State view: Wind energy isn’t reducing carbon emissions
December 27, 2011 at 6:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
Minnesota Power continues to invest in its Bison 1 and 2 North Dakota wind farms, which will transmit power across the state line to Minnesota.
Continue Reading
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
19 
35
Unfortunately producing the 150 tons of steel and concrete in a rather short lived wind turbine doesn’t have much of a future either.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
16
What about the massive amounts of resources it take to drill for oil and gas? Surely it takes far more than 150 tons of steel to drill in the bottom of the oceans. (Deep water horizon anybody?) If that’s your best argument against renewable energy, please know that the same argument can be used to debunk fossil fuel energy ten times over.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
27
Merv, some of the new deep oil deposits require massive investment to recover. Each well in the allochthonous salt of the Walker Ridge area of the Gulf costs $100 million. But there are several billion recoverable barrels down there. You could make ethanol out of the whole US corn crop and it wouldn’t matter much for our transporation needs.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
8
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
12 
22
It is sad that the DNT prints such misleading drivel. However the motivation is explained in the last line of the article which gives credit to the author who is representing the Geological Society of America. The author is using the same talking head points about wind power that have been debunked over the last five years but they keep bringing them up as a way to explain that digging coal and drilling for oil should be the only way to produce energy.
If the DNT sponsored a debate, where sources of data were provided for views expressed, these guys would not have the courage to show up to defend their 19th century position. But why not give it a try anyway?
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
17
Frankay(alias) My article contains specific data on wind energy. Other than name calling, your comment suggests that you don’t much about the technology.
Rolf Westgard
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
12
I am not representing the GSA. I am just a member, as well as of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, and the American Nuclear Society.
Rolf Westgard(not an alias)
Like or Dislike:
14 
9
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I’m curious as to why the DNT labeled this as “State View.” Does Mr. Westgard represent the official position of the State of Minnesota, or the narrower view of the Geological Society of America?
I also agree that the insults on this blog are not deserved. However, it must be acknowledged that Mr. Westgard’s postings in the DNT do always seem to be highly critical of the “renewable” or “green” side of our energy industry. I think the last one I read blasted biofuels and wood-based fuels and chemicals in particular.
If Mr. Westgard wishes to be viewed as objective (read: credible), readers like myself would be interested to see an objective, critical assessment of the long-term sustainability of our oil and gas industry from the same source. After all, even if you take global warming and the environmentalists out of the equation, there are still plenty of organizations (American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, etc.) who will point to other negative societal impacts/costs/burdens that they feel warrant a shift away from fossil fuel emissions, regardless of the environmental issues extremists on both sides tend to focus on.
I tend to agree that wind energy, solar power, biofuels, and the like are anything but easy-to-deploy nor are they devoid of any cause for concern. Yet, this is the case with any new technology/industry. If Mr. Westgard wishes to make the case against these technologies, he owes it to us as readers to also make the case for doing nothing. Please show us how we can continue to burn only fossil fuels, forgoe all investments in new energy technology, and still be ok 20 years from now.
Of course, an objective critique of the oil and gas industry wouldn’t make you any new friends in Geological Society, but if their agenda is your sole motivation, then I as a reader must take your view with a grain of salt and treat it as biased as any other one-sided source of information (read: worthless).
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
16
The only near term answer to the serious environment threat posed by coal is combined cycle natural gas – like the plant which replaced the High Bridge coal plant in St Paul. The new plant is the most popular tour for my U of MN adult ed energy classes. Longer term for electric energy it’s nuclear and solar. Nano technology and other techniques have promise for raising the efficiency of solar.
Biofuels, wind, and solar currently lack the scale to make an impact. They need research not premature large scale implementation which requires large direct subsidies from both taxpayers and rate payers. Cape Wind and Ivanpah Solar are multi billion fiascos.
As to fossil fuels, they will be 80% of our energy supply for a few decades. After that change is coming including electrification of transportation. We can start with taxing gasoline – but it’s easier to dream about biofuels and electric cars powered by wind.
Like or Dislike:
19 
7
Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion on federal energy subsidies, Rolf? Currently the U.S. government shells out FAR more for big oil and gas subsidies than it does for renewable energy. If, like you say, solar should be part of a long term energy plan, then wouldn’t it behoove our government to inch us away from fossil fuels by gradually shifting subsidies from fossil fuel extraction to R&D for renewable energy?
Furthermore, do you think that we will always have enough energy available to meet the ever-rising demand? Or, do you think that there will come a point where people have to drive less and conserve more as shrinking energy supplies force demand to shrink as well? I believe the latter is true, but I would be curious to read you argument if you feel otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
11 
14
Mr. Westgard,
You fail to mention that your whole argument is blown out of the water with any incremental gains in energy storage. The research on the order of billions and billions of dollars is going into this area because of its far reaching impact on vehicle technology and the electric grid.
Unlike yourself, real visionaries see that future grids will rely heavily on storage that will allow any fuel renewable or not, to be easily connected to the grid. Emission free technology should be preferred as a society. Regardless, any utility scale energy source is expensive to implement – You fail to mention the more than $120 Billion in natural gas turbine projects cancelled in the U.S. after Natural Gas prices started spiking in 2001, causing a huge upheaval in the capital availability for energy investment. Many of these projects also had subsidized components to them, particularly co-generation projects in customer facilities.
Like or Dislike:
10 
10
Just to clarify, the $120 Billion was total fossil projects cancelled from 2001-2003, not just gas, but 21% of that figure is attributable to Natural Gas. Many of these projects were related to the Boom and Bust of Merchant CCGT market.
Like or Dislike:
10 
4
I recind my earlier comment about unwarranted insults – in reviewing the comments above, I see that neither of the two posters participated in “name calling” as Mr. Westgard alleged. Frankay called the writing “drivel,” but referred to Mr. Westgard respectfully as “the author.”
Also, it bears mentioning that Mr. Westgard never did address the valid points raised by the two authors: Merv said we shouldn’t “build our entire infrastructure around something that will inevitably come to an end” and Frankay said many of Mr. Westgard’s points about wind energy “have been debunked over the last five years.”
These two statements refer to well documented research on the expiration date of our world oil reserves (peak oil), as well as research aimed at challenging the arguements Mr. Westgard has made. Surely he has some comment for these non-insulting retorts?
Like or Dislike:
12 
15
It’s easy to say my points about wind have been debunked, when you offer no facts. Through November of 2011, US wind has a 27% capacity factor, and thats with the best sites chosen. As more wind comes on, it will have to go the lesser locations. And don’t live within a mile of one of those wind farms. The noise will drive you up the wall those low frequency sounds penetrate. I’m currently working with people in Goodhue County whose lives are threatened by turbines being dumped by Boone Pickens failed grand plan. If you want more info, go to the Star Tribune web site and enter my name in the query box. You will get a half dozen editorials specific position points on energy issues. Feel free to comment on the facts presented.
Like or Dislike:
16 
6
Great article Rolf. I’ve been saying all along that wind generation has to be fully backed up by other means of generation. As for not living close to wind generators they are moving in on me. When I bought my place there were no nearby wind generators but wind farms have been put in all around me. The nearest generator is about 3 miles from me so far but I’m not confident they won’t place some closer. Nuclear power seems to be the best option at this time and a lot of countries are doing just that. I was impressed when I listened to a French engineer who was saying they could do the same thing in the US that France is doing with nuclear generation. According to him it would even help with the nuclear waste being stored at the reactor sites. because they can reprocess the fuel and reuse it. It seems to me a lot of the people opposed to nuclear generation are the same ones who get all worked up over coal fired plants because of their fear of global warming. We have to be realistic and I don’t think that wind and solar can realistically replace fossil fuel and nuclear at this time.
Like or Dislike:
18 
10
I think this is a fine opportunity for the Duluth News Tribune to step up to the plate and offer a real review and debate of the information used in this article. A well moderated presentation of the facts complete with a set of references that back up opposing positions with time for public Q@A would be a great public service. If they would like to take up this offer I would be happy to participate with a clean set of debate rules agreed upon.
Your option DNT.
Like or Dislike:
8 
14
let’s here your background and qualifications to participate. Since we don’t know your real name it is hard to research. You can google me and a word like energy for information. And see today’s DNT for a view on pumped storage on the Iron range.
Like or Dislike:
16 
8
Rolf, you stepped right in to that one. Long ago I lived in MI, the pumped storage plant there is now being rigged to receive wind energy at the same time that coal plants are being shut down in that state. I believe you stated that wind never has replaced coal. Here is just one place that it is happening.
Like or Dislike:
9 
17
It’s true that pumped water storage may work in some places but what about the vast areas of the country where that’s not feasible? What happens when there is a drought as is happening in many areas of the country this year? I still think the amount of dependable power that can be produced by wind generation backed by water storage is a drop in the bucket compared to what could be produced by nuclear generation.
Like or Dislike:
10 
7
Robert F Kennedy, Jr. is a big proponent of wind farms (as long as they are in your back yard and not his).
Like or Dislike:
16 
7
Mr. Westgard,
Your wind bashing is not only ignorant, but your entire article is devoid of relevant fact. Here are some things your article was missing:
1) The capacity factors for Buffalo Ridge (Lakefield) area that you mention range from 32%-40%, While the Bison Farms in ND are closer to 45%-50%. This is much higher than the 27% average that you mention.
2) Wind would probably be built right now without any subsidies, just not at the pace it is going. It is the cheapest source of energy right now.
3) MISO would disagree with the findings of as would the DOE, who refuted the Bentek study as “Misleading”. They refuted the entire study by showing the actual reducting in raw fuel consumed by fossil facilities due to wind production.
I don’t know what your beef is, but Wind is a great, cheap energy source that does indeed reduce emissions. Your assumptions border on lunacy…
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
18