Quantcast

Wind Energy Charade: Comparing Apples to Orangutans

One of the most important energy matters to accurately understand, is the reality that popular “renewable” electrical energy sources are not even remotely equivalent to our conventional energy sources.

Of course lobbyists don’t want consumers and politicians to think about that fact, so they go to great lengths to disguise it. Everything they propagate is based on an “equivalency” between “renewables” and conventional power sources that does not exist in the real world.

Even generally objective sources like EIA seriously err when they show such things as levelized cost charts that have wind energy and nuclear power in contiguous columns.

The first problem encountered here is the term “renewables.” This is bantered about like it is: 1) a scientific definition, and 2) a homogeneous group of energy sources. This is lobbyist sleight of hand, as neither is true. It isn’t my purpose here to go into the details of this charade but suffice it to say that the definition is very subjective, AND there are extraordinary differences between various “renewables.” (See Renewable Energy R.I.P. and Is Nuclear Power A Renewable?.)

After you’ve grasped those details, the heavy lifting begins. The trick here is to get our heads around the fundamental difference between something like wind energy and nuclear power.

I’m just a physicist and not a professional communicator, so wordology doesn’t come natural to me. However, what I have learned is that most people have a better chance of understanding complex matters when an analogy is used. Let’s try that here.

My suggested comparison is to look at two types of transportation (a parallel energy sector), using concepts we are all familiar with.

Let’s say that we have a business that repeatedly needs to get 50,000 pounds of goods from New York City to Denver, in two days, and cost is quite important. [In the electricity business this translates to satisfying a demand (load), through dispatchable energy, reliably and economically.]

So who do we subcontract this job to? A good option is to put this merchandise on an 18-wheeler and send it on its way. Will it always get there 100% of the time without fail? No, flukes do happen. However, if this experiment was repeated 100 times, the truck would arrive well over 90% of the time, on schedule and within budget. This is equivalent to using a conventional energy source, like nuclear power.

Now let’s say greenologists are introduced into the equation, and they arbitrarily add a new requirement that no fossil fuel can be used in the transportation. Oops. Our options are now severely restricted.

The parallel choice to using wind energy is to send the merchandise with golf carts (battery powered so no fossil fuel will be consumed during transport).

The fundamental question is:
how many golf carts will it take to dependably replicate the performance of one Mack truck?

Let’s say a golf cart can carry 500 pounds (two golfers with sticks). To transport 50,000 pounds that would work out to 100 golf carts.

This is essentially the message that the lobbyists want you to buy: that approximately 100 golf carts (wind turbines) will do the job of one 18-wheeler (conventional source: e.g. a coal facility). They want you to blink, shrug, and move on. Do NOT look behind the curtain!

But wait! Can the golf carts get really there in two days? Of course not. The lobbyists answer is to add more vehicles: use 1000 carts!

Does this “solution” really solve anything? No, but it further confuses politicians not used to critical thinking. What it also does is to insure more profit for the cart industry — which is the ONLY concern of the lobbyists.

What if the load is a hundred 500 pound pianos? Even though (on paper) a golf cart can carry 500 pounds, can a golf cart transport a piano across country? The lobbyists’ clever answer: disassemble it. (Yes they are slick.)

And will the cost of the golf cart option be comparable to the truck choice? Just to begin with there are 100+ drivers vs one — so I think you know the answer, right?

And what else will be needed to support this ”alternative” source of transportation? A lot: like battery recharge stations throughout the country. And who will pay for that? Duh.

And what is the source of the electricity used to charge the cart batteries? Mostly fossil fuels. Oops.

After the business says a resounding no to the golf cart option, the promoters come back with another appeal: just send part of the load with them. Try as they might, the owners couldn’t come up with a plan that sending ANY part of their merchandise made sense from reliability, economic or environmental perspectives. Can you?

In the face of this evidence, the lobbyists and their academic coconspirators distractingly wave their hands and spout such non-sequitors as “Don’t worry about the details. Give us a huge subsidy and we’ll do a great job. Everything will make more sense mañana.

This isn’t how science works!

BEFORE we hire them for this assignment, these promoters should tell us exactly how many golf carts it will take, and then PROVE IT by actually running this route dozens of times. We would then have real-world evidence about the reliability, cost and environmental impact of their proposal. This is exactly what has NOT done with wind energy.

