I know wind energy on its own really shouldn’t be pitted against nuclear, but ultimately any article touting the benefits of wind technology and the need to embrace even more wind — including offshore — sparks response from anti-wind or pro-nuke folks (or both) who immediately shoot down the usefulness and cost of wind. I get a lot of such e-mails, so I figured I’d play devil’s advocate here and post a few of the most common points that poke holes in the wind-energy movement. Many of them are valid questions that need honest responses. I’m posting them here to spark some friendly discussion, since readers of this blog tend to be much more informed on these issues than yours truly. Please keep responses to economics and effectiveness. Moral hangups about nuclear, including proliferation and waste management issues (i.e. what we do with all that toxic waste), don’t equate to a defense of wind. Likewise, the impact of wind turbines on birds and bats and community resistance to wind turbines because of possible noise or aesthetics don’t equate to a defense of nuclear.

Here goes:

1) Wind farms are only designed to last 20 to 25 years, while nuclear plants are designed to last up to 60 years. This means when calculating the cost of wind per installed megawatt the true cost, when comparing to nuclear, should be doubled or tripled. True? Not true? Explain.

2) Estimates of load factor for proposed wind farms, both onshore and offshore, too often fail to match reality. This makes wind even less economical compared to nuclear. True? Not true? Explain.

3) While Germany and Denmark are often cited as success stories for wind in terms of job and industry creation, these countries have had difficulty integrating wind into their grid mix. True? Not true? Explain.

4) Wind variability also affects useability of power — i.e. the power produced can’t be accepted into the grid, forcing curtailment by operators. So even if the wind is blowing we don’t necessarily use the energy. True? Not true? Explain.

5) The cost of wind is higher if you include need for shadow generation to cover times when the wind isn’t blowing. Should this cost be included? Or, depending on the market/jurisdiction, can existing generation manage the intermittency? For example: Ontario wants to get off coal so needs to build natural gas plants anyway. Wouldn’t adding wind mean these plants (and whatever coal we still have) operate less frequently?

6) Natural gas plants that can shadow wind output are generally less efficient because of their need to be highly flexible. This inefficiency offsets any gains (i.e. in terms of greenhouse gas reductions) made by adding wind generation into the mix. True? Not true? Explain.

7) Denmark and Germany tout the benefits of wind only to support growth of their wind industries and technology export to foreign markets, not because it’s a superior form of power generation. True? Not true? Explain.

Cost increases faced by the nuclear industry are affecting all industries, including wind. True? Not true? Explain.

9) Even excluding nuclear, there are better and more economic alternatives out there than wind — i.e. conservation, efficiency — and this is where our money should be going. True? Not true? Explain.

So there you go. Let the debate begin! One thing I will say: Many of the shortfalls of wind have much to do with grid design and our inability to store wind energy so we can smooth out output. We end up shoe-horning wind projects into an inflexible electricity system built over a 100 years to serve massive centralized plants. This might not be the case 10, 20 years from now. So do we want to lock ourselves, and our financial resources, into a 60-year nuclear plant that takes up to 10 years to build, or invest in grid technologies that allow us to more easily accommodate wind and benefit from its potential?

Also — and I think this will always been an issue — nuclear is forever one major accident away from being a non-option. In a way it’s like playing Russian Roulette with our energy system.

Okay, enough from me. Over to you.

Like the little engine that could, Quebec-based Railpower Corp. continues to build back momentum after past setbacks. The company announced this week that its RP20BD locomotive, a multi-purpose hybrid used for road and yard switching, got top grades from five California shortline operators after several months of demonstrations.

“With a 3-to-2 replacement ratio, the RP20BD units can perform almost twice the work of a conventional locomotive, depending on application and horsepower requirements, all the while reducing fuel consumption by up to 45 per cent,” Railpower said in a statement.

Modesto & Empire Traction Company said the Railpower locomotive “easily performed the work of three of our GE 600 horsepower locomotives” and offered average fuel savings of over 40 per cent compared to their existing GE fleet. Central California Traction Company saw 47 per cent fuel savings compared to the combined operation of two older diesel locomotives (SW1500) built by General Motors. Fuel savings of 56 per cent were achieved when compared to another General Motors locomotive (GP18). In general, NOx and particulate matter are reduced by more than 80 per cent.

Railpower said shortline operators, which have rapidly aging fleets and limited budgets, can see big savings by replacing those older locomotives with its hybrid model. This is particularly true as the price of oil inches toward $150 a barrel. Now, all Railpower needs are some orders (See previous post on plans to build manufacturing facility near Montreal).