Newspaper logo  
 
 
Local News & Opinion

Ref. : Civic Events

Ref. : Arts & Education Events

Ref. : Public Service Notices

Travel
Books, Films, Arts & Education
Letters
Open Letters:

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

05.21 California drought: What would Israel do?

05.21 'Air pollution causes 8m deaths/yr'

05.20 Wales launches £25m underwater kite-turbine scheme [9:58 video]

05.20 From Kansas to Copenhagen: clean energy beacons around the world

05.20 The doomsday vault: the seeds that could save a post-apocalyptic world

05.20 Faeces, bacteria, toxins: welcome to the chicken farm

05.20 White House makes bid to save honeybees but ignores toxic pesticides [Are Monsanto's potential political donations so important to risk mass death of bee colonies and no crop pollination. And what about our butterflies!]

05.19 Indian Ocean storing up heat from global warming, says study

05.19 Fracking: Texas governor stops cities and towns banning hydraulic gas mining

05.19 Global businesses must lead the way on climate action

05.19 Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF

News Media

05.18 How Fox News Is (Still) Hurting the Republicans

05.17 The media’s reaction to Seymour Hersh’s bin Laden scoop has been disgraceful [pdf]

Daily FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

US Politics, Policy & 'Culture'

05.21 After the Waco Shootout, Texas Lawmakers Debate Gun Laws

05.21 1,000 weapons found in Waco restaurant – including one in a bag of tortilla chips

05.20 Unlike Congress, Majority of Americans Oppose NSA Spying

05.20 Here's What People Are Saying About The Waco Shootout And Race

05.20 Hillary Clinton breaks media silence and insists: 'I want those emails out'

05.20 LA becomes largest US city to increase minimum wage to $15 an hour

05.19 A Typology of Corruption for Campaign 2016 and Beyond

05.19 Hillary Clinton emails to be released in January 2016, says US State Department

05.19 Democrats clash over TPP fair trade deal [Sen. Warren's “Broken Promises” report]

Justice Matters

05.21 Columbia student protesting rape brings mattress to graduation

05.18 CONGRESS TELLS COURT THAT CONGRESS CAN’T BE INVESTIGATED FOR INSIDER TRADING

High Crimes?

05.21 Elephant Watch

05.18 Amnesty International: Whitewashing Another Massacre

Economics, Crony Capitalism

05.21 Seven Years Later, Wall Street Hasn't Learned Anything

05.21 Obama’s Trade War Against Warren Wounds His Party – and His Legacy

05.20 Derailing Amtrak: Tracking the Latest Disaster in the Infrastructure Crisis

05.19 People have no idea what inequality actually looks like [graphic]

05.18 Don’t Be So Sure the Economy Will Return to Normal

05.18 Black Co-ops Were A Method of Economic Survival

05.18 TPP: The Secret Corporate Takeover

International

05.21 Jeb Bush Says His Brother Was Misled Into War by Faulty Intelligence. That's Not What Happened.

05.20 Israel scraps scheme to ban Palestinians from buses

05.20 USA Freedom Act: Senate set to vote on first surveillance restrictions in decades

05.19 Most of the world's workers have insecure jobs, ILO report reveals

05.19 A united Europe is closer than you think

05.19 What a Creative Neighborhood Looks Like

05.19 What If Everybody Didn't Have to Work to Get Paid?

05.19 Italian coastguards: military action will not solve Mediterranean migrant crisis

We are a non-profit Internet-only newspaper publication founded in 1973. Your donation is essential to our survival.

You can also mail a check to:
Baltimore News Network, Inc.
P.O. Box 42581
Baltimore, MD 21284-2581
Google
This site Web
  Print view: Pulling Back the Curtain on Wind Power
ENVIRONMENT VIEWPOINT:

Pulling Back the Curtain on Wind Power

by Ajax Eastman
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
Because wind turbines are minimally productive more than half the time, fossil fuel power plants will be needed as backups and will contribute to greenhouse gases.

Ever wonder why sailing ships no longer ply the oceans with goods and passengers? It’s a question wind energy advocates might ask themselves. They ignore the fact that the wind doesn’t blow consistently, even though its intermittent nature makes wind an undependable source of power and restricts wind generators from consistently reaching their potential.

