Is Obama Waging Jihad? - Wayne Allyn Root 

Is Obama Waging Jihad?

Wayne Allyn Root | Jul 17, 2014

Not a week goes by that I'm not called or emailed by hundreds of fans who believe we have a foreigner and Muslim in the White House. I've disagreed for six years now. We have to take our President at his word. He says he is a Christian, he attends church, so he is a Christian. So let's throw that theory away.
But I've met quite a few Christians who are both Marxists and radical Muslim sympathizers. It’s now clear that Obama is one of them. Why hide from it? It’s no crime. Obama should embrace the truth. Is he afraid Americans can't take the truth?
Let's start with the Marxist part. What defines a Marxist? Someone who believes in government control over the people. Someone whose obsession is income redistribution. Someone who dedicates his life to taxes, spending, debt, regulations and bureaucracy. Since Obama is the biggest spender in history, the biggest taxer in history, the biggest debt creator in history, and the biggest creator of regulations in history, it’s safe to say Obama is a Marxist. I go into much greater detail in my new book, The Murder of the Middle Class.
Now let’s deal with the Muslim sympathizer part. Obama's policies have led to crisis and chaos throughout the Middle East. His policies led to the Arab Spring. His policies have certainly hurt our friend and ally Israel. His approval rating in Israel at times has been close to zero. His policies have emboldened our enemies. His premature pullout from Iraq has led to the creation of a radical Islamic state. He is certainly overly sympathetic to Muslim causes. He rushes to defend Islam, yet never says a peep in defense of Christianity or Christians being persecuted around the world.
Obama himself may not be foreign, but his thinking is foreign to the average America.
My blue-collar butcher father taught me, "Don't listen to a man's words, watch his actions." Americans are starting to wake up to this reality. A recent NBC poll showed Americans find Obama less trustworthy than Bush post-Hurricane Katrina. So let's look at a few of Obama's actions as President.
A recent global study reports that the most persecuted, oppressed, and intimidated religious group in the world today is Christians. Obama said nothing.
In Egypt, seventy churches were burned and many Christians killed by the Muslim Brotherhood in 2013. Obama said nothing.
This past February, in Libya seven Christians were pulled from their homes and murdered execution style. Obama said nothing.
An American Christian is being imprisoned in Iran. Obama says nothing.
Every week, there are new reports of Christian churches being burned and Christians murdered in Muslim countries around the world. Obama says nothing.
Yet, Obama was mortified when radical Muslims murdered other radical Muslims in Syria and lectured us all on not being prejudiced against Muslims. He wanted desperately to put US troops in harm's way to fight in this civil war that is none of our business.
During this past Christmas season, VA hospitals banned carolers from singing Christmas songs, banned gifts if the wrapping paper contained the words “Merry Christmas”, and refused to accept delivery of handmade Christmas cards from local school children because the cards included the phrases “Merry Christmas” or “God Bless you."
Christian prayers have been banned at some military funerals. Christian military chaplains have been harassed and banned from praying in Jesus’s name or reciting passages from the Bible.
The Obama administration has forbidden religious ministers from participating in prayer services on federal property. Christian minister Franklin Graham believes the military’s effort to ban him and other Christian leaders from the National Day of Prayer observance at the Pentagon “is nothing short of an effort to stamp out Christianity from the military.”
Cadets at the Air Force Academy had Bible verses they wrote on their own personal dorm room whiteboards forcibly erased. Military lawyers claim the First Amendment does not include the right of religious expression.
In February of this year, the Obama administration allowed a radical Muslim cleric entrance into the USA for a seventeen-city hate tour at U.S. mosques. This cleric is on record as calling for the death penalty for gays . . . suicide bombings against Israel . . . and “holy war against Westerners and Jews.”
Then there’s the crisis at our Southern border. 50,000 illegal immigrants have poured over the border since last Fall. Obama’s desire for amnesty led to this unprecedented crisis (some would call it an invasion). But the worst part is that if 10-year-old children have figured out they can just walk across the border, then so have terrorists. Radical Muslim terrorists may already be in America because Obama chose not to secure the border.
Yes, my fellow Americans, Obama is destroying America from within by murdering the middle class. But is there something even more insidious going on? Is the core of this plan to destroy America and murder the middle class, to first destroy our faith in God, Judeo-Christian values and America's greatness? I’ll let you decide.
I’ve always assumed Obama is an American-born Christian. I’ve never made any accusation otherwise. But his thinking is as foreign as it gets. We all feel it. We all know it in the pit of our stomachs. Something is very wrong. Everything we believe in…everything America stands for is under attack.
It sure feels like we have someone waging Jihad from inside the White House.
Not a week goes by that I'm not called or emailed by hundreds of fans who believe we have a foreigner and Muslim in the White House. I've disagreed for six years now. We have to take our President at his word. He says he is a Christian, he attends church, so he is a Christian. So let's throw that theory away.
But I've met quite a few Christians who are both Marxists and radical Muslim sympathizers. It’s now clear that Obama is one of them. Why hide from it? It’s no crime. Obama should embrace the truth. Is he afraid Americans can't take the truth?
Let's start with the Marxist part. What defines a Marxist? Someone who believes in government control over the people. Someone whose obsession is income redistribution. Someone who dedicates his life to taxes, spending, debt, regulations and bureaucracy. Since Obama is the biggest spender in history, the biggest taxer in history, the biggest debt creator in history, and the biggest creator of regulations in history, it’s safe to say Obama is a Marxist. I go into much greater detail in my new book, The Murder of the Middle Class.
Now let’s deal with the Muslim sympathizer part. Obama's policies have led to crisis and chaos throughout the Middle East. His policies led to the Arab Spring. His policies have certainly hurt our friend and ally Israel. His approval rating in Israel at times has been close to zero. His policies have emboldened our enemies. His premature pullout from Iraq has led to the creation of a radical Islamic state. He is certainly overly sympathetic to Muslim causes. He rushes to defend Islam, yet never says a peep in defense of Christianity or Christians being persecuted around the world.
Obama himself may not be foreign, but his thinking is foreign to the average America.
My blue-collar butcher father taught me, "Don't listen to a man's words, watch his actions." Americans are starting to wake up to this reality. A recent NBC poll showed Americans find Obama less trustworthy than Bush post-Hurricane Katrina. So let's look at a few of Obama's actions as President.
A recent global study reports that the most persecuted, oppressed, and intimidated religious group in the world today is Christians. Obama said nothing.
In Egypt, seventy churches were burned and many Christians killed by the Muslim Brotherhood in 2013. Obama said nothing.
This past February, in Libya seven Christians were pulled from their homes and murdered execution style. Obama said nothing.
An American Christian is being imprisoned in Iran. Obama says nothing.
Every week, there are new reports of Christian churches being burned and Christians murdered in Muslim countries around the world. Obama says nothing.
Yet, Obama was mortified when radical Muslims murdered other radical Muslims in Syria and lectured us all on not being prejudiced against Muslims. He wanted desperately to put US troops in harm's way to fight in this civil war that is none of our business.
During this past Christmas season, VA hospitals banned carolers from singing Christmas songs, banned gifts if the wrapping paper contained the words “Merry Christmas”, and refused to accept delivery of handmade Christmas cards from local school children because the cards included the phrases “Merry Christmas” or “God Bless you."
Christian prayers have been banned at some military funerals. Christian military chaplains have been harassed and banned from praying in Jesus’s name or reciting passages from the Bible.
The Obama administration has forbidden religious ministers from participating in prayer services on federal property. Christian minister Franklin Graham believes the military’s effort to ban him and other Christian leaders from the National Day of Prayer observance at the Pentagon “is nothing short of an effort to stamp out Christianity from the military.”
Cadets at the Air Force Academy had Bible verses they wrote on their own personal dorm room whiteboards forcibly erased. Military lawyers claim the First Amendment does not include the right of religious expression.
In February of this year, the Obama administration allowed a radical Muslim cleric entrance into the USA for a seventeen-city hate tour at U.S. mosques. This cleric is on record as calling for the death penalty for gays . . . suicide bombings against Israel . . . and “holy war against Westerners and Jews.”
Then there’s the crisis at our Southern border. 50,000 illegal immigrants have poured over the border since last Fall. Obama’s desire for amnesty led to this unprecedented crisis (some would call it an invasion). But the worst part is that if 10-year-old children have figured out they can just walk across the border, then so have terrorists. Radical Muslim terrorists may already be in America because Obama chose not to secure the border.
Yes, my fellow Americans, Obama is destroying America from within by murdering the middle class. But is there something even more insidious going on? Is the core of this plan to destroy America and murder the middle class, to first destroy our faith in God, Judeo-Christian values and America's greatness? I’ll let you decide.
I’ve always assumed Obama is an American-born Christian. I’ve never made any accusation otherwise. But his thinking is as foreign as it gets. We all feel it. We all know it in the pit of our stomachs. Something is very wrong. Everything we believe in…everything America stands for is under attack.
It sure feels like we have someone waging Jihad from inside the White House.

It’s official: GOP will have biggest House majority since before the New Deal 

It’s official: GOP will have biggest House majority since before the New Deal

posted at 8:01 pm on December 17, 2014 by Noah Rothman

On Wednesday, the Associated Press called the outstanding race for congress in Arizona’s 2nd Congressional district. Rep. Ron Barber (D-AZ), a former aide to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and her successor in office, was narrowly defeated by Republican Martha McSally.
With McSally’s victory, the 2014 midterm elections have officially concluded. At the start of the 114th Congress, Republicans will enjoy their largest majority in the House of Representatives since prior to the Great Depression and the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt with 247 members. The last time the GOP enjoyed that large of a majority was the 71st Congress in 1929 and 1930.

In the Senate, the GOP will be in an almost equally unparalleled position of power.
“Republicans will control 54 out of 100 seats,” The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake noted. “That’s tied for their fourth-highest number of seats since that same 1929-30 Congress, but the larger three were majorities of 55 seats — i.e. only one more seat.”
Combined with the GOP’s dominance at the state legislative level (Republicans control 56 percent of seats in the legislatures, the highest number since 1920), and the party’s control of 31 of 50 gubernatorial mansions, the Republican Party will be in the strongest position it has seen since prior to the popularization of Democratic progressivism.
“The last time the GOP clearly had more power than today was in the early 1920s, when it controlled more than 70 percent of governorships, 69 percent of the House and more than 60 percent of Senate seats,” Blake observed.
That’s nothing to sneeze at, and it is all due to the ideological realignment of the Democratic Party.
The press and the political analyst class are near myopically focused on the Republican Party’s ideological realignment. And it is true that the GOP has become a more conservative party since the end of the last century. They rarely, however, devote much of their attentions to the realignment of the Democratic Party, which has become markedly more liberal in the early part of this century.
The Democratic Party suffered two disastrous midterm elections not because the GOP made no mistakes or overreached. They did both, and they did so often. The Democrats suffered these debacles because the traditionally older and whiter midterm electorate has turned on the Democratic Party. As recently as 1998, it was possible for a midterm electorate in a Democratic president’s sixth year in office to overlook their frustrations with the incumbent in the White House. That kind of dispensation toward Democrats from a midterm electorate seems nearly unthinkable today.
In many ways, the Obama presidency has set his party back generations. Democrats console themselves with the notion that the president has accomplished things of which prior Democratic presidents could have only dreamed. Today’s decision to loosen trade and travel restrictions on Cuba is only the latest development that progressives contend will ensure that posterity recalls the Obama presidency fondly. The most notable of these conditions, however, is the 2010 health care reform law.
But either through retirements or lost elections, half of the U.S. senators who voted for Obamacare, all of whom were Democrats, will be gone in 2015. Among those who remain, doubts about the political disaster the Affordable Care Act has wrought for the president’s party are tearing the Democratic coalition in Congress apart.
For a party that views FDR as its ideological godfather, it is a supreme irony that a president who supposedly represented his second coming is instead overseeing the destruction of his legacy.

We Can’t All Just Get Along - In These Times

We Can’t All Just Get Along

In our era of polarization, one party is guiltier than the other.

BY Susan J. Douglas

This isn’t like a fight between siblings, where the parent says, 'It doesn’t matter who started it.' Yes, it does.

Editor's note:  This article was originally titled “We Can't All Just Get Along” in the print version of the magazine.  The title was then changed, without the author's knowledge or approval, to “It's Okay to Hate Republicans.”  The author rejects the online title as not representative of the piece or its main points. Her preferred title has been restored. We have also removed from the “Comments” section all threats to the author's life and personal safety.
I hate Republicans. I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal “personhood.”
This loathing is a relatively recent phenomenon. Back
 in the 1970s, I worked for a Republican, Fred Lippitt, the senate minority leader in Rhode Island, and I loved him. He was a brand of Republican now extinct—a “moderate” who was fiscally conservative but progressive about women’s rights, racial justice and environmental preservation. Had he been closer to my age, I could have contemplated marrying someone like Fred. Today, marrying a Republican is unimaginable to me. And I’m
 not alone. Back in 1960, only 5 
percent of Republicans and 4
 percent of Democrats said they’d
 be “displeased” if their child married someone from the opposite
 party. Today? Forty-nine percent 
of Republicans and 33 percent of
 Democrats would be pissed.
According to a recent study 
by Stanford professor Shanto
 Iyengar and Princeton researcher 
Sean Westwood, such polarization has increased dramatically 
in recent years. What’s noteworthy 
is how entrenched this mutual animus is. It’s fine for me to use the word “hate” when referring to Republicans and for them to use the same word about me, but you would never use the word “hate” when referring to people of color, or women, or gays and lesbians.
And now party identification and hatred shape a whole host of non-political decisions. Iyengar and Westwood asked participants in their study to review the resumés of graduating high school seniors to decide which ones should receive scholarships. Some resumés had cues about party affiliation (say, member of the Young Republicans Club) and some about racial identity (also through extracurricular activities, or via a stereotypical name). Race mattered, but not nearly as much as partisanship. An overwhelming 80 percent of partisans chose the student of their own party. And this held true even if the candidate from the opposite party had better credentials.
How did we come to this pass? Obviously, my tendency is to blame the Republicans more than the Democrats, which may seem biased. But history and psychological research bear me out.
Let’s start with the history. This isn’t like a fight between siblings, where the parent says, “It doesn’t matter who started it.” Yes, it does.
A brief review of Republican rhetoric and strategies since the 1980s shows an escalation of determined vilification (which has been amplified relentlessly on Fox News since 1996). From Spiro Agnew’s attack on intellectuals as an “effete corps of impudent snobs”; to Rush Limbaugh’s hate speech; to the GOP’s endless campaign
to smear the Clintons over Whitewater, then bludgeon Bill over Monica Lewinsky; to the ceaseless denigration of President Obama (“socialist,” “Muslim”), the Republicans have crafted a political identity that rests on a complete repudiation of the idea that the opposing party and its followers have any legitimacy at all.
Why does this work? A series of studies has found that political conservatives tend toward certain psychological characteristics. What are they? Dogmatism, rigidity and intolerance
 of ambiguity; a need to avoid uncertainty; support for authoritarianism; a heightened sense of threat from others; and a personal need for structure. How do these qualities influence political thinking?
According to researchers, the two core dimensions of conservative thought are resistance to change and support for inequality. These, in turn, are core elements of social intolerance. The need for certainty, the need to manage fear of social change, lead to black-and-white thinking and an embrace of stereotypes. Which could certainly lead to a desire to deride those not like you—whether people of color, LGBT people or Democrats. And, especially since the early 1990s, Republican politicians and pundits have been feeding these needs with a single-minded, uncomplicated, good-vs.-evil worldview that vilifies Democrats.
So now we hate them back. And for good reason. Which is too bad. I miss the Fred Lippitts of yore and the civilized discourse and political accomplishments they made possible. And so do millions of totally fed-up Americans.

Susan J. Douglas

Susan J. Douglas is a professor of communications at the University of Michigan and an In These Times columnist. Her latest book is Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message That Feminism's Work is Done (2010).

29 Reasons Why You Should Not Move To Denver

29 Reasons Why You Should Not Move To Denver

Posted in:Mile High Talk

Here is a list of reasons why you should not move to Denver.

1. 300 days of sunshine requires constant squinting or investment in sunglasses AND sunscreen.
2. We are only the second best football team in the country. (Probably best for you to move to Seattle?)
3. Being one of the happiest cities in the country gets truly annoying.
4. Lazy folks get easily irritated living in one of the most active cities in the U.S.
5. You will need to adjust your baking recipes due to the altitude.
6. It is a non-stop battle of:  ski or snowboard? Hike or mountain bike? Camp or luxury hotel? Art scene or music scene? Work at an amazing start-up or an established big brand?
7. Will need to add body lotion as a line item in your monthly budget due to very dry air. (Think of what else you could be spending that $$ on??!)
8. We only have two buffalo herds. (Think of how many Wyoming has??)
9. Constantly feel like an underachiever due to an inability to hike all our trails, ski all our runs, visit all our towns and eat all our Mexican food.
10. A fox might try to have your kitten for dinner.
11. No pitbulls allowed.
12. I-70, I-70, I-70 and I-70 (Oh, and I-25 too.)
13. The green chile is way too hot.
14. Too many available jobs to sort through – becomes a huge hassle.
15. We elected a governor that made beer.
16. We are the #1 most popular city in the country to move to – DON’T BE A FOLLOWER.
17. Walking and biking everywhere will make your car feel neglected and unloved – which is pretty rude.
18. So many different neighborhoods to choose from – you will certainly go mad in selecting one. (Might kill your real estate agent in the process. Could get ugly. Best stay where you are.)
19. Mountains are too close and block the view.
20. Once a week in the summer 1000s of bike riders take to the street (in costumes!!) and muck traffic all up.
21. You realize the Gold Rush is over, right?
22. We make more beer than any city in the nation and have thinner air to get you drunker – faster. Think of what that could cause!
23. An average of 300 inches of snow in the mountains every year? That is a LOT of shoveling.
24. Remember all of our many rivers are really just melted snow. Brrrrrrrr.
25. Too many national, state and city parks. You will probably never want to leave, which will make out-of-state friends and family seriously PO’d at you.
26. Number haters nightmare: 53 mountains over 14,000 feet, 7 sports teams, 205 city parks, 850 miles of bike trails, 2^nd biggest theatre district in the U.S., a start-up opens their doors here every 72 hours, #1 outdoor amphitheatre in the country, way too many distilleries to count and the X Games.
27. Skiing one day, golfing the next? Priceless BUT also pricey.
28. It is the top city for singles and those over 60, but if you don’t fall in one of those categories, is this really your place? Think about it.
29. The whole place is stoned. (Legally)

Total Frat Move | Bo Pelini Roasts Nebraska A.D. With “Total Pussy” And “Total Cunt” Insults

Total Frat Move | Bo Pelini Roasts Nebraska A.D. With “Total Pussy” And “Total Cunt” Insults

Bo Pelini Roasts Nebraska A.D. With “Total Pussy” And “Total Cunt” Insults

Roger_Dorn 1 18 mins

Sometimes simply calling someone a pussy or a cunt just won’t suffice. Adding “total” in front of these words really puts some shine on them, takes them from merely insulting to absolutely devastating. Call me a pussy or a cunt and it’ll sting, but I’ll recover after five minutes of self-reflecting. Call me a “total cunt” and I have to call my mom and ask her to reassure me that I’m not a cunt, because I’ll be convinced I’m nothing more than a worthless cunt at that point. I’m down for the count.
You’re not just a cunt. You’re a total cunt, like all of you is cunty. You’re 100 percent cunt. Not just some of you, and not only some of the time. You’re all cunt, all the time. Sorry about it. Cunt. Such an aggressive word.
Bo Pelini knows what I’m talking about. During a 30-minute meeting with his players amid his departure from the Nebraska football program, he was apparently an open book as he spoke about his relationship with Nebraska Athletic Director Shawn Eichorst.
The World-Herald obtained an audio recording of that meeting.
From Omaha.com:

During the tape, Pelini expresses gratitude, support and advice for players. The majority of the tape, however, reveals Pelini’s thoughts about Eichorst. In the first minute of his talk, he uses two vulgarities associated with female genitalia to describe his former boss.
“I didn’t really have any relationship with the A.D.,” Pelini said. “The guy, you guys saw him (Sunday), the guy is a total p—-. I mean, he is. He’s a total c—.”

Omaha.com has to censor vulgarities, but we don’t. He called Eichorst a total pussy and a total cunt. This is the same man who went off about the fans at Nebraska, calling them fair-weather and saying, “They can all kiss my ass out the fucking door.”
Youngstown State got themselves a hell of a coach. Bo Pelini, not a cunt at all.

Colorado county commissioners say they have enough local control over oil and gas - Denver Business Journal

Colorado county commissioners say they have enough local control over oil and gas - Denver Business Journal

Colorado county commissioners say they have enough local control over oil and gas

Dec 16, 2014, 5:10pm MST

 

 

Enlarge Photo

Kathleen Lavine | Denver Business Journal

On the edge: A drilling rig east of Aurora on the former Lowry Bombing and Gunnery Range.

