BigWind electricity is NOT cheaper than other energy. Explained here

Although this is more detail than most of you want to know, this does explain WHY WIND ENERGY IS NOT CHEAPER. Go to the original website and skim through the details and learn something to share…

The Real Cost of Wind Electricity By Norman Rogers

This article is a technical exposition on how to calculate the cost of generating wind electricity. The goal is to show the true cost of wind electricity compared to conventional sources of electricity. Wind is important because it is the lowest cost type of renewable electricity that is also scalable. Some types of renewable electricity may be cheaper but have limited scaling possibilities because they depend special circumstances such as underground steam or favorable hydro sites.

Various agencies and think tanks calculate the cost of generating electricity. The U.S. government Energy Information Agency (EIA) is prominent. The EIA is biased against coal electricity and biased in favor of wind electricity. They, for example, increase the interest rates used for coal plants by nearly 30%.

Usually the cost of electricity is computed by taking the yearly capital cost of the plant amortized over the life of the plant and the annual operating costs. This yearly cost is divided by the number of kilowatt or megawatt hours produced per year to determine a cost per unit of electricity. The electricity is taken as the amount of electricity exiting at the plant fence.

This approach is fatally flawed in the case of wind electricity that is non dispatchable. Non dispatchable means that the grid managers cannot order wind to turn on when needed. Wind can be turned off, but then the power that would have been generated is lost. Rather than ordering wind to turn on or off, the grid is assumed to accept all the wind electricity available and adjust the other generators in the grid to maintain balance between supply and demand. Wind has to be operated this way in order to be remotely competitive. The grid has to supply a backup source of electricity to take over according to the vagaries of the wind. The worst case is no wind, so the backup has to be able to take over 100% of the wind….


BigWind getting 7 x THE SUBSIDIES of coal/gas… 7 x !!!

Aren’t you sick of the public being ‘hoodwinked’ about the subsidy game? All the electricity providers get subsidies- that is what we hear.  But, how much electricity do each of the players actually PRODUCE? The difference between coal/gas/nuclear and BigWind is like comparing the value of a shortstop to that of a 2nd stringer on the bench! Let us pray that Rick Perry sees the truth and that he isn’t influenced by lobbyists to hide it. States like, Ohio, where BigWind is planning explosive growth, NEED the help of the federal government to keep these companies at bay…

When Energy Secretary Rick Perry requested a study of electric grid reliability, wind and solar energy lobbyists were predictably alarmed. Perry wanted to know how federal policies were shaping wholesale electricity markets and whether public policies were responsible for forcing the premature retirement of baseload power plants.

The government has long had a role in the electric power industry, so asking for a survey of its effects should not be controversial.

The reason for the alarm? The request mentioned government mandates and subsidies, which have driven wind and solar energy’s growth, as possible drivers of reliability concerns. The industry lobbyists are right to be sensitive. Despite constantly touting the rapidly falling cost of wind and solar, industry growth over the next decade depends on mandates and subsidies….

This “everybody does it” claim about subsidies needs to be put into perspective. DOE data from 2013 show that federal subsidies for coal and natural gas amount to about 0.05 cents per kWh of electricity, while wind gets 3.5 and solar receives 22 cents per kWh. This money is not an investment in the future, but rather a subsidy to developers and financiers for the installation of existing technology….


Source: DOE grid study has wind and solar lobbyists spooked — rightly so | TheHill

WOW, AWEA can’t do basic math

In Ohio, BigWind is/has building/proposing projects that consume, on average 16,000 acres each. Now, if we look at Blue Creek, alone, there are 152 turbines. 16,000 divided by 152 is 105 acres/turbine.  Obviously, each turbine does not take up 105 acres, but when you include setbacks, homes, roadways, communities, etc. AWEA is blatantly WRONG.  You canNOT extrapolate acreage based on the actual, physical consumption of land by the industrial wind turbine.  According to Ohio’s average land consumption of 16,000 acres, our math shows that the AWEA assumption needs to be revised to be multiplied by 141!! In this case, the mass of Rhode Island x 141 = 169,200 square miles…LARGER THAN THE SIZE OF CALIFORNIA.  And, does this actually power America? NO, because we need MORE coal and MORE gas to ‘backup’ the intermittency of the turbines….

…The Supreme Court put a hold on enforcement of the plan in February to allow legal challenges to it to be resolved in court. If the Court of Appeals rules that the government can legally enforcement the plan, the country will have to start using a lot more renewable energy (like wind and solar) — and much less coal — by the year 2030.

Part of the plan calls for the creation of incentives to encourage states to build wind farms. Though the US invested $14.5 billion in wind-power project installations last year, wind farms still provide less than 5% of the nation’s energy, according to the American Wind Energy Association.

But what would a US powered only by wind actually look like?

To answer that question, AWEA’s manager of industry data analysis, John Hensley, did the following math: 4.082 billion megawatt-hours (the average annual US electricity consumption) divided by 7,008 megawatt-hours of annual wind energy production per wind turbine equals approximately 583,000 onshore turbines.

In terms of land use, those 583,000 turbines would take up about the total land mass of Rhode Island, Hensley says, because wind projects typically require 0.74 acres of land per megawatt produced….

Source: Here’s how much of the US would need to be covered in wind turbines to power the nation

Is BigWind creating tension between ‘environmentalists’ and ‘conservationists’?

Screen Shot 2016-08-21 at 4.40.55 PM

We have long argued that the only thing about renewable energy that is “green” is the money. If the press from the past few weeks is any indication, others are starting to wake up to the fact that green energy is not necessarily environmentally friendly. The article presented today present a fascinating picture of the march toward what could become a battle. As Pogo so famously put it “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Ironically, cartoonist Walter Kelly coined this phrase 46 years ago to help promote environmental awareness and publicize the first annual observance of Earth Day. Today we can employ the phrase to describe the fight brewing between “environmentalists” and “conservationists” and renewable energy…

I had no idea when I wrote the first sentence of the first article in this series that I would still be writing weeks later. Today’s installment—the last in the series—identifies some of the fissures I see forming in the advocacy community. That is, the group of dedicated renewable energy and environmental advocates whose commitment and diligence to the task of saving the world from itself has gotten us this far down the path to sustainability….

I know climate defender and renewable energy advocates that gag at the thought of nuclear, while others I have shared a meal with ardently believe it will prove impossible to prevent falling off the climate cliff without revanche to nuclear. As I have written before, environmental protections and renewable energy policies are not interchangeable policies.
What I am addressing today are fissures I see beyond what may be considered “normal” or anticipated divisions in the community. I can offer no better example than the current and past battle over renewable energy projects on public lands…
The most obvious fissure—or perhaps just the most ironic—is reflected in the calling of renewable energy developers “crony capitalists.” Oh, how far and fast we have come. Wasn’t it just a few days ago we were called “tree hugging environmentalists” by the very crony capitalists we are now accused of being?
The less apparent fissure in Bicknell’s characterization is the actionable divide that exists between environmentalists and conservationists and between big greens and little greens. Take for example the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in the Mojave Desert.
This large-scale, green-energy project splintered environmental groups. On the one side were large national organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council; on the other were smaller groups like the Wildlands Conservancy. The big’s threw their weight and support behind this industrial-scale solar installation on public land. The not-so big’s opposed it for its likely impact on wildlife habitat.
Before construction, [April] Sall’s of the Wildlands group publicly stated:
…the nation’s largest environmental organizations are scarcely voicing opposition. Their silence leaves the conservancy and a smattering of other small environmental organizations nearly alone in opposing energy development across 33,000 square miles of desert land.
Ironically, this very plant—backed by $1.5B in federal loans—is now in danger of being shut down because it is not producing the promised energy.
The growing division between the environmental and crony capitalistic renewable sectors and the divide between environmental and conservation groups do not define their relationships; although, they are disturbing. Neither are these the only fissures to be found.
In recent weeks an internal conflict between top AFL-CIO leaders and the leadership of seven of its building trades unions has arisen…
Leadership of the dissenting unions cast their opposition in the following terms:
We are not climate science deniers and have merely sought to ensure that the employment prospects of our members are not negatively impacted in any economic and energy transition.
The support of organized labor has proven a significant factor in the growth of renewable energy industry. Labor’s willingness to recognize climate change as a significant societal problem and renewable energy technologies as a source of investment and employment opportunities has served our industry well—particularly in politics. Isn’t it in the interests of these dissenting unions to support a transition to renewables? Of course it is.
So why the exception? Labor is frightened. Despite their acceptance of climate change and support of clean energy, much of labor sees in the plight of the coal miners a redundant future. No Keystone pipeline—no work. If there is work, e.g. with a solar company, they fear they will not be paid as well; many barely make ends meet as pipe fitters, plasterers and carpenters…
Blue collar workers fear the loss of identity; identities they worry will be lost to billionaire liberals who are change-makers. It is the draw of the demagogue.
Big versus little, rich versus poor, strong versus weak, conservationist versus environmentalist, solar versus wind, wind versus biomass, biomass versus environmentalist, science acceptor versus denier, state government versus federal—we are a global community divided….

How much are Texans paying for BigWind? And, what are the future risks?

Texas is the most productive state for wind power. The Lone Star State pumps out 18,000 MW of wind generation capacity. And that’s not counting an additional 5,500 MW of possible further capacity, which is equal to California’s entire installed wind capacity.
The West Texas oilfields have an energy problem. Reliance on wind power in West Texas — a unreliable energy source that is itself too reliant on massive government subsidies — has threatened the reliability of the energy market in that region and statewide.
The problem is the renewable energy industry hasn’t yet built the infrastructure needed to deliver the power where it’s needed. In Texas, it’s mostly generated by an $8 billion transmission system built to bring electricity from West Texas to the state’s big cities in the south and east. But this relatively new transmission system is already reaching capacity.
And Texas is learning how costly it can be to harness the wind. The current transmission system isn’t enough to handle the Lone Star State’s needs. And now the state is being forced to spend hundreds of millions more to upgrade the system. 4,000 MW of new generation are expected in the Panhandle over the next several years. But those projects could be curtailed if capacity isn’t increased- Raphael Telis PhD

Wind turbines are pushing Texas’s power grid to the limit, despite more than $8 billion invested in green infrastructure, according to a report published Friday in the Technology Review, by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“Texas is learning just how costly it is to wrangle the wind,” MIT researchers found.

Texas is already spending $8 billion, but the state’s utilities and transmission companies will have to spend hundreds of millions more to upgrade the system enough to transport electricity from wind-rich West Texas to market in East Texas, the report found. Texas’ new wind turbines also place dangerous stress on the power grid, potentially leading to blackouts.

“Wind power suffers from two fatal flaws: unfortunate geography and unreliable output,” Travis Fisher, an economist at the Institute for Energy Research, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “In Texas, much of the wind generation is in regions where relatively few people live. To get that electricity to more densely populated regions it took an $8 billion dollar transmission buildout.”…

…grid operators have to keep excess conventional power reserves running. Power demand is relatively predictable over time and conventional power plans, like nuclear plants and natural gas, can easily adjust output.

“However, even with new transmission lines in place, there is no way around the intermittent nature of wind production,” Fisher continued….

The US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is currently investigating how green energy undermines the reliability of the electrical grid. FERC believe there is a ‘significant risk’ of electricity in the United States becoming unreliable because “wind and solar don’t offer the services the shuttered coal plants provided.”…

This type of damage has already occurred in Germany and in other grids that rely too much on solar and wind power- like California.

Germany has been minimizing the damage by paying consumers to take excess power and asking wind and solar producers to switch off when they’re not needed. Germany paid wind farms $548 million last year to switch off…

Due to the damaging effects green energy has had on Germany’s grid, the government plans to cap the total amount of wind energy at 40-50% of national capacity…By 2019, Germany will get rid of 6.000 MW of wind power capacity…


Source: Costly Wind Turbines Are Damaging Texas Power Grid, MIT Study Finds Via @dailycaller

Ontario, CA has been covered with turbines. How expensive is their electricity?

It is a MYTH, a downright LIE that BigWind produces cheap energy. Everywhere there are large numbers of turbines, there are soaring electricity rates. You must educate others about this truth. Otherwise, America will succumb to the same mistakes that so many other countries have made. It will hurt all of us…

You may be surprised to learn that electricity is cheaper to generate in Ontario than it has been for decades…Good news, right?

It would be, except that this is Ontario…

electricity bills have never been higher.  And the way the system is structured, costs will keep rising.

The province signed long-term contracts with a handulf of lucky firms, guaranteeing them 13.5 cents per kWh for electricity produced from wind, and even more from solar.  Obviously, if the wholesale price is around 2.5 cents, and the wind turbines are guaranteed 13.5 cents, someone has to kick in 11 cents to make up the difference…

Ontario’s policy disaster goes many layers further.  If people conserve power and demand drops, the GA per kWh goes up, so if everyone tries to save money by cutting usage, the price will just increase, defeating the effort…

The province likes to defend its disastrous electricity policy by saying it did it for the children.  These are the same children who are now watching their parents struggle with unaffordable utility bills.  And who in a few years will enter the workforce and discover how hard it has become to get full time jobs amid a shrinking industrial job market…


Source: Ontario electricity has never been cheaper, but bills have never been higher

Do Ohioans want to spend 3.5X MORE $$ for electricity from BigWind? Say NO!

Screen Shot 2016-07-26 at 3.33.30 PM

A new study from the Institute for Energy Research finds that electricity from new wind and solar power is 2.5 to 5 times more expensive than electricity from existing coal and nuclear power.

This innovative study relies on data from the Energy Information Administration and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to find the levelized cost of electricity from existing plants, not just the cost of electricity from new power plants as is typical with many studies.

In addition, IER’s study estimates the costs imposed on the grid by the intermittent nature of wind and solar power. Factoring in these “imposed costs” provides a more realistic estimate of what electricity from new wind and solar power costs. In fact, solar power’s imposed costs actually increase as more capacity is added to the system.

A chart, in this study, shows the stark contrast between the cost of electricity from existing and new sources.

It indicates:
Electricity from new solar is nearly 5 times more expensive than from existing nuclear and over 3.5 times more expensive than from existing coal.
Electricity from new wind is over 3.5 times more expensive than from existing nuclear and over 2.5 times more expensive than from existing coal.
“Much of our existing coal and nuclear fleet could continue to provide affordable, reliable electricity for decades to come if not for policies like the Obama administration’s carbon regulations or the deal struck in California to shut down Diablo Canyon,” said IER President Thomas Pyle.

“Unnecessarily shutting down our existing generation in favor of expensive and intermittent wind and solar power means Americans will be left with higher electricity bills and less money in their pockets. This will have the harshest impact on poor and middle class families who spend more of their hard-earned money on energy costs. This study adds a much-needed reality check to the debate over our nation’s electricity policy.”

Click below to read the full study. Thank you to Tom Stacy, one of the authors, from the Great Buckeye State!!