Talk:Wind power in the United States
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wind power in the United States article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Scientific American article seems to contradict US being #2
The EU has 50 times the stated capacity of the US. This at least merits mention when touting US capacity . Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Germany claims Germany in 2011 had more than 10x current US capacity.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=eu-wind-capacity-hits-100-gigawatt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgm7734 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, it does not contradict the U.S. being #2. The E.U. is not a country, remember. The claim in the Germany article must have been vandalism. It's no longer there in any case. And at 100 GW the E.U. has just under twice as much capacity as the U.S., not 50 times as much. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The article seems to start in 2005. I doesn't mention any background at all, including obvious historical events, such as the Californian "wind rush" of the early 1980s when state support caused a rapid growth of wind power in that state.
- Have brought in some material from History of wind power, and removed tag. Johnfos (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
United States fiscal cliff discussion
Dear Fellow Editors: How about adding a discussion under Other governement involvment about the expiring 2.2 cent tax credit and the affect on the wind power industry? It is part of the tax credits expiring December 31, 2012. Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Not used to doing metric wattage conversions, but in the summary, it states "For the 2012 months the electricity produced from wind power in the United States amounted to 140,089 terawatt-hours, or 3.46% of all generated electrical energy." When I looked at the cited document (#3), table ES1.B has the unit of measure of "Thousand Megawatthours", with 140,089. Am I mistaken that "Thousand megawatt hours" is gigawatthours? Jeremy Vyska (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- You are correct. Someone has already corrected the article, though, to 140.089. --Aflafla1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Re: Removal of graph showing slower growth.
Basically its for this reason: The projections illustrated are a projection which ASSUMES that the incentives for wind power development which expire at the end of 2013 will not be renewed. This is not a realistic assumption. This assumption is made to show Congress or policy makers what will happen if credits aren't extended. The history of the past 10 years or so indicates that some form of incentive will be provided. Thus the estimates would be too low. Feel free to argue for re-inclusion of the graphic. My reasons and feelings for its removal aren't that strong. --Aflafla1 (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is a projection by a US government agency charged with studying the subject and making such projections (part, you might note, of a presidential administration that supports wind power - hardly biased against it). You are, of course, welcome to add disagreeing projections by other published and reputable sources; such additions would add depth to the article. If you could properly document the assertions you make about the assumptions behind the graph, that would also be a worthwhile addition to the article. But to censor out a projection from a WP:RS just because you disagree with it is both WP:OR and indefensible censorship. I am re-adding the graph. Plazak (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think I expressed myself clearly. The projection is based on an assumption that is only that, an assumption. The assumption itself is not what is really is expected to happen. This assumption is that wind power incentives will not be continued. This is done so that policy makers have a baseline to compare their actual policy to what would have happened if the policy had not been implemented. It's like a weather forecast based on the assumption that you live in city A (vs city B), when in fact there's a 3/4 chance you live in city B. Regardless, I'm not re-deleting the section and I hope that readers do not expect that what's depicted on the graph is anything close to what I expect will happen given Congress's propensity to extend the tax credits year after year.--Aflafla1 (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)