Europe: Wind Power a complete disaster.

[Danno 1,228]

Wind power is a complete disaster

Posted: April 08, 2009, 7:29 PM by NP Editor

wind power, Michael J. Trebilcock

By Michael J. Trebilcock

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx#ixzz0hoYhsrBS

There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).

Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.

Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds.

Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 — compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢; hydro at 67¢; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call “a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy.” The Wall Street Journal advises that “wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners.”

The Economist magazine notes in a recent editorial, “Wasting Money on Climate Change,” that each tonne of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137, whereas under a cap-and-trade scheme the price would be less than $15.

Either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system creates incentives for consumers and producers on a myriad of margins to reduce energy use and emissions that, as these numbers show, completely overwhelm subsidies to renewables in terms of cost effectiveness.

The Ontario Power Authority advises that wind producers will be paid 13.5¢/kwh (more than twice what consumers are currently paying), even without accounting for the additional costs of interconnection, transmission and back-up generation. As the European experience confirms, this will inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in electricity costs with consequent detrimental effects on business and employment. From this perspective, the government’s promise of 55,000 new jobs is a cruel delusion.

A recent detailed analysis (focusing mainly on Spain) finds that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs are lost. Each wind industry job created cost almost $2-million in subsidies. Why will the Ontario experience be different?

In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are two kinds of green. First there are some environmental greens who view the problem as so urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken immediately.

Then there are the fiscal greens, who, being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that make polluters pay, favour massive public subsidies to themselves for renewable energy projects, whatever their relative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. These two groups are motivated by different kinds of green. The only point of convergence between them is their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy (such as wind turbines).

This unholy alliance of these two kinds of greens (doomsdayers and rent seekers) makes for very effective, if opportunistic, politics (as reflected in the Ontario government’s Green Energy Act), just as it makes for lousy public policy: Politicians attempt to pick winners at our expense in a fast-moving technological landscape, instead of creating a socially efficient set of incentives to which we can all respond.

Financial Post

Michael J. Trebilcock is Professor of Law and Economics, University of Toronto. These comments were excerpted from a submission last night to the Ontario government’s legislative committee On Bill 150.

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx#ixzz0iDuS7MCu

The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I guess we have no chance at all since Denmark is higher ranked than the US.

[Sc0tt28 26]

Wind power is a complete disaster

Posted: April 08, 2009, 7:29 PM by NP Editor

wind power, Michael J. Trebilcock

By Michael J. Trebilcock

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx#ixzz0hoYhsrBS

There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).

Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.

Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds.

Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 — compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢; hydro at 67¢; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call “a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy.” The Wall Street Journal advises that “wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners.”

The Economist magazine notes in a recent editorial, “Wasting Money on Climate Change,” that each tonne of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137, whereas under a cap-and-trade scheme the price would be less than $15.

Either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system creates incentives for consumers and producers on a myriad of margins to reduce energy use and emissions that, as these numbers show, completely overwhelm subsidies to renewables in terms of cost effectiveness.

The Ontario Power Authority advises that wind producers will be paid 13.5¢/kwh (more than twice what consumers are currently paying), even without accounting for the additional costs of interconnection, transmission and back-up generation. As the European experience confirms, this will inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in electricity costs with consequent detrimental effects on business and employment. From this perspective, the government’s promise of 55,000 new jobs is a cruel delusion.

A recent detailed analysis (focusing mainly on Spain) finds that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs are lost. Each wind industry job created cost almost $2-million in subsidies. Why will the Ontario experience be different?

In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are two kinds of green. First there are some environmental greens who view the problem as so urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken immediately.

Then there are the fiscal greens, who, being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that make polluters pay, favour massive public subsidies to themselves for renewable energy projects, whatever their relative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. These two groups are motivated by different kinds of green. The only point of convergence between them is their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy (such as wind turbines).

This unholy alliance of these two kinds of greens (doomsdayers and rent seekers) makes for very effective, if opportunistic, politics (as reflected in the Ontario government’s Green Energy Act), just as it makes for lousy public policy: Politicians attempt to pick winners at our expense in a fast-moving technological landscape, instead of creating a socially efficient set of incentives to which we can all respond.

Financial Post

Michael J. Trebilcock is Professor of Law and Economics, University of Toronto. These comments were excerpted from a submission last night to the Ontario government’s legislative committee On Bill 150.

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx#ixzz0iDuS7MCu

The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

Not real surprising. If you watch them spinning you can tell that they need to be spinning a lot faster in order to be worth the space they take up.

[Ban Hammer 12,841]

Not real surprising. If you watch them spinning you can tell that they need to be spinning a lot faster in order to be worth the space they take up.

after steven reads this story, he'll spin so much we should be able to get all kinds of power from him!

[NickD 202]

Really difficult to make sense out of an article like this when they claim wind power is now generating 1/5th of their energy needs. We have guys here stating that wind power is now competitive with coal fired plants, with a good payback as no coal is required to keep them operating. But then we also have a Rainbow vacuum cleaner salesman telling you, you need a 3,000 buck vacuum cleaner to clean your house. Had a guy come over because a "friend" recommended him, had me vacuum my sofa with my 50 buck 12 amp vacuum cleaner, takes his, with a white lint clothe on the nozzle, goes over the same spot and get more black dirt. Ask him for a piece of his lint, I do the same with my fifty buck cleaner and even get out more black dirt. He is embarrassed and leaves. I just say, I can buy 60 of these vacuum cleaners for the price of your one. Salesman will say anything to sell a product. Would really have to see the numbers and run my own tests with a minor degree of honesty to verify what the truth is.

Regarding bird life, seems like a glass pane window is far more passive than a rotating blade with frightening movement. But yet some birds will try to fly through my picture window breaking their necks and lying dead on the ground. Watch the birds fly around, most know the window is there and they have enough sense not to fly through it, only the really dumb stupid birds try to fly through a pane glass window. But maybe we should ban all glass windows to save the birds if that is used as an argument against wind powered generation. Yet another huge bird killer is our vehicles that should be banned, but again, only killing the dumb birds.

I am certainly not an aerodynamic engineer, but only can wonder why they are only using three bladed propellers, just three very long thin blades with minimum air contact and they are all the same! Never see that anywhere else, how about three long thin blades in the vacuum cleaner example for moving air? Seems like getting maximum air contact in the minimum space would be desired. But what in the hell do I know. But see that all over, one idiot comes up with a design, all the other idiots copy it.

[Niels Bohr 72]

It works. Raytheon Corp and many other corporation here in NE are using WindMills. It reduces coal burning which pollutes the fisheries around here.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Niels Bohr

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Wind Power works ok, but should never be used as the 'primary' source of energy as it is highly unreliable.

It's kind of like running your AC at home.

If it's mild outside, there's no need to run your AC as the fresh air from outside can keep you cool enough or maybe a ceiling fan.

If it gets too hot out though, you're going to want the power of that nice cold AC to keep you cool from the heat outside.

Same goes for wind power. When the wind is up and can make them work, then reduce the power output on coal, etc.. when it's not so windy, resume as normal.

Any little bit that help pollution is great. One thing I will say though, is wind farms are neat to drive by, but an eye-sore if you have to see the fields (soem of them go for miles) of them....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Professor Trebilcock is a lying POS shill for the Fossil Fuel Industry. Just google his name.

Wind power works

Denmark gets around 20% of its electricity from wind power

By Sigurd Lauge Pedersen

It is perfectly legitimate to hate wind power. But it is more convincing if you do your homework first. In his Financial Post op-ed (“Wind power is a complete disaster,” April 9), Michael J. Trebilcock appears to be willing to jeopardize his academic reputation by putting forward a series of wrong claims and false, suspect or irrelevant citations, mainly about wind power in Denmark.

Mr. Trebilcock claims that “Denmark … has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant.” There is no citation for this claim, which is wise, in a sense, for the claim is wrong. Denmark has closed several coal and oil fired plants in the last 10 years.

Mr. Trebilcock claims that wind power “requires 50% more coal generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability.” Wrong again. One megawatt of wind power does not increase conventional power requirements — it saves 0.2-0.4 megawatts of conventional capacity. The high figure is for offshore wind power, the low figure for onshore wind power.

