Electrical Energy: Sound Scientific Solutions

Our Energy Policy:
From Science,
or Lobbyists?
John Droz, jr.
Physicist & Environmental Advocate
- 8/20/15 - © john droz, jr.

Make SURE to View This Presentation
in the FULL SCREEN Mode!
Click the “FULL” icon
in the lower right hand corner.

Do NOT click on the Triangle
below to run this presentation!
Instead,
use your keyboard arrow keys to navigate.
This will allow you
to proceed at your own pace.

Our Energy Policies — from Lobbyists or Science
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 our website: “WiseEnergy.org”. If you have looked over what’s there you’ll see that my several articles
about our energy choices 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 has led 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 free talks to community groups (e.g. in NY, ME, MA, PA, VA, WV, MD, NC), I started getting requests to put on
presentations elsewhere. To save other groups the cost of my coming to other parts of the world, I decided to put the 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: “aaprjohn at northnet dot org”.
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, plus your federal, state and local representatives.
— ENJOY!
john droz, jr.
© john droz, jr.

“HE WHO DARES NOT OFFEND
CANNOT BE HONEST.”
— Thomas Paine

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

&
KISS
The observer’s question:
“are these objects the same?”
PERSPECTIVE
© john droz, jr.
{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.}

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.
{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.}

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

“WHEN MEN GIVE UP
THE PRIVILEGE OF THINKING,
THE LAST SHADOW OF LIBERTY
LEAVES THE HORIZON.”
— Thomas Paine

— Some Environmental Organizations I’ve Belonged to —
The Sierra Club
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, in 2013.
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
© john droz, jr.
{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 Industrial Wind Energy is not a net societal benefit.}

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

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
Wind Energy Fails to Deliver the Goods
2) wind energy is not an economically viable source of power
on its own, and
3) wind energy is not environmentally responsible.
© john droz, jr.
The bottom line is that
{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.}

In the case of Wind Energy,
this has never been done.
© john droz, jr.
Science is a PROCESS that Works Like This:
When a new idea (hypothesis) is proposed
as a potential solution to a problem,
it is up to the advocates to provide the
scientific evidence that verifies its efficacy.
(It’s not our obligation to disprove it.)

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

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

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

The Question I Asked —
(the author of a pro-wind article
that appeared in Mother Earth News)
“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
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.

π
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 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
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’d 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 bought into her story —
and they sold everything they owned... But then her prediction didn’t come about.
In an attempt to rationalize away their obvious mistake — yet not wanting to admit that they
were wrong — most members of the cult then adopted a new prophecy: that the aliens had
instead spared the planet for their sake. This is Cognitive Dissonance.
We look back on those people and wonder how they could be so gullible — yet here we are
willing to make enormous financial and personal freedom sacrifices, based on predictions of
the planet’s destruction. We’re too smart to buy the alien threat again, so this time the
boogeyman is Global Warming. “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
But isn’t Global Warming a scientific threat? Uh, not really. We need to carefully distinguish
between reports by scientists, and scientific reports. Consider the following four slides...
© john droz, jr.

Is every priest a holy person?
Is every lawyer a law-abiding citizen?
Is every scientist a promoter of science?
© john droz, jr.

Just because a scientist makes an assertion,
does not make that claim scientific.
There are thousands of scientists
who are promoting personal or political agendas!
What makes a claim “scientific” is that it adheres
to the scientific process.
© john droz, jr.

The Scientific Process consists of a —
1) comprehensive, and
2) independent (i.e. objective), and
3) transparent, and
4) empirically based
assessment of claims made by proponents.
Anything less is NOT real science.
© john droz, jr.

“THESE ARE THE TIMES
THAT TRY MEN’S SOULS.”
— Thomas Paine

Edison Electric Company - 1882
{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.}
© 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 elements**;
5 - their facility is 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, needed 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.]
© john droz, jr.
{Note: Capacity VALUE is not the same as Capacity FACTOR.
See reference and next page for more explanation.}

* 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, so the result is that its utilization [Capacity Factor] is
probably 10-20%. However, when you do wish to drive your vehicle, it 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 developed countries 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 Values, 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 wind energy, it has a very low Capacity Value.
[Please also see slides 53-59 for another example of Capacity Value.]
© john droz, jr.

Fuel Sources for US Electricity Generation in 2010
EIA Report (2011)
The next time you hear about how
wind energy will help with our dependence on oil,
remember that less than
1% of our electricity comes from oil.

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 =
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.
Climate Change ≠ Global Warming
© john droz, jr.

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

* An Explanation of the Prior “Being Safe” Slide
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 criterion, let’s look at another example — one that is literally a
life and death matter.
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 40,000 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, BTW, 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 be Environmentally Beneficial
don’t even have to prove
that they actually are!
This is what happens when energy policies
are lobbyist driven instead of being Science-based.
© john droz, jr.

“A LONG HABIT
OF NOT THINKING A THING WRONG,
GIVES IT A SUPERFICIAL APPEARANCE
OF BEING RIGHT.”
— Thomas Paine

© john droz, jr.
How does Industrial Wind Energy
stack up against the power generation
Six Historical Criteria,
and how Environmentally Beneficial is it?

#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 its rated maximum power.
This issue 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 the approximate amount of power of 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 utility Eon Netz,
which manages the largest collection
of wind turbines in the world...
Note Predictability and Variability
during six hours on a recent representative day
Note weekly Variability
throughout the year
© john droz, jr.

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

Sample Demand vs Wind Energy Data (BPA)
Note how wind output is not in sync with demand.
© john droz, jr.
[Note extended periods of zero wind output]

A Sample Windmobile
[Note that it requires the backup of a fossil fuel 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 overages (tickets,
accidents), plus inefficiency on the part of the gas engine (more fossil fuel used), plus
premature wear out 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 of need.
© 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.
© john droz, jr.

Think Not?
Then look closely at this recent article about an
interview with the head person of a large,
multi-national utility company.
The British newspaper concludes that when his
statement is decoded, he is actually saying that
consumers need to change their habits to
conform to the unpredictability of wind energy.
In the past, energy sources were chosen to
conform to the needs of users.
This is a radical change.
© john droz, jr.

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 five slides include a basic pictorial representation of these demands.)
© john droz, jr.

What is “Base Load” Demand?
© john droz, jr.
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.]
0
1000
2000
3000
Monday Tuesday Wednesday
MWofElectricity
Base Load
Can Wind Energy Supply
“Base Load” Power?
NO.

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?
0
1000
2000
3000
MWofElectricity
© john droz, jr.
Load Following: normal usage daily changes
[These are fairly predictable 24 hour cyclic changes, with higher demand before & after work.]
“Load Following” Power?
NO.
Base Load
Load Following

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

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 minuscule CO2 savings.
[The latter 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
© john droz, jr.
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!]

What if Many Wind Projects
(Over a Wide Area) Are Connected Together?
Will this then result is a reliable, dispatchable
Base Load, Load Following, or Peak Load
source of electrical energy?
“Yes it will” is the claim of promoters
(based on rigged computer projections).
But what does real world experience show?

This is the most geographically dispersed collection of wind projects
on a single grid, in the world.
South East Australia has 18 wind projects
connected together, spanning over a 1000 miles.
© john droz, jr.

Cathedral Rock
One of the 18 wind projects in the South East Australia grid.
© john droz, jr.

The Results
Despite enormous diversity, wind energy is still wildly variable
!
"!!!
#!!!!
#"!!!
$!!!!
$"!!!
%!!!!
%"!!!
!&
#!&
$!&
%!&
'!&
"!&
(!&
)!&
*!&
+!&
#!!&
# $ % ' " ( ) * + #! ## #$ #% #' #" #( #) #* #+ $! $# $$ $% $' $" $( $) $* $+ %! %#
!"#$%&'()*&+"$*&,-./
0$1$2)#3&4$2#"(&,5/
.)6*&4$(7&0$1$2)#3&4$2#"(&89&'()*&+"$*
-$3&:;<;&= >"?#@&A$9#&B?9#($%)$
,-./
0123./
TotalGridLoad(MW)
WindCapacityFactor(%)
© john droz, jr.

* Some Comments about the “Interconnecting Multiple Projects” idea
The simplistic theory behind this geographically dispersed idea is: “the wind is always blowing
someplace — so if wind projects are sufficiently spread out, they will always be producing
reliable predictable power, equivalent to our conventional sources.”
This is typical of the unscientific ideas pushed by promoters. Despite having real world data
available, they eschew that in favor of a computer projection. Their “proof” is a concocted
computer model — which is loaded with carefully selected assumptions to support their pre-
determined agenda. This is not science, which is based on independent, empirical evidence.
I am showing real data from actual sources — in this case the most geographically dispersed
collection of wind projects on a single grid, in the world. These results show a huge disparity
between such fabricated computer “models” and real world reality.
Clearly the graph demonstrates that even this enormously spread out collection of wind
projects is NOT a reliable or dispatchable source of energy, and it is NOT in any way a source
of Base Load, Load Following, or Peak Load power.
[Also note that there are different scales on the prior slide for the red and blue lines.]
© 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.

* More Comments about the “Interconnecting Multiple Projects” idea
This is another version of "just do something, no matter how foolish or inefficient or expensive"
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”.
Redundancy and new transmission add enormous costs — and are directly attributable to
wind energy. As such these expenditures should be added to the real cost of wind energy.
The lobbyists don’t want these costs to be connected to their pet projects, so they try 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!
None of these proposals are truly about benefitting citizens or our society, but are rather to
increase the profits of multi-national corporations. That is what lobbyists are paid to 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)
5 - Involuntary property loss (eminent domain)
*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
Nuclear Geothermal Gas w CCS Coal w CSS Onshore Wind Offshore Wind
Capital Operation Fuel Transmission
EIA’s 2009 Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, 2016
{Wind costs do NOT take into account
any of the extra wind costs imposed on the system,
ratepayers or taxpayers, like: for augmenting generation,
for extra transmission lines needed,
for other ancillary grid requirements,
for decommissioning, etc.}
© john droz, jr.

Taxpayer Costs
© john droz, jr.

$0.44 $1.59 $0.25 $0.67 $23.37
Coal Nuclear Nat Gas Hydro Wind
Some Annual Federal Subsidies
of Electrical Energy Sources: per MWH
2007 US Energy Information Administration Subsidy Report: April 2008
$23.37
Carefully compare these figures to the next slide,
which showed the latest EIA data: 2013

$0.57 $0.60 $2.10 $1.46 $35.33
of Electrical Energy Sources: per MWH
2013 US Energy Information Administration Subsidy Report: March 2015
[Direct + Tax + R&D + Electricity Support] {EIA Tables ES4 & ES5}
$35.33
How has this changed six years later?
Note 1: the 2013 Solar subsidy/MWH = $231.21
Note 2: the 2013 Wind subsidies are greater than the
subsidies for all conventional sources, combined.
Note 3: the wind energy lobbyists mantra is that
wind subsidies will decline over time. That has not
been the experience in the US.

$901 M $1,660 M $690 M $392 M $4,393 M
of Electrical Energy Sources: Totals
2013 US Energy Information Administration Subsidy Report: March 2015
[Direct + Tax + R&D +Electricity Support] {EIA Table ES4}
$4,393 M
How about looking at it from a Totals perspective...
Note that the total 2013
subsidies for wind energy
exceed the totals for all the
other conventional sources
COMBINED!

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 [see slide #135]), 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%±/year profit,
2 - oil and other multi-national companies “invest” in wind energy to avoid most taxes
(and for public relations).
© john droz, jr.

Utility Ratepayer Costs
© john droz, jr.
{For five representative countries.}

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

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

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 proven 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!
[The Bentek study concluded that CO2 emissions would actually increase in many cases.]
© john droz, jr.

Consider This...
The country with the lowest CO2 per KWH is:
FRANCE
—the country with the most Nuclear Power.
CO2 in Perspective —
© john droz, jr.

Consider This...
The country with the highest CO2 per KWH is:
DENMARK
— the country with the most Wind Energy.
© john droz, jr.

How High Is The Sky?
© john droz, jr.
Mt Everest

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

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

Let’s say that all the air
in the earth’s atmosphere
is stacked up in a cylinder,
which extends one mile high.
Worldwide, citizens are being asked
to spend $75± Trillion Dollars
on Global Warming solutions.
If successful,
how much of this air will we change
(i.e. some of the man-made CO2 part)?
1 Mile
© john droz, jr.

1 Mile
Only About a Quarter of an Inch!
© john droz, jr.

Something to Ponder...
It’s been estimated that
insects produce 10± TIMES
the amount of CO2
that’s generated by human activity.
© john droz, jr.

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

Consider This...
Wind is 13 times the cost of Nuclear!
© john droz, jr.
And this does NOT take into account
ALL the wind costs,
so it is actually much worse than this.

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 time period) would have increased by:
no increase, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, 6x, 7x, 8x, 9x, or 10x?
© john droz, jr.

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

2600
5200
7800
10400
13000
1950
1980
2010
BMTCarbon
15%
80 Year Overview of Man-made CO2 Emissions
CDIAC + Global Carbon Project (9/26/08) + EIA Projections (dashed) to 2030
With Wind Power
Without Wind Power
43% 19%
Global
USA
© john droz, jr.
2030
Started About Here

2600
5200
7800
10400
13000
1950
1980
2010
BMTCarbon
12%
80 Year Overview of Man-made CO2 Emissions II
CDIAC + Global Carbon Project (9/26/08) + EIA Projections (dashed) to 2030
Current Plan: W/WO Wind Power
Radical 25% Plan
43% 19%
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?
Global
USA
Started About Here
© john droz, jr.
2030

* An Explanation of the Prior Three “Global Warming” Slides
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 (AGW) 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 (let’s 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 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 don’t 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 promoters of 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 having 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 35%± of the world’s food. We feed, clothe,
house and protect the world which is now being turned against us. The agenda is to get us to handicap
ourselves and to pay third world countries for our success. The major beneficiary here will be China. You can be
sure that they will not be handicapping their economy.
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. © 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 someone was a strong advocate of the Global Warming hypothesis, 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, a person was a skeptic of the Global Warming hypothesis, 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, 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 hypothesis.]
© john droz, jr.

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

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

* An Explanation of the Prior “Greenhouse Gas” Slide
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.

What % of Greenhouse Gases
are Man-Made?
© john droz, jr.
water vapor — 0%
carbon dioxide — 4%
nitrous oxide — 5%
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!
PPB’s adjusted
for heat retention
characteristics

“IT IS ERROR ONLY, AND NOT TRUTH,
THAT SHRINKS FROM INQUIRY.”
— Thomas Paine

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 US 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.

How Much is a Trillion Dollars?
???

For our demonstration, let’s use
the largest bill in general circulation ($100):

A packet of one hundred $100 bills
is 1/2"± thick and contains $10,000:

This is
$1 Million
(100 packets):

This is a $100 Million
(on a shipping pallet):

This is $1 Billion
(10 pallets):

This is $1 Trillion...
Note the man!

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

Just Like:
© john droz, jr.
*
≠

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

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
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 very 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 seems 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 gov’t policies pushing wind
energy, as one of the assumptions is that all electrical power sources are basically equal. 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,
—> adverse agricultural impacts,
—> noise intrusions,
—> flicker effect,
—> other human health issues,
—> farm animal health matters,
—> visual pollution,
—> property devaluation,
—> ice throws,
—> environmental destruction,
—> decommissioning, etc., etc.
But what if these were all “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
© john droz, jr.(2.5 MW size)

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

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 Claimed 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...

* 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 an objective 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 NYS Gross State Product (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 140 through 142 for a more detailed explanation of this.)
— continued —
© john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the “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!
As 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>> 2 -<<http://tinyurl.com/34q66kj>> 3 -<<http://tinyurl.com/dhlvm5>>
4 -<<http://tinyurl.com/lt9ero>> 5 -<<http://tinyurl.com/3y5nggk>> 6 -<<http://tinyurl.com/cl2hpf”>>
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.

* An Explanation of the “RPS Benefits” Slide (Part 3)
World famous economist Milton Friedman once was an advisor to a foreign government.
One day he was taken to a job site where men were hard at work, but just using shovels. He asked where
the earth-moving equipment was?
The response of his host was that there wasn’t any, as using such equipment would cost jobs.
Friedman pondered this a moment, then asked: "So why don't you give them spoons then?"
------------
“This was quintessential Friedman:
Employment doesn’t make us wealthy - production does. It’s not the job that matters,
it’s producing something of value that does. Some people see the job as the means to
the end, but it is not. Free men own property, slaves work jobs.”
------------
Most high paying wind “jobs” go to specialized personnel that travel site to site. Local
employment is minimal and mostly temporary. The developers are typically multi-national
foreign corporations, so US benefits are low. We would be much further ahead if subsidies
were applied to real sources of quality power — like nuclear and geothermal.
<<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124355131075164361.html>>
<<http://tarpon.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/milton-friedman-shovels-vs-spoons/>>
© 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...
Here is figure 44 from the Summit report © john droz, jr.
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.

