Electrical Energy: Sound Scientific Solutions

Electrical Energy, Science, & You John Droz, jr. Physicist & Environmental Advocate 11/17/09 © john droz, jr.

Make SURE to View This Presentation in the FULL SCREEN Mode! Click the “FULL” icon in the lower right hand corner. Then use your keyboard arrow keys to navigate...

Electrical Energy, Science and You The purpose of this material is to educate citizens about various key aspects of the US electricity grid, and the electrical power source choices we have. This is a complicated matter, so I have tried to strike a balance between being too technical and too simplified. Note also that the phrase “wind energy” is more technically accurate than the more commonly used “wind power”. The underlying message is that our energy decisions should be made on the basis of sound SCIENCE — not on what lobbyists say. Hopefully you have already been to my website: “WindPowerFacts.Info”. If you have looked over what’s there you’ll see that my several articles about wind energy have two objectives. The first (as in this presentation) is to fill a niche not addressed elsewhere. The second purpose of my communications is to target the average citizen as my audience. I believe that the future of this issue lies in whether or not citizens are properly educated about basic energy matters. After getting more up-to-speed, they need to do some Critical Thinking about this matter. Unfortunately, Critical Thinking has become somewhat of a lost art — and that (in my opinion) has lead to serious consequences to our society as a whole. My expectation is that after citizens get more informed — and do some Critical Thinking — that they will be in a much better position to express their more informed wishes to their local, state and federal representatives. After I began giving talks to community groups (in upstate NY and coastal NC), I started getting requests to put on presentations elsewhere. To save other groups the cost of my coming to other widely scattered parts of North America, I decided to put the basic presentation online. One downside of this alternative is that in the live presentation there is commentary that accompanies each slide, and this is not included here. Since I don’t have the space to include all of those, I identified the slides where the remarks were most important, and added them after those slides. [These “elaborated on” slides are identified with an asterisk in the upper right hand corner. On a few other slides I added short comments between the {...} brackets directly on the slides.] Another liability of this internet version is that it skips all the interesting slide transitions, doesn’t play the embedded movie, is longer, etc. Seeing it live is still the best! Although I would rather be there to help you out in person, I can only be in one place at a time anyway. In any case after you go through this, I will be glad to personally respond to any emails you send me. Please see my brief “resume,” the copyright notice, disclaimer, and contact information on the last slide. References and credits are on the three slides prior to the end. [Note that I will indicate updates on the material by a new date on the first slide.] If you like what you see, please pass it on to other open-minded people, and your federal, state and local representatives. — ENJOY! john droz, jr. © john droz, jr.

Th Th is is is isn m ’t e.. m . e.. . {Please remember that I’m just a backwoods scientist — not a professional communicator.} © john droz, jr.

PERSPECTIVE The observer’s question: “are these objects the same?” {I’ve tried to incorporate two of my basic beliefs here: the first is Perspective. As a senior now looking back I’ve found that the single most successful strategy in solving almost ANY problem, is to change how you look at it. So I am strongly encouraging you to look at Wind Energy differently from what you’ve mostly seen in the media. I’ve used analogies throughout to help with this change in Perspective... The KISS philosophy is the second, and is about Keeping It Simple. I’ve tried to do that here too.} & KISS © john droz, jr.

{Galileo is one of several historical people I really admire. One reason is that he stood up for the Truth when essentially everyone else in the world, was wrong. Think about that. How would you like to take a very public position that was contrary to what everyone else in the world believed? His famous saying here is a key theme in this presentation.} Galileo: “I do not feel obliged to believe, that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect, has intended us to forgo their use.” ~1600 © john droz, jr.

What Is Critical Thinking? A thorough, open-minded, logical effort to examine a claim, in the light of applicable evidence. One of the key ingredients of true science — and critical thinking — is SKEPTICISM © john droz, jr.

vs GroupThink {When it comes to electrical energy solutions, most environmental groups fall into this category.} © john droz, jr.

— Some Environmental Organizations I Belong to — The Sierra Club RCPA - Residents Committee to Protect the Adirondacks Adirondack Council © john droz, jr.

My Three Hats Here: #1 - Physicist #2 - Economist #3 - Environmentalist © john droz, jr.

Water is another resource that we usually take for granted. This is the city of Utica’s (NY) main reservoir, half empty. This view is looking across the lake (about one mile). © john droz, jr.

This is the city of Utica’s main reservoir in 2007. (This view is from about the same spot shown in the prior photo.) This is a real world, local example of what happens { when we neglect our environment. Wind energy is such an abandonment.} © john droz, jr.

A Few Turbines in Upstate NY {The energy example we are going to review here is Industrial Wind Energy. When I first heard about wind energy, I was a supporter. Quite frankly, I never liked the looks of turbines, but felt that we would have to live with the unsightliness as a trade-off for the good I initially assumed they were doing. Then I did some research, and Critical Thinking. My conclusion now (as a scientist, economist, and environmentalist) is that I am strongly opposed to Industrial Wind Energy.} © john droz, jr.

Let’s get one thing out of the way right off... There are no Wind Energy projects being proposed for my community, so Wind Energy is NOT a NIMBY issue for me. © john droz, jr.

The bottom line is that Wind Energy Fails to Deliver the Goods By this I mean that: 1) wind energy is not a technically sound solution to provide us power, or to meaningfully reduce global warming, and 2) wind energy is not an economically viable source of power on its own, and 3) wind energy is not environmentally responsible. {These three basic criteria haven’t been selected to make wind energy look bad, but are what should be used to evaluate the legitimacy of ANY proposed new alternative source of energy.} © john droz, jr.

Scientific Methodology Works Like This — When a new idea is proposed as a potential solution to a problem, it is up to the advocates to independently PROVE its efficacy — not the other way around. In the case of Wind Energy, this has never been done. © john droz, jr.

What Wind Energy Is Really All About © john droz, jr.

Most Communities Have a Sign Ordinance * Its Purpose: to minimize visual pollution Why? Because commercialization is recognized as an undermining of the nature of the community. © john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior Two “Billboard” Slides (some of the words given at the live presentation) Let’s say a big foreign company comes to your community and says: “We have a great new business opportunity! We want to lease some local land for a new type of attractive billboard. It’s called a ‘mega-board.’ They’re about 450 feet high, and we’d like to put up a hundred or so in this area.” “We’ll pay some local landowners to rent their land, and will also arrange it so that your town will make good money off these through tax and other contributions.” Now, would your community rush out to change their sign ordinance to get this money? Even though there’d be profits made by people leasing land to these advertisers, and money going to the town, I’d like to believe that the majority of people would be against such blatant commercialization of their community. There’s no difference with wind energy. © john droz, jr.

Yes, I confess that I DO have a bias here! One of the things I believe is that... Our Quality of Life Should Not Be For Sale (My photo is of the St. Lawrence River) © john droz, jr.

The Question I Asked — (the author of a Mother Earth News pro-wind article) “What independent, scientific proof do you have that wind energy does what it’s supposed to do?” © john droz, jr.

The Answer I Got: “I have no independent, scientific proof — and none is needed.” (!) © john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Following “Ann Rice” Slide (some of the words given at the live presentation) Before I move on I’ve really got to touch on Psychology for a minute, because the energy issue — and its proposed solutions — seem to be a magnet for some interesting psychological characters. (Witness the incomprehensible assertion on the prior slide — from a reportedly competent individual at that.) In my 25+ years as an environmental activist, I’ve communicated with literally tens of thousands of people about a variety of environmental issues. It always seemed to me that the facts would win the day — but that’s the scientist in me talking. I find it fascinating to see people’s reaction when they’re presented with facts that run contrary to their beliefs. When I saw this Ann Rice quote, I immediately said “bingo!” — she really phrases it in a very good way. John Kenneth Galbraith said essentially the same thing with slightly different words: “The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.” © john droz, jr.

* In my view, when it comes to discussing industrial Wind Energy with most environmentalists, politicians, and the media, this says it all: Very few really seek knowledge in this world. On the contrary, they try to justify their entrenched, unscientific π opinions, by selectively wringing from the unknown, answers to console themselves. To really ask for the Truth is to open the door to the whirlwind — which may annihilate the questioner. — Ann Rice © john droz, jr.

This has a well-known psychological explanation... Cognitive Dissonance is the tendency to resist information that we don't want to think about, because if we did it would conflict with an illusion we have bought into — and perhaps require us to act in ways that are out of our comfort zone. — Leon Festinger © john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior “Cognitive Dissonance” Slide (some of the words given at the live presentation) In laymen’s terms, Cognitive Dissonance says that there appears to be a genetic predisposition that after we buy into something — i.e. get into a mindset — that it becomes extremely difficult for most people to change their position. Interestingly this was first officially identified in a study of UFOs. In 1956 a woman claimed that she had received a message from aliens that within the year the planet would be destroyed. Since she was very convincing, she soon had a group of followers who had bought into her story. But then, of course, her prediction didn’t come about. In psychological terms, the failed message of earth's destruction, became a disconfirmed expectancy to these people. This increased dissension between differing awarenesses. In an attempt to lessen this internal conflict, most members of the cult then adopted a new prophecy: that the aliens had instead spared the planet for their sake. It’s interesting to me that here we are again faced with predictions of the planet’s destruction — not aliens, but this time through global warming. (To my knowledge there is no truth to the rumor that this lady was a relative of Al Gore’s.) There’s also a connection here to another one of my main beliefs: that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. My hope here is that you will be open-minded about this issue. © john droz, jr.

{Let’s go back into history to see how we ended up with the electric grid system we have today... The first practical use of electricity, in the late 1800s, is generally attributed to Thomas Edison (a founder of General Electric). Of course there were actually dozens of other people who contributed to making commercial electricity a reality. And there were a LOT of formidable hurdles to overcome.} Edison Electric Company - 1882 © john droz, jr.

The Six Principle Requirements for Commercial Electricity Generating Sources are that: 1 - they provide large amounts of electricity; 2 - they provide reliable and predictable electricity; 3 - they provide dispatchable* electricity; 4 - they service one or more grid demand element**; 5 - their facility be compact***; 6 - they provide economical electricity. * Dispatchable = can generate higher or lower amounts of power on-demand. ** Grid Demand Elements = Base Load, Load Following, and Peak Load. *** Compact is the ability to site an electrical facility on a relatively small and well-defined footprint, preferably near high demand, e.g. cities. © john droz, jr.

It’s All About Creating Capacity, Particularly “Capacity Value” Capacity Value: “The ability to rapidly convert a set amount of energy at specified, convenient times.” [E.g. with a nuclear facility, a grid operator has near 100% confidence that full power will be available from that facility at times of greatest demand.] {Note: Capacity VALUE is not the same as Capacity FACTOR. See reference and next page for more explanation.} © john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior “Capacity Value” Slide Capacity value is really a very simple idea. You don't drive your car all the time, with the result that its Capacity Factor (not Value) is probably 10-20%. But when you do wish to drive it, the car works 99.9% of the time, getting you from one place to another and on your own schedule. Thus 99.9% is its Capacity Value (also known as Effective Capacity). Ditto with your chain saw, or television or most any modern appliance we all take for granted: they work when we want it to work. Appliances that are not dependable are quickly discarded. In the last hundred years or so we in the West have come to rely on machines with this standard. In fact, this performance on demand is the basis of our modernity. Our conventional energy sources have very high Capacity Value, as system operators can depend (e.g. have 99% confidence) on their power being available at any time, 24/7/365. Since it is impossible to have such confidence in it, wind energy has a very low Capacity Value. [Please also see slides 48-50 for another example of Capacity Value.] © john droz, jr.

100% 90% 80% Fuel Sources for US Electricity Generation in 2007 70% DOE/EIA Report (October 8, 2008) 60% 50% 40% The next time you hear an ad about how 30% wind energy will help with our dependence on oil, remember that only about 20% 1% of our electricity comes from oil. 10% 0% Coal Nuclear Natural Gas Hydro Oil Renewables © john droz, jr.

Each of the current conventional sources meet ALL of the prior six essential criteria As a result, Today — and a Hundred Years from now — these conventional sources can provide ALL of the electrical needs of our society, while continuing to meet all six criteria. Note: We Have ALWAYS Been Energy Independent Here! © john droz, jr.

SO WHAT’S THE PROBLEM? © john droz, jr.

A NEW element has been added: environmental impact (especially emissions, like CO2) © john droz, jr.

Climate Change ≠ Global Warming Climate Change = significant, long-term changes in average weather. Global Warming = a hypothesis that offers an explanation for Climate Change: that man-made emissions (CO2) are the primary cause. © john droz, jr.

* Is Being “Safe” the Wisest Strategy? — Not Necessarily! © john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior “Being Safe” Slide (some of the words given at the live presentation) What about the argument that “we should always err on the side of being cautious”? Well, like many things in this complex area, there’s a lot more to it than what appears on the surface. If “being safe” is our over-riding criteria, let’s look at another example — one that is literally a life and death matter — to explain what I mean. It’s a fact that the higher the highway speed limit is, the more fatalities and injuries there are. In the US there are some 42,000 people killed each year in motor vehicle accidents. So, if our policy is first and foremost to be safe, then all highways should have a speed limit of no more than 30 MPH: which would likely save 20,000± lives annually. As good as that seems, stop and consider the implications of that change for a minute... The point is that being cautious sounds fine, but we should be aware that there are often enormous consequences to such a strategy — just like there are with wind energy. And, by the way, if we are really concerned about being safe, then that’s all the more reason we should want independent, scientific proof that our money, efforts & sacrifices are producing cost-effective, consequential benefits. No such proof exists for industrial wind energy. © john droz, jr.

Concerns About This New Requirement: 1 - Having the government step into the utility business and mandate that utilities change the principles that have been the foundation of our electrical grid system since the 1800s. 2 - Transforming a system that has worked successfully for some 125 years, based on a scientifically unresolved hypothesis. 3 - The new Environmental Impact standard has taken priority over all the other six time-tested ones. 4 - This new Environmental Impact standard has, in reality, become the ONLY benchmark of importance. — AND — © john droz, jr.

5 - Alternative sources of commercial electricity that just claim to meet this new super-criteria (to make a consequential impact on CO2) don’t even have to prove that they actually do it! © john droz, jr.

Let’s See How Industrial Wind Energy stacks up against the Power Generation Six Historical Criteria, and then how it does regarding the new item: Emissions ... © john droz, jr.

#1 - Does wind energy provide large amounts of electricity ? Yes, it could. However, its effectiveness from most perspectives is inferior. For instance, because of the wide fluctuations of wind, it only produces, on average, about 30% of it’s nameplate power. This irregularity is compounded by the fact that there is no way to economically store what is produced for later use. Another example of its dilutedness is that it takes over one thousand times the amount of land for wind energy to produce a roughly equivalent amount of power as does a nuclear facility. © john droz, jr.

100 acres of this = 100,000+ acres of this © john droz, jr.

2 - Does wind energy provide reliable & predictable electricity ? NO. Despite the wind industry’s absolute best efforts it is not reliable or predictable compared to the standards set by our conventional electrical sources. A wind turbine’s output varies continuously between zero and 100% of its rated capacity, extremely sensitive to small changes in wind speed — and it only operates in a limited range of wind speed. Additionally, wind energy is often not available when power is needed most. © john droz, jr.

Sample Data from German u0lity Eon Netz, which manages the largest collec0on of wind turbines in the world... Note Predictability and Variability during six hours of a recent representa0ve day Note weekly Variability throughout the year © john droz, jr.

Sample Data from Ontario Power Authority Note: Average Output was only 13.5% of Rated Capacity. Observe wide variability across this one month time period. © john droz, jr.

Sample Demand vs Wind Energy Data (BPA) [oeetndeidozow otu N xed pr sfe idu t t e o r n p] Note how wind output is not in sync with demand. © john droz, jr.

A Sample Windmobile [Note that it requires the backup of a conventional power source.] © john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior “Windmobile” Slide I was asked whether the windmobile was serious. Yes — if you do some Critical Thinking about it there is some worthwhile comparative instruction value to this analogy. For instance, on the one hand there would be a few (relatively rare) cases where the car’s gas engine would not have to be turned on at all, and one would save fossil fuel. HOWEVER — a) there is an extra $10,000 cost for the wind power addition to the vehicle; b) the normal gas mileage for that vehicle is decreased by 20% due to the mounted blades. This amounts to extra cost AND an increase in emissions when the gas engine is used; c) the additional parts and connections of the wind machine would increase the maintenance cost to the user; d) the resale value of this vehicle would be less than the same conventional vehicle, so there would be still another hidden cost to the user; e) the user would have to receive special training on how to operate this type of vehicle. This amounts to lost time, and lost productivity. What is the cost of their time to do that? — continued on next page — © john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior “Windmobile” Slide — Part 2 f) the attempts by the user to utilize the wind aspect (continuously checking the weather forecast for instance) would amount to lost time, and lost productivity. What is the cost of their time to do that? g) despite this there would be other negative consequences, like more accidents due to loss of power or control. More cost and lost time again. h) most of the time the car would operate on a combination of some wind and some gas. But the wind would continually be changing so the gas engine would have to be continually accelerated, and then the vehicle braked, etc. This would result in speed overagages (tickets, accidents), plus inefficiency on the part of the gas engine (more fossil fuel used), plus premature wearout of some parts (e.g. brakes, transmission, engine). Etc., etc. The bottom line is that such a vehicle would be an absurd "solution" to partially reduce CO2 emissions, as the REAL COSTS would be very high and the CO2 savings very low. Such it is with industrial wind energy. [The wind availability for such a vehicle also gives another good idea about the concept of Capacity Value: very low.] © john droz, jr.

3 - Does wind energy provide dispatchable electricity ? NO. Due to its unpredictability, wind can not be counted on to provide power on-demand — in other words, on a human-defined schedule. © john droz, jr.

Big Brother Strikes Again Logic would say that this lack of human control is yet another reason to discard this inferior electrical supply source — but no! We now have the specter of a new “remedy” to the problem of wind's uncontrollability: Since we can't control the wind, let's control demand so that it conforms to wind's whims. This is a key part of what’s behind the “solution” called the Smart Grid.

4 - Does wind energy dependably provide one or more of the grid demand elements ? NO. 1 - All electricity produced must be used immediately, as currently there is no way to economically store electricity (and nothing is on the horizon either), 2 - The primary job of Grid operators is to provide a SUPPLY that exactly meets DEMAND on a second by second basis, 3 - The three types of DEMAND are: a) Base Load (what is needed 24/7) b) Load Following (normal usage daily changes) c) Peak Load (unexpected surges) (The next six slides include a basic pictorial representation of these demands.) © john droz, jr.

What is “Base Load” Demand? 3000 Base Load MW of Electricity 2000 1000 Can Wind Energy Supply “Base Load” Power? NO. 0 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Base Load: what is needed 24/7 (about 50% of the total) [This is a predictable underlying demand that is quite consistent throughout the year.] © john droz, jr.

More on “Base Load” Demand... The principle Base Load sources of electrical power are Nuclear and Coal facilities. Since Wind Energy can not provide Base Load power it will not replace any Coal Base Load facilities.  Coal facilities emit 85%± of the electrical sector’s CO2.  [Additional Nuclear (or Geothermal) facilities will provide Base Load, so they can replace high emitting Coal facilities.] Just remember: 85%± of the electrical CO2 emissions will hardly be touched by wind energy! © john droz, jr.

What is “Load Following” Demand? 3000 Load Following Base Load MW of Electricity 2000 1000 Can Wind Energy Supply “Load Following” Power? NO. 0 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Load Following: normal usage daily changes [These are fairly predictable 24 hour cyclic changes, with higher demand before & after work.] © john droz, jr.

What is “Peak Load” Demand? 3000 Peak Load Load Following Base Load MW of Electricity 2000 1000 Can Wind Energy Supply “Peak Load” Power? NO. 0 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Peak Load: unusual surges [These may be due to a heat wave where a lot of air conditioners are used at 5 PM.] © john droz, jr.

More on “Load Following” & “Peak Load” Demands... The principle Load Following & Peak Load sources of electrical power are Hydro, Gas, and select small Coal facilities. Although Wind Energy can’t really provide either of these types of power it is used to reduce the need for Hydro, Gas and small Coal units.  Gas facilities emit only 15%± of the electrical sector’s CO2.  Just remember: when wind replaces Hydro, there are zero CO2 savings; when wind replaces Gas or small Coal, there are miniscule CO2 savings. [The later is due to “thermal inefficiencies,” which means that the Gas or small Coal units are operating inefficiently ramping up and down, just like your car does in stop-and-go traffic.] © john droz, jr.

A Real Life Demand Curve The top (red) line shows varying demand, the bottom shows wind energy available [Note how wind energy does not provide ANY of the grid demand elements!] © john droz, jr.

5 - Is wind energy compact ? NO. To even approximate the nameplate power of a conventional facility, like nuclear, takes something like a thousand times the amount of area. “Connecting” multiple wind projects spread over vast areas is a Tinkertoy “solution” which also completely undermines the objective to be a concentrated power source. Another “feature” of wind energy is that most of the windiest sites (and available land) are a LONG way from where the electricity is needed. This will result in thousands of miles of huge unsightly transmission towers and cables, at an enormous expense to citizens — much of it completely unnecessary. © john droz, jr.

* Comments about the “Interconnecting Multiple Projects” idea This is just another version of "do whatever it takes, no matter how stupid" to enable renewables like wind energy. The whole concept of gaining some small degree of reliability by having massive redundancy is absurd. This should be compared to buying ten unreliable cars so that the odds are improved that one will work on any given day. The intelligent option, of course, is to buy just one reliable vehicle. The same goes for the Grid changes that are carefully being marketed as “Smart”. Both of these ideas add enormous costs — that should be directly assigned to wind energy. The lobbyists (of course) don’t want these expenditures to be connected to their pet projects, so they are busily trying to convince politicians that we needed to spend this money anyway. Most of it is a waste. Remember the warning given a few slides ago: another hidden agenda in the “Smart” grid idea is to force a change as to how users (you) utilize electricity. Beware Big Brother. None of these proposals are truly about benefitting citizens or our society, but are rather to increase the profits of multi-national corporations. That’s what lobbyists do. © john droz, jr.

Some Consequences of the Thousands of Miles of New Transmission Lines Required by Wind Energy: 1 - Signiﬁcant Construction Cost (materials, land, etc.)* 2 - Major Environmental Impact (visually, herbicides, etc.) 3 - Considerable Loss of Efﬁciency (10%± for every 60 miles) 4 - Potentially Adverse Health Effects (e.g. with EMFs) *Note that due to some technical factors, the cost of transmitting wind energy is 2 to 3 times the cost for transmitting conventional power. In Eastern states the cost has been from $2 million to $10 million per mile. Note also that the “Smart Grid” is not the same thing as additional transmission lines. See reference for a more accurate story behind the “Smart Grid.” © john droz, jr.

6 - Does wind energy provide economical electricity ? NO, not compared to conventional sources. We will look at the economics from three (3) perspectives — a) Total Costs (Capital + Operation/Maintenance + Fuel) b) Taxpayer funded incentives c) Ratepayer costs Note that in addition to these there are still more wind energy necessitated expenses (like the cost of a backup power source, the extra transmission lines needed, etc.). © john droz, jr.

Financial Comparison #1 Total Costs (Capital + Operation + Fuel) © john droz, jr.

Power Sources Total Costs Capital Operation Fuel {Note that the Wind costs do NOT take into account any costs: for backup generation, OR for extra transmission lines needed, OR for other ancillary requirements, OR for decommissioning.} Nuclear Coal Gas Wind © john droz, jr.

Financial Comparison #2 Taxpayer Costs © john droz, jr.

$23.37 Some Federal Subsidies of Electrical Energy Sources per MWH US Energy Information Administration Subsidy Report: April 2008 $0.44 $1.59 $0.25 $0.67 $23.37 Coal Nuclear Nat Gas Hydro Wind © john droz, jr.

In ADDITION to the generous Federal subsidies, many states offer ﬁnancial incentives for wind energy, like: 1. Personal Tax Incentives 2. Corporate Tax Incentives 3. Sales Tax Incentives 4. Property Tax Incentives 5. Rebates 6. Grants 7. Loans 8. Industry Support 9. Bonds, and 10. Production Incentives. On top of these financial incentives, state and local governments have established rules, regulations and policies (like RPS), with the purpose of encouraging or mandating the development and increased sale and consumption of energy from renewable sources. © john droz, jr.

And More To Come! IN ADDITION TO THE FOREGOING: on 12/08 some 200 (!) bills were pending before the U.S. Congress that include even more incentives for various types of alternative energy, mostly wind energy... The bottom line of this unprecedented giveaway is that — 1 - wind energy developers make 25%± profit, 2 - oil and other multi-national companies “invest” in wind energy to avoid most taxes. © john droz, jr.

Financial Comparison #3 Utility Ratepayer Costs {For five representative countries.} © john droz, jr.

What’s the Correlation with Higher Wind Energy Usage and Residential Electricity Rates? 40 35 Denmark Bad Renewables % ¢/KWH (2007 Data) 30 Germany 25 20 Spain 15 US 10 Canada 5 © john droz, jr.

What’s the Correlation with Higher GOOD Renewables Usage and Residential Electricity Rates? 40 35 Denmark Good Renewables % ¢/KWH (2007 Data) 30 Germany 25 N 20 Spain 15 US 10 Canada Note: the scale 5 of the right Y axis (green) is 4x the left Y axis. © john droz, jr.

As we raise the cost of electricity, remember that Quality of Life STRONGLY Correlates to Electricity Consumption CIA World Factbook 2007 © john droz, jr.

7 - Does wind energy make a consequential reduction of CO2 ? NO! No independent scientific study has ever shown that wind energy saves a meaningful amount of CO2. In fact, the most independent scientific study done (by the National Academy of Sciences) says the U.S. CO2 savings by 2020 will amount to only 1.8%. [An EIA report for the US Congress concluded that CO2 savings would be about 1.3%.] These are trivial quantities! © john droz, jr.

CO2 in Perspective — How High Is The Sky? © john droz, jr.

CO2 in Perspective — What’s In The Atmosphere? Argon 1% Oxygen 21% Nitrogen 78% (Note that the CO2 part is so small it doesn’t show up.) © john droz, jr.

CO2 in Perspective — Let’s Look at just the Tiny CO2 Part 38% Deforestation —> 1% Respiration Man-Made —> 4% Surface Ocean 57% This graph shows the world-wide major sources of CO2. [There are also sinks, but these are much harder to quantify.] © john droz, jr.

CO2 in Perspective — Let’s say that all the air in the earth’s atmosphere is stacked up in a cylinder, which extends one mile high. 1 Mile Worldwide, citizens are being asked to spend Trillions of Dollars on Global Warming solutions. If successful, how much of this air will we change (i.e. some of the man-made CO2 part)? © john droz, jr.

CO2 in Perspective — 1 Mile About a Quarter of an Inch © john droz, jr.

CO2 in Perspective — Worldwide Contribution to CO2 Reductions Since 1973 100 75 50 25 0 Renewables Generation Transmission Nuclear Power © john droz, jr.

CO2 in Perspective — Question! Looking at the two largest man-made sources of CO2 in the U.S. (transportation & electricity) since 1950 (60± years): 1-the number of transportation miles driven has increased by 6.5x, & 2-the amount of annual electricity generated has increased by 12.5x. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on what you’ve read and heard, how much do you think that the annual amount of man-made CO2 produced in the U.S (over this same 59 year time period) would have increased by: no increase, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, 6x, 7x, 8x, 9x, or 10x? © john droz, jr.

CO2 in Perspective — 13000 10400 Global Implementation of Industrial Wind Power Started About Here 7800 BMT Carbon Global 5200 Point at which 350 ppm of CO2 was reached (Hansen, Gore, McKibben: disaster level) 2600 43% USA 19% 1950 1980 2007 58 Year History of Man-made CO2 Emissions Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) & Global Carbon Project (9/26/08) © john droz, jr.

CO2 in Perspective — 13000 10400 Global Implementation of Industrial Wind Power Started About Here 7800 BMT Carbon Global 5200 Point at which 350 ppm of CO2 was reached (Hansen, Gore, McKibben: disaster level) 2600 With Wind Power Without Wind Power 43% USA 19% 15% 2030 1950 1980 2010 80 Year Overview of Man-made CO2 Emissions CDIAC + Global Carbon Project (9/26/08) + EIA Projections (dashed) to 2030 © john droz, jr.

CO2 in Perspective — 13000 What would be the global impact if the US embarked on a radical program that was able to reduce its CO2 by the extraordinary amount of 25% by 2030? 10400 Global Implementation of Industrial Wind Power Started About Here 7800 BMT Carbon Global 5200 Point at which 350 ppm of CO2 was reached (Hansen, Gore, McKibben: disaster level) 2600 Current Plan: W/WO Wind Power 43% USA 19% Radical 25% Plan 12% 2030 1950 1980 2010 80 Year Overview of Man-made CO2 Emissions II CDIAC + Global Carbon Project (9/26/08) + EIA Projections (dashed) to 2030 © john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior Three “Global Warming” Slides (some of the words given at the live presentation) These three slides may be the most important ones in this presentation. This first one shows the answer to the question I just asked: 2x. Note that how over an almost 60 year period, that the US’s CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) emissions have gone up very slowly – particularly if you consider our much higher population, huge escalation in annual electricity use, big increase in annual mileage driven, etc. Also compare the US CO2 emissions line to the rapidly increasing global CO2 line. Big difference! In 1950 we were a large portion of the problem (43%± of the global amount). Today, not so much (only 19%±, and declining). Two conclusions come from this: #1- the US is not the main problem, and #2- what the US has been doing for the last 50+ years has been reasonably prudent. That’s not to say that we can’t — and shouldn’t — try to do better. As a point of reference I’ve added one more relevant piece of data. Recently the primary Global Warming advocates have been pushing a new number that their evangelist, Dr. James Hansen, came up with: “the safe upper limit for atmospheric CO2 is no more than 350 ppm.” He predicts a series of disasters if this isn’t fixed very soon. [Note that we went past this concentration in 1988.] The second slide in this group shows the future, as projected by the government and CO2 experts. Note again the US line, and then compare it to the total worldwide line. It still seems to me that the US is not the real problem, AND that the US’s path into the future (without wind energy) is quite reasonable. [Note: when I mention “Global Warming” in this presentation, I am referring to the anthropogenic (man-made) global warming hypothesis.] — continued — © john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior Three “Global Warming” Slides (continued) Another conclusion from this data (considering the magnitude of the global CO2 problem) is that NO renewable source of electrical power can possibly make more than a tiny impact on global CO2. For example, the US "with wind energy" and "without wind energy" projection part (2008 to 2030) are actually two lines, but there is so little difference that they are indistinguishable on the graph, and it looks like one line. Note also the point where wind energy started to be used worldwide. Do you see any improvement in the graph’s slope from that time? In other words, where is the CO2 saved by the 100,000± turbines operating today? Another conclusion is that the government could to try to force (e.g. via a “Renewable Portfolio Standard”) an enormous reduction of our CO2 emissions (lets say 25%). This would be extraordinarily expensive (literally over a trillion dollars) and cause substantial environmental harm (e.g. by requiring a million+ turbines). But even this huge amount of savings would have a negligible affect on the global CO2 situation, and could be immediately swamped out by several natural or man-made CO2 sources. And look closely at the Hansen/Gore disaster line. It should be abundantly clear that nothing we do in this country will have any meaningful impact on global CO2. So what would we have accomplished for such a huge expenditure and sacrifice? Very little. These graphs tell us that concepts of “carbon-neutral,” and “clean, green, renewable energy” sound PC (politically correct), but the reality is that they do not make sense from scientific, economic, or environmental perspectives. In other words we need to adopt environmental improvement policies that are SC (Scientifically Correct). — continued — © john droz, jr.

* Still More Explanation of the Prior Three “Global Warming” Slides (continued) A trump card that advocates for drastic Global Warming action frequently pull out, is the fact that the US has high CO2 emissions per capita. Although that is true, it is not an accurate representation of the whole picture. What is missing is the fact that the US (until recently) enjoyed what can best be summarized as a “free market,” and has one of, if not the most, carbon efficient (productive) economies in the world as measured by CO2/$GDP. We’re often accused of representing less than 5% world population but 20%± of GHG emissions — yet we SELDOM hear the other fact that we’re responsible for 30%+ of world GDP and an even larger proportion (35%±) of the world’s food. We feed, clothe, house and protect the world which (in effect) is now being turned against us to try to make us feel guilty. Other evidence of our efficiency (and already reasonable efforts) is to look at US CO2 over the last 60 years — which is on these slides. Despite massive increase in transportation mileage, electricity generation, concrete usage, etc., our CO2 emissions have gone up relatively little. [Re transportation: "The average new car on the road today runs 97% cleaner than the average car built in 1970, thanks to a combination of cleaner gasoline and more efficient engines." Re electricity: A large part of this is due to nuclear energy. Don't forget that there were no nuclear energy facilities in 1950.] Additionally I see few analysts assessing the negative global impact attributable to our wearing a hair shirt and voluntarily handicapping our economy. China and India will not be doing the same. What needs to be done is to start with a comprehensive list of ALL of the benefits the US provides the rest of the planet. Then analyze the significant global costs for when these will be cut back. Let’s keep things in perspective. — continued — © john droz, jr.

* A Postscript about the “Global Warming” Issue How does an individual’s position on Global Warming affect their support of Industrial Wind Energy? Well, let’s look at the two extremes: 1 - If they were a strong advocate of the Global Warming theory, they would also accept the dire imminent consequences postulated by its lead proponents (e.g. Hansen, Gore, Romm). As such they would be very committed to taking measures that were guaranteed to result in a large reduction of CO2, in short order. But all independent scientific evidence to date says that wind energy only makes a trivial reduction of CO2, and well into the future at that. As such they would be against wind energy as an inefficient use of time and money. 2 - If, on the other hand, they were a skeptic of the Global Warming theory, then they would likewise not believe that man-made CO2 is a major cause of concern. Since the main reason for wind energy’s existence is its promise to meaningfully reduce CO2, that result would be of little value to them. As such they would be against wind energy as a waste of time and money. So it seems to me that no matter which side of the Global Warming debate a person falls on, wind energy is not any part of the answer. [Note: for the purpose of this presentation, we will make the assumption that the viewer is an advocate of the Global Warming Theory.] © john droz, jr.

CO2 in Perspective — Let’s Look at Some Facts about Greenhouse Gases © john droz, jr.

CO2 in Perspective — What Are The Greenhouse Gases? CO2 3.6% NO2 .9% Methane .4% Water Vapor Misc .1% 95% © john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior “Greenhouse Gas” Slide (some of the words given at the live presentation) According to the US government, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): “The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood… huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of the water vapor/climate affect feedback loop… The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet (though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood), we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have changed in recent decades or centuries…” In other words, VERY LITTLE IS KNOWN ABOUT WATER VAPOR — which is BY FAR the most common greenhouse gas… Because of its large volume, SMALL changes in water vapor would have enormously higher effects than LARGE changes in CO2. So what are we doing about reducing water vapor. Oh, nothing. And there’s more... © john droz, jr.

CO2 in Perspective — What % of Greenhouse Gases are Man-Made? water vapor — 0% carbon dioxide — 3% PPB’s adjusted nitrous oxide — 5% for heat retention characteristics methane — 18% misc — 66% TOTAL — .28% In other words: if humans were eliminated from the planet, there would be only a .28% reduction in greenhouse gas concentrations! © john droz, jr.

What about the critical factor of Capacity Value? The result of its inherent deficiencies (including the fact that wind energy is proportional to the cube of the wind speed), is that wind energy has a Capacity Value of near zero. Compare this to the conventional sources, where essentially all of them have a Capacity Value near 100%. This is a simply stunning disparity. © john droz, jr.

Yes, you heard this right: The U.S. is now on the path to spend s-e-v-e-r-a-l TRILLION dollars on an electrical source that FAILS five out of six of our historically important power generation criteria, AND has no scientific proof that it meets the new emissions criterion, AND has very little Capacity Value! © john droz, jr.

So how did we get into the Energy Ditch? Same answer as to how Wall Street got into the Financial Ditch: GREED & IGNORANCE © john droz, jr.

* The Most Important Equation To Remember: 1 MW ≠ 1 MW © john droz, jr.

Just Like: * ≠ © john droz, jr.

3.5 Power Source #1 * 3 Power Source #2 2.5 2 MW 1.5 1 0.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Both power sources produce an average of 1 MW. Are they equal? © john droz, jr.

If you understand this, * you’ll know more than 90% of the “experts”: 1 MW ≠ 1 MW © john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior Four “Equation” Slides (some of the words given at the live presentation) A second important reason we’ve lost our way (in addition to greed) is that most politicians, environmentalists and even many scientists don’t understand this profoundly important equation: that 1 MW (Megawatt) of one type of electricity is NOT the same as any another 1 MW of electricity. Consider an analogy to understand what may seem to be a contradiction. It’s clear what the second slide says, right? Let’s say a company wants to hire someone to get some work done. Is any one person the same as any other person to do that job? Of course not! They would differ in the amount of work they could perform, their reliability, dependability, skill, cooperativeness, cost, etc. So 1 Person ≠ 1 Person. The third (graph) slide says this in a different way. Even though the average output of two power sources can be the same, that obviously does not mean that they are equal. So it is with electricity sources, and that’s the message of the six grid characteristics just reviewed: there are BIG differences. That’s an underlying flaw in government policies pushing wind energy, as one of the assumptions is that all electrical power sources are basically equal. Hopefully you can now see that they are not, and that 1 MW of nuclear power (for instance) does not equal 1 MW of wind energy (they differ in reliability, dispatchability, cost, etc.). In other words: 1 MW ≠ 1 MW! © john droz, jr.

In addition to grid deficiencies, there are numerous other legitimate concerns about industrial wind energy, like: —> bird and bat mortality, —> noise intrusions, —> flicker effect, —> other health issues, —> visual pollution, —> property devaluation, —> ice throws, —> decommissioning, etc., etc. But what if they were “fixed”? Would Industrial Wind Energy then be OK? © john droz, jr.

Let’s assume that the number one concern of your town is the health and welfare of all of its citizens. To address some of the Wind Energy problems just mentioned (noise intrusion, flicker effect, health issues, etc.), your town requires that all turbines be at least one mile from any home (developers typically propose a separation of 1000 feet). Would Industrial Wind Energy then be OK? © john droz, jr.

NO! Industrial Wind Energy will not be an acceptable source until all seven requirements are met. As of now, Wind Energy is not a legitimate part of any serious energy solution. Power Pole Typical Tree Transmission Line Large Wind Turbine (2.5 MW size) © john droz, jr.

{To try to diffuse it’s numerous limitations, wind energy proponents usually say that these problems will be “fixed” in the future.} When Wind Energy proponents say: mañana, the appropriate response is: “Then come back mañana when everything is worked out.” © john droz, jr.

A good example of getting away from the Science is the Renewable Portfolio Standard: RPS In effect, this arbitrary and artificial Political mandate forces utilities to use wind energy — even though it does not materially benefit 1) the Electrical Grid, 2) the Environment, or 3) Tax & Rate Payers. It does however, materially benefit lobbyists and the multi-national companies that employ them. © john droz, jr.

* The Financial Benefits Purported to Result from an RPS: 1 - Economic Development 2 - Price (Rate) Suppression 3 - Environmental [As the following pages explain, these are mostly an illusion.] © john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior “RPS Benefits” Slide (Part 1) We will use NYS as an example, as their experiences are fairly typical. In late 2008 two consulting firms (Summit Blue and KEMA) were hired to analyze different aspects of the NYS RPS program. Both of these firms are closely aligned with the renewable industry, so their ability (and interest) to perform a critical analysis of the RPS program immediately comes into question, so keep that in mind. (To read these lengthy reports see the PDF versions at <<http://tinyurl.com/pmynab>> and <<http://tinyurl.com/qxp9yv>.) Despite the almost 700 pages of technical jargon, for all practical purposes the bottom line is found on page 52 (5-19), Table 16 of the KEMA report. This summarizes both reports’ conclusions, that it is their contention that the RPS results in three economic returns to NYS (over a 24 year period): 1) general economic benefits [e.g. employment related; they call this “GSP”], 2) “price suppression” of electricity costs, and 3) environmental [e.g. CO2 reductions]. Remember that the number one reason for imposing the RPS on the citizens of NYS is item #3 in the reports above: Environmental. So what do these reports say about the environmental value of the NYS RPS? When adding up all the projected benefits to NYS citizens (see Table 16), the environmental part amounts to about .00005 of the total! That’s 1/20,000… [This is consistent with independent analyses of low emission savings: <<http://tinyurl.com/n3cdx9>>.] So carefully think about this key conclusion of the pro-wind consultants hired to assess the financial benefits of NYS’s RPS program: the main reason for doing the RPS will result in a projected benefit of $129,000± — at a NYS cost of $500,000,000±. Continuing on, item 2 (“price suppression”) was reported to account for 72% (over 2 billion dollars) of the economic benefits of the NYS RPS. But how valid is that? Here’s a key thought: to assess the benefits of forcing renewable energies on NYS citizens, an accurate calculation should be based on comparing the cost and benefits of: 1) adding a certain amount of renewable energy sources vs 2) adding equivalent generation of the best conventional energy sources. That is NOT what was done in these reports! So if we wade through the data used to come up with the “price suppression” amounts, and this time add an equivalent amount of nuclear power generation (instead of the renewables generation used in the report), what “price suppression” is there from the “renewables” option? The answer is ZERO! (See our slides 105 through 107 for a more detailed explanation of this.) — continued — © john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior “RPS Benefits” Slide (Part 2) We are working up the ladder, so we can now look at item #1: general economic benefits. These are reported to account for about 28% of the total supposed NYS RPS financial returns. The primary basis for this calculation is a computer model called JEDI. This software program came about as a way to quantify the benefits of adding wind power. This was never intended to be a comprehensive, independent tool to objectively look at real economic effects for adding new energy sources. It’s more about justifying wind power promotion. This computer model has several favorable assumptions built into it, plus it ignores many negative economic consequences of renewable implementation. To get a good idea of JEDI’s limitations and omissions read this critique by an independent energy expert: <<http://tinyurl.com/mwdfse>>. And there are additional JEDI limitations that have come to the surface since his report was released! An an example, there have been numerous independent studies that have challenged the “green jobs” political assertions made by promoters of renewable energies. (None of these considerations are adequately dealt with by JEDI.) Here is a small sample: 1 -<<http://tinyurl.com/cpmwrj>> 3 -<<http://tinyurl.com/dhlvm5> 2 -<<http://tinyurl.com/cb2u7w>> 4 -<<http://tinyurl.com/lt9ero>> When taking this all into account, the general economic benefits to NYS citizens is likely to be ZERO. (Some contend that it is negative.) This is a citizen-based presentation, so we have purposely done a quick overview here. Our basic premise is that to accurately assess a complicated program like the NYS RPS, only competent consultants who have no financial stake in the outcome should be hired to evaluate it — and they should be instructed to use conservative assumptions. That is not the case with Summit Blue and KEMA, as they both have a stake in the success of renewable energies, and do not appear to have been given instructions to be conservative. So the observations we made above should come as no surprise. It appears these reports have been initiated with the intent of justifying the RPS — not to do a conservatively critical examination of its true costs and benefits. {Note: Due to the several links on this and the prior slide, they are only found here, on these pages, not in the References at the end.} © john droz, jr.

With the NYS RPS, 72% of the benefits are supposed to be due to “price suppression,” so let’s look closer at that... The first non-intuitive fact you have to grasp is this: the suppliers of electricity each submit a bid (their cost + profit) for providing a certain amount of electricity (MW), over a defined time period. [See graph for those typical amounts.] What happens, though, is that THEY ALL GET PAID THE AMOUNT OF THE HIGHEST BID UTILIZED! (In this example it is $80/MWh.) This is yet another reason why wind power is exceptionally profitable. Here is figure 44 from the Summit report © john droz, jr.

More on “price suppression” #2... The savings calculation is based on an assumption: if there is 500 MW of added wind power, then that would shift the lower part of the supply curve to the right (see graph), and maybe result in a lower cost across the board. In this example it does change the cost from $80/MWh to $60/MWh. So is this a true savings from adding wind power? Here is figure 45 from the Summit report © john droz, jr.

More on “price suppression” #3... Their chart also demonstrates another fact: ANY NEW LOW COST SUPPLY THAT PROVIDES AN EXTRA 500 MW WOULD ALSO SHIFT THE CURVE TO THE RIGHT! (See graph.) Go back to Summit ﬁgure 44 and you’ll see that adding 500 MW of Nuclear will provide the exact same price suppression. So the REAL question is this: does wind energy provide price suppression compared to Nuclear power? The answer is NO. Here is figure 45 from the Summit report © john droz, jr.

— Summary — The Financial Benefits from an RPS: 1 - Economic Development — very little 2 - Price (Rate) Suppression — zero 3 - Environmental — tiny These conclusions are based on NY state’s own analysis! To get these “Benefits” NYS is spending something like Two Billion Dollars... © john droz, jr.

What IS a “Renewable” Anyway? “An energy resource that is replaced in a reasonable amount of time.” Who is to say what is a “reasonable amount of time”? 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? Some experts believe that we have 2500 years of nuclear fuel available. Yet most politicians and environmentalists arbitrarily choose not to call nuclear a renewable... © john droz, jr.

On The Other Hand Consider This: Large amounts of LAND are a necessary element of industrial wind energy generation. But land is NOT replaced in “a reasonable amount of time.” In the US we will run out of suitable land for industrial wind energy before we run out of any fossil fuels used for electricity! Shouldn’t the whole package qualify before a source is labelled as “renewable”? © john droz, jr.

So Which is the True Renewable: Wind Energy or Nuclear Power? © john droz, jr.

Two Nineteenth Century Technologies * © john droz, jr. Ref http://tinyurl.com/lfw32c

RPS is Like Forcing 20% of our Cargo Ships * to Revert to Being Wind Powered Ships © john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior three “RPS Analogy” Slides (some of the words given at the live presentation) An electrical energy RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard) makes about as much sense as would an edict mandating that a large percentage of our commercial shipping fleet must be operated by wind energy in a few years. Consider the enormous consequences of that. For instance, it might take a 1000 clipper ships to carry the same load as a modern cargo vessel. (Interestingly this is quite similar to the relationship between wind turbines and nuclear power — so you might look at the modern cargo ship as a nuclear power facility.) Because of the unattractive implications wind energy would have on the shipping business, many customers would take their business elsewhere. The result of this would be that airlines, railroads and trucking would ramp up their operations to account for increased traffic. All that would mean much more fossil fuel used by those sources. Etc., etc. So shipping costs would go up significantly, efficiency would go down, and there’d be little if any environmental benefit. The exact same thing can be said of the electrical RPS: high cost, miniscule benefit, and numerous other problems caused. The same analogy applies for mandating that some cars be replaced by horse drawn vehicles. © john droz, jr.

Our Electrical Power Choices are — 1: a 1 GW Nuclear facility — OR — 2: a 3.3 GW Wind Energy project + a 1 GW Gas (low efficiency) facility Lowest Total Cost = #1 Lowest KWH Rate = #1 Lowest CO2 Emissions = #1 Least Transmission Lines = #1 SCORECARD: Least Environmental Harm = #1 Least Human Harm = #1 Most Compact = #1 Most Renewable = #1 Fastest Online = #2 © john droz, jr.

Does this sound like a Wise National Electrical Energy Policy? 1 - Spend something like a Trillion dollars, 2 - Increase utility rates substantially, 3 - Cover 100,000++ acres of land with wind turbines, 4 - Have a thousand+ miles of new transmission lines, and 5 - Cause numerous hardships to humans and the environment. Net Beneﬁt: Save 2%± CO2 By promoting Wind Energy, this is the path we are currently on... © john droz, jr.

In “a picture is worth a thousand words department”: AAll you want to know about “Cap & Trade” “Solution” for Every Problem — NOT! 1-Wind is unreliable 1-Back it up with fossil fuel sources 2-Wind is unpredictable 2-Have massive redundancy 3-Wind is uncontrollable 3-Change demand to accommodate the wind 4-Wind is very expensive 4-Make conventional sources more costly 5-Wind doesn’t save very 5-Sell wind instead as a source of “economic much CO2 development” 6-Wind causes human health 6-Who cares? It’s just a few complainers in problems some rural areas 7-No utility wants wind 7-Mandate wind with a RPS etc., etc. etc., etc. This is what happens when politicians support lobbyists driven solutions — rather than scientific ones.

{New York is used as an example here but similar results are happening in many other states and provinces...} Wind Energy is NOT inevitable! Taking NYS as an example, quite a few communities there have been successful at fighting this assault. To name some: Albion Allegheny Andes Beekmantown Bethany Bovina Brandon Bristol Canadice Castile Centerville Cherry Valley Ellenburg Gaines Gainesville Gorham Hartsville Henderson Howard Lyme Malone Meredith Naples Oakfield Pavilion Plattsburgh Prattsburgh Sardinia Sheldon South Bristol Springwater Stafford Stamford Stark Tioga Warren Warsaw Westfield ... © john droz, jr.

Does wind energy’s abysmal failure mean that all “renewables” are similarly poor? NO! Each new alternative power source needs to be objectively evaluated, independently — i.e. using Scientific Methodology. From scientific literature (e.g. MIT’s 2007 report) industrial Geothermal holds significant promise. © john droz, jr.

An example of how Industrial Geothermal works. A working Industrial Geothermal generator. Fact: The earth’s magma is hotter than the surface of the Sun! Fact: Industrial Geothermal can be located almost anywhere. Fact: In 2007, Industrial Geothermal produced as much U.S. electricity as Wind Energy did! © john droz, jr.

The Basics of a Solution... 1 - Set up an Energy FDA. (See EEA article at WindPowerFacts.Info) [This would assure that for any alternative power source to be an acceptable new option, it would need independent & objective scientific testing to verify that it was technologically, economically and environmentally sound — and at least equal to conventional sources.] 2 - Only give Federal & State subsidies to technologies that pass the Energy FDA. (We would save about 75% of what is scheduled now.) 3 - Use 90%± of what we do spend on improving the conventional sources that already work (e.g. by reducing their pollutants). This would include promoting nuclear power, worldwide. 4 - Use the rest to explore new options — like increasing delivered efficiency, improving motor efficiencies, etc. Citizens, businesses & the utility industry must get serious about minimizing waste. © john droz, jr.

2007 U.S. Electricity Flow * — Showing Delivered Efficiency — (Quadrillion Btu/Year) (which includes Hydro)

*

* An Explanation of the Prior Three “Delivered Efficiency” Slides (some of the words given at the live presentation) One example of these ideas is to look closer at what’s called delivered efficiency. The fact is that in the US only about a third of the original energy at a power plant makes it to the end user. That’s a lot of waste! What that says is that this area has the potential for substantial improvements. It also says that meaningful reductions of these losses could not only save us the huge cost of building new facilities, but actually allow us to close coal facilities — something that wind energy does not do. The second slide is another representation of delivered efficiency. (Slides two and three in this set are courtesy of Tom Casten.) A very interesting fact that Mr. Casten shows in the third slide is that this relatively low efficiency rate of delivered electricity has not improved in over fifty years! Considering all the technological advances that have occurred during this time, this is indeed surprising. He has several ideas about improving efficiency, like doing such things as recycling waste heat, and changing archaic regulations. You’ll have to read his reports to see the details, but his calculations show that by doing these the US could reduce its CO2 emissions by some 20%. This is 10 times the amount that wind energy will do! © john droz, jr.

An Example of a Creative Solution: Mini-Nuclear Some Advantages: — Reliable — Dispatchable — 24/7 Base Load — Compact — Economical — Very Safe — No CO2 Emissions — 1 unit = 20,000 homes — No Transmission Lines {e.g. NuScale, Toshiba} © john droz, jr.

Another Potential Solution:  65±% of all electricity used in the US is from motors  Typical electric motors are only 50-60% efﬁcient  Making these motors more efﬁcient, would save enormous amounts of electricity Example: Trezium • Costs more to begin with, but • Reduces electricity loss by up to half • Weighs half as much for the same output • Is more reliable and more durable • Runs safer and quieter • Has less lifetime maintenance © john droz, jr.

We Need To Understand & Apply EXERGY (Absolute Energy Efficiency) Energy Sources should be matched to Energy Tasks in most cases today “we are using a chainsaw to cut butter” © john droz, jr.

Still More Examples of Potential Solutions: Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) (“An unlimited supply of economic fuel.”) High Temp Gas Cooled Reactors (HTGR) (MIT: “Safest nuclear plant every built.”) Magnetic Power (MPI: “Self-contained, pollution free, electric power generation technologies that operate continuously without fuel.”) Orion Project (Proposing a variety of innovative energy solutions.) © john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Following Twelve “Marketing” Slides (some of the words given at the live presentation) As I stated in the beginning, one of my main purposes here is to encourage you to do Critical Thinking on this very important technical, financial and environmental matter. Once you start such thinking you’ll soon realize that non-Scientific solutions (for example, political solutions like RPS) are non-Sense. So we are going to end on that theme. Because of the enormous amounts of money involved, we are arrayed against some very formidable forces — and the last thing they want, is for you to do Critical Thinking. To sell wind energy to you, they’ve hired Madison Ave marketers to pull out all the stops. And indeed they are doing just that. At last count profiteers have employed no less than SEVEN different marketing techniques against us. The message here is that the best defense against these is to use Critical Thinking. On the following slides I’ll reveal some of the more frequent marketing tactics being used, and identify the appropriate response. © john droz, jr.

* Their Sales Strategy: Social Marketing (to make us think that their product is good for society) e.g. “Industrial Wind Energy is Free, Clean, & Green”. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Our Defense: Critical Thinking. After you check it out you’ll see that Wind Energy electricity is not really Free, Clean, or Green. © john droz, jr.

* Their Sales Strategy: Greenwashing (a business tries to make themselves look more environmentally friendly than they really are) e.g. “Wind Energy is good for the environment”. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Our Defense: Critical Thinking. After you check it out you’ll see that Wind Energy is a blight on the environment. © john droz, jr.

The manufacture and delivery of the concrete in EACH wind turbine base * produces over 250,000 pounds of CO2. That’s the weight of over nine empty 18-wheelers... © john droz, jr.

* Their Sales Strategy: Confuse Us (to take advantage of our lack of knowledge about their product by connecting it with current prevalent public concerns) e.g. “Industrial Wind Energy reduces our dependence on foreign oil”. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Our Defense: Critical Thinking. After you check it out you’ll see that there is no real connection between Wind Energy and foreign oil. © john droz, jr.

* Their Sales Strategy: Sleight of Hand (to take advantage of our belief that something should be done, they morph this into a position that anything should be done) e.g. “Industrial Wind Energy should be part of our energy strategy”. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Our Defense: Critical Thinking. After you investigate the situation you’ll be asking why should something with trivial beneﬁts, high cost, and is environmentally destructive, be part of any solution? © john droz, jr.

* While your house is burning down, a helpful profiteer arrives with some cases of bottled water. He offers to sell bottles to you, as a “partial” solution, at $50 each. Since the water came from a local retailer, he says it’s promoting economic development! © john droz, jr.

* While the planet is burning up, helpful profiteers arrive with a portfolio of wind turbines. They offer to sell these to us, as a “partial” solution, at Trillions of $. Since a tiny amount of this will stay in the community, they say it’s promoting economic development! © john droz, jr.

* Their Sales Strategy: Reality Distortion (to phrase matters in an inaccurate perspective) e.g. “Nuclear power plants could be targets of terrorists.” ------------------------------------------------------------------ Our Defense: Critical Thinking. After you check it out you’ll see that this is an extraordinarily low possibility. © john droz, jr.

* Their Sales Strategy: Make You AFRAID (to push some hot button that instills in you some fear) e.g. “Transporting nuclear power waste is extremely dangerous.” ------------------------------------------------------------------ Our Defense: Critical Thinking. After you check it out you’ll see that this transportation is very safe. © john droz, jr.

* Head on Crash Test of Truck with Nuclear Fuel Container (Part of a series of extensive tests performed by Sandia Labs) © john droz, jr.

* Side on Crash Test of Truck with Nuclear Fuel Container (Part of a series of extensive tests performed by Sandia Labs) © john droz, jr.

* Their Sales Strategy: Manufacture “Science” (to create the impression there is credibility to their claims) e.g. “DOE report about 20% wind power in 2030.” ------------------------------------------------------------------ Our Defense: Critical Thinking. After you check it out you’ll recall that we don’t want studies by scientists, but rather scientiﬁc studies (this “DOE” document is nothing more than AWEA propaganda.) © john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior “Manufactured Science” Slide (some of the words given at the live presentation) The very essence of science is under a frontal assault by these profiteers, who realize that their scheme needs the appearance of scientific support. Since it isn’t there legitimately, they simply make it up. The key ingredient of their campaign is a disavowal of the scientific method and a substitution of “scientific consensus.” Consensus science does not simply refer to a theory which has the endorsement of the majority of scientists (e.g. the sun is the center of the solar system), but rather to a theory in which the consensus of scientists is given as the primary evidence of the argument. [Of course no legitimate poll has ever been taken of all qualified scientists, so even the idea of a consensus is speculative. In any case, science is never determined by a vote.] [One who believes that a theory is supported by both: 1) scientific consensus and 2) conclusive empirical evidence, would not consider it "consensus science," because this would be the far inferior confirmation.] “I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels. It is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear ‘the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other,’ reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.” “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. Consensus is irrelevant: what is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.” — Michael Crichton January 17, 2003: speech at the California Institute of Technology © john droz, jr.

* in the live presentation i then show a “WeCanSolveIt” ad.* In the live Q&A we go over how EVERYTHING in the ad is false or misleading. *reference credits © john droz, jr.

As a LONG TIME environmental advocate, I can say that this “environmentalism” has simply gotten out of control... National Energy Technology Lab “Why Combustion?” CD ROM © john droz, jr.

The Wind Project Developer has ONE Objective: to squeeze the Town & the Leaseholders for EVERYTHING he can get out of them.

You can be 100% sure of one thing: he is not your partner, or your friend!

Remember What Your Dad Said: There’s No Free Lunch!

{The message here is that we have two choices to solve our serious energy issues: #1-get educated and apply science...} y rg ne Sc lE ien ica ce ctr Ele Informed Citizens © john droz, jr.

Relevant Carl Sagan Quotes To Ponder — 1 - We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. 2 - I am often amazed at how much more capability and enthusiasm for science there is among elementary school youngsters than among college students. 3 - We have arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces. © john droz, jr.

Sound Scientific Solutions is the Umbrella position that covers ALL important concerns: TECHNICAL ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL (e.g. reliability (e.g. taxpayer cost, (e.g. CO2 savings, dispatchability, ratepayer costs) noise, flicker, other Grid birds & bats, limitations) other health effects) © john droz, jr.

References (for main data, quotes, etc.) — Slide 6: Galileo quote - Galileo Scientific (www.quotationspage.com/quote/310.html) Slide 7: Critical Thinking - several sources, e.g. (www.criticalthinking.org/about/mission.cfm) Slide 8: GroupThink - several sources, e.g. (www.cedu.niu.edu/~fulmer/groupthink.htm) Slide 18: Scientific Methodology - several sources, e.g. (teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html) Slide 24: John Kenneth Galbraith - (www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnkennet125404.html) Slide 25: Ann Rice - (www.annerice.com/Bookshelf-VampireLestat.html) Slide 26: Cognitive Dissonance - (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) Slide 30: Discussion of various capacities (www.peakoilandhumanity.com/Further_reading_folder/why_wind_wont_work.htm) Slide 32: Fuel Sources - DOE/EIA Report (10/08/08): Table 7d (tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/STEO_Query/steotables.cfm) Slide 43: Land use comparison - several sources, e.g. Ausubel (phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/appeaausubel12april.pdf) Slide 44: Reliability - several sources, e.g. (ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v36y2008i8p3202-3215.html) Slide 45: EonNetz: daily production (12/17/08) - (tinyurl.com/9zcl4x) Slide 45: EonNetz: wind energy weekly output for a Year (tinyurl.com/9b7qbg) Slide 46: Ontario Wind Output for sample month (www.northnet.org/brvmug/WindPower/EPReview.pdf) Slides 47 & 58: BPA Live Data (www.transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx) Slide 60: Transmission Lines (www.powermag.com/issues/cover_stories/168_p3.html) & (nytimes.com/2009/03/07/opinion/07bowles.html?_r=1) Slide 63: EMFs - several sources, e.g. (infoventures.com/emf/federal/dot/wh-pap95.html) Slide 63: The truth about the Smart Grid (http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/34857) Slide 66: Power Sources Total Cost (https://oa.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/39685/isbn9789522145888.pdf) Slide 68: Federal Subsidies - EIA 2007 Report (chapter 5) (www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/index.html) Slide 69 & 70: State Wind Energy Subsidies, etc. (www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1837) Slide 70: Developer Profit & Oil Company Tax Shelter (PDF) (www.fastcompany.com/node/849689/print) & (tinyurl.com/alfm8x) Slides 72 & 73: IEA 2007 World Energy Statistics (http://tinyurl.com/bwx9pl) + data sent from IEA Slide 75: NAS Wind Energy Study - 2007 (www.nap.edu/nap-cgi/report.cgi?record_id=11935&type=pdfxsum) Slide 75: EIA Congressional Report - 2002 (tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/service/sroiaf(2002)03.pdf) Slide 75: EIA Congressional Report - 2007 (tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/service/sroiaf(2007)03.pdf) Slide 78: Global CO2 Sources - several sources, e.g. (tinyurl.com/m3zxs) & (tinyurl.com/gtp6z); CO2 Sinks (www.whrc.org/carbon/missingc.htm). Slide 81: Worldwide CO2 Reductions since 1973 (www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/nuclear.htm) Slide 82: US Historical Transportation Mileage - DOT (www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/summary95/vm201.pdf) Slide 82: US Historical Electricity Usage - EIA (www.eia.doe.gov/aer/pdf/pages/sec8_5.pdf) Slide 83: Global & US Past CO2 Emissions - CDIAC (cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html) Slide 84: Hansen Predictions abut CO2 - (www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/) Slide 84: Global & US Projected CO2 Emissions - EIA (www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html) — continued — © john droz, jr.

References (for main data, quotes, etc.) — Slide 88: For example, see EIA data (www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/flash.html); www.factsonfuel.org/gasoline/index.html) Slide 92: NOAA regarding Greenhouse Gases (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html#wv) Slide 93: Greenhouse Gases: man-made (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html) Slide 94: Capacity Values - several sources, e.g. (tinyurl.com/847x9k) Slide 95: Wind Energy cost - several sources, e.g. (tinyurl.com/9lyukv) Slide 106: States with RPS (apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/maps/renewable_portfolio_states.cfm) Slide 106±: RPS critique (www.eba-net.org/docs/elj291/national_renewable_portfolio_standard.pdf) Slide 114: Nuclear as Renewable (www.nei.org/howitworks/nuclearpowerplantfuel/) & (www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html) Slide 127: MIT Geothermal Report (web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html) Slide 130: Open letter to Congress (www.ntu.org/main/letters_detail.php?letter_id=538) Slide 130: American Society of Physicists (APS) - Future Energy Report (aps.org/energyefficiencyreport/index.cfm) Slide 131: Dr. Charles Wyman "Energy Use and Options for a Sustainable Future" (1/07/09) Slides 132 & 133: Tom Casten/RED (www.chpcenterpr.org/wasteheat2power07/PDF/TCasten%20presentation.pdf) Slide 135: Mini-nuclear - several sources, e.g. (www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/); (www.nuscalepower.com/) Slide 136: Trezium motors - Thor Power (www.thor-power.com/technique/trezium-system/) Slide 137: Discussion of Exergy (tinyurl.com/96vbl2) Slide 138: Liquid Floride Thorium Reactor - LFTR (www.energyfromthorium.com/) Slide 138: High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors - HTGR (nextbigfuture.com/2008/06/worlds-first-commercial-high.html) Slide 138: Magnetic Power (www.magneticpowerinc.com/summary.html) Slide 138: Orion Project (www.theorionproject.org/en/vision.html) Slide 141: Social Marketing - several sources, e.g. (www.social-marketing.org/sm.html) Slide 142: Greenwashing - several sources, e.g. (www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Greenwashing) Slide 143: CO2 of Turbine base - data based calculation, e.g. (www.p2pays.org/ref/22/21845.pdf) & (http://tinyurl.com/cpp33t) Slide 148: Nuclear Power and Terrorism - Science Magazine (tinyurl.com/7awpfn) Slide 152: Manufactured Science - DOE + AWEA = DOA (www.northnet.org/brvmug/WindPower/DOECritique.pdf) Other unattributed observations are the result of private research. Credits (for graphics, photos & videos) — Slide 1: Philip Epp painting - Wild Horses (www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/OFR/2006/OFR06_11/index.html) Slide 4: Scientist drawing - GlobalMoxie (globalmoxie.com/index.shtml) Slide 6: Galileo picture - Galileo Scientific (www.galileoscientific.com) Slide 7: Rodin “The Thinker” - (upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/The_Thinker_Musee_Rodin.jpg) — continued — © john droz, jr.

Credits (for graphics, photos & videos) — Slide 8: Josh Neuman painting - Lemmings (www.SurrealArt.com) Slide 16: Science Lab - (teacherweb.craven.k12.nc.us/TPE/specials/images/7A6FFA731C634321AE6594D79F5B9D2F.jpg) Slide 19: Mega Signs painting - Mike Ringer (www.michaelringer.com/) Slides 22 & 23: Field and Believe slides - “Lebensweisheiten” PowerPoint slides Slide 26: UFO - (www.calvinbeck.com/pictures/ufo.jpg) Slide 28: Edison Utility photo - Open Learn (openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=209153) Slide 34: Magnifying Glass - Keynote Jam (www.jumsoft.com/jam/) Slide 35: Continent Clouds - (fennerschool.anu.edu.au/studying/postgrad/environment/fenner_clouds.jpg) Slide 36: Tornado - (tinyurl.com/87s9sgg) Slide 37: NYS Interstate 87 - (www.interstate-guide.com/images501/i-587_ny_wt_10.jpg) Slide 43: Nuclear Power photo - Diablo Canyon (www.zimfamilycockers.com/DiabloCanyon.html) Slide 48: Windmobile photo - (www.camdev.org/images/Wind%20Pix/P5010046.jpg) Slide 62: Transmission Towers photo - VNF (www.vnf.com/assets/htmlimages/Electric_transmission_lines.resize.jpg) Slide 97, 98, 99: Blackboard - (www.koolman.com/images/blackboard.jpg) Slide 104: Wind Turbines in perspective photo - (www.ckwag.org/photos/issues/TurbineSize.jpg) Slide 128: How Geothermal Works - REUK (www.reuk.co.uk/OtherImages/geothermalIllust.gif) Slide 128: Sample Geothermal Utility - NREL (www.sdrafvc.org/IMAGES/photos/geothermal.jpg) Slide 135: Mini-Nuclear - Hyperion (www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/) Slide 139: Stick Figure w Question Mark - (www.dailygalaxy.com/photos/uncategorized/shutterstock_2057058.jpg) Slide 146: House Fire - (www.ihs.gov/MedicalPrograms/PortlandInjury/otherimages/indexpic/flash/HouseFire_2.jpg) Slide 146: Bottled Water - (www.healthline.com/blogs/diet_nutrition/uploaded_images/bottled-water-760612.jpg) Slide 147: Global Warming Globe - (globalwarmingcause.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/fire_globe.jpg) Slides 150 & 151: Crash Tests - Sandia Labs (Sandia.Gov/TP/Safe_Ram/Severity.htm) Slide 154: Theater - (oygirl.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/movie-theater.jpg) Slide 154: “Repower America” advertisement - WeCanSolveIt (www.wecansolveit.com/) Slide 155: “Save the Planet” (flickr.com/photos/ mrssloop/1176944724/) Slide 160: “He Has Your Wallet” (www.floppingaces.net/wp-content/uploads/he-has-your-wallet.jpg) Slide 162: Triangle - (ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/A166EB14-E7FD-473F-98FB-741A9817540C/0/chp_triangle.jpg) Slide 162: Sun - (www.swpc.noaa.gov/primer/primer_graphics/Sun.png) Slide 163: Three Monkees - (johnfenzel.typepad.com/john_fenzels_blog/images/2007/03/14/the3monkeys.jpg) John Terry cartoons (www.windtoons.com/) [my ideas]: Slides #69, #96, #105, #157, #166 Other unidentified graphics & photos are mine... Stock Photos: Slides #5, #17 & 18, #41, #50, #76, #98, #110, #117-9, #125 & 26, #143, and #167. © john droz, jr.

John Droz, jr. is a physicist and has been an environmental activist for over 25 years. Currently he is a leading individual on four New York statewide issues (electrical energy, water extraction, water quality, and property taxes). He received undergraduate degrees in physics and mathematics from Boston College, and a graduate degree in physics from Syracuse University. He is a participating member of several environmental organizations (like the Adirondack Council, AfPA, RCPA, and Sierra Club). Due to his love of nature, he lives on a lake in the Adirondacks of upstate NY. These areas of interest and expertise (science & environmentalism) have merged with his focus on energy matters, especially wind energy. John’s basic position is that we should be taking aggressive measures to solve our energy and pollution issues, and should not be wasting time and money on illusionary solutions — which are primarily promoted by those with vested financial interests in them. This slide presentation is copyrighted and is for personal use only. Any reproduction, quoting, referencing, or other use of this material is prohibited without the author’s express written consent. Substantial time and effort was exerted to ascertain the veracity of the material in this presentation. As such, all information is believed to be accurate, but is not guaranteed. If errors are noted, please email John the scientific evidence of same and a correction will be made. For questions, comments or permission to use any material in this presentation, please email Mr. Droz at: aaprjohn@northnet.org © john droz, jr.

Electrical Energy: Sound Scientific Solutions

6 comments

Notes on slide 1

6 Favorites