The Land :: www.TheLandOnline.com

Commentary

February 26, 2010

Commentary: A chill hits wind power’s production

Originally published in the Feb. 19, 2010, print edition.

— As I write, a strong wind is blowing across the Allegheny Mountains onto my house. It’s bringing an “Arctic Clipper” that will drop my temperatures this weekend to a frigid and unusual 6 degrees F. Why can’t I get some good from this chill wind — with a wind turbine to harvest the “free” energy?

Out in Oregon, General Electric has just announced a big wind project: 338 turbines, rated at 845 megawatts. GE claims it will power for 235,000 homes, and is applying for the appropriate federal subsidies.

Will the wind turbines power 235,000 homes? Don’t bet on it. My friend Donald Hertzmark — an energy economist — warns the power deliveries from this wind project are likely to average only 25 percent of its rated capacity. That would serve only 58,000 homes, not 235,000.

But Hertzmark says even this is too high because the wind is highly variable. The Texas power grid’s experience is to rely on no more than 9 percent of the wind farm’s rated capacity. That would reduce GE’s real subsidy claim to about 21,000 households.

It gets worse.

Most of Oregon’s power comes from dams, and the lean period for hydropower is winter. That’s when heating demand peaks — but also when the dams have to restrict their water flow to protect fish, control flooding and save up irrigation water for the next summer.

How likely is it that wind turbines can add to Oregon’s generating capacity in the midst of the winter electricity demand surge, and offset the hydroelectric generating restrictions? Not very, says Hertzmark.

This January, Britain’s wind turbines (6 percent of total generating capacity after many billions of dollars invested) supplied virtually no power on most days. The wind tends not to blow when and where it’s already very cold.

The stars of the British winter power demand were natural gas turbines, which are 34 percent of capacity and supplied 40 percent of the power during the winter wind lull. But Britain’s North Sea natural gas is running out; the only likely new source would be natural gas piped from Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Ouch.

“Wind cannot be relied upon to provide firm generation at full capacity coincident with peak demand,” Hertzmark said. “Wind might be capable of contributing to the peak demand requirements at some times. However, this will rarely happen — and when it does, it will be for brief periods. For significant periods of time, no households will be served by the wind farms.”

Nor have either of the worlds “wind leaders” — Denmark and Germany — decommissioned any fossil fuel plants. The fossil generators are kept in “spinning reserve” — burning fossil fuels — to keep the lights on in the schools, factories and hospitals when the wind dies.

Why build wind turbines at all? Well, wind and solar were the only energy sources the Greens would endorse, probably because they’re so expensive and erratic that there’s no danger of anybody getting hooked on cheap power again.

Denmark was also selling wind turbines to other countries, so they had to be demonstrated at home. Now China is making cheaper turbines. Who will buy?

The cost of the “free wind”? Projections are about 17 cents per kilowatt-hour — far higher than other energy sources. One of my neighbors has just invested $100,000 in a wind turbine. I think he’s wasted his money — and some of yours.

•••

This commentary was submitted by Dennis Avery, a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., and the director for the Center for Global Food Issues. He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. Readers may write him at P.O. Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421 or e-mail to cgfi@hughes.net.

Text Only
Commentary
  • Commentary: HSUS - wolves in sheep's clothing

    In 2008, Dan Mathews, vice president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said, "when you consider any movement for social change, it's really got to be seen as a generational one.

    June 18, 2010

  • Commentary: Species safe even if world warms

    Biologists are again predicting massive species losses as the world warms. But where are the corpses?

    June 18, 2010

  • Commentary: So-called efficiencies creating 'ag disconnect'

    "If we as eaters insist on food being a smaller and smaller percentage of our spendable income by continuing to separate ourselves from the source of that food, it will become a race to the bottom for agriculture, for rural communities, and for everyone's quality of life."

    May 21, 2010

  • Commentary: Ag needs to toot its own horn

    Agriculture is a dynamic industry full of growth and change, and yet unlike many other industries, it remains blessed with an abundance of small family-run businesses.

    April 8, 2010

  • Commentary: Losing jobs with green technology

    As Obama’s energy taxes force reductions in coal and oil production, the price of U.S. energy will double and triple — and so will the costs of the things we buy.

    April 8, 2010

  • Commentary: A chill hits wind power’s production

    The cost of the “free wind”? Projections are about 17 cents per kilowatt-hour — far higher than other energy sources. One of my neighbors has just invested $100,000 in a wind turbine. I think he’s wasted his money — and some of yours.

    February 26, 2010

  • Commentary: Greenpeace opts for millions of blind children

    The earthquake in Haiti was a devastating blow — but we don’t know how to prevent earthquakes. On the other hand, we do know how to prevent 500,000 kids from going blind every year, and even dying, due to severe Vitamin A deficiency. But we’re not preventing the blindness or the deaths.

    February 12, 2010

  • Commentary: EPA’s atrazine review must be open

    Public deserves science-driven review of pesticide’s health, environmental impacts.

    January 29, 2010

  • Commentary: Let’s examine impacts of externalities on ag

    It is increasingly important to remember that almost any human activity of any size or consequence will have both negative and positive externalities. Perhaps the reason for little acknowledgment of the positive externalities is that they are the raison d’être for the activity in the first place.

    January 29, 2010

  • Commentary: USDA misleads on farming’s climate future

    The USDA seems to expect serious climate-related farming problems ahead, but the recent changes in global climate have been tiny — and in the “wrong” direction.

    January 29, 2010