Guest essay by Viv Forbes
Wind power is not free. All natural energy resources such as coal, wind and sun appear “free” – no one has to incur costs to create them. But turning a “free” resource into usable electricity costs money for collecting, generating and distributing that energy. To consumers and tax payers, the real cost of wind power is very high, no matter how well it is hidden by politicians.
Wind power is not reliable. No one can make the wind blow when the energy is needed – in fact, wind farms produce, on average, less than 30% of their nameplate capacity, often at times of lower demand.
Wind power harms the environment. Because of the large area of land needed to collect low-density wind energy, wind power requires more land-clearing, needs more transmission lines, kills more wildlife, lights more bushfires and uglifies more landscape per unit of electricity than conventional power. And the subsonic whine of the turbines drives neighbours batty and devalues local properties.
Like hydro-power, wind power is limited, with few suitable sites. And every wind turbine slows the wind, thus reducing the wind energy available to any downwind turbines. It is “renewable’ but it is not unlimited.
Wind power is justified by claims that it reduces emissions and thus reduces global warming. However, when all the steel, concrete, construction, maintenance, replacement and rehabilitation are taken into account, wind power contributes nothing to reducing emissions or changing global climate.
However wind turbines DO change the local weather. Wind is the major component of weather. Winds bring moisture to the inland, clear pollution from the cities, and change air temperatures everywhere. Wind towers rob the wind of its energy, affecting local wind speeds and changing local weather patterns.
Wind power is an expensive, intermittent and limited energy source that degrades the environment, kills birds, affects the local weather but does nothing to improve global climate.
It should be paid for by those who want it, not by captive taxpayers or electricity consumers.
Viv Forbes,
Rosewood Qld Australia
More reading for those interested:
Renewable Energy becoming a financial nightmare in Germany:
http://www.epaw.org/documents.php?lang=en&article=cost11
Wind Farm Performance vs Demand:
http://windfarmperformance.info/documents/analysis/monthly/aemo_wind_201203_hhour.pdf
Wind Farm noise harms health and sleep:
Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year:
Wind farms are a greater threat to wildlife than climate change:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8807761/wind-farms-vs-wildlife/
Wind turbines cause fog:
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/its-an-ill-wind/
Wind turbines cause local heating:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-30/wind-farms-linked-to-temperature-rises/3979930
Wind power Has Limits. The more you use the less there is:
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/04/09/3732966.htm
Why Wind Won’t Work:
http://carbon-sense.com/2011/02/08/why-wind-wont-work/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ur momisugly Richard Verney
You claim that the average life is 12-15 years. Yet the top picture is of Alamont Pass built primarily in the 80’s If the average life is 12-15 years, how are those turbines from ~30 years ago still spinning? I think you have confused mean lifetime with mean time between maintainence. Also, do you think that the windmills produced today are better or worse than those designed before CAD? Would the lifetime be longer or shorter given the improvements in generator technology?
The article objects to the spinning reserves needed to back up wind. I wonder, do they have a similar objection to the spinning reserves kept in place to meet peak power demand?
Allencic, re
“High school physics explains simply and cleanly why wind power can NEVER work. The classic equation for energy says it all. E = MV2. The M (mass) of air is very tiny. The V (velocity) of even the strongest wind isn’t that great”
It’s actually a little worse than you claim (btw, it’s 1/2 MV2). The mass of air impinging on the blade disc of a turbine in a unit of time is given by (density x velocity), so the actual formula is 0.5 x density x V3. The density of air is mostly about 1.2 kg/M3. There’s also a thermodynamic limitation called “Betz’s Law” which limits the proportion of energy extracted to about 70%.So, if we use the average windspeed for England of about 8 m/s, for each square metre of disc area, the most you’s see is about 200W.
Worse, that cube term works against you. If you design the turbine for maximum output at 12m/s, and 6 m/s it’s producing just 1/8th of design output.
“Chad says:
May 10, 2013 at 7:43 am”
Its nothing to do with generator technology. What has changed? Its all to do with manufacturing (Mfg) technology, quality and practice. An example would be the combustion engine. In the 1970’s there was much “human input/contact” with the components. Mfg tolerances were also “a bit sloppy” then too (I personally worked to +/- 2 microns). Today however, there is almost NO human contact with the components that go into engine mfg. So much so that the mfg is almost totally “contaminant” free. Mfg tolerances are 30 – 50% tighter now. Materials used are better quality. Result = better, more reliable, longer lasting, engines (Lets not talk about silicone-aluminium alloys that do not need oil lubricants). One result of this is (Putting aside electronic fuel management) more power, taller gearing (6sp manual gearboxes now) and longer lasting engines. The same is true in any technology.
