Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99

Op-Eds

News Opinion Op-Eds

Wind farms aren't the answer to cutting Md.'s greenhouse gas emissions

Constellation Energy held a ribbon cutting ceremony this week for its new wind farm in Western Maryland. This project is fortunately small compared to what Gov. Martin O'Malley plans for offshore of the Maryland coast and will not present a major increase in the cost of electricity to Maryland residents, but it is a success for the consistently politically correct green politicians.

The problem with wind power is that electricity cannot be stored on an industrial scale, so standby power sources must be available to immediately come on line to make up for periods when the wind doesn't blow or when the wind is blowing too hard. In the former case the windmill simply stops, and in the latter the windmill is shut down to keep the blades from flying off.

The poster child for wind power is the offshore 2,000 megawatt wind farm in Denmark which is billed as providing 20 percent of that nation's power requirements. In fact, the wind farm's power production hardly ever reaches the stated capacity, and there are long periods when there is essentially no power coming from this facility at all. On average, the Denmark wind farm produces about 30 percent of its design capacity. No fossil fuel power plants were shut down as a result of its construction, but by necessity they provide standby power when the wind turbines operate below design capacity.

There are two options with wind turbine installations: Either provide 100 percent standby capacity or accept that power supply will be extremely unpredictable with unplanned power outages. Wind turbine proponents tend to downplay the investment requirements for standby equipment. In an ideal situation, gas turbines would be installed specifically to make up for the wide variations in wind farm power production.

In the practical world, base load demand is met by burning fossil fuels or by nuclear fission to produce steam to drive turbine generators. Power plants must have the capability to instantaneously increase production when a light switch, coffee pot, toaster or electric hot water heater comes on, and during the peak of the day during hot weather when air conditioners come into use. In addition to this residential consumption are businesses that require different levels of power supply during the day.

Power providers expect this to happen, and based on the time of day and season, they bring on standby equipment. This known variable requirement is called the diurnal cycle. Erratic unplanned variations in wind power cannot be scheduled into the cycle.

When wind turbines come onto the grid, they will essentially replace base load power production. But because wind power is unreliable, traditional base load boilers must continue to burn fossil fuel. They function as spinning reserves to respond to increases and decreases in wind speed and maintain boiler temperatures near that required to instantaneously increase power production. With increased wind power, the energy displaced in the base load power is wasted. Studies of existing systems with wind turbines on average providing 1 percent of the total power show that there is no savings in fossil fuel. When the wind power is at 2 percent there is an increase in fossil fuel used by the base load plants.

Bentek Energy analyzed records from Colorado and Texas, which have significant wind turbine installations. The company concluded that in spite of the large investments, wind turbine installations had a negligible impact on carbon dioxide production. Despite the presence of windmills connected to the grid, Colorado's coal-fired plants produced more carbon dioxide because of repeated cycling in 2009. In Texas, use of wind mills resulted in a slight reduction in carbon dioxide in 2008 and a modest increase in 2009.

In Europe, Denmark and Germany have installed significant wind turbine capacity, and the cost of power is very high because of the subsidies that are necessary to make windmills viable. France has the lowest power costs in Europe. It relies to a small degree on wind power, but nuclear plants provide 80 percent of the nation's requirements.

Wind turbines will do nothing for carbon dioxide reduction and provide little actual net power. Wind farm installations will not reduce the fuel used in the existing power plants, and in a replay of the deregulation debacle in Maryland, consumers will pay subsidies for wind power investments through increased power rates.

To reduce carbon dioxide production, provide secure domestic power, minimize power costs, and not be tied to fossil fuels with unpredictable prices, Maryland should adopt the French strategy of nuclear power with reprocessing of spent fuel rods. If there is political resistance to nuclear power, then the state should accept increased carbon dioxide with new plants fueled by domestic natural gas and avoid the unpleasant and costly surprises of wind power.

Charles Campbell is a retired senior vice president of Gulf Oil Corporation. He lives in Woodstock. His email is lochawe@verizon.net.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Holding one's breath, GOP style

    Holding one's breath, GOP style

    Last month, the Obama administration announced tougher Clean Air Act rules intended to reduce ground-level ozone, the chief component of the smog that plagues the Baltimore-Washington area and much of the nation. With at least half the pollution blowing into Maryland from the burning of fossil...

  • GDP must consider environmental costs

    GDP must consider environmental costs

    The Sun's recent editorial about the GOP's intention to gut the EPA's authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions touches on an important economic issue ("Holding one's breath, GOP-style," Dec. 9).

  • Smog limits are badly needed

    Smog limits are badly needed

    Maryland has the worst air on the East Coast and highest premature death rate in the nation. National Academy of Sciences data suggest that health impacts resulting from fossil fuels cost $73 per household per month in Maryland and are a drag on the economy. Yet conservative deniers and their self-serving,...

  • City smog threatens our health and the economy

    City smog threatens our health and the economy

    The EPA's recent decision to tighten limits on smog pollution is commendable and necessary ("Holding one's breath, GOP style," Dec. 8).

  • Carbon fee is bipartisan solution to climate change

    Carbon fee is bipartisan solution to climate change

    Missing from John Fritze's summary of President Barack Obama's State of the Union address ("Obama turns populist in State of the Union speech," Jan. 21) are his comments on the greatest threat to future generations — climate change. I applaud President Obama for bringing up this difficult issue...

  • Stricter ozone standards would be disastrous for the economy

    Stricter ozone standards would be disastrous for the economy

    Your editorial on ozone regulations suggests we would have no national ozone standards at all without the EPA's onerous new regulations ("Holding one's breath, GOP style," Dec. 8). Not true. The current ozone standards of 75 parts per billion (ppb) are the most stringent in history. Issued in 2008,...

  • Coping with climate change

    Coping with climate change

    A recent letter to the editor points out that a solution to climate change is available that could be supported by Republicans ("Carbon fee is bipartisan solution to climate change," Jan 22).

  • Climate change represents the gravest threat to civilization

    Climate change represents the gravest threat to civilization

    Ever think how climate change and rising temperatures could endanger our society and our atmosphere? Climate change is a problem that is not only continental but also universal.

Comments
Loading

75°