If you are approached or know someone who is approached by a wind rep to sign an easement along the road, please know that you are not required to do this. We believe that wind people are saying that they are representing the town and convincing people to sign easements so that they can run the underground lines along the road.A landowner owns the property to the middle of the road and Windfarm Prattsburgh does NOT have the power of eminent domain (a recent ruling from the PSC makes this excrutiatingly clear) and no one is required to sign an easement.
We believe that people are already signing because they think they have no choice, and we need to get the word out.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Road study guts brakes on wind farm by MARY PERHAM
The commissioner added mat UPC ignored requests last week by county public works officials to stay off the roads until the agreement was signed and the study finished. This past Friday, the county posted 10-ton limits on County Routes 35 and 121 to prohibit heavy truck traffic.
(Click to read entire article)
(Click to read entire article)
UPC Host “Special Treatment” Agreement
Have you read the details in the 48 page document? The UPC leaseholders need to pay more attention to legal contracts. If they did the provision for eminent domain, in their agreements, should have alerted them to the eventual loss of their own land. Scrap value to pay decommissioning cost is all you can expect. Why does the Host Agreement refer to 21 turbines being constructed throughout the document? Who is losing their payment?
On page 7 of the Host Community Agreement, section 2 Initial Payment 2.1 On or before January 2, 2008 the Company shall pay the Town the difference between Five Hundred Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($507,500.00) and the building permit fee ("Building Permit Fee") for the building permit ("Building Permit") for the Project paid to the Town for the Project in accordance with the Town's building permit fee schedule, as may be modified pursuant to applicable law ("Initial Payment").
The above host payment would only be paid if the project is completed by the end of 2007. The building permit fee on a $184,000,000 + industrial project should be $368,000 +. When the cost for the actual permits (not issued yet) are known and paid, you will have additional proof of the favoritism that UPC receives by the current administration. Once construction begins without permits, the fees are DOUBLED (per fee schedule). Normal building cost fees should be paid by developers before construction and not become a credit to be paid in the future. Cohocton officials need to significantly reduce their public claims, of the actual amount for host payment.
On page 39, section 20 Transfer of Project: 20.3 In the event of any sale, lease, transfer or assignment (collectively, "Assignment") of all of the Company's rights interest and obligations under this Agreement to a Transferee, the Company shall be released of all of its obligations hereunder from and after the effective date of any such Assignment.
Read any mortgage agreement, the primary obligation is not forgiven until the note is paid in full. How many new or different shell LLC’s will be used by UPC to transfer ownership to other foreign companies? The host agreement is all about ways of getting out of paying the promised monies!
SCIDA admits that the PILOT is not approved. UPC has to sell/leaseback or lease/leaseback the project to SCIDA to avoid paying industrial tax rates. Who would pay the host agreement then?
On page 41, section 29.1. Company Rights of Termination: 29.1.1at the Company's option, the Company may terminate this Agreement at any time, by written notice to the Town (the date of such notice being the "Termination Date"), delivered on or before September 1, 2008
So much for protecting the Town! Wake up Cohocton vote out the incumbents.
(Visit Reform Cohocton for more information)
On page 7 of the Host Community Agreement, section 2 Initial Payment 2.1 On or before January 2, 2008 the Company shall pay the Town the difference between Five Hundred Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($507,500.00) and the building permit fee ("Building Permit Fee") for the building permit ("Building Permit") for the Project paid to the Town for the Project in accordance with the Town's building permit fee schedule, as may be modified pursuant to applicable law ("Initial Payment").
The above host payment would only be paid if the project is completed by the end of 2007. The building permit fee on a $184,000,000 + industrial project should be $368,000 +. When the cost for the actual permits (not issued yet) are known and paid, you will have additional proof of the favoritism that UPC receives by the current administration. Once construction begins without permits, the fees are DOUBLED (per fee schedule). Normal building cost fees should be paid by developers before construction and not become a credit to be paid in the future. Cohocton officials need to significantly reduce their public claims, of the actual amount for host payment.
On page 39, section 20 Transfer of Project: 20.3 In the event of any sale, lease, transfer or assignment (collectively, "Assignment") of all of the Company's rights interest and obligations under this Agreement to a Transferee, the Company shall be released of all of its obligations hereunder from and after the effective date of any such Assignment.
Read any mortgage agreement, the primary obligation is not forgiven until the note is paid in full. How many new or different shell LLC’s will be used by UPC to transfer ownership to other foreign companies? The host agreement is all about ways of getting out of paying the promised monies!
SCIDA admits that the PILOT is not approved. UPC has to sell/leaseback or lease/leaseback the project to SCIDA to avoid paying industrial tax rates. Who would pay the host agreement then?
On page 41, section 29.1. Company Rights of Termination: 29.1.1at the Company's option, the Company may terminate this Agreement at any time, by written notice to the Town (the date of such notice being the "Termination Date"), delivered on or before September 1, 2008
So much for protecting the Town! Wake up Cohocton vote out the incumbents.
(Visit Reform Cohocton for more information)
Hundreds protest wind turbines
CAIRNBROOK — Accusations flew and tempers flared Tuesday as hundreds of residents in Bedford and Somerset counties ordered Gamesa Energy to keep wind turbines off Shaffer Mountain.
The wind energy company is seeking a national pollutant discharge elimination system permit for the controversial project, which calls for at least 30 turbines.
About a thousand people gathered at Shade-Central City High School for a public hearing held by the state Department of Environmental Protection. Dozens held signs of protest, while a group of about 50 steel workers from Gamesa came out in support of the project.
Gamesa leaders were met with jeers and loud booing when they tried to explain their plans before the hearing began. Angry residents claimed DEP officials were bowing to political pressure and didn’t care what they had to say.
“Everyone who wants Gamesa out, get up,” said Joseph Kaminsky of Somerset County, prompting about three-quarters of the audience to stand. “The ecosystem on Shaffer Mountain is like no other. This is because of the presence of the water —exceptional value water.
”The permit Gamesa seeks deals with discharging storm water from the construction site into several area waterways.
At the center of the debate is the water quality in the Windber Area Watershed, where Shaffer Mountain lies. The state has deemed two of the trout streams there as exceptional value streams, meaning they have the highest water quality in Pennsylvania.
Gamesa officials insist a wind farm won’t damage the water. The proposed project will be in Shade and Ogle townships in Somerset County, though it will include 1,000 feet of gravel road about 15 feet wide in Napier Township, Bedford County.
“We are aware that this is an exceptional value watershed,” said Tim Vought, project developer. Project roads won’t cross any streams or wetlands, he said.
An engineer Gamesa hired to review the project chimed in, saying the impact on the water would be nil.
“This project probably uses more effective protection practices than any other project I’ve worked on,” said Mike Byle of California-based engineering and consulting firm Tetra Tech.
Many residents aren’t buying it.
“I am not anti-wind energy. I’m anti-Shaffer Mountain destruction,” said Jack Buchan of Johnstown, who owns 500 acres of land atop the mountain in Napier Township.
Protesters scoffed at comparisons between the Shaffer Mountain project and the Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm on the Blair-Cambria County line. That wind farm near Portage isn’t in an exceptional-value watershed, they said.
