Yet another renewable energy boondoggle

Guest essay by Paul Driessen

Foreword:

Wilkinson Solar wants to catch the solar wave, and make bundles of money sending electricity to the grid whenever it’s generated, even if it’s not needed at the time. The company’s proposed 288,120 solar panels would blanket 600 acres of now scenic farmland next to a school near the North Carolina coast. The project carries lessons for the rest of America – and all locales considering solar.

Locals are not happy. The electricity would be exported out of the area, which has been hit by Category 3 and 4 hurricanes and multiple tropical storms over the years. Another big one would likely send glass shards flying all over. Meanwhile, the Tar Heel state averages just 213 sunny days per year and 9 hours of bright sun per day; that translates into electricity just 20% of the year – unpredictably, unreliably, less affordably. Carbon dioxide reduction benefits? None. These and other issues must get a full hearing, before regulators issue any approvals.


Croplands, habitats, taxes, family budgets, safety sacrificed to enrich politically connected few? 

Wilkinson Solar has filed papers requesting permits for a 74-megawatt solar electricity facility about 35 miles east of Greenville, NC. If approved, 288,120 solar panels would blanket 600 acres (0.94 square miles) of now scenic, serene farmland next door to the Terra Ceia Christian School near Morehead City.

An artist rendering of solar panels overlaying a CJ aerial photograph of the Respess property surrounding the Terra Ceia Christian School. (CJ graphic)

The company wants to catch the solar wave, and make a lot of money under “net metering” policies that require payment for electricity added to the grid, whenever it is generated and regardless of whether the electricity is needed at the time. Electricity generated from these new panels would not be sold in the local area; it would be exported to Virginia, Raleigh-Durham and other locations.

Solar power installations doubled in 2016 over 2015, media outlets reported in February. There are now 1.3 million solar installations across the United States, with a cumulative capacity of over 40 gigawatts. That’s enough capacity to power 6,560,000 US households, they say. Of course, there are caveats.

There was intense effort to install as much new photovoltaic as possible in 2016 – driven by a fear that federal tax credits would not be renewed. Solar actually rose from 0.96% of US generation in 2015 only to 1.37% in 2016. 65% of electricity generation is still fossil fuels, 20% is nuclear, 6.5% hydroelectric, 2.0% biomass and geothermal, and 5.6% wind (which is as unreliable as solar).

The reliability factor is critical. The capacity to power 6,560,000 households does not equal actual power generation. It is what panels can generate if the sun shines at high enough intensity 24/7/365. It can be a lot of the time in areas that are bright, dry and sunny most of the year – to very little in other regions.

Those and related issues must guide decisions on whether the Wilkinson facility makes energy, engineering, economic and environmental sense for this North Carolina community, the Tar Heel State – or other locales facing similar decisions. Solar may be advantageous for politicians, corporations, renewable energy activists and their allies. But that should not override other considerations.

A 600-MW capacity coal, gas or nuclear plant operates 90-95% of the time. Its actual output will thus be 540 to 570 megawatts – from 300 acres (or less): 1.8 to 1.9 MW per acre, reliably and affordably.

Wilkinson would theoretically generate 74 MW from twice as much land. That’s 0.12 MW per acre – or 8.1 acres per MW. However, North Carolina averages only 213 sunny days per year, and perhaps 9 hours of good, electricity-generating sun per day.

Instead of 90-95% efficiency, Wilkinson would bring only 20% efficiency. The 288,120 panels would produce electricity only about 20% of the year. That is unpredictable, unreliable, less affordable energy.

The real output would be around 0.03 MW per acre or 33 acres per MW! Wilkinson’s claimed ability to generate enough electricity for 12,500 households shrinks to 2,750 homes, when the sun shines.

Wilkinson and farmers turned occasional power producers would still reap large sums of cash, via net metering and feed-in tariff policies. But crop and wildlife habitat lands would be converted to massive solar arrays, while neighbors would get a blighted landscape and no monetary or other benefits.

As Solar Mania and Solar Sprawl spread, electricity consumers would see their rates climb: from the 9 cents per kilowatt-hour average they now pay in North Carolina and Virginia, ever closer to the 16 to 18 cents per kWh that residents pay in “green energy” states like Connecticut, New York and California. Families, hospitals, schools, businesses, farms and factories would face increasingly tougher times paying their electric bills. Poor and minority families would be hit hardest.

Then there’s the survivability issue. Since 1879, North Carolina has been hit by twelve Category 3 hurricanes, one Category 4 (Hazel in 1954) and multiple tropical storms. Imagine the shards of flying glass that would be torn from solar panels and sent flying in all directions when the next ’cane inevitably hits. What that would do to people, animals and property is not pretty to contemplate. Torrential rains brought by these storms would send flood waters roaring through the installation, wreaking further havoc.