Cathy Proctor

Reporter- Denver Business Journal

A "significant majority" of Colorado's county commissioners assembled at a statewide meeting in early December approved a resolution saying local governments have sufficient authority to regulate, and collaborate with, the state's oil and gas industry.
That's according to John "Chip" Taylor, executive director of Colorado Counties Inc. (CCI), a Denver-based nonprofit representing county officials.
The Dec. 2 vote at CCI's meeting was by voice, and while there was opposition to the resolution, a "significant majority" of commissioners approved the resolution, Taylor said.
The resolution was submitted for a vote by commissioners from 21 of Colorado's 64 counties, including the Front Range counties of Arapahoe, Douglas, El Paso, and Weld.
The resolution "is a general expression about the fact that we do try to work with industry, we do have some authority, and that the current legal framework gives county governments authority to enter into memorandums of understanding and manage oil and gas development in unincorporated areas," Taylor said Tuesday.
How much local control city and county officials have over oil and gas operations within their jurisdictions has been a flash point in Colorado politics during the last few years, as rising oil prices have fueled a boom in oil production — mostly from new wells drilled into the Denver-Julesburg Basin, an area that sprawls north and east of Denver into Nebraska and Wyoming.
As more drilling rigs have started operations nearer to urban and suburban communities, complaints over noise, dust, traffic, and other issues have risen.
Boulder County commissioners in November extended the county's existing moratorium on accepting or processing permits associated with oil and gas operations to July 2018.
A 21-member task force, appointed by Gov. John Hickenlooper in August, is looking at the issue of local control and the oil and gas industry.
The task force was formed as part of a deal to remove proposals aimed at the state's $23 billion industry from the 2014 ballot. The task force is expected to make its recommendations for new laws or regulations in late February.
But the resolution approved the CCI, one of the main organizations in Colorado for local officials, includes a clause stating that "a vast majority of Colorado counties have already proven their ability to successfully regulate and negotiate in good faith with the industry to strike a balance between private, state and local interests."
The resolution said local governments can enter into "negotiated, legally-enforceable memorandums of understanding" with oil and gas companies that offer a benefit to the public while allowing energy development.
The state also has a "local government designee" program through with local concerns can be addressed, the resolution said.
The bottom line, according to the resolution, is that "CCI supports the existing statutory and regulatory framework for local authority and does not believe additional clarification is necessary at this time."
The resolution concluded with a request that CCI communicate its position with Hickenlooper. It also asks that county commissioners be given the opportunity for more input on the issue before the task force makes its recommendations.
Taylor said the resolution is expected to be discussed Friday during a CCI board meeting, but it can't be retracted without a new vote at a special meeting of the organization's general membership. Taylor said he hasn't received such a request for a special meeting and that the next general meeting is slated for June 2015.
Taylor emphasized that CCI and its membership will take a close look at whatever recommendations the task force makes and recognizes that the recommendations are likely to be the result of compromise.
"A majority of our members feel, as a general matter, that we don't need additional clarification [on local authority]," he said.
"Local government officials didn't ask for the task force. And this resolution was an expression of 'We'll have to see what you come up with — but we're not here at the well saying if you don't give us more local authority it's all over or we won't be able to do our job,'" Taylor said.

Cathy Proctor covers energy, the environment and transportation for the Denver Business Journal and edits the weekly "Energy Inc." newsletter. Phone: 303-803-9233. Subscribe to the Energy Inc. newsletter

Wind Energy Does Little to Reduce CO2 Emissions | The Energy Collective

Wind Energy Does Little to Reduce CO2 Emissions

Posted September 8, 2011

For some years wind turbines were presented to the public as renewable energy producers that would reduce the CO2 emissions from fossil plants, because less fossil fuels would be burnt, which would make the US less dependent on energy imports from unstable regions, even though about 1% of US electric energy is from oil, even less from imported oil.

Wind turbine vendors, project developers, financiers managing tax shelters, trade organizations, etc., popularized wind energy as saving the planet from global warming with PR campaigns that claimed there would be significant CO2 reductions/kWh, that capital costs/MW would decrease, and that wind energy costs/kWh would be at grid parity in the near future. 

Apparently many people, including many legislators and the US president, believed it all, because a fear-driven, ill-advised, heavily-subsidized, multibillion dollar build-out of wind turbine facilities occurred. 

This article summarizes two studies using measured, real-time grid operations data; the first one is of the Colorado and Texas grids and the second one is of the Irish grid, all with significant wind energy percent. The studies show adding wind energy to these grids does little to reduce CO2 emissions.

Installed Capacity, Capital Cost, Production: End December 2010 installed US wind turbine capacity: 41,400 MW. The top 5 states: Texas 10,085 MW; Iowa 3,675 MW; California 3,177 MW; Minnesota 2,192 MW; Washington 2,104 MW.

End December 2010 estimated direct capital cost: about $70 billion for erecting the wind turbines, plus the direct capital cost of grid modifications, plus the cost of accommodating wind energy to the grid, plus the cost to the government of capital grants and various subsidies, including the taxes not collected due to various write-offs from taxable incomes (tax sheltering), plus the cost of above-market feed in tariffs and/or production tax credits.

The net result of the wind turbine buildout during the past 10 years is a 2010 wind energy production of 94,650 GWh, or about 2.3% of total US production, and higher electric rates for consumers. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States 

It may take another 10 years to install the next 40,000 MW of wind turbines and have 4.6% wind energy. However, there may not be sufficient capital due to the likely shrinking of future subsidies, because the US economic, fiscal and monetary conditions will be dismal for years to come.

Skepticism About CO2 Reductions: After skepticism was expressed by power systems analysts in the US, Canada, the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, Australia, etc., about claims regarding CO2 reductions/kWh due to wind energy for at least the past 10 years, several studies have quantified the CO2 reductions/kWh, based on operations data of the grids of Colorado, Texas and Ireland, all with significant wind energy wind energy percent.

ERCOT of Texas, Public Service of Colorado, and EirGrid of Ireland are three grid operators that publish 1/4-hour or 1-hour operations data of relevant parameters that can be used to analyze the effects of wind energy on the operations of the other plants (coal, nuclear, hydro, gas) on their grids. 

For many years, numerous studies, mostly performed by promoters of wind energy, such as the one below, used simulations, modeling, algarithms, statistical methods and assumptions regarding grid operations, dispatch of generators, wind energy and weather forecasting, etc., instead of using real-time, 1/4-hour operations data sets. 

An example of such a study: Denny & O'Malley "Wind generation, power system operation, and emissions reduction" Feb. 2006 

http://ee.ucd.ie/erc/member/2005transdenny.pdf

These studies reached incorrect conclusions, because of the assumptions made and methodologies used. They should have been based on real-time, 1/4-hour operations data sets, but they were unavailable at that time. It is unfortunate those studies were used to justify worldwide investments in wind turbines totaling several hundred billion dollars during the past 15 years. 

There may be a deliberate withholding of 1/4-hour data sets by utilities and wind turbine owners to make it difficult for energy system analysts to accurately determine the wind energy impacts on the grid, CO2 emissions/kWh and fuel consumption/kWh. That sort of fine-grained data is essential to perform accurate analyses of wind energy impacts. 

Example: Public Service of Colorado records 1/4-hour wind energy production but refuses to release the data; it is citing "trade secrets". These wind turbine facilities were built with significant public subsidies; should not the public know whether or not its money is invested in the most effective manner to reduce CO2? The $500 million Solyndra fiasco comes to mind.

Balancing Wind Energy: Wind energy balancing plants, usually consisting of quick-ramping gas turbines or hydro plants, are required to ramp down when wind energy surges and ramp up when wind energy ebbs at least 100 times per day to ensure a near-perfect balance of supply and demand is maintained on the grid. The balance needs to be maintained to minimize excessive frequency and voltage deviations from target values to avoid brownouts, blackouts and overloads.

The balancing plants are required to operate at a percent of rated output to be able to ramp up and down. Part-load operation is very inefficient for gas turbines and ramping up and down at part load is even less efficient. This results in significantly increased Btus/kWh and increased CO2 and NOx emissions/kWh and SOx emissions/kWh by coal plants.

When coal plants are used as wind energy balancing plants, as is the case with Colorado and Texas, the rapid up and down ramping at part-load causes their combustion systems (designed for optimum, steady operation near rated output) to become unstable, and because the up and down ramping causes the chemical composition and quantity of the flue gas to vary, the scrubber-based air pollution control systems (designed for optimum, steady operation near rated output) also become unstable as the required stoichiometric chemical ratios cannot be maintained in a timely manner. 

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/57905/wind-power-and-co2-emissions

Gas turbine Heat Rates: The gas turbines of the balancing facility, most efficient near rated output, would have to operate at reduced outputs to be able to immediately vary their outputs to accommodate all variations of wind energy, including unpredictable, sudden, large variations of wind energy. Gas turbine heat rates, Btu/kWh, and CO2 emissions, lb of CO2/kWh, increase because of increased operation below rated output. Gas turbines are rarely operated below 40% of rated output, because of much degraded heat rates.  

Example: at 80, 50 and 20 percent of rated output, the heat rates are equal to the rated heat rate divided by 0.95, 0.85 and 0.55, respectively, or a heat rate degradation of (1/0.95 - 1) x 100 = 5.3%, 17.6%, and 81.8% respectively. This is for steady operation at a percentage of rated output. If the balancing facility is operating at a percentage of rated output AND irregularly and rapidly ramping up and down, the heat rate degradation increases further. 

Example: If a gas turbine rapidly cycles from 60% down to 40% and back up to 60%, 5 minutes down at 15 MW/min, 5 minutes up at 15 MW/min, its roundtrip fuel consumption and CO2 emissions are about 20% greater than if it had operated at 100% for the same 10 minutes. The average output was 50% which would have a steady heat rate degradation of about 17.6%, plus a rapid-ramping degradation of, say 2 - 3%, for a total of about 19.6 - 20.6 percent. 

Existing gas turbines are designed to perform a few cycles per day. Cycling at least a hundred times per day to balance wind energy will significantly increase wear and tear, i.e., increase (owning + O&M) costs. Who should pay these additional costs? Rate payers or wind turbine owners?

http://www.ge-mcs.com/download/bently-nevada-software/1q05_performancemonitoring.pdf

http://www.etsap.org/E-techDS/PDF/E02-gas_fired_power-GS-AD-gct.pdf

Example: a car driven on a level road at a steady speed of 40 mph has a mileage of, say 26 mpg. The same car driven on a level road at irregular and rapidly changing speeds that average 40 mph has a mileage of, say 22 mpg. The mileage degradation due to the speed changes would be (26-22)/26 x 100% = 15%. A car’s best mileage usually is at 55 mph, at a steady speed, on a smooth and level road; it is the oft-quoted EPA highway mileage.

STUDY OF COLORADO AND TEXAS WIND ENERGY

The Bentek study of the Colorado and Texas grids, based on measured hourly (in case of Colorado) and 1/4-hourly (in case of Texas) power plant operations data of fuel consumption and CO2, NOx and SOx emissions, proved that wind energy on the grid needs to be:

- balanced with energy from other plants, preferably quick-ramping CCGTs and OCGTs, to ensure grid stability and,

- that this balancing produces more CO2/kWh, more NOx/kWh, and more SOx/kWh (from coal plants on the grid), and uses more fuel/kWh with wind energy on the grid than without. 

Colorado  

Public Service of Colorado, PSCO, owns insufficient gas-fired CCGT capacity for balancing wind energy on its grid. As a result PSCO is attempting to use its own coal plants for balancing for which they were not designed and for which they are highly unsuitable. The results have been significantly increased pollution and CO2, NOx and SOx emissions/kWh.

The heat rate of a coal plant operated near rated output it is about 10,500 Btu/kWh for power delivered to the grid. It is lowest near rated output and highest at very low outputs. If a plant is rapidly ramped up and down in part-load-ramping mode, its heat rate rises. See Pages 26, 28, 35, 41 of the Bentek study.  

On Page 28, the top graph covering all PSCO coal plants shows small heat rate changes with wind power outputs during 2006. The bottom graph shows greater heat rate changes with wind power outputs during 2008, because during the 2006-2008 period 775 MW of wind facilities was added. For the individual PSCO plants doing most of the balancing, the heat rate changes are much higher. 

On Page 26, during a coal plant ramp down of 30% from a steady operating state to comply with the state must-take mandate, the heat rate rose at much as 38%.

On Page 35, during coal and gas plant ramp downs, the Area Control Error, ACE, shows significant instability when wind power output increased from 200 to 800 MW in 3.5 hours and decreased from 800 MW to 200 MW during the next 1.5 hours. The design ramp rates, MW per minute, of some plants were exceeded.

On Page 41, during coal plant balancing across the PSCO system due to a wind event, emissions, reported to the EPA for every hour, showed increased emissions of 70,141 pounds of SOx (23% of total PSCO coal emissions); 72,658 pounds of NOx (27%) and 1,297 tons of CO2 (2%) than if the wind event had been absent.

Those increases of CO, CO2, NOx, SOx and particulate per kWh are due to instabilities of the combustion process during balancing; the combustion process can ramp up and down, but slowly. As the varying concentration of the constituents in the flue gases enter the air quality control system, it cannot vary its chemical stoichiometric ratios quickly enough to remove the SOx below EPA-required values. These instabilities persist well beyond each significant wind event. 

PSCO refuses to release 1/4-hourly wind energy data of privately-owned wind turbine facilities, because it is a "proprietary trade secret". Such information is critical for any accurate analysis and comparison of alternatives to reduce such CO2 emissions. 

PSCO deliberately withholding such information is inexcusable and harms progress regarding global warming. Any renewables subsidized with public funds should be subject to full disclosure to make sure public funds are not misused for projects with poor economics and poor CO2 reduction.

