[Note this post is the most popular article ever published on Master Resource. It has been now been significantly updated. Go here to see the current version.]
Trying to pin down the arguments of wind promoters is a bit like trying to grab a greased balloon. Just when you think you’ve got a handle on it, it morphs into a different story and escapes your grasp. Let’s take a quick highlight review of how things have evolved with merchandising industrial wind energy.
1 – Wind energy was abandoned for most commercial and industrial applications, well over a hundred years ago. Even in the late 1800s it was totally inconsistent with our burgeoning, more modern needs for power. When we throw the switch, we expect that the lights will go on – 100% of the time. It’s not possible for wind energy, by itself, to EVER do this, which is one of the main reasons it was relegated to the archival collection of antiquated technologies (along with such other inadequate energy sources as horse and oxen power).
2 – Fast forward to several years ago. With politicians being convinced that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) was an imminent catastrophic threat, lobbyists launched campaigns to favor anything that would purportedly reduce carbon dioxide. This was the marketing opportunity that the wind energy business needed. Wind energy was resurrected from the dust bin of power sources, as its promoters pushed the fact that wind turbines did not produce CO2 while generating electricity.
3 – Of course, that just by itself would not have been a significant incentive, so the original wind development lobbyists then made the case for a quantum leap: that by adding wind turbines to the grid we could significantly reduce CO2 from those “dirty” fossil fuel electrical sources (especially coal). This argument became the basis for many states implementing a Renewable Energy Standard (RES) or Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Those undemocratic standards mandated that the state’s utilities use (or purchase) a prescribed amount of wind energy (“renewables”), by a set date.
Why was a mandate necessary? Simply because the real world reality of integrating wind energy made it a very expensive option. As such, no utility companies would normally do this on their own. They had to be forced to. For more on the cost, please keep reading.
4 – Interestingly, although the stated main goal of these RES/RPS programs was to reduce CO2, not a single state’s RES/RPS requires verification of CO2 reduction from any wind project, either beforehand or after the fact. The politicians simply took the sales peoples’ word that consequential CO2 savings would be realized!
5 – It wasn’t too long before utility companies and independent energy experts calculated that the actual CO2 savings were miniscule (if any). This was due to the inherent nature of wind energy, and the realities of necessarily continuously balancing the grid, on a second-by-second basis, with fossil-fuel-generated electricity (typically gas). The frequently cited Bentek study (How Less Became More) is a sample independent assessment of this aspect. More importantly, there has been zero scientific empirical proof provided by the wind industry to support their claims of consequential CO2 reduction.
Studies cited by the wind industry (about wind energy’s CO2 savings) are almost always computer models. As a person who has written some 100,000 lines of code, I can assure you that it’s easy to make a model that “proves” that pigs can fly. Models may be appropriate where there is no actual data. Since there are a few hundred thousand turbines in operation worldwide, there is empirical data. If CO2 is genuinely being saved, the wind industry should be able to show real data.
6 – Apparently suspecting that the CO2 deception would soon be exposed, the wind lobbyists took pre-emptive action, and added another rationale to prop up their case: energy diversity. However, since our electricity system already had considerable diversity (and many asked “more diversity at what cost?”) this hype never gained much traction. Back to the drawing board….
7 – The next justification put forward by the wind marketers was energy independence. This cleverly played on the concern most people have about oil and Middle East instability. Many ads were run promoting wind energy as a good way to reduce our “dependence on Middle Eastern oil.”
None of these ads mentioned that only about 1% of our electricity is generated from oil. Or that the US exports more oil than we use for electricity. Or that our main import source for oil is Canada (not the Middle East). Despite the significant omissions and misrepresentations, this claim still resonates with many people, so it continues to be pushed. Whatever works.
8 – Knowing full well that the assertions used to date were specious, wind proponents manufactured still another claim: green jobs. This was carefully selected to coincide with widespread employment concerns. Unfortunately, when independent qualified parties examined the situation more closely, they found that the claims were wildly exaggerated. Big surprise!
Further, as attorney and energy expert Chris Horner has so eloquently stated:
“There is nothing – no program, no hobby, no vice, no crime – that does not ‘create jobs.’ Tsunamis, computer viruses and shooting convenience store clerks all ‘create jobs.’ So that claim misses the point. Since it applies to all, it is an argument in favor of none. Instead of making a case on the merits, it is an admission that one has no such arguments.”
See a very detailed critique of the jobs situation at PTCFacts.Info. Listed there are TEN major reasons why using jobs as an argument is not appropriate or meaningful. Additionally there is a list of some 45 reports written by independent experts, and they all agree that renewable energy claims are based on numerous fallacies.
Lastly, it is the number of jobs per MWH produced that should be examined. This study concluded that it took 7± wind energy jobs to produce the same amount of MWH as one fossil fuel worker could. Why is that a good thing?
9 – Relentlessly moving forward, wind marketers then tried to change the focus from jobs to “economic development.” The marketers typically utilized a computer program called JEDI to make bold economic projections. Unfortunately, JEDI is a totally inadequate model for accurately arriving at such numbers, for a variety of technical reasons. The economic development contentions have also been shown to be inaccurate, as they never take into account economic losses that result from wind energy implementation – for example agricultural losses due to bat killings, and job losses due to higher electricity costs for factories, hospitals and numerous other employers.
Additionally, as with jobs, economic development in-and-of-itself has nothing to do with the merits of wind energy as a power source. Let’s say we make up a transportation RES mandating that 20% of a state’s vehicles be replaced by horse power by 2020. There would be a LOT of “economic development” (making horse carriages and buggy whips, building horse barns, growing and shipping hay) that would result from such an edict. But would that be any indication that it is an intelligent, beneficial policy?
10 – Along the way, yet another claim began making the rounds: that wind energy is low cost. This is surprisingly bold, considering that if that were really true, RES/RPS mandates would not be necessary. For some reason, all calculations showing wind to be “low cost” conveniently ignore exorbitant subsidies, augmentation costs, power adjusting (see next item), additional transmission costs, and so on. Independent analyses of actual costs (e.g. here) have concluded that (when ALL applicable wind-related costs are accurately calculated) wind energy is MUCH more expensive than any conventional source we have.
11 – A subtle (but significant) difference between wind energy and other conventional sources of electricity is in power quality. This term refers to such technical performance factors as voltage transients, voltage variations, waveform distortion (e.g. harmonics), frequency variations, and so forth. The reality is that wind energy introduces many more of these issues than does a conventional power facility. Additional costs are needed to deal with these wind-caused problems. These are rarely identified in pro-wind economic analyses.
12 – When confronted with the reality that wind energy is considerably more expensive than any conventional source, a common rejoinder is to object to that by saying that once the “externalities” of conventional sources are taken into account, wind is less expensive than those conventional sources.
To gullible sheeple, this might make sense. But consider the following two points.
First, externality analyses posited by wind zealots never take into account the true environmental consequences of wind energy (rare earth impacts [see below], human health effects, bird and bat deaths, the CO2 generated from a two million pound concrete base, etc.).
Second, the “externalities” for things like fossil fuels are always only the negative part. If these advocates want a true big picture calculation, then they need to also add in the benefits to us from low-cost fossil fuels based electricity. Considering that fossil fuels played a major part in our economic success and improved health and living standards over the past century, such a plus factor would be enormous.
[BTW there is some evidence that the negative externalities (e.g. about fossil fuel related asthma claims) are wildly exaggerated. What a surprise!]
13 – Although they would like to avoid it, wind developers almost always have to deal with local communities. Their universal pitch to these “host” communities is that the proposed wind project will be a financial windfall. Their plan is based on the fact that most citizens (and their representatives) are technically challenged, so they will not be aware of the realities of wind energy and their real costs. Since most of the rural communities they target are economically strapped, the developers count on the enticement of a million± dollars a year as enough to swing the deal.
However, if citizens (and their representatives) actually investigate this matter in some detail, they will find that numerous independent experts have concluded that there are multiple possible economic liabilities that are attached to these projects. To simplify this research, we have identified ten (10) different matters that could be a financial detriment. Interestingly, when the numbers from both side of the equation are added up (e.g. here) the NET result is almost always negative.
14 – A key grid ingredient for all of our electric energy sources is Firm Capacity. (A layman’s translation is that this is an indication of dependability: e.g. can we count on this being available next Monday at 3 PM?) Conventional sources (like nuclear) have a Firm Capacity of nearly 100%. Wind has a Firm Capacity of about 0%. Big difference!
15 – Since this enormous Firm Capacity discrepancy is indisputable, wind energy apologists then decided to adopt the strategy that wind energy isn’t a “capacity resource” after all, but rather an “energy resource.” Surprisingly, this may be the first contention that is actually true! But what does this really mean?
The reality is that saying “wind is an energy source” is a trivial statement, on a par with saying “wind turbines are white.” Lightning is also an energy source. So what? The fact is that your cat is an energy source too. In this Alice-in-Wonderland reality, connecting the cat to the grid (after heavily subsidizing it, of course), makes as much sense as does connecting puff power.
16 – Wind marketers then hit on a new tactic: that we should use wind because it is a plentiful resource. This is a strategy based on a part truth: that we should be utilizing energy sources that are abundant, reliable, and low-cost. However, there are two major deficiencies in this thinking.
First, abundant sources that are not reliable, and that are not low-cost (i.e. wind energy), are a net detriment to our economy. Second, if they are really saying that abundance should be our primary focus, then they should be promoting nuclear power and geothermal energy. Both of these sources have something like a million times the available energy that wind does. Additionally, both of those are orders of magnitude more reliable than wind is. Also, both are lower cost when comparing the actual levelized cost of wind energy (e.g. Wind+ Gas).
17 – One of the latest buzz-words is sustainability. One has to give these marketeers credit for being persistently imaginative. The truth about sustainability is:
18 – A related pitch is that our adoption of wind energy will help us break “our fossil fuel dependence.” Guess what? The reality is that wind actually guarantees our perpetual dependence on fossil fuels! In addition to wind turbines’ dependence on fossil fuels for manufacture, delivery and maintenance, the only way wind energy can quasi-function on the grid is to have it continuously augmented by a fast responding power source – which for a variety of technical and economic reasons is usually gas.
It’s rather amusing that the same environmental organizations that support wind energy are also against shale gas. That’s like saying that you love Italian food but hate tomato sauce. The two are paired together like Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers.
Realizing that their best defense is a good offense, some of these hucksters are now contending the inverse: that wind actually augments gas! So wind that unpredictably generates electricity 25±% of the time is “augmenting” gas, which is reliably suppling the 75±%! This immediately brings to mind the British army band playing “The World Turned Upside Down.”
19 – The claim that wind energy is “green” or “environmentally friendly” is laugh-out-loud hilarious – except for the fact that the reality is not funny at all. Consider just one part of a turbine, the generator, which uses considerable rare earth elements (2000± pounds per MW).
The mining and processing of these metals has horrific environmental consequences that are unacknowledged and ignored by the wind industry and its environmental surrogates. For instance, just the rare earths of a typical 100 MW wind project would generate approximately:
20 – Modern civilization is based on our ability to produce electrical POWER. Our modern sense of power is inextricably related to controlled performance expectations: when we turn the knob, we expect the stove to go on 100% of the time – not just on those wildly intermittent occasions when the wind is blowing within a certain speed range.
Underlying a lot of the wind lobbyists’ claims is a carefully crafted, implied message that there is some kind of wind energy “equivalency” to conventional sources. This assumption is the basis for such assertions that XYZ wind project will power 1,000 homes. Such claims are totally false. They are dishonest from several perspectives: the most obvious error being that XYZ wind project will NEVER provide power to any 1000 homes 24/7. It might not provide power for even one home 24/7/365!
Yet we see this same “equivalency” message conveyed even more subtly on EIA tables for levelized costs. Wind and conventional sources should not be on the same table, but they have been (defended only by a small footnote). One useful analogy is to consider the cost, speed, reliability and load capacity of a single eighteen-wheeler truck in making daily interstate deliveries of furniture, heavy equipment or other large products. This semi-truck is equivalent to a nuclear plant.
In energy generation terms, the wind turbine equivalent is to attempt to replace the single truck with golf carts. How many golf carts would it take to equal the cost, speed, reliability and load capacity of a single eighteen-wheeler in making daily interstate deliveries? This is a trick question, as the answer is that there is no number that would work: not ten, not a hundred, not ten thousand, not a million. Exactly the same situation exists in the electricity sector: no number of turbines will ever equal the cost, reliability and output of one conventional electricity plant.
21 – A close cousin of the prior illegitimate contention is that “The wind is always blowing somewhere, so spreading wind projects out will result in a combination that has a dependable output.” Like essentially all the wind industry mis-infomercials do, this bald assertion has a soothing, reassuring ring. However this marketing claim is unsupported by any empirical, real-world evidence. For instance, in southeastern Australia about 20 wind projects are spread out over a single 1000± mile long grid. Yet the combined result in no way even approximates the consistent dependable performance of our primary conventional sources.
Again, our modern society is based on abundant, reliable, affordable electric power. All these specious claims for wind energy are simply part of a long line of snake oil sales spiels – intended to fool the public, and to enable politicians to justify favoring special interests by enriching various rent-seekers (which will then return the favor via campaign contributions and other reelection support).
————————————
They get away with this scam primarily for three basic reasons.
1 – Wind proponents are not asked to independently PROVE the merits of their claims before (or after) their product is forced on the public.
2 – There is no penalty for making bogus assertions or dishonest claims about their product’s “benefits,” so each successive contention is more grandiose than the last.
3 – Promoting wind is a political agenda that is divorced from real science. A true scientific assessment is a comprehensive, objective evaluation with transparent real world data – not on carefully massaged computer models and slick advertising campaigns, which are the mainstay of anti-science evangelists promoting political agendas.
So, in effect, we have come around full circle. A hundred-plus years ago, wind energy was recognized as an antiquated, unreliable and expensive source of energy – and now, after hundreds of billions of wasted tax and consumer dollars, we find that (surprise!) it still is an antiquated, unreliable and expensive source of energy. This is what happens when science is relegated to a back-of-the-bus status.
Paraphrasing Dr. Jon Boone:
Let’s see the real world evidence for the lobbyists’ wind energy case. I’m weary of these relentless projections, uncontaminated as they are by reality. In a nutshell, what these profiteers are seeking to do, through methodological legerdemain, is to make wind appear to be what it is not. This is a plot lifted out of Cinderella and her step-sisters, or the Emperor’s New Clothes. It’s really a story of class aspirations, but one that is bizarrely twisted: giving wind a makeover to make her seem fetching and comely when in fact she’s really a frog.
When you hear that wind opposition is all about NIMBYs, think about the above points, and then reflect on what NIMBY really means: The Next Idiot Might Be You.
But consider the sources. When a major turbine manufacturer calls a catastrophic failure like a blade falling off component liberation, we know we are in for an adventurous ride in a theme park divorced from reality.
See WiseEnergy.org and EnergyPresentation.Info for more detailed explanations, including charts, photographs, entertaining graphics, and numerous references.
———
John Droz, Jr., a physicist & environmental advocate, can be reached at “aaprjohn at northnet dot org”.
This is excellent well thought out article. But no amount of logic and scientific reason really matters when corruption rules this country.
Thank you, John Droz, for this thorough analysis of the fraudulent industrial scale wind industry.
To me, by far the most crucial issue is the harm that these turbines are causing to the health of people living nearby. This recently published article is so frightening.
https://stopthesethings.com/2018/03/22/german-researchers-target-effects-of-wind-turbine-infrasound-on-the-heart/
We must demand that all turbines be turned off now and we must force the wind industry to prove that they are safe.
This is the only way to address the ethical crisis we’re in.
“This is what happens when science is relegated to a back-of-the-bus status.” Got that right John!
There is nothing new with wind proponents use of the word “sustainable” however. That came along decades ago with the UN’s Agenda 21, and they have been pushing industrial wind as their supposedly ‘sustainable’ energy option ever since. I have heard the term used repeatedly over the years by NYSERDA officials, and all the corporate welfare leeches looking to suck our taxpayer and ratepayer money in the name of the massive CONSUMER FRAUD that is industrial wind –
documented it this on this blog a time or two as well:
New York’s “Sustainability” Planning (aka: Agenda 21): What About Wind Power’s Ecological Insults? – http://www.masterresource.org/2013/03/new-york-energy-plannin/
Tom DeWeese at the American Policy Center has done an excellent job over the years educating people about all things #Agenda 21 / #Agenda 2030 / #Sustainable. See:
https://americanpolicy.org/2018/02/20/sustainable-development-code-reorganizing-human-society/
[…] Full post […]
This article reminds me of “peak electric cars” 1899, the ICE auto replaced electric vehicles and has never looked back except for with folks who think wind turbines are a good deal.
Thanks. A well written article. I think a significant fraction of the population, and our politicians, is still not aware of how wind-power is incapable of matching our constant power needs, and how crucial our constant power needs are.
Electricity is the oxygen of modern economies and societies. It is very unpleasant to be deprived of oxygen for even short periods of time.
Very good article. Loved it, but I was missing the battery storage excuse.
Denmark uses expensive hydro-storage in Norway, where they pay to have it stored and pay to have it back. At times it is their own excess power they send to Norway and other times Denmark act as carrier in transport between Germany, Sweden and Norway.
Due to this expensive trade, we who live in the south of Sweden, have to pay almost the same high prices as the Danes, although Sweden produces low cost electricity from mostly Hydro and Nuclear.
John, well done, well thought, discouraging to read all the faux arguments presented by the windies.
[…] Trying to pin down the arguments of wind promoters is a bit like trying to grab a greased balloon. Just when you think you’ve got a handle on it, it morphs into a different story and escapes your grasp. Let’s take a quick highlight review of how things have evolved with merchandising industrial wind energy.,, Wind energy was abandoned for most commercial and industrial applications, well over a hundred years ago. Even in the late 1800s it was totally inconsistent with our burgeoning, more modern needs for power.,,, The claim that wind energy is “green” or “environmentally friendly” is laugh-out-loud hilarious – except for the fact that the reality is not funny at all.>click to read< 18:51 […]
Becalmed at sea in an ancient term.
Better yet “It is an Ancient Mariner, he stoppeth one in three” — and the rest of the parable, including the Death of the Albatross, a unique pelagic (offshore) bird.
Multi-billionaire Warren Buffett explained the rationale for solar and wind generation in 2014:
“For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
“Big Wind’s Bogus Subsidies – Giving tax credits to the wind energy industry is a waste of time and money.”
By Nancy Pfotenhauer, Contributor |May 12, 2014, at 2:30 p.m US News & World Report
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nancy-pfotenhauer/2014/05/12/even-warren-buffet-admits-wind-energy-is-a-bad-investment
In my 11 January 2018 technical article titled, “Diablo Canyon Retirement” I note that a single California nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) generated 180% of the power of ALL of California’s 6,000 MW of wind generators for the half-year ending on 31 January 2017. Those wind generators were constructed over decades at a cost of tens of billions of dollars. Their “ON” time was only about 1/5 of the time, in contrast to DCPP’s 1oo% ON time during the same half-year interval. California needs huge amounts of always-on power to pump and treat water – and for public safety needs as two examples. For more details, please see my article at https://tinyurl.com/Wind-And-Solar-Scam .
I have one laughable criticism of the article, in that the reference to “sins” of the rare earth mining industry includes the radioactivity of thorium as one of them.
Thorium is the least radioactive of all the useful massive elements.
I am aware that the industry is indeed plagued by the popular fear of radioactivity, and I have found that thorium mantles for kerosene vapour lamps are difficult to find on account of this fear.
Nevertheless I am quite certain that during the few months when I was eight years old and my family were living at the top of a hill with no electric light, it did me no harm at all to carry the pressurised Tilley lamp with its wonderful bright thorium oxide mantle and the glass protective cylinder around it. I could do this even in a breeze outside, which would have extinguished a candle or a wick oil lamp.
Thanks for publishing the update. Wind energy is still driving up electrical rates and destroying rural communities across the globe. Here is the link the General Electric’s letter about ice throw and “component liberation.
https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.do?method=showPoup&documentId={E89D4C3F-5CA7-4CAC-A214-3A40B0D77BC3}&documentTitle=201011-56549-03
Unfortunately, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission paid this no heed in 2010, and is still issuing site permits allowing 500 foot turbines 250 feet from the center tower to a pubic road. Just last month is resulted in a semi-truck on a state highway being struck by a significantly large chunk of ice throw from a wind turbine in the Bent Tree wind project near Albert Lea. Here is a Freeborn County Commissioner trying to explain why the state Public Utilities Commission shouldn’t continue to endanger human life at yet another wind project proposed in the same County – Invenergy/Xcel Freeborn Wind. https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.do?method=showPoup&documentId={E89D4C3F-5CA7-4CAC-A214-3A40B0D77BC3}&documentTitle=201011-56549-03
Since the year 2000, industrial wind turbines have overtaken all other causes for mass mortality events for bats in North America and Europe. Millions of bats are killed each year at a time when mosquito populations are skyrocketing. Approximately twice as many bats are killed as birds, since bats are killed even if they only come near the blades due to rapid pressure changes. In the US, a conservative estimate of bat mortality indicates that at least 4 million bats have been killed by wind turbines since 2012. Bats are one of nature’s primary natural defenses for keeping mosquito populations in check. One bat can catch up to 1,000 mosquitoes in just one hour, likely several thousand in a night when mosquitoes are abundant. Scientists estimate that 90% of the hoary bat population could be lost to turbines in the next 50 years.
Well said John. Should be mandatory reading for all university teaching staff & their students!
The bottom line is that these ghastly wind turbines consume more energy in their construction, maintenance, back-up requirements, and ultimate decommissioning than they can ever produce in their lifetimes. That’s why they always lose money, and will always continue to be economic parasites even if costs increase for other energy sources. As bad as that is, even worse is the enormous environmental destruction caused by the wind power industry, which would not be tolerated with any other energy sources.
Migratory birds and hawks are particularly at risk. They have no chance against the giant blades moving through the air at 180 MPH. Some are killed instantly while others die a slow death after falling to the ground. It is very, very sad.
John,
I was particularly interested in one part of your article that contends that with enough turbines spread ove large distances, then, as the wind MUST (really?) be blowing somewhere, then a coal-fired power station could be replaced by wind sources that are 100% reliable.
So, can I challenge you to do that calculation on a map of NSW that shows how many turbines are required and on which geographical locations to replace Liddell. Call this exercise ‘Operation Unicorn’. I could offer a small prize for any engineers willing to take on this challenge. The next step would be for some economists to price the result.
I appreciate your thoroughness in assessing the environmental impact of wind energy generation. However, as any economist would point out, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Every human endeavor comes with a price. The question is, what are the benefits vs. the costs.
For example, there are many critics of renewable energy that tout the greenness of nuclear power. After all, nuclear plants generate zero carbon emissions or air pollution, right? But it doesn’t pass the high bar that you set in your article:
“… the processes for mining and refining uranium ore and making reactor fuel all require large amounts of energy. Nuclear power plants also have large amounts of metal and concrete, which require large amounts of energy to manufacture. If fossil fuels are used for mining and refining uranium ore, or if fossil fuels are used when constructing the nuclear power plant, then the emissions from burning those fuels could be associated with the electricity that nuclear power plants generate.”
(Source: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=nuclear_environment)
Bottom line: unless we are willing to significantly scale back human activity, we will have to find a more sustainable course where we get the biggest bang for our use of natural resources. Nuclear doesn’t cut it, coal or natural gas don’t either … but renewables do: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/renewableenergy.
Great Article! Thanks for writing it. Can you emphasize and detail the number of bird and bats deaths related to wind energy.
This site has estimates of bird and bat deaths and related health issues:
http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/wind-farms-more-health-issues.html
Would Kodiak island wind power be an exception to your statement: “Since there are a few hundred thousand turbines in operation worldwide, there is empirical data. If CO2 is genuinely being saved, the wind industry should be able to show real data.”?
The link below seem to empirically show that 13 million gallons of diesel fuel (and accompanying CO2 emissions) have been saved since 2009 due to the wind turbines there.
http://www.kodiakelectric.com/generation.html
One other question if I may:
The study linked to in your point #5 points out that there is increased CO2 when modulating coal fired plants to account for gaps in wind generation, and that offsets any CO2 emissions saved with wind power. However, as you point out in your article, it is “typically gas” that is used to fill in gaps in wind generation, not coal. So wouldn’t there be a genuine CO2 savings when wind power is coupled with natural gas, which is most of the time?
[…] first, unless a student or other researcher enters very specific search terms. Even the major shortcomings of wind power are hard to find, if you don’t know precisely what you are looking […]
[…] first, unless a student or other researcher enters very specific search terms. Even the major shortcomings of wind power are hard to find, if you don’t know precisely what you are looking […]
[…] Read the full story here at Master Resouce […]
[…] first, unless a student or other researcher enters very specific search terms. Even the major shortcomings of wind power are hard to find, if you don’t know precisely what you are looking […]
[…] ein Student oder ein anderer Forscher gibt sehr spezifische Suchbegriffe ein. Selbst die großen Schwachpunkte von Windenergie [auf Deutsch beim EIKE hier] sind schwer zu finden, wenn man nicht ganz genau weiß, wonach man […]
[…] https://www.masterresource.org/droz-john-awed/21-bad-things-wind-power-3-reasons-why […]
[…] ein Student oder ein anderer Forscher gibt sehr spezifische Suchbegriffe ein. Selbst die großen Schwachpunkte von Windenergie [auf Deutsch beim EIKE hier] sind schwer zu finden, wenn man nicht ganz genau weiß, wonach man […]
There is a new nuclear power kid on the block.
MOLTEX is a reworking of the Weinberg Molten Salt Reactor experiment.
The fuel is not circulated, it is kept in narrow tubes throughout its life.
The whole core remains at atmospheric pressure .
There is no presence of water. The molten salt retains the volatile by-products.
Meltdown is avoided. Excess reactivity produces expansion and reduced neutron flux.
Will someone please produce some sceptical comments on this?
The author of this article appears not to have kept up with the latest research. His point #5 based on the 2010 Bentek study was rendered moot all the way back in 2012 by a Colorado School of Mines study that used Bentek data and Bentek personnel to dig deeper into the issue. The bottom line is: wind power reduces CO2 emissions (regardless of whether or not one thinks that is worthwhile). I would encourage Mr. Droz to correct his 2018 version of this article.
