Increased Costs Are Blowin' in the Wind
Wind energy on the Pacific Northwest’s electricity grid has increased substantially over the years, and this is leading to a number of problems. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), the Pacific Northwest’s federal power marketing authority, is charged with integrating the large influx of wind power into the electricity grid. In 1998, the BPA’s wind generation was roughly 25 megawatts (MW). Today, it totals 2,200 MW; and, with the Oregon Renewable Portfolio Standards passed in 2007, over 6,000 MW of wind power is expected to be on-line by 2013. Often overlooked are the impacts of increasing wind generation on the reliability and affordability of electricity that very well might outweigh any of the promised environmental benefits.The negative aspects of wind power are quite apparent. Obviously, wind is unpredictable and inconsistent, which creates a significant problem for BPA and electric utilities. To prevent brownouts or overloads on the grid, BPA must schedule energy production in advance. However, the ability to predict when and how hard the wind will blow is extremely limited (usually a two- or three-day window) and often inaccurate.
Because wind power is so unpredictable, every megawatt must be backed up by an equal amount of reliable energy sources in reserve to replace the energy lost when the wind dies down. This means BPA must have a “balancing†reserve equal to or greater than the wind power capacity utilized at any given time. In the Pacific Northwest the backup source traditionally has been federally owned hydroelectric dams, which are shut on and off to respond to fluctuations in wind energy.
According to BPA, the ability of the federal hydro system to serve as a balancing reserve maxes out between 3,000 and 3,500 MW of installed wind generation. This means that BPA can only back up roughly half of the projected increase in wind power. In the near future, BPA will be forced to consider other options to establish a satisfactory reserve for integrating the large influx of unreliable energy.
Some efforts to rectify the integration problem include evaluating the feasibility of dynamic scheduling, which means breaking down the periods of time wind generation is scheduled (e.g. from hour-to-hour to 30-minute increments). Additionally, BPA is analyzing better ways to forecast wind speed and is researching storage technologies (such as compressed air or flywheel technology). Such advances are generally far-off, or would fail to address the problem completely. Therefore, BPA eventually will be forced either to buy additional dispatchable generation capacity from third-party suppliers or to build additional backup capacity. This leads to additional costs for BPA, the utilities which purchase power from BPA, and ultimately Oregon ratepayers.
Where this additional backup energy comes from is a critical question. PGE has begun the permitting process for a natural-gas fired plant in North-Central Oregon, and plans for a second natural gas plant in 2015 are underway. These plants will become even more necessary as the ability to use hydroelectric dams as backup is strained and wind generation capacity keeps expanding due to legislative mandates.
Building new natural gas facilities to serve as a backup for additional wind sources has several related problems. First, natural gas is subject to price volatility, similar to buying gasoline at the pump. Uncertainty in production and delivery lead to significant fluctuations in natural gas costs. Further, natural gas facilities produce greenhouse gas emissions, which at least partly negates the purpose of the renewable energy mandates. Thus, not only are electricity rates increasing because of additional wind generation, but the subsequent increase of natural gas reliance further exacerbates the problem by introducing volatility.
In 2009, BPA requested the Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC) to allow an electricity rate increase to reflect the costs of integrating wind. BPA proposed an increase of $2.79 per kilowatt-month, and the OPUC set the final rate increase at $1.29. According to BPA, the associated costs of the $1.29 rate increase broke down as follows: $0.05 for regulatory expenses, $0.26 for load following (e.g. wind forecasting) and $0.98 to correct imbalances (e.g. balancing reserves such as natural gas or hydro). The previous rate of $0.68 per kilowatt-month did not reflect the costs associated with imbalances in wind production. The new rate represents a doubling of wind integration costs, and this rate will continue to increase as more wind energy is added to the grid. These additional costs are eventually passed on to Oregon ratepayers.