Solar proponents always tout energy, employment and climate stabilization benefits – which don’t exist.

Every megawatt of solar power must be backed up by coal or natural gas generators. Otherwise we have electricity when it happens to be available, instead of when we need it. Otherwise our offices, hospitals, assembly lines, televisions and internet go on and off constantly. No one can work or live that way.

The backup power plants must be running on standby (spinning reserve) all the time – then must ramp up to full power every time the sun stops shining. That slashes their efficiency, and sends their fuel costs and emissions skyrocketing. Any supposed energy, sustainability and climate benefits disappear.

Moreover, it is highly unlikely that any solar array can ever generate enough electricity over its entire life span to equal the energy that went into making, installing and servicing the panels. Mining the raw materials, turning them into metals and other panel components, hauling and installing the panels – all require enormous amounts of motor fuels, coking coal and electricity. The balance sheet is in the red.

Add in what it takes to build, fuel and operate the backup power plants, and solar is bankrupt.

Solar power does create jobs. In fact, U.S. Department of Energy data reveal that producing the same amount of electricity requires one coal worker or two natural gas workers – but 12 wind industry employees or 79 solar workers. That is hardly the ticket to a productive economy.

Even worse, Spanish and other studies have found that, for every renewable energy job created, two to four jobs are lost in other sectors that are forced to pay more and more for less reliable electricity.

Price and reliability are crucial in our digital age, with electricity the key to modern living standards, health, safety, and almost everything we make, eat and do. Solar electricity makes prices rise and reliability decline; its repeated electrical surges and slumps damage grid stability.

Some say using fossil fuels – which provide 82% of the energy that makes modern civilization possible – causes dangerous manmade climate change. But Hurricane Harvey just ended the nearly 12-year record absence of a Category 3-5 hurricane striking the United States. Average planetary temperatures are back to the same level we’ve seen for almost 20 years, following the end of the 2015-16 El Niño.

Those and other inconvenient realities completely contradict decades of alarmist climate predictions. And as just noted, overall fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions increase as solar power proliferates.

All this underscores why we must build more pipelines from areas that have become major natural gas production regions, thanks to hydraulic fracturing. Whether a gas-fired power plant serves as a primary electricity generator, or as backup for wind and solar, new pipelines are essential. They determine whether families, hospitals and businesses have affordable electricity when they need it.

Unfortunately, an array of governors, mayors, legislators, regulators and activist pressure groups are blocking pipeline projects from the Dakotas to New York and beyond, even as they promote more wind and solar. Pipelines and electricity are the backbone of our economy, civilization, jobs and living standards. Cut or paralyze that backbone, and our society will cease to function.

Hearing officials must give local residents and energy experts opportunities to explain these issues and voice their concerns about energy, land use, job, economic, environmental, hurricane and other impacts from solar installations like Wilkinson. Anything less is a dereliction of duty that benefits a few players – at the expense of everyone else. That must no longer happen.


Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and other books on the environment.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 1 vote
Article Rating
177 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark Nagle
September 1, 2017 10:21 pm

how is 214 days 20% of any year (9 hours per day is pretty standard)?? it’s so sad when you can literally taste the corporate oil dripping out of a “renewable is actually bad article”.

Reply to  Mark Nagle
September 1, 2017 10:26 pm

(214/365)(9/24)=.2254 or approximately 20%. BTW, I’m pretty sure that there is less than 1 hour of that 9 where solar production is 100% of rated capacity.

sciguy54
Reply to  Charles Rotter
September 3, 2017 6:57 am

The boaty crowd were early implementers of solar power. For 25 years the standard calculation, proven by experience, was to assume 4-5 hours of nameplate capacity during the sunniest half-year in a sunny region at 30-35 degree latitude. Daily power production comes in a fairly narrow bell curve, subject to the occasional day or week of almost nothing.
If the solar crowd wanted to demonstrate the true cost/kwh of solar grid power, they would follow traditional accounting practice and charge to solar all of the additional system costs incurred by accepting and following the irregular and bell-curved nature of solar production. They do not want to do this for good reason.
In the end, the true net cost of solar is far greater than proponents admit because electrical power generated when it is not needed has negative value, and irregularly intermittent power generation incurs costs throughout the generation and delivery infrastructure.

Griff
September 2, 2017 12:52 am

Here’s a plan to install solar for 800,000 low income families…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41122433

The Original Mike M
Reply to  Griff
September 2, 2017 1:29 pm

News from the future …
Sept. 2027 – “Retirement Home Sues Government for Roof Collapses” London pensioners filed a class action lawsuit for underwriting a ten year old solar program that encouraged installation practices that led to roof collapses from leaks that rotted rafters. Injuries ranged from a minor loss of personal possessions to, in one instance, a bite from a rabid squirrel that had gained entrance to a home through the attic and crawled into the bed of a sleeping pensioner one night. ….

SteveT
Reply to  Griff
September 3, 2017 1:11 am

Griff
September 2, 2017 at 12:52 am
Here’s a plan to install solar for 800,000 low income families…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41122433
“The firm providing the panels, Solarplicity, will work with more than 40 social landlords, including local authorities across England and Wales.
It will profit from the payments received under the feed-in tariff scheme and payments for energy from social housing customers.”

As always, being paid for by other peoples money, in this case taxpayers topped up with money from other electricity customers. This, together with all the temporary jobs is not a sustainable proposition.
How this article has the nerve to claim that subsidies are not required is incredible. Typical BBC reporting of distortion and lies.
SteveT

September 2, 2017 6:37 am

Nice hit job. Increasing supply of solar does not increase co2 emissions. Yes you need backup grid power if you don’t have a grid adjacent battery backup. batteries (9¢/kwh amortized) plus solar or wind (3-7¢/kwh in most markets), today are only slightly more expensive for 100% reliable clean and conditioned power output, WITHOUT subsidies. I personally agree the feed in tariff-analogous net metering system is inefficient and it unreasonably subjects local power customers to wild price variation against their will. It should end. But solar and, even more so, wind are the future of grid power and by 2030 are conservatively projected to cost less to power 100% of tropical and temperate grids with battery backup, unsubsidized, at rates comparable to existing natural gas, with no gaseous or particulate externalities.
Contact me via email for more information and discussion
Jaredryanbland@gmail.com

Ajay Goyal
September 2, 2017 7:53 am

I am glad to see so much “reaction” to a very very flawed article….. the author does not understand anything about efficiency, capacity factor etc…. Not sure what his/her qualifications are…..
However I am glad at the massive response… right or wrong… it is very heartening to see that there is so much “grass roots” support (no we donot need Trump) for solar, renewable, green technologies…. with or without polluting fossil fuels or radioactive wastes from nuclear plants.
GOD BLESS THE USA and the 7 Billion residents around the globe who call… Earth… their home and want to keep it clean and healthy…… for all!!!

Ajay Goyal
September 2, 2017 8:09 am

I would urge ALL developers of this and other “solar farms” to consider installing solar greenhouses…. using the roof as a solar facility and the enclosed area below as year round… greenhouse (yes the solar panels will help “moderate” the temperatures in the greenhouse too).
Further, some or all, the electricity generated can be used to power hot and cold water producing Heat Pumps with a COP (using energy out/energy in) of 9 or greater resulting in a thermal efficiency of greater than 100%…… for heating and (agricultural/commercial) refrigeration purposes.
Yes… you can have your cake and eat it too….. now the question is….. will the “financiers” funded by the Federal Reserve, and backed by Uncle Sam (aka you and me) help out… you and me…. by funding these “self-paying” projects when properly designed and executed.
Needless to say….. this preserves farmlamd for agriculture and the controlled environment in these greenhouses… further enhamce the quality and quantity (less vulnerable to natural cakamaties) of produce… for ALL CPNSUMERS…. WITHOUT DEGRADING THE AIR and improving the environment and health of all…. as those polluting plants can be shutdown… one by one….

Gil
Reply to  Ajay Goyal
September 2, 2017 10:18 am

Ajay 9:08 am. How would sunlight get to the plants in the greenhouse if8 it’s roof is covered with solar panels?
Also, in response to JJB MK1 on 9/1 at 3:47 a.m. asking about banks creating money, a good source is The Creature from Jekyll Island by Edward Griffin. It tells about the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank and how it makes money out of thin air in our debt-based monetary system. It’s 600 pages, but you only need to read the first 200, or just read the preview and summary at the beginning and end of each chapter, which takes about an hour. You could also Google “The Globalist Agenda” and scroll to the passage quoting Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England in the 1920s.

September 2, 2017 2:29 pm

Sunflowers that never quite bloom.

Derek Colman
September 2, 2017 6:09 pm

Your math is wrong. Solar panels only generate about 12% of installed capacity, and you have it at 25%. You have not accounted for the low output before and after midday, and the effect of clouds. At 2 hours before and after midday output is only half what it is at midday.

buggs
September 5, 2017 10:27 am

Late to the party and never got through all the of the comments but…
No question of the impact to 600 acres of biodiversity? We can stop irrigation in California because of impacts to a few fish (which are harmed more by annual survey sampling than they would be by irrigation allowances but I digress) but we won’t even for a second consider what essentially “paving” over 600 acres will do to the area in question and the associated flora and fauna? Stunning ignorance again of the weekend environmentalist. Sure, mammals are often cute and furry but they are relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things when we consider plants, fungi and insects for example. But then Disney doesn’t do those.