The truth is blowing somewhere in the wind

Dr Goodrich was one of several people who gave some excellent presentations on wind energy at Mount A last week. There was much to think about on the drive home.

The following was published in the Amherst Daily News on March 10th.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Along the High Marsh Road and near Amherst, our marshes will soon be sprouting numbers of white columns as tall as the CBC towers, topped by whirling rotors as long as a 747.

Reactions to them will vary from delight over their beauty to despair over their ugliness, with every shade of opinion in between. But, whatever we think of them, shouldn’t we all welcome them as a source of clean energy, formidable fighters in the war on global warming? Not if a growing number of critics are right who argue that wind cannot replace fossil fuels in large-scale electricity generation, but only reduce their consumption by a limited amount.

The reason, they argue, is that wind is inherently intermittent, difficult to predict, and constantly fluctuating in intensity. Not only must it be backed up by conventional generating plants when it is not blowing sufficiently — because of its “ volatility” (delivering power in surges) it must also be “ balanced” by rapid response units in order to maintain the stability of the grid. “Balancing units” must also respond to fluctuations in consumer demand, and are thus an integral part of any grid system, but with the addition of significant amounts of wind power, they must work overtime.

Since they burn fossil fuels, usually oil or natural gas, their extra emissions must be subtracted from the greenhouse gas savings. When all things are considered, say the critics, the savings in greenhouse gas and other noxious emissions are really very small.

Advocates of wind power admit the challenges of integrating it into the grid but maintain that, by building many wind farms over a wide area, its volatility can be tamed, and it will also become more reliable, making it feasible to generate up to 20 per cent of our electricity in this way.

Beyond that, they agree, the challenges become enormous. Critics respond by pointing out what this implies: thousands of very conspicuous turbines and hundreds of miles of new power lines plastered over the country, enormous outlays of steel, concrete, gravel etc. (all with their own cost in greenhouse gas emissions) and billions of dollars in extra costs to consumers and taxpayers.

Advocates answer that the sacrifice is worth it, because once we get 15 to 20 per cent of our electricity from wind, we can shut down many coal and oil fired plants, perhaps up to 50 per cent of them, and significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Critics say that this “carpeting solution” has not so far worked even in countries with such levels of wind power. Even with more than 6,000 wind turbines in an area half the size of New Brunswick producing about 20 per cent of its electricity, Denmark has not been able to shut down any of its conventional plants. Its per capita CO2 emissions are among the highest in Europe, as is the price of its electricity.

Part of the explanation is that about 80 per cent of its wind-generated electricity is exported to Norway and Sweden because it is not needed in Denmark when it is available, owing to the perversity of the Danish wind regime. Moreover, the imported wind power does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Norway and Sweden because it merely replaces hydro.

This is just one illustration of the difficulty of integrating wind power on a large scale. An expert from one of the country’s biggest power companies actually said that “increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish carbon dioxide emissions.”

In terms of greenhouse gas abatement, Germany’s experience with wind power is even more dismal than Denmark’s, say the critics.

Upwards of 20,000 turbines eke out only six per cent of the nation’s electricity generation and its largest grid operator has, in one respect at least, sided with the critics. According to a report it published in 2005: “ Wind energy is only able to replace traditional power stations to a limited extent…Consequently, traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90 per cent of the installed wind power capacity must be permanently online in order to guarantee power supply at all times.” Thus, far from the 50 per cent claimed by some enthusiasts, the German experience suggests that 10 per cent would be a more realistic figure, and then only after a 20 per cent or more penetration of wind power into the grid.

Germany, too, has not shut down any conventional plants; on the contrary, it is building more of them. To be sure, this is partly because it is phasing out its nuclear units, but it is also an indication that even the Germans don’t believe wind can fill the gap.

I am not qualified to say who is right in this debate, having no expertise either in engineering or in electricity production. But some presumably neutral sources seem to indicate that there is more to the critics’ case than the ravings of a few NIMBYs.

A 2007 study by the National Research Council of the American National Academy of Sciences estimated that even huge increases in wind power will only “contribute to offsets of approximately 4.5 per cent in U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide from electricity generation … by 2020.” In December 2008, the British Advertising Standards Authority forced the British Wind Energy Association to reduce by half its claims of how much emissions might be reduced by wind power.

Euan Blauvelt, director of ABS Energy Research, London, goes even further: “I think the actual savings in emissions is very low,” he said in an interview with Newsday in October 2006.

As citizens, we should learn all we can about this issue. Wind power advocates have long since gotten their message into the mass media. With far fewer resources, critics have largely been limited to the Internet, where a number of excellent sites tell the story from a different perspective.

One of the most comprehensive of these is National Wind Watch (www.wind-watch.org) which posts reams of material on all aspects of wind power, not just the carbon dioxide issue — its impact on health, property values, birds and bats, the landscape, and much more.

I urge you to look at it because, if critics have indeed revealed the ‘dirty truth about clean wind power,’ then we may all become victims of an “ecoswindle’ that will make the ethanol scam seem like a schoolboy prank.

Dr. W. Eugene Goodrich, professor emeritus, Mount Allison University.