
– 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.
Kit P:
At May 10, 2012 at 6:14 am you say;
“I have stopped counting wind farm success stories a long time.”
I can understand that, but I continue to count them. So far the total of “wind farm success stories” is zero unless you think ripping-off taxpayers is a “success” and, of course, they all do that.
Richard
Here is a list of wind farms built in the PNW before either a PTC or RPS mandate: The Vansycle Wind Project, Stateline Wind Farm, Nine Canyon Wind Farm, Wild Horse Wind Farm, Hopkins Ridge Wind Farm.
Prior to the construction of these wind farms, all new capacity in the PNW was natural gas which turned out to be very expensive as fuel cost increased. I was called to get my opinion on investing in one of the wind projects. I said it would never be economical. I was wrong. So rather than being a ‘fierce advocate’ of wind, I am a practicing skeptic.
I moved from Washington State before the advent of the California RPS and PTC. Those policies created a boom of wind construction in the PNW that added a few thousand more MWe of capacity. BPA is doing a good job of moving the power to California.
“Would you want to have an operation at a hospital powered solely by wind?”
Hospitals have emergency diesel generators with a fuel cost that is more than $200/MWh. My office building has two emergency generators. I still have a flash light and slide rule just in case I need to do an emergency calculation.
Kit P:
I read your post at May 10, 2012 at 10:54 am. Now, please provide an example of what you claim is a “wind farm success story” together with a definition of what you call “success”.
Richard
Engineering 101
The Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI) is the critieria by which the effciency of any system can be evaluated. If the EROEI for an energy system is greater than (>) 1, then it will produce more energy than went into it. In the early days of Alaska crude its EROEI was 11; meaning it took only 1 barrel of oil energy to discover 11.
I analyzed the Livermore Pass Project which claimed an EROEI of 14.83. After researching the analysis and correcting for numerous errors, the EROEI came down to a more realisitc 0.29. Wind power will never generate more power than it took to design, fabricate, operate, maintain, and decommission it. Wind power, in short, is unsustainable. That is why it needs to be heavily subsidized.
And don’t fall for this ‘table of evaluated costs’ nonsense to analyze alternatve energy projects. There is too much wiggle room for shananigans. Insist on an Embodied Energy Analysis when evaluating alternative energy projects.
Ratepayers, you know, the customers of electricity, get nailed the first time as taxpayers due to tax subsidies for wind power equipment which are used by various groups to shield income. They get nailed again because the cost per kwh is several times that of coal, NG or nuke, and the wind generated electricity costs get stuck into their bills at inflated rates. In the most extreme cases, there are actually utilities who pay their wind energy suppliers (probably a wholly owned subsidiary of the utility) monthly minimums regardless of the energy used or generated. The final insult will be when ratepayer gets the tab to dismantle this experiment in insanity. Without gubment tax incentives, punitive meddling with rate structures and outright extortion by utility commissions bought and paid for by the wind industry, no sane entity would ever put up a wind generator except as a hobby.
Gosh Charles I took Engineering 101 and EROEI was not a criteria that was discussed. Of course back then we used slide rules and actually had some common sense. What kind of PE are you, was EROEI on the test.
EROEI is a made up criteria. Never heard used in the power industry often by college professors to show students without a questioning attitude how smart they are. In other words it is something people make up to tell a clever lie. If you are PE that is unethical.
The first criteria for making power is how much power does it produce. The second is the cost affordable.
I love people like Mike Wryley who gets ‘nailed’ in his electric bill. Poor Mikey life is so hard for him. Want to bet that Mike pays $4 for a cup of coffee while whining about the cost of a 25 cent Hollywood shower. I overheard a woman complaining about her eclectic bill. I listen more a found out she had a 5000 square foot house. That might explain why her power bill is twice mine but not why she is claiming poverty.
“They get nailed again because the cost per kwh is several times that of coal, NG or nuke, and the wind generated electricity costs get stuck into their bills at inflated rates. ”
Of course that is not true. The per kwh cost of the wind farms I cited earlier is less than the existing NG plants. It is about the same as what new coal or nuclear is estimated to be.
I work mostly in the nuclear end of the power industry but for a few years I developed business plants for biomass renewable energy. Year before, I worked at a nuke plant with the same engineers who developed some of the wind projects. While the first 39 MWe of capacity in the PNW may have been an experiment, the next 4000 MWe of capacity is a sound businessmen decision to offset existing NG generation.
Small incentives reduces the uncertainty of a businessmen decision. Building a CCGT is the least risky because of lower capital cost. If it turns out to be a bad long term choice, just pass the fuel cost on to the customers. As long a we are building large amounts of NG fuel generation, adding a small amount of wind is wise mitigation strategy.
Everyplace that has higher than average power cost is because the rely on NG more than coal or nukes. Wind has nothing to do with it.
Kit P,
never bought a $4 coffee in my life, but I have seen the costs for electricity for running a data center, HVAC, lights and heating nearly double in the past five years. Rule number one, you can always identify a left wing stooge when he tells you that your costs for anything are not high enough.
Some of us have to make businesses work and compete in the marketplace in order to pay the rent and put food on the table. When I see all of the money diverted into significantly less than optimum solutions by the pimps in the wind energy business, cloaked in the little green insignia,
the word criminal comes to mind.
Kit P:
At May 11, 2012 at 5:54 am you say;
“The per kwh cost of the wind farms I cited earlier is less than the existing NG plants. It is about the same as what new coal or nuclear is estimated to be.”
No! You are using the word ‘cost’ instead of the word ‘price’.
The ‘cost’ includes the price AND the subsidy.
Having cleared that up for you, I again ask you to answer my (above) question about another of your strange assertions. I copy it below to save you the trouble of finding it.
Richard
********************
richardscourtney says:
May 10, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Kit P:
I read your post at May 10, 2012 at 10:54 am. Now, please provide an example of what you claim is a “wind farm success story” together with a definition of what you call “success”.
Richard
Mike Wryley says:
May 11, 2012 at 6:57 am
Kit P,
…. I have seen the costs for electricity for running a data center, HVAC, lights and heating nearly double in the past five years. Rule number one, you can always identify a left wing stooge when he tells you that your costs for anything are not high enough.
…… When I see all of the money diverted into significantly less than optimum solutions by the pimps in the wind energy business, cloaked in the little green insignia, the word criminal comes to mind.
____________________________
Nailed it.
Have you notice that WUWT has accumulated a number of well rehearsed and specialized “stooges” to counter each separate argument against CAGW and that often these “stooges” are cloaked as skeptics except in that one specialty field they are here to defend? It would seem that in this way they have managed to get all bases covered through a team effort.
Too bad Anthony is not paid their combined salaries.
Kit P says:
May 11, 2012 at 5:54 am
Kit, does that include the necessary cost of building, running, and maintaining the backup power plants for when the wind is not blowing?
Richard I see no reason to cut and paste my response to you since you had trouble understand simple terminology. Generating cost is generating cost. They include the cost of interest, labor, property taxes, generating taxes, and fuel cost. The price people pay include other cost such as transmission cost and management of the utility. The public utility passes the cost along to its local customers. Since does not make a profit, PTC on federal taxes is no a incentive they get.
If you look at the PNW, it exports about twice as much power as it distributes to local utilities. Much of the wind farms that pay lots of taxes and salaries in the PNW, sell the power to California.
So if Mike pay a high price in California, I am the wrong person for him to whine about it. I am an old guy and really tired of hearing people in business who do not think making power is a business too. Second I used to work at a nuke plant in California that could have a generating cost of 1.2 cents per kwh based on similar nuke plants.
