Blowback: Is Wind Power The New Ethanol?

These are boom times for wind power. T. Boone Pickens, the wildcatter turned oil baron, is building the world's biggest wind farm, in the dry scrub of the Texas Panhandle--a $10 billion bet on wind's future. Twenty-eight states have set ambitious mandates for renewable energy, with wind power shouldering most of the load; many compel electric utilities to get at least 20 percent of their supply from wind and other renewable sources between 2015 and 2025.

Those requirements, along with a generous federal subsidy (20 percent of wind energy's costs), have fostered a turbine-building frenzy. Overall capacity grew by 45 percent last year alone. Several wind-power companies have been snapped up in recent years in a string of multibillion-dollar deals. In May, Jim Cramer talked up wind stocks on Mad Money while assembling a model turbine in the studio.

And why not? Wind power seems to promise zero emissions and an endless supply of cheap power.

Still, it's hard to ignore the parallels to the recent ethanol boom, which was also fueled by mandates and subsidies, and which is now viewed almost universally as a disaster. Wind power is unlikely to cause a global food crisis. But heedless investment in it may provoke blowback of a different sort.

Read the full story here.

-OR-

Related:

5 Myths About Wind Power

Pickens Having Trouble Talking Wind With GOP

Comments

[ScapeGoat]

The problem of transporting energy to the East Coast may not really be totally relevant. BlueWater Wind is already setting up wind towers off the coast of New Jersey and Delaware ( http://www.bluewaterwind.com/ ). Eventually, there could be wind generated electricity up and down the east coast.

The west coast could do the same thing.

The wind power generated in the midwest, could stay in the Midwest for now. This would cut down the need for dirty power plants in the midwest. It would also give time to build a new grid without the necessity of rushing to set up the power lines.

[texfly]

I agree that the the comparison to ethanol is spurious. Alos, I'd like to know about the arae covered by the big calm the author talks about. Most European countries limit wind to about 20% of their energy portfolio largely, I suspect, because their land areas are so small that calming becomes a likely event. But in the central US where there is a half-million sqaure miles of useful wind this becomes less likely. Fold into the mix the prime areas off-shore (East, West, South coasts) and in the mountain (Sierras, Rockies, Appalchains, etc) ridges, wind could supply all of the power for all sectors - residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation.

True, we will need a good, smart grid to distribute it. It will be expensive. But 3 cents per kWh for electricity will cover all the costs: 10 billion per MONTH NOW going to $75 billion per MONTH when we are fully electrified. Don't forget we have huge areas for solar that can contribute electrons to the grid.

We will have to create storage of energy: hydrogen, pumped water, even liquid N2 come to mind. It's not going to be simple, but is doable and it will create a million JOBS.

[EnviroLitigator]

The analogy with ethanol seems poorly put. Ethanol, as produced in the U.S., barely yields a positive energy flow, and may even be negative if one does full life-cycle energy analysis. Wind is more on the positive side. The reason that everyone seeks tax credits for wind is that most projects are using large, relatively inefficient wind turbines. However, more efficient designs are almost to the market. See, for example, http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VVSTQNR. Once these types of machines are widely available, the need for credits will decrease significantly. The key issue for wind, as with all alternative energy, is rectifiers and access to the grid. The key issue for all energy systems of any type whatsoever is a much upgraded grid; right now the national grid is a joke.

[RRK70]

You can single out any ONE form of alternative or renewable energy and make all sorts of arguments regarding issues. There is no form of energy that won't have limitations of some sort. The author should stop watching so much science fiction and start brushing up on current events and public policy.

The article's statement about transmission distance and NIMBY is also ludicrous. It's a CITY, population density is high, self sufficiency is low, of course you are going to have to import things.....like food, drinking water, material goods! You could use the same argument regarding nuclear power or a coal plant. What city is going to want a nuclear plant in it's vicinity?