Ozzie Zehner’s book, Green Illusions, has a devastating chapter on wind. What it adds to the discussion is a critical look at a DOE report entitled, 20% Wind Energy by 2030. Unfortunately, I can’t find a summarizing article on the web.
Andy Dawson,
You’re right of course, for kinetic energy it should be E= 1/2 MV2. No matter how you express it, wind power is a stupid way to generate trivial amounts of energy. Pretty efficient at generating “green” dollars for political cronies though
Patrick says:
May 10, 2013 at 8:12 am
“silicone-aluminium alloys”
—–
I think you mean silicon.
Expensive bird-mills is what they are!
They cost more than they produce. If not for the subsidies and tax breaks there would be but a few of them.
ClimateProgress is touting a new report that says Doubling Wind Power Could Save Mid-Atlantic Consumers $6.9 Billion A Year. I think more public debate is needed!
“OldWeirdHarold says:
May 10, 2013 at 8:46 am”
Or possibly silicon-aluminum too?
Chad says: May 10, 2013 at 7:46 am
The article objects to the spinning reserves needed to back up wind. I wonder, do they have a similar objection to the spinning reserves kept in place to meet peak power demand?
___________________________________
That is not a fair comparison, and you know it.
Peak demand is quite short and quite predictable – 7am and 7pm, for a couple of hours. So in the UK we charge up Dinorwig** during midnight / midday, and let it fly at 7am and 7pm. In fact, peak demand is even more predictable than that, as they also review the TV schedules and watch for the end of a soccer match, or the end of a feature-film.
Wind is not like that. You cannot say the wind will die at 6pm next Tuesday. Thus the spinning standby for windpower has to remain spinning at all times. In addition, wind can disappear for weeks at a time, especially in the winter (just when you really need the electricity). In the winter of 2010 the UK lost most of its wind for six weeks, and there is no pumped storage unit that can cope with that amount of power-loss.
In addition, most proper power station outages are pre-planned (for maintenance). Thus you can plan your maintenance for overnight, or if it is a long job you can plan for mid summer (which is low-demand in the UK). In both cases, spinning standby is not required for these kind of conventional power outages.
There is no spinning standby in the UK for conventional power stations having an unplanned glitch. If necessary they could use Dinorwig as an instant standby, until they can get another real power station running. But you cannot do that with wind, as it goes on and off every few hours. You cannot use a standby like Dinorwig to cover multiple demand fluctuations, as well as covering multiple supply fluctuations.
.
** Dinorwig – one of the largest pumped storage units anywhere, which is used to cover demand fluctuations. 5 gw for 5 hours.
.
Mid-American Energy runs a complete system including generation by nuclear, natural gas, coal, and a very small amount of hydro, centered around Iowa.. They run the complete transmission and distribution system down to the customer service, sell power to smaller systems in their area and provide the wheeling services for municipal systems that buy power from other sources. They are aware of the full range of problems with wind, since they currently are operating 1400 MW of wind turbines.
With all this experience and knowledge of all aspects of the electricity business, Mid-American Energy has just announced their plans to install another 1000 MW of wind energy. They are well aware of all the problems with wind energy, they have been operating such a system for several years now, They are aware of any issues of reliability, and maintenance and power variation and standby power requirements. There are no grants for the construction. Construction is with their own money, and they have previously agreed with the Iowa utility board that there will be no rate increase due to wind energy.
I have no doubt the 2.2 cent per kilowatt-hour subsidy had a role in Mid-American undertaking this project, but the generators have to be in place and operating for the next ten years for that to produce any income. If it produced onerous, unsolvable operating problems or expenses, they would not proceed even with the subsidy.
It would seem that if a rational, experienced, company evaluates the project and decides to finance it, placing it’s own funds at risk, and proceed, that perhaps some of the issues raised above are exaggerated. It is reasonably certain that Mid-Amercan knows more about these issues than anyone writing or commenting here. Some of the commenters should evaluate whether their claims are reality or hyperbole.
Once again we taxpayers are penalized by the ignorance of history, our dear leaders prefer.
Wind lost to steam. Coal fired steam engines.Over 100 years ago.
The electric car hung on as a competitor with steam until the internal combustion engine, left them both in its dust.
The current rebirth of Ludditism, wants to ignore these simple facts.Efficiency.
This happened in the mid 1970s when solar and wind were drooled over by the dreamers,massive amounts of public funds lavished upon them and then these “futuristic” technologies faded away.
Impractical, expensive and non producing pipe dreams.
Now 40 years on,with an even less educated group of dear leaders, these delusions are back.
Yes they have some utility, but without a means of power storage , they are useless for grid power.
And the people who create that “Storage battery” break through will be billionaires, so have at it.
As subsidy farms go, windmills are wonderful, the two on the southern most tip of Hawaii, are a great graphic of,”When the subsidy is over”.
I am deeply offended by the scoff law behaviour of our, govt environmental authorities.
There is no law, when such blatant favouritism exists.
Example, common ducks die in Ft McMurray tailings ponds, charges, fines, mass hysteria follow.
Windmills dice rare and endangered raptors on a weekly basis, the operators get a pass.
No documentation of bird kills required, or encouraged.
No press coverage, no environmental advocacy outrage.
Not one charge, for massacring these raptors to date.
But these same “authorities” will imprison you if you pick up feathers from a dead eagle.
Chris4692: You put some thought into your comment. Now think a little further and tell me why congress gave the wind industry a $12 billion subsidy for 2013 if wind is so economic and those subsidies will continue forever in addition to higher rates. Would you want a wind turbine in your back yard?
MorningGuy: Get a life.
Silver Ralph says:
May 10, 2013 at 9:17 am
It isn’t only the variation in peak demand that has to be accommodated, but throughout the day. But you are correct, demand variations are largely predictable. As people’s lives are on a schedule determined by work, mealtimes, and television, the demand as an aggregate is very predictable.
You underestimate how predictable the wind is. The shifts in wind can be roughly predicted a few days out, and the predictions get better a few hours out. Though your experience in your location may be different, you are probably assuming too much when you generalize your wind patterns to everywhere. That is just another local condition for an engineer to figure out and deal with.
I have had an operator of a coal fired generating plant tell me that they could not generate full capacity at that time, but they could not afford to take the unit out of production for a couple months to do the repairs needed to restore full capacity. It was too large a unit, the system had to have it’s production even if reduced. Coal plants are not 100 percent reliable either. That production had to be made up from elsewhere: a great evil if done for wind, but apparently acceptable if done for coal?
“Silver Ralph says:
May 10, 2013 at 9:17 am
Chad says: May 10, 2013 at 7:46 am
The article objects to the spinning reserves needed to back up wind. I wonder, do they have a similar objection to the spinning reserves kept in place to meet peak power demand?
___________________________________
That is not a fair comparison, and you know it.
Peak demand”
Speak to ANYONE in a region that has “limited peak demand”…and Chad, would you swap?
hi:
Since the same article appears on American Thinker for today, I’ll make the same comment:
—
Some realities for wind power:
1 – the average annual power production is around 23% of name plate capacity.
2 – because power production is improbable on very hot, or very cold, days when consumer power demand is highest, every watt of nominal wind power capacity has to be backed by a watt of stand-by capacity – usually natural gas powered.
3 – because wind farms go where the wind is, and cities don’t, wind power use generally requires long transmission lines.
4 – when a small amount of wind power is added to a coal powered system, the coal plant is usually run at below capacity and (because coal generation takes a long time to come up to speed) the difference made up for by stand-by gas fired generation.
As a result wind is the dirtiest form of generation there is. A coal plant running at 97% of optimum produces 104% of the co2 per watt it would at capacity, the energy that goes into making the turbine (60+ tons of copper, 100+ tons of steel, 200+ tons of concrete) is typically never recouped through operation, every emission from the gas plant is additional to the system, and the transmission lines require huge inputs to build and operate.
Basically, the environment (and the consumer) would generally be better served by wind power if the turbines are never connected to the network – just built and abandoned.
TomE says:
May 10, 2013 at 9:38 am
There is no predicting Congress and why it does thing. Though I would prefer there was no subsidy for wind or any other industry after the research stage, it is there. For wind it currently applies to a given turbine for 10 years after installation, not forever. The revenue of the subsidy is 2.2 cents per kw-hr, Mid-American’s retail charges for that are approximately 13 cents. Though the subsidy is surely a significant factor in the cost structure, it is not so great that wind would not be in the mix without it.
My main point is that many of the comments against wind are overblown. Some of the commenters here are as irrational at evaluating renewable energy as are the AGW proponents in their fear of CO2.
