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.

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.

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.

$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.

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.

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.

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.

Electrical Energy: Sound Scientific Solutions

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

More from John Droz