Weigh the costs and benefits, not only over months, but years and decades. Consider as many factors as possible: cost, environmental and economic benefits or drawbacks. Make an informed decision. Wind power is not THE solution, but is PART of A solution.

[mouselion]

Better than wind power is air pressure, which can produced anywhere using a myriad of innovative technologies:

http://www.theaircar.com/air-cars/energy-storage.html

[RRK70]

compressed air is a form of energy storage, NOT a form of power production. There may be some applications, but the question is what will compress the air?

[mouselion]

Compressed air *is* stored energy. When you run an engine on it, it becomes *released* energy. Design a closed system, you never lose that air.

[rjmiller]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but a pneumatic car seems like a joke. If you have enough electricity on hand to power a compressor to pressurize tanks that will then run a car, then you have enough electricity to simply run the car directly. By running a compressor you add in additional steps that would lower the efficiency.

[mouselion]

Not if the vehicle is creating the air pressure through movement. Also, you can have a closed system which does not lose the air pressure in the process of propulsion.

[rollingdivision]

Eliminate all subsidies the let the market decide. If private investors believe it is profitable they will invest their money and build wind generation and the required power grids. If not we shouldn't.

[rjmiller]

You make a very short-sighted argument because it neglects time. While wind may not be as profitable right now, they should become more profitable in the long term due to increasing costs of cleaning up the mess of other sources of power.

I think you're falling for the idea that government intervention creates inefficiency and the free market increases efficiency. This is not always case. Subsidies are not always bad. Just look at all the money DARPA dumped into computer science from WWII through the 90s, if they hadn't done it we wouldn't be talking to at all.

[jsarets]

Wind power has good synergy with plug-in vehicles, which charge at night when the expected wind output is highest. Solar goes best with air conditioning, which peaks alongside solar radiation. Geothermal is an ideal base load power source since it generates a steady supply 24/7/365. Any national renewables strategy should be informed by this basic understanding of the relative strengths of these technologies.

[GreyFlcn]

re: Sheila
1) Rooftop anything can't provide reliable power.
You'd still need all that transmission for all those coal and natural gas fired power plants that "back it up" the other 80% of the time.

_

2) Yeah, lets compare it to ethanol.
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol.png
As for land area, what we're really talking about is the "Ground Contact" area.

As for how much land area it takes when spaced out.
We could easily cut that to 1/4th.
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1476/86/

_

3) That said, I far prefer EGS Geothermal, and Solarthermal with Heat Storage.
Far more reliable power, and cheaper when you consider the capacity factor.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/20/143633/019#comment7
http://greyfalcon.net/geoenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solarenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/egs
http://greyfalcon.net/solarthermal

[GreyFlcn]

Oh, and of course.
I'm surprised the "Think of the Poor Birdies" argument hasn't come up.
Stupid argument of course, but you kind of get to expect it.
http://greyfalcon.net/birddeaths.png

_

And of course, wind can provide baseload.
It just requires quite a lot of extra turbines, and lots of transmission.
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/december5/windfarm-120507.html

Main reason I dislike that is merely because it'd be expensive compared to Geothermal or Solarthermal.

[EndangeredJackalope]

The birds thing is a bit of a myth, or at least over rated.

The high bird fatality numbers come from that big wind farm in Central California. It's a decade or more old and the blades are smaller (spin faster) than today's industrial turbines. Studies in Denmark showed that flocks see modern turbines from a distance and alter their flight course. The wind disturbance does rapidly change air pressure for bats though, who get aneurysms or popped lungs or something.. duh duuun

[AynRand123]

Hey, who cares how much it costs? It's worth the price for making liberals feel good about themselves.

[KillTheMessenger]

Some of it costs less than coal and nuclear. And we haven't even gotten the full bill for using either, yet.

So what's your complaint? Or do you just like to say "liberals"?

[AynRand123]

In fact, I totally dislike saying "liberal".

[GreyFlcn]

This of course requires the mandatory comment that Coal and Nuclear get far more direct monetary subsidies than Renewables get.

http://greyfalcon.net/subs.png
http://greyfalcon.net/coalptc.png
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclear
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSLQ29047520080826

[AynRand123]

Who mentioned subsidies? The fact remains that the unit cost of producing energy from wind power is much more expensive that coal or nuclear. Not to mention that little problem that occurs when the wind stops blowing.

[Rucio]

Actually, the DOE just calculated the amount of federal interventions in energy and found that in 2007, wind received $23.37 per megawatt-hour of its electricity production in 2007. This compared with 44 cents for coal, $1.59 for nuclear, and 25 cents for natural gas (the three main sources of electricity in the U.S.).

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=875

Those figures don't include state and local incentives or the much more favorable accelerated depreciation that wind enjoys.

[sheila]

50 acres a megawatt makes a nice parallel to ethanol. killing off enormous swathes of otherwise productive ecosystem for a few watts of erratic, remote power? no thanks. 15% efficiencies are what we are seeing in most of the CA wind farms, lower than rooftop solar, and at a less critical time of day and year. no thanks.

google installed a 1.6 MW solar rooftop system at their HQ in northern CA, an OK, but not amazing solar area. on their roof. to get that much power from one of these "wind farms" would destroy 80 acres plus roads and transmission. hmmm. one rooftop where it's already developed and the land is wrecked, no transmission or roads, and better reliability, right there at point of use, generating PEAKER power. OR 80 acres of wilderness habitat or agricultural land, far away, running down miles of wasteful transmission - many of which will go straight through our homes and properties like it or not, spitting out erratic power when its cold and dark, introducing non-native grasses which increase wildfires, etc. gee, that is a really tough decision.

but wait, it sounds like it is, because people are not aware of the problems. local, point of use renewables and conservation should be much more aggressively pursued. this faraway industrial stuff is just Big Energy redux. haven't we had enough waste, destruction and hijacking for one century?

[jake106]

Have you ever been in one of these windmill farms? I merely ask because I have, and they aren't at all as you describe them. Especially if you place them out in the ocean. Or maybe you have a problem with the idea of solar farms? You HAVE noticed the millions of miles of basically unlivable desert we have in this nation, right?

[KillTheMessenger]

Don't bother. She repeats her nonsense every time the topic comes up. I tried discussing reality with her, but coming to believe that she is basically trolling.

[noneIn2008]

Seems like you don't respect desert? Have you studied the complex ecosystem of the desert?

[independant4barry]

Your criticisms are woefully inaccurate.

1)We're not cutting down rainforests to build wind farms, we're building them in the middle of desolate deserts and miles off the coasts in the oceans. Does that sound familiar? - It should, because those are two areas where we've already riddled the landscape with oil wells.

2)I agree with you that solar does make sense in CA, but it doesn't in many other areas like Kansas, which does in fact have virtually unlimited and steady supplies of wind.

3)We've gone decades without properly updating our transmission lines across the country, so that part is going to be the most costly and will need the most federal subsidies, but this in no way resembles ethanol because we're not using food to build the stuff. And once we make the proper investments in the transmission lines, like they're doing in Texas, we will have paved the way for massive scale wind and solar projects around the country.

Before you blow your top about how "wastefull" wind is, you should stop to check the facts, buddy.

[whillice]

"killing off enormous swathes of otherwise productive ecosystem for a few watts of erratic, remote power? no thanks."

Have you BEEN to West Texas? "productive ecosystem"-- if you're scrub brush.

[jake106]

Why does the idea of using every possible alternative energy source available create so much controversy? I'm not talking about in our government, where the average I.Q. of any politician seems to be 4. I mean in places like this forum, where you would think everyone would agree with it. As soon as any idea is brought up, there are instantly five voices speaking out against it. Holy crap people! There is NO instant solution. We need to embrace all of these ideas so that we can ween ourselves off of fossil fuels. If we keep debating it forever and ever, nothing will ever change.

[MeanGreenMachine]

"Follow the money."