Texas

The Texas grid in mostly independent from the rest of the US grids; the grid is operated by ERCOT. The grid has the following capacity mix: Gas 44,368 MW (58%), Coal 17,530 MW (23%), Wind 9,410 MW (12% - end 2009), Nuclear 5,091 MW (7%). Generation in 2009 was about 300 TWh. By fuel type: Coal 111.4 TWh, Gas CCGT 98.9 TWh, Gas OCGT 29.4 TWh, Nuclear 41.3 TWh, Wind 18.7 TWh.  Summer peak of 63,400 MW is high due to air conditioning demand. 

Wind provides 5 to 8 percent of the average energy generation, depending on the season. Its night contribution rises from 6% (summer) to 10% (spring). Texas capacity CF = 18.7 TWh/yr/{(9,410 + 7,118)/2) MW x 8,760 hr/yr)} = 0.258. Texas has excellent winds and should have a statewide CF of 0.30 or greater. Explanations for the low CF likely are:

- grid operator ERCOT requires significant curtailment of wind energy to stabilize the grid. 

- wind turbine vendors, project developers and financiers of wind power facilities, eager to cash in on subsidies before deadlines, installed some wind turbine facilities before adequate transmission capacity was installed to transmit their wind output to urban areas.

Much of the gas-fired capacity consists of CCGTs that are owned by independent power producers, IPPs, which sell their power to utilities under power purchase agreements, PPAs. That capacity is not utility-owned and therefore not available for balancing to accommodate the output of more than 10,000 MW of wind power facilities. Instead, utilities are attempting to use coal plants for balancing for which they were not designed. The results have been significantly increased fuel consumption, pollution and CO2 emissions.

Unlike PSCO, ERCOT requires reporting of fuel consumption by fuel type and power generation by technology type every 15 minutes. The 2007, 2008, 2009 data shows rising amplitude and frequency of balancing operations as wind energy wind energy percent increased. In 2009, the same coal plants were cycled up to 300 MW/cycle about 1,307 times (up from 779 in 2007) and more than 1,000 MW/cycle about 284 times (up from 63 in 2007). The only change? Increased wind energy wind energy percent.

On Page 69:  The ERCOT balancing of plants to accommodate wind energy produced results similar to the PSCO system; increased balancing resulted in significantly more SOx and NOx emissions than if wind energy had been absent. Any CO2 emission reductions were minimal at best, due to the significantly degraded heat rates of the balancing plants. See websites.

http://docs.wind-watch.org/BENTEK-How-Less-Became-More.pdf 

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/57905/wind-power-and-co2-emissions

STUDY OF IRISH WIND ENERGY

The below URL includes a study of wind energy on the Irish grid which shows CO2 emission reductions due to wind energy are significantly less than claimed by promoters. 

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/89476/wind-energy-co2-emissions-are-overstated

Exporting Wind Energy to the UK: Assume the future installation of 1,333 onshore wind turbines, each 3 MW, 467.5 ft tall with 373 ft rotors, for a total of 4,000 MW mostly in western Ireland which has greater wind speeds. Capital cost about $8 billion, plus capital costs for transmission systems.

At low wind speeds (less than 7.5 mph) and at very high wind speeds there is no wind energy (occurs about 10 -15 percent of the time).

At high wind speeds the connected wind turbines may have an output up to about 80% of wind turbine rated capacity (occurs about 2 to 3 percent of the time); it can be kept below 80% by automatic curtailment, i.e., feathering the rotor blades which is much resisted by wind turbine owners because it reduces their incomes.  

The design capacity of the HVDC lines would need to be about 4,000 MW x 0.8 = 3,200 MW. This would require at least (4)  200 ft wide corridors each with 800 MW HVDC lines on thousands of 80 to 135 ft tall steel structures from Ireland's western areas to the Irish Sea, plus HVDC cables under the Irish Sea, plus HVDC lines on steel structures to UK population centers. The balancing function would be performed by the UK generating plants for a fee/MWh.

The exported wind energy would be 4,000 MW x 8,760 hr/yr x capacity factor 0.30 = 10,512,000 MWh/yr. The energy transmission of a conventional HVDC line is at an average of about 60% of its capacity. Thus the owning and O&M costs for dedicated wind energy transmission is about 2 times greater/MWh than for conventional transmission. 

Exporting Only Excess Wind Energy to the UK: If Ireland were to export only its excess wind energy to the UK via HVDC lines, Ireland would be selling nighttime excess wind energy to the UK when grid prices are minimal and the UK would require a fee/MWh for the balancing operations. The transmission lines would have a very low utilization factor, i.e., high (owning + O&M) costs/MWh. A profitable transaction? See example.

Example: Denmark has been “selling”, i.e., more or less giving away, its excess wind energy to Norway and Sweden for balancing by their hydro plants for a fee/MWh for about 20 years. Denmark has found it to be an unprofitable transaction, if the (owning + O&M) costs, balancing fees and line losses are accounted for. One reason the Danish household electric rates are the highest in Europe (31.5 eurocent/kWh in 2011), Germany, another renewable energy “power house”, has the second highest (27.5 eurocent/kWh in 2011), France has the lowest (12 eurocent/kWh).

Storing Excess Wind Energy: Instead of exporting excess wind energy to the UK, Ireland can use the Turlough Hill, 292 MW, pumped storage hydro plant to store excess wind energy by pumping water from the lower reservoir into the upper reservoir. 

The pump capacity is 272.8 MW, pump efficiency 79.9%, turbine capacity 292 MW, head 285.75 m, volume of water in upper reservoir 2.3 million m3, hydro turbine efficiency 79.9%, energy storage capacity 1,431 MWh.

Example: If 1,000 MWh of excess wind energy is generated by various wind turbine facilities and collected and transmitted to the pumps, about 950 MWh arrives at the pumps (after wind turbine-to-pump line and transformer losses), about 760 MWh arrives in the upper reservoir (after pumping losses), about 606 MWh leaves the hydro plant (after hydro turbine losses, ignoring evaporation losses, a factor in Spain), about 576 MWh arrives at the consumers (after line and transformer losses); an example of "detouring" excess wind energy to pumped storage.  

Wind energy storage is not very efficient and probably not cost effective, because the pumped storage hydro plants are expensive to build, and because of various losses, as shown above.

http://www.dconnolly.net/files/Modeling%20the%20Irish%20Energy-System%20-%20Data%20Required%20for%20the%20EnergyPLAN%20Tool.pdf

OTHER WIND ENERGY ASPECTS

Capital Costs of Wind Turbine Systems About 2 - 3 Times Gas Turbine Systems

The total capital cost of the wind turbine facilities (average onshore about $2,000/kW, average offshore about $4,200/kW), PLUS the capital cost of the new quick-ramping balancing plants required at higher wind energy percents (many grids, such as Colorado and Texas, do not have enough of such capacity), PLUS the capital cost of extensive grid modifications, including new HVDC lines on 80 to 135 foot-tall steel structures to transmit the wind energy from windy areas to population centers, is about 2 to 3 times greater than the total capital cost of a capacity of 60% efficient CCGTs (about $1,250/kW) that would produce, in base-loaded mode, near rated output, the same quantity of energy, use about the same quantity of fuel and emit about the same quantity of CO2 than the above (wind energy + balancing energy) combination, but do it at a much lower cost/kWh (see next paragraph), AND at minimal transmission system changes (the new CCGT plants would be located at or near the same sites as existing coal plants), AND at minimal adverse impacts on quality of life (noise and infrasound, visuals, social controversy, psychological), property values and the environment.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/47519/base-power-alternatives-replace-base-loaded-coal-plants

Capital costs of RECENT wind turbine facilities are about $1,800 to 2,000/kW in the Great Plains and about $2,500 to 2,700/kW on 2,500 ft high ridge lines in New England.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/61774/wind-energy-expensive

Example: Green Mountain Power is building the 63 MW Kingdom Community Wind facility (21 Vestas @ 3 MW each, 466.5 ft tall, 373 ft diameter rotors) on the Lowell Mountain ridge line in Vermont at an estimated cost of about $2,500/kW. GMP estimates the levelized wind energy cost at 9.2 cent/kWh with subsidies and write-offs equivalent to about 50% of the capital cost, about 15 cent/kWh without subsidies. New England grid average for utilities is about 5.5 cent/kWh. 

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/61309/lowell-mountain-wind-turbine-facility-vermont

Vermonters will have higher electric rates and lower living standards with wind energy than without; closing the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant will further increase electric rates, lower living standards and eliminate jobs.

Wind Energy Transmission Cost

Owners of wind turbines do not want to pay for HVDC transmission facilities to transmit their wind energy from windy areas to population centers. They say the US grid needs to be upgraded anyway, why have us pay? Or, they say the US has to move to smart grids and supply and demand management anyway, why have us pay? Or, they say the US has to move to renewable energy which implies reorganizing the US electric grids, why have us pay?

They also do not want to pay for: 

- wind energy accommodation fees to compensate for the costs of increased fuel consumption and wear and tear of existing generators due to the 24/7/365 up/down ramping 

- any new quick-ramping CCGTs and OCGTs required for balancing wind energy 

- increased grid management efforts 

- weather forecasting system (owning + O&M) costs.

T. Boone Pickens: The main reason he got out of wind energy is because ERCOT, the Texas grid operator, told him to pay part of the cost of the HVDC lines to get his wind energy from his planned 4,000 MW of wind turbines from the Panhandle in the west of Texas to the population centers in the east of Texas, about 800 miles. 

At low windspeeds (less than 7.5 mph) and very high wind speeds wind energy is absent (occurs about 10 -15 percent of the time). 

At high wind speeds the connected wind turbines may have an output of 80% of wind turbine rated capacity (occurs about 2 to 3 percent of the time); it can be kept below 80% by automatic curtailment, i.e., feathering the rotor blades. 

If the maximum output of the Pickens turbines is assumed at 3,200 MW and if 4 corridors are used, each 200 ft wide, each at 800 MW capacity, over 3,200 miles of corridors would require about 15,000 steel structures, each 80 to 135 ft tall, to carry the HVDC lines. The utilization would be at about 30% of capacity. No wonder Pickens got out of wind energy.

The wind energy transmitted would be 4,000 MW x 8,760 hr/yr x capacity factor 0.30 = 10,512,000 MWh/yr. The energy transmission of a conventional HVDC line is at an average of about 60% of its capacity. Thus the (owning + O&M) costs for dedicated wind energy transmission is about 2 times greater/MWh than for conventional transmission. This ratio can be reduced by overbuilding wind turbine capacity by about 20 to 30 percent and using wind energy curtailment to prevent transmission system overload. The economics of overbuilding wind turbines is feasible only in very high capacity factor areas, 0.40 and greater, not too far removed from population centers.

http://nwenergy.adhostclient.com/wp-content/uploads/OlsenWind-Trans.pdf

NREL Scheme to Have 20% of US energy as Wind Energy

The estimated capital cost of this scheme would be about $413 billion for wind turbines (400,000 MW/3 MW each) x (0.5 x $4,200,000/MW offshore + 0.5 x $2,000,000/MW onshore) + $83 billion for a 20% overbuild of wind turbines to better utilize the HVDC overlay grid + $200 billion for cross-country HVDC transmission systems + $250 billion for 200,000 MW of new OCGTs and CCGTs for balancing = $946 billion. 

The scheme would provide 400,000 MW x 8,760 hr/yr x net national capacity factor 0.25 (after losses) = 876 TWh/yr, or about 876/4,000 x 100% = 21.9% of the current US annual consumption, less of the projected consumption. 

At current wind turbine construction rates of 6,000 MW/yr, it would take (400,000 - 41,400)/6,000 = 59.7 years to implement. The environmental (visual, noise, health, real estate) impacts of wind turbines and transmission systems would be at least 10 times greater than at present.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/61774/wind-energy-expensive

Dispersal of Wind Turbines Does Not Reduce Intermittency and Variability 

Wind Energy

Wind energy generation is variable and intermittent; usually it is minimal during summer, moderate during spring and fall, and maximal during winter. Almost all the time it is maximal at night. 

About 10-15 percent of the hours of a year wind energy is near zero, because wind speeds are too low (less than 7.5 mph) to turn the rotors, or too high for safety. During these hours, wind turbines draw energy FROM the grid, and also during hours with moderate winds when parasitic energy exceeds the generated energy. 

Note: Wind turbines need energy 24/7/365 for their own operation. The parasitic energy can be 10% to 20% of rated output on cold winter days, whether operating or not. 

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/53258/examples-wind-power-learn

Example: German wind power output peaked at about 12,000 MW on July 24, 2011, four days later the peak was 315 MW.

Solar Energy 

Solar energy is variable (during a day and during variable cloudiness) and intermittent; usually it is minimal in the morning, maximal at noon about 3-5 hours before the daily peak demand, minimal in the afternoon, minimal during foggy, overcast, snowy days, and zero at night. 

About 65-70 percent of the hours of a year solar energy is near zero, and it cannot be turned off, as in Southern Germany with about 1 million PV systems, when on sunny summer days solar energy surges to about 12,000 MW to 14,000 MW and has to be partially exported to France and the Czech Republic at fire sale prices, 5.5 euro cent/kWh or less, after having been subsidized at an average of about 50 euro cent/kWh.

Example: German solar power is as little as 2% of rated capacity, or 340 MW, on cloudy days and when snow covers the panels. 

This means there are many hours during a year when no wind or solar energy is generated. Therefore, all conventional generator units will need to be kept in good operating condition, AND staffed 24/7/365, AND fueled to serve the daily demand when wind and solar energy is near zero. 

Without utility-scale energy storage, wind turbines and solar systems cannot replace any conventional units. All the units that would be needed WITHOUT the existence of wind turbines and solar systems, would also be needed WITH the existence of wind turbines and solar systems. 

Some of the conventional units would have less energy production with wind and solar energy on the grid, thereby adversely affecting their economics, due to increasingly inefficient start/stop, part-load and part-load-ramping operations, but without wind and solar energy on the grid, the energy production of almost all the conventional units would be needed to serve the daily demand.

Building Wind Turbines Everywhere?: There are some (mostly wind turbine vendors, project developers, trade organizations, NRELs, financial types setting up LLC tax shelters for the top 1% of households, etc.) who say that building wind turbines everywhere there is wind, and connecting all of them with a national HVDC overlay grid into a super grid (similar to the US Interstate Highway System overlaying state and local roads), the variation and intermittency of wind energy in the diverse geographical areas will largely be canceling each other out so that the overall energy production will become increasingly steadier as more wind turbines are connected to the super grid, and that therefore there will be little need for balancing plants, and that there will always be wind energy somewhere no matter what the weather conditions in one or more geographical areas.

Several National Renewable Energy Laboratories and other entities have made studies of this scheme, using mathematical modeling, as described in the EWITS and NEWITS reports.  

However, someone went one step further and combined the outputs of 5 widely dispersed geographical areas:

- http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/default.aspx     

Bonneville Power Administration, which serves 3.5 GW of installed capacity in the Pacific Northwest

- The Australian Energy Market Operator, which serves 1.8 GW of installed capacity in New South Wales

- The Independent Electricity System Operator, which serves 1.2 GW of installed capacity in Ontario

- The Alberta Electric System Operator, which serves 0.8 GW of installed capacity in Alberta

- http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/ 

EirGrid, which serves 1.4 GW of installed capacity in Ireland

The result of the analysis is described in this article which concludes geographical dispersion of wind turbines does not reduce the variation and intermittency of wind energy.

http://www.ethiopianreview.com/business/122605

A French energy systems analyst, Hubert Flocard, combined the wind energy outputs of several European nations. The results of his analysis yielded the same conclusion.

http://www.dimwatt.eu/index.php/our-campaigns/keeping-the-lights-on/documents/108-ground-breaking-french-study-should-stop-further-expenses-on-the-so-called-super-grid 

Energy Cost Projections

The US Energy Information Administration projects levelized production costs (national averages, excluding subsidies) of NEW plants coming on line in 2016 as follows (2009$) :

Offshore wind $0.243/kWh, PV solar $0.211/kWh (higher in marginal solar areas, such as New England), Onshore wind $0.096/kWh (higher in marginal wind areas with greater capital and O&M costs, such as on ridge lines in New England), Conventional coal (base-loaded) $0.095/kWh, Advanced CCGT (base-loaded) $0.0631/kWh.  http://www.energytransition.msu.edu/documents/ipu_eia_electricity_generation_estimates_2011.pdf

IS WIND ENERGY GOOD ENERGY POLICY?

Within federal, state and local governments tens of thousands of people are busying themselves promoting renewables by with holding meetings and public hearings, preparing studies, writing reports, energy plans, laws, rules and regulations, monitoring projects for compliance, etc.

Outside of government wind turbine vendors (Siemens, GE, Vestas, Iberdrola, etc,), project developers/owners, financiers managing tax shelters, trade organizations, etc., are busying themselves popularizing wind energy as saving the planet from global warming with PR campaigns that claim there would be significant reductions of fossil fuel consumption and CO2 reductions/kWh, that capital costs/MW would decrease, and that wind energy costs/kWh would be at grid parity in the near future. These claims have largely not been realized. 

Global Warming is a Given: A just-released report from EIA shows the actual world energy consumption data and projected consumption data for the 1990 to 2035 period. The report shows world energy consumption is estimated to increase from 505 quads in 2008 to 770 quads in 2035, a 52% increase. The biggest part of the increase is by (non-OECD nations + Asia).

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/world.cfm

See spreadsheet associated with figure 12

World energy consumption by fuel (quadrillion Btu) 

Liquids: From 173.2 in 2010 to 225.1 in 2035; 30% more

Natural gas: 116.7 to 174.7; 50% more

Coal: 149.4 to 209.1; 49% more

Nuclear: 27.6 to 51.2; 86% more

Renewables: 55.2 to 109.5; 98% more

Renewables fraction of total consumption: From 10.6% in 2010 to 15.2% in 2035

Fossil fraction of total consumption: 84.1% to 79.1%

The significant increase in projected fossil fuel consumption during the next 24 years means global warming will continue unabated, because (non-OECD + ASIA) will have energy consumption growth far outpacing the energy consumption growth of the rest of the world; i.e., global warming is a given. 

The above indicates the enormous investments required to achieve the 2035 projected renewables energy production would have practically no benefit regarding global warming.

This means policy makers should shift renewables subsidies to energy efficiency which will not only reduce CO2 without controversies, but will actually do some good for household and business energy bills and thereby raise their living standards and profits.

That would be the rational thing to do. However, using Greenspan's words, the people, including legislators and bureaucrats, have become "irrationally exuberant" regarding renewables reducing global warming. The above shows, it is an expensive and futile tilting at wind mills a la Don Quixote.

Competitiveness: The above begs the question: If wind energy reduces CO2 by so very little/kWh, or not at all, or increases it, AND requires so much capital/MW to implement, AND produces energy at such a high cost/kWh, AND has such huge adverse impacts on quality of life (noise and infrasound, visuals, social unrest, psychological), property values and the environment, why are we, as a nation, making ourselves even less efficient relative to our competitors by this slavish, lemming-like pursuit of expensive wind energy?

Who Benefits: Could it be that the Wall Street elites see the 30% federal cash grants, accelerated write-offs, generous feed-in tariffs and renewable energy credits as major tax shelters and long-term income streams (preferably tax-free) for themselves and their high-income clients, all at the expense of the Main Street economy which is already economically depressed? 

If the amounts of the grants and taxes-not-collected due to these deductions from taxable incomes are totaled, it would be evident wind energy is very expensively subsidized indeed; not helpful for reducing budget deficits.

Roll more and more such expensive wind energy into rate schedules and the US will become even less competitive than at present: not helpful for reducing trade deficits. 

Wind energy promoters often use Denmark as the model to emulate. However, Denmark is in the unique position of having a large capacity of hydro plants of Norway and Sweden available for balancing wind energy; i.e., other grids with little or no hydro plants cannot use Denmark as a model. This unique position has been unfortunate for Danish households, because their electric rates are the highest in Europe; France, 80% nuclear, has the lowest.

Quality of Life: Wind energy reduces the quality of life, health and psychological well-being of people who live near wind turbines. During the past 5 years, Denmark has stopped adding to its ONSHORE wind turbines for exactly these reasons. See "Wind Energy and Low Frequency Noise" in this article.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/61309/lowell-mountain-wind-turbine-facility-vermont

Due to demonstrations by the Danes during at least the past 5 years, DONG, the 76% government-owned utility, finally decided in August 2010 that any future wind turbines will be OFFSHORE and beyond the horizon. That is a huge concession. i.e., wind turbines near people have become an anathema in Denmark. But Vestas and Siemens are pressuring the Danish government for more onshore turbines (up to 600 – 900 big ones are planned before 2020), even if the local resistance is strong and rapidly growing.

A similar development is shaping up in The Netherlands and Germany. As both have finally realized and admitted their wind speeds are marginal for onshore wind energy; Germany's wind CF is 0.167, Denmark's is 0.242 and The Netherland's is 0.186. 

Their future wind energy development will likely be offshore as well. However, offshore wind energy has a capital cost of about $4,200/kW (more than two times onshore) and O&M costs of about three times onshore, compared with wind turbines in the Great Plains.