When the wind blows

Wind power gets a bad rap after the Texas blackouts

Posted by Sir Oolius (Guest Contributor) at 3:05 PM on 29 Feb 2008

Read more about: energy | electricity grid | wind power | renewable energy

The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Iain Murray warns of the dangers of renewables:

While we're on the subject of renewables: here's further proof that wind power is no panacaea for the nation's looming electricity crisis. The wind dropped in Texas, and caused blackouts.

Indeed, an unexpected demand spike not met by ~~coal-fired power plants~~ wind power caused irreparable harm by unfairly favoring the unwashed masses over "large industrial customers who are paid to reduce power use when emergencies occur" on Tuesday. Tuesday was the very day nuclear, natural gas, and coal power demonstrated their unfailing reliability to 3 million Floridians. More Murray:

Meanwhile, in Denmark, wind turbines are exploding. Dramatic video (provenance uncertain, so may not be genuine) here. This follows the fatal collapse of a wind tower in Oregon last summer. They also come with environmental costs of their own.

Now, of course, all energy production comes with risks, but wind power has such a positive image that people think of it as completely safe, environmentally-friendly and reliable. That's not the case.

I, for one, would take mountaintop removal, mercury emissions, and global warming over dangerous wind power any day!

For story: When the wind blows
11 Comments | Post a Comment

All sources vulnerable...

We already discussed this in the Texas wind article.

All sources of energy are prone to periodic failure/disruption. The rolling blackouts along the West Coast a few years back had nothin' to do with renewables. Nor did the recent nuke-substation blackout of 3 million people in Florida. Or the infamous Notheast blackout that cut power from NYC to Detroit.

Also, the recent "near-emergency" wasn't just caused by wind. ERCOT stated that all the state's plants, includin' coal, gas, and nuclear, were short of their predicted supply for that day. They weren't producin' the amount of energy they normally would. All the power suppliers contributed to the problem, not just wind.

And ERCOT also stated that the worst that would happen was that they pull power from some of the larger industries, not residential areas.

Also, another point that has been failed to mention is that Texas had a period of near-rolling blackouts long before wind power became so popular a few years back. The additional power from the wind industry has actually created a buffer and has made it less likely that will be rolling blackouts than just a few years ago, accordin' to ERCOT.

by Tasermons Partner at 4:49 PM on 29 Feb 2008

Strength Is Weakness

Well, somewhere in your muddled argument is a hint at what may be the counter punch to the "baseload" argument that favors big steady power sources and that is: these big generators are brought up into a very delicate balance to maintain the proper "pressure" or voltage. The disturbance in the transmission facility would tell the generators that demand had dropped, and so they would start to go offline.

Ok, so what's a solution: not wind or nukes, but very localized generation of power. Instead of trying to maintain voltage across hundreds of square miles, fuel cell generators at the neighborhood level would be responsible for individual blocks.

Another area we could focus on is the individual applications. Why is it that they are so sensitive to fluctuations. Could devices like computers, heat, washers and dryers be built to withstand fluctuations in current?

And batteries. For example, the big bugaboo with wind and solar is storage because battery technology just isn't there yet. But we use batteries all the time for hours -- in our cell phones! What if a refrigerator had a battery to level voltage fluctuations and to store power if, say, the wind farm had a few hours of doldrums.

by jabailo at 9:31 AM on 01 Mar 2008

Good point Tasermons

ERCOT is not all that bad, although periodically investigated for this and that, and is unique because it covers most of Texas as a single electrical reliability authority. Wind power is expected to bring more capacity online and as you may recall, Texas has more wind generation than California or any other state (or electric reliability council).

It might still be winter but in Texas we get some warm temperatures so heating and cooling is no longer necessary. The ERCOT sends a message that demand is down in certain parts of its market so some base-load generators are allowed to "spin down." Spring (even if still winter) is when many power utilities perform maintenance anyway, before the air conditioning season which is the max usage.

So if a minor shot of cool air came in but did not have any wind behind it, there could be a problem because lots of people turned on their electric heaters. ERCOT was running on very marginal loads at the time and it was no fault that the wind turbines output less power when more was needed. I am not sure of the details but perhaps ERCOT felt it was cheaper and simpler to pay some large industrial users to curtail electric consumption rather than importing expensive electricity from outside the grid.

The facts are than in the "dog days of summer" when winds are slack and temperatures are above 100, wind energy would not have been there to help save the day. Yup, if not for all those wind turbines, the lights would have gone off. Saved the day, really.

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 11:35 AM on 01 Mar 2008

Even in summer...

...durin' periods of high heat, the wind turbines around here still move. Maybe not as much as they do at other times, but they don't come to a standstill, far from it. There are no mountains or forests or any real obstacle to block the wind...so it almost always blows. In the panhandle and south plains regions of Texas (where most of the wind farms are located), winds measure more than 10 mph for more than 300 days outta the year. Days without wind are very rare, even in summer, which is why this area is so great for wind power.

by Tasermons Partner at 4:16 PM on 01 Mar 2008

Think tank

Another propagandist heard from.

Does this garbage slow down renewable smart grid adoption? Who is really listening to these guys anymore? Foxnews viewers, drudge readers.

I think the momentum is behind renewables now. This merely seals the doomed credibility of think tanks. Sophists payed by industry do not produce valuable ideas.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 5:26 PM on 01 Mar 2008

elp destroy a planet, erect wind generators in Tex

In the panhandle and south plains regions of Texas (where most of the wind farms are located), winds measure more than 10 mph for more than 300 days outta the year. Days without wind are very rare, even in summer, which is why this area is so great for wind power. - Tasermons Partner

There are several problems with this account.

Summer winds in Texas tend to blow at lower speeds than during the rest of the year.
During the summer daytime wind speeds drop during midday.
The hotter the day, the more likely that winds will stop blowing all over the state.
The capacity factor for summer wind generation in Texas is some what less than 17%.

Hence exactly when ERCOT nedes generating capacity the most, wind generation fails. For this reason ERCOT needs to keep fossil fuel plants spinning, and chugging out CO2 during summer days in Texas. Texas wind is Texas coal's best friend. Help destroy a planet, erect wind generators in Texas.

Charles Barton

by Charles Barton at 10:11 AM on 02 Mar 2008

Flawed argument...

...even when it doesn't have maximum output, it still detracts from the amount of energy that would otherwise haveta be supplied by increases in coal power. So how would that encourage coal power?

If more than 3% of Texas energy comes from wind, and we decide to stop usin' wind, then they'll get that 3% from more traditional sources, like coal and gas. Which means CO2 and pollution output from coal, gas, and nuclear plants would increase to go along with the increased energy load.

Your argument is very flawed, Charles

by Tasermons Partner at 11:42 AM on 02 Mar 2008

Not flawed at all

Your argument is very flawed, Charles - Tasermons Partner

Tasermons Partner, If you want to make an investment in getting rid of coal, invest in nuclear. Iy you want to make an investment that will keep coal around longer, invest in wind.

Charles Barton

by Charles Barton at 3:14 PM on 02 Mar 2008

Same principles would've applied...

...if there was a disruption at the nuclear plant for some reason, they still would've had resulted in a similar situation.

And as ERCOT already said, the state's other power plants...which did include nuclear...didn't produce an adequate baseload durin' the period that the wind didn't blow, despite the fact that it's baseload was supposed to be much higher that day.

And considerin' that it takes years to build a nuclear plant, and years more for an average plant to offset the amount of GHGs that were produced for it's construction, it would seem that wind power would get rid of coal much faster than nuclear.

Texas added close to 5,000 MW of energy in just over two years from wind. The world's most powerful nuclear plants barely produce over 1,600 MW each. And most took over a decade to plan and build.

Wind replaces coal much faster, and in much greater quantities (at least in Texas).

by Tasermons Partner at 4:28 PM on 02 Mar 2008

Wind does not replace coal

In 1979 the government of Denmark initiated a 30% subsidy for the cost of building windmills. In 1999 they guaranteed wind power producers 85% of retail, 9 cents per kWh, for all the power they could make. They imposed a tax on fossil fuel to provide an additional 3.8 cents per kWh to wind producers.
Compare that with the cost to make electricity in the U.S. in 2006; hydroelectric 0.9 cents per kWh, coal 3.0 cents per kWh, natural gas turbine 5.8 cents per kWh, nuclear 1.9 cents per kWh.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html ...

Denmark has the, ideal combination of optimum factors for wind.
A population committed to wind power
A government committed to wind power
High energy prices
Low energy consumption
Large price guarantees
Large government subsidies
A small country with short transmission distances, each person lives within 50 miles of a shoreline
Surrounding water creates mild winters and summers
Excellent wind conditions for land and sea based wind farms year-round
Mature in country wind turbine industry

Denmark's huge wind subsidies have resulted in the highest electricity prices in the world, 29.5 cents per kWh in 2005, vs. 9.5 cents per kWh in the U.S.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/elecprih.html

Denmark also imports substantial amounts of nuclear power.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf99.html

Things Everybody Should Know About Energy

by BILL HANNAHAN at 9:40 PM on 02 Mar 2008

Uh, how did that NOT replace coal?...

...if not for wind, then where would Denmark had gotten their power from? Either with more coal, gas, or nuclear. All of which produce more GHGs than wind. So how did that not replace coal?

Also, I noticed that ya didn't state the price per kwh of wind power in the United States. I'd be interested to know how it compares to Denmark's.

by Tasermons Partner at 1:37 AM on 03 Mar 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.