Posted on 04/09/2009 4:57:48 AM PDT by Clive
There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world's most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power's unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).
Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark's largest energy utilities) tells us that "wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions." The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that "Germany's CO2 emissions haven't been reduced by even a single gram," and additional coal-and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.
Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds.
Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario's current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, "windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense." Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it "a terribly expensive disaster."
The U. S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U. S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 -- compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢; hydro at 67¢; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U. S. commentators call "a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy." The Wall Street Journal advises that "wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners."
The Economist magazine notes in a recent editorial, "Wasting Money on Climate Change," that each tonne of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137, whereas under a cap-and-trade scheme the price would be less than $15.
Either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system creates incentives for consumers and producers on a myriad of margins to reduce energy use and emissions that, as these numbers show, completely overwhelm subsidies to renewables in terms of cost effectiveness.
The Ontario Power Authority advises that wind producers will be paid 13.5¢/ kwh (more than twice what consumers are currently paying), even without accounting for the additional costs of interconnection, transmission and backup generation. As the European experience confirms, this will inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in electricity costs with consequent detrimental effects on business and employment. From this perspective, the government's promise of 55,000 new jobs is a cruel delusion.
A recent detailed analysis (focusing mainly on Spain) finds that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs are lost. Each wind industry job created cost almost $2-million in subsidies. Why will the Ontario experience be different?
In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are two kinds of green. First there are some environmental greens who view the problem as so urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken immediately.
Then there are the fiscal greens, who, being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that make polluters pay, favour massive public subsidies to themselves for renewable energy projects, whatever their relative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. These two groups are motivated by different kinds of green. The only point of convergence between them is their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy (such as wind turbines).
-
btt
The attraction of wind power is that it looks like getting something for nothing.
TANSTAAFL
But don't stop drilling or building nuke plants unless you want $200 per barrel oil. Making that argument always brings out their true issue which is how they hate the oil companies.It always emotional and never rational with these assclowns.
Truth is they don't want energy security or clean power they want control.
Yikes. Thats gonna hurt.
for later
Once you add on the additional economic activity necessary to pay the taxes which provide the subsidies, you are talking about triple the CO2 production for every megawatt of electricity produced.
No $hit wind is too expensive and to unpredictable.
The US has come closer to meeting the Kyoto Protocol targets than any signatory nation in the Industrialized West.
But do we get credit for that? Noooooooooooo!
OK, so windmills don’t cause a net reduction in carbon emissions.
They do, however, grind up those pesky birds. LaGuardia Airport should consider building a few dozen of them.
I live close enough to IH-10 corridor in Texas where we see truck after truck hauling huge wind generator rotors to W. Texas. Windpower has a HUGE footprint, very inefficient compared to what it produces, not includig maintenance, roads graded, pads for the plant, power connections. I’ve never heard an envirowacko speak of these things but don’t you DARE suggest cutting or even maintaning a forest service road, oh no, that’s terrible.
But after all, they cover many square miles of sonoran desert, mesa tops, sage, greasewood, so who cares, right? I care. I only hope that the landowners are being compensated handsomely, somebody needs to benefit and the ranchers I know sure could use it.
I guess one can also appreciate that the industry it built up utilizes synthetics (fiberglass, plastics) which last I knew is based on petroleum products. The irony of it all is wonderful.
Bookmarked.
It’s the government preference for politically correct elections that kills the market. Nature doesn’t distinguish between electrons, they all look and act the same. But run a diesel truck, pay some people to stand around and watch a guy climb the tower and replace bearings, fabricate and run lots of extra copper to collect the electrons and distribute them long distance to less windy areas, all that crap wastes money and real energy that an end-user could be using. It’s just another way of digging holes and filling them back in, except much more expensive and resource wasting.
T. Boone Pickens is looking to make a bundle.
Ya know, it doesnt take a study or even factual reporting of the failure of wind power to teel us that it doesnt work. Common sense should tell us that. Trying to get our democrat politicians to open their minds to the fact that there is no free alternative energy source is like trying to jump to the moon.
We are going to need Oil and coal for another 100 years no matter what they do and refusing to drill for it or use it is just plain ignorance.
Do not argue about reducing carbon emissions.
The whole concept is bogus. The carbon emission problems can best be eliminated by extermination of those beating this dead horse
Yes, it's expensive now but later it will be better.
Yes, it's unpredictable now, but later it will be better.
Yes, it has a big carbon footprint now, but later it will be better.
The revolution is always going to be far more successful ... next time.
“But the Europeons just aren’t doing it right.”
“They don’t have the right person in charge yet.”
(/off commie speak)
“and viewsheds.”
Can’t recall having seen that word before. Is it a relatively new word?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.