“It’s ridiculous. The watershed will become industrialized,” Buchan said. “We need DEP to quit being a facilitator and an advocate for the wind industry.
”That’s not happening, DEP officials countered.
“Rules and regulations are what dictates our review,” said Rita Coleman, an official with DEP’s Southwest region.
But Larry Hutchinson of Cairnbrook urged the DEP to strike a balance between ecological and energy needs.
“Shaffer Mountain is not an appropriate place for an industrial corridor,” Hutchinson said. “Please do not permit this application.”
Troy Galloway of Hollsopple, unit president of the United Steelworkers union at Gamesa, said he believes many people are ill-informed. Gamesa is a “big believer in the environment,” he said.
“Wind energy benefits the environment as well as the economy,” Galloway said. “Pennsylvania does need a shot in the arm, and why shouldn’t we get that shot from something positive?”
Mirror Staff Writer Allison Bourg is at 946-7520.
The wind energy company is seeking a national pollutant discharge elimination system permit for the controversial project, which calls for at least 30 turbines.
About a thousand people gathered at Shade-Central City High School for a public hearing held by the state Department of Environmental Protection. Dozens held signs of protest, while a group of about 50 steel workers from Gamesa came out in support of the project.
Gamesa leaders were met with jeers and loud booing when they tried to explain their plans before the hearing began. Angry residents claimed DEP officials were bowing to political pressure and didn’t care what they had to say.
“Everyone who wants Gamesa out, get up,” said Joseph Kaminsky of Somerset County, prompting about three-quarters of the audience to stand. “The ecosystem on Shaffer Mountain is like no other. This is because of the presence of the water —exceptional value water.
”The permit Gamesa seeks deals with discharging storm water from the construction site into several area waterways.
At the center of the debate is the water quality in the Windber Area Watershed, where Shaffer Mountain lies. The state has deemed two of the trout streams there as exceptional value streams, meaning they have the highest water quality in Pennsylvania.
Gamesa officials insist a wind farm won’t damage the water. The proposed project will be in Shade and Ogle townships in Somerset County, though it will include 1,000 feet of gravel road about 15 feet wide in Napier Township, Bedford County.
“We are aware that this is an exceptional value watershed,” said Tim Vought, project developer. Project roads won’t cross any streams or wetlands, he said.
An engineer Gamesa hired to review the project chimed in, saying the impact on the water would be nil.
“This project probably uses more effective protection practices than any other project I’ve worked on,” said Mike Byle of California-based engineering and consulting firm Tetra Tech.
Many residents aren’t buying it.
“I am not anti-wind energy. I’m anti-Shaffer Mountain destruction,” said Jack Buchan of Johnstown, who owns 500 acres of land atop the mountain in Napier Township.
Protesters scoffed at comparisons between the Shaffer Mountain project and the Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm on the Blair-Cambria County line. That wind farm near Portage isn’t in an exceptional-value watershed, they said.
“It’s ridiculous. The watershed will become industrialized,” Buchan said. “We need DEP to quit being a facilitator and an advocate for the wind industry.
”That’s not happening, DEP officials countered.
“Rules and regulations are what dictates our review,” said Rita Coleman, an official with DEP’s Southwest region.
But Larry Hutchinson of Cairnbrook urged the DEP to strike a balance between ecological and energy needs.
“Shaffer Mountain is not an appropriate place for an industrial corridor,” Hutchinson said. “Please do not permit this application.”
Troy Galloway of Hollsopple, unit president of the United Steelworkers union at Gamesa, said he believes many people are ill-informed. Gamesa is a “big believer in the environment,” he said.
“Wind energy benefits the environment as well as the economy,” Galloway said. “Pennsylvania does need a shot in the arm, and why shouldn’t we get that shot from something positive?”
Mirror Staff Writer Allison Bourg is at 946-7520.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Wait on Wind
Reunion power wants to put a wind farm in Fulton, and if it does, the farm would be Reunion’s very first. We’re not comfortable with Fulton being a guinea pig for a company looking to make a profit.
Reunion’s approach to Fulton is more than a little curious. Stephen Eisenberg, the company’s marketing director, attended a town board meeting last week supposedly to get feedback from reisdents. The problem was that there was little to give feedback about because Reunion has yet to actually propose a project. So last Monday’s meeting turned into a question session, with the audience prying information out of Mr. Eisenberg. Although he said the project is in the “very early stages”, Mr. Eisenberg added that plans call for 25 to 30 wind turbines, 400 feet high with 250 foot blades, in Fulton and Richmondville. Left unanswered at the meeting were questions about how much Reunion would pay Fulton, how the turbines would affect property values and Reunion’s experience in this field.
Though all of those questions cry for answers, it’s the last one that most concerns us. Reunion, according to Mr. Eisenberg, manages two wind farms in the midwest but has never built one. Managing and building are entirely different tasks. It’s unlikely for instance, that you’d ask a supermarket manager to built a supermarket. Reunion is coming into the Fulton project with a track record of zero and absolutely no resume to show. This hardly inspires confidence.
And so far, Reunion has done little to enhance its image. Information is incomplete and at best, difficult to come by. Mr. Eisenberg wants feedback without having proposed anything yet. He said he doesn’t know how wind farms have affected property values. C’mon, how hard is that to find out? What about payments to towns? What do residents get out of this? In the process of planning a wind farm that likely costs millions, Reunion surely has the answers to these simple - and very obvious - questions. We’d advise Reunion to be up front and honest; playing hard to get implies the opposite.
Reunion wants Fulton and Richmondville to get a wind-farm law in place, and fast. Local officials should hold off. This company has little to show and little to say, and such behavior sets off alarms.
Reunion’s approach to Fulton is more than a little curious. Stephen Eisenberg, the company’s marketing director, attended a town board meeting last week supposedly to get feedback from reisdents. The problem was that there was little to give feedback about because Reunion has yet to actually propose a project. So last Monday’s meeting turned into a question session, with the audience prying information out of Mr. Eisenberg. Although he said the project is in the “very early stages”, Mr. Eisenberg added that plans call for 25 to 30 wind turbines, 400 feet high with 250 foot blades, in Fulton and Richmondville. Left unanswered at the meeting were questions about how much Reunion would pay Fulton, how the turbines would affect property values and Reunion’s experience in this field.
Though all of those questions cry for answers, it’s the last one that most concerns us. Reunion, according to Mr. Eisenberg, manages two wind farms in the midwest but has never built one. Managing and building are entirely different tasks. It’s unlikely for instance, that you’d ask a supermarket manager to built a supermarket. Reunion is coming into the Fulton project with a track record of zero and absolutely no resume to show. This hardly inspires confidence.
And so far, Reunion has done little to enhance its image. Information is incomplete and at best, difficult to come by. Mr. Eisenberg wants feedback without having proposed anything yet. He said he doesn’t know how wind farms have affected property values. C’mon, how hard is that to find out? What about payments to towns? What do residents get out of this? In the process of planning a wind farm that likely costs millions, Reunion surely has the answers to these simple - and very obvious - questions. We’d advise Reunion to be up front and honest; playing hard to get implies the opposite.
Reunion wants Fulton and Richmondville to get a wind-farm law in place, and fast. Local officials should hold off. This company has little to show and little to say, and such behavior sets off alarms.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Blowin' in the Wind by Stanley Fish
NY Times
August 26, 2007
When the issue of energy came up in the debate among the Democratic presidential contenders on Aug. 7, the candidates began talking about “renewable” energy and one of them (Chris Dodd) mentioned wind power. Seems logical. Why spend all the effort and money to build huge electricity plants when the wind is always blowing? Who could argue against a technology that promises to derive energy from a renewable, and free, resource?
Everyone I know.
For five months of the year, I live in the very small town of Andes, N.Y. Each year has its signature event — floods, drought, road construction, caterpillars. And 2006 to 2007 has been the year of the wind turbines.
Like many of the other towns targeted by the wind turbine industry, Andes is a rural community that over the years has lost its economic base. At one time the hills and valleys were home to many small dairy farms, but most of them are no longer in operation, and no industry, light or heavy, has taken their place. Now the area relies for its revenue on retirees and second home owners who are educated, relatively well off and tend to be teachers therapists, lawyers, artists and social workers. In short, liberals. They are all soldiers in Al Gore’s army, into organic foods, hybrid cars, clean air, clean water, the whole bit.
They are also against wind power.
Their reasons are the ones always given by those who wake up to find the wind interests at their door. Even if large wind farms were in place throughout the country, the electricity produced would be a very small percentage of the electricity we use. Because the turbines are huge, 400 feet or more, installing them involves tearing up the ridges on which they are placed. Once in operation, they cast shadows and produce noise. Their blades cause a “flicker” effect, kill birds and interfere with migration. The outsized towers ruin scenic views and depress real-estate values.
These last two reasons are seized on by wind proponents who say that a few elite newcomers are putting their aesthetic preferences ahead of both the community’s welfare and the national effort to shift to green energy as a way of slowing down global warming.
It’s a nice line, but it won’t fly. The wind companies may advertise themselves as environmentalists, but they are really developers, which means that they do things with other peoples’ money — yours. Wind farms are attractive as an investment because the combination of tax credits, tax shelters and accelerated depreciation rates means that investors reap large profits in a few years. Meanwhile, those in the community pay twice for their electricity; once when their taxes go to subsidize the wind interests and a second time when the monthly bill arrives. And that bill will likely be larger than it would have been had the turbines never been erected.
Then there are the issues of “de-commissioning.” What happens when the turbines are no longer profitable and are shut down or fall into disrepair and become postmodern ruins larger than Stonehenge? Who fixes them? Who takes them down? Who repairs the ridges?
Don’t ask the original developers. Before the special tax and depreciation breaks have run their course, they will be long gone, either because they have sold the project to another developer or because they have just decamped and moved on to the next town.
So what do you do? Some towns have done nothing; they think it can’t happen here. Other towns take the developer’s money but extract promises that the turbines will be set back so many yards or miles. (Good luck if the promises aren’t kept; developers never return your calls.)
Others across the country have done what we did in Andes — organize. We formed an alliance, incorporated, raised money, sent out flyers, took polls, sponsored forums, wrote a zoning ordinance, presented it to the town council and planning board, and finally saw it pass. It was democracy in action.
But it’s not over. The Spitzer administration has been working on a plan to shift the authority for land use control from local communities to a state commission. Local zoning ordinances would be countermanded and communities like Andes could get wind farms even if they didn’t want them.
Perhaps the governor and his colleagues should be reminded of the company that made wind power into a big, profitable business in this country. It was called Enron.
August 26, 2007
When the issue of energy came up in the debate among the Democratic presidential contenders on Aug. 7, the candidates began talking about “renewable” energy and one of them (Chris Dodd) mentioned wind power. Seems logical. Why spend all the effort and money to build huge electricity plants when the wind is always blowing? Who could argue against a technology that promises to derive energy from a renewable, and free, resource?
Everyone I know.
For five months of the year, I live in the very small town of Andes, N.Y. Each year has its signature event — floods, drought, road construction, caterpillars. And 2006 to 2007 has been the year of the wind turbines.
Like many of the other towns targeted by the wind turbine industry, Andes is a rural community that over the years has lost its economic base. At one time the hills and valleys were home to many small dairy farms, but most of them are no longer in operation, and no industry, light or heavy, has taken their place. Now the area relies for its revenue on retirees and second home owners who are educated, relatively well off and tend to be teachers therapists, lawyers, artists and social workers. In short, liberals. They are all soldiers in Al Gore’s army, into organic foods, hybrid cars, clean air, clean water, the whole bit.
They are also against wind power.
Their reasons are the ones always given by those who wake up to find the wind interests at their door. Even if large wind farms were in place throughout the country, the electricity produced would be a very small percentage of the electricity we use. Because the turbines are huge, 400 feet or more, installing them involves tearing up the ridges on which they are placed. Once in operation, they cast shadows and produce noise. Their blades cause a “flicker” effect, kill birds and interfere with migration. The outsized towers ruin scenic views and depress real-estate values.
These last two reasons are seized on by wind proponents who say that a few elite newcomers are putting their aesthetic preferences ahead of both the community’s welfare and the national effort to shift to green energy as a way of slowing down global warming.
It’s a nice line, but it won’t fly. The wind companies may advertise themselves as environmentalists, but they are really developers, which means that they do things with other peoples’ money — yours. Wind farms are attractive as an investment because the combination of tax credits, tax shelters and accelerated depreciation rates means that investors reap large profits in a few years. Meanwhile, those in the community pay twice for their electricity; once when their taxes go to subsidize the wind interests and a second time when the monthly bill arrives. And that bill will likely be larger than it would have been had the turbines never been erected.
Then there are the issues of “de-commissioning.” What happens when the turbines are no longer profitable and are shut down or fall into disrepair and become postmodern ruins larger than Stonehenge? Who fixes them? Who takes them down? Who repairs the ridges?
Don’t ask the original developers. Before the special tax and depreciation breaks have run their course, they will be long gone, either because they have sold the project to another developer or because they have just decamped and moved on to the next town.
So what do you do? Some towns have done nothing; they think it can’t happen here. Other towns take the developer’s money but extract promises that the turbines will be set back so many yards or miles. (Good luck if the promises aren’t kept; developers never return your calls.)
Others across the country have done what we did in Andes — organize. We formed an alliance, incorporated, raised money, sent out flyers, took polls, sponsored forums, wrote a zoning ordinance, presented it to the town council and planning board, and finally saw it pass. It was democracy in action.
But it’s not over. The Spitzer administration has been working on a plan to shift the authority for land use control from local communities to a state commission. Local zoning ordinances would be countermanded and communities like Andes could get wind farms even if they didn’t want them.
Perhaps the governor and his colleagues should be reminded of the company that made wind power into a big, profitable business in this country. It was called Enron.
U.S. House Energy Bill: Rhetoric Over Reality by Robert Bryce
U.S. House Energy Bill: Rhetoric Over Reality
When it comes to energy issues, Americans are far more interested in rhetoric than pragmatism.
For proof of that, look no further than the massive energy bill passed by the House last month. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi heralded the passage of the 780-page bill, known as "A New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection," declaring, “Energy independence is a national security issue, an environmental and health issue, an economic issue, and a moral issue.” (What? No mention of male-pattern baldness?)
The bill does nothing to increase energy supplies. It won’t cut oil imports, it won’t strengthen America’s creaky electricity grid, nor make America energy independent. Other than that, it’s great legislation.
Perhaps the most significant – and most controversial – element of the House bill is its requirement that by 2020, publicly traded power companies must get 15 percent of all their electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar.
Let’s put that in perspective.
In mid-2007 electricity demand was growing by 2.7 percent annually, and if it continues at that rate, electricity consumption in the U.S. will double in about 26 years. In late 2006 the North American Electric Reliability Council warned that this growing demand is not being met by increasing supply, and the U.S. may have a generating capacity shortfall of 81,000 megawatts by 2015. Just for perspective, the Three Mile Island Generating Station in Pennsylvania operates one 850-megawatt reactor. So the looming electricity shortfall in the U.S. is equal to the output of 95 reactors.
But keep in mind that those reactors are reliable sources of base load power. Wind turbines and solar panels are not. In fact, due to the intermittence of wind and sunlight, virtually every new megawatt of renewable energy must be backed up by conventional power plants. Thus, all of the new renewable sources will have little effect on overall emissions of carbon dioxide.
Nor will the new renewable electricity requirement do anything for “energy independence” because only a marginal amount of domestic electricity (about 2 percent) is generated by oil-fired power plants.
The House bill does nothing to decrease energy imports because it doesn’t allow any increases in domestic production of oil and gas. Regions known to contain billions of barrels of hydrocarbons, like the eastern Gulf of Mexico or the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, continue to be off-limits to prospectors.
But perhaps it’s wrong to expect the House to come up with any meaningful energy policy. After all, it is only responding to the whims of the American populace. A March survey by Yale University’s Center for Environmental Law and Policy found that 93 percent questioned said imported oil is a serious problem, and 70 percent said it was “very” serious. An April poll by CBS News and the New York Times found overwhelming support – 92 percent! – for laws requiring automakers to produce more efficient cars. But when asked if they would support a tax on gasoline in order to “cut down on energy consumption and reduce global warming,” 58 percent of respondents said no.
In other words, Americans still crave a free lunch when it comes to energy. They want lots of cheap gasoline, but they hate the oil companies. They say they are concerned about imported oil, but they don’t want to pay more for any of the energy they use.
Congress has responded to this muddle by passing two monster energy bills that are long on rhetoric but woefully short on substance. In June, the Senate passed a bill that could require the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol and other biofuels by 2022. Now, the House and the Senate will have to work on a compromise bill that will be palatable to George W. Bush, who is already threatening a veto.
A veto may be the best possible outcome. Democrats can express their outrage, Bush can bash an unpopular Congress (a mid-August Gallup poll found 76 percent of Americans disapprove of the job it’s doing) and better still, Washington ends up abiding by the Hippocratic oath: first, do no harm. And when it comes to energy issues, that may be the most pragmatic move of all.
When it comes to energy issues, Americans are far more interested in rhetoric than pragmatism.
For proof of that, look no further than the massive energy bill passed by the House last month. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi heralded the passage of the 780-page bill, known as "A New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection," declaring, “Energy independence is a national security issue, an environmental and health issue, an economic issue, and a moral issue.” (What? No mention of male-pattern baldness?)
The bill does nothing to increase energy supplies. It won’t cut oil imports, it won’t strengthen America’s creaky electricity grid, nor make America energy independent. Other than that, it’s great legislation.
Perhaps the most significant – and most controversial – element of the House bill is its requirement that by 2020, publicly traded power companies must get 15 percent of all their electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar.
Let’s put that in perspective.
In mid-2007 electricity demand was growing by 2.7 percent annually, and if it continues at that rate, electricity consumption in the U.S. will double in about 26 years. In late 2006 the North American Electric Reliability Council warned that this growing demand is not being met by increasing supply, and the U.S. may have a generating capacity shortfall of 81,000 megawatts by 2015. Just for perspective, the Three Mile Island Generating Station in Pennsylvania operates one 850-megawatt reactor. So the looming electricity shortfall in the U.S. is equal to the output of 95 reactors.
But keep in mind that those reactors are reliable sources of base load power. Wind turbines and solar panels are not. In fact, due to the intermittence of wind and sunlight, virtually every new megawatt of renewable energy must be backed up by conventional power plants. Thus, all of the new renewable sources will have little effect on overall emissions of carbon dioxide.
Nor will the new renewable electricity requirement do anything for “energy independence” because only a marginal amount of domestic electricity (about 2 percent) is generated by oil-fired power plants.
The House bill does nothing to decrease energy imports because it doesn’t allow any increases in domestic production of oil and gas. Regions known to contain billions of barrels of hydrocarbons, like the eastern Gulf of Mexico or the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, continue to be off-limits to prospectors.
But perhaps it’s wrong to expect the House to come up with any meaningful energy policy. After all, it is only responding to the whims of the American populace. A March survey by Yale University’s Center for Environmental Law and Policy found that 93 percent questioned said imported oil is a serious problem, and 70 percent said it was “very” serious. An April poll by CBS News and the New York Times found overwhelming support – 92 percent! – for laws requiring automakers to produce more efficient cars. But when asked if they would support a tax on gasoline in order to “cut down on energy consumption and reduce global warming,” 58 percent of respondents said no.
In other words, Americans still crave a free lunch when it comes to energy. They want lots of cheap gasoline, but they hate the oil companies. They say they are concerned about imported oil, but they don’t want to pay more for any of the energy they use.
Congress has responded to this muddle by passing two monster energy bills that are long on rhetoric but woefully short on substance. In June, the Senate passed a bill that could require the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol and other biofuels by 2022. Now, the House and the Senate will have to work on a compromise bill that will be palatable to George W. Bush, who is already threatening a veto.
A veto may be the best possible outcome. Democrats can express their outrage, Bush can bash an unpopular Congress (a mid-August Gallup poll found 76 percent of Americans disapprove of the job it’s doing) and better still, Washington ends up abiding by the Hippocratic oath: first, do no harm. And when it comes to energy issues, that may be the most pragmatic move of all.
WIND POWER GROUP SPENT $384,000 Lobbying
The American Wind Energy Association, which represents the wind power industry, spent nearly $384,000 to lobby the federal government in the first half of 2007, according to a disclosure form.
The Washington-based trade group lobbied Congress on a proposed requirement that utilities get a portion of their power from renewable sources like wind, the extension of a key tax credit and federal technology research efforts.
Earlier this month, the House voted to require investor-owned electric utilities nationwide to generate at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind or biofuels. An energy bill passed by the Senate earlier this summer does not contain that provision.
The wind energy industry has been promoting its interests in the contentious debate on renewable standards, battling utility owners such as Atlanta-based Southern Co. that say the mandate would be too expensive and impractical to meet.
It also lobbied the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, according to the disclosure form posted online Aug. 10 by the Senate's public records office.
Under a federal law enacted in 1995, lobbyists are required to disclose activities that could influence members of the executive and legislative branches. They must register with Congress within 45 days of being hired or engaging in lobbying.
Members include General Electric Co., BP PLC, AES Corp. and FPL Group Inc.
The Washington-based trade group lobbied Congress on a proposed requirement that utilities get a portion of their power from renewable sources like wind, the extension of a key tax credit and federal technology research efforts.
Earlier this month, the House voted to require investor-owned electric utilities nationwide to generate at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind or biofuels. An energy bill passed by the Senate earlier this summer does not contain that provision.
The wind energy industry has been promoting its interests in the contentious debate on renewable standards, battling utility owners such as Atlanta-based Southern Co. that say the mandate would be too expensive and impractical to meet.
It also lobbied the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, according to the disclosure form posted online Aug. 10 by the Senate's public records office.
Under a federal law enacted in 1995, lobbyists are required to disclose activities that could influence members of the executive and legislative branches. They must register with Congress within 45 days of being hired or engaging in lobbying.
Members include General Electric Co., BP PLC, AES Corp. and FPL Group Inc.
The Dangers of Wind Power by Simone Kaiser and Michael Fröhlingsdorf
It came without warning. A sudden gust of wind ripped the tip off of the rotor blade with a loud bang. The heavy, 10-meter (32 foot) fragment spun through the air, and crashed into a field some 200 meters away.
The wind turbine, which is 100 meters (328 feet) tall, broke apart in early November 2006 in the region of Oldenburg in northern Germany—and the consequences of the event are only now becoming apparent. Startled by the accident, the local building authority ordered the examination of six other wind turbines of the same model.
The results, which finally came in this summer, alarmed District Administrator Frank Eger. He immediately alerted the state government of Lower Saxony, writing that he had shut down four turbines due to safety concerns. It was already the second incident in his district, he wrote, adding that turbines of this type could pose a threat across the country. The expert evaluation had discovered possible manufacturing defects and irregularities.
Mishaps, Breakdowns and Accidents
After the industry's recent boom years, wind power providers and experts are now concerned. The facilities may not be as reliable and durable as producers claim. Indeed, with thousands of mishaps, breakdowns and accidents having been reported in recent years, the difficulties seem to be mounting. Gearboxes hiding inside the casings perched on top of the towering masts have short shelf lives, often crapping out before even five years is up. In some cases, fractures form along the rotors, or even in the foundation, after only limited operation. Short circuits or overheated propellers have been known to cause fires. All this despite manufacturers' promises that the turbines would last at least 20 years.
Gearboxes have already had to be replaced "in large numbers," the German Insurance Association is now complaining. "In addition to generators and gearboxes, rotor blades also often display defects," a report on the technical shortcomings of wind turbines claims. The insurance companies are complaining of problems ranging from those caused by improper storage to dangerous cracks and fractures.
The frail turbines coming off the assembly lines at some manufacturers threaten to damage an industry that for years has been hailed as a wild success. As recently as the end of July, the German WindEnergy Association (BWE) crowed that business had once again hit record levels. The wind power industry expanded by a solid 40 percent in 2006, according to the BWE, and it now provides work for 74,000 people.
Germany, moreover, is the global leader when it comes to wind power: More than 19,000 windmills now dot the countryside—more than in any other country. Green power has become a point of pride in Germany in recent years, and Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel would now like to construct vast new wind farms along the country's North Sea and Baltic Sea coasts.
No Time for Testing
Generous government subsidies have transformed wind power into a billion-euro industry within just a few years. Because energy providers have to purchase wind power at set prices, everyone, it seems, wants in.
But it is precisely the industry's prodigious success that is leading to its technological shortcomings. "Many companies have sold an endless number of units," complains engineer Manfred Perkun, until recently a claims adjuster for R+V Insurance. "It hardly leaves any time for testing prototypes."
Wind power expert Martin Stöckl knows the problems all too well. The Bavarian travels some 80,000 kilometers (49,710 miles) across Germany every year, but he is only rarely able to help the wind farmers. It is not just the rotors that, due to enormous worldwide demand, take forever to deliver, but simple replacement parts are likewise nowhere to be found. "You often have to wait 18 months for a new rotor mount, which means the turbine stands still for that long," says Stöckl.
"Sales Top, Service Flop" is the headline on a recent cover story which appeared in the industry journal Erneuerbare Energien. The story reports the disastrous results of a questionnaire passed out to members of the German WindEnergy Association asking them to rank manufacturers. Only Enercon, based in Germany, managed a ranking of "good." The company produces wind turbines without gearboxes, eliminating one of the weakest links in the chain.
Even among insurers, who raced into the new market in the 1990s, wind power is now considered a risky sector. Industry giant Allianz was faced with around a thousand damage claims in 2006 alone. Jan Pohl, who works for Allianz in Munich, has calculated that on average "an operator has to expect damage to his facility every four years, not including malfunctions and uninsured breakdowns."
Many insurance companies have learned their lessons and are now writing maintenance requirements—requiring wind farmers to replace vulnerable components such as gearboxes every five years—directly into their contracts. But a gearbox replacement can cost up to 10 percent of the original construction price tag, enough to cut deep into anticipated profits. Indeed, many investors may be in for a nasty surprise. "Between 3,000 and 4,000 older facilities are currently due for new insurance policies," says Holger Martsfeld, head of technical insurance at Germany's leading wind turbine insurer Gothaer. "We know that many of these facilities have flaws."
Flaws And Dangers
And the technical hitches are not without their dangers. For example:
• In December of last year, fragments of a broken rotor blade landed on a road shortly before rush hour traffic near the city of Trier
• Two wind turbines caught fire near Osnabrück and in the Havelland region in January. The firefighters could only watch: Their ladders were not tall enough to reach the burning casings
• The same month, a 70-meter (230-foot) tall wind turbine folded in half in Schleswig-Holstein—right next to a highway
• The rotor blades of a wind turbine in Brandenburg ripped off at a height of 100 meters (328 feet). Fragments of the rotors stuck into a grain field near a road.
At the Allianz Technology Center (AZT) in Munich, the bits and pieces from wind turbine meltdowns are closely examined. "The force that comes to bear on the rotors is much greater than originally expected," says AZT evaluator Erwin Bauer. Wind speed is simply not consistent enough, he points out. "There are gusts and direction changes all the time," he says.
But instead of working to create more efficient technology, many manufacturers have simply elected to build even larger rotor blades, Bauer adds. "Large machines may have great capacity, but the strains they are subject to are even harder to control," he says.
Even the technically basic concrete foundations are suffering from those strains. Vibrations and load changes cause fractures, water seeps into the cracks, and the rebar begins to rust. Repairs are difficult. "You can't look inside concrete," says Marc Gutermann, a professor for experimental statics in Bremen. "It's no use just closing the cracks from above."
The engineering expert suspects construction errors are to blame. "The facilities keep getting bigger," he says, "but the diameter of the masts has to remain the same because otherwise they would be too big to transport on the roadways."
Not Sufficiently Resilient
Still the wind power business is focusing on replacing smaller facilities with ever larger ones. With all the best sites already taken, boosting size is one of the few ways left to boost output. On land at least. So far, there are no offshore wind parks in German waters, a situation that Minister Gabriel hopes to change. He wants offshore wind farms to produce a total of 25,000 megawatts by 2030.
Perhaps by then, the lessons learned on land will ward off disaster at sea. Many constructors of such offshore facilities in other countries have run into difficulties. Danish company and world market leader Vestas, for example, had to remove the turbines from an entire wind park along Denmark's western coast in 2004 because the turbines were not sufficiently resilient to withstand the local sea and weather conditions. Similar problems were encountered off the British coast in 2005.
German wind turbine giant Enercon, for its part, considers the risks associated with offshore wind power generation too great, says Enercon spokesman Andreas Düser says. While the growth potential is tempting, he says, the company does not want to lose its good standing on the high seas.
The wind turbine, which is 100 meters (328 feet) tall, broke apart in early November 2006 in the region of Oldenburg in northern Germany—and the consequences of the event are only now becoming apparent. Startled by the accident, the local building authority ordered the examination of six other wind turbines of the same model.
The results, which finally came in this summer, alarmed District Administrator Frank Eger. He immediately alerted the state government of Lower Saxony, writing that he had shut down four turbines due to safety concerns. It was already the second incident in his district, he wrote, adding that turbines of this type could pose a threat across the country. The expert evaluation had discovered possible manufacturing defects and irregularities.
Mishaps, Breakdowns and Accidents
After the industry's recent boom years, wind power providers and experts are now concerned. The facilities may not be as reliable and durable as producers claim. Indeed, with thousands of mishaps, breakdowns and accidents having been reported in recent years, the difficulties seem to be mounting. Gearboxes hiding inside the casings perched on top of the towering masts have short shelf lives, often crapping out before even five years is up. In some cases, fractures form along the rotors, or even in the foundation, after only limited operation. Short circuits or overheated propellers have been known to cause fires. All this despite manufacturers' promises that the turbines would last at least 20 years.
Gearboxes have already had to be replaced "in large numbers," the German Insurance Association is now complaining. "In addition to generators and gearboxes, rotor blades also often display defects," a report on the technical shortcomings of wind turbines claims. The insurance companies are complaining of problems ranging from those caused by improper storage to dangerous cracks and fractures.
The frail turbines coming off the assembly lines at some manufacturers threaten to damage an industry that for years has been hailed as a wild success. As recently as the end of July, the German WindEnergy Association (BWE) crowed that business had once again hit record levels. The wind power industry expanded by a solid 40 percent in 2006, according to the BWE, and it now provides work for 74,000 people.
Germany, moreover, is the global leader when it comes to wind power: More than 19,000 windmills now dot the countryside—more than in any other country. Green power has become a point of pride in Germany in recent years, and Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel would now like to construct vast new wind farms along the country's North Sea and Baltic Sea coasts.
No Time for Testing
Generous government subsidies have transformed wind power into a billion-euro industry within just a few years. Because energy providers have to purchase wind power at set prices, everyone, it seems, wants in.
But it is precisely the industry's prodigious success that is leading to its technological shortcomings. "Many companies have sold an endless number of units," complains engineer Manfred Perkun, until recently a claims adjuster for R+V Insurance. "It hardly leaves any time for testing prototypes."
Wind power expert Martin Stöckl knows the problems all too well. The Bavarian travels some 80,000 kilometers (49,710 miles) across Germany every year, but he is only rarely able to help the wind farmers. It is not just the rotors that, due to enormous worldwide demand, take forever to deliver, but simple replacement parts are likewise nowhere to be found. "You often have to wait 18 months for a new rotor mount, which means the turbine stands still for that long," says Stöckl.
"Sales Top, Service Flop" is the headline on a recent cover story which appeared in the industry journal Erneuerbare Energien. The story reports the disastrous results of a questionnaire passed out to members of the German WindEnergy Association asking them to rank manufacturers. Only Enercon, based in Germany, managed a ranking of "good." The company produces wind turbines without gearboxes, eliminating one of the weakest links in the chain.
Even among insurers, who raced into the new market in the 1990s, wind power is now considered a risky sector. Industry giant Allianz was faced with around a thousand damage claims in 2006 alone. Jan Pohl, who works for Allianz in Munich, has calculated that on average "an operator has to expect damage to his facility every four years, not including malfunctions and uninsured breakdowns."
Many insurance companies have learned their lessons and are now writing maintenance requirements—requiring wind farmers to replace vulnerable components such as gearboxes every five years—directly into their contracts. But a gearbox replacement can cost up to 10 percent of the original construction price tag, enough to cut deep into anticipated profits. Indeed, many investors may be in for a nasty surprise. "Between 3,000 and 4,000 older facilities are currently due for new insurance policies," says Holger Martsfeld, head of technical insurance at Germany's leading wind turbine insurer Gothaer. "We know that many of these facilities have flaws."
Flaws And Dangers
And the technical hitches are not without their dangers. For example:
• In December of last year, fragments of a broken rotor blade landed on a road shortly before rush hour traffic near the city of Trier
• Two wind turbines caught fire near Osnabrück and in the Havelland region in January. The firefighters could only watch: Their ladders were not tall enough to reach the burning casings
• The same month, a 70-meter (230-foot) tall wind turbine folded in half in Schleswig-Holstein—right next to a highway
• The rotor blades of a wind turbine in Brandenburg ripped off at a height of 100 meters (328 feet). Fragments of the rotors stuck into a grain field near a road.
At the Allianz Technology Center (AZT) in Munich, the bits and pieces from wind turbine meltdowns are closely examined. "The force that comes to bear on the rotors is much greater than originally expected," says AZT evaluator Erwin Bauer. Wind speed is simply not consistent enough, he points out. "There are gusts and direction changes all the time," he says.
But instead of working to create more efficient technology, many manufacturers have simply elected to build even larger rotor blades, Bauer adds. "Large machines may have great capacity, but the strains they are subject to are even harder to control," he says.
Even the technically basic concrete foundations are suffering from those strains. Vibrations and load changes cause fractures, water seeps into the cracks, and the rebar begins to rust. Repairs are difficult. "You can't look inside concrete," says Marc Gutermann, a professor for experimental statics in Bremen. "It's no use just closing the cracks from above."
The engineering expert suspects construction errors are to blame. "The facilities keep getting bigger," he says, "but the diameter of the masts has to remain the same because otherwise they would be too big to transport on the roadways."
Not Sufficiently Resilient
Still the wind power business is focusing on replacing smaller facilities with ever larger ones. With all the best sites already taken, boosting size is one of the few ways left to boost output. On land at least. So far, there are no offshore wind parks in German waters, a situation that Minister Gabriel hopes to change. He wants offshore wind farms to produce a total of 25,000 megawatts by 2030.
Perhaps by then, the lessons learned on land will ward off disaster at sea. Many constructors of such offshore facilities in other countries have run into difficulties. Danish company and world market leader Vestas, for example, had to remove the turbines from an entire wind park along Denmark's western coast in 2004 because the turbines were not sufficiently resilient to withstand the local sea and weather conditions. Similar problems were encountered off the British coast in 2005.
German wind turbine giant Enercon, for its part, considers the risks associated with offshore wind power generation too great, says Enercon spokesman Andreas Düser says. While the growth potential is tempting, he says, the company does not want to lose its good standing on the high seas.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Wind turbine collapse kills one, injures second worker by ADRIANE HORNER, kgw.com staff
One man was killed and another injured Saturday after a wind turbine collapsed in Sherman County.
Deputy Shull with the Sherman County Sheriff's office said the two men involved were working on a non-operational turbine at the Klondike Wind Farms east of Wasco Oregon.
Officials said one worker who was at the top of the turbine was killed when it buckled. A second man had to be rescued from the barrel of the collapsed structure. He was taken to an area hospital where his condition was unknown.
Deputy Shull said OHSHA was investigating the cause of the collapse
Deputy Shull with the Sherman County Sheriff's office said the two men involved were working on a non-operational turbine at the Klondike Wind Farms east of Wasco Oregon.
Officials said one worker who was at the top of the turbine was killed when it buckled. A second man had to be rescued from the barrel of the collapsed structure. He was taken to an area hospital where his condition was unknown.
Deputy Shull said OHSHA was investigating the cause of the collapse
Saturday, August 25, 2007
New EIA Report on "Renewable" Energy -- Useful data, Lacks Objectivity
Ladies & Gentlemen:
In case you haven't already seen it, you may want to check out the US EIA's recently released report, Renewable Energy Consumption and Electricity Preliminary 2006 Statistics, August 2007 which you can find at (Click to read)
Several comments:
1. "BTU from Wind." For those not "steeped" in EIA data and calculations, please don't be misled by the first table that shows up on the web site which shows "BTU consumption" for each renewable energy source. As EIA explains (e.g., See page 4, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec12_a_doc.pdf) "There is no generally accepted practice for measuring the thermal conversion rates for power plants that generate electricity from hydro, wind photovoltaic, or solar thermal energy sources. Therefore EIA calculates a rate factor that is equal to the annual average heat rate factor for fossil fueled power plants in the United States."
2. Net electricity generation is a better measure of the contribution of renewables. Data on net generation (in thousand kWh) for 2002-2006 are shown in Table 3 of the full report (which can be downloaded from the above site.) The following table shows the 2006 numbers -- along with their respective share of total US electricity net generation. In case you are interested, the data for all 5 years is attached to this email.
3. Incomplete discussion of subsidies for wind energy. EIA's new report has a section on wind energy that lists factors driving growth in electricity from wind. The report lists (i) Production Tax credit, (ii) RPS and state mandates, (iii) High natural gas prices, and (iv). concerns about potential "global warming." EIA has an unfortunate habit of ignoring all the other tax breaks and subsidies that are encouraging the construction of "wind farms" such as:
a. Five-year double declining balance accelerated depreciation that permits corporations to recover through depreciation deductions from otherwise taxable income, all "wind farm" capital costs over 6 tax years (52% in first 2 tax years). This applies to Federal corporate income taxes and to corporate income taxes in most states. (Most electric generating units are depreciated for tax purposes over 20 years using 150% rather than 200% declining balance.)
b. Utility "green energy" programs forced on them by state PUCs, governors and legislators -- or adopted to burnish "green" images (but with cost borne by electric customers).
c. Presidential Executive Order requiring federal agencies to buy "green energy" -- and similar directives from some governors. (The higher costs are "hidden" in agency program costs.)
d. Numerous state and local property, sales, and business tax exemptions or reductions for "wind farm" equipment.
e. Industrial development bond financing for "wind farms" (which results in subsidized loan rates).
f. Propaganda programs conducted and/or financed with tax dollars by the US Dept of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE-EERE) and the National Renewable Energy "Laboratory" (NREL). Both organizations stress and exaggerate the "benefits" of wind energy and studiously ignore the true costs (environmental, economic, scenic, property value). New York's NYSERDA also engages in this type activity. Both organizations give money to contractors and grantees that produce biased "studies," "reports," and "analyses" which are then "advertised" on DOE and NREL web sites.
g. DOE-EERE and/or NREL provided financing (using tax dollars) for so-called state "wind working groups" that produce biased studies, reports, and analyses favoring wind energy and with "work group" members lobbying state PUCs and legislatures, and local government officials to approve "wind farms."
h. Regulatory subsidies provided by FERC, state PUCs and by "Independent System Operators" (ISO) that favor "wind farm" owners; e.g., arbitrary assignments of "capacity value."
i. State PUCs and/or ISOs that approve new transmission lines to serve wind farms while passing the costs along to unsuspecting electric customers; e.g., Texas & Minnesota.
(The EIA report does mention the web site, http://www.dsireusa.org/, which has information on many but certainly not all federal and state tax breaks and subsidies for renewables.)
When evaluated on the basis of either existing or potential contribution in supplying energy for US requirements, wind energy is almost certainly THE most heavily subsidized of all energy sources -- a FACT that is directly contrary to persistent claims by the wind industry that wind doesn't get it's "fair share."
Regards,
Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
In case you haven't already seen it, you may want to check out the US EIA's recently released report, Renewable Energy Consumption and Electricity Preliminary 2006 Statistics, August 2007 which you can find at (Click to read)
Several comments:
1. "BTU from Wind." For those not "steeped" in EIA data and calculations, please don't be misled by the first table that shows up on the web site which shows "BTU consumption" for each renewable energy source. As EIA explains (e.g., See page 4, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec12_a_doc.pdf) "There is no generally accepted practice for measuring the thermal conversion rates for power plants that generate electricity from hydro, wind photovoltaic, or solar thermal energy sources. Therefore EIA calculates a rate factor that is equal to the annual average heat rate factor for fossil fueled power plants in the United States."
2. Net electricity generation is a better measure of the contribution of renewables. Data on net generation (in thousand kWh) for 2002-2006 are shown in Table 3 of the full report (which can be downloaded from the above site.) The following table shows the 2006 numbers -- along with their respective share of total US electricity net generation. In case you are interested, the data for all 5 years is attached to this email.
3. Incomplete discussion of subsidies for wind energy. EIA's new report has a section on wind energy that lists factors driving growth in electricity from wind. The report lists (i) Production Tax credit, (ii) RPS and state mandates, (iii) High natural gas prices, and (iv). concerns about potential "global warming." EIA has an unfortunate habit of ignoring all the other tax breaks and subsidies that are encouraging the construction of "wind farms" such as:
a. Five-year double declining balance accelerated depreciation that permits corporations to recover through depreciation deductions from otherwise taxable income, all "wind farm" capital costs over 6 tax years (52% in first 2 tax years). This applies to Federal corporate income taxes and to corporate income taxes in most states. (Most electric generating units are depreciated for tax purposes over 20 years using 150% rather than 200% declining balance.)
b. Utility "green energy" programs forced on them by state PUCs, governors and legislators -- or adopted to burnish "green" images (but with cost borne by electric customers).
c. Presidential Executive Order requiring federal agencies to buy "green energy" -- and similar directives from some governors. (The higher costs are "hidden" in agency program costs.)
d. Numerous state and local property, sales, and business tax exemptions or reductions for "wind farm" equipment.
e. Industrial development bond financing for "wind farms" (which results in subsidized loan rates).
f. Propaganda programs conducted and/or financed with tax dollars by the US Dept of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE-EERE) and the National Renewable Energy "Laboratory" (NREL). Both organizations stress and exaggerate the "benefits" of wind energy and studiously ignore the true costs (environmental, economic, scenic, property value). New York's NYSERDA also engages in this type activity. Both organizations give money to contractors and grantees that produce biased "studies," "reports," and "analyses" which are then "advertised" on DOE and NREL web sites.
g. DOE-EERE and/or NREL provided financing (using tax dollars) for so-called state "wind working groups" that produce biased studies, reports, and analyses favoring wind energy and with "work group" members lobbying state PUCs and legislatures, and local government officials to approve "wind farms."
h. Regulatory subsidies provided by FERC, state PUCs and by "Independent System Operators" (ISO) that favor "wind farm" owners; e.g., arbitrary assignments of "capacity value."
i. State PUCs and/or ISOs that approve new transmission lines to serve wind farms while passing the costs along to unsuspecting electric customers; e.g., Texas & Minnesota.
(The EIA report does mention the web site, http://www.dsireusa.org/, which has information on many but certainly not all federal and state tax breaks and subsidies for renewables.)
When evaluated on the basis of either existing or potential contribution in supplying energy for US requirements, wind energy is almost certainly THE most heavily subsidized of all energy sources -- a FACT that is directly contrary to persistent claims by the wind industry that wind doesn't get it's "fair share."
Regards,
Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
Where will sale lead New Yorkers?
It was with sad eyes that I read the business page of the Democrat and Chronicle Wednesday morning. Iberdrola SA will complete the sale with Energy East Corp., the parent of RG&E and New York State Electric and Gas, in early 2008, sooner than expected. So, in addition to paying big bucks at the pump for oil-producing evildoers, now we can anticipate paying much more for electric power to Spain ... when they complete the building of their "cheap" wind turbines, that is. We will "pay" in many ways: in the loss of our beautiful scenic vistas, in our decreased bird populations and wildlife, in the loss of personal property that is usurped, and the sadness of many property owners, along with another pinch in the wallet.
So, as more money leaves our state and country, what comes in? Besides wind turbines, I mean.
Just who is in charge in New York state?
PATRICIA E. LYNCH
GREECE
So, as more money leaves our state and country, what comes in? Besides wind turbines, I mean.
Just who is in charge in New York state?
PATRICIA E. LYNCH
GREECE
Friday, August 24, 2007
Proposed NY Wind Farm Scrapped
GARDEN CITY, N.Y. (AP) -- Long Island's utility company intends to dump plans to build a $700 million wind energy park in the Atlantic Ocean, a top official said.
"It's just too expensive," Long Island Power Authority Chairman Kevin Law told The Associated Press. "It's not going to work. This is an economically based decision. We didn't even have to consider environmental or aesthetic concerns."
The utility's board of directors will meet next month to officially vote on scrapping the project.
Initially popular with environmental activists, politicians and residents, the project, which was to include 40 turbines in an 8-square-mile area, has lost support because of construction costs and concerns that it would mar the landscape of Long Island's south shore beaches.
It is the second offshore wind project to be scrapped in recent months. A developer in South Texas called off construction of about 170 turbines there after determining it no longer made economic sense to proceed. That developer said building an offshore farm would have been more than double the cost of one on land.
Plans are proceeding for an offshore wind farm in Massachusetts, where a company called Cape Wind hopes to build 130 windmills in Nantucket Sound. Cape Wind has not said how much that project would cost. Developers in Delaware also are planning an offshore wind farm.
Original estimates for construction on the Long Island wind farm were between $150 and $200 million. In 2004, FPL Energy, a subsidiary of Florida Power & Light, won the right to build the project with a bid of $356 million, pending regulatory approvals. The latest estimates put the cost at $697 million.
A call to FPL seeking comment was not immediately returned, but the company told Newsday it had not received official word from the utility that the project was being scrapped.
In a recent report, the Department of Energy said the nation's wind-power capacity increased by 27 percent in 2006, and that the U.S. had the fastest-growing wind-power capacity in the world in 2005 and 2006. Still, despite wind farms now operating in 36 states, wind accounts for less than 1 percent of the U.S. power supply.
"It's just too expensive," Long Island Power Authority Chairman Kevin Law told The Associated Press. "It's not going to work. This is an economically based decision. We didn't even have to consider environmental or aesthetic concerns."
The utility's board of directors will meet next month to officially vote on scrapping the project.
Initially popular with environmental activists, politicians and residents, the project, which was to include 40 turbines in an 8-square-mile area, has lost support because of construction costs and concerns that it would mar the landscape of Long Island's south shore beaches.
It is the second offshore wind project to be scrapped in recent months. A developer in South Texas called off construction of about 170 turbines there after determining it no longer made economic sense to proceed. That developer said building an offshore farm would have been more than double the cost of one on land.
Plans are proceeding for an offshore wind farm in Massachusetts, where a company called Cape Wind hopes to build 130 windmills in Nantucket Sound. Cape Wind has not said how much that project would cost. Developers in Delaware also are planning an offshore wind farm.
Original estimates for construction on the Long Island wind farm were between $150 and $200 million. In 2004, FPL Energy, a subsidiary of Florida Power & Light, won the right to build the project with a bid of $356 million, pending regulatory approvals. The latest estimates put the cost at $697 million.
A call to FPL seeking comment was not immediately returned, but the company told Newsday it had not received official word from the utility that the project was being scrapped.
In a recent report, the Department of Energy said the nation's wind-power capacity increased by 27 percent in 2006, and that the U.S. had the fastest-growing wind-power capacity in the world in 2005 and 2006. Still, despite wind farms now operating in 36 states, wind accounts for less than 1 percent of the U.S. power supply.
Steven M. Sick Vote for a Dynamic Councilman
You know me and my family. I'm a life-long resident and grew up on my parents' and grandparents' farms and graduated from Cohocton School and BOCES. I have decided to seek nomination as a candidate for the Cohocton Town Board because I feel that the current board is not fairly representing the interests of all taxpayers.
I believe that the present Town Board has been unethical and is catering to special interest groups. As a property owner, I feel my rights have been violated. A Town Board should protect the rights of all of its citizens, not just a select few. Family ties and relations are important to all of us but when it comes to electing town officials, we all need to vote for representatives who have the courage to do what is right.
I served three years in the United States Marine Corps during the Vietnam era and joined the US Army reserve in 1979. Following September 11, 2001, I was called to active duty for Operation Enduring Freedom and served six months at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri. Defending our country starts with eternal vigilance of your own local town government.
As Supervisor of the Cohocton Steuben County Highway Shop I have valuable experience with government agencies. Providing dependable public services requires intelligent planning and dedicated performance. Incompetent and biased incumbents can't be trusted to spend municipal revenue. Their record is a scandal.
It is time to change politics in Cohocton. The current administration has deeply divided our town to the point where family members don't talk to each other. As a member of the Cohocton Town Board I would listen to the concerns of all of our citizens and would protect the rights of all taxpayers fairly. Please support me and my fellow Reform Cohocton candidates in the Republican primary on Sept 18, 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)