Recommended reading courtesy of John Droz, Jr. – “Wind industry blowing away our tax dollars,” by Kathleen Hartnett White – Guest Columnist at the Weatherford Democrat.
Britain’s Telegraph.co.UK, published yesterday that “While wind farms run out of puff our bills will build up a head of steam.”
Ofgem, Britain’s Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets, highlighted the “variability” of wind as a source of energy supply, and stated that the wind is “so variable in fact that the energy regulator is currently assuming that, in the future, windfarms are available for just 15pc of the time.”
The article continues “Ofgem is not a political animal. But there was plenty of ammo in Friday’s report for critics of Labour energy policy.”
“Realising fish can’t vote, the Government’s major contribution has been to approve pricey, unreliable offshore windfarms – while refusing, for far too long, to address the nuclear option.”
“The upshot is that cash-strapped Britain is now facing a looming energy gap, priced yesterday by Ofgem at up to £200bn. This is the sum that may be required to build new energy infrastructure while meeting environmental targets.”
“Who pays, you wonder. Well, you do, with the pain intensifying around 2015 when Britain shuts down its most polluting coal-fired power plants and our old nukes. Then, household bills could jump by 60pc – enough to make anyone’s hair stand on end.”
“There are two main reasons for this little shocker. First, that Britain has signed up to emission targets that call for 40pc of our electricity to be generated by renewable energy by 2020.”
“And second, that because we’ve been so slow in replacing our dwindling North Sea reserves with other forms of energy, we’ve become increasingly reliant on gas from Russia and Qatar – with all the attendant political risks.”
“It’s enough to put the wind up any incoming Government.”
Do we expect that the winds of the Alleghenies will be more reliable that those of the British Isles? Unlikely! So, at what point will we begin to realize the obvious – wind will not power America!
In an earlier post, “Mountain Breezes – Green Energy’s New Coal?,” we spoke of the taking of the coal. For decades past, and likely many decades future, the important, yet much maligned resource has, and will continue to feed the energy requirements of the nation. We discussed how the landscape and the environment have been forever altered by the effort to retrieve the black diamond. In what many feel is a extremely poor alternative, bringing its own set of environmental issues, wind energy has perhaps become the new coal of the Allegheny mountains, except that, unlike coal, wind is an unreliable and unpredictable resource.
As the debate rages, proponents of wind power speak of a clean, renewable energy source able to replace the “greenhouse gas belching” coal-fired plants. Opponents stress that wind energy power facilities are destructive to the landscape and wildlife and due to their inefficient and unreliable operation will not, in fact, replace fossil fuel plants. Opponents to wind power feel that investing money in clean coal, nuclear, natural gas and geothermal, as example, will prove a much wiser investment.
Even Energy Secretary Chu recognizes the concern with wind power’s unreliability. Speaking recently to the Grid Week conference in Washington, Secretary Chu cited Bonneville Power in the Northwest noting ““it gets about one-fifth of its power from wind energy when the wind is blowing.” “But when it stops blowing, that share drops to zero.” (The Wind Energy cart. Will the horse ever catch up?)
Beyond unit efficiency and environmental impact lies a serious questions for citizens of the region … what are the benefits of wind power? It appears to many the answer is “very few.” At issue today, are the tax breaks and subsidies afforded the large wind power companies.
I recently discovered a comprehensive study regarding subsidies of wind power projects and other related issues prepared. The paper was written by Mr. Glenn Schleede and titled, Wind Energy Economics in WV. Subtitled “A description of the environmental, scenic and property value implications and an analysis of the economic benefits and costs associated with existing and proposed “wind farms” in West Virginia.” Written in 2003, the excellent, two part publication remains an important resource to those of us in the region. Mr. Schleede, in granting permission for use of his documents noted that since his study was published, “the tax breaks and subsidies are even greater now than when I wrote the WV paper in 2003. The production tax credit is now $0.021 per kWh and there is a new federal grant program and loan guarantees. (See http://www.dsireusa.org/)”
With all credit and thanks to Mr. Schleede’s courtesy, I’ll offer these links in their entirety with the recommendation that any individual or group with a serious interest in understanding wind energy economics in West Virginia, or the region take the time to read.
Wind Energy Economics in West Virginia – Part 1 of 2
Wind Energy Economics in West Virginia – Part 2 of 2
“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.”
Mr. Schleede has contributed many writings to the issue of wind energy, most of which can be found at one of the following web sites: www.wind-watch.org, www.windaction.org, or www.savewesternoh.org. Type his last name (Schleede) in the “search” box on any of the sites to review more of his fine work.
Following on the heels of today’s earlier post at Allegheny Treasures regarding the upcoming court case brought by the Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy (MCRE) against Beech Ridge Energy, the Industrial Wind Action Group offers this editorial: “Bat-gate: Cover-up at the Beech Ridge wind facility”
Cover up? Check out the detailed presentation at the link and the commentary offered by world renown bat expert, Dr. Thomas H. Kunz, and others.
This case should will be an important study for the entire region. Allegheny Treasures will follow closely and provide links and information as they surface.
From their web page, linked here for your convenience, MCRE describes themselves as “a grassroots, community-based group of West Virginia citizens opposing the proposed construction of the Beech Ridge Wind Project by Invenergy LLC of Chicago. Click here for proposal details.”
MCRE discusses their latest effort to protect the region’s environment and wildlife against the Wind Energy Industry in their “October Update on Beech Ridge Wind Turbine Opposition.” Following is the October update:
“The federal lawsuit filed against Beech Ridge Energy and its parent corporation by Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy and others will culminate with an evidentiary trial starting October 21st in Greenbelt, Maryland. MCRE’s attorneys, of the nationally recognized public interest law firm Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, charge that the Beech Ridge industrial wind energy facility will very likely kill and injure endangered Indiana Bats – a patent violation of the Endangered Species Act. The only way in which a party can cure such a violation is to obtain an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before any deaths or injuries occur, which Beech Ridge Energy has failed to secure from the Service at this time.”
“To our knowledge, this is the first wind energy project to be challenged for violating the Endangered Species Act, and it puts Greenbrier County in the national spotlight on these important wildlife issues. Previous studies have shown that industrial wind turbines on forested ridges in the east kill thousands of bats annually. In fact, Beech Ridge Energy concedes that approximately 135,000 bats could be killed during the twenty-year operation of the project. Despite this staggering figure, Beech Ridge Energy’s staff have testified previously that Indiana bats were not likely to be killed by the project because pre-construction surveys did not establish presence of the species on the project site.”
“However, the discovery process leading up to this October trial has exposed evidence to the contrary. Ultrasound survey techniques that identify bat species by their unique call sequences were conducted in 2005 by Beech Ridge Energy’s subcontractor, but the existence and results of these surveys were never disclosed to the federal or state wildlife agencies, nor the West Virginia Public Service Commission. Two of the nation’s leading bat biologists, Drs. Lynn Robbins and Michael Gannon, have recently20analyzed that previously unreleased data and confirmed the presence of Indiana bats at the Beech Ridge project site.”
“Turbines had been slated to go up in August, but because of the efforts of MCRE and others, 40% of phase one turbine erection and 100% of phase two turbine erection is on hold until the issue has been fully litigated and decided in the US District Court.”
MCRE, as with many such citizen organizations, fight the heavily funded Wind Energy Industry and rely on your generous donations. If you can find the means to support MCRE they suggest “your continued financial support for MCRE can be mailed to: MCRE, P.O. Box 1, Williamsburg, WV 24991 and info is available online at: www.wvmcre.org“
The New York Times reports in its “E.P.A. Moves to Curtail Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” that the agency “would place the greatest burden on 400 power plants, new ones and those undergoing substantial renovation, by requiring them to prove that they have applied the best available technology to reduce emissions or face penalties.”
According to EPA’s Lisa Jackson, “We are not going to continue with business as usual.” The Administrator said, “We have the tools and the technology to move forward today, and we are using them.”
So, it makes you wonder…will the EPA regulate consistently by requiring Wind Energy producers seeking to install many massive turbines to do the same? Apples and oranges, you say? Not really.
The massive wind farms, few will argue, take a toll on the environment, a point which, by its name alone, should interest the EPA. Turbine installations have an impact on the landscape including clearing of the land for roads, massive pads, power transmission lines, water run off and, of course, wildlife. Opponents are often ridiculed as standing in the way of progress and using delaying tactics such as protecting bats and birds. For example, it has been held by many proponents that the trade of clean power (reducing CO2 emissions) is worth “a few bats and birds.” In the grand scheme, perhaps that is the case…if the power produced is, in fact, necessary. (the unlucky bats might take exception)
On the other hand, Wind Energy companies seeking to install turbines in a region having no immediate need for the power produced from the installation would seem to fall under the logic put forth by the EPA.
Take, for example, the proposed Pinnacle Wind Farm at New Page in Mineral County, WV. The project developers, US WindForce, LLC, have applied to the WV PSC for permission to install some 23 giant turbines on Green Mountain at Keyser, WV. Testimony before the WV State Supreme Court of Appeals suggested there is no forecasted requirement for the power to be generated in the foreseeable future.
Considering that the operating efficiency of current turbines ranges from 20 – 30% of rated name plate capacity, the installation will consume air and land space of 23 turbines while only producing the equivalent of 5 to 8 units. That seems a very poor utilization of the environment.
It would seem then that the Pinnacle Wind project would be required to satisfy the issue of ” true need” for its output before being granted permission to proceed. If it cannot, and with advances in technology on the menu in coming years, it would seem logical that the EPA require a delay until US WindForce can “prove that they have applied the best available technology to reduce emissions or face penalties.”
As example of my proposal, consider the recent statements of NREL, The National Renewable Energy Laboratory is a laboratory of the US Department of Energy, and “is the nation’s primary laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development (R&D).”
These developments toward “more reliable and more efficient” turbines can only benefit the environment by providing for better land and air utilization.
Secondly, for folks concerned about the environment, bat and bird kill is a very serious issue. Smithsonian.com Magazine, in its February 27, 2009 article, “Can Wind Power Be Wildlife Friendly” discusses the studies at nearby Backbone Mountain and additional facilities. The article suggests that the “Research at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center helped raise awareness about bat fatalities at turbines.” The article further concludes, “But there is good news. Research spurred by the bat fatalities has conservationists and wind industry representatives hopeful that an effective solution will be in place within the next five to ten years.”
It is interesting to note that the group conducting the study, Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC) is a partnership between conservationists, government agencies and the wind industry. This promising research into bat kills, while admittedly requiring additional research, is already bearing signs of progress. Reference my recent post on this issue here.
So if you follow the statement of the Environmental Protection Agency that “We are not going to continue with business as usual,” one would think their committment to protect the environment by requireing the latest technology would require unnecessary Wind Power plants to be delayed to a time nearer to need, and allow for the coming improvements offered here to materialize.
Opponents of wind turbines do not want plants built at all. Supporters claim many benefits. But both sides of the argument of Wind Power seem to agree on one thing … doing what is right for the environment. This is the very same position held by the Federal Agency bearing the name Environmental Protection Agency. Hard to believe we have an issue on which all sides can agree.
It would seem then, that the EPA’s logic to mandate utilization of the latest technology for the protection of the environment not only extends to Wind Power plants, but also should be welcomed by Wind Energy developers, operating utilites and the AWEA (American Wind Energy Asssociation).
Delay seems the environmentally friendly thing to do. And the EPA’s logic demands it.
Should the EPA not consider such a mandate for Wind Power plants it could be considered, well, political.
Other reads: Planet Gore … “Here Comes the E.P.A.” – Wall Street Journal … “EPA Proposes Tough Greenhouse-Gas Rules for Big Industries” – Huffington Post … “EPA’s Jackson Is Moving Fast to Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions”
The Industrial Wind Action Group, pointed me to an interesting article about the unintended consequences of Wind Power and related “renewable energy mandates, government subsidies and a race to build wind turbines whether or not the grid can handle the new capacity.”
The article was originally published at Forbes.com by Jonathan Fahey, and titled “Wind Power’s Weird Effect.” The article’s sub-title, “One unintended consequence renewable energy: electricity that has to be given away,” would seem the perfect scenario. Mr. Fahey’s lead sentence seems optimistic, “The science fiction fantasy of abundant free electricity is finally coming true. Sort of.” But the reality of Mother Nature lurks behind the panacea.
Mr. Fahey’s article sadly ends with this commentary “In the long run, the wind power boom could push daytime prices higher. To balance fickle windmills, utilities will need more juice from gas-fired peaking plants. That intermittent power will be expensive.”
Mr. Fahey sets out an excellent discussion that should be read in its entirety. That can be done at Industrial Wind Action Group or the original at Forbes.com.
Science Daily, in it’s article – Scientists Find Successful Way To Reduce Bat Deaths At Wind Turbines, reports that “Scientists at the University of Calgary have found a way to reduce bat deaths from wind turbines by up to 60 percent without significantly reducing the energy generated from the wind farm. The research, recently published in the Journal of Wildlife Management, demonstrates that slowing turbine blades to near motionless in low-wind periods significantly reduces bat mortality.”
Science Daily noted that a “groundbreaking Barclay-Baerwald study shed new light about the reasons for bat deaths under wind turbines in the Pincher Creek area. Researchers found that the majority of migratory bats in this southern Alberta location were killed because a sudden drop in air pressure near the blades caused injuries to the bats’ lungs known as barotrauma. Although the respiratory systems in birds can withstand such drops, the physiology of bats’ lungs does not allow for the sudden change of pressure.” Following on the heels of this discovery, efforts were undertaken to find ways to eliminate or reduce the number of kills at installations. “TransAlta, Canada’s largest publicly traded provider of renewable energy, initiated a follow-up study at the same site to determine what could be done.”
Science Daily offers that “Until recently, wildlife concerns regarding wind energy focused primarily on bird fatalities. But bat fatalities now outnumber those of birds due, in part, to efforts to mitigate bird deaths by wind turbines.”
“Most bats killed at wind energy facilities across North America are migratory tree bats, including hoary and silver-haired bats. The deaths occur during autumn migration from Canada and the Northern U.S. to the southern U.S. or Mexico.”
“Given that more bat fatalities occur in low wind speeds and the relative ease of manipulating operation of turbines, we examined whether reducing the amount that turbine rotors turn in low wind speeds would reduce bat fatalities,” says (Erin) Baerwald.”
“Over the one-month experiment total revenue lost from the 15 turbines was estimated between $3,000 and $4,000.”
“TransAlta has already applied the low wind mitigation strategy to the 38 turbines identified in the study area. “The findings from the study area are promising and this new mode of operation is now in place and will be applied to new wind farms,” says (Jason) Edworthy.”
“Although these are promising mitigation techniques, further experiments are needed to assess costs and benefits at other locations,” says (U of C biology professor Robert) Barclay.”
So, how does this positive development suggest there should be delays in installations? Perhaps because Wind Energy Companies seeking to install massive turbines is areas with no forecasted need for the output have a responsibility to the citizens of the region, and the environment they claim to exist to improve, to take advantage of these technological improvements. It does not seem reasonable that Companies portraying themselves as “green” and environmentally friendly would continue to rush installation and sacrifice potential remedies for their most damaging side effects. Unless the true reason for the installation is profit, what is there to lose in being good stewards of the land?
So the question arises…will the American Wind Energy Association voluntarily request suspension of such installations in low, or no need areas for the benefit of such possible improvements? We shall see who is serious about the environment.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently addressed the Grid Week conference in Washington. Jeff St. John reported on the Secretary’s comments at Greentech Media. The full article is linked here for your convenience: “GridWeek: Chu Lays Out DOE’s Smart Grid Vision, Standards to Come.”
While the intent of the article was to discuss challenges facing the Nations electrical grid and the vision for the future, I was struck by the phrasing attributed to Secretary Chu as relates to Wind as a “reliable” source of electricity.
At the risk of “cherry-picking, I offer the following:
1 – The article mentions that Chu sees “massive new transmission lines carrying renewable power across the country, along with energy storage projects to keep that fickle solar and wind power from disrupting the grid.” Fickle solar and wind power???
2 – When citing Bonneville Power Secretary Chu said, “it gets about one-fifth of its power from wind energy when the wind is blowing.” “But when it stops blowing, that share drops to zero,” he said. Further to that point the Secretary questions, “How do you maintain and run a reliable transmission and distribution system when you have variable power?” His answer, “massive energy storage of the kind that is only contemplated today.” Of the kind only contemplated today???
3 – The Secretary sees energy storage as coming from pump-storage hydro systems. The article states that Federally run dams like Grand Coulee Dam in Washington state are looking at new pumped hydro projects, which offer about 80 percent efficiency but could cost billions of dollars, he said. And while the United States has tapped much of its potential for pumped hydro, “Canada has a lot of untapped hydro, and that hydro power can be ported into the United States,” he said. So we’ll reach out to Canada to sell us power to cover the shortcomings of wind energy???
4 – Finally, the Secretary dealt with “getting beyond 20 percent intermittent renewables will create an additional problem for power generation, he said. It could require baseline generation sources like coal-fired and nuclear plants to actually turn down the amount of power they’re generating when the wind is blowing hard or the sun is shining bright, he said.
“Because coal and nuclear plants don’t run nearly as efficiently when they’re not running full-out, that will make their power more expensive at partial loads,” he said.
“You’re actually dipping into more inefficient ways to generate electricity. This is something that the smart grid can only partially take care of,” he said.
To combat that, “We’re beginning to look at using some of the fossil fuel generation as what is called poly-gen,” he said. That is, use the power that’s being taken off the power grid to do something useful, like make biofuel or other high-value products, he said.” So, if we bring an unreliable source of power, such as wind, to the grid we can accommodate it by operating the efficient systems inefficiently???
So, at what point do we determine that wind power is not a sensible solution to our growing energy requirements and that the taxpayer money being spent would be better placed in nuclear, clean coal, natural gas and geothermal?
Or, where did I go wrong?
Read the Greentech Media article in its entirety here.
China has been touted as moving ahead of the US in the application of wind energy. Perhaps so, but what does this really mean to their total energy package…where does wind power fit in? Will it finally replace the nasty coal-fired plants? Are they setting the example for the US?
The Wall Street Journal reports today that, in fact “Ill Winds: China’s Wind-Power Push Means More Coal.” On their Environmental Capital blog, Keith Johnson refers to the WSJ reports that state “[O]fficials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn’t blow…”China will need to add a substantial amount of coal-fired power capacity by 2020 in line with its expanding economy, and the idea is to bring some of the capacity earlier than necessary in order to facilitate the wind-power transmission,” said Shi Pengfei, vice president of the Chinese Wind Power Association.”
Further, Mr. Johnson reports that “Wind turbines with a combined capacity of 12.7 gigawatts are due to be installed there by 2015—more than the country’s present nuclear-power capacity. But the Jiuquan government wants to build 9.2 gigawatts of new coal-fired generating capacity as well, for use when the winds aren’t favorable. That’s equivalent to the entire generating capacity of Hungary.”
And, “Chinese coal plants—except for a handful of the most modern, supercritical plants currently under construction—are even less environmentally-friendly than coal plants elsewhere.”
It seems, according to the Journal that “China is undoubtedly making moves to boost the use of clean energy. But that by itself does not mean that China’s overall energy mix is going to get a lot cleaner. That simply makes the future of clean coal all the more important.”
Bottom line, China will be constructing coal-fired power plants at nearly the same capacity levels as wind turbine facilities because wind turbines cannot be depended upon to supply electricity when needed. Perhaps China is telling us what we already know … wind turbines do not replace coal-fired plants.
Full WSJ article here for your convenience.
Allegheny Treasures 