Wind energy advocates often point out that a State, the U.S., or the entire world has enough wind energy to supply all of its electricity needs many times over. Writing in Scientific American, for example, Mark Jacobson and Mark Delucchi note that the world in 2030 is projected to consume 16.9 trillion watts (terawatts, or TW) of power, with about 2.8 TW consumed in the U.S. Total wind flows worldwide generate about 1,700 TW, and accessible wind resources total an estimated 40-85 TW. 

Based on such math, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) argues, for instance, that Arizona has enough wind to meet 40% of its electricity needs, Michigan wind resources could meet 160% of the State’s electricity needs, and wind in Oklahoma could provide nearly 31 times the State’s electricity needs. Yet despite ratepayer subsidies, special tax breaks, and renewable energy mandates and goals in 37 States, wind supplied 2.2% of total U.S. electric generation in 2010. Why don’t we get lots more of our electricity from this ’free,’ ‘non-polluting’ ‘renewable’ source?

The chief impediments are wind energy’s inherent drawbacks. First, wind energy is intermittent — at any given time the wind may blow too hard or too soft or not blow at all. Second, wind is non-dispatchable. When Shakespeare’s Owen Glendower boasted, “I can call spirits from the vasty deep,” Henry Hotspur replied: “Why, so can I, or so can any man; but will they come when you do call for them?” Like Glendower’s spirits, the winds answer to no man. The wind is not ours to ’dispatch’ as electricity demand rises or falls. 

There are three main ways of compensating for wind’s intermittency and non-dispatchability — pumped storage (pump water uphill when there’s too much wind relative to demand; let it run downhill and drive turbines when there’s too little wind), natural gas backup generation, and wind dumping (idle the turbines when demand is low). Incorporating those techniques to keep supply in balance with demand adds to the cost of wind electricity, which is typically more costly than coal- and gas-generated electricity even without storage and backup.

What’s more, according to a new Reason Foundation/Independence Institute report, the storage, backup, and idling costs become prohibitive as wind’s share of total generation increases beyond 10-20%. 

The report, The Limits of Wind Power by William Korchinski, contains several sobering graphics. Figure 6 from the study shows how variable (intermittent) the wind can be, reducing output as much as 16 MW per minute.

The report quotes E.ON, the German power producer that experienced this sudden decline in wind energy during Christmas in 2004:

Whilst wind power feed-in at 9.15 am on Christmas Eve reached its maximum for the year at 6,024MW, it fell to below 2,000MW within only 10 hours, a difference of over 4,000MW. This corresponds to the capacity of 8 x 500MW coal fired power station blocks. On Boxing Day, wind power feed-in in the E.ON grid fell to below 40MW. Handling such significant differences in feed-in levels poses a major challenge to grid operators.

Let’s suppose that some States actually take AWEA’s message to heart and build enough wind capacity to meet 100% of their power needs. To what extent would actual wind generation match electric demand throughout the year? Figure 11 of the study illustrates the results for the PMJ Interconnection region comprising all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. 

As the figure shows, on hundreds of days the PJM region’s turbines would produce either significantly more or significantly less power than customers consume.

As noted above, there are three main ways of dealing with wind’s intermittency and non-dispatchability. One technique is pumped storage: “pumping water uphill when there is excess wind energy, and then running the water downhill through a turbine when wind energy is limited.” The PJM pumped storage capacity for 2010 was about 5,000 MW, compared to the area’s average hourly electric demand of 77,800 MW. In other words, PJM currently has about two hours worth of stored power. That’s okay because the overwhelming lion’s share of the region’s electricity does not come from wind.

But suppose PJM got all of its electricity from wind — what would it take to have enough pumped storage in case the wind doesn’t blow? Korchinski calculates that PJM would need to be able to pump uphill “a body of water that is about 2,000 square miles by 100 feet deep” — the dimensions of Lake of the Woods in Canada.

