9/1/15
To: Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos
Mr. Bezos:
I’m an energy expert, a longtime Amazon customer, and an ardent company supporter. As such I’ve read with great interest some breathless press releases about your recent procurement into the NC Desert Wind project.
Due to your careful management Amazon is now a large, successful company, that has made many good economic decisions. During your tenure, the company has publicly portrayed itself as not only environmentally sensitive, but also concerned for the national welfare. All this makes Amazon’s involvement with the Desert Wind project quite puzzling.
After you were approached by Iberdrola to partner with them, one would assume that you utilized a battery of lawyers on your payroll to do a thorough due-diligence on the Desert Wind project — what is apparently “Amazon’s largest renewable energy project to date.” Here are some facts that question the wisdom of Amazon’s subsequent decision to go forward:
Fact #1 – Iberdrola originally made three separate sales pitches to sell the electricity from this project to the NC utility companies: Duke, Dominion, and Progress.
Interestingly, each one separately declined Iberdrola’s solicitation. In each case the reason given was that the cost was uneconomical.
Following that, Iberdrola reportedly complained to the NC Governor at the time, Beverly Perdue. She then wrote a pointed letter to the CEOs of each of those three companies, pressuring them to them to reconsider. To their credit, after a second evaluation, each of the three utility companies again declined to participate with the Desert Wind project.
Question #1:
Is Amazon really smarter about electricity economics than the first and third largest utility companies in the US — who carefully checked out and then rejected involvement with this project because it did not make economic sense?
———————————————————————————-
Fact #2 – For years now, Amazon has gone to great lengths to convey the impression that they are a champion of the environment. From packaging to drone delivery, the mantra is that “Amazon is environmentally sensitive.”
Question #2:
Why would Amazon partner in a huge 20,000± acre industrial project that has had absolutely no independent environmental assessment? None. In fact Iberdrola strenuously objected when NC-DENR asked for one.
———————————————————————————-
Fact #3 – In a similar vein, Amazon has communicated that security is a top priority to them. For example, you have gone to great lengths to protect the personal information of your customers.
Question #3:
Why would Amazon participate in a major development that is a known substantial national security risk (e.g. see this 30 page report)? If Amazon is genuinely interested in their customer’s security, why would they invest in a business that degrades our country’s protection from terrorists, drug traffickers, unfriendly nations, climate change, etc?
It seems that there are two possible explanations for this strange situation:
a) Amazon failed to do a proper due diligence, and instead unduly relied on the assurances of Iberdrola that there was nothing to worry about.
b) Amazon was fully aware of these serious economic, environmental and security liabilities, and decided that the benefits of greenwashing, exceeded those liabilities.
I’m hoping that the answer is “a” and that on further investigation Amazon will immediately disassociate itself from this problematic venture.
Sincerely,
john droz, jr.
physicist
Morehead City, NC
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have read that one major retailer, partly due to low prices enabled by utility rebates, is selling nearly 200,000 60W equivalent LED bulbs PER WEEK. And that’s only one retailer. If we assume that a 60W incandescent really draws 60W and the LED about 10W, and that all of the LEDs are replacing 60w, or greater, incandescent bulbs (probably not true as I’m sure a lot of folks are dumping CFLs), then that would provide 10 Megawatts of (potential) load shedding per week. You’d have to factor in duty cycle and such, and this is just a back of the envelope thing. Still, that’s a pretty cost effective way of lowering peak power demands and eliminating the need for some new power production plants.
Now if we could just figure out how to provide air-conditioning with LEDs 🙂
The papers in the Electrochemical Society journals on phosphors for LED light bulbs frequently open with the statement that , in developed society , approx 23% of energy is used for lighting. Incandescents have an energy efficiency of only 5% watt/watt. The scope for reducing overall energy demands with the new lighting technology is enormous and is the sort of green initiative that can be welcomed with few reservations.
The majority of the exploratory work is being done by China , but you will have guessed that . There is some excellent work being done by private companies and universities in US and Philips in Europe , but not as much as one might expect given the long scientific history of research and product development in luminescent materials on both continents
Of course in colder climes (especially when the day lengths are shorter and the weather colder a.k.a. in winter) the heat output from incandescent bulbs lowers demand for heating from other sources. Thus the saving is not as great as it seems.
