Trump Says Wind Energy Is The Most Expensive - That's A LIE!

In his Sunday press conference with the President of the European Union, Donald Trump droned on and on about how bad wind energy is - saying the windmills were ugly and ruined the landscape, while being the most expensive kind of energy.

Of course, he was lying (as usual). As the chart above shows, wind energy is actually the cheapest way to produce energy (legalized cost of electricity per megawatt-hour).

Trump was trying to justify his own actions since taking office in his second term. He has removed tax breaks and subsidies from renewable energy sources, while giving more government help to oil and gas companies. And he is removing EPA regulations on cleaning the environment.

His actions on behalf of his buddies in the oil and gas industry are making the environment worse, making it harder to control global climate change, and making sure consumers have to pay more for electricity than is needed.

Are Wind Turbines Huge Bird Killers?

Donald Trump doesn't like wind turbines (that produce clean renewable energy). He wants his buddies in the fossil fuel industry to keep making huge profits. His problem is that the nation needs to move to clean and renewable energy to reduce the carbon dioxide causing global climate change.

Trump has denied global warming (global climate change) is happening, but most people don't believe him. A significant majority of Americans know the truth -- that global warming is happening, and it's caused by human overuse and misuse of fossil fuels.

So he has now come up with another excuse for opposing wind turbines. He is claiming that those wind turbines are a huge killer of birds. The chart above (using data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) shows Trump is again lying.

Wind turbines do kill a few birds, but nowhere near the number killed by other causes -- and wind turbines do not kill enough to put birds in danger of extinction. This is a false argument.

About 15% Of Texas Energy Is Now Supplied By Wind

(This chart shows the 2016 energy sources in Texas.)

Although coal and natural gas still provide most of the electricity for homes and businesses in Texas, wind energy is growing fast. In 2016, it has provided nearly 15% of all energy. The following article is by Katherine Tweed at Green Tech Media.

First, some definitions:

Megawatt -- unit of power equal to 1 million watts.

Gigawatt -- init of power equal to 1 billion watts.

1 Megawatt will provide enough energy to supply the needs of 400 to 900 homes (depending on the time of year and location of those homes).

Tweed writes:

Texas grid operator ERCOT announced a new record for wind on Monday. For the first time, wind provided more than 15,000 megawatts of electricity to the state on a single day. 

The record wind on Sunday supplied an average of 41 percent of electricity throughout the day. But it was not an all-time record for wind in Texas. On one day in March, wind supplied more than 48 percent of load during one hour.

It is not the hour-by-hour records that are impressive, however.

Texas is already the clear leader in wind power in the U.S., and that lead is widening. Texas has more than 18,000 megawatts installed and another 5,000 megawatts under construction, according to the American Wind Energy Association.

Wind power made up an average of 11.7 percent of electricity in 2015 in Texas, a figure that will be at least 14.7 in 2016, according to ERCOT.

The final tally of wind power’s contribution to the Texas electric grid will likely be slightly higher, as the wind blows harder in winter and therefore wind power contributions to the power mix usually go up.

Of course, the growing share of wind is still half the amount of coal in Texas and about one-third of natural gas generation.

Coal and natural gas may dominate in Texas, but the investment the state has made in transmission and improving renewable energy forecasts could allow for even more wind and solar in the future.

The wind power in Texas is coming from across the state, including the Texas Panhandle, the west and the south. Texas’ success with wind power is largely due to its Competitive Renewable Energy Zones, which were identified mostly in West Texas and the state's Panhandle region. A key to the project was about $7 billion in transmission lines to carry the wind power where it is needed.

With wind power flowing across the state, solar power is now starting to catch on to take advantage of the transmission lines. In 2015, ERCOT did not even list solar as a fuel source on its annual demand and energy report.

In 2016, the figures are still very small -- but they're growing. ERCOT reports about 685 megawatts of solar will be on-line in Texas in 2016, up from less than 300 in 2015. For the first time, solar energy received its own designation as a fuel type in ERCOT’s annual demand and energy report.

Large-scale solar could grow quickly in Texas, but will not even come close to wind. By 2020, ERCOT expects 2.5 gigawatts of solar on its system, compared to more than 28 gigawatts of wind.

Amarillo Is Still The Windiest City In The United States

I don't know that this is something to be proud of, but it does explain why so many wind generators are being built here around Amarillo. Once again The Weather Channel (using data from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center) has declared Amarillo to be the windiest city in the United States. The figures in the chart above represent the average wind speed for the entire year. Amarillo averaged a full 1 mph above the second place city (Rochester, Minnesota).

The Windiest City In America - Amarillo, Texas

Chicago has claimed the nickname of "The Windy City", and it does get a lot of wind from the heating and cooling of Lake Michigan. But it is not the windiest city in the United States. That title goes to Amarillo, Texas.

The Weather Channel, who keeps this kind of statistic for all of America's cities, added up the wind speed for each day of the year and divided that by 365. This gave them the average wind speed for each city, and the city with the highest average wind speed was Amarillo -- at 13.6 miles per hour. Amarillo averaged a full 1 mph over the second place city -- Rochester, Minnesota.

This doesn't surprise me. I moved to Amarillo about 8 years ago, and the hardest thing to get used to was the constant wind. All cities have their windy days -- but in Amarillo, nearly every day is a windy day.

This explains why so many wind farms are springing up in the Texas Panhandle (where Amarillo is the largest city), and a huge electrical transmission line is being built from near Amarillo to the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. DFW's huge population gives it a huge need for electrical power -- and the Panhandle has an abundant supply of that clean and renewable energy resource -- the wind.

NOTE -- Four of the windiest cities in the nation are in Texas. Does that make Texas the windiest state in the country?

Wind-Generated Electricity Is Slowly Growing In The U.S.

(The photo above is by John Womack, and was found at Wikipedia.)

The amount of electricity generated in the United States continues to grow. In 2012, wind power supplied about 3.5% of total electrical generation. Last year, wind power grew to 4.1% of the nation's total electrical power. That was 167 million megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity, and a whopping 80.2% of that electricity from wind power (134 million MWh) came from just 12 states. The state producing the most wind power was Texas (with about 36 million MWh), followed by Iowa (with about 15 million MWh).

Those figures are from the U.S. Energy Information Administration's Electric Power Monthly report. The two charts below show the energy output for wind power from the 12 states producing the most wind energy for one month (February of 2014, the last month for which totals are available). The top chart gives each states output in thousands of MWh, and the bottom chart shows how much each state provided as a total of the February national output of wind energy (which was 14,001,000 MWh).

This is a good start, but that's all it is. There is still plenty of room for growth in the wind power industry.

Public's Views On Energy More Reasonable Than Leaders

Right-wingers, like the "Witch of Wasilla", have tried to convince Americans that the way out of our energy problems was to just increase production of the fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) -- and their mantra was "drill, baby, drill". And after the 2010 elections they were able to seek that to many people. Note on the chart above that in 2011 those wanting more production nearly caught up (closed to within 7 points) with those who say more conservation is the best answer.

But that was short-lived. The current gap favors conservation by 23 points, which is more like opinions since 2000. People know that we are not going to drill our way out of our energy problems. There is a finite amount of fossil fuels, especially oil, and we are at or near the point where production will begin to fall no matter how much drilling is done. The only reasonable answer is more conservation, coupled with alternate and renewable energy sources (wind, solar, etc.).

The chart above was made from information in a series of Gallup Polls -- with the last being between March 6th and 9th of a random nationwide sample of 1,048 adults (with a 4 point margin of error). Here are some other results from that poll, showing what the general public supports and opposes. It shows that most Americans are a lot smarter than the teabaggers when it comes to energy.

Government should spend more money developing solar & wind power.
Support...............67%
Oppose...............32%

Government should spend more money developing alternate fuels for automobiles.
Support...............66%
Oppose...............33%

Higher emissions and pollution standards should be set for businesses and industry.
Support...............65%
Oppose...............35%

Federal Environmental regulations should be more strongly enforced.
Support...............64%
Oppose...............34%

Mandatory controls should be placed on emissions of CO2 & other greenhouse gases.
Support...............63%
Oppose...............35%

Set higher emissions standards for automobiles.
Support...............62%
Oppose...............35%

Set stricter standards for extracting natural gas, including fracking.
Support...............58%
Oppose...............37%

Expand the use of nuclear energy.
Support...............47%
Oppose...............51%

Germans Push Clean Energy - Reduce CO2

Here in the United States we use far more than our share of the world's energy, and we continue to use the dirty carbon dioxide producing fossil fuels to make most of that energy. Only a tiny part of the energy we produce comes from clean and renewable energy sources (like wind, tides, solar, etc.). We continue to buy into the argument that either those sources are too expensive to develop or they are unable to provide a significant part of our needs. I think the real truth is that the oil, gas, and coal companies have bought too many of our politicians.

While the United States continues to make excuses, Germany has bit the bullet and invested heavily in the new renewable energy technologies, and it is already paying off big for them. Here is part of the the German energy story, as reported in The Guardian:

Germany has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions significantly in recent years as it has pushed forward a renewable agenda leading Europe into an age of wind and solar power. 

In the past year, the country's CO2 emissions fell by 2.4% compared with 2010, according to figures released by Germany's Federal Environment Agency (UBA). The decrease, say experts, has largely come through a push towards renewable energy that has accelerated since the country began its move away from nuclear power. 

In the first six months of 2012, the amount of electricity produced using renewable energy rose from 20% to 25%, bringing the country closer to its targets of 35% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. 

"We are on a good track in regard to the increase in the share of renewables," said Brigitte Knopf, deputy head of research at the sustainable solutions project at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (Pik). "This is a story of success, though some challenges are still ahead."

There are still problems, but the Germans are forging ahead to reach their goal, instead of whinging that it can't be done. If they can do this without hurting their industry or curtailing electric use by consumers, why can't the United States do the same?

Obama Supports Wind Energy, Not Romney

Here in Texas, we have a burgeoning wind energy program (especially in West Texas and the Panhandle). Many wind farms have already been constructed, and once the transmission lines (currently under construction) have been completed, many more will be built. In fact, Texas currently leads the nation in the amount of wind energy produced. This has already provided new jobs, and new sources of income for farmers and ranchers -- and the future promises much more of both jobs and new income.

Much of this growth in wind energy has been spurred by the wind energy tax credits -- credits that President Obama wants to continue. But Willard Mitt Romney has a different view. He wants to eliminate the wind energy tax credits -- which could devastate the fledgling wind energy industry. Instead, he wants to continue the billions of dollars in government subsidies for the oil industry (which is recording record profits, and no longer needs those subsidies).

This week, President Obama spoke about this issue in Iowa. While he was speaking to Iowans, those of us in Texas (and other wind energy states) should pay attention, because he is talking about our future -- a vision of the future not shared by Romney. Here is what the president had to say:

“Over the past four years, we’ve doubled the amount of electricity America can generate from wind—from 25 gigawatts to 50 gigawatts. And to put that in perspective, that’s like building 12 new Hoover Dams that are powering homes all across the country. We doubled the amount of electricity we generate from solar energy, too. And combined, these energy sources are enough power to make sure that 13 million homes have reliable power and support the paychecks that help more than 100,000 Americans provide for their families.

“That’s not imaginary. That is real. And that’s what’s at stake in November. Thirty-seven thousand American jobs are on the line if the wind energy tax credit is allowed to expire like my opponent thinks they should. And unlike Gov. Romney, I want to stop giving $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies that have rarely been more profitable so that we can keep investing in homegrown energy sources like wind that have never been more promising. That’s part of the choice in this election.”

New Japanese Wind Generator Could Triple Electrical Output

I found this excellent post at the blog Zero Energy Construction. It predicts an even brighter future for wind energy than previously believed. It says:


A surprising aerodynamic innovation in wind turbine design called the 'wind lens' could triple the output of a typical wind turbine, making it less costly than nuclear power.

The International Clean Energy Analysis (ICEA) gateway estimates that the U.S. possesses 2.2 million km2 of high wind potential (Class 3-7 winds) — about 850,000 square miles of land that could yield high levels of wind energy. This makes the U.S. something of a Saudi Arabia for wind energy, ranked third in the world for total wind energy potential.

Let's say we developed just 20 percent of those wind resources — 170,000 square miles (440,000 km2) or an area roughly 1/4 the size of Alaska — we could produce a whopping 8.7 billion megawatt hours of electricity each year (based on a theoretical conversion of six 1.5 MW turbines per km2 and an average output of 25 percent. (1.5 MW x 365 days x 24 hrs x 25% = 3,285 MWh's).

The United States uses about 26.6 billion MWh's, so at the above rate we could satisfy a full one-third of our total annual energy needs. (Of course, this assumes the concurrent deployment of a nationwide Smart Grid that could store and disburse the variable sources of wind power as needed using a variety of technologies — gas or coal peaking, utility scale storage via batteries or fly-wheels, etc).

Now what if a breakthrough came along that potentially tripled the energy output of those turbines? You see where I'm going. We could in theory supply the TOTAL annual energy needs of the U.S. simply by exploiting 20 percent of our available wind resources.

Well, such a breakthrough has been made, and it's called the "wind lens." 

Imagine: no more dirty coal power, no more mining deaths, no more nuclear disasters, no more polluted aquifers as a result of fracking. Our entire society powered by the quiet "woosh" of a wind turbine. Kyushu University's wind lens turbine is one example of the many innovations happening right now that could in the near future make this utopian vision a reality.

Yes, it's a heck of a lot of wind turbines (about 2,640,000) but the U.S. with its endless miles of prairie and agricultural land is one of the few nations that could actually deploy such a network of wind turbines without disrupting the current productivity of the land (Russia and China also come to mind). It would also be a win-win for states in the highest wind area — the Midwest — which has been hard hit by the recession. And think of the millions upon millions of jobs that would be created building a 21st century energy distribution system free of the shackles of ever-diminishing fossil fuel supplies. 

It's also important to point out that growth in wind power capacity is perfectly symbiotic with projected growth in electric vehicles. EV battery packs can soak up wind power produced during the night, helping to equalize the curve of daytime energy demand. So the controversial investment currently being entertained by President Obama to pipe oil down from the Canadian Tar Sands would — in my utopian vision — be a moot point.

It is indeed a lofty vision, but the technology we need is now in our reach. And think of the benefits of having our power production fed by a resource that is both free and unlimited. One downside often cited by advocates of coal and gas power is that wind turbines require a lot more maintenence than a typical coal or gas power plant. But in a lagging economy this might just be wind power's biggest upside — it will create lots and lots of permanent jobs, sparking a new cycle of economic growth in America.

PUC Approves Step Forward For Wind Power

Finally the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has done something to help clean up the energy production here in Texas.   They approved building the first stretch of transmission lines (about 91 miles worth) that will be used to carry wind-generated electricity from the Panhandle of Texas to more urban areas downstate (like DFW).  

This is just one leg of the needed lines and many more miles of transmission lines must be approved and built before the renewable electricity can finally make it to the areas that need it.   But this is a good start, and every job must be started before it can be finished.   The route approved will run west and north of Amarillo.

There are some who are complaining that the lines will destroy some grassland and possibly some farmland, but the other two proposed routes were even worse.   One would have cut through a fairly well-populated area between Canyon and Amarillo, and the other would have run along the north rim of the Palo Duro Canyon State Park.   Neither of those needed to happen.

This is really a win-win situation for the Panhandle and downstate areas needing electricity.   It will prevent the building of more polluting coal-powered plants while giving consumers clean and renewable energy, and it will also bring income to landowners and new jobs to the Panhandle.   Many more wind farms are waiting for the transmission lines to be built before they can be built.

Thank goodness the actual building of the lines can now be started.

Wind Power - The First Step

The large scale production of wind energy will be a real boon to Texas, and especially to the Panhandle region. But before wind energy can really take off, there must be a way to get that energy from where it is produced to where it is needed (and will be used). In other words, new energy transmission lines must be built.

Thank goodness that process is finally starting. Sharyland Utilities is holding public hearings on its proposed routes for transmission lines thru the Panhandle. The first section will be built from near Hereford to White Deer, and will run just south of Amarillo (see above map).

There are several routes available for this section of the transmission line, and these will be discussed in public hearings the next couple of days. The first will be held in Amarillo tonight from 5-8pm at the Region 16 Service Center (5800 Bell Street). The second will be held tomorrow in Panhandle (just east of Amarillo) from 5-8pm at the Carson County War Memorial Building (500 Main Street). Both meetings are open to the public.

In the first quarter of 2010, Sharyland will prepare to file permits for the specific routes it will use. In the second quarter of 2010, it will file those permit applications with the Texas Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The PUC should approve those permits by the end of 2010, and construction is currently scheduled to begin in the first half of 2011.

Sharyland will be building about 300 miles of the transmission lines across 11 counties. It is good to see the process is finally getting started. Wind energy will not only provide a new source of income for many farmers and ranchers, but it will create many new jobs in this area. But this cannot happen on a large scale until the transmission lines are completed.

Here in the Panhandle, we are eager to begin providing Texas with clean and renewable energy.

Has Seliger Flipped Out Or Sold Out ?

The Texas Panhandle is high, flat, nearly treeless and the wind is always blowing there. It is the perfect place for a renewable energy source to be exploited -- wind energy. In fact, wind farms are already beginning to pop up all over the Panhandle. But one thing the area does not have is coal. So why is Panhandle Senator Kel Seliger pushing a bill that would result in the building of new coal-powered energy plants in Texas? Has he lost his mind?

Instead of pushing renewable wind energy which would help the Panhandle economically, Seliger has decided that "clean coal" is the wave of the future. His bill would promote the construction of several large-scale coal-burning power plants in Texas. "This legislation represents a very important first step in making clean coal technology in the state of Texas," Seliger said, and added, "One day, others will look to Texas as the leader in a clean coal world."

That may sound good to some people, but don't be fooled. There are two different definitions of "clean coal". Most environmental groups and the general public think "clean coal" is where a power plant catches all the pollutants (including carbon dioxide) and stores them underground, so that none of them add to air pollution or global climate change.

This kind of technology is not currently available and, if possible at all, would be so expensive that it would make coal power more expensive than any other type -- including renewable energy power.

But the energy industry has a different definition. They think a "clean coal" plant is any power plant that releases less pollution than a plant built before 1990 regulations were put in place. That means a power plant could release tons of pollutants into the air and still be classified as a "clean coal" plant.

This is the definition that Seliger is using. His bill would only require new plants to cut pollution by up to 60%. This type of "clean coal" plant is little more than a public relations campaign that would let the power plants keep on polluting.

And that's not all of the bad news that comes with "clean coal". In addition to its continuing pollution of the air, it also would pollute our soil and water. Consider the case of the Tennessee Valley Authority plant in Harriman, Tennessee (pictured above). At that plant, a retaining wall of a 40-acre pit containing a slurry of coal ash collapsed and covered several hundred acres of land, destroying several houses. The pollution it released was 100 times greater than that from the Exxon Valdez disaster.

"Clean coal" produces just as much of this coal ash as an old-fashioned coal-burning plant, and each new plant would have one of these unlined slurry pits to hold the coal ash produced. This ash contains heavy metals like arsenic and mercury along with known carcinogens. Thomas Burke, an environmental risk expert at Johns Hopkins University, says, "This is hazardous waste, and it should be classified as such." This waste could leach into ground water, even if the pit walls don't collapse.

And we haven't even discussed the scarring of the landscape by strip mining, or the health problems associated with deep-earth mining. Frankly, it seems to me that the so-called "clean coal" plants are not much better than the old-fashioned coal-burning plants. They came up with a new name that makes it sound better, but it's not any better.

Seliger should be ashamed of what he is proposing. Once again, a Republican is putting his corporate buddies before what's good for the people of Texas and his constituents in the Panhandle. Has he gone crazy or just sold out?

Panhandle To Get Coal-Fired Power Plant

It looks like the Texas Panhandle will be getting a coal-powered energy plant. The Celanese Corporation has sold its Pampa plant to the Australian investment firm of Babcock & Brown. The plant currently produces various chemicals, but the investment firm plans to convert it into a power plant using coal as its source of energy.

Celanese said the plant, which has been operating since 1952, was outdated and had much higher operating costs than their other more modern plants. The 225 employees can hire on at the future power facility, or transfer to other Celanese plants. Chemical production at the plant should cease in early 2009.

After chemical production ceases, the plant will be converted to a coal-burning power plant capable of producing about 800 megawatts (one megawatt can provide electricity for 250-300 homes). The company also plans to use wind energy to produce another 1000 megawatts.

Nothing was said in the news release about using the most modern technology to minimize the amount of pollution normally produced in a coal-burning power plant. I hope the company doesn't believe such precautions are not needed in the wide-open spaces of the Panhandle.

We currently enjoy clean, healthy and breathable air here in the Panhandle, but it wouldn't take very many coal-powered plants with yesterday's technology to destroy that.