Skip to content

A Great Course Failure

June 24, 2016

This is the second in a group of articles describing what’s being taught in colleges and universities about energy and energy issues.

In this instance, I purchased a course, the Science of Energy, published by the Great Courses.

I felt this might provide an insight into what’s being taught in our colleges and universities. And, after going through the 24 sessions, about 45 minutes per session, I believe it does, since the instructor is a professor from a Midwest university.

It’s my opinion that this course is pure propaganda, promoting the CO2 hypothesis of global warming and promoting renewables, specifically wind and solar.

I will try to support my opinion with facts drawn from the course material.

Infrastructure associated with fossil fuels

Infrastructure associated with fossil fuels

The bias of the instructor was confirmed when he said: “We know that renewables will be the dominant form of energy in the not-to-distant future.”

Reconfirmed, when he said: “Renewables are where we need to go.”

It’s also clear the instructor supports big government rather than market forces.
In his concluding lecture, he says:

“If the power companies don’t have the motivation to build [the smart grid], then the government should step in and make sure it happens.”

There are multiple instances throughout the course where these sentiments for government intervention and preference for wind and solar are repeated.

A major focus of the course is on promoting the threat of climate change from atmospheric CO2. In the session on coal, for example, he says “coal is the largest contributor to human induced climate change.” This establishes his belief that CO2 is the cause of global warming.

In fact, he devotes an entire session to human induced climate change, mentioning sea level rise and droughts, claiming that CO2 is the only way by which the Earth’s temperatures can be increased.

The instructor repeatedly refers to CO2 and climate change, so there is no question he is teaching students that CO2 emissions are a threat to mankind.

The instructor demonizes coal, and refers to it as “junk food, cheap, available and not good for you.”

He emphasizes that coal emits more CO2 than any other form of energy.

While the instructor’s demeanor and tone are consistently negative toward fossil fuels, these alone can’t be used in an article such as this.

Only facts are suitable.

There are many instances in which the instructor is actually misleading his students or is wrong, but only a few of these instances can be commented on here, to keep the article relatively short.

  • The instructor is wrong in his assertion that Combined Heat and Power (CHP) improves the efficiency of a power plant. This is an argument used by Greenpeace, and it is wrong.
    For example, using the hot water from an automobile’s cooling system to heat the car doses not improve the efficiency of the engine. See, CHP: Progress or Regression?
  • The instructor emphasized the use of water for cooling in power generation plants, especially in coal and nuclear power plants, without considering whether its use had any real impact on the environment or on the availability of water. He also made the very misleading statement that power generation is the largest user of water in the United States.

The fact is, approximately 90% of the cooling water is returned to the river, lake, etc., from where it was drawn. Agriculture is, in fact, the largest consumer of water in the United States.

Use of water for cooling has no effect on the availability of water east of the Mississippi, or in the Northwest, since, according to the USGS, less than 10% of rainfall in these areas is consumed by all users. The fact that multiple millions of gallons of water are lost to evaporation is meaningless in these parts of the country, and to deliberately accentuate water usage in this manner is misleading, at best.

  • The instructor claimed that Clean Air Act regulations were approved by Congress, when it was the EPA that established the regulations. Congress created the CAA, but doesn’t establish regulations.
  • With respect to nuclear power, the instructor referenced the China Syndrome without clarifying that it’s an impossible concept, and can’t happen. He went on to say that the Chernobyl disaster killed 4,000 people.

This number of Chernobyl deaths is wrong, as reported by UNSCEAR, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. For a clearer understanding see, Unreasonable Fear of Radiation and Nuclear Fallout.

  • The instructor made the claim that solar panels in most areas of the United States can recover their cost within 2 years. This is factually wrong, even if the 30% subsidy is included in the calculation.

The only state where it might be possible to recover the investment in two years is Hawaii. The appendix in Nothing to Fear itemizes the payback periods for every state, and, besides Hawaii, only California achieves a pay back of 8 years, and all the rest require 10 or more years to recover the investment without the 30% subsidy. Half the states require more than 15 years to recover the investment.

  • The instructor emphasized that fossil fuels will run out, so we should adopt renewables now. He specifically mentions biofuels, including algae. And he specifically mentions CO2 emissions from airplanes

He contradicts himself because he mentions there is insufficient land to produce corn for ethanol.

The fact is, there is insufficient supply of any biologic energy source, such as trees, switchgrass, grease or corn, etc., to produce biofuels in sufficient quantities to replace fossil fuels. This is made clear by examples in Nothing to Fear, including the fact that it’s impossible to produce enough biofuels to replace jet fuel, which is only a minor source of CO2 emissions.

  • The instructor claims that the market has determined that the cost of wind and solar is worth the social costs.

This is a distorted reference to market forces, and is clearly false, because both wind and solar are uneconomic when compared with coal-fired and natural gas combined cycle power plants.

The government is making the decision, not the market, by imposing regulations, such as Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), and providing large subsidies to encourage their use.

A more egregious claim by the instructor was during his discussion of the hidden cost of gasoline, where he claimed the cost of US military forces defending oil supplies from the Mideast was a form of subsidy increasing the cost of gasoline. This also is a common refrain from radical environmentalists who overlook the cost of defending the United States from the Soviet Union, terrorists and other enemies of freedom.

There are many other claims by the instructor that should be commented on, but for which there is insufficient space.

Claims such as:

  • Gasoline taxes should be higher to reduce miles driven
  • There should be a carbon tax in the US
  • Switch to electric vehicles to stop funding wars
  • Place speed limits on cars, because higher speeds produce greater amounts of CO2

In summary, the course is teaching students:

  • That CO2 emissions are a threat to mankind
  • Wind and solar are “the way to go,” and that fossil fuels should be kept in the ground
  • Government should step in and make sure things happen

This is why I believe this Great Course is propaganda.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 15, An Alternative Hypothesis, describes why the sun is the far more likely cause of global warming.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Magical Hybrids

June 21, 2016

The term hybrid became popular a few years ago with the introduction of the Prius, a vehicle that used a combined mechanical, i.e., internal combustion engine (ICE), and electrical power train.

It rapidly became seen as denoting green.

Now, the term hybrid is being applied to an array of power generation installations that combine two or more different methods for generating electricity so as to imply they are green, or at least more green than natural gas power plants … and definitely more green than coal-fired power plants.

Yet, it was not too long ago that the opposite was true, when sailing ships were converting to coal.

Hybrid could certainly have been applied to ships using both sail and coal-fired steam engines.

SS Savannah, from Wikipedia

SS Savannah, from Wikipedia

But shifting from wind to coal would hardly seem to denote green.

The same can be said about some of the power generation installations that are so-called hybrids, purporting to be green.

Power Engineering magazine devoted an issue to these so-called green, hybrid power plants, calling them “The Next Big Thing.”

The most obvious of these “new” hybrid power plants are those combining solar and a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plant.

In some instances the solar part of the plant is in immediate proximity to the NGCC power plant, but they might just as well be 100 miles apart since they produce electricity independent of each other. Here we have a very low-cost producer of electricity, the NGCC power plant, next to a very high cost solar power plant.

While it has the appearance of being a hybrid installation the solar part of the plant is mere window dressing to give the appearance of being green.

A more legitimate solar and NGCC hybrid would be where a concentrating solar plant is located with an NGCC power plant to reduce the use of natural gas, while the NGCC plant provides the necessary backup for when the sun doesn’t shine. The Florida Power & Light (FPL) plant in Martin County, Florida is an example of this type of hybrid plant.

Unfortunately, this plant has never met its design specifications and has had operating problems.

The Martin plant conforms to the definition of being hybrid, but combines a very low-cost method of generating electricity, i.e., NGCC, with one of the most expensive methods, i.e., concentrating solar.

