Simon Mahan

A new, peer-reviewed article published in the scientific journal SCIENCE estimates that 3 million hectares of land (that’s 11,583 square miles, or 30,000 square kilometers) have been lost due to oil and gas well pads, storage tanks and associated roads developed in North America since the year 2000. Rangeland and cropland through the heartland have been particularly damaged. The study says, “The total amount lost in rangelands is the equivalent of approximately five million animal unit months…” and ”The amount of biomass lost in croplands is the equivalent of 120.2 million bushels of wheat…”.

The 3 million hectares of land lost “…is likely long-lasting and potentially permanent…”

Net primary production (NPP) loss due to oil and gas activity across the central provinces and states of North America. NPP loss represents the cumulative effect of annual losses from 2000 to 2012. – Allred et al 2015. Ecosystem services lost to oil and gas in North America. Science 24 April 2015: Vol. 348 no. 6233 pp. 401-402 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa4785

Critics of wind energy and solar power lambast those energy resources’ land use. To make such a spurious argument, anti-renewable energy activists focus solely on the footprint of a power plant and ignore the so-called “upstream” land losses reported by the peer-reviewed article published in the scientific journal SCIENCE. For example, while the gas power plants themselves occupy a rather small landscape footprint, you must take into account that those power plants also require significant infrastructure to operate – well pads, storage tanks, pipelines, access roads and refineries, just to name a few. If you conveniently ignore the substantial landscape footprint of the plants’ associated with upstream infrastructure, then wind energy and solar power falsely appear to use more land than fossil-fueled power plants or nuclear reactors.

Consider this: the Department of Energy (DOE) recently released its Wind Vision Report, which outlines a goal of 20% wind energy by 2030 for this country, and 35% wind energy by 2050. Under those scenarios, the DOE estimates the amount of land used by wind turbines would ”require approximately 2,000 [square kilometers] (500,000 acres) by 2030, and 3,200 [square kilometers]  (790,000 acres) by 2050.” So for roughly 1/10th the land area used by oil and gas (3,200 square kilometers), America could obtain 30% of its electricity from land-based wind power (the other roughly 5% the Wind Vision Report evaluated came from offshore wind). Since these figures are linear (1 megawatt of wind energy capacity requires 1 hectare of land, or 0.01 square kilometers), 3 million hectares of land could provide 3,000,000 megawatts of wind power capacity – or about three times as much as all the electric power generating capacity in America today. (Math-whiz readers will note that getting 30% of the nation’s power from wind energy by using 1/10th of the land requirement of oil and gas would mathematically lead to 300% of the nation’s power from 10/10th’s of the land requirement of oil and gas.)

For further consideration: the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) recently released estimates regarding land use for utility-scale solar power. NREL’s estimates come out to a land-use ratio of roughly 1 hectare (2.5 acres) per 1 gigawatt hour (GWh) of solar power generation. For 3 million hectares of land use, solar power could generate roughly 3,000,000 gigawatt hours of power, annually. That’s about 75% of America’s total annual electric generation output.  While this analysis is academic and interesting, it misses a key selling point for solar power: you can install solar panels just about anywhere, not just on virgin farmland.

Just between solar power and wind energy, it’s easy to see how 3 million hectares of land (the same amount currently used by oil and gas production) could fully power the entire country’s electric demand virtually in perpetuity. As turbines or solar panels wear out, new ones can be installed in the same space, or that land area can be converted back to its original use. Meanwhile, oil and gas land use is unsustainable: wells run dry, wells have to be shut-in properly after the resources are exhausted, and new wells have to be drilled elsewhere and use more land.

And that’s just oil and gas – think about the upstream land destruction for coal-fired power plants (mountain top removal for coal mining comes to mind) and nuclear reactors. We’ve made some calculations showing the natural resources saved by using wind power, as opposed to coal, gas or hydropower in a previous post.  The study in SCIENCE did not include land losses associated with the nearly 300,000 miles of natural gas pipeline across the Lower 48 States, nor did it calculate land lost associated with the corresponding fossil fuel power plants nor fossil fuel refineries. The study also didn’t look at oil and gas land use east of the Great Plains (the Marcellus shale wells in Pennsylvania were excluded, so was all of Louisiana), nor west of the Rocky Mountains (California and Alaska were also excluded) so it’s fair to say the land loss estimates are very conservative.

Like so many other arguments against renewable energy, the land-use argument only works if you ignore the negative impacts of the status quo. Wind turbines are actually safer for birds than fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have received way more federal subsidies than renewable energy. Renewable energy reduces costs and emissions from fossil fuels. For each argument against renewable energy, just remember that the status quo isn’t perfect either (Read about the Nirvana Fallacy in another post).

The study in SCIENCE did not include land losses associated with the nearly 300,000 miles of natural gas pipeline across the Lower 48 States.

###

This article is republished with permission.

This post is part of the “Prelude to Paris” series highlighting updates and analysis on international climate negotiations in the lead up to the United Nations climate change conference – the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP 21) — to be held in Paris this December. Other posts in the series are available here.

After months of anticipation, Pope Francis has released his encyclical,  Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home. Encyclicals are letters written by a pope to the other leaders of the Roman Catholic Church. In his 184-page letter, Pope Francis touched on many environmental issues facing the planet today: climate change, water scarcity, loss of biodiversity, animal husbandry, genetically modified organisms and other “aspects of the present ecological crisis.” The encyclical’s title (which means “Praised Be”) is inspired after Saint Francis of Assisi’s Canticle of the Creatures. St. Francis’s life of simplicity and cooperation with nature is the embodiment of Pope Francis’ encyclical (after all, Pope Francis chose his name after St. Francis).

According to Pope Francis, it was necessary to discuss the breadth of environmental issues because ”Everything is connected. Concern for the environment thus needs to be joined to a sincere love for our fellow human beings and an unwavering commitment to resolving the problems of society.” And indeed, substantial portions of the encyclical discuss the connection between environmental damage and the disproportionate impact such destruction has on people living in poverty. In a press conference yesterday, Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl, archbishop of Washington, DC, noted that Pope Francis focused on society because “The starting point is the dignity of the human person as part of God’s plan in all of creation.”

In order to solve the multitude of environmental problems, Pope Francis did not limit his audience to Catholics only. Instead, he states, “I wish to address every person living on this planet.” Pope Francis incorporates quotes from a variety of bishops from around the world, and even praises non-Catholic religious leaders, to develop a foundation of global unity. Instead of relying on an overly theological discussion, and in order to speak to a truly universal audience, Pope Francis begins his encyclical with a lengthy review of scientific evidence. The evidence he presents all points to the fact that, “The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth.”

According to the encyclical, society has created a “throwaway culture” heavily entrenched and dependent on overconsumption. “This situation has led to a constant schizophrenia, wherein a technocracy which sees no intrinsic value in lesser beings coexists with the other extreme, which sees no special value in human beings,” Pope Francis writes.

Pope Francis stops short of offering direct policy recommendations for resolving the ecological crisis, noting that for “…many concrete questions, the Church has no reason to offer a definitive opinion..” He goes further to state, “Attempts to resolve all problems through uniform regulations or technical interventions can lead to overlooking the complexities of local problems which demand the active participation of all members of the community.” However, he also states that faith and religion have a role to play in discussing the ecological crisis. “Science and technology are not neutral,” Pope Francis states. Because they leave little room “for aesthetic sensibility, poetry, or even reason’s ability to grasp the ultimate meaning and purpose of things,” faith and religion can provide another avenue for dialog. Specifically, faith and religion can provide a moral and ethical framework for scientific, economic, political and technological progress.

One theme throughout Laudato Si is the juxtaposition of the “tyranny over creation” (anthropocentrism) versus a cooperation and cultivation of nature. As stated by Pope Francis, “If we approach nature and the environment without this openness to awe and wonder, if we no longer speak the language of fraternity and beauty in our relationship with the world, our attitude will be that of masters, consumers, ruthless exploiters, unable to set limits on their immediate needs.” Fossil fuels including “coal, but also oil and, to a lesser degree, gas – needs to be progressively replaced without delay,” are specifically identified as forms of tyranny over creation. In essence, fossil fuels reinforce a consumerist mindset of prideful, greedy and gluttonous (yet, false) control over nature – that humanity can extract and consume fossil fuels on our own terms (some would say, “dispatchable generation”). Alternatively, Pope Francis’ call to a cooperative (fraternal) relationship with creation highlights potential solutions to fossil fuels; “Fraternal love can only be gratuitous…That is why it is possible to love our enemies. This same gratuitousness inspires us to love and accept the wind, the sun and the clouds, even though we cannot control them.” The variability (some would say “intermittency”) of renewable energy provides an opportunity for humanity to exercise temperance, diligence, patience, kindness, and humility with nature. Faithful Catholics may recognize the juxtaposition of mortal sins versus holy virtues.

Even though Pope Francis explicitly states that the “Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics,” he does provide a few glimpses into ways to resolve the ecological crisis. For instance, he states, “There is an urgent need to develop policies so that, in the next few years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced, for example, substituting for fossil fuels and developing sources of renewable energy.” Also, mass transit gets a special mention with his statement that, “Many specialists agree on the need to give priority to public transportation.” But Pope Francis is no wild-eyed idealist. In reference to the use of natural gas instead of coal, he states, “Until greater progress is made in developing widely accessible sources of renewable energy, it is legitimate to choose the lesser of two evils or to find short-term solutions.” Throughout the encyclical are these short asides of non-policy, policy recommendations.

Pope Francis wrote Laudato Si, in part, to prepare for the United Nations Climate Change Conference this winter in Paris (COP21). As the world prepares for COP21, Laudato Si can provide a firm moral grounding for delegates and attendees: “What kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us, to children who are now growing up?… Leaving an inhabitable planet to future generations is, first and foremost, up to us. ”

You can read the full text of Laudato Si, here.

RECAP: SACE previously wrote a blog entitled, “Sneak Peek at Pope Francis’ Environmental Encyclical,” based heavily on the previous work of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Of course, we didn’t cover the breadth and depth of issues in the encyclical, but for a blog, if we had to grade ourselves, we’d say we nailed it. 

ADDITIONAL RECAP: In 2013, when Pope Francis became pope, SACE asked the question, “Is Pope Francis the New Green Pope?” Our answer at the time was, “Pope Francis has exhibited at least a few attributes of his predecessor, as well as his namesake St. Francis, that make a fairly strong case that he may be a Green Pope in the making.”  We think we nailed that, too. 

– See more at: http://blog.cleanenergy.org/2015/06/19/laudatosi/#more-57749

Electric utility companies across the south are snapping up wind power contracts – and now a utility in Mississippi may jump on the wind power bandwagon. South Mississippi Electric Power Association (SMEPA) recently released a request for proposals for up to 250 megawatts of wind power – a first for Mississippi! Depending on wind farm performance levels, 250 MW of wind power could represent around 8-9% of SMEPA’s power sales.

Other utility companies in the south already purchasing wind power include Alabama Power (404 MW), Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation (309 MW), Georgia Power (250 MW), Gulf Power (178 MW),  Southwestern Electric Power Company (469 MW) and the Tennessee Valley Authority (1,542 MW). Nearly all of those purchases have been announced within the past five years. By far, the low-cost of wind power is the primary reason southern utilities are making these significant purchases. Several utilities report wind power prices in the $30-$50 per megawatt hour (MWh) range ($0.03-$0.05/kWh range).

Even though the vast majority of southern utility wind power purchases are from out of the region (with Oklahoma and Kansas wind farms representing a significant amount of wind power purchase agreements), SMEPA’s RFP could receive attention from in-region wind farm proposals. New wind speed maps released by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) demonstrate the greatly increased potential for wind turbine development in Mississippi with advanced turbines.

As wind turbines increase in height and are able to access better wind speeds, more areas become attractive for wind energy development within Mississippi. With these new wind turbines, over 43,000 megawatts (MW) of land-based wind potential currently exist in Mississippi. Developing just one gigawatt of wind energy capacity (1,000 MW) in Mississippi (less than 2% of Mississippi’s onshore potential) could power more than 255,500 homes a year! With SMEPA’s wind power RFP, soon all Gulf states could be partially powered by low-cost, clean wind energy.

Wind turbine technology is rapidly evolving. Taller turbines, longer blades and advanced composites are just a few ways the wind industry are reducing costs while boosting performance. But legitimate research, development and improvement of wind turbines can be marginalized by fad wind turbines. Fad wind turbines, like a bladeless wind turbine or a “tree” turbine, fly around social media at breakneck speeds – frequently with claims of solving all the ailments of the renewable energy industries. But buyer beware.

This is a computer generated image of the Vortex Bladeless Wind Turbines. An unskeptical eye could believe these turbines are ready for offshore installation – when nothing could be further from the truth.

Fad wind turbines do double duty for anti-renewable energy activists: they perpetuate false negative stereotypes of wind power, and then fail to deliver substantial quantities of clean, cheap power.

Fad wind turbines support negative and incorrect stereotypes of conventional turbines (the big, three-bladed ones), including arguments regarding birds, noise, price, size and low wind speeds, as marketing tactics and ploys to get media attention and money. Then, when fad wind turbines don’t live up to their over-hyped promise, they validate an otherwise false negative stereotype: that wind turbines fail to meet expectations.

If you do a quick search for a “wind turbine” over at Kickstarter, you’ll find dozens of strange, “revolutionary” inventions purporting to solve a particular sensationalized problem. So, how can you tell if a new wind turbine design is a viable technology?

When something seems too good to be true, it probably is. Be cautious of small wind turbines that claim to “power a whole home,” “cut prices in half,” “eliminate” noise or bird concerns, or “generate power at extremely low wind speeds.” Buzzwords and phrases that raise red flags include things like “game changer,” “radical,” “holy grail,” a “technological leap forward” and “revolutionary.”

Applying simple critical thinking skills can further aid in debunking fad wind turbines. We’ll use the most recent Vortex Bladeless Wind Turbine fad as an example, but these questions should always be asked of any new wind turbine. 

Is it certified by the Small Wind Certification Council?

The Small Wind Certification Council independently verifies claims made by inventors and manufacturers of small-scale wind turbines. So many types of small-scale turbines exist that the Small Wind Certification Council was developed to protect consumers from misleading and inaccurate statements made by would-be turbine salesmen. The Small Wind Certification Council provides professional-level research and analysis, so less experienced consumers don’t have to become experts in small wind turbine performance capabilities. The Small Wind Certification Council’s certification is so vital, that the Internal Revenue Service recently released updated guidance regarding the 30% federal tax credit for small-scale wind turbines: if the turbine you’re looking to purchase is not certified by the Small Wind Certification Council, it will not qualify for the federal tax credits.

The Small Wind Certification Council even lists companies, and turbine models, that have at least applied for certification evaluation. The Vortex Bladeless Wind Turbine has not received, nor even filed an application for independent review by the SWCC. That turbine technology is far from commercial development.

Is this turbine available for sale?

No, the Vortex Bladeless Wind Turbine is not for sale currently. Those sleek, white, cigarette-shaped structures in a field is a computer-generated image. The inventors have created a structure, but a single structure does not represent commercial viability. They make it clear that the machine is just a prototype and that they hope to produce a working 4 kilowatt prototype for further research. The Vortex is not being manufactured. It’s not for sale.

Is it scalable? 

In other words, how many of these new Vortex turbines would be required to replace a “conventional” (three-bladed type) wind turbine? Well, presuming the 4 kilowatt prototype Vortex Bladeless Wind Turbine achieves all it claims to (as will be shown later, that’s a near impossibility), you would need 500 to replace a single 2 megawatt (or 2,000 watt) conventional wind turbine. But that’s only part of the story.

How does it perform?

No data have been provided publicly regarding the Vortex Bladeless Wind Turbine energy output, capacity factor, or average wind speeds necessary in order to operate. Wind turbine performance is based on kinetic wind energy (air density as well as wind speed). Performance is usually rated as a “capacity factor” – or an annual, average percentage of the “nameplate” capacity (in this case, that’d be 4 kilowatts).  The inventors found that oscillation occurred with an ideal wind speed of 26 mile per hour (that’s 11.63 meters per second – an outrageously fast wind speed). Blade-less wind turbines make about as much sense as sail-less sailboats, and wing-less airplanes.

How much does it cost? 

No one knows. The Vortex inventors “hope” that the turbine “could” reduce material and operation costs. Without this critical information, there is absolutely no way to determine how effective the Vortex Bladeless Wind Turbine could be. Thus far, the project has raised roughly $1.1 million from European governments and private investors.

Have others tried bladeless technology?

Yes, and they failed miserably. For instance, the Fuller Wind Turbine System was a bladeless wind turbine announced in 2010 by a company called Solatec LLC. Now, Solatec LLC’s website is defunct and is available for sale – hardly a success. In 2012, Saphon Energy announced a “bladeless wind turbine” and was immediately met with skepticism: “Too good to be true?” one article asked. Saphon still operates a website, but it’s last news update was from February 2014 announcing some sort of “alliance” with Microsoft to develop a prototype. Evidently, the Vortex is based off experiments completed over 30 years ago regarding wind oscillation – the results of those experiments showed that the turbine was unstable and didn’t exceed performance of “standard” wind turbines of the day. If oscillating wind turbines couldn’t outperform 30-year old “standard” wind turbines, what hope is there that they’d topple today’s modern turbines? Even in the Vortex’s promotional video, they use a frightening image of a bridge breaking apart from wind oscillation – an image that does not inspire confidence that the inventors will be able to solve vibration problems.

What are the benchmarks?

In other words, why is the Vortex Bladeless Wind Turbine better than other forms of energy? Modern, conventional wind turbines have reached 2-3 megawatts nameplate capacity, 40-55% capacity factors and can generate electricity in the $0.02-$0.035 per kilowatt hour range. If the Vortex can’t beat economic, performance or technical benchmarks, there has to be some other reason than to support it. Many people assume that since it has no blades, that it will be completely safe for birds; but that assertion is unfounded. Many stationary man-made objects kill birds. Buildings kill roughly a billion birds annually and telecommunication towers kill another 6.8 million; both without blades. To put that in perspective,buildings kill roughly 3,000 times more birds than all existing wind turbines in the United States, every single year.

Could it actually do more harm to the environment?

Absolutely. As mentioned previously, you’d need at least 500 Vortexs to equal the same capacity as one single modern turbine; however, that figure only accounts for nameplate capacity, not actual power generation. Presumably there’s a very narrow band of wind speeds where the oscillating (vibration which leads to generation) occurs – too slow, and no oscillation occurs; too fast, and no oscillation occurs. If you’ve ever made a wine glass sing with a damp finger tip – you already know that a perfect speed exists to create resonant frequency. Generously assuming a 5% capacity factor, you’d actually need about 4,000 Vortex turbines to equal the same amount of power from one single modern wind turbine. To replace all the power generated by all the conventional wind turbines in the United States, you’d need roughly 79,908,675 Vortexs.  Again, that’s a generous guestimate (that’s all we have since no data are public) – the figure could actually be much worse than that. At 41 feet tall, the nearly 80 million Vortex turbines would represent a huge risk to birds (since any manmade structure is a danger for birds) and a vast consumer of land.

Trust, but Verify

The point is simple: don’t jump on a bandwagon until you’ve done your due diligence. The hype surrounding the Vortex Bladeless Wind Turbine could turn out to be true (we can check back in 18 months, when a commercial version is due to be out); but, as history has shown with other bladeless wind turbines, success would be an exception and not the rule.

Online publications are doing a real disservice to the future of clean tech (and their readers) by perpetuating the hype of fad wind turbines without hard data. If people begin investing in the Vortex Bladeless Wind Turbine through some sort of crowd-sourcing effort (as the inventors announced, is their intended way of getting more money), because they read a sensational article from online news sources such as Gizmag, WIRED, Phys.org, CleanTechnica and Grist; who should be held liable if the investment doesn’t pan out?

Sharing blogs and tossing good money into crowd source campaigns, without good data and research, perpetuates the hype. Some “revolutionary” turbine inventors and sellers peddle the same false negative stereotypes of conventional wind turbines that anti-renewable energy activists employ. Coincidentally, the Vortex turbine has taken money from Repsol – a major Spanish oil and gas company.

The fact of the matter is conventional wind turbines are efficient, affordable, and good for the environment. Some fad wind turbines may end up actually being a game-changer one day, but the nirvana fallacies of fad turbines solving all of the perceived downsides to wind energy should not prevent us from benefitting today from the great wind technology we already have.

###

This article first appeared on CleanEnergy.org and is republished with permission.