Russ Steele
The CARB Scoping Plan includes wind as one of the renewable energy sources they are counting on to reduce California's reliance on carbon based fuels, and to create green jobs.
California enjoys significant advantages for renewable energy development. These
include: concentrated innovation resources; a large potential customer base; key natural resources such as reliable insolation and wind; and supportive regulatory programs . . .
A recent UK study published in the Journal Energy Policy cast some serious doubt on the reliability of wind energy. An article in the Energy Tribune reports on the study, Wind Power Exposed: The Renewable Energy Source is Expensive, Unreliable and Won’t Save Natural Gas.
In June, the most in-depth independent assessment yet of Britain's expanding wind turbine industry was published. In the journal Energy Policy gas turbine expert Jim Oswald and his co-authors, came up with a series of damning conclusions: not only is wind power far more expensive and unreliable than previously thought, it cannot avoid using high levels of natural gas, which not only it will increase costs but in turn will mean far less of a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions than has been claimed.
Oswald's report highlights the key issue of load factor, the actual power generated compared to the theoretical maximum, and how critical it is to the viability of the wind power industry. In 2006, according to U.K. government statistics, the average load factor for wind turbines across the U.K. was 27.4 percent. Thus a typical 2 megawatt turbine actually produced only 0.54 MW of power on an average day. The worst performing U.K. turbine had a load factor of just 7 percent. These figures reflect a poor return on investment. But this poor return is often obscured by the subsidy system that allows turbine operators and supporters to claim they can make a profit even when turbines operate at a very low load factors. So what’s the bottom line? British consumers are paying twice over for their electricity, funding its means of production and paying for its use as end users.
This raises the question, will California consumers have to pay twice for their renewable energy, once as subside and then again at the electric meter? It seems clear that as consumers we need to be asking these hard questions of our political leaders. Are we going to raise energy costs so high that California businesses can no longer be competitive in regional and national markets? Given our, growing economic crisis now is the not the time to be reducing California's ability to compete in regional and global markets. Let's not get blown away!
