Also our city is looking at putting up a large turbine. They project a 10% return on investment. BS when the government says 10% return it will probably be more like -30% once done. I would bet anything it will cost more and produce less than the people pushing this say it will.
It is not going to fly though as there are enough reasonable people to see the folly in this stuff and there is a growing number of people outraged that the city is thinking of spending money on this.
I love the idea of wind but expectations are not relistic.

"Bottom line is there are countries that tried going wind in a big way only to find it was a complete waste."

Some facts please. I've never heard of these countries.

--

Have you ever seen anyone suggest that we run the world on nothing but wind power?

Or eat nothing but organic tomatoes?

Dave, there are plenty of testimonials out there of farmers and
others leasing their land that show wind as a great option. Of course, everything isn't a win for everyone.

OK, Andrew, educate us.

1) Where is the roughly ten cents per kWh subsidy you claim? The ten cents in excess of the recognized 2.2 cent PTC.

2) Do you think coal should be charged for its "hidden costs" - the health and environmental damage which it causes and which we pay via tax and insurance premium dollars? The additional nine to twenty-seven cents per kWh.

3) Do you think we should recognize the roughly six cents per kWh subsidies which nuclear receives?

4) Do you understand that the current price of NG-electricity is artificially low due to market glut and the price of NG is likely to be as much as 50% higher next year? Furthermore, do you realize that the 'six cents' price for NG is for a plant that is on 24/365, and not a NG plant which has to spread its fixed costs over fewer than 24 hours a day?

Oh, and how about the subsidies NG receives. Include them or not?

And please read my comment to which your replied.

Production cost, if you want to figure out what it is then take the wholesale 3.3 cents to 5.3 cent range, add in the 2.2 cent PTC and subtract out undisclosed wind farm profits to arrive at the production costs.

Ballpark = a nickle."

What your really saying is that our rail system needs improvement.

The CA HSR system was originally designed for freight on a separate set of tracks.

Don't know if it will happen, but there's no reason we can't work our way to a system that can move freight faster than trucks.

Perishable loads could travel on HSR at night when the lines are not getting used for passengers.

your view of what trains are capable of is very limited by your experiences.

check out the trains in Europe, China, and Japan -- a completely diff story.
unfort., such limited thinking is what keeps the US in the dark ages on this one.

Directly on point, Bob. I, personally, consider Gemasolar's accomplishment a milestone in solar sourced electricity generation that began years ago right here in the states with Solar One. Most people are aware that a better battery would be most useful. With solar thermal plus storage, there it is right in front of you... a low loss battery for offsetting thermal production from electricity production.
As far as 'adding cost' and 'diminishing useable energy', I can only refer you to their design. The plant started with a known daytime demand. They then built a standard power tower arrangement, using heliostats and a central tower receiver with molten salt as heat transfer fliud. Except that they built more heliostats than needed to meet daytime demand and used more molten salt than needed to drive a standard steam turbine for daytime demand. The excess mirrors create excess heat (which would otherwise be wasted, as this is heat in excess of demand), which is stored in the excess molten salt in a well insulated vessel, awaiting nighttime or passing clouds to be utilized for steam generation when temp gradient at central tower falls. The comment on the 'certain impracticality of scaling off-grid kludges to a large system' is rather ironic in that anyone with a basic understanding of thermodynamics knows that the larger the storage vessel for a thermal process, the more efficient it is; that is, the losses become less the larger the vessel is by an order of magnitude. So, in point of fact, to the above naysayer, in this case, scaling to large scale makes storage more efficient and, thus, more practical, not less. For the Gemasolar project, estimated losses relevent to storage as a function of instantaneously useful: 3%.
And thankyou, Rosa, for playing naysayer right on cue.