It doesn’t…
You are correct of course and because this is so bleeding obvious, the greens in the UK have come up with a stock answer that goes something like this:
” I am glad you asked this question because it can be very confusing to people. The answer is it doesn’t do that at all. There is no need for additional heating caused by changing to the more efficient bulb.”
Someone gave me that pat answer at a conference in Cape Town a few years ago. The engineers in the crowd looked on in polite, silent, slack-jawed amazement. You could cut the stupid with a knife. With blithering denial like that about something so basic and confirmed by any thermo analysis you care to make, it is no wonder the same people can’t work out that a windmill is a losing proposition from the get go. A negative EROEI is just not part of their understanding about something that is ‘renewable’.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the BTU energy saving is zero in the winter when the furnace is running. The cost may be different if the furnace runs on lower cost power.
I did the economics for our club where the lights are only on during the weekend. The payout for more expensive bulbs is circa 10 years to pull good bulbs and replace with LED..
At home we always dim the lights which are used less in the summer and the heat is appreciated in the coldest room in the house allowing a lower furnace setting. ,
Catcracking
Yes, you are wrong.
Any existing, working lightbulb that produces both light and heat will be more efficient in the winter months, because EVERY furnace is controlled by a room-area thermostat. If the furnace were continuously running, then – YES, you would be correct. If there were no lightbulb at all, or if there were no need to run any lightbulb, or if you had to “vent” the excess heat out of the room to keep that room from being too hot, then your assumption is correct. In the summer, in areas requiring indoor air conditioning, we are seeing reduced summer AC electric bills because indoor heat loads are lower. A good thing. BUT NOT WORTH MANDATING EVERYBODY REPLACE their already working bulbs. Plus, what is the long-term penalty of the millions of tons of powdered mercury now hanging in the air?
But, in most areas of the country in the winter, the addition of electric heat into a closed house will reduce heating bills. And, as an extra example, many cities are finding out that their new, very fancy, very expensive LED traffic lights are freezing over in the winter under ice and snow loads BECAUSE the more expensive LED bulbs do not melt off the accumulating ice. Bulbs fail, poles crash, and the lights can’t be seen.
RaCook…
Ultimately you agreed with my point since the furnace thermostat is not in the room with the lights. In the winter the lights heat the room above the amount of heat that arrives in the room from the furnace. because of the remote location, very little heat from the lights reach the area where the thermostat is located. That room where we spend the evening, without the lights on runs cooler than the location where the thermostat is located, point is that all the energy from the bulbs heats the room and avoids turning up the thermostat which will heat the entire house more wasting energy.. Of course the heating of the room in the summer does increase the load on the AC but the lights are not on as long in the winter and are always dimmed
One thermostat for the entire house is not the most efficient in the winter unless the room most used gets supplemental heat. My point is that the benefits of LED are exaggerated in the winter. . ,
Burch – you are on the right track. Cuba mandated the replacement of all the light bulbs in the country, made a massive bulk purchase and save a huge amount of power. South Africa did a similar thing in a private sector sort of manner, funded by the power generating company. It saved them a headache.
It may be possible to use an air conditioning system that runs once a day powered by solar with electric back-up that will be energy saving, at least electric energy saving. There are some clever chemicals about.
Crispin in Waterloo
It may be possible to create energy from collected unicorm excrement. But it won’t cool any areas of the US, UK, Europe or the rest of the world running air conditioning systems to maintain air cleanliness, temperature, and humidity levels. Running a system once-per-day (with outside, humid and hot air forced in the rest of the time) fails.
And no, there are no clever chemicals about. Many clever people, but they are prevented by laws passed by the eco-freaks to destroy the economy to use their talents and cleverness.
For heating I would suggest using IR LED and some CO2
Surely nothing could go wrong ?
AT Lowes, a pack of six 40W equivalent LED bulbs that only take 5.5W to run cost $14 – total.
Yes I bought some. Great brightness and color temp
jeff bezos could be thinking of that investment as a tax write-off – and in terms of “good will” – OR – he actually really believe in it – after all – history shows that jeff and amazon haven’t always made sound decisions
Free Money is behind this project as it is for most renewables . The contractor is to recoup 30% of its investment from the federal government
The farmers are getting $6000 per turbine and they expect to continue to farm as usual . I think there is the risk of drought down wind subsequently and they may all be in for a surprise in NC as they are putting these large wind farms in the midst of farm land and they have no idea what will happen to their land environmentally. . Research studies for individual turbines show temperature increases down wind during night time How large turbine farms impact down stream over sustained period is not clear.. They are proceeding with these very large wind projects without proper research as to their impact in my opinion
Another 100 turbine farm is planned only 15 miles away . . .
. http://hamptonroads.com/2011/07/wind-farms-crop-northeastern-north-carolina
There are no US Federal Subsidies for Commercial Wind. They ended in 2014.
Thank you, John Droz, for the letter to Jeff Bezos at Amazon dot com regarding wind energy. There is no question what so ever that “renewables” as we know them today; i.e., solar, wind, geo-thermal, tidal, biofuels, and politician’s hot, air can collectively provide less than 5% of the worldwide energy demand…based on the U.S. per capita energy use…by 2060 and a 9 billion human population. The only realistic solution is the conversion of matter to energy and there are three ways to do that. Today we take the simple way out with nuclear fission. But fission is a good very high energy flux density solution as a bridge to the next better solution. And to Jeff Bezos credit, it is noted that he invested close to $20 million dollars of his own money into a fusion energy start-up enterprise which today has a lot of science but no practical balance sheet assets. Fusion, once the science is fully understood and the engineering and applied materials follow. Is the second solution and can serve mankind well for hundreds of years…even thousands…after fossil fuels are depleted beyond economically viable recovery. See article titled “Jeff Bezos Invests $19.5 Million in General Fusion’s Nuclear Technology” at: http://fusion4freedom.us/jeff-bezos-invests-19-5-million-in-general-fusions-nuclear-technology-2/
This may be a better fusion option: http://protonboron.com/portal/
M Simon, please see this section of our website and scroll down for an even more promising approach under Plasma Jet Magneto Inertial Fusion (LANL) at: http://fusion4freedom.us/innovative-confinement-concepts/
The fact that Bev (shugah dumplin) Perdue was involved in any way shape or form should be a clear indication that this is a scam of the highest order. Think Solyndra boys and girls. This is a way to recycle taxpayer subsidies back into democrat campaign coffers. The political winds are a changing. Mr Bezos had best be careful as there may not be a bailout.
Disclaimer: I went to work for Duke in the nuclear area when it was Duke Power before coming Duke Energy.
Duke is the best environmental companies in the world and one of the best (if not the best) when it comes to running power plants. Duke is also a leader in developing wind farms. After presenting some ideas about local dairy farm issues as a source of power, I started doing work developing projects for the renewable energy group.
One of the lessons I learned during the period is that LCA showing the environmental benefit of some forms of renewable energy are ignored except by conscientious local utilities. Shiny and spinning things are favored for greenwashing companies because solar and wind makes for great photo opportunities. Solar panels and wind turbines do not even have to work.
[LCCA = Life Cycle Cost Analysis; LCA stands for ??? L* Cost Analysis? .mod]
Life Cycle Analysis, LCA, is the cradle to grave assessment of the environmental impact of doing something per ISO 14000. For example, producing milk has a byproduct of lots of manure with an environmental impact. If you live next to a large dairy farm you are likely not too worried about the impact greenhouse gases (ghg) from manure. Anaerobic digesters used by every city could be used on dairy farms to solve a significant environmental problem and produce electricity.
Rotting biomass naturally produces huge amounts of ghg and other much more significant environmental problems. Unfortunately, the solutions are not glamorous.
The three most important things LCA are location, location, location. I have a sail boat. I picked the location based on wind. Over the years many wind farms have developed creating lots of good jobs. If you put solar panels on your roof, the location is your home. Which is the location of the fire when (not if) their PV system catches fire. I happen to think your home burning down is a significant environmental problem. Fortunately most PV systems stop working before starting a fire.
