Energypresentationkey 1232055654596752 2

Electrical Energy,
Science,
& You
John Droz, jr.
Physicist & Environmental Advocate
6/12/10 john droz, jr.

Make SURE to View This Presentation
in the FULL SCREEN Mode!
Click the FULL icon

in the lower right hand corner.
Do NOT click on the Triangle
below to run this presentation!
Instead, use your keyboard arrow keys

to navigate.
This will allow you

to proceed at your own pace.
Electrical Energy, Science and You
The purpose of this material is to educate citizens about various key aspects of the US electricity grid, and the electrical power source
choices we have. This is a complicated matter, so I have tried to strike a balance between being too technical and too simplified. Note also
that the phrase wind energy is more technically accurate than the more commonly used wind power.
The underlying message is that our energy decisions should be made on the basis of sound SCIENCE not on what lobbyists say.
Hopefully you have already been to my website: WindPowerFacts.Info. If you have looked over whats there youll see that my several
articles about wind energy have two objectives. The first (as in this presentation) is to fill a niche not addressed elsewhere.
The second purpose of my communications is to target the average citizen as my audience. I believe that the future of this issue lies in
whether or not citizens are properly educated about basic energy matters. After getting more up-to-speed, they need to do some Critical
Thinking about this matter. Unfortunately, Critical Thinking has become somewhat of a lost art and that has lead to serious
consequences to our society as a whole.
My expectation is that after citizens get more informed and do some Critical Thinking that they will be in a much better position to
express their more informed wishes to their local, state and federal representatives.
After I began giving talks to community groups (in upstate NY and coastal NC), I started getting requests to put on presentations elsewhere.
To save other groups the cost of my coming to other widely scattered parts of North America, I decided to put the presentation online.
One downside of this alternative is that in the live presentation there is commentary that accompanies each slide, and this is not included
here. Since I dont have the space to include all of those, I identified the slides where the remarks were most important, and added them
after those slides. [These elaborated on slides are identified with an asterisk in the upper right hand corner. On a few other
slides I added short comments between the {...} brackets directly on the slides.] Another liability of this internet version is that it skips all
the interesting slide transitions, doesnt play the embedded movie, is longer, etc. Seeing it live is still the best!
Although I would rather be there to help you out in person, I can only be in one place at a time anyway. In any case after you go through
this, I will be glad to personally respond to any emails you send me: aaprjohn@northnet.org.
Please see my brief resume, the copyright notice, disclaimer, and contact information on the last slide. References and credits are on the
three slides prior to the end. [Note that I will indicate updates on the material by a new date on the first slide.] If you like what you see,
please pass it on to other open-minded people, plus your federal, state and local representatives.
ENJOY!
john droz, jr.

john droz, jr.
Th Th
is is
is isn
m t
e.. m
. e..
.
{Please remember that Im just a backwoods scientist not a professional communicator.}

john droz, jr.
PERSPECTIVE
The observers question:
are these objects the same?
{Ive tried to incorporate two of my basic beliefs here: the first
is Perspective. As a senior now looking back Ive found that the
single most successful strategy in solving almost ANY problem,
is to change how you look at it. So I am strongly encouraging
you to look at Wind Energy differently from what youve mostly
seen in the media. Ive used analogies throughout to help with
this change in Perspective... The KISS philosophy is the second,
and is about Keeping It Simple. Ive tried to do that here too.}
&
KISS
john droz, jr.
{Galileo is one of several historical people I really admire.
One reason is that he stood up for the Truth when essentially
everyone else in the world, was wrong. Think about that.
How would you like to take a very public position that was
contrary to what everyone else in the world believed? His
famous saying here is a key theme in this presentation.}
Galileo:
I do not feel obliged to believe,
that the same God
who has endowed us with
sense, reason and intellect,
has intended us to forgo their use.
~1600
john droz, jr.

What Is
Critical
Thinking?
A thorough, open-minded, logical effort
to examine a claim,
in the light of applicable evidence.
One of the key ingredients of true science and critical thinking is
SKEPTICISM
john droz, jr.
vs
GroupThink
{When it comes to electrical energy solutions,
most environmental groups fall into this category.}
john droz, jr.
Some Environmental Organizations I Belong to
The Sierra Club
RCPA - Residents Committee to Protect the Adirondacks
Adirondack Council
john droz, jr.

My Three Hats Here:
#1 - Physicist
#2 - Economist
#3 - Environmentalist
john droz, jr.

Water is another resource that we usually take for granted.
This is the city of Uticas (NY) main reservoir, half empty.
This view is looking across the lake (about one mile).
john droz, jr.

This is the city of Uticas main reservoir in 2007.
(This view is from about the same spot shown in the prior photo.)
{This is a real world, local example of what happens

when we neglect our environment. Wind energy is such an abandonment.}
john droz, jr.

A Few Turbines in Upstate NY
{The energy example we are going to review here is Industrial Wind Energy.
When I first heard about wind energy, I was a supporter. Quite frankly, I never liked
the looks of turbines, but felt that we would have to live with the unsightliness as a
trade-off for the good I initially assumed they were doing. Then I did some research,
and Critical Thinking. My conclusion now (as a scientist, economist, and
environmentalist) is that I am strongly opposed to Industrial Wind Energy.}
john droz, jr.

Lets get one thing out of the way right off...
There are no Wind Energy projects
being proposed for my community,
so Wind Energy is NOT a NIMBY issue for me.
john droz, jr.

The bottom line is that
Wind Energy Fails to Deliver the Goods
By this I mean that:

1) wind energy is not a technically sound solution to provide
us power, or to meaningfully reduce global warming, and
2) wind energy is not an economically viable source of power
on its own, and
3) wind energy is not environmentally responsible.
{These three basic criteria havent been selected to make wind energy look bad, but are what
should be used to evaluate the legitimacy of ANY proposed new alternative source of energy.}
john droz, jr.

Scientific Methodology Works Like This
When a new idea is proposed as a potential solution to a problem,

it is up to the advocates to independently PROVE its efficacy
not the other way around.
In the case of Wind Energy,

this has never been done.
john droz, jr.

What Wind Energy Is Really All About john droz, jr.
Most Communities Have a Sign Ordinance *
Its Purpose:
to minimize visual pollution
Why?
Because commercialization
is recognized as an undermining
of the nature of the community.
john droz, jr.

*
john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior Two Billboard Slides
(some of the words given at the live presentation)
Lets say a big foreign company comes to your community and says:
We have a great new business opportunity! We want to lease some local land for a new
type of attractive billboard. Its called a mega-board. Theyre about 450 feet high, and wed
like to put up a hundred or so in this area.
Well pay some local landowners to rent their land, and will also arrange it so that your town
will make good money off these through tax and other contributions.
Now, would your community rush out to change their sign ordinance to get this money?
Even though thered be profits made by people leasing land to these advertisers, and money
going to the town, Id like to believe that the majority of people would be against such blatant
commercialization of their community.
Theres no difference with wind energy.
john droz, jr.

Yes, I confess that I DO have a bias here! One of the things I believe is that...
Our Quality of Life
Should Not Be For Sale

(My photo is of the St. Lawrence River)
john droz, jr.

The Question I Asked
(the author of a Mother Earth News
pro-wind article)
What independent, scientific proof

do you have that wind energy does
what its supposed to do?
john droz, jr.

The Answer I Got:
I have no independent, scientific
proof and none is needed. (!)
john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Following Ann Rice Slide
Before I move on Ive really got to touch on Psychology for a minute, because the energy issue
and its proposed solutions seem to be a magnet for some interesting psychological
characters. (Witness the incomprehensible assertion on the prior slide from a reportedly
competent individual at that.)
In my 25+ years as an environmental activist, Ive communicated with literally tens of

thousands of people about a variety of environmental issues. It always seemed to me that the
facts would win the day but thats the scientist in me talking.
I find it fascinating to see peoples reaction when theyre presented with facts that run
contrary to their beliefs. When I saw this Ann Rice quote, I immediately said bingo!
she really phrases it in a very good way.
John Kenneth Galbraith said essentially the same thing with slightly different words:
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.
john droz, jr.

*
When it comes to discussing industrial Wind Energy with
most environmentalists, politicians, and the media, this says it all:
Very few really seek knowledge in this world.
On the contrary, they try to justify their entrenched, unscientific

opinions, by selectively wringing from the unknown, answers to

console themselves.
To really ask for the Truth is to open the door to the whirlwind
which may annihilate the questioner.
Ann Rice
john droz, jr.

This has a well-known psychological explanation...
Cognitive Dissonance is the tendency to resist information that

we don't want to think about, because if we did it would conflict
with an illusion we have bought into and perhaps require us
to act in ways that are out of our comfort zone.
Leon Festinger
john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior Cognitive Dissonance Slide
In laymens terms, Cognitive Dissonance says that there appears to be a genetic predisposition
that after we buy into something i.e. get into a mindset that it becomes extremely difficult
for most people to change their position.
Interestingly this was first officially identified in a study of UFOs. In 1956 a woman claimed that
she had received a message from aliens that within the year the planet would be destroyed.
Since she was very convincing, she soon had a group of followers who had bought into her
story. But then, of course, her prediction didnt come about.
In psychological terms, the failed message of earth's destruction, became a disconfirmed
expectancy to these people. This increased dissension between differing awarenesses. In an
attempt to lessen this internal conflict, most members of the cult then adopted a new prophecy:
that the aliens had instead spared the planet for their sake.
Its interesting to me that here we are again faced with predictions of the planets destruction
not aliens, but this time through global warming. (To my knowledge there is no truth to the
rumor that this lady was a relative of Al Gores.) Theres also a connection here to another one
of my main beliefs: that those who dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
My hope here is that you will be open-minded about this issue.
john droz, jr.
{Lets go back into history to see how we ended up with the electric grid system we have today...
The first practical use of electricity, in the late 1800s, is generally attributed to Thomas Edison
(a founder of General Electric). Of course there were actually dozens of other people who contributed
to making commercial electricity a reality. And there were a LOT of formidable hurdles to overcome.}
Edison Electric Company - 1882

john droz, jr.
The Six Principle Requirements for Commercial
Electricity Generating Sources are that:
1 - they provide large amounts of electricity;
2 - they provide reliable and predictable electricity;
3 - they provide dispatchable* electricity;
4 - they service one or more grid demand element**;
5 - their facility be compact***;
6 - they provide economical electricity.
* Dispatchable = can generate higher or lower amounts of power on-demand.

** Grid Demand Elements = Base Load, Load Following, and Peak Load.
*** Compact is the ability to site an electrical facility on a relatively small and well-defined
footprint, preferably near high demand, e.g. cities.
john droz, jr.

Its All About Creating Capacity,
Particularly Capacity Value
Capacity Value: The ability to rapidly convert a set amount of energy

at specified, convenient times.
[E.g. with a nuclear facility, a grid operator has near 100% confidence
that full power will be available from that facility at times of greatest demand.]
{Note: Capacity VALUE is not the same as Capacity FACTOR.

See reference and next page for more explanation.}
john droz, jr.
* An Explanation of the Prior Capacity Value Slide
Capacity value is really a very simple idea.
You don't drive your car all the time, with the result that its Capacity Factor (not Value) is
probably 10-20%. But when you do wish to drive it, the car works 99.9% of the time, getting
you from one place to another and on your own schedule. Thus 99.9% is its Capacity Value
(also known as Effective Capacity).
Ditto with your chain saw, or television or most any modern appliance we all take for granted:
they work when we want it to work. Appliances that are not dependable are quickly discarded.
In the last hundred years or so we in the West have come to rely on machines with this
standard. In fact, this performance on demand is the basis of our modernity.
Our conventional energy sources have very high Capacity Value, as system operators can
depend (e.g. have 99% confidence) on their power being available at any time, 24/7/365.
Since it is impossible to have such confidence in it, wind energy has a very low Capacity Value.
[Please also see slides 48-50 for another example of Capacity Value.]
john droz, jr.

100%
90%
80%
Fuel Sources for US Electricity Generation in 2007

70% DOE/EIA Report (October 8, 2008)
60%
50%
40%
The next time you hear an ad about how
30%
wind energy will help with our dependence on oil,
remember that only about
20% 1% of our electricity comes from oil.
10%
0%
Coal Nuclear Natural Gas Hydro Oil Renewables
john droz, jr.
Each of the current conventional sources
meet ALL of the prior six essential criteria
As a result, Today and a Hundred Years from now

these conventional sources can provide ALL of the electrical needs
of our society, while continuing to meet all six criteria.
Note: We Have ALWAYS Been Energy Independent Here!
john droz, jr.

SO WHATS THE PROBLEM?
john droz, jr.

A NEW element has been added:
environmental impact
(especially emissions, like CO2)
john droz, jr.

Climate Change Global Warming
Climate Change =
significant, long-term changes in average weather.
Global Warming =
a hypothesis that offers an explanation for Climate Change:
that man-made emissions (CO2) are the primary cause.
john droz, jr.
*
Is Being Safe the Wisest Strategy?
Not Necessarily!
john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior Being Safe Slide
What about the argument that we should always err on the side of being cautious? Well, like
many things in this complex area, theres a lot more to it than what appears on the surface. If
being safe is our over-riding criterion, lets look at another example one that is literally a
life and death matter to explain what I mean.
Its a fact that the higher the highway speed limit is, the more fatalities and injuries there are.
In the US there are some 42,000 people killed each year in motor vehicle accidents. So, if our
policy is first and foremost to be safe, then all highways should have a speed limit of no more
than 30 MPH: which would likely save 20,000 lives annually. As good as that seems, stop and
consider the implications of that change for a minute...
The point is that being cautious sounds fine, but we should be aware that there are often
enormous consequences to such a strategy just like there are with wind energy.
And, by the way, if we are really concerned about being safe, then thats all the more reason we
should want independent, scientific proof that our money, efforts & sacrifices are producing
cost-effective, consequential benefits. No such proof exists for industrial wind energy.
john droz, jr.

Concerns About This New Requirement:
1 - Having the government step into the utility business and
mandate that utilities change the principles that have been
the foundation of our electrical grid system since the 1800s.
2 - Transforming a system that has worked successfully for some
125 years, based on a scientifically unresolved hypothesis.
3 - The new Environmental Impact standard has taken priority
over all the other six time-tested ones.
4 - This new Environmental Impact standard has, in reality,
become the ONLY benchmark of importance.
AND
john droz, jr.

5 - Alternative sources of commercial electricity
that just claim to meet this new super-criterion
(to make a consequential impact on CO2)
dont even have to prove

that they actually do it!
john droz, jr.

Lets See How
Industrial Wind Energy
stacks up against the Power Generation
Six Historical Criteria,
and then how it does regarding

the new item: Emissions ...
john droz, jr.

#1 - Does wind energy provide large amounts of electricity ?
Yes, it could. However, its effectiveness from most perspectives is inferior.
For instance, because of the wide fluctuations of wind, it only produces, on average,
about 30% of its nameplate power.
This irregularity is compounded by the fact that there is no way to economically store
what is produced for later use.
Another example of its dilutedness is that it takes over one thousand times the amount of
land for wind energy to produce a roughly equivalent amount of power as does a nuclear
facility.
john droz, jr.

100 acres of this
=
100,000+ acres of this
john droz, jr.

2 - Does wind energy provide reliable & predictable electricity ?
NO. Despite the wind industrys absolute best efforts it is not reliable or predictable
compared to the standards set by our conventional electrical sources.
A wind turbines output varies continuously between zero and 100% of its rated capacity,
extremely sensitive to small changes in wind speed and it only operates in a limited
range of wind speed.
Additionally, wind energy is often not available when power is needed most.
john droz, jr.

Sample Data from German u0lity Eon Netz,
which manages the largest collec0on
of wind turbines in the world...
Note Predictability and Variability
during six hours of a recent representa0ve day
Note weekly Variability

throughout the year
john droz, jr.

Sample Data from Ontario Power Authority
Note:
Average Output
was only 13.5%
of Rated Capacity.
Observe wide variability across this one month time period.

john droz, jr.
Sample Demand vs Wind Energy Data (BPA)
[Note extended periods of zero wind output]
Note how wind output is not in sync with demand.

john droz, jr.
A Sample Windmobile
[Note that it requires the backup of a conventional power source.]
john droz, jr.
* An Explanation of the Prior Windmobile Slide
I was asked whether the windmobile was serious. Yes if you do some Critical Thinking about
it there is some worthwhile comparative instruction value to this analogy.
For instance, on the one hand there would be a few (relatively rare) cases where the cars gas
engine would not have to be turned on at all, and one would save fossil fuel. HOWEVER
a) there is an extra $10,000 cost for the wind power addition to the vehicle;
b) the normal gas mileage for that vehicle is decreased by 20% due to the mounted blades.
This amounts to extra cost AND an increase in emissions when the gas engine is used;
c) the additional parts and connections of the wind machine would increase the maintenance
cost to the user;
d) the resale value of this vehicle would be less than the same conventional vehicle, so there
would be still another hidden cost to the user;
e) the user would have to receive special training on how to operate this type of vehicle. This
amounts to lost time, and lost productivity. What is the cost of their time to do that?
continued on next page
john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior Windmobile Slide Part 2
f) the attempts by the user to utilize the wind aspect (continuously checking the weather
forecast for instance) would amount to lost time, and lost productivity. What is the cost of
their time to do that?
g) despite this there would be other negative consequences, like more accidents due to loss of
power or control. More cost and lost time again.
h) most of the time the car would operate on a combination of some wind and some gas. But
the wind would continually be changing so the gas engine would have to be continually
accelerated, and then the vehicle braked, etc. This would result in speed overagages (tickets,
accidents), plus inefficiency on the part of the gas engine (more fossil fuel used), plus
premature wearout of some parts (e.g. brakes, transmission, engine).
Etc., etc.
The bottom line is that such a vehicle would be an absurd "solution" to partially reduce CO2
emissions, as the REAL COSTS would be very high and the CO2 savings very low.
Such it is with industrial wind energy. [The wind availability for such a vehicle also gives
another good idea about the concept of Capacity Value: very low.]
john droz, jr.

3 - Does wind energy provide dispatchable electricity ?
NO.
Due to its unpredictability, wind can not be counted on to provide power on-demand
in other words, on a human-defined schedule.
john droz, jr.

Big Brother Strikes Again
Logic would say that this lack of human control is yet another reason
to discard this inferior electrical supply source but no!
We now have the specter of a new remedy
to the problem of wind's uncontrollability:
Since we can't control the wind,

let's control demand
so that it conforms to wind's whims.
This is a key part of whats behind the solution

called the Smart Grid.
4 - Does wind energy dependably provide one or more of the
grid demand elements ?
NO.
1 - All electricity produced must be used immediately, as currently there is no way

to economically store electricity (and nothing is on the horizon either),
2 - The primary job of Grid operators is to provide a SUPPLY that exactly meets DEMAND
on a second by second basis,
3 - The three types of DEMAND are:

a) Base Load (what is needed 24/7)
b) Load Following (normal usage daily changes)
c) Peak Load (unexpected surges)
(The next six slides include a basic pictorial representation of these demands.)
john droz, jr.

