Wind power is a complete disaster

There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).

Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.

Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds.

Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”

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.”

The Economist magazine notes in a recent editorial, “Wasting Money on Climate Change,” that each tonne of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137, whereas under a cap-and-trade scheme the price would be less than $15.

Either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system creates incentives for consumers and producers on a myriad of margins to reduce energy use and emissions that, as these numbers show, completely overwhelm subsidies to renewables in terms of cost effectiveness.

The Ontario Power Authority advises that wind producers will be paid 13.5¢/kwh (more than twice what consumers are currently paying), even without accounting for the additional costs of interconnection, transmission and back-up generation. As the European experience confirms, this will inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in electricity costs with consequent detrimental effects on business and employment. From this perspective, the government’s promise of 55,000 new jobs is a cruel delusion.

A recent detailed analysis (focusing mainly on Spain) finds that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs are lost. Each wind industry job created cost almost $2-million in subsidies. Why will the Ontario experience be different?

In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are two kinds of green. First there are some environmental greens who view the problem as so urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken immediately.

Then there are the fiscal greens, who, being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that make polluters pay, favour massive public subsidies to themselves for renewable energy projects, whatever their relative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. These two groups are motivated by different kinds of green. The only point of convergence between them is their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy (such as wind turbines).

This unholy alliance of these two kinds of greens (doomsdayers and rent seekers) makes for very effective, if opportunistic, politics (as reflected in the Ontario government’s Green Energy Act), just as it makes for lousy public policy: Politicians attempt to pick winners at our expense in a fast-moving technological landscape, instead of creating a socially efficient set of incentives to which we can all respond.

Financial Post
Michael J. Trebilcock is Professor of Law and Economics, University of Toronto. These comments were excerpted from a submission last night to the Ontario government’s legislative committee On Bill 150.


by beyondgreen Apr 08 2009 11:23 PM	There could be no better investment in America than to invest in America becoming energy independent! We need to utilize everything in out power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil including using our own natural resources. Create cheap clean energy, new badly needed green jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.The high cost of fuel this past year seriously damaged our economy and society. The cost of fuel effects every facet of consumer goods from production to shipping costs. It costs the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon to charge and drive an electric car. If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV's instead had plug-in electric drive trains the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota.We have so much available to us such as wind and solar. Let's spend some of those bail out billions and get busy harnessing this energy. Create cheap clean energy, badly needed new jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What a win-win situation that would be for our nation at large! There is a really good new book out by Jeff Wilson called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now. www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com

by Denis Pakkala Apr 09 2009 7:50 AM	This article is misleading and factually vacant. Why is a Professor of Law and Economics writing about the Environment? Shame on yourself. P.S. I'm a Professional Engineer and a Consultant in the Power Industry

by Denis Pakkala Apr 09 2009 7:58 AM	Wind costs more, but economists don't measure the full cost of things, especially the social and legacy costs. Junk Science is when an Economics and Law Professor talks about Science

by JohnDroz Apr 09 2009 8:27 AM	Dr. Trebilcock isn't presenting an academic paper here — just a quick overview. As a physicist (with energy expertise) I can affirm that the basic message he is communicating is accurate. Any new source of electrical energy needs to be subjected to scientific methodology. WIND POWER HAS NOT BEEN. Such an independent objective assessment would attempt to verify that the source was technologically, economically and environmentally sound. The net evidence to date says that wind power fails on all three counts. This business of doing anything for the sake of doing something is absurd.

by mama146 Apr 09 2009 9:14 AM	Ever notice how the only ones who immediately discount any criticism of the great symbolic gesture of wind power, are also the same ones making money off this scam?

by gwestbound Apr 09 2009 10:06 AM	Another boondoggle!

by Bluecon Apr 09 2009 10:26 AM	But it must be working. As the government wastes more money on windmills and solar the Earth is cooling. Of course the countries economy is collapsing, but why worry about such a trivial thing when the greenies are made rich and happy.

by SanityPlease Apr 09 2009 10:30 AM	Prof. Trebilcock has cited all his sources. Mr. Pakkala has not. The broadside criticism of "factually vacant" is itself vacuous (lacking in intelligence). Nonetheless, it is typical of those who don't have their facts straight or, worse, who simply invent them to support unsubstantiated claims. Is he saying law professors, or anyone else for that matter, can't read basic science? Trebilcock isn't anti-green. He's just saying we need to examine the evidence before accepting hastily conceived solutions for blatant political gain in the name of "green."