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?

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.

— 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.

“I CARE NOT A STRAW
FOR THE OPINIONS OF THE WORLD.”
— Thomas Paine

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

On The Other Hand Consider This (part 1):
Large amounts of Rare Earth elements are necessary
for industrial wind energy generation.
PS — Currently the sole source of these elements is China,
so that invalidates the “energy independence” claim too!
But Rare Earth elements are NOT replaced
in “a reasonable amount of time.”
© john droz, jr.
In some cases: “two tons of rare earth magnets are required
in the permanent magnet generator that goes on top of each turbine.”

On The Other Hand Consider This (part 2):
Large amounts of LAND are a necessary element
of industrial wind energy generation.
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”?
But land is NOT replaced in “a reasonable amount of time.”
© john droz, jr.

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

* An Explanation of the Prior three “RPS Analogy” Slides
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,
minuscule 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
2: a 1 GW Wind Energy Project
+ a 1 GW Gas (low efficiency) Facility
— OR —
Lowest Total Cost = #1
Lowest KWH Rate = #1
Lowest CO2 Emissions = #1
Least Transmission Lines = #1
Least Environmental Harm = #1
Least Human Harm = #1
Most Compact = #1
Most Renewable = #1
Fastest Online = #2
SCORECARD:
© john droz, jr.

Our Electrical Power Choices are —
1: a 1 GW Gas (high efficiency) Facility
2: a 1 GW Wind Energy Project
+ a 1 GW Gas (low efficiency) Facility
— OR —
Lowest Total Cost = #1
Lowest KWH Rate = #1
Lowest CO2 Emissions = #1
Least Transmission Lines = #1
Least Environmental Harm = #1
Least Human Harm = #1
Most Compact = #1
Most Renewable = #1
Fastest Online = #1
SCORECARD:
© 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 hundreds of thousands of 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”:
All you want to know about “Cap & Trade”A “Solution” for Every Problem — NOT!
1-Wind is unreliable
2-Wind is unpredictable
3-Wind is uncontrollable
4-Wind is very expensive
5-Wind doesn’t save very
much CO2
6-Wind causes human health
problems
7-Wind is not a renewable
8-No utility wants wind
etc., etc.
1-Back it up with fossil fuel sources
2-Have massive redundancy
3-Change demand to accommodate the wind
4-Make conventional sources more costly
5-Sell wind instead as a source of “economic
development”
6-Who cares? It’s just a few complainers in
some rural areas
7-Redefine the term “renewable”
8-Mandate wind with a RPS
etc., etc.
This is what happens when politicians support
lobbyist driven solutions — rather than scientific ones.
© john droz, jr.

© john droz, jr.
{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 Irondequoit Italy Lyme Malone Meredith Naples Oakfield Pavilion
Perry Plattsburgh Prattsburgh Rensselaerville Sardinia Sheldon Skaneateles South Bristol
Springwater Stafford Stamford Stark Tioga Warren Warsaw Westfield Yorkshire ...

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.

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![Ref EIA 2009 Annual Energy Review.]
A working
Industrial Geothermal generator.
An example of how
Industrial Geothermal works.
© john droz, jr.

The Basics of a Solution...
1 - Set up an Energy FDA. (See EEA article at WiseEnergy.org)
[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 - Give Federal & State subsidies only to technologies that pass the
Energy FDA. (We would save about 75% of what is scheduled now.)
3 - Use 90%± of our expenditures 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
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. 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.

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}
An Example of a Creative Solution:
SMRs (Small Modular Reactors)
© john droz, jr.

 65±% of all electricity used in the US is by 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
Another Potential Solution:
© john droz, jr.

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

Still More Examples of Potential Solutions:
© john droz, jr.
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)
(“An unlimited supply of economic fuel.”)
High Temp Gas Cooled Reactors (HTGR)
(MIT: “Safest nuclear plant ever built.”)
Hydro-Thermal Power
(Marshall: “A single vent has 5x the power of a nuclear plant.”)
Fuel Cell
(E.g. BloomBox is being used by several major companies.)
Magnetic Power
(MPI: “Self-contained, pollution free, electric power generation technologies
that operate continuously without fuel.”)