What is Base Load Demand?
3000
Base Load
MW of Electricity
2000
1000
Can Wind Energy Supply
Base Load Power?
NO.
0
Monday Tuesday Wednesday
Base Load: what is needed 24/7 (about 50% of the total)

[This is a predictable underlying demand that is quite consistent throughout the year.]
john droz, jr.
More on Base Load Demand...
The principle Base Load sources of electrical power
are Nuclear and Coal facilities.
Since Wind Energy can not provide Base Load power
it will not replace any Coal Base Load facilities.
Coal facilities emit 85% of the electrical sectors CO2.
[Additional Nuclear (or Geothermal) facilities will provide Base Load,
so they can replace high emitting Coal facilities.]
Just remember:
85% of the electrical CO2 emissions
will hardly be touched by wind energy!
john droz, jr.

What is Load Following Demand?
3000
Load Following
Base Load
MW of Electricity
2000
1000
Load Following Power?
NO.
0
Load Following: normal usage daily changes

[These are fairly predictable 24 hour cyclic changes, with higher demand before & after work.]
john droz, jr.
What is Peak Load Demand?
3000
Peak Load
Load Following
Base Load
MW of Electricity
2000
1000
Peak Load Power?
NO.
0
Peak Load: unusual surges

[These may be due to a heat wave where a lot of air conditioners are used at 5 PM.]
john droz, jr.
More on Load Following & Peak Load Demands...
The principle Load Following & Peak Load sources of electrical power
are Hydro, Gas, and select small Coal facilities.
Although Wind Energy cant really provide either of these types of power
it is used to reduce the need for Hydro, Gas and small Coal units.
Gas facilities emit only 15% of the electrical sectors CO2.
Just remember:
when wind replaces Hydro, there are zero CO2 savings;
when wind replaces Gas or small Coal,
there are miniscule CO2 savings.
[The later is due to thermal inefficiencies, which means that
the Gas or small Coal units are operating inefficiently
ramping up and down, just like your car does in stop-and-go traffic.]
john droz, jr.
A Real Life Demand Curve
The top (red) line shows varying demand, the bottom shows wind energy available
[Note how wind energy does not provide ANY of the grid demand elements!]
john droz, jr.
What if Many Wind Projects
(Over a Wide Area) Are Connected Together?
Will this then result is a reliable, dispatchable

Base Load, Load Following, or Peak Load
source of electrical energy?
Yes it will is the claim of promoters
(based on favorable computer projections).
[e.g. www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf]
But what does real world experience show?

South East Australia has 18 wind projects
connected together, spanning over a 1000 miles.
This is the most geographically dispersed collection of wind projects

on a single grid, in the world.
Cathedral Rock
One of the 18 wind projects in the South East Australia grid.

[http://farm1.static.flickr.com/106/292805607_f96b0d0fca.jpg]
The Results
.)6*&4$(7&0$1$2)#3&4$2#"(&89&'()*&+"$*
-$3&:;<;&= >"?#@&A$9#&B?9#($%)$
#!!& %"!!!
+!&
%!!!!
*!&
$"!!!
)!&
!"#$%&'()*&+"$*&,-./
(!&
0$1$2)#3&4$2#"(&,5/
$!!!!
"!& ,-./
0123./
#"!!!
'!&
%!&
#!!!!
$!&
"!!!
#!&
!& !
# $ % ' " ( ) * + #! ## #$ #% #' #" #( #) #* #+ $! $# $$ $% $' $" $( $) $* $+ %! %#
Despite enormous diversity, wind energy is still wildly variable

[http://windfarmperformance.info/documents/analysis/monthly/aemo_wind_201005_hhour.pdf]
* Some Comments about the Interconnecting Multiple Projects idea
The simplistic theory behind this geographically dispersed idea is: the wind is always blowing
someplace so if wind projects are sufficiently spread out, they will always be producing
reliable predictable power, equivalent to our conventional sources.
This is typical of the unscientific ideas promulgated by promoters. Despite having real world
data available, they eschew that in favor of a computer projection. Their proof is a computer
model they concoct which is loaded with carefully selected assumptions to support their pre-
determined agenda. This is not science, which is based on independent, empirical evidence.
I am showing real data from actual sources in this case the most geographically dispersed
collection of wind projects on a single grid, in the world. These results show a huge disparity
between such fabricated computer models and real world reality.
Clearly the graph demonstrates that even this enormously spread out collection of wind projects
is NOT a reliable or dispatchable source of energy, and it is NOT in any way a source of Base
Load, Load Following, or Peak Load power.
[Also note that there are different scales on the prior slide for the red and blue lines.]
john droz, jr.
5 - Is wind energy compact ?
NO. To even approximate the nameplate power of a conventional facility, like nuclear,
takes something like a thousand times the amount of area.
Connecting multiple wind projects spread over vast areas is a Tinkertoy solution which
also completely undermines the objective to be a concentrated power source.
Another feature of wind energy is that most of the windiest sites (and available land)
are a LONG way from where the electricity is needed.
This will result in thousands of miles of huge unsightly transmission towers and cables,
at an enormous expense to citizens much of it completely unnecessary.
john droz, jr.

* More Comments about the Interconnecting Multiple Projects idea
This is another version of "just do something, no matter how foolish or inefficient or expensive"
to enable renewables like wind energy. The whole concept of gaining some small degree of
reliability by having massive redundancy is absurd.
This should be compared to buying ten unreliable cars so that the odds are improved that one
will work on any given day. The intelligent option, of course, is to buy just one reliable vehicle.
The same goes for the Grid changes that are carefully being marketed as Smart.
Redundancy and new transmission add enormous costs and are directly attributable to wind
energy. As such these expenditures should be added to the real cost of wind energy.
The lobbyists dont want these costs to be connected to their pet projects, so they are busily
trying to convince politicians that we needed to spend this money anyway. Most of it is a waste.
Remember the warning given a few slides ago: another hidden agenda in the Smart grid idea is
to force a change as to how users (you) utilize electricity. Beware!
None of these proposals are truly about benefitting citizens or our society, but are rather to
increase the profits of multi-national corporations. That is what lobbyists are paid to do.
john droz, jr.
john droz, jr.
Some Consequences of the Thousands of Miles of
New Transmission Lines Required by Wind Energy:
1 - Significant Construction Cost (materials, land, etc.)*
2 - Major Environmental Impact (visually, herbicides, etc.)
3 - Considerable Loss of Efficiency (10% for every 60 miles)
4 - Potentially Adverse Health Effects (e.g. with EMFs)
*Note that due to some technical factors, the cost of transmitting wind energy is 2 to 3 times
the cost for transmitting conventional power. In Eastern states the cost has been from $2 million
to $10 million per mile.
Note also that the Smart Grid is NOT the same thing as additional transmission lines.
See reference for a more accurate story behind the Smart Grid.
john droz, jr.

6 - Does wind energy provide economical electricity ?
NO, not compared to conventional sources.
We will look at the economics from three (3) perspectives

a) Total Costs (Capital + Operation/Maintenance + Fuel)
b) Taxpayer funded incentives
c) Ratepayer costs
Note that in addition to these there are still more wind energy necessitated expenses
(like the cost of a backup power source, the extra transmission lines needed, etc.).
john droz, jr.

Financial Comparison #1
Total Costs
(Capital + Operation + Fuel)
john droz, jr.

Power Sources Total Costs
Capital Operation Fuel
{Note that the Wind costs do

NOT take into account
any costs:
for backup generation,
OR for extra transmission
lines needed,
OR for other ancillary
requirements,
OR for decommissioning.}
Nuclear Coal Gas Wind john droz, jr.

Taxpayer Costs
john droz, jr.

$23.37
Some Federal Subsidies

of Electrical Energy Sources per MWH
US Energy Information Administration Subsidy Report: April 2008
$0.44 $1.59 $0.25 $0.67 $23.37
Coal Nuclear Nat Gas Hydro Wind
john droz, jr.

In ADDITION to the generous Federal subsidies,
many states offer financial incentives for wind energy, like:
1. Personal Tax Incentives

2. Corporate Tax Incentives
3. Sales Tax Incentives
4. Property Tax Incentives
5. Rebates
6. Grants
7. Loans
8. Industry Support
9. Bonds, and
10. Production Incentives.
On top of these financial incentives, state and local governments have established rules,
regulations and policies (like RPS), with the purpose of encouraging or mandating the
development and increased sale and consumption of energy from renewable sources.
john droz, jr.
And More To Come!
IN ADDITION TO THE FOREGOING:
on 12/08 some 200 (!) bills were pending before the U.S. Congress
that include even more incentives
for various types of alternative energy, mostly wind energy...
The bottom line of this unprecedented giveaway is that

1 - wind energy developers make 25% profit,
2 - oil and other multi-national companies invest in wind energy to avoid most taxes.
john droz, jr.

Utility Ratepayer Costs
{For five representative countries.}
john droz, jr.

Whats the Correlation with
Higher Wind Energy Usage
and Residential Electricity Rates?
40
35 Denmark Bad Renewables %

/KWH (2007 Data)
30
Germany
25
20 Spain
15
US
10 Canada
john droz, jr.

Whats the Correlation with
Higher GOOD Renewables Usage
and Residential Electricity Rates?
40
35 Denmark Good Renewables %

/KWH (2007 Data)
30
Germany
25 N
20 Spain
15
US
10 Canada
Note: the scale

5 of the right Y axis (green)
is 4x the left Y axis.
john droz, jr.
As we raise the cost of electricity, remember that Quality of Life
STRONGLY Correlates to Electricity Consumption
CIA World Factbook 2007 john droz, jr.

7 - Does wind energy make a consequential reduction of CO2 ?
NO!
No independent scientific study has ever shown that wind energy saves a meaningful
amount of CO2.
In fact, the most independent scientific study done (by the National Academy of
Sciences) says the U.S. CO2 savings by 2020 will amount to only 1.8%.
[An EIA report for the US Congress concluded that CO2 savings would be about 1.3%.]
These are trivial quantities!
john droz, jr.

Consider This...
The country with the lowest CO2 per KWH is:

FRANCE
the country with the most Nuclear Power.
<<h#p://engineering.electrical-equipment.org/energy-eciency-news/c02-emission-by-countries.html>>
Consider This...
The country with the highest CO2 per KWH is:

DENMARK
the country with the most Wind Energy.
<<h#p://engineering.electrical-equipment.org/energy-eciency-news/c02-emission-by-countries.html>>
CO2 in Perspective
How High Is The Sky?
john droz, jr.

CO2 in Perspective
Whats In The Atmosphere?

Argon
1% Oxygen
21%
Nitrogen
78%
(Note that the CO2 part is so small it doesnt show up.)

john droz, jr.
CO2 in Perspective
Lets Look at just the Tiny CO2 Part
38%
Deforestation > 1% Respiration
Man-Made > 4%
Surface Ocean
57%
This graph shows the world-wide major sources of CO2.

[There are also sinks, but these are much harder to quantify.]
john droz, jr.
CO2 in Perspective
Lets say that all the air

in the earths atmosphere
is stacked up in a cylinder,
which extends one mile high.
1 Mile
Worldwide, citizens are being asked
to spend Trillions of Dollars
on Global Warming solutions.
If successful,
how much of this air will we change
(i.e. some of the man-made CO2 part)?
john droz, jr.
CO2 in Perspective
1 Mile
Only About a Quarter of an Inch!
john droz, jr.

CO2 in Perspective
Here is Something to Ponder
Insects produce 10 TIMES the amount

of CO2 generated by human activity.
<<http://www.clepair.net/climate%20change.html>>
CO2 in Perspective
Worldwide Contribution to CO2 Reductions
Since 1973
100
75
50
25
0
Renewables Generation Transmission Nuclear Power
john droz, jr.

CO2 in Perspective
Question!
Looking at the two largest man-made sources of CO2 in the U.S.
(transportation & electricity) since 1950 (60 years):
1-the number of transportation miles driven has increased by 6.5x, &
2-the amount of annual electricity generated has increased by 12.5x.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on what youve read and heard, how much do you think
that the annual amount of man-made CO2 produced in the U.S
(over this same 59 year time period) would have increased by:
no increase, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, 6x, 7x, 8x, 9x, or 10x?
john droz, jr.

CO2 in Perspective
13000
10400
Global Implementation
of Industrial Wind Power
Started About Here
7800
BMT Carbon
Global
5200 Point at which 350 ppm of CO2 was reached
(Hansen, Gore, McKibben: disaster level)
2600
43% USA 19%

1950
1980
2007
58 Year History of Man-made CO2 Emissions
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) & Global Carbon Project (9/26/08)
john droz, jr.
CO2 in Perspective
13000
10400
Started About Here
7800
BMT Carbon
Global
2600
With Wind Power
Without Wind Power

43% USA 19% 15%
2030
1950
1980
2010
80 Year Overview of Man-made CO2 Emissions
CDIAC + Global Carbon Project (9/26/08) + EIA Projections (dashed) to 2030
john droz, jr.
CO2 in Perspective
13000
What would be the global impact if the US embarked
on a radical program that was able to reduce its CO2
by the extraordinary amount of 25% by 2030?
10400
Started About Here
7800
BMT Carbon
Global
2600
Current Plan: W/WO Wind Power
43% USA 19% Radical 25% Plan 12%
2030
1950
1980
2010
80 Year Overview of Man-made CO2 Emissions II
CDIAC + Global Carbon Project (9/26/08) + EIA Projections (dashed) to 2030
john droz, jr.
* An Explanation of the Prior Three Global Warming Slides
These three slides may be the most important ones in this presentation. This first one shows the answer to the
question I just asked: 2x. Note that how over an almost 60 year period, that the USs CO2 (Carbon Dioxide)
emissions have gone up very slowly particularly if you consider our much higher population, huge escalation in
annual electricity use, big increase in annual mileage driven, etc.
Also compare the US CO2 emissions line to the rapidly increasing global CO2 line. Big difference! In 1950 we were
a large portion of the problem (43% of the global amount). Today, not so much (only 19%, and declining).
Two conclusions come from this: #1- the US is not the main problem, and #2- what the US has been doing for the
last 50+ years has been reasonably prudent. Thats not to say that we cant and shouldnt try to do better.
As a point of reference Ive added one more relevant piece of data. Recently the primary Global Warming advocates
have been pushing a new number that their evangelist, Dr. James Hansen, came up with: the safe upper limit for
atmospheric CO2 is no more than 350 ppm. He predicts a series of disasters if this isnt fixed very soon. [Note
that we went past this concentration in 1988.]
The second slide in this group shows the future, as projected by the government and CO2 experts. Note again the
US line, and then compare it to the total worldwide line. It still seems to me that the US is not the real problem,
AND that the USs path into the future (without wind energy) is quite reasonable.
[Note: when I mention Global Warming in this presentation, I am referring to the anthropogenic (man-made) global
warming hypothesis.]
continued
john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior Three Global Warming Slides (continued)
Another conclusion from this data (considering the magnitude of the global CO2 problem) is that NO renewable
source of electrical power can possibly make more than a tiny impact on global CO2.
For example, the US "with wind energy" and "without wind energy" projection part (2008 to 2030) are actually two
lines, but there is so little difference that they are indistinguishable on the graph, and it looks like one line. Note
also the point where wind energy started to be used worldwide. Do you see any improvement in the graphs slope
from that time? In other words, where is the CO2 saved by the 100,000 turbines operating today?
Another conclusion is that the government could to try to force (e.g. via a Renewable Portfolio Standard) an
enormous reduction of our CO2 emissions (lets say 25%). This would be extraordinarily expensive (literally over a
trillion dollars) and cause substantial environmental harm (e.g. by requiring a million+ turbines).
But even this huge amount of savings would have a negligible affect on the global CO2 situation, and could be
immediately swamped out by several natural or man-made CO2 sources. And look closely at the Hansen/Gore
disaster line. It should be abundantly clear that nothing we do in this country will have any meaningful impact on
global CO2. So what would we have accomplished for such a huge expenditure and sacrifice? Very little.
These graphs tell us that concepts of carbon-neutral, and clean, green, renewable energy sound PC (politically
correct), but the reality is that they do not make sense from scientific, economic, or environmental perspectives.
In other words we need to adopt environmental improvement policies that are SC (Scientifically Correct).
continued
john droz, jr.

* Still More Explanation of the Prior Three Global Warming Slides (continued)
A trump card that advocates for drastic Global Warming action frequently pull out, is the fact that the US has high
CO2 emissions per capita. Although that is true, it is not an accurate representation of the whole picture.
What is missing is the fact that the US (until recently) enjoyed what can best be summarized as a free market,
and has one of, if not the most, carbon efficient (productive) economies in the world as measured by CO2/$GDP.
Were often accused of representing less than 5% world population but 20% of GHG emissions yet we SELDOM
hear the other fact that were responsible for 30%+ of world GDP and an even larger proportion (35%) of the
worlds food. We feed, clothe, house and protect the world which (in effect) is now being turned against us to
try to make us feel guilty.
Other evidence of our efficiency (and already reasonable efforts) is to look at US CO2 over the last 60 years which
is on these slides. Despite massive increase in transportation mileage, electricity generation, concrete usage, etc.,
our CO2 emissions have gone up relatively little.
[Re transportation: "The average new car on the road today runs 97% cleaner than the average car built in 1970,
thanks to a combination of cleaner gasoline and more efficient engines." Re electricity: A large part of this is due
to nuclear energy. Don't forget that there were no nuclear energy facilities in 1950.]
Additionally I see few analysts assessing the negative global impact attributable to our wearing a hair shirt
and voluntarily handicapping our economy. China and India will not be doing the same.
What needs to be done is to start with a comprehensive list of ALL of the benefits the US provides the rest of the
planet. Then analyze the significant global costs for when these will be cut back.
Lets keep things in perspective.
continued john droz, jr.
* A Postscript about the Global Warming Issue
How does an individuals position on Global Warming affect their support of Industrial Wind
Energy? Well, lets look at the two extremes:
1 - If they were a strong advocate of the Global Warming theory, they would also accept the dire
imminent consequences postulated by its lead proponents (e.g. Hansen, Gore, Romm). As such
they would be very committed to taking measures that were guaranteed to result in a large
reduction of CO2, in short order. But all independent scientific evidence to date says that wind
energy only makes a trivial reduction of CO2, and well into the future at that. As such they
would be against wind energy as an inefficient use of time and money.
2 - If, on the other hand, they were a skeptic of the Global Warming theory, then they would
likewise not believe that man-made CO2 is a major cause of concern. Since the main reason for
wind energys existence is its promise to meaningfully reduce CO2, that result would be of little
value to them. As such they would be against wind energy as a waste of time and money.
So it seems to me that no matter which side of the Global Warming debate a person falls on,
wind energy is not any part of the answer. [Note: for the purpose of this presentation, we will
make the assumption that the viewer is an advocate of the Global Warming Theory.]
john droz, jr.
CO2 in Perspective
Lets Look at Some Facts

about Greenhouse Gases
john droz, jr.

CO2 in Perspective
What Are The Greenhouse Gases?

CO2
3.6%
NO2
.9%
Methane
.4%
Water Vapor Misc

.1%
95%
john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior Greenhouse Gas Slide
According to the US government, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate
change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood huge scientific
uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of the water vapor/climate
affect feedback loop The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor
will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate
change. As yet (though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood), we have
very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have
good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and
methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how
much atmospheric concentrations have changed in recent decades or centuries
In other words, VERY LITTLE IS KNOWN ABOUT WATER VAPOR which is BY FAR the most
common greenhouse gas Because of its large volume, SMALL changes in water vapor would
have enormously higher effects than LARGE changes in CO2. So what are we doing about
reducing water vapor. Oh, nothing. And theres more...
john droz, jr.
CO2 in Perspective
What % of Greenhouse Gases
are Man-Made?
water vapor 0%
carbon dioxide 4% PPBs adjusted
nitrous oxide 5% for heat retention

characteristics
methane 18%
misc 66%
TOTAL .28%
In other words:
if humans were eliminated from the planet,
there would be only a .28% reduction
in greenhouse gas concentrations!
john droz, jr.
What about the critical factor of Capacity Value?
The result of its inherent deficiencies (including the fact that wind energy is proportional to
the cube of the wind speed), is that wind energy has a Capacity Value of near zero.
Compare this to the conventional sources,

where essentially all of them have a Capacity Value near 100%.
This is a simply stunning disparity.
john droz, jr.

Yes, you heard this right:
The U.S. is now on the path to spend s-e-v-e-r-a-l TRILLION dollars
on an electrical source that FAILS five out of six
of our historically important power generation criteria,
AND
has no scientific proof
that it meets the new emissions criterion,
AND
has very little Capacity Value!
john droz, jr.
So how did we get into the
Energy Ditch?
Same answer as to how

Wall Street got into the
Financial Ditch:
GREED
&
IGNORANCE
john droz, jr.
*
The Most Important Equation To Remember:
1 MW 1 MW
john droz, jr.

Just Like:
*

john droz, jr.
3.5
Power Source #1
*
3
Power Source #2
2.5
2
MW
1.5
0.5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Both power sources produce an average of 1 MW. Are they equal?

john droz, jr.
If you understand this,
*
youll know more than 90% of the experts:
1 MW 1 MW
john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior Four Equation Slides
A second important reason weve lost our way (in addition to greed) is that most politicians,
environmentalists and even many scientists dont understand this profoundly important
equation: that 1 MW (Megawatt) of one type of electricity is NOT the same as any another
1 MW of electricity. Consider an analogy to understand what may seem to be a contradiction.
Its clear what the second slide says, right? Lets say a company wants to hire someone to get
some work done. Is any one person the same as any other person to do that job? Of course
not! They would differ in the amount of work they could perform, their reliability,
dependability, skill, cooperativeness, cost, etc. So 1 Person 1 Person.
The third (graph) slide says this in a different way. Even though the average output of two
power sources can be the same, that obviously does not mean that they are equal.
So it is with electricity sources, and thats the message of the six grid characteristics just
reviewed: there are BIG differences. Thats an underlying flaw in government policies pushing
wind energy, as one of the assumptions is that all electrical power sources are basically equal.
Hopefully you can now see that they are not, and that 1 MW of nuclear power (for instance)
does not equal 1 MW of wind energy (they differ in reliability, dispatchability, cost, etc.).
In other words: 1 MW 1 MW!
john droz, jr.
In addition to grid deficiencies, there are numerous other
legitimate concerns about industrial wind energy, like:
> bird and bat mortality,
> noise intrusions,
> flicker effect,
> other health issues,
> visual pollution,
> property devaluation,
> ice throws,
> decommissioning, etc., etc.
But what if they were fixed?
Would Industrial Wind Energy then be OK?
john droz, jr.

Lets assume that the number one concern of your town
is the health and welfare of all of its citizens.
To address some of the Wind Energy problems just mentioned

(noise intrusion, flicker effect, health issues, etc.),
your town requires that all turbines be at least one mile from any home
(developers typically propose a separation of 1000 feet).
Would Industrial Wind Energy then be OK?
john droz, jr.

NO!
Industrial Wind Energy
will not be an acceptable source
until all seven requirements are met.
As of now, Wind Energy is not a legitimate part

of any serious energy solution.
Power Pole Typical Tree Transmission Line Large Wind Turbine

(2.5 MW size) john droz, jr.
{To try to diffuse its numerous limitations, wind energy proponents
usually say that these problems will be fixed in the future.}
When Wind Energy proponents say: maana,
the appropriate
response is:
Then come back

maana when
everything is
worked out.
john droz, jr.

A good example of getting away from the Science
is the Renewable Portfolio Standard:
RPS
In effect, this arbitrary and artificial Political mandate
forces utilities to use wind energy
even though it does not materially benefit

1) the Electrical Grid, 2) the Environment, or 3) Tax & Rate Payers.
It does however, materially benefit lobbyists

and the multi-national companies that employ them.
john droz, jr.

*
The Financial Benefits Purported
to Result from an RPS:
1 - Economic Development
2 - Price (Rate) Suppression
3 - Environmental
[As the following pages explain, these are mostly an illusion.]
john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior RPS Benefits Slide (Part 1)
We will use NYS as an example, as their experiences are fairly typical. In late 2008 two consulting firms (Summit Blue and KEMA) were hired to
analyze different aspects of the NYS RPS program. Both of these firms are closely aligned with the renewable industry, so their ability (and
interest) to perform a critical analysis of the RPS program immediately comes into question, so keep that in mind.
(To read these lengthy reports see the PDF versions at <<http://tinyurl.com/pmynab>> and <<http://tinyurl.com/qxp9yv>.)
Despite the almost 700 pages of technical jargon, for all practical purposes the bottom line is found on page 52 (5-19), Table 16 of the KEMA
report. This summarizes both reports conclusions, that it is their contention that the RPS results in three economic returns to NYS (over a 24
year period): 1) general economic benefits [e.g. employment related; they call this GSP], 2) price suppression of electricity costs, and
3) environmental [e.g. CO2 reductions].
Remember that the number one reason for imposing the RPS on the citizens of NYS is item #3 in the reports above: Environmental. So what
do these reports say about the environmental value of the NYS RPS?
When adding up all the projected benefits to NYS citizens (see Table 16), the environmental part amounts to about .00005 of the total! Thats
1/20,000 [This is consistent with independent analyses of low emission savings: <<http://tinyurl.com/n3cdx9>>.]
So carefully think about this key conclusion of the pro-wind consultants hired to assess the financial benefits of NYSs RPS program:
the main reason for doing the RPS will result in a projected benefit of $129,000 at a NYS cost of $500,000,000.
Continuing on, item 2 (price suppression) was reported to account for 72% (over 2 billion dollars) of the economic benefits of the NYS RPS.
But how valid is that? Heres a key thought: to assess the benefits of forcing renewable energies on NYS citizens, an accurate calculation should
be based on comparing the cost and benefits of:
1) adding a certain amount of renewable energy sources vs 2) adding equivalent generation of the best conventional energy sources.
That is NOT what was done in these reports!
So if we wade through the data used to come up with the price suppression amounts, and this time add an equivalent amount of nuclear
power generation (instead of the renewables generation used in the report), what price suppression is there from the renewables option?
The answer is ZERO! (See our slides 105 through 107 for a more detailed explanation of this.)
continued
john droz, jr.
* An Explanation of the Prior RPS Benefits Slide (Part 2)
We are working up the ladder, so we can now look at item #1: general economic benefits. These are reported to account for about 28% of the
total supposed NYS RPS financial returns.
The primary basis for this calculation is a computer model called JEDI. This software program came about as a way to quantify the benefits of
adding wind power. This was never intended to be a comprehensive, independent tool to objectively look at real economic effects for
adding new energy sources. Its more about justifying wind power promotion.
This computer model has several favorable assumptions built into it, plus it ignores many negative economic consequences of renewable
implementation. To get a good idea of JEDIs limitations and omissions read this critique by an independent energy expert:
<<http://tinyurl.com/mwdfse>>. And there are additional JEDI limitations that have come to the surface since his report was released!
An an example, there have been numerous independent studies that have challenged the green jobs political assertions made by promoters of
renewable energies. (None of these considerations are adequately dealt with by JEDI.) Here is a small sample:
1 -<<http://tinyurl.com/cpmwrj>> 3 -<<http://tinyurl.com/dhlvm5>
2 -<<http://tinyurl.com/cb2u7w>> 4 -<<http://tinyurl.com/lt9ero>>
When taking this all into account, the general economic benefits to NYS citizens is likely to be ZERO. (Some contend that it is negative.)
This is a citizen-based presentation, so we have purposely done a quick overview here. Our basic premise is that to accurately assess a
complicated program like the NYS RPS, only competent consultants who have no financial stake in the outcome should be hired to evaluate
it and they should be instructed to use conservative assumptions.
That is not the case with Summit Blue and KEMA, as they both have a stake in the success of renewable energies, and do not appear to have
been given instructions to be conservative. So the observations we made above should come as no surprise. It appears these reports have been
initiated with the intent of justifying the RPS not to do a conservatively critical examination of its true costs and benefits.
{Note: Due to the several links on this and the prior slide, they are only found here, on these pages, not in the References at the end.}
john droz, jr.

With the NYS RPS, 72% of the benefits
are supposed to be due to price suppression,
so lets look closer at that...
The first non-intuitive fact you have to grasp
is this: the suppliers of electricity each
submit a bid (their cost + profit) for
providing a certain amount of electricity
(MW), over a defined time period.
[See graph for those typical amounts.]
What happens, though, is that
THEY ALL GET PAID THE AMOUNT
OF THE HIGHEST BID UTILIZED!
(In this example it is $80/MWh.)
This is yet another reason why wind power
is exceptionally profitable.
Here is figure 44 from the Summit report john droz, jr.
More on price suppression #2...
The savings calculation is based on an

assumption: if there is 500 MW of added
wind power, then that would shift the lower
part of the supply curve to the right
(see graph), and maybe result in
a lower cost across the board.
In this example it does change the cost
from $80/MWh to $60/MWh.
So is this a true savings
from adding wind power?

