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…

Advertisements

Why battery storage won’t save BigWind

If BigWind is already UNaffordable, (see previous article),what will battery storage do to the economics? It spells d-i-s-a-s-t-e-r for the industry. We would join the ranks of Germany, where an article, “To Heat or Eat”, highlighted the disproportionate amount of cash that citizens pay for energy.  California legislators out of their minds, to believe that businesses will not continue to leave such an expensive environment….

A pair of 500-foot smokestacks rise from a natural-gas power plant on the harbor of Moss Landing, California, casting an industrial pall over the pretty seaside town.

If state regulators sign off, however, it could be the site of the world’s largest lithium-ion battery project by late 2020, helping to balance fluctuating wind and solar energy on the California grid.

The 300-megawatt facility is one of four giant lithium-ion storage projects that Pacific Gas and Electric, California’s largest utility, askedthe California Public Utilities Commission to approve in late June. Collectively, they would add enough storage capacity to the grid to supply about 2,700 homes for a month (or to store about .0009 percent of the electricity the state uses each year).

The California projects are among a growing number of efforts around the world, including Tesla’s 100-megawatt battery array in South Australia, to build ever larger lithium-ion storage systems as prices decline and renewable generation increases. They’re fueling growing optimism that these giant batteries will allow wind and solar power to displace a growing share of fossil-fuel plants.

But there’s a problem with this rosy scenario. These batteries are far too expensive and don’t last nearly long enough, limiting the role they can play on the grid, experts say. If we plan to rely on them for massive amounts of storage as more renewables come online—rather than turning to a broader mix of low-carbon sources like nuclear and natural gas with carbon capture technology—we could be headed down a dangerously unaffordable path.

Small doses

Today’s battery storage technology works best in a limited role, as a substitute for “peaking” power plants, according to a 2016 analysis by researchers at MIT and Argonne National Lab. These are smaller facilities, frequently fueled by natural gas today, that can afford to operate infrequently, firing up quickly when prices and demand are high.

Lithium-ion batteries could compete economically with these natural-gas peakers within the next five years, says Marco Ferrara, a cofounder of Form Energy, an MIT spinout developing grid storage batteries.

“The gas peaker business is pretty close to ending, and lithium-ion is a great replacement,” he says.

This peaker role is precisely the one that most of the new and forthcoming lithium-ion battery projects are designed to fill. Indeed, the California storage projects could eventually replace three natural-gas facilities in the region, two of which are peaker plants.

But much beyond this role, batteries run into real problems. The authors of the 2016 study found steeply diminishing returns when a lot of battery storage is added to the grid. They concluded that coupling battery storage with renewable plants is a “weak substitute” for large, flexible coal or natural-gas combined-cycle plants, the type that can be tapped at any time, run continuously, and vary output levels to meet shifting demand throughout the day.

Not only is lithium-ion technology too expensive for this role, but limited battery life means it’s not well suited to filling gaps during the days, weeks, and even months when wind and solar generation flags.

This problem is particularly acute in California, where both wind and solar fall off precipitously during the fall and winter months. Here’s what the seasonal pattern looks like:

If renewables provided 80 percent of California electricity – half wind, half solar – generation would fall precipitously beginning in the late summer.

CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE ANALYSIS OF CAISO DATA

This leads to a critical problem: when renewables reach high levels on the grid, you need far, far more wind and solar plants to crank out enough excess power during peak times to keep the grid operating through those long seasonal dips, says Jesse Jenkins, a coauthor of the study and an energy systems researcher. That, in turn, requires banks upon banks of batteries that can store it all away until it’s needed.

And that ends up being astronomically expensive….

“The system becomes completely dominated by the cost of storage,” says Steve Brick, a senior advisor for the Clean Air Task Force. “You build this enormous storage machine that you fill up by midyear and then just dissipate it. It’s a massive capital investment that gets utilized very little.”

These forces would dramatically increase electricity costs for consumers.

“You have to pause and ask yourself: ‘Is there any way the public would stand for that?’” Brick says….

Why batteries won’t work

Are you willing to pay more taxes to support BigWind? See what MIT thinks

I don’t know about you, but I think I pay enough in taxes. Particularly, when I read the ’50 examples of government waste’ by the Heritage Foundation. Enough is enough. MIT has a tremendous reputation of graduating and recruiting some of the brightest minds in America. It is no surprise, then, that they have confirmed what so many of us have been screaming for years.  Now, if you live in Ohio, know that BigWind is pushing our legislature to reduce our wind turbine setbacks, so they can plant MORE turbines across our state!! What happens if the rug is pulled out from under this renewable technology? What will happen to the structures that will dot our landscape? They will deteriorate and then become dangerous, as maintenance will be cost-prohibitive. Who is then at risk? Everyone below…

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have confirmed what many in the energy world already knew: Without government support or high taxes, green energy will never be able to compete with conventional, more reliable power plants.

The study, announced by MIT’s News Office Wednesday, determined that conventional energy would be consistently less expensive than green energy over the next 10 years. The study concludes that the government could make green energy competitive by offering enormous amounts of taxpayer support.

The study confirms that green energy can only work when energy prices are extremely high and require government support. Projections from the International Energy Agency estimate that developing wind and solar power enough to substantially impact global warming could cost up to $16.5 trillion by 2030….

The MIT study also noted that solar and wind power are more than twice as expensive as natural gas, and tax on carbon dioxide emissions could increase electricity prices enough for green sources to compete. Even environmental groups such as The Sierra Club worry increasingly cheap energy will make the case for green power weaker.

“Wind and solar can’t compete with conventional sources on their own merits,” Chris Warren, a spokesperson for the Institute for Energy Research, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “That’s why the national environmental lobby and their allies are peddling the idea of a carbon tax. They want to punish the use of natural gas, oil and, coal to make their preferred sources appear more profitable. In practice, a carbon tax would have a devastating impact on American families already struggling in the Obama economy–hurting the poor and middle class the most.”

Critics have said carbon taxation disproportionately harms the poorest members of society….

 

Source: MIT: Green Energy Can’t Work Unless You Tax Everything Via @dailycaller