100 Percent Renewable Cities – Is the Mayor of Porkopolis Smarter than a 5th Grader?

Cincinnati, aptly the home of the Flying Pig Marathon, and formerly known as Porkopolis, has been the 100th city to fight climate change by pledging to be powered 100% by renewable energy. Chances of success are likely to be high, according to the mayor. As a former Cincy resident who knows the climate for wind and solar, I say, in a pig’s eye. BTW if you’ve never had it, and want to try something truly unique, try this Cincinnati Chili mix.  – Anthony


By Steve Goreham

Mayors in more than 100 US cities have announced plans to transition their electrical power systems to 100 percent renewable by 2050. They propose replacement of traditional coal, natural gas, and nuclear generating stations with wind, solar, and wood-fired stations. But none of these mayors has a plausible idea of how to meet their commitment.

In December, Cincinnati became the one-hundredth US city to commit to 100 percent electricity from renewable sources, with a target to achieve this goal by 2035. Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley stated, “It has become clear that cities will lead the global effort to fight climate change, and Cincinnati is on the front lines.” Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson also pledged to reach 100 percent renewable electricity by 2050 as part of the city’s 2018 Climate Action Plan.

But these announcements appear to be a folk tale worthy of the Brothers Grimm.

In 2018, renewables provided less than 3 percent of Ohio’s electricity, which came 47 percent from coal, 35 percent from natural gas, and 15 percent from nuclear generators. Mayors Cranley and Jackson appear to have failed to consider the cost or scale of their energy change commitments.

As part of the effort, the Ohio Power Siting Board approved the Icebreaker Wind Facility last July. The Icebreaker project would initially construct six 3.5-gigawatt wind turbines in Lake Erie, ten miles off the coast of Cleveland, at an estimated cost of $126 million. The project would annually produce only about 75 gigawatt-hours of electricity, but plans call for an expansion to over 1,000 offshore wind towers.

Renewable energy is fashionable, but also expensive. The Icebreaker wind turbines cost $21 million each, or about six times the US market price for wind turbines, which is about $1 million per megawatt. The cost for expansion to 1,000 turbines would approach $20 billion. These renewable system costs will be in addition to existing power generation plants, 90 percent of which must be maintained to provide security of electricity supply when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.

In 2017, Ohio residents consumed 119,000 gigawatt-hours of electrical power. If completed, the 1,000 wind turbines of the expanded $20 billion Icebreaker project would deliver about 12,000 gigawatt-hours, or only about 10 percent of Ohio’s electricity need.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter pledged their cities to 100 percent renewables by 2030. Major wind system build-outs during the last five years boosted Minnesota to the eighth-leading wind energy state in the US. Renewables now provide about 27 percent of the state’s electricity. But Minnesota residents are paying for it. Over the last nine years, Minnesota power prices increased 34 percent, compared to the US average price rise of 7 percent.

In Wisconsin, Madison Mayor Paul Soglin announced last July the city’s commitment to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2050. But Wisconsin is not exactly the sun belt. Traditional generating stations provide 92 percent of the state’s electrical power and Wisconsin is a poor location for both wind and solar.

Not to be deterred, the City of Madison announced in 2017, a contract for five “utility-scale” solar arrays that would deliver 20 megawatt-hours of electricity per year. But Wisconsin consumes 65,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity each year. More than thirty thousand such “utility-scale” solar projects would be needed to supply just one percent of Wisconsin’s electricity.

City officials in Atlanta pledged to reach 100 percent renewables by 2035, but have been honest about the fact that they don’t know how to do it. Only about 6 percent of Atlanta’s electricity comes from renewable sources, about the same amount as the state of Georgia. So, Atlanta proposes purchasing large amounts of renewable energy credits from wind and solar generators in other states, so that they can claim their green energy status.

Energy does not have color. No one can tell whether the electricity from their wall outlet is green or provided by a coal-fired plant. Purchasing renewable credits from other locations is the slight-of-hand method that allows city mayors to claim 100 percent renewable status.

Maybe these mayors have learned a way to spin climate change straw into gold. Cincinnati, Cleveland, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Atlanta, and several other cities will receive $2.5 million grants from the Bloomberg Philanthropies group of billionaire Michael Bloomberg for their efforts to “fight climate change.” Unfortunatly, these grants will only be a drop in the bucket compared to the billions in additional electricity costs that citizens will pay for renewable electricity programs.

California is the center of the 100-percent-renewables fable. More than 30 California cities have committed to 100 percent renewable electricity, including San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose, as well as the state of California itself. The state is doing a great job of boosting electricity prices. According to the US Department of Energy, California 2017 residental electricity prices were 18.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, about 50 percent higher than any other state in the West. Look for California rates to double in the next two decades, driven by efforts to achieve high penetration of renewables.

khpsvqo3

So is your mayor smarter than a fifth grader? When it comes to energy policy, maybe not.


Originally published in The Western Journal. Republished here at the request of the author.

Steve Goreham is a speaker on the environment, business, and public policy and author of the book Outside the Green Box: Rethinking Sustainable Development.


Of course, no discussion of Cincinnati and animals flying can be complete without WKRP’s Turkey Drop, where their competing radio station had the call letters WPIG. I’ll just leave this here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

135 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Robert W Turner
February 20, 2019 10:12 am

3.5 GW wind turbines? Shouldn’t that be 3.5 MW turbines?

Reply to  Robert W Turner
February 20, 2019 11:22 am

You are correct. The writer (Steve Gorham) is so ignorant of the basic technology that he can’t spot obvious errors in his writings.

3.5 MW turbines, not uncommon.
6 turbines x 3.5MW/turbine x 24hrs x 365days x 30% duty factor = 55 GW-hrs per annum.

To get to 75 GW-hrs per annum, you have to assume a 41% duty factor. Probably far too high given that in strong winds (gale force) and heavy icing conditions (winter when you most need electricity), the turbines will have to be feathered.

Assume at a full production capacity in an ideal 20-25 mph winds the six turbines would produce their name-plate of 21 MW of power for the grid. On a cold winter night, a city like Cleveland’s size (a population of about 400,000) probably consumes a reliable 400 MW (at a MW per 1,000 people, which includes their homes plus their offices-stores-theaters, businesses, government offices, and external civic lighting needs. Typically 1 MW as a RoT can supply 1,000 homes. But a city is far more than just homes). SO those 6 turbines would produce about 5% of Cleveland’s current needs if they were turning in optimal wind loads. And Cleveland’s consumption of electricity would increase dramatically if public transportation, home heating, and personal vehicles eliminated fossil fuels and went all-electric (it would more than triple current demand at night time).

At $126 million for those 6 turbines and spreading just the construction cost out over 10 years, and assuming about 100,000 homes in Cleveland, then that is about an additional $126 to the home owners annual bill for just 5% of their electricity from those turbines. If the Greenies wanted get to 100% theoretical supply for Cleveland’s homes, it would be about 20 x $126 = $2,500 additional per year per household for their virtue signalling nirvana. And then since wind is intermittent, there would still have to be back-up supplies, or purchases on the spot market for wind electricity short-falls. Spot market prices for electricity can easily reach 10 fold average whole-contract prices. These periods of spot market electricity purchases would easily raise the average cost per KWh-hr for Cleveland from about 11.4 cents/KW-hr to well over 20 cents.
source: https://www.electricitylocal.com/states/ohio/cleveland/

So the average Cleveland home owner’ electricity bill of $250/month would increase probably by $300-$400 month to at least the $600/month level to get to 100% renewable claims. At 5% levels, it would probably increase by about $12 month, with nothing to show for it but 6 turbines out in the Lake marring the views.

Bryan A
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 20, 2019 2:57 pm

The Icebreaker project would initially construct six 3.5-gigawatt wind turbines in Lake Erie, ten miles off the coast of Cleveland, at an estimated cost of $126 million. The project would annually produce only about 75 gigawatt-hours of electricity, but plans call for an expansion to over 1,000 offshore wind towers

That works out to $20M per turbine and the city plans 1000 more? Where will the city council squander the $20B needed for the fiasco?
This would be one project that wouldn’t be able to claim “Economy of Scale”

griff
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 21, 2019 12:29 am

Modern wind turbines are in the 5 to 9 MW range… and taller.

There are many US states with wind capacity factors 29% and upward… in the central US there are 4 with 39 to 40+ capacity.

and of course it won’t just be wind alone – there will be solar too, with storage for domestic users.

Another Paul
Reply to  griff
February 21, 2019 5:48 am

“Modern wind turbines are in the 5 to 9 MW range” Now lets adjust the cost per turbine accordingly and see if it changes the per MWhr math.

