Posts from the ‘Anagnorisis — Ignorance to knowledge’ Category

May 21

Popular Science — Wind turbines do, in fact, negatively affect the climate zone around them, here’s why.

Wind farms make it less windy and affect local temperatures ( Editor’s Note: Just another screwup by humans. What else is new? — DQ)

Daniel Engber — Popular Science — May 20, 2013

Wind turbines extract kinetic energy from the air around them, and since less energy makes for weaker winds, turbines do indeed make it less windy. Technically speaking, the climate zone right behind a turbine (or behind all the turbines on a wind farm) experiences what’s called a “wind speed vacuum,” or a “momentum deficit.” In other words, the air slows down.

The effect has implications for wind-farm efficiency. Upwind turbines in a densely packed farm may weaken the breeze before it reaches the downwind ones. It could even have a more general impact. If wind farms were constructed on a truly massive scale, their cumulative momentum deficit could conceivably alter wind speeds on a global scale (though how winds would change is complex—they’d likely slow in places and speed up in others). Continue reading, here…..

May 17

1 Comment

Wind Performing Badly

From Master Resource:

Lisa Linowes — May 16, 2013

“The claim that wind projects in the U.S. are achieving 30% average capacity factors nationally [are] … not meaningful when considering that state RPS mandates are based on local resources. For states like New York and Pennsylvania, where average capacity factors are in the low- to mid- 20% range, many more wind turbines and related infrastructure (transmission) will be needed to meet RPS mandates than originally forecasted, resulting in increased costs and impacts.

Couple this with the fact that wind production in most states is seasonal with summer months producing at half that of winter months and also concentrated during periods of low demand (night time) — much of the energy arrives as excess energy making it less useful.”

This week, the U.S. Department of Energy announced it was revisiting the conclusions of its 2008 report, 20% Wind Energy by 2030.

The study, produced in cooperation with the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and other stakeholders, explored a modeled energy scenario in which wind could supply 20% of the nation’s electricity by 2030. DOE made clear in the report that the 20% scenario was neither a prediction nor a goal, but, for wind proponents, the study served as the foundation for ongoing advocacy.

20% wind power by 2030 became a call to action and more. Absent a national renewables standard, AWEA heralded the 20% as a de facto mandate for wind.

The industry insists it’s on track to reach 20% wind (up from 4% today), but such claims are neither realistic nor wise. Despite explosive growth in new wind installations in the last five years alone, [1] challenges to further development have become more evident and will ultimately limit wind’s expansion.

An Unpopular Wind

Continue reading, here….

May 17

National Geographic: Wind Turbines drag down Power Potential

David LaGesse — National Geographic — May 16, 2013

As seemingly limitless as the air that swirls around us, wind has proven to be the world’s fastest-growing source of renewable energy. Backers suggest wind power can continue growing as quickly as companies can raise turbines to capture it.

But some scientists are challenging that assumption, arguing that the laws of physics will limit wind’s potential for meeting the world’s energy needs. The controversy arises from the turbines themselves. “As soon as you start to put turbines into the wind, you start to change the resource,” said Amanda Adams, a meteorologist who conducts atmospheric modeling at the University of North Carolina Charlotte. (See related quiz: “What You Don’t Know About Wind Energy.”)

In several recent published studies, Adams and other researchers have explored the issue of turbines stealing energy from the wind, creating drag or a “wind shadow” of air slowed by the spinning blades. Each turbine added to a particular landscape captures less energy. “You reach a point that if you add any more turbines, you get no more energy,” Adams said.

Developers of wind farms recognize the risk, so they carefully space turbines to prevent one from robbing wind speed from another. But today’s wind farms are small compared to the giant complexes needed to meet a significant slice of the world’s energy needs. (See related story: “Sizing Up Wind Energy: Bigger Means Greener, Study Says.”)

Adams and colleagues argue that when wind farms get big enough, they won’t be able to avoid the wind-shadow effect.

Wind has a future, and even the pessimists’ projections suggest that there is plenty of room to grow today’s generating capacity, said David Keith, a Harvard applied physicist who recently co-authored a paper with Adams. But he argues that if the effects are as severe as projected, wind can’t be counted on to provide a significant share of energy needs. The Adams-Keith paper, “Are global wind power resource estimates overstated?” was published earlier this year inEnvironmental Research Letters. Theirs is still a controversial view among scientists, and the American Wind Energy Association dismisses the doubts as the product of “crude theoretical modeling techniques.”

