Incipient Clean Energy Grid Problems
Power for USA: January 17, 2014
It will start with small annoyances, and progress to real
shortages. Is that the future of clean energy on the grid? Or, is it
very expensive electricity because of the investments needed to back-up
clean energy? Or, both?
The PJM, responsible for the grid across the northern tier of states,
including Illinois and Pennsylvania, asked consumers to turn down their
thermostats during the recent cold snap to prevent the possibility of
blackouts. Commercial and industrial customers were asked to switch to
back-up generators and other sources for several hours.
PJM had threatened mandatory blackouts, according to news reports.
PJM also asked residents to avoid using appliances like stoves,
dishwashers and washers and dryers during peak periods of demand.
While summer-time peaks are typically higher than the peak reached
during the cold snap, one must wonder why there would be a problem
during winter.
Actually, wind and solar generated electricity are problematic in
both summer and winter. And now there is also a potential problem with
natural gas power plants as the result of coal-fired power plants being
closed.
This is a message that people must pay attention to, since wind and solar are unreliable.
Wind, for example can’t generate electricity when the wind doesn’t
blow. This is what happened during the cold snap across the northern
United States, stretching as far south as Virginia, West Virginia and
North Carolina.
It has also happened in the summer during heat waves. Heat waves are often accompanied by periods where the wind doesn’t blow.
As mentioned previously, wind is unreliable.
Here is how the New York Times reported the issue in 2011 during the heat wave when the grid was put in danger:
“Peak supply is also becoming a vexing problem because so much of the
generating capacity added around the country lately is wind power, which is almost useless on the hot, still days when air-conditioning drives up demand.”
PV solar can’t generate electricity when it’s snowing, and the sun
doesn’t shine. The more PV solar installations there are, the greater
the possibility of grid failure.
Homeowners with PV solar installations create a double whammy when
they must not only turn to the grid for electricity, but also can’t
supply the grid with surplus electricity.
Adding wind and solar to the grid will require adding additional
back-up power, in the form of gas turbines or coal-fired power plants.
This is the exact opposite of what environmental supporters of wind and solar claim.
It should be noted that natural gas power plants were also shut down
during the cold snap because homeowners have priority when there are
limited supplies of natural gas, in this instance due to inadequate
natural gas pipeline capacity.
To some extent, the closing of coal-fired power plants is having a
negative effect on grid reliability and the price of electricity.
There was very limited solar on the grid, so its impact was minimal,
but that doesn’t detract from the fact that solar can’t be relied upon,
especially as more solar capacity is installed.
Wind and solar are expensive and unreliable; raising the question of
why so much taxpayer money is being spent to support wind and solar
installations.
Why are we putting the grid at risk by requiring more wind and solar
while also preventing the building of modern ultra-supercritical
coal-fired power plants?
The recent flirtation with blackouts is a yellow-flag, warning of
possible danger, a cautionary indicator, with which we should all be
concerned.
(Recent IER Panel on the Hill)
by Robert
Bradley Jr.
January 7, 2014
January 7, 2014
“Here’s to a post-PTC world. One
where, in Lisa Linowes words, ‘the industry shifts their business plans away
from those based on tax avoidance to plans based on energy production’.”
Last
month, the Institute for Energy Research (IER) held a policy luncheon on Capitol
Hill to discuss the problems of wind power in light of the debate about whether
to extend the long-standing (1992–) production tax credit (PTC). The event
highlighted a new IER study calculating the “taker” and “payer” states from the
PTC, Estimating
the State-Level Impact of Federal Wind Energy.
I
moderated the panel. Panelists included Travis Fisher (IER) and three leading
grassroots activists: Lisa Linowes of New Hampshire, Tom Stacey from Ohio, and
Kevon Martis of Michigan. Lisa, Tom, and Kevon are wind-power experts whose
volunteer work is inspired by the economic waste and wholly unnecessary
degradation of rural life.
I began by
describing wind power as the perfect
imperfect energy due to its economic and environmental drawbacks.
Converting wind energy to electricity, indeed, has been a perennial folly since
the 19th century for reasons explained in books of the day.
I
identified industrial wind as a “crony industry,” given its tip-to-toe
government dependence. Such is different from consumer-friendly industries that
might be populated by some crony companies (firms desiring special government
favor at the expense of competitors, ratepayers, or taxpayers).
Travis Fisher
Travis
Fisher, coauthor of the new IER study, explained his methodology of comparing
PTC tax receipts per state to tax payments from that state. The straightforward
analysis found takers and payers in unusual places. Texas wind producers were
the biggest takers, and California taxpayers the biggest payers, given where
the wind turbines spin.
Fisher
noted that the study is valuable because it actually puts a number on wind
energy subsidy transfers between states and regions. Energy analysts have often
discussed those transfers in general terms but never attempted to quantify
them.
(Fisher
elsewhere eviscerates the ‘job creation’ myth of windpower, invoking the
classical economic wisdom of Frederick Bastiat in the 19th century and Henry Hazlitt in the mid-20th
century.)
Lisa Linowes
Lisa
Linowes, the founder and executive director of Industrial
Wind Action Group, reviewed the economic distortions of volatile,
and even negative, pricing from must-produce, must-take, wind-generated
kilowatt-hours.
“The
combination of the federal PTC and state RPS policies have shielded wind
developers from the basic supply and demand forces present in a healthy
competitive market,” she explained. “As a result, we are
fast-tracking the construction of expensive renewable resources that are
variable, operating largely off-peak, off-season and located long distances
from where the energy is needed.”
Tom Stacy
Tom Stacy,
Ohioan for Affordable Electricity, explained the characteristics of electricity
(a unique product that must be consumed the instant it is generated, not
stored). As such, wind power is a liability parading as an asset. Why? Because such electricity is not
demand-responsive but a variable, unpredictable energy flow ill-timed to
consumer needs (a fundamental characteristic of the perfect imperfect
energy).
“The wind
PTC is not a financial leg-up to an equivalent quality source to make it price
competitive with conventional sources,” he explained. “The wind PTC rewards a
misfit technology for its lack of
control over its fuel source – a fuel that will continue to behave badly no
matter how ‘price competitive’ our subsidies make it.”
Kevon Martis
Kevon
Martis of the Interstate Informed Citizen’s Coalition then rebutted the typical
arguments for government sponsorship of wind energy. Wind power does not
displace oil, nor is it cheaper. Wind’s alleged fuel diversification is diluted
by its required co-pairing with fossil-fuel generation to overcome
intermittency.
Wind
energy—a niche, problematic fuel source—is also irrelevant to the global
warming/CO2 emissions debate. Martis states: “It makes absolutely no
sense to claim that we need an ‘all of the above’ energy policy to wean us from
‘climate damaging’ fossil fuel plants by subsidizing a source of energy that
can only replace a small fraction of that fossil generation but at a snail’s
pace and very high price.”
Conclusion
The
unintended consequences and non-neutral effects of government intervention into
energy markets were on full display during this policy luncheon at the Rayburn
House Office Building last month.
Concentrated
benefits to cronies and the political class; diffused costs to the rest of us….
Wrong place, wrong time, wrong type electricity ruining prices for right
place-time-type generation …. The false arguments of climate-change benefits,
diversification of risk, cheapness, infant industry, and (net) job
creation….
Friends
and foes of Big Wind went away with a better understanding of a public policy
whose time of shine on the taxpayer’s dime is in decline.
Here’s to a post-PTC world. One
where, in Lisa Linowes words, “the industry shifts their business plans away
from those based on tax avoidance to plans based on energy production.”
Lessons from New York’s phony green bank
Credit: By Phil Hall |
Congress Blog |
The Hill |
January 06, 2014 |
thehill.com ~~
On December 19, 2013, New York Governor
Andrew Cuomo’s office quietly issued a press release announcing that
$210 million in initial funding was being poured into something called
the “New York Green Bank.” The governor’s spin doctors insisted that
this endeavor was a “bold, new market oriented approach to accelerate
clean energy deployment, create jobs, and help make our communities more
resilient and sustainable.”
Uh huh. The only genuinely green element of this press release was
its recycling of long-discredited arguments that a world full of solar
panels and wind turbines would strengthen the economy and boost the
environment.
Let’s start with the name. Although referred to as a bank, it is
actually a government agency whose funds included $165 million
redirected from other New York projects and $45 million thrown in from
the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Without the taxpayers’ money,
this project would not exist.
The Green Bank, according to the governor’s press agents, will
“partner with private sector institutions by providing financial
products such as credit enhancement, loan loss reserves and loan
bundling to support securitization and build secondary markets.” But
isn’t that supposed to be the exclusive job of the private sector? Is
there any reason why the nation’s leading banks – none of which are
showing any losses – aren’t actively pursuing these strategies?
Well, there is an excellent reason why the private sector won’t touch
this market with its own money: who would want to sink money into this?
At the moment, the renewable industry is in limbo because the federal
production tax credit program that keeps the U.S. renewable energy world
afloat expired at the end of 2013. Without this federal life support,
the companies creating so-called clean technologies are unable to
sustain themselves, let alone also sustaining a healthier environment.
Furthermore, this market plays almost no significant influence on
serving American power needs. According to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration, solar energy is responsible for a ridiculously miniscule
0.11 percent of all national electrical power generation – and half of
that tiny percentage is based in (where else?) California. Wind energy
is somewhat more prevalent, generating 3.46 percent of the nation’s
total power, but that comes at significant costs to electric customers
(a fact that the folks in Maryland will live with if the proposed
offshore wind farm serving their state ever gets built).
