BigWind must cover US land size of 2x Cali? Politicians Duped

Cover 12% of the USA with BigWind? Cover more with solar panels? And add how many tens of thousands of batteries? No thanks.  And, replace fossil fuels? NOT TRUE.  MORE fossil fuels are required for each BigWind site that sprouts…to back up their intermittent nature. Thanks are due, however, to the Oklahoman editorial board.  They read Robert Bryce’s assessment and followed the logic of it!  Unfortunately, many politicians arent’s are open minded, or intelligent.  When was the last time you wrote a thoughtful letter to your politician? We must educate our legislators, about the truth, b/c the BigWind lobby won’t!

WISHING something is so doesn’t make it possible, and nowhere in politics is the gap between aspiration and reality larger than in the push to quickly eliminate fossil fuel use.

Some politicians and environmental activists want to require that all U.S. electricity be generated from renewable sources by the 2030s. That would mean replacing an overwhelming majority of current production, which is generated by coal- or natural gas-fired power plants.

What would such a transition look like? Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, writes that “deploying renewable energy at the scale required to fuel the U.S. economy would require covering state-sized territories with nothing but wind turbines and solar panels. It would also require stringing tens of thousands of miles of new high-voltage transmission lines.”

When Harvard physics professor David Keith and postdoctoral fellow Lee Miller examined 2016 energy production data, Bryce notes, they concluded meeting present-day U.S. electricity consumption with renewables “would require 12 percent of the continental U.S. land area for wind.” That translates into 350,000 square miles. Thus, Bryce says, meeting the nation’s current electricity needs with wind “would require an area more than twice the size of California.”…

 

Put simply, the push to use nothing but renewables requires disruption or destruction of thousands of miles of natural habitat. Resistance to such measures is growing nationwide, including in the country’s most left-leaning locales. Counties in California have banned or restricted wind projects. In the 2018 Vermont governor’s race, both candidates opposed new wind-energy development. Opposition to wind turbine installation is increasing elsewhere across the country.

 

Like most, we support using a variety of energy sources — so long as they are economically viable and logistically feasible. Suggesting that green energy use can increase without addressing the latter two factors is wishful thinking, not serious policymaking.

Editorial letter

BigWind will contribute MORE to ‘warming’ than coal & gas

Screen Shot 2018-10-05 at 12.33.17 PM

Proof from Harvard that Wind Power could cause significantly MORE warming  than coal and gas! How long before BigWind makes this data disappear? Better read while you can..

This is a good time to step back and look at the current Wind Energy Scorecard. Studies from independent experts (see prior Newsletters) have concluded the following:
1 – Global Warming: Wind energy results in more warming than Coal does.
2 – Climate Change: Wind energy produces more CO2 than Gas or Nuclear does.
3 – Ratepayer Cost: Wind energy is 4-5 times the cost of conventional electrical energy sources.
4 – Local Economics: Wind energy is likely a net economic loser to a host community
5 – Health: Wind energy can cause severe health consequences to nearby residents.
6 – Environmental: Wind energy has multiple major environmental impacts.
7 – Jobs: Wind energy is net jobs liability.
8 – Fossil Fuels: Wind energy assures a continued reliance on fossil fuels.
9 – Sustainability: Wind energy has major dependence on unsustainable components (e.g. rare earths).
10-National Security: Wind energy can adversely affect the missions and operational readiness of military facilities, undermining our national security.

Wind power is booming in the United States. It’s expanded 35-fold since 2000 and now provides 8% of the nation’s electricity. The US Department of Energy expects wind turbine capacity to more than quadruple again by 2050.

But a new study by a pair of Harvard researchers finds that a high amount of wind power could mean more climate warming, at least regionally and in the immediate decades ahead. The paper raises serious questions about just how much the United States or other nations should look to wind power to clean up electricity systems.

The study, published in the journal Joule, found that if wind power supplied all US electricity demands, it would warm the surface of the continental United States by 0.24 ˚C. That could significantly exceed the reduction in US warming achieved by decarbonizing the nation’s electricity sector this century, which would be around 0.1 ˚C.

“If your perspective is the next 10 years, wind power actually has—in some respects—more climate impact than coal or gas,” coauthor David Keith, a professor of applied physics and public policy at Harvard, said in a statement. “If your perspective is the next thousand years, then wind power is enormously cleaner than coal or gas.” (But wait, we CAN’T eliminate coal and gas by building turbines. Building turbines means we will need MORE coal and gas!?!)

Specifically, the “avoided warming” achieved by eliminating fossil-fuel sources could surpasses any warming from wind in about a century in the studied scenario, as emissions reductions accumulate.

Keith and lead author Lee Miller, a postdoc at Harvard, stress that the conclusions mean scientists and policymakers should take this side effect of wind power seriously—and carefully consider what role the resource should play in the shift to clean energy…

Notably, the warming effect from wind in the studied scenario was 10 times greater than the climate effect from solar farms, which can also have a tiny warming effect.

The core problem is that wind turbines generate electricity by extracting energy out of the air, slowing down wind and otherwise altering “the exchange of heat, moisture, and momentum between the surface and the atmosphere,” the study explains. That can produce some level of warming…

Stanford professor John Dabiri criticized the study, saying the simulations relied on a proxy for wind turbines that increases aerodynamic drag at the earth’s surface (see “John Dabiri: Innovators Under 35”).

“It is well known that this type of modeling assumption does a poor job of predicting the flow in real wind farms,” he said in an e-mail.

Dabiri, an expert on wind turbine designs, (= BIASED) says a “more realistic” earlier simulation found “little temperature change near the surface.”

The American Wind Energy Association swiftly challenged the framing of the conclusions as well….

The Harvard researchers said their findings closely matched directly observed effects from hundreds of US wind farms.

Keith, an outspoken proponent of clean energy to combat global warming, says he’s sure the paper will be misinterpreted or misrepresented by some to argue against the rollout of wind power…