Yes, wind power is partly unpredictable. But so is a fossil or nuclear plant. True, they work most of the time, but 5% to 10% of the time they fail. Hence it is not unpredictability as such that distinguishes wind power from fossil or nuclear plants. It is the level of unpredictability. If Mr. Trebilcock’s argument were valid, any power system would need infinite back-up: One coal fired plant can fail, hence needs a backup. This can also fail, hence needs a further backup. And so on. Mr. Trebilcock’s argument rests on the unspoken assumption that electricity must be available to consumers always. It cannot be and it never will be.

Mr. Trebilcock claims that CO2 emissions went up by 36% in 2006 as a result of wind power. This does not make sense. If a unit of wind electricity is added to any electricity system with fossil plants, production on a fossil plant will have to be reduced by one unit. The amount of hydro production will not be affected — this is determined by the amount of rainfall. Neither will nuclear production be affected — nuclear plants run full load (whenever they are available) for economic and technical reasons. Hence the claim that wind power increases CO2 is absurd. You can discuss which fossil plant reduces its production, but that one does is simple physics.

Mr. Trebilcock quotes Flemming Nissen from ELSAM power company. Not only is the quote misleading (at best), but Mr. Nissen has not been in ELSAM for years, and the company no longer exists. Mr. Trebilcock quotes Niels Gram of the Federation of Danish Industries, but it has been years since he left. Mr. Trebilcock cites Aase Madsen as chair of energy policy in the Danish Parliament, a position she has not held for a long time.

Mr. Trebilcock quotes “a recent detailed analysis” that for each job created by state-funded wind power, 2.2 jobs are lost. Again, he does not specify the source, and again I seriously disagree. The number of “wind jobs” in Denmark, around 20,000, recently passed the number of jobs in the bacon industry for which Denmark was long known.

Mr. Trebilcock claims that Denmark’s electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe without citation. Again he is wrong. The 2008 electricity price in Denmark to medium-sized industries is 7.85 eurocents/kWh, which is below the European average of 9 eurocents/kWh.

Mr. Trebilcock may confuse electricity prices with electricity taxes. Danish taxes are high, yes, but this has nothing to do with wind power.

Denmark gets around 20% of its electricity from wind power. Is this a challenge? Absolutely. But it can be done.

Financial Post

Sigurd Lauge Pedersen has a PhD in energy planning and 25 years of experience at the University of Copenhagen, Danish Technical University and Danish Energy Agency.

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/05/11/counterpoint-wind-power-works.aspx#ixzz0iGPBLFWk

The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

....

PWNAGE, Denmark style.

Nice try though, Danno. Keep searching for articles that support your view that we shouldn't be investing in renewable energy. I hope Exxon Mobil sends you a check.

[Sc0tt28 26]

I actually think that we should round up a bunch of people that are willing to do cheap manual labor (not naming names here...lol) and have them turn turbines by hand. They would only require some extra food/water.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I actually think that we should round up a bunch of people that are willing to do cheap manual labor (not naming names here...lol) and have them turn turbines by hand. They would only require some extra food/water.

Have you seen those buildings that you can use bicycle power to 'power' the buildings? It's pretty sweet.... They had those out at the Minnesota State Fair when I was there a couple of years ago. The entire news studio was being powered by people pedaling on bikes..

That could help unemployment! "People Power" lol.....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Have you seen those buildings that you can use bicycle power to 'power' the buildings? It's pretty sweet.... They had those out at the Minnesota State Fair when I was there a couple of years ago. The entire news studio was being powered by people pedaling on bikes..

That could help unemployment! "People Power" lol.....

I think office jobs where the person is essentially shackled to their desk most of the day could provide potential electricity by have bicycle-style pedals underneath their desk. It'd have to be entirely voluntary, but perhaps companies could offer incentives to employees who participate.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I think office jobs where the person is essentially shackled to their desk most of the day could provide potential electricity by have bicycle-style pedals underneath their desk. It'd have to be entirely voluntary, but perhaps companies could offer incentives to employees who participate.

Not to mention that this could help the Obesity rate....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Not to mention that this could help the Obesity rate....

Well, sedentary lifestyle is a part of the problem. If employers are the ones providing health insurance, this could be a win-win situation for them.

I'm thinking of other ways. What about crank-powered office machines - like maybe the copy/fax machine? Or crank-powered paper shredders? coffee-makers?

