From the Cliff Mass Weather Blog
Cliff Mass
This was a bad week for wind energy in the Northwest, but before I discuss this, let’s step back for a few minutes.
There is a lot of interest in renewable energy in the Pacific Northwest that could supplement our hydropower.
With our northern latitude and extensive clouds for much of the year, solar energy can only make a small contribution.
To illustrate, here is the annual solar energy map for the U.S. Western Oregon and Washington have poor solar resources. Better in eastern Oregon and the Columbia Basin. But even in these areas, there is very little resource from November through February.
The wind energy situation in the Northwest is better, but not particularly good. Consider the map of annual wind energy resources in the U.S. (below). The windy High Plains of the U.S. have terrific potential, but the western U.S., away from the coast, has very modest wind energy, at best. Only the coastal waters from central Oregon to central CA have good wind potential.
Here in Washington State, the only decent non-coastal area for wind energy is the eastern slopes of the Cascades (see map below). That is why nearly all of the wind turbines are there. Constructing wind turbines offshore is very expensive and has significant environmental problems.
But there is a problem. For much of the year, these turbines generate little power.
Consider the Bonneville Power Authority (BPA) statistics for the past week. The total energy demand is the red line, and hydro generation is blue.
Wind energy (green) has been very small most of the week, except on one day (November 18) when a frontal system moved through. The output from one nuclear plant (purple) has been constant and generally much higher.
The truth is that wind generation in our region is only really significant from late spring to late summer, when strong westerly flow descends the eastern slopes of the Cascades.
To see this, consider the winds at Ellensburg, surrounded by wind turbines on several sides. Good winds from April into the middle of August. But consistently slower (and often very weak) the remainder of the year.
In short, our region needs to maximize our hydro resources and invest in next-generation nuclear (fission) plants, which are inherently safe.
With rapidly increasing demand for electricity, expected to roughly double by mid-century (see NW Power Council estimate below), without new generation capacity, there is a near certainty of blackouts, particularly during cold periods.
I think the problem – wherever you place turbines – is the fact that they are hopelessly lacking in energy density, along with being highly destructive to avians and bats etc.
“There is a lot of interest in renewable energy in the Pacific Northwest that could…” line a few pocketses. The fantasy goes ever on…
“For all its flaws, the Brazil conference underlined the wish by a global majority for clean energy and climate action” – Ed Miliband
At last a glint of reality – the wish – and that’s all it will ever be.
I wish that Ed and his ilk were not in power anywhere. I wish that dictators in Russia China Iran N. Korea and other places were not in power.
In addition to the energy density problem and intermittent wind:
Appropriate sites are typically far removed from demand centers.
Wind turbines have a rather short service life and high decommissioning costs unless you think it’s okay for them to just sit and rot.
“If wishes were horses, beggars would ride” – old quote.
If you want a stark example of this take Interstate 90 west out of Ellensburg, Wa toward Seattle. You leave the valley and the road climbs to a spot called Elk Heights where there used to be a breathtaking view of the North Cascades marching toward Canuckistan. That was 20 years ago but today the view is trashed by dozens and dozens of the blasted bird choppers scarring the foothills. Truly revolting that so called “environmentalists” are responsible for this desecration.
The problem with windmills and solar is that there is no energy generation when there is no wind and no sun and the windmills have to be turned off when the wind is too strong. Both are heavily subsidised by you and me. Also when energy is not generated where is the back up? because our short sighted leaders ignore this requirement. This must be reversed to avoid black outs . Back up can be hydroelectric, tidal, conventional like oil, gas, nuclear, batteries, but it MUST BE ADDRESSED
The biggest subsidy is from fossil fuel generation plants that have to generate electricity when there is a deficit in electric generation from wind and solar. Renewable electric generation sources dont pay for the costs of generating electricity 24/7/365.
But if they need backup, are they really needed in the first place? Or just redundant, environmentally destructive, fickle, unreliable, and expensive?
Yep
There were reasons why windmills were abandoned for steam power in the 19th Centhry.
Difficult for windmills to power locomotives and ships although Wile E. Coyote did seem to have the elegant solution.
Stationary power for mining and industry was still required . Wind power was used for ships- surely you know this !
I do, but look carefully. I said windmills.
In the UK over the last 12 months, wind and solar generating facilities together provided 11.74GW (wind: 9.71GW; solar: 2.03GW), this from a combined installed capacity of 57.03GW (wind: 35.53GW; solar: 21.5GW). So these facilities operated at a combined load factor – efficiency – of 20.58% (wind: 27.33%, solar: 9.44%).
From the Code of Conduct from my Engineering Institution (of which I am a Fellow):
“The duty upon members of the Institute to behave ethically is, in effect, the duty to behave honourably; in other words, ‘to do the right thing’. At its most basic, it means that a member should be truthful and honest in dealings with clients, colleagues, other professionals and anyone else the member comes into contact with in the course of their duties.”
And I’m certain ALL Engineering Institutions will have the same conduct demands.
But have the engineers who have been designing and installing these wind and solar generating facilities actually been following their own Codes of Conduct?
Have they pointed out to their clients – idiotic government officials – that there are far more efficient methods of generation, and that these demand orders of magnitude less materials?
Did these engineers point out that the cost of installation would astronomic and require a 3-fold increase in the size of the grid?
Did these engineers point out that, yes, a new system of generation could be established . . . but that would not mean the old system could be done away with – the old system would have to remain in place as very expensive back-up to cover for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow?
I would suggest not. So the engineers would appear to have been involved in simply taking the buck, code of conduct ignored, while no doubt thinking, “how dumb can you bloody get?!!”
How did they get away with it?!
Not difficult in the UK, certainly, where . . . there isn’t an engineer anywhere in sight at cabinet level, let alone at senior civil service level.
“How did they get away with it?”
You do still want a job…
I believe you’ve missed my point entirely . . . although that may be due to my clumsiness.
Did some of the engineers involved point out that it would be inadvisable to pursue wind and solar generation, particularly on a grid-scale basis?
I would hope so.
But the response would have been blank stupidity . . . from people who have never held real-world positions of accountability responsibility and, qualified PPEs at best, should never be allowed anywhere near national decision-making on matters of science and engineering.
Think Miliband and Pocklington . . . and it was no doubt just as bad in previous governments.
Colin, no disrespect, but this is the modus operandi; disagree and cancellation usually follows. I’m sure a good many initially pointed out the obvious pitfalls. But their influence did not hold sway and we are where we are.
Did you see Kathryn Porter on the BBC news? No, me neither.
Need to modify your statement just a bit: “Disagree and cancellation usually follows” needs to be followed by “agree and money magically falls from the sky to line your pocket.”
That self-assumed cleverness – no disrespect – really does become . . . very tiresome, indeed.
Kathryn Porter is an ENGINEER I admire, and that she found herself in front of the BBC must surely mean they are attempting to change their normal blinkered level of idiotic stupidity – no, I didn’t see it.
Are you an ENGINEER?
What a sensitive soul.
Sensitive is entirely the wrong word – we’re not here to play games.
Thank you for this megadose of reality, rationality and honesty, Colin.
As much as it is focused on engineers, the same could be aimed at “climate scientists” (however that might be determined).
And of course as for politicians – well, blatant dishonesty goes with the “vocation” for them.
climate scientists
Jacks of all trades and masters of none.
I disagree. They are not JOATs.
They may have mastered a subject or two, but not the whole of it.
That’s normally a jibe thrown at Mining Engineers . . . but considering the range of engineering functions they become responsible for . . . at least they’re sufficiently qualified to make rational judgements and decisions.
Question my statement . . . and you’re very much in danger of making yourself look . . . really incredibly bloody stupid.
No. Jackasses, not jacks…
Like any organization, the concerns were passed up to management, who made the call.
Management is driven by short term profits, cash flow, and the like, aka fulfilling the contract, not to mention incentive/performance bonuses..
I’m not allowed to drive the train, the whistle I can’t blow…
I’m not allowed to say how fast the railway cars will go…
I’m not allowed to blow off steam or even clang the bell…
But let the damned thing jump the tracks and see who catches hell.
— The Engineer’s Poem
Sounds more like the Conductor’s poem.
The Engineer does all those things, if you’re talking about a railroad engineer.
I am reminded of the engineers who tried to get attention to the cold temperature O ring issue prior to the Challenger launch.
The answer is simple. Get people to heat their houses to very high temperatures in the summer using wind energy so that they can carry over the winter. They just have to control the behaviour of the population better.
The wind always blows somewhere and the sun always shines somewhere? Why oh why can’t we dig a small trench and run electric extension cords just like we do around the house and farm?
Wind makes a lot of sense in some places, and not a lot of sense in others. We should use it where it makes sense and base policy around it on facts not ideology (like the Trump admin is currently doing).
I agree. WTG and WV are niche technologies that if applied sanely can work.
It is insane to power the grid with them, but they can supplement (to a modest level) and save a bit of fuel costs when the sun shines or the wind blows.
That said, the environmental destruction of the monuments to stupidity makes me disfavor them in almost all grid supplemental applications.
It makes sense nowhere, because the fatal flaw doesn’t go away based on “much” or even “most” of the time. And when it doesn’t produce, it still requires 100% backup.
Ask the 200+ who froze to death in Texas in 2021 how they feel about the “well suited” wind farms that face-planted and, through the domino effect of that, caused widespread blackouts that left people freezing in the dark.
This is all very nice data but the politicians in Olympia are either in on the Green $cam, just plain stupid, or both. There is no reasoning with them. I also think many western states put themselves in a crisis (of any kind: fire, power, flood, drought) just to get Federal dollars. It’s very common for the snow pack to be 110% and the State still claims there is an unprecedented drought due to climate change.
Very nice Cliff, the main problem with wind and solar is they don’t work, they are expensive, they are short lived, they require constant backup, they have a huge footprint, they endanger the grid, they kill wildlife, they aren’t recyclable and they are ugly.
Speaking of the interactions of wind with our supply of electric power here in the US Northwest ….
THE PROPOSED 6600 MW EXPANSION OF WIND and SOLAR IN THE US PACIFIC NORTHWEST:
In its most recent long-range power adequacy plan, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC) has updated the plan by doubling the proposed future expansion of wind and solar from 3300 MW to 6600 MW.
Wind and solar comprise the great bulk of the proposed power capacity expansion for the US Northwest.
Several months ago, I asked the NWPCC’s public outreach spokesman for information concerning how many megawatt-hours annually that additional 6600 MW of nameplate capacity is expected to produce, and at what annual capacity factor. (The seasonal average annual CF for existing wind and solar in the US Northwest is roughly 25% for each.)
As I might have expected, there has been no response so far from the NWPCC concerning my inquiry.
The proposed expansion of firming capacity remains at 720 MW nameplate. The NWPCC calls it ‘firming capacity’ but does not specifically state how that load-following capacity is to be supplied.
As a practical matter, the 720 MW of load-following ‘firming’ could be supplied by one or more gas-fired plants or by one of the oncoming SMR nuclear designs with fully-enabled load following features such as are present in the NuScale SMR design.
Neither Oregon nor Washington State will allow another gas-fired power plant to be constructed in their state. Oregon will not allow a nuclear plant to be constructed in their state. Washington isn’t vociferously opposed to nuclear in the same way that Oregon is, but new-build nuclear will remain a dicey proposition unless and until the upfront capital costs are brought down substantially.
If one or more gas-fired plants were to be constructed to serve the Pacific Northwest as firming capacity, these would have to be located in either Montana, in Idaho, or possibly in Wyoming. The Pacific Northwest now has access to ~5000 MW of gas-fired capacity from plants located outside the region. However, at some point before the year 2040, neither Oregon nor Washington will allow electricity from any fossil fuel power plant to be sold in their state, regardless of where that plant is located.
Inside the BPA’s area of load balancing authority, a total of 1180 MW of nameplate fossil/biomass capacity is present. Roughly half of that 1180 MW fossil nameplate capacity is a gas-fired plant located at the Gray’s Harbor Energy Center on the Olympic Peninsula. By law, this facility must be shuttered at some point within the next fifteen years, possibly sooner.
And so 600 MW of gas-fired capacity will be shut down in Washington State, but 720 MW of likely gas-fired capacity will be constructed elsewhere as firming capacity for a quick and massive wind and solar build-out in the US Northwest.
WIND POWER SLOWDOWN, US PACIFIC NORTHWEST, AUGUST 22nd 2025 through SEPTEMBER 5th 2025:
Here in the US Pacific Northwest, a fifteen-day wind power slowdown occurred between August 22nd, 2025, and September 5th, 2025. As illustrated in this graph, hydropower did most of the heavy lifting during that fifteen-day period, with assistance from fossil/biomass and from nuclear.
Wind comprises most all of the renewable energy capacity installed within the BPA’s area of load balancing authority, roughly 2800 megawatts total nameplate. Fossil/biomass is roughly 1180 MW total nameplate, nuclear in the form of the Columbia Generating Station is 1150 MW nameplate.
Wind’s capacity factor during that period was 13%, fossil/biomass was 94%, and nuclear was 97%. Wind generated roughly 130,000 megawatt-hours during that period, fossil/biomass roughly 400,000 megawatt-hours, and nuclear roughly 402,000 megawatt-hours.
It is no surprise that in proposing a 6600 MW expansion of renewable energy in the US Pacific Northwest, the NWPCC does not disclose either the expected capacity factors for that 6600 MW expansion nor the annual megawatt-hours of electrical energy that expansion is expected to produce.
Beta Blocker, you have done a lot of good research.
Until the east side legislators are educated about this and the laws are changed, we are destined to a fate worse than California. HIgh electricity costs and unreliability of supply during period of high demand. Inslee Out-California’ed Caifornia with the WA state goals. Washington’s net zero goal is so far from reality it is almost laughable.
Two winters ago, January, there was a period of 5 days very cold weather, and of course, no wind. The northwest was short 5000mw, and only Grand Coulee, the Nuclear facility, fossil fuels, and limited purchases on the market save us. One trip of a sizeable unit would have put us in the dark.
The climate action desired by COP30 and Milliband has nothing to do with climate change, but with converting $billions into $trillions, headed to the elites’ pocketbooks.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-can-climate-finance-be-increased-from-billions-to-trillions/
That increase is largely to be financed from an enhanced US national debt until we are bankrupt.
I do not like to make ad hominem comments, but Milliband REALLY sucks.
You may have a 1-day pass.
Don’t sugar coat it. Tell us how you really feel.
How does Milliband and his policies strike you, out of curiosity?
Some number of years ago I was working near a coconut plantation in Indonesia that was funded by a “doing good” organization. The plantation was losing money as it was too high, the trees weren’t producing enough coconuts. Coconut palms aren’t keen on topography. They very much prefer lowlands and near the coast.
Anyway the answer to the low productivity was to double the size of the plantation so that it could lose twice as much money.
Like wind turbines.