18 point response to an anti-wind propaganda article

[Dardedar]

This author posts low quality anti-wind propaganda all around so I thought I would take a few moments to respond to 18 claims.
--
Industrial-scale intermittent wind power: recognizing its unreliability before we spend billions
a column about nature and technology
by Katie Singer
https://www.ourweb.tech/letter-21/?

***
1) Claim: "before we spend billions"
Oh, that ship has sailed, with tens of billions more on the way, per quarter!
-
"Offshore wind, in particular, is having its moment in the sun, with offshore wind investments quadrupling to $35 billion in the first half of 2020, representing the most growth by any energy sector during the Covid-19 crisis.”
https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy ... tment.html?

2) Claim: "Proponents claim that wind energy is “green,” “clean,” “zero-emitting”—and that it will improve host communities’ economies."
Green? Yes. Clean? Obviously. Zero emitting? Yes, during production.
Coal generates 200x the volume of waste per unit of energy generated.
A tremendous difference.
--
"Electricity from coal produces 200 times as much solid waste as electricity from wind
The amount of solid waste from a megawatt-hour of coal electricity is 200 times the amount from a megawatt-hour of wind electricity.
And that doesn’t even account for all of the waste from a coal power plant. There is also scrubber slurry and polluted wastewater, end of life waste from the coal plant equipment. And, of course, there are gas emissions. Carbon dioxide which we are well aware of, and also particulate pollution which is the cause of millions of premature deaths per year worldwide.
If an individual US resident gets all of their household electricity from wind energy, over 20 years their share of non-recyclable wind turbine blade waste will be 15kg. That same mass of solid waste is produced by one person’s share of a coal-fired power plant in 40 days, and it is just 7 days of municipal waste.
But compared to waste from other sources it is very small, and it is certainly not a reason to turn back to coal energy. Coal power plants create vastly more waste that goes to landfill. Coal’s waste is also toxic and has associated gas waste including CO2 and particulates and other chemicals that harm human health. But bigger (by mass at least) than either of these sources is municipal waste, a problem that is one thousand times greater than wind turbine waste.”
https://medium.com/climate-conscious/wi ... 61913dcbd9

3) Claim: "Proponents claim that wind energy... will improve host communities’ economies."
Bigtime. And already is. BIGTIME.
--
Renewable power helping rural America:
"Renewables creating a generational opportunity in rural America
"As wind and solar grow exponentially, with projects usually located in rural areas, they’re creating new jobs and adding substantial tax revenue to local coffers.
...by 2030 wind and solar will generate $60 billion in annual revenue. That’s comparable to rural staples like corn ($58 billion), soy ($44 billion), and beef ($70 billion). By 2030 RMI finds other benefits as well including:
$2.7 billion in annual tax revenue;
$2.2 billion in annual lease payments to landowners hosting wind turbines and solar panels on their property;
$2.3 billion in annual construction job wages; and
$3.7 billion in annual operations and maintenance job wages.
Overall, RMI’s report finds 600 gigawatts (GW) of wind and solar projects will be built over the next 10 years, creating $220 billion in lifetime value across rural America."
https://cleanpower.org/blog/new-rmi-rep ... l-america/?

4) Claim: "We’ll need to learn about the rare earth elements extracted for turbines."
"The neodymium exists in large abundance outside China. There are a couple of companies outside China that could keep us running for thousands of years."
And the dysprosium?
"It turns out you can tweak the way you deal with your alloy so you need less. In today's magnets we have 0.7% dysprosium, and in a few years it will be all gone."
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26687605
Are we running out? Nope.
Clean energy and rare earths: Why not to worry
“Around 2010, some articles and commentators warned that shortages of rare earths, or China’s near-monopoly on them, could choke off the West’s shift to renewable energy and other clean technologies. This was never true—but the myth persists.”
https://thebulletin.org/2017/05/clean-e ... -to-worry/?

And now: "Japan Discovered a Rare-Earth Mineral Deposit That Can Supply The World For Centuries"

5) Claim: "Turbines require lubrication. On average, a 5-MW (megawatt) turbine holds 700 gallons of oil"
It's hard to imagine a better investment than loaning a turbine some oil for a while.
You know, rather than burning the stuff. So it doesn't matter how much is used.
As a friend in the industry once told me:
"A common 1.5 MW wind turbine uses 35 gallons of oil, all of which is reclaimed, and produces 100,000 MWH during its twenty-year service life. Compare this with 5,000 *tons* of toxic coal ash out in the elements, seeping their heavy metals into their aquifers."
--
“Gearboxes on the generally smaller-sized turbines installed in the mid-1980s hold about 10 gallons of oil or less. Newer, larger machines might hold as much as 60 gallons.”
https://www.power-eng.com/renewables/wi ... -spinning/?

6) Claim: "When Texas temperatures froze last February, so did the turbines.">>
Actually, 75 gas, coal and nuke didn't show up for work in Texas. The "reliables" were quite embarrassed about this so they immediately went on conservative media and lied to you about that. And now you're repeating the lies.
---
ERCOT’s SARA projection expected nearly 83,000 MW of resource capacity available during winter peak demand, including 67,529 MW of thermal and hydro generation. However, actual capacity available was substantially lower. Throughout the crisis, ERCOT has been reporting an average of 30,000 MW of thermal capacity have been offline.
Wind power actually performed close to grid operator’s expectation throughout this episode. “Wind is putting out more than we count on for the winter season,” said Dan Woodfin, senior director of system operations at ERCOT. Wind output has been consistently above ERCOT’s day-ahead and short-term (day-of) forecasts.
ERCOT’s SARA projection planned for between 1,800 MW and 7,000 MW of renewable energy to be online during peak winter events. Actual capacity in this recent event averaged around 4,000 MW and only briefly dipped below 2,000, as the chart above shows.”
https://cleanpower.org/blog/the-truth-a ... -culprits/?

7) Claim: "[Texas] Utilities did not have sufficient natural gas backup to keep electricity available."
Backup? No, the gas failed, along with some coal and one nuke. The so called "reliables" weren't.
It was the gas and coal that failed Texas:
--
Renewable energy is not to blame for the Texas energy crisis
Natural gas, the state's dominant energy source, has provided drastically less energy than expected
"Wind was operating almost as well as expected," said Sam Newell, head of the electricity group at the Brattle Group, an energy consulting company that has advised Texas on its power grid.
"It's an order of magnitude smaller" than problems with natural gas, coal and nuclear energy, he said.
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which plays the role of traffic cop for Texas' energy providers, directing energy from producers to distributors, predicted that this winter would see wind produce about 7,070 megawatts at peak load times. By the council's own daily figures, wind power in Texas has produced between 4,415 and 8,087 megawatts at peak times since the storm began.
By contrast, the state's "thermal fleet" — mostly natural gas, but also including coal and nuclear power — has been down significantly more, leading to a shortfall of 30,000 megawatts…”
"From freezing gas wells and gas lines, to depressurization of our natural gas infrastructure because so many homes and businesses are calling for gas at the same time, we just don't have enough fuel," he said.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fa ... s-n1258185?

8) Claim: "Let’s also recognize studies that show wind+gas packages can produce more CO2 than gas alone. [4]"

Well lookie there. Source for this? A piece citing claims about wind from 17 year old articles. The author: John Droz Jr. Who's he?
--
"a physicist who has also been an environmental activist for some 25 years." He runs a website called Wind Power Facts...
The website does not mention that he is also a fellow of the American Tradition Institute."
Who's that? Another Koch Bros astro turf denier front group.
--
The group's website at one time stated that it "is part of a broader network of groups with close ties to energy interests that have long fought greenhouse gas regulation." The group has "connections with the Koch brothers, Art Pope and other conservative donors seeking to expand their political influence,"[4]
In 2011, E&E Legal (then ATI) sued the University of Virginia to get access to the emails of climatologist Michael Mann."
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?t ... _Institute
Imagine, those Koch Bros and their carbon industry spending money to lie about wind. I hope Singer is getting a check for this disinformation and isn't shoveling all of this mindless HORSEFLOP for FREE.

9) Claim: "Every ton of steel produced emits about 1.85 tons of CO2."

What matters is if a turbine pays back the Co2 used in it's construction. And how many times over.
Turns out it does, in less than a year and about 44x over. And that's the old ones. The newer bigger more efficient ones will be even better.
--
"...when accounting for manufacturing and construction, the lifetime carbon footprints of solar, wind, and nuclear power are about one-twentieth of those of coal and natural gas, even when the latter include expensive carbon capture and storage technology. The energy produced during the operation of a solar panel and wind turbine is 26 and 44 TIMES greater than the energy needed to build and install them, respectively. There are many life-cycle assessment studies arriving at similar conclusions.”

10) Claim: "At least 75% of the rare earth market is controlled by China... Why would we invest in infrastructure that depends on an international supply chain?"

She said, tapping away on her Chinese computer.
--
Rare Earth Recycling
“The price of neodymium has fluctuated on world markets…. In mid-2011, it sold for about $500 per kilogram; but, by the end of that year, the price had fallen to less than $350 per kilogram, or 35 cents per gram ($9.92 per ounce). Pricing has continued to slide, fetching less than 4 cents per gram ($1.13 per ounce) as of late November 2017.”
https://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/ ... recycling/

We're not going to run out. As mentioned above:
"Earlier this year, researchers found a deposit of rare-earth minerals off the coast of Japan that could supply the world for centuries, according to a study.
The study, published in the journal Nature in April 2018, says the deposit contains 16 million tons of the valuable metals."
https://www.sciencealert.com/japan-disc ... -centuries

11) Claim: "In 2012, the U.S. added 13,131 MW of wind generating capacity."

Reminding us again how ancient this anti-wind crapola is. This was published, yesterday:
--
“According to a recent report from the Global Wind Energy Council, the sector installed 93 gigawatts (GW) of new capacity in 2020, a record figure which represents a year-on-year jump of more than 50%. Over the last decade, the global wind power market has almost quadrupled.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/16/a-quant ... igger.html?

And the cost?
-
“The cost of wind power has fallen about 50% since 2010. Solar has dropped 85%. That makes them cheaper than new coal and gas plants in two-thirds of the world, according to BloombergNEF.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... -subsidies?

12) Claim: "People near Baotou report that they began to observe mining’s consequences in 1979."
Yes, I'm sure that is terribly relevant to now, 42 years later.
Claim: "I do not see how anyone can call IWTs “green” or “clean.”
Yes, why would someone consider an energy source that is 90x cleaner than the filthy coal it is replacing, to be in any sense clean or green?
Not 2x, not 10x not 50x.
Ninety times cleaner.
Wind Energy’s Carbon Footprint
“…wind power’s carbon footprint is among the smallest of any energy source.
Coal’s carbon footprint is almost 90 times larger than that of wind energy, and the footprint of natural gas is more than 40 times larger, according to the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory.”
https://www.factcheck.org/.../wind-ener ... footprint/

13) Claim: "Turbines are about 422 feet tall (40 stories, 12.2 meters)"

40 stories is 12.2 meters? I didn't know that.

Claim: "turbine sections have rammed through a house, knocked a utility pole through a restaurant, and fallen off of trucks."

One would hope we are reaching the bottom of the bucket with this quality of swill, but no, there's more.

Claim: "Manufacturing every ton of concrete generates one ton of CO2"

Good thing that turbine pays back 44 tons of displaced carbon not burned for every ton of concrete used. While making about 100,000 MW of power.

Claim: "we cannot call Industrial Wind Turbines “near carbon-neutral zero-emitters.”

Compared to what?
Carbon and Energy payback of a wind turbine:
“…a typical wind turbine, of the type shown, will have an energy payback of less than 6 months and a carbon dioxide payback of around 6 months.”
https://www.saskwind.ca/blogbackend/201 ... nd-turbine

14) Claim: "could lead to a significant temperature increase in the lower atmosphere where turbines are installed."

Actually, no. Not much. This is a variation of this bit from Joe Barton. Nicely debunked here.
--
"Now, wind is God’s way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it is hotter to areas where it is cooler. That is what wind is."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... tons-2009/

15) Claim: "Again, the Texas grid’s failure was caused by a combination of incapacitated wind turbines—and insufficient gas backup."

Again, that's a carbon industry lie. 30GW of gas and coal failed because it wasn't winterized. So if you had more of it, you'd have more gas and coal failure.
--
ERCOT: Frozen instruments at natural gas, coal and nuclear facilities most significant factors in Texas blackouts
ERCOT says wind was least significant factor:
"Frozen instruments at nat gas, coal & nuclear facilities most significant factors in TX blackouts"
The facts are, wind + solar came up 1 GW short of what was expected for supplying winter peak demand, and gas + coal about 30 GW short.
https://twitter.com/cohan_ds/status/136 ... 82380?s=20

Texas is putting in 35GW of renewables in just the next 3 years. Maybe they'll winterize a good portion of it better now that we know the gas and coal doesn't hold up.
Or maybe they won't.

16) Claim: "One turbine fire can cost $4.5 million."
--
Are Wind Turbines Burning Money?
There’s a report being passed around social media to the effect that the cost of fires in wind turbines could be as high as $9 million.
There are about 60,000 utility-scale wind turbines in the U.S., and that they cost an average of about $4 million apiece to install, meaning that we have about $2.4 trillion invested. $9 million represents 0.000375% of that total.
That percentage of the mass of my car is 4 grams.”
http://www.2greenenergy.com/2020/12/04/ ... ing-money/?

I'm reminded of when the gassy folks tell us we can't have EVs because sometimes they catch on fire. Forgetting this context:
--
More Than 150 Gas Car Fires Per Day — Can We Please Get Serious About Electric Car Battery Fires?
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/06/03/50 ... ery-fires/

17) Claim: "To date, there’s no way to recycle the blades when their usable life ends."

We know categorically that Singer knows this is a lie, because it's been debunked several times for her.
Wind turbines already have a recyclability rate of 85% to 90%.
Vestas announced its plans for zero-waste turbines. 14k wind turbine blades will be decommissioned in Europe next 5 years. The recycling of these old blades is a top priority for the wind industry."
https://windeurope.org/newsroom/news/bl ... -industry/?

GE announces wind turbine blade recycling contract with Veolia
GE Renewable Energy has announced it has signed a multi-year agreement with Veolia North America (VNA) to recycle blades removed from its US-based onshore turbines during upgrades and repowering efforts.
https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com ... t-20201208?

18) Claim: "I want common citizens to know about the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions,... “The Basic Steps to Winning an Onshore Local Wind War”>>

Yes, and who is this bunch? Take a big wiff of Denier Dookie:
--
At AWED, Droz links to his position statement on climate change (emphasis added): [5]

“As a scientist I have been asked to elaborate a bit on my position regarding the Global Warming proposition — and how it relates to wind energy. These are very legitimate (and important) questions.

The main hypothesis put forward is technically called Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), where the fancy term “anthropogenic” means “man-made.”

Although I am not a climatologist, as a scientist I know how to do thorough and objective research. (BTW, skepticism is a key ingredient of true scientists.) In my capacity as a scientist, I have read literally hundreds of reports and studies on this climate issue, from numerous experts. After digesting these studies and reports, it is very clear to me that AGW is still a scientifically unresolved matter. This is what is called a hypothesis.”

Later in his document, Droz claims to debunk “myths” related to climate change. He links to the blog WUWT by Anthony Watts, the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), Marc Morano‘s Climate Depot, Judith Curry’s Climate Etc., the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change’s CO2 Science, Friends of Science, and the debunked Oregon Petition among other sources."
https://www.desmog.com/alliance-wise-energy-decisions/

And there you have it. The gang's all there.
Garbage in, garbage out.