It can be called a hybrid and receive the green designation, but the end result is higher cost electricity. Hardly a benefit, except for possibly reducing CO2 emissions.

These attempts at being a hybrid aren’t consistent with how the term is applied to vehicles, as described above.

Use of the term hybrid for power generation power plants is merely to add some glamour to solar or wind power, which are otherwise expensive and unreliable.

Power Engineering magazine even calls the Pathfinder – Intermountain Power Project a hybrid.

This multi-billion-dollar boondoggle of high cost electricity using compressed energy storage (CAES) at the Intermountain site in Utah, is called a hybrid because it can store electricity from a wind farm in Wyoming and from solar generated electricity from California. For a complete description of the project see, Absurd Cost of California Wind. [LINK]

In actuality, an NGCC power plant is a true hybrid. It combines a natural gas power plant with a steam power plant by using the exhaust gas from the natural gas turbine to boil water to generate the steam that drives a second electrical generator. It not only uses both natural gas and steam, but achieves greater efficiency and lower cost by using the exhaust from the natural gas turbine to produce the steam.

None of the hybrid systems, other than the NGCC power plant, described above, or in Power Engineering magazine, achieve lower costs, and, in fact, they result in higher cost for electricity.

Hybrid is rapidly denoting high cost rather than green.

Proponents of the CO2 hypothesis are grasping at anything that makes a system appear green, even if it’s an absurd combination of technologies that don’t fit well together, so long as the system produces fewer CO2 emissions.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 6, explains the problems with wind energy.
Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content

Global Warming Science isn’t Settled

June 17, 2016

Ever since the 2011 CLOUD experiment at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), alarmists have tried to denigrate the results, claiming it’s a myth that cosmic rays can affect global warming. Some alarmists web sites, such as Skeptical Science, have made this claim.

In fact, the CLOUD experiments could drastically alter the entire global warming and climate change debate, which is why the alarmists’ have so vehemently attacked the concept that cosmic rays could affect cloud cover and global warming.

Cloud Chamber for CLOUD Experiment at CERN. Photo courtesy of CERN

Cloud Chamber for CLOUD Experiment at CERN. Photo courtesy of CERN

In the late 1990s, Danish scientists proposed that the sun could affect the number of cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere, and that cosmic rays could affect cloud cover and temperatures.

Mr. Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist, told the scientific press in 1998, “The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.”

That’s a powerful concept, that cosmic rays could account for half, and possibly all of the temperature rise over the past century.

Mr. Kirkby, after considerable resistance from alarmists in government, finally persuaded the CERN establishment to conduct the CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets” experiment.

The initial reports from the 2011 CLOUD experiment established that cosmic rays entering the atmosphere could create clouds.

But recent reports concerning the 2014 experiments have gone much further, and established two important findings.

First, the new report shows that a combination of cosmic rays from space and gases emitted by trees can create clouds, without the need for man-made pollution. Earlier, it was thought that man-made pollution was important for cloud formation.

This affects all the computer projections that have been made about temperature rise.

Low-level cloud cover affects temperatures by casting a shadow on the Earth’s surface and by reflecting sunlight back into space.

More low-level cloud cover results in lower temperatures. Less cloud cover results in higher temperatures.

The IPCC computer models made assumptions about the extent of cloud cover prior to the industrial revolution, assuming there were fewer clouds because there was less pollution.

The end result is that greenhouse gases aren’t having as great an effect on temperature rise as originally believed: “Ton for ton, they may not be quite as potent in producing future warming.”

This means the models have been overstating future temperature rise.

The second result of the CLOUD experiment shows that cosmic rays may have a greater effect on cloud formation than initially thought: “Ions produced in the atmosphere by galactic cosmic rays are found to enhance the formation, [i.e., multiply] the rate of these particles [needed for cloud formation] significantly.”

The CERN website says the extent of these findings are unknown, and infers they may be slight, but it’s an irrefutable fact that the science isn’t settled.

The end result of the latest CLOUD experiments show: (1) That the models used by the IPCC to predict future temperatures are overstating temperature rise to some extent, and (2) That cosmic rays have a greater effect on low-level cloud formation than previously thought.

This provides increasingly strong evidence that atmospheric CO2 is not the primary cause of global warming, and that the sun, by its effect on the number of cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere, is more likely to be the primary cause of global warming and climate change.

It’s clear the science is not settled, and there is strong evidence that science is proving that atmospheric CO2 is not the cause of climate change.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear explains why CO2 isn’t to be feared. Chapter 15, An Alternative Hypothesis, describes Dr. Svensmark’s hypothesis on cosmic rays.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Full Court Press to Kill Fracking

June 14, 2016

Radical environmentalists are doing their best to create fear about fracking and to inflame the public so as to outlaw fracking in the United States and the UK.

The latest effort has reached as far as the UK, where anti-fracking groups have seized on a recent University of Michigan study, showing that ethane emissions from the Bakken, where fracking of shale is concentrated, has caused an increase in ethane, where atmospheric ethane had been declining over the past few decades, to call for banning fracking.

The study was led by Eric Kort, University of Michigan, assistant professor of climate and space sciences and engineering, with co-author Colm Sweeney, a scientist with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Diagram of fracking operation. Diagram source not known.

Diagram of fracking operation. Diagram source not known.

The University of Michigan press release said that ethane quickly dissipates in the atmosphere, but that the process of breaking-down the molecule helps to sustain methane. It also said that ethane can help to form ozone, which can increase smog levels.

The press release emphasized the negative effects of ozone, but did not establish how much ozone was being created by ethane, and merely speculated on how it might affect the formation of smog.

Pallavi Phartiyal of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, has said in the past that fracking should be banned because not enough is known about its harmful effects.

Falling back on the precautionary principle is the usual response of radical environmentalists to all new developments.

The precautionary principle establishes that development should stop unless we know precisely how a new activity or product will affect the environment and people. Of course, the precautionary principle would have, if in effect at the time, prevented the development of electricity and penicillin, as well as a host of other medications and products.

In this instance, it’s being used in an attempt to stop fracking.

It’s also interesting to witness the interlocking relationships of radical environmental organizations as this story evolved.

  • It was first published by the University of Michigan on April 26.
  • It then appeared in an article in the Independent, a UK newspaper, owned by the Russians who oppose fracking in Europe, on April 29.
  • It was next referenced in a breaking news story by an investment group Seeking Alpha on May 1, highlighting stocks that might be negatively affected.
  • It next appeared in a DeSmog article on EcoWatch’s web site on May 6.

From Michigan, to the UK, to an international news story and back to the US in a little over a week.

The episode also, once again, demonstrates how these environmental groups use fear to achieve their objectives.

The objective, of course, is to prevent the use of fossil fuels of all kinds, including natural gas.

A few years ago, environmental groups lauded natural gas as a bridge fuel, now, with the crippling of the US coal industry, natural gas is just another fossil fuel menace.

 

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 16, Tragic War on Fossil Fuels, explains the harm being done by trying to keep fossil fuels in the ground.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Kemper is No Keeper

June 10, 2016

Kemper is the third attempt at building a power plant that gasifies coal, burns the combustible gasses, such as hydrogen in a gas turbine, and captures CO2 for sequestration underground, in this case for enhanced oil recovery (EOR).

Known as an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant, there have been three built in the U.S., each more expensive than its predecessor.

The first was in Tampa, Florida, in 1996, where Tampa Electric decided not to build a second based on its experience with the initial unit.

The second was built-in Edwardsport, Indiana, at a cost of $6,000 per KW, about the same cost as a nuclear power plant. This plant was not built with carbon capture capability.

The third, and most costly at around $11,000 per KW, though it’s not yet finished, is in Kemper, Mississippi. The cost includes the mining operation of lignite coal that will be used to provide coal for the plant, so it’s not an exact dollar for dollar comparison with the Edwardsport plant.

Kemper was originally to cost $2.2 billion, and is now projected to cost $6.66 billion.

Photo of Kemper Power Plant, courtesy of Mississippi Power Company

Photo of Kemper Power Plant, courtesy of Mississippi Power Company

Based on the very high cost of the previous IGCC plants, at Tampa and Edwardsport, one must wonder why the Kemper plant was built.

Part of the motivation was provided by the coal industry with its claim that IGCC power plants represented “clean coal.” Part of the motivation came from this administration, with $407 million in grants from DOE, plus tax credits, to demonstrate carbon capture technology.

Southern Company, the owner, through its subsidiary Mississippi Power Co., has paid back $368 million in tax credits, due to missing originally scheduled completion dates.

What happens to the grants has not yet been determined.

The motivation for building IGCC power plants was to eliminate CO2 emissions from the generation of electricity, based on the belief that CO2 emissions are causing global warming and climate change.

The original FutureGen project, proposed by President Bush, was also to be an IGCC power plant with carbon capture and sequestration, but was abandoned because of its high cost.

A natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plant only costs $1,100 per KW, while an ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plant only costs $2,800 per KW. Both are far less costly than an IGCC power plant. And, both generate electricity at less cost than any wind or solar facility.

One can only hope that no more IGCC plants will be built.

They are hugely expensive, and in the final analysis, it’s not likely that CO2 can be sequestered underground for thousands of years.

The experience at Hutchison, Kansas in 2011, is a good example of how a supposedly secure underground storage site leaked natural gas through unknown salt wells and piping, causing an explosion that killed two people.

Then there were the gas leaks in California from underground storage. Old well shafts are still leaking.

Is there any reason to believe that CO2 underground storage won’t also leak?

IGCC power plants are a failure.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 12, explains why carbon capture and sequestration will not work.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Omaha Beach and Freedom

June 7, 2016

It was my great privilege to visit Omaha Beach with a group from the Young America’s Foundation(1), on the 66th anniversary of D-Day.

Standing on the cliff at Pointe du Hoc with shell holes, gun emplacements and pill boxes behind me, I could look over the precipice and marvel at how 225 Rangers scratched their way up the 180-foot cliff with grappling hooks and ropes while being shot at from above – and how, with incredible bravery, they achieved their objective.

Pointe du Hoc. Looking down to landing site. Photo by D. Dears

Pointe du Hoc. Looking down to landing site. Photo by D. Dears

 

Pointe du Hoc. Gun emplacement and shell holes. Photo by D. Dears

Pointe du Hoc. Gun emplacement and shell holes. Photo by D. Dears

 

Pointe du Hoc. Shell holes and destroyed concrete bunker. Photo by D. Dears

Pointe du Hoc. Shell holes and destroyed concrete bunker. Photo by D. Dears

On Omaha Beach, I walked to the water’s edge and looked back at the seawall that was several hundred feet from where I stood.

To the right of the seawall was a pill box that had an open view of the beach and could rake the beach with machine gun fire.

I stood at the water’s edge shortly after low tide, which is when the Americans landed at Omaha Beach. It took incredible bravery for men with packs weighing 130 pounds to run across those several hundred feet of beach to reach the partial cover afforded by the seawall.

Omaha Beach from waters edge at low tide. Gun emplacement is on right, in distance, alongside sea wall. Photo by D. Dears

Omaha Beach from waters edge at low tide. Gun emplacement is on right, in distance, alongside sea wall. Photo by D. Dears

 

Omaha Beach. Close up of gun emplacement with complete coverage of beach. Photo by D. Dears

Omaha Beach. Close up of gun emplacement with complete coverage of beach. Photo by D. Dears

Many did not survive and they are buried at the American Cemetery at Colleville sur Mer. At first sight of the perfectly aligned rows of marble crosses gazing over Omaha Beach, you are caught up short and take an extra breath to retain your composure.

It is humbling to walk among those graves.

Entrance to American cemetery at Colleville sur Mer.Photo by D. Dears

Entrance to American cemetery at Colleville sur Mer. Photo by D. Dears

 

Partial view of American Cemetery. Photo by D. Dears

Partial view of American Cemetery. Photo by D. Dears

 

Grave of General Theodore Roosevelt Jr. Quentin Roosevelt, killed in 1918, is a few feet to the left. Photo by D. Dears

Grave of General Theodore Roosevelt Jr. Quentin Roosevelt, killed in 1918, is a few feet to the left. Photo by D. Dears

We live our lives in freedom because of the gift these men gave to us.

Today, we have equally brave men and women fighting for our freedom in Afghanistan and standing guard at other locations, such as Korea, and on our ships around the world.

Now, on this weekend in June, 72 years after D-Day, it is appropriate to reflect on the words of Ronald Reagan:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day, we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Postscript:

D-Day and World War II are slipping into the mist of history.

Few alive today have a firsthand experience of World War II.

Soon, D-Day will be a date-tagged name, like Belleau Wood, Gettysburg, and Valley Forge.

Inexorably, D-Day and World War II will become irrelevant in the daily lives of each new generation.

Hopefully, a message will transcend the murky mist of history, a message of freedom and why it must be protected and nurtured.

 

  1. The Young America’s Foundation has purchased Reagan Ranch and is maintaining it for future generations.

* * * * * *

NOTE:

These articles can be delivered directly to your mailbox. Subscribe by clicking below the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription, and entering your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know someone who would be interested in these articles you can send him/her a link to the article and suggest he/she subscribes by clicking on the email subscription link under the picture on the right side of the page, and entering their email address.

To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

A Really Big Wind Boondoggle

June 3, 2016

While Forbes magazine discussed the interesting, some might say questionable, politics behind the Block Island wind project, its economics are fascinating.

Rhode Islanders will have the honor of paying twice as much for their electricity as do average Americans.

The project is known as Deepwater Wind, which has ordered 5, 6 MW wind turbines from GE to be installed offshore, just east of Block Island.

Arrow points to Block Island.

Arrow points to Block Island.

Rhode Islanders will pay Deepwater Wind 24.4 cents per kWh, while the average American pays 10.4 cents per kWh. In addition, the price will increase contractually by 3.5% annually, which means Rhode Islanders will be paying around 50 cents per kWh in 20 years.

Meanwhile, factoring in these revenues, plus the federal Wind Energy production credit, Deepwater Wind, according to calculations made by Forbes magazine, could receive approximately $1 billion, with a pre tax return of 7.5% … A virtually risk free investment guaranteed by the government.

The rationale for this boondoggle is that it will cut CO2 emissions.

It’s Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who has asked for the RICO anti-racketeering law to be applied to those who disagree with the idea that CO2 causes global warming.

In effect, no one should be allowed to claim that this boondoggle is unnecessary.

The media has reported the investment cost of the 30 MW project is $300 million.

The cost would therefore be $10,000 per KW, which is nearly ten times the cost of building a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plant, where an NGCC power plant costs $1,100 per KW.

While Governor Raimondo of Rhode Island, extolls the 300 local jobs being created by the project, which will be temporary, the real jobs are going elsewhere … to France for the turbines, Spain for the towers, Denmark for the blades, and Louisiana for constructing the platforms.

The average American is footing the bill for this boondoggle. The rate payers of Rhode Island will be paying an exorbitant amount for their electricity, and tax payers elsewhere will be paying for the production tax credit.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 6, explains the problems with wind energy.
Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.
Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 433 other followers