DOCSLIB.ORG

Humboldt County General Plan 2025 Energy Element Background Technical Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Humboldt County General Plan 2025 Energy Element Background Technical Report HUMBOLDT COUNTY GENERAL PLAN 2025 ENERGY ELEMENT BACKGROUND TECHNICAL REPORT Prepared for: Redwood Coast Energy Authority Prepared by: Schatz Energy Research Center Humboldt State University Principal Author: Jim Zoellick Acknowledgements Contributing Authors: Schatz Energy Research Center Dave Carter Dustin Jolley Charles Chamberlin Peter Lehman Richard Engel Mark Rocheleau Anand Gopal Michael Winkler Planwest Partners George Williamson Oona Smith Center for Environmental Economic Development Dan Ihara We would like to thank the many people and organizations who helped provide information for this report. These organizations include: Redwood Coast Energy Authority, Humboldt County Planning Division, California Energy Commission, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Humboldt State University, City of Eureka, DG Fairhaven Power Company, Pacific Lumber Company, Ultrapower 3, Stockton Pacific, Alternative Energy Engineering, Six Rivers Solar, Eureka Chevron Terminal, Institute for Sustainable Forestry, Six Rivers National Forest, Forest Stewardship Council, Humboldt Waste Management Authority, Ed Schillinger (surveyor), Kurt Kammerer (consultant), Footprint Recycling, Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District, North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District, Humboldt Association of Realtors, and local petroleum and propane suppliers. We apologize to any organization that we inadvertently omitted. Copyright © 2005 Schatz Energy Research Center Disclaimer: Many of the numbers in this report are derived estimates rather than actual measurements. They are meant to provide an assessment of energy use across different sectors and end uses and to provide estimates of local energy supply opportunities. 1 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................i Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................ii List of Figures ........................................................................................................................iii List of Tables .........................................................................................................................iii Glossary and List of Acronyms ................................................ See Energy Element Glossary Executive Summary ................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1 – Introduction .........................................................................................................6 Chapter 2 – Background .......................................................................................................10 Chapter 3 - Energy Demand Analysis ..................................................................................13 A. Energy Consumption and Cost .................................................................................13 B. Electricity and Natural Gas Usage Characteristics ...................................................15 C. Electricity and Natural Gas Historic and Projected Use ...........................................16 D. Gasoline and Diesel Use ...........................................................................................18 Chapter 4 - Numbers of Vehicles and Vehicle Miles Traveled ............................................20 Chapter 5 - Energy Supply and Import Analysis ..................................................................23 Chapter 6 - Inventory of Local Energy Producing Resources ..............................................30 A. Local Electrical Power Generators ...........................................................................33 B. Fossil Fuel Fired Electrical Generators .....................................................................34 C. Wind Power ..............................................................................................................35 D. Wave Energy .............................................................................................................39 E. Biomass .....................................................................................................................41 F. Natural Gas ...............................................................................................................46 G. Small Hydroelectric ..................................................................................................47 H. Solar Electric .............................................................................................................49 I. Solar Hot Water ........................................................................................................52 J. Cogeneration and Distributed Generation ................................................................53 K. Biogas from Cummings Road Landfill .....................................................................54 L. Biogas from Wastewater Treatment Facilities ..........................................................57 M. Biogas from Dairies ..................................................................................................59 N. Biodiesel ...................................................................................................................60 O. Waste-to-Energy Plants ............................................................................................61 P. Hydrogen and Fuel Cells ..........................................................................................62 Q. Alternative Fuel Vehicles .........................................................................................63 R. Heat Pumps ...............................................................................................................65 Chapter 7 - Inventory of Energy Conservation and Efficiency Opportunities .....................67 Chapter 8 - Inventory of Existing Energy Transmission Systems ........................................72 Chapter 9 - Inventory of Distributed and Back-up Generation for Disaster Preparedness ...76 Chapter 10 - Opportunities and Constraints for Sustainable Energy Initiatives ...................77 References .............................................................................................................................80 2 List of Figures Figure 1. Humboldt County End Use Energy Consumption, 2003 .............................13 Figure 2. Humboldt County End Use Energy Expenditures, 2003 .............................13 Figure 3. Humboldt County Primary Energy Consumption, 2003 ..............................14 Figure 4. Electricity Consumption by Sector ..............................................................15 Figure 5. Natural Gas Consumption by Sector ............................................................15 Figure 6. Commercial and Residential Electricity Consumption by End Use ............16 Figure 7. Commercial and Residential Natural Gas Consumption by End Use ..........16 Figure 8. Humboldt County Annual Electricity Consumption ....................................17 Figure 9. Humboldt County Annual Natural Gas Consumption .................................19 Figure 10. Humboldt County Annual Gasoline Consumption ......................................19 Figure 11. Humboldt County Electricity Supply by Source, 2003 ...............................23 Figure 12. Humboldt County Energy Flow Diagram, 2003 ..........................................24 Figure 13. Distribution of Humboldt County Energy Resources ..................................30 Figure 14. Humboldt County Electricity Generation Potential .....................................32 Figure 15. Humboldt County Wind Resource Map .......................................................38 Figure 16. Eureka WWTP Inflows by Month for July 2001 through October 2003 ....58 Figure 17. Humboldt County Electric Efficiency Savings Potential by Sector ............69 Figure 18. Humboldt County Electric Efficiency Savings Potential by End Use .........69 Figure 19. Humboldt County Natural Gas Efficiency Savings Potential by Sector ......70 Figure 20. Humboldt County Natural Gas Efficiency Savings Potential by End Use ..70 Figure 21. Humboldt County Housing Stock Age Distribution ....................................70 Figure 22. Northern California Natural Gas Transmission Lines .................................72 Figure 23. Northern California Electrical Transmission Lines .....................................73 Figure 24. Humboldt County Electrical Transmission Lines ........................................74 List of Tables Table 1. State Energy Resource Development Priorities ................................................8 Table 2. County Population Forecasted Changes .........................................................11 Table 3. Humboldt County Projected Electricity Use – 2023 .......................................18 Table 4. Consumption of Local Versus Imported Energy Sources, 2003 .....................23 Table 5. Potential Local Energy Resources for Humboldt County ..............................32 Table 6. Electrical Power Generators in Humboldt County (2003) ..............................33 Table 7. Small Hydroelectric Facilities Serving Humboldt County .............................48 Table 8. Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in the SCS Energy Report .....................56 Table 9. Average summer monthly inflow, estimated ADG production, and estimated electric power production
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Renewable Tracking Progress Appendix
    California Energy Commission – Tracking Progress Renewable Energy Advancing the use and availability of renewable energy is critical to achieving California’s ambitious climate goals. With this in mind, California has pursued a suite of policies and programs aimed at advancing renewable energy and ensuring all Californians, including low- income and disadvantaged communities, benefit from this transition. This report presents the state’s progress in meeting its renewable energy goals and provides an updated analysis through 2018 of renewable energy generation, installed renewable capacity, and a discussion of the trends, opportunities, and challenges associated with the renewable energy transition. More detailed figures and tables are included in the appendix.1 Renewable Energy Serving California Consumers Annual Renewable Percentage: Renewables Portfolio Standard Progress An increasing percentage of energy consumed by Californians comes from renewable sources. A key mandate advancing the use of renewable energy has been the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires California load-serving entities2 (LSEs) to increase their procurement of eligible renewable energy resources (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and small hydroelectric) to 33 percent of retail sales by 2020 and 60 percent of retail sales by 2030. Based on reported electric generation from RPS-eligible sources divided by forecasted electricity retail sales for 2019, the California Energy Commission (CEC) estimates that 36 percent of California’s 2019 retail electricity sales was served by RPS-eligible renewable resources as shown in Figure 1. Although this number is not a final RPS determination, it is an important indicator of progress in achieving California’s RPS goals. Figure 1: Estimated Current Renewables Portfolio Standard Progress Source: CEC staff analysis, December 2019 The annual renewable percentage estimated by the CEC has continued to increase in recent years, often ahead of the timelines envisioned by prior legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Barriers, Opportunities, and Research Needs Draft Report
    Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program FINAL PROJECT REPORT TASK 5. Biomass Energy in California’s Future: Barriers, Opportunities, and Research Needs_ Draft Report Prepared for: California Energy Commission Prepared by: UC Davis California Geothermal Energy Collaborative DECEMBER 2013 CEC‐500‐01‐016 Prepared by: Primary Author(s): Stephen Kaffka, University of California, Davis Robert Williams, University of California, Davis Douglas Wickizer, University of California, Davis UC Davis California Geothermal Energy Collaborative 1715 Tilia St. Davis, CA 95616 www.cgec.ucdavis.edu Contract Number: 500‐01‐016 Prepared for: California Energy Commission Michael Sokol Contract Manager Reynaldo Gonzalez Office Manager Energy Generation Research Office Laurie ten Hope Deputy Director Energy Research & Development Division Robert P. Oglesby Executive Director DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The California Goethermal Energy Collaborative would like to thank the California Energy Commission and its Public Interest Energy Research Program (PIER) for sponsoring this important work as well as the Geothermal Energy Association for assisting in tracking down the most up to date data both within the United States and abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • Incorporating Renewables Into the Electric Grid: Expanding Opportunities for Smart Markets and Energy Storage
    INCORPORATING RENEWABLES INTO THE ELECTRIC GRID: EXPANDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMART MARKETS AND ENERGY STORAGE June 2016 Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5 I. Technical and Economic Considerations in Renewable Integration .......................................................... 7 Characteristics of a Grid with High Levels of Variable Energy Resources ................................................. 7 Technical Feasibility and Cost of Integration .......................................................................................... 12 II. Evidence on the Cost of Integrating Variable Renewable Generation ................................................... 15 Current and Historical Ancillary Service Costs ........................................................................................ 15 Model Estimates of the Cost of Renewable Integration ......................................................................... 17 Evidence from Ancillary Service Markets................................................................................................ 18 Effect of variable generation on expected day-ahead regulation mileage......................................... 19 Effect of variable generation on actual regulation mileage ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Renewing Our Energy Future
    Renewing Our Energy Future September 1995 OTA-ETI-614 GPO stock #052-003-01427-1 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Renewing Our Energy Fulture,OTA-ETI-614 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1995). For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328 ISBN 0-16 -048237-2 Foreword arious forms of renewable energy could become important con- tributors to the U.S. energy system early in the next century. If that happens, the United States will enjoy major economic, envi- ronmental, and national security benefits. However, expediting progress will require expanding research, development, and commer- cialization programs. If budget constraints mandate cuts in programs for renewable energy, some progress can still be made if efforts are focused on the most productive areas. This study evaluates the potential for cost-effective renewable energy in the coming decades and the actions that have to be taken to achieve the potential. Some applications, especially wind and bioenergy, are already competitive with conventional technologies. Others, such as photovol- taics, have great promise, but will require significant research and devel- opment to achieve cost-competitiveness. Implementing renewable energy will be also require attention to a variety of factors that inhibit potential users. This study was requested by the House Committee on Science and its Subcommittee on Energy and Environment; Senator Charles E. Grass- ley; two Subcommittees of the House Committee on Agriculture—De- partment Operations, Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture and Resource Conservation, Research and Forestry; and the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Appropriations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Green Economic Recovery: Wind Energy Tax Policy After Financial Crisis and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by University of Oregon Scholars' Bank JEFFRY S. HINMAN∗ The Green Economic Recovery: Wind Energy Tax Policy After Financial Crisis and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 I. The Benefits, Challenges, and Potential of the U.S. Wind Industry................................................................................... 