* An Explanation of the Following “Marketing” Slides
As I stated in the beginning, one of my main purposes here is to encourage Critical Thinking
on this very important technical, financial and environmental matter. Once people start such
thinking they’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, citizens are arrayed against some very
formidable forces — and the last thing they want you to do, is 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 EIGHT 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 frequently utilized marketing tactics.
Knowledge is power!
© john droz, jr.

*
Their Sales Strategy #1: Focus on the $$$
(to appeal to that woefully widespread weakness: greed)
e.g. wind projects will bring jobs & economic development.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Defense: Critical Thinking.
If you do some reﬂection you’ll realize that
energy expenditures are to bring us reliable and economic power
— and that ALL energy expenditures result in jobs, etc.
© john droz, jr.

Their Sales Strategy #2: Religious Zealotry
(to convert this issue into a matter of right and wrong)
e.g. “support for all things green is a moral imperative”.
------------------------------------------------------------------
After you think this through you’ll see that
there is nothing “moral” about supporting unscientiﬁc ideas.
*
© john droz, jr.

Their Sales Strategy #3: Social Marketing
(to make us think that their product is good for society)
e.g. “Industrial Wind Energy is Free, Clean, & Green”.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 #4: Greenwashing
(a business tries to make itself look more
environmentally friendly than is really is)
e.g. “Wind Power helps the environment”.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 #5: 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”.
------------------------------------------------------------------
there is no real connection between Wind Energy and foreign oil.
© john droz, jr.
*

Their Sales Strategy #6: 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.
A variation of this is “every little bit helps”.)
e.g. “Industrial Wind Energy should be part of our energy strategy”.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 reportedly 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.
*

© john droz, jr.
Since we have limited resources, the money wasted on low-benefit wind energy
could have been spent with much greater returns elsewhere (e.g. nuclear).

Anyone who really is a believer in the "every little bit helps, no matter
what the cost" theory, would also support the government MANDATING that 20%
of our commercial ships revert to sailing vessels, and that 20% of our cars
become horse-drawn vehicles — as these would actually save a LOT of fossil
fuel. (Reference earlier RPS slides.) Why aren’t wind promoters advocating
that?
More About Putting “Every Little Bit Helps” Into Perspective
Does it really makes sense to be paying $1000 per pound of CO2 saved?
*

Their Sales Strategy #7: Reality Distortion
(to phrase matters in an inaccurate perspective)
e.g. “Nuclear power plants could be targets of terrorists.”
------------------------------------------------------------------
this is an extraordinarily low possibility.
© john droz, jr.
*

Their Sales Strategy #8: Make You AFRAID
(to push some hot button that instills in you some fear)
e.g. “Transporting nuclear power waste is extremely dangerous.”
------------------------------------------------------------------
After you look into 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.
*

Another case of manufacturing Fear.
Which item gives off more radioactivity:
A truckload of bananas, or
a truck carrying nuclear waste?
© john droz, jr.

Their Sales Strategy #9: Sell The Sizzle
(to take the focus off their lack of substance)
e.g. “wind power is an energy resource”.
------------------------------------------------------------------
After you consider this, you’ll say
so what? Modern power needs capacity resources.
*
© john droz, jr.

Their Sales Strategy #10: Manufacture “Science”
(to create the impression there is credibility to their claims)
e.g. “DOE report about 20% wind power in 2030.”
------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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 process 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.
*

How Come?
Note that the CONSENSUS of qualified scientists is that:
1) Nuclear fuel reprocessing is the best way to substantially reduce
nuclear waste [every other country but the US does this],
— and —
2) Yucca Mountain is a scientifically satisfactory solution to store the
remaining nuclear waste.
How come the same people
who buy the Global Warming hypothesis
(based on a supposed scientific consensus),
don’t accept this real scientific consensus???
*
© john droz, jr.

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

As a LONG TIME Environmental Advocate,
I can say that this “environmentalism”
has simply gotten out of control...
© john droz, jr.

"A man is more likely to mind his own business
when it is worth minding. When it is not, he
takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs
by minding other people's business."
— Eric Hoffer
© john droz, jr.

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

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

ElectricalEnergy
Science
Informed Citizens
© john droz, jr.
{The message here is that we have two
choices to solve our serious energy issues:
#1-get educated and apply science...}

© 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.

In short, I believe that —
1) we do have environmental and energy issues, and
2) these matters should be solved scientifically
(that means using the Scientific Method).
© john droz, jr.

© john droz, jr.
Sound Scientific Solutions
is the Umbrella position that covers
ALL important concerns:
ECONOMIC
(e.g. taxpayer cost,
ratepayer costs,
agricultural impact,
property values,
net jobs, etc.)
ENVIRONMENTAL
(e.g. CO2 savings,
noise, flicker,
birds & bats,
other health effects,
raw material extraction
and processing, etc.)
TECHNICAL
(e.g. reliability,
dispatchability,
transmission,
grid limitations,
military impact, etc.)

The Alternative Energy Plan
(for those not inclined to accept a science-based energy policy)
1 - Have taxpayers who support wind check a box on their state tax return.
(This will commit them to paying $1000 per family for the next 20 years.)
2 - Have ratepayers who support wind sign a contract with their utility company.
(This will commit them to paying an extra 10¢/KWH for the next 20 years.)
3 - These monies would go into a statewide fund to pay for wind projects.
(No other taxpayer or ratepayer money would be usable for wind projects.)
4 - Wind power projects could be located only in communities where over 50%
of the taxpayers and ratepayers have made these commitments.
© john droz, jr.

Mainly due to the fact that
Wind Energy has bypassed
a Scientific assessment...
we are left with an electrical power supply that is
High Cost and Low Benefit
© john droz, jr.

© john droz, jr.
Continued...
Epilogue
“When we are confronted with questions of science we often have neither the tenacity nor
intellectual rigor to properly do our homework. In our ignorance and impatience, we have a
habit of bestowing quasi-mystical properties on our own creations in much the same way as
the faithful can be moved and inspired by majestic architecture or pious icons. Our instincts
suggest that the moral correctness of the enterprise (plus the weight of our investments in
hope and good intentions), must surely be sufficient to earn us a lasting reward.
“The tempting conclusion is that we wouldn’t have gone so far down this path of
canonization if the promised technology hadn’t produced verifiable good deeds. We take it as
a given that somebody — our scientists, our politicians, our priests or our parents — has
done the intellectual heavy lifting already. Alas, this is seldom the case, and definitely not so
with wind energy.
“In truth, in the realm of politics quite often expedience is the order of the day, and
obfuscation, misdirection and white lies are the implementing tools.

© john droz, jr.
Epilogue (cont…)
“In a world currently focused on the gospel of green, it is perceived to be politically
irresponsible to be circumspect, behind the curve, or simply not in the right pew. ‘We have
to do something’ — or a variation ‘Every little bit helps’ has now become the mantra
monotonously chanted by the choir.
“The ‘something’ our preachers are promoting is for us to pay exorbitant premiums to people
who have no more background in power production than does the altar boy.
“The ‘little bit’ is actually more representative of the results. Does it make sense to fund an
energy source whose primary reason for existence is to provide salvation from Global
Warming — yet the cost of every pound of CO2 saved may be $1000? It’s akin to trying to
heat the church with candles and incense.
“Yet the procession marches relentlessly forward as we fill the developers’ coffers with
unrequited subsidies, incentives and other indulgences, despite the fact that green energy
solutions on the production side of the equation have been shown, the world over, to be pipe
dreams, window dressings, and canards.
Continued...

© john droz, jr.
Epilogue (cont…)
“In contributing to this illusion we will waste wealth, time and attention, diverting it away
from more righteous solutions, and from programs like conservation and recycling —
options that we know reduce our impact on the environment.
“Instead, we will tithe our progeny’s future, building bigger more imposing industrial
monuments and blindly putting our faith in the promises of shamans — despite all the
empirical science to the contrary. We delude ourselves that good intentions plus the size,
scope and cost of the effort is evidence enough of its merit.
“In short we are being seduced by the splendor of the temple without taking the time to see
the emptiness of the catechism.
“Frankly, I’d rather just pray. It costs less, holds equal promise, and is not a blight on the
landscape.
“Amen.”

“THE HARDER THE CONFLICT
THE MORE GLORIOUS THE VICTORY.”
— Thomas Paine

Electrical Energy: Sound Scientific Solutions

Electrical Energy: Sound Scientific Solutions

Electrical Energy: Sound Scientific Solutions

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked(19)

More from John Droz

More from John Droz(12)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded(9)

Electrical Energy: Sound Scientific Solutions

Editor's Notes