I have sought out sites where I could listen for the noise from a wind turbine, driving around to listen at various distances and locations upwind and downwind. I have not heard anything from them more irritating than what a grain dryer, a grain elevator or an air conditioning compressor emits. I would want it some distance away, as the flicker would be irritating.
Chad says:
May 10, 2013 at 7:43 am
@ur momisugly Richard Verney
You claim that the average life is 12-15 years. Yet the top picture is of Alamont Pass built primarily in the 80s If the average life is 12-15 years, how are those turbines from ~30 years ago still spinning?
Chad, there not! I lived in the Bay Area from the 70s thru the 90s. All (except the ones that were simply abandoned – many of which are still there and non-working) of the units installed during the first taxpayer “wind farm” subsidies boondoggle were taken down.
And as to your 7 points above, while you make a couple of valid points about improvements that have been made in the technology, all the rest of it is either nonsensical or simply wrong. Take your first point: First, wind can have other purposes than replacing the fossil fuels. Of course. Has been for centuries. So? Consider Texas where wind is fairly abundent, but water is not. Depends upon where your talking about in Texas and what THE (not your) definition of “fairly abundant” is. But again, so? As relates to water in Texas, it’s a distribution problem not an abundance problem, as is the case with most resources. If the power generated by wind were generated by other means (nuclear, gas, coal) there would typically be steam produced. Typically, but not always, but always WITHIN A CLOSED SYSTEM! Where the “water” condenses back into liquid form and is recycled. Yes, agriculture uses more water than power generation, What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? but if water can be conserved that is a plus in arid regions. Perfect example of a nonsensical statement. A resource (i.e., water) is never “conserved” it is simply “used” for this purpose or that purpose. If it’s conserved it’s – nothing, does nothing.
As to your last paragraph, who died and made YOU the official arbitrator of what is rational? Based on your writings above, I’d say you’ve got a long way go and a lot of experience to be absorbed before you should even think about holding that title.
And to Allencic & Andy Dawson, that is EXACTLY the calculations that were being made by many and I told to anyone that would listen back in the early 80s in the first go-around on this silliness. People at PG&E (the Bay Area power company) KNEW the whole “wind generation of electrical power” was an unworkable, uneconomical (sans the government subsidies) solution TO A NON-PROBLEM. But when you work for a company that is government controlled….
RMH
Bush fires? Probably referring to fires consequent to working in the area, like the saying of Stalin, where there is no man there is no problem.
Uglifying the area? For those who don’t like them, okay. Me, I like technology, I find them visually interesting/cool/futuristic. So I could care.
Changing weather? Give us a break. Limited, very limited to the amount of wind immediately downwind. The cross-sectional area of a windfarm is not significant across the landscape. The amount of energy lost by turbine conversion is miniscule. The moisture is NOT getting dumped at the turbine farm like rain going up a mountainside, creating a rain shadow on the other side.
Tax incentives in the ’80s: long paid for “investements” howeverr you wish to define them.
A diatribe, a rant: what we skeptics are concerned about are their RUNNING costs per watt, their RELATIVE capital efficiency, their practical contribution to our power and energy needs.
Wind (and solar) are actually (relative costs and capital efficiencies aside) an excellent idea. The problem is that we have no economically viable energy STORAGE technology yet. We have the horse but no cart. Just as Fisker and other electric vehicles fail, wind (and solar) systems are ahead of their times. If, for example, we were using that power to raise water into a dam for hydro use (and it was full-cycle economic!) we would have none of the problems of intermittency.
Paul Murphy says:
May 10, 2013 at 9:49 am
Yet Mid-American finds it economical to proceed.
In the case of Mid-American, there is no standby power specifically assigned to wind standby. The entire system is operated as a system according to demand and the most efficient way to meet that demand. With a large system, that is how a rational actor would most likely operate.
3 – because wind farms go where the wind is, and cities don’t, wind power use generally requires long transmission lines.
An over generalization. For the case of Mid-American, half of the population is in the rural areas where the wind turbines are located. Without the wind turbines that demand would have to be met by power plants that are located in the Cities. Transmission losses will be less when the wind turbines are operating. Many of the transmission lines have to be there whether there is wind power or not. Mid-American’s situation cannot be generalized everywhere, neither can your assertion.
