Hi 8° | Lo -6°

Letter: Myths about wind energy

Re “Two Views: Should New Hampshire suspend wind energy projects?” (Monitor Forum, Jan. 25):

Rep. Harold Reilly uses obsolete myths to attack wind energy. The data show wind energy is reliable and greatly benefits consumers and the environment. Wind energy reduces U.S. carbon pollution by 100 million tons annually, a critical contribution to fighting climate change’s harmful impact on our state’s recreation industries.

Reilly cites the myth that wind’s emissions savings are reduced because of a supposed need for backup. Last fall, independent analyses of real-world power plant emissions data confirmed that a MWh of wind energy saves 1,190 pounds of CO2 on average, with any negative impact on other power plants isolated to a negligible 0.2 percent. In reality, large fossil and nuclear power plants require expensive and inefficient backup, as they fail instantly and without warning, while changes in wind output are gradual and predictable. Second, while some wind projects have occasionally reduced their output, that occurred because the local power grid is weak and would have happened to any power plant at that location. Regardless, the grid has already been upgraded to prevent future wind curtailment. Iowa and South Dakota reliably produce 20-plus percent of their electricity from wind, nine states are above 10 percent, and at times Colorado and Texas have been above 60 percent and 35 percent wind-powered respectively.

Wind energy leaders have only increased renewable policies and deployment after seeing the benefits for consumers and the environment, with none reducing them as falsely claimed by Reilly. New Hampshire has wisely decided to follow their lead in deploying the energy technologies of the 21st century.



Legacy Comments7

E.ON Netz, Germany's grid manager in it's “2005 Wind Report” stated on page 4: Wind energy is only able to replace traditional power stations to a limited extent. ...wind power has a limited load factor even when technically available.....Consequently, traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the installed wind power capacity must be permanently online in order to guarantee power supply at all times." 90% spinning reserve?! This means we're not reducing greenhouse gas emissions. On page 9: ..."In concrete terms, this means that in 2020, with a forecast wind power capacity of over 48,000 MW, 2,000 MW of traditional power production can be replaced by these wind farms." So... In Germany (where everyone is super smart) 24,000! 2MW wind turbines might replace one traditional power generator. Using the same math: If New England wanted to put in place enough wind turbines to replace Vermont Yankee, it would take 7,200 of these monsters. That's one turbine for every 3 mile by 3 mile block of land in New England. One in EVERY back yard in New England! We know that won't fly. So developers pick the poorest backwoods town that they can find...woo the locals with promises of tax relief (at everyone else’s expense) and then proceed to shove these projects right down the throats of everyone in the sacrificial zone. Meanwhile further emptying the coffers of America at a time when we absolutely can't afford to be wasting money on technology that works so poorly. If I've got to be sacrificed, let it be for technology that WORKS. Hydro, landfill gas, "sustainably" built biomass , cowpower, and solar (which is less variable, more forcastable AND can be installed right where it is needed. On rooftops first , and then as a last resort in “back 40's” all across the state.) Folks from NH might think they are in favor of industrial wind until they take a closer look at the issue. They don't look at the issue until they are faced with it being in their backyard.

The 'myths' stated here are Bob's and the Wind Industry's, not Skip Reilly's. NH's wind levels are puny compared to those in Iowa and South Dakota, as Bob no doubt knows, so trying to compare results is just more 'Big Wind'. And as for the need of backup generation, what are customers supposed to do for power when the wind isn't blowing, as anyone in NH can see is a frequent occurance? Let's have our existing Wind projects show us their daily power output so we can judge how reliably they are producing power. After we subsidize them with our tax dollars and then pay even higher electricity rates for their power, new powerlines, REC's (sold to fossil fueled powerplants so they can continue to produce power), and paying for and running backup powerplants for when the wind changes or quits, the least they could do is show us the daily, or better yet hourly, power they produce. Instead, after we pay for all this, they say that innformation is 'confidential'. Show Us The Power!

THERE HAS BEEN NO - NONE - NADA - GLOBULL WARMING FOR 17 YEARS !!!!! - HEADINES: - NASA and NOAA Confirm Global Temperature Standstill Continues Date: 21/01/14. In a joint press conference NOAA and NASA have just released data for the global surface temperature for 2013. In summary they both show that the ‘pause’ in global surface temperature that began in 1997 2) Obama admits his climate agenda won't curb global warming Read more: 3) windmills wont make a hill of beans in the alarmists myth on reducing globull warming

Now if we could harness hot air, I'd say we could make a difference..........

Nonsense post approaching #--- on the topic of denying the reality of climate change.That cut-n-paste headline claim does NOT come from scientists. It's spin from the deniers-- a lie bought and paid for by the likes of the Koch Brothers, and other fossil fuel industry plutocrats. The warming is real, it's on-going. The claim is made is by cherry-picking the start date of a graph of land surface temps. It’s a deliberate manipulation of the facts by deniers to make a claim intended to deceive. Here are links to some of the actual science on the issue: And more from scientists on how the deniers (nearly all non-scientists—particularly the most vocal) “Making a big deal of the "pause"/slowdown since 1998 essentially ignores that such a slowdown occurred immediately after a large jump in surface temperatures. Of course, if you start your analysis prior to 1998, the slowdown isn't nearly as evident.” “Given how fast global temperature was rising prior to 1998, the real surprise which followed is not that temperatures slowed or stopped their increase … the real surprise is that temperatures rose so far so fast and were so damn hot. Even allowing for the existing trend... If we had chosen the 1998 boundary because we had been visited by an omniscient alien in January of 1998, then maybe we would. But I didn’t pick 1998 because of that. I picked it because so-called “skeptics” picked it, and they chose it because of the result it gives. Which makes it cherry picking.”

Yes it needn't be a wind farm to run afoul of the NWES's.(Not within eye shot). A long time friend had a single small wind turbine for home use and you could have sworn that he was erecting bill boards for the incessant whining they emitted. Yes NH is all for the environments long as they don't have to see it. Let's bisect the country with the keystone pipeline but don't run a power line thru our state. NH `transplants - gotta luv em.

Bob, New Hampshire residents aren't against wind power; it's OK with them as long as it's not placed in their neighborhood!

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.