20 Facts About Wind Power (with citations)
Download FMM's 20 Facts About Wind Power to share with others. [PDF]
The Facts about Wind Energy Development in Maine
When asked if they think wind generated electricity is good, affordable, green, useful, and necessary most people will say ”Yes, of course.” But the fact is, none of the above has ever been proven. Wind generated electricity has been effectively shielded from scrutiny by marketing and lobbying, with no obligation to verify its claims. But despite popular belief, wind generated electricity has high impact and low benefit to Maine’s economy and environment. Following are 20 reasons to take a closer look.
1. Wind generated electricity will not “get us off of oil.” Less than one percent of the electricity in the U.S. comes from oil-fired generators. In 2011 in Maine, it was less than one half of one percent. We use oil for transportation and heating. Electric vehicles and electric heat would reduce oil usage, but it would sharply increase electricity consumption. So ratepayers would more urgently demand and require affordable electricity rather than expensive wind electricity.
Total US Generation from oil in 2010 EIA Electric Power Annual
Maine generation from oil in 2011 ISO - New England Regional System Plan pg. 97
2. Maine has 4400 megawatts of electricity generation capacity, though we only use 1500 megawatts on average. Maine’s peak load is usually about 2500 megawatts. There is no shortage of electricity and the grid forecasts less than one percent annual growth in demand for the next decade. No urgent need exists to sacrifice unique resources using ratepayer and taxpayer money to produce a small and unreliable amount of surplus electricity.
Maine Capacity and Load statistics EIA State Electricity Profiles
1500 MW average load for Maine: ISO New England 2010 Regional System Plan, October 28, 2010, p. 23.
3. Even without wind turbines, Maine is already one of the cleanest states in the nation for electricity generation. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Maine ranks first in non-hydro renewable electricity gen eration per capita, per gross state product and as a percentage of total electricity generation. We also have the highest renewable portfolio standard in the U.S.
Maine is #1 in non-hydro renewable electricity generation.
Maine is #1 in non-hydro renewable electricity generation per capita.
Maine is #1 in non-hydro renewable electricity generation per gross state product.
Maine has the 7th lowest carbon emissions from electricity generation of U.S. states: U.S EIA, 2009.
4. By necessity, conventional sources of electricity (nuclear, biomass, natural gas, hydropower) will re main the primary suppliers of electricity to the New England grid well into the future. Wind-generated elec tricity cannot, by its nature, replace or displace these “baseload” generators. Intermittency and low power density restrict it to a role as a marginal supplier of electricity.
5. Maine’s 2700 megawatt “goal” for land-based wind generating capacity would require the construction of 1200-1700 wind turbines, each around 400 feet tall, spaced about ¼ mile apart, sprawled across 300 miles of rural Maine’s mountains and ridgelines.
6. The expansive conversion of rural Maine to industrial wind development could provide no more than 5% of New England’s electricity needs under even the most optimistic of scenarios. It would have no noticeable impact on New England’s fossil fuel consumption. The intermittency of Maine’s 2700 megawatt (MW) wind power goal gives it, at most, an effective output that is around 30% of its listed capacity, or about 800 MW. On New Eng land’s 33,000 MW grid, this is a drop in the bucket – especially when one considers the high-impact infrastructure needed to achieve this “goal.”
7. Wind generated electricity is high impact and low benefit. The entirety of Maine’s 2700 MW goal could be provided by the construction and operation of a SINGLE, moderately sized, conventionally fueled (e.g. natu ral gas) generation plant, at 80% less cost.
8. Placing wind turbines on Maine’s mountains will not enhance our energy security. Almost all of the fuels used to produce our electricity are sourced from North America. ALL are readily available in North America.
9. Placing wind turbines on Maine’s mountains will not reduce coal consumption or stop mountaintop re moval mining. Coal is used in other parts of the country as a reliable (albeit dirty) base load fuel, with some states deriving 75% or more of their electricity from coal. Comparatively speaking, New England is a minor user of coal. Maine has only one small coal-fired generator, powering a Rumford paper mill. It accounts for about one half % of all of Maine’s electricity generation. New England as a region gets relatively little of its electricity from coal.
10. Erecting wind turbines on Maine’s mountains will not improve Maine’s air quality. EPA figures indicate that the burning of fossil fuels in Maine is a minor source of the state’s particulate pollution. Most fossil fuel pollutants blow into Maine from population centers many miles away. Because wind turbines cannot replace base load generators, they will not close coal plants or reduce their emissions.
11. If CO2 is a problem, wind power is not a solution. Placing wind turbines on Maine’s mountains will have no impact on climate change. Using the wind lobby’s optimistic claims, 2700 MW of installed wind capacity in Maine could only reduce total U.S. CO2 emissions by less than five one-hundredths of one percent (0.05%.) Glob ally, there would be no measurable benefit since 98% of atmospheric C02 is from sources other than electricity generators.
12. Wind turbines require sources of NEW conventional generating capacity. The 2010 New England Wind In tegration Study stated that “Wind’s intermittent nature would require increased reserves, ensuring that there are other generation options when the wind isn’t blowing.” Even when wind does blow, base load generators continue to operate, while balancing generators operate inefficiently as they ramp up and down, which increases emissions.
13. New wind power integration will require an unprecedented expansion of transmission capacity. The president and chief executive of ISO-New England, said in 2010 that large scale integration of wind power into the New England grid “would require spending $19 billion to $25 billion for new transmission lines.” This cost would be passed along to our electric bills.
14. Wind generated electricity will not guarantee lower electricity rates. Wind power lobbyists often state that they cannot compete with low natural gas prices, which are forecast to remain low and stable for decades. The wind lobby’s insistence on a federal Renewable Energy Standard and other government subsidies are proof that wind-gener ated electricity cannot compete with other sources.
15. It is said that wind should be a “part of the mix” but its part would be insignificant. Demand for wind generated electricity is created not by the market, but by state and federal government policy. Without favoritism from government policies, wind power could not survive.
Even if the price of wind-generated electricity could be reduced, it is not a desirable source of electricity for the grid. Its intermittency, unpredictability and inability to be synchronized with demand make it a marginal source of electricity, the use of which must be mandated by government.
The wind industry’s insistence on a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) suggests that, without the mandate, they would be at a significant disadvantage. That disadvantage arises from a lack of any market driven motivation for a utility to purchase wind-generated electricity. Wind’s high price and grid-integration challenges make it an outcast in the absence of governmental policies that dictate its use.
The wind industry is lobbying vigorously for a federal RPS, which would force utilities all over the U.S. to purchase a minimum percentage of their electricity from specific sources labeled as renewable. Amazingly, these “renewable” sources would not be required to demonstrate any particular degree of efficacy or feasibility. This type of arrangement already exists in Maine, which already has the highest RPS in the nation.
Commenting on her desire to create a federal RPS, Denise Bode, of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), a wind industry trade association, said, “For us, this is survival of an industry.”
The pace of wind industry activity in the U.S. has been slowing. According to Platts Energy Week, “Bode attributes the drop to the lack of a federal policy requiring utilities to add wind and other renewable energy to their portfolios. Without a federal RPS, utilities are not including renewables in long-term supply decisions but instead are ‘reverting back to what they can rate-base, what they can earn off of, rather than diversify their portfolio,’ she said.” In other words, as long as utilities are making sound business decisions, wind-generated electricity will not find a place in their portfolios, a situation the AWEA finds intolerable.
Royal Bank of Canada stated in its financial assessment of the largest operator of wind turbines in the world, Iberdrola Renewables: “Iberdrola’s wind rollout is dependent on renewable legislation…” and “Iberdrola’s focus will move to the U.S., and to a lesser extent, the U.K. where the regulatory drivers are becoming more attractive.”
16. Wind projects are heavily subsidized at an exorbitant rate. Not accounting for state incentives, ratepayer mandates, and various policies, wind generated electricity is generously subsidized by federal taxpayers. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, wind generators take federal subsidies at a rate of $56.29 per megawatt hour (MWh). Compare this to the subsidy rates for reliable generators like natural gas and coal, which receive 64 cents/MWh, Hydro: 82 cents, Nuclear: $3.14, and Geothermal: $12.85/MWh. In 2010 the $5 Billion in federal subsidies for wind power was more than three times the amount that went to natural gas and coal power combined. Note that in the same year natural gas and coal produced thirty times more electricity than wind: 69% of all American electricity, while wind produced 2%.
Federal subsidies - total dollars per generation source. EIA
Federal subsidies per unit of electricity produced. IER
Total US electricity generation in 2010 EIA
17. Wind developments create notoriously few jobs. Despite boasts of creating Maine jobs, wind projects produce mostly construction jobs lasting less than 6 months. Wind projects are NOT long-term investments in jobs. Construction jobs are always welcome, but publicly-funded construction jobs should pro duce necessary and useful projects, like roads, bridges, and critical infrastructure. Moreover, state mandates to purchase higher priced wind-generated electricity could lead to lost jobs or fewer available jobs in Maine.
18. Most of a wind project’s expenditures leave Maine – primarily overseas., Property valu ations of most new wind developments in Maine are sheltered by tax increment financing and accelerated depreciation. Under the terms of these deals, Mainers’ tax savings are diverted to developers to help finance wind projects.
19. EVERY operating, multi-turbine, grid scale wind facility in Maine that has been sited near people has sig nificant unresolved disputes over noise emissions and shadow flicker. Continuing to site wind turbines using the same standards that have caused this conflict assures that the problems will grow in number and that more Mainers will be involved in disputes with wind developers in the future.
20. “Charting Maine’s Future,” the 2006 Brookings Institute report, warned Maine to avoid sprawl in order to protect its “quality of place” and its “brand.” Maine’s wind development policy actually encourages rural sprawl, threatening Maine’s unique character as well as our future prosperity. Fairly weighing the massive impacts to Maine’s economy and environment versus the minimal benefits from wind power, the facts lead us to conclude that the impacts far exceed the benefits. Maine must pursue more sensible and sustainable energy policy.
“Energy sprawl – the phenomenon of ever-increasing consumption of land, particularly in rural areas, required to site energy generation facilities – is a real and growing problem. Over the next twenty years, at least sixty-seven million acres of land will have been developed for energy projects, destroying wildlife habitats and fragmenting landscapes.
According to one influential report, even renewable energy projects – especially large-scale projects that require large-scale transmission and distribution infrastructure – contribute to energy sprawl.” Sara C. Bronin, Connecticut Law Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, December 2010.
Excerpts from the 2006 Brookings Institute publication Charting Maine’s Future, An Action Plan for Promoting Sustainable Prosperity and Quality Places:
“In the long run, the slow degradation of Maine’s vivid and distinctive quality of place (and the reputation it supports) may be the greatest cost to Maine of all.”
“Another problem, meanwhile, is the defacement of Maine’s scenic corridors.”
“Maine’s stellar quality of place, for one thing—its traditional towns and beautiful landscapes and seacoasts—constitutes a major, appreciating asset in an age when retaining and attracting workers and retirees matters intensely.”
“First, the state should continue to invest urgently in protecting and enhancing its top-notch quality of place, for that is its “calling card,” its brand, and its truest source of prosperity.”
“As its world-famous brand declares, Maine has – in its vivid small towns and waterfronts, its lakes and fields and rocky coastline – exactly the sort of authenticity and quality of place that can set a place apart. Maine is unforgettable and distinctive, and that matters.”