Industrial Wind Power: A Depleting Resource?

From MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“Getting wind projects built is getting a lot harder. The low-hanging fruit, the easier access places are gone.” (Sandhya Ganapathy, EDP Renewables North America, quoted below)

The New York Times article, “As Solar Power Surges, U.S. Wind Is in Trouble” (June 4, 2024), discussed the problems of wind problems, such as site depletion. But the article has nary a quotation, much less mention, from the legion of critics of the aged, doomed technology for economical, reliable grid power.

In order of appearance, the seven chosen by authors Brad Plumer and Nadja Popovich were:

Trevor Houser, Rhodium Group; Sandhya Ganapathy, EDP Renewables North America; Matthew Eisenson, Columbia University; Ben Haley, Evolved Energy Research; Michael Thomas, energy writer; John Hensley, American Clean Power Association; Ryan Jones, Evolved Energy Research.

Where were the real critics on industrial wind’s cost, aesthetics, health, and ecological issues? Conspicuously missing was Robert Bryce, whose renewable rejection database bank lists nearly 700 delayed or cancelled wind and solar projects.

Why not include a perspective from an energy specialist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute or the Institute for Energy Research? Cato’s Travis Fisher?

At the grassroots level, why not interview Lisa Linowes, Kevon Martis, or Sherri Lang? What about the North American Platform Against Windpower or National Wind Watch. Pick just one of fifty wind-opposed organizations that represent grassroots environmentalism, not Big Green. [1]

The article talks about cost inflation, but what is the all-in cost of wind and solar versus power generated by a natural gas combined cycle plant? How much is the government subsidy? What are the costs of offshore wind versus onshore? Tell us about the avian mortality problem and the infrasound issue of ill-sited, in-service wind turbines? And what are wind subsidies adding to the federal budget deficit and need to inflate the money supply to pay for it (wind counterfeiting?)?

The gist of the article is that wind is great and Net Zero inviolate–but the industry has run into various issues that have shifted the (government-enabled) energy “transition” to solar and batteries. More government is needed, the article implies, such as building out (uneconomic) transmission. “… a growing backlash against new projects in many communities” is mentioned almost as an aside.

Some quotations from the article follow:

The country is now adding less wind capacity each year than before the [Inflation Reduction Act] was passed.

Some factors behind the wind industry’s recent slowdown may be temporary, such as snarled supply chains. But wind power is also more vulnerable than solar power to many of the biggest logistical hurdles that hinder energy projects today: a lack of transmission lines, a lengthy permitting process and a growing backlash against new projects in many communities.

If wind power continues to stagnate, that could make the fight against global warming much harder…. A boom in solar power alone, which runs only in daytime, isn’t enough.

… wind power is much more sensitive to location. Wind turbines in a gusty area can generate eight times as much electricity as turbines in an area with just half the breeze…. That means developers can’t just build wind farms anywhere.

In the United States, the best places for wind tend to be in the blustery Midwest and Great Plains. But many areas are now crowded with turbines and existing electric grids are clogged, making it difficult to add more projects.

“Getting wind projects built is getting a lot harder,” said Sandhya Ganapathy, chief executive of EDP Renewables North America, a leading wind and solar developer. “The low-hanging fruit, the easier access places are gone.”

Because they can reach the height of skyscrapers, wind turbines are more noticeable than solar farms and often attract more intense opposition from local communities. In Idaho, the entire State Legislature has opposed a new wind farm that would be visible from a World War II historic site. A few years ago, hundreds of residents were arrested on Oahu, Hawaii, for blocking the construction of a relatively small wind project.

Across the country, hundreds of local governments have restricted or banned wind or solar projects. If a county blocks a solar array, a developer might be able to move next door. But it’s not always as easy to find a new location for wind farms. [Where is Robert Bryce?]

Wind turbines are more visible than solar farms and often attract more intense opposition.

The wind industry has also been hampered by soaring equipment costs after the pandemic wrecked supply chains and inflation spiked. The cost increases have been devastating for offshore wind projects in the Northeast, where developers have canceled more than half the projects they planned to build this decade.

