Newspaper logo  
 
 
Local News & Opinion

Ref. : Civic Events

Ref. : Arts & Education Events

Ref. : Public Service Notices

Travel
Books, Films, Arts & Education

10.01 The war on high-school history classes is a whole new level of dumb

09.30 30 Years of Coens: Inside Llewyn Davis

09.29 Naomi Klein: Fossil Fuels Threaten Our Ability to Have Healthy Children

Letters
Open Letters:

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

10.01 Celiac Disease, a Common, but Elusive, Diagnosis

10.01 Ebola Outbreak in Nigeria Appears to Be Contained

09.30 Yes, the Health Care Industry Is Conspiring to Steal Your Money

09.30 Beyond GMOs: The Rise of Synthetic Biology

09.30 The Berlin Patient and the Mysterious Cure for HIV

09.30 Can Narendra Modi bring the solar power revolution to India?

09.30 Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years, says WWF [related photos]

09.29 MIT's new cement recipe could cut carbon emissions by more than half

09.28 Germany’s Grass-Roots Energy Revolution [6:00 video]

09.28 Interview with Ebola Discoverer Peter Piot: 'It Is What People Call a Perfect Storm'

09.28 We Can Transition to 100% Renewable Energy Starting Today

09.28 Study predicts California will use only renewable energy by 2050

News Media

09.29 Political TV Ads Will Soon Reach Facebook-Level Creepiness

09.29 ANATOMY OF A NON-DENIAL DENIAL

Daily FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

Justice Matters

09.30 States Take the Lead on Sexual-Assault Reform

09.28 Iceland: Bankers Convicted, Unemployment Down

09.26 For Oil and Gas Companies, Rigging Seems to Involve Wages, Too

US Politics, Policy & Culture

10.01 As PayPal Spins Off, Apple Pay Signals New Era at Cash Register

10.01 Lawmakers Rebuke Secret Service Chief Over White House Breach

10.01 California Will Allow Family Members to Seek Seizure of Guns

10.01 The US military is as unequal as America. Want a fair fight? Reinstate the draft

09.30 Searching for the Good Life in the Bakken Oil Fields

09.29 GWU students tackling income inequality in their own backyard

09.29 Failing the Midterms

09.29 “Not the true Republican Party”: How the party of Lincoln ended up with Ted Cruz

09.27 ALEC Exodus!

High Crimes?
Economics, Crony Capitalism

10.01 Arkansas Internet Law Gouges Schoolkids

10.01 8 disturbing ways the Kochs have amassed their fortune

09.29 Grossly Distorted Procedures: Mish Proposal to Raise GDP Calculation

09.28 German Central Bank Head Weidmann: 'The Euro Crisis Is Not Yet Behind Us'

09.27 Inside the New York Fed: Secret Recordings and a Culture Clash

09.27 Taliban Storm Afghanistan, Beheadings Galore

09.27 Europe’s Austerity Zombies

09.26 G.O.P. Error Reveals Donors and the Price of Access

International

09.30 One of America's Most Famous Slow-Food Chefs Says Farm-to-Table 'Doesn't Really Work'

09.30 "When We Felt Threatened, We Opened Umbrellas and Raised Our Hands"

09.30 Gitmo hunger strikes are a cry for help. Why is the US fighting back with secret torture?

09.29 Obama’s Syria Strategy: Hit And Hope

09.29 Meet the Controversial Muslim Leader Who Has Advised the White House

09.29 Hong Kong Demonstrators Unveil 'Umbrella Revolution' [photos]

09.29 Hong Kong protests 'must go on' [3:00 drone video]

09.29 US-led air strikes pound Isis bases in Syria

09.28 Full Show: America’s New War in the Middle East [25:20 video]

09.28 The Syrian Front: Waiting to Die in Aleppo

09.27 How Israel Silences Dissent

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: