The 'Great Wind Rush' is on!
Despite strenuous objections from citizens all over the world, who see the destruction and potential destruction of their landscapes, seascapes and wildlife from industrial wind power plants and no savings in CO2 emissions or dependency on foreign oil, nearly all of the applications from developers have been approved.
Why?
We are told, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, it has to do with Global Warming and that in order to reduce the 'Greenhouse Effect' we must sacrifice our scenic views, precious natural resources and wildlife today in order to have them tomorrow.
But, what are the facts?
To date, not one fossil fuel plant has been closed, or even throttled back--despite thousands upon thousands of wind turbines now operating all over the world.
And in spite of the absurdly inefficient nature of industrial wind farms in countries such as Denmark and Germany (whose primary electrical utility (EON) openly admits that wind is very inefficient and doesn't actually provide any net contribution), the two most 'wind-electricity' intensive nations on Earth, wind power has not resulted in any reduction in fossil-fuel plant use--none. And in fact CO2 emissions are on the rise in those countries.
So, who is driving this industrial scam? The developers and the politicians. There's money in them there wind mills: Enormous subsidies and tax breaks for the developers and feel good non solutions for the politicians.
How do we get to the bottom of this as citizens who ultimately pay the price with our hard earned dollars in taxes and rising electrical rates (the citizens of Denmark pay the highest electrical rates in the world and get nothing for it) and the sacrifice of our beautiful lands, seas and wildlife?
We must hold our politicians and industrial developers accountable.
We need to demand that for each project; riders that stipulate if the wind farms do not live up to its claims, the utility/developer must pay some sort of pro rata penalty--not to the state, but to communities within X miles radius; or better yet, they must reduce their charge per kilowatt hour, pro rated for the amount of electricity produced versus the amount it was claimed would be produced, on a monthly or annual basis; that way, everyone benefits.
And we need to demand that our politicians provide scientific proof NOT industry claims, than any wind farm approved will cut our CO2 emissions, dependence on foreign oil, lower our electrical rates, not violate environmental and safety laws, will benefit not harm the local economy and will not create more back power plants such as diesel fuel based peakers.
Finally we must demand exactly which fossil fuel burning power plant will be shut down when any industrial wind farm is built and operational.
For a summary of real-life wind performance through 12/05 click HERE. The figures are sobering. Please send it along to your state-level reps....
Co-authored by Eric Jacobson, UK and Dona Tracy, USA
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 27
Which arguments did you find 'weak'?
The gist of the post is that wind farms fail to provide net benefit. And this is in fact the case, as has been abundantly proven in every single instance of wind usage.
They don't replace conventional generation, since the conventional turbines must spin regardless; those powerplants are needed to backstop wind intermittency, so why not just use their electricity instead--and for a lot less cost and environmental destruction?
The fact that 'energy demand is increasing' isn't relevant to 'wind farms' per se. It is, however, relevant to the need for us to find an actual energy source which provides net benefit, rather than merely acting as a green-looking cardboard Potemkin Village.
Wind, in simple fact, isn't even an alternative to conventional generation. It doesn't replace conventional power, nor does it supplement it, nor does it reduce CO2 emissions to any significant degree. It's merely a cash cow for developers and a few landowners, and as much a scam as 'snake oil' once was.
You try to foreclose the one actual alternative by instructing us to not even 'think about it', which is no argument at all, since you offer no reasons why we shouldn't.
I can offer a plethora of arguments in favor of nuclear:
1) It's CO2-free;
2) It's reliable;
3) It's cheap;
4) The technology is proven and safe.
Leaving aside nonsensical fantasies from the Luddite movement, nuclear has been proven in daily operation in France and Japan (not to mention the US), both of which are highly nuclearized and happy to be so.
I absolutely guarantee you that, as wind capacity grows, you will see one of two outcomes:
Either backstop capacity grows--which means more of those conventional plants you hate;
or...
Greater and greater grid instability, which leads to rolling blackouts, as is already happening in Europe. Shortly thereafter, you will then see more conventional plants being built, since nobody will be willing to endure blackouts. It's no accident that nuke plant construction is at an all-time high, and a good thing it is, too.
Wind is a complete scam, bought into by those who don't understand the realities behind it. It's also a criminal enterprise, if you're truly green, because it diverts time and resources from truly renewable technologies.
If we're all that worried about 'energy security', then 'wind' sure isn't the way to go about assuring it. The facts bear this out.
It is a very new industry, and to judge it according to how many coal fired power plants it has displaced is specious at best.
Eric: "I can offer a plethora of arguments in favor of nuclear...."
