|
|
|
Advertisements
|
|
|
|
“Wind and Solar Are Losers
in Any Energy Plan”
Many Americans do not know that
the House of Representatives in August voted to force utilities to obtain 15% of
their power from renewable sources. In the past, this has not been much of an
issue, as low requirements using this “formula” were often obtained by some
“energy efficiency method.” Now, however, the stakes are much higher. The
deadline would have been the year 2020, with the threat of millions of dollars
in penalties for those not meeting the requirement. Thank goodness, Republicans
in the Senate offered to filibuster the issue and thus won a Democrat-sponsored
override by a single vote! Even though it gives one pause to celebrate right
now, it portends a much worse result if liberals in Congress in both houses
increase their majority. What was it that liberals were touting that utilities
use to accomplish their green goal?
You’ll Be Blown Away By
The Wind
Wind is supposed to be a
viable answer. News reports from the “media” say that one wind generator can
produce enough electricity for 1,200 homes per year. Well, it is true on paper,
but it is actually a half-truth. There is a small requirement in fine print on
the generator: it only produces enough when the wind is between 26 and 55 mph
(above that amount requires blades to be feathered to avoid destruction of the
machine). If the wind speed drops by one half, the generating capacity drops to
one-eighth. There are very few sites in the United States that meet this
criterion. This capacity factor (touted at 100% in supplying power to 1,200
homes) actually generates on average only 30% of this “advertised” capacity,
thus supplying power to 360 homes. If we were to put wind turbines in Arkansas,
to honor Bill Clinton’s home state, the capacity would be only 5%.
If we were to line up enough wind
turbines to meet the 15 % rule liberals would put onto utilities, we would need
about 3,516 turbines. However, lining them up in a row is impossible, as it
would lower downwind turbines to zero production because of the turbulence they
would cause. Actually, it could possibly destroy them from asymmetrical wind
forces. Thus, there are only so many, which can be generated per acre of wind
farm. To meet our political requirements would mean that we would need 494
square miles of wind farms on a given good windy day. I sense that we might get
arguments from bird lovers who don’t like the blades killing their beloved
birds, environmentalists who hate transmission lines going through their states
and properties, people who are irritated by the vast noise they make, not
counting the blight on the views of the landscape. In France, no one can build a
wind turbine within 0.9 miles of any residence due to the noise alone. The UK
requires a one-mile setback. Turbine blades turn at a rate of 200 mile per hour,
so that is why many raptors and others fall prey to their blades. This has
caused wind turbines to be off limits to mountain ridges, shorelines and
wetlands, many of which are the only areas where there is consistent wind to
generate power.
Finally, increase in wind
generation will not remove coal power plants. High-pressure systems hitting the
States in the summer and winter months would require those nasty coal power
plants to stay open. Consider this: most of our country is tied together by an
electrical grid so that power can be routed from one area to another as demands
change from place to place. Electricity is not stored on the grid. If a portion
of the power comes from wind generation, there must always be a backup in the
event this drop significantly—like perhaps to zero. These backup plants must
be kept running as it requires hours if not days to bring them up to a level
where they can provide power.
Now look at the cost. The average
cost of wind turbine generators is about $1.5 million per megawatt. That means
we would have to cough up about $790 billion to implement this scheme. Consider
that the entire Interstate Highway System was completed at a cost of $129
billion. Without government interference in the marketplace, wind power would be
a relic for our historical entertainment.
Solar Is Not a Bright Idea
Either
What about the old, famous solar
energy alternative? Some are now suggesting we could harness energy from
moonbeams. Can you believe it? Yup, you can harness energy from them, but
of course it is not at all practical to do so. Some might think that solar power
generation is best in someplace hot like the Equator. However, what really
matters is the 24-hour average insolation (energy of the sun shingling down on a
unit area of the Earth) at a particular location.
There are two methods of
generating electricity from sunlight. One employs photovoltaic cells, used by
orbiting satellites and our small calculators, to mention a few. It works, but
the trouble occurs when very large amounts of power must be generated and
available at all times. The problem of maximizing power from sunlight has been
known for at least 30 years, and is primarily one of physical limitations, not
engineering technology.
Commercial photovoltaic cells
turn about 10% of the sun’s energy into electrical energy. Due to space
requirements between the cells, it would take about 80% of a football field size
to power 40 hand held hairdryers and 10 kitchen ranges. That is a highly
positive figure because the test was done in Albuquerque, NM where the sun
always shines. In gloomy Seattle, the numbers would be ridiculous.
The second method of solar energy
turning into electricity is solar thermal generation. The three most notable
stations were set up in Barstow, CA in the Mojave Desert, where they boiled
water, generated steam, and drove turbines, which in turn drove generators. The
largest solar operating plant in the world there has over 1 million sun-tracking
parabolic mirrors to concentrate solar energy. It is rated at 354,000 kW of
electrical output, roughly one-third of a major nuclear power plant. But its
real average power is 77,000. It takes up a 1,600-acre site and generates 48kW
per acre and requires a natural gas boiler that contributes about 25% of its
output.
The “greens” claim that this
firm generates enough power to meet he needs of about a half million people. The
actual facts are that it contributes only 11% of that figure! All other solar
energy stations produce much, much less than that.
Again, visiting Arkansas alone,
the state would need 10-15 solar plants, each with the capacity of the one
mentioned above (SEGS), occupying 16,000 to 24,000 acres—25 to 27 square
miles. Who knows what the cost would be. Construction costs of green
power are concealed in a twisted maze of grants, subsidies, credits, and other
ways to disguise their outland costs.
The Mantra
Politicians and their green
constituencies continually invoke the mantra of “wind and solar power” as
the solution to our energy future. It is time to stop nodding our heads at this
craziness, take off the gloves and ask them illuminating questions:
How many wind turbines do you
suggest, where do you plant to site them, what is the kW per wind turbine, and
what are the anticipated capacity factors?
What subsidies will the taxpayers
be required to pay for green power, and how will this affect the utility
ratepayers and stockholders?
What type of solar power are you
referring to? What efficiencies can you bring to photovoltaic? If thermal, how
is this to be configured? On what average insolation are your calculations
based? (Most politicians have never heard or seen that word)
How do you propose to replace
existing power plants when statistically there will be extended periods when
both wind and solar power will not supply any energy to the power grid?
And how, if we must keep these plants open, do you say that we can reduce carbon
dioxide emissions?
I doubt you will get any answers,
for all these politicians do is talk, talk, talk. They just say what they
believe ignorant citizens want to hear, citizens who have never studied the
differences themselves between a kilowatt and a kumquat.
|