LCA is just a tool to help you do what you do better. Power companies produce power. If society wants solar power, the PV panels should be used in utility scale projects with idea solar resources. Solar panels that do not work very well have more life cycle ghg than an old coal power plant.
I have been reading LCA for 20 years. Still waiting for wind and solar to come close to assumed values.
See, there’s just one “little” problem with this proposal.
Most of the time, the east coast of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia sit under a stagnant, rising air mass (called locally the “Bermuda High” that is characterized by almost NO WIND. There is a little bit down on the coast where the land breezes and sea breezes come up each morning and evening ….
Note! “Breeze” does not equal “high steady wind” of the 25 – 30 knots velocity required to produce power.
Note! “Alternating land breeze and sea breezes, even if added to the air flow, also mean more than half the time there isn’t any wind at all.
Note! A steady, stagnant Bermuda high for six-nine months of the year mean that daily air and land temperatures tend to balance each other out, and so even offshore winds fail. Within 5 degrees of the equator, these stagnant rising air masses with no surface wind were called the “doldrums” … Off the Carolina and GA coasts, this area is the northern “Horse Latitude” a region to be avoided by “sailing ships” who would sit sometimes for weeks waiting for …. “wind” to power them out of these latitudes. (From http://blog.maps.com/wordpress/author/lauren-perez/ website, more details follow:
When not “stagnant”, the nearby Cape Hatteras is infamous for its storms and high winds. When not in too low a wind state, these turbines will be force-idled by too high a wind during storms and probable hurricanes.
https://www.google.com/search?q=bermuda+high+winds&biw=1591&bih=955&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAkQ_AUoBGoVChMI0Oey0prcxwIVw86ACh3ODg1X&dpr=0.8#imgrc=8bYlY5pzKidlgM%3A
Looks like even the US Government does not recommend SE S for wind power.
http://windeis.anl.gov/guide/maps/images/wherewind800.gif
john droz, jr. : to the point.
plain truth reminds one: fasten seatbelts.
Thanks – Hans
Environmentalists and global warming alarmists should be mocked for their stupidity about wind turbines and solar power as solutions to so-called “global warming”, but that doesn’t meant that these aren’t viable and economical sources of power. They are. Their significant drawback is that they’re intermittent, so it’s impossible for them to become replacements for coal, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear which provide power on demand anytime.
It may not make economic sense to invest heavily in wind or solar in some circumstances, but in others it makes the best sense. Jeff Bezos is no dummy and I would be surprised if he were to blindly invest in an energy project for no other reason than because it’s “green”. He may have some valid economic reasons. I find your Fact #1 / Question #1 irrelevant because even if Bezos is actually doing it just because it’s a “green energy” project, that’s his prerogative.
You raise a valid point in #2, but any large scale energy project will require an environmental impact statement regardless of “strenuous” objections. So it’s essentially a non-issue.
And point #3, really? If it were a significant security risk, there would be more clamoring about it, but there isn’t and the information presented is old. The paper you referenced is a chest-thumping diatribe against alternative energy that I find silly and unpersuasive. It also mentions that the Navy acknowledges a possible degradation of their Hampton Roads radar of about 15%, which would be true of any tall structure built near the site. Their website instructs wind farm developers to contact them if they build close to one of their sites. See here: http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil/rsc/rsc-va-rothr/
In other words, the Navy has some say in whether or not a wind farm can be developed, and apparently it’s not a big enough problem for the Navy to kill the project. Certainly Bezos knew all this before he bought into the project. And there are technological solutions available for radar as the Air Force has investigated. See here: http://defensesystems.com/articles/2013/11/19/af-radar-interference.aspx
Alternative energy pipe dreams pushed by vacuous environmentalists and politicians are to be ridiculed, but it’s equally stupid to mock alternative energy “just because”. If you look at the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) from various sources, onshore wind is on par with coal and natural gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
In other words, onshore wind turbines are “economical”, otherwise we wouldn’t be seeing their unsightly towers popping up all over the place. Solar PV isn’t quite there yet, but it’s also the one that has dropped in price the most rapidly of all electricity sources and it won’t be long before it will probably be cheaper than any of the other sources. Even at current costs, it’s possible to recoup your investment in solar panels in less than 7 years in many places and then you have essentially “free” electricity for many years after that. PV panels last longer than roofs and many have 20 to 25 year warranties. You still have to deal with intermittent generation, but if you can offset the power cost of your air conditioner during the daytime with PV panels, who wouldn’t do it, especially as the technology continues to get cheaper?
Less mindless diatribes and more persuasive arguments, please.
“And there are technological solutions available for radar as the Air Force has investigated. See here:” Did you READ that link? It says they are TRYING TO SOLVE the problem. The Navy does low level, below radar. training in that area. Do you want to ride along in airplane in which the planes radar does not work because it sees rotating windmills in the distance? Or try and land a plane on an airstrip where the approach radar is affected by these beasts? So far the only fix is to move the radar towers which cause other problems and only work for landing approach radar. No fixes yet for onboard radar.
Lauren R.:
If wind power were economic then it would not require subsidies and mandates but could compete in a free market. But it cannot because – as you say –
Or as as I say in my above post
So, in reality, windfarms for power generation provide intermittent power and, therefore, they merely displace thermal power stations onto standby mode or to operate at reduced efficiency while the thermal power stations wait for the wind to change. And the thermal [power stations generate cheaper electricity. The windfarm make no significant reduction to pollution because thermal power stations continue to use their fuel and to produce their emissions while operating in standby mode or with reduced efficiency that can increase their emissions at low output. And this need for continuously operating backup means that windfarms can only provide negligible useful electricity to electricity grid supply systems. But the large scale use of windfarms requires upgrading of an electricity grid, more complex grid management, and operation of additional thermal power stations to protect against power cuts in time of supply failure. These effects
increase the cost of electricity supplied by the grid in addition to the capital, maintenance and operating costs of the windfarms themselves. And the windfarms cause significant
environmental damage.
I provide explanation of these issues here.
You assert without evidence and/or example
No. Price is not cost. Windfarms exist to reap subsidies.
There are no wind powered or solar powered subsidy farms supplying electricity to a grid at economic cost.
You conclude your post with the reasonable request
I regret that your post failed to fulfill that request.
Richard
Cut Amazon some slack they are sending me Steyn’s new book. They are then spending my money employing people ie creating jobs. What’s more, when it all falls over they will have to build something new more jobs.
Built in obsolescence is what keeps Capitalism turning over and they are doing a great job.
Building 15 th Century technonolgy with subsidies does not make sense
+1E100
Who are the major promoters of this junk science? Government Sponsored College Professors, WWF, Green Peace, Sierra Club, The IPCC, the Democratic Party. None of these groups that promote these garbage actually put any of their own money into building out any of the projects that they support. None. You don’t see any Sierra Club wind farms, WWF Solar Panels or IPCC hydrogen powered cars. All they do is use fantastical stories to generate public support, votes and donations. None of them are stupid enough to put their own money into what they know are certain to fail projects. They want to risk the tax payer’s money, and pass legislation so their lawyers can get consulting fees and possible lawsuits. It is a classic fraud. Only the fools that actually vote for this garbage believing it is true, and the clueless CEOs that are so blinded by their egos would ever be gullible enough to actually believe these clearly biased and corrupt organizations. The nice thing about it is that people trust Google, Apple and Amazon. They view them as credible visionary companies. None, zero, zip, nada of them will ever succeed in making wind and solar work. None. They will make great case studies into how gullible liberals can be, how much waste following their vision generates, and just how dangerous it is to actually trust the Sierra Club, WWF and other associated groups. No one should invest in Wind and Solar, especially not the Tax Payers, until Sierra Club and other groups actually put their money where their mouths are and actually build commercially viable products and solutions. I don’t have 1/2 the gray matter as the Einsteins that created Apple, Amazon and Google but I am 100% certain my common sense will win my bet that they will all fail, and never produce a commercially viable wind and/or solar farm. I also bet that Tesla will be purchased for pennies on the dollar in a few years by one of the other major auto manufactures. If a Republican gets elected, and gas prices remain low, they won’t be able to give electric cars away.
