Global warming and wind power

The primary argument of most advocates of wind power is that it will reduce the emission of "greenhouse" gases (particularly carbon dioxide (CO₂)) that cause global warming. A few opponents of the proposed giant wind-power facilities therefore deny or diminish the possibility of a human contribution to climate change. There still remain the undeniable pollution from burning fossil fuels and the environmental and social costs of drilling and mining and transport, but it is global warming that is the crisis driving most support for industrial wind power. Every ill effect of wind-turbine installations is countered that it would be much worse if we let global warming continue. It is assumed to be unarguably obvious that wind power reduces CO₂ and other emissions. They mock the argument that conservation and efficiency are much more effective. And anyone who denies global warming or our role in it is referred to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Does the IPCC support wind power?

In the paper, "Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. A Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," they state, "Hundreds of technologies and practices for end-use energy efficiency in buildings, transport and manufacturing industries account for more than half of this potential [greenhouse gas emission reductions in the 2010 to 2020 timeframe]" (p. 5).

In Table SPM.1 (p. 7), energy supply and conversion represent only 7%-19% of potential emission reductions by 2020. That category includes fuel switching to natural gas and nuclear, CO₂ capture and storage, and improved power station efficiencies as well as renewables. Efficiency improvements in building, transport, and industry account for 51%-92%.

Tables from the full report show wind's small contribution: potentially mitigating 2.0%-4.3% of projected carbon emissions from electricity generation by 2020, or about 0.7%-1.4% of carbon from all energy use. Its actual contribution is projected to be much less, i.e., theoretically reducing atmospheric CO₂ by less than 5 1,000ths of a percent.

That projected amount of wind power represents up to more than a million megawatts of installed capacity, more than 20 times the amount already connected (and causing trouble) worldwide. It also requires the construction of an equal amount of dedicated backup generators to cover the fluctuations of wind-generated power and hundreds of miles of new high-voltage transmission lines, particularly as the preferred sites for wind facilities are far from areas of high demand.

That's a lot of environmental destruction for almost nothing. The push for wind power is a distraction from seriously addressing the problems of our energy use.

Wind turbines do not reduce CO2 emissions

"Øget vindmøllendbygning reducerer ikke den danske CO₂-udledning."

(Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish CO₂ emissions.)

-- Flemming Nissen, head of development, Elsam (operates 404 MW of wind power in Denmark), at "Vind eller forsvind" conference, Copenhagen, May 27, 2004.

Some good essays I've read lately

"Karaoke Night in Bush's America," by Joe Bageant ("Another Visit to Burt's Tavern")

"Three Years and Counting?," by Michael Neumann ("How Time Flies")

"The death of intimacy," by Martin Jacques ("A selfish, market-driven society is eroding our very humanity")

"Vive La Résistance!," by Justin E. H. Smith ("The New Sparta")

More wind power means more fossil fuel burning and more high-voltage power lines

For technical reasons, the intensive use of wind power in Germany is associated with significant operational challenges:

• Only limited wind power is available. In order to cover electricity demands, traditional power station capacities must be maintained as so-called "shadow power stations" at a total level of more than 80% of the installed wind energy capacity, so that the electricity consumption is also covered during economically difficult periods.
  
• Only limited forecasting is possible for wind power infeed. If the wind power forecast differs from the actual infeed, the transmission system operator must cover the difference by utilising reserve capacity. This requires reserve capacities amounting to 50-60% of the installed wind power capacity.
  
• Wind power requires a corresponding grid infrastructure. The windy coastal regions of Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony are precisely the places where the grids have now reached their capacity limits through wind power. At present, just under 300 km of new high-voltage and extra-high voltage lines are being planned there in order to create the transmission capacities required for transporting the wind power.

-- Eon Netz Wind Report 2004 (Eon Netz manages the transmission grid in Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony, about a third of Germany, hosting 6,250 MW of Germany's 14,250 MW installed wind-generating capacity at the end of 2003. The total production in Eon's system was 8.5 TW-h, representing an average feed of 969 MW (15.5% of capacity). Germany's wind production as a whole was 14.8% of capacity and equal to less than 4% of demand. Click the title of this post for more of the report.)

Progressive Party write-in "success"

I just can't get over this (see earlier post)! In the party newsletter today, director Chris Pearson thrills to their success at "keeping a Progressive out of these races."

'In a small but satisfying victory, Progressives around Vermont successfully sent Peter Diamondstone and his gang packing. Four Liberty Union (LU) candidates had petitioned to be on the Progressive Party primary ballot. Since these seats were uncontested by the Party, the LU candidates were poised to win and therefore get around the state debating as the "Progressive" candidate.

'... "We felt it was ridiculous for Progressives to look like they were challenging Bernie Sanders or Peter Clavelle," said VPP Chair, Martha Abbott in a press announcement. ...

'Except for Sue Davis, the candidates will step down -- keeping a Progressive out of these races. This is a much more desirable outcome than having interlopers claiming to represent the Progressive point of view.

'Our congratulations goes [sic] out to all the winners.'

Winners! They're stepping aside to please one independent and two Democrats who shun them, they call the serious progressives from Liberty Union a "gang," and they congratulate themselves for staying out of the way. That'll get people to take them seriously!

Just imagine the trees

Leaf peeping season is gearing up in Vermont. Here is a picture of a recent outing in Searsburg. The guide is trying to assuage the group's disappointment by describing as eloquently as he can the trees and their color that used to characterize the site. But as they say in "environmental" circles, they would'a died eventually anyway, so mowing them down prematurely actually saved them from that fate.

Actually, this article is interesting for a couple reasons. First:

"Winds were so light Tuesday morning that the facility was not generating power during the visit, although the turbines' blades continued their counter-clockwise rotation."

How is that possible? They appear to be using the turbine as a motor so the facility looks like the "kinetic sculpture" it's praised as. So not only are they not generating electricity, they're using it, lots of it.

Second, the senior vice president of Green Mountain Power (GMP), Stephen C. Terry, downplays the importance of wind's contribution to Vermont's electricity, saying it would be "remarkable" if 10% could come from wind. And John Zimmerman, Enxco's representative in New England, says a recent survey found good development sites for only 150 MW of wind-generating capacity, or about 35 MW of actual output, 3.5% of Vermont's need according to GMP's Stephen Terry. He looks hungrily at the Green Mountain National Forest for more power-plant sites.

Democracy

With all that energy and broad range of opinion out there (see earlier post), wouldn't it be nice to have a democracy in which everyone was actually represented? If 5% of the people support Liberty Union and 10% support the Progressive Party, then 5% of the legislature should be Liberty Union and 10% Progressive. That would be representative democracy. Instead, the Progressive Party is scared of "spoiling" the race for a few popular candidates, so they don't run candidates and aren't represented at all. Which is just as bad as voting for the candidate who doesn't win anyway, in which case your vote -- your opinion -- is effectively thrown out. Because of our winner-takes-all system (you don't even need a majority in most cases), more than half of the citizens of the U.S. are not represented in their government. It's no wonder so many don't bother to vote, much less care. Of course, that suits the corporatists just fine. They just have to hire a PR firm for a new sales drive every time "elections" come up again.

So speaking of spoilers: Revolutionaries always spoil corrupt regimes. That's on the back of a T-shirt you can buy to support the Nader/Camejo campaign. A picture of the Liberty Bell is on the front.