Wyoming and Kansas Report Wind Energy Collapsed During Cold Wave

Written by MSE Creative Consulting on January 5, 2023. Posted in Current News

Lee Boughey, a spokesperson for Tri-State Electric Generation and Transmission Association, said the nonprofit, which provides power to eight electric cooperatives across Wyoming, planned for the impacts of the storm as it approached.

That’s right: wind-generated electricity dropped by 75 percent when it was needed the most. It was reliable ‘fossil fuels’ that allowed the lights and heat to stay on.

They anticipated higher demand from member utilities in Colorado, Nebraska and Wyoming, and Tri-State prepared for wind energy resources to decline.

For safety, during extremely high winds, wind turbines will stop running and feather their blades. Icing also can cause turbines to stop running.

According to energy mix data from the Southwest Power Pool, as the storm began to move through Wyoming on Dec. 23, at 3 p.m., wind energy resources began to drop. Within 24 hours, wind energy resources were about 25 percent what they were prior to the storm.

They didn’t begin to rise again until Christmas morning.

To compensate for the decline in wind energy, Tri-State turned to its ‘fossil fuel’ and hydroelectric resources to keep the lights on.

Kansas Reports In

Kansas is the #2 state for wind power (Texas is #1). Via a column in the Wichita Eagle from James Zakoura, attorney for Kansans for Lower Electric Rates, Inc., we learned:

On December 22, the Southwest Power Pool had the highest winter day electricity demand in its history. It beat the previous record by eight percent.

“To meet the demand of of 47, 127 megawatts,

About 17,000 was provided by wind energy,
About 28,000 were provided by coal and natural gas, and,
About 2,000 were provided by nuclear.” [there are few nuclear plants in the region]

As I’ve written in several posts (scroll down), the wind calmed on the 24th and 25th. Mr Zakoura went on to write that demand dropped (due to warmer conditions) to 34,482 megawatts, of which,

Nuclear energy provided 2,000 megawatts,
Coal and natural gas provided 27,585, and
Wind energy provided just 3,061.

Put another way, wind energy — when it was needed due to single digit temperatures — dropped by 72 percent! This validates what I wrote at the time here which included a map of Kansas weather stations that showed calm or nearly calm winds across the area.

We were able to keep the lights on over Christmas weekend only because we had nuclear and ‘fossil fuels’.

My Conclusion

We can continue with magical thinking or we can get serious about the reliability of the electric grid. My recommendation: began an urgent program of installing standardized, proven nuclear power generation stations. They generate carbon-free electricity.

As far as I’m concerned, if we never install another utility-grid wind turbine, that’s fine.

I have been asked why I’m not as critical of solar as I am of wind. The reason is there could still be some technology breakthrough which allows solar to better perform than it does now.

That is not the case with wind. It fails when the wind is too light, too strong and — because it is quite complicated mechanically — it fails too often because it just breaks.

Wind energy has received tax subsidies since the Carter Administration — really! — and it still frequently fails. The tax subsidy should stop.

If we continue on our current course, the grid reliability problems that we have seen during the past week will only worsen and blackouts will increase.

See more here mikesmithenterprisesblog.com

Header image: ans.org

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (4)

Tom

January 5, 2023 at 12:54 pm | #

That’s the plan as the global green knuckleheads prepare us for caveman living.

Reply
Jerry Krause

January 5, 2023 at 3:52 pm | #

Hi PSI Readers,

Take some time and exert some effort to view the wind data (http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html) at and near the surface in the area referred to in this article. And this variability was known before one wind turbine was erected.

Hydro-electric power can be used, when available, can be used to smooth this variability. I have not studied what is available in this region but I am sure there must be some and there is no mention of it in this article.

Have a good day, Jerry

Reply
- T. C. Clark
  
  January 5, 2023 at 9:19 pm | #
  
  A dam in California is being torn down….hurts the environment according to the dictatorship in California. It all goes back to CO2….either it is a problem or not…that question must be answered in order to stop the stupid actions being taken to”save the planet” from that black evil carbon element that is trying to kill all life everywhere.
  
  Reply
Phil Inman

January 5, 2023 at 5:55 pm | #

I am repeating a comment I read recently. That being “Why even mention Carbon Free or any such make believe environmental nonsense.?” We little humans are responsible for such a tiny bit of Carbon Dioxide it is hardly detectable. Coal, gas, oil, all good. Nuclear? better except for regulations. Wood? We probably have better things to do with most of that wood. Wind? un reliable, expensive, and ugly as hell. Solar Ditto. I’m not interested in any tax dollars sustaining a technology just cuz some day it might be better. If it is more expensive than coal, get rid of it til it does become competitive. Please.

Reply