Breaking Wind – Quick hits from the industry for October 16, 2010

Posted on October 16, 2010 by morgan

Items of interest:

1-P.J. Crowley, US State Department:  “It is certainly a right of any country to pursue civilian nuclear energy, but with that right come responsibilities and we would expect Venezuela, Russia, or any other country pursuing this kind of technology to meet all international obligations,” adding “the last thing we need to do is see technology migrate to countries or groups that should not have that technology.” Wonder why Venezuela didn’t as us for help building windmills?

U.S. ‘confident’ in Russia over its nuclear cooperation with Venezuela – Ria Novosti

2-OK then,  how about this?

Research links turbine colour change to cut in bird and bat deaths – New Energy Focus

3-I sure hope they have better success than Item 4.

UNT may build electric wind turbines – Pegasus News

4-I’m confused.  Wind turbines, being pushed as an antidote for Global Warming, are to benefit from the winds produced by Mother Nature’s La Niña Pacific cooling.  Does this mean just the threat of installing these behemoths has Mother Nature making changes?  Or does it mean the contraptions are not necessary in the first place?

Pacific cooling means good start to 2011 for US wind farms – Brighter Energy

5-Jon Boone and Ken Burns and John Muir … You can’t have one without the other.

Preserving national treasures – LA Times

The Sierra Club: How Support for Industrial Wind Technology Subverts Its History, Betrays Its Mission, and Erodes Commitment to the Scientific Method – Stop Ill Wind

and a bonus for readers:

A Conversation with Jon Boone – Industrial Wind and the Environment – Allegheny Treasures

Posted in Breaking Wind | Tagged | Leave a comment

Tomorrow’s technology today – Nuclear Wind Energy

Posted on October 15, 2010 by morgan

During the discussion leading up to the Iraq war, an undersecretary of defense made this comment when told that the French would likely not participate, “Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion.”

It’s OK; I thought it was funny, too!  But, that was then … this is now.

Take a look at this Baltimore Sun online post:  EDF makes move to keep Calvert Cliffs alive-French utility offers Constellation two options to move project forward

Yep, the French want to buy our nuclear plants while we fiddle around with windmills.  I don’t know about you, but just the sound of that possible transaction portrays the US as weak.  I can almost hear them chuckling behind our backs … “they’re building what? ha! ha ha!”

While the US is investing heavily in the costly wimp third cousin of reliable energy production – industrial wind, the French receive more than 75% of their electricity from nuclear energy.  As we witness the US diverting massive funding to tinker toys, our own nuclear energy business seems stalled.  The US wants to move away from coal and chooses to focus on an unreliable resource such as the wind to do so?  Come on, folks!

According to the Sun, the French group has approached Constellation Energy, (yes, the very same Constellation touting the first operational wind farm in Maryland), to purchase their interest in the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant.  Seems Constellation dropped out of negotiations with the Obama administration over loan guarantees because the terms were too expensive for Constellation shareholders.

Ever on the lookout for the middle ground, I got this idea – Nuclear Wind Energy.

I know, but hear me out!  The wind folks will tell you that wind energy comes from the sun.  Seems the sun sends radiation toward the earth which, when passing through the atmosphere, heats up the little molecules causing the hot ones to scramble past the cold ones and shazaam! – instant breeze.

The only downside as a source for electricity is that the wind doesn’t always blow where the windmills are located and, well, you never quite know if, or even when and how strong the wind will be when it does show up.

Anyway, based on the logic of sun and wind, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch then to say nuclear energy is wind energy, too.  After all, a nuclear unit is nothing more than a tiny man-made sun which makes its own wind, in the form of steam, which spins the windmill inside the generator.  That’s pretty much the same process, isn’t it?

Image source:  mediawiki.middlebury.edu

But the best part of Nuclear Wind Energy is that you don’t have to wait for Mother Nature to decide to send a breeze.  You just give an atom a little tickle and shazaam! – instant breeze!

The same energy the sun produces, the nuclear system produces!  And the advantage over wind energy is you know when, where and how strong the breeze will be to spin the nuclear windmill because you actually control it.  How cool is that?

So, here’s my thought.  If Constellation were to make a phone call to the US Department of Energy, (I think there number is the same as the American Wind Energy Association), and tell them they have this new wind technology they want to try, the grant money would come flying in!

And heck, don’t worry about a lot of questions because it doesn’t seem the Energy Department really cares if the performance matches the hype, as long as they can tell the income source – Congress (aka-your money) – that they’re meeting the renewable energy goals your elected officials pulled out of their … errrr … hat!

Anyway, consider the upside of Nuclear Wind Energy:

  • Calvert Cliffs would get additional Nuclear Wind Energy units, we could tell the French to go home and have electricity to run our homes even when the wind isn’t blowing.
  • Additional Nuclear Wind Energy units stalled could be brought on line, and new Nuclear Wind Energy units installed to support our immediate and mid-term energy needs while the “energy source of the future” is developed.
  • The AWEA wouldn’t have to change its name and could continue to lobby on behalf of Nuclear Wind Energy and finally have real, credible evidence that wind works.  You know – performance, emission reductions, reliability, unlimited source, etc.
  • The AWEA could even request real standards, such as performance and reliability, in the Renewable Electricity Standard, instead of simply begging Congress to force consumers to put coins in the industry’s tin cup.
  • Even the bi-polar environmental groups promoting the replacement of mountain-top removal with mountain-top removal, aka – sacrifice the environment to save it, could still receive funding from wind groups with the added advantage that the renewable energy source they support will have a less negative environmental impact.
  • The US could again be a leader in the technology we invented.
  • The footprint to produce today’s wind energy would be drastically reduced by the use of Nuclear Wind Energy.
  • You could actually replace fossil fuel plants with Nuclear Wind Energy.
  • You could build the power source near the demand and, heck, even pursue mini-Nuclear Wind Energy.
  • United States heavy manufacturing personnel, who lead the way on premier nuclear equipment, could once again find meaningful, long term jobs.
  • The energy source would truly be secure, reliable, cost effective and available on-demand.
  • The money wasted now on wind farms could be spent on truly innovative technologies of the future.
  • We could tell the French “thanks, but no thanks” to buying our assets.  (But we might want to ask them how they’re handling their nuclear waste, since we can’t seem to figure that out at the DC science department.)
  • We could also tell Spain, Denmark and all the other foreign wind turbine manufacturers hawking their product here in the US, “thanks, but no thanks” to stealing our work and tax money.
  • But, the best part – we can show Russia’s Putin he’s not the only one who’s figured out that Nuclear energy is the only alternative to oil, gas,” and reject “other alternative energy approaches as “claptrap.”

I’m sure this idea won’t be a hit with everyone.  Heck, it’s probably not even original.  But if I had to make a choice for my reliable, cost effective, renewable future I guarantee I wouldn’t be counting on industrial wind … unless, of course, it was nuclear powered.

Others might say I’m only changing the name … being a little devious, perhaps.  Well, we’re not on virgin turf here, are we Mr. Global Warming now Global Climate Disruption?

So, what do you think?  Will you at least give Nuclear Wind Energy a chance?

Posted in Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Breaking Wind – Quick hits from the industry for October 15, 2010

Posted on October 15, 2010 by morgan

Items of interest:

1-Remember wondering why Google (Item 2) might want to toss money away?

Suckered by Wind? – Planet Gore

2-“ … fundamentally wind cannot replace coal because coal is being used to ramp up in response to the daily cycle of demand.  Wind cannot do this, no matter how many turbines are built.”

Wind Replacing Coal? – Ontario Wind Performance

and, while you’re at it – Is Natural Gas backing up Wind?

3-“Subsidies for wind have caused “skewed” investment across the UK towards wind energy and away from research and development for other renewables technologies”

MP hits out at government bias towards wind – New Energy Focus

4-Amazing stuff from Virginia – the Sierra Club, “which has a national policy of supporting wind farms in appropriate locations” supports the Poor Mountain wind farm which, by the way is not an appropriate location.

Thanks to VA Wind!

5-New York Public Service Commission investigators to build homes under turbines to prove they’re safe.  Oh … there not?

PSC: Firm’s wind farms safe, collapse probe closed – Bloomberg

 

Posted in Breaking Wind | Tagged | Leave a comment

John Droz, Jr. on industrial wind … “debate the science, not the emotion.”

Posted on October 14, 2010 by morgan

John Droz, Jr.,physicist and long time environmentalist, was recently invited to address Cape Cod citizens regarding industrial wind.  According to responses, some 95% of attendees gave his presentation very positive marks.

Always seeking the opportunity for discussion about the science of industrial wind, rather than the emotion driving much of today’s debate, Mr. Droz also took the time to reply to the “the other 5%.”  As example of the typical response of a wind supporter, Mr. Droz selected an interchange with a person he understood to be a farmer entertaining signing a lease for turbines.”

Mr. Droz changed the respondent’s name, of course; but chose to send along the exchange as an example of how civil discussion can take place when the emotion of industrial wind is replaced with discussion of the science.

Mr. Droz notes that the wind supporter’s response is constructive and not about being a NIMBY, but Science.

To the discussion:

On Oct 11, 2010, at 4:50 PM, Sam Smith wrote:

Dear John Droz Jr.

I attended your presentation at Wind Wise Cape Cod Oct 7, 2010.  I would have to disagree that you are not a well spoken public speaker.  You did a fine job presenting your material!

I was inspired to do some research on-line. I found this study (see the link below) and thought this was an interesting and very relevant, although contrary, to your presentation.  I hope you take the time to review this work.

If you would like to discuss this topic further I would welcome you to respond by e-mail.

http://v1.apebble.com/static/clean/BeyondBAU5-11-10.pdf

Sam Smith

On Oct 11, 2010, at 6:40 PM, John Droz, jr. wrote:

Sam:

Thank you for your kind words. I’m glad that my talk gave you some food for thought.

I took a cursory look at what you sent (<<http://v1.apebble.com/static/clean/BeyondBAU5-11-10.pdf>>), and here is my conclusion.

This report (like many others) has the appearance of legitimacy. After all it looks professional, and is authored by several credentialed people. It would be easy to assume that it is legit.

The litmus test though is: did it adhere to the Scientific Method?

Let’s do a quick peek at the five Scientific Method elements, and see what the result is.

1) Was it done by independent parties?

The study is sponsored by the Civil Society Institute. This organization is an strong advocate for making changes because of “Global Warming” (AGW). Surprisingly (since this is one of their main agendas), they present zero evidence that Global Warming is scientifically legitimate. Their position is: let’s just assume that AGW is real, and start making changes. That’s a science red flag.

The founder of the Civil Society Institute (Pam Solo: credited for reviewing and correcting the report) has a clear and stated bias against nuclear power. Little wonder that their hired personnel will mirror that position in their attack on nuclear power.

Regarding the authors, it appears that they all belong to the same church. For instance: “Goeff Keith has worked extensively with advocates and technology manufacturers to support the commercialization of clean energy technologies.” In other words, Goeff (listed as the lead author) appears to have a vested interest in promoting “clean” technologies.

Kenji Takahashi has been involved in a variety of environmental campaigns, like “Citizens’ Alliance for Saving the Atmosphere and the Earth.” Wow, saving the earth and atmosphere!

Alice Napoleon: another environmentally correct person working with “residential, commercial, and industrial working groups to recommend, develop, and quantify costs and benefits of possible state actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Etc. Etc.

Independence Score: 3 out of 10

—————————————————–

2) Is it objective?

Objectivity is all about examining things in an unbiased manner as possible. Since we all have biases, a critical part of this is to minimize assumptions, and to carefully examine all remaining assumptions made. Real scientists: 1) clearly identify their minimized assumptions, and 2) provide genuine proof for such assumptions. These people didn’t bother with either of these niceties.

There there are numerous stated and implied unproven assumptions that are the basis for their subsequent conclusions. Remember, the most well-constructed building is worthless when built on sand.

Lets start at the beginning (page 5): “the risks associated with climate change are forcing us to consider quantum shifts in the way we generate and use electricity.” This is a totally unsupported political statement that sets the tone for the agenda that these persons are intent on distributing. What proven “risks” are there? What proof is there that we need to make “quantum” shifts? Oh, these are buried somewhere in their catechism, and we just expected to believe it. More science red flags.

The next few sentences cleverly throw coal and nuclear together, as if they have similar issues. Their tag on the nuclear apparently is “Nuclear power produces high-level radioactive waste, and the nation still has not established a long term repository for that waste.” Well, nuclear does produce a byproduct, but the facts are:

a) the byproduct is mostly usable fuel. If they are concerned about reducing this byproduct they should be advocating reprocessing.

b) that “the nation still has not established a long term repository for that waste” is hardly the fault of the nuclear industry, or an inherent issue with nuclear power. The disposal matter is a political issue, that has already been solved by scientists. Nowhere do I see either of those details mentioned.

Another key statement is still on that first page: “The goal of the study is to provide a highly transparent and objective analysis of the cost of moving away from coal and nuclear energy and toward efficiency and renewables.”

Note that they do not state that the goal is to determine if there are merits for “moving away from coal and nuclear energy and toward efficiency and renewables.” No, their a-priori position is that there are merits, so they are starting with a goal of  “proving” that such a move is desirable. This is not how science works. Big red flags.

And then “The need to reduce CO2 emissions will force a major retooling of the electric industry.” What “need” have they proven? None. Just reference some other political polemic.

It goes on and on with the same unscientific mentality.

Objectivity Score: 1 out of 10

—————————————————–

3) Is it comprehensive?

Comprehensive would include all pertinent technical, economic and environmental considerations. Let’s quickly look at technical, which tells us all we need to know.

Reliability is the cornerstone of our electric grid, and our current energy sources. Having reliable electric power is the foundation of modernity. If these supposedly competent people were offering an alternative owe source, one would think that there would be a thorough discussion of any and all reliability impacts. No such luck.

In this loquacious report the term “reliability” appears just ONCE! This is an damning fact.

Oh, and what is the one instance? Page 66 says: “Wind turbine performance and reliability have improved significantly over the last decade: average capacity factors for U.S. wind projects have increased from about 24% in 1999 to over 32% in 2005 (RETI 2008).” Apart from the fact that the cited report is also an unscientific screed, the fact is that this purported increase in Capacity Factor has little to do with reliability. That all these authors don’t understand this, is a telling indictment of their understanding of the electrical power business.

Envision this: a TV advertisement for an Iberdola automobile, where the announcer excitedly proclaims “Iberdola has made great advances to their 2011 state-of-the-art car, and it now works 32% of the time!” What type of any product would you use that worked 32% of the time? These authors, though, have the temerity to promote this as a selling point!

What about the economic part? Reference page 10: “See Appendix B for a discussion of wind energy potential and recent cost data. The most detailed analysis of U.S. wind cost and potential was performed for the DOE’s 2008 study 20% Wind Energy by 2030 and its predecessor, AWEA’s 2007 report 20 Percent Wind Energy Penetration in the United States (DOE EERE 2008 and AWEA 2007).”  (BTW, the DOE “report” they cite was also written by AWEA and their allies.)

These people are so bold that they have no qualms in saying that the “most detailed analysis of US wind cost” comes directly from lobbyists??? Simply astounding.

How about the environmental part? Well, if these authors were objective and comprehensive, they would certainly discuss the environmental impacts of what they are proposing, right? I can’t find anything reasonable about the environmental impacts of wind energy anywhere, so show me if I missed it.

Comprehensive Score: 2 out of 10

—————————————————–

4) Is it transparent?

Transparency is about having all a study’s data available for inspection. In this case, their transparency is problematic, as their date comes from other reports — most of which are based on computer models and have little transparency. Put in laymen terms, the data they are citing is mostly suspect. The phrase “One lies and the other swears to it” comes to mind.

Transparency Score: 4 out of 10 (I’m being generous)

—————————————————–

5) Is it based on empirical data?

I am familiar with most of the “reports” they cite, and (surprise) essentially none of them are based on empirical data. For example, neither of the AWEA reports cited are based on empirical data.

Empirical Score: 2 out of 10

—————————————————–

The bottom line is that although this document may have been written by scientists, it is categorically NOT a scientific report. It does not even remotely adhere to the Scientific Method.

In reality it is more a report about other reports. The authors apparently started with an agenda (pro-wind, anti-coal, anti-nuclear) and then carefully selected other reports that supported their foregone conclusions. Since there are hundreds of unscientific “reports” out there, that is an elementary assignment.

To put it politely, though, it would be an embarrassment for real scientists to have their name even associated with such an agenda-promoting PR piece. Unfortunately (due to economic and political pressure) this has become the norm of our time.

Sorry to be blunt, but you asked about this report’s legitimacy. The answer: zero. After you’ve waded through a dozen or so of similar puff pieces (I’ve looked at hundreds), you’ll get the clear message that any real science in these polemics is strictly accidental, and that the scientific basis for wind energy is minimal.

regards,

john droz, jr.

physicist & environmental advocate

Correspondence ends … for now.

Allegheny Treasures Notes:

Mr. Droz is a physicist who has also been an environmental activist for some 25 years. Mr. Droz is a member of the Sierra Club, the Adirondack Council, the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, and the Resident’s Committee to Protect the Adirondacks, among others, noting that the views expressed on his web site are his as a scientist promoting science, and may not be consistent with the political agendas of those organizations.]

Mr. Droz noted that the examples cited in his response were but a small sample. There are dozens more which he elected not to include “for the sake of brevity.”  Mr. Droz’ provides an extensive library of additional information at his web page, Wind Power Facts.

We highly recommend that you sign up for his very informative email newsletter by writing him at aaprjohn@northnet.org.

We thank Mr. Droz for permitting us to share his experience.

This post has been made available at Scribd for your convenience -http://www.scribd.com/doc/39332047/John-Droz-Jr-on-Industrial-Wind-debate-Science-Not-Emotion

Posted in John Droz | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Breaking Wind – Quick hits from the industry for October 14, 2010

Posted on October 14, 2010 by morgan

Items of interest:

1:A must read from Lisa Linowes

Offshore Wind: DOE’s Reality Challenge – MasterResource

2:”Denmark itself has also already tried being a green-energy innovator; it led the world in embracing wind power. The results are hardly inspiring. Denmark’s wind industry is almost completely dependent on taxpayer subsidies, and Danes pay the highest electricity rates of any industrialised nation.”

First do the research, then make deep carbon cuts – The Australian

3:Things that make you scratch your head:

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t – Watts Up With That?

4-“After reviewing the materials in the table, we arrived at our current understanding of wind turbine noise and its impact on the host community and its residents. The review showed that some residents living as far as 3 km (2 miles) from a wind farm complain of sleep disturbance from the noise.”

Guidelines for Selecting Wind Turbine Sites – Pandora’s Box of Rocks

5-Poll – 87% of US citizens want more wind power.  32% are actually willing to pay for it!  Does that mean US Citizens would rather have US Taxpayers pick up the tab?  Sounds logical to me!

U.S., Europe back wind farms but split on nuclear power – USA Today

Posted in Breaking Wind | Tagged | Leave a comment

Maryland’s first wind farm set to begin publishing actual electricity production stats to justify its existence.

Posted on October 13, 2010 by morgan

Finally!  A US wind farm owner with the courage to put their performance where their mouth is!

I have to give credit to Constellation Energy – the developer, Clipper Wind Power – the turbine manufacturer, and especially the American Wind Energy Association for demanding that real time, hour by hour electricity production results from the turbines at Maryland’s first wind farm turbines are offered to the general public.  And all this time, I’ve been critical of the lack of transparency and complicated presentation of information provided by the USDOE, wind plant owners and the AWEA.  My sincere apologies!

Kudos also to the grid operators, by the way, for offering to publish the amount of electricity accepted to the grid, the amount discharged into space due to the bad timing of wind’s arrival, the impact on grid stability and the cost impact to consumers.

I’m so happy I could just, well … weep!

Just think how valuable publishing performance – from the first revolution of the first blade to the full operation and perhaps through the first one, two or three years – will be in validating the efforts of the Garrett County officials, Maryland legislators and the US Congress who are pushing industrial wind as the be all, end all to the US energy woes.

I mean … what more could you ask for to prove, once and for all, to the pesky rate-payers, taxpayers and NIMBYs, the wonders of industrial wind.  Yes sir!  Just show them how much electricity is coming out of these 747 size whirlybirds and they will shut up for sure.  Their constant whining about endangered species and view-shed and noise and environmental damage and high cost-low value and, well … you know the drill.  What a bunch of nuts!

And furthermore, …

What?  It didn’t?  OH!

Hold on folks!  I may have misread the article.  When the headline said First state wind farm to begin operating I just assumed it meant they would also start reporting actual performance.  After all, the article said that Mr. Wagner “acknowledged that Constellation had anticipated a high level of statewide interest in and scrutiny of the project, because it was effectively blazing a new trail in Maryland energy production.”

Heck, he even said, “From the very beginning we were aware that we were going to be looked at, as the first facility of its kind in the state.”  Well, if that all doesn’t mean they want to prove themselves to supporters, naysayers and the public in general, what the heck does it mean?

I mean, even the AWEA is pushing for a Renewable Electricity Standard so Congress will set industry wide standards for set-back, noise levels, performance and safety standards and all the other issues related to industrial wind installations.  What?  That’s not what they mean by standards?

Well, even though it wasn’t stated specifically in the article, I have to believe transparency and accountability is what they meant.  After all, what better way to dispel the notion that industrial wind is a dismal energy producer generating nothing more than riches to the owners and developers at the expense of taxpayers and rate-payers.

Man, if I were Constellation I’d be rubbing the actual production and cost figures right under the big noses of those NIMBYs.  I’d even be publishing every tax dollar, grant and preferred loan I received from taxpayers and show them how I pay them back.  Then the public would see what a good investment my business is for the country.  Why, the wind industry should, in reality, be considered a charity organization.

Oh, and all that huff about getting a permit to whack some bats and eagles … they’re working on it.  Yeah!  I know they said early on they were going to do it, then they said they probably would get it taken care of, then when there was a pending lawsuit they were still working on it.  The plain fact is, like Constellation’s Kevin Thornton says, there’s “no litigation filed as of Monday morning” stating further, “Because of that, our response is that there is no litigation.”  (You just can’t slip anything past these folks, can you?)

In spite of no litigation, good environmental steward as it is, Constellation is “in the process of filing the paperwork” for the permit, according to spokesman Thornton.  In case you didn’t know, the paperwork in question is to be submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife service which requires “the developer to create a detailed conservation plan to mitigate any potential harm to endangered wildlife, such as the Indiana bat.”  And, then if they kill a bunch they can yank out the permit as their permission slip.  (No, you can’t get one!  Even if an eagle feather lands on your property and you stick it in your pocket, you will be fined $250,000 and go to jail.)

But, just in case you’re still concerned about wind developers having the best interest of the endangered species of the Appalachian Mountains as their first priority, ask yourself this:  why would the University of Maryland commit to a 20 year agreement to purchase energy credits from nearby Pinnacle in West Virginia if the developers didn’t have environmental “cred?”

You know the U of MD is going to insist that US WindForce, developer of Pinnacle, have their incidental take permit and mitigation plan wired with the US Fish and Wildlife before they break ground at the project enabled by the U of MD agreement.  The U of MD would never be that sloppy.  Could anyone doubt that the good Chancellor didn’t insist on this condition before committing 20 years of student tuition to support the project?  It’s probably right there in the agreement!  I’ll prove it as soon as I can get my hands on it.

For any remaining skeptics … I know, it seems incredible that the whole Garrett County Maryland project could be conceptualized, studied, built and operating before the application form to protect endangered animals could be filled in and submitted to the USF&WS.  But just try to remember when you were a kid trying to assemble your erector set to match the picture on the box and you kept getting interrupted by your mom telling you to clean your room.  Pretty much the same thing!

As far as the wind farm owners reporting the actual performance and cost, I’m sure they’re just working out the real time, easy to read, user friendly format.  After all, what do they have to hide?

Besides, the next newspaper article will probably clear this all up.  I’m counting on it!

Posted in Allegheny Mountains, Appalachian Mountains, Bat/Bird Kills, Pinnacle Wind Force LLC, Save Western Maryland, US Fish &Wildlife, US WindForce | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Breaking Wind – Quick hits from the industry for October 13, 2010

Posted on October 13, 2010 by morgan

Items of interest:

1-“Notes for a speech that Ontario’s Opposition leader could give, but won’t, on the state of the province’s electricity sector“

Ontario power lesson – Wind Concerns Ontario

2-“’China Wind Power Outlook 2010′ report expects China’s wind sector to hit at least 150 GW and possibly 230 GW over the next ten years.” (Guess who wrote the report.  OK … here’s a hint – Greenpeace, the Chinese Renewable Energy Industries Association (CREIA) and the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC).)

China’s Wind Power Forecast at 230 GW by 2020 – Renewable Energy World

3-Darn, if Item 2 is accurate, then why this?  “China’s largest coal exploration enterprise, Beijing-based CCGEGC has applied for seven exploration permits to jointly exploit coal and ore reserves in the states of Queensland and Tasmania with local companies.”

Chinese firms agree to explore coal block in Queensland – People’s Daily Online

4-Audra Parker of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound explains it well, saying consumers “will be needlessly paying billions of dollars in electric bills and subsidies to line the pockets of a private developer.”

Cape Wind Power: What’s Cost Got to Do with It? – The Foundry

5-“Congress seems intent on imposing energy taxes on the American public. First, there was the proposed cap-and-trade legislation; now there’s a renewable energy standard.”

Bingaman’s Renewable Energy Standard: Another Proposed Energy Tax – MasterResource

Posted in Breaking Wind | Tagged | 1 Comment

Breaking Wind – Quick hits from the industry for October 12, 2010

Posted on October 12, 2010 by morgan

Items of interest:

1-Eric Bibler on wind parks

“Wind Parks? Really?” – Wind Turbine Syndrome

2-Then, what is the motive?

Google To Fund Huge Wind Farm Project, Make No Money – 24/7 Wall St.

3-“I hope that the town fathers of Bournedale recognize that lucrative public subsidies have attracted as many “wind developers” as Hollywood starlets have attracted “casting directors.”

Barbara Durkin, Northboro: Scrutinize Wind Farm Developers – Bourne Courier

4-And the US wants to build windmills?

Russia Is Seeking to Build Europe’s Nuclear Plants – New York Times

5-And, before you ask, we do not endorse individual politicians or political parties.  In fact, if you really give it some thought, this ad cuts both ways for the candidate.  So, just relax and enjoy!

Posted in Breaking Wind | Tagged | Leave a comment

“The investment in CFLs would save more than 5 times as much electricity in 5 years than the wind turbine would produce in 20 years.”

Posted on October 11, 2010 by morgan

Glenn Schleede provides his, as always, interesting take on energy issues.  In this corner, it’s the CFL bulb and in the other corner, the wind turbine.

Mr. Schleede calls this exercise a “back of the envelope” analysis with conclusions that will amuse and/or infuriate you.  He also suggests that, “you can change the assumptions a lot but basic point of the analysis will remain.”

Enjoy!

October 10, 2010

Which investment would be more cost effective:  energy efficient light bulbs to reduce electricity demand or wind turbines to produce electricity?

Both approaches are widely touted as good for the environment but their relative cost effectiveness is seldom compared.  It can be done with simple arithmetic.  Assume $2 million is available to invest.

1.  Energy efficient light bulbs. Home Depot is offering four (4) 14-watt compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs for $7.97 that are claimed to provide the same light as a 60-watt incandescent light bulb, with a projected lifetime of 8000 hours.

  • Assume the price is $2 per bulb to make the arithmetic easier.
  • If the bulbs were used an average of 4 hrs per day over 5 years, that would add up to 7,300 hours (365 days x 5 years x 4 hours), or less than the claimed lifetime.
  • Each 14-watt CFL would save 46 watts per hour of use in lieu of a 60-watt incandescent bulb.
  • Over a 5-year period (4 hours per day) electricity savings from a single bulb would be 335,800 watt-hours (46 watts x 7300 hours).  335,800 watt-hours = 335.8 kilowatt-hours (kWh).
  • $2 million could pay for 1,000,000 of the CFLs advertised by Home Depot.

Using these assumptions, 1,000,000 CFLs could save 335,800,000 kWh of electricity over 5 years.

2.  Wind Turbine. The current “rule of thumb” price for a 1 Megawatt (MW) wind turbine seems to be roughly $2 million (if installed in quantity).

  • A 1 MW wind turbine operating at a generous 35% capacity factor[1] over 1 year would produce 3,066,000 kWh of electricity (1,000 kW x 8760 hours in year x 35% = 3,066,000.
  • Thus, a 1 MW wind turbine operating over 20 years[2] at a 35% capacity factor could produce 61,320,000 kWh of electricity (i.e., 20 x 3,066,000 = 61,320,000).

3.  Comparison:  Based on these calculations:

  • A $2 million investment in a wind turbine would produce 61,320,000 kWh of electricity over a 20-year period.
  • A $2 million investment in CFLs could save 335,800,000 kWh of electricity over a 5-year period.
  • Therefore, the investment in CFLs would save more than 5 times as much electricity in 5 years than the wind turbine would produce in 20 years. (335,800,000 divided by 61,320,000 = 5.48.)

4.  Other important considerations: Electricity not used means less need for adding electric generation, transmission and distribution capacity and the economic cost and environmental impact of building and maintaining that capacity.  Less cost means lower monthly electric bills.

Glenn Schleede

[1] Capacity factor is determined by dividing the amount of electricity produced (in megawatt-hour – MWh or kilowatt-hours – kWh) divided by the rated capacity of a generating unit (e.g., wind turbine) x the hours in the period being measured.  Thus, a 1 megawatt (1,000 kW) wind turbine that produced 3,066,000 kWh of electricity during a one year period would have a capacity factor of 35%.

[2] Wind energy advocates often assume that industrial scale wind turbines will have a useful life of 20 years though none of the type now being installed in the US has been in service anywhere near 20 years.

Allegheny Treasures Note:  “Mr. Schleede is the author of many papers and reports on energy matters.  He is now retired but continues to analyze and write about federal and state energy policies, particularly those affecting wind energy.”

“Until retiring, Schleede maintained a consulting practice, Energy Market and Policy Analysis, Inc. (EMPA)  Prior to forming EMPA, Schleede was Vice President of New England Electric System (NEES), Westborough, MA, and President of its fuels subsidiary, New England Energy Incorporated. Previously, Schleede was Executive Associate Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (1981), Senior VP of the National Coal Association in Washington (1977) and Associate Director (Energy and Science) of the White House Domestic Council (1973).  He also held career service positions in the U.S. OMB and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.”

“He has a BA degree from Gustavus Adolphus College and an MA from the University of Minnesota.  He is also a graduate of Harvard Business School’s Advanced Management Program.“

Posted in Glenn Schleede, industrial wind poor performance | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Breaking Wind – Quick hits from the industry for October 11, 2010

Posted on October 11, 2010 by morgan

Items of interest:

1-Just curious … if you’ve got the wind, and the mandates for renewables almost assures they will need your wind, why would you find it necessary to give them a tax break?

Firm seeks tax break for wind power plan – Energy Central

2-“It’s the first time a Chinese oil company made a major investment in a U.S. onshore field.”  But I bet it won’t be the last!

Cnooc To Buy Chesapeake Field Stake For $1.1 Billion – Fox Business News

3-“Windpower’s noise problem is nothing new–it has just been swept under the rug by the industrial wind complex.”

“The Miserable Hum of Clean Energy” (Noise is an emission too, AWEA and D.C. environmentalists) – MasterResource

4-Protecting your environment requires serious dedication and sacrifice.

A Week in the World of Wind – Grumbles and Grins

5-“… the harsh reality of shadow flicker produced by a wind turbine on a residence.”  Wanna take a bet that none of the Wisconsin PSC commissioners live at that address?

30 Hours Shadow Flicker – Industrial Wind Action Group

Posted in Breaking Wind | Tagged | Leave a comment