Wind Energy: It’s Not Cheap or Clean
Much of the justification for subsidies, tax credits, and mandates for increasing wind energy production in the U.S. is that it will create jobs and help cool our planet’s fever. We’ve explained in detail how subsidized green jobs destroy jobs elsewhere, but it also turns out that increased wind power decreases carbon emissions much less than previously thought, and in some instances, could increase emissions.
The Manhattan Institute’s Robert Bryce explains why in his recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. First, wind power displaces power from natural gas more than it does coal, and coal combustion emits almost double what natural gas does.
Second, the intermittency of wind forces coal and gas-fired plants to operate inefficiently and actually increase emissions. Coal plants run most efficiently when continuously running, so the ramping up and down of conventional coal plants to make up for intermittent wind pumps out more carbon dioxide. Bryce likens it to the efficiency of an automobile: “An automobile that operates at a constant speed—say, 55 miles per hour—will have better fuel efficiency, and emit less pollution per mile traveled, than one that is stuck in stop-and-go traffic.”
This has proven to be the case in Colorado and Texas, two states that have adopted a renewable portfolio standard, which mandates that wind be included in the state’s electricity supply. A recent study commissioned by the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States looks at the power plant records from these two states and finds:
Coal-fired power plants are designed to run most efficiently at stable rates and are not well-suited to accommodate the load variability imposed by the integration with wind generation. Cycling causes coal-fired power plants to operate less efficiently, and reduces the effectiveness of their environmental control equipment, which together drive up emissions. Paradoxically, using wind energy in such a way that it forces utilities to cycle their coal generation often results in greater SO2, NOX and CO2 emissions than would have occurred if less wind energy were generated and coal generation was not cycled.
The study also finds that in Texas, the use of wind saved only 600 tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2008 and found an increase of CO2 by 1,000 tons in 2009.
So how much environmental benefit are we really getting? Let’s pretend wind power will reduce emissions as much as the government says it will. Bryce points to carbon reduction estimates from the Energy Information Administration. A renewable electricity standard (RES) mandating that 25 percent of our energy be generated from renewables would reduce emissions by only 4.9 percent by 2030. To put this in perspective, Bryce reminds us that President Obama and Congress’s target is to reduce carbon 80 percent by 2050.
If that didn’t make you grind your teeth with frustration, this will: According to climatologist Chip Knappenberger, that 80 percent reduction would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century. These temperature reductions are almost too small to measure. What do you think a 5 percent reduction in CO2 will produce? None of this would matter if wind energy could compete without mandates and subsidies and provide consumers with cheap electricity. Higher electricity prices have rippling effects throughout the economy. More expensive electric bills force businesses to make production cuts and reduce labor.
According to a new Heritage Foundation study, if Congress implemented a 22.5 percent RES by 2025, household electricity prices would jump 36 percent and industry prices by 60 percent by 2035. There would be 1 million fewer people working on average with the RES in effect than if there were no RES. And as the mandated level of renewable use rises over time, so do the losses imposed on the economy. Summing up the impacts for 2012–2035 yields a total loss of $5.2 trillion in GDP.
If wind can compete absent subsidies, mandates, or tax credits, then Americans will benefit from a more robust, competitive energy market. To suggest that windmills are the answer to our economic and alleged climate problems is nothing but blowing smoke to the American people.
- bnp paribas clean energy partners gortahlle wind farm
- cheap mppt
- vortex bongs cheap
- simple cheap mppt circuit
- wind energy bankruptcy
Similar articles
- Wind Power: An Expensive and Inefficient Way to Reduce CO2
In a speech in May, President Obama pushed for our nation to transition to renewable energy and pointed to Denmark as an example of proof it can be done: [U]nfortunately. America produces less than 3 percent of our electricity through renewable sources of energy like wind and solar — less than 3
... - Denmark has seen Ontario’s future
by Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun 20% of nordic nation’s electricity from wind power — with sky-high costs and no reduction in emissions If you want to see the future of Premier Dalton McGuinty’s push for wind power in Ontario, look at Denmark today. It has more than doubled its wind power production over the
... - The Facts About Wind Energy and Emissions
Washington, DC, United States – Recent data and analyses have made it clear that the emissions savings from adding wind energy to the grid are even larger than had been commonly thought. In addition to each kilowatt-hour (kWh) of wind energy directly offsetting a kWh that would have been produced by a fossil-fired power
... - U.S. Energy Use Declines, Renewables Increase
The United States used significantly less coal and petroleum in 2009 than in 2008, and significantly more wind power. There also was a decline in natural gas use and increases in solar, hydro and geothermal power according to the most recent energy flow charts released by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “Energy use tends to
... - Natural gas in Economist poll
Some leaders in the natural gas and the renewable energy industries might be thinking of collaborating in a new effort to reduce carbon emissions. But The Economist wanted its its readers to choose between the natural gas and wind energy and did so with a poll that ended Thursday night. A 2005
...
