‘GREEN’ ENERGY FAILS EVERY TEST
By John Hinderacker, Power Line Blog.
The sad story of Minnesota’s green energy failure is one that no doubt is being replicated around the country. And one of the ironies of green energy is that it is terrible for the environment.
Liberals will tell you that Minnesota is one of the nation’s leaders in “green” energy, so its experience represents a good test: can green energy fulfill the extravagant promises made by its backers?
The answer is a resounding No, according to a blockbuster paper by our own Steve Hayward and Center of the American Experiment’s Peter Nelson. The paper, titled “Energy Policy in Minnesota: the High Cost of Failure,” can be read or downloaded at the Center’s web site.
Minnesota is a poor place for solar power, so its renewable policies have focused on wind. Minnesota has gone whole hog for wind energy, to the tune of–the Hayward/Nelson paper reveals, for the first time–approximately $15 billion. It is noteworthy that demand for electricity in Minnesota has been flat for quite a few years, so that $15 billion wasn’t spent to meet demand. Rather, it replaced electricity that already was being produced by coal, nuclear and natural gas plants.
Wind energy is intermittent and unreliable; it can only be produced when the wind is blowing within certain parameters, and cannot be stored at scale. It is expensive and inefficient, and therefore patently inferior to nuclear, coal and natural gas-powered electricity, except in one respect–its “greenness.” That greenness consists of not emitting carbon dioxide. So, for $15 billion, Minnesota must have bought a dramatic reduction in the state’s CO2 emissions, right?
Wrong. As the Hayward/Nelson paper shows, that massive investment hasn’t even made a dent. This chart shows total CO2 emissions from the state, by sector, from 1990 through 2014. There was a slight dip in 2012 and 2013 not because of wind power, but because an accident put one of the state’s major coal-fired units out of commission for two years:
Minnesota’s massive investment in wind power has reduced CO2 emissions from the electricity generation sector slightly, but that reduction has been below average compared with the nation as a whole. Why? Because the most effective way to reduce CO2 emissions, if you think that is a worthy goal, has been to replace coal with natural gas. Wind power has many defects, one of which is that it is windiest in the spring and fall, when demand for electricity is at its low ebb, and least windy in the summer and winter, when electricity demand peaks. So what fills those gaps? In Minnesota, coal does.
So Minnesota’s colossal investment in wind energy has been a total failure, in its own terms–a failure for which the state’s consumers and businesses have paid dearly. Historically, Minnesota enjoyed the advantage of relatively cheap electricity. Generally, electricity prices were around 18% lower in Minnesota than the national average. This was a big deal in a state where some other costs–e.g., the price of heating your home in the winter–were inevitably higher than average.
So what has happened to that 18% price discount during the years when billions have been spent on windmills and transmission lines? It has disappeared. In fact, 2017 is the first year on record in which the price of electricity in Minnesota is above the national average. Way to go, greenies.
I believe Excel energy took 40 acres of green space in MN to install solar panels. I have no problem with people putting them on their homes and businesses, but to take 40 acres away from nature?
Shame
“I have no problem with people putting them on their homes and businesses”
Agree. but only so long as I’m not being forced to help pay for it.
While I understand your sentiment, living in a state people call “desolate”, I am angered that people think they can just dump useless wind on the state because it’s worthless. I don’t like trees and forests much, but I don’t advocate cutting them down and putting in turbines. Wind is dumped on places where there are few people to fight back, sending the message that these people are useless and their homes and lifestyles are useless.
Just an observation based on personal experience. Solar heat for a dwelling only works on an individual bases. Ditto, solar cells as electricity generating resources, and for windspinners, also. Mother Earth News had plenty of plans for people who wanted to go off the grid and generate their own electricity. The magazine also published plans for solar ovens and stoves. I can get a couple of 55-gallon oil drums, cut them in half, mount them on a suitable pole with bearings to keep them spinning in any wind, or just use the old-fashioned farm windmill, and I can generate enough electricity to run MY house on a day-to-day basis. I can also use my house as a heat collector, simply because it’s built to do that and has the right insulation for it.
IT DOES NOT WORK ON AN INDUSTRIAL LEVEL, PERIOD.
The nonsense that it works on an industrial scale, with no nod to the cost of production of equipment or testing and construction, results in exactly what is going on now in Oz, with people unable to pay for their utilities, going without electricity and/or heat when they need it most. What’s next? Shutting down hospitals in the middle of surgery because the hospital can’t pay the bills for power?
The fact that it works on an individual basis does not mean that it translates well to an industrial scale.
Now you see the consequences of ignoring the real facts.
It works for ME, but not for THEE, power companies.
Very well said, Sara.
What greater good could this $15 Billion have produced? We will never know.
$15 Billion…. Dust in the wind.
J Mac wrote:”What greater good could this $15 Billion have produced? We will never know.
$15 Billion…. Dust in the wind.”
The global warming mob has caused the waste of tens of trillions of dollars worldwide. Imagine how much good this could have done if spent responsibly by intelligent people. instead of being squandered by scoundrels and imbeciles.
This was Bjorn Lomborg’s point.
For the money that has been spent on windmills and solar, we could have provided clean water to every man woman and child on the planet.
True, but the Greenbeans won’t stop pounding this into the ground until there is nothing left of it. I want to see THEM with no heat in winter, no lights at night all year ’round, and no air conditioning in the summer/ (I haven’t had to use my A/C for four years now, because of cooler summers.) I want to see THEM going without basics, like food and water because they can’t afford the cost.
We all might as well move THEM back to the 18th century, or earlier, before oil lamps were used, just to let them know exactly where THEY are heading us.
What kind of a heartless American isn’t willing to spend another 18 cents/kw hr to SAVE THE PLANET from BIG OIL, BIG COAL … and the BIG ORANGE imposter in the White House … /sarc.
Wind power accounts for 18% of Minnesota’s power supply. So there is enough that one would think it would have an effect. One reason it probably doesn’t is that even when the wind blows, backup, fast reacting power stations need to be idling, and are open cycle gas power generators – which respond quickly, as required if the wind suddenly lessons, but are the most fuel intensive nat gas generators – they burn as much fuel idling as closed circuit nat gas generators use while providing power. This should be detectable by research. You’d think understanding how a grid operates would be an essential before mucking things up. I remember back before wind turbines were widespread,that a study of Minnesota’s grid by some university (Minnesota I believe) claimed that Minnesota could incorporate as much as ,I think, 40% wind power and still operate without interruptions. The question they should have been asked was what would be the side effects and total cost would be.
You can skip the idling if you have enough batteries to supply the time for a cold start.
Of course that adds even more billions to the cost of your system.
As long as electricity is invisible and mixed on the grid, people will not understand this. The uselessness of wind is only apparent when the line to the grid is cut.
Because of its availabilty, CNG power plants have converted local grids to a point where they supassed coal fired plants as a source of electricity. CNG pipelines provide the energy to heat homes and power cars and trucks; making it the fuel of choice CNG power plants can come on line in 7 sec. Power generation can be local and gas pipelines are a below ground transport as opposed to huge electric line corridors.
Frank, a few years back I was aware of small-scale, high-efficiency CT’s. They were being used at office towers, apartment complexes,etc.
What do you know about their deployment?
I spent over 6 years in south Minnesota and there wasn’t any major environmental issue over there. In fact, the air was fine and so was the water. Not like in other places where tap water tastes bad. Nothing that solar panels or wind turbines can fix, anyway.
Here is an old pic I took close where I used to live. You can see a power plant next to the Zumbro river. It was winter but the heat of the coal plant prevents the river and the Silver lake located downstream from freezing. Canadian geese take advantage of the warmer waters and spend the winters around the lake, instead of having to migrate further south. It is one of the environmental advantages of having a power plant that nobody mentions, probably because the environuts cannot turn it into profit. And lets face it, most environuts are city dwellers who don’t spent time in the countryside, so probably they don’t know about that. (And if they know it, they will hide it)
http://oi67.tinypic.com/t8rpz8.jpg
It is funny how canadian geese line up along the warm current, I guess, produced by the power plant.
But, but….. warmer is bad isn’t it? (seems like 97% of geese don’t agree though…..) 🙂
That particular coal power plant has closed down due to the threat posed by Obama era regulations. No noticeable difference in the cities air pollution but a lot less geese in the winter.
Minnesota is a pretty good place for wind energy. A lot of farmland is used for the wind towers which isn’t as bad for birds and the wind blows pretty consistently. So this study is looking at one of the most optimal locations for wind energy and it still hasn’t reduced CO2 to any great extent.
In Florida the manatees love to hang around power plants during the winter.
I love Canadian Geese, except for all their crap on office park lawns. While greenies are stupid, nature’s creatures are not.
While the global warming alarmists have had all of us serfs sacrificing in the name of “climate change”, the green energy industry leaders such as Jeff Immelt (formerly of GE) have been doing things like this:
For much of Jeff Immelt’s 16-year run atop one of the world’s largest conglomerates, an empty business jet followed his GE-owned plane on some trips to destinations around the world, according to people familiar with the matter. The two jets sometimes parked far apart so they wouldn’t attract attention, and flight crews were told to not openly discuss the empty plane, the people said.
The second plane was a spare in case Mr. Immelt’s jet had mechanical problems. A GE spokeswoman said that “two planes were used on limited occasions for business-critical or security purposes.” Mr. Immelt didn’t respond to requests for comment.
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/278760/#respond
The green trauma is worse when the evil coal plant protects an endangered species in winter, like the Big Bend plant near Tampa that hosts hundreds of Manatees in the cooling outflow during winter months.
The warm outfall from Maine Yankee provided a habitat for hundreds of lobsters, and a fishery for lobstermen at a time of the year when prices are high and setting traps difficult .
MN failed because they obviously didn’t spend enough. Solution: try again, but spend 5x as much.
Which pay day lender do you recommend them to?
Examining the data, we find Minnisota producing 17.7% of their power from wind, and 23% from their three (small) nuclear plants. $15 billion will buy you two 1200 MW nuclear plants, which could produce 35% of the power Minnesota needs, resulting in 58% nuclear.
And those nuclear plants would have the added benefit of providing power 24/7/365 rain or shine…
The good folk of Minnesota should enact a law stipulating that all food products be labelled with their carbon content … this will assist them to lower their use of this diabolical element, in line with their green energy commitments.
Maybe they should just burn corn ethanol in the boilers and move their presidential primary up ahead of Iowa. That gets a lot of attention at least and political fawning.
You know I must say one thing – sure wind power is costly, unsightly, and kills a lot of birds, but on the other hand, it also doesn’t meet our energy needs.
We need more funding for more ideas that also don’t meet our energy needs. Otherwise we will never be able to not stop global warming!
Geoman, I wish you had posted a spew alert when you dropped that comment in!
Much good discussion and many well-informed, insightful, high-value, comments on this thread. After reading the posted article, the linked, underlying paper, and the comments, nevertheless, something still needs to be said here —
The Hayward — Nelson paper rests on the false premise loudly exemplified by this statement:
(Hayward and Nelson, 2017)
“Reducing greenhouse gas emissions” is complete waste of time.
CO2 UP. WARMING NOT.
Spending one dime on this is as poor an investment as buying a lottery ticket (See, e.g., http://www.businessinsider.com/powerball-lottery-expected-value-2016-1 — NEGATIVE $ .14).
*************************
Well. How appropriate that my comment is a bit late in the day (and may be the final one), for it states the bottom line, here. 🙂
This is funny – Media Marx (the BBC) has today a long story about the final end of car 🚗 manufacturing in Australia:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-41675196
Have a guess – do you think there was a SINGLE MENTION of the reason – sky high electricity prices and low reliability of the same? Not a chance, comrades!
Be fair – sky-high labour costs engineered by strong-arm unions also contributed. The Enterprise Bargaining Agreements that existed in the car manufacturing sector were far more lucrative than the working conditions of most Australian workers.
The German Spiegel magazine has a short article with a picture of smiling people:
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/holden-australiens-letztes-autowerk-macht-dicht-a-1173837.html
The article is in german. A few points:
– The last produced car shown in the picture is planned to go to a museum
– The people are not happy
– In the high days Holden had a workforce of 24‘000, today only 950
– The union says politicians are responsible because subsidies stopped in 2014
– Ford closed it’s australian factories last year, Toyota in october
MAINE initiated RGGI, the regional greenhouse gas initiative and theoretically reduced emissions; while siphoning off money for Energy Efficiency organizations.
Like Minnesota, RGGI claimed tons of averted emissions, and like Minnesota temps apparently went up… curious fact that there was neither a regional CO2 measurement methodology, nor a consistent one for temps so who really knows, keeping in mind CO2 is a vital ground level gas.
Ignorance of the KYOTO/COPENHAGEN recommendation to reforest the planet resulted in less biomass and in turn diminished photosynthesis; so no more oxygen, no more stored carbon, no more cleansing of other air pollutants, fewer bees, birds and greater rain runoff.
Depending upon how much forest was lost to wind farms during this socialist power grab and attack on corporations, the great emissions control scam only made AGW worse.