The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Friday, May 24, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Wind Industry Looks to Karl Rove for Answers

Steve Leone, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
May 01, 2012  |  49 Comments

Oh, to be a fly on the wall when Republican strategist Karl Rove sits downs with Obama's former press secretary Robert Gibbs for a conversation about politics and, and, …. wind energy?

Luckily for those of us who follow the ups and downs of renewable energy — and especially for those of us who follow the bumps and bruises of politics — that conversation won’t be for their ears only. In a sense, we’re all invited. The two will share the stage at the American Wind Energy Association’s annual conference and exhibition in Atlanta on June 5.

Rove famously engineered George W. Bush’s rise to the presidency, and since then he’s remained a strong voice for conservatism. Only now, he’s making his mark as a television personality, a founder of Super-PAC American Crossroads GPS, and apparently, as someone who will give those in attendance an honest indication of where the industry will land after the whipping winds of election year politics finally die down.

The industry has yet to make any real headway in its effort to extend the Production Tax Credit beyond its scheduled expiration at the end of the year. Conventional wisdom holds that there’s little hope for the PTC to be added to legislation prior to Election Day. That would mean that any deal would come no earlier than late November. Only by then, many of the companies that have chosen to invest in the American wind market could conceivably have already shut down operations in search of more reliable markets. Companies like Vestas have already indicated that they’ll pick up stakes if nothing is done. That move alone would cost about 1,600 jobs. And other giants, like Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, are scrapping plans to set up shop in the U.S. The wind industry could come to a relative standstill, and that would almost certainly benefit the natural gas industry.

So this is where the political dilemma — or call it the need for common ground — kicks in. Extending subsidies is a political nonstarter by today’s political calculation. But such a move has a cost, and it hits the Republican Party squarely where it needs to be strongest. The GOP’s winning formula for the November elections and beyond is built on creating jobs and achieving energy independence. These are the areas in which Crossroads GPS has been hitting Obama especially hard.

It’ll be interesting to see how wind plays into this strategy. It obviously does little to strengthen independence since it competes mostly with coal and natural gas. But it has jobs — lots of them. And many of those jobs would readily disappear. It also has some respected Republican support from longtime legislators like Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa. Of course, the Republican Party also has its share of very loud wind critics, led by Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee political icon and a former presidential candidate who scorns at the use of subsidies to bolster what he has termed “Big Wind.”

Rove is by nature a strategist, and a historically clever one at that. We’ll all be watching intently to see how he shapes this conversation, and how he manages his party's stark differences within this debate. His position may go a long way toward giving us a better understanding how this political drama will play out.

49 Comments

Register To Comment
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
May 9, 2012
Sandcanyongal: That 35 - 45db level that I referred to was 350 meters from a wind FARM. The particular study that I am referring to was published by an organization called, "CIEMAT" which is a national research organization for the country of Spain. Other studies by other independent research organizations have measured wind farm noise in about the same range.

That's not to say that your particular circumstance with the valley's and the atmosphere, etc. might not be causing some kind of acoustical freak occurrence, but if that is the case and you can prove it, you should be due compensation for your loss if indeed it's significant enough to be considered a loss.

My experience and that of people that I know that live near wind farms (including in Kern County)is that they are actually pretty good neighbors!

So, from my experience and from the vast number of studies that have been done on wind turbine noise, including infra-sound, low, mid and high frequency sounds, it's VERY unlikely that the noise that it bothering you is coming from a wind farm 1.48 miles away from you.

If it's bothering you as much as you say, I'd approach a local university to see if they might like to study your particular situation. There are enough anti-wind groups out there who might want to buck up if there is a cost involved. It's just an idea.

Regarding your points about wind farms and school funding, my first "job" (I was actually an intern) in renewable energy was at a regional economic development agency and I can tell you that from everything that I was exposed to there and from talking with the various county commissioners,wind development is nothing but a positive factor in rural development!

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
May 9, 2012
Sandcanyongal: I agree with you that in order to beef up the grid, as I have suggested, is going to take resources and energy. That said, you have to put those inputs into perspective against the costs of not addressing our energy future in a responsible way.

The facts of the matter are that we are eventually going to run out of economically available fossil fuels and in the mean time we need to reduce the environmental damage done by burning fossil fuels.

While a lot of these materials could be produced by recycling of existing materials, I have no doubt that a good percentage of them will have to be mined and produced as "new". That being the case, we need to take care to be as efficient as possible in the use of these resources. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't make that investment. The net benefits to society are large enough to more than justify the expenditure. To not make this investment is what will screw posterity.