Wind isn’t languishing only in the United States. While a record 117 gigawatts of new wind capacity came online last year globally, virtually all of that growth was in China. In the rest of the world, developers weren’t installing wind turbines any faster than they were in 2020.

If wind power can’t expand as quickly as many proponents hope, the United States would need to rely much more heavily on other technologies that can supply carbon-free power throughout the day, such as new nuclear reactors or advanced geothermal power. But those technologies are still in earlier stages of development and are currently more expensive than wind. [Early stages of development? Just the opposite]

…some experts argue that the recent slowdown is only a temporary artifact of tax policy. It can take years to develop a wind farm and most companies had raced to finish projects by the end of 2021, which is when the last big federal tax credit for wind power was set to expire.

Many experts say federal legislation is still needed to ease the process of building high-voltage transmission lines. But that’s unlikely to happen in a sharply divided Congress.

Final Comment

Little doubt that authors authors Brad Plumer and Nadja Popovich are under pressure from the New York Times nation to put wind power in the best light possible, while gingerly pointing out its problems. But the fact is that dilute, intermittent, land/seascape intensive industry wind turbines are bad economics and bad ecology. But the narrative must not be shaken too much, particularly in an election year when “the earth hangs in the balance.”


[1] Allegheny Treasures, Keyser, W. Va.; Allegheny Front Alliance, W. Va. & Md.; Allegheny Highlands Alliance, W. Va., Va., Pa., Md., & N. Car.; Altamont Landowners Against Rural Mismanagement, Calif.; Aspen’s Horse Ranch Preserve, Cle Elum, Wash.; Barbara Durkin, Mass.; Better Plan, Wisconsin; Calhan Wind Fraud, Colo.; Canyon Country Coalition for Responsible Renewable Energy, Ariz.; Citizens Against Wind Turbines in Lake Erie (CAWTILE), N. Y.; Citizens for Clear Skies, Ohio; Coalición Pro Bosque Seco Ventanas Verraco, Guayanilla, P. R.; Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent and 1000 Islands Region, N.Y.; Coalition for Rural Property Rights, Iowa; Concerned Citizens of Branch County, Mich.; Concerned Residents of Hammond, N.Y.; Columbia Gorge Audubon Society, Wash. & Ore.; Cumberland Mountain Preservation Coalition, Tenn.; Deepwater Resistance, R.I.; El Paso County Property Rights Coalition, Colo.; Flying M Ranch, Ellensburg, Wash.; Forest Ecology Network, Me.; Friends of Beautiful Pendleton County, W. Va.; Friends of Lincoln Lakes, Me.; Friends of Maine’s Mountains; Great Lakes Concerned Citizens, N.Y.; Great Lakes Wind Truth; Greenwich Neighbors United, Ohio; Health Care Professionals Against Commercial Wind in the Appalachian Mountains; The Heart of Henderson, N.Y.; Helderberg Community Watch, N.Y.; Howard County Citizens for Safe Energy, Ind.; Ill Wind, R.I.; Industrial Wind Energy Opposition (AWEO); Indiana Wind Watch; Kansas Wind Alert; Kent Conservation and Preservation Alliance, Kent County, Md.; Keepers of the Blue Ridge, N. Car.; Know Wind Organization, Ubly, Mich.; Lake Michigan P.O.W.E.R. Coalition, Pentwater, Mich.; Lower Laguna Madre Foundation, Texas; Laurel Mountain Preservation Association, W. Va.; Lucien Rosenbloom, N. Car.; Lynn Studebaker, Ind.; Mountain Ridge Protection Act Alliance, N.Car.; National Wind Watch; Neighbors Caring About Neighbors, Wis.; New England Wind Turbine Education Center, Vt.; No Union Beach Wind Turbine!, N.J.; No Wind Farm, New Castle, Ind.; Open Water, West Olive, Mich.; Partnership for the Preservation of the Downeast Lakes Watershed, Me.; People Against the Lake Michigan Wind Farm, Mich.; People’s Task Force on Wind Power, Me.; Porter Quarter Horses, King City, Mo.; Preserve the Sandhills, Neb.; Protect Our Lakes, Me.; Saint Francis Arboreal and Wildlife Association, Fla.; Save God’s Country, Pa.; Save Coteau Prairie Landscape, N. Dak.; Save Our Allegheny Ridges, Pa.; Save Our Seashore, Mass.; Save Our Sherman, Mich.; Save Our Tehachapi Mountains, Calif.; Save Western Ohio; Save the Prairie, Woodward, Okla.; Savoy Neighbors, Mass.; Selman Ranch, Okla.; Seneca Anti-Wind Union, Ohio; Stearns Wind Truth, Minn.; Stop Ill Wind, Md.; Swanton Wind, Vt.; Vermonters With Vision; Whitley County Concerned Citizens, Ind.; Wind Energy – Concerns About Rural Environment (WE-CARE), N. Dak.; Wind Energy Is a Scam!, Wis.; Wind Power Ethics Group, Cape Vincent, N.Y.; Wind Turbine Syndrome