More on price suppression #3...
Their chart also demonstrates another fact:

ANY NEW LOW COST SUPPLY THAT
PROVIDES AN EXTRA 500 MW
WOULD ALSO SHIFT THE CURVE TO
THE RIGHT! (See graph.)
Go back to Summit figure 44 and youll see
that adding 500 MW of Nuclear will
provide the exact same price suppression.
So the REAL question is this:
does wind energy provide price suppression
compared to Nuclear power?
The answer is NO.
Summary
The Financial Benefits from an RPS:
1 - Economic Development very little
2 - Price (Rate) Suppression zero
3 - Environmental tiny
These conclusions are based on NY states own analysis!
To get these Benefits NYS is spending

something like Two Billion Dollars...
john droz, jr.

What IS a Renewable Anyway?
An energy resource that is replaced in a reasonable amount of time.
Who is to say what is a reasonable amount of time?

10 years?
100 years?
1000 years?
Some experts believe that we have

2500 years of nuclear fuel available.
Yet most politicians and environmentalists
arbitrarily choose not to call nuclear a renewable...
john droz, jr.

On The Other Hand Consider This:
Large amounts of LAND are a necessary element
of industrial wind energy generation.
But land is NOT replaced in a reasonable amount of time.
In the US we will run out of suitable land for industrial wind energy
before we run out of any fossil fuels used for electricity!
Shouldnt the whole package qualify

before a source is labelled as renewable?
john droz, jr.
So Which is the True Renewable:
Wind Energy
or
Nuclear Power?
john droz, jr.

Two Nineteenth Century Technologies *
john droz, jr.

Ref http://tinyurl.com/lfw32c
RPS is Like Forcing 20% of our Cargo Ships *
to Revert to Being Wind Powered Ships
john droz, jr.

RPS is Like Forcing 20% of our Automobiles *
to Revert to Being Horse Drawn Vehicles
john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior three RPS Analogy Slides
An electrical energy RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard) makes about as much sense as would
an edict mandating that a large percentage of our commercial shipping fleet must be operated
by wind energy in a few years. Consider the enormous consequences of that.
For instance, it might take a 1000 clipper ships to carry the same load as a modern cargo
vessel. (Interestingly this is quite similar to the relationship between wind turbines and nuclear
power so you might look at the modern cargo ship as a nuclear power facility.)
Because of the unattractive implications wind energy would have on the shipping business,
many customers would take their business elsewhere. The result of this would be that airlines,
railroads and trucking would ramp up their operations to account for increased traffic. All that
would mean much more fossil fuel used by those sources. Etc., etc.
So shipping costs would go up significantly, efficiency would go down, and thered be little if any
environmental benefit. The exact same thing can be said of the electrical RPS: high cost,
miniscule benefit, and numerous other problems caused.
The same analogy applies for mandating that some cars be replaced by horse drawn vehicles.
john droz, jr.
Our Electrical Power Choices are
1: a 1 GW Nuclear Facility
OR
2: a 1 GW Wind Power Project
+ a 1 GW Gas (low efficiency) Facility
Lowest Total Cost = #1

Lowest KWH Rate = #1
Lowest CO2 Emissions = #1
Least Transmission Lines = #1
SCORECARD: Least Environmental Harm = #1
Least Human Harm = #1
Most Compact = #1
Most Renewable = #1
Fastest Online = #2
Does this sound like a
Wise National Electrical Energy Policy?
1 - Spend something like a Trillion dollars,

2 - Increase utility rates substantially,
3 - Cover 100,000++ acres of land with wind turbines,
4 - Have a thousand+ miles of new transmission lines, and
5 - Cause numerous hardships to humans and the environment.
Net Benefit: Save 2% CO2
By promoting Wind Energy, this is the path we are currently on...

john droz, jr.
In a picture is worth a thousand words department:
AAll
Solution for
you want to Every
know Problem
about NOT!
Cap & Trade
1-Wind is unreliable 1-Back it up with fossil fuel sources
2-Wind is unpredictable 2-Have massive redundancy
3-Wind is uncontrollable 3-Change demand to accommodate the wind
4-Wind is very expensive 4-Make conventional sources more costly
5-Wind doesnt save very 5-Sell wind instead as a source of economic
much CO2 development
6-Wind causes human health 6-Who cares? Its just a few complainers in
problems some rural areas
7-No utility wants wind 7-Mandate wind with a RPS
etc., etc. etc., etc.
This is what happens when politicians support

lobbyists driven solutions rather than scientific ones.
{New York is used as an example here
but similar results are happening
in many other states and provinces...}
Wind Energy is NOT inevitable!
Taking NYS as an example,

quite a few communities there
have been successful at fighting this assault.
To name some: Albion Allegheny Andes Beekmantown Bethany Bovina Brandon

Bristol Canadice Castile Centerville Cherry Valley Ellenburg Gaines Gainesville
Gorham Hartsville Henderson Howard Lyme Malone Meredith Naples Oakfield
Pavilion Plattsburgh Prattsburgh Sardinia Sheldon South Bristol Springwater
Stafford Stamford Stark Tioga Warren Warsaw Westfield ...
john droz, jr.
Ralph Nadar coined a famous phrase:
that Corvairs were
Unsafe at ANY Speed.
john droz, jr.

The Scientific Evidence says that
Industrial Wind Energy is
Unsatisfactory in ANY setting.
john droz, jr.

Does wind energys abysmal failure
mean that all renewables are similarly poor?
NO!
Each new alternative power source needs to be
objectively evaluated, independently
i.e. using Scientific Methodology.
From scientific literature (e.g. MITs 2007 report)

industrial Geothermal holds significant promise.
john droz, jr.

An example of how
Industrial Geothermal works.
A working
Industrial Geothermal generator.
Fact: The earths magma is hotter than the surface of the Sun!
Fact: Industrial Geothermal can be located almost anywhere.
Fact: In 2007, Industrial Geothermal produced as much U.S.
electricity as Wind Energy did! john droz, jr.
In a picture is worth a thousand words department:
All you want to know about Cap & Trade
john droz, jr.

The Basics of a Solution...
1 - Set up an Energy FDA. (See EEA article at WindPowerFacts.Info)
[This would assure that for any alternative power source to be an acceptable new option,
it would need independent & objective scientific testing to verify that it was technologically,
economically and environmentally sound and at least equal to conventional sources.]
2 - Only give Federal & State subsidies to technologies that pass the
Energy FDA. (We would save about 75% of what is scheduled now.)
3 - Use 90% of what we do spend on improving the conventional
sources that already work (e.g. by reducing their pollutants). This
would include promoting nuclear power, worldwide.
4 - Use the rest to explore new options like increasing delivered
efficiency, improving motor efficiencies, etc. Citizens, businesses
& the utility industry must get serious about minimizing waste.
john droz, jr.

2007 U.S. Electricity Flow *
Showing Delivered Efficiency
(Quadrillion Btu/Year)
(which includes Hydro)

*
*
* An Explanation of the Prior Three Delivered Efficiency Slides
One example of these ideas is to look closer at whats called delivered efficiency. The fact is
that in the US only about a third of the original energy at a power plant makes it to the end
user. Thats a lot of waste!
What that says is that this area has the potential for substantial improvements. It also says
that meaningful reductions of these losses could not only save us the huge cost of building new
facilities, but actually allow us to close coal facilities something that wind energy does not do.
The second slide is another representation of delivered efficiency. (Slides two and three in this
set are courtesy of Tom Casten.)
A very interesting fact that Mr. Casten shows in the third slide is that this relatively low
efficiency rate of delivered electricity has not improved in over fifty years! Considering all the
technological advances that have occurred during this time, this is indeed surprising.
He has several ideas about improving efficiency, like doing such things as recycling waste heat,
and changing archaic regulations. Youll have to read his reports to see the details, but his
calculations show that by doing these the US could reduce its CO2 emissions by some 20%.
This is 10 times the amount that wind energy will do!
john droz, jr.
An Example of a Creative Solution:
Mini-Nuclear
Some Advantages:
Reliable
Dispatchable
24/7 Base Load
Compact
Economical
Very Safe
No CO2 Emissions
1 unit = 20,000 homes
No Transmission Lines
{e.g. NuScale, Toshiba}
john droz, jr.
Another Potential Solution:
65% of all electricity used in the US is from motors
Typical electric motors are only 50-60% efficient
Making these motors more efficient,
would save enormous amounts of electricity
Example: Trezium
Costs more to begin with, but
Reduces electricity loss by up to half
Weighs half as much for the same output
Is more reliable and more durable
Runs safer and quieter
Has less lifetime maintenance
john droz, jr.

We Need To Understand & Apply
EXERGY
(Absolute Energy Efficiency)
Energy Sources should be matched to Energy Tasks
in most cases today

we are using a chainsaw to cut butter
john droz, jr.

Still More Examples of Potential Solutions:
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)
(An unlimited supply of economic fuel.)
High Temp Gas Cooled Reactors (HTGR)

(MIT: Safest nuclear plant every built.)
Magnetic Power
(MPI: Self-contained, pollution free, electric power generation technologies
that operate continuously without fuel.)
Fuel Cell
(E.g. BloomBox is being used by several major companies.)
Orion Project
(Proposing a variety of innovative energy solutions.)
john droz, jr.

Critical Thinking
Non-Science
= Non-Sense
john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Following Twelve Marketing Slides
As I stated in the beginning, one of my main purposes here is to encourage you to do Critical
Thinking on this very important technical, financial and environmental matter. Once you start
such thinking youll soon realize that non-Scientific solutions (for example, political solutions
like RPS) are non-Sense. So we are going to end on that theme.
Because of the enormous amounts of money involved, we are arrayed against some very
formidable forces and the last thing they want, is for you to do Critical Thinking.
To sell wind energy to you, theyve hired Madison Ave marketers to pull out all the stops. And
indeed they are doing just that.
At last count profiteers have employed no less than SEVEN different marketing techniques
against us. The message here is that the best defense against these is to use Critical Thinking.
On the following slides Ill reveal some of the more frequent marketing tactics being used, and
identify the appropriate response.
john droz, jr.

*
Their Sales Strategy: Social Marketing
(to make us think that their product is good for society)
e.g. Industrial Wind Energy is Free, Clean, & Green.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Defense: Critical Thinking.

After you check it out youll see that
Wind Energy electricity is not really Free, Clean, or Green.
john droz, jr.

*
Their Sales Strategy: Greenwashing
(a business tries to make themselves look more
environmentally friendly than they really are)
e.g. Wind Energy is good for the environment.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Wind Energy is a blight on the environment.
john droz, jr.

The manufacture and delivery
of the concrete in EACH wind turbine base
*
produces over 250,000 pounds of CO2.
Thats the weight of over nine empty 18-wheelers...

john droz, jr.
*
Their Sales Strategy: Confuse Us
(to take advantage of our lack of knowledge about their product
by connecting it with current prevalent public concerns)
e.g. Industrial Wind Energy reduces our dependence on foreign oil.
------------------------------------------------------------------

there is no real connection between Wind Energy and foreign oil.
john droz, jr.

*
Their Sales Strategy: Sleight of Hand
(to take advantage of our belief that something should be done,
they morph this into a position that anything should be done)
e.g. Industrial Wind Energy should be part of our energy strategy.
------------------------------------------------------------------

After you investigate the situation youll be asking
why should something with trivial benefits, high cost, and

is environmentally destructive, be part of any solution?
john droz, jr.

*
While your house is burning down, a helpful profiteer arrives

with some cases of bottled water. He offers to sell bottles to you,
as a partial solution, at $50 each. Since the water came from
a local retailer, he says its promoting economic development!
john droz, jr.
*
While the planet is burning up, helpful profiteers arrive

with a portfolio of wind turbines. They offer to sell these to us,
as a partial solution, at Trillions of $. Since a tiny amount of this will
stay in the community, they say its promoting economic development!
john droz, jr.
*
Their Sales Strategy: Reality Distortion
(to phrase matters in an inaccurate perspective)
e.g. Nuclear power plants could be targets of terrorists.
------------------------------------------------------------------

this is an extraordinarily low possibility.
john droz, jr.

*
Their Sales Strategy: Make You AFRAID
(to push some hot button that instills in you some fear)
e.g. Transporting nuclear power waste is extremely dangerous.
------------------------------------------------------------------

this transportation is very safe.
john droz, jr.

*
Head on Crash Test

of Truck with Nuclear Fuel Container
(Part of a series of extensive tests performed by Sandia Labs)
john droz, jr.
*
Side on Crash Test

of Truck with Nuclear Fuel Container
(Part of a series of extensive tests performed by Sandia Labs)
john droz, jr.
Another case of manufacturing Fear.
Which item gives off more radioactivity:
A truckload of bananas, or
a truck carrying nuclear waste?
(See <<http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm>>)
*
Their Sales Strategy: Manufacture Science
(to create the impression there is credibility to their claims)
e.g. DOE report about 20% wind power in 2030.
------------------------------------------------------------------

After you check it out youll recall that
we dont want studies by scientists, but rather scientific studies

(this DOE document is nothing more than AWEA propaganda.)
john droz, jr.

* An Explanation of the Prior Manufactured Science Slide
The very essence of science is under a frontal assault by these profiteers, who realize that their scheme needs the
appearance of scientific support. Since it isnt there legitimately, they simply make it up. The key ingredient of their
campaign is a disavowal of the scientific method and a substitution of scientific consensus.
Consensus science does not simply refer to a theory which has the endorsement of the majority of scientists (e.g.
the sun is the center of the solar system), but rather to a theory in which the consensus of scientists is given as the
primary evidence of the argument. [Of course no legitimate poll has ever been taken of all qualified scientists, so
even the idea of a consensus is speculative. In any case, science is never determined by a vote.]
[One who believes that a theory is supported by both: 1) scientific consensus and 2) conclusive empirical
evidence, would not consider it "consensus science," because this would be the far inferior confirmation.]
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels. It is a way to avoid debate by claiming
that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other,
reach for your wallet, because youre being had.
Lets be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of
politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or
she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. Consensus is irrelevant: what is relevant is
reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Michael Crichton January 17, 2003: speech at the California Institute of Technology john droz, jr.
*
in the live presentation
i then show a
WeCanSolveIt ad.*
In the live Q&A we go over
how EVERYTHING in the
ad is false or misleading.
*reference credits
john droz, jr.

As a LONG TIME Environmental Advocate,
I can say that this environmentalism
has simply gotten out of control...
This is the logical next step
for this scandalous situation...
john droz, jr.

Be
very wary
of
Pied Piper Profiteer$ john droz, jr.

The Wind Project Developer has ONE Objective:
to squeeze the Town & the Leaseholders
for EVERYTHING he can get out of them.
The Wind Project Developer has ONE Objective:
to squeeze the Town & the Leaseholders
for EVERYTHING he can get out of them.
You can be 100% sure of one thing:
he is not your partner, or your friend!
Remember What Your Dad Said:
Theres No Free Lunch!
Dont Take The Bait
john droz, jr.

{The message here is that we have two
choices to solve our serious energy issues:
#1-get educated and apply science...}
y
rg
ne
Sc
lE
ien
ica
ce
ctr
Ele
Informed Citizens
john droz, jr.
{or #2-...}
john droz, jr.

Relevant Carl Sagan Quotes To Ponder
1 - We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly

anyone knows anything about science and technology.
2 - I am often amazed at how much more capability and enthusiasm for science there is
among elementary school youngsters than among college students.
3 - We have arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This
is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later
this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
john droz, jr.

Sound Scientific Solutions
is the Umbrella position that covers
ALL important concerns:
TECHNICAL ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL

(e.g. reliability (e.g. taxpayer cost, (e.g. CO2 savings,
dispatchability, ratepayer costs) noise, flicker,
other Grid birds & bats,
limitations) other health effects)
john droz, jr.

john droz, jr.
NOT!
WindPowerFacts.Info
Thank You! john droz, jr.

References (for main data, quotes, etc.)
Slide 7: Galileo quote - Galileo Scientific (www.quotationspage.com/quote/310.html)
Slide 8: Critical Thinking - several sources, e.g. (www.criticalthinking.org/about/mission.cfm)
Slide 9: GroupThink - several sources, e.g. (www.cedu.niu.edu/~fulmer/groupthink.htm)
Slide 19: Scientific Methodology - several sources, e.g. (teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html)
Slide 25: John Kenneth Galbraith - (www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnkennet125404.html)
Slide 26: Ann Rice - (www.annerice.com/Bookshelf-VampireLestat.html)
Slide 27: Cognitive Dissonance - (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)
Slide 31: Discussion of various capacities (www.peakoilandhumanity.com/Further_reading_folder/why_wind_wont_work.htm)
Slide 33: Fuel Sources - DOE/EIA Report (10/08/08): Table 7d (tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/STEO_Query/steotables.cfm)
Slide 44: Land use comparison - several sources, e.g. Ausubel (phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/appeaausubel12april.pdf)
Slide 45: Reliability - several sources, e.g. (ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v36y2008i8p3202-3215.html)
Slide 46: EonNetz: daily production (12/17/08) - (tinyurl.com/9zcl4x)
Slide 46: EonNetz: wind energy weekly output for a Year (tinyurl.com/9b7qbg)
Slide 47: Ontario Wind Output for sample month (www.northnet.org/brvmug/WindPower/EPReview.pdf)
Slides 48 & 59: BPA Live Data (www.transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx)
Slide 61: Transmission Lines (www.powermag.com/issues/cover_stories/168_p3.html) & (nytimes.com/2009/03/07/opinion/07bowles.html?_r=1)
Slide 69: EMFs - several sources, e.g. (infoventures.com/emf/federal/dot/wh-pap95.html)
Slide 69: The truth about the Smart Grid (http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/34857)
Slide 72: Power Sources Total Cost (https://oa.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/39685/isbn9789522145888.pdf)
Slide 74: Federal Subsidies - EIA 2007 Report (chapter 5) (www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/index.html)
Slide 75 & 76: State Wind Energy Subsidies, etc. (www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1837)
Slide 76: Developer Profit & Oil Company Tax Shelter (PDF) (www.fastcompany.com/node/849689/print) & (tinyurl.com/alfm8x)
Slides 78 & 79: IEA 2007 World Energy Statistics (http://tinyurl.com/bwx9pl) + data sent from IEA
Slide 81: NAS Wind Energy Study - 2007 (www.nap.edu/nap-cgi/report.cgi?record_id=11935&type=pdfxsum)
Slide 81: EIA Congressional Report - 2002 (tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/service/sroiaf(2002)03.pdf)
Slide 81: EIA Congressional Report - 2007 (tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/service/sroiaf(2007)03.pdf)
Slide 86: Global CO2 Sources - several sources, e.g. (tinyurl.com/m3zxs) & (tinyurl.com/gtp6z); CO2 Sinks (www.whrc.org/carbon/missingc.htm).
Slide 89: Worldwide CO2 Reductions since 1973 (www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/nuclear.htm)
Slide 90: US Historical Transportation Mileage - DOT (www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/summary95/vm201.pdf)
Slide 90: US Historical Electricity Usage - EIA (www.eia.doe.gov/aer/pdf/pages/sec8_5.pdf)
Slide 90: Global & US Past CO2 Emissions - CDIAC (cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html)
Slide 93: Hansen Predictions abut CO2 - (www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/)
Slide 93: Global & US Projected CO2 Emissions - EIA (www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html)
continued john droz, jr.
References (for main data, quotes, etc.)
Slide 97: For example, see EIA data (www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/flash.html); www.factsonfuel.org/gasoline/index.html)
Slide 101: NOAA regarding Greenhouse Gases (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html#wv)
Slide 102: Greenhouse Gases: man-made (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)
Slide 103: Capacity Values - several sources, e.g. (tinyurl.com/847x9k)
Slide 104: Wind Energy cost - several sources, e.g. (tinyurl.com/9lyukv)
Slide 115: States with RPS (apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/maps/renewable_portfolio_states.cfm)
Slide 115: RPS critique (www.eba-net.org/docs/elj291/national_renewable_portfolio_standard.pdf)
Slide 123: Nuclear as Renewable (www.nei.org/howitworks/nuclearpowerplantfuel/) & (www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html)
Slide 136: MIT Geothermal Report (web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html)
Slide 139: Open letter to Congress (www.ntu.org/main/letters_detail.php?letter_id=538)
Slide 139: American Society of Physicists (APS) - Future Energy Report (aps.org/energyefficiencyreport/index.cfm)
Slide 140: Dr. Charles Wyman "Energy Use and Options for a Sustainable Future" (1/07/09)
Slides 141 & 142: Tom Casten/RED (www.chpcenterpr.org/wasteheat2power07/PDF/TCasten%20presentation.pdf)
Slide 144: Mini-nuclear - several sources, e.g. (www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/); (www.nuscalepower.com/)
Slide 145: Trezium motors - Thor Power (www.thor-power.com/technique/trezium-system/)
Slide 146: Discussion of Exergy (tinyurl.com/96vbl2)
Slide 147: Liquid Floride Thorium Reactor - LFTR (www.energyfromthorium.com/)
Slide 147: High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors - HTGR (nextbigfuture.com/2008/06/worlds-first-commercial-high.html)
Slide 147: Magnetic Power (www.magneticpowerinc.com/summary.html)
Slide 147: Orion Project (www.theorionproject.org/en/vision.html)
Slide 150: Social Marketing - several sources, e.g. (www.social-marketing.org/sm.html)
Slide 151: Greenwashing - several sources, e.g. (www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Greenwashing)
Slide 153: CO2 of Turbine base - data based calculation, e.g. (www.p2pays.org/ref/22/21845.pdf) & (http://tinyurl.com/cpp33t)
Slide 157: Nuclear Power and Terrorism - Science Magazine (tinyurl.com/7awpfn)
Slide 162: Manufactured Science - DOE + AWEA = DOA (www.northnet.org/brvmug/WindPower/DOECritique.pdf)
Other unattributed observations are the result of private research.
Credits (for graphics, photos & videos)

Slide 1: Philip Epp painting - Wild Horses (www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/OFR/2006/OFR06_11/index.html)
Slide 5: Scientist drawing - GlobalMoxie (globalmoxie.com/index.shtml)
Slide 7: Galileo picture - Galileo Scientific (www.galileoscientific.com)
Slide 8: Rodin The Thinker - (upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/The_Thinker_Musee_Rodin.jpg)
continued
john droz, jr.
Credits (for graphics, photos & videos)
Slide 9: Josh Neuman painting - Lemmings (www.SurrealArt.com)
Slide 17: Science Lab - (teacherweb.craven.k12.nc.us/TPE/specials/images/7A6FFA731C634321AE6594D79F5B9D2F.jpg)
Slide 20: Mega Signs painting - Mike Ringer (www.michaelringer.com/)
Slides 23 & 24: Field and Believe slides - Lebensweisheiten PowerPoint slides
Slide 27: UFO - (www.calvinbeck.com/pictures/ufo.jpg)
Slide 29: Edison Utility photo - Open Learn (openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=209153)
Slide 35: Magnifying Glass - Keynote Jam (www.jumsoft.com/jam/)
Slide 36: Continent Clouds - (fennerschool.anu.edu.au/studying/postgrad/environment/fenner_clouds.jpg)
Slide 37: Tornado - (tinyurl.com/87s9sgg)
Slide 38: NYS Interstate 87 - (www.interstate-guide.com/images501/i-587_ny_wt_10.jpg)
Slide 44: Nuclear Power photo - Diablo Canyon (www.zimfamilycockers.com/DiabloCanyon.html)
Slide 49: Windmobile photo - (www.camdev.org/images/Wind%20Pix/P5010046.jpg)
Slide 68: Transmission Towers photo - VNF (www.vnf.com/assets/htmlimages/Electric_transmission_lines.resize.jpg)
Slide 106, 107, 108: Blackboard - (www.koolman.com/images/blackboard.jpg)
Slide 113: Wind Turbines in perspective photo - (www.ckwag.org/photos/issues/TurbineSize.jpg)
Slide 137: How Geothermal Works - REUK (www.reuk.co.uk/OtherImages/geothermalIllust.gif)
Slide 137: Sample Geothermal Utility - NREL (www.sdrafvc.org/IMAGES/photos/geothermal.jpg)
Slide 144: Mini-Nuclear - Hyperion (www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/)
Slide 148: Stick Figure w Question Mark - (www.dailygalaxy.com/photos/uncategorized/shutterstock_2057058.jpg)
Slide 155: House Fire - (www.ihs.gov/MedicalPrograms/PortlandInjury/otherimages/indexpic/flash/HouseFire_2.jpg)
Slide 155: Bottled Water - (www.healthline.com/blogs/diet_nutrition/uploaded_images/bottled-water-760612.jpg)
Slide 156: Global Warming Globe - (globalwarmingcause.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/fire_globe.jpg)
Slides 159 & 160: Crash Tests - Sandia Labs (Sandia.Gov/TP/Safe_Ram/Severity.htm)
Slide 164: Theater - (oygirl.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/movie-theater.jpg)
Slide 164: Repower America advertisement - WeCanSolveIt (www.wecansolveit.com/)
Slide 165: Save the Planet (flickr.com/photos/ mrssloop/1176944724/)
Slide 170: He Has Your Wallet (www.floppingaces.net/wp-content/uploads/he-has-your-wallet.jpg)
Slide 172: Triangle - (ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/A166EB14-E7FD-473F-98FB-741A9817540C/0/chp_triangle.jpg)
Slide 172: Sun - (www.swpc.noaa.gov/primer/primer_graphics/Sun.png)
Slide 173: Three Monkees - (johnfenzel.typepad.com/john_fenzels_blog/images/2007/03/14/the3monkeys.jpg)
John Terry cartoons (www.windtoons.com/) [my ideas]: Slides #75, #105, #114, #167, #176
Other unidentified graphics & photos are mine... Stock Photos: Slides #6, #18 & 19, #42, #51, #83, #107, #119, #126-128, #134, #135, #152, and #177.
john droz, jr.
John Droz, jr. is a physicist and has been an environmental activist for over 25 years. Currently he is a
leading individual on four New York statewide issues (electrical energy, water extraction, water quality,
and property taxes).
He received undergraduate degrees in physics and mathematics from Boston College, and a graduate
degree in physics from Syracuse University. He is a participating member of several environmental
organizations (like the Adirondack Council, AfPA, RCPA, and Sierra Club). Due to his love of nature, he
lives on a lake in the Adirondacks of upstate NY.
These areas of interest and expertise (science & environmentalism) have merged with his focus on energy
matters, especially wind energy. Johns basic position is that we should be taking aggressive measures to
solve our energy and pollution issues, and should not be wasting time and money on illusionary solutions
which are primarily promoted by those with vested financial interests in them.
This slide presentation is copyrighted and is for personal use only. Any reproduction, quoting, referencing,
or other use of this material is prohibited without the authors express written consent.
Substantial time and effort was exerted to ascertain the veracity of the material in this presentation. As
such, all information is believed to be accurate, but is not guaranteed. If errors are noted, please email John
the scientific evidence of same and a correction will be made.
For questions, comments or permission to use any material in this presentation, please email Mr. Droz at:
aaprjohn@northnet.org
john droz, jr.

Energypresentationkey 1232055654596752 2

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Energypresentationkey 1232055654596752 2

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Electrical Energy,

6/12/10 john droz, jr.

Click the FULL icon

Instead, use your keyboard arrow keys

This will allow you

john droz, jr.

{Please remember that Im just a backwoods scientist not a professional communicator.}

john droz, jr.

One of the key ingredients of true science and critical thinking is

RCPA - Residents Committee to Protect the Adirondacks

john droz, jr.

john droz, jr.

This view is looking across the lake (about one mile).

john droz, jr.

{This is a real world, local example of what happens

john droz, jr.

john droz, jr.

There are no Wind Energy projects

being proposed for my community,

so Wind Energy is NOT a NIMBY issue for me.

john droz, jr.

By this I mean that:

john droz, jr.

When a new idea is proposed as a potential solution to a problem,

In the case of Wind Energy,

john droz, jr.

john droz, jr.

john droz, jr.

Theres no difference with wind energy.

john droz, jr.

Our Quality of Life

Should Not Be For Sale

john droz, jr.

What independent, scientific proof

john droz, jr.

john droz, jr.

In my 25+ years as an environmental activist, Ive communicated with literally tens of

john droz, jr.

Very few really seek knowledge in this world.

On the contrary, they try to justify their entrenched, unscientific

opinions, by selectively wringing from the unknown, answers to

john droz, jr.

Cognitive Dissonance is the tendency to resist information that

john droz, jr.

Edison Electric Company - 1882

* Dispatchable = can generate higher or lower amounts of power on-demand.

john droz, jr.

Capacity Value: The ability to rapidly convert a set amount of energy

{Note: Capacity VALUE is not the same as Capacity FACTOR.

john droz, jr.

Fuel Sources for US Electricity Generation in 2007

As a result, Today and a Hundred Years from now

Note: We Have ALWAYS Been Energy Independent Here!

john droz, jr.

john droz, jr.

john droz, jr.

john droz, jr.

john droz, jr.

john droz, jr.

dont even have to prove

john droz, jr.

and then how it does regarding