It does not seem wise to promote and force Oregonians to purchase an energy source that has so many associated costs. At best, wind power simply replaces a clean, reliable and affordable source of energy: hydroelectricity. At worst, it invites increased price volatility, increased rates, and the prospect of more greenhouse gas-emitting facilities. Ultimately, increasing wind generation leads to financial burdens on businesses and individuals across the state that ought to be considered further. Legislators should not attempt to choose “winners†in emerging energy technologies, nor should they force costly energy sources upon ratepayers. Instead, utilities should allow ratepayers to pay the full cost of renewable energy voluntarily and to expand renewable energy according to ratepayer demand.
Todd Wynn is the climate change and energy policy analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon's free market public policy research organization.
According to BPA, the ability of the federal hydro system to serve as a balancing reserve maxes out between 3,000 and 3,500 MW of installed wind generation. This means that BPA can only back up roughly half of the projected increase in wind power. In the near future, BPA will be forced to consider other options to establish a satisfactory reserve for integrating the large influx of unreliable energy.
Some efforts to rectify the integration problem include evaluating the feasibility of dynamic scheduling, which means breaking down the periods of time wind generation is scheduled (e.g. from hour-to-hour to 30-minute increments). Additionally, BPA is analyzing better ways to forecast wind speed and is researching storage technologies (such as compressed air or flywheel technology). Such advances are generally far-off, or would fail to address the problem completely. Therefore, BPA eventually will be forced either to buy additional dispatchable generation capacity from third-party suppliers or to build additional backup capacity. This leads to additional costs for BPA, the utilities which purchase power from BPA, and ultimately Oregon ratepayers.
Where this additional backup energy comes from is a critical question. PGE has begun the permitting process for a natural-gas fired plant in North-Central Oregon, and plans for a second natural gas plant in 2015 are underway. These plants will become even more necessary as the ability to use hydroelectric dams as backup is strained and wind generation capacity keeps expanding due to legislative mandates.
Building new natural gas facilities to serve as a backup for additional wind sources has several related problems. First, natural gas is subject to price volatility, similar to buying gasoline at the pump. Uncertainty in production and delivery lead to significant fluctuations in natural gas costs. Further, natural gas facilities produce greenhouse gas emissions, which at least partly negates the purpose of the renewable energy mandates. Thus, not only are electricity rates increasing because of additional wind generation, but the subsequent increase of natural gas reliance further exacerbates the problem by introducing volatility.
In 2009, BPA requested the Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC) to allow an electricity rate increase to reflect the costs of integrating wind. BPA proposed an increase of $2.79 per kilowatt-month, and the OPUC set the final rate increase at $1.29. According to BPA, the associated costs of the $1.29 rate increase broke down as follows: $0.05 for regulatory expenses, $0.26 for load following (e.g. wind forecasting) and $0.98 to correct imbalances (e.g. balancing reserves such as natural gas or hydro). The previous rate of $0.68 per kilowatt-month did not reflect the costs associated with imbalances in wind production. The new rate represents a doubling of wind integration costs, and this rate will continue to increase as more wind energy is added to the grid. These additional costs are eventually passed on to Oregon ratepayers.
It does not seem wise to promote and force Oregonians to purchase an energy source that has so many associated costs. At best, wind power simply replaces a clean, reliable and affordable source of energy: hydroelectricity. At worst, it invites increased price volatility, increased rates, and the prospect of more greenhouse gas-emitting facilities. Ultimately, increasing wind generation leads to financial burdens on businesses and individuals across the state that ought to be considered further. Legislators should not attempt to choose “winners†in emerging energy technologies, nor should they force costly energy sources upon ratepayers. Instead, utilities should allow ratepayers to pay the full cost of renewable energy voluntarily and to expand renewable energy according to ratepayer demand.
Todd Wynn is the climate change and energy policy analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon's free market public policy research organization.
Does that make sense?
Should be pretty easy to do.
Remember, with global warming we will not be able to count on the Columbia for much longer for hydro power. No snow = no water in the river. This will happen soon I predict. In about 3-5 years there will be no snowpack in the area that feeds this once mighty river.
Wind is the only way to go, as it will always be there, in some form or another, at least part of the time.
Much like the massive earth moving projects through the ages, the pyramids, the Geat Wall of China, the various large scale public works projects of the Soviet and Chinese regimes, the purpose is two fold, with neither purpose being the accomplishment of the stated and apparent goal.
The first purpose is distraction of the populace - keep them busy on a tangential activity lest they grow restless and think. If the people on task, and hopefully they will be too distracted to dwell upon replacing the leadership.
The second purpose is more mundane. The projects are essentially money laundering operations. Leadership wants to reward favoured people or groups with money taken from the populace. The cheif perk of power is being able to take money from one person and give it to another. THe power to enrich friends and impoverish enemies. Therefore the populace is taxed, the money spent on a ridiculous project both siphoning off the money to cronies as well as providing an effective camouflage for the activity.
We see this present day - Ethanol, once an acknowledged Bob Dole corn farm scam in the 70's became a darling in the 90's. Present day no one argues it does anything of real value, yet wealth transfer from the populace to favoured groups continues under the program. Would leadership eliminate ethanol to improve peoples lives? Gas milage would be increased without it and gasoline would be cheaper with no down side other than lower engine repair bills?
Of course not. The people have grown used to lower gas mileage, and that means more tax money, wealth transfer, is accomplished. Peoples lives would improve slightly with the stroke of a pen should the mandates be lifted. Government will not do this however because it wants the extra tax money and does not want to anger corn farmer cronies.
Another example - Tax credits, such as the BETC - Currently a windmill has no real market value. A device which outputs power at above market rate is a science project, not a means of production in the industrial sense.
However it such science projects do serve as an excellent conduit to channel money to favoured groups. The windmill is an operating expense much like the cost of shipping boxes is to a mail order merchant. The product is not the cardboard box or the windmill, they are simply means to an end. Is it any accident that such tax credits, like the BETC end up costing orders of magnitude more than original projections? Of course not, the task at hand is wealth transfer, when you are shipping out money, ship it out fast lest the populace catch on. The scam is predictable as it is timeless. The only thing surprising about it is that the populace does not question the basis of the scam in the least. That is to say, if the core of the scam is temperatures rising by one or two percent 100 years out, then why are cost predictions for tax credits orders of magnitude off in the span of a couple of years?
If he does not, what kind of a prof could he be? The proof is in.
All scientists agree.
And without snow there isn't much water for the Columbia.
We need wind power now to offset this loss that is most assuredly coming and coming soon.
"It does not seem wise to promote and force Oregonians to purchase an energy source that has so many associated costs. At best, wind power simply replaces a clean, reliable and affordable source of energy: hydroelectricity."
First, Oregonians are not being "forced" to purchase wind energy. Regulated utility companies are being forced to provide a certain percent of renewable energy, which could come from wind, solar, waves, tides, geothermal, biomass, or some other source. It so happens wind is currently the cheapest of the bunch so this is what they are buying and then re-selling to those of us who freely choose to hook up to the grid. No one forces any of us to do so.
Second, wind is not replacing Hydro. When the wind blows the hydro can be stored for use later, or the water can be used for other purposes. Wind augments hydro and stretches out its availability, it does not "replace" it.
Third, Todd ignores the fact that demand for electricity is projected to increase, and that increase has to be met by new generation facilities. Hydro is maxed out, coal is filthy, nuclear is problematic and expensive, so renewables and abundant and relatively clean natural gas in some combination are logical ways to build capacity. Beyond that, private rural landowners in Oregon are making money off of Oregon wind. Would we really rather have coal companies in eastern states making the money? Or oil sheiks?
As for Rupert's "analysis," I'll just say it is not an analysis, it is a conduit for generating confusion, and leave it at that.
Your Hydro analysis is misleading. In the Status Quo we shut down turbines when the wind blows strong. Reservoirs cannot fill up forever, so while some augmentation likely occurs, it is at best minimal. Further, the act of shutting off a hydroelectric dam is in-and-of itself problematic.
I will concede that rural communities make money off wind power, but if this money is necessary to SUSTAIN quality of life then we have much deeper problems than a simple wind farm subsidy would alleviate.
Finally, increasing demand for energy could certainly be met by repealing Oregon's ban on the construction of nuclear power facilities. Private investors exist who would invest in the construction of such a facility, but federal red-tape and (in this case) state-level regulations prevent us from exploring a source of power which is infinitely safer than it used to be, far more efficient and cost-effect than anything currently utilized, and whose waste problems are being almost entirely mitigated in the current generation of reactor designs.
Conservatives are often referred to in such a manner but in fact we are the crowd who is realistic. Those wind farms are heavily subsidized so their success will always be a matter of speculation. Those federal subsidies will be paid for by our children and grandchildren well after the dreamers have passed and left nothing but the bills to posterity.
It's silly to say we aren't being forced into buying wind power. If utilities are forced to create it and put it on the grid we all pay for it.
Let's face it, power generation and usage is more politics than markets. Mandates distort the market while subsidies allow rent seekers to thrive. We lack a realistic approach to energy in this country and will be subject to inefficiencies because of that. Unfortunately we cannot afford inefficiencies any longer, we're broke.
WHAT a Joke.
Breaking Wind
On Earth Day, President Obama held up a model he wants America to Emulate: "Denmark produces almost 20 percent of their electricity through wind power," he chided. But Denmark rues the day it got into the wind business. Because wind is so volatile and unpredictable, the Danes have had to use 50 percent more coal-generated electricity to cover its power gaps, causing their carbon emissions to go UP 36 percent. They have yet to close a fossil-fuel plant, have lost 2.2 jobs for every "green" one they've gained, according to The (Canada) National Post. So no, the answer's not blowing in the wind - it's bubbling beneath the surface.
General Electric (which owns NBC) is big in to wind power (its their windmills, built in China). No wonder they are big global warming proponents! They make big taxpayer bucks off this scam.
Due, in part, to lack of power.
To emmulate them is to be seek poverty for our entire nation.
This thoroughly modern market economy features a high-tech agricultural sector, state-of-the-art industry with world-leading firms in pharmaceuticals, maritime shipping and alternative energy, and a high dependence on foreign trade . The Danish economy is also characterized by extensive government welfare measures, an equitable distribution of income, and comfortable living standards . Denmark is a net exporter of food and energy and enjoys a comfortable balance of payments surplus .
They were running a budget surplus until this past year, and have the 9th highest per capita exports in the world. Their latest unemployment rate was about 4.4%, which is a lot better than ours. They have a positive trade balance. They are 5th in the world in nominal GDP per capita, ahead of the United States. They have zero poverty, the world's lowest level of income inequality, and the world's highest minimum wage. We could do a lot worse than emulating them.
No Bennie, that's not it. They are in fact selling us their windmills by the boat load and laughing all the way to the bank. That a nation of 5 million socialists can be selling energy generators to a nation of 300 million capitalists is quite a hoot. A profitable hoot.
Steve writes: "Conservatives are often referred to in such a manner but in fact we are the crowd who is realistic."
Realistic? Please. Modern conservatives have drifted so far from reality they would not know it if it bit them. See Bennie and Jerry comments for a small sample, as in Denmark can't possibly be rich because they are all socialist bicycle riders who get 25% of their electricity from naffordable wind. Impossible they say. Reality is impossible.
"Those wind farms are heavily subsidized so their success will always be a matter of speculation."
Their success is already quite measurable, in electrons delivered and money paid back to investors. Yes they get subsidies, So does every other form of commercial energy. Obama just announced the government is going to guarentee 100% of the capital cost of 2 new nukes. And we are going to take responsibility for the waste generated. You think that is not a subsidy? You think wars to secure oil are not a subsidy? You think allowing our air and rivers to be polluted (coal) is not a subsidy?
"It's silly to say we aren't being forced into buying wind power. "
No it isn't. It is reality. We are not forced to buy any power. Any of us can have our meter shut off tomorrow and buy a gasoline fired generator if we prefer noise and stink and higher cost. Or you can go solar. Lots of options.
"Let's face it, power generation and usage is more politics than markets."
On this we agree. Electrical power sale is a regulated monopoly, hence the means of production is largely politics. There is no free market when it comes to buying electrons over the grid. Never has been and never will be. It was sort of tried until Enron showed what happens. Entire states get held hostage. The free market at work.
Since he is one of those making a living from windmills, his arguments should probably be taken with that in mind.
Since the way I make my living requires fairly large use of electrical power, and I am forced to subsidize the windmill industry due to that, my arguments should probably be taken with that in mind.
No, I do not get my power from Denmark, where apparently everything works really well, except I guess the snow....during global warming summits.
"Since the way I make my living requires fairly large use of electrical power ..."
Your hydropower is subsidized by taxpayers across the nation, developed and paid for by the Federal government. You have among the cheapest electrical rates anywhere and you feel entitled? Go buy yourself a generator fueled by the Middle eastern oil and you can avoid paying the small increment in your bill that subsidizes alternative energy.
Dean, you truly are a classless bore you are.
I have acknowledged on here, in virtually every windmill discussion that you make part of your living as described. We all know the Dean genius rant, your employment is no mystery. Get over yourself, feeding at the trough isn't exactly difficult or something to be proud of, but few of us would maintain it is not lucrative.
Yet you act like its the first time I have ever mentioned your expertise.
So, this does provide an educational opportunity. Your inability to ever admit you are wrong, thus your condemnation to never being able to learn.
In this example its pretty simple:
I acknowledge your expertise, that surprises you because it is inconsistent with what you anticipate from me.
You then have a choice, aknowlege to yourself that the initial assesment was wrong, or pretend that the inconsistancy with your initial assessment did not happen. In other words pretend I never acknowledged your expertise, or forget about it real quick.
Obviously you can never pick the first, since you can never admit when you are wrong.
Thus you choose the latter - the event never happened.
The result? Each time I acknowledge your expertise in something it is an entirely new event.
Exactly as we see here.
>Your hydropower is subsidized by taxpayers across the nation, developed and paid for by the Federal government. You have among the cheapest electrical rates anywhere and you feel entitled?
What are you claiming I said I was entitled to?
My not feeling I should be scammed to enrich those with pull is entitlement?
>Go buy yourself a generator fueled by the Middle eastern oil and you can avoid paying the small increment in your bill that subsidizes alternative energy.
Sorry Dean, That is illegal. You are not allowed to compete with the power company in that manner. If you were I would have set up hydro power on my stream long ago.
You would know that if you knew what you are talking about. You know trees and how to run windmill scams. You do not know what a government granted monopoly is however.
Oh well.
Right. But sucking up taxpayer subsidized electricity for your business and bitching about government is something to be proud of? If it wasn't for people like you who over use electricity, we would not need any wind turbines.
"Yet you act like its the first time I have ever mentioned your expertise."
I don't care if it is the first or 100th time. Its a transparent attempt to discredit what I say based on what you want people to believe is an insincere position. Its called poisoning the well. You can't make an argument on facts so your try and discredit those with facts.
"I acknowledge your expertise, that surprises you because it is inconsistent with what you anticipate from me. "
What I anticipate from you is exactly what you did. Change the subject when you are losing an argument. You are as predictable as December rains.
"What are you claiming I said I was entitled to?"
Use your imagination. Cheap taxpayer subsidized electricity.
"You are not allowed to compete with the power company in that manner."
Who said anything about competing with them? Disconnecting from the grid and buying your own generator is illegal? Interesting. Solar collectors must also be illegal then.
