Newspaper logo  
 
 
Local News & Opinion

Ref. : Civic Events

Ref. : Arts & Education Events

Ref. : Public Service Notices

Travel
Books, Films, Arts & Education

11.19 How DNA Is Reshaping How We See Ourselves—and Our History

11.18 Lobbying Used to Be a Crime: A Review of Zephyr Teachout’s New Book on the Secret History of Corruption in America

Letters
Open Letters:

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

11.24 Vancouver Experiments With Prescription Heroin

11.24 The Downside of the Boom

11.24 World bank to focus future investment on clean energy

11.23 The Piecemeal Assault on Health Care

11.23 NRG Seeks to Cut 90% of Its Carbon Emissions

11.23 Stampeding Black Elephants

11.20 CO2 emissions must be zero by 2070 to prevent climate disaster, UN says

11.20 UK pledges £720m to climate change fund for poor countries

News Media

11.24 Are Americans “Stupid” or Uninformed?

Daily FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

Justice Matters

11.22 Suffer Little Children

11.21 Icelandic bankers jailed for reckless loans made before crash

11.20 Stripping Neighbors of Money: Pressure Mounts for EU Crackdown on Tax Havens

11.19 Horrific stories about Bill Cosby were out there for years. Why are we only now listening to these women?

US Politics, Policy & Culture

11.24 The politics of infrastructure [video w/ads and transcript]

11.23 Grenade launchers, armored personnel carriers, and a military-grade helicopter among the lethal arsenal of police force who helped patrol Ferguson [photos]

11.22 Immigration Enriches You and Me

11.22 The United States of Thanksgiving [Interactive: click '+' sign for full recipes]

11.21 Ferguson Protests Are Coming to Your City

11.21 The U.S. government thinks China could take down the power grid

11.21 Obama on immigration: 'We are and always will be a nation of immigrants'

11.19 Hillary’s Silence on Iran and Immigration Reform

11.19 America Is the Developed World's Second Most Ignorant Country

11.19 Imperfect Union: The Constitution Didn't Foresee Divided Government

11.19 Senate Republicans block landmark NSA surveillance reform bill

11.19 Senate rejects Keystone XL pipeline bill (For Now) [Related 'Cowboys and Indians' alliance]

High Crimes?

11.22 Senate Democrats Clash With White House on C.I.A. Torture Report

Economics, Crony Capitalism

11.23 Top incomes soared as tax rates fell

11.23 Full Show: How Public Power Can Defeat Plutocrats [25:25 video and transcript]

11.22 Bill Black: Why the New York Fed Isn’t Trustworthy

11.22 Elizabeth Warren Blasts New York Fed President William Dudley [12:53 video]

11.22 Attorneys General for Sale

11.20 WSJ Reports: Bank of North Dakota Outperforms Wall Street

11.20 Elizabeth Warren Blasts FHFA’s Mel Watt: “You Haven’t Helped a Single Family” [5:23 video]

International
US air strikes in Syria driving anti-Assad groups to support Isis

11.24 'Mumbai is on the verge of imploding'

11.24 Israeli cabinet approves legislation defining nation-state of Jewish people

11.21 We need a new law to protect our wildlife from critical decline

11.20 Putin's Reach: Merkel Concerned about Russian Influence in the Balkans

11.20 The 'Caliphate's' Colonies: Islamic State's Gradual Expansion into North Africa

11.20 Amnesty report reveals desperate plight of Syrian refugees in Turkey

11.20 Teeth and Bones: Mass Abduction Reveals a Decaying Mexican State

11.19 3rd Possibility: Coming Civil War in West Bank/ Jerusalem?

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: