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
If our reporting has informed or inspired you, please consider making a donation. Every contribution, no matter the size, empowers us to continue delivering accurate, engaging, and trustworthy science and medical news. Independent journalism requires time, effort, and resources—your support ensures we can keep uncovering the stories that matter most to you.
Join us in making knowledge accessible and impactful. Thank you for standing with us!
I have been reading a book for review called Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error by Kathryn Schulz, and it has led me to reflect on the long interchange I had on this thread with “EnergyExpert” about his claim that Wind Power is a boondoggle.
What was most striking to me in that interchange was EE’s 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.
To him, it is impossible to accept that reputable engineers, savvy investors, and thorough bankers and financial analysts all around the world have looked carefully at the evidence and projections, and decided the technology is worth their efforts and investments.
No, he concludes, they must be deluded or subsidized unreasonably by governments, and they have certainly not used good scientific judgment.
Among Schulz’s many interesting points is the asymmetry that exists between “my” ideas and “your” ideas. I am rational, logical, and scientific in drawing my conclusions, so you must be irrational, illogical, or unscientific in drawing yours. Because of my rationality and reason, my conclusions must be right, and you are simply wrong. Substitute “EE is” for “I am,” “EE’s” for “my,” “others” for “you,” and “others'” for “your” or “yours,” in the preceding two sentences, and the connection of Schulz’s book to this discussion becomes clear.
In the case of my comments, I wanted to make an interesting side point about the limitations of strict scientific thinking and the value of trial-and-error learning when we must go beyond those limits. That’s part of the difference between science and technology.
I found EE’s conclusions striking because they were so clearly different from the mainstream analysis of this technology. That doesn’t make them wrong, but it certainly means he carries a large burden of proof.
I am still keeping an open mind about the possibility that he may have come up with a useful point of view, but his almost religious fervor for his view and total disdain for the conclusions of thousands of other people who have “put their money where their mouth is” with respect to wind power diminishes my interest in delving into his arguments.
In short, his insistence that he is the only one to have analyzed this technology with a rational, logical, open scientific mindset — coupled with his insistence that all the others who came to a different conclusion are deluded, dishonest, or manipulative and certainly not scientific — makes him seem like a close-minded zealot instead.
I’ll probably post my review of Being Wrong on my Science Blog pages after it is published in a major metropolitan newspaper. Stay tuned.
Fred Bortz
Fred:
You seem to have the belief that because someone offers a product or service, that it must make sense. Wow!
I tried to make it very clear that we do NOT have market conditions here, yet you seemed not to read that part. I’ll repeat:
You seem to have a profound misunderstanding that the investors return on a wind project is in proportion to the benefits it provides: more benefits = more profit, less benefits = less profit. That is totally in error, and is a key part of my point.
We are funding these people with ZERO independent scientific apriori evidence that industrial wind energy is technically, economically and environmentally sound, AND we are funding them with ZERO requirements that they provide any consequential technical, economic or environmental benefits.
The fact that Green Mountain Energy offers to gullible people the opportunity to pay extra for purple credits, is a Madoff level scam.
So, again, anyone who supports such a charade is not a scientist.
Since you asked, I’ll reply.
But this is it–even if you continue to insult me or misrepresent my words.
One link is enough to make my point, but there are several companies in the U.S. and many more around the world that disagree with you and put their money behind their beliefs.
This company has been supplying my home area with electricity since 1997. Some people are willing to pay extra for the power. I pass their windmills often while driving on the PA Turnpike.
http://www.greenmountainenergy.com/
[EDIT: I must have the wrong company for PA. I’m not taking the time to look for the right one, but we have our share of windmills.]
Now companies of all kinds use lobbyists to make their points, but that does not inherently make them liars or truth-tellers.
Now please stop insulting me for not accepting your conclusion when I see the wind-power industry making technological progress, despite your assertions about them.
Fred Bortz
Fred:
1 – You say “Others disagree with me”. Yes, lobbyists and others with a financial or political stake do promote wind energy.