But better modeling may become necessary, because the wind energy industry faces a number of well-recognized and practical limitations on where it can site farms—due to the need to capture the best resources, to steer clear of community opposition, and even bird migration routes. Research into the wind-shadow effect may grow in importance as the world seeks to expand renewable power while limiting placement of large energy installations. (See related pictures: “Flying Wind Turbines Reach for High-Altitude Power.”) Continue reading, here….

May 15

Wind Energy Fatality Study Published

Reblogged from Turtle Talk:

K. Shawn Smallwood has published "Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects" in the Wildlife Society Bulletin. Here is the abstract:

Estimates of bird and bat fatalities are often made at wind-energy projects to assess impacts by comparing them with other fatality estimates. Many fatality estimates have been made across North America, but they have varied greatly in field and analytical methods, monitoring duration, and in the size and height of the wind turbines monitored for fatalities, and few benefited from scientific peer review.

UK — Walkers had a narrow escape as blades on a wind turbine ripped off in high winds

Windturbine blades 17 metres long ripped off in high winds

Halifax Courier / UK — May 9, 2013

Walkers had a narrow escape as blades on a wind turbine ripped off in high winds across common moor land.

The 17m turbine blades split and scattered across Ovenden Moor Wind Farm, Cold Edge Road, Wainstalls, Halifax.

Walkers and local residents were stunned at what could have been a nasty accident and fear for further blade breakages.

Energy provider E-on has a total of 23 wind turbines which tower at 32 metres tall on Ovenden Moor Wind Farm.

After the accident, a workman erected a safety fence around the turbine and a sign saying “danger, falling objects” was attached to the moor entrance gate.

Sue Midgley, 37, of Spring Mill Fold, Wainstalls, was out walking with Ann. “I couldn’t believe what we saw, it was frightening having to continue walking across the land.”

Ann said: “At any minute more of the blades could shatter and who knows how long it will be until other turbine blades break – with disastrous consequences.

“It’s public land. More must be done to protect the people.” Continue reading, here….

May 13

Seven Big Reasons Why Wind Turbines Blow

Steffanie Petroni — Local2 Sault Ste. Marie — May 13, 2013

“When you look at the ongoing statements that are made by the Canadian Wind Energy Association and by developers- such as the developers of the Goulais Wind Project, they make comments to the effect that wind power will provide energy for 60,000 homes. What they don’t say is ‘only when the wind blows’. It’s not exactly truth in advertising.”

Like the majority of the Canadian population, George Browne honestly admits that when the Liberal government pushed through their plan to develop a wind farm in Prince Township, like the common ratepayer, he was pleased.

George and his wife, Catherine Bayne, live just south of Montreal River on Mica Bay and they’re off the grid. “I’m not against renewable energy. I’ve got solar panels and a little wind turbine which doesn’t work very well.”

Two years ago a notice went up in his village on the post office bulletin board informing the area residents that there was going to be a wind project near Montreal River on Bow Lake. Bow Lake is a beautiful and virtually untouched area.

George was alarmed and began to research in depth the scientifically proven impact of wind turbines. He correlated seven facts, which are supported by scientific and peer reviewed research, that expose the harmful impact of wind turbines and the persistent erroneous statements made by government and developers that perpetuates the misconceptions about the real costs of renewable energy upon the ratepayer. 1. Wind does not provide reliable, predictable on demand electricity.

Because the wind blows when it wants to there needs to be a back-up to supplement energy demands when the wind isn’t blowing. The only type of generation that can respond quickly enough, to avoid brown outs, is natural gas. The more wind energy assigned to the grid means more use of natural gas to produce electrical generation to compensate for the variability in electricity from wind plants. For sellers of natural gas this is a jackpot.

The Prince Wind Farm has 128 wind turbines. Between 2007 and 2012 the wind farm produced 27.5% of its rated capacity, 47% of the time it produced less than 15% of its rated capacity and for 10% of the year the wind farms produced nothing. This means that wind farms are consuming power from the grid in order to operate turbine heaters, fans, computers and hydraulic motors. Further, data indicates that when the wind does blow it is when demand is low and when the wind doesn’t blow, the demand for electricity is high.

The two tables below demonstrate the disparity between demand and wind production. Continue reading, here…..

May 12

article-2070450-0F10B93500000578-168_634x565

Desecration: How our magnificent historical homes are threatened by the mad march of the turbines

Reblogged from SHAMWAG:

A few weeks ago, a government planning inspector and a team of well-paid big energy company lawyers in dark suits showed up for a ‘site visit’ at the Manor House, Ashby St Ledgers, in Northamptonshire. Their visit was part of a public inquiry which was assessing the merits of building a wind farm nearby.

The famous manor is owned by Viscount Wimborne, a relation of Winston Churchill and the Duke of Marlborough.

Green Energy Triumph — $11 Million Spent per Job Created

John Hayward — Human Events — May 10, 2013

“Without much fanfare, the Department of Energy (DOE) recently updated the list of loan guarantee projects on its website,” the Institute for Energy Research noticed on Wednesday. ”Unlike in 2008, when Barack Obama pledged to create 5 million jobs over 10 years by directing taxpayer funds toward renewable energy projects, there were no press conferences or stump speeches.”

Uh-oh. Why weren’t there any celebrations? President Obama loves a good celebration. Why, we just found out about the super-secret star-studded bash he held after his inauguration.

Maybe it’s because the IER divided the $26 billion spent on “green jobs” by the Energy Department since 2009, divided it by the 2,298 permanent jobs created, and came up with a cost of $11.45 million per job.

Ah, the miracle of Obamanomics! At those prices, we could easily restore the 5 million jobs blown out of the economy since 2009 by spending a mere $57 trillion.

The IER provides a list of projects, loan amounts, and jobs created. Your calculator will melt if you try to compute the per-job cost of famed boondoggles like Solyndra or Abound Soler, where the DOE handed out $535 million and $400 million respectively to create zero permanent jobs, because it turned out the companies were temporary. But don’t overlook still-functional triumphs like Granite Reliable, a wind-power company that took $168.9 million in Energy Department loan money to create 6 permanent jobs.

“As the astronomical cost of the DOE’s loan guarantee program indicates, subsidizing renewable energy is not a good deal for taxpayers,” the IER observes dryly. And that’s not the only raw deal we’re getting: Continue reading, here….

May 10

The Faults, Fallacies and Failures of Wind Power — Great article!!

Tip of the Hat to No More Wind Turbines

Viv Forbes — American Thinker — May 10, 2013

Wind power is not free. All natural energy resources such as coal, wind and sun appear “free” – no one has to incur costs to create them. But turning a “free” resource into usable electricity costs money for collecting, generating and distributing that energy. To consumers and tax payers, the real cost of wind power is very high, no matter how well it is hidden by politicians.

Wind power is not reliable. No one can make the wind blow when the energy is needed – in fact, wind farms produce, on average, less than 30% of their nameplate capacity, often at times of lower demand.

Wind power harms the environment. Because of the large area of land needed to collect low-density wind energy, wind power requires more land-clearing, needs more transmission lines, kills more wildlife, lights more bushfires and uglifies more landscape per unit of electricity than conventional power. And the subsonic whine of the turbines drives neighbours batty and devalues local properties.

Like hydro-power, wind power is limited, with few suitable sites. And every wind turbine slows the wind, thus reducing the wind energy available to any downwind turbines. It is “renewable’ but it is not unlimited.

Wind power is justified by claims that it reduces emissions and thus reduces global warming. However, when all the steel, concrete, construction, maintenance, replacement and rehabilitation are taken into account, wind power contributes nothing to reducing emissions or changing global climate. Continue reading, here….

May 6

1 Comment

Going green in the justice system — your smile to start the week

May 5

U.S. — New Eagle-Kill Regulations for Wind Farms May Have Mixed Consequences

How Will Developers Respond?

Patrick Donnelly-Shores — Green Tech Media — May 3, 2013

The federal government is overhauling its policy for permitting incidental deaths of eagles at wind farms. Developers, who in the past have faced steep fines should eagles collide with wind turbines, can now apply for permits that require compensatory mitigation in lieu of paying fines. But what, if any, effect will this have on new development?

A deceased golden eagle that turned up under a wind turbine at the Spring Valley Wind Farm in northeastern Nevada made big news last month. The developer of the project,Pattern Energy, could face a fine of up to $200,000 because it did not obtain a “take” permit. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages golden eagles under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and issues permits for non-purposeful take, or mortality of individuals incidental to industrial or other operations.