As for the green jobs being promised by Cuomo – whatever happened to
those green jobs promised by presidential candidate Barack Obama in
2008? It is astonishing that this old lie is still being trotted out,
when the past few years showed zero evidence that the renewable energy
world can create lucrative employment opportunities.
The Cuomo press release also enjoyed a quote attributed to Richard
Kauffman, chairman of Energy & Finance for New York State, which
represents a new low in double-talk. “The Green Bank is just one
component of the State’s new chapter on energy policy that focuses on
enabling self-sustaining private markets and reducing dependence on
subsidies,” says Kauffman.
Really? So, let’s get this straight: a “bank” that is really a
government agency is inventing “self-sustaining private markets” that no
private institution would build and is “reducing dependence on
subsidies” by spending $210 million in taxpayer money?
This effort is so patently phony that I wouldn’t be surprised if the
New York Green Bank started soliciting bids on a certain bridge in
Brooklyn.
Hall is a former senior editor at Solar Industry Magazine and the publisher/editor of Business-Superstar.com.
The following is a script from "The Cleantech Crash" which aired on Jan.
5, 2014. Lesley Stahl is the correspondent. Shachar Bar-On, producer.
About a decade ago, the smart people who funded the Internet turned their
attention to the energy sector, rallying tech engineers to invent ways to get us
off fossil fuels, devise powerful solar panels, clean cars, and futuristic
batteries. The idea got a catchy name: “Cleantech.”
Silicon Valley got Washington excited about it. President Bush was an early
supporter, but the federal purse strings truly loosened under President Obama.
Hoping to create innovation and jobs, he committed north of a $100 billion in
loans, grants and tax breaks to Cleantech. But instead of breakthroughs, the
sector suffered a string of expensive tax-funded flops. Suddenly Cleantech was a
dirty word.
Investor Vinod Khosla, known as the father of the Cleantech revolution, has
poured over a billion dollars of his own money into some 50 energy startups. He
took us to one in Columbus, Miss. KiOR is a biofuel company that’s replacing oil
drilling with oil making.
Vinod Khosla: Nature takes a million years to produce our crude oil. KiOR can
produce it in seconds.
The company took over this old paper mill, where logs are picked up by a
giant claw, dropped into a shredder and pulverized into woodchips.
Read the entire interview
Let the wind subsidy blow away
Credit: Chicago Tribune | January 5, 2014 | www.chicagotribune.com ~~
In
the early 1990s, with dreams of cheap and clean wind energy ascendant,
Congress lavished a generous subsidy on power from the tall, twirling
turbines. The wind industry responded, and since then has increased its
installed generating capacity 30-fold.
For
20-plus years the subsidy has been intermittent, although not as
unreliable as the winds that drive the turbines. The most recent
authorization, a
2013 extension tucked into the federal budget deal that avoided the
so-called fiscal cliff, expired Dec. 31. Applause, please, for our
do-little Congress: What's known as the wind production tax credit has
long outlived any public policy usefulness. Lawmakers now being urged by
industry lobbyists to renew the subsidy retroactively instead should
let it blow away.
We
say this with no animus toward the bucolic concept of wind energy,
whose clean-and-green image is to electrical generation what puppies and
kittens are to the animal kingdom. Our concern is the reality of
subsidized wind energy at a time when natural gas is more plentiful, and
cheaper, than Washington could envision in the 1990s. Today wind
generation is a comparatively expensive proposition that, whenever its
tax subsidy temporarily has vanished, has seen the new construction of
wind farms all but vanish too. These
welfare payments to the industry have incentivized private investors to
sink money into wind projects that, without the federal freebie,
they're eager (and probably smart) to avoid.
Like its cousins, the ethanol and solar industries, the
wind lobby basks in political correctness and political favoritism: Big
Wind, too, has grown comfortable in its dependence on federal and state
governments that decide which energy industries will be winners or
losers - discrimination enforced by squeezing taxpayers or rigging
regulations.
News
about eagles killed by turbines is an issue separate from government
coddling, but one now emerging as a public relations debacle. In late
November, Duke Energy agreed to pay $1 million in fines in the first
criminal case brought against a wind company over the killings of
federally protected birds, 14 golden eagles and 149 other protected
birds slain at two wind projects in Wyoming. Robert G. Dreher, an acting
assistant U.S. attorney general, explained the violation of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act: "In this plea agreement, Duke Energy
Renewables acknowledges that it constructed these wind projects in a
manner it knew beforehand would likely result in avian deaths."
Duke
said it is working with federal officials and field biologists to
determine when it should shut down its turbines to limit bird deaths.
But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says it is investigating similar
cases elsewhere - and has referred seven of them to the U.S. Department
of Justice for prosecution.
Motor
vehicle drivers, illegal hunters and deaths by poisoning kill more
eagles than turbines do. But growing publicity about wind farms chewing
up eagles undercuts the industry's promotion of itself as
environmentally friendly. The National Audubon Society and other
conservation groups are especially exercised about a new federal rule,
announced in December, that lets wind farms obtain 30-year permits to
lawfully kill bald
and golden eagles. Many Americans who only have heard about neighbors
of wind farms criticizing the turbines' thrumming noises will have a far
easier time relating to criminal cases based on huge blades pulverizing
wildlife.
All
of which pins the Obama administration between its dueling political
loyalists: environmentalists learning about the 30-year eagle kill
permits, and fans of renewable energy sources that don't spew carbon
dioxide.
Wind
energy's peculiar problem is that, because wind blows erratically,
companies that rely on it also need backup generating capacity -
typically fossil-fueled - for days when customers want electricity but
the air is still.
The
obvious solution here is for Congress and the White House to stop
manipulating the tax code as America's de facto energy policy: Thorough
federal tax reform should sunset this arbitrary favoritism for wind
energy and other politically favored industries.
Late
in 2013, Big Wind fought fiercely to renew its expiring subsidy but
failed. We hope that means many members of Congress see this as a mature
industry that long ago outgrew its infancy and understand that the
nation's new wealth of lower-cost natural gas has profoundly rewritten
U.S. energy economics.
The
wind lobbyists will be back in 2014, pleading for more handouts from
American taxpayers. Tell your members of Congress that a government $17
trillion in debt - and still borrowing heavily - can't afford to keep
protecting this industry from cheaper competition.
Climate Depot's Marc Morano, Lays the Smack Down on the Sierra Club Director during an interview on CNN: "Sierra Club Took $26 MILLION from Natural Gas...":
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/12/11/morano-smacks-down-sierra-club-director-sierra-club-took-26-million-n
Credit: By Mark Altieri, Plain Dealer guest columnist | www.cleveland.com
This starts out as a fly-fishing story. Uncle Ted and I had cut a swath through the blue ribbon trout streams of the greater Yellowstone area. The Tedder is a renowned fisherman and hunter in Idaho, and so far the highlight of the trip for me was that I was staying even with him. Now I had a new challenge for Ted. I had intrigued him with a story I had written for a fly-fishing magazine on catching common carp on the fly. I also had been periodically sending him Plain Dealer articles by D’Arcy Egan highlighting me fly fishing for carp on the Rocky River and other area streams. Now the Tedder was ready to broaden his horizons as we headed for Blackfoot Reservoir, a high mountain lake holding large numbers of carp outside of beautiful Idaho Falls.
Anyone who has driven south from Ashton, Idaho, to Idaho Falls has been struck by the beauty of the western slope of the Teton Mountains. Before heading to Idaho, I had reread Osborne Russell’s classic, “Journal of a Trapper.” We had just driven by Pierre’s Hole, the famous scene of combat between Russell and other white trappers and their Crow Indian allies and the hated Blackfeet Indians. I was pumped. At last, we headed up the escarpment east of Idaho Falls toward the High Country.
I had never been to that area of the Rockies, and every mile became more beautiful as cattle gave way to mule deer and hawks became more prevalent in the sky. I mentioned to Ted that I thought this was one of the more gorgeous stretches of the Rockies I had ever seen, to which he replied, “Wait a few minutes.” As we went around a broad mountain bend, the things started appearing on the horizon. My first impression was that we were being attacked by a horde of the mechanized dinosaur war machines in the movie “The Empire Strikes Back.”
The entire aesthetics of mile after mile of High Country vista was destroyed. Ted, a retired Forest Service wildlife biologist, mentioned to me the depredation caused by the wind turbines to the hawks, owls and other raptors in the vicinity. He also mentioned that the “whoosh, whoosh, whoosh” noise of the blades was maddening to any wildlife, livestock or humans within sound of them. As concerning to the biologists was the disruption all of this had caused to the migration patterns of the elk and mule deer.
When I got home and spent just a few minutes on the Internet, I quickly verified the toll caused by wind turbines on the raptor and other bird populations. The best and an ironic example of this was the massive San Francisco Altamont Pass project. After porcupining beautiful Altamont Pass with thousands of wind turbines, legal action by the Audubon Society years later forced a multimillion-dollar replacement to more “bird-friendly” blades to address the high toll on the bird population. Anyone want to place a bet on that solving the problem?
Interspersed with the typical favorable mainstream media stories on wind power were other interesting articles noting a variety of other relevant issues, such as the fact that these wind farms would not have come into existence but for heavy federal, state and local tax subsidies. In other words, they have been too inefficient to justify their existence under such private-sector concepts as cost-benefit analysis. Other interesting facts: The damn things don’t work if the wind is too low or high, thus necessitating a traditional and charged backup power grid, the removal of which was the justification for these monstrosities coming into being in the first place. Google “Scotland castles and wind farms” and you will see a U.K. Daily Mail article titled, “The View? Gone with the Wind.” The pictures will make your jaw drop, and the first sentence says it all: “They are famous Scottish landmarks which have withstood wars, weather and centuries of change — but they could not escape the Scottish Government’s green agenda.” And lastly were the anti-aesthetic icing-on-the-cake notations that a growing number of wind farms are simply being abandoned in Europe and North America. All of this politically-correct foolishness for a truly minuscule enhancement in power.
But what if the wind industry had evolved differently? Let’s say the things were actually efficient, didn’t require traditional-power-grid backup and didn’t require massive taxpayer subsidies. Let’s also say that because of these efficiencies, wind farms were developed by private entities such as Exxon Mobil or, better yet, Halliburton. Is there any question that the mainstream media and the intellectual elite would have destroyed the industry by now, citing the bird depredation and destruction of the natural places where these farms are typically located?
W’hen I am driving into downtown Cleveland, the existence of isolated, individual wind turbines along the highway doesn’t overly bother me. When I force myself not to contemplate the taxpayer subsidies inherent in those structures, I think they are kind of cool, even though I know they provide no net enhancement to our domestic power supplies.
But as a general statement, I would beseech (even demand) that you wild-eyed Greenies, you crony capitalists and you vote-buying politicians keep your inefficient, counterproductive, aesthetic-destroying, taxpayer-subsidized, bird-killing hands off of our mountains, deserts and Great Lakes.
Mark Altieri is an accounting professor at Kent State University, where he teaches advanced tax courses, and special tax counsel to the law firm of Wickens, Herzer, Panza, Cook and Batista in Avon.
This starts out as a fly-fishing story. Uncle Ted and I had cut a swath through the blue ribbon trout streams of the greater Yellowstone area. The Tedder is a renowned fisherman and hunter in Idaho, and so far the highlight of the trip for me was that I was staying even with him. Now I had a new challenge for Ted. I had intrigued him with a story I had written for a fly-fishing magazine on catching common carp on the fly. I also had been periodically sending him Plain Dealer articles by D’Arcy Egan highlighting me fly fishing for carp on the Rocky River and other area streams. Now the Tedder was ready to broaden his horizons as we headed for Blackfoot Reservoir, a high mountain lake holding large numbers of carp outside of beautiful Idaho Falls.
Anyone who has driven south from Ashton, Idaho, to Idaho Falls has been struck by the beauty of the western slope of the Teton Mountains. Before heading to Idaho, I had reread Osborne Russell’s classic, “Journal of a Trapper.” We had just driven by Pierre’s Hole, the famous scene of combat between Russell and other white trappers and their Crow Indian allies and the hated Blackfeet Indians. I was pumped. At last, we headed up the escarpment east of Idaho Falls toward the High Country.
I had never been to that area of the Rockies, and every mile became more beautiful as cattle gave way to mule deer and hawks became more prevalent in the sky. I mentioned to Ted that I thought this was one of the more gorgeous stretches of the Rockies I had ever seen, to which he replied, “Wait a few minutes.” As we went around a broad mountain bend, the things started appearing on the horizon. My first impression was that we were being attacked by a horde of the mechanized dinosaur war machines in the movie “The Empire Strikes Back.”
The entire aesthetics of mile after mile of High Country vista was destroyed. Ted, a retired Forest Service wildlife biologist, mentioned to me the depredation caused by the wind turbines to the hawks, owls and other raptors in the vicinity. He also mentioned that the “whoosh, whoosh, whoosh” noise of the blades was maddening to any wildlife, livestock or humans within sound of them. As concerning to the biologists was the disruption all of this had caused to the migration patterns of the elk and mule deer.
When I got home and spent just a few minutes on the Internet, I quickly verified the toll caused by wind turbines on the raptor and other bird populations. The best and an ironic example of this was the massive San Francisco Altamont Pass project. After porcupining beautiful Altamont Pass with thousands of wind turbines, legal action by the Audubon Society years later forced a multimillion-dollar replacement to more “bird-friendly” blades to address the high toll on the bird population. Anyone want to place a bet on that solving the problem?
Interspersed with the typical favorable mainstream media stories on wind power were other interesting articles noting a variety of other relevant issues, such as the fact that these wind farms would not have come into existence but for heavy federal, state and local tax subsidies. In other words, they have been too inefficient to justify their existence under such private-sector concepts as cost-benefit analysis. Other interesting facts: The damn things don’t work if the wind is too low or high, thus necessitating a traditional and charged backup power grid, the removal of which was the justification for these monstrosities coming into being in the first place. Google “Scotland castles and wind farms” and you will see a U.K. Daily Mail article titled, “The View? Gone with the Wind.” The pictures will make your jaw drop, and the first sentence says it all: “They are famous Scottish landmarks which have withstood wars, weather and centuries of change — but they could not escape the Scottish Government’s green agenda.” And lastly were the anti-aesthetic icing-on-the-cake notations that a growing number of wind farms are simply being abandoned in Europe and North America. All of this politically-correct foolishness for a truly minuscule enhancement in power.
But what if the wind industry had evolved differently? Let’s say the things were actually efficient, didn’t require traditional-power-grid backup and didn’t require massive taxpayer subsidies. Let’s also say that because of these efficiencies, wind farms were developed by private entities such as Exxon Mobil or, better yet, Halliburton. Is there any question that the mainstream media and the intellectual elite would have destroyed the industry by now, citing the bird depredation and destruction of the natural places where these farms are typically located?
W’hen I am driving into downtown Cleveland, the existence of isolated, individual wind turbines along the highway doesn’t overly bother me. When I force myself not to contemplate the taxpayer subsidies inherent in those structures, I think they are kind of cool, even though I know they provide no net enhancement to our domestic power supplies.
But as a general statement, I would beseech (even demand) that you wild-eyed Greenies, you crony capitalists and you vote-buying politicians keep your inefficient, counterproductive, aesthetic-destroying, taxpayer-subsidized, bird-killing hands off of our mountains, deserts and Great Lakes.
Mark Altieri is an accounting professor at Kent State University, where he teaches advanced tax courses, and special tax counsel to the law firm of Wickens, Herzer, Panza, Cook and Batista in Avon.
Read the article at: http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2012/09/09/what-if-windpower-had-been-their-idea/
Report - The Energy Collective: More Realistic Costs for Wind Energy
Conclusions
According
to the American Tradition Institute, there are numerous hidden costs to
wind power, including the cost of back-up power, the cost of extra
transmission, and the cost of favorable tax benefits. And, the
assumption of a 30-year life used in government calculations for wind
power is optimistic, based on reports from European countries regarding
the useful service lives of their wind turbines.
Including
these hidden costs in calculating the cost of wind energy increases its
cost by a factor of 1.5 or 2, depending on the power system that is
used as back-up. The Institute calculates that ratepayers are paying an
extra $8.5 to $10 billion a year for wind energy compared to natural
gas-fired generation, and this will only increase as more capacity is
added. Add to this the more than $12 billion that the American taxpayer
is paying for the ‘one-year’ extension for the PTC, and one can see that
the wind industry is a boondoggle at the expense of taxpayers and
ratepayers, that is making the US economy less competitive.
Read the entire report at:
Even though Glenn Schleede wrote his "Homes Served" paper back in 2009, at which time he optimistically predicted that, "The facts about wind energy are beginning to show up in the
media" - sadly, the wind industry's "homes served" claims continue to be reported in many "news" outlets today (2013) - unquestioned.
Beware Windpower's "Homes Served" Claims, by Glenn Schleede
People who use the phrase “homes served” to describe the potential
output from one or more wind turbines either do not understand the facts
about wind turbines, believe false claims put forth by the wind
industry, or are trying to mislead their reader or listener.
False statements about “homes served” by wind developers and their
lobbyists are bad enough, but it is discouraging to hear politicians,
reporters, and others adopt and regurgitate them.
The concept of “homes served”
The concept of “homes served” has long been used in the electric industry as a way of giving some idea of the amount of electricity that would be produced by a proposed generating plant without using such terms as megawatt- or kilowatt-hours, which mean little to most people. The concept is always misleading since residential users of electricity (i.e., “homes served”) account for only 37% of all U.S. electricity use. [i]
The concept of “homes served” has long been used in the electric industry as a way of giving some idea of the amount of electricity that would be produced by a proposed generating plant without using such terms as megawatt- or kilowatt-hours, which mean little to most people. The concept is always misleading since residential users of electricity (i.e., “homes served”) account for only 37% of all U.S. electricity use. [i]
Claims about “homes served” by a proposed “wind farm” or other generating unit are usually based on a three-step calculation:
Start with an assumption (i.e., a guess) about the amount of electricity that would be produced annually by a “wind farm” or other generating unit, in kilowatt-hours (kWh) or megawatt-hours (MWh).[ii]
Employ an estimate (in kWh) of the amount of electricity used annually by an average residential customer in the area or state where their “wind farm” is located. [iii]
Divide the assumed annual production of electricity by the estimated annual average residential electricity use.
“Homes Served” can be useful when talking about reliable generating units
Although misleading, the concept of “homes served” has some validity when used to describe the output from a reliable, “dispatchable” electric generating unit, that is, one that can be called upon to produce electricity whenever it is needed. Such generating units are the ones that are counted on by the electric industry to provide a reliable supply of electricity for customers every day, at all hours of the day, year round.
Although misleading, the concept of “homes served” has some validity when used to describe the output from a reliable, “dispatchable” electric generating unit, that is, one that can be called upon to produce electricity whenever it is needed. Such generating units are the ones that are counted on by the electric industry to provide a reliable supply of electricity for customers every day, at all hours of the day, year round.
“Homes served” is NOT a valid concept when referring to wind turbines and “wind farms”
Using “homes served” when talking about wind turbines and “wind farms” is both false and misleading for several reasons.
Using “homes served” when talking about wind turbines and “wind farms” is both false and misleading for several reasons.
1. NO homes are really served by wind.
No homes are served by wind energy because wind turbines produce electricity only when wind speeds are in the right speed range (see below). Homes using electricity from wind must always have some reliable energy source immediately available to provide electricity when there is insufficient wind unless the residents are content to have electricity only when the wind is blowing in the right speed range – a condition that few in America are willing to tolerate.
No homes are served by wind energy because wind turbines produce electricity only when wind speeds are in the right speed range (see below). Homes using electricity from wind must always have some reliable energy source immediately available to provide electricity when there is insufficient wind unless the residents are content to have electricity only when the wind is blowing in the right speed range – a condition that few in America are willing to tolerate.
2. Electricity from wind turbines is inherently intermittent, volatile, and unreliable.
Wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within the right speed range. Wind turbines typically start producing electricity at about 6 mph, reach rated capacity at about 32 mph, and cut out at about 56 mph. Unless a home owner has an expensive battery storage system, such volatile and unreliable output wouldn’t be suitable for lights, heating, computers, appliances, or many other purposes.
Wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within the right speed range. Wind turbines typically start producing electricity at about 6 mph, reach rated capacity at about 32 mph, and cut out at about 56 mph. Unless a home owner has an expensive battery storage system, such volatile and unreliable output wouldn’t be suitable for lights, heating, computers, appliances, or many other purposes.
3. Electricity from “wind farms” is seldom available when most needed by home users.
Again, the output of wind turbines is dependent on wind conditions. Depending on the specific area, winds tend to be strongest at night in cold months. However, electricity demand in most areas of the United States is heavily concentrated during daytime and early evening hours. Even worse, wind turbines cannot be counted on to produce at the time of peak electricity demand, which often occurs in late afternoon on hot weekdays in July and August. At the time of peak electricity demand, wind turbine output may be in the range of 0% to 5% of rated capacity.
4. The electricity produced by wind turbines is low in value compared to electricity from reliable generating units.
That’s because it is inherently intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and not available when most needed—as described in points 2 and 3 above.
Again, the output of wind turbines is dependent on wind conditions. Depending on the specific area, winds tend to be strongest at night in cold months. However, electricity demand in most areas of the United States is heavily concentrated during daytime and early evening hours. Even worse, wind turbines cannot be counted on to produce at the time of peak electricity demand, which often occurs in late afternoon on hot weekdays in July and August. At the time of peak electricity demand, wind turbine output may be in the range of 0% to 5% of rated capacity.
4. The electricity produced by wind turbines is low in value compared to electricity from reliable generating units.
That’s because it is inherently intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and not available when most needed—as described in points 2 and 3 above.
5. Not all the electricity produced by a wind turbine actually reaches customers or serves a useful purpose.
Some electricity is lost as it is moved over transmission and distribution lines that carry the electricity from generating units to homes, offices, stores, factories and other users. The amount of electricity that is lost depends on the distance and the condition of lines and transformers. These “line losses” are a significant issue for wind energy because huge, obtrusive wind turbines (often 40+ stories tall) and “wind farms” are not welcome near metropolitan areas that account for most electricity demand. Therefore, they are often located at some distance from the areas where their electricity is needed and so require expensive transmission-line capacity, which they use inefficiently. (Ironically, the lucrative federal tax credits provided to “wind farm” owners are based on electricity produced, not the lesser amount that actually reaches customers and serves a useful purpose.)
Some electricity is lost as it is moved over transmission and distribution lines that carry the electricity from generating units to homes, offices, stores, factories and other users. The amount of electricity that is lost depends on the distance and the condition of lines and transformers. These “line losses” are a significant issue for wind energy because huge, obtrusive wind turbines (often 40+ stories tall) and “wind farms” are not welcome near metropolitan areas that account for most electricity demand. Therefore, they are often located at some distance from the areas where their electricity is needed and so require expensive transmission-line capacity, which they use inefficiently. (Ironically, the lucrative federal tax credits provided to “wind farm” owners are based on electricity produced, not the lesser amount that actually reaches customers and serves a useful purpose.)
6. Claims of “homes served” by wind energy are additionally
misleading because of the high true cost of electricity from wind
turbines.