Here is another clue as to how insane this green energy myth is. Did Solyndra power its solar panel plant using its solar panels? Nope, they just pluged into the conventional power grid highly dependent upon coal. Does Google, Apple or Amazon rely on wind and solar? Nope. Do the people that deliver Amazon products drive electric cars? Nope. The very people that are investing in this nonsense don’t even use the products themselves. How much more of a clue do you need as to its certain failure as those who build the stuff would never rely on it. I bet Jeff Bezos drives in a gas guzzling V8 SUV like Al Gore does.
BTW, does the USPS use wind and solar? Do the Amazon fork lifts use wind and solar? Does the Space-X rocket use wind and solar? None of these visionary firms use wind and solar. Why not if it is such a huge success story?
Here is the very useful product of an attempt to comprehensively assess the relative costs of energy produced by various technologies in various regions of the world: http://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/WEC_J1143_CostofTECHNOLOGIES_021013_WEB_Final.pdf
I have looked at a number of these reports (not this one) and I find that they never ascribe the cost and fueling of the back up plants required for AE to the AE projects.
Spot on. That is a significant omission in almost all “favourable” analyses.
At least this report is clear that such considerations are omitted:
“Grid cost.. Costs also exclude the expense balancing costs and the cost of the externalities associated
with additional renewable supply to the grid such as heightened flexibility requirements for
conventional plants.”
It would appear to me , that the prime reason this project is proceeding is that Obama is using your hard earned tax dollars to fund (up to 30%) of this uneconomical and unsound project. It shows how free money given by the government without adequate oversight can corrupt the whole process
If Amazon is genuinely interested in their customer’s security, why would they invest in a business that degrades our country’s protection from terrorists, drug traffickers, unfriendly nations, climate change, etc?
Protecting the country from drug traffickers is a support to them. Prohibition is a price support for criminals. It also supports terrorists. (Afghanistan)
Why would anyone want to do that? Well unless they directly profit from that. Police, lawyers, jails, prisons, prison guards, and of course traffickers. Evidently the lessons of alcohol prohibition are no longer taught in schools.
I have yet to see a wind power project where the company is required to set aside secure assets to fund decommissioning of the turbines should they be shut down or the company go bankrupt. Given how uneconomical wind power is, when government gets exhausted from granting tax credits or special payments for these projects, some future CFO will surely also get tired of paying too much for his power.
When these turbines stop being used, and then fall into disrepair they will first be eyesores and then they will be dangerous to anything in the fall zone. Vast areas of the US will be monuments to the greed and folly of climate change and big government waste. Moreover, environmentalism itself will be shown to have come full circle.
In my youth, I recall seeing large areas where strip mines had been abandoned when the owners walked away from them. There were no assets to pay for “reclamation”. Environmentalism became a popular fad in part in response to these eyesores. Now we are within a few years when the same folly will once again spawn outrage and calls for government funding of cleanups. Human nature never changes, no matter how much altruism it wraps itself in.
The recent EPA caused pollution of excellent recreational rivers and drinking water source for the entire South West, in an unwise attempt to fix problems created 100 years ago by those that could easily afford to solve/prevent them at the time is a perfect example. The internet has numerous examples and photos of abandoned wind farms. Then there is still the problem with the lobed off mountain tops, access highways and scarred mountains where these wind farms are built. Vermont now looks like West Virginia, and more so each year. I cherish the fall foliage photos I took years ago – never to be taken again. It boggles my mind that real environmentalists are not protesting these actions.
[Snip – Chemtrails is a subject this site avoids. ~mod.]
I use to love Amazon but no longer. I refuse to put one more penny in their pocket. They are paying an energy company to wreak havock in my quiet town without understanding the enviromently and human impact or maybe they do and just don’t care. We worked our butts off for over 30 years and just before retirement, (next month) here come the bulldozers, cranes and trucks to destroy all we have worked for over the past 30 years. Jeff Bezos should move to Perquimans. I’m sure he and his family will love it but they better hurry to see how the town “was” before Amazon and Iberdrola moved in to destroy it. Hey, what’s the moto for some, “as long as I can’t see it from my house and it doesn’t affect me, carry on”.