Blue Crab Boulevard

And Then A Miracle Happens!

I’ve been an engineer in the utility industry for a long time, as regular readers know. I’ve spent a lot of my life just trying to keep the lights on. Since I have been blogging, I’ve even tried educating people a bit on the reality of power. Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

Apparently, there is a reason that the MSM does not let people with any understanding of numbers write for them.

On the surface, he may have some thought-provoking points. But I’ve done some thinking on this topic in the past too, and this is what I’ve concluded:

* While it’s true that about 50% of American electricity currently comes from coal, that number is changing quickly as more renewables come online. In some areas of the country, large amounts of electricity already come from renewable sources. Given that EVs will come on relatively slowly as well, it makes sense to conduct the switch simultaneously.

Apparently, Reuters reporter Rolfe Winkler cannot be bothered to read anything – even if it is freely available on the web:

The potential for growth in electricity generation from wind power depends on a variety of factors, including fossil fuel costs, State renewable energy programs, technology improvements, access to transmission grids, public concerns about environmental and other impacts, and the future of the Federal PTC for wind, which is scheduled to expire at the end of 2009. Other renewable technologies are guaranteed a tax credit for an additional year. In the AEO2009 reference case, generation from wind power increases from 0.8 percent of total generation in 2007 to 2.5 percent in 2030 (Figure 60). Generation from biomass, both dedicated and co-firing, grows from 39 billion kilowatthours in 2007 (0.9 percent of the total) to 231 billion kilowatthours (4.5 percent) in 2030. Generation from geothermal facilities also increases but at such a slow rate that it does not gain market share. Current assessments show limited potential for expansion at conventional geothermal sites. Enhanced geothermal development remains economically infeasible.

Those “large amounts” are actually rather (make that extremely) puny. I realize math is hard, Mr. Winkler, I have a degree in the subject. Still some basic understanding of what the numbers actually say – as opposed to your agenda-driven conclusions – might make for a better – and more truthful – article. Even if the best-case, super rosy scenario this official Department of Energy report happens, renewables will be a laughably small percentage of total energy production in 2030.

Those “large gains” are wishful thinking.

UPDATE: Thanks for the link, Fausta.

Energy | Gaius September 4, 2009

By Fausta, September 5, 2009 @ 7:43 am

I estimate that for the US to achieve any kind of significant amount of power from wind, we would need to be installing, on the ground, at least three a day for the next 10 years. And that’s assuming each one would be fully functional and operating without interruption for that period of time.
By Gaius, September 5, 2009 @ 7:57 am

But wind power has a theoretical maximum 30% availability (it is actually less than that in practice). So you’d actually have to triple the number of installations and still pray that the wind did not drop off (or increase too much).

And STILL have to back it up with a spinning reserve.

Wind power is a complete scam.
By LYNNDH, September 5, 2009 @ 8:32 am

Well, I Cap n Trade goes through and they start closing coal plants, who knows maybe “green” will gain. But then I never could wistle Dixie.
By Mwalimu Daudi, September 5, 2009 @ 8:35 am

The scientific illiteracy of environmentalists and the state-run media is mind-boggling. Most leftists assume that just because they know how to blog, Twitter and use a word processing program they are technological and scientific geniuses.

A quick review of “green” energy technologies is worthwhile:

1. Wind – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Hell) blocked construction of an offshore wind power array because it obstructed his ocean view (energy for he, but not for we). Other wind power projects have drawn environmentalists’ fire because of their allegedly destructive effect on wild animals (birds).

Geothermal – some years ago it was proposed to build geothermal plants near Yellowstone to take advantage of the massive natural hotspots. Environmentalists and the media managed to kill that idea, claiming that the plants would use so much heat that Old Faithful would no longer erupt. Where does the Left get its scientific education from – Mystery Science Theater 3000?

3. Nuclear fission – one of the safest and cleanest energy sources ever developed. No one has ever died in a US nuclear power plant accident (the same cannot be said for passengers in Ted Kennedy’s car). But environmentalists and the media killed off that idea, and consider it one of their proudest achievements.

4. Active solar energy – solar cells are made using toxic, hard to dispose of chemicals. And solar cells must be replaced periodically due to weathering effects.

5. Passive solar energy – might work on a cold day if the sun is out (if not, you will freeze to death). In the summer you will be very nicely roasted (the only question is rare, medium or well-done).

5. Nuclear fusion – so far is still stuck on the drawing boards.
By George Bruce, September 5, 2009 @ 9:30 am

Not only are the numbers puny, and the future numbers fanciful, (to put it mildly), but none of the goo-goo greenies have yet to explain from where does the baseline power come. Baseline power is what makes the lights come on and the refrigerator stay cold when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow.
By Mockingbird, September 5, 2009 @ 11:47 am

All seriousness aside, how about chaining environmentalist to stationary bicycles and they pedal for power at minimum wage. Van Jones can horsewhip any who don’t pedal at Czar Jones acceptable speed.
By Sylvia, September 5, 2009 @ 9:44 pm

Gaius, thank you — I alway appreciate reading your posts about the energy industry.