Claims that the cost of electricity from wind turbines is “competitive” with the cost of electricity from traditional sources are false. Such claims typically do not include the cost of (a) the huge federal and state tax breaks available to “wind farm” owners,[iv] or (b) the cost of providing the generating capacity and generation that must always be immediately available to “back up” intermittent, unreliable wind turbine output and keep electric grids reliable and in balance.
Claims that the cost of electricity from wind turbines is “competitive” with the cost of electricity from traditional sources are false. Such claims typically do not include the cost of (a) the huge federal and state tax breaks available to “wind farm” owners,[iv] or (b) the cost of providing the generating capacity and generation that must always be immediately available to “back up” intermittent, unreliable wind turbine output and keep electric grids reliable and in balance.
Claims of “homes served” should always be challenged
Any use of the “homes served” assertion in connection with a “wind farm” should be challenged, whether the assertion is from a wind industry lobbyist, other wind energy advocate, political leader, other government official, or reporter. They should be required to explain each of their assumptions and calculations, and admit that industrial scale wind turbines are useless unless reliable generating units are immediately available to supply electricity when wind is not strong enough to produce significant electricity. Almost certainly, their assertions will be false.
Any use of the “homes served” assertion in connection with a “wind farm” should be challenged, whether the assertion is from a wind industry lobbyist, other wind energy advocate, political leader, other government official, or reporter. They should be required to explain each of their assumptions and calculations, and admit that industrial scale wind turbines are useless unless reliable generating units are immediately available to supply electricity when wind is not strong enough to produce significant electricity. Almost certainly, their assertions will be false.
What valid claim could wind industry officials make?
As explained above, wind industry developers, promoters, and lobbyists – and politicians and reporters — should never use the false and misleading “homes served” metric. In theory, they could justify an assertion that the estimated amount of electricity produced by a “wind farm” – once discounted for line losses which are likely to be in the range of 5% to 10% — may be roughly equal to the amount of electricity used annually by X homes – after doing a calculation such as that outlined earlier. However, as indicated above, even this assertion would be misleading because it ignores the fact that the output from wind turbines is intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and unlikely to be available when electricity is most needed.
As explained above, wind industry developers, promoters, and lobbyists – and politicians and reporters — should never use the false and misleading “homes served” metric. In theory, they could justify an assertion that the estimated amount of electricity produced by a “wind farm” – once discounted for line losses which are likely to be in the range of 5% to 10% — may be roughly equal to the amount of electricity used annually by X homes – after doing a calculation such as that outlined earlier. However, as indicated above, even this assertion would be misleading because it ignores the fact that the output from wind turbines is intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and unlikely to be available when electricity is most needed.
Other false and misleading claims about wind energy
As shown above, “homes served” is not the only or the most important false claim made about wind energy. Other false claims about wind energy include the following:
As shown above, “homes served” is not the only or the most important false claim made about wind energy. Other false claims about wind energy include the following:
It is low or competitive in cost. In fact, its cost is high when all true costs are counted.It is environmentally benign. In fact, it has significant adverse environmental, ecological, scenic, and property value impacts.It avoids significant emissions that would otherwise be produced. In fact, it avoids few.It provides big job and economic benefits. In fact, there are few such benefits.It reduces U.S. dependence on imported oil. In fact, it does not.It reduces the need for building reliable generating units in areas experiencing growth in peak electricity demand or needing to replace old generating units. The opposite is true.
Such claims as these have been made often during the past decade and
more by the wind industry and other wind advocates. Only during the past
3–4 years have these claims begun to be demonstrated as false and
misleading. The facts about wind energy are beginning to show up in the
media but, unfortunately, have yet to be understood by most political
leaders and regulators.
See the entire article at:
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/02/windpowers-homes-served-misdirection-media-beware/
"Wind Turbines are Climate Change Scarecrows" by Robert Bryce
For years, the wind-energy sector and renewable-energy advocates have repeatedly claimed that wind turbines are essential to the fight against carbon dioxide emissions and catastrophic climate change. Here’s the reality: Wind turbines are nothing more than climate-change scarecrows.
The proliferation of wind turbines over the past few years has not, and will not, result in statistically significant reductions in global carbon dioxide emissions. That point can easily be proven with a bit of simple math....
The hard truth is that renewable energy cannot even keep pace with soaring global energy demand, much less replace significant quantities of hydrocarbons. That’s not an opinion. It’s basic math.....
Over the past few years, the U.S. and other countries have been
subsidizing the paving of vast areas of the countryside with
500-foot-high bird- and bat-killing
whirligigs that are nothing more than climate talismans. Wind turbines
are not going to stop changes in the earth’s climate. Instead, they are
token gestures — giant steel scarecrows — that are deceiving the public
into thinking that we as a society are doing something to avert the
possibility of catastrophic climate change.
Read the entire article at:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)