I will bet that if you don't want a wind farm in your vicinity, you will not want a nuclear waste dump. Perhaps you would like the good people of Nevada to be the nuclear toilet for the nuclear industry. But if you are not willing to have the waste stored near your own home, next to your own children, then it would be immoral to expect others to do so. Of course, your "plethora of arguments in favor of nuclear" doesn't mention nuclear waste, does it? So if nuclear is your answer, you've already lost me - I'll favor wind, hands down.
The main arguement here agains wind farms is aesthetic (or at least some people's version of what is aesthetic - destruction of landscapes/seascapes). There may be some destruction to wildlife, based on migratory patterns of some bird species. In that case, carefully placed wind farms would ameliorate that situation.
So, unless critics of wind farms can come up with a better arguement against using wind, then I continue to think these arguements are extremely weak. It sure looks like NIMBY to me.
As I have said before, I favor a solar/hydrogen loop, as created by ECD Ovonics. But I am not a critic of wind, and I see wind as a vialble alternative in the long road to coal and nuclear.
Your guarantees about wind energy are speculative guesses, at best. You act as if wind is the only alternative, and therefore has not place. But you fail to address nuclear waste, which is not speculative at all. Is it any wonder that congress moved to limit the liability of nuclear plants? Nothing like nipping a true alternative in the bud, so as to prevent any competition to the status quo.
And finally, nuclear is a non-starter, if not because of the waste, then because it is not profitable. There is no nuclear plant in the world that is not heavily subsidized in some for by some government. As a taxpayer, I don't want to subsidize nuclear - period!
Two points: first, wind is not a 'new' industry at all; it's been around in its present form since the 1940s, in other words longer than civilian nuclear power plants; modern turbines were first extensively developed in the 1980s. The constraint isn't 'newness', but the fact that wind energy is highly variable and intermittent, and thus requires--and will forever--conventional backup to be spinning away in the background. It can't stand on its own, unlike other power generation schemes, and doesn't even replace any conventional production.
Second, the wind industry itself uses the 'coal-fired CO2 savings' as its baseline--I didn't choose that metric; they did. Moreover, the CO2 savings figures tossed about are wildly inaccurate, as has been pointed out in a number of engineering surveys, because any accurate measurement of savings should use the average CO2 emission per kilowatt hour of electrical production from ALL sources, not just 'the dirtiest.
The actual factor is readily available (I can give it to you if you want) and when it's used, even the CO2 savings stated by wind promoters (which is hugely exaggerated) drop dramatically.
Steve: "I will bet that if you don't want a wind farm in your vicinity, you will not want a nuclear waste dump."
Actually, I've yet to hear of any 'waste dump' being situated anywhere near humans in the US. The French, by the way, have several such facilities and aren't fazed in the slightest; their reactors use a very clever recycling regime which results in low-level radioactive waste at the end of the process; and the waste is safely encapsulated and stored within France itself. Given the utter safety of nuclear versus any other technology, one shouldn't be surprised that the French aren't worried. Nor should you be.
I also grew up in the most nuclearized state; three reactor stations were situated within 50 miles of my home; and I've never worried about it. Nor have any other Chicagoans.
Steve: "Perhaps you would like the good people of Nevada to be the nuclear toilet for the nuclear industry."
Yucca Mountain is 1) nowhere near any cities, and 2) is highly stable. If I lived in Nevada, I'd be more concerned about sunburn than anything else.
Steve: "But if you are not willing to have the waste stored near your own home, next to your own children, then it would be immoral to expect others to do so."#
False premise; nobody's demanding that nuclear waste be stored 'near homes'; and in simple fact, nuclear waste is a lot less active than nuclear fuel, which was in fact 'stored' and used within a biscuit's toss of my home, and several hundred thousand others, in northern Illinois. Never bothered me, or anyone else. As I mentioned, France--with far less land area--has successfully stored nuclear waste quite safely, without any fanfare. They love their reactors.
Steve: "Of course, your "plethora of arguments in favor of nuclear" doesn't mention nuclear waste, does it?"
Because it's a complete non-issue, raised only by those who are too ill-informed, to bother with the facts. Luddites, as I've remarked already. Say 'nuclear' and they go all wobbly with visions of 'China Syndrome', though nuclear is demonstrably the least lethal of all energy production technologies.
Steve: "So if nuclear is your answer, you've already lost me - I'll favor wind, hands down."
Okay, we'll put you on record as favoring environmental despoliation; a technology which doesn't replace conventional at all; and which costs over twice as much as conventional electricity. Your solution will require all those lovely CO2 producing plants to remain operating, now and forever, belching CO2 into the skies, and indeed we'll have to build MORE to backstop increasing wind capacity. Dunno about you, but that seems a raw deal: you still have the conventional stations running just as if no wind farms existed at all, and you get to pay more for your electricity, while the countryside is torn up by wind turbines and pylons to carry the (steadily attenuating) electrical load across the countryside.
Not to mention that you are being royally scammed by large companies who are laughing at your naivete as they fleece you. And here I thought 'greenies' were all against the big multinationals, and their ruthless exploitation of the environment.
But if you favor envirocrime, so be it.
Steve: "The main arguement here agains wind farms is aesthetic (or at least some people's version of what is aesthetic - destruction of landscapes/seascapes)."
No, the main argument here is that wind farms produce no extra electricity whatsoever. The conventional capacity runs regardless, putting out just about the same amount of pollution as always. AS A RESULT, WINDFARMS DO NOT REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS TO ANY MEANINGFUL DEGREE.
Steve: "There may be some destruction to wildlife, based on migratory patterns of some bird species. In that case, carefully placed wind farms would ameliorate that situation."
Wind farms must be placed where there's wind; you can't finesse it. And those places tend to be along flyways.
Steve: "So, unless critics of wind farms can come up with a better arguement against using wind, then I continue to think these arguements are extremely weak. It sure looks like NIMBY to me."
But--you were just saying that it would be horribly evil to demand, say, that people put nuclear waste dumps near their homes! That sounds like NIMBYism to me....
I wonder: the green movement used to be all in favor of NIMBYism: no waste dumps, no highways, no power lines, no shopping malls. Now, conveniently, anyone who wants to avoid a useless technology laying waste to dozens of square miles of scenery, for no gain at all, is 'a NIMBY'. Apparently, it's okay to protest a shopping mall that covers forty acres and offers actual goods and services; but it's wrong to protest a project covering thousands of acres which offers absolutely nothing. And, too, those who once thought 'local control' against evil developers was 'great', now think that locals should have no say; remote, large companies should be able to come in and do as they please, local sentiment be damned. These folk are mere dupes of the developers, eagerly swallowing their lies. No wonder the Great Wind Rush is on....
Interesting change of heart, and all for a scam. If you're gonna sell your soul to the devil, at least let's do it for something better than a big con, yes?
Steve: "As I have said before, I favor a solar/hydrogen loop, as created by ECD Ovonics. But I am not a critic of wind, and I see wind as a vialble alternative in the long road to coal and nuclear."
It's not viable; wind relies completely on conventional backup, which continues to pollute at the usual rates regardless. Also, any H2 technology will require electricity--lots of it--lots lots of it; more by an order of magnitude than we have on tap now. If you wanna crack that water, you need electricity in huge doses. Only place you're gonna get that kind of output is from nuke plants. That's pretty well agreed in all the literature. So: if you want a hydrogen economy, better embrace those nukes...
Steve: "Your guarantees about wind energy are speculative guesses, at best. "
Quite the opposite; I make no guarantees about wind energy. It's useless, and has been amply demonstrated to be nothing but a scam, in real-world situations. It's no accident that Germany, eg, is now going ahead with plans to build nuke plants, having realized no savings whatever in CO2 emissions--zip, nada--and facing a steadily increasing demand for electricity. Ditto Denmark.
The only thing I guarantee is that wind is in fact useless, as actual real-world experience has shown in spades.
Steve: "You act as if wind is the only alternative, and therefore has not place. But you fail to address nuclear waste, which is not speculative at all. Is it any wonder that congress moved to limit the liability of nuclear plants? Nothing like nipping a true alternative in the bud, so as to prevent any competition to the status quo."
I've never yet acted as if wind was an alternative; quite the contrary. Nuclear is the only CO2-free, large-scale alternative, suitable for high-tech societies. Hydro has its place, but can only supply areas blessed with abundant flowing water. Solar is a fairly sad joke, due to the scarcity of rare earths required to produce panels. That leaves fossil-fuel plants, or nukes. Since fossil fuels are now at peak in some areas, and approaching it in others, we'd better be thinking of technologies which don't lean on 'em. Nuclear is the only answer. If it makes you feel better, good progress is being made on fusion, which will probably reach fruition by mid-century at latest.
Steve: "And finally, nuclear is a non-starter, if not because of the waste, then because it is not profitable."
In that case, 'wind' is a non-starter, too. It sure isn't profitable on its own; if it were, it'd have been deployed long since. And per kilowatt hour generated, it costs a lot more in subsidy than nuclear (average cost in UK, for example: nuclear 2.3 pence/kw hour, wind 5.6 pence/kw hour).
Steve: There is no nuclear plant in the world that is not heavily subsidized in some for by some government.
A good investment: the electricity is cheap and reliable. Wind is neither, costing more per kw in public subsidy, requiring far more vulnerable infrastructure, needing to be deployed far from major consumers (cities) in most cases--which results in up to 40% electricity loss--intermittent, must be backstopped at all times by conventional generation. Wind is terrible value for money.
Steve: "As a taxpayer, I don't want to subsidize nuclear - period!"