http://econbus-papers.mines.edu/working-papers/wp201203.pdf
[…] https://www.masterresource.org/droz-john-awed/21-bad-things-wind-power-3-reasons-why/ […]
[…] first, unless a student or other researcher enters very specific search terms. Even the major shortcomings of wind power are hard to find, if you don’t know precisely what you are looking […]
[…] and less reliable than energy from natural gas or coal. Here is how physicist John Droz, Jr., explains the problems with the claim that wind energy is […]
[…] https://www.masterresource.org/droz-john-awed/21-bad-things-wind-power-3-reasons-why/ […]
[…] updated version previous of these prior posts (the most read in the history of MasterResource). “Twenty-One Bad things About Wind Energy and Three Reasons Why,” which was an update of “Twenty Bad things About Wind Energy and Three Reasons Why,” which […]
[…] updated version previous of these prior posts (the most read in the history of MasterResource). “Twenty-One Bad things About Wind Energy and Three Reasons Why,” which was an update of “Twenty Bad things About Wind Energy and Three Reasons Why,” which […]
[…] and less reliable than energy from natural gas or coal. Here is how physicist John Droz, Jr., explains the problems with the claim that wind energy is […]
Only adding my two cents im curious to see if such a well regarded publication such as ‘masterresource’ might actually be interested in sharing a independent thought amongst its “audience.’
Observation #1: REPETITION DOES NOT STRENGTHEN YOUR CASE.. Your ‘21 points’ are just ‘6 core points I got confused about.’ (Btw – those 6 are long past de-bunked – first and foremost of them being cost. Yes wind is the cheapest mwhr available to any ratepayer).
Observation #2: Gicen such a thorough investigation, I am surprised to see zero evidence (or even suggestion) of a a host farmer being dis-pleaded with the extra cash generated by their windmills.
It is slightly unfair to say that wind driven technology was hopelessly inadequate at the end of its long heyday. Sail driven ships were in fact at a peak of development and performance that fanblade propellers driving electric generators cannot possibly match.
The fact that sail was superseded by coal and oil (and eventually in first class navies by nuclear power) quite obviously means that wind powered devices have NO Hope of making any significant reduction in the fossil fuel emissions problem. As for solar — well, really, I lived in Scot+land and Ireland for 25 years.
When I launch my VAWT Superturbine critics will cry more.
Now the government wants to bring back onshore wind farms and the propaganda re cheap electricity goes on. The cost of decommissioning wind farms is not calculated but hidden away. Please sign my petition if you can –
Dear Sylvia Priest,
We published the petition you created – “Reverse the decision to support new onshore wind farms”
Click this link to see your petition and start sharing it:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300276
Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament
Great article but there was no mention about how much each turbine costs: 3/4 million dollars
It was a good breakdown of the situation and realities. The Netherlands if I recall correctly, abandoned wind power in the 1700s because Watt’s steam machine produced power when it was told to.
In Europe wind power lobbyists and their useful idiots (voters of “green” parties) repeat the pathological lie where every (nominal) MW of wind power replaces X. For example 1600 x 1MW windmills in their mind, replace Finland’s new Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant. Unfortunately in the subarctic, it’s not unusual to have -20 degrees Celsius and totally calm winds for three weeks in a row. I calculated that if Finland’s 3 week energy consumption (5TWh) would be stored in Tesla batteries, it would require 500 billion pounds of batteries. Really “sane” visions aye? Another lie they repeat is that at the height of 200 meters, there is always wind. Everyone who has ever looked at factory furnaces in cold calm weather, has seen it with their own eyes, there is no wind because the smoke rises vertically.
Another thing many of you might have noticed, is that fossil fuel companies promote wind power, some of them like ST1 eagerly. The same companies oppose nuclear power. Gee, wonder why?
Wind power is the biggest Ponzi scheme ever done but it’s also more criminal then other Ponzi schemes because at least the others have been voluntary. Wind power runs with money stolen from the taxpayers via politicians.
I very much agree! Thank you for the great information! I hate wind power anyways!! Now I have plenty of information!
Hi ,The New England Management is having a meeting this afternoon in Gloucester ,I intend to be their read your report twenty-one bad things. What should I say at the meeting?