Monday, August 29, 2005
"Do Electric Systems Really Need Wind Power?
by Alan Shaw, BSc CEng MIEE (retired chartered electrical engineer.)
Prior to present anxieties about climatic change due to greenhou
se gas emisssions, culminating in the Kyoto Protocol, wind turbines , like all other "renewable" forms of energy were always quietly under continuous review by electricity supply engineers the world over. Electricity has been generated by wind since the experiments of Professor La Cour over a hundred years ago.So why has nearly everyone else in mainstream electricity production been hanging back?
The main criteria examined world wide were always reliability and cost of the electricity produced in comparison with fossil fuelled, hydro and nuclear power stations. Wind power for large central station applications always failed but not only on economic grounds. - electricity consumers expect a continuous supply 24 hours a day 365 days a year.
Wind turbines, because of the daily irregularity of wind speeds, as well as having questionable economics compared to traditional large electricity generators, can only average annually about thirty per cent of their maximum continuous output rating in kilowatts or megawatts. Even this typical annual "load factor" of about 30 per cent does not tell the whole story. On a daily basis, 365 days in the year, there is absolutely no way of predicting for any given 24 hours how many if any kilowatt hours of saleable electricity will be produced.
So wind turbines are an additional capital charge on the system , not in any way a replacement for other continuously controllable plant. They just save a very small proportion of annual greenhouse gas production, small because of standby losses still necessarily produced by equivalent capacity fossil fuelled plant forced to remain on spinning reserve while the wind unpredictably blows. Nuclear power stations produce no such emissions and can run almost indefinitely at full load.
In large economic electricity systems the megawatt demand (nor the instantaneous horsepower required to produce it) never falls even in summer to less than the "base load", typically 40 per cent of the annual mid winter peak. In the extreme Continental climates of North America reliance on wind turbines without one hundred per cent replacement back up from conventional plant would be fatal due to hypothermia for whole populations, as Siberian electrical engineers know only too well... [cut]
The only reason for the present world proliferation of wind energy installations is the belief among large numbers of well meaning but almost entirely non-technical political voters that the world must be saved, regardless of economic cost, by swamping our electricity systems with vast numbers of totally unpredictable generators of electricity from wind power. They neither know nor care how much it costs nor how it fits or does not fit into the requirements of a reliable public electricity supply system... [cut]
Good luck, Nantucket Sound, my heart bleeds for you!
Alan Shaw,
Norwich, Norfolk, England
[Click headline for uncut version]
Prior to present anxieties about climatic change due to greenhou
se gas emisssions, culminating in the Kyoto Protocol, wind turbines , like all other "renewable" forms of energy were always quietly under continuous review by electricity supply engineers the world over. Electricity has been generated by wind since the experiments of Professor La Cour over a hundred years ago.So why has nearly everyone else in mainstream electricity production been hanging back?The main criteria examined world wide were always reliability and cost of the electricity produced in comparison with fossil fuelled, hydro and nuclear power stations. Wind power for large central station applications always failed but not only on economic grounds. - electricity consumers expect a continuous supply 24 hours a day 365 days a year.
Wind turbines, because of the daily irregularity of wind speeds, as well as having questionable economics compared to traditional large electricity generators, can only average annually about thirty per cent of their maximum continuous output rating in kilowatts or megawatts. Even this typical annual "load factor" of about 30 per cent does not tell the whole story. On a daily basis, 365 days in the year, there is absolutely no way of predicting for any given 24 hours how many if any kilowatt hours of saleable electricity will be produced.
So wind turbines are an additional capital charge on the system , not in any way a replacement for other continuously controllable plant. They just save a very small proportion of annual greenhouse gas production, small because of standby losses still necessarily produced by equivalent capacity fossil fuelled plant forced to remain on spinning reserve while the wind unpredictably blows. Nuclear power stations produce no such emissions and can run almost indefinitely at full load.
In large economic electricity systems the megawatt demand (nor the instantaneous horsepower required to produce it) never falls even in summer to less than the "base load", typically 40 per cent of the annual mid winter peak. In the extreme Continental climates of North America reliance on wind turbines without one hundred per cent replacement back up from conventional plant would be fatal due to hypothermia for whole populations, as Siberian electrical engineers know only too well... [cut]
The only reason for the present world proliferation of wind energy installations is the belief among large numbers of well meaning but almost entirely non-technical political voters that the world must be saved, regardless of economic cost, by swamping our electricity systems with vast numbers of totally unpredictable generators of electricity from wind power. They neither know nor care how much it costs nor how it fits or does not fit into the requirements of a reliable public electricity supply system... [cut]
Good luck, Nantucket Sound, my heart bleeds for you!
Alan Shaw,
Norwich, Norfolk, England
[Click headline for uncut version]
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Wind Power Claims Are Just Hot Air
The Scotsman, Sunday, Feb 27, 2005
by JEREMY WATSON
CONTROVERSIAL plans to build thousands of wind turbines across Scotland will make almost no difference to greenhouse gas levels, according to new research by leading environmental scientists.
The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies says that even on the most optimistic assumptions, renewable sources of energy, such as wind power, will have only a "minor impact" on reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
The report, by one of the UK’s leading think tanks on energy policy, is a serious setback for the Scottish Executive. Ministers hope to convince voters that around 70 new wind farms will make a significant contribution to slashing carbon dioxide levels by at least 20% over the next 15 years.
But the institute’s report argues that previous experience shows governments fail to meet their targets for building wind farms, and even when they do deliver their promises, they have little impact on greenhouse gas levels.
Other technologies, such as nuclear energy, which produces no carbon dioxide, now deserve to be given closer consideration by ministers, even if they are unpopular with voters, the report says... The Oxford research gives fresh ammunition to community groups fighting the rapidly increasing number of wind farm projects throughout Scotland...
Some campaigners insist wind power is not an effective renewable energy supply, pointing to the experiences of European countries with more advanced schemes than Britain’s. In Denmark, carbon dioxide emissions have continued to rise as older coal power stations have been forced to make up for shortfalls in electricity on low wind days.
A recent government study in Germany, the world’s leading wind energy producer, concluded wind farms were expensive and inefficient.
Views of Scotland, the anti-wind-farm pressure group, said it was a "serious concern" that independent research had concluded that the Executive’s carbon dioxide reduction strategy was badly flawed. "The Institute argues convincingly that the UK’s overall Kyoto targets will probably not be met and would do little to cut carbon dioxide emissions in any case. The government’s case is smoke-and-mirrors."
Professor James McDonald, director of the Institute of Energy and Environment at Strathclyde University, said: "It is going to be difficult for the Scottish Executive to meet its 2020 targets without building more base load plants [conventional power stations] in Scotland..."
[Click headline for full article.]
by JEREMY WATSON
CONTROVERSIAL plans to build thousands of wind turbines across Scotland will make almost no difference to greenhouse gas levels, according to new research by leading environmental scientists.
The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies says that even on the most optimistic assumptions, renewable sources of energy, such as wind power, will have only a "minor impact" on reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
The report, by one of the UK’s leading think tanks on energy policy, is a serious setback for the Scottish Executive. Ministers hope to convince voters that around 70 new wind farms will make a significant contribution to slashing carbon dioxide levels by at least 20% over the next 15 years.
But the institute’s report argues that previous experience shows governments fail to meet their targets for building wind farms, and even when they do deliver their promises, they have little impact on greenhouse gas levels.
Other technologies, such as nuclear energy, which produces no carbon dioxide, now deserve to be given closer consideration by ministers, even if they are unpopular with voters, the report says... The Oxford research gives fresh ammunition to community groups fighting the rapidly increasing number of wind farm projects throughout Scotland...
Some campaigners insist wind power is not an effective renewable energy supply, pointing to the experiences of European countries with more advanced schemes than Britain’s. In Denmark, carbon dioxide emissions have continued to rise as older coal power stations have been forced to make up for shortfalls in electricity on low wind days.
