In this month's Windtech International column by Tiff Thompson, important information was inadvertently deleted and due to an editing error, Thompson's column was printed in a way that made it appear illogical in some places. We apologize for these errors, and provide corrections below.
A sentence acknowledging that fossil fuel subsidies include heating, transportation, and "clean" coal research as well as traditional electricity, and that renewables subsidies have included ethanol research and production, was also mistakenly deleted, as was another acknowledging that the figures for the renewables industry do not include the cost of the double-declining accelerated depreciation that is made available to it.
Thompson should also have noted that many states further subsidize the renewables industry by requiring utilities to buy a certain percentage of their energy from it. Furthermore, as this journal is particularly concerned with the wind industry, the particular costs to taxpayers of wind, not of all renewables together, should have been more carefully indicated.
Thompson should also have emphasized that subsidies should be viewed in terms of not just gross numbers, but the recipients' actual contributions to the country's energy mix.
Finally, Thompson's article cited federal subsidy figures for the years 2002-2007 of $13.8 billion for fossil fuels and $2.7 billion for the renewable energy industry, but the figures for more recent years were accidentally deleted.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy's Information Administration, for electricity in 2007, traditional coal received $854 million, "clean" coal received $2,156 million, and natural gas and petroleum received $227 million. Renewables received $1,008 million, with wind receiving $724 million of that. For every megawatt-hour of electricity generated, coal received $0.44, "clean" coal $29.81, natural gas and petroleum $0.25, all renewables $2.80, and wind $23.37.
In 2010, the direct subsidies for wind had increased to $4,986 million, a 10.5-fold (inflation-adjusted) increase from 3 years before. Subsidies for electricity from traditional coal rose slightly to $1,189 million and natural gas and petroleum to $654 million, while the subsidies for "clean" coal were cut to 0.
Per megawatt-hour of electricity generated in 2010, coal received $0.64, natural gas and petroleum $0.63, and wind $52.48.
The editors also regret any implication that the U.S. government's own spending on renewable energy (eg, for army bases) and opening 16 million acres of public land to renewable energy developers is an argument in support of more spending on renewables or indeed of any development of open and wild spaces. One need only look at the military budget to see that expanded activity and spending do not equal wisdom.
ADDENDUM: Several readers have asked us about Ms Thompson's comparison of Obama and Romney concerning renewable energy. Again, it appears that some sentences were deleted from the printed column showing that, except for Obama's stated support of and Romney's stated opposition to renewing the Production Tax Credit (which reduces a developer's taxes for 10 years by $22 per megawatt-hour of electricity generated and is scheduled to expire at the end of this year), there is in fact no substantial difference in energy policies between the two.
wind power, wind energy
October 1, 2012
September 29, 2012
Wind and U.S. Electricity Data, 2000-2011
Columns:
wind power capacity at end of year (MW) :
capacity added from previous year (MW) :
average capacity for year (MW) :
net generation (GW) :
capacity factor :
net generation from fossil fuels (GW)
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1_a
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_01]
Note that fossil use has not decreased in relation to the increase of wind energy. Also note that if two-thirds of the cost of erecting wind turbines is covered by federal tax breaks and other subsidies (North American Windpower, June 2009; Keith Martin, Chadbourne and Parke, LLP, Financing Wind Power conference, Dec. 3-5, 2003, New York, N.Y.), then at $1.5 million per megawatt, taxpayers cover $1 million of that. At the end of 2011, then, federal taxpayers had paid and were committed to paying $47 billion to wind developers. For no measurable benefit and a great deal of environmental and social harm.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
wind power capacity at end of year (MW) :
capacity added from previous year (MW) :
average capacity for year (MW) :
net generation (GW) :
capacity factor :
net generation from fossil fuels (GW)
2011 : 46,919 : 6,652 : 43,593 : 119,747 : .31 : 2,790,291 2010 : 40,267 : 5,404 : 37,565 : 94,652 : .29 : 2,883,361 2009 : 34,863 : 9,453 : 30,136.5 : 73,886 : .28 : 2,726,451 2008 : 25,410 : 8,503 : 21,158.5 : 55,363 : .30 : 2,926,731 2007 : 16,907 : 5,332 : 14,241 : 34,450 : .28 : 2,992,238 2006 : 11,575 : 2,428 : 10,361 : 26,589 : .29 : 2,885,295 2005 : 9,147 : 2,424 : 7,935 : 17,811 : .26 : 2,909,522 2004 : 6,723 : 373 : 6,536.5 : 14,144 : .25 : 2,824,798 2003 : 6,350 : 1,663 : 5,518.5 : 11,187 : .23 : 2,758,651 2002 : 4,687 : 455 : 4,459.5 : 10,354 : .27 : 2,730,167 2001 : 4,232 : 1,693 : 3,385.5 : 6,737 : .23 : 2,677,004 2000 : 2,539 : 65 : 2,505.5 : 5,593 : .25 : 2,692,479 1999 : 2,472Sources:
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1_a
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_01]
Note that fossil use has not decreased in relation to the increase of wind energy. Also note that if two-thirds of the cost of erecting wind turbines is covered by federal tax breaks and other subsidies (North American Windpower, June 2009; Keith Martin, Chadbourne and Parke, LLP, Financing Wind Power conference, Dec. 3-5, 2003, New York, N.Y.), then at $1.5 million per megawatt, taxpayers cover $1 million of that. At the end of 2011, then, federal taxpayers had paid and were committed to paying $47 billion to wind developers. For no measurable benefit and a great deal of environmental and social harm.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
September 27, 2012
There they go again
Benjamin Netanyahu used a cartoon at the U.N. General Assembly today to demonstrate the extent of Iran's nuclear program, a frightening parody of Colin Powell's cartoon presentation to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, demonstrating Iraq's chemical weapons program.
[photo of Netanyahu by Chang W. Lee, The New York Times]
[photo of Netanyahu by Chang W. Lee, The New York Times]
September 22, 2012
Stewart Alexander for President!
The Real Deal.
The Alexander-Mendoza social safety net model supports:
The Alexander-Mendoza social safety net model supports:
- A system based upon basic human rights and basic economic rights that eliminate suffering
- The provision of comprehensive high-quality healthcare, using Single-payer healthcare as a stepping stone into a fully socialized medical system
- Increased and expanded unemployment insurance at 100% of the worker’s wage or the minimum wage, whichever is higher. Fully funded Federal job re-training programs.
- Moving to a policy of full-time employment and the provision of livable guaranteed annual income
- The right to affordable high-quality housing, the expansion of Section 8 housing and the creation of a Federally funded Community Land Trust program that will help homeowners remove their homes from the marketplace.
- Easy access to high quality food that is organically grown or locally sourced.
- The right to civil rights and civil liberties, including the right to political choice and expression.
- Cut the amount of Federal funds going to the military by 50%
- End all foreign military interventions in the Middle East / Central Asia by removing remaining troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and ending the secret war in Pakistan by ending drone attacks and clandestine (black) operations throughout the region.
- Close all US military bases throughout the world and demilitarize US embassies around the world
- End the US membership and participation in NATO.
- Dismantle the Central Intelligence Agency, end all clandestine (black) operations, and all other covert operations that contravene international law and the domestic laws of nations
- Criminally prosecute military and civilian officials responsible for involving the United States in undeclared, unconstitutional, or illegal wars and prosecute those officials who planned for the utilization of torture and the creation of illegal confinement facilities to include Guantanamo Bay.
- Prosecute all American military, civilian, and contract personal who ordered, executed, or covered-up offenses under International Humanitarian and Human Rights law. Prosecute commanders who tolerated a criminally permissive command climate that engendered contempt for humanitarian standards.
- Abolish all private armies by cancellation of all private contractors providing armed military, police, and security services abroad.
- Immediately end all international military, police, and security assistance and training programs, especially funding to Israel, Egypt and Colombia
- Full and equal funding of public education and the restoration of a comprehensive K-12 curriculum, including art, music, world languages, and physical education
- Comprehensive Early Childhood Education including free or low-cost childcare from birth to age three and high quality universal nursery and pre-k programs for 3 and 4 year olds. These programs will be staffed with highly qualified early childhood teachers and professionals.
- An egalitarian educational system that accommodates a wide range of teaching and learning styles and provides all students with the means to obtain post-secondary education
- Student, parent, and teacher control of curriculum formation, and in the hiring and dismissal procedures of school personnel through local school/community committees
- Vigorous affirmative action programs so that the faculty and student-body of all schools reflect the community at large in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, and economic background
- Opportunities for lifelong self-education, with retraining programs and transitional financial support for workers displaced by technological advances
- Full funding for Adult Education - We pledge to keep the GED test under public control and administered free of charge. We support full funding for a variety of adult education and ESOL classes.
