dressing the pig up and slapping lipstick on it does not make it anything other than a pig. We have to stop dancing around this crap, no matter how many pages of number jumble and word salad are larded onto this it is still a lie. The intention is to mislead, in front of a judge that gets them convicted.

Reply to  2hotel9
April 18, 2022 5:00 pm

There is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. A lie is only covered by the third phrase in the list. Not giving the whole truth is deception.

Last edited 11 months ago by jtom
Reply to  Jtom
April 19, 2022 4:50 am

Omission. It can get a conviction, too.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  David Middleton
April 18, 2022 5:51 am

Hope you caught the different sites that show US & UK data. They’re great to get the REAL
weather, grid output & current data you can use to analyze the cause & effect of other data.
They’re awesome!

Gunga Din
Reply to  David Middleton
April 18, 2022 9:42 am

Sort of like watching the highlights of a football game. One team might have had one good, even spectacular, play but still got blown out.
The “lie” part is using that one good play to give the impression they are the better team and won the game.

John Endicott
Reply to  2hotel9
April 25, 2022 10:29 am

“Jerry, Just remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it”. – George Costanza
And yes, some of these nuts actually believe the nonsense that the rest of us recognizes as not matching reality.

Reply to  John Endicott
April 26, 2022 4:29 am

Feeling and believing are terminally intermingled in the minds of leftists and it distorts their ability to accurately perceive reality. they so want fantasy to be fact they refuse to accept any facts counter to their fantasy.

Wing Tip Hsu
April 18, 2022 5:25 am
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Wing Tip Hsu
April 19, 2022 5:22 am

CO2 Derangement Syndrom.

I think the Elites of society should volunteer some of their estate land to accomodate a windmill or two to show how virtuous and helpful and serious they are.

They can have their servants collect the dead birds and bats that accumulate.

Clyde X
April 18, 2022 5:33 am

“…reported breathlessly by the media because…” they don’t know what the hell they are talking about.

Steven Kardas
April 18, 2022 6:00 am

I wonder what would happen if it was discovered that wind turbines were killing Sage Grouse and Spotted Owls……

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Steven Kardas
April 18, 2022 7:15 am

Picky, picky!!! 😮 😉

paul courtney
Reply to  Steven Kardas
April 18, 2022 12:42 pm

Mr. Kardas: Good question. We know they kill bald eagles, but windmill proponents like the image of an American icon beaten to death. They hate USA enough to overlook a few eagles, but a spotted owl might get their attention!

Alan M
April 18, 2022 6:05 am

So the way I read it, gas + coal = 48% ( those nasty fossil fuels), nuclear 19% ( nasty as well), wind 19% ( all great except if you’re a bird) and all other sources 14% ( what are they, any nasties in there?)
Why wasn’t the headline “Wind totals less than a fifth of electricity generation for a whole day”

Joao Martins
April 18, 2022 7:27 am

Again, a pathological case of arithmetic illiteracy (functional or otherwise)…

April 18, 2022 8:58 am

Wind outproduced coal and nuclear for one day, so that means that wind is always better. Isn’t that how that’s supposed to work?

Rich Lentz
April 18, 2022 10:16 am

Also need to factor in that twenty Nuclear power plants were scheduled for refueling outages over March 29 2022 and more than likely all would have been shut down or at best in the process of an early startup. [Source – https://outageworkers.com/?p=outages ] That is at least 1/5th, 20 percent, of the total nuclear capacity. And all according to schedule and part of that 95% CF. And with much less coal power today than BO (Before Obama) to pick up the load.

Paul Penrose
April 18, 2022 10:19 am

What this really highlights, to me, is the massive variability of wind generation. This just drives home the need for gigantic amounts of grid-storage, which is not only infeasible from and engineering perspective, but is also cost prohibitive in the extreme.

Gordon A. Dressler
April 18, 2022 10:51 am

I do believe turnabout is fair play. Hence, when will Bloomberg publish an article with a title along the lines of:
“Wind Demonstrates Energy Production of 0.0% compared to Coal, Nuclear on Many Days of Any Given Year.”

Andy Pattullo
April 18, 2022 11:06 am

Great, let’s plan the economy for the hours or days when wind and solar are overachievers and we can all go back into our caves and gnaw on old bones in the cold and dark the rest of the time

Rich Lentz
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
April 18, 2022 11:40 am

Instead of Daylight Savings time we could have Max Sun Use time. Your alarm would go off one hour before the predicted optimum solar energy output time, you then arrive a work one hour later and leave work when the optimum solar energy output is no longer met. 10 to 20 percent reductions would be worked through battery storage reducing the need for massive battery installations. To achieve a 40 hr. work week could require 7 days availability, but sacrifice is needed to save the World. Similar time could also be established areas where the prominent energy is wind. I am sure that the Chinese would gladly do this willingly. /Sarc Off

April 18, 2022 11:21 am

“It would be interesting to see how much wind power had to be curtailed and how many migratory birds were killed on March 29″

I find this interesting since March 29 we were driving with a great tailwind north on I29 in SD past what appears to be 100’s of turbines. I noted the ones turning had greater revolutions than I’d ever seen and I’d say that at least a third of them were not turning at all, guess they were curtailed.

Last edited 11 months ago by Tomsa
April 18, 2022 1:41 pm

The winds of Griff logic are upon you.

April 18, 2022 3:36 pm

The headline of this article says this claim of wind exceeding both coal and nuclear (for electrical energy production) for the first time in US history is fake news. This article claims that the news article saying this happened for one day is “less misleading, but still fake news”. That causes an impression that a statement is coming up to say that this is not true. (Which is not the case, no effort was made to deny the truthfulness of the claims of wind exceeding both coal and nuclear.) I had to read through the article to the end to see the reasoning (that I disagree with) for calling this fake news. This has me feeling that I got drawn in by a clickbait headline that causes a false expectation.

April 18, 2022 4:05 pm

When bird deaths from turbines are higher than car kills or higher than window strikes or higher than cats, it will be a problem. Maybe.
In Michigan, the eagle deaths went up when the DNR stopped picking up deer kills.

Tom Abbott
April 19, 2022 4:22 am

The Southwest Power Pool didn’t produce much wind-driven electicity in February 2021. We had rolling blackouts because the windmills were frozen or becalmed for days and days.

Yeah, let’s supply all our electricity with windmills.

We are living in an Idiocracy. Our leader has to be led around by the Easter Bunny.

Robert Hanson
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 19, 2022 4:20 pm

“We are living in an Idiocracy. Our leader has to be led around by the Easter Bunny.”

For those who didn’t see the video, this is not sarcasm, it’s true. Brandon was indeed led around by a giant Easter Bunny (similar to the giant mascots at football games). Probably most often when he was asked a question he couldn’t answer.

Tee Shanny
April 19, 2022 8:12 am

WOW. LOTS to unpack and debunk.

First, real news by journalists, who are generally much smarter and factual and with better ethics than most (if not all) who post here, is NOT “fake news.” Trumpish BS accusations and slams I can easily fool the ignorant who don’t understand facts and are incredibly gullible as proven by their 100% hearsay, unverifiable and unverified religious beliefs. You’re going to have to PROVE it’s fake. Your unscientific, unethical post didn’t.

Second, clickbait headlines are unethical, below-the-belt tactics used by those who can’t wield facts properly in debate. Again, these are plays DIRECTLY out of Nazi, Russian, GOP and Trump disinformation campaigns: Lie, lie bigger, lie continuously, distract, deflect, and cherry-pick. All you “proved” is that you’re incapable of making a point without lying to, or at the very least misleading, your audience (of largely brainwashed, arrogantly ignorant fools and “true believers”*) in a headline and in much of the article.

For the possibly one two three readers here who understand logic and typical conservative disinformation, distraction and deflection techniques, debunking this absolute horsesh1t is EASY.

And it wouldn’t be hard to do, even for any typical CONNEDservative reading here, IF they wanted to do the time-consuming, at times
tough, digging themselves. But conservatives who hate progress AND reality, like so many here, are too lazy to do so, too unwilling to challenge their (to be kind, let’s call them “not critically examined”) preconceived notions, which are usually harvested from unethical opinion leaders, NOT experts, continually feeding loser white undereducated racist dumdums similar HORSESH1T. Why don’t they examine their preconceived notions critically? Partly because they’re not smart enough to do so; partly because those notions are too tied in to their weak egos; and finally, because they’re too unintelligent and/or lazy to earn MSs or PhDs in climate science, meteorology, astrophysics, alternative energy, environmental science (or any other discipline) that requires intelligence, diligence and perseverance to succeed.

3rd, slamming established publications known for the veracity of their scientific reports, and their ethics, doesn’t make them unethical or unscientific. The ad hominem here is an obvious fail that’s obvious to anyone but those who don’t understand logic and debate and disinformation techniques. Only stupid people would believe Scientific American is unscientific and unAmerican based on your ludicrous false labeling. (SERIOUSLY, you believe someone’s going to find you MORE believable than an established scientific publication just because you CLAIM THEY are unscientific? And you’re SUCH an EXALTED figure in science, SOOO respected in EVERY discipline of science, and so trustworthy it MUST be true??) WHY do you think this kind of lying is believable, let alone acceptable?? Don’t you grasp the pertinent, key principle of science and discovery, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”?? Maybe the answer lies in point no. 4, next:

4th, when are you going to admit that posting such hogwash is only an exercise to feed your ego with utterly insubstantial “props” (praise, in noncolloqial terms) by trying to gain followers you are obviously smarter than, and willing to hoodwink for such lowly goals? Or, are you too undereducated to know you’re promoting absolute hogwash?

One explanation: It could be a case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you aren’t intelligent and knowledgeable enough to know how unintelligent a knowledgeable you are, how would you even know what you’re posting is absolute hogwash? You believe it because you’re trusting pre-existing notions which have never been tested in a scientific way or against scientific facts. And that’s a typical conservative viewpoint, based mainly on having being brainwashed since birth, into the unscientific, virus-like Christianity cult so widespread in America.

Is anyone else intelligent enough to grasp what’s going on with the OP and the disinformation?? Please, let’s hear your take.

*Ref. to Alvin Toffler’s “The True Believer.”

Robert Hanson
Reply to  Tee Shanny
April 19, 2022 4:23 pm

I know you are, but what am I? 🙂

Tee Shanny
April 19, 2022 3:27 pm

FYI, the entire basis for this website’s existence got shredded, AGAIN, as it has been DAILY ever since Michael Mann’s (and that of many others) research and consequent “hockey stick” graph proved global warming is human-caused, inexorable, and should be preventable, but for the greed of a few fossil fuel companies and the ignorance of those, complicit in spreading BS, misinformation, disinformation and lies about AGW.

So if you’re hell-bent on revealing yourselves as the most gullible, poorest educated, dumbest people in the universe, keep posting “fake news”: the likes of “global warming isn’t real,” or “isn’t caused by humans,” or “isn’t as bad as ‘so-called’ experts say it is.”

Keep proving you know nothing, because you’re not an expert, you only believe (and inanely, mindlessly) quote non-experts who cherry-pick the science YOU cannot possibly understand.

Keep proving you’re lazy and unscientific and undereducated because you won’t — in fact, CANNOT — earn a climate science PhD., the only qualification that matters, along with a hell of a lot of mind-numbing, tedious research (yeah, the kind conservatives are generally too dumb and lazy to take on), to disprove the CLIMATE SCIENCE ALREADY PROVEN.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” — Carl Sagan


%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights