Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99

Readers Respond

News Opinion Readers Respond

Wind energy reduces fossil fuel use and emissions

As wind energy makes increasing headway in reducing America's dependence on fossil fuels and the harmful emissions associated with their use, the fossil fuel industry has launched an increasingly desperate misinformation campaign to muddy the waters about these indisputable benefits of clean energy. The latest attack comes in a Baltimore Sun op-ed by Mr. Charles Campbell, a retired senior vice president of the Gulf Oil Corporation ("Wind farms wrong answer to Md.'s greenhouse gas emissions," July 25).

Mr. Campbell's op-ed is marred by numerous false statements and a serious misunderstanding of how the power grid operates. One only need to look to Iowa or Texas, which last year produced 15 percent and 8 percent of their electricity from wind respectively, to see that adding wind to the grid actually improves power system reliability.

Moreover, there is no need to "back up" wind output as he claims. How is this possible? The output of wind plants is aggregated with all of the other changes in electricity supply and demand on a massive interstate power grid. Even though many of those sources of supply and demand are changing unpredictably (think of factories coming on and offline, people turning air conditioners on and off, fossil-fired power plants breaking down unexpectedly), together their combined output is stable and manageable.

Compared to these other changes, both onshore and offshore wind are relatively easy for grid operators to integrate, as changes in wind energy output occur slowly and are predictable. In fact, it would be far more appropriate to talk about the need to back up large fossil and nuclear power plants. They are the ones that experience large, immediate, and unexpected outages, requiring grid operators to keep 1,000-plus megawatts of fast acting, expensive and inefficient standby generation ready 24/7 in case one of those plants goes down.

U.S. Department of Energy data conclusively show that states that have ramped up their wind energy output over the last several years, like Colorado and Texas, have seen major reductions in air pollution emissions. In addition, every independent grid operator that has examined the issue has found that adding wind energy to the grid results in significant reductions in fossil fuel use and emissions.

Michael Goggin,Washington

The writer is manager of transmission policy for the American Wind Energy Association.

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

79°