Two Danish experts in the field of wind energy will be in Washington for the next three days to speak on the subject of wind generated electricity. One would expect they are here to brag on the fact that their country is a leader in the field and that they already satisfy, as President Obama puts it, "20 percent of the electricity through wind power." One would be wrong in such an expectation. They are here to warn us about the dangers of putting our electricity needs in the wind power basket.

A nation of 5.4 million — between Missouri and Wisconsin in population — the windy nation is "carpeted" with wind turbines. Of the electricity generated from all sources, the 5,500 wind turbines contribute about 19 percent of the country's electrical demand. But this is far less than the amount utilized by the Danish people, which varies between 5 and 10 percent. Why the disparity? This is explained in a report — “An Assessment of Danish wind power: The real state-of-play and its hidden costs" (pdf) — authored by Hugh Sharman, an engineer and founder of a company specializing in off-shore structures. It is Mr. Sharman and Martin Agerup, chief executive officer of Copenhagen-based Center for Politiske Studier, who are in the U.S. to alert American audiences of what the true energy situation is in Denmark.
 
Concerns are many, primarily the problem of system instability when the wind energy component nears 10 percent in most applications. Electricity has a value based not just on the power produced, but on when it is available. When there is over-capacity, power is sold by West Denmark to customers in Germany and to the UCTE grid in Europe. In a similar situation, power from West Denmark (the East and West grids are not connected) is sold to Finland, Sweden, and Norway. Norway uses a portion of this for pumped storage thus increasing its value. Since this occurs when the electrical demand by Denmark's customers is also low, the electricity is sold below cost — the difference being made up by taxes and residential rate payers. (Industrial customers are given very preferential treatment in electricity pricing policy.)

Unfortunately for the Danes, when the winds aren't blowing to produce sufficient power, they then become the customers of their customers. But now the value of the electricity is very high.  As a consequence the Danish people have the highest electric rates of any industrialized nation, an average of about $.38 per kWh compared to $.08 in the United States.
 
It could be much worse were it not for the countries that Denmark is tied to by electrical grids and that consume about 100 times the power of Denmark. These countries act as a kind of energy spring: When Denmark has an excess, they have a place to put it rather than shutting down their wind farms. When power is needed, other suppliers provide a ready source to step in and ship the necessary megawatt-hours. The United States is not in such a position. We have no energy "big brother" to come to our rescue. We, then, must have generating capabilities necessary to back up all the unreliable wind power and consequently cannot safely shut down any of our current generating plants, and indeed must build more back-up conventional plants anytime the grid needs additional capacity.
 
The other big mistake that the United States is being pushed toward by environmentalists and their patron in the White House is that of "green jobs." Jobs in the wind industry are always subsidized. When a worker in a non-subsidized industry moves into a subsidized one, there is a double hit on the economy:  The "green" job requires the government to take capital from the economy, and the loss of the non-subsidized job precludes the creation of wealth. Much as in Spain where "green jobs" can require a subsidy of $1,000,000 per job, wind-related jobs in Denmark are subsidized at the rate of 175 to 250 percent above average pay, roughly costing taxpayers $90,000 to $140,00 for each "green" employee.
 
Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research (IER) that commissioned the report, is unequivocal in his warning:  "In the case of Denmark, you have a nation of 5.4 million, occupying some of the most wind-intense real estate in Europe — and it still doesn't even come close to the 20 percent threshold envisioned by President Obama for the United States. This may indeed be the model for the future — but only if you believe that a combination of smoke, mirrors, and prohibitively high utility rates are the key to our economic and environmental salvation."

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (12)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Flu-Bird said:

	Windy in washington Too bad but it looks like the wind energy isnt as great as the greens are trying to push it as becuase those wind turbines and hazerdoius to birds
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 15, 2009
Votes: -4

Bonnie said:

	Where wind power would be most efficient... Perhaps we should install wind turbines on Capitol Hill and at the White House. The amount of hot air moving in these areas should provide a steady supply of energy.
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: +2

Michael Goggin, American Wind Energy Association said:

	This fossil-funded study isn't worth the paper it's printed on For a thorough debunking of the misleading and false claims in this IER study, please see our analysis: http://www.awea.org/blog/?mode=viewid&post_id=196 Michael Goggin, American Wind Energy Association
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009 | url
Votes: -3

Bonnie said:

Get real, Michael Goggin Any study debunking the myths of wind power must be "fossil-funded", therefore are bad. Your study is pro-wind powered, and funded by the American Wind Energy Association. Therefore your study is legitimate. The New American had a very good article on alternative energy a few months back. I assure you, The New American is NOT "fossil-funded"! Wind and solar do have (limited) useful application. Don't try to claim you can power a nation with it (or even 20% of nation). You can't.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: +2

Alan said:

Windpower You can certainly power 20% of a nation with windpower. There are many areas powered more than 20% wind. Iowa actually has a higher capacity of wind per capita than Denmark. Several other nations will approch the 20% mark in the next few years: Portugal, Spain, Ireland, etc. The article is a bit misleading as all these nations power is integrated and tied in to one another already. The fact is the nations around Denmark are also big into windpower (Germany, Sweden, Norway, Poland).

report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: -2

Elmer said:

Safety of wind power A summary of accidents includes: • 139 incidents of blade failure. Failed blades have been known to travel over a quarter mile, and that is from turbines much smaller than those being manufactured today. This type of accident has caused some European countries to require a minimum distance of about one mile (2 km) between occupied housing and wind turbines. •110 incidents of fire. When a wind turbine fire occurs, the local fire departments (without 30-story ladder trucks) can do little but watch. This isn't a problem unless the wind is blowing sufficiently to scatter the debris into dry fields or woodlands — or maybe onto your roof. • 60 incidents of structural failure. This includes turbine failure and tower collapse failures. While not now a problem for the public — except having to gaze upon at a bent-over wind turbine — it may well become one as governments, under pressure from environmental activists, encourage marginal- and hastily-sited wind projects in urban areas where such an accident could kill and maim. • 24 incidents of "ice throw" with human injury. These data may be a small fraction of actual incidences, with 880 icing events reported in a 13-year period for Germany alone. Full article at: http://thenewamerican.com/inde...energy/788

report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: +0

Elmer said:

Practicality of wind power While there are many clever and interesting ways to store energy, most of these are what the late Petr Beckmann termed as "piddle power" — not sufficiently robust and reliable to sustain an industrial economy. A noteworthy exception to this is "pumped storage" that is limited mainly to locations with large reservoirs vertically separated by hundreds of feet. Looking way out, the super capacitor is peeking up over the horizon and may be the device that changes the way energy is stored by our utility companies and in future electric vehicles. Full article at: http://thenewamerican.com/inde...-practical

report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: +0

Tom Stacy said:

	Administrator Mr. Goggin again. How nice of you to opine from the national association of wind power !! I find it hard to believe you would want to debunk this study and/or article. After all, if your industry had to rely on selling electricity for revenue, you wouldn't even exist!!! Blow along now, Michael.
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009 | url
Votes: -1

rp said:

Misleading Wind power produces about 15% of the electricity generated in Iowa. But, it is only about 6.5% of the electricity CONSUMED in Iowa. Germany was generating about 6% of its electrical needs from wind power. While there were plans to increase this, the Germans are stepping back to take another look at wind power from both economic and aesthetic perspectives. The effects on the bird population were also of concern. Denmark, while at a theoretical 19% are actually reaping about 10% of demand.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: +0

Bonnie said:

	Hey Tom Stacy GREAT url! For those of you who missed it, here it is again: http://www.savewesternoh.org/ There are some real good resources and references here.
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: +0

rp said:

More about Iowa I don't know if Alan has ever lived in Iowa or not. I did. My father was superintendent of municipal utilities in a couple different towns in Iowa and Minnesota. Iowa, while certainly having urban areas, is mostly rural, consisting of many small towns. Like several of the surrounding states, small towns depended either on a rural electric cooperative, or had their own small (municipal) power plants. A "wide spot in the road" was most likely to depend on a cooperative, and the "larger" small towns had their own generation facilities. For the most part, these small plants generated electricity with large diesel engines (think naval destroyers before the nuclear age). Later, natural gas also came into use for hybrid engines that could run on either natural gas or diesel. These plants could not produce tremendous amounts of electricity, but certainly enough to provide for the needs of a small town and its adjacent farms. In the 1970's, many of these towns tied in to larger power grids. The reasons were mostly economic, due to the artificial "energy crisis" of the 70's. These small power plants were in many cases not disposed of but just placed on standby. In the event of a storm knocking out the power feed to the town (not an uncommon thing in Iowa), the old diesel standby's would be up and in operation within a matter of minutes. That said, small towns with low demand and readily available (and reliable) alternate sources (diesel/natural gas) are a good fit for wind power. Just because you can make something work in rural Iowa doesn't mean it will work in urban Illinois.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: +1

Tom Stacy said:

Administrator Thanks for the kudos and plug, Bonnie. We work hard to make the truthful information about wind that can't justify expensive ad campaigns easy to find and assimilate - unlike this run-on sentence. Any time AWEA, Michael Goggin et al would like to have a live, televised debate, I'll grab my buds from PJM, DOE, ASME, California Energy Commission, NRECA and the rest, and see how far AWEA gets arguing on promises of a wind powered America. I offer this idea up every so often, but AWEA never responds. I wonder why? Michael?

report abuse vote down vote up

September 26, 2009 | url
Votes: +0