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

07.06 Koch Industries spent €0.5m lobbying EU on [to suppress] environmental protection

07.06 Making green chemistry mainstream – event

07.06 The Myth of Big, Bad Gluten

07.05 Inside London's New Subterranean Urban Farm

07.05 Secrecy over fracking chemicals clouds environmental risks, advocates say

07.05 Carbon tax repeal sparks jump in Australia's electricity emissions

07.04 Sunny weather sees Britain break solar power record, estimate says

07.04 People power has shut the doors on fracking in the UK

07.04 New coal plants 'most urgent' threat to the planet, warns OECD head

07.04 Solar Impulse lands in Hawaii after longest non-stop solo flight in history [1:53 video]

07.03 George Lakoff: Why Pope Francis Killed It on Addressing Climate Change

07.03 This dome in the Pacific houses tons of radioactive waste – and it's leaking

07.03 Jairam Ramesh: India can't remain on the path of further destruction

07.03 Greenpeace and utilities launch suit against Hinkley nuclear plant

07.03 New study warns of dangerous climate change risks to the Earth’s oceans [ginormous graphic]

07.03 BP set to pay largest environmental fine in US history for Gulf oil spill

News Media

07.06 The Times’ Condescending Attitude Toward Bernie Sanders

Daily FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

US Politics, Policy & 'Culture'

07.06 White Supremacists Extend Their Reach Through Websites

07.06 It’s Bernie Sanders’ America: 5 “radical” ideas Americans strongly support

07.06 Let’s abandon the Democrats: On TPP, workers’ rights and income inequality, they are as bad as GOP

07.05 Tell Your Stories [1:55 video]

07.05 The GOP’s pathetic crybaby agenda: Trump, Scalia and the whiny, paranoid new face of the right

07.05 White Southern hate, stripped bare for all to see

07.04 Major Gaps Between the Public, Scientists on Key Issues [interactive graph, click triangles...]

Justice Matters
High Crimes?
Economics, Crony Capitalism

07.06 Thomas Piketty: “Germany has never repaid.”

07.06 Welcome to Hooverville, California

07.06 Will the ECB Continue Its “Sherman’s March to the Sea” with the Greek Economy?

07.06 Greece debt crisis: China is the real elephant in the room

07.04 A Revolutionary Pope Calls for Rethinking the Outdated Criteria That Rule the World

07.04 Murder, drug cartels and misery counter Argentina's claims of falling poverty [what crushing debt servitude does...]

07.03 Europe’s Many Economic Disasters

International

07.06 Beijing issues travel warning after Turkey protests target Chinese [3:08 video; why, then, does Turkey ignore (abet?) Muslim atrocities in Syria and Iraq?]

07.06 Greek debt crisis: markets fall and bond yields rise after no vote – live

07.05 Calais drivers need more protection from migrants, says lorry group

07.05 Egypt says 25 militants killed in air strikes as Sisi inspects troops

07.05 Greeks begin voting in referendum as the euro faces its biggest challenge

07.05 Tales of Horror Should Galvanize Obama

07.04 Why Greece and Germany just don’t get along, in 15 charts

07.04 This euro is destroying the European dream [Ref. Paul Krugman's OpEd]

07.04 What is TTIP? The controversial trade deal proposal explained

07.04 Iranian foreign minister raises prospect of joint action against Islamic State

07.04 Migrants try to storm Channel tunnel at Calais, sparking further delays

07.04 Sorry, London: you’re too uncool. And way behind New York

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: