I am deeply indebted to the Northeast Kingdom, where I've drawn inspiration for almost 50 years: its woods, fields, ponds, hills, its people, its other creatures. Like most of my neighbors, I favor conservation and renewable energy. I have feared climate change ever since I saw early signs of it years ago. But I do not support the proposed UPC industrial wind facility.
Many in Sheffield have spoken out with clarity and eloquence against large-scale wind turbines. Their views have been resisted by people we expected to agree with us -- some legislators, environmentalists and advocacy groups, who have allied themselves instead with wind developers, wind speculators, and electric company officials. If you care about global warming, their litany is, you must put up with wind energy. They seem to see the Northeast Kingdom as a wind energy showcase, so they can take their stand against global warming painlessly, by having us in the Northeast Kingdom take that stand for them, painfully. It hardly matters to this coalition whether wind is viable here or not; or whether we want it or not; or whether wind turbines are suitable to New England at all; or whether a powerful conservation policy might not make this highly defacing technology unnecessary.
(Click to read entire article)
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
CV Comp Plan addresses resources by Janine Giordano
CHERRY VALLEY – The Draft Comprehensive Plan for the town of Cherry Valley has been completed and will be available for public viewing within the next week, with a public hearing scheduled for Feb. 26, according to Town Supervisor Tom Garrettson.
By law, the town is required to present the plan for public viewing 10 days prior to the hearing, Garrettson said. Residents will have the opportunity to view the plan at the Cherry Valley Library, the Gates Cole Insurance Office in Cherry Valley, the Cherry Valley Post Office and online at www.district7otsego.com.
(Click to read entire article)
By law, the town is required to present the plan for public viewing 10 days prior to the hearing, Garrettson said. Residents will have the opportunity to view the plan at the Cherry Valley Library, the Gates Cole Insurance Office in Cherry Valley, the Cherry Valley Post Office and online at www.district7otsego.com.
(Click to read entire article)
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Inconvenient truths about wind power
After attending a number of town meetings early last year about windfarm proposals, and reading portions of various Environmental Impact Statements, my wife and I concluded that the issues surrounding windfarms were far more complex than we had imagined and that we really did not understand them very well.
We shared this concern with some friends and neighbors and found that they had similar feelings. On a beautiful June afternoon we all came together to talk about what we might be able to learn if we worked together. We divided up the pertinent sections of the DEIS for Windfarm Prattsburgh among the dozen or so participants with each agreeing to conduct some independent research and report on their findings. Since that first meeting many hundreds of hours of study and analysis have been carried out, and we have learned a great deal about the realities of commercial windfarms. It was with dismay that, time after time, we found that the claims made by the wind energy industry were either overstated or just plain false. Here is a summary of some of our findings.
Claim #1: wind will reduce reliance on foreign oil. The fact is that only 3 percent of our electricity is oil-generated, and much of that oil is domestically sourced. So, if wind were able to displace all of our oil-fired plants the impact would be less than 2 percent. However, since the unreliability of wind requires an equivalent amount of available conventional back-up capacity there would likely be no offset at all.
Claim #2: wind will reduce carbon dioxide emissions and slow global warming. With no reduction in fossil fuel usage (see above), there will be no reduction in C02 emissions. Regarding global warming, what if it turns out that C02 is only a minor factor in climate change? What if the current warming trend is being caused by natural cycles? This is perhaps the most significant of the inconvenient truths.
In September of 2005, the National Center for Policy Analysis, a non-profit non-partisan public policy research institute, published a report entitled The Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Change". The author of this report, which can be found at www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279, is S. Fred Singer, a well-credentialed environmental scientist. This report provides a wide range of clear and compelling evidence that climate change is not due to carbon dioxide emissions but that is a recurring natural cycle that is going to occur regardless of what we do.
Claim #3: wind energy is abundant, safe, clean and renewable. First of all, wind energy is not abundant, at least in this area where winds tend to be light and variable. It is projected that useful electricity generated by turbines in the central Finger Lakes will be less than 10 percent of nameplate capacity. Regarding safety, there are a host of safety concerns associated with commercial windfarms. The one that we find most compelling is the potential adverse effect on the health of our citizens, particularly children and the elderly. There are also legitimate concerns regarding the effect of LFN on unborn children, particularly in the early stages of pregnancy. Until more research is conducted it is not prudent to risk an increase hi fetal abnormalities or stillbirths. As responsible grandparents we would never permit our little ones to live anywhere near wind turbines. If these projects are built, we will not be living near them, we will be living among them.
Windfarms are a relatively clean source of power, but it takes about seven years for them to pay back for the pollution caused by turbine manufacture and windfarm construction. Wind is also a renewable source of energy, but since it does not displace other generating sources it adds no incremental value.
Claim #4: windfarms cause minimal harm to wildlife. The truth is that there have been no valid studies on the potential impact on wildlife. Studies paid for by the wind energy industry conclude, not surprisingly, that harm to wildlife is minimal. However, close examination of the study methodology and reported data shows that the studies are fatally flawed, and in many cases it looks as if the data was just made up. Developers have consistently refused to allow legitimate third party experts to conduct studies at existing windfarms because they really do not want to know just how significant the impact may be. The US Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that stationery communication towers, on average, kill 1,000 birds, bats and raptors every year. It is logical to assume that the 500 turbines planned for this area will each kill a similar number or more. Of particular concern is our local bald eagle population (in DEC Region 8, there were 22 young bald eagles fledged this year). We have resident eagles that are seen daily over Naples, Prattsburgh, Italy, and Cohocton. The developers maintain that these majestic raptors do not exist.
Claim #5: wind power will reduce electricity costs. This is nonsense. Even the developers admit that wind power costs more than any other source. In Europe, which pioneered the production of wind power, one country after another is eliminating wind subsidies because of the adverse effect expensive wind power was having on economic development. High electrical costs are one of the most serious barriers to economic development in Upstate New York Wind power will only raise those barriers.
Claim #6: wind power will promote economic development. The way that the wind projects are designed, there will be some positive economic value in the form of PILOT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes), lease payments, and a small number of jobs. However, looking at the broader picture and drawing on studies from other areas it is our conclusion that the total economic impact will be decidedly negative. We estimated for Windfarm Prattsburgh that the net cost to the community over a 20-year operating life would be $141,000. The components of that loss are negative impacts on tourism and property values, avian mortality, resident health and safety costs, and unfunded decommissioning. Since there were some negative factors that could not be quantified we believe that our estimated loss is very conservative.
In addition to spending tens of millions in lobbying dollars, the wind industry has put together a very expensive and convincing marketing campaign that appeals to many noble motives of our citizenry. It really is a shame that much of what they claim does not pass objective review and analysis. For those hoping to make hundreds of millions in profits from the industrialization of our region, these certainly are inconvenient truths.
Brad and Linda Jones, Parish Hill, Naples
We shared this concern with some friends and neighbors and found that they had similar feelings. On a beautiful June afternoon we all came together to talk about what we might be able to learn if we worked together. We divided up the pertinent sections of the DEIS for Windfarm Prattsburgh among the dozen or so participants with each agreeing to conduct some independent research and report on their findings. Since that first meeting many hundreds of hours of study and analysis have been carried out, and we have learned a great deal about the realities of commercial windfarms. It was with dismay that, time after time, we found that the claims made by the wind energy industry were either overstated or just plain false. Here is a summary of some of our findings.
Claim #1: wind will reduce reliance on foreign oil. The fact is that only 3 percent of our electricity is oil-generated, and much of that oil is domestically sourced. So, if wind were able to displace all of our oil-fired plants the impact would be less than 2 percent. However, since the unreliability of wind requires an equivalent amount of available conventional back-up capacity there would likely be no offset at all.
Claim #2: wind will reduce carbon dioxide emissions and slow global warming. With no reduction in fossil fuel usage (see above), there will be no reduction in C02 emissions. Regarding global warming, what if it turns out that C02 is only a minor factor in climate change? What if the current warming trend is being caused by natural cycles? This is perhaps the most significant of the inconvenient truths.
In September of 2005, the National Center for Policy Analysis, a non-profit non-partisan public policy research institute, published a report entitled The Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Change". The author of this report, which can be found at www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279, is S. Fred Singer, a well-credentialed environmental scientist. This report provides a wide range of clear and compelling evidence that climate change is not due to carbon dioxide emissions but that is a recurring natural cycle that is going to occur regardless of what we do.
Claim #3: wind energy is abundant, safe, clean and renewable. First of all, wind energy is not abundant, at least in this area where winds tend to be light and variable. It is projected that useful electricity generated by turbines in the central Finger Lakes will be less than 10 percent of nameplate capacity. Regarding safety, there are a host of safety concerns associated with commercial windfarms. The one that we find most compelling is the potential adverse effect on the health of our citizens, particularly children and the elderly. There are also legitimate concerns regarding the effect of LFN on unborn children, particularly in the early stages of pregnancy. Until more research is conducted it is not prudent to risk an increase hi fetal abnormalities or stillbirths. As responsible grandparents we would never permit our little ones to live anywhere near wind turbines. If these projects are built, we will not be living near them, we will be living among them.
Windfarms are a relatively clean source of power, but it takes about seven years for them to pay back for the pollution caused by turbine manufacture and windfarm construction. Wind is also a renewable source of energy, but since it does not displace other generating sources it adds no incremental value.
Claim #4: windfarms cause minimal harm to wildlife. The truth is that there have been no valid studies on the potential impact on wildlife. Studies paid for by the wind energy industry conclude, not surprisingly, that harm to wildlife is minimal. However, close examination of the study methodology and reported data shows that the studies are fatally flawed, and in many cases it looks as if the data was just made up. Developers have consistently refused to allow legitimate third party experts to conduct studies at existing windfarms because they really do not want to know just how significant the impact may be. The US Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that stationery communication towers, on average, kill 1,000 birds, bats and raptors every year. It is logical to assume that the 500 turbines planned for this area will each kill a similar number or more. Of particular concern is our local bald eagle population (in DEC Region 8, there were 22 young bald eagles fledged this year). We have resident eagles that are seen daily over Naples, Prattsburgh, Italy, and Cohocton. The developers maintain that these majestic raptors do not exist.
Claim #5: wind power will reduce electricity costs. This is nonsense. Even the developers admit that wind power costs more than any other source. In Europe, which pioneered the production of wind power, one country after another is eliminating wind subsidies because of the adverse effect expensive wind power was having on economic development. High electrical costs are one of the most serious barriers to economic development in Upstate New York Wind power will only raise those barriers.
Claim #6: wind power will promote economic development. The way that the wind projects are designed, there will be some positive economic value in the form of PILOT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes), lease payments, and a small number of jobs. However, looking at the broader picture and drawing on studies from other areas it is our conclusion that the total economic impact will be decidedly negative. We estimated for Windfarm Prattsburgh that the net cost to the community over a 20-year operating life would be $141,000. The components of that loss are negative impacts on tourism and property values, avian mortality, resident health and safety costs, and unfunded decommissioning. Since there were some negative factors that could not be quantified we believe that our estimated loss is very conservative.
In addition to spending tens of millions in lobbying dollars, the wind industry has put together a very expensive and convincing marketing campaign that appeals to many noble motives of our citizenry. It really is a shame that much of what they claim does not pass objective review and analysis. For those hoping to make hundreds of millions in profits from the industrialization of our region, these certainly are inconvenient truths.
Brad and Linda Jones, Parish Hill, Naples
Monday, February 19, 2007
State Supreme Court to hear Highland Co. wind energy case by By John Cramer
The Virginia Supreme Court will enter the national debate over wind energy for the first time this summer when it hears a challenge to the state's first proposed wind farm.
A lower court ruled in favor of the controversial Highland County project last year, but in an unusual step, the high court decided this week to hear the case directly rather than having it first reviewed by a three-judge panel.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in June. A ruling is expected in September.
The case is being watched nationwide by energy developers and conservationists as wind power expands from its traditional home in the West and Midwest to the Appalachian Mountains.
The dispute involves Virginia's first proposed industrial wind project -- 19 turbines along the West Virginia border -- and focuses on whether local land-use regulations were properly followed when Highland County officials approved it.
It's expected to set a precedent for procedures local governments use when considering wind projects.
"This case isn't about whether wind energy is bad or good," said David Bailey, a lawyer for the project's opponents. "It's a siting issue on the pristine ridges of one of the last, big undisturbed areas in Virginia. This is just the wrong place to put it."
John Flora, a lawyer who represents the project developer, Highland New Wind Development, could not be reached for comment.
In 2006, a Highland County District Court judge ruled that the Highland County Board of Supervisors followed proper procedure when it issued a conditional-use permit for the 400-foot-tall turbines. The judge also ruled that the project complies with the county's height ordinance and comprehensive plan.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments about those three issues.
Frank Maisano, a spokesman for Highland New Wind Development, said he is confident the lower court's rulings will be upheld.
"We hope the Supreme Court sends a strong message that frivolous lawsuits won't be accepted," he said.
On the regulatory front, a State Corporation Commission hearing examiner is expected to decide next month whether to issue a permit to build and operate the wind project.
Opponents say the turbines would kill birds and bats, harm tourism and ruin views while generating inconsistent energy that could power no more than a few thousand homes.
Supporters say the $60 million project could generate enough power for about 15,000 homes and about $200,000 in annual tax revenue to Highland County without harming the environment.
A lower court ruled in favor of the controversial Highland County project last year, but in an unusual step, the high court decided this week to hear the case directly rather than having it first reviewed by a three-judge panel.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in June. A ruling is expected in September.
The case is being watched nationwide by energy developers and conservationists as wind power expands from its traditional home in the West and Midwest to the Appalachian Mountains.
The dispute involves Virginia's first proposed industrial wind project -- 19 turbines along the West Virginia border -- and focuses on whether local land-use regulations were properly followed when Highland County officials approved it.
It's expected to set a precedent for procedures local governments use when considering wind projects.
"This case isn't about whether wind energy is bad or good," said David Bailey, a lawyer for the project's opponents. "It's a siting issue on the pristine ridges of one of the last, big undisturbed areas in Virginia. This is just the wrong place to put it."
John Flora, a lawyer who represents the project developer, Highland New Wind Development, could not be reached for comment.
In 2006, a Highland County District Court judge ruled that the Highland County Board of Supervisors followed proper procedure when it issued a conditional-use permit for the 400-foot-tall turbines. The judge also ruled that the project complies with the county's height ordinance and comprehensive plan.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments about those three issues.
Frank Maisano, a spokesman for Highland New Wind Development, said he is confident the lower court's rulings will be upheld.
"We hope the Supreme Court sends a strong message that frivolous lawsuits won't be accepted," he said.
On the regulatory front, a State Corporation Commission hearing examiner is expected to decide next month whether to issue a permit to build and operate the wind project.
Opponents say the turbines would kill birds and bats, harm tourism and ruin views while generating inconsistent energy that could power no more than a few thousand homes.
Supporters say the $60 million project could generate enough power for about 15,000 homes and about $200,000 in annual tax revenue to Highland County without harming the environment.
An idyll lost in turbines' humming by Jenna Russell
MARS HILL, Maine -- This year, when Steven and Tammie Fletcher took their traditional New Year's Eve walk to the top of Mars Hill, the crisp winter stillness mixed with something unfamiliar: the whoosh of the new windmills towering over the northern Maine mountaintop.
This is not how it was supposed to be, say the Fletchers and their neighbors on the north side of Mars Hill, where a 28-turbine wind farm, the largest yet built in New England, began operating in December.
Residents say that town officials and company representatives repeatedly assured them that the wind farm would be silent. Instead, they say, the windmills have disrupted their mountainside idyll. On days with low cloud cover, when the pulsing, rushing noise is loudest, wind farm neighbors say it can disrupt their sleep and drown out the rushing brook that was once the only sound here.
(Click to read entire article)
This is not how it was supposed to be, say the Fletchers and their neighbors on the north side of Mars Hill, where a 28-turbine wind farm, the largest yet built in New England, began operating in December.
Residents say that town officials and company representatives repeatedly assured them that the wind farm would be silent. Instead, they say, the windmills have disrupted their mountainside idyll. On days with low cloud cover, when the pulsing, rushing noise is loudest, wind farm neighbors say it can disrupt their sleep and drown out the rushing brook that was once the only sound here.
(Click to read entire article)
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Wind tower mishap snarls Route 1 traffic
High-tech wind power met old-fashioned road pavement Thursday as a truck hauling an 80-foot-long, 197,000-pound tube for a major power generation project in Mars Hill got stuck.The driver's inability to make a turn from a road at Mack Point onto U.S. Route 1 resulted in the tube rolling off its trailer, damaging the road surface. Traffic was blocked for at least three miles.
About 50 tower sections resembling giant culverts 10 feet in diameter arrived by ship at Mack Point. They were put onto flat trailers designed for oversize loads.The sections are part of the $55 million Mars Hill Wind Farm project being developed by Evergreen Wind Power LLC.
At full capacity, the wind farm will generate 42 megawatts annually, enough to power 45,000 homes. At a more likely 35 percent production, it will provide electricity for 22,000 average Maine homes.
Evergreen Wind Power officials did not return telephone messages left Thursday afternoon.
On Thursday morning, as the first truck climbed the hill on Trundy Road leading from Mack Point to Route 1, law enforcement officers and the town public works crew stopped traffic from both directions and redirected it around downtown Searsport.
The truck had planned a left turn, west toward Belfast, where the route would take the tower section to state Route 141 and eventually to Interstate 95, and finally to the Mars Hill area in Aroostook County.
Because of the angled turn, and utility poles on both sides of Trundy Road, the trucks were expected to do some forward-and-back maneuvering before getting onto Route 1. But before the driver could begin making the turn, the lower front portion of the trailer began scraping across the road surface, chewing up pavement and spilling the section onto the road.
Ben Tracy, a graphic designer for Hamilton Marine at the Trundy Road-Route 1 intersection, said the mishap got his and his co-workers' attention.
"We heard it. A bunch of us went down [to look at it]," he said Thursday afternoon.
A co-worker witnessed the first, failed attempt at a turn, Tracy said, and told his co-workers: "There's no way that's going to turn.
"Sure enough, the attempt failed, and the tower section rolled.
With the help of chains and giant payloaders from Sprague Energy, which operates the Mack Point port facilities, the tower section was put back onto the trailer, apparently none the worse for wear. The effort took several hours, though, Tracy said.
Further attempts at negotiating the turn, using different strategies and equipment, also failed, and the lead truck finally backed down Trundy Road and parked.
Another attempt is expected to be made today or Saturday.
The Mars Hill project is the first major wind power farm to be approved in Maine. When complete, it will be the largest such farm in New England.
Twenty-eight towers with turbines will rise 262 feet along the ridge of the mountain. Foundations for the towers already have been poured.
In the spring, the company unloaded 84 turbine blades manufactured in Brazil, each 125 feet long and weighing 15,000 pounds, from a ship at Mack Point. They were delivered by truck to Mars Hill.
The 82-foot-tall center and 98-foot-tall top tower sections, manufactured in Canada, were to be shipped by rail or truck to the Mars Hill site. The bottom sections are too wide at their base for rail shipment and so were brought by ship to Mack Point from a port on the St. Lawrence Seaway.
The electrical generators, each weighing 60 tons, manufactured in Florida, were to be shipped by rail from Pensacola to Aroostook County.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Can Cohocton take this kind of excitement?
What is next? A hell-i-copter to ferry town officials !!!
Tilting at Wind Energy by William Tucker
And so an anti-windmill culture has arisen, also parading under the banner of environmentalism. They have names like "Windstop," "War Against Wind," "Vermonters With Vision," "Stop Ill Wind," "Save Our Allegheny Ridges," and "Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy." Most of them have now aggregated in Internet communities such as Wind-watch.org, WindAction.org, and AWEO.org (American Wind Energy Opposition).
"I started out a strong environmentalist supportive of alternate energy and concerned about global warming," says Jon Boone, a western Maryland resident who has become a prominent opponent of wind farms on the East Coast. "But the more I looked into it, the more I realized how insubstantial the claims of wind advocates have become."
(click to read entire article)
"I started out a strong environmentalist supportive of alternate energy and concerned about global warming," says Jon Boone, a western Maryland resident who has become a prominent opponent of wind farms on the East Coast. "But the more I looked into it, the more I realized how insubstantial the claims of wind advocates have become."
(click to read entire article)
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Town of Howard meeting rescheduled
Hello everyone,
I wanted to make sure you all knew that the Howard Town Board meeting that was scheduled for tonight was postponed until March 14, 2007. It was to be a very important one because it was Public Hearings for 3 very important local laws. Code of Ethics, Planning Board changes and The local Wind Energy Law, all of which will greatly impact the residents of the Town of Howard and even people within earshot and eyesight of Howard ( yes- all 3 in one night!). Everyone impacted should put it on their calendar now.
Thanks
Donna Marmuscak
I wanted to make sure you all knew that the Howard Town Board meeting that was scheduled for tonight was postponed until March 14, 2007. It was to be a very important one because it was Public Hearings for 3 very important local laws. Code of Ethics, Planning Board changes and The local Wind Energy Law, all of which will greatly impact the residents of the Town of Howard and even people within earshot and eyesight of Howard ( yes- all 3 in one night!). Everyone impacted should put it on their calendar now.
Thanks
Donna Marmuscak
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
WSJ letter to the editor by Glenn Schleede
February 13, 2007
Editor, Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal’s February 12 article, “The New Math of Alternative Energy,” is deficient in many respects. Unlike its purported objective, the article does not provide a sound analysis of whether “going green” makes “economic sense.” The section on “wind energy,” for example, has four major deficiencies.
First, when attempting to compare the costs of electricity from various energy sources, the article fails to recognize that electricity produced from wind has less value than electricity produced from reliable generating units. Specifically:
a. Electricity must be produced at all times in the amounts required to meet customers’ demands because electricity cannot be stored in any appreciable amounts. In order to keep electric grids in balance in terms of supply and demand, grid managers must be able to control the output from generating units supplying the grid. Generating units subject to increased or decreased electricity production on command are called “dispatchable” units.
b. Wind turbines are not “dispatchable.” They produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within the right speed range. Their output is intermittent, volatile, and unreliable. Furthermore, wind turbines are most likely to produce at night and in winter when winds tend to be strongest – not on hot weekday summer afternoons in July and August when electricity demand is highest and electricity has its highest value.
c. Because wind turbines cannot be counted on to produce when electricity demand reaches its highest levels, they have virtually no “capacity value” to grid managers. Therefore, areas experiencing significant electricity demand growth will have to add reliable, dispatchable generating units whether or not they add wind turbines.
Second, the article purports to compare costs of electricity without acknowledging the full costs of electricity from wind. The article mentions only one of the huge federal tax breaks available to “wind farm” owners. There are many other tax breaks and subsidies. On a per kilowatt-hour basis, wind is probably now the most heavily subsidized of all energy sources for generating electricity. Hundreds of millions in tax breaks and subsidies are flowing to “wind farm” owners each year while, according to EIA, wind provided only 36/100 of 1% of US electricity in 2005 and is expected to provide only 89/100 of 1% of US electricity in 2030.
Wind advocates have publicly acknowledged that 2/3 of the economic value of a “wind farm” is from two generous federal tax breaks (i.e., Production Tax Credit and 5-yr 200% declining balance accelerated depreciation), and that tax breaks from some states may be worth another 10%. Subsidies worth additional millions to the wind industry include artificial markets created by state “Renewable Portfolio Standards” and “green energy” programs that permit “wind farm” owners to sell electricity at above market prices. Transmission lines built to serve “wind farms,” but with the costs charged to electric customers, are still another subsidy.
Still another part of the true cost of electricity from wind is the cost of keeping reliable generating units immediately available, but running at less than peak efficiency or in spinning reserve mode, to serve as backup for the intermittent, volatile output from wind turbines so that electric grids can be kept in balance.
Third, the article tacitly accepts spurious claims about the cost per kWh of electricity from wind that are made by the wind industry, IEA or EIA. Valid claims about cost per kWh require knowledge of (a) the capital costs of turbines and associated equipment, (b) the useful life of the wind turbines, (c) the amount of electricity that will be produced each year, and (d) the cost of operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing and decommissioning the “wind farms.”
Except for initial capital costs, all other factors used in estimating costs per kWh of electricity from wind are based on assumptions. In fact, unlike generating units using the “traditional” energy sources, none of the type of wind turbines now being installed have been in service long enough to have reliable track records of even 5 years.
Quite likely, the cost per kWh of electricity from wind cited in the article is based on an assumption that the wind turbines will have useful lives of 20 years. If, however, the useful life turns out to be 10 years rather than 20, only about half the expected number of kWh will have been produced. This means that the actual cost per kWh will be approximately twice the cost often claimed by wind advocates when they assume a 20-year useful life. Furthermore, “wind farm” owners will have less incentive to spend the money required to maintain wind turbines once the highly lucrative tax breaks run out (i.e., after 5 and 10 years), and costs of maintaining the aging turbines rise. Owners may even find it more advantageous to sell or abandon the turbines rather than spending the money needed to keep their performance from deteriorating.
Fourth, the article fails even to mention the adverse environmental, ecological, scenic and property value impacts of wind farms – all of which are key factors in the growing opposition to the construction of wind farms in the US – from Maine to Texas and Virginia to California and Washington – as well as in Europe.
Wall Street Journal readers deserve a higher quality of current research, objective analysis and discernment than is reflected in the “New Math” article.
Sincerely,
Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
Editor, Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal’s February 12 article, “The New Math of Alternative Energy,” is deficient in many respects. Unlike its purported objective, the article does not provide a sound analysis of whether “going green” makes “economic sense.” The section on “wind energy,” for example, has four major deficiencies.
First, when attempting to compare the costs of electricity from various energy sources, the article fails to recognize that electricity produced from wind has less value than electricity produced from reliable generating units. Specifically:
a. Electricity must be produced at all times in the amounts required to meet customers’ demands because electricity cannot be stored in any appreciable amounts. In order to keep electric grids in balance in terms of supply and demand, grid managers must be able to control the output from generating units supplying the grid. Generating units subject to increased or decreased electricity production on command are called “dispatchable” units.
b. Wind turbines are not “dispatchable.” They produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within the right speed range. Their output is intermittent, volatile, and unreliable. Furthermore, wind turbines are most likely to produce at night and in winter when winds tend to be strongest – not on hot weekday summer afternoons in July and August when electricity demand is highest and electricity has its highest value.
c. Because wind turbines cannot be counted on to produce when electricity demand reaches its highest levels, they have virtually no “capacity value” to grid managers. Therefore, areas experiencing significant electricity demand growth will have to add reliable, dispatchable generating units whether or not they add wind turbines.
Second, the article purports to compare costs of electricity without acknowledging the full costs of electricity from wind. The article mentions only one of the huge federal tax breaks available to “wind farm” owners. There are many other tax breaks and subsidies. On a per kilowatt-hour basis, wind is probably now the most heavily subsidized of all energy sources for generating electricity. Hundreds of millions in tax breaks and subsidies are flowing to “wind farm” owners each year while, according to EIA, wind provided only 36/100 of 1% of US electricity in 2005 and is expected to provide only 89/100 of 1% of US electricity in 2030.
Wind advocates have publicly acknowledged that 2/3 of the economic value of a “wind farm” is from two generous federal tax breaks (i.e., Production Tax Credit and 5-yr 200% declining balance accelerated depreciation), and that tax breaks from some states may be worth another 10%. Subsidies worth additional millions to the wind industry include artificial markets created by state “Renewable Portfolio Standards” and “green energy” programs that permit “wind farm” owners to sell electricity at above market prices. Transmission lines built to serve “wind farms,” but with the costs charged to electric customers, are still another subsidy.
Still another part of the true cost of electricity from wind is the cost of keeping reliable generating units immediately available, but running at less than peak efficiency or in spinning reserve mode, to serve as backup for the intermittent, volatile output from wind turbines so that electric grids can be kept in balance.
Third, the article tacitly accepts spurious claims about the cost per kWh of electricity from wind that are made by the wind industry, IEA or EIA. Valid claims about cost per kWh require knowledge of (a) the capital costs of turbines and associated equipment, (b) the useful life of the wind turbines, (c) the amount of electricity that will be produced each year, and (d) the cost of operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing and decommissioning the “wind farms.”
Except for initial capital costs, all other factors used in estimating costs per kWh of electricity from wind are based on assumptions. In fact, unlike generating units using the “traditional” energy sources, none of the type of wind turbines now being installed have been in service long enough to have reliable track records of even 5 years.
Quite likely, the cost per kWh of electricity from wind cited in the article is based on an assumption that the wind turbines will have useful lives of 20 years. If, however, the useful life turns out to be 10 years rather than 20, only about half the expected number of kWh will have been produced. This means that the actual cost per kWh will be approximately twice the cost often claimed by wind advocates when they assume a 20-year useful life. Furthermore, “wind farm” owners will have less incentive to spend the money required to maintain wind turbines once the highly lucrative tax breaks run out (i.e., after 5 and 10 years), and costs of maintaining the aging turbines rise. Owners may even find it more advantageous to sell or abandon the turbines rather than spending the money needed to keep their performance from deteriorating.
Fourth, the article fails even to mention the adverse environmental, ecological, scenic and property value impacts of wind farms – all of which are key factors in the growing opposition to the construction of wind farms in the US – from Maine to Texas and Virginia to California and Washington – as well as in Europe.
Wall Street Journal readers deserve a higher quality of current research, objective analysis and discernment than is reflected in the “New Math” article.
Sincerely,
Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Turbine, power-line proposals connected by Andy McEvoy
The manner in which the citizens, politicians, business owners and residents of Oneida and Herkimer counties have organized to put a stop to the proposed New York Regional Interconnect transmission line has been inspiring.
Anytime a for-profit company wants to disrupt people's lives, take their property or cause pain and suffering in the course of its business, the people should pull together and fight it. Any revenue gained from such businesses should be recognized as "blood money." This should be stopped at the state and federal levels.
Not far away, in the towns of Fairfield and Norway, Atlantic Wind LLC has proposed an industrial wind turbine facility consisting of 60 to 70 wind turbines almost 400 feet tall, about three times the height of a power line tower. They estimate the projects nameplate capacity will be about 120 megawatts, (nameplate capacity is the power a turbine could produce under maximum-wind conditions) a very misleading number.
(click to read entire article)
Anytime a for-profit company wants to disrupt people's lives, take their property or cause pain and suffering in the course of its business, the people should pull together and fight it. Any revenue gained from such businesses should be recognized as "blood money." This should be stopped at the state and federal levels.
Not far away, in the towns of Fairfield and Norway, Atlantic Wind LLC has proposed an industrial wind turbine facility consisting of 60 to 70 wind turbines almost 400 feet tall, about three times the height of a power line tower. They estimate the projects nameplate capacity will be about 120 megawatts, (nameplate capacity is the power a turbine could produce under maximum-wind conditions) a very misleading number.
(click to read entire article)
No, President Bush did NOT state that wind could supply 20% of US Electricity
While officials in the US DOE spend millions of tax dollars each year to help the wind industry and pay for lobbying on behalf of wind industry projects, President Bush’s statements about wind energy seem to have become more measured. Perhaps White House and Executive Office of the President staff have cautioned him not to believe the claims from DOE and other wind advocates and to recognize the truly tiny role that wind energy will be able to play in supplying US energy requirements – and even that at great cost to taxpayers and electric customers.
(click to read entire article)
(click to read entire article)
Some Towns Not Listening On Wind by Stephen Berg
Moresville Energy Center in Stamford (fronting for Invenergy LLC), encouraging placing industrial wind turbines, or IWTs, in the Catskills, is running advertisements promoting these 420-foot monsters as opportunities for children to experience "a cleaner tomorrow."
Its incentive comes from indecisiveness by town supervisors hesitating, even though their citizens have spoken out against IWTs.
One supervisor stands out against a sea of poor leadership and courage: Tom Garretson of Cherry Valley. The Freeman’s Journal in Cooperstown, applauding Mr. Garretson’s efforts against Reunion Power, wrote: "A freshman town supervisor, he firmly and courteously followed the logic of facts in the face of resistance from his family, his political mentor and longtime friends and associates."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)