A recent government study in Germany, the world’s leading wind energy producer, concluded wind farms were expensive and inefficient.
Views of Scotland, the anti-wind-farm pressure group, said it was a "serious concern" that independent research had concluded that the Executive’s carbon dioxide reduction strategy was badly flawed. "The Institute argues convincingly that the UK’s overall Kyoto targets will probably not be met and would do little to cut carbon dioxide emissions in any case. The government’s case is smoke-and-mirrors."
Professor James McDonald, director of the Institute of Energy and Environment at Strathclyde University, said: "It is going to be difficult for the Scottish Executive to meet its 2020 targets without building more base load plants [conventional power stations] in Scotland..."
[Click headline for full article.]
Thursday, August 25, 2005
"The Theology of Global Warming"
By JAMES SCHLESINGER
[Secretary of Energy, 1977-79, Secretary of Defense, 1973-74]
Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2005; Page A10
“Almost unnoticed, the theology of global warming has in recent weeks suffered a number of setbacks. In referring to the theology of global warming, one is not focusing on evidence of the earth's warming in recent decades, particularly in the Arctic, but rather on the widespread insistence that such warming is primarily a consequence of man's activities -- and that, if only we collectively had the will, we could alter our behavior and stop the warming of the planet. It was Michael Crichton who pointed out in his Commonwealth Club lecture some years ago that environmentalism had become the religion of Western elites. Indeed it has. Most notably, the burning of fossil fuels (a concomitant of economic growth and rising living standards) is the secular counterpart of man's Original Sin. If only we would repent and sin no more, mankind's actions could end the threat of further global warming."
"...There are concerns about the objectivity of the international panel of scientists that has led research into climate change."
"…The Kyoto agreement to limit carbon emissions will make little difference and is likely to fail."
"…The U.K.'s energy and climate policy contains "dubious assumptions" about renewable energy and energy efficiency."
"Most notably there are concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] process and about the IPCC's crucial emissions scenario exercise."
"The issue of climate change urgently needs to be brought down from the level of theology to what we actually know. It is, of course, quite likely that the greenhouse effect has to some extent contributed to global warming -- but we simply do not know to what extent. The insistence that global warming is primarily the consequence of human activity leaves scant room for variation in solar intensity or cyclical phenomena generally."
"Much has been made of the assertion, repeated regularly in the media, that "the science is settled," based upon a supposed "scientific consensus…. the "consensus" is ostensibly based upon the several Assessment Reports of the IPCC. One must bear in mind that the summary reports are political documents put together by government policy makers, who, to put it mildly, treat rather cavalierly the expressed uncertainties and caveats in the underlying scientific reports..."
"Moreover, the IPCC was created to support a specific political goal. It is directed to support the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change…. Statements by the leaders of the IPCC have been uninhibitedly political."
"...science is not a matter of consensus, as the histories of Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, Einstein and others will attest. Science depends not on speculation but on conclusions verified through experiment. Verification is more than computer simulations -- whose conclusions mirror the assumptions built in the model. Irrespective of the repeated assertions regarding a "scientific consensus," there is neither a consensus nor is consensus science."
[Click headline for complete article]
--------------------
More from Mr. Schlesinger-
“Climate Change: The Science Isn't Settled”
Washington Post, July 7, 2003
“Despite the certainty many seem to feel about the causes, effects and extent of climate change, we are in fact making only slow progress in our understanding of the underlying science. My old professor at Harvard, the great economist Joseph Schumpeter, used to insist that a principal tool of economic science was history -- which served to temper the enthusiasms of the here and now. This must be even more so in climatological science. In recent years the inclination has been to attribute the warming we have lately experienced to a single dominant cause -- the increase in greenhouse gases. Yet climate has always been changing -- and sometimes the swings have been rapid.”
“...through much of the earth's history, increases in CO2 have followed global warming, rather than the other way around.”