Plindsey: I'm busted. I didn't go read that report myself! That said, it might have just been a calm 35 hour period. If that is the worst case, then I am comfortable running with that! It doesn't change the fact that, while there may indeed be periods where the wind isn't blowing, that OVERALL the wind blows in these areas on a consistent enough basis to justify having put the wind turbines there in the first place.

As we've discussed, this "intermittency" issue can be addressed and engineered around in a number of different ways; be that beefing up the grid, storing the power or gas fired peaker plants.

Having lived in The Dalles, Oregon, I can assure you that more days than not, the wind blows there!

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
May 9, 2012
@freeasthewind...At 350 meters a wind turbine generates about 35 - 45 decibels... Maybe a single wind turbine creates 35-40 decibels, but the cumulative affect of hundreds is not the case. I believe I can hear the turbines from at least 4 miles away within our canyon, in our mountainous energy zone. At 11 pm last nite sharp last night, the hum of the hundreds of turbine blades began penetrating the windows. It is a low penetrating hum like a train going along the tracks. It must be vibratory because the hum is audible distinct from the TV and into the center of the house. We have a wind farm 1.48 miles from our house. On bad days, the vibration is so strong that I can feel the vibration right through my body. The wind industry denies this happens but it does.
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
May 9, 2012
Thanks, sandcanyongal for the detailed info on the CA bill. I'm in NM, so things are done differently here. For example, the High Lonesome Mesa wind farm is paying $14M spread over 30 years to two NM school districts as payments-in-lieu-of-taxes.
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
May 9, 2012
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell: If the wind farms are being required to plan and bond for decommissioning, that's great.

Re: BPA and curtailment. BPA got their hand slapped by the FERC in January, as they should have. They had a contract with wind producers. You cannot simply decide that the contract is not applicable on certain day/time because Mother Nature has too much water in the rivers.

That said, in the current example I cited, BPA is not curtailing wind. I don't have to guess, like you are. I know, because it's on BPA's website: http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/operations/Wind/twndbspt.aspx There is no blue line indicating "Oversupply Mitigation" (BPA's term for curtailment), and when you look at the underlying data, that column has a whole lot of zeros.

Thinking that wind speed feels good is what leads to abominations like the 10kW turbine installation at the Santa Fe PWC that will pay for itself in 144 years:
http://newsnewmexico.blogspot.com/2012/05/paul-lindsey-hot-air-wind-turbine.html (yes, I know that the photo is not a 10kW turbine. Blame NewsNM. Here's the real photo: http://ecodaddyo.com/node/259 )
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
May 9, 2012
@freeasthewind. The entire thrust of renewable energy is to severely reduce our impact. The impact of mining and manufacturing transmission lines and towers must be astronomical alone. This isn't acceptable if the people that come after us are going to have a chance to survive. Compromise is over. Either it's done right today or the children of tomorrow will basically be screwed.
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
May 9, 2012
I apologize to all for such a lengthy bill discussion, but leaving part out isn't right either.
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
May 9, 2012
@plindsey. Part 3. a) SB 207 (Peace), Chapter 773, Statutes of 1999 created IFDs to stimulate development and international trade in the "border development zone," about 400 square miles adjacent to the Mexico border.

b) SB 1085 (Migden), Chapter 213, Statutes of 2005 provided for changes and additions to the IFD law to enable the City and County of San Francisco to finance needed public infrastructure improvements to specified waterfront properties.

c) AB 1199 (Ammiano), Chapter 664, Statutes of 2010, further amended IFD law to provide funding for shoreline improvements within the City and County of San Francisco.
Analysis Prepared by : Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
May 9, 2012
@plindsey Part 2. To do this, the bill removes the voter-approval requirement to form an IFD in a renewable energy zone, as identified by the legislative body of a city.  A renewable energy zone is defined in the bill as an area proposed for the development of more than 10 megawatts of renewable energy products.

The sponsor notes that in order to be developed, renewable energy projects need a renewable energy source and the infrastructure to move that energy, which can create a concentration of projects near urban communities.

2)Background - IFDs . Existing law authorizes cities and counties to create Infrastructure Financing Districts (IFDs) and issue bonds to pay for highways, transit, water systems, sewer projects, flood control, child care facilities, libraries, parks and solid waste facilities.  To repay the bonds, IFDs
divert property tax increment (that is, the growth in property tax revenues resulting from the developments) from other local governments for 30 years. However, IFDs cannot divert property tax increment revenues from schools (although there is ambiguity with respect to the ERAF portion of school property taxes). There are numerous requirements for the formation and operation of IFDs, including extensive infrastructure planning and consultation with other local governments, public hearings and voter approval.
Because an IFD is legally separate from the city or county, it's similar to a community redevelopment agency. Like a redevelopment agency, there is no constitutional requirement for two-thirds voter approval to form an IFD or to issue bonds. The requirement for two-thirds voter approval is not
based on any constitutional requirement, but instead, represents the political comprise that legislators struck in 1990.

3)Previous legislation . There have been bills that have tailored IFD law to specific local circumstances.
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
May 9, 2012
@plindsey. Part 1. CA Bill AB2551 is scheduled on Thurs in the Calif. Assembly where property taxes from renewable energy zones would be diverted to finance wind/solar project development. Read thru for the risk to school funding.
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2551 (Hueso)
SUMMARY
As proposed to be amended, this bill authorizes a legislative body of a city or county to establish an infrastructure financing district (IFD) in a renewable energy zone area, as defined, and exempts the creation of the IFD from voter-approval requirements. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires, in determining whether an area constitutes a renewable energy zone, the legislative body to consider zones that are not contiguous and aggregate the total megawatts of several areas.
2)States that the provisions of the bill shall prevail over any other provision of law, to the extent there is a conflict.FISCAL

EFFECT
Although IFD law is clear that schools cannot participate, creation of an IFD can have a negative impact on school funding. IFD law is unclear about property tax revenues from the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). Since these funds originate with a taxing entity other than schools, there is an argument that the ERAF increment could flow to the IFD.  If that
were to happen, there would be a corresponding cost to the General Fund as the property tax increment would otherwise offset General Fund obligations to schools, pursuant to the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantee.  The actual impact to the General Fund is unknown because it will depend on the number of basic aid school districts, but it could be hundreds of thousands of dollars.

COMMENTS
1)Purpose. According to the sponsor, the East County Renewables Coalition, this bill creates a financing mechanism for cities who want to create infrastructure projects for the community while promoting the development of renewable energy.
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
May 9, 2012
plindsey: I agree with you that the issues that you're bringing up need to be addressed.

That said, I disagree with you on your insinuation that the only reason that wind farms are being built is in order for wind companies to suck off the government teet.

There's a reason that the government is subsidizing wind energy and that is because it's a necessity! Our current energy situation is unsustainable in the long haul. The environmental and health costs of burning fossil fuels adds up to over 120,000,000,000 per year! And that's not counting the economic damage that CO2 causes in terms of climate change or ocean acidification. It's only counting the costs of environmental damage done by the mining and burning of the fuel, as well as the additional health costs that we incur due our use of fossil fuels.

When you factor in these costs, not to mention the fact that the fossil fuel industry gets $7.00 for every $1.00 that renewable energy gets in terms of subsidies, wind energy is actually a bargain!

To your point about NG peaker plants. I don't understand your opposition to them? True, it would be better if utility scale storage was on line right now or if the grid had already been beefed up enough to be able to transfer power to where it was needed, but both of those things are still in the future.

In the mean time, utilizing peaker plants is very similar to driving a hybrid car. It would be better to not to have to rely upon fossil fuels, but if doing such makes the adoption of renewable energy sources more practical, then what is the problem with it? Yeah, there are extra costs, as in a hybrid car, but, in the long run, the economics of building these hybrid systems more than makes up for the extra costs while cutting the total green house gas emissions and helping us bridge the two technologies.

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
May 9, 2012
Plindsey: The decommissioning issue is mostly a thing of the past, which dates back to the beginning of the wind energy industry and before people knew to insist that decommissioning be addressed at the beginning of a project.

Now, some states, a lot of counties and most lenders require that decommissioning costs be addressed before a project can be approved and funded. If it's not mandated, then, by all means, it should be and it's not unreasonable for a community to insist that it is!

All that said, I've never seen a cost breakdown of a wind farm that didn't have decommissioning included, but that is by no means a valid, scientific example! ;-)

Regarding your example of the BPA. I'm glad that you used them to illustrate your point because I went to wind school in north central Oregon and got to talk to quite a few of the folks who work for BPA and at the Celilo interconnection station (which is one end of the Pacific DC intertie)and the main problem that they have with wind is a transmission capacity problem.

Basically, the dams on the Columbia River are required to spill certain amounts of water at certain times. When this happens, the capacity of the transmission lines that BPA owns is maxed out and wind energy has to be curtailed.

I don't know if this is what was going on in your specific example or if it really was just not very windy (having lived there, I doubt that to be the case because the wind is pretty consistent in that neck of the woods). Anyway, the answer to that problem is to build more transmission capacity.

Your estimate of the capacity factor of a wind turbine is actually at the high end of what they usually function at when you consider the potential power that is present in the wind itself. That said, the fuel is "free" and generally speaking, wind turbines tend to pay for their energy inputs within 3 years, so the energy that they produce after after that is gravy. The same holds true for transmission losses.
tbc
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
May 9, 2012
@Sandcanyongal again: At 350 meters a wind turbine generates about 35 - 45 decibels. That is only a bit higher than a quiet bedroom at night and less than a car traveling at 50 mph as heard from 100 meters (55db)This has been borne out from several different studies.