Then you are not a rational actor, or else you have fallen for the scam.
Care to guess how many turbines you'd have to put up to even approach the output of just one moderate-size nuke plant--leaving aside the fact that a nuke plant needs no 24/7 backup, and actually produces consistent, cheap electricity?
C'mon, give it a shot....
Well, I don't accept this scenario as the logical outcome of using wind energy. It is fairly uncreative, if nothing else. I remember reading a few years ago that only 2 states, S. Dakota and Nebraska or Kansas (I think it was one of those two) have enough wind potential to supply 1/2 of the nation's electrical demand. Of course, critics asked "what do you do when the wind isn't blowing?" Granted, the wind doesn't always blow, but energy can be stored, and the best way I have seen for storing energy is hydrogen. And it doesn't have to be stored in high-pressure tanks as a gas. It can be stored in metal alloys, a by-product of which is heat. So, I would hope that as we look toward solving our future energy problems, we will try to be a bit more creative than your scenario suggests.
Eric: "Second, the wind industry itself uses the 'coal-fired CO2 savings' as its baseline--I didn't choose that metric; they did."
I only have your word that this is inaccurate. I don't know enough about it to know if it's inaccurate or not. Still, even if what you say is true, the context remains that wind is a relatively new source of energy - you can say that the technology is not new, but the implementation of that technology in any significant way is. Of course, you would stop the deployment of infrastructure before it really gets started - especially being a nuclear proponent.
Eric: "I've yet to hear of any 'waste dump' being situated anywhere near humans in the US...Yucca Mountain is 1) nowhere near any cities, and 2) is highly stable. If I lived in Nevada, I'd be more concerned about sunburn than anything else."
Paraphrase: "Trust me. Nuclear waste is safe."
No thanks. I think the people of Nevada are saying "no thanks" also. Further, I don't believe for a second that Yucca Mt. is "highly stable".
Speaking of sunburn in Nevada - I read an article a few years ago that 100 square miles of solar panels in Nevada (or Arizona) could provide 100% of the nation's electrical demand (at the time), according to NREL calculations. And I actually favor solar to even wind.
Eric: "Luddites...envirocrime...."
When you have nothing better to say, start calling people names. It a great rhetorical strategy. It's very convincing, and charming to boot!
Eric: "Wind farms must be placed where there's wind; you can't finesse it. And those places tend to be along flyways."
I haven't seen any information on that. If you have, then I'll be very open to reading it. Birds are near and dear to me, and I have said that this is the only valid criticism of wind projects, if it is accurate.
Eric: "That sounds like NIMBYism to me...."
Guilty. I don't want a nuclear waste dump anywhere near anybody. I don't mind a wind farm.
Eric: "If you're gonna sell your soul to the devil...."
Oh, hell! Don't tell me you're a religious nut.
Eric: "Also, any H2 technology will require electricity--lots of it--lots lots of it; more by an order of magnitude than we have on tap now. If you wanna crack that water, you need electricity in huge doses. Only place you're gonna get that kind of output is from nuke plants. That's pretty well agreed in all the literature."
Not from what I've seen. But I get it - you're lobbying for nukes. Honestly, I've never seen anyone lobby for nukes, who ever gave a second thought to environmental protection. If you're sincere, it's a first for me.
Eric: "I make no guarantees about wind energy."
I was referring to a statement you made in your previous post: "I absolutely guarantee you that, as wind capacity grows, you will see one of two outcomes...." Your "guarantees" are speculative.
Eric: "Solar is a fairly sad joke, due to the scarcity of rare earths required to produce panels."
Your information is lacking on solar. So I suspect the same is true of your information on wind.
Eric: "In that case, 'wind' is a non-starter, too. It sure isn't profitable on its own; if it were, it'd have been deployed long since."
The difference is that wind and solar have investors. Nuclear does not. At some point, wind and solar will be profitable. Nuclear never will be. Do you work in the nuclear industry?
Eric: "(re: nuclear) A good investment: the electricity is cheap and reliable. Wind is neither...."
That's why wind has investors and nuclear does not.
Eric: "Then you are not a rational actor, or else you have fallen for the scam."
I repeat: When you have nothing better to say, start calling people names. It a great rhetorical strategy. It's very convincing, and charming to boot!
Eric: "Care to guess how many turbines you'd have to put up to even approach the output of just one moderate-size nuke plant...."
Care to guess how many nuclear bombs can be made from a thousand wind turbines? ...how many wind turbines might be targeted by potential terrorist attacks? ...how many wind turbines it would take to spur developing countries to push to develop nuclear energy - and likely, weapons?
So, I don't accept your nuclear arguements (no surprise). If you want to insult me for rejecting nuclear, I guess you're free to do so. But I don't think it will win you any votes.
You keep missing the point: wind energy cannot stand on its own. It must rely on equal megawatts of conventional generation, spinning away, and polluting as usual, in the background. You end up paying a lot more for your electricity, for no CO2 reduction.
What's the benefit, again? No CO2 reduction, no replacement, much less supplementation, of conventional capacity.
So what, exactly, is the benefit?
Steve: "Of course, critics asked "what do you do when the wind isn't blowing?" Granted, the wind doesn't always blow, but energy can be stored, and the best way I have seen for storing energy is hydrogen."
The only way energy can be stored is in some sort of battery. Moreover, I'm not sure where you'd get the excess energy. All the electricity created by wind is used on the grid in any case, so you have nothing extra there.
Where would the extra electricity come from? And, yet again, you fail to address the core issue: wind doesn't supply any extra usable electricity on its own. If you want to store spare capacity, you can use the far cheaper conventional generation to create it, then store the excess—though how one would do that in today's environment isn't quite clear.
Better yet, use nuke plants—absolute gobs of spare capacity.
Steve: "I only have your word that this is inaccurate."
In other words, you've embraced wind wholesale without even bothering to do the most elementary research. I refer you to this document—the official standard used by the British government to define conventional CO2 emissions for a wide variety of energies. The emissions factor associated with conventional electricity production is 0.43 kilograms of CO2 for each kilowatt hour of generation:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/trading/uk/pdf/trading-reporting.pdf
(p.23, table A1)
The typical emissions factor cited by wind advocates is around 0.86 kilograms of CO2 for each kilowatt hour of generation. Not surprisingly, this value is derived from the supposed baseline emission for dirty coal plants (even though this figure also appears to be far too high, even for dirty coal), while the lower 0.43 is an empirical, and far more accurate, figure for ALL electrical generation, including gas and nuclear.
Obviously using the dirtiest source, as if all generation comes from dirty coal, makes wind energy look more eco-friendly. But the simple fact is that the actual value of 0.43, derived from an assessment of ALL energy inputs into the grid, is far more accurate, and is in fact used by HM Government for baseline comparison purposes, though wind developers continue to ignore it.
Roughly, if your CO2 emissions reduction claim is X thousand tons per year, and the .86 value is being erroneousl used, you can halve the claimed reduction to get a more accurate picture.
On that basis, wind farms look to be even more of a scam.
Steve: "I don't know enough about it to know if it's inaccurate or not. Still, even if what you say is true, the context remains that wind is a relatively new source of energy - you can say that the technology is not new, but the implementation of that technology in any significant way is. Of course, you would stop the deployment of infrastructure before it really gets started - especially being a nuclear proponent."
I'm not a 'nuclear proponent' per se; I'm a proponent of technologies which actually deliver benefit, full stop. Wind doesn't do so. Never has, never will, unless you can find a way to actually avoid backstopping it with conventional. To date, no nation has, nor have the best and brightest come up with any ideas for doing so.
It doesn't matter whether the tech is 'new' or not; when the wind is below roughly 8 meters/second, or above 25 meters/second, you get nothing usable. Moreover, the 'usable' wind is stochastically highly variable and unreliable. Even worse, wind farms require a net electrical INPUT to keep turbines in synch during low-wind periods. It's a commonplace to see turbines turning at slow speed even in a dead calm, sucking energy OUT of the grid to maintain their synchronization.
Bottom line:
You support the following:
Unreliable electricity;
Expensive electricity.
You also support:
Increasing CO2 emissions into the atmosphere;
Environmental degradation;
Building more conventional powerplants;
Remaining fully dependent upon fossil fuels.
It's a rum old world, but that's what you de facto support by claiming to support 'wind'. I don't mean to be harsh, Steve—I suspect you are a decent, kind fellow—but this is what you are supporting by default when you support wind.
You support a technology which must be backstopped all the time by conventional, polluting plants, which belch their CO2 into the air 24/7/365. This is precisely the wrong strategy if you're truly concerned about 'global warming'.
You support a scheme which offers precisely zero benefit—no additional capacity, no CO2 reduction, no cost savings.
You oppose reliable electricity; which means you are willing to put up with grid instabilities, infrastructure damage, and rolling blackouts (I refer you to the blackouts of November 2006 in Germany, et. al.). You also oppose reduction of CO2, since you adamantly refuse to consider the one and only technology which can actually replace conventional production on a large scale.
I know you will support the construction of more conventional stations; you must, if you're being honest, because the more wind factories you build, the more conventional backup you need, at a 1:1 ratio.
Aside from the ITER project (fusion) which is still progressing, though slowly, there's another possible fusion mechanism which I've been following for several years (not building it, mind--my budget doesn't run quite that high!): IEC.
The latter was first suggested in 1924 (as a theoretical, natch); however, practical constraints (the wire mesh intrinsic to the technology tended to melt down/break down at the very high temperatures associated with fusion) rendered it impractical up to quite recently, so 'magnetic containment'--the ITER model--has been pursued instead.
That's changed; a much smaller magnetic bottle is now used in place of the former wire-mesh within the IEC model.
Interesting facts: the containment of high-energy plasma is now resolved; fusion can be achieved far more simply, and far less expensively, the using the ITER methodology; and the device is a lot smaller (ie, about 2 meters a side(!!)).
There's still a lot of engineering work to do, but it appears the concept has been proven. I grant that there's a ton of work yet to be done, but an elegant fusion design such as this would, at a stroke, provide virtually limitless power to the nation--and would even make an H2 economy more feasible (not 'feasible' per se--there's a lot of other constraints on the H2 model).
Think of it: limitless, dirt-cheap energy, no CO2, no radiation to speak of, extremely safe.
Interesting times indeed.
Well, given the sudden upsurge in nuclear build permit requests in the US, and the strong indications that the US is going to resume nuke plant construction after a thirty year hiatus (using French advances, too), plus the strong nuke plant building program worldwide, I'm reasonably sure 'wind' is going to look increasingly silly in the not very distant future.
It's really just a matter of obtaining planning permission; and I've seen here that 'not in my backyard' is no longer a valid objection, so....
First it'll be enhanced fission with recoverable fuel, as the French do; then it'll eventually be either the ITER or IEC model of fusion. I do hope those who 'hate nukes' don't have any objection to fusion, though I wager some will regardless.
No. I keep disagreeing with your point.
Eric: "...wind energy cannot stand on its own."
No one ever said it could.
Eric: "I'm not sure where you'd get the excess energy."
Yes. I know you don't, even though I've indicated that there is ample wind and solar potential to more than meet the demand of the nation.
Eric: "you've embraced wind wholesale without even bothering to do the most elementary research."
Well, I have no interest in nuclear to begin with, for reasons I have stated. I have no need to do this research. I have not embraced wind wholesale, either. What I have said is that if nuclear is the alternative, then I'll go with wind. Ultimately, I'd favor solar/hydrogen.
You describe the problem with wind as a technological problem. It is not. It is a problem of infrastructure that is not deployed. There are not enough turbines in operation, and if you have your way, there never will be. It's like saying because a two-year-old can't yet do calculus, he never will. The wind potential is there, but the development is not - yet. I support its development.
Eric: "I'm not a 'nuclear proponent' per se...."
Well, suggest something else. I certainly am willing to listen.
I previously suggested that personal references here are unproductive. I know you like to tell me what I support, but that comes from your limited perspective, pushing nuclear as you do. I could just as well state that you support vulnerability to terrorism, nuclear proliferation, nuclear weapons and ultimately nuclear war, and destruction of life on earth. So stop telling me what I support.
I also don't need you to tell me that I'm a good fellow. My personal attributes, ambitions, character, motivations, etc. are not part of this conversation.
Eric, I was going to jump in the fray, but I see you've got a good handle on things. It might interest you to know, a wind farm has been put up here in NW Maine. It IS an eye sore, a blight on our beautiful mountain range and, get this, the little bit of electricity it generates, goes to Canada.
Wind farms kill migrating birds. Wind farms are NOT the solution.
Nuclear is the way to go. It's clean, it's effecient, it provides jobs and oh yeah, it WORKS.
And regarding the massacre of migrating birds, I find it interesting that when the Alaska Pipline was being built, masses protested because they said it would make the caribou extinct....they caribou THRIVE from the pipeline and it has never interfered with the caribou's routes. Migrating birds do not have the luxury of being able to divert their migratory routes as they are limited in their wetland and breeding grounds. These windmills will eventually have to come down for a more effecient and practicle power source.
Good wind areas, which cover 6% of the contiguous U.S. land area, have the potential to supply more than one and a half times the current electricity consumption of the United States.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_potential.html
Every hour, the sun radiates more energy onto the earth than the entire human population uses in one whole year....
...Ten thousand square miles is a plot of land 100 miles long by 100 miles wide. Multiply 640 acres by 10,000 square miles equals 6,400,000 acres. With a yield of 7.26 megawatt-hours of electricity per day per acre, a CSP system receiving 6,400,000 acres of sunshine would produce about 46,464,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per day.
What does this mean?
The entire State of California uses about 50,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per hour at peak time....
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/solarenergy.html
http://www.sterlingplanet.com/
Many utilities offer an option of buying green energy, and you can see if your utility does at this link:
http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/locator/index.htm
If your utility is TVA, then you can buy green energy through this link:
http://www.tva.com/greenpowerswitch/green_mainfaq.htm
I appreciate your interest in what contributions I am making personally. What do you personally do?
That's actually for Eric's benefit.
Even Teddy Kennedy is rallying against having the wind farms on Cape Cod. It will "spoil" his view from the compound.
A proposal before Congress would limit the construction of wind turbines and most likely doom plans for the Cape Wind Project, the nation's first offshore wind farm.
I answered that above.
Cindy: " your comment about the sun's power is true,,,,IF you live in a state that HAS sun for more the a few weeks out of the year."
You should look at ECD Ovonics solar collectors. They are more efficient in indirect sunlight, more flexible than traditional panels, and are used in roofing material.
Of course, you could move to Nevada where the sun is strong. But then you'd be where the nuclear industry wants to dump its waste. Kennedy opposes wind in MA, and the people in Nevada don't want to be the nuclear toilet for the nation. Louisiana has been the oil industry's sludge toilet for decades, and look at the health problems that have resulted for its citizens - the poor ones that is. All in all, it looks like wind would be the least destructive of the three. But I'm sure that doesn't concern you. Good luck up there in Maine.
Solar power is indeed currently somewhat useful on a limited basis. However, it suffers from several key flaws which must be addressed before it can be used on a large scale:
First off, generation is limited (obviously) to times when there's sunlight available. At night, no generation occurs. At other times, the availability luminosity is affected by time of year--both the height of the sun in the sky, and the hours of daylight--and to a lesser extent by 'weather'.
Typically, studies indicate that solar energy would run at about 30% of theoretical output due both to the problems cited above, and to the relatively inefficient conversion rates (which might benefit from nanotechnology developments in future, but which is not currently commercially feasible on a large scale).
In short, solar is highly variable and intermittent in most areas of the world (sound familiar?). Ideal locations are mainly in desert areas within 20 degrees of the equator, ie locales such as Saudi Arabia, North Africa, and regions of Mexico. I'd add in 'the Australian Outback'.
Solar power also shares another problem with wind: the generation area is widely scattered, and typically located far from major population centers, which--again, like wind--indicates resistance losses of up to 40% by the time the generated power gets to the end user.
Last, the rare earths required for photovoltaic cells simply do not exist in quantities great enough to manufacture solar capacity on the scales proposed. Currently, electricity generated by photovoltaic or solar-conductive cells is more expensive than that generated by conventional or nukes. While research is being done into alternative manufacturing processes, it's all still highly theoretical.
There's a very good reason nearly all generation is provided by fossil fuels and nuclear: they work.
Both are reliable, and cheap. Both can be situated close to their markets, reducing resistance losses (which are quite large over the span of 30 miles or more). Both can supply guaranteed power to the grid on demand; neither require backup of any sort.
Solar has its place, especially to provide auxiliary power to small markets in regions which enjoy nearly constant sunshine. But of course, even then it requires conventional backup for at least 40% of the time.
...Ten thousand square miles is a plot of land 100 miles long by 100 miles wide. Multiply 640 acres by 10,000 square miles equals 6,400,000 acres. With a yield of 7.26 megawatt-hours of electricity per day per acre, a CSP system receiving 6,400,000 acres of sunshine would produce about 46,464,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per day.
That is the theoretical maximum, discounting cloudy conditions and time of year. You would thus still need spinning backup at all times.
Moreover, you propose to cover seven percent of California's land area with solar panels. Quite how such a monumental project could ever be realized escapes me; and even if it could, such a project is not feasible for states with less sunshine, less land area, or both.
Steve: "What does this mean?"
What does it mean? It means...'impractical'.
"Adam and Dona. I agree that the hydrogen economy is the way to go. I think if you are going to argue effectively against wind (which I think is largely preferable to fossils and nuclear), then it will be better for your position to actually push hydrogen. That's really my main point in response to this article."
And an H2 economy requires terawatts of electricity--more even than we use now. There's only one technology can supply such large-scale energy.
I hope you grow to love fission/fusion....
Southern Cal Edison's experiments presume that between 7 and 17 acres/megawatt-hour are required for solar generation; IOW, you obtain something between 0.06 MWh/acre and 0.15 MWh/acre. Assuming (generously) a twelve hour productive period per day, that means you will obtain between 0.72MW/day per acre (0.06 * 12 hours) up to 1.8 MW/day per acre (0.15 * 12).
This is lower, by a factor of at least four, than your 7.26 MWh/day of production. Typical conventional plants can now generate 1 MW per 1/25th of an acre, ie up to a gigawatt per 40 acres; nuclear does even better.
What's the source for your 7.62 MWh/day? Also, California's own DoE shows 'likely' peak demand for 2006 to be 58,150 MW, not 50,000. Where did you obtain the latter figure?
http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2002-02-14_700-01-004F.PDF (p.46, Table II-1-1).