[Danno 1,228]

Professor Trebilcock is a lying POS shill for the Fossil Fuel Industry. Just google his name.

Wind power works

Denmark gets around 20% of its electricity from wind power

By Sigurd Lauge Pedersen

It is perfectly legitimate to hate wind power. But it is more convincing if you do your homework first. In his Financial Post op-ed (“Wind power is a complete disaster,” April 9), Michael J. Trebilcock appears to be willing to jeopardize his academic reputation by putting forward a series of wrong claims and false, suspect or irrelevant citations, mainly about wind power in Denmark.

Mr. Trebilcock claims that “Denmark … has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant.” There is no citation for this claim, which is wise, in a sense, for the claim is wrong. Denmark has closed several coal and oil fired plants in the last 10 years.

Mr. Trebilcock claims that wind power “requires 50% more coal generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability.” Wrong again. One megawatt of wind power does not increase conventional power requirements — it saves 0.2-0.4 megawatts of conventional capacity. The high figure is for offshore wind power, the low figure for onshore wind power.

Yes, wind power is partly unpredictable. But so is a fossil or nuclear plant. True, they work most of the time, but 5% to 10% of the time they fail. Hence it is not unpredictability as such that distinguishes wind power from fossil or nuclear plants. It is the level of unpredictability. If Mr. Trebilcock’s argument were valid, any power system would need infinite back-up: One coal fired plant can fail, hence needs a backup. This can also fail, hence needs a further backup. And so on. Mr. Trebilcock’s argument rests on the unspoken assumption that electricity must be available to consumers always. It cannot be and it never will be.

Mr. Trebilcock claims that CO2 emissions went up by 36% in 2006 as a result of wind power. This does not make sense. If a unit of wind electricity is added to any electricity system with fossil plants, production on a fossil plant will have to be reduced by one unit. The amount of hydro production will not be affected — this is determined by the amount of rainfall. Neither will nuclear production be affected — nuclear plants run full load (whenever they are available) for economic and technical reasons. Hence the claim that wind power increases CO2 is absurd. You can discuss which fossil plant reduces its production, but that one does is simple physics.

Mr. Trebilcock quotes Flemming Nissen from ELSAM power company. Not only is the quote misleading (at best), but Mr. Nissen has not been in ELSAM for years, and the company no longer exists. Mr. Trebilcock quotes Niels Gram of the Federation of Danish Industries, but it has been years since he left. Mr. Trebilcock cites Aase Madsen as chair of energy policy in the Danish Parliament, a position she has not held for a long time.

Mr. Trebilcock quotes “a recent detailed analysis” that for each job created by state-funded wind power, 2.2 jobs are lost. Again, he does not specify the source, and again I seriously disagree. The number of “wind jobs” in Denmark, around 20,000, recently passed the number of jobs in the bacon industry for which Denmark was long known.

Mr. Trebilcock claims that Denmark’s electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe without citation. Again he is wrong. The 2008 electricity price in Denmark to medium-sized industries is 7.85 eurocents/kWh, which is below the European average of 9 eurocents/kWh.

Mr. Trebilcock may confuse electricity prices with electricity taxes. Danish taxes are high, yes, but this has nothing to do with wind power.

Denmark gets around 20% of its electricity from wind power. Is this a challenge? Absolutely. But it can be done.

Financial Post

Sigurd Lauge Pedersen has a PhD in energy planning and 25 years of experience at the University of Copenhagen, Danish Technical University and Danish Energy Agency.

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/05/11/counterpoint-wind-power-works.aspx#ixzz0iGPBLFWk

The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

....

PWNAGE, Denmark style.

Nice try though, Danno. Keep searching for articles that support your view that we shouldn't be investing in renewable energy. I hope Exxon Mobil sends you a check.

But you never told us how many old dirty power plants (actually pretty clean) have been shut down in Denmark or other places.

Also, your new sig. photo claims Jesus preached "social justice" yet I have asked for a few examples and you quietly move on with no reply.

Now we all know Christ reached out to the poor and commands his followers to do so.... but where does he command us to force others to do so?

[mawilson 2,133]

Professor Trebilcock is a lying POS shill for the Fossil Fuel Industry. Just google his name.

I googled it and all I got were pictures of #######.