• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The Fantasy Based Community: Ken Salazar on Wind Power

    Remember back in the summer of 2008 when Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) falsely and repeatedly claimed natural gas was a “cheap alternative to fossil fuels”? Well Interior Secretary Ken Salazar did her one better this Monday when he told a public hearing in Atlantic City:

    The idea that wind energy has the potential to replace most of our coal-burning power today is a very real possibility. It is not technology that is pie-in-the sky; it is here and now.

    The AP goes on to report:

    Salazar said ocean winds along the East Coast can generate 1 million megawatts of power, roughly the equivalent of 3,000 medium-sized coal-fired power plants, or nearly five times the number of coal plants now in the United States, according to the Energy Department.

    Salazar could not estimate how many windmills might be needed to generate 1 million megawatts of power, saying it would depend on their size, and how near or far from the coast they were located.

    There is a good reason Salazar “could not estimate how many windmills might be needed” to replace coal power production in the United States: such an idea is pure fantasy.

    In 2007 the United States produced 23.48 quadrillion Btus of power from coal. Wind produced .319 quadrillion Btsus. President Barack Obama has an admittedly ambitious plan to double alternative energy production capacity in the next three years. Salazar wants the American people to believe we can increase our wind power production by 7,300%. That is insane.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    10 Responses to The Fantasy Based Community: Ken Salazar on Wind Power

    1. joseph hohmann says:

      Why is it that the current administration in talking about energy seem overtly reluctant to even use the word nuclear despite overwhelming evidence that is the very best alternative choice for attacking global warming ( even if we should be concerned). I believe we now have 20% of our electrical energy needs provided by nuclear so why not move agressively in that direction especially with the new smaller footprint facilities that are coming into practical application.

    2. Barb -mn says:

      Salazar said ocean winds along the East Coast can generate 1 million megawatts of power. The word "CAN" does not meet the word "WILL." ALL SPECULATION!

      How much POLLUTION does it cause to MANUFACTURE these "WIND TURBINES?" When these wind turbines are drilled into the earth, what problems could arise? Earthquakes? What about the placing of man-made materials in the ocean? HURRICANES? SUNOMI? (sorry,have no idea how to spell it.)

      Why would the stupidity of these government idiots dictate man-made materials be drilled into nature? The ocean. The earth. With closed minds to the potential of real man-made global destruction? It must be stopped! It is inefficient and irrational!

    3. Barb -mn says:

      The vibration. The unsettling of the earth and ocean. The obvious death of flying creatures…

    4. http://papundits.wor says:


      This is an interesting task.

      It can actually be calculated, because there is currently an offshore wind plant currently being proposed for construction in Nantucket Sound, Cape Wind, using 130 of these huge towers.

      Using that as the perfect example, this claim by Salazar can easily be calculated.

      To generate that 1 million MW of nameplate maximum power, you would need 1.1 million wind towers. Each would have a 3MW nacelle on top, just like Cape Wind. At best efficiency rating, Cape Wind quotes 30% efficient, considering already operating plants in Europe are currently averaging only 16 to 20% efficiency, but let's give them the best efficiency of 30%.

      3MW by 1.1 million towers by 30% will give that estimated 1 Million MW of usable power.

      The towers are 364 feet in diameter, so that means you can place them one alongside the other with a slight gap between them, so that means you can have 14 per mile. So to generate this power Salazar estimates, then it means the towers would be bunched together almost touching all the way along the coastline. To fit in the required 1.1 million towers they would need to be constructed in rows stacked one behind the other. There would be 40 rows of these towers.

      Now, the cost, again going on Cape Wind. The cost for Cape Wind is $1.2 Billion for their 130 towers, so the cost for 1.1 million now comes in at $10.2 Trillion dollars.

      Cape Wind will take 12 years to bring the power from those 130 towers to the people.

