New wind energy calculations show 4-5 times less energy available for Tax Credits and EV's

This information means nothing because green energy calculations have very little to do with reality. But by using “Green” energy math methodology and with help from corrupt DC politicians, a state like Iowa is able to make claims about producing almost 60% of Iowa’s electrical energy from wind.

It’s not true and an analysis of the grid in Nome, Alaska will explain why.

This report from Alaska is extremely interesting because Nome Alaska has a completely isolated electrical grid.  In order to survive, the people of Nome have to depend on diesel generators and an intermittent supply of wind energy. (The Winds around Nome are considered prime for wind power generation.)

 

Nome, Alaska

 

Nome has two Wärtsilä 5.4 MW diesel generators, which alternate to supply power. A 3.6 MW Caterpillar generator is used during the off-peak summer hours when demand is low; a 1.8 MW Caterpillar generator is used to augment peak loads during winter afternoons. A 0.4 MW diesel generator is used as a black start unit in case of a black out and can support lower temporary peaking requirements.

 

Presently, NJUS operates one of the most efficient diesel powerhouses in Alaska, with an average kWh/gal of 15.8 for the period of July 2015 through June 2016, according to power cost equalization (PCE) records.

 

Initially the Nome wind project consisted of eighteen 50 kW Entegrity turbines. After the full value of the tax credits was realized by Banner Wind LLC, the company sold the Banner Wind project to NJUS along with the long-term lease for the land, effective January 2015. In 2013, two additional 900 kW wind turbines were installed by the utility, using millions in funds from the Alaska Renewable Energy Fund program and a contribution from the local fishing community development quota program, Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation.

 

Today all of Nome’s smaller Entegrity turbines have been shut down due to grid inefficiency and high costs. The project lasted about 10 years but the two larger .9 MW turbines still remain.

 

From Nome Joint Utility System (NJUS) Assistant Manager Ken Morton:

 

“The cost to maintain the smaller units has increased to the point that the cost of the diesel fuel they displace no longer pencils out.”

“NJUS does not at this time have plans to replace the turbines or add additional ones. However, if grant funding becomes available for additional turbines, as well as funds for a battery system that would allow for greater reliance on wind energy, NJUS would pursue that.”

 

In 2021 the Nome Joint Utility System allocated funds to have all their  original 18 turbines to be taken down.

Iowa Wind

 

So, what does all this have to do with Iowa?

 

Nome used real world numbers to determine the value and contribution from wind energy for their customers. A 2017 report (see image) said the  actual contribution  (“penetration”) to Nome’s grid in 2015, averaged out to a pitiful 6.3% (see image).

 

These are grid numbers and calculations never disclosed from America’s other 49 states. The primary reason, Nome’s utility district is trying to survive as efficiently as possible while developers and utilities in the other states are busy soaking taxpayers.

 

Nome Alaska 2015 electric profile

Wind 2.7 MW percentage of nameplate capacity 33%

Diesel 5.4 MW percentage of nameplate capacity 66%

Total 8.1 Wind energy’s annual contribution to Nome grid 6.3%

 

With their baseload diesel generators compared to installed the wind energy nameplate capacity, Nome had an installed diesel to wind 2 to 1.

 

Iowa’s 2020 electric profile

Wind 11,322.5 MW percentage of nameplate capacity 50%

Coal and other sources 11,147.9 MW percentage of nameplate capacity 50%

Total nameplate capacity 22470.4 MW

 

Iowa has an installed capacity ratio of about 1 to 1 when their baseload energy sources are compared to installed nameplate wind capacity. Iowa does have a greater percentage of installed wind capacity than Nome. But if we double Nome’s wind energy capacity to equal Iowa’s 50% wind mix, the annual contribution Nome’s utility would still only achieve about a 12.6% contribution to their grid from wind.

 

When compared to Nome, Iowa has far more energy transmission losses for wind energy because consumers in Nome are located only 4.5 miles from their wind farm. But assuming all things being equal, including annual wind speeds, Using the same the wind mix/grid penetration calculations from Nome, means that all of Iowa’s thousands of turbines, still only contribute about 12-13% of the Iowa’s usable energy to the grid.

 

In a previous post, I said Iowa, grid requirements need constant base loads  t5rtof 3000 – 4500 MW. These were very conservative numbers from years ago and today’s average base load requirements from coal and sources besides wind, are very likely 6500-7000 MW or about 60,000,000 MWh per year.

 

In my opinion, Iowa’s true wind energy value to customers is being overstated between four and five times. The same holds true for all the EIA wind energy data posted for others state as well.