---------------------------
From Michael Crichton;
“Aliens Cause Global Warming”
Caltech Michelin Lecture
January 17, 2003
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Editor of Forbes Magazine on Wind Power and Subsidies.
William Baldwin, editor of Forbes Magazine since 1999, shares his thoughts about wind power in the August 15th issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Environmentalist, Spare That Tree"
"General Electric wants Earth-worshippers to fall in love with it. It's going to dredge the Hudson River to scrape up poisonous chemicals it dumped there years ago. It's going to sell more windmills and energy-efficient diesel locomotives. Daniel Fisher reports on page 80."
"Should you show your support by buying a few shares of this ecologically hip company? There are better ways to help the environment."
"Oppose windmill subsidies. A spin of the blades saves a dollop of fossil fuel. That looks like a win for Mother Earth, until you step back and look at the big picture. Windmills guzzle land, labor and metal. The first of these is limited in supply and the other two consume precious resources, like crude oil, indirectly. Shouldn't a proper accounting include the electricity burned in the GE windmill factory and the gasoline bought by the windmill lobbyist? It's impossible to add up all the indirect environmental costs of a windmill, but a good proxy for this arithmetic is simply to compare the resources consumed (in dollars) with the output produced (in dollar value of the electricity). No question, consumption exceeds output, as you can tell from the fact that the windmill industry survives only by dint of a huge federal subsidy, 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour of juice. Tell your senators to vote against the subsidy...." [cut]
[Click headline for complete column.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Environmentalist, Spare That Tree"
"General Electric wants Earth-worshippers to fall in love with it. It's going to dredge the Hudson River to scrape up poisonous chemicals it dumped there years ago. It's going to sell more windmills and energy-efficient diesel locomotives. Daniel Fisher reports on page 80."
"Should you show your support by buying a few shares of this ecologically hip company? There are better ways to help the environment."
"Oppose windmill subsidies. A spin of the blades saves a dollop of fossil fuel. That looks like a win for Mother Earth, until you step back and look at the big picture. Windmills guzzle land, labor and metal. The first of these is limited in supply and the other two consume precious resources, like crude oil, indirectly. Shouldn't a proper accounting include the electricity burned in the GE windmill factory and the gasoline bought by the windmill lobbyist? It's impossible to add up all the indirect environmental costs of a windmill, but a good proxy for this arithmetic is simply to compare the resources consumed (in dollars) with the output produced (in dollar value of the electricity). No question, consumption exceeds output, as you can tell from the fact that the windmill industry survives only by dint of a huge federal subsidy, 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour of juice. Tell your senators to vote against the subsidy...." [cut]
[Click headline for complete column.]
Sunday, August 07, 2005
The False Promises of Wind Energy
by Michael Fox, Ph.D.
"That windmills retain a mystical popularity among its Northwest supporters, is truly a triumph of hope over substance, not to mention unawareness of hidden costs and poor performance data. There is a huge amount of information now available regarding wind energy from around the United States and Europe. It’s not good news. It is past time that Northwest energy agencies, utilities, and elected officials use the data before building anymore of them and ripping off the rate payers..."
[cut]
"Wind energy is unreliable for the simple reason that wind is unreliable, unpredictable, and intermittent. That is, more than 70% of the time more reliable sources are needed in its place... Because of the unpredictability of the wind, a dedicated equally-sized backup system must be kept in reserve, not producing energy of its own. This backup energy capacity (called spinning reserve) is a hidden cost, requiring its own fuel consumption, emissions, and costs in reserve, which usually are not considered in the overall cost analyses for wind energy."
[Click headline for full article and 42 comments.]
"That windmills retain a mystical popularity among its Northwest supporters, is truly a triumph of hope over substance, not to mention unawareness of hidden costs and poor performance data. There is a huge amount of information now available regarding wind energy from around the United States and Europe. It’s not good news. It is past time that Northwest energy agencies, utilities, and elected officials use the data before building anymore of them and ripping off the rate payers..."
[cut]
"Wind energy is unreliable for the simple reason that wind is unreliable, unpredictable, and intermittent. That is, more than 70% of the time more reliable sources are needed in its place... Because of the unpredictability of the wind, a dedicated equally-sized backup system must be kept in reserve, not producing energy of its own. This backup energy capacity (called spinning reserve) is a hidden cost, requiring its own fuel consumption, emissions, and costs in reserve, which usually are not considered in the overall cost analyses for wind energy."
[Click headline for full article and 42 comments.]
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Canada: Project Cancelled in British Columbia
"B.C. Not Yet Ready For Wind Power"
By Grant Warkentin
Campbell River Mirror, Jul 29 2005
"The quiet cancellation of a wind farm project on the North Island shows green energy isn't quite ready to power up in B.C. Proponents of a wind farm proposed for Holberg, on the north end of the Island, walked away from the project this week because there wasn't enough wind to make the project viable. The recent drastic increase in the price of steel was probably also a factor - the farm was just too expensive to build for too little profit."
[cut]
"...Green energy is a political hobbyhorse these days. No one wants to say anything bad about it and politicians of all stripes want to take it for a ride. But it's tough to tell who's on the up and up in the fledgling industry. Millions are being spent on speculation and a lot of that money comes from taxpayers in the form of grants, studies and loans. So far we have nothing to show for it, except maybe a wind power trial near Victoria, which may or may not be built."
"We need more than promises and speculation. If the government is so gung-ho about green power, it should be a little more discerning with the money it is handing out. Business plans and detailed results are a good start. Holding companies accountable for the taxpayer money they are spending is never a bad thing. And investors should be careful, too. With all the hype surrounding green energy, and the blind enthusiasm attached to any alternative energy sources, it's inevitable people are going to get burned."
"Green energy is hopefully the wave of the future, but let's spend our investment money wisely and not wastefully, based on facts, not hype."
------------------------------------------------------------
[To read some of the pre-cancellation hype see this story from Nov. 2004-]
"Wind farm will sell power to B.C. Hydro"
By Grant Warkentin
Campbell River Mirror, Jul 29 2005
"The quiet cancellation of a wind farm project on the North Island shows green energy isn't quite ready to power up in B.C. Proponents of a wind farm proposed for Holberg, on the north end of the Island, walked away from the project this week because there wasn't enough wind to make the project viable. The recent drastic increase in the price of steel was probably also a factor - the farm was just too expensive to build for too little profit."
[cut]
"...Green energy is a political hobbyhorse these days. No one wants to say anything bad about it and politicians of all stripes want to take it for a ride. But it's tough to tell who's on the up and up in the fledgling industry. Millions are being spent on speculation and a lot of that money comes from taxpayers in the form of grants, studies and loans. So far we have nothing to show for it, except maybe a wind power trial near Victoria, which may or may not be built."
"We need more than promises and speculation. If the government is so gung-ho about green power, it should be a little more discerning with the money it is handing out. Business plans and detailed results are a good start. Holding companies accountable for the taxpayer money they are spending is never a bad thing. And investors should be careful, too. With all the hype surrounding green energy, and the blind enthusiasm attached to any alternative energy sources, it's inevitable people are going to get burned."
"Green energy is hopefully the wave of the future, but let's spend our investment money wisely and not wastefully, based on facts, not hype."
------------------------------------------------------------
[To read some of the pre-cancellation hype see this story from Nov. 2004-]
"Wind farm will sell power to B.C. Hydro"
Czech Republic: Voters say "No" to Wind Power.
Prague Daily Monitor, August 3rd.
"Wind-power stations rejected in local referendum."
"The residents of Koclirov on Saturday rejected the construction of wind-power generators in their village, Romana Prokopova from the local election commission told CTK. As a result, the town hall and investor can only start considering building the power stations in two years at the earliest. The project was rejected by 208 out of 350 voting people, with a turn-out of 63 percent, Prokopova said. Vetrna energie Morava, which has Austrian capital, was to build eight to ten wind-power generators near the village for roughly CZK 750 million."
"The outcome of the referendum apparently means a total end of the project," the head of the project, Alexander Szotkowski, told CTK. The referendum in Koclirov, population 630, was prompted by the local opponents of wind-power generators who feared excessive noise and lasting damage to the landscape. The local town hall had supported the plan. A previous referendum on a wind-power generator was held in Bozi Dar in West Bohemia in January. Roughly three-quarters of local voters rejected the project, too."
"Wind-power stations rejected in local referendum."
"The residents of Koclirov on Saturday rejected the construction of wind-power generators in their village, Romana Prokopova from the local election commission told CTK. As a result, the town hall and investor can only start considering building the power stations in two years at the earliest. The project was rejected by 208 out of 350 voting people, with a turn-out of 63 percent, Prokopova said. Vetrna energie Morava, which has Austrian capital, was to build eight to ten wind-power generators near the village for roughly CZK 750 million."
"The outcome of the referendum apparently means a total end of the project," the head of the project, Alexander Szotkowski, told CTK. The referendum in Koclirov, population 630, was prompted by the local opponents of wind-power generators who feared excessive noise and lasting damage to the landscape. The local town hall had supported the plan. A previous referendum on a wind-power generator was held in Bozi Dar in West Bohemia in January. Roughly three-quarters of local voters rejected the project, too."
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
"German Results Cast Doubt on UK's Wind Farm Proposals."
The Independent, London
By Jason Nisse
Published: 31 July 2005
"The Government's target of generating a 10th of energy from renewable sources by 2010 is being undermined by German data that indicates wind power may be less efficient than had been hoped."
"The statistics may cause friction between Whitehall and Alistair Buchanan, the energy regulator, who is concerned that by relying heavily on wind energy, UK may become too much of a hostage to capricious weather." [cut]
[Click headline for full story.]
By Jason Nisse
Published: 31 July 2005
"The Government's target of generating a 10th of energy from renewable sources by 2010 is being undermined by German data that indicates wind power may be less efficient than had been hoped."
"The statistics may cause friction between Whitehall and Alistair Buchanan, the energy regulator, who is concerned that by relying heavily on wind energy, UK may become too much of a hostage to capricious weather." [cut]
[Click headline for full story.]
Wind Power = "Green Stalinism."
In England, New England, and just about everywhere else.
[Click headline for complete article.]
From www.orwelltoday.com
"Electricity suppliers are being forced by law to buy power from wind farms.
What this represents is a return to the planned economy in the name of environmentalism - a kind of Green Stalinism. The consequences are the familiar Soviet ones: centralised decision-making and localised devastation."
"Wind power is so inefficient that it scarcely replaces conventional sources of energy at all... The only beneficiaries have been the super-rich who have invested in wind farms because of the huge tax breaks - and the politicians in the industry's pocket."
"...no matter how many wind turbines we build, global dependence on fossil fuels will scarcely be diminished at all."
Also on www.orwelltoday.com-
WINDMILLS ON CAPE COD
WINDMILLS BEAT DAMS ON CAPE
WATER BLOWS WIND OUTA WATER
ANIMAL FARM WINDMILL:(A Parallel for Windmills on Cape Cod)
[Click headline for complete article.]
From www.orwelltoday.com
"Electricity suppliers are being forced by law to buy power from wind farms.
What this represents is a return to the planned economy in the name of environmentalism - a kind of Green Stalinism. The consequences are the familiar Soviet ones: centralised decision-making and localised devastation."
"Wind power is so inefficient that it scarcely replaces conventional sources of energy at all... The only beneficiaries have been the super-rich who have invested in wind farms because of the huge tax breaks - and the politicians in the industry's pocket."
"...no matter how many wind turbines we build, global dependence on fossil fuels will scarcely be diminished at all."
Also on www.orwelltoday.com-
WINDMILLS ON CAPE COD
WINDMILLS BEAT DAMS ON CAPE
WATER BLOWS WIND OUTA WATER
ANIMAL FARM WINDMILL:(A Parallel for Windmills on Cape Cod)