"So, this does provide an educational opportunity. Your inability to ever admit you are wrong, thus your condemnation to never being able to learn."
OK, you opened yourself up to this. I posted a pretty detailed item the other day showing you were wrong 6 times in a single post and you did not bother respond, let alone admit. You ran and hid, and now you dare to cast that stone again.
And by the way, do you still think Scott Brown ran only on fillibustering? Looks like you have been bragging over another Olympia Snowe.
Energy Credits by the millions going to companys out of state.
Why don't we just start paying companies moving expenses to move to other states. Save us a lot of money that we don't have. Then we can plow under their warehouses, manufacturing facilities and farms and plant poppies.
Flower power.
Green on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How much are our rural areas worth? These turbines destroy the quality of rural areas. They transform them into industrial zones. The wind industry says they need 60 acres per megawatt. Energy sprawl! That is probably a bigger concern here in the Northeast than out there, where you have less population density.
Philosophically, I am more similar to Dean. I agree that the ways that we have conventionally generated electricity are full of problems. But wind is not the answer. Energy conservation and greater grid efficiency are what we should be working on.
Energy conservation is crucial, but probably not sufficient in the long run.
As for conservation and efficiency, I went to a panel at Penn State, Erie campus, and one of the energy experts there said that with greater efficiency of the grid, we could have savings of 40%. Even if the proposed grid changes are not implemented, just a strong public service message of reducing energy use could vitiate the need for wind turbines. Wind is only currently supplying 1.7% of US electricity energy at the moment. So with doubling the number of turbines, we are still talking about less than 4% of usage. A strong public service message would result in that reduction.
This is not an issue of wind replacing coal or nuclear. It will never happen. Environmentalists need to ask themselves, how many ways are we going to find to depredate nature so that people can have their air-conditioning? I find it appalling that these turbines are seen as "green." They are not. They are an expensive boondoggle and the stimulus money Obama is putting into these should instead be spend on giving grants for home insulation and solar paneling. That would create the jobs, not these turbines made in China.
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/wind_maps/ny_80m.pdf
Absent tax subsidies, wind would not be competitive with coal fired plants. No nuclear plants have been built in the US for decades. Too expensive.
"Yes, turbines do destroy rural areas."
I meant not ALL rural areas. In some they don't belong. It is largely a scale issue. In very large scale landscapes like the plains, the towers do not dwarf the surroundings. I like the War of the Worlds metaphor by the way.
"This is not an issue of wind replacing coal or nuclear."
I agree. Wind cannot fully replace conventional sources. It can prevent new coal plants and help phase out some old ones.
"Obama is putting into these should instead be spend on giving grants for home insulation and solar paneling. "
There is a lot of money in the stimulus for weatherization and solar.
"That would create the jobs, not these turbines made in China. "
Most of what we import is from Europe. But there are also a lot of wind and wind parts manufacturing in the US. At least 14,000 jobs at last count.
I'm not trying to talk you into anything or to diminish your concerns, but I think wind power is here to stay until something better comes along.
The point I am trying to make is that eventually we have to deal with limits. The more we, as a society, postpone this, the crazier will be the schemes to generate energy. And yes, I think that wind is crazy. We take up our wild areas and transform them into something hideous.
Since wind is literally just a drop in the bucket in terms of energy generation, why not focus on conservation instead? There is a great deal of wastefulness in terms of our energy-usage. Eventually you will have no more hills to put turbines on, no more coal to dig, and lots of problems from nuclear. So what does that mean? Lifestyle change. And we should start now. How about the law-makers doing more to allow people to generate their own electricity and sell it back to the grid? Electricity should be taxed higher as well, so people will conserve more or go off the grid.
The reason why these wind developments are going up has to do with the government's willingness to sell anything, even our landscapes, if it constributes to "growth." I do not think that anyone really cares anymore about our sacred places, not even the "environmental" politicians. Not even Ed Rendell, not even Obama.