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

07.29 The Health Benefits of Trees

07.29 Delaying climate action will carry heavy economic cost, White House warns

07.29 Obama leasing millions of Gulf acres for offshore oil & gas drilling

07.28 Companies proclaim water the next oil in a rush to turn resources into profit

07.28 Why Warren Buffett Loves Renewable Energy

07.28 Report shows 1 in 3 Texans chooses renewable energy options

07.28 Half of Britain to be opened up to fracking

07.28 Wishful Thinking About Natural Gas: Why Fossil Fuels Can’t Solve the Problems Created by Fossil Fuels

07.27 JOHN FRANCO: A DIGESTABLE WAY TO SINGLE-PAYER

07.25 Antarctica’s Point of No Return

07.24 Top Doctor Working To Contain Current Ebola Outbreak Is Now Infected With Ebola

07.24 Under Water: The EPA’s Struggle to Combat Pollution

07.24 Why Do Other Rich Nations Spend So Much Less on Healthcare?

News Media

Daily FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

Justice Matters

07.24 The Leader of the Unfree World [Scary charts]

US Politics, Policy & Culture

07.29 Hillary Clinton vs. Elizabeth Warren: Big Differences, Despite Claims To The Contrary

07.29 The State's Unwitting Attack on Parenting While Poor

07.28 My party has lost its soul: Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and the victory of Wall Street Democrats

07.27 Repeal Prohibition, Again

07.26 Krugman Divulges Real Reason Conservatives Freak Out About California Success Story

07.26 What is Paul Ryan's plan to expand the EITC?

07.25 Black Homeowners Are Worse Off Today Than They Were 40 Years Ago

High Crimes?

07.29 To Summarize the Israeli/Gaza War

07.28 As the Gaza crisis deepens, boycotts can raise the price of Israel’s impunity

07.27 Palestinian Resistance: an icon for those who long to live free

07.27 Wyden Ponders Release of CIA Torture Report Without White House Consent

Economics, Crony Capitalism

07.29 The black hole of US government contracting

07.27 PRIVATE EQUITY’S FREE PASS

07.27 The Typical Household, Now Worth a Third Less

07.27 Federal regulators let utilities gouge customers

07.26 You Can’t Taper a Ponzi Scheme: Time to Reboot

International

07.29 Israel Creates ‘No Man’s Land’ in Gaza, Shrinking Strip by 40 Percent

07.29 Huge blaze out of control in Tripoli battle as Libya slides into chaos

07.29 Weapons paid for by US are Missing in Afghanistan: Did they go to the Taliban?

07.29 Unlike Iraq, Iran, Libya, N. Korea, Israel has Impunity from Defying UNSC (Gaza Ceasefire)

07.29 The Wake-Up Call: Europe Toughens Stance against Putin

07.29 Gaza pounded by Israel after Netanyahu promises prolonged battle

07.29 When I served, the Israeli military was the most moral in the world. No more

07.28 Why Is Israel Losing a War It's Winning?

07.28 Stopping Putin: The Time Has Come for Europe to Act

07.27 North Korea Is Not Pleased: Dance Video Features Kim Jong Un [3:29 video]

07.27 Gaza death toll over 1,000 - Israeli toll up to 42 [videos, photos]

07.26 Gangs, guns and Judas Priest: the secret history of a US-inflicted border crisis

07.26 Central American leaders meet Barack Obama to criticise US border policy

07.26 Iraq: Isis warns women to wear full veil or face punishment

07.25 America Is the Only Country with a Favorable View of Israel [graphs]

07.25 The Gaza war has done terrible things to Israeli society

07.25 Ex-Israeli Security Chief Diskin: 'All the Conditions Are There for an Explosion'

07.25 West Bank erupts as UN deplores Gaza school attack

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: