A severe tornado this month in Iowa, not uncommon, had an unfamiliar outcome. As described in a photo in the New York Times, “In the trail of a tornado, a wind turbine is bent in half like a cheap straw, its hub engulfed in flames and thick black smoke, its blades on the ground.”
In much of the common discourse around renewable electric generation the term “wind and solar” has become almost a logical identity, defining inseparable elements. But they are two different technologies with much different characteristics and different trajectories.
Each of the two “green” technologies (let’s ignore hydro for now) has specific virtues and vulnerabilities. Solar panels are also subject to severe weather, particularly hail storms that can crack and shatter the glass that protects that generating panels.
In fact, all energy generation technologies have weaknesses that weather can exploit. Coal piles can freeze, as can natural gas pipeline valves. Drought can close nuclear plants. There is no free lunch.
Developers of all of these technologies understand their vulnerabilities, as do their insurers. In the case of wind, the Department of Energy notes in a publication updated this month that wind turbines have automatic shutoffs when wind speeds exceed 55 mph, and blades feather and lock down if needed. The Iowa tornado that took down five turbines had wind speeds exceeding 100 mph and hit the turbines head on, a freak event.
But is wind a special case when it comes to the renewables twins, distinguishing it from solar? That’s the case from climate scientist Roger A. Pielke, Jr., retired from the University of Colorado. In two recent editions of his newsletter The Honest Broker, Pielke gives thumbs up to solar and thumbs down to wind.
Pielkey writes that “the proportion of wind power in the global electricity generation mix is always going to be closer to zero than to 100%. That doesn’t mean that wind power is not of value or useful, but it does mean that wind power is not going to drive a global energy transformation, or even be a big part of any such transformation.”
What’s wrong with wind? It’s physical, in Pielke’s formulation. Wind’s vulnerabilities are “low density, low capacity, the age effect,” not costs. The wind doesn’t always blow, and wind turbines are not always in service when it does, Pielke observes. As a result, wind generation capacity factors (what power it actually generates compared to its “nameplate” capacity) are low, hovering around 33% for the past two decades, according to Energy Information Administration data. EIA data also shows a 2023 decline in annual U.S. wind generation “for the first time since the mid-1990s in 2023 despite the addition of 6.2 gigawatts (GW) of new wind capacity last year.” Globally, notes Pielke that “the U.S. is among the world’s best performers for wind both onshore and offshore.”
Wind turbines also don’t age well, says Pielke: “Capacity factors start decreasing at most over a few years after initial deployment…. The aging effect means that wind turbines may need greater back-up (than the prodigious amount already needed), need to be replaced frequently, and require extensive upkeep and maintenance.”
Then there is solar, which finds Pielke beaming. He writes, “At some point I stopped using the word ‘renewables’ to lump together wind and solar due to my pessimistic views of wind and optimistic views of solar. I don’t think it will be too long until conventional wisdom considers wind energy like we look back at the Blackberry phone, and solar like the iPhone.”
What about wind makes him smile? First, it’s scalable, unlike a wind turbine, a hydro project, or a central station powerplant. “That means that solar can be ‘right-sized’ in a way that wind cannot” so “it can be deployed from the kilowatt to the gigawatt scale, and that opens up many opportunities for deployment.” EIA reports that “about one third of solar generation comes from small-scale solar (defined as less than 1 MW capacity).”
Next, solar is “cheap and getting cheaper.” That raises the question of why subsidies for solar continue to be necessary, a fair question. “With or without U.S. subsidies, solar costs should be expected to continue to drop, motivating further deployment, which will lead to greater reductions in costs — a virtuous cycle.”
Also, solar is “safe, simple, and popular… the safest source of energy production, as measured by deaths per terawatt-hour of production. The only other energy production technology that is close is nuclear energy.” Nuclear, on the other hand, is not particularly popular and reviled by many.
The problem with solar – which it shares with wind — is the need for backup. Battery storage is not ready for prime time, as the need could extend to weeklong periods. Pielke’s suggestion is – gasp – natural gas: “Even though natural gas is a fossil fuel, the expanded use of solar backed up by gas has considerable potential to reduce emissions, especially in places where that combo displaces coal generation.”
Treading carefully into prediction, Pielke concludes, “Solar energy technologies are going to become increasingly favored over wind technologies. Sure, wind will continue to have a role in the global energy mix, but that role as a proportion of global electricity generation will soon be dwarfed by solar.”
–Kennedy Maize
To subscribe: The Quad Report