39 A. Environmental Benefits of Wind...................................... 40 B. Economic Benefits of Wind ............................................. 41 1. Jobs and Economic Activity........................................ 41 2. Competitiveness with Traditional Power Plants ......... 43 C. Challenges for the Wind Energy Industry ......................... 44 1. Efficiency, Grid Access, and Intermittency ................ 44 2. Environmental Concerns and Local Opposition ......... 45 II. Federal Support for Renewable Energy Past and Present ....... 46 A. Renewable Energy Tax Policy 1978 to 1992 .................... 47 1. The National Energy Act of 1978 ............................... 48 2. Additional State-Level Tax Incentives in California During the 1980s ....................................... 50 3. The California Wind Boom......................................... 51 4. Shortcomings of the Wind Boom................................ 52 5. The Free Market Approach 1986 to 1992 ................... 53 ∗ J.D., University of Oregon School of Law, 2009; Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 2008–2009; Recipient, Tax Law Certificate of Completion; B.S., Oregon State University, 2002. I want to thank the editorial staff of the Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation for their friendship and masterful edits. I also want to extend my appreciation to the excellent tax law faculty at the University of Oregon, Professors Roberta Mann and Nancy Shurtz, for their guidance and feedback. Finally, and most importantly, I owe a huge debt of gratitude to my incredible wife Kathleen for her patience and support.
    [Show full text]
  • The Net Energy Balance of Ethanol
    Issue Brief: Net Energy Balance of Ethanol Production Fall 2004 A Publication of Ethanol Across America Study after study after study confirms that ethanol production from corn produces more energy than it takes to make it, period. End of story. So why is this still an issue? When you look at the facts, it simply isn’t. Maryland Grain Producers Energy. You need it to push, pull, lift, sink, or In the ethanol industry, the comparison has Utilization Board otherwise move something. There are a million always been seemingly straightforward and simple, www.marylandgrain.com www.burnsmdc.com www.ethanol.org different types from a million different sources, because a gallon of ethanol is similar in size, whether it is gasoline to power an automobile, weight, and application to a gallon of gasoline. the gentle breeze that moves a leaf, or the carbs People fell into the easy trap of comparing the in a breakfast bar to get you going in the morning. BTUs in a gallon of ethanol to a gallon of gas, www.cleanfuelsdc.org www.ne-ethanol.org www.nppd.com found it to be lower and declared “case closed.” In the energy industry we have traditionally Or, they looked at the energy used to make the gauged energy in terms of its ability to heat ethanol, and also deemed it inferior. “The Net Energy Balance of Ethanol Production” Issue Brief was produced and is distributed as part of something, with the resulting heat causing the Ethanol Across America education campaign. movement. That value has been measured in The reality is that it is far from straightforward, The project was sponsored by the American Coalition for Ethanol, the Clean Fuels Development Coalition, BTUs, or British Thermal Units which, among and comparisons based on raw numbers from an the Maryland Grain Producers Utilization Board, and the Nebraska Ethanol Board.
    [Show full text]
  • California's Energy Future
    California’s Energy Future: The View to 2050 Summary Report May 2011 Jane C. S. Long (co-chair) LEGAL NOTICE This report was prepared pursuant to a contract between the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST). It does not represent the views of the CEC, its employees, or the State of California. The CEC, the State of California, its employees, contractors, and subcontractors make no warranty, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the use of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would also like to thank the Stephen Bechtel Fund and the California Energy Commision for their contributions to the underwriting of this project. We would also like to thank the California Air Resources Board for their continued support and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for underwriting the leadership of this effort. COPYRIGHT Copyright 2011 by the California Council on Science and Technology. Library of Congress Cataloging Number in Publications Data Main Entry Under Title: California’s Energy Future: A View to 2050 May 2011 ISBN-13: 978-1-930117-44-0 Note: The California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) has made every reasonable effort to assure the accuracy of the information in this publication. However, the contents of this publication are subject to changes, omissions, and errors, and CCST does not accept responsibility for any inaccuracies that may occur. CCST is a non-profit organization established in 1988 at the request of the California State Government and sponsored by the major public and private postsecondary institutions of California and affiliate federal laboratories in conjunction with leading private-sector firms.
    [Show full text]
  • The Carbohydrate Economy, Biofuels and the Net Energy Debate
    The Carbohydrate Economy, Biofuels and the Net Energy Debate David Morris Institute for Local Self-Reliance August 2005 2 Other publications from the New Rules Project of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance: Who Will Own Minnesota’s Information Highways? by Becca Vargo Daggett and David Morris, June 2005 A Better Way to Get From Here to There: A Commentary on the Hydrogen Economy and a Proposal for an Alternative Strategy by David Morris, January 2004 (expanded version forthcoming, October 2005) Seeing the Light: Regaining Control of Our Electricity System by David Morris, 2001 The Home Town Advantage: How to Defend Your Main Street Against Chain Stores and Why It Matters by Stacy Mitchell, 2000 Available at www.newrules.org The Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) is a nonprofit research and educational organization that provides technical assistance and information on environmentally sound economic develop- ment strategies. Since 1974, ILSR has worked with citizen groups, governments and private businesses in developing policies that extract the maximum value from local resources. Institute for Local Self-Reliance 1313 5th Street SE Minneapolis, MN 55414 Phone: (612) 379-3815 Fax: (612) 379-3920 www.ilsr.org © 2005 by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance All Rights Reserved No part of this document may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Washington, DC. 3 The Carbohydrate Economy, Biofuels and the Net Energy Debate David Morris, Vice President Biomass should Institute for Local Self-Reliance be viewed not as a sil- August 2005 ver bullet, but as one of many renewable fuels we will and should rely upon.
    [Show full text]
  • The Energetic Implications of Curtailing Versus Storing Solar-And Wind
    Energy & Environmental Science View Article Online ANALYSIS View Journal | View Issue The energetic implications of curtailing versus storing solar- and wind-generated electricity† Cite this: Energy Environ. Sci., 2013, 6, 2804 Charles J. Barnhart,*a Michael Dale,a Adam R. Brandtb and Sally M. Bensonab We present a theoretical framework to calculate how storage affects the energy return on energy investment (EROI) ratios of wind and solar resources. Our methods identify conditions under which it is more energetically favorable to store energy than it is to simply curtail electricity production. Electrochemically based storage technologies result in much smaller EROI ratios than large-scale geologically based storage technologies like compressed air energy storage (CAES) and pumped hydroelectric storage (PHS). All storage technologies paired with solar photovoltaic (PV) generation yield EROI ratios that are greater than curtailment. Due to their low energy stored on electrical energy invested (ESOIe) ratios, conventional battery technologies reduce the EROI ratios of wind generation below curtailment EROI ratios. To yield a greater net energy return than curtailment, battery storage Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence. technologies paired with wind generation need an ESOIe > 80. We identify improvements in cycle life as the most feasible way to increase battery ESOIe. Depending upon the battery's embodied energy requirement, an increase of cycle life to 10 000–18 000 (2–20 times present values) is required for pairing with wind (assuming liberal round-trip efficiency [90%] and liberal depth-of-discharge [80%] Received 11th June 2013 values). Reducing embodied energy costs, increasing efficiency and increasing depth of discharge will Accepted 14th August 2013 also further improve the energetic performance of batteries.
    [Show full text]
  • California's Water-Energy Relationship
    CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION California's Water – Energy Relationship Prepared in Support of the 2005 Integrated EPORT Energy Policy Report Proceeding (04-IEPR-01E) R TAFF S INAL F NOVEMBER 2005 CEC-700-2005-011-SF Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor 1 CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION Primary Author Gary Klein California Energy Commission Martha Krebs Deputy Director Energy Research and Development Division Valerie Hall Deputy Director Energy Efficiency & Demand Analysis Division Terry O’Brien Deputy Director Systems Assessment & Facilities Siting Division B. B. Blevins Executive Director DISCLAIMER This paper was prepared as the result of work by one or more members of the staff of the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees, or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this paper; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This paper has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this paper. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The California’s Water-Energy Relationship report is the product of contributions by many California Energy Commission staff and consultants, including Ricardo Amon, Shahid Chaudhry, Thomas S. Crooks, Marilyn Davin, Joe O’Hagan, Pramod Kulkarni, Kae Lewis, Laurie Park, Paul Roggensack, Monica Rudman, Matt Trask, Lorraine White and Zhiqin Zhang. Staff would also like to thank the members of the Water-Energy Working Group who so graciously gave of their time and expertise to inform this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Renewable Transitions and the Net Energy from Oil Liquids: a Scenarios Study
    Renewable Energy 116 (2018) 258 e271 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Renewable Energy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene Renewable transitions and the net energy from oil liquids: A scenarios study Jordi Sol e*, Antonio García-Olivares, Antonio Turiel, Joaquim Ballabrera-Poy Institut de Ci encies del Mar (CSIC), Passeig marítim de la Barceloneta 37-49, 08003, Barcelona, Spain article info abstract Article history: We use the concept of Energy Return On energy Invested (EROI) to calculate the amount of the available Received 24 September 2016 net energy that can be reasonably expected from World oil liquids during the next decades (till 2040). Received in revised form Our results indicate a decline in the available oil liquids net energy from 2015 to 2040. Such net energy 1 June 2017 evaluation is used as a starting point to discuss the feasibility of a Renewable Transition (RT). To evaluate Accepted 10 September 2017 the maximum rate of Renewable Energy Sources (RES) development for the RT, we assume that, by 2040, Available online 13 September 2017 the RES will achieve a power of 11 TW (10 12 Watt). In this case, by 2040, between 10 and 20% of net energy from liquid hydrocarbons will be required. Taking into account the oil liquids net energy decay, Keywords: EROI we calculate the minimum annual rate of RES deployment to compensate it in different scenarios. Our Energy transition study shows that if we aim at keeping an increase of 3% of net energy per annum, an 8% annual rate of Renewable energy RES deployment is required.
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Energy Is Not the Answer
    WIND ENERGY IS NOT THE ANSWER by Bradley S. Tupii Abstract. Wind energy is not the answer to climate change concerns and cannot do the heavy lifting required by the modern American economy. It would take hundreds of thousands of wind turbines to make a substantial contribution to America’s energy needs. Building so many turbines inevitably causes conflicts with human and animal habitats. Wind turbine noise is a serious problem for those who live in the vicinity of so-called wind farms. * * * Introduction. Wind energy is not a modern phenomenon. Man harnessed the wind with sailboats and windmills hundreds of years ago. Charles Brush developed a wind-powered electric generator in 1888.2 Small, wind-powered generators such as the Jacobs Wind-Electric Machine became popular in the Midwest in the early 20th Century.3 These windmills became obsolete when Depression-era programs brought more reliable electric power to rural areas.4 Wind energy began a slow resurgence during the Carter administration when the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 19785 fostered state tax incentives for wind power development and allowed non-utility energy producers to sell electricity to utilities.6 Currently, wind power is hailed by some as a key weapon in the battle against global warming and as an important contributor to American energy independence. This paper will argue that wind energy is neither. Wind power cannot generate enough reliable electricity to replace conventional energy sources, including those that generate greenhouse gases. Assuming for the sake of argument that carbon dioxide is contributing to global climate change, wind power will not materially reduce CO2 emissions.
    [Show full text]