wind industry

The Objections to Wind Farms

by Michael Fumento on February 8, 2010 · 2 comments

in Energy

Despite massive subsidies, wind power still only provides about two percent of U.S. energy. Part of the problem is inherent. It takes a lot of turbines to produce the power that a single coal-fired or nuke plant can produce. So wind farms are going to comprise a lot of turbines. And that causes problems, as we’ve been seeing in a 10-year fight over constructing a 130-turbine offshore wind farm near Martha’s Vineyard.

It would be the first offshore wind project in the country and furnish about 75 percent of Cape Cod’s energy.

Ian Bowles, the Massachusetts energy and environmental affairs secretary, has called the project “symbolic of America’s struggle with clean energy. Its symbolism has risen above the number of megawatts.”

Although some protests have been dealt with, including potential hindrance to navigation and fishing and harm to birds, Indians are still against it. (I used to say “native Americans” until once when I was interviewing two of them and I kept saying “native Americans” and they kept referring to themselves as “Indians.”)

The Indians in the area practice a sunrise ritual on the sound and also say they may have artifacts buried beneath the seabed, according to the Washington Post. They’ve gotten the sound qualified for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, which could restrict its commercial use.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says that although his department is trying to broker a deal between the tribes and Energy Management, the company seeking to build the farm, “I’m not holding my breath for a consensus.” If both sides can’t settle on a compromise by April, he says, he’s going to just lay down the law himself in April and probably tick off everybody.

Michael Moynihan, director of the Green Project at NDN, a centrist think tank, told the Post, “It is emblematic of the difficulty of getting wind online, anywhere in America, with a system designed a century ago that is frankly hostile to renewable energy.”

Right. If it were just a few tightly-bunched turbines, it wouldn’t be a problem. But these farms, in addition to things like chopping up birds and bats have a big and obvious footprint.

Compare that with the nearest power plant to my home, which I often pass on my bike rides. It’s small, but probably provides more power than hundreds of turbines. Nonetheless, being coal-powered it drew the ire of a number of local residents. So the owners did something really smart. They built a wooden wall around the plant, then painted a very nice mural on it depicting local history.

This being the land of George Washington, the murals include such as Washington’s crossing of the Delaware. The wall isn’t that high, yet it’s enough so that if you didn’t already know the plant was there you wouldn’t know it was there. It has smokestacks, but you never see anything come out of them. The only ugly aspect was the coal pile, and it’s now obscured.

Out of sight, out of mind. But you can’t do that with wind. Solar has its own problem, also based on inefficiency, in that it requires huge tracts of land for all the panels needed.

But if you’re looking for new facilities that don’t produce greenhouse gas emissions there is a fourth solution. Nuclear power. A natural gas-burning power plant under construction has just exploded, killing five people. Every year, American coal miners die violently in mines or slowly from exposure to coal dust. Nuclear power in this country has never killed anybody. No birds, no bats, and most importantly no humans. That’s also true in France, where 70 percent of their power comes from nukes.

And today’s nuke plant designs are less prone to accidents than ever.

The writing is on the wall. Go nuclear.

Windmills for spite

by Michael Fumento on October 11, 2009

in Energy, Environment, Features, Odds & Ends, Zeitgeist

“Clean Energy Splits France: It’s Carbon vs. Countryside in Environmental Battle Over Plan for Windmills Near Coastal Shrine.” So reads the Washington Post headline.

But is it?

The article concerns three windmills that some fear will obstruct the view of the awesome Mont St. Michelle Abby on the French coast, which becomes an island at high tides. Yet the article also points out that France is very accepting of nuclear power, which provides about 80% of the nation’s energy needs. Another 10% comes from hydro. And the number of windmills in question, three, provide less energy than the smallest nuclear plant made – which is to say those on naval warships.

No, this isn’t really about energy. It’s about politics. It’s making a statement. And quite literally, an ugly one.mont-saint-michel-lemont1

SOTU Watch: Energy Claims

by Iain Murray on February 24, 2009 · 2 comments

in Economy, Employment, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Stimulus to Nowhere

The President might make various remarks relating to energy tonight. These are likely to center around grandiloquent claims as to the effectiveness of “green jobs” and alternative energy in saving the economy, not to mention the planet. Here are a few notes on the reality of these claims.

Green Jobs: The President will probably claim to be creating millions of “green jobs” to save the economy, fight global warming and end dependence on foreign oil together. In fact, “green jobs” have a number of problems, outlined in my Examiner piece from yesterday. To summarize:
• “Green jobs” come at the expense of traditional energy jobs. At the moment, the wind industry employs 85,000 people in all its facets (including support staff and suppliers). The coal industry employs 81,000 miners alone, and probably over 1.4 million in all, including support staff and suppliers.
• “Green jobs” are more expensive to society in general. Those 85,000 people in the wind industry contribute to the generation of just 1.3 million MegaWatt-hours of electricity, while the coal industry generates 155 million MWh, making each coal industry job seven times more productive than a wind industry job. The difference in cost is born by the rest of us.
• “Green jobs” are mostly low-paid and transitory, according to a recent report by, among others, The Sierra Club and the Teamsters union.
• A German government report found that “green jobs” are only beneficial to the economy as long as Germany remains a net exporter of green technology and power. As soon as other countries utilize their comparative advantages in manufacture and power generation, “green jobs” become a drain on an advanced economy.
• Most “green jobs” are related to the generation of electricity, which is not used to power cars yet, and so do nothing to lower our “dependence” on foreign oil (and most oil we use comes from the US and Canada in any event).

Alternative Energy: The President may repeat his promise to double the use of alternative energy, again claiming effects in terms of climate and energy independence. This claim is, in all probability, disingenuous.
• A doubling of alternative energy electricity production by 2011 would require the main alternatives – solar, wind, geothermal and biomass – together to generate 144 billion KiloWatt-hours of electricity by then. However, under the Energy Information Administration’s “business-as-usual” projections, these industries are expected to supply 150 billion KWh by then, with no additional policies needed. (Note the EIA includes hydropower and wood in its renewables calculations, for the solar/wind/geothermal/biomass figure, see here.)
• Reduction in greenhouse gases as a result of this policy is not likely to occur, as the EIA predicts a similar increase in the use of coal to generate electricity by 2011. In all probability, therefore, we will be emitting greater amounts of greenhouse gases by 2011, not less.
• A “smart grid” is probably a useful technology, but the President and the stimulus plan gold-plated it in order to boost their renewable energy rhetoric. William Tucker has a good summary of what is wrong with the President’s version of a “smart grid” here.
• If the President means that he will double the use of biofuels, this is likely to mean a significant increase in corn ethanol production, resulting in greater diversion of the corn supply into fuel production. This will likely increase already-inflated food costs (the recent price drop would have been significantly greater were it not for ethanol manufacture) and thereby increase food insecurity in a recession. Increased ethanol production is opposed by most major environmental groups as well as free-market groups. See Facts About Ethanol for more.