On WattsUpWithThat.com, I had an interesting exchange over windturbines and the energy from them. Most commenters were snarky, hostile, or condescending, but one, dbstealey, was as always very courteous. I gave him a considered and thoughtful reply, reproduced below and posted here.
Reply to dbstealey at 1:50 pm.
Good evening, dbstealey. I want to thank you for your kindness to me
over the years that I have visited WUWT, especially in my earliest days several
years ago. You had a different handle
then. I appreciate your question above,
and will try to give a thorough answer.
You asked, “Would wind
power even exist in commercial amounts if not for massive subsidies?”
The short answer is, probably not. But that is not a complete answer. The answer must also ask, would nuclear power
exist if not for massive subsidies? Of course
not. Would General Motors? Would Chrysler? Would various other business entities exist if
the government had not provided support in the form of subsidies, tax credits,
bail-outs, low-interest loans and grants?
How many mortgage lending institutions received federal bail-out funds?
The question of government subsidies is one of encouraging an
activity that the government deems to have, or be, a public good. As just one example, home owners can deduct a
portion of their mortgage payment and thereby pay less in taxes. This, in theory, encourages home ownership
rather than renting. The simple fact is, the federal government and
many states have decided that wind energy is an activity that has a social
value, a public good. Therefore, there
are subsidies for wind energy projects typically amounting to a small
percentage of the total investment, perhaps 30 percent. There are also requirements that the utility
purchase the power, among other requirements that I won’t list in detail
here.
Now, to consider the benefits of wind energy, and then the
negative effects. First, the
benefits. I want to preface this by
saying that my considered opinion, based on my education, industrial experience,
research, studies, feedback from live audiences in speeches, feedback from
comments on my blogs (I have two blogs), and animated discussions with my
friends and colleagues, is that commercial nuclear power plants are a net
negative and should all be shut down as soon as possible. Anything that advances that goal, without
creating more harm, must therefore be supported. Wind energy, especially land-based wind
energy, advances the goal of shutting down nuclear power plants. I will explain.
Because land-based wind blows primarily at night, during
off-peak hours, utilities have an excess of power and usually reduce the price
of off-peak power. The lower power price
is intended to attract more users. Those who
purchase off-peak power have a substantial benefit from the lower prices. A side benefit, as I wrote above in a
comment, is that some nuclear power plants cannot compete economically with the
low off-peak power prices. Older
nuclear plants must invest in expensive replacement equipment such as steam
generators. That investment must have a
revenue stream to provide a payout. Low
prices at night reduce the revenue stream to the nuclear plant and prevent the
project from having an acceptable payout period. Such uncompetitive nuclear plants are either already
shut down or the operators have announced their imminent shutdown. This alone is a reason to rejoice, and to
support more land-based wind power.
Besides making nuclear power uneconomic, wind energy reduces
consumption of fossil fuels – despite the futile arguments of the
low-information commenters above.
Engineering facts trump religious-style belief, every time. As an engineer who has practiced for more than
20 years world-wide in some truly dangerous process plants including oil
refineries, petrochemical plants, natural gas plants, chlorine plants, hydrogen
plants, and others, I have seen the results of sloppy reasoning, bad data, and
actions based on belief rather than hard facts.
The results are usually an explosion and one or more human deaths. I have no patience for those who refuse to
critically examine the data, the data collection processes, any adjustments
that are made to the data, the calculations made upon the data, and the
conclusions drawn from the above analyses.
In my field, we get it right or people die. It is just that simple.
Reference was made earlier by the bleating sheep that Germany’s
experience is that wind energy increases CO2 emissions. I expect that was a very badly conducted
study, as engineering logic proves otherwise.
I gave counter-references that
show the opposite, both from NREL and Iowa.
It doesn’t really matter that the bleating sheep show their religious-style,
bitterly clinging to their beliefs in the face of sound engineering reason.
The benefits of reduced fossil fuel consumption have nothing to
do with reducing CO2 emissions. It has
everything to do with reduced costs to run a utility grid – if one does not
burn the fuel, one does not have to purchase that fuel. The savings should be passed along to the
customers, if the utility regulatory agency is performing its job. Reduced fossil fuel consumption also reduces toxic
air pollutants, sulfur oxides (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). It may also reduce emissions of particulate
matter if coal-fired plants are part of the utility generating plant. Reductions in toxic air pollutants is
certainly a desirable goal.
A further benefit of wind energy, especially land-based, is the
eventual migration of people away from cities and into the plains states where
wind energy is closer to home. I won’t
go into detail on the multitude of problems that arise from crowded urban life,
and the equal multitude of benefits from small-town life. However, to briefly illustrate, the
exploitation of Niagara Falls and the hydroelectric power from that natural
setting led to manufacturing locating nearby to take advantage of the abundant
and cheap power. As more and more wind energy systems are
established across the middle of America, more and more businesses and
industries will move to the power.
A final benefit of wind energy is that conventional power plants
require less cooling water as they consume less fuel. Water is a precious commodity, and everything
that can be done to reduce water consumption is a benefit. Enough on the benefits.
The negative effects of wind energy are usually listed as too
expensive, too unsightly (meaning somebody thinks they are ugly), deadly to
flying creatures, too noisy, they are dangerous due to blades breaking apart,
and of course, too unreliable. In
order, then, starting with too expensive.
The installed costs per MW have been steadily declining for years, and
are expected to continue that decline as research is applied and better designs
are proven. A reference for those who want to verify the
cost trends can be found in the California Energy Commission’s Comparative
Costs of Central Station Electricity Generation, January 2010, Figure 3. Onshore
wind, as they call it, costs just under $2000 per kW in 2010 and is expected to
decline 40 percent over the next 20 years, to about $1200 per kW. In contrast, a Westinghouse AP-1000 nuclear
power plant, single-reactor, costs $4000 per kW but is expected to rapidly
increase to almost double to $7300 per kW in 20 years. All those are in constant, uninflated 2009
dollars. Of course, the nuclear plant
costs are low-balled, as nobody in the US can build a nuclear plant for less
than $8,000 per kW installed. One
suspects the CEC numbers are overnight costs only for the nuclear plant.
The crucial point from the CEC study is that onshore wind’s
levelized cost ranges between 6.5 and 8 cents per kWh, depending on wind speed
and financing mechanism. Nothing else in the CEC’s entire list of generating
alternatives comes close to those costs, excepting only geothermal and large hydroelectric
plant upgrades. Note that the wind
levelized costs account for existing subsidies. One can add about 2 cents per
kWh to obtain an un-subsidized levelized cost.
Next, too unsightly (meaning somebody thinks they are ugly). Beauty is truly in the eye of the
beholder. I have seen many wind turbines
in my life, and have yet to see an ugly one.
I also talk with people who enjoy the benefit of low-cost off-peak
power, and they agree that wind turbines are beautiful.
Next, deadly to flying creatures. Flying creature deaths are a problem, but the
problem is reduced by the use of monopole supports. One wonders why the outcry over wind turbines
but no similar outrage over electric power lines and equipment and the deaths
they cause each year, not only to birds but to squirrels, and snakes. I suppose that squirrels and snakes just don’t
count for much in the minds of outraged wind-turbine haters.
Next, too noisy. Noise is
an interesting concept, and a great reason for the wind turbine haters to
pounce. I suppose that airport noise is
not a problem for them. Nor is the noise
from close proximity to railroad tracks as trains pass. Nor the noise from factories, especially when
steam escapes. The faux outrage is
amusing, actually, especially when one considers that ordinances generally
preclude locating the wind turbines anywhere close to people. Certainly commuter trains and airports are
far noisier to far more people.
Next, the danger due to blades breaking apart. No doubt, sometimes a turbine blade
breaks. I have not really followed this
closely, but it seems doubtful that many people have been injured or killed by
the flying blade. Certainly, more people
were killed by nuclear power plant disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima, than
by the more than 40 years of wind turbine operation.
And finally, wind turbines are claimed to be too unreliable. I first entered this thread with an account of
proven energy storage that overcomes the unreliability issue. The bleating sheep would have none of it,
which is fine as it shows their ignorance.
Wind has always been known to be unreliable. In some areas, it is far more constant and
blows more strongly than in others.
Offshore the US north-east coast, and the US west coast have excellent
wind, as I wrote above. I personally
have experienced strong and steady wind for many hours, days even, on the shore
of Padre Island at Corpus Christi, Texas.
The wind is so steady that hang-gliders launch, then hover above the
beach in a group, perhaps 50 to 100 feet up, carrying on conversations with
those below.
On balance, then, wind energy is a fabulous means of providing
electricity with zero pollution, it reduces fossil fuel use, and can be made
reliable with appropriate storage. The
chief benefit at this time is it runs nuclear power plants out of business,
causing them to be permanently shut down.
It also gives pause to those who would build a new nuclear power
plant.
Next, you
wrote “Promoting wind power smacks of a
belief that CO2 is bad. But CO2 is not bad. CO2 is not “pollution”. CO2 is good at current
and projected concentrations, and more is better. Based on mountains of real
world evidence, I believe that. Do you?”
I could not
agree more that CO2 is not pollution, that CO2 is good at current and projected
atmospheric concentrations, and more is probably better up to a point. There are, for example, concerns over
breathing impacts at elevated levels of 10,000 ppm. I am on record in speeches and my blog, as
against CO2-control measures such as California’s AB32, federal congressional
efforts to curb CO2, and the EPA’s move to regulate CO2 and shut down
coal-fired power plants. I have detailed
my views on my blog, where one of my posts was translated into German and
posted on a German climate skeptic site.
If anyone cares to look, see “From Man-Made Global Warmist to Skeptic,My Journey”, (this was translated and posted into German), also “Warmists areWrong, Cooling is Coming”, and many other posts.
The key to
me is that the warmists violated the first rule of science and engineering when
they began adjusting the temperature data.
One does not adjust data except in highly unusual and rare
situations. Outliers in a data set must
be discarded, not adjusted to fit a pre-conceived value. A far better approach would have been to use
only pristine locations for temperature measurements. That the scientists did not do this is
obvious, and laughable to all practicing engineers.
Next, you wrote “A warmer planet is also good. The fact is
that the climate alarmist crowd has been wrong about everything. Every major prediction they have made
has turned out to be flat wrong, from global warming, to ocean ‘acidification’,
to disappearing ice caps, to sea level rise, and many, many other failed
predictions.”
I
agree. In my blog post on Warmists are
Wrong, I discussed many of those failed predictions, including no unusual sea
level rise, no decreased polar ice, no increase in hurricanes, no rise in
average global temperature, and no atmospheric hot spot. I was pressed for time in that speech so I didn’t
include other failures.
Last, you wrote “When
someone is wrong about everything, the question must be asked: “When will you
admit that your original premise, and your subsequent beliefs, must be
radically altered? Or, is being totally wrong now a good thing?””
Again, I agree. That is a
good paraphrase of the question I pose to the warmists.
Let me conclude in this way.
In my considered, engineering-based opinion, nuclear power is a danger
and a threat to the economic well-being of electricity consumers. I have a special place in my heart for the
poor, the elderly, those on fixed incomes, and those who barely scrape by month
to month or even week to week. High electricity prices causes those vulnerable
groups to choose between food, rent, and paying the electric bill. That is simply wrong, in my view. Nuclear power increases electricity prices by
outrageous amounts, as I witnessed only too personally in the 1970s along the
US gulf coast. It is simply wrong to run
them, or to build them, when there are so many better, cheaper, and less deadly
alternatives available. Today, the power
plant of choice is a combined cycle natural gas-fired gas turbine plant, with low
construction costs, high thermal efficiency of approximately 60 percent, low
operating costs with low-cost natural gas at around $4 per million Btu, and
very low water consumption for cooling.
Since wind energy also forces nuclear power plants out of
business, that alone justifies the subsidies.
No comments:
Post a Comment