Our Energy Policy:
From Science,
or Lobbyists?
John Droz, jr.
Physicist & Environmental Advocate
NC Legislators
11/28/11 (rev: 12/3/11)

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.

Part 1

Our Energy Policies — from Lobbyists or Science
This is a two part presentation given to North Carolina Legislators on 11/28/11.
The purpose of Part One is to have an abbreviated (20 minute) discussion 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. The FULL version of this part is EnergyPresentation.Info.
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” which has other useful supporting information.
My expectation is that after legislators get more informed — and do some Critical Thinking — that they will be in a much better position to
execute informed cost-beneficial energy and environmental policies.
Part Two is a north Carolina specific discussion about the merits of Senate Bill 3 (NC’s version of an RPS [Renewable Portfolio Standard]). A
lot of that (especially the horse transportation part) directly applies to any other state’s or country’s RPS.
In my 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.]
Feel free to use this material to make a presentation to your own representatives. In any case after you go through this, I will be glad to
personally respond to any emails you send me: “aaprjohn@northnet.org”.
Please see my brief “resume,” the copyright notice, disclaimer, contact information, references and credits: all at the end of
EnergyPresentation.Info. [Note that I will indicate updates on the material by a revision letter 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.

Everything You’ll See Today
—and a LOT more —
is Online at:
EnergyPresentation.Info

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.

There are two things that are more difficult than making a public speech:
climbing a wall which is leaning toward you, and
kissing a girl who is leaning away from you.
— Winston Churchill

The brain is a wonderful organ. It starts working the moment you get up in the
morning and it doesn’t stop until you get into the office.
— Robert Frost

In short, my position is that —
1) we do have environmental and energy issues, and
2) these matters should be solved scientifically
(that means using the Scientific Method).

It’s Lobbyists vs Science
—and Science is Losing

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

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

My Three Hats Here:
#1 - Physicist
#2 - Economist
#3 - Environmentalist

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 Industrial Wind Energy is not based on scientific proof.}
© 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.

The Soundbite:
Wind Energy = High Cost, Low Benefits

Science is a PROCESS that Works Like This:
When a new idea is proposed as a potential solution to a problem,
it is up to the advocates to PROVE its efficacy
(not the other way around).

The Process is called the Scientific Method —
which involves a:
1) comprehensive,
2) objective,
3) transparent, and
4) empirical based analysis.
In the case of Wind Energy,
this has never been done!

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 has
been subjected to the Scientific Method.

{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 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.

Fuel Sources for US Electricity Generation in 2010
EIA Report (2011)
The next time you hear an ad 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!

SO WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?

A NEW element has been added:
environmental impact
(especially emissions, like CO2)

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!

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

#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 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 power to produce a roughly equivalent amount of energy as does a nuclear
facility.

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 power is often not available when power is needed most.

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.

Our Energy Control Options
Coal & Nuclear Gas & Hydro Wind & Solar

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
b) Load Following
c) Peak Load

5 - Is wind energy compact ?
NO. To even approximate the nameplate power of a conventional facility, like nuclear,
takes well over 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 power 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.

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 + Transmission)
b) Taxpayer funded incentives
c) Ratepayer costs
Note that in addition to these there are still more wind power necessitated expenses
(like the cost of a backup power source, the extra transmission lines needed, etc.).

Financial Comparison #1
Total Costs
(Capital + Operation
+ Fuel + Transmission)

Power Sources Total Costs
Capital Operation Fuel Transmission
{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 Geothermal Gas w CCS Coal w CSS Onshore Wind Offshore Wind
EIA — Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, 2016
Note: this does not show the true cost of wind, which is wind plus a conventional source. john droz, jr.
©

Financial Comparison #2
Taxpayer Costs

Some Annual Federal Subsidies $52.43
of Electrical Energy Sources: per MWH
2010 US Energy Information Administration Subsidy Report: July 2011
[Direct + Tax + R&D +Electricity Support]
$0.64 $2.78 $0.63 $0.84 $52.43
Coal Nuclear Nat Gas Hydro Wind

How about looking at it from a Totals perspective...
$4,981 M
Some Annual Federal Subsidies
of Electrical Energy Sources: Totals
2010 US Energy Information Administration Subsidy Report: July 2011
[Direct + Tax + R&D +Electricity Support]
Note that the total 2010
subsidies for wind energy
exceed the totals for all the
other conventional sources
COMBINED!
$1,189 M $2,234 M $654 M $215 M $4,981 M
Coal Nuclear Nat Gas Hydro Wind

In ADDITION to the generous Federal subsidies,
many states offer financial incentives for wind power, 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.

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

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.

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.]

CO2 in Perspective —
Worldwide Contribution to CO2 Reductions
Since 1973
100
75
50
25
0
Renewables Generation Transmission Nuclear Power

CO2 in Perspective —
Consider This...
Wind is 13 times the cost of Nuclear!

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 power 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!

So how did we get into the
Energy Ditch?
Same answer as to how
Wall Street got into the
Financial Ditch:
GREED
&
IGNORANCE

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)

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 power —
even though it does not materially benefit
1) the Electrical Grid, 2) the Environment, or 3) Rate Payers.
It does however, materially benefit lobbyists
and the multi-national companies that employ them.

RPS is Like Forcing 12.5% of our Cargo Ships
to Revert to Being Wind Powered Vessels

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” NY is spending
something like Two Billion Dollars...
See EnergyPresentation.Info for a much more detailed explanation of this.

RPS is a Reverse Robin Hood:
Robbing the Poor To Feed the Wealthy

Our Electrical Power Choices are —
1: a 1 GW Nuclear Facility
— OR —
2: a 1 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

A key question:
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
This is the path we are currently on...

Does wind power’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 the Scientific Method.
From scientific literature (e.g. MIT’s 2007 report)
industrial Geothermal holds significant promise.

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}

Critical Thinking
Non-Science
= Non-Sense

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
awhile, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and
power is going to blow up in our faces.

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

This is the logical next step
for this situation...

Be
very wary
of
Pied Piper Profiteer$

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,
transmission, agricultural impact, birds & bats,
other Grid property values, other health effects,
limitations) net jobs, etc.) raw material extraction
and processing, etc.)

NOT!
WindPowerFacts.Info
Thank You!

Part 2

NC Senate Bill-3
Does this make technical, economic, and environmental sense?
In other words:
is this really in the best interest of NC citizens and businesses?

Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function
as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.
— Winston Churchill

1 - Does any RPS [Renewable Portfolio Standard] make sense?
2 - Was the LaCapra report an objective assessment?
3 - What is the best way to go forward?

The length of this document defends it well against the risk of its being read.
— Winston Churchill

{This was the key decision point.
The lobbyists said to take the shortcut
through the green forest.}

NC chose the
political path thru
the green forest,
as we were told that
it would be a
beneficial shortcut
to get to our
objectives.

The lobbyists
assure us that the
trip will be
pleasant and
successful.
The animals
along the way
will be our friends!
(Photo credit: Shlomi Nissim <<http://www.shlominissim.com/gallery.asp>>)

Of course there were
no guarantees.
Once we go down
this path, we are
on our own.
(Photo credit: Shlomi Nissim <<http://www.shlominissim.com/gallery.asp>>)

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.
— Winston Churchill

The two largest sources of CO2 emissions
are transportation and electricity.
SB-3 addresses the electricity sector.
Let’s consider a very close analogy where
we take comparable action for transportation.

Let’s Mandate that 12.5% of all NC vehicles
Revert to Being Horse Drawn by 2021

Let’s call this mandate for NC to change to
12.5% horse-drawn vehicles by 2021: SB-H.
This edict is rationalized as a way to:
1 - reduce our fossil fuel usage,
2 - promote vehicle fuel diversity,
3 - have NC be more energy independent,
4 - make NC a leader in horse power,
5 - create many new NC jobs,
6 - generate NC economic development,
etc., etc.

And ALL of that would be TRUE!
Since the financials are the current hot button,
let’s just look at the economic development
and new jobs claims for SB-H...

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
North Carolina has some 8 million
personal and commercial motor vehicles.
SB-H’s 12.5% mandate would result in some
two million new horses in the state.
(That would included ponies, horses in training, spares, etc.)

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
There would be hundreds of new horse farms.
This would provide many construction, maintenance and service jobs.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
Many thousands of acres would be utilized for pasture land.
The purchasing, clearing, maintaining of these would result in many jobs.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
Thousands of jobs would be created for grooms and trainers.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
Thousands of new blacksmith businesses would be started.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
Hundreds of new wheelwright businesses would be created.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
Thousands of new horse medical providers would be needed.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
Enormous amounts of new hay and other food will be needed,
all amounting to new economic opportunities and thousand of jobs.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
The new NC horses would require about 20 million gallons of water
a day, so the supplying and delivery of that would be many new jobs.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
There would be hundreds of new auction houses started,
to provide a place for consumers and businesses to get their horses.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
Tens of thousands of jobs would be created in the new horse carriage
business, and its subsequent servicing of them.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
Many people wouldn’t feel comfortable in driving their own vehicles
so thousands of drivers would soon be employed.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
A million± garages would have to be modified to accommodate horses.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
Instead of parking garages, these would be built in every community.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
Tens of thousands of carpenters, etc would be employed to build
and maintain the newly required horse structures.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
Thousands of new horse supply stores would be newly created.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
Thousands of outlets would add horse food & supplies to what they carry.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
Instead of 7-11’s, thousands of new roadside stops would be
created to service and feed the 2± million horses.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
Hundreds of regional supply centers would be setup.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
Tens of thousands of new horse vans would be needed.
These could all be built in NC, creating thousands of jobs.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
There would be thousands of new jobs in just the cleanup part.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
Oh - don’t forget that the buggy whip business would be resurrected.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
A new big business would be horse mortuaries and cemeteries.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
My list of NC jobs and economic benefits from mandating horse-drawn
vehicles is just a sample — lobbyists can come up with other horse uses!

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
SB-H’s mandating 12.5% horse-drawn vehicles by 2021
would create at least 200,000 new NC jobs
and result in many billions of dollars of NC economic development.
This would be significantly more jobs and economic development than
SB-3’s renewable energy promotion would result in!

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
An Asheville business uses a tractor trailer
to daily move produce across the state.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
How many horse carriages will it take to equal
the reliability, performance and economics
of one tractor trailer?
X ?=

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
Would it be 25?
1 -Would the cost of sending produce across the state
with 25 horse carriages ever be equal to the cost of
one truck (e.g. 25 horse vehicles = 50 drivers vs 1)?
2 - Would the reliability of sending produce across
the state with 25 horse carriages ever be equal to
the dependability of one truck?
3 - Would the performance of sending produce across
the state with 25 horse carriages ever be equal to
the quick performance of one truck?

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
NO!
No matter what our good intentions are,
no matter how much taxpayer subsidies are wasted,
no matter how much spin the lobbyists put on it,
horses will NEVER replace modern transportation!

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
Once you thoroughly understand
that horse drawn vehicles will never equal
the reliability, performance and economics
of one tractor trailer,
you will then understand the electricity situation better.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
Progress is about
genuinely moving
forward
— not promoting
18th Century ideas.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
How many wind turbines will it take to equal
the reliability, performance and economics
of one nuclear power plant?

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
No matter what our good intentions are,
no matter how much taxpayer subsidies are wasted,
no matter how much spin the lobbyists put on it:
wind energy will NEVER replace coal or nuclear power!

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
The $64,000,000 Question Is:
Is it wise to have public policy primarily driven by job claims?
In transportation, the goal is to get from one place to another:
quickly, comfortably, and economically.
Reverting to horse power is contrary to ALL of those objectives, so
mandating horse power would be detrimental to NC citizens & businesses.

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
The $64,000,000 Question Is:
Is it wise to have public policy primarily driven by job claims?
In electrical power the goal is to have electricity that is:
plentiful*, reliable, and economical.
Reverting to wind energy is contrary to ALL of those objectives,
so mandating wind energy is detrimental to NC citizens and businesses.
*Plentiful = more power available, on demand

Some resulting NC jobs & economic benefits...
The $64,000,000 Question Is:
Is it wise to have public policy primarily driven by job claims?
The answer is NO!
Public policy should stay focused
on meeting the fundamental objectives of the sector involved.
In both cases, real jobs and genuine economic development
will materialize when those objectives are met!

So, SB-H (compared to SB-3) would —
1 - reduce more of our fossil fuel usage,
2 - promote more energy diversity,
3 - have NC be more energy independent,
4 - would make NC a leader in horse power,
5 - create many more NC jobs,
6 - generate more NC economic development,
etc., etc.

In almost EVERY regard,
SB-H has more benefits than does SB-3.
So why aren’t the environmental advocates
aggressively promoting SB-H?

Because citizens and businesses have a better
understanding of transportation,
and they can easily see the downsides.
This is not the case with electrical energy!

So, does an RPS make sense?
A genuine scientific assessment of SB-3 or SB-H
would show that there are
many significant liabilities
and few proven net benefits.
In other words,
a typical RPS is not cost-beneficial.

But What About the LaCapra Report?

Indeed, what about it?
There are three questions here:
1) are these people appropriate to give a scientific assessment of SB-3?
2) is their report an objective assessment of SB-3?
3) what is the value of their report?
{The following are my personal opinions
as a scientist, environmentalist and NC resident.}

1-Are these people appropriate to give a scientific assessment of SB-3?
Fact: LaCapra and their two associates
have a substantial stake in the success of the renewable energy business.
For example:

A simple question that should prove it:
What would happen if they concluded renewables were a
high-cost, low-benefit option, and that SB-3 was a bad idea?
Results:
1 - their NC employers would not be happy, and
2 - they would never again get renewables consulting business.

Some five years later they
are still using this report
as a marketing tool.

1-Were these people appropriate to give a scientific assessment of SB-3?
NO

BTW, there was free qualified assistance available.
For example, the John Locke Foundation wrote an excellent report:
“A Wind Power Primer”.
(<<http://www.johnlocke.org/research/show/spotlights/195>>)

2 - Is their report an objective assessment of SB-3?
How would conflicted consultants deal with the fact that there is
no legitimacy with the SB-3 promotion of renewable energies?
— several ways —

1 - They avoid dealing with REAL Science.
In this 154 page report, the word “Science” appears zero times!

2 - Some facts are fudged.
For instance, there is actually no such thing as wind energy by itself,
yet all of the comparisons made in this report assume that there is.

E.g., wind is shown here directly compared to conventional sources

3 - Some comparisons are inappropriate.
For instance, some comparisons are made vs doing nothing,
where a more meaningful comparison is vs other alternatives.

This is presented as a MAJOR selling point for SB-3:
that CO2 would be saved. The facts are that —
1) no scientific proof was provided for the claims made here,
2) this is another case where they ignore the wind/gas reality, and
3) nuclear energy would save more than wind/gas does.

4 - The majority of assumptions are favorably biased.
For instance, wind capacity factor information came from
developers and other proponents, rather than real-world data.
Same thing with levelized costs, projected fuel costs, etc.

Here are LaCapra’s
assumed
Capacity Factors
which are 50%±
more than real
world results.

Here are LaCapra’s
assumed
levelized costs
which are 50%±
of EIA’s estimates!

Here are their
assumed fuel costs
Actual fuel costs are
quite a bit lower
than their minimum
projection.

More real world evidence
from utility experts,
that say LaCapra’s economic
conclusions are wrong:

President & COO of Duke’s US Electric business, says:
“It doesn’t matter how clean it is,
if it’s not affordable or reliable.”

Other utilities are now starting to speak out.
Here is one statewide ad run by Idaho Power:
“Integrating the variable
capacity of wind energy
undermines the time-
tested, science driven
technology plan
required of all utilities.
And that just isn’t right.”

Other utilities are now starting to speak out.
Here is another statewide ad run by Idaho Power:
“In the simplest of terms,
special interest groups
and wind developers are
asking you to pay more
for a less reliable product.
And that just isn’t right.”

An even more
disturbing assessment
from a
utility executive.
When National Grid’s CEO was challenged
about integrating wind energy, he said:
“Families would have to get
used to only using power
when it was available,
rather than constantly.”

As time goes on, more leaders are speaking out —
“Industrial wind projects don’t work. They produce a trickle of
electricity at a vast cost to the consumer. They desecrate the
landscape and make people’s lives a misery. And they don’t even
cut carbon emissions. They are literally a waste of space…”
Struan Stevenson: Chairman of the European Parliament’s
(11/11/11)
Climate Change, Biodiversity & Sustainable Development Intergroup.

Wind Marketers Frequently Promote NC’s “Wind Resources”
LaCapra: “North Carolina has a diverse mix of untapped renewable energy
resources that can be developed to meet an RPS.” Etc.
1 - Is this true regarding wind energy?
2 - Even if it is, Is it relevant?

Here is what the US Department of Energy says:
"Areas with annual average wind speeds around 6.5 m/s and
greater at 80-m height are generally considered to have suitable
wind resource for wind development." They then provide an 80-m
height map for all of North Carolina (next slide). This map showed
that the average wind speeds for the first two proposed wind projects
are significantly below the federal government's "suitable wind
resource" standard.
[For some reason, with the Desert Wind application this was not
brought up by the Public Staff (or anyone else) before the Utility
Commission, and the Commission itself failed to mention this detail.]
<<http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_resource_maps.asp?stateab=nc>>

This same gov’t
report shows that
99.87% (!)
of NC acreage is
unsuitable for
wind development
(one of the highest
US percentages).
Compare this to
Desert Wind Project
Kansas (10.5%),
Pantego Project Nebraska (8.4%),
Texas (44.5%)…
This is yet another
Minimum Wind Speeds Needed independent fact
that brings into
question
the merits of SB-3.

The question is not “Can we do something?”
in the energy area, but rather:
“Does it make technical, economic and environmental sense?”
When analyzed from the scientific perspective
Offshore Wind Simply Does Not Make Sense.

“Polling data showed that after reading arguments for and against wind,
wind lost support...concerns about wind energy’s cost and its effect on
property values crowded out climate change” among those surveyed.
“The things people are educated about are a real deficit for us.” After
briefings on the pros and cons of wind “enthusiasm decreased for wind.”
— Justin Rolfe-Redding, a doctoral student from
the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University
at American Council on Renewable Energy webinar: 3/23/11
<<http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/279802/america-s-worst-wind-energy-project-robert-bryce>>

Businesses Against Offshore Wind

Another $64,000,000 Question Is:
Is it wise to have public policy primarily driven by resource availability?
In electrical power the goal is to have electricity that is:
plentiful*, reliable, and economical.
Reverting to offshore wind energy is contrary to ALL of those objectives,
so mandating wind energy is detrimental to NC citizens and businesses.
*Plentiful = more power available, on demand

5 - They use a software program to draw conclusions.
Substituting software for real research is ok:
a) IF it adequately addresses all pro & con issues, and
b) IF all of its limitations are clearly identified, and
c) IF the authors of the report make compensations for those.
None of these appear to be true with IMPLAN and the LaCapra report.

Here is important observations about IMPLAN by a UNC expert:

2 - Is the LaCapra report an objective assessment of SB-3?
NO

This independent critique
of SB-3 is worth reading
as it is more objective
about economic matters.

3 - What are the best ways going forward?
a - Scrap Senate Bill-3
(the 12.5%/2021 part, as it makes less sense than does a horse mandate)
b - Significantly modify Senate Bill-3 (a much less desirable option)
(to provide more assurances that the results will be cost-beneficial)
Pass a proper statewide industrial wind energy permitting process.
Utility Commission’s Public Staff is conflicted, which needs fixing.
c - Change the Legislative Process
(A lot of time, effort, and money has been wasted going down this
dead-end path. This can be a learning experience for us.
Solution: technical policies should be based on real science.)

To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.
— Winston Churchill

The Process
Is The Problem!
See <<http://www.northnet.org/brvmug/WindPower/It's_The_Process.pdf>>
for a suggested solution.

— NC is Facing Another Choice —
We can be a National Leader in:
— buggy whip manufacturing and blacksmith jobs
OR
— the first state to retract their RPS
— the first state to have all their technical policies scientifically vetted
— the first state to aggressively support state-of-the art energy solutions
(like geothermal energy or Small Modular Reactors)

This was the point where we lost our way.
We can learn from this by fixing the process.

That was the end of the NC presentation
For more information about electricity and the environment, see
EnergyPresentation.Info
Two other related (brief) energy presentations are:
A Short Story <<http://www.slideshare.net/JohnDroz/short-story-5337587>>
Remember <<http://www.slideshare.net/JohnDroz/remember-3236721>>
For any questions please email john droz, jr: “aaprjohn@northnet.org”