Wind developers, whose projects have projected life spans of many decades, have long been reticent to get eagle take permits, because FWS issues them only in five-year increments. In fact, it was only early last year that FWS received its first application for a programmatic take permit from a wind developer, despite the regulations having been in place for decades.

As a result, FWS is overhauling its eagle take permitting policy. It just released its Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance that lays out a new, 30-year take permit, and outlines compensatory mitigation measures that developers can take in lieu of paying fines. These mitigation measures range from retrofitting power lines in order to reduce eagle electrocution to outright turning off the turbines during migration periods. While that may sound onerous given the relatively low levels of eagle mortality, it’s unlikely such measures would be called for, except at sites with very high levels of eagle deaths.

Which brings up the tricky point of new development. The new FWS regulations require consultation during the project design phase for new developments in order to issue a permit. Some guidelines include setting “turbines back from ridge edges” and avoiding “the use of structures that are attractive to eagles for perching.”

These seem ludicrous, as wind development is frequently concentrated along ridgelines (the farms of Tehachapi Pass, California being the best example), and farms typically are chock-full of structures that eagles might fancy perching on, such as transmission towers and idle wind turbines. It’s highly unlikely that wind developers would simply move off of the ridges, where the wind is highest, to obtain a take permit. But it is those windy places where a soaring eagle is most likely to be. Continue reading, here….

May 5

5 Comments

A view on wind energy

Gerry Simpson — The Chronicle Journal — May 2, 2013

A number of years back, before wind farms were of interest or concern to me, I saw on television a true story about wind turbines.
In a small mid-western American farming community, an elderly couple operated a small farm. The woman admitted to having been pro-green energy.
When first approached by wind farm representatives, she welcomed them with open arms. When they discussed placing the turbines on her property, promoting the benefits to her and her husband, to the surrounding community and to the environment, she gave her blessing.
At this point in the documentary she broke down in tears confessing that it became the sorriest day of her life and the biggest mistake that she had ever made.
The couple took the camera crew for a tour.
It showed a school abandoned because students lost their ability to study and to concentrate due to the “thumping sounds” of the turbines. Students’ marks had been in a steady decline since the arrival of the turbines.
Next came a tour of adjacent farms abandoned with For Sale signs posted, all attributable to the presence of the turbines, their constant thumping distraction and shadow flicker interference.
The woman admitted that the only reason they continued to reside on their farm was because they couldn’t afford to leave.
Outside it was a bright, sunny day, but inside, the entire house was shrouded in an attempt to keep out the incessant turbine blade shadows that had become an everyday part of their life. In spite of having all of the window shades pulled shut, a constant shadow flicker permeated the room.
Out in the barn, windows had been boarded up in an attempt to stifle the turbine blade sounds and shadow flickers. The few cows they still had no longer produced the milk they once did. The chickens no longer laid the amounts of eggs they once did. As a result, their farming income had taken a turn for the worse.
The woman’s husband emphasized, “It is not like having a piece of machinery, an appliance with an on-off switch, something that if you tire of seeing or listening to you can turn it off and put it away. It is with you 24/7, until the day you die.”

May 3

Ontario — Lawyer urging caution with wind leases

Paul Morden — Sarnia Observer — May 2, 2013

Petrolia lawyer Wallace Lang questioned the amount of money wind energy companies are offering farmers who lease them land to build turbines on.

Lang told more than 200 people gathered Thursday evening at Lambton Centennial School near Petrolia that the wind leases he has read typically offer landowners $15,000 a year, per turbine.

He was invited to speak by Conservation of Rural Enniskillen (CORE), a citizens group that formed earlier this year to oppose plans by several companies to build wind farms in Enniskillen Township.

“You really have to wonder if it’s a good bargain or not,” Lang said about the amount of money wind companies are offering landowners.

“It seems to be kind of chump change, really.”

The agreements can run for decades and may include inflation clauses but the lease payments are taxable, he said.

Lang told the crowd he believes more realistic compensation for landowners would be in the range of $50,000 to $100,000 a year for each turbine.

He urged landowners to be cautious, saying wind companies are sophisticated organizations that know how to market the documents they use to sign up landowners.

While they’re called option agreements, “it’s a final document,” Lang said.

“Make sure you want to do it, before you sign it.”

Farmers who do sign a lease give up a great deal of control over their property for a potentially long period of time, he said.

With renewals, the agreements he has read can run up to 57 years, Lang said. Continue reading, here….

May 1

Ontario’s Energy Transition

World Nuclear News — April 29, 2013

Air quality in Canada’s Ontario province has improved dramatically in recent years, simultaneously with the ramping up of nuclear power and the phase-out of coal.

Ontario is home to a large portion of Canadian industry, the cities of Ottawa and Toronto and some 40% of the country’s population of 33.4 million. Data from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment shows a dramatic reduction in the air pollution that in 2005 was affecting these people for at least ten days during the year. The worst-affected places in 2005 had been 14 of 37 Ontario locations with more than 40 smog-warning days. Every location had at least ten smog days.

In 2011, by contrast, the worst-affected place had only eight smog-warning days, while 18 of the 37 locations had no smog warnings at all. Overall, days on which the people were warned about unhealthy levels of smog at one location or another have dropped from 53 in 2005 to just nine in 2011.

Energy transitions

Ontario’s approach is in stark contrast to that taken in Germany, which has a commitment to end the use of nuclear power and rely instead on renewable sources. This has seen significant coal capacity being constructed as a ‘bridge technology’ to a hoped-for renewable future. Japan too is struggling to replace the nuclear power kept offline since the 2011 accident at Fukushima Daiichi. Imports of LNG have leapt and officials recently began fast-tracking planning permission for coal plants. Meanwhile, a report by the International Energy Agency noted unhappily that the UK was the only country that has committed to not build any more unabated coal.

While Ontario has encouraged and facilitated investment in renewables and gas as well as efficiency in power generation and industry, two power sources have played leading roles in the province’s transition: coal, because it has been gradually reduced and is set for phase-out; and nuclear, because it has increased to replace that supply.

Ontario has progressed steadily since a policy was announced in 2003 and is set to close its last operating coal-fired power plant next year. The 1140 MWe Lakeview coal plant was closed in 2005, leaving in operation Lambton with 1976 MWe, Nanticoke with 3964 MWe and small units amounting to 517 MWe. Those small units might be converted to burn gas and biofuels while Nanticoke and Lambton are being progressively closed, with final exit from coal planned for 2014. Continue reading, here….

Apr 30

An Alternative to our Reckless Energy Gamble

Patrick Heren and John Constable — StandPoint — April 30, 2013

There is an unexpected parallel between our energy policy and the self-deception and wishful thinking exhibited by the mishandling of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Blair government ignored warnings about the reliability of sources, some of whom were fantasists, and “sexed up” whatever evidence it thought it did have. In an alarmingly similar fashion, successive British governments since the White Paper of the same year have been basing energy and climate change policy on questionable evidence, much from visionary green NGOs, dubious assumptions about future oil and gas prices and flawed reasoning about the beneficial effects of current renewable generation technologies.

The thrust of this policy — unfortunately supported by all three main parties — is to offer heavy subsidies, mostly for wind power, by means of levies on energy bills: a regressive wealth transfer from consumers to investors in renewables and to large utilities. The scale of these burdens, already significant at about £2.2 billion a year, is set to grow dramatically as we struggle to reach the 2020 targets set by the European Union’s Renewables Directive.

This makes UK energy policy the world’s biggest position in gas, since it is a bet that prices of fossil fuels will very quickly rise to high levels and stay there for the foreseeable future. If that fails to occur then renewables policies are going to look extremely foolish. Moreover, if government really believes in its own wager on renewables versus gas, why it is necessary to offer very generous 20-year subsidy contracts to developers of technologies that will be competitive within a decade?

In order to meet those EU 2020 targets for renewable energy Britain must derive at least 30 per cent of electricity consumed from renewable sources, in addition to 12 per cent of heat and 10 per cent of transport fuels. The cost of the heat subsidies is to be met from general tax revenue (about £450 million a year in 2020), while renewable transport fuels will cost motorists upwards of £1 billion a year in 2020, on top of the £33 billion of tax already levied on petrol and diesel — with economic consequences that are too little considered.

These are hardly negligible figures, but the main concern relates to renewable electricity, which has to provide about half the target quantity. We can estimate the costs from the current subsidy mechanism, the Renewables Obligation (RO), which is scheduled to run until 2017; generators registered before that date will continue to qualify for subsidies. The government hopes that the replacement mechanism, the awkwardly named Feed-in Tariffs with Contracts for Difference (FiTs-CfDs), will offer some savings; but there is every reason to doubt this because the underlying costs of the technologies have not changed much. Continue reading, here….