2 – You say “Others have done their own scientific and economic analyses and concluded that wind power has a great future.” No independent scientific study has every concluded that wind energy is technically sound, economically affordable on its own, or that it has a consequential net environmental benefit. You seem to think otherwise, so it will be easy to prove me wrong. Please site the real world analysis done by an independent source that proves you right.
3 – You say “If their view turns out to be wrong, they will lose their investment and others will choose not to invest further.” This is almost incomprehensible that you are saying this. This whole situation is set up by the government to GUARANTEE a 25%± profit to wind developers. There is no one “losing” here other than taxpayers and rate payers. If wind energy does not save a single gram of CO2, these “investors” will be paid in FULL.
You seem to have a profound misunderstanding that the investors return on a wind project is in proportion to the benefits it provides: more benefits = more profit, less benefits = less profit. That is totally in error, and is a key part of my point.
We are funding these people with ZERO independent scientific apriori evidence that industrial wind energy is technically, economically and environmentally sound, AND we are funding them with ZERO requirements that they provide any consequential technical, economic or environmental benefits.
Yes, anyone who supports such a charade is not a scientist.
I am only jumping back in because you are misconstruing my words. Please speak for yourself and not for me.
I thought I was making an interesting point about the limitations of the “pure” scientific method versus real-world approaches, but it seems to have been lost because of your certainty that wind power is not an economically sound approach.
Others disagree with you. They have done their own scientific and economic analyses and concluded that wind power has a great future.
They have expressed confidence in those analyses by investing considerable amounts of their own money into it.
They are willing to test the opposing interpretations of the evidence in the real world. I think that is a rational way to figure out whether they are right.
If their view turns out to be wrong, they will lose their investment and others will choose not to invest further.
If their view turns out to be right, others will invest and we will see many more wind-power plants in five years.
Putting things to the test is a scientific approach, even if it means learning by trial and error.
So quit calling me unscientific just because I remain open to the possibility either view may turn out to be right.
Now I really need to get back to earning a living.
Fred Bortz
Sir:
I read very carefully Fred’s comments.
He is effectively saying “skip real scientific (independent, objective, comprehensive) testing beforehand, and focus the effort on engineering “fixes” after the fact.
That is preposterous.
Some things (e.g. wind energy) simply do not make technical, economic or environmental sense to “fix.”
Of course we’d know that before spending hundreds of billions of dollars on it if we had required scientific testing beforehand.
Get it now?
Fred discusses the limitations of science, but doesn’t dismiss its value:
EnergyExpert replies:
EnergyExpert ignores most of Fred’s earlier statements, including this:
Who can blame Fred for dropping this?
Last reply to Anonymous.
Thank you for providing a slightly modified version of the lobbyists pitch. When the golf carts (wind turbines) prove to be unacceptable: build more!
When redundancy doesn’t work, build more!
When the economics doesn’t work, build more!
When the reliability doesn’t work, build more!
When environmental benefits are trivial, build more!
I guess that I had the mistaken impression that a “Science Blog” might actually be mostly populated with scientists and citizens who support scientific principles.
Build massive wind farms and supply rail with electric engines to replace diesel. A one time investment in wind farms eventually is cheaper than oil especially when oil hits over $100.00 a barrel. Up front cost differed over 25 years for wind towers. In 25 years a barrel of oil $200.00. Deficit increases of $130 billion for cross country rail upgrade with spurs.
The single manufacture is now joined by others manufactures, EPA credits become available, pollution reduction warrants possible tax credits.
Their is no need to elevate a commercial train like a Japan commuter train since a 60 mph basic wheeled electric train goes as fast as a 18 wheel truck just keeping the delivery speed inline apples for apples. States already want electric trains for commuter use what a dream, but if the wind farms are available why not use them. In 50 years the energy is free as long as the wind towers are still operational.
Fred:
Everything has its limitations: science, engineering, etc.
You seem to want to dismiss the scientific investigative part due to the possibility that it might not be perfect. Strange position for scientist.
You state that “wind power is making its way without subsidies”. That is categorically false. Please provide a single documented example where industrial wind fits that category.
Why do we need to wait five years when we have some 100,000 turbines to get data from NOW? The answer is obvious: the data available today proves that wind power is an extremely expensive, very low benefit energy source. Lobbyists can only say “ignore what we have today and come back in the future”.
Exacly what I stated in my analogy.
You have been drinking the Koolaide my friend. Put on your science hat and do some critical thinking.
We’re talking past each other, and I just got a deadline for a book review. So you’ll have to settle for this, and I have to move on.
1. Science can only go so far. Then you have to try the technology to see if the engineering and economic projections hold up in practice. That was the only point I was trying to make in my first reply.
2. According to my reading of reputable sources, wind power is making its way without subsidies. It has its limitations, but there are areas where it appears to be a good economic alternative.
So I’ll leave the field open to you. You appear to have a firm position that wind power is a boondoggle, and I’m keeping an open mind about it.
We can revisit this in five years to see if the technology is developing as projected or not. It’s silly to argue about economic predictions when the evidence will be clearer in a short time.
Signing off.
Fred Bortz
Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters
An International English Journal of Research Letters
The journal publishes research letters related to
all aspects of the atmospheric sciences and physical oceanography.
The journal provides a rigorous peer-review process, rapid publication speeds, and maintains high standards in the quality of accepted manuscripts.
Final decision to your manuscript in 3 months.
Publication of your manuscript in 6 months.
We invite you to submit your manuscript to:
Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters
[email protected]
http://www.iapjournals.ac.cn/aosl/ch/index.aspx
Fred:
You state that I ask ” for rational decision-making based on more information than we can possibly have.” That is simply a preposterous statement. I simply ask that we not allow electrical sources on the grid until they can be PROVEN to be at least equal to what they are replacing.
That is impossible???
You say “Wind power is clearly based on well-established science and technology.” Yes there is a history with wind power, and it was DISCARDED a hundred years ago as an inefficient and expensive source of electricity. The laws of physicis still apply and the ONLY reason it exists today is that it is artificially subsidized by the government.
You also fail to notice the contradiction between these two positions of yours. How can this technology be “based on well-established science and technology” and yet not have enough information to support a rational decision???
———-
I didn’t say that wind energy was a “black box.” What I said was that if someone came to us with a black box to use as an enrgy source and made several claims for it, what should we do?
It seems that your view is: let’s subsidize this new idea, put it on the grid and see what happens. We’ll work out any kinks later.
My view is: provide us with independent proof that your black box does what you claim and THEN we will consider subsidies and whether it makes sense to put in on the grid, based on how it stacks up with our other choices.
That seems to me to be the essense of our differing opinions.
I am distinguishing between the scientific method and engineering approaches. The latter should and usually do take science into account. Testing and analysis are vitally important in modern technology. But there is also an aspect of trial-and-error learning that I see as different from the strictly scientific approach.
That doesn’t make the products “black boxes,” which seems to be your assertion here. Wind power is clearly based on well-established science and technology–just like conventional power plants, nuclear power, solar power, geothermal, etc. How those technologies fare in a real-world society and economy is far less predictable than how they behave and what we compute their advantages, disadvantages, and costs to be.
In the real world, economic and political decision-making can’t always be scientific or completely rational because we just don’t have enough data at the time that we have to make choices, and we don’t have good predictive models about how people will respond to new products.
Those important decisions are inevitably based on imperfect or incomplete information. Sometimes you just have to put your best-designed products out there and see what works within our political and economic system. Sometimes you learn from failure modes you hadn’t anticipated.
I agree that the free market is not the solution. But we don’t have a completely free market, nor should we. Government regulation has a greater role in economic and political stability than the current political mood seems to accept as desirable. (I don’t agree with that mood. So I guess that means to the opponents, I’m a socialist like our non-Socialist pragmatist in the White House, whom I admire.)
So my point is simply this: Your statement calls for rational decision-making based on more information than we can possibly have. As I scientist, I disagree because I know when to defer to engineers instead.
Fred Bortz
Fred:
I’m assuming that you are a scientist, but am baffled by your unscientific answer.
According to your opinion, anyone who comes up with a blackbox gizmo to produce commercial electricity, should not be asked to PROVE its merits first, but rather should be allowed to connect to the grid and let’s just see what happens.
In that regard you are in 100% agreement with wind energy lobbyists, as that is exactly what happened there.
Then you say “we can’t do controlled experiments” regarding electricity production, to which I say exactly why not?
And you assert “The scope of its future use will be determined by many factors, including whether the total cost estimates and environmental impacts are correct and whether investors put their money into it.”
Of course this statement assumes a free market enterprise system, where good products get rewarded. That’s not the case in the electrical energy business. Investors are putting their money into wind energy for one reason: the government has GUARANTEED them a profit of some 25% per annum.
Additionally, the cost (to taxpayer and ratepayer) has been totally uneconomical, and the environmental effects (to humans, birds, bats, etc.) have been adverse.
Learning from failures is certainly advisable, but why would we go down the path of something we know is an extreme longshot? Inn this case what sense does it make to spend something like a TRILLION dollars on something that we KNOW is very high cost and only miniscue benefits?
Lastly, since you are an advocate of real world results, please show me the real world results of the some 100,000 turbines currently in operation worldwide.
For instance, how much CO2 have they saved and at what cost?
Energy Expert, the one part of your argument that I disagree with is the term scientific method. This is a question of engineering, technology, and economics.
The only way to determine whether a proposed energy source is feasible is to test it in the real world with as many safeguards as we can anticipate. We need no new science to tell us that wind power is feasible, and people have made reasonable economic analyses that say it definitely has a place in our energy future.
The scope of its future use will be determined by many factors, including whether the total cost estimates and environmental impacts are correct and whether investors put their money into it.
In other words, we need to approach it like the engineering project that it is and recognize how our testing and analysis are different from the scientific method. We can’t do controlled experiments here, nor do we need them. We just try a few alternatives and let the most suitable technology for our society and economy emerge.
We are bound to make a few mistakes along the way, perhaps even catastrophic ones, but learning from failures is the heart of technological development.
Fred Bortz
Several people have rightly asked for a more scientific explanation of this complex technical matter.
That is the point of the Energy Presentation.
Could you be any more annoying in your spamming of your damned Energy Presentation? You lose.
Fred:
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
I fully agree that we should stop subsidizing fossil fuels.
Golf carts and Mack trucks are each a type of transportation.
Wind turbines and nuclear power are each types of electricity generation.
No amount of golf carts will truly replace 18-wheelers, as they indeed are different.
No amount of tubines will replace nuclear (or coal) power, as they indeed are different.
We should be investingating legitimate alternatives: which means utilizing the Scientific Method to evaluate the claims of proponents.
That has NOT been done for wind energy, as we are just accepting propoganda that they will work somehow someway someday.
This is not science and is the point of my analogy.
Again, it is all explained in much more detail at Energy Presentation
“EnergyExpert,”
I agree that energy policy is a complex technological and political issue, which is why I am watching Congress’ approach to compromise.
I recently replied to a friend’s e-mail complaining that the bill included nuclear power and off-shore drilling by saying that she was risking letting the ideal be the enemy of the good.
You appear to be making the same argument in the other direction by proposing a very poor analogy: “The fundamental question is: how many golf carts will it take to dependably replicate the performance of one Mack truck?”
Mack trucks and golf carts have different purposes. Wind, solar, nuclear, and conservation all play a part in reducing our dependence on coal or oil. Off-shore drilling, we hope, will replace foreign oil rather than adding to our total consumption.
We need to stop subsidizing fossil fuels indirectly by allowing our atmosphere and streams to be used as cost-free sinks and using our military to assure supply. If we paid the real cost for fossil fuel energy rather than hiding it in our defense budget and in hard to quantify but very real environmental costs, then the economics would sort out how much of which kind of energy we would use.
Admittedly there are also government funds going into R&D for renewables, but the oil and coal industry also have their share of incentives now and in their history.
Right now, we are indeed comparing apples to orangutans when trying to figure out which sources of energy make the most sense under which circumstances because no one really knows what the full actual cost of any of those sources is.
Fred Bortz