Maine Voices: Wind power unlikely to come close to breaking even
The campaign to pour billions in subsidies into this government-favored industry recalls the money wasted on ethanol.
By TOM CROTTY
FREEPORT - Tux Turkel has done a great job (March 30, "First Wind set to test the waters with IPO") in digging into the current wind power developments here in Maine.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Tom Crotty (e-mail: tomcr@suscom-maine.com) is a resident of Freeport.
He offers us facts and numbers that give us a rough picture of the cost and viability of wind power here.
Turkel reports that Maine lawmakers have set a goal of installing 2,000 megawatts of wind power by 2015.
He then quotes a local financial analyst who points out that, "Ratepayers are going to pay for all the government mandates," and "The market isn't driving this. The government is driving this."
The article suggests 2,000 megawatts of power will cost $4 billion. But it is not clear whether that is actual produced power or maximum capacity of the wind turbines.
The generally accepted "capacity ratio" for wind power is at best around 20 percent, which means you get 20 percent of the power that you could get if the turbines were producing at maximum capacity 24/7.
Wind power benefits from huge subsidies and tax incentives. It is in that context that we would do well to remember what has happened with another highly subsidized energy industry, biofuels.
That one was also aggressively promoted by government, politicians and environmentalists to solve our problems with dependence on foreign oil and risks to the global climate.
Seldom, if ever, have we seen such a graphic example of the law of unintended consequences. Ethanol has turned out to be a curse rather than an asset. The world's food supplies have been horribly distorted and strained, with resulting increases in prices. Machinery is being damaged.
The ecological damage to the planet is incalculable -- rain forests are being destroyed while the precious nutrients in our valuable farmlands are being sucked out and poured into our gas tanks.
And, it turns out that burning ethanol seems to be adding more nasty gases to our environment than gasoline.
Ethanol was foisted upon us by the same people who now want to give us wind power, solar power, biomass and an array of other "alternative, renewable energy sources." They want to do it the same way -- by rushing us all into completely unknown, unproven technologies with a hyped-up, emotional, quixotic, mindless fervor.
All the while, the Russians, Japanese and the Chinese are not at all interested in all this nonsense.
The Russians have contracted to build a number of their amazing BN 800 fast-breeder nuclear reactors for the Chinese for approximately $2 billion a unit. These reactors produce about 880 megawatts and they do it at about a 90 percent capacity ratio.
It is very likely that the reason the Russians have been so agreeable about arms reductions is that they can sell the Chinese nuclear materials gleaned from the decommissioned weapons to fuel these new plants.
This technology, referred to under different names such as integrated fast reactors (IFRs) has the potential to alter the course of history.
These plants are simple, highly efficient, completely safe and produce very, very little nuclear waste. When pro-rated over an average 30-year life span, these plants produce power at a cost much lower than any other technology yet devised.
And they produce no carbon dioxide!
But don't believe me. Do yourself and your country a big favor and buy the book "Prescription for the Planet" by Tom Blees. He describes the irony of all ironies.
Beginning in 1951, the United States started a program to prove the viability of a breeder reactor -- one that would produce more fuel than it burned.
The program, dubbed EBR-II, evolved at the Argonne West Laboratories in Idaho into a fully functioning IFR, producing electricity and feeding it into the grid.
First, Jimmy Carter shut it down, claiming it was a proliferation risk. Then, in 1994, Bill Clinton and John Kerry not only refused to restart this fully functional IFR prototype, but they had it dismantled and destroyed.
Blees suggests that they owed the environmentalists such a huge political debt that they had no choice.
The irony is that the Russians, Japanese and Chinese had been paying close attention all along and now are decades ahead of the United States with a technology that will lead the world into the 21st century.
But for that mindset that sold us on ethanol and now wants us to buy into wind power, the United States could be energy independent while selling this technology and building modern power plants all over the world. That would create millions of jobs and an enviable trade balance.
- Special to the Press Herald
Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form
Most...
Copyright ©2010 MaineToday Media, Inc.
18 COMMENTS
TheCaptain said...
The article claims that nuclear power is cheaper than wind, "completely safe", and Russia knows best. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Let's not forget the free market: in 2008, worldwide private investment in wind was $71 billion. During the same period, private $ for nuclear was zero. A fast breeder reactor is "safe"?? - Laughable. Pres. Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer, shut down the fast breeder reactor in Idaho because it is a dangerous technology. Should we copy the Russians? Russia is that socialist country that leads the world in nuclear catastrophes. Chernobyl blew up 24 years ago this month. Crotty's comment that breeder reactors have "the potential to alter the course of history" is dangerously true-- nuclear reactors are the only form of power generation that can threaten an entire continent. Sorry, Comrade Crotty, you haven't convinced me. I'll take free-market, renewable energy any day. You want the gov't to build more socialist, failed nukes? Wrong country.
April 6, 2010 at 7:58 AM Report abuse
TheCaptain said...
P.S. "Wind power unlikely to come close to breaking even"???? While it is true that offshore, industrial wind power is not viable, (or necessary) let's not forget the economic history of nukes- Nuclear power has been heavily subsidized since the beginning. After 60 years, this industry is a mature, yet failed industry. It is ludicrous to compare the economics of any endeavor to the subsidized failure of nuclear power. That's probably why the author neglects to mention it.
April 6, 2010 at 8:21 AM Report abuse
Arthur said...
Oh Captain, give it a rest. Someone uses the N word and you rant for three days. Look at the subsidies for wind power, which dwarf what ANY other generating sources get. I don't want to argue the merits of nukes with you, but 1000mw of installed natural gas generation is an even wiser investment at only a billion dollars. The fuel source is abundant, native, clean, and cheap. Then there's Canadian hydro just banging down our door. If we ever found ourselves wanting more electricity, whatever we choose, the author makes a good point: Wind is just a stupid choice.
April 6, 2010 at 8:49 AM Report abuse
macmac said...
Sooner or later, the necessity of advancing civilization to maintain our accustomed standard of living will rediscover the potential in nuclear. Paranoid is not becoming for such a strong, brave nation as ours.
April 6, 2010 at 9:14 AM Report abuse
poweruser said...
Thank you, Mr. Crotty for mentioning "the law of unintended consequences". That law comes into play whenever we concern ourselves only with our "good intentions" and our short-term needs at the expense of long-term wisdom. In other words, when it's amateur hour in Washington (which it obviously is) or when we have a lame-duck governor whose only concern is a "legacy" and a cushy job when he leaves office.
April 6, 2010 at 9:28 AM Report abuse
Jack_Pine said...
"I'll take free-market, renewable energy any day." The worldwide wind industry is hardly free-market. Rather it is a market that has been heavily influenced by meddlesome government subsidies. And they are high subsidies, e.g., in the U.S., wind electricity is over $23 per MWH whereas natural gas is only twenty five cents.
April 6, 2010 at 9:40 AM Report abuse
Jack_Pine said...
Can we have an expedited gubernatorial law where Baldacci has to leave office way before January 2011. The sooner he is gone, the sooner we will start losing our bias towards his future employers in the wind industry.
April 6, 2010 at 9:44 AM Report abuse
windblock said...
The US should be looking into new nuke tech and possibly retrofitting the old plants as they age. Can they be safer now? Could the waste be dumped into a subduction zone between tectonic plates, rather than stored in a salt dome? Envisioning America covered in windsprawl is like something out of the Twilight Zone. Natural gas plants might as well be built, isn't the gas "flared off" now with no energy produced?
April 6, 2010 at 9:50 AM Report abuse
Jack_Pine said...
The average person spends about $20 looking for a new job - perhaps they get a haircut. Baldacci is spending hundreds of millions to get a new job with the wind industry when he leaves office. And none of it is his money. A disgrace.
April 6, 2010 at 10:07 AM Report abuse
Nukebusters said...
Arthur- No, nuclear has been feeding at the public trough for 60 years, far more than windpower. Windpower is getting investors because it works. Nuclear is getting subsidies because it doesn't work. macmac: Is Congress paranoid, too? The Congressional budget office says that nuclear investments have a greater than 50 percent chance of failure. Windblock: I don't think we need industrial-sized wind power, either. But it is not a choice between wind or nukes. Regarding safety, to borrow from Gertrude Stein, a nuke is a nuke is a nuke. Nukes are inherently dangerous, and far more expensive than any other form of new power generation. The only safe nuclear reactor is on the Sun. We should simply make the most of the power we get from the Sun. It's free, and the danger is 90 million miles away.
April 6, 2010 at 10:42 AM Report abuse
common_cents said...
A number of major companies with proven safe designs are poised to enter the 'village-sized' nuclear power plant market. ROLLS ROYCE has been making them for British submarines and other naval vessels--the captain can fear monger all he wants; but given the close proximity of a crew of a sub to the power plant and no evidence of health dangers, his fears are not grounded in factual reality but past incidents. The deal between Bill Gates and Toshiba to promote TERRAPOWER's small reactors is going to be as innovative as the personal computer water.....perhaps driving the technology down to the household level! ....the times they are a changing, and capt. fearmonger is going to get lost in the wake.
April 6, 2010 at 10:49 AM Report abuse
common_cents said...
'water' = 'WAS'
April 6, 2010 at 10:52 AM Report abuse
AXeL said...
Good point, Jack. Does anyone else notice politicians lining up at the "Green Jobs" trough? Nice...The pass legislation mandating these new industries, thereby guaranteeing profits, and then set themselves up to rake in millions from these industries when they leave office. What business is Angus King in? Where are many of Nancy Pelosi's millions invested? Why is Al Gore projected to be the world's first "Carbon Billionaire"? It's because we are being fed a lie while our country is subverted by politicians to serve their personal interests. We'll get nukes when the nuclear industry meets or exceeds the bribes demanded by government officials. It's that simple.
April 6, 2010 at 11:13 AM Report abuse
lordpeter said...
Everybody is always ranting about welfare Moms, well, what about welfare Dads like Angus King and John Baldacci? They spend their government checks (our taxpayer dollars) in the form of huge subsidies given to wind power to live the life of luxury with second homes, even, while the rest of us wander aimlessly, scrounging for jobs. What gives them the right to suck off the government tit while the government cuts off unemployment benefits? Something stinks.
April 6, 2010 at 12:08 PM Report abuse
Arthur said...
Nukebuster - Facts are facts, and subsidies are subsidies. The investors in wind are there for the subsidies: Excerpts from a great article that every Maine rep, senator, and governor should have: The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 — compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢; hydro at 67¢; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call 'a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy.' The Wall Street Journal advises that 'wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners.' http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx
April 6, 2010 at 1:28 PM Report abuse
null said...
Interesting....most of the negative comments on my piece are from people who are astonishingly uninformed while Arthur has done his homework. By now, we should be able to clear away all the partisan nonsense and cut to the chase - how do we best move forward with the challenges of meeting the energy requirements of the many people on our planet. Until you read "Prescription for the Planet" by Tom Blees and/or find the sources that Arthur uses, you will probably have no idea what you're talking about.
April 6, 2010 at 3:11 PM Report abuse
ThorEau said...
Federal subsidies for electricity by type are in the table on page 106: $$$$$$$$$$$ http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap5.pdf
April 6, 2010 at 5:04 PM Report abuse
Nukebusters said...
Common-cents, What's all the hype about fearmongering? I'm taking about economic facts, and the nuclear industry's poor safety record. claiming that new nukes are somehow safer is just talk. Get just one of these new nukes insured on the free market and then let us know. Subs are safer than nuclear plants. They have a different purpose, and a different budget. They aren't trying to make a profit.
April 6, 2010 at 6:51 PM Report abuse