redditor1255

There is a distinct lack of numbers in this report.

I'm open to what he's saying, but he has to provide some sort of calculations to prove it.

Wind turbines produce a TON of energy when they are at average output. I don't see them being a net negative.

Germ22

Maybe i should have linked to the main site, it has a lot of arguments and more facts and sources.
The main argument against wind power is that every turbine needs some sort of power back up. And conventional power plants cannot just turn on and off, even when running at idle they use about the same amount of fuel as if under load.
Edit: link to main page

redditor1255

Wind turbines don't necessarily need a power backup. Ideally you would set them up to overproduce and integrate them with other green energy production and bulk energy storage.

Honestly the bulk energy storage is the tricky part.

scvoon

Could you explain how a conventional power plant uses about the same amount of fuel at idle as under load? That doesn't seem to match with what I know about power generation in general.

Germ22

Imagine you want to boil a pot of water. First you light a fire, then heat the water until it turns into steam.
Capture that steam and turn a steam turbine to turn a generator to produce energy. It takes time to do all that, you can't just flick a switch and have instant steam for power generation.
So the fire has to be burning already, the water boiling, and the steam turbine spinning. and when you need power you engage the generator.

scvoon

But you could use an insulated, pressurized pot. Heat loss would be minimized and the water wouldn't vaporize until you needed it. Once you put it under load, then water converts to steam, and only then must you put more energy in. Idealized situation, but generally you can keep the pot at boiling temp with very little energy input until needed. Maybe real power plants don't work this way though? But I imagine they would.