They have not only skipped right over the proof stage, right now the golf cart lobbyists are working on convincing our politicians that since businesses have been “resistive” to using their transportation product, that they need a law MANDATING that 20% of all goods from NYC to Denver go the golf cart route! Senators Kerry & Lieberman are now agents of these lobbyists.

And the claimed benefit of all of this? Economic recovery. There will be lots of new jobs in the golf cart business! (But don’t be surprised to see “Made in China” stamped on many of these carts.)

What about the economic loss due to the higher shipping cost, and the slower, much less dependable transportation? Don’t worry about it. Come back mañana.

Hopefully this analogy makes things clearer, as this is the insane path we are now on. For a more thorough discussion of this situation, see Energy Presentation

John Droz, jr.
physicist & environmental advocate

5/12/10




The material in this press release comes from the originating research organization. Content may be edited for style and length. Want more? Sign up for our daily email.

58 thoughts on “Wind Energy Charade: Comparing Apples to Orangutans”

  1. Fred:

    1 – There absoutely IS a mandate. Twenty nine states are FORCING consumers to use renewable energy through Renewable Energy Standards. The Kerry- Lieberman bill is proposing to do the same thing federally. If you understood this business more then you would be aware of this.

    2 – “There won’t be a million or a billion unless businesses find this to be profitable.”
    Wind energy IS profitable by definition as the government has GUARANTEED a profit. I explained this before, yet you continue to be oblivious of it. If you had a better understanding of the energy business you would get that fundamental point

    3 – “Others look at that same empirical evidence and choose to invest in the technology.” Yes they “invest” (as I have explained before) because there is basically a guaranteed 25% return. These investors would be investing in plastic banana peels if the government set them up the way wind energy is. You seem to think they are investing for some “technical” reason! IT IS ALL ABOUT THE GUARANTEED MONEY.

    4 – I do NOT advocate business as usual. I advocate improving our environment, and our energy sources, by using sound scientific solutions.

    5 – I have avoided ad hominem comments and apologize for any that seem to come across that way.

    6 – You object to having to “have to accept your conclusions about what the evidence means or your economic projections.” I have no economic projections! I use government (e.g. EIA) projections. They conclude that wind energy is WAY more expensive.

    Again: we will solve our energy and environmental problems by using the Scientific Method, or by letting lobbyists setup our policies and tests and conditions.

    You have consistently advocated the latter.

  2. I’ll make a few addenda by quoting and replying about other differences that can’t be resolved.

    “But testing should be done BEFORE the public is mandated to use something.”

    There is NO mandate. Mandates presume that we know the result. Yet you keep repeating this political viewpoint as if the sense of a mandate is universal. The most I would say is that government policy is keeping the wind- and solar-power options open until we know more about its viability in a future with a smart grid. That’s far from mandating that we use those power sources.

    “There STILL is no independent data that shows that these are at least equivalent to our conventional sources. Should we wait for a million? a Billion?”

    There won’t be a million or a billion unless businesses find this to be profitable. Sometimes the kind of “independent” data you want is not available. I’ll settle for the next best thing. Lots of people invest in a technology. If they make money, they invest more. If they lose money, they move on. Investors tend to make objective decisions. I still can’t figure out why you think the number will grow so large if it is not a money-making proposition.

    “Contrary to what you are asserting, I have no “preferred model.” My position is based on empirical evidence.”

    Others look at that same empirical evidence and choose to invest in the technology. They are looking at wind-power as something that will have near 100% utilization and is part of the base. The difference between your prediction and theirs is based on the choice of model using the same evidence that you have.

    “2 – Cap & Trade schemes are more bunko politics. Not surprisingly, the exact same situation exists with AGW as wind wind energy: the scientific method has NOT been applied.”

    Perhaps the real issue is that you don’t think we need to worry about CO2. In that case, we have very little common ground here. I agree that cap and trade is not the best solution, but to reduce CO2, I think we need to put a price on using the environment. My preference would be a straight carbon tax to acknowledge that emitting CO2 into the atmosphere is likely to lead to future geopolitical problems. (The Defense Department has noted that the social consequence of climate change is one of the greatest threats, if not the greatest threat, to our future security.)

    In the end, I’ll accept cap-and-trade if that’s the only politically viable alternative to business as usual. Based on plenty of science, I draw the political conclusion that business as usual is not a viable option for our future.

    “During a moment of candor you begrudgingly acknowledged that I had more expertise here. Additionally, I have no other agenda than to insist that science be more rigorously followed in our technical decisions.”

    I acknowledge that you know more about the specifics of different power plants. I don’t think your expertise extends to politics or economics.

    I agree that policy-makers need to make decisions based on the evidence. But that doesn’t mean they have to accept your conclusions about what the evidence means or your economic projections. I’m not disputing your evidence. I’m disputing the economic model you are using to analyze it. Your conclusion results from your wariness about the potential of energy storage and smart-grid technology. Others are more optimistic, and after due diligence have invested their money and time into wind power. It is too soon to tell whether their assessment is right, notwithstanding your insistence that they are wrong.

    “Yet when I categorically tell you that we are being taken advantage of, and that profiteers are studiously avoiding doing real science, you choose to buy into their con.”

    That is simply an unfair, ad hominem attack. As I have said repeatedly, I am keeping an open mind. Your statements indicate that you have already made up yours. In fact, your opinion is so strong that you accuse people who disagree with you of lacking good judgment. Those kind of statements are the reason I broke off the previous threads on this post.

    I think it is probably time to end this one as well.

    To paraphrase George Burns and to add a little levity after your gratuitous insult about my judgment: “Say goodbye, John.” (It was, “Say goodnight, Gracie.”)

    Goodbye, John.

    Fred Bortz

  3. 1 – I have no problem with testing. But testing should be done BEFORE the public is mandated to use something. You seem to gloss over this little detail.

    Further, regarding wind energy the government has skipped over that scientific step (due to others thinking like yourself). Now there are some 100,000 turbines spinning away. And guess what? There STILL is no independent data that shows that these are at least equivalent to our conventional sources. Should we wait for a million? a Billion?

    So you have had it both ways: no initial independent test AND no subsequent verification testing. The lobbyists are saying “sweet!”

    Contrary to what you are asserting, I have no “preferred model.” My position is based on empirical evidence.

    Other “models” that show wind is a good thing are put forward by self-serving sources. To get their “model” to support their political agenda, they have made favorible and inaccurate assumptions. It’s all a game to manipulate individuals like yourself.

    2 – Cap & Trade schemes are more bunko politics. Not surprisingly, the exact same situation exists with AGW as wind wind energy: the scientific method has NOT been applied.

    Scientists are skeptical by nature, critical thinkers by eduction, and demanders of empirical evidence.

    Political agenda pushers are followers who go along with superficial good sound bites based on manipulated models, as it soothes their guilt — which has been instilled as part of the plan.

    During a moment of candor you begrudgingly acknowledged that I had more expertise here. Additionally, I have no other agenda than to insist that science be more rigorously followed in our tehnical decisions.

    Yet when I categorically tell you that we are being taken advantage of, and that profiteers are studiously avoiding doing real science, you choose to buy into their con.

    I can only bring the horse to water.

  4. Fred:

    1 – “Solar and geothermal energy are not human-controlled either”. You are right about solar, and that is one of the reasons why solar is also unlikely to succeed. You are mistaken about geothermal. read the MIT study cited in the Presentation. Geothermal is completely different from wind and solar, and is dispatchable.

    2 – “Imagine…” Your fanticiful hypothesis amounts to having an extreme amount of redundancy. And when that doesn’t work, add more. Read the analogy again. This is exactly the parallel I warned of. When the 100 golf carts don’t do the job of one Mack truck, send 1000.

    Additionally, everything is predicated on assumptions. This is also what I said that we are doing: pushing pie-in-the-sky political agendas, and not going about this in a scientific manner. If, in fact your hypothesis can work, and be affordable, then PROVE it, BEFORE we publicly go down this path.

    3 – “if society has chosen to place a cost on CO2…” This is yet another tactic of the golf cart lobbyists. Since they know that their favored product will cost significantly more, their strategy to make it seem not so bad is to increase the cost of their competition. Clever, but not scientific.

    4 – “extremely high cost with minuscule benefits” is not just my assessment, but the assesment of EVERY independent energy expert I know: hundreds. Again, it is not my responsibility to prove or disprove anything.

    The way science works is that it is the 100% responsibility of a promoter of a product that is represented to be a potential solution to a problem, to provide independent, comprehensive proof that their product indeed solves the problem. And this is all done BEFORE we force the public to pay for their product.

    NONE OF THAT HAS BEEN DONE.

    Carefully study the rest of the Presentation.

  5. John, we’ve both stated our arguments, so let me summarize where I think our basic disagreements lie. They won’t be resolved here, so I don’t think there’s much point in continuing past a summary statement for each of us.

    1. You keep saying things like “PROVE it, BEFORE we publicly go down this path.” My reply has been that you can’t prove something based on a model alone. You need to test it in practice. In this particular case, we don’t agree about what makes a reasonable model of the technology and economics, so neither of us can persuade the other based on models alone.

    Your preferred model predicts that wind power will be a waste of time, money, and effort. Others prefer a model that says that wind power looks feasible. I find that other model more reasonable for the same reason I find your analogy defective (see my very first response to you). Your Mack trucks vs. golf carts approach does not allow for a new technology that is neither–distributed power delivery. It doesn’t matter whether the power comes from a lot of small sources or one large source since the smart grid allows it to be distributed as needed.

    Moving away from the analogy to the real world, our major disagreement on the technical side is whether to consider wind power to be part of the baseline. Your whole cost argument seems to depend on the assumption that it can never serve that purpose. The argument of others, which I find persuasive, says it should be. [An aside: Many natural systems seem to illustrate that lots of small things (like the total mass of Earth’s bacteria) add up to more than all the big things (the total mass of complex organisms).]

    Since we disagree on that basic element of economic/energy modeling, it is impossible for either of us to persuade the other that our view is the right one. However, as scientists, we are both open to seeing what the evidence shows us. This disagreement will be resolved when we see what happens in practice. That’s why I keep saying the answer lies not in a proof beforehand but an empirical case study.

    2. The second point of disagreement is whether to account for the environmental cost of conventional (Mack truck) power plants, or, more practically, whether we expect government policies to make that happen. You state in your presentation that you are an environmentalist and that you belong to many environmental organizations. I presume, then, that you are not among those who argue that we should continue to dump CO2 into the atmosphere at current rates.

    The question is, how do we reduce CO2 emissions? Most people think it has to be done through economic incentives. And the political trends in most of the world are already clear. A carbon tax may be the most direct and honest way of doing that, but other countries are already setting up cap-and-trade to accomplish the same thing.

    Our disagreement here seems to be that you consider such policies as artificially subsidizing wind power, while I see the lack of such policies as artificially subsidizing fossil fuel plants. So, again, we have fundamentally opposed models of what makes for good public policy. From watching political developments around the world, I think it is likely that the U.S. will eventually implement cap-and-trade as well.

    We agree that such a policy will favor wind power, but we probably disagree whether the lack of such policy favors the status quo. We also probably disagree on whether such a policy is likely to be implemented in the U.S.

    Our predictions mean nothing, of course. Time will tell which of our evaluations of both the political and technological future of wind-power plants comes to pass.

    I think you can agree with this: I hope that whatever road we follow does more good than harm. But the most important thing is to keep our minds open so that we can change course as much or as little as necessary.

    Fred Bortz

  6. John, I think there’s a flaw in the way you are analyzing things here.

    Here’s the relevant part to understand. Our electrical grid needs to exactly balance the supply and demand on a second-by-second basis.

    It does so by responding to demand, which means you need a generator that can change its output to match the load.

    Up until now, we have used a combination of electrical sources to satisfy the three types of load that we have (explained further on in the Presentation).Each of these sources is called “dispatchable” which essentially means, is human controlled.Now, with wind energy, we are (for the first time) adding a source that is not human controlled.

    Solar and geothermal energy are not human-controlled either, but in any case, this is not a problem–see below.

    Can I tell a wind project that it MUST supply X MW of power tomorrow at 3 PM? No.

    You don’t need to do that, and here’s why.

    Imagine we have a smart grid and some energy storage devices connecting to thousands of small solar, wind, or geothermal generators. They are spread over a wide territory, so you can count on certain minimum and maximum levels of power from them. Any one of them may be off-line or not generating because of atmospheric conditions, but there are enough that the range of total production is fairly predictable.

    The smart grid allows all power companies to divide all the power from those sources according to a formula. Suppose that you own a power company, and your share of that power ranges from 15 to 25 percent of your average load at some point in the future. (I’d bet the uncertainty is smaller than that if you have enough generators in enough places.) You can use that as part of your baseline generation and adjust the demand on the rest of your baseline accordingly. Their costs are likely to be low because they will always be selling all their energy output, unlike coal-fired plants that operate at a low level at off-peak hours.

    [Political aside: Because fuel costs are zero, you will be paying for depreciating capital and transmission only for that electricity. Those costs will probably be competitive with conventional plants, and may even be cheaper, especially if society has chosen to place a cost on CO2 emissions through cap-and-trade or a straight carbon tax. If not, I would argue that society is subsidizing fossil fuels by not recouping the real costs that are likely to result from climate change. But let’s not argue the merits and just assume the most likely outcome is that CO2 emission will not be free a decade from now.]

    That means that as your conventional plants age, you can replace them with fewer or smaller plants, or you can keep the same level and reduce the amount of more expensive energy you get to meet your peak loads. That energy will come from the same source you currently use for that purpose.

    I think the flaw in your logic is that you are not counting wind and solar as part of the future baseline.

    So I don’t share your assessment of the bottom line for wind and other renewables: “extremely high cost with minuscule benefits.” On the contrary, I think the costs will be competitive or cheaper than fossil fuel and the benefits will go far beyond mere economics.

    That’s the crux of our disagreement as I see it.

    Fred Bortz

  7. Fred:

    I appreciate your taking the time you did to look at some of the Presentation, and your effort in presenting a balanced argument.

    I have nothing per se against a Smart Grid. It, like everthing else, should be subjected to a hard critical analysis beforehand.

    Almost every analysis that has been done has used increased wind power as a “benefit.” This is circular reasoning, as wind energy has unproven net benefits. Needless to say, though, that the same self-serving lobbyists that are promoting wind energy, are also the ones who say we absolutely must have a Smart Grid.

    Here’s the relevant part to understand. Our electrical grid needs to exactly balance the supply and demand on a second-by-second basis.

    Up until now, we have used a combination of electrical sources to satisfy the three types of load that we have (explained further on in the Presentation).

    Each of these sources is called “dispatchable” which essentially means, is human controlled.

    Now, with wind energy, we are (for the first time) adding a source that is not human controlled.

    Can I tell a wind project that it MUST supply X MW of power tomorrow at 3 PM? No.

    The after-the-fact solution to this real world issue is to control demand, not supply.

    Thus, the real main reason for the Smart Grid.

    And, BTW, sure there are all sorts of proposals for storage of wind energy. There is money on the table so profiteers come out of the woodwork.

    The basic problem is that even the cheapest are very expensive. Add this to the fact that wind energy is more expensive than any source of conventional power we have (per EIA) we end up with an exceptionally expensive source of power.

    For what benefit?

    Again: there was zero benefit was proved beforehand, and there is zero proof of benefit afterwards. Additionally, all independent real world evidence says very low benefit.

    Bottom line: extremely high cost with miniscule benefits.

    This is not a scientific solution, but palliative political pablum.

  8. You say: 1) forgo the scientific method [as we don’t have time, etc.]

    No, I don’t say that. I have repeatedly disputed that misrepresentation of what I introduced as an interesting side conversation here.

    For the last time, I repeat: The results of the “scientific method” are only as good as the models and data you have available, and sometimes the best way to get more data is simply to try something.

    Or to put it another way: Analyses are based on imperfect models, and sometimes you just need to test things in the real world.

    That is a scientific approach, although perhaps more empirical than you would like.

    Now I suggest that we end this discussion and pick up with my more recent comments about your presentation itself.

    Fred Bortz

  9. After arguing with our Energy Expert, John Droz, about whether this argument is political or scientific, I decided to look at his presentation.

    It’s not a polemic, and it appears to be sincere. I went through about 40% of it before deciding I didn’t need to read more to get a good flavor of its main thrust. I didn’t find any details about how he was computing costs to make comparisons among the many alternative energy sources. Perhaps that comes later. But as I note in one of our arguments, cost estimates are inherently laden with political assumptions, so any arguments are probably more about politics than science.

    My first dispute is John’s claim that this presentation is purely scientific. If it has a political point of view, that isn’t a problem for me as long as the readers can deduce that viewpoint. So I’m not criticizing it for being political in intent. It certainly doesn’t have the obnoxious tone (“if you don’t agree, you’re not thinking scientifically”) that John displays in his post here and in his other discussions with me. So as a piece of politics, it’s reasonable. I may not agree with its point, but I’ll give him credit for avoiding the shrill political tone that we find all too much of in today’s election and issue campaigns.

    It does a good job of showing the current balance of energy and the basic ideas (base load, peak load, energy storage, etc.)

    But I disagree with it nevertheless, and not because I have a firm political position on wind power. I question a few unsupported assertions or assumptions that John makes in his presentation.

    The first is the claim that there is no scientific analysis to support wind power, that its support is all hype and lobbying. He and I argue that ad nauseum below. Needless to say, I disagree with that claim.

    It also says that there is no practical means of energy storage on the horizon, which makes wind energy’s non-uniform delivery a problem. I won’t argue the technology of that point, because I don’t know enough about it. However, I’m sure you can find many arguments that do see practical energy storage on the horizon, such as pumping water upstream when there is excess wind energy and allowing that energy to produce hydropower when there is less wind.

    The more serious objection I have is his glib dismissal of the smart grid, which would make use of energy storage even more feasible, though that is not its main advantage. By allowing excess electrical energy to flow to places where there is a deficiency, load balancing can make up for the variability. Many distributed variable sources such as wind and solar can add together to produce a pretty good baseline. The more diverse sources you combine, the less variation there is from the average.

    In my view, the Smart Grid is by far the most promising solution to our energy production problems. It is technologically quite feasible, and it allows small variable sources, such as home solar cells or home windmills, to feed power into the grid when their power is not needed locally. That argument also makes sense for wind farms in remote, windy locations with no nearby users.

    Now we can argue about details here, but I concede to John’s greater knowledge. Still, I think the greatest incorrect assumption John is making in his argument against wind power is that the Smart Grid will not have the economic and energy impact that advocates claim for it.

    With different assumptions about the future of the Smart Grid and, to a lesser extent, energy storage, it is quite easy to make a scientific and economic case in favor of wind power using the same computations that John would make otherwise.

    For that reason, I support the investment our government is making in this nascent and promising technology. We’ll have plenty of time to evaluate whose assumptions were correct in a few years when we can see what energy-storage and smart-grid technologies are coming to the fore. We will adjust our course as necessary toward the most promising solutions then. Will it be wind? Perhaps. Should we consider wind as a possible option at this time and make public and private investments into it? John and I disagree on that. He says it’s doomed to be expensive, so we shouldn’t. I say there are real possibilities, so we should. More people are on my side of the argument right now, but that means nothing. The technology will prove itself–or not.

    I hope John is more willing to accept this critique as based on scientific thinking than he seemed to be in our other, more heated arguments.

    Fred Bortz

  10. Fred:

    We are in agreement that this is a political matter.

    I say that we should apply the scientific method before ANY black box is allowed on the grid, and forced on the public.

    You say: 1) forgo the scientific method [as we don’t have time, etc.], 2) connect up the black box [because the sellers say it’s a good thing], 3) fund it with taxpayer money [becaue we fund other things anyway], 4) don’t ask for any proof even after the fact [because that would be embarrassing] and 5) keep throwing MORE money at it in the hopes that it will get better.

    And you call your position a “scientific” one?

    Please note:
    1) the most prominent “DOE” report on wind energy was written by AWEA staff and their carefuly selected supporters.

    2) consumers have zero choice about whether they “like” wind energy, irregardless of how educated they are. Twenty nine states controlled by lobbyists have mandated that they must use wind energy. There is zero accountability regarding its effectiveness.

    The federal government is now contemplating the exact same RES idea. I have worked for years with state and federal senators and know that they have ZERO scientific evidence that wind energy is comparable to our conventional sources.

    Again, wind energy theoretically COULD be a good thing.

    We should not mandate that citizens have to use it until it is subjected to the Scientific Method.

    That’s where we differ. Politicians have a whole litany of excuses for avoiding the tests and proof. You have endorsed that viewpoint. Shame on you.

  11. Of course technical solutions should be evaluated scientifically as well as economically. I have never claimed otherwise. I have repeatedly stressed the importance of data. My difference with you is that sometimes the only way to get that data about any kind of technology is to build it and see if people’s models–yours included–hold up.

    In other words it’s time for empirical investigations rather than theoretical ones. That’s still a scientific approach, though not as “pure” as the use of the term “scientific method” seems to imply.

    Our real disagreement is political, not scientific. So stop making the absurd claim that there is no science but yours! And please stop insulting me by saying I am not being scientific by keeping my mind open about the technology.

    My political view is that government grants and subsidies for R&D and incentives to mitigate risk for wind power are reasonable. (In fact, NSF and DOE grants require evaluation by panels of scientific experts for feasibility and the potential to produce valuable insights.) Those incentives do not cost trillions, as you state. The only way economies will spend trillions on wind power plants is if they prove to be viable and economical. Otherwise, other technologies will carry the day.

    Similar incentives can be found in almost any major technological development in recent history. Furthermore, we are still subsidizing traditional energy sources in our tax code and, for oil in particular, by providing military people by the thousands and equipment to protect sources of supply. And we are also allowing our environment to be used as a sink or waste depository without assessing the long term cost of direct damage and long-term climate change.

    Also, your model seems to treat those expenses for wind power as costs, when it is just as reasonable to treat them as investments that may pay for themselves in the future. However it accounts for those costs, your model is not only scientific but political.

    In fact, any scientific assessment comparing various approaches to meeting our energy needs will be using a model laden with political judgments and constraints.

    The only way for me to buy into your model is to accept your political assertions that wind power is being “forced” on an uninformed public.

    I do not accept those assertions. The jury is still out on the role of wind power in the future energy mix, and the U.S. public is well informed–at least if they choose to be. They have the chance to evaluate a variety of arguments in the legislative process and through the mainstream and alternative media (including blogs and commentary like this one). They have scientists who serve on committees to review the merits of research grants, with their decisions open to public scrutiny.

    So my disagreement with you is political, not scientific. I don’t expect you to change your political views. All I ask is that you stop asserting that they are purely scientific judgments. And then we should simply agree to disagree on the politics here and move on to other topics.

    One thing that I hope you will agree about. Neither of us has much more to offer on this subject than we have already stated here.

    Enough? I think so!

    Politically yours,
    Fred Bortz

  12. Fred:

    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to correct yet another misunderstanding.

    At no time was I asking you to accept any of my conclusions. It is the lobbyists that are asking you to accept their conclusions and you seem more than willing to do that!

    As a scientist, I have a very simple position here: technical solutions (e.g. wind energy) should not be forced on the public before being subjected to the scientific method.

    You either agree with this science-based position or you don’t.

  13. I’m very interested finding ways to deal with energy and environmental issues.

    Up to now, I’ve been careful to stick to science and technology and not to get personal with you.

    But I will now tell you directly what I think of your approach.

    I’m just not interested in having a circular argument with someone who touts his political opinions as science, claims vast expertise, and then demeans those who choose not to accept his conclusions as unscientific or worse.

    You tell me that my choice to keep an open mind rather than accepting your conclusion makes me unscientific. Why should I want to continue to go round and round with such a person?

    That is the position that this scientist takes, no matter how many times you claim I am being unscientific.

    Enough!

    Fred Bortz

  14. Fred:

    You SHOULD have a further interest as something like a trillion dollars will likely be wasted on such lobbyist propoganda follies.

    Additionally, if you are concerned by such issues as CO2, all current independent evidence says that this expenditure will not turn out to be consequentially beneficial.

    If you have no further interest in such matters, that’s fine.

    That is not the position a scientist would take.

  15. Fred:

    It is amazing that you are skeptical about an independent scientist’s position – yet you buy hook ine and sinker self-servig promoters claims that they will do good things, but all data showing so is confidential.

    And you are nothing if not consistent. Once again you have distorted what I said.

    For instance, I said nothing about anything being totally wrong.

    I said that taxpayers and ratepayers should not be made to pay for a product without prior independent proof that it is at least as good as the alternatives.

    No such scientific evidence exists. If you have it please forward it immediately.

    Evidently you don’t have such evidence, as you have already moved on to unscientific excuse number two: Give it some time and everything will work out tomorrow.

    Thank you for showing how applicable my initial analogy is, as that is exactly the position of the lobbyists. Pay them to have golf carts move our merchandise from NYC to Denver. Don’t ask for any proof that this makes technical, economic or environmental sense. It will all work out tomorrow.

    This is not science and no scientist supports such nonsense.

  16. No one knows everything about a subject, so I have a healthy skepticism about your broad claim to expertise, especially when there is politics involved–such as a discussion of what constitutes subsidies (like a fleet of ships in the Persian Gulf), true environmental costs (including what costs climate change will create–extremely difficulty to project at this point), whether to consider R&D dollars as present expenditure or investments, etc.

    So cost models are part of the calculation (and very political and subjective), and people have different ways of accounting for some of the things I mention in the preceding paragraph. Furthermore, economic projections are only as valid as the predictions of human behavior they are built on.

    Also, how can you be so certain that technological developments will not reduce the cost significantly in the future.

    Your conclusion is therefore based on a model and set of assumptions that many people would disagree with. That’s why, despite your argument, scientific and economic analysis tells other people that the business has a future, including the ability to sustain itself without subsidies in the long run. (Please drop your claim that no one else is a scientist on this topic but you. That makes you seem arrogant.)

    Whenever someone claims something is “totally wrong” based on such an incomplete theory, I remain dubious of both the theory and the person who claims he’s smarter than everyone else in the world on the subject.

    Let’s drop it here.

    Fred Bortz

  17. Fred:

    Unfortunately you seem to have a tendency to project your biases onto the statements I have made.

    I “know” that no one has utilized the scientific method in assessing wind energy as this is one of the areas of my expertise, and I know literally hundreds of industry experts, and have been researching this for years.

    This business exists for one and only one reason: that it is being exhorbatantly subsidized by various governments.

    It does not exist because wind energy is a reliable source of electricity – as it is provably not.

    It does not exist because wind energy is an economic source of electricity – as it is provably not.

    It does not exist because wind energy is making consequential environmental benefits – as there is no independent evidence that says it does.

    This business exists for one and only one reason: that it is being exorbitantly subsidized by various governments — pandering to political whims.

    Your unscientific answer to these facts is to assert that maybe someone’s models say otherwise.

    I’m sure that someone’s modes DO say otherwise. And I am equally sure that: 1) these models were made up by people with a financial interest in the outcome, and 2) that they have no real world proof that their models are accurate.

    This business exists for one and only one reason: that it is being exorbitantly subsidized by various governments.

    As a scientist I say that this is totally wrong.

    If entrepreneurs want to experiment with wind energy — then go for it. They have my full support!

    That’s a far cry from making ratepayers PAY for their experiments, and taxpayers PAY for their experiments.

    NO public electricity source should be allowed on the grid until there is independent scientific proof that it is at least equal to our conventional sources.

    If the PUBLIC will be paying for this, then the proof should be PUBLIC. For these profiteers to say they have the data but can’t show it to you is absurd. No scientist would accept that answer.

    So, as far as what is known publicly (and among independent energy experts), ZERO real world proof exists that wind energy is at least equal to our conventional sources. Again, you can prove me wrong by supplying the data.

    As a scientist I say that this is totally wrong.

  18. What I stated is that wind energy has NOT been evaluated using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

    Given the large number of companies that have chosen to go into the wind power business, and given the need to develop credible business plans and conduct due diligence, how can you assume that none of the people involved used scientific principles?

    Their decisions are based on proprietary work, so I can’t cite specific reports. However, it is much more reasonable to say that they used different models than you do and came to different conclusions.

    Those models are just beginning to be tested in the real world.

    Furthermore, the scientific method does not produce only a single conclusion when the data is incomplete and the models are ill-defined.

    So we are on very different pages when it comes to judging your model versus the models of the others.

    You are certain of the correctness of your model and of the outcome before it happens, while I am open to letting the experiment, if that’s what you wish to call it, play out.

    Your insistence that no one else is being scientific — repeated in virtually every post — prejudices your judgment. That kind of prejudice and accusation has no place in science. It suggests a closed mind, not an open one.

    Fred Bortz

  19. Fred:

    I’m sorry that you have chosen to misrepresent my position. Hopefully it is an inadvertent honest error that you will promptly correct

    You say that I have a “total unwillingness to accept that anyone else has looked at the same evidence with a scientific mindset and come to a different conclusion about the economic viability of Wind Power.”

    I said no such thing.

    What I stated is that wind energy has NOT been evaluated using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

    If you agree with that then we are on the same page, as scientists.

    If you think this HAS been done and I am unaware of it, then please point me to the comprehensive real world testing of wind energy by independent qualified scientists.

Comments are closed.