September 18, 2012
The happy truths of single payer
Vermont Leads and Vermont for Single Payer have produced a brochure (click here to download) addressing frequently raised questions:
Green Mountain Care will provide health insurance for all Vermonters in 2017. The State of Vermont is currently researching a proposed benefit package and a plan for paying for Green Mountain Care. We fully expect these details to be public by January 2013 at the latest.
While this new system is being developed, opponents of health care reform have been spreading myths about single payer. Here’s THE STRAIGHT SCOOP:
MYTH: “Single payer will cost us more!”
The taxes for Green Mountain Care (Vermont Single Payer) will REPLACE private health insurance premiums and deductibles. With the increased efficiency of a single payer system, expect to pay less for health care.
MYTH: “Doctors will leave the state!”
Doctors say they will move to Vermont for a single-payer system. The list of doctors is growing.
MYTH: “Our healthcare coverage will get worse!”
Under Green Mountain Care (Vermont Single Payer) benefits will apply equally to every Vermonter. State law requires the benefit package of Green Mountain Care at a minimum to include primary and specialty care, mental health and substance abuse, hospitals and prescription drugs. Under Green Mountain Care everyone will be eligible for these broad benefits.
MYTH: “There will be delays to see our doctor.”
We experience delays now for many reasons: patients put off treatment because of high costs, insurance companies create roadblocks, and sometimes the resources just aren’t there. The efficiency of a single payer system will ensure that the money we have is spent on the care we need, and not on insurance company middlemen.
MYTH: “We won’t have free choice of doctor or hospital.”
Green Mountain Care (Vermont Single Payer) will provide free choice of doctor and hospital, unlike now when private insurers limit choice to suit themselves.
MYTH: “Government bureaucrats will stand between us and our doctors, preventing us from getting necessary care.”
Green Mountain Care (Vermont Single Payer) will remove insurance company bureaucrats now standing between us and our doctor. It is rare for enrollees in Vermont’s existing public health care programs like Dr. Dynasaur to be denied services. We expect this to be the case under Green Mountain Care as well.
MYTH: “Medicare will change.”
Basic Medicare will stay the same. Green Mountain Care (Vermont Single Payer) will add more benefits to Medicare. [Medicare, by the way, is a working example in the U.S. of single payer; it was meant to expand to include all, not just older, citizens. The VA system is a working example in the U.S. of socialized medicine.]
MYTH: “More private insurance companies mean lower costs.”
There is no evidence for this claim. More insurance competition does not result in lower health care costs for everyone. [Health care is not like a consumer commodity, because it is necessary and competition actually drives prices up.]
MYTH: “Under Single Payer care will be rationed!”
Green Mountain Care (Vermont Single Payer) will not be set up to ration care. It will use existing dollars more efficiently to ensure that every Vermonter gets necessary health care.
human rights, Vermont
Green Mountain Care will provide health insurance for all Vermonters in 2017. The State of Vermont is currently researching a proposed benefit package and a plan for paying for Green Mountain Care. We fully expect these details to be public by January 2013 at the latest.
While this new system is being developed, opponents of health care reform have been spreading myths about single payer. Here’s THE STRAIGHT SCOOP:
MYTH: “Single payer will cost us more!”
The taxes for Green Mountain Care (Vermont Single Payer) will REPLACE private health insurance premiums and deductibles. With the increased efficiency of a single payer system, expect to pay less for health care.
MYTH: “Doctors will leave the state!”
Doctors say they will move to Vermont for a single-payer system. The list of doctors is growing.
MYTH: “Our healthcare coverage will get worse!”
Under Green Mountain Care (Vermont Single Payer) benefits will apply equally to every Vermonter. State law requires the benefit package of Green Mountain Care at a minimum to include primary and specialty care, mental health and substance abuse, hospitals and prescription drugs. Under Green Mountain Care everyone will be eligible for these broad benefits.
MYTH: “There will be delays to see our doctor.”
We experience delays now for many reasons: patients put off treatment because of high costs, insurance companies create roadblocks, and sometimes the resources just aren’t there. The efficiency of a single payer system will ensure that the money we have is spent on the care we need, and not on insurance company middlemen.
MYTH: “We won’t have free choice of doctor or hospital.”
Green Mountain Care (Vermont Single Payer) will provide free choice of doctor and hospital, unlike now when private insurers limit choice to suit themselves.
MYTH: “Government bureaucrats will stand between us and our doctors, preventing us from getting necessary care.”
Green Mountain Care (Vermont Single Payer) will remove insurance company bureaucrats now standing between us and our doctor. It is rare for enrollees in Vermont’s existing public health care programs like Dr. Dynasaur to be denied services. We expect this to be the case under Green Mountain Care as well.
MYTH: “Medicare will change.”
Basic Medicare will stay the same. Green Mountain Care (Vermont Single Payer) will add more benefits to Medicare. [Medicare, by the way, is a working example in the U.S. of single payer; it was meant to expand to include all, not just older, citizens. The VA system is a working example in the U.S. of socialized medicine.]
MYTH: “More private insurance companies mean lower costs.”
There is no evidence for this claim. More insurance competition does not result in lower health care costs for everyone. [Health care is not like a consumer commodity, because it is necessary and competition actually drives prices up.]
MYTH: “Under Single Payer care will be rationed!”
Green Mountain Care (Vermont Single Payer) will not be set up to ration care. It will use existing dollars more efficiently to ensure that every Vermonter gets necessary health care.
human rights, Vermont
September 17, 2012
Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif v. Barack Obama
The Guantánamo prisoner, Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, who died on Sept. 8 had been ordered freed in 2010 by the District Court for the District of Columbia, which granted the writ of habeas corpus.
Not accepting the ruling, the Obama administration appealed that order and won in 2011, condemning Latif to detention without end without trial.
Although many news reports have mentioned Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., the District Judge who ordered Latif freed, and some David Tatel, the Circuit Judge who dissented from the order vacating Kennedy's ruling, almost none named the Circuit Judges who condemned Latif to continued detention without cause and ultimately to death.
They are Janice Rogers Brown and Karen LeCraft Henderson. Henderson even wrote an additional concurring opinion to express even more contempt for law and life than Brown's ruling opinion.
Brown and Henderson should thus be remembered for their role in Obama's relentless trashing of civil rights.
human rights, anarchism
Not accepting the ruling, the Obama administration appealed that order and won in 2011, condemning Latif to detention without end without trial.
Although many news reports have mentioned Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., the District Judge who ordered Latif freed, and some David Tatel, the Circuit Judge who dissented from the order vacating Kennedy's ruling, almost none named the Circuit Judges who condemned Latif to continued detention without cause and ultimately to death.
They are Janice Rogers Brown and Karen LeCraft Henderson. Henderson even wrote an additional concurring opinion to express even more contempt for law and life than Brown's ruling opinion.
Brown and Henderson should thus be remembered for their role in Obama's relentless trashing of civil rights.
human rights, anarchism
September 15, 2012
Wind's reliably poor performance
Wind developer consultant Tiff Thompson, in the September installment of her Windtech International column, “Nimbyism”, takes on critics of climate change science. She acknowledges critics of wind's ability to affect climate change, but dismisses them with industry projections of more wind power and, therefore, more effect on climate change.
Like wind itself, it's a poor performance.
She notes, without clear citation — it may be from the Global Wind Energy Council — that 1 MWh of wind energy “will” offset 550 kg (1,200 lb) of CO₂. Elsewhere, the wind industry in the U.S. has been boasting of their reaching 50 GW of installed capacity. Since the industry also maintains that their average production is at least 30% of capacity (despite actual data showing much less), that would mean 50,000 MW × 0.30 × 8,760 hours/year × 550 kg/MWh = 72,270,000,000 kg (72,270,000 metric tons; 159,328,100,000 lb) less CO₂ every year.
In fact, energy-related CO₂ emissions totaled 1,340,000,000 metric tons in just the first quarter of 2012, falling slightly below the figure for 1992, when the Production Tax Credit jumpstarted wind development. The U.S. Energy Information Administration attributes this to a mild winter, increased use of natural gas instead of coal for electricity generation, and reduced gasoline consumption. It is revealing that 50 GW of wind power was not noted. In fact, even by Thompson's industry-approved boosterism, wind energy would have reduced energy-related CO₂ emissions by 1.3%. And energy-related CO₂ emissions are only about 80% of the country's total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in terms of CO₂ equivalence, so wind's theoretical effect would be to reduce GHG emissions by barely 1%.
But again, looking only at electricity, it is clear that emissions have decreased almost entirely because of increased use of natural gas, which releases half the amount of CO₂ as coal for the same amount of energy (ignoring, of course, the release of GHG methane in the fracking process to procure that natural gas).
In short, it is clear that wind does not, and will not, seriously affect climate change. So Thompson deflects that criticism by raising the demon of climate science denial. She closes her column with: “To deny climate change ... is to embrace ignorance.” She can not honestly defend wind as a means of addressing climate change, so she changes the subject to that of the importance of addressing climate change, digging herself into an even deeper hole, because addressing climate change is so important that we certainly should not waste our time and resources on such an insignificant player as wind power.
[[[[ ]]]]
In her cursory attempt to deny the evidence that wind does not meaningfully reduce CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels on the electric grid, Thompson draws a caricature of the criticism and then accuses it of being oversimple. But it is precisely her formula of x wind equals y CO₂ emissions reduction that critics show to be oversimple.
She starts with the apt simile: “It's not like riding a bike and leaving the car in the driveway ... Wind energy on the grid is more like riding a bike and having someone follow you in the car in case you get tired.” (She cites the source as the Energy Integrity Project (Idaho) web site’s home page, but it is on their “Not Clean” page and there credited to one Eric Rosenbloom.) Thompson makes a paper tiger out of this by asserting that “once the biker tires, he has one option: to drive the car at 60 mph, without stopping, wherever he goes”, which she then shows to be untrue — thus proving the validity of the analogy, because in fact someone else would be driving the car and they would be stopping and starting and slowing to accommodate the flagging and reviving energy of the cyclist, and it would be much more efficient to leave the bike behind and simply drive steadily.
So explaining the complex mix of baseload and peaking plants that meet the changing electricity demand through the day, Thompson offers the novel claim that “variable” energy such as that from wind turbines fills the gap (which never existed) between them. She makes the nonsensical claim that wind is “more readily dispatched than baseload”, as if the grid operator tells the wind when, how strongly, and in what direction to blow, and thereby provides cost relief to peaking gas turbines, which, she says, have high operational costs. Their operational costs are high, however, precisely because they provide only peaking power, so it takes more time to make up the initial capital costs. Wind energy cutting into their use only increases that cost burden. Plus the system as a whole has the added costs — and environmental burden — of the wind facilities and their associated infrastructure.
But Thompson’s charade of expertise avoids the main charge against wind on the grid, which is indeed suggested by the analogy of the cyclist followed by a support car. Like the difference between city and highway driving, more frequent startups and ramping of output levels of the gas turbines not only increase wear and tear (thus increasing costs again), but also reduce their efficiency, i.e., cause them to emit more CO₂ per unit of electricity generated.
Furthermore, there are two kinds of gas turbines: open-cycle and combined-cycle. Only open-cycle gas turbines (OCGTs) are able to respond quickly enough to fill in or make way for the variability of wind energy so that demand is reliably met. Not only does wind require them to operate less efficiently, it also prevents the use of combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGTs), which are much more efficient than OCGTs. In the interest of CO₂ savings, many analysts have determined that emissions from wind + OCGT (which wind requires) are not less than, and are in some cases more than, CCGT alone. (For example: here, here, here, here, here and here.)
[[[[ ]]]]
The controversy about climate change is not whether human activities contribute to it. It is about the activities excused in the name of fighting climate change. Industrial wind is a prime example of that deceit: furthering crimes against nature in the name of saving it. And rather than admit those crimes, wind's apologists tar any and every critic as a climate change denier. That is true for some critics of wind, who also might, as Thompson describes the Heartland Institute and Manhattan Institute, consider wind to be a pet project of “ecosocialism” (which they oppose), which is odd since big wind is clearly a playing piece in the game of big energy and big capital. It is that latter fact, and the depredation of nature and communities it is thus an active participant in, that advocates such as Thompson must hide by pretending concern for the planet.
It is a cynical and pathetically transparent performance.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
Like wind itself, it's a poor performance.
She notes, without clear citation — it may be from the Global Wind Energy Council — that 1 MWh of wind energy “will” offset 550 kg (1,200 lb) of CO₂. Elsewhere, the wind industry in the U.S. has been boasting of their reaching 50 GW of installed capacity. Since the industry also maintains that their average production is at least 30% of capacity (despite actual data showing much less), that would mean 50,000 MW × 0.30 × 8,760 hours/year × 550 kg/MWh = 72,270,000,000 kg (72,270,000 metric tons; 159,328,100,000 lb) less CO₂ every year.
In fact, energy-related CO₂ emissions totaled 1,340,000,000 metric tons in just the first quarter of 2012, falling slightly below the figure for 1992, when the Production Tax Credit jumpstarted wind development. The U.S. Energy Information Administration attributes this to a mild winter, increased use of natural gas instead of coal for electricity generation, and reduced gasoline consumption. It is revealing that 50 GW of wind power was not noted. In fact, even by Thompson's industry-approved boosterism, wind energy would have reduced energy-related CO₂ emissions by 1.3%. And energy-related CO₂ emissions are only about 80% of the country's total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in terms of CO₂ equivalence, so wind's theoretical effect would be to reduce GHG emissions by barely 1%.
But again, looking only at electricity, it is clear that emissions have decreased almost entirely because of increased use of natural gas, which releases half the amount of CO₂ as coal for the same amount of energy (ignoring, of course, the release of GHG methane in the fracking process to procure that natural gas).
In short, it is clear that wind does not, and will not, seriously affect climate change. So Thompson deflects that criticism by raising the demon of climate science denial. She closes her column with: “To deny climate change ... is to embrace ignorance.” She can not honestly defend wind as a means of addressing climate change, so she changes the subject to that of the importance of addressing climate change, digging herself into an even deeper hole, because addressing climate change is so important that we certainly should not waste our time and resources on such an insignificant player as wind power.
In her cursory attempt to deny the evidence that wind does not meaningfully reduce CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels on the electric grid, Thompson draws a caricature of the criticism and then accuses it of being oversimple. But it is precisely her formula of x wind equals y CO₂ emissions reduction that critics show to be oversimple.
She starts with the apt simile: “It's not like riding a bike and leaving the car in the driveway ... Wind energy on the grid is more like riding a bike and having someone follow you in the car in case you get tired.” (She cites the source as the Energy Integrity Project (Idaho) web site’s home page, but it is on their “Not Clean” page and there credited to one Eric Rosenbloom.) Thompson makes a paper tiger out of this by asserting that “once the biker tires, he has one option: to drive the car at 60 mph, without stopping, wherever he goes”, which she then shows to be untrue — thus proving the validity of the analogy, because in fact someone else would be driving the car and they would be stopping and starting and slowing to accommodate the flagging and reviving energy of the cyclist, and it would be much more efficient to leave the bike behind and simply drive steadily.
So explaining the complex mix of baseload and peaking plants that meet the changing electricity demand through the day, Thompson offers the novel claim that “variable” energy such as that from wind turbines fills the gap (which never existed) between them. She makes the nonsensical claim that wind is “more readily dispatched than baseload”, as if the grid operator tells the wind when, how strongly, and in what direction to blow, and thereby provides cost relief to peaking gas turbines, which, she says, have high operational costs. Their operational costs are high, however, precisely because they provide only peaking power, so it takes more time to make up the initial capital costs. Wind energy cutting into their use only increases that cost burden. Plus the system as a whole has the added costs — and environmental burden — of the wind facilities and their associated infrastructure.
But Thompson’s charade of expertise avoids the main charge against wind on the grid, which is indeed suggested by the analogy of the cyclist followed by a support car. Like the difference between city and highway driving, more frequent startups and ramping of output levels of the gas turbines not only increase wear and tear (thus increasing costs again), but also reduce their efficiency, i.e., cause them to emit more CO₂ per unit of electricity generated.
Furthermore, there are two kinds of gas turbines: open-cycle and combined-cycle. Only open-cycle gas turbines (OCGTs) are able to respond quickly enough to fill in or make way for the variability of wind energy so that demand is reliably met. Not only does wind require them to operate less efficiently, it also prevents the use of combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGTs), which are much more efficient than OCGTs. In the interest of CO₂ savings, many analysts have determined that emissions from wind + OCGT (which wind requires) are not less than, and are in some cases more than, CCGT alone. (For example: here, here, here, here, here and here.)
The controversy about climate change is not whether human activities contribute to it. It is about the activities excused in the name of fighting climate change. Industrial wind is a prime example of that deceit: furthering crimes against nature in the name of saving it. And rather than admit those crimes, wind's apologists tar any and every critic as a climate change denier. That is true for some critics of wind, who also might, as Thompson describes the Heartland Institute and Manhattan Institute, consider wind to be a pet project of “ecosocialism” (which they oppose), which is odd since big wind is clearly a playing piece in the game of big energy and big capital. It is that latter fact, and the depredation of nature and communities it is thus an active participant in, that advocates such as Thompson must hide by pretending concern for the planet.
It is a cynical and pathetically transparent performance.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)