Posted on 11/21/2008 7:10:57 AM PST by knowseverything
Lies in the Wind
This past election season every politician on both sides of the isle had them in their commercials. Every oil, gas, or major energy company advertises with them in their publications, brochures, and public announcements. They are the answer to our energy problem, the solution to the global climate crisis. I am speaking of wind turbines; the massive structures being erected at break neck speeds across the Midwest and coastal regions.
As an electrical engineer working for a power generation company, I have been naturally curious as to the actual application of this technology, its cost, performance abilities, and overall impact on the industry. Simply put, we are constructing them, how are we going to use them? The answers I have found are not only startling, but down right disturbing when put in the context of consumers being sold something they are not being told the truth about. The following is a 2 part series of reasons wind power is not the answer to our problems, and the corresponding half truths and bold lies being sold to the public on the issue.
Part I… Feasibility
Wind turbines today are being manufactured to provide much more power than those of even 5 years ago. It is not uncommon to hear about 2 megawatt machines being put into service in farm sizes that may be thousands of megawatts. So the average person can look at a 4,000 MW (megawatt) wind farm and comfortably believe this will eliminate the need for say 4 power coal fired power plants of 1,000 MW each, correct? Well, not so fast. First we must understand what this 4,000 MW number means. When wind farms are installed they advertise their size on a total “Max Capacity” number. Meaning this is the amount of power they will generate if the wind is blowing at exactly the right speed, in the right direction, 100% of the time. Studies have shown however that average onshore wind farms will produce about 22% of their max capacity annually. Suddenly we are down to 880 MW. Well, you think, we can still get rid of almost one small coal fired power plant. Wrong again. To explain this we must realize the difference between “base load” and “peaking” power generation. Base load power is the “cheap” power that the majority of your electricity comes from, and the power plant generating it is generally running at close to full output the entire time. (ie. coal, nuclear) Peaking generation plants are called into service only during times when electrical demand is higher than normal. Typically times like afternoons in the summer when everyone’s AC is running the hardest. Most peaking plants are natural gas fired because of their ability to ramp up and down quickly. Keep in mind this is also much more expensive generation than your cheap base load facilities, primarily because of the price of natural gas.
So where does the wind fit in? Due to the nature of the wind itself, it generates rapid ups and downs as far as electrical outputs, sometimes hundreds of times per month. It is because of this characteristic that wind power could NEVER be a substitute for base load power. From an engineering standpoint, these ups and downs must be backed by quick start gas turbines in order to balance the frequency swings on the electrical grid. Simply put, if the wind falls off, and the power is not replaced from somewhere else almost immediately you will experience either a “brown out” or a “black out” if the loss is large enough. Since base load power plants cannot ramp up and down nearly fast enough to match the erratic output of the wind farms, power companies end up running natural gas turbines in a fashion that would compare to you driving your car by going 0-100 as fast as possible, slamming on the brakes, and then repeating. This creates inefficient power, tears up machines (which costs money), and also ……creates CO2 emissions. Aside from having to balance wind with “quick start” peaking power, engineers really have no idea how to accomplish even this if the wind power on the grid is more than just a few percent of the total grid capacity. Earlier this year, Texas had a massive power outage because the wind fell off one day, and they did not have enough “quick start” replacement power to inject into the grid. So best case scenario you will be running gas turbines like a teenager who just swiped the keys to dad’s Corvette, and worst case… your lights will go off. In conclusion, not one pound less coal will be burned because of the wind, and more CO2 will be created to chase it.
Power companies across the country are installing wind turbines at record speeds simply because they are being forced to by laws requiring certain amounts of “renewable energy” by a certain date. Thus they are also building a lot of natural gas fired “peaking” plants.
Knowing T. Boone Pickens didn’t become a billionaire because he was stupid, I couldn’t figure out what he was thinking when he starting pitching his wind/natural gas energy solution. The more I learn about wind generation, the more I’m convinced he’s a financial genius. He’s going to make another billion drilling for and selling natural gas.
Part II .....Cost
In my investigation into the true cost of wind power I started at the residential level. As a staunch advocate of the free market, I was a bit skeptical of the true feasibility of wind power since if we could all install wind turbines, spin our electric meters backwards, and pay back our initial investments after just a few years, wouldn’t we all have one?
After realizing that installation is typically twice as expensive as advertised, and that the “payback” assumes the machine will last for 20 years or more virtually maintenance free, I started to see the catch. These machines are money pits. They break and cost a lot of money to fix unless you happen to be one of the few who owns your own crane.
The situation with commercial wind turbines is not much different with a few additional complications. First of all, they start with an inherent advantage because they are heavily subsidized through federal and state governments. In the northern plains subsidized wind energy costs about 5 cents a kwh to produce. Compare this to the fact that electricity in the same area can be made for 2.5 cents per kwh with coal. So WITH tax incentives and subsidies from the government, wind is already way behind. Adding to the problem is the fact that in order to comply with new standard and renewable energy quotas, power companies have to take the wind power whenever it is available. Study after study has shown that the wind is generally more stable and produces best at night, and other “off-peak” hours when electricity is not worth as much because demand is low. So to make a long story short, power companies are being forced to buy wind power at 5 cents per kwh and sell it at night for 1.5 cents per kwh(or whatever their off peak rate is). They are losing money on the wind. This also does not take into account the capital cost for construction of gas fired peaking plants, their operation, and maintenance costs. The bottom line is that the more wind turbines you see your local utility erecting, the higher your electric bills are going to be. When you see the term “power cost adjustment” on your bill, a major culprit is blowing in the wind.
To risk sounding like a pessimist I must mention that wind proponents do have a solution to fix the cost problem. The answer that is being proposed is a tax on coal. Cap and trade, CO2 emissions restrictions, carbon sequestration laws, etc… These are all phrases that mean coal is about to be taxed to the point, where it is no longer the cheapest solution available. As an engineer this troubles me. We aught to be striving to fix these problems of feasibility and cost, not tax the other guy to the point that suddenly wind becomes competitive.
Conclusion
The biggest problem with the renewable, “green power” industry today is its blatant dishonesty to the public. If a select few want to pay more for a less reliable source of power that would be one thing. However, it is being sold to the masses as a complete and better solution, when that is simply not true. Let’s tell the truth and make it better, after all this country is the world’s birthplace of new ideas and innovation. Leave the lies out of it.
-knowseverything
Us: But Uncle, we’re already in a hole so deep we can’t climb out!
Uncle: Just shut up and keep diggin.
If it's more effective (e.g. economically)- sure.
Plugging in the energy from wind farms into the existing power grid has the potential of forcing the BPA to look at curtailing hydroelectric power production which could seriously impact the survival of the salmon...twice now the BPA has had to issue cutback orders to wind farms because of too much power and with the Arlington Wind Farm due to be online next year the problem will get worse. I know it’s kinda trivial info, but, it’s all I had.
The only real “solution” to this problem is constructing batteries to store the extremely expensive, subsidized, unnecessary wind power. However these batteries are even more costly than the windmills that make them necessary. This is just another typical example of the gov’t creating problems that were worse than the original problem they were intended to solve, aka, The Law of Unintended Consequences, at work!
As a Mechanical Engineer who has 15 years of his 20 year career to date in Power Generation (coal and nuclear), I applaud your article.
Too many people are convinced "Green", "Sustainable", and "Renewable Energy" are silver bullet fixes that have been slighted for no good reason.
The fact is, these "solutions" would have been embraced to the fullest if they were economical and reliable. Does anyone really believe that a utility company would NOT build wind and solar power installation if they could make reliable power for cheaper and with less maintenance than coal or nuclear stations? Anyone who believes this has never worked in a coal or nuclear station. The amount of money and effort required to keep them running economically and reliably is staggering. If a windmill could do it better, they would build them and mothball the central generating facilities. The fact is, a windmill cannot do it and this is why things are the way they are.
If it is calculated using the subsidies and tax benefits, it doesn't need to return anything in operations.
It is the tax shelters that people want.
In my Northern Tool catalog they have a 1600 running Watt generator which uses 1 gallon of gas for 3 hours of runtime or 4.8 kWh per gallon. A bigger generator uses 6 gallons of gas for 8 hours at half load (3000 Watts) or 4 kWh per gallon. A big 15kW gasoline generator uses 10 gallons to produce 6.75kW for 8 hours or 5.4 kWH per gallon.
I think the scaling would continue pretty well and especially well if you could figure out a way to distribute the power use evenly through the day in a small community. In the more limited situations of home use, you should be able to to turn down or even turn off the generator for extended periods. Even with those measures, the electricity will be quite expensive, 37 cents a kWh for the big generator with gas at $2/gallon.
Excellent. I think you are being generous about the cost of wind...but I understand where you are going.
You should write about solar and the cost of that nonsense. I think at best it can run at 15% capacity in most places.
Uhhh...what’s a reasonable level? We know that the current level is not the optimum level for plant growth. To do this we would need to nearly triple the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
There is no evidence that CO2 is a pollutant. None.
What about optimal for the man to feel the best?
Why?
Why not a plant and marine life to feel the best?
Since this is the primary motivation for all man's activites, including scientifical, social or business. No reason for CO2 ratio to be treated differently.
Because that's people's talk and business :) Let them feel good enough to be that numerous to keep us satisfied with our environment.
What about O2(a by-product of electrolysis when producing hydrogen for fuel)? Do you consider that to be pollution too?
Pollution emerges when something is left outside a closed ecological cycle. O2 is released at the electrolysis process, but it's consumed in a H2 burning process. So we have a cycle: 2H20 (electrolysis)-->2H2+O2-->2H2O (burning). If we have an alike cycle producing energy for the electrolysis, we have an unchanging (non being polluted environment). If we look at the conventional combustion engine, the same cycle can be maintained if we can convert the CO2 and H20 produced at combustion into oil (or petrol).
Continuation: so the O2 from electrolysis isn’t a polluting agent. CO2 from our caloric engines is a different issue, since it’s not balanced with th O2 generation done by the plants.
A friend just left and we were talking about this subject. He suggested a diesel generator. He said an 8 or 10KW would run the whole house but....watch what you are using. Running the washing machine, micro wave and stove could be the only problems. You can also store more diesel than gas.....legally. At least in California.
My stove is propane and microwave is just 500W or so. My biggest problem would be my electric water heater. I think the best option would be instant-on propane.
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.