BigWind causing Australian BLACKouts. Will the Trump train follow them?

Breitbart: All I ask is one simple question: if an industry can only exist because it’s dependent on subsidies and regulation, what do you think will happen to that industry if the public mood swings, a revolutionary spirit takes hold post Brexit and Donald Trump, and those subsidies are withdrawn and the regulation is removed?…

We’re on the verge of a new energy revolution. Except it’s the exact opposite of the one the “experts” at places like BP, the International Energy Agency and – ahem – the Guardian are predicting.

That world doesn’t exist….

Actually, it’s not the fossil fuel industry that needs invigorating. As even the BP Energy Outlook report admits, fossil fuels are doing just fine and will do for the foreseeable.

But while I’m sure the BP report is right about the growth of fossil fuels – we’ve got to get our energy from somewhere – it seems to me that its forecast for renewables comes from a mix of wishful thinking and heroic assumptions based on conditions that no longer exist….

No one would build these things otherwise because they’re just not commercially viable. The energy they produce is unreliable, unpredictable, intermittent, destabilising (prone to surges and lulls), environmentally damaging (from their huge concrete bases to their use of poisonous rare earth minerals), and very expensive. That’s why they have to be subsidised by taxpayers. And the only reason taxpayers subsidise them is because they’re forced to do so by government legislation which has been framed in the belief that this is a necessary measure to “combat climate change.”

So what happens when all these “heroic assumptions” cease to apply?

If man-made climate change ceases to be a “problem” that anyone takes seriously.

If the widespread harm done by renewables is recognised as being far greater than any illusory benefits.

If taxpayers become increasingly suspicious of the values of the liberal elite.

What would all this mean for the future of renewables?

Well this is no longer a hypothetical question because this is exactly what is happening.

More and more, renewables are being recognised as an environmental disaster, as a charter for troughers and rent-seekers, as a human health hazard, and as a serious threat to economic stability.

South Australia is the bellwether of this impending, renewables-driven economic disaster. As Paul Homewood reports, it now relies on wind power for 40 per cent of its electricity – a lunatic decision which has led to rationing, black outs and economic disruption. This won’t continue. South Australians simply won’t allow it to continue: they’re not cowed supplicants in some communist state but sophisticated consumers in a free market economy. Rationing and black outs just aren’t acceptable in such a culture, no matter how noble the intentions of the idiot leftist politicians who introduced all those carbon-reducing green schemes now are backfiring so badly and so predictably.

Source: DELINGPOLE: Why Renewables Are Doomed and Fossil Fuels Are the Future

Advertisements

California’s ‘Renewable’ Energy Grid on Verge of Crisis 

We have warned you about this for years.  Our grid was not designed to handle intermittent energy. Australia has the most recent example of this failure and the damage it can cause to the consumers, but Europe has seen glimpses of this problem, also.  It will only increase and California is the first, within our borders, to see this potential catastrophic occurrence.  Can you imagine an America with lights flickering on/off? With hospitals using generators frequently? With industry forced to pause their production?Let us pray that Ohio legislators pay attention…

California claims to be able to permanently replace fossil-fuel generated electricity with “intermittent” wind and solar generation, but the state’s electrical grid is on the verge of crisis as it may soon run out of the ability to import enough fossil-fuel electricity.
According to Gail Tverberg, who prophetically warned on January 6, 2008, in The Failure of Networked Systems that banks and insurance companies were about to cause a worldwide financial crisis, just warned that “Leaders around the world have demanded that their countries switch to renewable energy, without ever taking a very close look at what the costs and benefits were likely to be.”

With Gov. Brown signing Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), California committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2017 to 40 percent below by 2030.

California’s 2015 Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) is now 2/3 wind and solar, and about 1/3 biomass geothermal and small hydro. The bulk of future RPS greenhouse reductions are expected to come almost exclusively from wind and solar.

Tverberg says this commitment to solar and wind has been justified by simple calculations of “Life Cycle Assessment” and “Energy Returned on Energy Invested.” But she argues, “These calculations miss the fact that the intermittent energy being returned is of very much lower quality than is needed to operate the electric grid.”…

With California at 12.3 percent intermittent wind and solar electrical penetration in 2015, Tverberg points out that the state is suffering the same type of electric grid degradation that Hawaii is currently suffering with 12.2 percent solar and wind penetration.

