Archives for category: Wind

I assert we will burn everything that will burn until we have a better source of energy. Hydro is good but past maximized, and environmentalists want to tear down the dams we have. Solar is a wimp. It has its place, but not on the grid, and anyone telling you otherwise doesn’t understand the engineering and physics of it. Wind is simply a scam, snake oil. Wind-based power generation drives up costs in the grid and in transmission and in maintenance. It cannot be made better. It is disruptive to our power usage and needs. Turbines kill insects by the millions, bats by the thousands (maybe by the millions), and rare and endangered birds by the hundreds. Wind has no net benefits, only pain. Wind turbines do violence against our neighbors with flashing lights, flashing shadows, vertigo-inducing rotation, incessant noise, fire and throw hazard, and property devaluation.

Thus, we burn.

It is immoral to burn edible food while people starve. Biofuels do more harm than good.

There is no alternative to petroleum for a few applications, but we can convert most of our power needs to electricity, which we can renewably generate with nuclear fission for millennia.

We will convert to nuclear electricity generation. It is our only possibility. If we allow fear to continue to drive us, we will increase suffering caused by other power generation methods until we wise up. It will be painful. The longer we wait to convert to essentially 100% nuclear, the greater the pain and suffering we impose on ourselves and our posterity.

As an aside, persuasion is an illusion. Manipulation is a thing, but not persuasion. Compulsion is real enough (and evil), but it is not persuasion. The only true persuader is pain. The fellow who is convinced he can walk through walls may never admit he is delusional, but after a broken nose or two, when he claims he can walk through walls, he will take the doorway, explain that it is much easier. When our pain from wind power generation is too high, we will quit. (Who will clean up the mess?) Likewise, the large solar installations. Inevitably, we will power our lives with nuclear generated electricity.

Coal is a finite resource, and it is environmentally burdensome, even with modern technology. We will wean ourselves off it, even China and India, long before we run out of it. though. The net benefits from coal are too low to justify using it when we have better alternatives like natural gas and nuclear fission.

Natural gas may be finite. (Well, it is eventually, but odds are we will be extracting it from the earth even a few centuries from now.) Natural gas has substantive net benefit, but it is still somewhat burdensome on the environment, and nuclear fission is far better. We will be using natural gas for many generations to come, but we will see it specialized into small niches. It will become inconsequential to our earthly environment.

Petroleum, well, we are probably going to use it for as long as we have machines. We are probably going to have machines for hundreds, maybe thousands, of generations. Of course, we could have paradigm-shifting technological advances that make it easier to make what hydrocarbons we use more inexpensively with nuclear-generated electricity than by continued mining (drilling, fracking, and other modern extraction techniques, which I think of as mining). {“If it can’t be grown, it must be mined,” is a truth-statement today.} Also, it doesn’t actually seem likely petroleum is a finite resource. That is, for practical purposes, it may be as plentiful as rock. It is reasonable to suppose we will never run out of oil in the earth’s crust. We are not sure, but there are theories that we can’t test significantly yet. Regardless, the extractable oil is more than enough to remain useful for generations to come. We are just as far from peak-oil as we’ve ever been, and every time prognosticators start doomcasting we blow right past their deadlines.

For generating large amounts of stable electrical energy, coal is the most sensible from the engineering standpoint, but the other burdens of its extraction, use, and disposal are too significant. Natural gas is only sensible because we can get so much of it so inexpensively. That situation will not hold indefinitely, but I suspect it will hold for the rest of my generation (let’s assume 40 years). Natural gas is relatively clean, and direct use of it is exceptionally beneficial in terms of benefits to our lives versus the burdens of extraction and use. It takes three times more natural gas to boil your tea kettle with an electric stove top (assuming natural-gas turbine generated electricity) than it does with a direct natural gas stove top. It is quite counterproductive from any standpoint to restrict or ban the use of natural gas in residential or commercial or even industrial use. Natural gas is first choice for direct fuel applications. One could argue for liquid fuels, but it is much harder to deal with liquid fuels in open-flame applications.

Petroleum is not a good fuel for large electrical power generation, which is why we use it for only a small fraction of a percent of our total electrical generation. It is good for small applications, and quick-start applications, but not much otherwise.

We need petroleum for mobile fuel. Liquids are easily stored in tanks for direct transportation usage. It is probably indispensable for aircraft, at least medium- and long-distance flights. It is good with ground transport, but there are several advantages to electrically powered transportation, but the limits of batteries are prohibitive, and will be for the near future. Edison advanced battery technology more than anyone before him, and advancements since have been at a snail’s pace with the significant, but small, advancement of lithium batteries. It looks like 15 to 25 years will bet us that much ahead again. That will give us batteries about twice as good as Edison could make. We need batteries that are 50 times better.

We have a variety of reasonable engineering solutions, but none that will be easy or inexpensive, and some would require significant changes in our societies. We shall see.

Another aside: If we can prove out fully automated transportation, we may switch to all electric vehicles, including short-flight aircraft, by switching to an entirely automated transportation system that would incorporate plains, trains, automobiles, and trucks scheduled to maximize battery life and transportation efficiencies. If so, personal ownership of vehicles would probably be relegated to hobbyists, and we’d generally just tap our phone app to have our ride pull up for us in a matter seconds, zipping us without traffic snarls to our destinations (with, perhaps, stops to transfer to a second transport with fresh batteries if our distance requires).

As an engineer with expertise in physics, I have no reservations asserting we will burn all we need to until we have excess electricity generated from nuclear power sources. Windmills will run their course, and our descendants will curse us for the hardships caused by them. Large-scale solar will be the same, but some solar applications may prove out, but solar power generation will never supply a significant fraction of our overall energy usage.

We will switch to nuclear. It is the only reasonable possibility. There may be some genius-level technological breakthrough, but there is no evidence to support such speculation, and it may be centuries from now even if it is possible.

We will use nuclear fission with uranium and thorium for generations, and we will eventually solve the engineering challenges of nuclear fusion and the materials required to build power production facilities. That might be a century or two (or a couple decades, but my money is on 100 years).

There is no existential threat other than the unknown. There is a plant-killing rock out there, but it may not approach for several centuries. (Of course, if we spot it tomorrow and realize it will hit us in 15 years, we’re probably going to join the dinosaurs and the other 99.9% of species how’ve run their course on our planet. I bet a few survive, or some new species will eventually attain what we call sentience, and life will continue to find a way, at least until the next unknown catastrophic event overtakes them.)

We will burn fossil fuels until nuclear power generation makes it impractical. We will not tip earth’s climate into anything catastrophic for humans or the rest of life on this planet.

Do keep in mind that there are three essential ingredients to life on our planet, water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. The first two are demonstrably the most destructive aspects of our environment. As long as oceans remain, water and oxygen will remain the most significant drivers of maintenance and repair and rebuilding. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is an essential ingredient to life. It cannot exist in nature in quantities that are dangerous to us or other life. Even corals have experienced carbon dioxide levels multiples higher than our current levels. CO2 is only dangerous on our planet in its absence. We must have it, or photosynthesis is impossible. If carbon dioxide gets too low, all plants will die and all remaining life will starve, all of it (well, fungus might manage).

So, are you willing to acknowledge that nuclear is best? If not, you will relegate the next generation to undue suffering, and they will.

We will switch to entirely nuclear-power generated electricity. It is only a matter of time and how much suffering it takes to overcome our irrational fears of it.

Advertisements

I’ve paid attention to climate change my whole life. In my youth, it was pollution, soot and sulfur compounds, etc., that were causing, not only dirty, unhealthy living conditions, but coming ice sheets as our current ice age deepened and the glaciers reasserted over most of the northern hemisphere. Later, that fear morphed into global warming, now, just change. Of course, change is the only constant, and we hear most everything blamed on this supposedly alarming change in the undefined and undefinable climate.

Trying to keep things simple, I take advantage of the fact we humans are inherently religious. No matter what we are talking about, we frame it in a religious framework. Currently, the high priests, the bishops, and the popes, like Algore, tell us we are sinning by burning things, especially in our motor vehicles, and by eating (which is still burning). The alarmist religious leaders pretend we can be absolved if we drive unsafe tiny cars (and drive less) and if we eat unhealthy foods (meaning only plants grown in manure).

Of course, there are bigger sins, like coal, but that is a slow-motion effort that mostly hurts people directly involved in coal, and less coal does amount to less pollution to deal with for the rest of us.

Since essentially all of us are unwilling to repent of our sinful ways, the powers that be preach that “god” (Gaia, in this case) is punishing us with weather. All of what we used to call weather (which we admitted everyone talked about, but no one could do anything about) is now hailed as proof that we sinners must repent and stop burning anything and stop eating anything.

Again, we humans are going to continue eating. As we grow wealthier (in the developing nations) we will eat more meat. We will burn more fuel. That is the fact. It isn’t going to change. We will consume more and more energy (food is simply our tasty form of energy). It is inexorable. If you oppose it, you espouse death and slavery. Harsh? Not at all. The internalization of the fact that every individual has independent intrinsic value and the fact of the industrial revolution, specifically the burning of fossil fuels in productive industry, have been the significant factors in the reductions of slavery and death and abject poverty in the world.

I think that worth emphasizing: Understanding the worth of every individual as an independent good and the burning of fossil fuels are why things are better now than they were a century ago. We can step that back by century, still seeing progress for a few, but the same cannot be said of a couple millennia ago. Specifically, at that time, only the powerful were valued. All wealth was merely the effective use of enslavement. Life was dirty, brutish, and short unless you were powerful enough to use slaves. Restricting the use of energy, even fossil fuels, is turning to slavery and impoverishment.

The big picture is that energy is the single most important factor to the flourishing of humanity as a whole. Energy causally correlates to societal wellbeing.

Deficient engineers and bad politicians devised means of producing power without directly burning fossil fuels. These so-called renewables meet our religious need of blood sacrifice. These sacrificial altars kill insects by the millions, bats by the thousands, and rare birds by the hundreds continuously. These sacrificial altars provide us self-flagellation as well, at least for those forced to live within proximity. Eventually, the harm caused by renewables will be so self-evident that the religious leaders of environmentalism will turn the tables, and these will be the new sin. (Over and over for over 3,000 years, we have abandoned windmills. We will this time, too, and someone will have to clean up the mess.)

It cannot be over emphasized that the ready availability of energy as inexpensive, reliable electricity and fuel, is the essential requirement for a flourishing human society. It is globally and locally true. We must have more and more reliable energy availability. The alternative is death and slavery. It is harsh, but those are the cold equations (reference Tom Godwin).

Much of what we humans do is not life or death. Energy is.

Such notions as the “green new deal” deny reality and physics.

Such notions as socialism deny reality and human nature.

To deny reality is to invite death.

Is climate changing? Yes. It always has. It always will.

Is climate changing because of our consumption and burning? Is it because of the new sins of the new environmentalist religion? I can’t see that it matters. Climate has changed far more in the distant past than it can in the near future. I don’t think we can define climate in the near-term. I think climate must be defined over several generations. It isn’t useful to define climate in terms less than several centuries. Too many other factors affect all we are considering when looking at averages of various factors of weather.

I assert we are in no danger societally from any pending climate change. Our sins of burning are not going to kill us, and Gaia simply doesn’t care. Climate and earth will not kill us. (That big rock coming our way might, but we can’t say much about when.)

Teach your children the historical fact that fear and alarmism have never accomplished anything good and usually result in grave harm.

Bottom line: We must have more energy. It must be more readily available to all, and it must be reliable.

There is a clear and proven way to make more energy available in an environmentally responsible way, nuclear.

Nuclear fission power production is our only long-term option.

Repeating the bottom line: We must have more energy, and nuclear is the only realistic way to do it.

Source: Total US Energy Flows 2018 (PDF)

Think of it this way, with fossil fuels, our society and our people use energy to a solid B on a normal grading scale. Adding hydroelectric and nuclear, we are an easy A. In 50 more years, with trillions more wasted on wind and solar, that will still be true.

We could, of course, push for advanced nuclear solutions, and in 50 years, we could half the fossil fuels and generate most of our power from fission.

“Perryman Comments on Wind Catcher Project Cancellation”

State Rep. David Perryman issued an official statement from the State House regarding the cancelation of the Wind Catcher project. Typical of politicians nowadays, he disparaged and cast blame. I’m not sure why the most important industry in Oklahoma was the target, but maybe it is good for votes in his district (but I doubt it). How does casting blame and disparagement make the world a better place?

Oklahoma dodged a bullet, and we should be appreciative to Texas for taking the brunt of the blame.

Big money investors, including Warren Buffett’s folks, were backing Wind Catcher. Their spiel was that the $4.5 billion would be rewarded over the next 25 years with net savings to the whole project (of which Oklahoma only had about a fifth) would amount to $7 billion. Of course, Oklahoma bears all the property value costs, none of which would ever be recovered. If it was so good, why did they need ratepayers to foot the bill so early?

I think politicians mourning the loss are disingenuous at best.

Oklahoma didn’t need Wind Catcher, and we don’t need make-work government projects, which is more or less what it would amount to.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-26/largest-u-s-wind-project-dealt-potentially-fatal-blow-in-texas

“Texas dealt a potential death blow to what would be the largest-ever U.S. wind farm: American Electric Power Co.’s $4.5 billion Wind Catcher project.”

Not really. If Warren Buffett and his big-money pals really think this is a boon, they can continue. They only have to accept all the risk, or at least a lot more of it. The hypocritical investors want to pay as they go with ratepayer money, years before any power is produced. If they are willing to pony up the funds themselves, the building approvals will mostly be clear sailing. (The powerline is still a problem. Significant oversight on the part of the investors, and obvious hubris.)

“American Electric’s proposal tapped a financial model that utilities have long used to build nuclear, coal- and natural gas-fired plants: by tacking costs — plus a profit — onto customers’ bills. The company asked regulators in four states for permission to use the strategy for a sprawling project…”

This isn’t quite true. Oklahoma utilities don’t earn a profit. It is a cost-basis monopoly. I’m not familiar with Texas, but it must be about the same. Sure, overall, our utilities make money, but it is tightly controlled and transparent. OG&E was going to build a second coal plant next to an existing one. It was in the plans a long time, and there was a significant amount of work to be done before OG&E would be passing costs to ratepayers. When the state-approved planned time came, cold-hearted Scott Meacham overstepped his office and launched a smear campaign against coal. Millions were instantly flushed down the drain, and Oklahoma is paying for it all in higher costs and more pain on the least among us. Our bats and birds are being slaughtered for it too. It is the fear that we will never be able to build more reliable coal plants that is causing us to engage in these risky and unreliable wind schemes.

These investors aren’t playing fair. They won’t take the risk. I mean, can’t Warren Buffett write a check for the full $4.5 billion today? It isn’t like they don’t have the money if they have the confidence they are advertising.

There is another tell. Why is Wind Catcher advertising with all these feel-good PR spots on radio and TV?

“American Electric’s Southwestern Electric Power has proposed owning 70 percent of the 2-gigawatt project. Arkansas and Louisiana already approved the plans. Oklahoma has yet to issue a final decision. The project includes a transmission line to take the power to Tulsa and into Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana.”

Oklahoma is balking, and Texas refused. Note the share of risk. Texas has a full 70% and Oklahoma has most of the rest. Is it any wonder Arkansas and Louisiana approved? They share almost no risk regardless.

Note the blatant falsehood of 2GW. We can ignore the conflation of power with energy because the point remains. The hand-wavers point to 800 towers with 2.5-megawatt capacity turbines on them. 800 x 2.5 = 2,000, right? Sure, but how much does one typically get from a given wind turbine? Here is the fact: The transmission line is only being built for 600 megawatts!

https://newsok.com/article/5587106/oklahomas-corporation-commission-asks-public-service-co.-of-oklahoma-to-seek-settlement-on-its-wind-catcher-plan

If the 800 towers ever actually exist, and if 100% are running at peak capacity, then over two-thirds of the power will be dissipated and wasted because it cannot be carried on the transmission line. Of course, 100% capacity is practically impossible. An average efficiency of 30% is probably a little optimistic. It is probably optimistic to suppose all 800 towers will ever stand at the same time, for that matter.

If Wind Catcher is a good deal, the investors should stop trying to pass costs on to the public until power is feeding into the grid. If Wind Catcher is good, prove it. Prove me wrong. The saddest fact hasn’t even come up yet: Taxes.

The whole investment doesn’t work without Federal money and Federal and State capital gains tax credits. Most of Warren Buffett’s profit is associated with manipulating taxes and receiving tax money straight out of our pockets. Buffett has done this many times. He invests, he rakes in the taxes, and he bails before the maintenance costs start showing everyone there is no free lunch, not even free breezes.

At best, in 20 to 25 years, all 800 of the bird/bat-choppers will be decrepit and hazardous. Who is going to clean up the mess? Will the investors do it? Will they come back with all their profits and make right for the landowners and land users?

Over and over for over 3,000 years we have abandoned windmills. We will this time, too, and someone has to clean up the mess.

This is one history lesson I wish we could learn. A windmill is a very limited tool, and industrial scale electricity production is not a use for which it is suited.

Oklahoma, did Texas just push us off the tracks in front of the oncoming train? I think so. Are we going to rush right back in front of the locomotive?

https://kfor.com/2018/07/03/oklahoma-landowners-speaking-out-about-proposed-wind-farm-construction-project/

Wind Catcher is almost certainly going to be built; so we will see. The video in the above-linked report contains a lot of untruth in the last half-minute. Scott Norwood outright lies. He stumbles through his statements.

The rated capacity of 800 towers with 2.5-megawatt turbines is easy to calculate. The power production project is not like current, standard power plants. It will be limited to wind availability and to other inefficiencies. It will be irregular and uncontrollable regarding power production. The tell is the disputed power line, which will obviously steal value from all landowners near it; it is only being rated for 600 megawatts, a third of the pretentious rated capacity. They were calling this a $4B project. That number went to $4.5B soon after. The latest total cost estimate I’ve seen is now $5.4B. Also, keep in mind that the majority of the power from these bird choppers will be delivered to neighboring states, not the poor folks having to live in the midst of an industrial power generation facility.

What a mess!

Over and over for over 3,000 years we have abandoned windmills. We will this time, too, and someone will have to clean up the mess.

I applaud our State Attorney General for opposing the current request to start charging Oklahomans for the construction costs long before any power production.

Some years back, State Treasurer, Scott Meacham, similarly opposed a proposal to start charging for a conventional power generation facility. It was killed. That power plant will never be built. It was being built, in accord with agreements and published plans, next to an existing power plant. It already had millions of costs. Construction was far enough that OG&E asserted the project could not continue without cost recovery. Thus, when the State Treasurer started grandstanding (Who? Why?), the project was killed. It cost us Oklahomans millions and subjected us all to the suffering imposed by industrial fans. Scott Meacham owes us!

The State Attorney General is standing on legal grounds. Meacham simply threw a temper tantrum on emotional grounds.

https://newsok.com/article/5600278/oklahoma-corporation-commission-wraps-up-testimony-on-proposed-wind-catcher-settlements-but-no-decision-was-made

Many questions and responses centered on whether the project would benefit the utility’s typical residential customer, especially during the last 15 years of the project’s expected 25 year life.

For what it’s worth:

Commission Chairwoman Dana Murphy again discussed concerns she has about complaints the agency has received from various Oklahoman landowners that could be impacted by a proposed 360-mile line to get power from Wind Catcher into the utility’s Tulsa-area grid. Many have said the utility and the land company it has been using to acquire needed line rights of way have used deceitful and bullying tactics.

Note:

But in Oklahoma, a commission administrative law judge who considered PSO’s proposal recommends the commission deny the utility’s request.

The judge recommends denial because the utility did not seek competitive construction bids for the project and because that work had started before PSO filed its request.

While PSO estimates its 545,000 customers would see a rate increase of about $78 million in 2021 if the cost recovery were granted, it also maintains lower energy costs and connected federal wind production tax credits would offset that increase.

I’ve found no explanation of how Federal dollars (taken from us) will offset rate increases. If rate powers will collectively pay an extra $78M in 2021, how do they get back their money? PSO and the investors get the Federal tax credits. When does the homeowner (electricity user) get the money back?

Over the years, money people, like Warren Buffet, have invested heavily in wind and solar startups. They always pull their money out of the projects soon after starting, soon after they’ve collected all or most of what the Federal Government gives them from taxpayers. It is hypocritical, but it is a good way to fleece America. I really don’t see how taxpayers and ratepayers in Oklahoma are going to benefit from any of this.

Here in Oklahoma, a quarter-century from now, our children will have to figure out how to clean up the mess left by Wind Catcher. The fat cats will be gone, made all the fatter by those too greedy for a little extra revenue into municipal and county coffers. The short-term gain is small. The overall costs are large and enduring.

Production of energy is never free. There are always costs. Industrial fans happen to be the most certain long-term high-cost way to produce electricity. We will live to regret it. Our bird and bat populations already regret it.

Winds blow. Windmills suck!

 

 

 

NIMBY

No one wants to live in an industrial power generation facility. Industrial fans hurt people, and they do it today and will be doing it for years to come.

http://gatehousenews.com/windfarms/home/

http://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/2013/09/our-living-hell-life-next-to-wind-turbines/

A bit of Googling can find many more examples, old and new.

These problems are not new. Not to mention the disrupting and killing of birds and bats.

Oklahoma is about to fritter away $4.5+ billion installing 800 fans in the Pan Handle with 360+ miles of high wires to take the power to Tulsa, then on to MO, LA, AR, and TX. One can call such effort most anything but smart. I expect Wind Catcher to be the last of the large projects completed.

For a telling bit about the lies and exaggerations common with wind, why are they building a 600 MW power line for an installation of 800 2.5 MW fans? (Do the math.)

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/state/route-of–mile-wind-catcher-power-line-concerns-woodward/article_fa380ab5-d101-5255-b174-797e42007dcf.html

https://psoklahoma.com/info/projects/windcatcher/

I expect to see the last industrial fan built in my lifetime.

I expect my grandchildren to have passed from the scene before the last derelict is cleaned up.

Sadly, we humans fail to learn from history and our mistakes.

%d bloggers like this: