Wind power puffery

The Washington Times ^ | Feb 4, 2004 | H. Sterling Burnett

[neverdem]

Whenever there is a discussion of energy policy, many environmentalists and their political allies tout wind power as an alternative to burning fossil fuels. Even if electricity from wind power is more expensive than conventional fuel sources, and it is, wind advocates argue its environmental benefits are worth it. In particular, proponents claim increased reliance on wind power would reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

[Drawsing]

And another thing not addressed in this article is the cost of cleaning and maintenance. I read somewhere that the blade's efficiency is severely compromised by the quick buildup of dirt and dust.

[palmer]

One serious question though. These devices take energy out of the atmosphere, so what effect might they have on weather?

They probably take a fraction of a percent of the energy, certainly no more than 1%, and would have no effect on the weather.

[newgeezer]

From the tone of the piece, it's obvious this guy has an agenda, and that's to get a bunch of "amens" from the choir while sounding really knowledgeable. On the subject of wind power, he likely amounts to little more than Rush Limbaugh with an initial for a first name.

[biblewonk]

"Some people, ya just can't reach"

[biblewonk]

Due to this fundamental limitation, wind farms need conventional power plants to supplement the power they supply and to replace a wind farms expected supply to the grid when the towers are not turning. After all, the power grid requires a regulated constant flow of energy to function properly.

This statement actually contains a little bit of truth. Windpower does require a certain percentage of backup. It is not 100 percent as often misquoted though.

[biblewonk]

Yet bringing a conventional power plant on line to supply power is not as simple as turning on a switch. Most "redundant" fossil fuel power stations must run, even if at reduced levels, continuously. When these factors are combined with the emissions of pollutants and CO2 caused by the manufacture and maintenance of wind towers and their associated infrastructure, very little of the air quality improvements actually result from expansion of wind power.

Nor does the need arise to bring on more power like turning on a switch. The vast majority of these things are very predictable both the wind for the next hr, 4hrs and even 24 hours are becoming more and more predictable as is the load. Daily loads are very predictable. This article also misses the fact that there are tolerances in the system. What happens to a billion watt grid operating at 50 percent load when you turn on one more light bulb?

We have gross exageration and we keep ignoring that a kwhr made by wind is a kwhr not made by burning a fossil fuel. The need for backup may reduce that to 1 kwhr made by wind is .95 kwhr not made by burning a fossil fuel.

[CollegeRepublican]

I think that wind power has its place in an off the grid environment. Placing wind turbines in conjunction with solar generators and inverters in environments were being on the grid is not practical makes sense.

[newgeezer]

Some people are convinced they know what they "know" (e.g. wind power is no good because wind is unreliable). I'm sure this writer hits a home run with them.

[biblewonk]

There are other problems. A recent report from Great Britain — where wind power is growing even faster than in the U.S. — says that as wind farms grow, wind power is increasingly unpopular. Why? Wind farms are noisy, land-intensive and unsightly.

This report conflicts with many other reports that say the opposite. Typically the percentage of approval of windpower plants goes up after one is installed in an area. What a liar this guy is.

[upcountryhorseman]

What wasn't mentioned: "down time" These turbines require extensive maintenance and repair. To effect major repairs
one must remove the turbines from their towers. If you think that's easy or inexpensive, it isn't!

[upcountryhorseman]

I can tell you this much: One wind turbine installed on
a residential site to reverse the electrical meter once in
a while would cost about $35,000.

[biblewonk]

I can tell you this much: One wind turbine installed on a residential site to reverse the electrical meter once in a while would cost about $35,000.

You are right but that is not the type of windmill in question. The installed cost of home windmills is about 4 dollars per nameplate watt. To meet the "Once in a while" criteria you wouldn't have to go that big though. But the windmills in question are start at 660kw for about a dollar a watt installed cost. I posted some of the numbers on a 750 kw unit used by a school in Iowa somewhere on the FR.

[biblewonk]

Worse, wind farms produce only a fraction of the energy of a conventional power plant but require hundreds of times the acreage. For instance, two of the biggest wind "farms" in Europe have 159 turbines and cover thousands of acres between them. But together they take a year to produce less than four days' output from a single 2,000-megawatt conventional power station — which takes up 100 times fewer acres. And in the U.S., a proposed wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts would produce only 450 megawatts of power but require 130 towers and more than 24 square miles of ocean.

This is another big deception used by anti windmill people. Windfarms to not "take up" the land as described here. The implication in this wording is that the land must be stripped down to level of ugliness required for a nuke. Not true. If 100 square miles of Iowa farm land were used to site windmills, there would be less than a 10 percent loss in crop production, each farmer would be compensated for the land leased and billions of kwhr's would be produced, forever. Each year the price of wind produced power goes down, and each year we use more of our unrenewable fossil fuels causing their price to go up.

[newgeezer]

There again, the devout naysayers can only envision the classic (and antiquated) California wind farm, where the "previously lovely" Altamont Pass is apparently covered with "ugly" windmills (probably because that's the only experience most of them have ever had, seeing one picture on the Web).

[Dan Evans]

The power they produce has to be stored in batteries ... Lead-acid batteries

Yuck. I wouldn't be surprised if the lead mining industry is a big supporter of wind energy and hybrid cars

[biblewonk]

Perhaps the most well-publicized harmful environmental impact of wind power relates to its effect on birds and bats.For efficiency, wind farms must be located where the wind blows fairly constantly. Unfortunately, such locations are prime travel routes for migratory birds, including protected species like Bald and Golden Eagles. This motivated the Sierra Club to label wind towers "the Cuisinarts of the air."

Another way to look at it is one bird kill per year per turbine. Now compare that to the birds killed by cars and trucks and buildings. It's like comparing the number of children who shoot children with guns and saying all guns should be banned while ignoring how many people are killed in motor vehicle accidents.

Bird kill is a much smaller problem in the midwest and Texas and offshore where there are untapped billions of watts just waiting to be developed with windmills.

[Dan Evans]

We have gross exageration and we keep ignoring that a kwhr made by wind is a kwhr not made by burning a fossil fuel.

Burning fossil fuel is a good thing. It restores precious carbon into the ecosystem and will help to ward off the coming ice age.

[Dan Evans]

Some people are convinced they know what they "know" (e.g. wind power is no good because wind is unreliable). I'm sure this writer hits a home run with them.

If you know otherwise, why don't you address the issues instead of attacking the source?

[Dan Evans]

You could install a wind turbine on your property (if zoning allowed for it) and make a dent in your power bill, but he calculated it would take about 15 years before you saw a return on your investment

This is typical when government tries to compete with private industry. The left usually finds itself backing stupid projects because if a project is worthwhile, it turns out someone is already doing it.

[newgeezer]

If you know otherwise, why don't you address the issues instead of attacking the source?

Been there, done that. I'd sooner talk to the wall.

Thankfully, biblewonk is doing a marvelous job of it here, and doing a better job than I could hope to do.