Question regarding wind energy is who's misleading who? by Mary Kay Barton

8/26/08 Batavia Daily News, "Another Point of View" Column

I am writing in response to Horizon Wind's Project Manager, Gary Davidson's, 8/11/08 letter, "In energy crisis we need to harvest wind." Since I am the author of the letter he was referencing, I had to laugh as Davidson repeatedly stated, "the writer continues to mislead the public." Mr. Davidson, and the industry he represents, have the obvious over-riding motivation to mislead the public here - GREED! Let's consider some of the inaccuracies in Davidson's letter which should leave no doubt as to who's misleading who.

First of all, Davidson's claims that "90% of our oil comes from overseas," and that "NY gets 14% of its electricity from oil," are FALSE! The Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. government's source for energy statistics, states that in 2007, the U.S. imported 58.2% of our oil (30% was from our neighbors, Canada and Mexico), and that NY got 5.35% of its electricity from oil.

While it's true that all energy sources receive subsidies, wind is outrageously over-subsidized, and can never be economically-viable on its own. On a dollar per MWh basis, wind receives $23.34 per MWh - compared to coal at $0.44; natural gas at $0.25; hydro at $0.67; and nuclear at $1.59. Together, coal, natural gas, hydro, and nuclear produce 95% of our nation's electricity supply, and for each of these mainline conventional generators, we as ratepayers get extremely high reliability and performance - each with an effective capacity exceeding 99.99%.

The subsidies for wind, however, go for a power source that provides virtually NO Capacity Value (can be relied on to be there when called upon) - which Davidson would have us believe is no big deal. Wind also requires constant "shadow capacity" - that is, conventional power sources to back up the inimical power offered by wind, highlighting the fact that wind can not replace our reliable, dispatchable power sources. Our taxes in the form of federal subsidies cover wind developments to the tune of 65%, while state incentives cover an additional 10%. No wonder wind garners the attention of the greedy!

Once again, I contacted Tom Tanton, Senior Fellow with the Institute for Energy Research, who reitereated what he had said previously in regard to similar claims made by Davidson. Tanton stated, "He (Davidson) obviously does not understand the word 'power', which is technically different than 'energy'."

Tanton explained, "Wind does not provide power...period...and cannot truthfully be said to "provide power to xxx number of homes." The only measure that is pertinent for this application ("How many homes...") is Capacity Value - also sometimes referred to as Capacity Credit, which is the percentage of nameplate capacity (applies to all types, not just wind) that can be counted on every, and any hour of the year. The Capacity Value for most wind facilities is between 0% and 10%. In essence, industrial wind turbines - regardless of how many, power no homes at all because it's not there when it's needed. There is a vast difference between power and energy." (See: "The Power of Energy," by Physicist, John Droz, at http://www.northnet.org/brvmug/WindPower/articles.html)

Contrary to Davidson's claims that "wind power 'may' lessen the need for natural gas," natural gas will actually end up being the most relied on in combination with the inefficiency of wind because it's the most easily ramped up and down. Consider that Germany has the largest installed base of wind in the world at 17% of their total installed capacity, while only actually realizing 5% of their total electric generation from wind. Most importantly, Germany's focus on wind has NOT fulfilled any of the claims which are the very basis for the existence of the wind industry - it has not reduced CO2 emissions, nor has it made Germany more energy-independent. On the contrary, Germany is one of the most energy-dependent nations in the world - on Russian gas. (See: "Germany ... Tilting at Windmills," at www.windaction.org/news/10480)

Davidson's claims about the economic benefits and jobs that "may" result because of wind are grossly exaggerated. After the 6-month installation phase, what jobs will remain? A minimum-wage lawn-mowing position? For the realities of of the economics driving industrial wind, see the analysis by energy expert, Glenn Schleede, "Risks of placing Spain-based Iberdrola's interests ahead of NY taxpayers and electric customers," at http://windaction.org/documents/17211

While it's true that all energy forms are going to have impacts in some way, Davidson's proclamation that wind's only environmental impact "is simply its visibility", is absurd. Mountain-top removal occurs with wind, just as with coal, not to mention the miles and miles of clear-cutting for access roads and turbine sites, and the resulting runoff and erosion problems. An average of 350 tons of concrete is used per turbine base. For every ton of concrete used, a ton of CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere. The expansive footprints of wind installations are immeasurable compared to conventional power sources - fracturing far more ecosystems, and people's peace and quiet enjoyment of their homes and property than any of the other sources. The devastating effect on birds and bats is well-documented, with over 500 Golden Eagles killed by turbines in California every year. Couple this with the fact that wind does not displace, hence any of the impacts from, any of the other sources.

So, if you're wondering, "Who's misleading who?", remember that Mr. Davidson is a financially-motivated, corporate wind salesman who lives nowhere near the industrial wind turbines he's working to site too close to people's homes. I, on the other hand, have nothing to gain, and simply wish to protect our natural environment from being exploited for corporate greed. I believe our tax dollars should be funding truth and due diligence from our elected officials, full disclosure of data to the public, and use of scientific methodology in planning our energy future. Obviously, these common sense action items are not the basis for misleading, but for accountability from the wind industry and our corporate-led government.

Mary Kay Barton, CitizenPowerAlliance.org