Personally, I have visited numerous wind farms and I've never thought of them as being noisy places (aside from the sound of the wind rushing past my ears). I've been inside of prefab office structures (not usually the best in terms of sound insulation) in the middle of a couple of different wind farms and you couldn't hear the turbines over the background noise such as the ac or heat blowing. Some people are more sensitive to sound than others, but at 1.48 miles, you really shouldn't be able to hear the turbines at all, even on a quiet night.

If it really is as bad as you say, maybe you and your neighbors could hire an acoustics company or a university to do an acoustics study in your neighborhood? If it is the wind turbines that are generating the noise, (which an expert would be able to determine) then something is wrong with the turbines and the wind company would like to know this.

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
May 9, 2012
Sandcanyongal: We're all part of the problem. We can lessen our impact, but if you, me or anybody else participates in society in any meaningful way, we demand energy to power our lives. Regarding your being able to light your home and cook with solar, you can indeed do that today.

In California you have a lot of different options, including the one that you mentioned that is called, "Net metering" where you put the solar array on your rooftop and the energy that you produce first goes to run your home with any extra being sold to the utility.

When the sun isn't shining, you simply buy your power from the utility. In essence, the grid is your giant battery backup. It's not a bad deal, especially when you figure in the federal and state subsidies. In California you also have the ability to have a third party put the array on your roof and you buy your power from that company. With this arrangement you don't have to come up with any money, but you're not going to get 100% of the economic benefits of having the array.

If you like, drop me a line and I'd be happy to talk to you about it and to hook you up with a qualified solar contractor in your area.

Regarding your point about "huge turbines being within 500 feet of somebody's home", this generally isn't the case. While "setback" requirements vary county to county, they are usually either a set distance (more than 500 feet) or a multiple of the tower height. This is a safety concern in the event that a turbine experiences hub or blade failure (about a 1 in 1000 chance over the life of a turbine) or in areas subject to icing, throws ice off of a blade.

Distances can be difficult to judge sometimes and maybe it's a matter of perspective that is making the turbine appear closer??? If not and I was that person, I'd call the county and ask why they were allowed to put that turbine up so close to my house.

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
May 9, 2012
sandcanyongal: It's definitely all about the money at the local level. All that the cash-strapped counties and school districts see is the money being waved in their faces. It takes a pretty courageous county supervisor to vote "no". The best you can hope for is that the elected officials require extensive bonds by the windfarm developer to ensure that the construction roads are reclaimed, erosion is prevented, and when the turbines break and the owner declares bankruptcy, there is enough money to remove the turbines and reclaim the land.
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
May 8, 2012
@plindsey. Living in the mountains of the Tehachapi Pass, wind is seasonal and blows at night, not usually during the day. The first winds started in late December. They lasted a few days, subsided for weeks, picked up again and now pick up at night enough for me to hear the humming in the house at night into the morning.

Kern County Planning Department personnel are open that it is all about money. The Kern County Director calls it a Gold Rush for the county.
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
May 8, 2012
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell:

If wind is so "reliable", then why does BPA's data look so crappy. Right now, BPA's 4400+ MW of wind capacity operated at less than 10% from 0200, May 6 to 1300, May 8, a period of 35 hours straight.

I know the argument that the wind is always blowing somewhere, so all we need to do is build enough wind farms and connect them all together. So, how many 2 MW wind turbines are required to reliably supply 1000 MW 24/7? Using an annual cf of 33%, the lower limit is 1500 turbines, but we both know that that number is completely bogus. It also doesn't take into account transmission line losses.

Yes, NG peakers, such as the 800MW Sentinel CPV plant, can be used to firm wind (and solar), but why build two power sources? Without storage (maybe someday, but not now) or backup sources, wind is undispatchable It would be much more efficient in terms of resources and reliability to build CCGT plants instead of a bunch of wind turbines being chased by LMS100's running at part-load.

The only reasons wind is being built are (1) there's money to be made because of liberal tax incentives (i.e. Section 1603 and PTC), and (2) states have enacted RPS/RES mandates.
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
May 8, 2012
I've been in business a long time. There is an old saying that there is never time to do it right the first time but there's always time to do it again...
Michael Marullo
Michael Marullo
May 8, 2012
There's a basic problem here. We have people posting their opinions - to which they are certainly fully entitled - who have little if knowledge of the actual challenges of producing the most reliable electricity grid in the world. Contrary to what it seems today, that did not happen by accident; it happened thru compromise - a LOT of it! A lot of it also happened by utilities exercising their right of eminent domain. This is definitely not a popular concept, but back when the grid was being built, not every species of cricket on the planet had an advocate. I'm not in favor of letting utilities run roughshod over the people and the planet, but you can't have it 100% BOTH ways ALL the time! Over time, consumers will become more power-savvy, and a lot of the self-righteous, uninformed rhetoric will just go away. But in the meantime, fasten your seatbelt...
John Lackner
John Lackner
May 8, 2012
All this stuff that is being put up is to meet YOUR demand for electricity. If you don't like where it is coming from, stop using it. Then all the sources of power you are complaining about will no longer be needed.
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
May 8, 2012
You are incorrect to say I'm part of the problem. I'm not a legislator and have no voting power in the decision making process. I would be elated to turn on my lights and cook my food using solar energy.

Actually, there is a community, Old West Ranch across the freeway from us that is gridless. They've been inundated with huge turbines, some, within 500 feet of their homes, and red flashing beacons that strobe into the night sky and low clouds.

I don't believe I can get off the grid even if I put solar on my roof or a wind turbine up to generate energy. Maybe someone knows differently but my understanding is that my energy bill would be reduced, and excess energy would go back to the grid (not sure how they would do this.) To purchase solar is still cost prohibitive and not mature. There was a government offered option that has probably expired where the cost of solar panels would be added to the property tax bill over "x" number of years.

I live 1.48 miles from wind turbines and one of the people who hear them thru my windows and sleep with a pillow over my head like many people living in Mojave and the Tehachapi Pass. We see the dead kit foxes and baby bobcats, turned into road pizzas. It's is energy done wrong. I've been thru EIRs that are pure "bull" like a recent one in Jawbone Canyon and Kelso Valley. NextEra got it fast tracked. Why? Old man Steve Black who is the chief architect for the Obama administration's renewable energy policy was sleeping with a 28 year old NextEra lobbyist. It's the oldest trick in the book and this guy still has his job.

Now Karl Rove who is a "strategist", not a scientist is in the picture. Maybe NextEra will find a lady for him too.
John Lackner
John Lackner
May 8, 2012
Sandcanyongal: If you are using electricity you are just as much a part of the problem as anyone else. The best way to solve the energy problem you're talking about is to stop using electricity altogether, but I don't see anyone volunteering to do that.

On a different note, the main reason utilities are building wind and solar farms is so they can still SELL it to you. If you have solar on your own roof the electricity is all yours for free. The utility companies don't like this.
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
May 4, 2012
Plindsey: Wind is intermittent, but it is very reliable! The wind has been blowing since the planet first had an atmosphere and it tends to blow the same way over time in any particular geographic location. That's how they know where to put up the wind turbines!

Now, you can address the intermittent nature of wind in a number of different ways. As was pointed out above, various storage methods are being developed, demand can be tailored to a certain degree and we can build the grid out so that in the event that the wind isn't blowing in North Dakota, you can take advantage of the fact that it's blowing elsewhere. It's really not that hard of a problem to deal with!

Even when you utilize natural gas peaker plants as a method of dealing with intermittency, you still have a net gain because, as you pointed out, fuel is saved. In this sense, half a loaf is better than no loaf at all! In the long haul, we'll have to work past the point of utilizing natural gas, but as I pointed out above, that's really not that big a problem!

Sandcanyongal: The earth is a big place even if we filled every possible location where wind can be used economically to produce electricity and even if this localized warming effect that was noted in this one specific set of circumstances was added up, it would be overshadowed by the net cooling effect based upon the reduction in greenhouse gases.

Plus, this localized heating effect was the result of "stirring" the air and all you did was move air from one location to another. And even though it made that one specific location warmer, it made another location cooler. There was no net warming effect because nothing was added to the air to cause the atmosphere as a whole to warm up.

Maybe somebody else could explain it better???

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
May 4, 2012
Sandcanyongal: Sorry, it was Upali's link that was broken, you simply referenced it.

Anyway, let's not confuse "opinions" with facts. It's not my opinion, it's a fact that wind energy lessens green house gasses emitted during the production of electricity. The evidence of this fact is overwhelming and noncontroversial! To say that wind turbines contribute negatively to global climate change is simply silliness! (now, that's an opinion!)

Regarding your point about living with them, I can understand your point to a certain degree. But, before you start slamming wind energy, you need to step back from your own personal circumstances and look at the big picture.

We need the energy that is produced regardless of how it is produced. So, would you rather have a coal fired power plant near your home? Yeah, it might suck for you if you don't like the way that wind turbines look and while most people actually find them attractive, even graceful, if you don't like them, it's a shame that you happen to live in an area where the resource is being developed. That said, the net gain to society, as well as the well documented economic improvement that wind development brings to communities, more than outweighs your specific situation.

Sucks for you, but getting mercury poisoning or cancer as a result of living near a coal fired power plant would suck even more!

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
May 4, 2012
@Freeasthewind. I'm not an atmospheric scientist so I started reading to understand more about the significance of .72 degrees change in temperature.

According to Wikepedia, the Little Ice Age:
"Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels."

Of course, .72 F degree change and < 1C degree change can be termed as dissimilar numbers. However, I'm not so sure that you're correct in dismissing the contribution of local temperature change to the whole. There is a cumulative effect to consider.

I wonder if Carl Rove or Robert Gibbs has a strategic answer to this one to smooth out the edges.
El Rucio
El Rucio
May 4, 2012
If nothing else, this Gibbs-Rove conversation at the AWEA expo underscores that the continuation of wind is a political act rather than one of science or good sense.

With the lucrative tax avoidance it provides, it is no wonder that Washington/corporate insiders of whatever team don't want it to stop.
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
May 4, 2012
sandcanyongal, so what's your take on that project? Impacts always look bigger through field glasses.

$53.5m for 8 MW seems pricey, see:http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Southern-California-Edisons-8MW-Li-ion-Battery-for-Wind-Power-Storage/ Does anyone here have any useful insight on those costs?
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
May 4, 2012
@Cliff_Goudey. Edison received a grant of about $25m and is building an energy storage facility in the unincorporated area of Kern County abutting the City of Tehachapi. It's far enough away that, it can't be distinguished except for the heavy equipment. A pair of field glasses could solve this!
ANONYMOUS
May 3, 2012
It's interesting to read numerous criticisms of Rove but none of Gibbs. Rove was an adviser to President Bush, and since the wind energy business prospered during the Bush administration it could be assumed that Rove might have had something to do with it. The same can't be said for Gibbs. He was just a talking head for the Obama administration, and had no impact on policy.
Michael Marullo
Michael Marullo
May 3, 2012
The trick here is to have enough renewables online so as to create a sufficient power generation baseline that can be readily dispatched (at least until some effective & affordable storage technology comes along, which it most certainly will) and thus, improve its reliability.

That's why some of it needs to be subsidized - at least initially - to be able to reach that tipping point where there is always a sufficient residual level of wind, solar or whatever available to meet peak demand periods. It will take awhile, but at the rate we're building wind farms and solar arrays, not all that long. But first it has to get to a point where it is both plentiful and geographically diverse before we can claim victory. It will take much longer to raise that residual level to a reliable and sustainable level, but when we do, the intermittency issues will be substantially diminished and both consumers and the environment will benefit.

Meanwhile, those expecting instant gratification (or those with purely fossil-based agendas!) will continue to condemn renewables as folly and do everything possible to scuttle those efforts. Be that as it may, I believe 2 things: 1) Renewables WILL eventually augment other forms of power generation in a measurable and meaningful way within my lifetime (I'm 64); and 2) they will NOT fully displace other forms of base load generation in my lifetime...
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
May 3, 2012
plindsey, you wrote, "just like your car uses a lot more fuel driving into a headwind than it saves with a tailwind." Nothing like it at all, not the least of which drag is a function of V squared.

Regarding choices, I was not actually thinking of demand response, but that is also a good approach. I was thinking of weighing the environmental consequences of renewable power and power storage installations vs the trajectory we are now on. The NEPA and various other permitting hurdles were designed for managing things that hurt the environment. Unfortunately things that have a clear environmental benefit get bogged down in the same process.

Regarding politics, there are some in D.C. who have found that doing the right things for the right reasons can also work.
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
May 3, 2012
True, biofuels (algae) could use wind, but since algae-based biofuels (Sapphire Energy, Joule) require sunlight, it makes much better sense to use solar PV for pumping and solar heating for maintain tank temperature.

Please. The power requirements for pumping water uphill can never be recovered when it flows downhill, just like your car uses a lot more fuel driving into a headwind than it saves with a tailwind. (or uses going uphill compared to saving on the downhill side.) The overall efficiency is 70-85%. You're right, the ability to produce power very quickly at peak times compared to the cost of power when refilling the upper reservoir is what makes it effective, plus the avoided cost of not building more peaking plants. so, how many 2MW wind turbines would be required to operate a pumped storage facility such as Bath County? The problem with wind is reliablity. You cannot assume that because wind is often more powwerful at night that it is ALWAYS available to refill the upper reservoir. There is very little US moment-to-moment wind output information. I only know of BPA's website: http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/operations/Wind/baltwg3.aspx

Every time I look at the 7-day chart, there are priods where over 4400MW of wind power just doesn't produce, like from May 2nd, 3 pm, to current.


A better use of pumped storage is creating a tidal lagoon, South Korea's Shinwa or France's Rance, or directly using wave power, such as Voith Energy's Wavegen.


Re: "society will have to make choices" - that's demand management and something I think most people won't want to do unless it is imposed by government, either directly or through the use of higher taxes or cost of usage.

Your comments re: Priority #1 and #2 apply to all office holders, R, D or I, and is non-sequitur.
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
May 3, 2012
IC engines? So 20th century. But I suppose electrolysis to H2 could keep them humming. Biofuels probably make more sense.

Fortunately, the power requirements of pumping water uphill are roughly the same as what is captured when it is allowed to flow back and drive a turbine/generator. It's not a bad match for wind and if it means the power can be sold at peak daytime rates, it can make business sense. Yes, the regulatory process is burdensome but at some point we as a society will have to make choices.

Yes, there are a few cautious GOP RE supporters, but purely for the reasons you mentioned earlier. Priority #1 is to remain in office. Priority #2 is to continue to receive the contributions that help in priority #1. All else is negotiable.
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
May 3, 2012
Cliff_Goudey: so wind can be used to make fuels for IC engines? Marine engines (obviously other than sail)? Wind can reliably power electric trains and light rail?

Pumped hydro is extremely inefficient, due to the loss pumping water uphill. It only makes sense when there is a power source that is cheap to operate (i.e. nuclear) at times of low demand. As an engineer, you should know the power requirements of pumping water uphill at a high head pressure. And assuming pumped hydro is a solution assumes away the permitting, regulatory and construction costs of creating the upper reservoir. Here is a cost estimate for creating a 9GW (for 3 hrs/day after pumping for 6 hrs) pumped hydro facility in Australia:
http://theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/31094/pumped-hydro-energy-storage-%E2%80%93-cost-estimates-feasible-system

Sure, wind can be used for generating power for the production of something that can be stored. The classic example is a windmill pump that puts the water into a stock tank. A wind farm could reliably power a desalination facility, because the clean, produced water could be stored in a large enough tank that allows for the no/low wind periods.

Your statement that "There is no Republican support for renewables" is patently false, as stated in the article. Sen Grassley (R-IA), Rep King (R-IA), Rep Moran (R-KS), plus the R governors of IA, KS and OK, all want the PTC extended.

Regarding wind and "dirty energy", have you forgotten RFK Jr. telling the Colo O&G Assoc about how they should support wind and solar because NG provides the backup power?
http://atomicinsights.com/2010/11/robert-f-kennedy-jr-tells-the-colorado-oil-and-gas-association-that-wind-and-solar-plants-are-gas-plants.html
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
May 3, 2012
A correct please, '70s should be '80s.
Freeastthewind. You have the absolute right to your opinions too.
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
May 3, 2012
I believe NASA over anyone else. Local warming is an extremely serious problem.

Freeasthewind, I didn't provide a link to the nasa site or the article unless I'm missing it. I received a spam "warning" during another post and have avoided putting in links.

I live with blight that thunders down on my home, my space and my life from hundreds of wind turbines around my home with more met towers showing up all the time. Unless you live with them you understand nothing of the realities. This is nothing more than an investment scheme raining down destruction to the landscape and accomplishing nothing. I'm far from being the only one who is working diligently to see the end of them. This is the 2nd decade of the 21st century, not the roaring '70 of wild abandonment with cowboy Reagan at the helm.

In a few articles that ran a year or so ago, the story was that the temperature below the blades reduced the temperature in the airspace around them. I don't know if there was a study complete like the recent one published.

Regarding Karl Rove, he is another talking head with no knowledge or credibility of the subject at all.
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
May 3, 2012
plindsey, actually, you've made the Gross Conceptual Error. Energy use in the US is far more than merely electricity. With a sufficient build out of wind and other renewables, those energy demands can also be met with domestic sources. You are also forgetting energy storage technologies that exist (e.g. pumped hydro) and many more under development. These will nicely deal with the intermittency issues that some like to dwell upon.

There is no Republican support for renewables as they are nicely in dirty energy's pocket. They occasionally feign support to prevent local rebellions, but don't kid yourself.
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
May 3, 2012
From the 3rd to the last paragraph, "... achieving energy independence."

Oops, major Gross Conceptual Error. Wind is worthless at achieving energy independence because (1) so little of US electricity is produced from non-North American fossil fuels,and (2) in places like Hawaii or Puerto Rico, unreliable wind generation must be backed up with imported oil or LNG. The wind resource may reduce the fuel usage, but the fossil fuel capacity requirement remains the same. (However, Hawaii's geothermal potential is significant, and could provide the backup power.)

The Republican support comes from the jobs angle, and from the opportunity for lease payments made by windfarms operating on private farm or ranch land (typically Republican-leaning land owners).
Thomas Creed
Thomas Creed
May 3, 2012
@sancanyongal @upali
If you are going to post a link to an article and then run your mouth may I suggest you first actually get passed the headline and read the whole article?
"The warming estimate applies specifically to this particular region, and covers a time when wind farms were expanding rapidly, Zhou said. The estimate should not be considered directly applicable for other regions and landscapes, nor should it be extrapolated over a longer period of time, as the warming would likely plateau rather than continue to increase if no new wind turbines are added. The warming is also considered a local effect, not one that would contribute to a larger global trend."
And it would help if you put in the correct link: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/tx-wind-farm.html
Good response FreeAs
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
May 3, 2012
Sandcanyongal: First, you're link is broken and as Peter K, pointed out this "warming" effect that you're talking about is very localized and simply moves air around with a net warming effect of zero.

If NASA was so against wind farms, would they be considering building one? (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/testfacilities/wind_farm_index.html) or in testing them?

Step away from the AM radio dial and turn off Fox news and, if for no other reason than argument's sake, read some objective research on the matter!

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
May 3, 2012
@upali-wickramasinghe-75129
Thank you for producing the link to NASA website with their article that includes the text of the study publication at the bottom of the page.

It is a legitimate demand for President Obama, Ken Salazar, who heads the department of the interior, and also the Department of Energy to be forced by the people to mandate the shutdown of every existing wind turbine installation and to suspend all permits and applications in process in the United States immediately. The negative effects of wind turbine technology that continues to mount has reached the tipping point where they can no long be considered to be a viable option to combat climate change considering they are found to directly contribute to warming the land. This may warrant criminal charges against the above leaders and "chiefs" to end this greed over common sense with the lives our species and our life support systems.
Upali Wickramasinghe
Upali Wickramasinghe
May 2, 2012
Sorry I missed it. The reports was on Texas!!!!!!
Upali Wickramasinghe
Upali Wickramasinghe
May 2, 2012
I invite you to read www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/tx-wind-farm.html.
Here NASA reports that wind farms cause the area to become warmer
Upali Wickramasinghe
Upali Wickramasinghe
May 2, 2012
I invite all to visit a sugar cane plantation that was called Kantale Sugar Industries in Sri Lanka.In that ex-plantation there is enough wind and Insolation.Both are potential sources of power. What it lacks is water and the ability for living matter to survive.All these are short term measures.The solution lies in perennial canopied plants, no where else
William Fitch
William Fitch
May 2, 2012
Hi:

The only thing I would enjoy reading about Karl Rove and people like him, is his Obituary.

.....Bill
ANONYMOUS
May 2, 2012
I guess Rove - King of Hot Air - was naturally drawn to this event because he heard it was all about wind? Does anyone really care what he thinks about renewables? We pretty much know his political stance, and as far as I know, he has no technical or scientific creds whatsoever. This is a huge problem in our country... we keep looking to politicians to solve our problems when they're all about advancing their political agendas - NOT solving problems!
ANONYMOUS
May 2, 2012
Thanks for the heads-up. I need to rethink my travel plans. This Rove guy is such a disruptor that any attendee would be setback and lose their fervor for renewable approaches after listening to his natural gas industry backed spiel. It is a shame that this conference has invited Mr. Doom-and-Gloom of the Bush era to speak at a RE Conference.
ANONYMOUS
May 2, 2012
Who would believe any "advice" from Rove?
ANONYMOUS
May 2, 2012
Don't know why anyone in the commercial wind business would want to listen to a couple of political hacks like Rove and Gibbs. Rove was GW Bush's political adviser while Bush was governor of Texas and his chief of staff when Bush was president. As a fiscal libertarian I don't think too highly of Rove or the GW Bush administration's fiscal record.

But having said that, one of the most prosperous periods in US history for wind energy was the 8 years of the GW Bush administration. Not to mention the fact that Bush's home state of Texas is the US leader in commercial wind.

I don't think the federal PTC has much chance of being extended this year, especially when there are big cuts being made to higher priority budget items like defense. The House has also adopted a firm position of eliminating all budget earmarks. So the continuation of the federal PTC does not look so good.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Steve Leone

Steve Leone

Steve Leone has been a journalist for more than 15 years and has worked for news organizations in Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia and California.
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 10
    No Easy Fix for Broken Wind Turbine at US High School
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    Wind Turbine Lubrication and Maintenance: Protecting Investments in Renewable Energy
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Renewable Energy World Europe
  • Stoel Rives LLP
  • Fairtrade-Messe
  • Greenpower Capital
  • Schneider Electric
  • Prudent Living, Inc.
  • Navigant
  • Second Wind Inc.
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information