Readers of the Washington Post were served up some jaw-dropping whoppers yesterday about why renewable energy - and wind in particular - supposedly doesn't reduce CO2 emissions, increase our national security, or create jobs in the US. The author of the op-ed is climate change denier and long time fossil fuel cheerleader Robert Bryce. Bryce's piece was part of the Post's "5 Myths" series, which invites readers every Sunday to "challenge everything you think you know."
While challenging everything you think you know is generally a good idea, it's not a good idea to replace what you know with what Bryce thinks he knows because, as it turns out, he doesn't know much about renewable energy. Relying on bad science like the Nature Conservancy's "Energy Sprawl" study and thoroughly discredited white papers like "The Case of Denmark" from Bjorn Lomborg's Institute for Energy Studies, Bryce deftly turns common sense on its head to convince his readers that burning more fossil fuels is really the best path to a green energy future.
It would make for an exceedingly long and boring post to debunk every piece of misinformation in his 1,000 word piece, so for now I'll just focus on Bryce's "Myth 1: Solar and wind power are the greenest of them all."
Bryce begins his argument with what has become the new favorite talking point of renewable energy detractors and climate change deniers: "solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats."
As I have written extensively about in a previous post, the authors of the "Energy Sprawl" study committed the cardinal sin of ecological modeling by comparing apples to oranges (more like watermelons to grapes). In the study, wind power was presumed to impact an area as much as 300-400 times greater than the actual footprint of the turbines on the land, while the impacts of coal power, for instance, were assumed to go no farther than the footprint of mine permits, leaving aside any consideration of habitat fragmentation and wildlife disturbance that increased wind's alleged sprawl factor by 300 to 400 times. Nor did the "Energy Sprawl" study include the acreage consumed by actual coal-fired power plants, the infrastructure for processing coal and disposing of processing wastes, the rail and barge infrastructure for transporting coal to power plants, or the fills and impoundments used for disposing of coal combustion waste.
While it should strain the credulity of even the most entrenched climate change denier that a single wind turbine would impact more than 100 football fields worth of land, at least the "Energy Sprawl" study makes clear that only 2-5% of the area is cleared for access roads and a buffer around each turbine. Bryce makes it sound like they're referring to the actual footprint of the turbine, which is about 1/3rd of an acre for a 2MW turbine (or about 1/300th of the land impact estimate cited by Bryce). If a fair comparison were made, wind would produce 10 to 20 times as many watts per square meter as Bryce's hypothetical natural gas well.
But where Bryce really goes off the deep end is when he states:
"Nor does wind energy substantially reduce CO2 emissions. Since the wind doesn't always blow, utilities must use gas or coal-fired generators to offset wind's unreliability. The result is minimal -- or no -- carbon dioxide reduction."
First off, while supporters of increased reliance on fossil fuels love to conflate the issues of intermittency (which is manageable) with unreliability (which is not), countries such as Spain and Denmark have managed to integrate large amounts of wind power into their grids without power outages or other problems that an "unreliable" power source might create.
That said, it's true that there is not necessarily a one-to-one relationship when it comes to displacement of coal or natural gas by wind. Because of its intermittency, wind requires a certain level of "firming" with conventional or other renewable technologies like biomass and hydro to ensure there is sufficient electricity supply when wind resources are low. That's an issue that could be intelligently discussed and built into energy plans were it not for people like Bryce that use it as an opportunity to confuse the public and mislead them into believing intermittency makes wind an unreliable source of power.
More apalling, however, is Bryce's extraordinary claim that wind power results in little or no CO2 reduction. As evidence, he cites the 2007 annual environmental report from Energinet.dk, the largest operator of Denmark's electricity grids. The online version on the Washington Post website even includes a link to that report, which should prove quite useful for Bryce, as he doesn't appear to have read it. According to the report:
"... some of Denmark's thermal generation will be displaced by the commissioning of new wind turbine capacity. Extra wind capacity will also contribute to displacing thermal generation outside Denmark."
The purported evidence from the report that Bryce uses to support is based on his tortured and selective presentation of CO2 emissions data. According to Bryce, the Energinet.dk report shows that:
"...carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation in 2007 were at about the same level as they were back in 1990, before the country began its frenzied construction of turbines."Contrast that with what the report actually stated:
"CO2 emissions vary considerably from year to year, depending on electricity trading. Adjusting for imports and exports resulted in an overall emissions reduction of 23% in the 1990-2007 period. The primary reason is a conversion of Danish electricity and heat generation to less CO2 intensive fuels such as natural gas, coupled with increased use of renewable energy sources"
So what's the disconnect between Bryce's analysis and reality? As with many small European countries, Denmark's electric grid is integrated into larger grids of neighboring countries - in Denmark's case those are the grids in Germany, Norway and Sweden. In general, Denmark exports a lot of electricity to the German grid while importing power from Sweden and Norway, which have large (and cheap) surpluses of hydropower, particularly in wet years. What Bryce has done is compare 1990, a year when Denmark imported a huge proportion of its electricity from other Scandanavian countries, with 2007, a year it was a net exporter of electricity. The graph below from the Energinet.dk report tells the story - the red bars are the in-country emissions, while the grey line shows emissions adjusted for imports and exports of electricity:
Bryce clearly draws his analysis from a 2009 white paper entitled "The Case of Denmark" produced by the Institute for Energy Studies. That institute is run by notorious climate change denier Bjorn Lomborg and the analysis has been thoroughly debunked by numerous analysts. Essentially, the analysis in The Case of Denmark is based on the bizarre assumption that wind-generated electricity exported to Germany simply disappears from the grid, rather than viewing Denmarks's energy production in the context of a multi-nation integrated grid.
But the point where Bryce's analysis goes from misleading (or ignorant) to downright dishonest is when he attributes Denmark's success in controlling CO2 emissions to a low population growth rate, while touting the United States' success in decreasing per capita emissions by 2.5% between 1980 and 2006. Keeping with the 1990-2008 time frame from the most recent Energinet.dk report, the US has done somewhat better than that, decreasing per-capita CO2 emissions by about 4.5%. But over that same time period, the Danes have decreased their per capita CO2 emissions by 21%.
A final piece of distorted analysis provided by Bryce is when he states:
"... Through 2017, the Danes foresee no decrease in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation."
On the surface, that is true, the Danes project no decrease in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation over the next decade, but that is because they plan to replace inefficient old oil heaters with heat pumps and transition to far more efficient electric vehicles. The net effect will be an enormous decrease in overall CO2 emissions over that time period. The remarkable thing is that the projected 1.2% annual increases in electricity demand resulting mostly from transitioning to more efficient electric vehicles (10% by 2020) and heat pumps will be met entirely with renewable energy sources, primarily wind. In fact, increasing wind generation up to 20% of their electricity generation has been such a success that the Danes plan to expand their wind generation up to 36% of their electricity mix by 2020.
On a final note, Bryce ignored the many other environmental benefits Denmark has enjoyed from its rapid transition to renewable energy sources. For instance, sulfur dioxide emissions, which decreased in the US by about 50% between 1990 and 2008, were reduced by 94% in Denmark over the same period. Here's a graph of sulfur dioxide emissions from the Energinet.dk report:
It's particularly notable that sulfur dioxide emissions are the primary cause of acid rain which, back in the early 90s, was found to be responsible for massive reproductive failure in some species of birds nesting in Northern European forests. The benefits of these reductions for bird populations absolutely dwarfs the impacts of the small number of birds killed by wind turbines.
All of the analysis in this post is based on just one of five "myths" about renewable energy that Bryce addresses in his op-ed. His treatment of the other four is equally misleading, but hopefully this post will provide an indication of the depths to which Bryce is willing to sink to make his case for a greater reliance on fossil fuels.
The analysis of these "myths" is presumably drawn from Bryce's new book, Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future, which is due out tomorrow. If his piece in the Washington Post is indeed indicative of what's in his book, it should provide excellent fodder for a variety of debunkers seeking an honest debate about the various paths the US could take in moving to a 21st century energy policy.
Follow Matt Wasson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/forthemountains
projects out in California's Mojave Desert. I have read thousands and thousands of pages of documents
from the BLM and the California Energy Commission(CEC) websites. On my blog I have also expressed
support for at least two proposed solar projects, Rice which will be built on a former WW2 air force base
and LA DWP's Owens Dry Lake so I think I can be objective.
The problem is the sheer size and amount of land required for these sites. And for some reason, it seems that most are slated to be built smack dab in the middle of valuable plant and animal habitat, and require huge amounts of water for construction and ongoing maintenance for the next forty or fifty years. Did I mention this is a desert? Water is in short supply, and the aquifer recharges very
slowly.
The commenter earlier mentioned alternative site placement, he's right, there is an amazing amount
of used up, depleted farm land or brown land closer in to the consumers, available for use for these projects, but this information gets greeted with a yawn when brought up. It really seems like to me and others that the people pushing the "green energy land rush" are not going to be satisfied until every square foot of desert is bladed over and replaced with turbines and heliostats!
Bill Mcdonald
http://morongobillsbackporch.blogspot.com
Asheville Citizen-Times http://goo.gl/UOsG
In the mean time, if anyone's interested in our real position regarding blowing up mountains for real, I just put up another post on the subject:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-wasson/theyre-still-blowing-up-o_b_555571.html
Neither I nor my organization blindly support wind development. In fact, we oppose development in most of the areas in the Blue Ridge that have good wind resources because they are public lands, near the Appalachian Trail or Blue Ridge Parkway, or wouldn't meet numerous other important siting criteria. And what possible motive would we have to "hoodwink the public," as neither I nor Appalachian Voices have ever asked for or received money from any wind energy company?
We have thought carefully and done extensive research to define our positions on wind, but there is no indication that Ridgekeeper has done the same. With access to the internet, it's easy to selectively find articles that confirm one's preconceived notions, but what about the thousands upon thousands of articles in engineering and economic journals, newspapers and magazines, filings with utilities commissions - all showing that wind power is viable and economically beneficial? If Ridgekeeper would actually read my post rather than spew talking points, it would be clear that there are places where dramatic reductions in CO2 emissions have been achieved through wind power.
When the millions of people across the planet who are siting and financing wind projects, designing energy portfolios and researching new turbine designs wake up to discover that wind "does not work," Ridgekeeper's comments will be a lot more
No, you will not debate anyone, because you can not handle the truth and you do not want others to know the truth. If wind is so wonderful, why are there secretive land leases? Why are people "silenced" by these leases? Why do you fail to discuss eminent domain issues?
Appalachian Voices was against wind driven power plants on mountain ridges until 2006. Then in 2006 you did a 180 on the issue. Why? Because Hugh Morton, the man who protected the mountains ridges, and who was the driver behind the Ridge law died. You could no longer ride his coat tails, so you turned to other means to gain financial support. I have no problem saying you totally disgust me.
We will not shut up, we will not back down, and we will keep pointing others to the truth about windgate and this tax funded scam.
Before whitewashing the criticisms of wind power, at least be reasonably knowledgeable about what you are saying. To the best of my knowledge of the literature, nobody has yet demonstrated trimming of wind power using coal with a net reduction in CO2 for wind conditions in the western states. If you find examples of this, please post them as there are many with a keen interest in exactly this. Commercial wind power today is NOT CO2 neutral in the west. We should be furrowing our brows, rolling up our sleeves, and figuring out how to change this rather than sashaying away from it dismissively.
But saying that wind power, in combination with technologies other than nuclear and pulverized coal, can reduce CO2 emissions is not "whitewashing," it's reality - as demonstrated by the data from Denmark in my post. And far from "sashaying away from it dismissively," I believe I addressed that issue directly.
That said, if anything I've said here is demonstrably false, I'd love for you or another reader to set me straight.
Wind is as interesting to me as any alternative, and I hope it will grow to displace dirtier energy. But it is not carbon neutral and can be worse. It doesn't make sense to trim with coal in the west yet. It makes sense in Denmark and areas with non-coal resources to trim with and more favorable wind characteristics. The green movement is littered with examples of unintended consequences even with actual facts and experience that should steer us to even better solutions.
I'm a huge fan of wind power and its disheartening to hear people like Bryce trying to thwart renewable energy. Luckily China, Europe, & the US are expanding land based wind power in a huge way. Offshore wind power is just getting starting but some day may provide as much power or more than land based windfarms.
I will be attending AWEA's Windpower Conference in Dallas, Tx in May. The featured speaker will former president George Bush who apparently helped to promote windpower as govenor of Texas even though he was a climate change skeptic and promoter of fossil fuels as president.
The good news for wind is that people are finally cluing in to the fact that it's cheaper than building new coal-fired plants - not enough people yet, thanks to misinformation peddled by the likes of Robert Bryce, which is why we're still building a few dozen new coal-fired plants. But we've been building wind capacity even faster than coal for the last two years running. Between that fact and the recent moves by the Obama Administration to rein in mountaintop removal coal mining, there's a lot to be optimistic about. It's gonna be a good year.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006802
Matt and I have also discussed what the energy sprawl report means previously,:
http://blog.nature.org/2009/09/energy-sprawl-rob-mcdonald-nature-conservancy/
http://blog.nature.org/2009/11/science-advocacy-energy-sprawl-rob-mcdonald-nature-conservancy/
Most importantly, The Nature Conservancy’s position should not be confused with that of Robert Bryce. We strongly support increases in renewable energy production, and are working hard in the field to find pragmatic ways to cite renewable energy production facilities with minimal impact on wildlife and the natural processes on which it depends. I just got back from a trip to the Mojave Desert, where our California chapter is working with the BLM, the state of CA, and local landowners to find appropriate places for new solar and wind facilities. When these new facilities come on line they will help displace coal power production, a goal I’m sure Matt and I share.
While I've been exceedingly critical of the science underlying the "Energy Sprawl" study, I don't mean to impugn the integrity of its authors or their genuine passion for making positive change.
Thanks for chiming in, Rob.
"EIA data also show that the United States has been among the best at reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per $1 of GDP and the amount of energy consumed per $1 of GDP."
That statement is true, though it's hardly evidence that the US doesn't lag behind other "rich nations" in going green because the starting point for the US in terms of energy efficiency was execrable. Although I didn't end up using it, I analyzed the difference between Denmark and the US in terms of energy intensity (energy consumption per $ of GDP). Between 1990 and 2008, the US decreased its energy intensity by 29%, while that figure for Denmark was a 39%. Isn't it remarkable that the Washington Post would give this guy such a high profile platform to spread his misinformation?
You neglect to mention that even though Denmark imports energy from Sweden and that Sweden generates a lot of power from hydro, you neglect to mention that Sweden's 10 nuclear power plants generate 50% of the country's energy. And, that they are rethinking their phase out on nuclear power construction. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7871824.stm
You also neglect to mention that the electricity that Denmark imports from Germany is made primarily of Coal, Gas and Nuclear. http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/energy-issues/germany/index_chart.html. And "Germany itself imports 15 to 20 billion kWh/yr from France, which is 80% nuclear" http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf99.html.
So it seems to me that you only want to tell half the story as well to push your agenda.
"Trading possibilities with the Nordic countries greatly depend on the volume of hydropower available in the Nordic region. Hydropower generation in the Nordic region is more substantial and cheaper during years of high precipitation. During years of high precipitation, we usually experience low Danish electricity generation since a great deal of cheap hydropower is imported from Norway and Sweden. Conversely, Danish electricity generation is usually higher during years of low precipitation."
In regard to Germany, it is almost never the case that Denmark is importing electricity from Germany, but rather, the other way around. So hopefully I've done somewhat better than telling "half the story."
As for my "agenda," it's about promoting an honest discussion about the various options we have in moving toward a low-carbon energy future - I'm not wedded to any particular technologies. But dishonest analyses like Bryce's are a serious setback to a serious dialogue about energy and they desperately need to be debunked.
http://www.energyplanning.aau.dk/Publications/DanishWindPower.pdf
I believe ths is the report mentioned by Robert Bryce:
http://jp.dk/uknews/article2015323.ece