Since constructing artificial lakes of that size is impractical (and would have significant ecological impacts as well), pumped storage is typically combined with natural gas backup generation and wind dumping. Turbines left idle (dumping) do not generate income. Gas backup means running gas turbines inefficiently, in ”spinning reserve” mode, so they are “ready to increase or decrease power on short notice.” The greater the penetration of wind in the electricity fuel mix, the greater the reliance on wind dumping and gas backup.

Korchinski comments:

As wind penetrations increase, the grid requires increasing amounts of spinning reserves to maintain reliability. At high wind penetrations, even large amounts of power storage cannot prevent significant (and expensive) wind dumping. The already high cost of wind power increases with the construction of storage facilities, and the cost to construct extra wind turbines, which will be dormant during periods of wind dumping.

The takeaway message for policymakers and a public bombarded with propaganda about obtaining 40%, 160%, or even 3100% of a State’s electricity from wind?

Very high wind penetrations are not achievable in practice due to the increased need for power storage, the decrease in grid reliability, and the increased operating costs. Given these constraints, this study concludes that a more practical upper limit for wind penetration is 10%.

An opinion survey commissioned by the Sierra Club supposedly shows that Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly favor the expansion of wind and solar power and the phase out of coal-fired power plants. An obvious implication is that Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the Senate’s leading critic of the Obama administration’s anti-coal policies, is out of step with his constituents.

This is an old trick (see my post on a similar, NRDC-sponsored poll of Michigan voters in House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton’s district). When a pollster asks leading questions, he can usually elicit the answers his client is paying for.

In the Sierra Club-sponsored survey of 500 registered Oklahoma voters, 78% of those polled said they generally support expanded use of renewable energies like wind and solar power, and 62% said they would support phasing out some of the State’s coal-fired power plants.

The Sierra Club’s polling strategist waxed enthusiastic about the results, Greenwire reports:

“The results of this poll are remarkable,” Sierra Club polling strategist Grace McRae said in a statement.

“Across the nation, support for clean energy is high, but in Oklahoma, nearly 8 out of 10 voters support expanding use of clean energy resources like wind and solar. Oklahoma’s leaders and utilities should take note: Oklahomans want clean energy.”

Okay, let’s look at how the survey reaches those ”remarkable” results.

The first question sets the predicate for the rest. It reads:

Q1 In Oklahoma there are a number of different energy sources that we could use to meet our growing energy needs. Generally speaking, do you support or oppose the expanded use of renewable energy sources such as solar energy and wind energy?

The content of this question largely predetermines the answer. The question refers to Oklahoma’s “growing energy needs” and a “number of different energy sources” available to the State. The question evokes the familiar bipartisan pablum that America needs an inclusive, “all of the above,” policy to meet the nation’s energy needs. By definition, all-of-the-above includes wind and solar. And Voilà, you get 78% of respondents saying they “generally” want more wind and solar.

Here’s the next question dealing with voter attitudes:

Q 3 Currently, there are six coal-fired power plants in Oklahoma. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose phasing-out some of these coal-fired power plants and replacing them with clean, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar?

This question employs two tricks. First, because most people feel they must give consistent answers, those who said they “generally” favor expanded use of wind and solar may now feel they have to support ”replacing” some coal plants with wind and solar. The second trick is to combine ”renewable energy” with a term of praise: “clean.” Who doesn’t want energy to be cleaner, other things being equal?

The problem, of course, is that other things are not equal. Wind energy is inferior to coal-generated electricity in many respects. It is intermittent, often unavailable when most needed (hot summer days when the wind doesn’t blow), costs more per unit of output, occupies much more land per unit of output, requires the construction of new transmission lines (because the best wind sites are typically distant from population centers), and kills far more birds than coal power plants do. Few wind farms would be built absent Soviet-style production quota (“renewable portfolio standards”), a special tax break (wind energy production tax credit), and billions in outright taxpayer-funded grants. Solar power, for its part, is even more costly than wind, and does not generate any electricity when the Sun isn’t shining.

Sixty-two percent of respondents said they support replacing some coal with wind and solar. But how many would give the same responses if, instead of describing renewable energy as “clean,” the question described renewables as “intermittent, unreliable, costly, sprawling, and corporate-welfare-dependent,” or described wind turbines as ”dangerous to migratory fowl”?

The next question:

Q 4 According to the American Wind Energy Association, Oklahoma ranks eighth in the country for installed wind energy capacity. And according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, wind in Oklahoma could provide more than 31 times the state’s current electricity needs. After hearing this, do you believe Oklahoma utility companies should invest more in wind power, or not?

That 69% of respondents answered yes is unsurprising. The question is one-sided. The only experts cited are the lobbying arm of the wind-energy industry and a federal agency whose budget critically depends on the extent of public support for renewable energy. No experts opposed to wind energy mandates are mentioned, nor is any information they might provide included.

Worse, the question presents impressive-sounding numbers apart from any practical economic context. How much viewshed degradation would Oklahoma sustain if the State were actually to obtain half of its electricity from wind, let alone all or 31 times the amount of electricity it currently consumes? How much natural gas generation would have to installed to backstop all those additional wind facilities? How many new miles of transmission would have to be built to deliver the wind power to customers? What would it all cost? What would be the impacts on electric rates, the cost of doing business in Oklahoma, and employment rates in non-wind-related firms? Mentioning those concerns might have changed dramatically the responses to the question.

Oklahoma, the survey claims, ranks 8th in the country for installed wind energy capacity, and has enough wind resources to meet more than 31 times the State’s current electricity needs. The implication is that much of the State’s electricity already comes from wind, which could easily provide even more. Let’s look at Oklahoma’s electricity consumption in a high-demand month.

Source: Energy Information Administration

In July 2011, only 3.5% of the State’s electric generation came from wind, compared to 37% from coal and 58% from natural gas. Those percentages reflect the well-known economic and technical disadvantages of wind compared to coal and natural gas. By presenting big-sounding numbers out of context, the survey leaves the false impression that the only barrier to greater reliance on wind is lack of political will rather than wind’s inherent shortcomings.

Another question from the survey:

Q 5 Because Oklahoma’s coal is hot-burning and high in sulfur, most of the utilities don’t burn Oklahoma coal at their facilities, and instead ship in coal from Wyoming to burn in their coal plants. This sends $494 million dollars out of state every year – money that could be invested in Oklahoma. After hearing this information, do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose utilizing more of Oklahoma’s natural energy resources, like wind, to keep money in the state?

Seventy-six percent of respondents said they support using more Oklahoma resources, “like wind,” to keep money in State.

This question appeals to the protectionist fallacy that buying goods from outsiders is a “wealth transfer” and money down the drain. In fact, the gains from trade are mutual (otherwise it would not occur). If imports did not also benefit the importer, there would be no global marketplace, most of us would not be alive, and those who remained would be stuck in Medieval squalor. If the ‘logic’ underpinning this question were valid, each State — indeed each village and household — would be better off boycotting all goods and services produced in national and international commerce so as to have more money to invest in itself.

Consumers benefit when they get a good buy, regardless of whether the seller lives next door or in Timbuktu. The fact that most States mandate the sale of renewable electricity is prima facie evidence that wind is not a good buy. If wind energy delivered more bang for our electricity buck than coal or natural gas, there would be no need to shield it from market competition.

If the survey were balanced, the question would also mention that ramping up wind energy would force Oklahomans to pay for large quantities of steel, rare earths, and components produced out of State and overseas. But again, where parts and materials are sourced is irrelevant from a consumer perspective. By implying that Oklahoma consumers are better off buying wind power, simply because it is not imported, the question again biases respondents in favor of the Sierra Club’s preferred answer.

The survey is curiously silent about natural gas, the main source of Oklahoma electric power in periods of peak demand. Oklahoma has significant conventional and shale natural gas plays. Should policymakers allow more hydraulic fracturing to expand shale gas production and keep more dollars in State? You won’t find that question in the survey because the Sierra Club wants to ban hydro fracking and would not like the result.

In short, the Sierra Club-sponsored poll is rubbish. It is designed not to reflect public opinion but to manufacture it for the purpose of advancing an agenda that would benefit one industry — wind developers — at the expense of Oklahoma consumers and the State’s overall economy.

Media mogul and climate alarmist Ted Turner addressed the American Wind Energy Association’s annual gala this week. The highlight of his speech, as reported by the Huffington Post, was when he told the audience, “Let’s go out and kick their asses. That’s what they need, a good ass-kicking.” The antecedent of “their” and “they” was the coal industry.

Turner’s machismo seems to have been lost on the wind folks. The day after Turner called for an ‘ass-kicking,’ AWEA representatives held a conference call with reporters, in order to publicize their plea for an early extension by the Congress of the Production Tax Credit, the lifeblood subsidy of the wind industry. Without this ultra-generous taxpayer give-away, there would be no wind industry in America, because there isn’t a utility in the country that would pay full cost for intermittent, expensive energy.

Needless to say, Ted Turner’s tough talk comports poorly with the AWEA’s begging for a handout.

Two weeks ago, my colleague Chris Horner and I coauthored an oped about the renewable energy industry’s dependence on taxpayer subsidies. To make our point, we listed a number of examples of renewable energy executives warning that massive layoffs were imminent, unless the Congress passed or renewed green energy giveaways.

-Biomass Power Association President Robert Cleaves (February 2010): “Thousands of jobs in the biomass power industry could be lost if Congress fails to extend the production tax credit.”

-American Wind Energy Association CEO Denise Bode (July 2010): “Manufacturing facilities will go idle and lay off workers if Congress doesn’t act now” to impose a federal mandate for electricity produced by AWEA members.

-Solar Energy Industry Association President Rhone Resch (September 2008): “Unless Congress promptly returns to complete their unfinished business, the solar industry will suffer with the loss of 39,000 jobs.”

-Renewable Fuels Association CEO Bob Dinneen (November 2010): “Allowing the tax incentive to expire would risk jobs in a very important domestic energy sector and across rural America.”

Currently, the Congress is deliberating whether or not to extend a particularly generous subsidy that was established by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a.k.a. the stimulus. It’s called the Treasury Department section 1603 tax credit, and it allows renewable energy projects to receive up to 30% of their capital costs up front. The Congress created this subsidy because the 2008/2009 financial crisis rendered ineffective the production tax credit, which had been the renewable energy industry’s primary means of remaining economically viable. The production tax credit was based on corporations having profits and therefore a tax liability. The financial crisis, of course, wiped out corporate profits. So the Congress included the section 1603 program in the stimulus. Now, the renewable energy industry wants to keep both subsidies alive. When it comes to government goodies, the more the merrier.

In this context, the American Wind Energy Association yesterday issued a press release that lends further credence to the point made by Chris and me in our oped. Consider,

TENS OF THOUSANDS OF LAYOFFS IN AMERICAN WIND ENERGY SEEN AT STAKE IN TAX EXTENDER PACKAGE

In the process of preparing year-end numbers on the industry, the American Wind Energy Association reports that tens of thousands of Americans could lose their jobs or not get called back from layoffs without the 1603 investment tax credit for renewable energy that hangs in the balance as Congress and the White House work to settle a tax package.

“We have people being laid off right now, and we expect to see more without fast action on the tax extenders now being negotiated,” said Denise Bode, CEO of AWEA. “The 1603 tax credit extension would help bring them back as soon as possible.” According to the trade group’s research, there are over 15,000 jobs in the manufacturing pipeline alone. “We are risking those jobs by not sending a clear signal that America remains open for business in wind energy,” Bode said.

The 1603 tax investment credit saved 55,000 jobs in wind energy, as estimated by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Overall employment has reached 85,000 in the American wind industry, as installed capacity has grown 40 percent in each of the past two years. Wind now generates 20 percent of the electricity in Iowa; and on Oct. 28, high winds pushed wind power to 25 percent of the electrical generation in Texas.

As Chris and I conclude,

Of course, it is only natural for aid-dependent industries to warn that they would suffer without the continuation of aid. Employing this circular logic, taxpayer funded renewable power has remained the “energy of the future” for decades. But American taxpayers simply cannot afford to subsidize industries that are forever-nascent.