Your numbers sound impressive, but my experience with my local
electric utility tells me otherwise. They routinely send me mailers
tucked inside my utility bill (at additional cost to me I assume)
asking me to please consider paying extra money so I can subsidize
cleaner energy. That's the bottom line and no amount of propaganda
is going to change it.
Is seems absurd to spend all this tax payer money on producing
energy that is not green and unreliable, when these same funds
could do so much more to help Americans CONSERVE engergy.
There are two major technical problems facing the practical
integration of wind and solar electrical generating systems into
the power distribution grid; predictability and energy storage.
Without solutions to these two problems wind and solar can never be
a reliable alternative to fossil fuel systems. There are
significant costs associated with maintaining standby power
generation sources that must be brought on line when the sun
doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. These costs can be
significantly reduced if accurate forecasting methods are available
and nearly eliminated if large scale energy storage facilities were
in place. Unfortunately, both of these are outside our current
technology. The forecasting problem may be solved by utilizing
satellite images and meteorological models and many are working
this problem now. However, the greatest obstacle to carbon based
fuel replacement is storage. It can be shown that in the absence of
large scale electrical storage systems, on the order of millions of
kilowatt hours, wind and solar contributions to the grid cannot
exceed 30 to35 percent without jeopardizing the stability of the
distribution system. Large scale blackouts and grid failure will
result if intermittent energy sources exceed this level of
participation.
If it will save so much damn money, why does a wind farm need 90
million dollars of taxpayer money to be built? 90 million ought to
be chickenfeed for a profitable enterprise with a 20 to 30 year
life span.
When you have a political family in Missouri that takes taxpayer
money(90 million) and gives it to their non-political son and
brother who just happens to run a windmill elec.generating company,
which will no doubt end up in the family coffers it,s easy to see
we have a problem.We need to compare the salary of this Company
President in the next few years and let,s see where our tax money
ends up.Also let,s look at the campaign donations this Company
makes to the sister and brother that are currently running for
office.
But there is not ONE heavily unsubsidized electron in our energy
system today. It is preposterous to use this argument when
addressing wind and then ignoring it for other fossil energy
technologies. Silly.
Rather than make a few individuals wealthy at the expense fo the
American tax payers, why not give some money back in the form of
making homes more energy efficient? Let's create jobs for folks
installing weather proofing, better windows, insulation, roof top
solar panels, etc., as well as jobs actually making the products to
be used to do this. Nah, let's just let a few well-connected folks
make a ton of money on this boon-doggle of an industry.
How is it that wind power displaces natural gas power more than
coal power? Is is a function of transmission capacity? production
location? The article does not elaborate on options to address this
disproportional displacement.
Stephen, the “subsidies” you refer to are mostly tax breaks and
other things of the sort. If you look at net taxes paid (taxes
– subsidies), you find that oil and coal pay heavily into
government coffers due to various excise taxes, tarriffs, and the
like. In fact, without those subsidies, oil would have an
absolutely insane tax rate (I believe 80-90%). Wind, on the other
hand, is a large-scale drain on the government.
The anti-synergy between wind generation and increased cycling
of coal-fired power plants creates the worst effects in states,
like Montana, that are using wind hype to mask a coal agenda.
Private property in Montana is being condemned for massive new
export transmission lines by NorthWestern Energy and other
corporations from ranchers who have stewarded the land for
generations. The high voltage export transmission is being forced
upon the ranchers so that California can have supposedly clean wind
energy from Montana. But, in fact, California will get coal-fired
energy. California won't burn coal in California, but California
will burn 30% more of the same coal in Montana (due to voltage or
“line” loss), ship the power 1,200 miles, and call that a green
solution. Governor Schweitzer advertizes Montana's strategy as
forward-thinking. But factoring in Schweitzer's massive coal leases
(e.g., Otter Creek coal for $0.15 per acre), his most extravagant
wind generation dreams won't put a dent in Montana's carbon
footprint or create a “green” solution for anybody, anywhere.
“Recent research strongly suggests how this problem
defeats the alleged carbon-reducing virtues of wind power. In
April, Bentek Energy, a Colorado-based energy analytics firm,
looked at power plant records in Colorado and Texas. (It was
commissioned by the Independent Petroleum Association of the
Mountain States.) Bentek concluded that despite huge investments,
wind-generated electricity “has had minimal, if any, impact
on carbon dioxide” emissions.
My congressman – Russ Carnahan voted to get his brother
Tom millions for a wind farm. I doubt he knew (or cared) about
this.
Your numbers sound impressive, but my experience with my
regional electricity utility teach me something different. They
routinely send me pamphlets tucked inside my utility bill (at
additional cost to me no doubt) asking me to please consider paying
more for my electricity to help subsidize cleaner means of
production. That's the bottom line and no amount of propaganda can
change it. If wind energy or any other kind of renewable source was
better at mass power production, it would be profitable and it
wouldn't have to beg for a handout to survive.
Seems that the positive predictions about the wind resources are
being stretched to have us believe that in 50 yrs will make a
greater reduction of pollution RES is just another “Bogus
Accounting” to appease the mass, and raise utility prices. Over
taxation to promote the High roller machine in Washington.
Shame.
The reason it displaces natural gas instead of coal is because
slowing down and speeding up coal plants is a costly and polluting
activity. You waste a lot of coal running below full capacity.
Instead, producers reduce natural gas usage, which is a simple
control valve to a burner. Heat recovery on a natural gas boiler is
pretty close constant over the operating range, so you are losing
efficiency.
The arguments for wind produced energy are exactly the same ones
used for nuclear power which by the way never came close to saving
the energy users any money.
Get rid of those monstrosities and enough with this global
(warming) hoax. It has already been disproven but some people won't
let go of the lie and/ or ignorance.
Bentek found that thanks to the cycling of Colorado’s
coal-fired plants in 2009, at least 94,000 more pounds of carbon
dioxide were generated because of the repeated cycling. In Texas,
Bentek estimated that the cycling of power plants due to increased
use of wind energy resulted in a slight savings of carbon dioxide
(about 600 tons) in 2008 and a slight increase (of about 1,000
tons) in 2009.”
Goggin, your claims fly in the face of real-world experience and
basic economic sense. Please read the Spanish green-job study, your
company's balance sheet, and the wikipedia entry on the broken
window fallacy before embarrassing yourself any further.
Ideally, it would be great to see all technologies compete on a
level playing field without subsidies.
In sharp contrast, Department of Energy studies show that a
Renewable Electricity Standard would reduce consumers' energy bills
by offsetting the use of more expensive fossil fuels. A December
2007 DOE study found that a 15% by 2020 Renewable Electricity
Standard would reduce electricity prices by 0.3% and natural gas
prices by 1%, saving consumers $400 million. A 2007 DOE study of a
25% by 2025 RES found that under a higher standard consumers would
realize even greater energy savings of $2 billion. Similarly, DOE's
2008 “20% Wind Energy by 2030″ study found consumers would save as
much as $150 billion from reduced natural gas costs if the U.S.
obtained 20% of its electricity from wind energy, while 450,000 new
wind energy jobs would be created in the U.S., in addition to the
85,000 that have been created already.
The false claims made by Robert Bryce are directly contradicted
by DOE data for Colorado and Texas showing that emissions and
fossil fuel use have drastically decreased in lock-step as wind has
been added to the grid there. Similar studies by independent grid
operators from other regions show the same result. Besides, to be
true, his claims would require a significant re-writing of the laws
of physics.
To say that wind needs to “compete absent subsidies, mandates,
or tax credits, then Americans will benefit from a more robust,
competitive energy market,” is a red herring.
One only needs to look at Department of Energy data compiled
during the Bush Administration to see that wind energy is creating
jobs, saving consumers money, and drastically reducing emissions of
harmful pollutants, and that enacting a strong Renewable
Electricity Standard would only increase those benefits.