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).
That is not accurate either. When adjusted for inflation, electricity is less expensive now than it was in 1960.
No doubt all of our bills are higher in real terms, but that is a function of how much more we use today.
Haven't you heard? Hillary is backing a bill that would put large parts of the desert off limits to solar and wind. The real goal is to make us energy free, so we can be controlled. No reason to control the internet if there is no power to fire up the servers and workstations is there? People can just freeze to death in the dark or move into a city jammed 5 families to a 3 room apartment so they can have their thumb on you all the time. We need to fight this energy snafu with all of our strength, we should never have caved to eviros in the first place. People are so gullible and believe any BS they are told until it is to late.
"Oh, yes, you are only going to take a shower to kill the lice!", failing to mention you will be snuffed out along with the lice.
“No doubt all of our bills are higher in real terms, but that is a function of how much more we use today.”
So, even with all these wind farms and solar facilities being built over the last 10 years electricity is NOT more expensive?
Are you mocking me?
There's a new one.
Or maybe not: "You can't eat scenery" -- "Local Hero"
We have yet to see it here because despite all the media hype, wind and solar are still a pimple on an elephant's butt in terms of scale. Wind and solar installed capacity represents less than 1% of total US installed capacity. And also keep in mind that the real generation from these units average less than 30% of their reated capacity, so nation-wide, they actually put very little on the grid -- for now.
In some regions, such as the Northern Plains, with relatively small demand and with a large number of mega wind farms being installed (strictly for the subsidies), the impacts are beginning to show, but nation-wide it will still be a while before they can build enough of the things to really screw up the cost equations. Not so in European countries such as Spain, Denmark and even England where a equal number of wind turbines represents a much larger percentage of capacity. The article at the top of the thread explains exactly why that is so and why they are causing rising prices.
And no, I'm not trying to mock you. I'm just pointing out the reality, if you will excuse the pun.
When talking efficiency the big coal,gas and nuclear plants had economies of scale and advantages. However efficient, distributed power generation is coming and frankly having a lot of power plants that are geographically diverse actually adds to grid strength and reliability. When a gigantic plant goes down through mechanical failure or terrorism - it can wreak havoc on the grid system. But when there are many facilities that vulnerability is reduced.
I pisses me off to look out over a vista and see cell towers defacing mountain tops.
I haven’t seen a windmill yet. I can imagine my reaction to that.
makes ya kind of wonder when you see these monstrosities as a blight on the eye.
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.