by Fran39 Apr 09 2009 1:19 PM	If we remove the alarmism attached to Athabasca oil sands, and slow down our collective lips so that knowledgable others can speak we will hear that North America can become self-sustaining. Gradual inflation has created economic offshore oil and economic oil sands and will create economically viable kerogen shale to last 1,000 years. We may also hear the whisper that carbon is not pollution but food for plants and animals alike. But the shouting from environmental lobby groups is very loud most of the time and argumentum ad hominem tries to rule. We may hear climate change having the last ironic laugh however, because cooling is far more harmful to the poor than warming. A winter beach is narrow and coarse, but a summer beach is wide and fine.

by ppete Apr 09 2009 1:38 PM	wind energy? expensive and unreliable nice to see the eco-nazis continue to smoke those organic cigarettes of theirs

by moxiecat Apr 09 2009 1:42 PM	It is refreshing to see a well written article refuting wind power. If it were a good idea entrepreneurs would be working on how to make it commercially viable. Instead we have a small group screaming for subsidies to support something for which there is no good evidence of usefulness or ablility to work as advertised. Free markets, not statist policies, will be what discover the next great source of energy. When the entrepreneurs do find it, they will provide it more cheaply and efficiently than any subsidized government program will. The government should always stay out of the market-it gives an unfair advantage to those who on their own really can't compete.

by Kent Hawkins Apr 09 2009 2:31 PM	As an electrical engineer, who has focussed on wind power for seven years, I also can affirm the accuracy of the message that Trebilcock is sending. The facts are good, and it is unbecoming of a professional to resort to pejoratives like “junk” science. It is the refuge of a poor argument. An economist is as at least as qualified to comment on electricity generation as a zoologist or a scientist whose area of specialization is the atmosphere, and perhaps more so, if one takes the time to fully understand the field of economics. No “shame” should be attributed. I would correct any potential misunderstanding that Denmark uses very much of the electricity generated by their wind plants. Most of it is dumped to Norway, Sweden and Germany because Denmark’s relatively small electricity system could not handle it.

by MK711 Apr 09 2009 5:28 PM	Kudos to Dr. Trebilcock! So refreshing to hear an educated voice speaking out about the truth of industrial wind. To put the ludicrous nature of the massive subsidies that enable the industrial wind industry into better perspective, Tufts economist, Gilbert Metcalf ran the numbers and found that the effective tax rate for wind is a MINUS 163.8%. In other words, every dollar an industrial wind firm spends is subsidized to the tune of 64 cents from the government (OUR money!)- creating a free lunch for the Big Wind LLC's and forcing all of us to pay for what is nothing less than a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy! As Robert Bryce states in his book, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of "Energy Independence", Limited Liability Wind Companies are "the electricity sector's equivalent of ethanol," which he documents as one of the worst energy "scams". He continues, "The hype [for wind] has lost all connection with reality."

by danno1 Apr 09 2009 5:40 PM	It's one world. One planet Earth, in which massive amounts of steel production and follow-on foundry work is required to manufacture commercial wind towers. Over one hundred thousand 400-feet tall wind towers are destined for North America in the next 20 years. Those 100,000 400-feet tall wind towers are primarily manufactured in China (with some also manufactured in Vietnam and India). Why primarily manufactured in China? China, being a non-democratically controlled nation, hides from the World, the unrestricted massive polluting that results from the manufacturing of wind power equipment in China. Multinational companies manufacturing wind power equipment primarily in China (and also in Vietnam and India), are heavily polluting the Earth's atmosphere with massive amounts of carbon dioxide and other nasty pollutants, out of sight of North American citizenry and media cameras, in order to manufacture well over 100,000 of these steel behemoths in the next 20 years. Huge quantities of cheap dirty burning soft coal is the massive air polluting energy source being used in China (and also in Vietnam and India) to manufacture that steel. The same source, dirty burning coal, produces, with major negative atmospheric carbon emissions consequences, even more steel to manufacture the huge fleet of ocean going vessels required to transport over 100,000 wind towers to North America in the next 20 years. That same fleet of diesel-powered ships daily pollute our Earth's atmosphere with the carbon and other diesel fuel pollutants expended in transporting the wind towers from Asia to North America. The wind power industry states wind tower obsolescence in 20 years, making for a never ending repetitive cycle of heavily polluting Asian manufacturing and remanufacturing of well over 400,000 gigantic wind towers in a 100 year period for North American use. Ironically, as destined for North America, the planned massive production numbers of Asian made huge wind towers primarily manufactured in China, will give tens of thousands more Chinese jobs (mining jobs, steelmill jobs, foundry jobs, transport jobs, etc.) and resultingly make many tens of thousands more Chinese workers richer, allowing them to buy hundreds of thousands more highly polluting gas fueled cars (absent the atmospheric emission restrictions of the West), in what is soon to be the world's largest car purchasing market (China). For a number of reasons, but primarily to route wind generated electricity great distances (to connect over 19,000 wind generation towers to distant cities), the massive numbers of wind generation towers planned for North America require at least 19,000 miles (or more) of much higher voltage power lines -- all of which will be manufactured by the heavily polluting and carbon-emitting coal-powered copper smelters and steel mills of China. And 19,000 miles (or more) of new Chinese manufactured higher voltage powerlines, require tens of thousands of new huge steel towers to erect that 19,000 miles (or more)of higher voltage powerline. While North Americans fancifully pretend that atmospheric carbon emissions are reduced on our planet Earth by the wind power industry, the wind industry and its lobbied and paid-off governments of the World hide from the world the wind industry's prolific "Anti-Green" and "Anti-Planet" carbon polluting on an enormous scale to manufacture its wind power equipment. The steel mills of China, to massively manufacture wind power equipment, are polluting our Earth's atmosphere with far more carbon pollution than coast-to-coast 400-foot windtowers would ever eliminate in North America.

by Denis Pakkala Apr 09 2009 6:18 PM	"Such an independent objective assessment would attempt to verify that the source was technologically, economically and environmentally sound. The net evidence to date says that wind power fails on all three counts." Wind Power is not the solution to all the worlds energy problems. It is expensive and unreliable. Don't be hippocritical though. This does not include a life cycle comparison of all the options. It is only an attack on windpower without considering all of the pros/cons of fossil fuel as well. BTW, I work primarily with fossil fuel, they are cheap and reliable. However, do a full comparison of the total life cycle costs, environmental costs and social costs of coal versus wind power. Don't just present the energy costs, as if that is a true comparison. It is misleading.

by danno1 Apr 09 2009 8:53 PM	To clarify, I am not comparing coal energy to wind energy. What I said is that the wind industry burns massive amounts of coal, releasing massive amounts of carbon into the Earth's atmosphere, to manufacture in great size and quantity its wind power equipment, doing that on the cheap in low-wage Asian countries having the dirtiest emission standards on Earth, out of sight of North American citizenry and media cameras, while mesmorizing the North American citizenry with a constant media blitz very falsely portraying itself as emission free. As you accurately state, wind power fails environmentally. As you accurately state, wind power fails economically -- [its costs are astronomical and will drive many residential electricity users bankrupt]. The wind industry is incapable of economically profiting and surviving, that is without government's enormous array of giveaways to the wind industry of taxpayer monies and citizen ratepayer monies, coupled with many of the same sorts of things that just crippled the World's economy: totally unregulated (it solely meters its own claimed production output); and it uses mind-boggling wind industry created programs that swindle taxpayer monies in schemes that are far more elaborate than the credit default swap schemes of a well-known financial company. As you accurately state, wind power is not technologically sound. It is a highly inefficient technology and a highly unreliable technology.

by Denis Pakkala Apr 09 2009 11:52 PM	Wind power is technically sound, it just should not be a large percentage of regional generation. The wind blows occasionally and wind mills rarely operate at full rated power (~30% on average would be good). The price of electricity is very low in Canada, so low that the government needs to provide subsidies to encourage any development. We need new development of base load nuclear and further development of wind, cogeneration and district heating and cooling. We need to develop more community based distributed generation, where communities understand the cost and effect of their own choices. Wind Power needs to be supported as a fledgling industry for Canadian Development and not for pollution elsewhere, as you so eloquently stated. The disaster is the low price of electricity and the massive subsidies that are going to get dumped on all tax payers, rather than the large end users of electricity. Economics is junk science because it has absolutely no value for pollution and costs to society. Law is not based on any virtuosity, but rather to allow businesses to operate without liability. If the government's laws let you pollute, it is free. All of the social costs to the land, air, people and future generations have no value, according to law and economics.

by ALLAN_MACRAE Apr 10 2009 3:53 AM	Michael J. Trebilcock is generally on the right track. If anything, he is too kind to wind power. Here is an excellent report from Germany. E.On Netz is (probably still) the largest wind power generator in the world. E.On Netz Wind Power Report 2005, Germany www.eon-netz.com/.../EON_Netz_Windreport2005_eng.pdf Capacity Factor was ~20% (" The average feed-in over the year was 1,295MW, around one fifth of the average installed wind power capacity over the year"). Perhaps more important than Capacity Factor is Substitution Factor, now ~8% and dropping to 4% by 2020 (this is "an objective measure of the extent to which wind farms are able to replace traditional power stations"). Simplifying for our politicians (in the absence of a "superbattery"): Because wind does not blow all the time, you need almost 100% conventional power station backup for installed wind power. For Mainstreet: "Wind power: it doesn't just blow, it sucks!"

by ALLAN_MACRAE Apr 10 2009 4:10 AM	EXCERPTS from E.On Netz Wind Power Report 2005, Germany www.eon-netz.com/.../EON_Netz_Windreport2005 FIGURE 5 shows the annual curve of wind power feed-in in the E.ON control area for 2004, from which it is possible to derive the wind power feed-in during the past year: 1. The highest wind power feed-in in the E.ON grid was just above 6,000MW for a brief period, or put another way the feed-in was around 85% of the installed wind power capacity at the time. 2. The average feed-in over the year was 1,295MW, around one fifth of the average installed wind power capacity over the year. 3. Over half of the year, the wind power feed-in was less than 14% of the average installed wind power capacity over the year. The feed-in capacity can change frequently within a few hours. This is shown in FIGURE 6, which reproduces the course of wind power feedin during the Christmas week from 20 to 26 December 2004. Whilst wind power feed-in at 9.15am on Christmas Eve reached its maximum for the year at 6,024MW, it fell to below 2,000MW within only 10 hours, a difference of over 4,000MW. This corresponds to the capacity of 8 x 500MW coal fired power station blocks. On Boxing Day, wind power feed-in in the E.ON grid fell to below 40MW. Handling such significant differences in feed-in levels poses a major challenge to grid operators. __________ In order to also guarantee reliable electricity supplies when wind farms produce little or no power, e.g. during periods of calm or storm-related shutdowns, traditional power station capacities must be available as a reserve. This means that wind farms can only replace traditional power station capacities to a limited degree. An objective measure of the extent to which wind farms are able to replace traditional power stations, is the contribution towards guaranteed capacity which they make within an existing power station portfolio. Approximately this capacity may be dispensed within a traditional power station portfolio, without thereby prejudicing the level of supply reliability. In 2004 two major German studies investigated the size of contribution that wind farms make towards guaranteed capacity. Both studies separately came to virtually identical conclusions, that wind energy currently contributes to the secure production capacity of the system, by providing 8% of its installed capacity. As wind power capacity rises, the lower availability of the wind farms determines the reliability of the system as a whole to an ever increasing extent. Consequently the greater reliability of traditional power stations becomes increasingly eclipsed. As a result, the relative contribution of wind power to the guaranteed capacity of our supply system up to the year 2020 will fall continuously to around 4% (FIGURE 7). In concrete terms, this means that in 2020, with a forecast wind power capacity of over 48,000MW (Source: dena grid study), 2,000MW of traditional power production can be replaced by these wind farms. ****************** Doltan McGuinty, please read this, many times until you finally get it. Ontario cannot afford your foolish energy policies.

by JohnDroz Apr 10 2009 7:53 AM	For anyone interested in a science based slideshow regarding the purported merits of wind power, see www.slideshare.net/.../energy-presentationkey-presentation. As discussed above, it covers the technical, economic and environmental aspects.

by Kent Hawkins Apr 10 2009 9:43 AM	I recommend viewing the Droz presentation. I do not understand why Pakkala persists in resorting to labelling economics as “junk” science (very questionable). The issues he raises about considerations of social costs to land, air, people and future generation, displays a lack of understanding of the effect of the use of industrial wind on an electricity system, the local community where they are installed and society as a whole. I recommend he visit whitherindustrialwindpower.wordpress.com for more information on the realities of industrial wind power. If anyone wants to see a realistic proposal for renewables (small-scale) for Ontario (and Canada) they should visit http://tgap.wordpress.com. Subsidies for industrial wind are extremely high on the basis of electricity actually delivered, which is what we use and pay for. Absolute amounts of subsidies are not as relevant. Considering that industrial wind is totally ineffective and not technically sound by any measure, subsidization is nonsensical. The exception I would make is for research and development and for technologies covered in the Green Alternative Proposal (tgap) above. It never ceases to amaze me how naïve so many people (including some scientists) are about industrial wind power based on the assertions of the wind industry, echoed by well-meaning, but uniformed environmentalists. They are not the success in Europe as we are led to believe, and will soon find out, probably the hard way.

by robertg222 Apr 10 2009 2:56 PM	You can pretty much be guaranteed that if an idea starts in the environmental movement that it's a bad idea. It's a no functional solution to the non problem of carbon. Global warming from carbon is the biggest scam in the worlds history. Mother nature is proving that with the earth temperature going down, not up like the poorly written computer models predicted.

by danno1 Apr 10 2009 2:59 PM	Kent: Subsidies paid out to wind companies for NOT YET PRODUCED and UNDELIVERED electricity are also extraordinarily high and an extreme ripoff of citizen taxpayers' and citizen ratepayers' monies. For example, a moderately sized windfarm in NY State that only became operational at the end of 2008, was in 2007 awarded by NY State Government a state grant of $65.3 million -- LONG BEFORE IT EVER GENERATED ANY ELECTRICITY. That funding came from the special tax (known as Renewable Portfolio Standard / RPS) billed monthly on each New York ratepayers' monthly electricity bill for each kilowatt hour of all electricity used. (see the final 2 paragraphs of the 18 March 2009 Malone Telegram article written by Darcy Fargo, viewable online at: www.wind-watch.org/.../noble-liens-snare-landowners ). That 2007 monetary corporate welfare handout to the wind industry of the citizenry's money is NOT based on electrical output ("MW per Hour") as there were no "MW's per Hour" being produced in 2007 by that windfarm. Instead, that monetary handout of the citizenry's money is based on theoretical maximum capacity ("MW" rating) which is determined and assigned by the wind industry's own labs. "MW" ratings which the wind industry assigns to every windfarm are NEVER electrical output. "MW" ratings of wind turbines and windfarms exist for three primary reasons: (1) to mislead the citizenry into believing each wind farm churns out far more electricity than it actually generates; (2) to obtain long term "futures contracts" (in aggregate totals far beyond any output that can ever be achieved) with businesses who are given "MW" Renewable Energy Certificated Credits printed by the wind company and transferred to each "futures contracted" business which in turn receives RPS citizen ratepayers' cash from the Government to pay back to the wind company before any electricity is ever produced; and (3) to receive from Government other preproduction huge handouts of taxpayers' and citizen ratepayers' monies in the form of Government-provided grants and subsidies. Consider the $65.3 million free handout corporate welfare dollars drained by a state Government from the citizenry for one medium sized windfarm, then multiply that by 100,000 larger windfarms to be built in North America in the next 20 years. That spells ECONOMIC DISASTER and MASSIVE POVERTY. Wind power is a complete disaster.

by jerrylemco Apr 10 2009 3:48 PM	With the excessive costs associated with wind power and the rapidly decreasing number of landowners willing to allow building of wind turbines on their land, let the dirt sucking tree hugging greenies pay the real cost of power generated by wind and solar if they so choose. Stop using my tax dollars to support an industry that has no redeeming features. Allow for individuals that want to install their own generating facility to sell to the power distributors at the going rate, not so heavily subsidized that they are literally being paid more than twice the retail price for power. If you want green - build more nukes. Larger infrastructure footprint, Canadian product and industry support, reliable cost efficient power, and as far as storage of the waste - if the government was smart they would allow for a public/private partnership to develop a for profit facility to store and monitor the waste in an abandoned underground mine or other facility and charge other governments and companies an exhorbitant price to store their waste long term.

Recent Comments

Active Tags