Deep Thought

[KillTheMessenger]

Most "ideas" for alternatives are woefully inadequate. We know for decades what the main problems and the real world solutions are. All you have to do is to follow the science and engineering literature.

The problem with public discourse is that ANY AND ALL of the viable alternatives cost money and impact the environment in one way or another. People don't like that and are still looking for the silver bullet, the "Mama, please make it go away" solution that can solve our energy and environmental problems and that does not cost money, that does not impact the environment.

It does not exist. What does exists is a reality where we have, so far, made all the wrong moves that cost us far more money already than the textbook moves that are known to work would have. Biofuels are the premier example of that. If we were to put the money we are spending on Corn ethanol in wind and solar, we would be making great progress.

The solutions with the highest impacts are non-technological, anyway. They are taxation, taxation, taxation and regulation, regulation, regulation. On top of that we need education and a change of our mindset.

Of course you can expect neither of these to work in a country with a broken government. We need to fix that first before we can expect any progress at all.

[amosnapoleon]

I’m an early supporter of the Pickens Plan who was attracted to it primarily because of Boone Pickens’ determination to “fast track” the development of wind energy. Several wind energy advocates, as well as the U. S. Department of Energy, have suggested that we could get at least 20% or more of our electrical energy from wind by 2030. The Pickens proposal would accelerate this timetable by at least a decade. Please sign up for the Pickens Plan today

[KillTheMessenger]

No thanks. The man is rich enough. He can take care of himself and does not need my support.

[fleaba]

Was just at a huge info meeting for Vestas in colorado, last week. Vestas is going to be adding something like 6K more jobs in colorado. Too bad for the big cities in the east...why don't they figure out some sort of tidal power gig. OR then there is always solar for some of it.

[franciscagrant]

There is a downside to wind power. It is that too many so-called wind developers in the past have raised unfounded concerns about wind energy by mistakenly placing turbines in low-potential areas. For example, the American Wind Energy Association notes that while California gave birth to the modern wind industry, 16 states have greater wind potential. That’s why proposals, such as the Pickens Plan, to build wind farms in the central states with greatest wind potential make the most sense and will be the most reliable energy producers.

[KillTheMessenger]

And that's why Mr. T needs YOU to spend YOUR taxes on HIS high voltage transmission lines from HIS wind turbines to HIS power outlets in YOUR home. And if you will please hand him the eternal land rights one mile to the left and the right of all those power lines. And why don't you throw in all the water rights in the US, while you are at it?

:-)

[KillTheMessenger]

There is a huge difference between ethanol and wind: wind turbines produce real energy, ethanol does not. The EROEI (energy return on energy invested) for wind turbines makes them very efficient power sources. In contras the EROEI of ethanol is close to one. We put as much energy into growing crops and distilling the end product as it contains and there is virtually no net gain. It's nothing by a giant Rube Goldberg machine.

[whillice]

The biggest problem with wind power is that not enough of the manufacturing and design of these turbines and materials take place in the US, mostly because of lack of foresight. Because we didn't make the necessary early investments, companies like Siemans, Vestas, and Mitsubishi dominate the market. It's good that GE has produced some of the best turbines out there, but they simply can't produce them fast enough to meet demand.

[KillTheMessenger]

Just because a machine has not been manufactured in the US does not mean it can't be used profitably. We do it all the time with our phones, computers, cars and virtually everything that's out there and is not made in the US. So what makes wind turbines different?

Absolutely nothing.

[whillice]

You misunderstand me. I'm saying wind is AWESOME-- the only downside is we weren't thoughtful enough to invest in the manufacturing of it 10-15 years ago and create tons of jobs. While we offshored much of our manufacturing over the past 15 yrs, we should have been attempting to replace it with green tech manufacturing, like turbines and photovoltaic cells. It's essentially the same problem with the auto industry-- that's why every single one of the 10 most fuel efficient cars is from Japan (and 1 from Korea)