134 Comments

Something nobody ever thinks about.

1) The FIRST windfarm is obviously built in the most advantages location. Where the wind is highest, and most consistent.

2) Each subsequent wind farm is then built at locations slightly less advantages.

3) Over time, the newer wind farms generate less energy than the older wind farm. This can be (for some time) masked by technology improvements - newer wind turbines being more efficient. But over time the effect is real.

4) As this occurs the utilization rate would steadily decline. We would reach "peak wind". This will happen when technology can't keep up with the increasingly poorer sites being developed. Each subsequent installation would drag down the overall utilization rate.

Expand full comment

I believe there is more to this story than less wind. I live in sight of a large wind farm. On very cold windy days the blades are still. I know there is wind and need for power-- so who stops the electric production? I expect the "wind and solar" mantra was a capital transfer tax scheme and the wind farms are virtue signaling of that anti-fossil fuel propaganda, but not really producing much power.

Expand full comment

It is a) curtailed, and the owner paid anyway or b) shut down because it is too cold and to operate risks damaging the unit.

Expand full comment

Big numbers tend to lose people because you have to THINK about it, and thinking takes time and effort.

Expand full comment

My mind sees a cartoon: a bunch of monkeys running around and around a wheel to turn the windmill....better result!

Expand full comment

Stupid does as stupid is.

Expand full comment

No wind, no power - and ugly. No sunshine no power, ugly, and smashed to smithereens in a lot of wind or big hail.

Expand full comment

$300 billion spent for 150 GW operating at a capacity factor of 33% is $6 million per megawatt. What's the investment cost estimate to bring wind up to nuclear's 92% capacity factor?

Expand full comment

Now this… weather energy does not work.

World's largest floating solar plant damaged by severe storm in India

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/worlds-largest-floating-solar-plant-220000440.html

Expand full comment

If anyone would like to learn more about the Barakah nuclear plant in U.A.E. I have written about it on Substack: https://breckhenderson.substack.com/p/nuclear-power-b70

Expand full comment

Breck, I appreciate that your Substack has many relevant articles regarding nuclear power.

Expand full comment

Mr. Bryce -- I think you haven't done your math on the amount of nuclear power that could be built for $300 billion. Plant Vogtle is a bad example because these two reactors were way more expensive than they should be. A better example is the U.A.E. 's new Barakah operating -- 4 units, 1,400 MW/hour plants, $24.4 billion. If the U.S. invested $300 billion at that per unit cost we could have 50 new units. Now, how much electricity is 1,400 Megawatts/hour? The answer is 613,000 Gigawatts per year. That's roughly 1,000 times the electricity from 160 Gigawatt/year (I don't believe wind produces 160 gigawatts per hour!) of wind power that operates at 35% capacity factor.

Expand full comment

Please include the math you used to determine the 613K gigawatts/year statistic. Thanks!

I used 50 units * 1,400 MW * 8,766 hours/year * 0.9 capacity factor to obtain 552,258,000 MWh / year, or 552,258 GWh / year.

Expand full comment

Terrapower says they can put 345 MW of nuclear power on the grid in three years. The cost is $4 billion. So, I could purchase 75 units. for $300 billion. That is 25.9 GW of energy- about 204,000 GWhs of electricity at a 90% capacity factor.

Every 20 years or so I expect to replace my windfarm. Terrapower is saying their reactor will last...60-80 years. So, for the same money, over the same time period, I could build at least 3X the 75 Terra power reactors = 225 reactors. This would, of course, generate 3X the power.

It's not long before you realize for the price of wind subsides, you could decarbonize all of society in a fraction of the time.

Expand full comment

Avoid the pain and get propane (backup).

Expand full comment

Water is always there. Norway runs in 96 percent water.

Expand full comment

We have lots of water too, but dams are currently being torn down to "save" various fishes.

Expand full comment

Great article, Robert. There is a significant worldwide pro-solar and pro-wind propaganda campaign via this organization https://energytransition.org/ . Investigating further, this organization receives funding from the German taxpayer. They are vehemently opposed to nuclear power.

From their Washington, DC office: https://us.boell.org/en/energy-transition-around-world This organization also has an office in Moscow, Russia. Are you surprised?

This organization likely supports the environmentally-harmful policy of coal-fired power instead of nuclear power. HTTPS://UNHERD.COM/NEWSROOM/GERMANYS-GREENS-EMBRACE-COAL/ Via the "anti-industry industry," rail cars of dark money are funding this campaign. The GreenNUKE substack will be publishing an article about this harmful energy policy shift soon.

Expand full comment

I have a serious issue with people who live in cities. In the US that's something like 83% of our population. I understand the attraction in terms of shopping and entertainment, but those are consumption items. Let's think about production items and infrastructure. Items such as buildings, roads, power, water, sewer, garbage, police, firemen, schools, etc. You grow up in a city and a newcomer asks where these things come from? You answer government provides them...just don't ask me how. An editorial in your Oregon or New York newspaper identifies a problem, maybe it's "affordable" housing or clean energy. I read that paper, and the editors had ten ideas for solving the problem. Every one of the ideas was for government action. There will be no impact on our city lives if our power comes from wind and solar farms in Montana, Utah, or West Virginia. If those states object, use Federal money to build them on federal land or in the ocean. They may be expensive and ugly, but we don't see them. Isn't our city beautiful at night? I'm told they are inefficient, but we'll just build more of them. They need backup as well. And storage. Yes, we will need bigger government and more taxes, but it's all OK and I'll leave it to the experts to finance it. I don't need to understand where the money goes or how it is administered, and those experts better be diverse, inclusive, and equitable while they are at it so we can all get along. This year let's vacation in the Big Sky.

Expand full comment

Sadly, many of these government energy policies affect private investment - and can be amplified by generously-applied private sector lobbying. My preferred example is the so-called "Oracle of Omaha," Warren Buffett. He is on the gravy train at taxpayer expense. (Buffett's father was a four-term U.S. Representative from Nebraska.) Multi-billionaire Warren Buffett explained the rationale for solar and wind generation in 2014:

"For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit."

"Big Wind's Bogus Subsidies - Giving tax credits to the wind energy industry is a waste of time and money."

By Nancy Pfotenhauer, Contributor | May 12, 2014, at 2:30 p.m US News & World Report

https://tinyurl.com/Buffett-Wind-Scam

Expand full comment

Mayday, Mayday, Madness 😠

Expand full comment

Remember the Statue of Liberty in “Planet of the Apes”?

Expand full comment

These wind turbines are a blight on the environment. Hideously scaring natural beauty. Destroying fragile eco-systems and precious wildlife. They act like giant animal repellents. Now scam companies are destroying the oceans with them. The pocket government subsidies and never look back. I’ve been around them since the 70’s and have never seen a forest of these monstrosities running more than 50%. Small individual windmills have a proven tract record. These massive Chinese monsters are a huge scam on American taxpayers and consumers.

Expand full comment