Image via Wikipedia
Unfortunately, wind doesn’t afford the benefits marketers promise. It isn’t an abundant, reliable power source; doesn’t appreciably reduce fossil dependence or CO2 emissions; isn’t free, or even cheap; doesn’t produce net job gains; nor does it cool brows of feverish environmental critics.
Many green energy advocates have exaggerated the capacity of wind power to make a significant impact on U.S. electrical needs. Any euphoric fantasy that an unlimited, free and clean alternative to carbon-cursed fossil-fuel sources is blowing by with scant notice is exceedingly naïve and misguided.
A major point of public confusion in this regard lies in a failure to differentiate maximum total capacities, typically presented in megawatts (MW), with actual predicted kilowatt hours (kWh), which are determined by annual average wind conditions at a particular site. Wind is intermittent, and velocities constantly change. It often isn’t available when needed most — such as during hot summer days when demands for air-conditioning are highest.
According to a 2009 Energy Information Agency Report on Electricity Generation, wind power provided only 70 billion kWh of the total U.S. 3,953 kWh supply (1.79% of generated power). Yet in May 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy estimated that it is feasible to increase wind capacity to supply 20% of this nation’s electricity and enough to displace 50 % of natural gas consumption and 18% of coal use by 2030.
The report, drawn up by its national laboratories said that meeting this target presumed some important assumptions. It would require improvements in turbine technology, cost reductions, new transmission lines and a five-fold increase in the pace of wind turbine installations. What exactly does that mean in terms of real, available kWh generating output? Actually, it means very little if merely a minor percentage of that technical feasibility provides electricity when needed.
To be extremely optimistic, let’s assume that actual average output would be 25% of that projected installed capacity. In that case, the real output would be less than 5% of the country’s electricity, and more realistically, about half of even that amount under optimistic circumstances.
Output volatility due to wind’s intermittency varies greatly according to location and time of year, typically ranging from 0% to about 50%. Texas, one of the most promising wind energy states, averages about 16.8% of installed capacity, yet the Electric Reliability Council of Texas assigns a value of 10% due to unpredictability. Only about 20% of that capacity is generally available during peak demand periods (about 5:00pm), while average generation during off-peak time averages about 40% of capacity.
Electricity must be instantaneously available day and night to meet “base load” requirements. When peak loads exceed supplies bad things quickly happen. Electrical frequencies and voltages drop as power line currents increase, necessitating automatic or manual interruption of loads (blackouts) to protect grids.
But unlike such workhorse power generators as coal-fired and nuclear plants designed to constantly run at peak load capacities, wind (and solar) power requires incorporation of “spinning reserve” backup systems to provide continuity. These are typically gas-fired turbines, much like those used for jet aircraft engines that are connected to generators. That’s where it gets particularly expensive.
Wind power must be integrated as part of a larger, balanced, grid network. When that wind generation component increases, the temperatures of fossil-fueled boilers must be dropped to maintain demand-supply equality. This involves wasteful shedding of heat for cooling — then more wasting to add heat back into the system without accomplishing any additional work. And since the spinning reserves don’t stop consuming fuel when wind generation is occurring, claims of energy savings or CO2 emission reductions are largely mythological.
But assuming that wind is always blowing somewhere, won’t “smart grids” balance it all out? That is good in theory only. Ed Hiserodt, writing in an October 2010 New American .com. article titled “Wind Power: An Ill Wind Blowing” cites an example of 18 interconnected wind farms located in Southeast Australia. Covering a large area of approximately 40,000 square miles, those installations benefited from sites near a coast where winds are stronger and more constant than inland placements. Yet their combined total capacity was still insufficient to even begin to keep pace with base load demands.
Another major limitation of individual wind farms is that they don’t produce power on massive scales needed in large cities and industrial areas where necessary space is at a premium and land is expensive. The most ideal locations are typically remote from areas where demands are highest, requiring large investments for power transmission lines and land right-of-way use.
Wind turbines are also very expensive to build and maintain. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory reports that “Despite reasonable adherence to those accepted design practices, wind turbines have yet to achieve their design life of 20 years, with most requiring significant repair before the intended life is reached”. Those in offshore locations are even more costly to install, and fare much worse from corrosion damage.
Will the construction and maintenance of wind power produce the many thousands of “high-quality green jobs” touted by the industry? Not according to a report from Spain released by researchers at King Juan Carlos University. It concluded that every “green job” created by the wind industry killed off 4.2 jobs elsewhere in the Spanish economy through missed opportunities to put that money towards more useful and productive ends.
While research director Gabriel Calzada Alvarez didn’t fundamentally object to wind power, he did find that when a government artificially props up the industry with subsidies, higher electrical costs (31%) and tax hikes (5%), along with government debt follow. Each of those jobs was estimated to cost $800,000 per year to create, and 90% of those were temporary. A few months after the study was released, researchers at the Danish Center for Politiske Studier reached similar conclusions based upon their country’s experience: “It is fair to assess that no wind energy would exist if it had to compete on market terms.”
Just how environmentally friendly is that “green” wind energy? Depends a lot on whom you ask and where they live. The best energy-generation sites are typically along mountain ridges and coastal areas–the same types of locations prized for scenic views and overflown by bird and bat species that become turbine blade casualties. And while some national environmental organizations such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club have become staunch wind power advocates in their war against fossils, others who live in proposed wind farm locations have launched strong legal opposition.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., nephew of a popular president and prominent lawyer for the Natural Defense Research Council, has fought hard against a proposed 130-turbine offshore “Cape Wind” development in Nantucket Sound. Another uncle, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, along with Senate colleague and fellow Massachusetts resident John Kerry, didn’t want Cape Wind disturbing his vistas either.
Then there’s the concern about whales. Yes, you read this right! On June 25, 2010, environmental groups filed a suit to block the Nantucket Sound project because it will endanger migratory birds and whales. Are they possibly underestimating whale intelligence?
But what about risks to our economy and the well-being of ratepayers and taxpayers who must cover wind power costs? More than half of all revenues for companies that install and operate the systems come from federal, state and local tax benefits. Some state programs also legislate mandatory renewable portfolio standards that require electric utility companies to purchase designated amounts of energy from wind, solar and bio-fuel providers, typically at premium costs that are passed on to customers.
So long as industry survival depends upon those preferential government-imposed benefits, two things are clear. Wind is certainly not a competitive free market source of energy, or a charity we can continue to afford.
Weekly columnist Larry Bell is a professor at the University of Houston and author of “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax” which can be previewed and ordered at: www.climateofcorruption.com.
's Categories: Op/Ed, Policy, Regulation, byline=Larry Bell
It is easy to beat up on wind power in a silo, but when you consider it vis-a-vis other options for producing electricity the analysis gets far more complicated.
Operating costs of wind are vastly lower than operating costs of fossil fuel power plants. You don’t need to buy natural gas or coal to operate wind turbines. Nor do you to dispose of nuclear waste.
The “baseload” problem is the real issue with wind power, but it is not insurmountable. Energy storage and enhanced energy management systems are two of the many techno-fixes on the horizon that would eliminate the baseload problem.
William, on the topic of baseload and how wind energy fits onto the power system, I’d suggest reading this document: http://archive.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Baseload_Factsheet.pdf
Best, Michael Goggin American Wind Energy Association
Larry, there are so many false and misleading claims in your post, we'll have to take them one at a time:
You begin by criticizing the May 2008 Department of Energy report, which concluded that wind energy could achieve a number of benefits by providing 20% of America's electricity by the year 2030, as being too optimistic about wind energy's future. First, I should point out that this report was written by the Bush Administration's DOE, making it difficult to portray the report as pie-in-the-sky thinking.
You also make a number of factual errors when talking about the report. As the title "20% Wind Energy by 2030" and the report itself make clear, the DOE report was looking at a scenario in which wind provides 20% of America's electricity, not 5% as you claim. Second, the U.S. wind industry is already well ahead of the trajectory the report estimated would be needed to achieve the 20% by 2030 goal, having installed over 8,000 MW of wind in 2008 and 10,000 MW in 2009. Wind energy accounted for around 40% of newly installed generating capacity in 2007, 2008, and 2009.
I'd recommend going back and reading the DOE report, as you'd find that it directly refutes almost all of your attacks on wind energy. For example, it's hard to claim that wind energy isn't abundant, when the report identifies enough economically viable wind resources to meet our electricity needs a dozen times over. It's also difficult to attack wind's emissions benefits when the report concludes that 20% wind would reduce CO2 emissions by 825 million tons in the year 2030 alone and 7.6 billion tons cumulatively, in addition to large amounts of other harmful pollutants. Moreover, the report finds 20% wind would save 4 trillion gallons of water cumulatively by 2030 and substantially reduce natural gas prices by diversify our energy portfolio away from fossil fuels. The DOE study also finds 20% wind could create over 500,000 new jobs, making it difficult for you to claim that wind energy is not a powerful job creation tool. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf
Your claim that Texas wind output averages about 16.8% of nameplate capacity is also just plain false "“ the real capacity factor number is over 30% (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/2009_wind_technologies_market_report.pdf). While that may seem low, that is actually significantly higher than the average capacity factor of natural gas power plants (8-11%) and hydroelectric plants (27%) on a typical power system, as reported in the DOE study (page 89). As far as trying to attack wind power's reliability, you should talk to the CEO of the Texas grid operator. He'll tell you about how wind energy helped saved the day last month when dozens of fossil-fired power plants suddenly failed and went offline, yet wind energy kept producing as expected, keeping the lights on for millions of Texans. http://www.texastribune.org/texas-energy/energy/an-interview-with-the-ceo-of-the-texas-grid/
Michael Goggin, American Wind Energy Association
Your next claim?
"Wind doesn't appreciably reduce fossil dependence or CO2 emissions" In addition to the DOE study you cited, which found 7.6 billion tons in CO2 emission savings and drops of 50% in natural gas consumption and 18% in coal use from achieving 20% wind by 2030, you may want to consult the data and studies summarized in these documents. I don't have space to fully summarize them here, but the basic conclusion of a large body of government data, studies, and grid operating experience is that the net effect of adding wind to the grid is a massive reduction in harmful emissions. In many cases, these emissions reductions are even greater than the direct reductions associated with adding wind, due to wind allowing cleaner fuel sources like natural gas to displace dirtier sources of generation like coal. http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=4127 http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/09/the-facts-about-wind-energy-and-emissions
Michael Goggin, American Wind Energy Association
I doubt they ever intended wind to be the carry all eliminate everything else power source like this big oil inspired article states. It’s just one of many examples to lower our need oil as other options come to play or a small part of a regional energy plan to eliminate much of it’s use altogether.
The brief reference to grid inter-connectivity in the Australian case seems to me to be a problem of total installed capacity, not reliability like the author implies.
Pr. Bell,
In California, electric utilities have achieved a 19% portion using renewable power, wind, solar, &c. The goal was 20% so that is actually pretty good. Wind will probably never be 100% of any supply anywhere as others have already pointed out, but it is providing some very needed capacity.
… only 70 billion kWh of the total U.S. 3,953 BILLION kWh supply (1.79% of generated power)… NOT “3,953 kWh” I guess
Yes, indeed. It certainly is easy to isolate an emerging technology and point out all the reasons why it won’t or might not work, and if not this, then rhetoric turns to, “scaled up we can’t prove it won’t work.” This status quo thinking will only take us down the road we’re headed Larry.
Baseloads are an issue, few would dispute that. A smart grid and a big backstop (say hydroelectric for argument’s sake) put these worries to rest. And the workhorses like coal? These need to be put to rest too, along with these myopic arguments against safer, greener emerging technologies.
The fact that US the and Canada have endeavoured to place their first offshore wind developments off Nantucket and Point Pelee do not point out the unsuitability of wind power but rather to the substandard decision-making in governments. We need to find leaders and decision-makers to make things work and those who wish to find reasons why we can’t move forward should step aside.
Just reading other comments here and decided to take a peek at Larry’s profile. The bio bits are disarming, you’ll have to admit. But one also has to take note that Mr. Bell just got done a new book titled “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax”. This probably provides some context then…
You must be logged in to post a comment
Log in with your Forbes account
Create an account to join Forbes now
Read Full Article »