“there will be solar too, with storage for domestic users” Unless there is a financial incentive, why would anybody get into the energy storage business? There is a perfectly good grid at my door step, available for pennies per kWhr, that already “stores” all the energy I could ever want? Unless you can completely eliminate the grid connection, it’s silly to pay for both.

Reply to  griff
February 21, 2019 7:20 am

OMG! 29% capacity factor! That’s just great, griffy. Storage too! Who knew? That must be great too.

I have some of this magic elixer to sell you….

Reply to  griff
February 21, 2019 7:16 pm

Grif, the sizing of the 3.5 MW turbines is likely constrained by several factors.
A big one is how many birds you are going to kill.
The Large 150 meter diameter rotors of 5 x 6 MW Block Island Farm (rotor disc height above water = 600 feet) if installed in the Great Lakes area would reach into the Duck and Geese flyways at 500 feet above the water.

But then Liberals will allow killing whatever birds are necessary for their religion.

Mark
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 21, 2019 6:52 pm

Concerning the Great Lakes proposed nightmare.

Never considered in any of this is that there is zero floating or shore infrastructure to install or maintain these expensive fragile toys. They will be a hazard to navigation and there will be huge exclusion zones to boaters. These will need to be maintained by ever more vigilant water cops. The stated life of these never considers the failure rate of the mechanical parts or that replacement of these items on land exceeds the value of the generated power. Now add the cost of maintaining at sea.

All of this is subsidized but the subsidies are not counted in the metrics.

If I proposed a net looser project requiring the upset of of acres of sensitive Great Lakes bottom and adding a marine component of puking dirty diesel burning work boats and the possibility of toxic spills, should I get a permit?

Matthew Drobnick
February 20, 2019 10:14 am

The beauty of taxation…

Statists never fail to defend the indefensible. This is the natural, unavoidable, 100% reliable end of the state. It must always deteriorate into tyranny since the foundation is theft.

Steal others money, spend it as you wish. What could go wrong?
The only sure bet outside of death. The state will eventually destroy the society that built it, and be responsible for the deaths of a significant percentage of it’s population. One hell of a paradox.

We seriously need to all stop paying all taxes until the government shrinks back to pre 1913 saturation.
All those government workers? To friggin bad. They are almost all lazy, worthless losers who can’t bear the insecurity of accountability in the real world.

JOE BANKS
February 20, 2019 10:15 am

If you start with a 100 wind turbines and use all the energy from them to build wind turbines you will run out of them. They do not create enough energy to replicate themselves.

William Astley
Reply to  JOE BANKS
February 20, 2019 10:55 am

Yup. Reality may seem tough, but ignoring reality is just pathetic.

Pathetic as no one has the guts to speak the truth.

if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions

The problem situation is worst than just producing sufficient energy to build the wind farm.

Continually varying power output from a wind farm (power output is at the cube of wind speed, wind farms output can and does vary by 30% in 20 minutes) forces other power sources (mostly single pass natural gas power plants which are 20% less efficient than combined cycle natural gas power plants that produce steam form the waste heat and require 10 hours to start) to vary which in addition to the increase in long distance transmission reduces grid efficient by 5% to 10%.

In Germany the idiots added more and more variable energy forcing the shutdown of combined cycle power plants.

There has an Oxford professor who calculated the pluses and minuses to determine the true net CO2 reduction benefit of wind and sun gathering. His conclusion in his peer reviewed paper has the same as the google engineers.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/

The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.

A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

As we reflected on the project, we came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

Boulder Skeptic
Reply to  William Astley
February 21, 2019 8:14 pm

“Reality may seem tough, but ignoring reality is just pathetic. Pathetic as no one has the guts to speak the truth.”

Politicians in general have trouble with truth-telling, but Democrats specifically are lying any time their mouths are moving or they are writing something. In case it wasn’t obvious, here’s what a interwebs searchy thingy shows…

Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley – Democrat
Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson – Democrat
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey – Democratic-Farmer-Labor
St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter – Democratic-Farmer-Labor
Madison Mayor Paul Soglin – Democrat
Atlanta City Council – Democrat

Why are voters such idiots to keep falling for this sh!#?

Stephen Richards
February 20, 2019 10:17 am

Presumably they will cut all links to the rest of the USA power network so as not to take Fossil fuel or nuclear generated electricity.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Stephen Richards
February 20, 2019 10:33 am

It’s going to work sort of like an investment scheme. 20,000% of the renewable energy generated will be sold to the cities/investors. And since you can’t have 20,000% of something, the scheme will need to fail, and it will be said that there wasn’t enough investment in the first place for the project to work.

Gamecock
Reply to  Robert W Turner
February 20, 2019 10:48 am

They need Jim and Tammy Faye to run it.

Reply to  Robert W Turner
February 20, 2019 2:00 pm

Robert, I had a similar thought.
Let’s assume that Wind/solar accounts for only a single digit % of the US needs.
If hundreds of cities follow Cincinnati’s plan (they hope to be an “example”) won’t the US quickly run out of available “renewable credits”?
As they get more scarce, won’t the cost of those credits rise and start to bankrupt those cities?

The only ones to gain would be Al Gore (and Enron, if they hadn’t been busted.)

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Stephen Richards
February 20, 2019 11:52 am

Yeah, they don’t tell you they aren’t disconnecting from the regular, fossil fueled electric grid, but they imply they are, and are going to supply themselves wholly with wind and solar. It’s a lie. These people are living a lie and want the rest of us to live it, too.

None of these mayors will succeed in running their cities with 100 percent renewables. It’s a bad joke. They should look to Georgetown, Texas. Their mayor made the same claims as these mayors. Georgetown’s mayor has already had to eat his words because of the huge cost overruns that came about. That day is coming for the rest of these mayors, too.

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 20, 2019 3:04 pm

Definitely one of the first requirements for any city to claim 100% renewable energy supply is to require all generation take place within city limits, and that “City Limits” lines must be contiguous.

peterh
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 20, 2019 9:03 pm

The scam I’ve seen is 100% “net” green energy. They sell excess production, or if necessary pay for the excess to be taken, as an offset to the conventional power generation they buy when the “green” energy falls short. It’s an accounting scam to mask the need for backup power generation. Of course those trapped in a location running such a scam pay higher electric rates, and suffer 3rd world grid reliability if it goes far enough.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  peterh
February 21, 2019 5:16 am

” It’s an accounting scam to mask the need for backup power generation.”

Exactly!

I’ll be impressed by the first mayor that says his city is going 100 percent off the existing electrical grid and will only operate on windmills and solar.

We are dealing with a lot of dishonest people when it comes to CAGW hype. The “100 percent renewable” claims are just more dishonesty.

Paul
February 20, 2019 10:19 am

Quite possibly that Cincinnati Chili is quite delicious. But as a boy from New Mexico, where we take our chile very serious, we consider Chile a vegetable and not a spice. The listed ingredients don’t even list chile as an ingredient. Their energy plan along with the chili could be described by the former Wendy’s hawker as, “Where’s the Beef?”

FreddyB
Reply to  Paul
February 24, 2019 4:04 am

I like Cincinnati style chili but it’s not anything like actual chili. It’s more like a Greek spaghetti sauce. It’s typically served over spaghetti with shredded mild cheddar.

Robert W Turner
February 20, 2019 10:25 am

I think we’re starting to see more effects (delusions) caused by fluoridated water.

Reply to  Robert W Turner
February 20, 2019 11:17 am

You say that in jest?
I think we are living in logic challenged times exactly because of it.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Carlos Ramírez
February 20, 2019 1:52 pm

I say that in all seriousness. There probably isn’t a better example of the current zeitgeist than fluoridated municipal water supplies.

It’s one of those topics that the establishment (for lack of a better term) has managed to pajoratize into a “conspiracy theory” and now if you question the benefits and mention the risks of it, the NPCs look at you like you just claimed to have discovered bigfoot. The wiki page is even locked down on the topic and it’s impossible to even link to something like https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/ or
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db53.htm
without it being quickly removed.
The American Dental Association promotes the practice, yet they admit that fluoridated water does not work topically and instead is systemic. First of all, I know how these organizations work and their promotion likely doesn’t represent the actual opinion of dentists, and secondly, if it’s systemic then why is a dental association promoting it in the first place?

There is no difference in the rate of reduction in dental caries in places that fluoridate their water vs places that do not. Fluorosis is on the rise (the most obvious effect), and so are diseases related to plaque buildup inside or outside of the brain -you think purposely ingesting the most electronegative element that loves to take the place of calcium is a bad idea? This replacement of calcium also causes skeletal fluorosis, leading to osteoporosis.

But fluoride is naturally occuring in the environment and you are exposed to more of it naturally than any city puts in their tap water the NPCs say. Exactly, putting fluoride in tap water doesn’t remove you from these natural sources either, some of which were already high enough to contribute to these diseases BEFORE purposely fluoridating water, so what do they think will happen when adding these sources together? Drink a large glass of ice tea today? You very likely ingested way over your limit of fluoride. Drink tea, eat shellfish, and live in an area with fluoride air pollution, which contributes to its levels in the soil and water (in turn in you vegetables)? You’re very slowly being poisoned.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Robert W Turner
February 20, 2019 3:46 pm

And I’ll add one more thing to drive this point home. The fluoride in toothpaste doesn’t work by improving crystallization of your enamel – “strengthening” your teeth as the commercials claim. Fluoridated toothpaste works because it IS toxic, probably the most toxic thing in your home by volume. It does a very good job in killing all the microbes in your mouth that cause cavities.

LdB
Reply to  Robert W Turner
February 20, 2019 7:48 pm

Stop spreading pseudojunk the effects of fluoride and experiments are well recorded and reproduced. It has 3 effects it has antibacterial properties (you agree on that one), it increases tooth remineralization and finally it changes part of the tooth remineralization from hydroxyapatite and carbonated hydroxyapatite to fluorapatite which is actually harder.

So this is the substance of interest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorapatite

So the claim it strengthens teeth is actually valid.

If you want to argue that then show studies that have teeth of people who drink water with fluoridation that have no fluorapatite in there teeth to prove it.

Martin557
Reply to  Robert W Turner
February 20, 2019 12:17 pm

High Fructose Corn Syrup also. Dextrose as well. My own personal experience is it creates resistance in the electrical circuits of the brain and body and can cause all kinds of nastiness to happen. OK, Fluoride is nasty enough on it’s own.

StephanA
February 20, 2019 10:30 am

Pretty hilarious. I went to college at the university of Dayton. We did a wind power study for the air force. We came to the conclusion that the diesel generators that they were using at their remote locations were more economical to run, and didn’t stop when the wind died. That test windmill really made a racket and I was glad when it was dismantled. Even more funny Cincinnati gets a lot of it’s power from the coal fired Stuart power plant. It was originally slated to be a nuclear plant but somewhere along the way it was made into a coal plant.

icisil
February 20, 2019 10:42 am

Green advisers: “Dr. Evil, we have devised the ultimate ponzi scheme to convince voters to vote for candidates who support 100% renewable energy!”

Dr. Evil: “Excellent!”

Green advisers: “This is our plan. We will get a few democratic-run states to legislate only 100% renewable energy, Those will draw dispatchable, hydrocarbon-generated power from other states when their unreliable, renewable energy can’t produce energy. Then through science-via-press-release, we will create the impression that because100% renewable energy is possible in that state, it is possible in every state.”

Dr. Evil: ” Excellent! We must keep the plebs from realizing that if every state adopts a 100% energy policy, then the whole system will collapse because unreliable power cannot keep modern society running.”

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  icisil
February 20, 2019 11:46 am

The Morons that run the BUD breweries ( AMBEV ) claim they are Wind-Powered–see the commercial.
The Budweiser Brand will go the way of other sewer piss beer like Schmidt’s, Ballantine, etc.

James in WNC
Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
February 20, 2019 2:16 pm

InBev. A case study in how not to run a company. AB was taken over by Brazilians several years ago. It’s been a fascinating study in altering a company culture and the art of financial engineering. The big brewers missed the micro move to quality and I don’t think that they can catch up in a era of a shrinking pie for commodity beers.

Art
February 20, 2019 10:44 am

How do these delusional people manage to find their way to work every day? Do they really think unicorn farts and pixie dust are real and plentiful, just waiting to be integrated into the energy system?

They’re certifiable! Every last one of them!

keith
Reply to  Art
February 20, 2019 11:51 am

And yet the stupid lemmings keep voting them in.

justadumbengineer
February 20, 2019 10:45 am

as prices go up and the poor are hit the worst, all we will need is a tax credit for the poor or a wealth tax on the rich to offset the impacts! Then we will need to raise the minimum wage and provide a basic monthly income for those that lose their jobs because industry and companies relocate where it is cheaper to operate.

Curious George
Reply to  justadumbengineer
February 20, 2019 10:59 am

Why don’t we institute a tax on poverty. Let’s tax the poor out of existence!

ghl
Reply to  Curious George
February 20, 2019 3:30 pm

A tax on public servants. If sufficiently high they will become self funding.

H.R.
Reply to  ghl
February 20, 2019 5:30 pm

Perpetual motion funding. I like it!

Reply to  justadumbengineer
February 21, 2019 8:17 am

Money for nothing and chicks for free….

ht/Dire Straits

n.n
February 20, 2019 10:48 am

Renewable greenbacks, yes. Also, debt and credit emissions at the source. As well as environmental disruption throughout the life cycle. And intermittent energy when the wind and sun are within range. Niche solutions, falsely reported, that should be considered in an energy basket, as they are suitable for an application.

February 20, 2019 10:48 am

100 Percent Renewable Cities = 100 Percent Certifiable Mayors

Gamecock
February 20, 2019 10:50 am

I am going to cure cancer by 2050.

troe
February 20, 2019 10:54 am

“spinning straw into go gold” is right. Politico’s will take the skim from the unnecessary projects and be long gone when the bills come rolling in. Consumer education should but likely isn’t taking place. It will be like the Flint water problem created by Democrat office holders over years then twisted into a victim hood narrative. Heads I win tails you lose proposition.

The bit about Atlanta was probably the worst. A broke booty city buying carbon credits is as dumb as it gets unless you are the promoter

RicDre
February 20, 2019 11:01 am

Here in North Eastern Ohio they also plan on closing the two remaining nuclear power plants in the area. I don’t think I will have to run a climate model to be project that increases in the price of electricity are in my future.

StephanA
Reply to  RicDre
February 20, 2019 11:51 am

They are also talking about closing the Eastlake coal plant, one of the largest ones around.

Mr Bliss
Reply to  RicDre
February 20, 2019 3:25 pm

I think if you DID run a climate model – it would undoubtedly show a huge decrease in electricity prices

joe - the non climate scientist
February 20, 2019 11:09 am

As I said before – If Mark Jacobson real expertise on converting the electric grid to 100% renewables, every utility company would be competing for his services with salary offers in excess of $1m.

That aint happening – Any guesses on his real expertise.

February 20, 2019 11:11 am

It all depends on their definition of renewables. Lets face it coal, oil, and natural gas are all renewable, just on a different time scale. Wood and biomass are considered to be renewables, but without our technology they emit nearly as much CO2 as coal. With our technology nothing you burn emits more CO2 emissions than solar, wind power, or hydroelectric power. Cincinnati, could burn Illinois #6 coal and emit nothing with our technology. That means no SO2, no NO2, no CO2, no mercury, and no particulates. President Donald Trump swore that someone would come up with an economical way to burn coal with no emissions. We did it. But we are supposed to be in Canada, I was kicked out of Canada, apparently for trying to save bitumen production and fossil fuel burning. Right now I am in Mt. Vernon. Illinois, waiting for my grandson to get out of school. My Canadian E-mail still works: RHood@BESTCarbonCapture.ca and I can still get it in Mt. Vernon, Illinois.

Beaufort
February 20, 2019 11:34 am

I pay £0.42p a Kw/Hr. The joys of living on a tiny island with a population of 2000 people. We have on island generation using oil fired generators.

Tom Abbott
February 20, 2019 11:37 am

From the article: “Purchasing renewable credits from other locations is the slight-of-hand method that allows city mayors to claim 100 percent renewable status.”

The only way these mayors can truthfully claim to be going 100 percent windmills and solar is to cut themselves off from the fossil fuel electric grid and be 100 percent connected to their unreliable power generation.

The mayor in Minnesota is writing his constituents death sentences were he to actually try to make his city 100 percent dependent on unreliable wind and solar, that do VERY poorly in extreme cold weather. What a maroon!

If these mayors don’t plan to be 100 percent disconnected from the traditional electric grid, then they are just lying and trying to fool people into believing they can do without fossil fuels and nuclear power,when they are not actually doing that, and the truth is a lot of people would die if they really tried it.

These mayors are flat-out lying to their constituents when they claim unreliables are a viable solution.

Not in my backyard.

February 20, 2019 11:44 am

According to the Icebreaker Wind Report, the six turbines are “six Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Vestas Offshore Wind (MVOW)model V126 turbines that are each rated at 3.45 MW.” That 3.5 megaWatts, not gigaWatts.