4.9 15 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

60 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
strativarius
June 7, 2024 3:02 am

Industrial wind power. 

Now, that doesn’t sound quite right. Not when you consider [industrial] coal, gas or nuclear. These sources can drive heavy industries, whereas wind, even when it is blowing, cannot; hence decarbonising steel means… industrial centres like Port Talbot reduced to recycling scrap steel and shedding most of the expertise and the jobs. 

This is also the ‘latest‘ modern technological development in shipping, don’t you know…

“It’s been a struggle to clean up the shipping industry but one solution is to use wind-powered ships. That may seem like going back to the days of the Cutty Sark, but new hi-tech wind-propulsion can be fitted to existing ships to cut fuel use…”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/23/cargo-ships-powered-by-wind-could-help-tackle-climate-crisis

“Pioneering wind-powered cargo ship sets sail”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66543643

Don’t laugh…

The Pyxis Ocean will take an estimated six weeks to reach its destination – but the technology it is using has its origins in something much faster. It was developed by UK firm BAR Technologies, which was spun out of Sir Ben Ainslie’s 2017 America’s Cup team“.

Something much faster uses regular fuel and gets there on time.

Reply to  strativarius
June 7, 2024 4:23 am

wind-powered cargo ship”

And if the wind is blowing in the wrong direction?

from the Guardian link: “weather-routing software uses sophisticated algorithms to plot the fastest and most fuel-efficient voyage.”

Oh right, they’ll have to zig-zag all over the ocean- rather than get to their destination ASAP. This is one of the dumbest green ideas yet. With boats zig-zagging all over the ocean, I can envision all sorts of problems- like collisions with other boats.

strativarius
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 7, 2024 4:42 am

And if the wind is blowing in the wrong direction?”

You get a down vote.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 7, 2024 8:49 am

A modern container ship can carry up to 20,000 standard containers. I note the Beeb says nothing about the loads the ship can carry. So 6 week journeys with much less cargo – such a vessel will take years to transport what the container ship does in one voyage

June 7, 2024 3:32 am

Pick just one of fifty wind-opposed organizations that represent grassroots environmentalism, not Big Green.

You misspelled astroturf

strativarius
Reply to  MyUsername
June 7, 2024 5:34 am

It seems the wind is against you….

Reply to  MyUsername
June 7, 2024 5:40 am

Name the astroturf groups.

Why not create a blg post for WUWT naming astroturf environmentalist groups opposed to wind. Be sure to name your sources.

I’m from Missouri. Show me.

Robbradleyjr
Reply to  More Soylent Green!
June 7, 2024 8:55 am

The Kevon Martis story is worth considering re the false narrative of ‘Big Oil’ or whatnot.

