
– and protect environmental values, endangered species, jobs and human welfare
Guest post by Paul Driessen
Unprecedented! As bills to extend seemingly perpetual wind energy subsidies were again introduced by industry lobbyists late last year, taxpayers finally decided they’d had enough.
Informed and inspired by a loose but growing national coalition of groups opposed to more giveaways with no scientifically proven net benefits, thousands of citizens called their senators and representatives – and rounded up enough Nay votes to run four different bills aground. For once, democracy worked.
A shocked American Wind Energy Association and its allies began even more aggressive recruiting of well-connected Democrat and Republican political operatives and cosponsors – and introducing more proposals like HR 3307 to extend the Production Tax Credit (PTC). Parallel efforts were launched in state legislatures, to maintain mandates, subsidies, feed-in tariffs, renewable energy credits, and other “temporary” ratepayer and taxpayer obligations.
This “emerging industry” is “vitally important” to our energy future, supporters insisted. It provides “clean energy” and “over 37,000” jobs that “states can’t afford to lose.” It helps prevent global warming.
None of these sales pitches holds up under objective scrutiny, and their growing awareness of this basic reality has finally made many in Congress inclined to eliminate this wasteful spending on wind power.
Entitlement advocates are petrified at that possibility. Crony corporatist lobbyists and politicians have built a small army to take on beleaguered taxpayers, rate payers and business owners who say America can no longer afford to spend more borrowed money, to prop up energy policies that drive up electricity costs, damage the environment, and primarily benefit foreign conglomerates and a privileged few.
To confront the growing onslaught of wind industry pressure and propaganda, citizens should understand the fundamental facts about wind energy. Here are some of the top reasons for opposing further handouts.
Energy 101. It is impossible to have wind turbines without fossil fuels, especially natural gas. Turbines average only 30% of their “rated capacity” – and less than 5% on the hottest and coldest days, when electricity is needed most. They produce excessive electricity when it is least needed, and electricity cannot be stored for later use. Hydrocarbon-fired backup generators must run constantly, to fill the gap and avoid brownouts, blackouts, and grid destabilization due to constant surges and falloffs in electricity to the grid. Wind turbines frequently draw electricity from the grid, to keep blades turning when the wind is not blowing, reduce strain on turbine gears, and prevent icing during periods of winter calm.
Energy 201. Despite tens of billions in subsidies, wind turbines still generate less than 3% of US electricity. Thankfully, conventional sources keep our country running – and America still has centuries of hydrocarbon resources. It’s time our government allowed us to develop and use those resources.
Economics 101. It is likewise impossible to have wind turbines without perpetual subsidies – mostly money borrowed from Chinese banks and future generations. Wind has never been able to compete economically with traditional energy, and there is no credible evidence that it will be able to in the foreseeable future, especially with abundant natural gas costing one-fourth what it did just a few years ago. It thus makes far more sense to rely on the plentiful, reliable, affordable electricity sources that have powered our economy for decades, build more gas-fired generators – and recycle wind turbines into useful products (while preserving a few as museum exhibits).
Economics 201. As Spain, Germany, Britain and other countries have learned, wind energy mandates and subsidies drive up the price of electricity – for families, factories, hospitals, schools, offices and shops. They squeeze budgets and cost jobs. Indeed, studies have found that two to four traditional jobs are lost for every wind or other “green” job created. That means the supposed 37,000 jobs (perpetuated by $5 billion to $10 billion in combined annual subsidies, or $135,000 to $270,000 per wind job) are likely costing the United States 74,000 to 158,000 traditional jobs, while diverting billions from far more productive uses.
Environment 101. Industrial wind turbine projects require enormous quantities of rare earth metals, concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass and other raw materials, for highly inefficient turbines, multiple backup generators and thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines. Extracting and processing these materials, turning them into finished components, and shipping and installing the turbines and power lines involve enormous amounts of fossil fuel and extensive environmental damage. Offshore wind turbine projects are even more expensive, resource intensive and indefensible. Calling wind energy “clean” or “eco-friendly” is an extraordinary distortion of the facts.
Environment 201. Wind turbines, transmission lines and backup generators also require vast amounts of crop, scenic and wildlife habitat land. Where a typical 600-megawatt coal or gas-fired power plant requires 250-750 acres, to generate power 90-95% of the year, a 600-MW wind installation needs 40,000 to 50,000 acres (or more), to deliver 30% performance. And while gas, coal and nuclear plants can be built close to cities, wind installations must go where the wind blows, typically hundreds of miles away – adding thousands of additional acres to every project for transmission lines.
Environment 301. Sometimes referred to as “Cuisinarts of the air,” US wind turbines also slaughter nearly half a million eagles, hawks, falcons, vultures, ducks, geese, bats and other rare, threatened, endangered and otherwise protected flying creatures every year. (Those aren’t song birds killed by house cats, and this may be a conservative number, as coyotes and turbine operator cleanup crews remove much of the evidence.) But while oil companies are prosecuted for the deaths of even a dozen common ducks, turbine operators have been granted a blanket exemption from endangered and migratory species laws and penalties. Now the US Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a formal rule to allow repeated “takings” (killings) of bald and golden eagles by wind turbines – in effect granting operators a 007 license to kill.
Environment 401. Scientific support for CO2-driven catastrophic manmade global warming continues to diminish. Even if carbon dioxide does contribute to climate change, there is no evidence that even thousands of US wind turbines will affect future global temperatures by more than a few hundredths of a degree. Not only do CO2 emissions from backup generators (and wind turbine manufacturing) offset any reductions by the turbines, but rapidly increasing emissions from Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and other rapidly developing countries dwarf any possible US wind-related CO2 reductions.
Human Health and Welfare 101. Skyrocketing electricity prices due to “renewable portfolio standards” raise heating and air conditioning costs; drive families into fuel poverty; increase food, medical, school and other costs; and force companies to lay off workers, further impairing their families’ health and welfare. The strobe-light effect, annoying audible noise, and inaudible low-frequency sound from whirling blades result in nervous fatigue, headaches, dizziness, irritability, sleep problems, and vibro-acoustic effects on people’s hearts and lungs. Land owners receive royalties for having turbines on their property, but neighbors receive no income and face adverse health effects, decreased property values and difficulty selling their homes. Formerly close-knit communities are torn apart.
Real World Civics 101. Politicians take billions from taxpayers, ratepayers and profitable businesses, to provide subsidies to Big Wind companies, who buy mostly Made Somewhere Else turbines – and then contribute millions to the politicians’ reelection campaigns, to keep the incestuous cycle going.
It is truly government gone wild – GSA on steroids. It is unsustainable. It is a classic sWINDle.
Citizens can contact senators, congressmen, congressional committees and state representatives – to demand science-based energy policies. These reasons could be a good way to start the conversation.
___________
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author or Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Phil the Engineer”
What kind of engineer? The stupid kind are the ones that label themselves as engineers then demonstrate that they do not know what they are talking about.
All power plants have house loads that use power when they are not producing power. All heavy rotating machinery has jacking gears and lube oil systems. Generally they are tied to the grid but it is not a significant load.
“I’ll have to fire up the peaking generator anyway ”
In the real world, we admit more steam to the turbine when demand increases. Rolling reserve is something else entirely. SCGT or diesels are fired up when a large power plant or transmission line fails suddenly. My the next day, another steam plant is operating.
In the real world you do not have to settle for unreliable power. Steam plants come on line in order of their generating costs. I just check my grid operator, PJM, and they are looking at day ahead of about $30/MWh. That tells me that there are plenty of steam plants available to make power. There are a few days a year when grid operators may ask steels mills to shutdown or pay a higher rate.
When the utility turns off air conditioning in non vital office areas, that is the time to worry.
Just for the record, no one is forced to buy power. Utilities are a regulated public service. The generation of power does not hurt our customers (100 % safe) with insignificant environmental impact. We do this with near 100% reliability at a very low cost.
If you do make your own power, you have to follow the same rules which is why you can not do it cheaper.
As a public service, we consider what the public wants. I know exactly what NRC will say at a public meeting for the EIS of a new nuke when watermelons suggest that we do not need nukes quoting the ‘potential’ for wind and solar. The will respond by saying that is a public policy left to individual states. The EIS for a nuke does not consider wind and solar as an alternative because it is not reliable for base load power. Conversely California does not consider nuke as a matter of public policy.
The bottom line is that the federal government offers a PTC but does not specify where they will get built. That is up to state policy. Some states have good wind resources and have used them wisely. If fact, I think you have to cherry pick very hard to suggest that 3% wind is not a good part of the mix.
“For one thing, we know when they fail, they could kill people nearby. ”
Hoser I do give many this advice because most people are smart enough to know better. Do not stand around rotating power equipment. You should also not go swimming in spent fuel pools at nuke plant either.
“This reason is also another reason wind farms are not viable. ”
The evidence suggests that they viable. Maybe not on your planted or maybe Phil the Engineer does not know what viable is. BPA doe it everyday.
David A. Evans says:
May 9, 2012 at 9:34 am
Rod Everson says:
May 9, 2012 at 8:14 am
Not forgeting keeping the blades turning when they come off load. The forces that turn the shaft assembly (conncting from the blades; via the gear box assembly to the generator shaft) get very hot as the assembly absorbs a (very small) percentage of the torque energy. If the shaft is allowed to stop before it has cooled it will deform slightly. After a few 100’s of cycles of this; the shaft will have deformed sufficiently to cause mechanical break down through vibration trashing the bearings and/or the gearbox. Incidentaly gearbox life in the UK is reported as being only 5 years instead of the ‘expected and planned for’ 20 years. Another little white lie from the industry about windturbine ‘efficiency’.
To prevent shaft assembly deformation from happening; the shaft is kept turning (slowly) as it cools. A (beneficial) side effect of this requirement is it coincides with the need to also keep the turbine blades moving; if (and the larger the turbine the more critical both of these effects are) the blades are not kept moving they will warp (unless one is pointing straight down).
Net result is that the turbine has to be rotated – which now looks like it is working. But is now consuming energy – over and above the energy needed to keep the ancillary services; mentioned up thread, running
Not only do we need agregation sites like this http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ (where you can see how diabolical wind energy is) but we need to be able to see the net/gros consumption figures for the individual turbines/farms/country as well.
(Firefox reports spell checker is ON; but no spell check operatiing — Mods : any ideas ? color and colour both accepted with no UK spell check against color…)
Curiousgeorge says:
I hear all the time that nuke power is ‘old’. Old compared to what? Nuke power is younger than I am by several years. Fossil fuels aren’t really that old either, as an industrial fuel for power, etc.. Seems to me that the promoters of wind, solar, etc. are more than a little myopic.
Especially given that wind power is actually very old. Quite possibly the oldest form of mechanical power used by humans. Problems with using it were apparent in Roman times.
Solar isn’t especially ‘new’ either.
I’m not saying that a wind farm wouldnt be able to help out with load and be supplemental to the system but as a reliable base load provider they wouldnt be able to keep up. This is only considering the sheer fact that the wind doesnt blow 100% of the time and it cannot be relied upon for a constant power source.
It is certainly a good technology and Im for putting in more wind farms but not at the expense of taxpayer dollars.
Please take your condescending talk somewhere else please. I was only trying to answer someone else questions.
@ur momisugly Gail Combs says:
May 9, 2012 at 8:58 am
So yes it looks like we all get shoved into buying new appliances that can be shut down by the power companies during “Brown outs” Are they going to be responsible for all the food in my freezer that goes bad because the EPA shut down the coal plants that supply 42% of the power to the USA?
********************************************************************************************
I abbreviated your post.
Put in terms the EPA, and the rest of them, can understand: They are invited to kiss my Marine Corps ass. Repeatedly and passionately. 😉
And it is now reported moving into the courts …
The eagles, hawks, falcons, vultures, ducks and geese have collectively stated through a translator the need of worldwide general counsel and are moving to procure international injunctions against BigWind’s …
The bats have instead taken the position, due to their strength in sheer numbers, that …
Josh? ☺
@ur momisugly Mark says:
May 9, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Curiousgeorge says:
I hear all the time that nuke power is ‘old’. Old compared to what? Nuke power is younger than I am by several years. Fossil fuels aren’t really that old either, as an industrial fuel for power, etc.. Seems to me that the promoters of wind, solar, etc. are more than a little myopic.
Especially given that wind power is actually very old. Quite possibly the oldest form of mechanical power used by humans. Problems with using it were apparent in Roman times.
Solar isn’t especially ‘new’ either.
***********************************************************************
True. Although I was only considering the use of wind, etc. in terms of electrical power. Wind, hydro, solar are ancient in terms of producing ‘work’. Grain mills, belt driven ancient ‘power’ tools, sails, irrigation, etc. have been around for thousands of years, and did a fine job. Same problems then as now. When the wind didn’t blow, break out the oars and put the galley slaves to work. 😉 Maybe we could give all those “Occupy” people some productive work peddling generators for electricity.
Kit P says:
May 9, 2012 at 6:07 am
“Again a federal PTC benefited everyone by lowering the demand for natural gas.”
That’s nonsense. The spot price of NG has declined almost 85% in recent years because frakking operations have have generated a massive increase in supply. The notion that wind farms have actually had much affect on the overall demand for NG also seems to be fairly weakly supported.
I wonder how many people are aware that the American Wind Energy Association used to sponsor “pop up” adverts on a number of “adult” websites…
Curiousgeorge says:
May 9, 2012 at 1:22 pm
“Maybe we could give all those “Occupy” people some productive work peddling generators for electricity.”
————————–
I watched them. I don’t think “working for something” was what they had in mind. Do you?
To Alan Watt (May 9, 2012 at 8:28 am)
“When you walk into a dark room in your house and flip the lightswitch,” etc. [too long to quote in full]
*
WOW. You sum it up brilliantly. There’s no arguing with what you’ve written, you’ve explained perfectly and very clearly why wind power is a poor choice no matter which way anyone can look at it. That was riveting reading. Thank you.
Curiousgeorge says:
May 9, 2012 at 1:22 pm
….. Grain mills, belt driven ancient ‘power’ tools, sails, irrigation, etc. have been around for thousands of years, and did a fine job. Same problems then as now. When the wind didn’t blow, break out the oars and put the galley slaves to work. 😉 Maybe we could give all those “Occupy” people some productive work peddling generators for electricity.
_______________________________
I was thinking of all those overactive squirmy kids in schools. Use tread mills or pedals to generate electric to power the lights at least.
I actually knew a guy with several kids who did just that. He used an exercise bike, a generator and a TV set. Whoever pedals gets to choice what they watch. Saved the headache of lots of squabbling and the kids were tired enough to go to bed without complaint. Best “Green” invention I ever heard of but I am sure the Department of Human Services would come calling about “Child abuse” these days.
@ur momisugly Chuck Nolan says:
May 9, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Curiousgeorge says:
May 9, 2012 at 1:22 pm
“Maybe we could give all those “Occupy” people some productive work peddling generators for electricity.”
————————–
I watched them. I don’t think “working for something” was what they had in mind. Do you?
*******************************************************************
No. But that could be remedied. I’ll leave the specifics to others imaginations. 😉
Dave Wendt when you say something is ‘nonsense’ is that because you are blessed with 20/20 hindsight? In 2005, were you thinking that there would be a slight (not massive) increase in natural gas production followed by a huge economic downturn and mild weather?
The problem is providing incentives to get infrastructure build that last many years in a variable and uncertain market.
“The notion that wind farms have actually had much affect on the overall demand for NG also seems to be fairly weakly supported. ”
It sound like many here are reacting to wind and solar industry propaganda rather than reason. If wind and solar press releases was proportional to power production, we could shut down all fossil and nukes. At this point wind and solar is just an experiment like nukes were 50 years ago. A small amount of is harmless but for wind and solar to survive equipment has to longer.
how many snowjobs created?
Dear Mr. & Ms. Bald Eagle
As an icon of america we no longer need your services
E.P.A.
Only one serious quibble with Driessen’s main post. The average performance of wind generation is nowhere close to 30% capacity factor. In one of the best wind regimes in the world, Hydro Quebec only achieved 18% at its Gaspe site during the first three years of operation. Ontario’s wind fleet is running averages of less than 20%, according to IPSO numbers. And according to Germany’s EOn, the world’s largest operator with 9000 MW on its system, not only is wind producing less than 15%, but its production average declines every year that new capacity is installed. It’s like hydro. The best locations get built first, all others show diminishing returns over time.
I like these billboards that are along the interstate in Idaho:
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2011/07/12/swindle-billboard-says-it-all/swindle-billboard-1-close-up-at-rufus-600x-2/
Kit P says:
May 9, 2012 at 5:40 pm
What i called nonsense was your suggestion that wind generation had significant affect on the demand for NG. Check the demand graph in this from EIA
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=5910
NG demand in the power sector has risen continually for at least the last seven years, nearly doubling over that period. If you click on the production graph you’ll find that the increase has been anything but “slight”.
“The problem is providing incentives to get infrastructure build that last many years in a variable and uncertain market.”
If longevity is a primary goal wind generation is a massive fail from the getgo. Even given their hopelessly optimistic projected lifetimes of 20-25 yrs they’re at a fraction of those for coal or nuclear plants and since the reality is shaping up to be more like 10-15 yrs or less they’ll probably have to be replaced 3-4 times as often versus those alternatives.
” At this point wind and solar is just an experiment like nukes were 50 years ago. A small amount of is harmless but for wind and solar to survive equipment has to longer.”
Given the 10s of billions and probably hundreds of billions worldwide already invested in this “experiment” I suggest it is well past time to declare it a FAIL and move on.
Dead on. Wind technology has matured to the point where it should not need more massive infusions of federal dollars. All this federal spending is nothing more than buying votes.
Perhaps I should add that I support wind power wholeheartedly…just not with my tax dollars.
And according to Germany’s EOn, the world’s largest operator with 9000 MW on its system, not only is wind producing less than 15%, but its production average declines every year that new capacity is installed.
I confirm and second that.
This is the main reason why wind (and solar) energy was not, is not and will never be an economically viable significant part of the energy production.
The second being intermittency which works also in the same direction – the more windmills you build, the more back up traditional energy generators you need and the more you increase the costs.
It is beyond me how any sane persone cannot see that given that :
a) the ratio produced energy/installed power decreases when installed power increases
and
b) the ratio cost of produced energy/installed power increases when installed power increases
then
unreasonably increasing the installed wind power (beyond some 2-3% depending on location) leads necessarily to skyrocketting energy prices.
As for numbers demanded by some eco fascists like 30 or 40% of the overall energy demand being covered by wind it is a pipe dream beyond any good and evil.
“What i called nonsense was your suggestion that wind generation had significant affect on the demand for NG. ”
I did not suggest that Dave Wendt. The ‘significant’ qualifier was yours but you did a nice job of making my point. Yes building lots of CCGT steam plants to replace coal plants will significantly increase demand. Maybe we should have a mitigation strategy or two.
As far as the current generation of wind farms being a failure I am betting that folks like Duke Energy will do a very good job of keeping them running just like they do with everything else they run.
I have stopped counting wind farm success stories a long time. If we stopped doing something every time there was a failure Dave Wendt would not have any power to make stupid statements on the internet. In fact I used to work at a nuke plant in California that failed yet the same design is working fine and producing low cost reliable power when run Duke Energy.
I can cite numerous Bush policies that have promoted power production other than CCGT. Maybe we should give it more than five years before declaring them all failures. I can even cite renewable energy from the Carter era that still work fine even the Carter was a complete idiot when it came to energy just as Obama is.
Dave Wendt says:
May 9, 2012 at 8:03 pm
The same is no less true of nuclear.
We don’t need it. All it takes is an “act of God,” or the acts of fools – sometimes working in unison – to make a real mess, and now we’ve got one. I doubt we can afford another.
Kit P says:
May 10, 2012 at 6:14 am
(sic)
Is that because there is nothing to count?
If not, here’s your big chance to cite two or three of those “wind farm success stories” that are successful without subsidies, and other infusions of cash. I know you’ve stopped counting, but since you are such a fierce advocate for wind, surely you must know a couple you could mention for us.
I doubt you can do it because of these simple facts: Wind is unreliable, and it costs more.
Would you pay more for a car that ran only on windy days? A car that had to be kept idling whether you were driving it or not?
Would you want to have an operation at a hospital powered solely by wind?