The relative effectiveness of a generation facility to produce electricity is called its c"apacity factor," or CF for short. It is the ratio of what a generating plant actually produces compared to what it nominally could produce at full capacity. The annual average CF for wind turbines located offshore is about 40 percent, but that falls to about 25 percent during the summer, when the winds are weakest. For wind turbines located onshore the annual average CF is about 30 percent, and can drop to 13 percent in the summer.

Proponents of wind power argue it is a good choice because, among other things, it reduces greenhouse gasses. They compare industrial wind energy with power plants fueled by oil, coal, and natural gas that generate tons of carbon dioxide. However, they fail to recognize that because of the unpredictable nature of wind, carbon-fueled plants will continue to underpin the load. This is particularly true in the summer, when the winds are at their lowest and the demand for power is highest.

Proponents of wind almost never compare industrial wind to nuclear power, probably because in every aspect of electricity generation nuclear beats wind by a long shot. The following are informative comparisons.

Capacity factors:

The capacity factor of the 104 nuclear reactors operating in the United States is 90 percent. In other words, nuclear facilities crank out electricity around the clock, 365 days of the year, at pretty near their total capacity. Compare that to the results of a study from a group of wind power advocates at the University of Delaware that modeled data from off shore meteorological stations from Maine to the Florida Keys. Their results show that a large offshore turbine array would attain a 90 percent capacity factor only 2.2 days a year. Their numbers show that 20,000 five megawatt turbines would be needed to equal the full generating capacity of those 104 reactors. Even 1,200 turbines would not supply electricity as dependably as a new reactor like the one proposed at Calvert Cliffs in Maryland.

Greenhouse gas reduction:

Neither wind turbines nor nuclear reactors emit carbon dioxide. But because wind turbines are minimally productive more than half the time, fossil fuel power plants will be needed as backups and will contribute to greenhouse gases. Note that no coal-fired facility has been closed due to the installation of wind turbines.

Electricity rates and costs:

The proponents of wind use the high cost of building nuclear reactors to argue that the electricity they produce will be costly. They’re wrong because they fail to account for the low efficiency of wind; for the need for carbon-fired backup plants to compensate; for the much shorter working lives of wind turbines; and for the enormous subsidies, grants, tax incentives, and tax breaks from federal, state, and local governments. In fact, the expensive wind turbines, especially offshore, would never be built without these subsidies that in some cases pay for 50 percent of the project’s cost.

After coal, nuclear is the least costly generator of electricity for the rate payer. After solar, wind is the most expensive.

In Maryland, Governor Martin O’Malley has introduced legislation that will mandate Maryland’s public utilities to commit to long-term contracts to purchase offshore wind-generated electricity in order to guarantee a market for offshore wind, even though it will increase costs to ratepayers. In Massachusetts millions of ratepayers can expect a two percent hike in their electric bills due to the planned Cape Wind project.

Environmental impacts:

The proposed Calvert Cliffs 3 nuclear reactor would be sited on about 350 acres. The 1,200 offshore wind turbines needed to produce the same amount of energy would require 74,000 acres. Onshore, 2,400 turbines would be needed and would require 8,500 acres. This is a lot of land or water and a big impact on the rich mountain ecosystems and habitats or ocean ecosystems about which we know little.

There are numerous reasons why nuclear energy should be seriously pursued. But the question here is: should inefficient industrial wind be pushed blindly given its potential for greatly increasing our energy bills, requiring up to 50 percent taxpayer investment, and causing enormous environmental damage?

We should rewrite state laws, like Maryland’s Renewable Portfolio Standard or Pennsylvania’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard, as Clean Energy Portfolio Standards that include new nuclear reactors. Such a change would greatly expand clean, non-carbon emitting solutions for future electricity demands.


Reader response

Ajax Eastman has served on the board of the Maryland Environmental Trust, as past President of the Maryland Conservation Council, Co-chairman of the Maryland Wildlands Committee, and on numerous other State boards and commissions. Her love of the natural world began early at a summer camp in Maine where today she teaches nature to young campers. Distributed by Bay Journal News Service.



Copyright © 2010 The Baltimore News Network. All rights reserved.

Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.

Baltimore News Network, Inc., sponsor of this web site, is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed in stories posted on this web site are the authors' own.

This story was published on February 1, 2010.
 


Public Service Ads: