Kenya to build Africa's biggest windfarm

Generating electricity has pretty well zero correlation with flicking a light switch. The key issue is base load. That must come from a reliable source. Hydro is good if there are no droughts. Geothermal really turns me on! Nuclear is best but it frightens people and coal has fallen into disrepute as a polluting source.

But folks, you CANNOT rely on wind for base load generation.It is inefficient and usually uneconomic without government handouts. That is why it is so popular with the rent-seekers. And it is ugly; inconsistent with the beautiful landscape that is uniquely Africa's. Be wise, avoid wind power. You will save money.

Duncan your point exactly mate? Wind is an alternative source of power,that is if you have strong winds.

I guess the Kenyans have chosen power over beauty in this case.And who can blame them in this time of Global Warming.Solar another option as Africa has it in abundance.

There is no need for Coal, Nuclear or other harmful ways in which energy is created, Geothermal alone has the potential to provide power to everyone on the planet. The world as a whole consumes about 0.5 ZJ of energy each year and there is about 2000ZJ available in the earth and what makes this so appealing is that it renews its self so thats basically energy for ever. And with the use of Solar, wind Hydro, there is no reason why we all cant have clean energy, its all about GREED and Profits for people. Until we learn that when we start to look after the earth it will look after us. But the dollar signs are blinding people!!!

Excellent Kenya. What is South Africa(Eskom)doing?

With the Chinese (1) and the Americans (2) being the biggest greenhouse gas polluters, but with the Americans per capita, being 4 x greater than the Chinese - as a matter of interest..how far advanced are the Americans in the technology and the propopnents of wind farm developement? Or, is the resource (wind) not there in sufficent quantities ? Be good to hear..the thoughts.

The U.S. department of energy admitted in 2007 that if wind was fully harvested in just 3 of America's 50 states it could power the entire nation.

Its not about being advanced its about how much money can be made.
Obviously the initial outlay of cash is massive but in the long run it will pay for its self, and will make coal stations, and any non renewable power companies go bust.
But who is at the forefront of most green technologies?.... Many of them are oil companies so basically we are being fleeced by the corporation. Well that is my belief anyways, agree or disagree that's up to you.

As a layman in these matters, I feel that Kenya puts SA - still planning to build power plants fuelled by ghastly coal - to shame.

Wind may not be the whole answer - geothermal is the big opportunity - but I would rather see a square km of windmills anywhere, than one hideous open cast coal mine, which pollutes for 250km2 around it.

Wind power should be seen as a viable alternative, but I agree with Duncan McGregor to an extent. Wind power can be a risky investment, especially in Africa where scrap metal also has value. In the case of RSA.....our existing wind turbines and solar devices are not fed into the national power grid. However, the asthetics of wind turbines are not that pessimistic. In beautiful Northern Europe, it is part of the landscape, and when I think of the ugly Northern Cape, I see lots of solar and wind energy potential. BTW.....dont knock the Chinese, although they are obvious polluters (so are we) they are investing more in renewable energy than any other country in the world, and are responsible for the lower solar panel prices. The Indian subcontinent on the other hand is doing absolutely nothing while the Himalayan glaciers melt.

Pepe Sanman, its all about baseload. Wind alone will not do it.

Evans (mate), I made my points, I think they are clear. It is about baseload, and windpower being inefficient and expensive. Without the government subsidies it simply does not pay for itself. Unless, of course, the consumer is willing to pay considerably, anhd I mean considerably, more for electricity.

Duncan, do you think coal gets no subsidies? Who do you think pays for the rail infrastructure it uses? Add in the externalities like environmental degradation of mine sites, the extreme danger of underground mining and the threat of climate change and it becomes a whole lot less attractive. Wind is only expensive if you try to ramp it up to close to base load because you need about triple the capacity to cover times when the wind is low. If you mix in geothermal and solar thermal, you can achieve good load factors at costs that are higher than current prices for coal power, but likely to be attractive as coal gets more expensive. With China switching from a net exporter to a net importer and India ramping up its coal use, even without concerns about climate change we'd be running into trouble finding enough coal to meet demand: claims of hundreds of years of supply are at current rates of use, not escalated demand (http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/2009/01/forget-climate-change-fossil-fuel.html). Add to that the problem that much of Africa lacks the infrastructure to move coal in bulk, and renewables start to look attractive.