President Trump and the Economics of Wind Power

[Listen to this post read by its author.]

Call it synchronicity. Sometimes, in the chance meeting of two unrelated events, new understanding emerges. Such was the case with me recently.

Like many Americans, I traveled over the Christmas holidays. These travels found me with a long layover at the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) airport. Wandering the terminal to pass time, I came upon a wall plaque announcing that DFW had become a carbon neutral airport, indeed, the largest one in the world. Making it possible was its reliance on renewable energy sources, particularly electricity generated by Texas wind farms.

The other event was a 21 December 2019 speech delivered by President Trump to a conservative political organization in Florida. The President lashed out against "windmills" [1] and the "fumes" they release into the environment. He said [2] --

We’ll have an economy based on wind. I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much. I’ve studied it better than anybody. I know it’s very expensive. They’re made in China and Germany mostly — very few made here, almost none. But they’re manufactured tremendous — if you’re into this — tremendous fumes. Gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything. You talk about the carbon footprint — fumes are spewing into the air. Right? Spewing. Whether it’s in China, Germany, it’s going into the air. It’s our air, their air, everything — right? So they make these things and then they put them up.

Uniting these two disparate events is the state of Texas. The Lone Star state is a politically conservative "red" state. It has been home of Republican Presidents George H.W. and George W. Bush, and it has deep roots in the oil and gas industry. And yet ... Texas leads all American states in installed wind power capacity. At 27,000 megawatts of capacity, Texas has power to keep the lights on at DFW, and much more. In a distant second place is Iowa at 9000 megawatts. Texas's involvement with wind power began in the early 2000s under then-Governor (now Secretary of Energy) Rick Perry. The state invested heavily in wind power, including some seven billion dollars spent on transmission lines to deliver the electric power.

How can this be? If wind power is "very expensive" as the President claims, then why would anyone -- most of all, Texas -- invest in it? Perhaps Texas is a fluke. But in third place among the states is Oklahoma, at 8000 megawatts capacity. And it too has an economy tied to oil and gas. It too is politically conservative. Of course, strong winds sweep North Texas and Western Oklahoma. But, I think, there is more to it than that. In reporting on DFW's carbon neutral status, The Dallas Morning News notes

Altogether, the airport says it has reduced its carbon emissions by 31,000 metric tons since 2010, with more than half of the savings coming from the switch to purchasing only renewable wind energy. At the same time, the airport's annual energy bill has fallen from $32 million in 2006 to just under $18 million in the most recent fiscal year.

The example of Texas proves the President wrong.  In wind power is money to be saved, and money to be made. Texans know it. And so do I. I found DFW to be comfortably heated, brightly lit, and as pleasant as an airport during the holidays can be. Kudos to Texas!

https://windexchange.energy.gov/maps-data/321

Postscript

In a future post I hope to consider the "fumes" and "gases" the President spoke of. Presumably he meant greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), and water vapor (H₂0). These gases are natural products and essential components of Earth's atmosphere. Without them, earth's average surface temperature would be -18 C (0 F), rather than the current 15 C (59 F). Some greenhouse effect is evidently desirable, even necessary, for life to flourish. However, excess quantities of these gases is believed to be the primary cause of global warming. Crucial here is "excess" and how human activity contributes. The primary gas of concern is carbon dioxide, a byproduct of fossil fuel burning, like that I personally caused by my recent flights to and from DFW. Carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere has been steadily rising since the inception of the Industrial Revolution in the early 19th Century. So too have average global temperatures. Wind power -- like solar, hydro, and nuclear power -- emits negligible amounts of greenhouse gases. Surely the President must understand this. That he does not also articulate that is both a shame and a mystery.

Footnotes

1. I assume that by "windmills", the President actually means electricity-generating wind turbines, which, incidentally, was the subject of a recent post to this blog.

2. Because this transcript seems nonsensical, it is helpful also to watch the video of the speech. Whatever he meant to say, the President, through his gestures and tone of voice, communicates unmistakable enmity toward wind power.

Posted: 2019-12-26. Updated: 2019-12-26.