Even SCE's Rosemead Stirling technology plant (500 MW, 4500 acres) will require 9 acres/MWh, or roughly 0.11 Mwh/acre. Multiplying this by 12 gives us 1.32MW/day per acre--nearly six times less than your figure.
http://www.edison.com/pressroom/pr.asp?id=5885
BTW, had an interesting chat with a retired British Nuclear Fuels engineer yesterday--nearly 50 years in the industry.
His trenchant comment: 'if you want to ensure that we continue to use fossil fuels, and give mad Arabs the money to build hydrogen bombs to blow us up, then by all means invest in wind farms. Utterly bloody useless....'
I can't better that remark. He was referring, of course, to my oft-repeated observation that wind farms always have conventional generation running regardless, and hence don't contribute anything at all.
That's a happy thought for ya: build a windfarm, guarantee that conventional plants will continue to be used; indeed, that even more will be built--all helping those 'mad Arabs', as my friend put it, to spread their insane ideology....
Cheers!
And you're not a proponent of nuclear? I gave you my take on nuclear - not just no, but hell no!
Steve:
If one cites simple facts, that merely indicates that one is citing simple facts; it doesn't imply that you endorse/not endorse a particular course of action.
If I tell you that it takes 10 hours to walk thirty miles, but only 45 minutes to drive that distance, does that mean I'm advocating driving? Or walking? No.
For whatever reason, you seem to want to accomplish certain ends, such as an H2 economy, without considering just how you'd reach that goal. I'm merely pointing out that an H2 economy requires massive electrical inputs--far more than we use now, in fact, since additional electricity will be needed to replace the fossil fuels we currently use for transport in one form or another.
So you'll have the grid requirements we currently demand, plus extra electricity to generate H2 and/or charge batteries, plus normal demand growth. That's terawatts of electricity, and it has to come from somewhere.
Given the parameters of the physical world in which we live, there simply is no other choice than 'nuclear' to power that economy. No renewable, now or ever, will be able to do so. There's not enough sunlight, not enough land area, not enough rare earths, not enough tidal, not enough wind on our earthly sphere. And 'wishing does' NOT 'make it so'; this is reality, in which you must be able to extract enormous quantities of energy from the environment one way or the other. And some ways are a lot more efficient than others; wind/solar are incredibly inefficient; conventional far more efficient; nuclear the most. One can fantasize all one wants about being able to replace nuclear or conventional with 'wind'; one can also fantasize about winning the next Olympic 100 meter dash. For me, at least, the natural constraints on my capabilities mean I have no chance of doing so.
You're not attempting to argue with *me* so much as claim that these natural upper limits don't exist, and that renewables can somehow be forced to become efficient enough to replace conventional/nuclear. To date, however, you've failed to explain just how you'd modify the natural limits, nor have you accounted for your data concerning solar, which is at variance by nearly two orders of magnitude from that claimed by actual utilities, who readily admit that efficiencies are far less than you assert.
Steve, with all respect, I believe you are sincere in your convictions, but you are attempting to support that which, on empirical experience, simply cannot provide even a partial replacement for conventional or nuclear. Wind is a sham, backstopped by spinning reserve; and therefore it never cuts CO2, is more expensive, and destroys environment for no gain--none--whatever. Understand that, and you'll understand why I oppose wind. There's also a strong moral component; if you believe in 'man-made global warming', or 'peak oil', then we are wasting time and money on non-starters. To my mind, the ethical approach requires one to find a real solution; one that really does cut CO2 emissions (not just pretend to do so); and which is truly fit for the purpose of supplying reliable electricity in very large quantities to a high-energy civilization.
Ditto solar; it has small-scale uses, but is simply too inefficient to be practicable on the scales needed by a high-energy civilization.
That leaves sources which are highly energetic and compact, namely fossil and nuclear. Unfortunately, you appear to be in thrall to a set of illogical beliefs--ones whose assertions have long since been empirically disproven in 'real world' experience:
"Nuclear is 'evil';
"Wind is effective;
"Solar is effective."
In the end, it doesn't matter, because no high-energy society which wants to continue existing will permit itself to be denied reliable power. It's no accident that Germany's considering a moratorium on all further wind construction; they recognize that the experiment didn't work, and are now actively considering more nuke plants--which for Germany is an enormous step. Trust me on that.
The US will do the same; we'll have a bunch of useless wind farms littering the landscape, and we'll end up building a lot more nuke plants from sheer necessity, just so we can ensure reliable, affordable power. The other option is to suffer unpredictable blackouts and an unstable grid, but I don't think you're going to find many takers for that one.
The nukes WILL be built--whether fission or fusion--it's merely a matter of how long it takes before the Feds realize that renewables are simply not up to the job....
I do hope you'd have no problem with fusion; if so, please tell me why.