1) Bryce makes the basic mistake of conflating capacity with energy. The California RPS calls for 33% of the energy to be generated from renewables, not 33% of the capacity. That means that of the roughly 275 terawatt-hours (TWh) California is projected to consume by 2020, ~90 TWh would come from renewables. The capacity factor (what percent of their nameplate capacity actually produces energy over a year) in California is about 35% for wind and 20% for solar. In other words, you need about 3 times the amount of wind power capacity and 5 times the amount of solar capacity to produce the given amount of energy. If we use the 50% wind/50% solar mix Bryce proposes, we get about 26,000 MW of solar and 15,000 MW of wind. In reality, about 1/3 of the RPS has already been fulfilled by wind, solar, geothermal and biomass plants. So you end up with about 27,000 MW of new build necessary to meet the requirement, about 60% more than Bryce inaccurately calculates. The fact that his innacurate calculation works against his argument doesn’t negate the fact that it exposes his lack of understanding of the basic terminology of the industry.
2) The California RPS allows imports. All of these renewables do not need to be sited in California. The renewable electricity can be imported (and is imported) from wind farms in states like Nevada, Utah, Oregon and Arizona where any number of Manhattans is a drop in the bucket. (Nevada = 4,800 Manhattans).
3) The land per turbine figure Bryce chose is from Texas – among the least land-constrained places in the country. Almost all wind farms in California use less land per turbine than the Roscoe wind farm. For example, a wind farm going up in Solano County, CA (Montezuma II) uses about 35 acres per MW vs. the 126 acres per MW that Bryce cites – about 25% as much land.
4) “Use of land” is a problematic definition. By Mr. Bryce’s definition – land is “used” if it has a wind turbine anywhere nearby. By this definition, natural gas uses just as much land as wind. For example, at the heart of shale gas country in Troy Township, Bradford County, Pennsylvania – there is a natural gas well currently permitted for every 250 acres. (vs. one turbine for every 125 acres in the Texas example). Does that mean all of Troy Township is “used” by the gas drilling industry? Probably not. By the same token, not all of this land is “used” by renewables – the turbines and roads typically cover only about 2% of a project’s surface. Which, incidentally is why farmers love wind projects – they get paid but keep 98% of their land for farming.
5) Size of turbines: Bryce seems to have found this by googling it, and it is inaccurate. The vast majority of turbines in the U.S. are 1.5 to 2MW simply because we aren’t space constrained. There are about 15 projects in the U.S., equaling ~2% of total wind capacity, that use Vestas 3.0MW turbines. Bryce’s 4 MW turbines are limited to GE’s 4MW offshore machines that have never been installed in a U.S. project. Larger turbines are sometimes used in Europe — precisely because of the space constraints there.
6) Comparative use of steel in wind and natural gas: Bryce’s comparison neglects to account for the use of steel in the gas fields or the pipelines or the balance of the power plants that house his 9 ton turbines. Because gas wells run dry and new ones must be drilled to replenish them, this drilling steel is perhaps the major use of steel in the gas value chain. The oil and gas industry’s use of drilling pipe alone accounts for 2-3% of U.S. steel consumption.
7) Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful is an argument against large, centralized physical plants and the bureaucracies that come with them. While large centralized wind and solar are certainly an imperfect step toward this ideal, gas and nuclear power are as bad or worse. Gas must be transported in pipelines that stretch thousands of miles. Uranium must be mined and processed far from population centers. Gas and nuclear plants are both large, centralized power sources. The regulatory regimes necessary for gas and nuclear power safety and pollution are more complex than those needed for wind.