Big Wind and Big Solar are the problem…

https://www.masterresource.org/martis-kevon/wind-expose-martis-backfires/

Reply to  MyUsername
June 7, 2024 7:36 am

astroturf is green and usually pretty big

Robbradleyjr
Reply to  MyUsername
June 7, 2024 8:53 am

Nope. Real grassroot environmentalists alarmed at the industrialization of the landscape. Investigate further, please.

Reply to  MyUsername
June 7, 2024 9:43 am

Keep whining about it. The tide is.(finally) going out on Big Green, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it.

D Sandberg
Reply to  Graemethecat
June 10, 2024 10:07 pm

“The tide is (finally) going out on Big Green.” To everything, there is a season. Let’s hope for Europe that last Sunday’s EU Parliament Green/Liberal election rout heralds the end to their wind and solar season.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  MyUsername
June 7, 2024 11:01 am

Passing wind again.

sturmudgeon
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
June 7, 2024 5:50 pm

That’s a ‘gas’…… Need a 100 upvotes for that, please.

Reply to  MyUsername
June 7, 2024 1:08 pm

There are no “environmentalists” in Big Green !!

They all want to destroy the environment.

MarkW
Reply to  MyUsername
June 7, 2024 2:11 pm

In what passes for your mind, everybody who opposes your notions of utopia, are all paid to do so?

Reply to  MyUsername
June 7, 2024 4:18 pm

You say that because the material was too difficult for you to comprehend, suggest you go back to your garden and pull weeds.

June 7, 2024 4:22 am

Lately there were alarms in some 19 states that they will be in serious trouble due to declining dispatchable capacity within three or four years. Thanks to the EPA and the ERA it was always going to happen, it was just a matter of time to get to the tipping point where the lights flicker every night when the wind is low.

https://newcatallaxy.blog/2023/06/19/its-about-the-wind-droughts-stupid/

Its not really a matter of getting more windmills planted, or the best sites being taken, you can have as many windmills as you like but during a severe wind drought at night there is next to no RE. End of story. It didn’t matter when there was spare capacity so there was a frog in the saucepan situation and until now.

https://newcatallaxy.blog/2023/07/11/approaching-the-tipping-point/

Time for an inquiry into the failure of the meteorologists to tell anyone about wind droughts.

Idle Eric
Reply to  Rafe Champion
June 7, 2024 6:21 am

Lately there were alarms in some 19 states that they will be in serious trouble due to declining dispatchable capacity within three or four years.

Essentially, a lot of conventional generation plants are nearing the end of their lives, but there’s nothing planned to replace them other than intermittent renewables.

In the UK, the last coal plant closes in 3 months after 56 years of operation, most of the nuclear is due to close in the next 4 years, and won’t be replaced until 2030 earliest, half of the gas fleet dates back to the 1990s and was supposed to be scrapped this decade, much of the rest isn’t much newer.

sturmudgeon
Reply to  Idle Eric
June 7, 2024 5:53 pm

So, the UK goes first? Will there be another painful lesson learned?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Rafe Champion
June 7, 2024 11:02 am

That tipping point results in the collapse of human civilization.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
June 7, 2024 1:11 pm

Which is, of course, the desired result.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
June 7, 2024 4:20 pm

Western Civilization, the rest of the world are not that stupid.

June 7, 2024 4:26 am

I like the image at the top. Centuries from now, I hope some wind machines will be left standing as ruins.

strativarius
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 7, 2024 4:45 am

Charlton Heston’s famous scene springs to mind…..

“You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!”

oeman50
June 7, 2024 4:27 am

A knowledgeable person once told me if X represents a combined cycle gas turbine cost of electricity, then 2X is onshore wind and 3x is offshore wind. And that did not consider the costs of transmission lines and back-up batteries.

Erik Magnuson
Reply to  oeman50
June 7, 2024 8:08 am

IIRC, Rud Istvan was using multipliers of 3X for onshore wind and 9X for offshore wind.

Robbradleyjr
Reply to  Erik Magnuson
June 7, 2024 8:56 am

And would you buy a cheaper car with a trick motor, anyway?

ferdberple
Reply to  oeman50
June 7, 2024 10:50 am

Multiply the cost by the inverse capacity factor to get the true cost.

X = gas (100% CF)
3X = wind (33.3% CF)
8X = solar (12.5 % CF)

Coach Springer
June 7, 2024 6:54 am

It seems more like a solar puff piece to me.

Robbradleyjr
Reply to  Coach Springer
June 7, 2024 2:40 pm

Solar? That is a mess unto itself.

Znord
June 7, 2024 8:11 am

How about just ending the Quixotic “fight against global warming”? Manbearpig isn’t real.

June 7, 2024 8:49 am
Mr.
Reply to  MyUsername
June 7, 2024 9:13 am

With 100s of coal fired plants?

Reply to  MyUsername
June 7, 2024 9:38 am

An 18 Mw wind generator is a colossal waste of money. The power it produces is intermittent and produces grid instability thereby requiring a 18 Mw gas powered backup for when the wind gusts, blows too hard or stops. China is only building them so that they can sell them to stupid governments while China builds a large coal power plant per week to provide the energy to manufacture those useless piles of generating crap they will sell. The lack of a climate crisis makes the whole scheme idiotic.🤷‍♂️🙄

Reply to  MyUsername
June 7, 2024 9:47 am

More proof of my contention you don’t understand what you post.

MarkW
Reply to  More Soylent Green!
June 7, 2024 2:15 pm

If you leave off the last 3 words, you would be even more accurate.

Reply to  More Soylent Green!
June 7, 2024 4:21 pm

Obviously!

It is the Koolaid he drinks, makes him pass wind with all the grape he downs.

Reply to  MyUsername
June 7, 2024 1:18 pm

Will not even make a dent in the wind energy not produced when there is no wind.

Need 50+ of them to match the capacity of one of the coal fired plants they are building, and with a factor of even as high as 20%, need up to 300 of them to match the average output.

… and still nothing when there is no wind.

Meanwhile China relies almost totally on fossil fuels.

Wind and solar are a tiny after-thought.

China-Energy-consumption
MarkW
Reply to  MyUsername
June 7, 2024 2:15 pm

Assuming you can believe anything out of China, why should someone else wasting their money be proof that we should waste ours as well?

Reply to  MyUsername
June 8, 2024 11:54 am

They can power the dozens of ghost cities China has built, and charge the thousands of EVs they can’t sell and are clogging up ports. China enjoys making mistakes on a colossal scale.

Walter Sobchak
June 7, 2024 10:52 am

Roger Pielke, Jr. explains the bottom line for wind:

The optimal amount of practical wind power in the global energy mix is greater than zero. It is also much less than 100%. Today I argue why the proportion of wind power in the global electricity generation mix is always going to be closer to zero than to 100%.

That doesn’t mean that wind power is not of value or useful, but it does mean that wind power is not going to drive a global energy transformation, or even be a big part of any such transformation. The sooner we realize that, the better for energy and climate policies.

This post gives explains three reasons why wind will always be niche — low density, low capacity, the age effect — and why costs are not among those reasons.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
June 7, 2024 10:57 am

Sounds more like he’s talking about nuclear. Now that will remain niche.

Reply to  MyUsername
June 7, 2024 1:23 pm

Much bragged South Australian wind power is again almost totally absent

They have their diesel generators and imports working flat out.

Wind isn’t even filling a niche.

A single 1.5GW nuclear power station could cover most of South Australia 24/7 without the need for gas or diesel.

SA-diesel
Reply to  MyUsername
June 9, 2024 7:03 am

Huh? France generates Two Thirds of its electricity with nuclear power.

Sparta Nova 4
June 7, 2024 11:00 am

We are fast approaching a tipping point, the result being the collapse of human civilization.

Mr.
Reply to  MyUsername
June 7, 2024 11:53 am

If AL Gore had told you there was too much Nitrogen in the atmosphere rather than Carbon Dioxide, you’d be on here banging on about NO2 instead of CO2.