That said, Icebreaker’s rated annual production should be 181 gigaWatt hours. They promise to deliver 75 gW-hr, for 41% efficiency.

However, “Throughout Europe, wind turbines produced on average less than 20% of their theoretical (or rated) capacity.

Meaning that Icebreaker is promising about twice the known performance efficiency of wind turbines. One suspects their economic projections are equally skewed.

A couple of articles discussing the wonderfulness of wind power:
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2619/wind_power_the_greenfellas_connection
https://www.energycentral.com/c/pip/wind-power-high-environmental-costs-limited-energy-delivered

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 20, 2019 12:09 pm

Pat Frank posts: “for 41% efficiency.”

Pat Frank does not know the difference between “capacity factor” and “efficiency”

A wind turbine’s efficiency is limited by Betz’s law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27_law

Reply to  Keith Sketchley
February 20, 2019 12:43 pm

Thanks for being uselessly pedantic, Keith. My meaning was clear.

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 20, 2019 1:00 pm

A good scientist would be precise and accurate with his/her use of words. Obviously you are neither precise, nor are you accurate. Readers of this blog cannot read your mind.

Reply to  Keith Sketchley
February 20, 2019 4:59 pm

The context and word choice made my meaning clear. No mind reading is necessary for the semantically competent.

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 20, 2019 1:03 pm

Incorrect usage of precisely defined terms is evidence of sloppiness.

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
February 20, 2019 1:46 pm

Minutiae: the small, precise, or trivial details of something.

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
February 20, 2019 1:58 pm

The small, precise, (trivial) details of the 125 million dollar Mars Orbiter caused it to crash: http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/

Reply to  Keith Sketchley
February 20, 2019 5:00 pm

Thank-you, Keith. Do try to breathe through your mouth, occasionally.

clipe
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
February 20, 2019 7:31 pm

Keith Sketchley AKA Philip Schaeffer?

R2Dtoo
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
February 20, 2019 9:20 pm

You mean like “heat-trapping gases”?

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
February 21, 2019 4:23 am

Are you just as critical of “carbon pollution”?

CD in Wisconsin
February 20, 2019 11:52 am

“…But Wisconsin is not exactly the sun belt. Traditional generating stations provide 92 percent of the state’s electrical power and Wisconsin is a poor location for both wind and solar….”

We here in Wisconsin keep hearing rumors that there is something called the “sun” up in the sky. The rumors state that it is quite big, intensely bright and yellow in color. It presumably provides heat and light when it is visible. Unfortunately, the sky here in the Badger State is solid grey so much that these rumors cannot be confirmed.

I expect solar panels to power my home state like I expect AOC to turn conservative. If these cities (with their renewable energy mandates) expect to be taken seriously, I am willing to take up a collection for the mayors of each of them to be fitted for clown suits. Virtue signalling is for the birds.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 20, 2019 12:07 pm

CD In Wisconsin, Tell your politicians that we have technology to make your power generation emissionless, knowing full well it emits lots of emissions.

Mike H
February 20, 2019 12:02 pm

Wood-fired stations? It appears to me that cutting down CO2 absorbing trees and burning them, thereby releasing the carbon into the atmosphere is counter-productive and utterly illogical.

Peter R Puccini
Reply to  Mike H
February 20, 2019 1:22 pm

If wood fired plants are considered green then it is possible that Cinci could achieve their goals albeit with 100% wood fired.

On the outer Barcoo
Reply to  Mike H
February 20, 2019 5:07 pm

A full sized tree will burn in a matter of minutes in an industrial-scale burner, but it takes years to grow.

kent beuchert
February 20, 2019 12:16 pm

Notice, if you will, that the price paid for wind may or (more likely) will NOT cover the true cost of the windpower – which rests primarily upon four things : cost of construction, the lifespan of the turbine, the maintenance costs , and the capacity over time. We have seen a study on this site of wind farms and how especially large turbines (over 1 1/2 MW) fail to live out their expected lifespans to the tune of 50% and also lost output capacity over time. Only when all of these factors are known do we know how much the wind power really costed the buyer.
Assume the cost is double.

kent beuchert
February 20, 2019 12:18 pm

Add to the costs of the equipment the costs of providing backup generation , which costs roughly the same as online generation minus any fuel savings.

greg copeland
February 20, 2019 12:29 pm

Merle Haggard
We’ll all be drinking free bubble-up and eating rainbow stew.

1 2 3
Verified by MonsterInsights