So Mike if you do not like what you pay for power, move your business to a state that does not import 50% and have a ton of hidden taxes that go along with not so hidden taxes.
Generating cost is generating cost. They include the cost of interest, labor, property taxes, generating taxes, and fuel cost. The price people pay include other costs such as transmission cost and management of the utility. The public utility passes the cost along to its local customers. Since does not make a profit, PTC on federal taxes is not a incentive they get.
If you look at the PNW, it exports about twice as much power as it distributes to local utilities. Much of the wind farms that pay lots of taxes and salaries in the PNW, sell the power to California.
So if Mike pay a high price in California, it is because they import power. So Mike if you do not like what you pay for power, move your business to a state that does not import 50% and have a ton of hidden taxes that go along with not so hidden taxes.
“Kit, does that include the necessary cost of building, running, and maintaining the backup power plants for when the wind is not blowing? ”
Willis why would I make up a cost that does not exists? It is very easy to make up stuff. One of the things I have learned years is that it does not matter what you do, there is some lunk head who is against it. The friends that developed wind farms has a map of wind resources and places you could not built a wind farm. The people who demand wind farms do not want them in their back yard.
So Willis the cost of producing power and ensuring a reliable supply is what it is but it is sure a lot cheaper than the alternative. Worrying about too many wind farms is a fantasy of the magic wand crowd. However, there are still lots of good reason to be building wind farms in the US.
Kit P:
In response to my having written:
“I read your post at May 10, 2012 at 10:54 am. Now, please provide an example of what you claim is a “wind farm success story” together with a definition of what you call “success”.”
At May 11, 2012 at 5:56 pm you have – at last – replied saying;
“Richard I see no reason to cut and paste my response to you since you had trouble understand simple terminology.” etc.
OK. I understand that reply:
it says you don’t have an example of what you claim is a “wind farm success story”.
And your blather about ‘costs’ when you mean ‘prices’ is obfuscation of the worst kind.
I really do wish there were some way to cut-off the pay from the professional trolls who are currently infesting this blog.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
May 12, 2012 at 1:57 am
Kit P:
In response to my having written:…..
….OK. I understand that reply:
it says you don’t have an example of what you claim is a “wind farm success story”.
And your blather about ‘costs’ when you mean ‘prices’ is obfuscation of the worst kind.
I really do wish there were some way to cut-off the pay from the professional trolls who are currently infesting this blog.
_____________________________________
Yes you can tell we are coming up to a significant political “decision point” by the troll infestation.
What is truly interesting is none of the new trolls are decent at it given many have Phds. They must have been reading the USDA play book that instructs agents to address farmers at the sixth grade level.
Gail I keep stating the facts. I provided five examples of wind farms in the PNW that were built to produce electricity at a lower generating cost than existing NG power plants.
Gail you may want to consult a dictionary. Stating the facts about something that has happened in the past is not ‘obfuscation’. Gail like many others have some crazy ideas about generating costs. Generating cost is the term the power industry uses when talking about generating costs. So Gail if you would like to specifically tell me what you are confused about, I will take the time to educate you.
Criticism of the USDA is warranted. Judging form the web site Gail linked, the USDA should be dumbing down to the 2nd grade level.
When I reviewed documents for DOE that were written by Phds, I insisted that that they be readable at a high school level when possible. After all it was average rate payers who paid for the studies which would become public documents.
Unfortunately, government is very good at ‘obfuscation’. I can read a utility resource management plant and understand it. When I picked up a documentation of how California was going meet their aggressive RPS, I could not understand it. California is always making clam that I know are not true. I found the spread sheet listing the project. How did California meet its goal in that year? Of the 500 MWe of new renewable energy capacity, 430 MWe were projects in other states. When the truth would make California rate payers angry, ‘obfuscation’ is in order.
The renewable energy projects are mostly good projects. When California produces enough renewable energy in the state that they can export it, maybe then and only then should they be telling others how to make electricity and cleanup the air.