Ah, yes, MIT study again. Once again, they are attempting to measure the "true benefit" of wind power in Massachusetts. Sounds like (with them saying a majority of their base energy is provided by coal plants) their profile is much different than Western/Central New York, where 11% of the electricity generated is from coal. Further, based on what is known already, the study is really not going to "show the benefits" but "dispute the distorted claims" by Wind Turbine Management companies, who base all of their Greenhouse gas reduction numbers on the assumption that wind is on an energy profile that is 51% coal and not a majority hydro/nuclear (~75% of the energy for National Grid customers). It will go further by showing that, even in an area that matches that energy profile, the numbers will not add up (because, even you admit that, 3/4 of the year, absolutely no coal (heaviest of the hitters) will be displaced). It may indeed reduce the "carbon footprint," but given equal dollars to spend you can find a variety of ways to reduce that footprint in a much more meaningful manner.

Thanks for your perspective Dan but I think readers can form their own conclusions. It'll be interesting what the MIT follow-on dialog details. I repeated this posting in that Effie had scrubbed a good deal of previous material.

Check this topic again and you'll see that your original posting about the MIT study was not "scrubbed." (starting from 12th comment...you found "this" study later...) So much for the latest "anti-visitor conspiracy theory" ;)

As long as we're reviewing what was said before, you said (in the same topic):
"Similiar like saying the wind producer make claims about reducing foreign oil ... I asked you to provide this promotial material - but you didn't."

I'll repost my response from another topic...

• UPC Wind: "Wind energy generates power from a renewable and inexhaustible resource. It reduces dependence on fossil fuel imports and diversifies the energy supply." (bottom of page)
  
• Horizon Wind: "Wind energy is 'homegrown' energy that can extend non-renewable energy sources, helping to secure our energy future, reduce energy costs, and reduce our dependence on foreign energy."
  
• Noble : "Wind also lowers consumers’ exposure to the price volatility associated with most fossil fuels, and helps to reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil and natural gas."
  
• AWEA: "Everyone will share the benefits wind energy provides--an improved environment, new jobs, less dependence on foreign oil, and a strong foothold in booming international markets." (quoting Karl Gawell, AWEA's director of governmental affairs).
  

Well, I will admit when I am wrong, and I was definitely wrong. I thought I had read somewhere that coal was a major source of energy in New England. To the contrary, Gas and Oil make up the bulk of electricity produced during the winter, per New England's ISO, with even less coal as a %age of output than Western New York.

Your links are out dated - one doesn't work. Two others no longer mention oil. As far as the anti visitor thread - Effie not only makes liberal edits of my postings but deletes entire blogs. Look at the "visitor" blog for example. Can you even find it? She not only removed most of that content but rendered that user id useless. One that I do remember is the north country public radio site. http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/windfarm.php Interesting material including research into some claims by the leadership of this site. That didn't stay on this site for too long.

Another was very recent - I had posted a number of links regarding sub topics from the citizen's campain for the environment. She removed them saying one is enough. Like extra links cost something - really. That site boasts 80,000 members. I'm not sure what this site is -- maybe 10 active members? And she writes - if anyone is really interested than one link is enough. What is the point or the need to jump in there like that?

Regarding your comment about being wrong on oil - not sure you were. NYS imports a lot. Can't just look at what is generated locally.

Yes, one no longer works, but I'll vouch for the fact that it said that (a good reason not to do "deep links" on sites). Now they've changed not only the setup of the site, but their statement on the "benefits." Horizon does not specifically say "oil" but those who read "foreign energy" automatically think "oil" (just like Leventhall complaining that when people hear "Infrasound" they think horrible things).

That leaves two, which is two more than you claimed existed. You claimed that no one in the industry is claiming a reduced reliance on foreign oil. I proved otherwise, regardless of the "stretch" on Horizon, and the change at UPC's web site.

As far as the "wrong on oil," I don't understand what you are saying. I posted the energy generation for Massachusetts, which I had recently found. Don't know what that has to do with New York...

Actually that only leaves one that is from a developer. The other is just an information org. AWEA only offers advice. Not sure why you mixed that in. But I do stand corrected. One is enough. I guess I should have said most developers do not make that claim. My point on NYS or even Mass. for that matter is one can not only look at what is generated locally but what is imported. I believe the site you pointed to only covers one dimension. Do you have a similar site for NYS and the import numbers?

I use the New York State Department Public Service Commision web site for my info on the source of energy for energy providers by fuel type (regardless of where it came from geographically). Unfortunately 2005 is the latest data on there, but I can't imagine it has changed dramatically. Energy is imported into New York State, but primarily downstate (where they are limited by the transmission lines in how to power NYC/Long Island).

Thanks for this Dan. It was very informative. I am so surprised by the level of oil and natural gas use in this state. So noble's statement is true in that wind power will reduce dependency on oil. I was wrong again. I would post that RPS study here as it ties in well to your material, but I'm afraid I'd break the "only post one link unwritten rule". So please look at the my other recent MIT posting for that link.

The end of the article is telling:

So here's the research challenge," said Connors. "Before we can calculate the true environmental benefits of using renewables, we need to be able to figure out the operating mode of the whole electric power system in a particular region and over time." The usual static data -- annual wind power and annual power plant emissions, for example -- are insufficient."

Well said MIT. Again shows the very flawed assumption that a kwh output from wind equals a 1kw *reduction* of fossil fuel and carbon output for what it is - a flawed assumption. Every industrial wind proponent from the AWEA to Komanoff to visitor have stated an assumption that has never been proven or supported with historical data after 40,000 industrial wind turbines.

Visitor, why must you continue to quibble:

UPC's site has been rewritten - does not change the point. So here's the new link with the new quote:
http://upcwind.com/environment/benefits.cfm
"By offsetting the need for fossil-fueled generation, wind energy" - looks like they got tagged and couldn't keep making false claims - that's integrity for you.

Give me a break about the AWEA - just look at the board.

Well, well well. Looks like UPC is still at it.

www.cohoctonwind.com (UPC project website)

"Wind power uses NO fuel, thereby reducing our dependency on foreign oil."

What say you now Visitor? No one makes that claim?

Sound very benefical to the environment to me formsa. As Dan pointed out - there is quite a bit of oil used to generate electricity in new york. So where's the false statement? You and I have spoken before. You take an absolute position in that there is zero benefits while being unable to point to anything but a self rightous view of doubting every piece of information. I think you own web site have comments to that effect - "unable to reason or listen" I think it said? I might be wrong - how about pointing us to your link again?

Question for Dan - are you ever going to respond about how your tax dollars are being spent? You went silent on this. Does that mean you were unable to substantiate your view?

Oh Visitor, why do I bother. For one, I do not share Dan's analysis. Did the research last year and according to the DOE (reported by states annually) NY does _not_ use "quite a bit of oil used to generate electricity", in fact quite the contrary. If I recall it was

Oh Visitor, why do I bother. For one, I do not share Dan's analysis. Did the research last year and according to the DOE (reported by states annually) NY does _not_ use "quite a bit of oil used to generate electricity", in fact quite the contrary. If I recall it was around 2% and being phased out by the high crude prices.

Perhaps you need to sit in a science class at MIT and when you spout that junk - you would be reminded of Occam's Razor.

I'm not the one proposing these things are good for us and beneficial. You are - and you fail to bring any data supporting your view: (A US college buying wind credits held up as the holy grail of industrial wind benefits worldwide, not impressed). You'd think the AWEA lobby group would have the hard data so these installs would be a slam dunk. Nope.

Any new "data" showing these reductions you keep throwing out there? Didn't think so.