Wind power is a complete disaster

Financial Post ^ | 2009-04-09 | Michael J. Trebilcock

[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).

[steelyourfaith]

Jason Lewis, substitute host for El Rushbo, August 11, 2008 on the E.I.B Network:

"The federal government has to subsidize windmill production through production tax credits of about 1.8¢ per kilowatt. Wind Farms also receive an accelerated depreciation. Wind farms are also land intensive. They produce a fraction of the energy of a traditional power plant but they require 100 times the acreage.

From the National Center for Policy Analysis: to produce a 1000 megawatt power plant a wind farm would require 192,000 acres or 300 square miles. A nuclear plant would need about 1700 acres (or 2.65 mi²), and about 3 mi² for a coal fired power plant. The transmission lines for the wind turbines would be massive, 12,000 miles just for the array."

 

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

How many years do we have to “enjoy” these spoiled vistas, and put up with those chaotic transmission lines coming from these monstrosities, that take up 10,000 times the land area that a normal power plant takes up? And yet only generate less than 1/700th the power.

The article is correct. The Government will cook the books to make these pariahs sound and appear to be working. All the while, actually increasing the very thing the Government is willing to destroy this great economy over; Co2 emissions.

And here again, we are quite powerless to stop this insanity.

[IamConservative]

Windmills are a good food supply though. Foraging under a windmill farm can yield a large variety of avian delicacies ready for the spit.

If I still lived on top of the old hill in the mid-west I grew up on, I would at least do a cost study on a turbine. Wind blew on that hill practically everyday. Use what you can and let the rest turn your meter backwards.

[Alcibiades]

Pickens has dropped his wind contracts in North Texas last I heard. He may build a few towers but he can't get the financing on wall street to complete the full project he was proposing. Also it's my understanding that some of the tax benefits to building wind have expired and he's waiting to see if they get renewed.

Oregon has a law that power companies must get at least 25% of their power from green energy sources. Last weekend I was driving down I-84 and saw several hundred wind turbines in the western part of the state. Looked like they were also putting up more towers as several trucks loaded with parts passed by. The most interesting part of all of this was that out of around 200 towers I only saw a dozen that were actually turning.

I think wind will be successful in certain areas but legislatively requiring it forces companies to put up towers in poor locations. This wastes a huge amount of capital and requires excessive backup generation from other sources.

[Betis70]

Where I live there are hundreds of abandoned or converted mills, most fairly small, almost all with their millponds intact. The industrialists who built these mills and surrounding communities from nothing picked their locations for a reason—the availability of a cheap, reliable energy source.

Most have been here since the early to mid 1800s, so environmental impact is pretty small—any spawning fish are long gone and the water courses are already impacted.

They seem like a prime source of small-scale power plants. Much more controllable than wind, and really the only time of year power might be impacted is deep winter. Even then the streams and rivers are flowing.

[reefdiver]

Yea, I have a small wind generator, 10kw. I don't pay for electricity an the whole house is elect. Still connected to the grid but bank my usage.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Wind Power will NEVER be successful, no matter how you spin it. Look at the actual facts and statistics on what they actually produce, compared to a normal power plant. These things are ridiculous and anyone who thinks they are even remotely viable, are either insane or a corrupt Liberal who has his/her personal, financial welfare in mind.

[catman67]

Glad someone remembers Heinlein. A true literary genius!!!

[brushcop]

Righ on. Most folks don't realize the size of (as you said, monstrosities) these generators, when you pass a truck hauling just one rotor then it hits home just how big these things are. But we're not dealing with rational people and that's the spooky part. This is the age of the Big Lie for sure.

[rodguy911]

Its not ignorance nor stupidity they know what they are doing,IMHO.

They want $200 oil. They want the American public coming to gov.t for

This is an attack on Free Market Capitalism by the socialist clear, plain, and simple.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

You clearly do not understand how Electrical grids and systems work.

It is utterly preposterous to believe that small, greatly scattered generating sources, widely dispersed, are a better method for generating power.

The complete opposite is true. It is best to generate as much power in one single location as possible, then distribute it in as few directions a possible without reducing the transmission voltage until it is as near it's destination as possible.

To gather all these chaotic and unreliable spurts of power from so many scattered locations, not only requires much more cost and material to carry it, it also creates a great and unnecessary loss of that power in the process.

[Betis70]

Thanks for informing me. No, I must admit to not knowing much about electrical grids. That makes sense though with the explanation, thanks.

I guess nuclear would make more sense here then?

[Quick Shot]

You ‘Psycho’ are correct!!!!

[Realism]

“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”

For those who fail to believe that your energy is subsidized.

[kidd]

Wind power is a disaster as a base load generation source.

However, it still can be useful as a specialty generation source where reliability is not a concern. For example, farms have been using windmills to pump water for the past century.

[yankeedame]

And the ironic thing is that if wind-power did, somehow, manage to jockey the inside position and come out the clear winner -- efficient, reliable, cheap,cheap power -- we all know that the libs and environazis would immediately slam on the breaks. To paraphrase another Freepers a few posts ago: "It isn't about energy, it's about control."

Abundant, reliable, inexpensive energy is the last thing "the Anointed" want for us unwashed masses.

[STONEWALLS]

“.....I only hope that the landowners are being compensated handsomely, somebody needs to benefit and the ranchers I know sure could use it....”

.....I live in the N.C. mountains where wind farm attempts are persistant...that’s because we have high un employment....the contracts to the land owners offer no mention of removing the windmill from a mountain top...when govt. subsidies run out it will cost a bundle to take a mill down.

[Realism]

“scattered locations, not only requires much more cost and material to carry it, it also creates a great and unnecessary loss of that power in the process.”

Most of the loss is thru transmission and stepping down voltage. Even still like anything, mass producing in a single location is less expensive than operating widely scattered smaller stations.

[STONEWALLS]

.....IMHO the best renewable energy is hydro...we know how to do that technology plus we get beautiful lakes for recreation and vacation homes....who doesn’t enjoy a weekend at the lake?

[plangent]

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

You can see why GE's subsidiaries NBC and MSNBC are sooooo deep into the Obama agenda. Those fed subsidies go to pay for the manufacture of each wind turbine, each transmission line, each transformer station made by GE.