Overgeneralizing. There may be a small system like that however in the the Case of Mid-American, There is no generator specifically to balance wind loads. There are natural gas and coal generators near cities throughout the system, and none is assigned specifically to counter wind fluctuations. Every utility system has to have excess capacity. It is in trouble if it doesn’t. Without excess capacity it can never take a coal fired or any other plant out of service (they do need occasionally need repairs and those cannot always be scheduled) Variations due to wind in a large system will not be one generating plant going down to an idle spin, it will be several plants reducing from 85 percent capacity to 60 percent. (numbers for example of concept only)
Quick reality check. Texas is the #1 electricity producer in the US, and also the #1 producer of wind power. They are a separate grid, and so can reasonably be analyzed without confounding too much the affects of being stabilized by nearby states. So, how is Texas doing? The grid has been stable (in spite of constant impending doom declared by the media “Oh no, it might go down”) in spite of all that wind (current record of 28% of demand). Is all that wind driving up prices? No – Texas sits firmly in the middle of the cost curve (#24 for those interested). And this cost includes massively expanding the grid (10% growth from 2000-2010 and 50% growth from 1990-2010). I just don’t buy the argument that wind drives up the cost of electricity when the state with the most wind is so firmly in the middle of the pack.
Of the 15 states with the highest wind power capacity per capita all but three are in the bottom half of $ per kWh to end users. The three outliers are #24 Texas $0.1089/kWh, #22 Minnesota $0.1105/kWh, and #21 Colorado $0.1106/kWh. However, compare to #2 NY at $0.18/kWh which has the same total installed wind capacity as ND.
Of the 11 states with no installed wind power 8 are in the bottom half (outliers #19 Florida %0.1134, #18 South Carolina $0.1163/kWh and #4 Conneticut $0.164/kWh). Want cheap electricity? Go somewhere with a lot or no wind, not inbetween. What does this all mean? Wind power production has basically nothing to do with end user electricity price, so stop saying it raises prices.
Bob,
I assume that you don’t believe in saving money. I mean, it can’t be conserved, only used in one way or another and any attempt to conserve your money by not getting ripped off would be nonsensical. You might as well light it on fire, right? Oh, wait, no. You would use it it the most rational manner that benefits you personally. Water resources across Texas are scarce. There are some wetlands and swamps, but trying to average the rainfall in Houston with that of Amarillo still gives a dry state. Unless of course you are talking about the gulf, in which case you can drink seawater for a week and we can talk again. The point about water is, when there is a limited resource the resource should be used in a manner that provides the greatest overall benefit (measured across society). If you have the choice between electricity at 10.8cents and 10.9, but 10.9 lowers your average water bill or reduces the cost of agriculture or industry by more than the price difference in electricity, then the slightly higher electricy cost should be accepted due to the marginal impact in other fields competing for the same resource.
In regards to your objection about my closing paragrpah on rational positions:
Rational positions are those open to persuasion from alternate viewpoints given sufficient evidence. If a position is not open to persuasion regardless of any alternate arguments then the position is based on something other than reason. This is not me being the arbiter of rationality, you can look it up on merriam-webster.com
Also, in the future when qualitative words are introduced (i.e. “fairly”, and “typically”) you should not object that the usage in the sentance was not absolute (i.e. THE definition of “fairly abundent”). The phrase “fairly abundent” by its nature announces that the standard is not objective. If I were trying to be objective with the comparison I would have used something like “total available wind resources per sq mi compared to…” or “total annual rainfall per acre compared to …” When subjective terms are used in an absolute manner then an objection is appropriate given that it is a category error (i.e. Sam is twice as happy as Bill). When subjective terms are used in a subjective manner then an objection merely demonstrates an inability to follow basic grammer.
Finally it would be “they’re not” not “there not.”
Chris4962…
You underestimate how predictable the wind is.
_______________________________________
You did not read that report on Danish windpower. One of the main criticisms, was that the wind predictions were nothing like reality. I ask you, would you trust the Met Office to predict when you can have some electricity??
.
While reading about the situation with Mid-American and its planned expansion of wind power, it occurred to me that they would likely be “allowed” to also expand their non-wind power eventually since it is needed to provide backup to the wind power.
I guess there’s more than one way to skin a cat!
That came to mind because in my area a coal-powered plant had its expansion voted down even though it’s relatively new and you never see anything coming out of its towers except water vapor.
Since then, I frequently see the parts of wind towers being driven up and down the interstate highways. Perhaps there will come a time when I read a news story about the expansion of the coal-powered plants as well . . . since by that time they will be needed to provide backup to the wind power?
Just sayin’…
BTW, my relatives in Texas have complained in recent years about brown-outs during both winter and summer extremes of temperature. That certainly surprised me. I thought Texas, if anyplace, would be able to keep the power flowing at a steady rate!
I guess it’s all just politics.