Clueless + clueless = 2clueless.

Reply to  Mr.
June 7, 2024 12:58 pm

It’s not like NOx aren’t a problem.

Michelle Savard
Reply to  MyUsername
June 14, 2024 8:06 am

Nor is CO2

Reply to  MyUsername
June 7, 2024 1:27 pm

That is a good thing as the earth needs much more CO2. We have so little of it in the atmosphere it is known as a “TRACE GAS”. More would be better.👍😉

Reply to  MyUsername
June 7, 2024 1:31 pm

CO2 has no effect on anything but enhancing plant life.

It is the Net-Zero idiocy that will destroy human civilisation… as it is intended to.

Everything in your pitiful life is totally dependent on fossil fuels…

… you are just too dumb and ignorant not to realise it.

The amount of CO2 releasing fossil fuels needed to produce all the wind turbines and solar panels, large batteries etc in China is also a large source of that enhanced CO2 output.

Reply to  MyUsername
June 7, 2024 1:33 pm

Did you know that there is always a strong surge in atmospheric CO2 in strong El Nino events. 😉

Reply to  MyUsername
June 7, 2024 1:39 pm

But anyway.

Thanks for the GREAT NEWS.

Maybe there is a chance of getting up somewhere near 700ppm+

Towards700
MarkW
Reply to  MyUsername
June 7, 2024 2:17 pm

Good, we really need to get CO2 levels up to 1000 to 1200 ppm.

Reply to  MyUsername
June 9, 2024 7:04 am

Take a look at figure 2 on page 677 of this http://onlinelibrary.wiley.Com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x/pdf . At 150 ppm CO2 that plant is doing really poorly. At 500 ppm, plants begin to show the lack of CO2 http://notrickszone.Com/2013/05/17/atmospheric-co2-concentrations-at-400-ppm-are-still-dangerously-low-for-life-on-earth/#sthash.IrYoLh2M.dpbs .
So, did we almost not make it? It looks like the industrial revolution happened just barely in time

June 7, 2024 1:45 pm

In the New Democracy, climate realists and critical thinkers have the cooties so no one in power has to listen to them.

June 7, 2024 4:25 pm

“While a record 117 gigawatts of new wind capacity came online last year globally, virtually all of that growth was in China. In the rest of the world, developers weren’t installing wind turbines any faster than they were in 2020.”

There are a number of of other terminal problems for windmills not being acknowledged by governments. I read read in 2021 during the Glasgow Ipcc climate synod that “peak renewables” had occurred in Europe in 2017. It was reported in 2019 that 47GW of spent wind units were scheduled for decommissioning.

Since then, heads of Europe (and UK) in a panic over failing renewables generation and fear that their citizens were going to perish in the cold and dark of a coming winter, flew far and wide to sign up for nat gas at spot prices 10x what what they were 2 years previously – prices caused by there own ruinous actions to destroy the oil and gas industry, unaware that renewables dont work in a grid without fossil fuels!!

A couple of orher things. Capacities of wind farms decline 1.5% a year from wear, bug juice, blood, and pitting…. Also, on average, each windmill fails twice a year causing an average downtime of 300 hrs!!

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40313-021-00789-8

Total irreparable breakdowns, loss of blades, nacelle fires, foundation failures, severe weather, accidents ..

Yeah, here’s a thought experiment for doubters of the end of renewables. Imagine you are the German Chancellor and in a panic that several million citizens were in grave danger of freezing to death because you were foolish and put your trust in windmills. Now imagine in your desperation you managed in the nick of time to secure at great expense enough nat gas to save those millions if lives. Would you jump back into the renewables crap shoot? QED.

sturmudgeon
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 7, 2024 6:04 pm

Based upon what we have seen to date.. the answer is a resounding YES!

Bob
June 7, 2024 9:18 pm

More good news. Wind and solar are both losers. Neither should be connected to the grid. If government weren’t propping them up they would both be history. Build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators, remove wind and solar from the grid and get the government out of the energy business, they have screwed it up enough already.