Reply #34: I must take exception to your characterization "completely meaningless"..

[JohnWxy]

YOu have ignored (even while mentioning factors which I cited in my comment:

1) sighting possibilities in the Great Lakes (which avoids ....
2) the logistical and cost problems of building new long transmission lines),
3) the expansion of wind turbine installations in 2009 despite the fact that 2008 and 2009 were years of dramatic contraction of credit
5) the very significant expansion of manufacturing facilities .. and
6) that life cycle costs of wind power generation are closing in on the cost of natural gas power generation (note, this is important).

These factors are part of an economic analysis, which I did mention and which you seem to have missed in my statemtent - even though you repeated some of them in your comment!(?).

Your use of the term "meaningless" to describe my observations, while ignoring the relevant factors I cited, reveals a questionable mode of argument (sorry).


Was my comment meant as an exhaustive economic analysis of wind power's future growth? I really don't think anybody would have looked at it as such, nor was it offered to be. You also have chosen to ignore my statement that the purpose of the comment was "to get people to thinking about what is possible. To show that it won't take 30 years to get some appreciable gains from wind power."

Again, given the factors I mentioned in my comment, I submit that continued strong growth of wind power, like that which has been recorded, is possible.