Bentek Energy’s Failed Dig at Wind Energy

Last week, an article appeared in Forbes.com website, the publisher of the prestigious business magazine. A column by Robert Bryce announced that ‘A new study takes the wind out of wind energy’. The piece was based on a report by Bentek Energy, a Colorado-based energy analytics firm. The authors of the study, Porter Bennett (who is also its Founder, current President and CEO) and Brannin McBee analysed actual emission data from four regions in the U.S. and came to the conclusion that the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) have vastly overestimated wind’s ability to cut sulphur dioxide (SO₂), nitrous oxide (NOx) and carbon dioxide (CO₂). The study also claimed that in some regions, like California, using wind energy doesn’t reduce SO₂ emissions at all. The most important conclusion of the study is that wind energy is not a cost-effective solution for reducing CO₂ if carbon is valued at less than $33 per ton, which is still greater than Australia’s brave new initiative of $25.3 (A$ 23) carbon tax per ton. AWEA claims that every 1000 units (kWh) of energy generated from wind cuts CO₂ emissions by 0.8 tons, SO₂ by 2.57 kg, and NOx by 1.04 kg. The study rubbishes these claims and declares that wind energy cuts emissions at far lesser levels than these claims. In fact, they could find reduced emissions only where coal-based power plants predominated.

But wait, how could you accuse wind energy for reduced emission cuts, when in fact a wind turbine doesn’t emit any noxious gas? How can the report claim that wind energy cuts emission by 0.5 tons of CO₂ and not 0.8 tons as claimed by AWEA? There comes out the comic aspect, or the false seriousness of the study. What this report projects as an underperformance by wind energy is in fact a veiled praise for the reduced emission from fossil fuel based power plants. There also, the report cleverly differentiates between natural gas-based and coal-based plants. For example, in Texas, where the major fuel is natural gas, the emission is reported to be 0.54 kg per 1000 units of electricity as against 2.57 kg claimed by AWEA. This trend runs contrary to northern U.S. states like Minnesota, Wisconsin and the Dakotas where coal is the major fuel and where the emissions are claimed to be far more than AWEA estimates (1.0 ton per MWh, instead of 0.8 tons). What is the lesson we can learn from this circus by the Bentek Energy study team? They clearly try to discredit the wind turbine industry which is heavily reliant on subsidies, but in the garb of doing so, takes a dig at the coal industry. Why an independent analytics firm employ such double standards?

For the answer to this question, we need to look into the history of Bentek Energy. Porter Bennett founded the organisation in 1985 as a consulting firm catering to the energy industry specialising in market and customer analysis. Bennett is currently the chairman of the Natural Gas Committee and director of the Independent Producers Association of Mountain States Natural Gas Committee, an Observer with the Potential Gas Committee and member of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association. Are they glowing credentials of an impartial researcher? He is too closely associated with the gas industry and that’s why he plays down wind, and in the process, coal too. Does this firm think that the readers of their reports are as thick-headed as their clients?

The surprising aside is that Forbes, a reputed journal, fell in for this trick and gave a prominent place to this article on their website, when in fact what it deserved was the waste bin. One can’t help thinking that the U.S. industry, notorious for their environment-harsh operations are also in the forefront of discrediting green energy sources, thereby prompting users to rely more on hydrocarbons, helping to keep crude oil price in the astronomical scales.

By the way, this is my first green blog! Ever since I read Friedman's nice book, Hot, Flat and Crowded, I am an initiate to the green movement.

When the only tool you own is a hammer…

ISRO successfully launched its geo-stationary satellite, GSAT-12 on July 15^th. Strange it may seem, the launch vehicle was the PSLV-C17, ISRO’s only proven workhorse. But, PSLV stands for Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle, right? Which means this rocket is designed to put satellites earmarked for remote sensing, cartography and military applications into a polar orbit? Then why ISRO is using this vehicle to send a geo-satellite which need to be at an orbit 36,000 km high? There we are, marvelling at the wisdom of the adage, “When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail.”

As mentioned in my previous blog post, ISRO has failed to come up with GSLV, the rocket capable of sending communication satellites to geo-synchronous orbits. They have attempted, true, but the result is a miserable failure. Other countries had developed their own capability in far less time and with far less budget. In the U.S., even a private company owns this technology! What more ISRO can hope for, with the massive infrastructure of budget, man power and an audience which applauds at even the slightest ups, but fails to notice the biggest downs? The GSLV, when it takes shape at last, would be poor cousins to the versions owned by developed countries and China, as it can handle only 2.5 tons, whereas the capacity is 4.5 to 5 tons elsewhere. ISRO can’t even come up with even this humble one.

And just how did they manage to launch a geo-satellite with PSLV? It launched it into an elliptical transfer orbit, with 284 km perigee and 21,000 km apogee. The inbuilt liquid apogee motor then took control which raised both the apogee and perigee to put it at 36,000 km! I don’t know much about rocket science, but surely, such a powerful motor must have used up more space and power which could’ve been used for communication transponders, if only ISRO could perfect the design of GSLV? The saddest part is that the unsuspecting public wholeheartedly celebrated ISRO’s feat, which in fact was a fiasco.