      Before even starting, you would need to dramatically gear up construction for factories in their hundreds. Factories in Europe are currently manufacturing 150 per year, so that means if the nacelles are to be constructed in say 10 years, you would need 140 huge factories, all working flat out. Then the towers, then the blades, then the offshore construction on a scale absolutely inimaginable, generating a carbon footprint of incalculable proportions.

      Also keep in mind that power can only effectively be transmitted over relatively short distances, so to say this power can be used across the whole of the U.S. is an outright fabrication.

      This is the stupidity of this whole exercise, absolute lunacy on a monstrous scale.


    5. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      Joseph is right, we need more nuclear. And Reid needs jobs at Yucca Mountain. TonyfromOz's arithmetic well portrays the big picture of gearing up for mass wind generation. I say, small scale wind power is great for residential use and rural areas. But a bit overboard as a major (costly and unreliable) energy producer. May I suggest that we simply dam and flood the Beltway's big swamp. Add this to the heavily produced green house gases already coming from that area and your domestic energy needs are solved. TGIF

    6. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    7. enerwise, sc says:

      to papundits.wordpress.com,

      I read your fact finding report and became very sad,,,, the sheep [ millions of people],,do not know these numbers are so unreal, while our leaders speak as if these completely unaffordable plans can be built,

      they all are being fed lies and the future can be nothing but sorrow as we lose our nuclear power plants along with the crippling of the use of coal power plants,

      as the cost of electricity rises how can any business prosper.

      the us gov is bankrupt it's all BS.

      What is the goal with these Men.

    8. Doug, Castle Rock says:

      The Obama administration is about power and money. Obama used class envy to get elected by promising money to non tax payers and to tax the rich.

      The whole wind power scam is aimed at diverting billions of US tax dollars into an industry that will not provide return on investment. The question is who the campaign donor is that Obama wants to reward.

      If a claim or statement made by the administration is not backed up by facts then it can legitimately be considered a lie for financial gain by diversion of tax dollars.

    9. Bob Johnson, Missour says:

      TonyfromOz and all: I am a maintenance man at a coal-fired plant. My break room napkin figures show 350,000 turbines covering 128,000 square miles (30% power factor). And you still need all the coal plants for spinning reserve.

      Tx for your figures and comments. If a dumb mechanic like me can figure this out, I can only conclude Ken Salazar and the administration are flat-out lying.

    10. Barbara Durkin North says:

      Wind energy provides a conduit to our tax dollars, and it got its U.S. commercial start with Enron Wind of Altamont, CA bought by GE.

      I have no doubt, after 6 years of independent research, that wind energy is a hoax, a most expensive hoax, think Enron and Hallibuton.

      It's encouraging to see that many others recognize this is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

      17 Agencies are reviewing the effects of the GE 3.6 MW wind turbine spec'd by Cape Wind, on radar interference, avian life, National Historic Landmarks, fishing as commercial and recreational use, economic interests' other, and it's DISCONTINUED. The U.S. Coast Guard just spent $100,000 studying radar interference hypothetically caused by that which is not available. The public should be outraged.

      Offshore wind energy adverse risks, costs, and market conditions have caused U.S. largest manufacturer of wind turbines, General Electric GE; and Royal Dutch Shell Wind; and World's Largest manufacturer of wind turbines, Vestas, to all abandon their offshore wind plans.

      Royal Dutch Shell Wind has announced it will no longer invest in offshore wind as it's, "not economic".

      Senior VP of Vestas Peter Kruse states, "the only way forward is more turbines in virgin ground onshore", and, “Politicians want offshore so they can avoid the Nimby discussion, but they are allowing a tiny minority to force the rest of the population to pay double for renewable energy.”

      The Obama and Patrick Administrations have their heads in the sand, and their hands in our pockets.

      The economic stimulation these administrations preach is about our turf and taxes. They'll stop at nothing to aquire both.

      Conservation, nuclear energy, with coal fusion research grants are our tickets to energy independence and a cleaner environment.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.