Newspaper logo  
 
 
Local Gov’t Stories, Events

08.15 RIDE FOR THE OVERRIDE

Ref. : Civic Events

Ref. : Arts & Education Events

Ref. : Public Service Notices

01.17 Trump’s nominee to head EPA has opposed the Chesapeake Bay cleanup

01.15 Stoop stories

Travel
Books, Films, Arts & Education

01.18 Civil Rights Advocates Concerned That Betsy DeVos Will Not Stand Up for All Children

01.18 Matt Taibbi's New Book: 'Insane Clown President'

Letters

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

01.18 500+ Groups Urge Senators: 'Use All Your Power' to Block Anti-Environment Pruitt

01.18 WYOMING IS BASICALLY TRYING TO OUTLAW CLEAN ENERGY [greed by the rich trumps health for all]

01.18 Exxon doubling Permian Basin holdings in U.S. for up to $6.6 billion [preparations are in place to quickly maximize fossil fuel extraction, pollution and life-threatening greed]

01.17 Water-energy-food: can leaders at Davos solve this global conundrum? [easy! renewable energy doesn't use any water!!!]

01.16 At Scott Pruitt’s Confirmation Hearing, Science Will Be on Trial

01.16 New studies show Rex Tillerson is wrong about climate risks

01.15 Bernie Sanders Shreds Fellow Democrats Who Voted with Big Pharma

01.14 Dow Chemical Wants Farmers to Keep Using a Pesticide Linked to Autism and ADHD [serious]

01.14 ‘The last five years have not been great at Greenpeace’

01.14 Patagonia, Black Diamond take on Utah officials over public land rights [if there is a way to screw the public, Republicans are working on it...]

01.14 All north Indian cities fail to meet air quality standards, report finds

News Media Matters

Daily: FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

US Politics, Policy & 'Culture'

01.18 Who are the three-quarters of adult Americans who didn't vote for Trump? [demographic charts]

01.18 How Barack Obama paved the way for Donald Trump

01.17 Democrats Lost in a Corporate Wilderness

01.17 Actually Mr. Trump, Turns Out Americans 'Care a Lot' About Your Tax Returns

01.17 Despite Growing Disapproval and Protest, Corporate Cash Floods Trump Inauguration

01.16 Trump, and the world, readies for a ‘leap into the dark’

01.16 Democrats sweat Clinton vs. Sanders rift

01.16 JOHN LEWIS, DONALD TRUMP, AND THE MEANING OF LEGITIMACY

01.16 Trump’s Team Is Shaping Up to Be Dangerously Incoherent

Justice Matters

01.18 Obama commutes sentence for political prisoner Oscar López Rivera

01.18 Chelsea Manning's prison sentence commuted by Barack Obama

High Crimes?
Economics, Crony Capitalism

01.18 Middle classes in crisis, IMF's Christine Lagarde tells Davos 2017

01.17 The economics of corporate crime [white-collar crime must be more effectively regulated, prosecuted and fined to be deterrent]

01.16 The Trump Deficit

01.16 World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%

01.12 Nation's First "For-Profit President" as Trump Refuses To Divest

01.11 The Age of Trump

01.10 Jeremy Corbyn calls for maximum wage law

International

01.18 ILO warns of rise in social unrest and migration as inequality widens

01.17 Rex Tillerson’s ExxonMobil Frequently Sought State Department Assistance, New Documents Show

01.17 Trump’s Remaking of US Foreign Policy

01.17 'Europe's fate is in our hands': Angela Merkel's defiant reply to Trump

01.17 Warning: Europe is entering a permanent state of emergency

01.17 The dark side of Britain’s gold rush: how corruption crept into our suburbs

01.17 UK counter-terror laws most Orwellian in Europe, says Amnesty

01.16 Lessons from Germany for Integrating Refugees

01.16 The world needs a new strategy to tackle the migration 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: