Droz Jr. : " Wind Power: How We Got Here"---an analysis

Wind Power: How We Got Here

I saw an article in Mother Earth News that was shamelessly supporting wind power (a topic
I know something about), so I contacted the writer. My question to him was: what scientific
information do you have that proves that wind power does what it is supposed to do?
After several amusingly evasive correspondences, he finally conceded that he had none. In a
desperate attempt to defend this untenable position he then said that no proof was needed!
In exploring this unexpected line of thought with this reportedly knowledgeable individual,
it became quite clear to me that he did not have a big-picture concept of what is going on
here. But since this deficiency is clearly shared by many other people, let’s do a quick
review as to how we have arrived at our current electrical energy predicament...
The first practical use of electricity, in the late 1800s, is generally attributed to Thomas
Edison (a founder of General Electric). Of course there were actually dozens of people who
contributed to making commercial electricity a reality. And there were a LOT of formidable
hurdles to overcome.
One of the initial primary issues was where was this electricity going to come from? For the
first hundred years or so, there were six over-riding concerns about commercial electricity
generators:
1 - could they provide large amounts of electricity?
2 - could they provide reliable and predictable electricity?
3 - could they provide dispatchable1 electricity?
4 - could they service one or more grid demand elements2?
5 - could their facility be compact3?
6 - could they provide economical electricity?
1 Dispatchable means a source can generate higher or lower amounts of power on-demand,
or (in other words) on a human-defined schedule.
2 Grid Demand Elements = Base Load (the minimum amount of steady rate electric power
required 24/7) + Load Following (regulation of power output in response to moment-tomoment
changes in system demand, so as to maintain the system within predetermined
limits) + Peak Load (the maximum load during a specified period of time).
3 Compact is the ability to site an electrical facility on a relatively small and well-defined
footprint, preferably near high demand, e.g. cities. This would save on transmission lines
which are extremely expensive, unsightly, and can result in measurable power loss.
The implementation of these has resulted in the most successful grid system on the planet.
I would like to avoid getting too technical here, but the primary goal of all of these efforts
was to achieve capacity. To ensure reliability at the lowest cost, grid operators consider
capacity in several ways as they evaluate electricity sources — but the most important is
Capacity Value. The layperson’s definition of this is: ”the percentage of a machine’s rated
capacity that grid operators can be confidant will be in available during upcoming times of
greatest demand.” Knowing this accurately is the key to reliable system grid performance.
Anyway, back to our history. Many options were proposed to satisfy the above six criteria.
To maximize public benefit, each was individually and scientifically vetted to ascertain
whether or not the suggested source would comply with all of the needed conditions.
Over time, what resulted from these assessments was that we selected the following sources
to provide commercial electricity for us: hydroelectric, coal, nuclear, natural gas, and oil.
(Oil is by far the smallest source, as only about 1% of U.S. electricity comes from that.)
Note that each of these current sources meet ALL of the above six essential criteria — and if
they don’t (like oil now being more expensive) then they get replaced, by conventional
sources that do meet all criteria.
As a result, today, and a hundred years from now, these sources can provide ALL of the
electrical needs of our society — and continue to meet all six criteria.
It’s important to also note that ALL of the primary conventional sources use home-grown
energy. Regarding our electrical energy sources, we have always been energy independent!
So what’s the problem?
Ahhh, the problem is that a new element has been recently added to the list of
requirements: environmental impact — and the current number one environmental impact
consideration is greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. CO2).
So why has this joined the Big Six? It is a direct result of the current debate on Global
Warming. Note the word debate. This is not yet a scientifically resolved matter (though
some would like to have you think so). In response to intense political pressure, our
government has acquiesced to these forces to make emissions an additional criterion.
Having the government step in and mandate that utility companies change the principles
that have been the foundation of our electrical supply system for a hundred years is a bit
disconcerting... Transforming such a successful system based on a position that is not yet
scientifically resolved is seriously disturbing. That’s concern #2.
And there’s more — much more. Concern #3 is that this new standard for electrical supply
sources now has taken priority over ALL THE OTHER SIX! Concern #4 is that this newboy-
on-the-block has in reality become the ONLY benchmark of importance — the other six
have essentially been put aside, and are now given only lip service!
In this unraveling of sensibility there is one final incredible insult to science (concern #5):
alternative sources of commercial electricity that claim to meet this new super-criteria (to
make a consequential impact on CO2) don’t even have to prove that they actually do it!
I know that this is a lot to absorb here! Maybe you want to take a moment to let the
profound impact of these latest developments sink in...
Just in case you think I am not being accurate here, we’ll look at the environmental poster
child: wind power. Let’s examine each of the six normal criteria, then the new one...
1 - Does industrial wind power provide large amounts of electricity?
Yes, it could. However, its effectiveness from most perspectives is inferior. For instance
(because of the wide and unpredictable fluctuations of wind), it only produces, on
average, about 30% of it’s nameplate power. Another example of its dilutedness is that
it takes over one thousand times the amount of land for wind power to produce a roughly
equivalent amount of energy as does a nuclear facility.
2 - Does industrial wind power provide reliable and predictable electricity?
NO. Despite the wind industry’s absolute best efforts it is not reliable or predictable
compared to the standards set by our other conventional electrical sources. What’s worse is
that when power is really needed (e.g. hot Summer afternoons) wind is usually on
vacation. Compare it’s performance to a car (windmobile) run by wind power.
3 - Does industrial wind power provide dispatchable electricity?
NO. Again, due to its unpredictability, wind can not be counted on to provide power ondemand,
i.e. on a human-defined schedule.
4 - Does industrial wind power provide one or more of the grid demand elements?
NO. It certainly can not provide Base Load power, which is what is needed to supply an
underlying 24/7 demand. It can not provide Load Following, which is in response to
moment-to-moment changes in system demand. It can not reliably provide Peak Load,
which is needed maximums during specified periods of time (like hot Summer
afternoons when lots of air conditioners are on, and the wind is usually still).
Essentially wind power is just thrown into the mix and gets used who knows wherever.
5 - Is industrial wind power compact?
NO. As mentioned above, to even approximate the nameplate power of a conventional
facility, like nuclear, takes something like a thousand times the amount of area. Wind
promoters are desperately trying to convince gullible politicians that it can have some
real capacity value. Their tinkertoy “solution” is to try to connect multiple wind farms
spread over vast areas (often several states). In addition to being speculative, all of this,
of course, completely undermines the objective to be a concentrated power source.
And another “feature” of wind power is that most of the windiest sites (and available
land) are a LONG way from where the electricity is needed. This will result in thousands
of miles of huge unsightly transmission towers and cables, at an enormous expense to
ratepayers — most of it completely unnecessary. Kite flying will be a thing of the past.
6 - Does industrial wind power provide economical electricity?
NO. It is artificially subsidized WAY more than any conventional power source. A 2008
report by the US Energy Information Administration concluded that wind energy is
subsidized to the tune of $23 per megawatt-hour. By contrast, normal coal receives 44¢
per megawatt-hour, natural gas 25¢, hydroelectric 67¢, and nuclear power $1.59.
[Since these other sources meet all six criteria, there is some basis for subsidizing them!]
And now let’s add the latest rule dejour:
7 - Does industrial wind power make a consequential reduction of CO2?
NO! No independent scientific study has ever shown that wind power saves a
meaningful amount of CO2. In fact, the most independent scientific study done (by the
National Academies of Sciences) says the opposite. Their 2007 report concludes that
(assuming the most optimistic conditions) the U.S. CO2 savings by 2020 will amount to
only 1.8%. This is a trivial quantity, and amounts to about 1/80,000 of the world’s CO2.
What about the critical factor of Capacity Value? The result of the above deficiencies is that
wind power has a Capacity Value of about zero. Compare this to the conventional sources,
where essentially all of them have a Capacity Value near 100%. A stunning disparity.
Huh? How can this possibly be? How could the U.S. be on the path to spend over a
TRILLION dollars on an electrical source that fails five out of six of our historically
important criteria, AND has no scientific proof that it even meets this new emissions criterion?
It’s all about the money. Lobbyists for businesses, and parties who want a piece of this
TRILLION dollars (e.g. T. B. Pickens), are leaving no stone unturned. Environmentalists
who have taken their eye off the ball are promoting this palliative non-solution. Politicians
eager to be seen as “green” (a current fad) are saying yes to everything the color of money.
Wind power proponents typically try to rationalize away its serious shortcomings saying
that things will “get worked out” mañana. What essentially is happening though, is that
our politicians are trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. Zero wind power is
appropriate until after these significant problems are resolved — as some may never be.
Another consideration is that after understanding wind power’s inherent electrical generation
defects, it might put some other issues into perspective. For instance, it is entirely
legitimate to be concerned about bird and bat mortality, noise intrusions, flicker effect,
property devaluation, etc. But what if they were “fixed” — would wind power then be OK?
Let’s say that (to help with some of these issues) a conscientious town’s ordinance required
a one mile separation of wind turbines from all houses. Is wind power then an “acceptable”
source for providing us commercial electricity? The fact is that this excellent regulation
would in no way address the fundamental electrical grid limitations of wind power
identified above. Wind power will not be acceptable until all seven criteria are met.
Does wind power’s abysmal failure mean that all “renewables” are a similar scam? NO.
Each proposed new power source needs to be objectively evaluated, independently. From
what I have seen (e.g. MIT’s 2007 report) industrial Geothermal holds significant promise.
In any case, this profound turn of events in how we select our sources of electrical power
(by abandoning our successful and time-tested criteria) is having, and will continue to
have, incalculable negative impacts on every person on the planet.
There is a solution — and it will cost a lot less that a Trillion dollars. 90% of what we do
spend should be on improving the conventional sources that already "work." The remaining
amount could go towards exploring new options that (by definition) would have to meet or
exceed conventional sources (i.e. the six criteria).
John Droz, jr.
Physicist & Environmental Activist
Brantingham Lake, NY
9/26/08: rev a
For scientifically based information about wind power, see my webpage:
<>. Email me questions at: “aaprjohn@northnet.org”.
— — — — — — — — — Some References — — — — — — — — —
(All links should be clickable. Additional references are available on request.)
Electricity Timeline <>
Electricity Market <>
Energy Definitions <>
Base Load Power <>
Base Load Power <>
Why Wind Won’t Work <>
US Electricity from Oil <>
31000+ Scientist Dispute Global Warming <>
Nuclear Heresies <>
Nuclear in Perspective <>
GE report (pp 2.6-2.7) <>
NAS Report <>
CO2 & Wind Power <>
Enron & Wind Power (PDF) <>
Energy and Environmental Myths & Facts” (PDF) <>
WSJ re EIA Report <>
Scientific Methodology <>
Energy Business Future <>
Geothermal-MIT Report (PDF) <>