7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 1/23

Home (/) » Opinion (http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/)Become a Supporting Member | AdFree Login (http://member.sltrib.com) | Login

Share This Article

Oped: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind powerBy Randy T. Simmons and Jordan Lofthouse

First Published Mar 07 2015 03:00PM    •    Last Updated Mar 07 2015 03:00 pm

(http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489158/opedstopdumpingbillionsintounreliable?pid=2263424)

(| Courtesy Photo) Jordan Lofthouse

           (/csp/mediapool/sites/sltrib/pages/printfriendly.csp?id=2254489)

search sltrib.com

continue to article

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 2/23

 

MYSNORINGSOLUTION • SPONSORED

Are You Snoring Yourself to Death?

Snoring is the most common symptom of a potentially serious healthproblem - obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)

Learn More

�

(/csp/mediapool/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=n$K_3I27RAILiiMqStajU8$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYvf9mhvKlurTxUYUeJQFtfcWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_CryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ

&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg)

(/csp/mediapool/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=cfnJWjUYx9I00gEx0Z3Ue8$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYtW8RCh6o$j7wmPTM4T6wQGWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_CryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ

&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg)

During George W. Bush's administration, the Department of Energy set a wildly unrealistic goal to have 20 percent of the nation's electricity come from wind by 2030. Now,the Obama Administration wishes to fulfill that goal by passing permanent subsidies for wind power.

Wind power has gained a reputation as the future of energy generation, but few wind power advocates seem willing to answer the pertinent question, "What happens whenthe wind doesn't blow?" Honestly answering that question means we must acknowledge how undeniably unreliable wind power is. The next logical step should be to stopdumping tens of billions of taxpayer dollars into such a fickle energy source.

ARTICLE PHOTO GALLERY (2)

Share This Article

In 2014, wind energy only supplied 1.6 percent of total U.S. energy consumption. But, with the growing list of tax incentives, subsidies, federal goals and mandates for wind,we must consider all the implications of boosting wind's market share.

The first problem with wind is inconsistency. Wind's inability to supply electricity on a consistent basis renders it dependent on more reliable sources of energy for backup,such as nuclear, coal and natural gas. Wind energy can supplement these conventional sources, but it's not capable of supplying the base load of power that the countryneeds.

The inconsistency of wind power also forces us to "cycle" coal, natural gas and hydropower generators in the background so that we can kick them into high gear when thewind stops blowing. Cycling presents its own set of economic and environmental problems, but this is the only way grid operators can drastically increase electricity outputwhenever demand increases unexpectedly.

The second problem with wind is its low productivity. The amount of energy a wind farm actually produces on average pales in comparison to the energy that it could at fullcapacity. Wind power only produces its full capacity 20 to 40 percent of the time, as opposed to 70 to 90 percent for coalfired power, or 60 to 100 percent for nuclear power.

The third problem with wind is the inordinate amount of space required to produce a reasonable amount of energy. Consistent wind blowing at the right speed would requirean area about the size of Texas to meet 2005 U.S. electricity demands. However, because wind rarely blows at an optimal speed, much more space would be needed. AreAmericans willing to give up the same land area as entire states to reach the DOE's goal of 20 percent wind power by 2030?

Traditional sources of energy like coal, nuclear and hydro have a huge advantages. We know the amount of available fuel precisely, and we know when we can use that fuel.Wind power may be a nice supplement to our energy portfolio, but we should stop pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into a system that is not predictable, efficient, orreliable. Let the market decide if wind power is worth the investment, not government bureaucrats.

Randy T. Simmons, Ph.D., is director of the Institute for Political Economy and professor of political economy at Utah State University. He also serves as president of StrataPolicy, a public policy think tank in Logan. Jordan Lofthouse is a policy analyst at Strata Policy.

 

 

 

         

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 3/23

458 Comments The Salt Lake Tribune Login1

Share⤤ Sort by Oldest

Join the discussion…

• Reply •

Alvin Plexico , Ph.D. • 4 months ago

Will you please provide the source for your data, especially the amount of land required? Thank you. 21△ ▽

• Reply •

MickAdams • 4 months ago> Alvin Plexico , Ph.D.

Looks like Logan has a real brain trust going up there with Strata. 4△ ▽

• Reply •

CB • 4 months ago> MickAdams

"Looks like Logan has a real brain trust going up there with Strata"

lol!

Yeah, they could have just signed it ExxonMobil and nobody would have noticed.

Obvious propaganda is obvious. 3△ ▽

• Reply •

SLCynic • 4 months ago> Alvin Plexico , Ph.D.

The 2100 MW wind/salt dome storage project (Utah) will take up 150,000 acres in Wyoming for the wind turbines:

http://www.pathfinderwindenerg...

Scaling that up doesn't get you the same total as in the Op-Ed piece but it's still a lot of land in prime sage grouse habitat. 1△ ▽

• Reply •

marykaybarton • 4 months ago

see more

> Alvin Plexico , Ph.D.

There is plenty of information out there discussing how much land is needed for sprawling industrial wind factories. No matter how much land youcover with these USELESS giant signs of ignorance and greed, there are still many days when the wind won't be blowing, is blowing too hard, orisn't bowing hard enough to supply reliable, dispatchable, baseload power. Saying we can get 20% of our electricity from wind is akin to saying wecould get 20% of our air transport from gliders. It would greatly negatively-impact the entire system, making it much less reliable, and as a result -far more expensive.

Here in Wyoming County of western New York State there are 308 industrial wind turbines littering the entire western side of the County (spreadthroughout 5 townships, and negatively-impacting all neighboring towns for miles around). Nobody is getting free, or reduced rate electricity here.In fact quite the opposite is true. New York State electricity rates are some of the highest in the U.S. Few, if any, permanent jobs were created here- maybe a few dead bird and bat picker-uppers. However, peoples' homes have been rendered virtually worthless by having 430-foot, industrialmachines, with their 11-TON bird-chopping blades spinning overhead, located only hundreds of feet from their homes. As has been correctlystated, "The only thing reliably-generated by industrial wind turbines is complete and utter civil discord," as our communities have been completelydivided and lawsuits persist.

Amount of land required for sprawling industrial wind factories is cited in these educational presentations, articles and books which discuss windenergy:

"Wind is one of the greatest scams of the modern age." - Lecture delivered by energy analyst, Robert Bryce:https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

3△ ▽

• Reply •

canis_Lupus • 4 months ago> marykaybarton

Hows paying you. I've noticed there are people seemingly tasked to forward the agendas of special interest groups in comment sections.We sure see you are biased. Why the bias if you don't have economic interests at stake? Even the avatar seems contrived.

2△ ▽

marykaybarton • 4 months ago> canis_Lupus

As I already pointed out in another comment - I live in Wyoming County of western New York State, where there are 308 industrialwind turbines spread throughout 5 townships, and negatively-impacting all the surrounding towns for miles around. No permanentjobs were created, and nobody is getting "free" or reduced rate electricity here either. But many peoples' homes have beenrendered virtually worthless because they are now surrounded by 430-foot-tall industrial machines. Our communities have beenforever divided, as people now hate one another, and lawsuits persist.

Would you buy a home that is surrounded by 400 - 600 foot-tall industrial wind towers, with their 11-TON, 164-foot-long, bird-chopping blades spinning overhead at 180 - 200 mph, only hundreds of feet from that home???

Recommend 1

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 4/23

• Reply •

chopping blades spinning overhead at 180 - 200 mph, only hundreds of feet from that home???

I have yet to meet anyone who would.

The very people who are being forced to pay for these antiquated, bird-chopping machines with their taxpayer and ratepayer dollarsare being ASSAULTED with the use of their own tax dollars. It is shameful and simply un-American.

2△ ▽

• Reply •

Jeff Walther • 4 months ago

see more

> canis_Lupus

Who's paying you, Canis-Lupus-hiding-behind-a-fake-name?

Mary Kay Barton posts her real name. I notice that the folks who tend to accuse her of being paid, are invariably too cowardly topost their real names, and also fit the posting profile of paid wind and gas shills.

Make no mistake, the money behind wind is natural gas money. The more wind is built, the more gas must be burnt to back it up.Mandating the use of wind guarantees the continued burning of gas, because of the intermittency of wind.

I can point you at five studies that show that wind does not reduce CO2 emissions or has only insubstantial impact on CO2emissions, when one takes into account the less efficient use of gas, cycling up and down, in order to smooth out the undependablewind generated electricity.

The big gas companies love wind. If you look at the Board of Directors of AWEA you'll see it's full of gas executives. Fossil fuelinterests aren't paying people to oppose wind. They **are** paying shills, who hide behind fake names, to generate confusion abouthow useless wind really is at reducing CO2 emissions.

In the real world, Germany, which is arguably more committed to wind than any other place except Denmark, gets less than 8% oftheir electricity from wind, after 20 years of effort and hundred of billions of euros spent. Germany has the 2nd highest electricityrates in all of Europe. Germany emits more than 450 grams of CO2 for every kilowatt-Hour of electricity it generates.

3△ ▽

• Reply •

Swanson Corners • 4 months ago> marykaybarton

There are thousands of people all across the US right now fighting Clean Line Energy Partners' plan for hundreds of miles of gigantictransmission lines so developers can build thousands and thousands of wind turbines in farming communities then transport the energyover numerous states to larger cities.They hope to be allowed eminent domain to take all this land for the transmission lines since all the land they want is private property.They are being fought tooth and nail. I copied and forwarded your post to a group in South Dakota who has blocked a industrial-sized windfarm there.

2△ ▽

• Reply •

utahpolitics • 4 months ago> Swanson Corners

Thanks for filling us in. MaryKay, Jim, and Diogenes would have better results being honest and direct about their motivations foropposing wind power. The repeated copy-paste arguments, shouting, insults, and ties to fossil fuel interests just weakens theirposition. I can respect yours, even as I argue for wind to play a role in our electricity generation.

1△ ▽

• Reply •

Jeff Walther • 4 months ago> utahpolitics

Fossil fuel interests are behind wind, not against it. Who is paying you? Utahpolitics-Hiding-behind-a-fake-name?

The honest people opposing wind post their real names, and post real numbers and real arguments. People like you are cowardswho hide behind anonymous handles and just jump in to do the gas companie's work of trying to cast doubt on the honest folkstrying to stop the corruption.

1△ ▽

marykaybarton • 4 months ago> utahpolitics

utahpolitics, I urge you (and all people who have bought in on wind salesmen's claims) to do more research before allowing yourbeautiful state to be marred by these useless bird-and-bat-chopping machines! After a decade of researching and writing about the wind scam, myexperience has been that most people do not even understand that there is a vast difference between 'energy' and 'power.'Industrial wind salesmen know this, and that's what makes industrial wind the perfect money-grubbing scam for these Big Energy LLCS and the investment banks that back them. (Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green"Energy and the RealFuels of the Future, is an excellent book which defines the issue well.)

No one I know is against 'renewable' energy per se, but it is only good common sense that any 'alternative' energy that wishes to begranted the privilege of coming into our communities first scientifically PROVE that that energy source is a NET Societal Benefit.

No such proof exists for industrial wind energy. In fact, the very opposite is true - Industrial wind is a NET LOSER - civilly,economically, environmentally and technically.

Wind energy is converted to highly variable power at the cube of the wind speed along a very narrow wind speed range. Our

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 5/23

• Reply •

see more

electricity grids must balance supply with demand precisely at all times to maintain reliable power. Imagine trying to do that with thevolatile skittering flux of wind energy. The (almost fawning) acceptance of the way wind is "allowed," without real consequence, to

1△ ▽

• Reply •

iolanthe628 • 4 months ago> marykaybarton

The U.S. got 4.4 percent of it's electricity from wind in 2014 and will probably get over 5% from wind in 2015--the U.S. is well on the way tomeet the 20% goal by 2030. Some estimates have it being reached by 2024. Wind does not need to be any more reliable (20% capacity factor) than it is now to provide electrical energy that will help significantly offsetelectricity from the dirtiest source--coal.

1△ ▽

• Reply •

marykaybarton • 4 months ago> iolanthe628

Adding wind as a supplement to our conventional generating system requires somuch supplementation that in many areas of the country, adding wind actuallycauses increased CO2 emissions in the production of electricity than would bethe case with no wind at all.

According to this article from Iowa, As Iowa's installed wind capacity hasincreased over recent years, so has their coal use and CO2 emissions:

Iowa carbon emissions rise despite wind power:http://blogs.desmoinesregister...

Couldn't help but notice on your profile that you're a "bat lover." Seems you might care about all the bats that are being decimated by industrial wind turbines then:

Wind Turbines KILL 600,000 - 900,000 Bats per Year:http://www.isciencetimes.com/a...

1△ ▽

• Reply •

iolanthe628 • 4 months ago> marykaybarton

Cycling problems will be eliminated when older coal plants are shut down or converted to natural gas, as they are being now.Particulates from coal plants KILL 7,500 PEOPLE per year: http://www.catf.us/fossil/prob...

1△ ▽

• Reply •

marykaybarton • 4 months ago> iolanthe628

Great - so just build the gas plants. Wind is an unreliable, inefficient, inimical source, which can NOT exist without gas. Gas can dothe job all by itself. Why should consumers pay for two sources (and all the additional environmental, civil, and economic costs ofadding sprawling wind factories), when gas can do the job by itself???

This is EXACTLY why Big Wind CEO, Patrick Jenevein, candidly admitted in his WSJ op-ed, "Wind Subsidies? No Thanks," andfollow-up TV interview, "Consumers end up double-payers for the same product."

1△ ▽

• Reply •

iolanthe628 • 4 months ago> marykaybarton

Because the fuel costs for gas plants are not zero. . . The fuel costs for wind are. Tax credits expired in 2013 for new windgeneration. Deregulation has allowed electric utilities to shop for the lowest cost provider.. Private investors are funding wind energyto sell to power companies to compete against power derived from fossil fuels. If it's a bad deal, why don't power companies justrefuse to buy it? Separately, as one example, wind provided over 19% of Ireland's electricity last year. There was little instability.Wind can provide up to and perhaps beyond 30% of U.S. electricity without significant instability. I just read that a private investorconsortium is promoting the "Plains and Eastern Clean Line" to deliver wind power from the Oklahoma panhandle (where it isunderdeveloped as a resource) to the power grid in the Eastern U.S. Why should a private venture risk a billion dollar investment ona bad business model?

2△ ▽

marykaybarton • 4 months ago> iolanthe628

Grids are buying wind energy because they are being forced to by Government mandates. See:

The High Cost of Renewable Energy Mandates:

http://www.manhattan-institute...

E.On Netz is operator of a large part of the German utility grid. E.On builds industrial wind factories in Europe and the U.S., and E.On also happens to be on the board of the AmericanWind Energy Association. Obviously, E.On is not an anti-wind company!

Quoting from the E.On Netz Report on Wind Energy 2005:

“Wind energy is only able to replace traditional power stations to a limited extent. Their dependence on the prevailing windconditions means that wind power has a limited load factor, even when technically available. It is not possible to guarantee its usefor the continual cover of

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 6/23

• Reply •

see more

for the continual cover of electricity consumption. Consequently, traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the installed wind power capacitymust be permanently online in order to guarantee power supply at all times.”

So if our goal is to cost-effectively reduce CO2 and particulate emissions, and E.On Netz states that at best wind can only displaceperhaps 10% of our current fossil and nuclear portfolio, while having to keep at least a 90% equivalent "shadow capacity" from our

1△ ▽

• Reply •

iolanthe628 • 4 months ago

see more

> marykaybarton

The information you cite is pretty old. Looking at 2001 to 2010 and 2005. I offer the DOE "Wind Vision" report that was publishedjust a few days ago: http://www.energy.gov/windvisi...

I am still digesting the report but the report analyzed the economic and other impacts of growth of wind power from projecting to10% end use electricity in 2020, 20% in 2030 and 35% in 2050 (in comparison to status quo electricity generation). The conclusionsare as follows:

-An approximately 1% increase in electricity costs through 2030, shifting to long-term cost savings of 2% by 2050.-Cumulative benefits of $400 billion (net present value 2013-2050) in avoided global damage from GHGs with 12.3 gigatonnes ofavoided GHG emissions through 2050. Monetized GHG benefits exceed the associated costs of the Study Scenario in 2020, 2030,and 2050 and on a cumulative basis are equivalent to a levelized global benefit from wind energy of 3.2¢/kWh of wind.-Cumulative benefits of $108 billion through 2050 for avoided emissions of fine particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOX), andsulfur dioxides (SO2). Monetized criteria air pollutant benefits exceed the associated costs of the Study Scenario in 2020, 2030, and2050, and on a cumulative basis are equivalent to a levelized public health benefit from wind energy of 0.9¢/kWh of wind.

2% cost savings and over a half a trillion dollars in benefits based on avoided greehouses gases and toxic pollutants. What's not tolike?

1△ ▽

• Reply •

marykaybarton • 4 months ago> iolanthe628

The diffuse energy of wind can never provide modern power period. It is a costly inimical source - to both taxpayers & ratepayers,and the environment.

Since they started pushing industrial wind in New York State just over 10 years ago now, our average electricity rate here in NYS hasclimbed from 14.4 cents per kwH, to 19.5 cents per kwH - a 33% increase, which is contributing to the mass exodus of people andindustry from New York State, and hurting the poor the most.

We may as well try and replace 35% of our air-transport fleet with gliders. You can't power a nation with wishful thinking and pixiedust.

1△ ▽

• Reply •

iolanthe628 • 4 months ago

see more

> marykaybarton

That's a pretty sweeping statement that wind energy can never provide "modern power period."

Assuming what you mean by modern power is electricity, your statement is hilariously false.

Is it an illusion that the U.S. got 4.4 per cent of it's electrical power from wind in 2014?

Is it an illusion that Denmark got a whopping 38 percent of its electrical power from wind in 2014?

The primary fallacy of the "wind deniers" is that they attempt to frame the argument by stating that since wind cannot realisticallyprovide 100% of electrical power, it has no place in the electricity production mix.

There are lots of reasons to favor wind over fossil-fuel produced energy right now including as a hedge against possible rising fuelcosts. And also to avoid emissions from fossil-fuel plant which currently cause 7500 premature deaths annually in the U.S.

Wind can, and will I predict, reach penetration of about 35% in the U.S. by 2050. That is about as much electricity as coal isproviding in the U.S. now. Future developments in technology, including investments in transmission infrastructure, and increaseddemand response, will drive the relative costs of wind down further.

According to the Department of Energy, the levelized cost of energy for on-shore wind coming online in 2018 is $86.6 per megawatthour. The levelized cost for a conventional coal plant will be $100.1 per megawatt hour. So-called "clean coal" plants cost way

1△ ▽

• Reply •

marykaybarton • 4 months ago> iolanthe628

Denmark is a tiny country ideally located near other countries which have huge hydro resources that can bail Denmark out when thewind fails. Electricity rates in Denmark are 4X (FOUR TIMES) the average electricity rate in the United States. Funny how windsalesmen always forget to note that inconvenient little fact.

1△ ▽

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 7/23

• Reply • 1△ ▽

• Reply •

iolanthe628 • 4 months ago

see more

> marykaybarton

Actually, Denmark's high cost of energy is because of high taxes, not cost of power production. Wind power is the cheapest sourceof new energy in Denmark. As a policy matter, the Denmark government taxes all sources of energy significantly to encourageenergy efficiency. Denmark, compared to its size, is also a significant producer of oil and natural gas from the North Sea, but prefersto export it for cash rather than burn it up for domestic electricity/heating. As it stands, Denmark uses about half as much energy perunit of Gross Domestic Product as does the United States.I used the example of Denmark to show that wind power is "real" and can be effectively brought online with penetrations thatexceed 30%. Texas, a very large economy, got 10% of it's electricity from wind power in 2014. I should also add that Texas ratepayers paid anaverage of 11.76 cents per kilowatt hour which was lower than the national average. http://www.eia.gov/electricity...

Was Texas' 10% wind power generation, with lower than average electricity rates, an illusion? Ireland, which including Northern Ireland, is an island nation(s) that are completely disconnected from UK and European power grids(and therefore must balance electrical production and demand on the island itself), got 19% of its electricity from wind power in2014. Was that an illusion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...It's been fun sparring with you even though I suspect that only you and I have been reading these posts. Although I originallythought that wind power was an effective and economical source of electricity, the research that I conducted in answering yourposts has convinced me even further. Have fun hating on wind power! Signing out.

1△ ▽

• Reply •

marykaybarton • 4 months ago

see more

> iolanthe628

Wind is Not Power at All (Part III – Capacity Value):https://www.masterresource.org...

EXCERPT from Understanding E = mc2:

"The release of energy from splitting a uranium atom turns out to be 2 million times greater than breaking the carbon-hydrogen bondin coal, oil or wood. Compared to all the forms of energy ever employed by humanity, nuclear power is off the scale. Wind has lessthan 1/10th the energy density of wood, wood half the density of coal and coal half the density of octane. Altogether they differ by afactor of about 50. Nuclear has 2 million times the energy density of gasoline. It is hard to fathom this in light of our previous experience. Yet our energy future largely depends on grasping the significance of thisdifferential."

Read the entire article -- Understanding E = mc2 -- at:http://www.energytribune.com/2...

Also see:

Oxymoronic Windpower (Part I: Howlers): http://www.masterresource.org/...

1△ ▽

• Reply •

iolanthe628 • 4 months ago

see more

> marykaybarton

Wow, just imagine how much more impressive a matter-anti-matter reactor would be! Unless your power generator has to beconfined to a small space such as a ship, airplane or automobile, power density doesn't mean much. Your posting also presumesthat wind must necessarily compete with nuclear as an energy source. It doesn't, at least at penetration levels up to 35%.Bottom line, the levelized cost (which takes into account capacity factor) of newly installed wind power is 20% cheaper than newnuclear power capacity based on DoE projections for 2019: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/a...Nuclear plants are great, but are extremely expensive (and would not likely be built except with Government loan guarantees (akasubsidies)); moreover, I'm not sure that the levelized cost, which is already 20% greater than new wind, includes the long termstorage of nuclear waste. Also, nuclear plants cannot be sited anywhere, they need access to tremendous amounts of cooling waterwhich effectively pushes them to coastal areas which are generally higher population density which again adds to therisk/uncertainty of a large project ever getting through the licensing process due to public opposition.

1△ ▽

marykaybarton • 4 months ago> iolanthe628

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 8/23

• Reply •

marykaybarton • 4 months ago> iolanthe628

The only reason they would is because they have assurances from their crony-corruptocrat pals in DC, that they will be receivingsubstantial taxpayer monies to make these ridiculous ventures happen.

WHY would anyone in their right mind want to run transmission lines all the hell over the place to transport the diffuse, unreliableenergy of wind across the continent??? You wind ideologues are bent on destroying the very environment you claim you wish tosave.

△ ▽

• Reply •

iolanthe628 • 4 months ago

see more

> marykaybarton

Couldn't resist jumping back in when I read this article about a Texas town, Georgetown, that is replacing it's electricity supply to100% renewable sourced from Wind and Solar, both from West Texas: http://www.slate.com/articles/...

The interesting thing is that the city will save money over what it would cost to keep buying electricity from fossil fuel-basedgenerators. And no, there are no renewable mandates in play here. This city is buying the power because it is cheapest optionavailable. The article also explains that producing electricity using fossil fuels is water intensive. This includes water using for fossilfuel extraction and also for cooling water for power plants. Wind and solar embody very little water use per unit energy produce bothin manufacture and in operation.

By the way, if you are mentioning cronyism, don't forget the hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies given to oil and gas and coalproducers over the decades based on favorable tax treatment and exploitation of resources on public lands (without completemitigation of environmental damage). As far as power lines go, the wind producers have to pay for the right of way to put up the linesjust like the oil pipeline and railroad people do. I suppose you would be outraged to know that Los Angeles gets much of itselectricity from a coal-fired power plant in Delta, Utah, over 600 miles away--the whole distance traversed by ugly high voltage lines.I suppose you will also be outraged by the many oil and gas pipelines that crisscross the country and the multiple trainwrecks/derailing that spill oil. Oh, and oil drilling derricks, well pumps and coal strip mines (include mountain topping) are so muchmore beautiful to behold than wind turbines.

1△ ▽

• Reply •

utahpolitics • 4 months ago> marykaybarton

The Des Moines Register article doesn't say what you think it does. It makes exactly the opposite point.

"The carbon intensity of Iowa’s energy supply fell by 14.3 percent from 2000 to 2009, more than any other state, according to new data from the Energy Information Administration."

The increased CO2 emissions from Iowa are from the growth of the economy and the increase in total electricity generation. On aper-kWh basis, they had the largest decrease in CO2 emissions in the country, thanks to the new wind capacity.

△ ▽

• Reply •

marykaybarton • 4 months ago> utahpolitics

The title of the article speak for itself - "Iowa carbon emissions rise despite wind power."

All of Iowa's new generation came from wind, so their "carbon intensity" dropped, yet with all this new added wind generation,Iowa's CO2 emissions - and coal use, continued to climb. Obviously the wind is not doing the job it was intended to do.

Just as a campfire smoulders and produces more smoke when you stop putting wood on the fire, Reliable generators create moreCO2 emissions when they are forced to run "off design," and are erratically ramped up and down to accommodate wind's skitteringflux on the grid, thus the result of increased emissions in Iowa despite all the added wind generation. Kent Hawkins wrote about therealities of wind integration here:

https://www.masterresource.org... 1△ ▽

• Reply •

utahpolitics • 4 months ago> marykaybarton

Nope. You are still misunderstanding.

If you were correct, then their carbon intensity would have gone up, not down. △ ▽

marykaybarton • 4 months ago> utahpolitics

The "carbon intensity" is decreased as, instead of all coal fueling the state, Iowa's 20+% added wind has decreased the ratio - YET,as the article states - Iowa's CO2 emissions have continued to climb.

Read the article by Kent Hawkins on the Bentek studies which showed the same result - inefficiently running our conventionalgenerators to accommodate wind's skittering flux on the grid actually causes the reliable generators to emit MORE CO2.

The best analogy I ever heard was given at a talk by an energy expert who explained:

Picture a car driving down the freeway. When you can run the car at 65 mph unencumbered by stops & starts - the car runs great,gas mileage goes up, emissions go down, and the life of the vehicle is extended.

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 9/23

• Reply •

see more

Now picture coming into a city with all its traffic lights. As soon as you have to constantly stop and start, and endlessly idle thevehicle - your gas mileage goes down, emissions go up, and the life of the vehicle is shortened due to the extra wear and tear on thevehicle.

Industrial wind has the very same effects on our conventional power generators (AND on our already aged power grid) when theconventional generators are forced to constantly stop and start in order to accommodate wind's skittering flux on the grid. As aresult, the conventional generators work less efficiently, have increased emissions, and the wear and tear prematurely ages them (asit does to the grid, too).

1△ ▽

• Reply •

utahpolitics • 4 months ago> marykaybarton

I'll read and consider the Hawkins article tonight. But please just think through your own argument for a moment. If you really had toburn more fossil fuels to supply the same amount of energy, then your carbon intensity would go up.

The Iowa data does not support your position. △ ▽

• Reply •

marykaybarton • 4 months ago

see more

> utahpolitics

I still believe the "ratio" has dropped because Iowa is now getting more power from wind, as opposed to nearly 100% from coal - asit was before. As stated in the article: "Iowa’s energy-related carbon dioxide emissions rose 7.5 percent from 2000 to 2009." Thus,wind is NOT doing the job of reducing CO2 emissions, that we have spent $100's of Billions on it to do. It is an expensive LEMON!

Wind can NOT replace reliable, conventional generators that typically have a 95+% Capacity Value, because wind has virtually NOCapacity Value / firm capacity (ability to provide specified amounts of power on demand.)

While I firmly believe that wind is a giant SCAM all the way around, and do not wish to make this a "siting" issue -- Another majorconsideration you must take into account is the fact that the wide open Great Plains of Iowa, Texas and the Dakotas is NOT what wehave in more developed areas in the eastern United States and elsewhere. Renewable Portfolio mandates are driving many corruptgovernments (like ours here in New York State) to throw their rural residents under the bus for the kickbacks they get from Big Wind.

Answer this question:

Would YOU buy and move YOUR family into a home surrounded by 400 - 600 foot-tall industrial wind turbines, with their 164-foot-long, 11-TON blades, spinning at 180 - 200 mph overhead, only hundreds of feet from that home?

I have yet to meet anyone who would. Yet, the very citizens who are being ASSAULTED by the wind mess when they end up stuckliving within the footprints of sprawling industrial wind factories, are the taxpayers and ratepayers who are being forced to pay forthese projects with their taxpayer & ratepayer dollars, to the tune of 80% of the cost of each project! This is CRIMINAL and simply

△ ▽

• Reply •

utahpolitics • 4 months ago

see more

> marykaybarton

All right. I've just spent a bunch of time reading Hawkins and the two papers he based his calculator on, and a bunch of responsesto him on both sides.

I finally decided that the only way to sort it all out and come to an informed opinion was to just crunch the numbers myself. Myconclusion is that Hawkins is out to lunch.

I used Iowa as a test case because you brought it up, and because they had a big increase in wind power. The EIA data mentionedin Des Moines Register article is for total energy, including cars, buildings, etc. I needed the data for electricity generation only. Soafter a little digging, here it is.

http://www.eia.gov/electricity...http://www.eia.gov/electricity...http://www.eia.gov/electricity...

2000Wind: 1.2% of generationNatural Gas: 1.0% of generationCoal: 84.4% of generationTotal generation: 41,542,011 MWh

△ ▽

marykaybarton • 4 months ago> utahpolitics

And all the added generation came from wind, % of total generation from coal use was down, and their CO2 emissions STILL wentUP! The goal of spending hundreds of $Billions on wind is supposed to be to LOWER CO2. It is NOT working.

I see you chose to ignore the question I posed, considering the fact that not all states have the wide open, unpopulated plains thatare found in Iowa.

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 10/23

• Reply •

see more

are found in Iowa.

Would YOU buy, and move YOUR FAMILY into a home that is surrounded by 400 - 600 foot industrial wind turbines - with their 164-foot-long, 11-TON, bird-chopping blades - spinning overhead at 180 - 200 mph, only hundreds of feet from that home?

I didn't think so. Neither would any of the other wind salesmen and political cronies that are pushing the wind scam. These peoples'homes have been rendered virtually WORTHLESS thanks to greed-driven, energy-illiterate corporate welfare leeches looking tomake a quick buck off American taxpayers.

So why do you think it is OK to inflict this ASSAULT on your fellow American citizens?

△ ▽

• Reply •

marykaybarton • 4 months ago> utahpolitics

World-wide, $Trillions have already been spent on unreliable ‘renewables' - which is contributing to our $18 TRILLION dollar debt.(See: $TRILLIONS Spent: Zero CO2 Abated: http://tinyurl.com/pppt3tz)

Energy analyst, Robert Bryce reported on the fact that each wind "job created" at GE's Sheperd's Flat Wind Factory cost $16.3Million per job created.

America's Worst Wind Energy Project:http://www.nationalreview.com/...

In Texas, Attorney General Combs reported that each wind job created there costs taxpayers $1.75 Million each: http://www.window.state.tx.us/...

I don't know about you, but our business certainly could NOT expect to pay $1.75 - $16.3 MILLION per job, and expect to remaincompetitive - let alone stay in business! Oh yeah - these wind jobs are being for with taxpayer & ratepayer money, so what does BigWind care about how much each job costs?!?

△ ▽

• Reply •

utahpolitics • 4 months ago

see more

> marykaybarton

Ok. I couldn't help myself. I've now repeated this for IA and SD (the top two wind producers), CO and TX (the subjects of the Bentekstudy that Hawkins cites), and KY and WV (the top two coal states). The answer is the same every time. Adding wind generationcauses you to burn less fossil fuel and lowers CO2 emissions in almost exactly the amounts you'd expect it to. Hawkins and theBentek study are wrong.

Data is from http://www.eia.gov/electricity...

Here's what I have. From 2000 to 2012:IowaWind generation: 25%Change in carbon intensity: -28%

South DakotaWind generation: 24%Change in carbon intensity: -34%

ColoradoWind generation: 11%Change in carbon intensity: -16%

△ ▽

marykaybarton • 4 months ago> utahpolitics

And how much has the total cost been to consumers for that miniscule reduction of CO2 (a gas that life is dependent upon) --economically, environmentally, and civilly -- of destroying America's rural heritage with all those giant, antiquated fans, and all the addedtransmission lines that must be zig-zagged thousands of miles throughout remote, rural areas to reach the cities where the power is actuallyneeded???

You continue to ignore all the added costs to the taxpayers and ratepayers, to the communities that sprawling wind factoriesdestroy, and all the additional costs to the environment (Habitat Fragmentation, bird & bat deaths, etc...) Wind is NET LOSER all the way around -period.

World-wide, $Trillions have already been spent on unreliable ‘renewables' (which is significantly contributing to our $18 TRILLION

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 11/23

Load more comments

• Reply •

World-wide, $Trillions have already been spent on unreliable ‘renewables' (which is significantly contributing to our $18 TRILLIONdollar debt), yet CO2 emissions have NOT been significantly reduced - which was the main goal of throwing countless $Billions intothe wind in the first place. See:

$TRILLIONS Spent: Zero CO2 Abated: http://tinyurl.com/pppt3tz

△ ▽

This comment was deleted.

• Reply •

Michael Bodell • 4 months ago> Guest

We are in the middle of the 6th great extinction event in the biological history of our planet. If we do not solve the carbon emissions problemwithin the next two decades we will put our own survival in jeopardy. We need to explore every single avenue to reduce our use of fossilfuels. Wind has a part to play, but it is only one part of the picture. There is not one single energy source that doesn't have big downsidesand it will take multiple approaches to get a handle on this tremendous threat to every life form on the planet.

It is not time to pull the plug on wind power. Regardless of its problems, it is reducing greenhouse gases to some degree. We need to buyall the time we can get.

8△ ▽

• Reply •

SouthOhioGipper • 4 months ago> Michael Bodell

Outright Alarmist lie and no our survival will not be in question in 20 years. The sky is still there chicken little. People like you arenothing but environmental aztecs, sacrificing the prosperity of millions of people in hopes of pleasing a weather god.

2△ ▽

• Reply •

zlop • 4 months ago> SouthOhioGipper

"in hopes of pleasing a weather god."?Rothschild, Gore and Blood are running a Carbon Tax Extortion Racket.

△ ▽

• Reply •

marykaybarton • 4 months ago> Michael Bodell

If you are that worried about CO2 emissions, the only answer is nuclear. 3△ ▽

• Reply •

cgallaway2000 • 4 months ago> marykaybarton

Geothermal can be used throughout most of the country, but not in all places. 1△ ▽

• Reply •

marykaybarton • 4 months ago> cgallaway2000

Agreed. It's still very expensive, but I'm all for geothermal. It provides reliable, dispatchable baseload power. △ ▽

• Reply •

utahpolitics • 4 months ago> marykaybarton

It's not the only answer, but it's certainly one of them. We agree on that much. △ ▽

• Reply •

zlop • 4 months ago> marykaybarton

 ↓ △ ▽

• Reply •

zlop • 4 months ago> marykaybarton

Lapse exploitation power generation, is the clean energy future.Nuclear is too dangerous -- save it for future generation Space Travel.

△ ▽

• Reply •

zlop • 4 months ago> Michael Bodell

"Regardless of its problems, it is reducing greenhouse gases"Greenhouse gases Cool, a little. -- will not cause the coming Ice Age.

△ ▽

• Reply •

marykaybarton • 4 months ago> zlop

Unfortunately, the whole reason the wind industry exists is because the wind industry's bogus claims that industrial wind will reduceCO2 emissions -- which many people believe is a serious problem. Instead of arguing that belief, I stick to the fact that industrialwind turbines do NOT significantly reduce CO2 emissions, so what's the point???

2△ ▽

Share ›

Avatar

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 12/23

Letter: …413 comments • 9 hours ago

Bloomberg …4 comments • 6 hours ago

Dashcam …158 comments • 4 hours ago

News …36 comments • 8 hours ago

ALSO ON THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE WHAT'S THIS?

Subscribe✉ Add Disqus to your sited Privacy�

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 13/23

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 14/23

comments powered by Disqus (http://disqus.com)

(http://www.sltrib.com)

News

All Local News (http://www.sltrib.com/news/)Search (http://www.sltrib.com/search/)Last 36 hours (http://www.sltrib.com/contents/)Nation + World (http://www.sltrib.com/news/world/)RSS (http://www.sltrib.com/rss/)Twitter (http://www.twitter.com/sltrib)Politics (http://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/)Justice (http://www.sltrib.com/news/justice/)Polygamy (http://www.sltrib.com/news/polygamy/)Education (http://www.sltrib.com/news/education/)Weather (http://www.sltrib.com/news/weather/)Utah's Right (http://www.utahsright.com)Elevate (http://www.sltrib.com/sponsored/)Empower Utah (http://empower.sltrib.com)

Cool Stuff

I Love videos (http://ilove.sltrib.com)Whatever Happened To... (/topics/whateverhappened)Special Reports (http://www.sltrib.com/specialreports/)TribTalk (http://www.sltrib.com/news/tribtalk/)Videos (http://www.sltrib.com/videos/)Photo Galleries (http://www.sltrib.com/photo/)Utah Bucket List (/ubl/)Mormon Rivals (http://www.MormonRivals.com/)Preparing to play (http://www.sltrib.com/preparingtoplay)

Sports

All Sports (http://www.sltrib.com/sports/)TribPreps (http://www.sltrib.com/sports/preps/)Utah Jazz (http://www.sltrib.com/sports/jazz/)Utah Utes (http://www.sltrib.com/sports/utes/)BYU Cougars (http://www.sltrib.com/sports/byu/)USU Aggies (http://www.sltrib.com/sports/usu/)WSU Wildcats (http://www.sltrib.com/sports/wsu/)College (http://www.sltrib.com/sports/college/)

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 15/23

RSL (http://www.sltrib.com/sports/rsl/)Grizzlies (http://www.sltrib.com/sports/grizz/)Bees (http://www.sltrib.com/sports/bees/)Winter Sports (http://www.sltrib.com/sports/winter/)Outdoors (http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/outdoors/)Gordon Monson (http://www.sltrib.com/sports/monson/)Kurt Kragthorpe (http://www.sltrib.com/sports/kragthorpe/)Live Matchups (http://sltrib.sportsdirectinc.com/gamematchups.aspx)Game Odds (http://sltrib.sportsdirectinc.com/odds/allsports.aspx)Alltime BYU football stats (http://sltrib.cougarstats.com)Alltime Utes football stats (http://sltrib.utestats.com)

Money

All Money (http://www.sltrib.com/money/)Top Workplaces (http://topworkplaces.sltrib.com/)Home Prices (http://www.sltrib.com/money/homeprices/)

Blogs

All Blogs (http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/)The Utah Effect (http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/utaheffect/)Politics (http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/outofcontext/)The Cricket (http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/cricket/)TV (http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/tv/)Jazz Notes (http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/jazznotes/)U of U Sports (http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/uofusports/)BYU Sports (http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/byusports/)Prep Sports (http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/prepsports/)RSL (http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/rsl/)Hiking (http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/hiking/)

Opinion

All Opinion (http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/)Editorials (http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/editorials/)Commentary (http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/)Letters (http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/letters/)Bagley Cartoons (http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/bagley/)Rolly (http://www.sltrib.com/news/rolly/)Cannon (http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/cannon/)Kirby (http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/kirby/)Submit a Letter (http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/submitaletter/)

Faith

All Faith (http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/)LDS Church (http://www.sltrib.com/news/lds/)Religion news (http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/)Faith Blog (http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/faithblog/)

Entertainment

All Entertainment (http://www.sltrib.com/entertainment/)Calendar (http://entertainment.sltrib.com/events)FilmFinder (http://entertainment.sltrib.com/movies)Movies (http://www.sltrib.com/entertainment/movies/)Restaurants (http://entertainment.sltrib.com/restaurants)Lifestyle (http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/)Arts (http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/arts/)Food (http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/food/)Music (http://www.sltrib.com/entertainment/music/)TV (http://www.sltrib.com/entertainment/tv/)Shopping (http://mylocal.sltrib.com/)Puzzles & Games (http://www.sltrib.com/entertainment/puzzles/)Comics (http://www.sltrib.com/entertainment/comics/)Horoscopes (http://www.sltrib.com/entertainment/horoscopes/)

Membership

Become a Member (http://www.sltrib.com/Membership)Member FAQ (http://www.sltrib.com/info/memberfaq)AdFree Site (http://member.sltrib.com)

ObituariesSearch Obituaries (http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/saltlaketribune/)Place an Obituary (https://www.mediaoneutah.com/obituary/)

MarketplaceSearch Cars (http://cars.sltrib.com/)Search Homes (http://realestate.sltrib.com/)Search Jobs (http://jobs.sltrib.com/)Search Marketplace (http://mylocal.sltrib.com/)Legal Notices (http://legalnotices.sltrib.com/)

Other ServicesAdvertise With Us (http://www.sltrib.com/info/advertise/)Subscribe to the Newspaper (http://subscribe.sltrib.com/)Access your eEdition (http://saltlaketribune.ut.newsmemory.com/)Frequently Asked Questions (/help/)Submit a breaking news tip (mailto:newsroom@sltrib.com)Email the Tribune web staff (mailto:webmaster@sltrib.com)Contact a newsroom staff member (/info/staff)

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 16/23

Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here (http://subscribe.mediaoneutah.com/) or call 801.204.6100

Submit Arts and Entertainment tips (mailto:features@sltrib.com)Access the Trib Archives (http://archive.sltrib.com/)Privacy Policy (http://www.sltrib.com/info/privacy/)

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 17/23

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 18/23

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 19/23

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 20/23

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 21/23

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 22/23

7/22/2015 Op-ed: Stop dumping billions into unreliable wind power | The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2254489-155/op-ed-stop-dumping-billions-into-unreliable 23/23