Hawaii is an island chain that cannot import energy to their electrical grid. With $331 million invested in Hawaii during 2015, its installed solar capacity hit 615 megawatts, supposedly “enough solar energy installed in the state to power 159,000 homes.

But due to the intermittent challenge of needing an equal amount of standby electrical generation for periods of overcast or darkness, Hawaii has been forced to stop residential solar net metering (giving homeowners credit for the retail cost of electricity, when electricity is sold to the grid) and is phasing out these solar subsidies.

Tverberg highlights that the intermittent “situation is not too different in California.” Due to solar and wind subsidies that have driven electrical costs to 45 percent higher than the national average, over 1/3 of California’s electric grid power for non-intermittent (also called “dispatchable”) electrical back-up must now be imported from other states, up from only 25 percent in 2010….

 

Source: California’s ‘Renewable’ Energy Grid on Verge of Crisis – Breitbart

Are you ‘sure’ you want your relative to work for BigWind?

I don’t know about you, but I work to earn money, period. Most people try to earn the most money they can, in order to provide for their family, and they will change jobs if they can earn more somewhere else. Apparently, the Democratic party and this administration, believe you should serve the renewable industry, for the sake of climate change (which renewables are not proven to change), and you should forego the salary you desire….

While the Democrats are gearing up for their convention in Philadelphia with a strong renewable platform, they do so against the backdrop of Pennsylvania energy policy concerns expressed last week: “Industry officials described government policies as crucial to the survival of a clean energy operation. For example, the federal wind production tax credit, which Congress in December extended for another five years, grants wind farm developers about $23 a megawatt-hour in tax credits when the projects begin producing electricity. That’s about a third of EverPower Wind Holdings Inc.’s capital costs of building wind farms, said Jim Spencer, president and CEO of the Strip District developer. Without the subsidies, EverPower’s projects in Pennsylvania — where construction costs are higher and wind speed is lower than in the Midwest — would not be able to compete, he said. “We’re suffering from low power prices from low natural gas, but in terms of our actual business environment, it’s almost never been better in the 17 years I’ve been in the industry,” said Mr. Spencer, whose company has grown to own about a third of the wind generation now installed in Pennsylvania and pulls in $150 million a year in annual revenue.”

This article also points out an important fact about the much touted jobs benefits from renewables: “The mismatch that we see is that jobs in the fossil fuel industry are high wage jobs, and jobs in clean energy generally aren’t,” Mr. Mosley said. “ That will be a problem for Mrs. Clinton who has promised to replace all the lost coal jobs with jobs in clean energy….

…For example, the federal wind production tax credit, which Congress in December extended for another five years, grants wind farm developers about $23 a megawatt-hour in tax credits when the projects begin producing electricity. That’s about a third of EverPower Wind Holdings Inc.’s capital costs of building wind farms, said Jim Spencer, president and CEO of the Strip District developer.

Without the subsidies, EverPower’s projects in Pennsylvania — where construction costs are higher and wind speed is lower than in the Midwest — would not be able to compete, he said.

“We’re suffering from low power prices from low natural gas, but in terms of our actual business environment, it’s almost never been better in the 17 years I’ve been in the industry,” said Mr. Spencer, whose company has grown to own about a third of the wind generation now installed in Pennsylvania and pulls in $150 million a year in annual revenue.

A central question surrounding employment is the role that clean energy plays in helping transition workers who have been laid off in the coal industry.

The young boilermaker or welder whose work is drying up as coal-fired power plants shut down is making $75,000 to $90,000 a year — salaries that aren’t being matched by jobs in clean energy, said Khari Mosley, regional programs manager for the BlueGreen Alliance, a national group advocating for both blue-collar workers and environmental issues.

“The mismatch that we see is that jobs in the fossil fuel industry are high wage jobs, and jobs in clean energy generally aren’t,” Mr. Mosley said. “One of the things we’re trying to figure out is how to bridge that gap.”…

Source: Industries give Pa. clean energy policies mixed reviews

Will BigWind ‘Trick or Treat’ the American taxpayers?

Screen Shot 2015-10-31 at 5.12.35 PM

TRICK! Charles McConnell, executive director of Rice University’s Energy and Environment Initiative and a former assistant secretary of Energy at the Department of Energy under Obama was interviewed about the federal Clean Power Plan and flatly asserted that “If you look at it, really, fundamentally it’s more or less a forced renewable portfolio standard that requires the deployment of an enormous amount of wind. If you boil it down, that’s really what we’re talking about. It’s approximately 127,000 new windmills in the next 15 years in this country that’ll take up, if they were all deployed, about 10 million acres of land.” We urge everyone to read the interview with McConnell below.

BEST TREAT OF ALL! Another great interview with Ohio Senator Bill Seitz who spoke with a Michigan news outlet. Seitz explained, “As you can imagine, our committee recommendations aren’t popular with our enviro-socialist friends. But, in spite of what they say, this isn’t about clean energy versus dirty energy. It’s about efficient energy.” Seitz also stated, “The federal government has no power to tell states or utilities they need to have wind farms or how many they need to have.” And when asked if the average residents in Ohio realize the extent to which wind energy is actually reliant on fossil fuels, Seitz replied “No, most of the public and the press generally don’t know that. It’s a dirty little secret the public and press are unaware of [including the Cleveland Plain Dealer] and there are people who want to keep them unaware of it. Obviously, the better informed the general public is, the better off we’d all be.”…

CLIMATE:

Former DOE official McConnell says power plan a forced renewable portfolio standard

Aired: Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Does the Clean Power Plan help spur carbon capture and storage technology innovation and investments? During today’s OnPoint, Charles McConnell, executive director of Rice University’s Energy and Environment Initiative and a former assistant secretary of Energy at the Department of Energy, discusses the Obama administration’s fossil energy strategy and the challenges ahead for technological innovation. He also explains why he believes the Obama administration has been “disingenuous” about its plans for an all-of-the-above energy strategy.

Transcript

Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I’m Monica Trauzzi. With me today is the Honorable Charles McConnell, executive director of Rice University’s Energy and Environment Initiative and a former assistant secretary of Energy at DOE from 2011 to 2013. Charles, it’s nice to see you. Thanks for coming on the show.

Charles McConnell: Pleasure.

Monica Trauzzi: Charles, you were one of the critics of the efficiency building block that was part of EPA’s draft Clean Power Plan. With that block out of the final rule, how has the game changed for coal as states begin crafting their compliance mechanisms and utilities strategize on investments?

Charles McConnell: Well, I think it’s pretty obvious what it is to coal, but it’s not just coal. It’s coal and gas. If you look at it, really, fundamentally it’s more or less a forced renewable portfolio standard that requires the deployment of an enormous amount of wind. If you boil it down, that’s really what we’re talking about. It’s approximately 127,000 new windmills in the next 15 years in this country that’ll take up, if they were all deployed, about 10 million acres of land.

Monica Trauzzi: From a technological standpoint, can that be met?

Charles McConnell: No, it can’t. And that’s a little bit of what’s flawed with many of the calculations and how some of the decision making and rulemaking came about is that, if you look at the practical aspects of it in terms of deployment and in terms of the reliability and cost for people in this country, it’s just really not something that’s … for our efforts here.

Monica Trauzzi: But there’s no directive written into the final rule specifically on wind — driving all the investments towards wind. There’s this Clean Energy Incentive Program that seeks to incentivize all clean energy, so why specifically do you think that this is going to drive wind?

Charles McConnell: Well, if you look at gas as an example, which a lot of people have seen as the replacement for coal, many of the states that are going to be bearing the burden of this — and by the way, of the 50 states, seven of the states bear roughly 40 percent of the responsibilities for all of the reductions. And so what you end up with are technical milestones and hurdles that, unless you do deploy wind, you’re — you’re unable to meet them…..

And the quote, above, from Senator Seitz= An article on liberty and free markets as sound public policy for Michigan, Michigan Capitol Confidential.

Source: Interview with Ohio Sen. Bill Seitz

Does BigWind lower property values? Is coal-mining a GREEN job?

I love the way this author thinks. Why? Because common sense logic is absent from so much journalism today, as much of it is clouded by delusions of extreme ideologies. This thinker, however, looks at the facts and asks some great questions that should make any supporter of BigWind THINK about their position. #1 How can we justify taking 20,000 SQUARE MILES of land for wind turbines when 110 miles of nuclear plants supply more energy? #2 Why isn’t coal-mining considered a GREEN job? The coal makes the steel that makes the turbine. No wind turbine on the planet can replicate itself with its own (intermittent, weak) energy!!!….

…A key point of contention against wind (and solar) farms is that they require much larger amounts of land to generate the same amount of electricity, an important downgrade of their “greenness” that goes conveniently ignored. Wind power is naturally intermittent, and plants typically operate at about 25% of full capacity, compared to coal and natural gas plants operating at 90%.

Thus, it can take 4-5 wind plants to produce the same amount of electricity as a single fossil fuel plant. (actually, not true, as wind power is intermittent, so it can never = fossil fuel plants)

The U.S. Department of Energy has concluded that generating 20% of electricity (which is likely the highest we could go, see here) with land-based wind installations would demand at least 20,000 square miles, or the size of Maryland and Vermont combined. By comparison, all U.S. nuclear power plants, which produce around 20% of power, occupy only 110 square miles.

One headline is indicative: “Wind farm ‘needs 700 times more land’ than fracking site to produce same energy.”…

Many members of the Real Estate and Appraisal businesses, however, have been clear that wind power DOES impact property values, and it would seem to me that these groups have no vested interest in supporting wind power or not supporting it. So, these findings are critical:

In “High-Voltage Transmission Lines and Rural, Western Real Estate Values” published in The Appraisal Journal 2012, Dr. James A. Chalmers, qualified as an expert witness in over 20 states, found that residential properties near transmission lines sold for 20-50% less than comparable residential properties.
Michael McCann, of McCann Appraisal, LLC based in Chicago, concludes that: “Residential property values are adversely and measurably impacted by close proximity of industrial-scale wind energy turbine projects to the residential properties,” up to 2 miles and a range of 25% to approximately 40% of value loss.
John Leonard Goodwin, who has been a real estate broker for more than 10 years in Ontario, Canada, reports that wind turbines absolutely do impact property values: “Turbines complicate your property enjoyment, period. That alone spells depreciated value…they will also cause a significant loss of real estate value.”
According to research in 2014 by the London School of Economics, wind farms can cut as much as 12% off the value of homes within a 2 kilometer radius, reducing property vales as far as 14 kilometers away.
In 2013, an Ontario Superior Court of Justice determined that landowners living near large wind farms do suffer from lower property values, with the court accepting a 22-55% reduction.
see this long list documenting how wind power DOES reduce property values here….

Along with the requirement for fossil fuel backup generally from natural gas, wind is unavailable much more than it’s available, wind power has less “green” credentials that many care to admit. And don’t forget it’s oil that fuels the trucks that move wind turbines tens or hundreds of miles to their remote locations.

And the pro-wind, anti-fossil fuel business appears completely oblivious to the fact that wind turbines are made from steel, which is mostly made from coal. There are about 170 tons of coal in an onshore wind turbine, and about 280 tons of coal in an offshore one.

Thus, a simple question illustrates the absurdity of the pro-wind, anti-fossil fuel position: does the coal miner that mines the coal…that makes the steel… that makes the wind turbine… have a “green job?”

I say they do…or at least much more so than the administrative assistants and overpaid lawyers in the environmental business that are overrepresented in the “green job” tallies.

And of course, the opportunity costs of renewables go ignored. An obsession with wind and solar power at all costs, for instance, has Germany paying $26.2 billion for electricity that has a market value of just $5 billion….

Source: Do Wind Turbines Lower Property Values?

BigWind LOVES Tax Day in America!

Fed subsidies to BigWind13

 

The wind industry often peddles the false claim that conventional energy sources like natural gas, coal, and nuclear receive more subsidies than wind power. Industry lobbyists at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) use this myth as a talking point to push for more subsidies, including the federal Production Tax Credit. In reality, the exact opposite is true—wind energy requires massive subsidies to compete with conventional fuels—and new data (once again) prove it.

Recently, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) released a new report on federal energy subsidies. An analysis of EIA’s data by the Institute for Energy Research found that despite the wind lobby’s claims, wind energy is by far the most heavily subsidized fuel source, receiving more subsidies to produce less energy than conventional fuels. Moreover, even the data AWEA cites to bolster its case shows that wind is a bad deal for taxpayers….

On Tax Day, Big Wind Gets A Windfall – American Energy Alliance.

Natural Gas Says to Wind Energy: You’re Nothing Without Me!

Many are misinformed and believe that BigWind can survive INdependent from fossil fuels. The reality has been stated by the largest wind turbine company in the USA, GE, “Energy generation from renewable sources like wind and solar have zero emissions and very low variable cost of generation. However, if flexible generation assets, such as gas turbines, are not available, these renewable technologies will NOT be deployed.  In other words, gas turbines are an essential component of renewable energy sources ability to penetrate the market”  https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/oira_2060/2060_07232013-1.pdf

…The idea here is that wind energy should be seen as a hedge against the possibility that natural gas prices could increase. It is basically an attempt to use the old “don’t put all your eggs in one basket” analogy. This is persuasive only when one ignores the fact that wind energy is 65 percent natural gas, which is precisely what the model does.

For those who understand that a dependable blend which includes wind energy must contain mostly natural gas, the analogy of “not putting all your eggs in one basket” used to promote the study is ludicrous.

“The operative word is ‘or,’” said Tom Stacy, an electricity generation analyst and independent regulatory and policy consultant who signs his correspondence “Ohioan for Afford Electricity.” He explains that the “eggs in one basket” warning doesn’t make sense. “There is no ‘or.’ It is either 100 percent gas or 65 percent gas plus 35 percent wind.”

“The catch,” he continued, “is that compared to the cost of the natural gas basket, consumers are forced to pay triple for baskets because the wind basket costs twice what the gas basket does, yet the gas basket is still required to hold 65 percent of the eggs.” He continued, “The end result: For our dozen eggs, we pay for three baskets when we could have paid for one. In exchange we get four free eggs. The problem is the extra baskets cost far more than the eggs.”

… At one point the study report reveals its imaginary basis with the following statement: “If we choose the natural gas path and natural gas prices rise, we may regret that we are stuck using expensive natural gas when we could have had free wind or solar fuel.”

Free wind? That phrase alone seems contrived to deceive the uninitiated and validate the green faithful. Again, since wind is so unreliable, wind energy has to be backed up by natural gas 65 percent of the time. Under that circumstance — obviously — the cost of wind energy will always largely reflect the price of natural gas. What’s more, the impact of any natural gas price change on wind energy is really more that 65 percent, because natural gas, when hooked up to wind energy, is put to a less efficient use. This is due to the requirement that it be constantly adjusted for when the wind is or is not blowing or not blowing enough. It is exactly the same dynamic that takes place with an automobile’s use of gasoline when driving in city traffic as compared to coasting down the open highway.

In the real “power pool,” wind is not physically paired with just natural gas; it is also paired with coal. The example used in this article gives wind the benefit of the doubt by only using natural gas, and not coal, as the balancing source in the hybrid. The average emissions intensity of coal plus wind is far higher than for gas plus wind. In other words, coal gets terrible “city mileage MPG” compared to natural gas and the pairing of wind with coal results in the excessive inefficiency of stop and go traffic.

The flawed and dishonest premise of the 5 Lakes Energy Study marks it as just the latest attempt by wind energy advocates to promote their product by masking wind energy’s true nature. Wind energy is a less than 30 percent add-on to natural gas. Its effect on emissions, as compared to just natural gas alone, is debatable and at best minimal. The failure of the study to acknowledge this spoils all of its conclusions and suggestions….

A glance at a list of 5 Lakes Energy principle founders reveals more than one official from the administration of former Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Michigan Capitol Confidential emailed the following questions to Douglas Jester, the author of the report on the study, and later to other 5 Lakes Energy officials. They were: Are you denying that wind energy is primarily fueled by natural gas? Why does your study appear to have not accounted for this reality? Is there something we are missing here that you should make us aware of?…

Natural Gas to Wind Energy: Youre Nothing Without Me [Michigan Capitol Confidential].