USATODAY.com - Just because it's 'green' doesn't mean = it's smart

How do I find=20 it?

Most=20 popular on site | Subscribe to=20 paper

=20

Home

News

Travel =

Money =

Sports =

Life

Tech

Weather

Cyberspeak

S= hopping Buy=20 a Car

Job=20 Search

Online=20 Dating

Real=20 Estate

E-mail features

What's=20 this?

E-mail=20 newsletters
Sign up = to receive=20 our free Tech e-newsletter and get the top news of the day = in your=20 inbox.

E-mail
Select = one: =20 HTML Text =

Breaking news = E-mail alerts=20
Get breaking news in = your inbox=20 as it happens =

Just because it's 'green' = doesn't mean=20 it's = smart

Posted=20 5/11/2006 12:11 PM = ET

E-mail=20 | Save=20 | Print=20 |

swapContent('firstHeader','applyHeader');

When it comes to energy, I'm a big = believer in some=20 things that make me enemies. I believe in alternative fuels = because it's=20 just plain stupid to be as dependent as we are on oil. Solar, = nukes, wind,=20 hydro, biodiesel, what have you =97 we need to look and use all of = them.

I don't believe in conservation as public = policy,=20 though. I think it's great if you do it to save money or help keep = the=20 Earth clean (I certainly do), but I think that the better = long-term=20 solution is to find more energy, not to use less.

I think we should get away from the idea of = a=20 dangerously unstable giant electric grid and focus on local power = =97 as=20 local as possible, down to the individual-home level.

I think there should be huge tax rebates = for=20 installing solar panels or windmills or other clean energy sources = that=20 reduce your dependence on the grid. I think we need to design and = develop=20 more nuclear plants based on safer designs. (And yes, I believe = there can=20 be safe nukes.) And I think trying to create a hydrogen-based = energy=20 economy is a stupid idea.

See? Chances are you hate me and want to = write to=20 tell me how wrong I am. Feel = free.

What drives me nuts, though, are ideas that = sound smart and green, but in reality are not. They take = our focus=20 away from the real ways to get more, cleaner, renewable energy = before it's=20 too late.

Corn-based ethanol is one of those things, = but I've written about it before. The cost in fuel, = water,=20 time, and chemicals to grow and harvest the corn, then turn it = into=20 ethanol wipes out any benefit it provides. (There's more hope for=20 biodiesel and sugar-beet ethanol, but that's another story.)

Then there's wind. Conventional wisdom = seems to think=20 that wind energy is clean and cheap, although it poses a host of = problems=20 for birds and bats. To be productive, the windmills need to be = located in=20 windy areas (duh), but that's just where birds tend to migrate=20 through.

But there are bigger problems with wind = energy than=20 simply dead birds or ruined scenery.

Say watt?

First off, when a company is looking to = install a=20 wind farm, it tends to talk about it in terms of megawatts =97 the = amount of=20 energy it can produce. The rule of thumb the energy industry uses = is that=20 producing 1 MW continuously could provide electricity for about = 1000=20 homes.

Three key words from that paragraph: "can = produce"=20 and "continuously."

If someone speaks of a 50-MW wind farm, = he's talking=20 about what's called nameplate capacity meaning the amount = of energy=20 it can produce =97 not the amount it will always generate. (Yes, = physics=20 folks, I know. It doesn't "produce" energy. It just transfers it = from one=20 form to another.)

So if a company says it's going to built a = 50-MW wind=20 farm in your town, and the local paper says "50 megawatts is = enough energy=20 to power 50,000 homes," that's only if A) the wind is always = blowing, or=20 B) those homes don't need electricity all the time.

In reality, a wind farm will only generate = a fraction=20 of its nameplate capacity. In some places, the wind might only = blow enough=20 30% of the time. At that point the farm might produce 50 MW. Other = times=85=20 not so much.

To understand why this is a bigger problem, = think of=20 it on a small scale. Let's say you had a windmill generating = electricity=20 for your home. When the wind is blowing, all is well, but when it = stopped=20 you would need to supplement it.

You would also need to get that = supplemental power=20 source running on virtually a moment's notice, and most power = plants can't=20 ramp up very quickly. One that can is one powered by natural gas. = And=20 natural gas is one of the most expensive ways to generate = electricity.=20

On the larger scale, if you add a lot of=20 wind-generated electricity to the grid, that's great=85 if the = wind blows.=20 But the peak month for electricity usage is August, which just = happens to=20 be the month when the wind doesn't blow. So the inexpensive = electricity=20 poured into the grid is offset by the expensive natural gas that = needs to=20 supplement it =97 the industry phrase is "maintain the base = capacity."

So green isn't always green.

One big happy grid

Besides the thought of cheap, green energy = added to=20 the system, many people like the idea of having a wind farm in = their=20 region because they think it will bring economic benefits. = Unfortunately,=20 it probably won't.

First of all, if a wind farm goes up in = your town it=20 doesn't mean that you'll get your power from it. Not at all. The=20 electricity it generates wouldn't come to your home; it goes into = the=20 grid. The company that owns the generators can sell the = electricity to=20 buyers anywhere on the grid.

No generator supplies a specific company; = the entire=20 region shares a single pool that gets its electricity from all = sorts of=20 producers, green and otherwise.

Think of it as a lake. Various springs pour = water=20 into it, and people take water out of it. It's meaningless to ask = where=20 that glass you're drinking comes from; it's a single source. So = too with=20 electricity.

As Ray Dotter, a spokesman for PJM, the = organization=20 that manages the electric grid for much of the Northeast and = Mid-Atlantic,=20 told me, "You just measure how much someone puts in and how much = someone=20 takes out. The rest is just bookkeeping."

So from an economic standpoint, having a = local wind=20 farm means little. It's like having a factory in town that employs = only a=20 handful of people and then ships its products other places. Local = benefit:=20 virtually nil.

Which gets back to my feeling up top: Local = energy=20 through smaller grids is the way to go. Not only would communities = have=20 more at stake from their energy decisions ("If we want cheap power = we need=20 to build 500 windmills or one nuke, or else go with coal"), but it = would=20 reduce everyone's reliance on a huge, unwieldy network that only = needs a=20 few fallen trees to take it down.

Andrew Kantor is a technology writer, = pundit, and=20 know-it-all who covers technology for the Roanoke Times.=20 He's also a former editor for PC Magazine and Internet World. Read = more of=20 his work at kantor.com. His column appears Fridays on=20 USATODAY.com.


Posted = 5/11/2006=20 12:11 PM ET	E-mail=20 \| Save=20 \| Print=20 \|

Newspaper Home = Delivery -=20 Subscribe Today

Home=20 =95 News =95 Travel<= /A>=20 =95 Money =95 Sports =95 Life =95 Tech = =95 Weather=20

News = Your=20 Way: Mobile=20 News | Email News | Ad= d=20 USA TODAY.com RSS feeds

Partners:=20 USA=20 Weekend | Sports= =20 Weekly | Educ= ation=20 | Space.com=20

		Sections
Gaming
Products
Science & Space
Wireless = Center

		Essentials
Briefs
Columnists
Kevin Maney\'s blog
Tech_Space blog