February 2, 2007
No, President Bush did NOT state that wind could supply 20% of US Electricity
For years, lobbyists and officials from the wind industry, US Department of Energy (DOE), NREL, and other wind advocates have overstated the benefits of wind energy and understated its true costs. Unfortunately, their exaggerations have been effective in winning huge tax breaks and subsidies for the wind industry at the expense of ordinary taxpayers and electric customers.
Most of the advocate exaggerations are somewhere between annoying and despicable. Occasionally, they reach even further. Such is the case with FALSE claims during the past few months by DOE officials, a former FERC Chairman, and other wind energy advocates that President Bush stated that wind energy could supply 20% of US electricity needs a statement that, if he really had made it, would have been outrageously wrong.
The False Claim by DOE and others:
The following sentence appears on page 2 of Wind Power Today, a 12-page pamphlet issued in May 2006 by DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE-EERE):[1]
On a tour to promote the new [Advanced Technology] initiative, the President stated: If the technology is developed further possible we could generate up to 20% of our electricity needs through wind.
Virtually the same false claim has been made by others, including the following:
DOE Secretary Sam Bodman prepared remarks for a renewable energy conference in St. Louis on October 11, 2006, said: The President has said that wind could potentially account for up to 20 percent of our nation generating capacity by harnessing the power of rural America[2]
Former FERC Chairman, Pat Wood, who is now Chairman of UK-US wind farm developer, Airtricity, Inc North American Advisory Board stated in an April 4, 2006, press release that: I agree with President Bush recent observation that wind energy has the potential to supply up to 20 percent of our nation's electricity.[3]
Former DOE Assistant Secretary Dan Reicher (Clinton Administration) is quoted by Matthew Wald in a December 28, 2006, story in the International Herald Tribune as saying that: President George W. Bush has also said that wind could supply 20 percent of the nation's electricity.[4]
Professor Jonathan Miles, leader of the DOE-NREL funded Virginia Wind Energy Collaborative†at James Madison University, when lobbying in favor of a proposed Highland County, VA, wind farm also cites a statement by President Bush on February 21, 2006, that: If the technology is developed further we could generate up to 20 percent of our electricity needs through wind[5]
What did President Bush REALLY say?
The possibility of wind supplying 20% of US electricity requirements is so preposterous that the claims seemed to deserve further checking to see if President Bush really made such a statement on February 21, 2006. The claim that wind could supply 20% of US electricity needs seemed particularly suspicious since the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) had, only a few weeks before earlier, forecast that, by 2030, wind would supply only 1.09% of US electricity[6] (a forecast that has recently been lowered to 0.89%).[7]
Fortunately, the White House staff keeps copious records of what Presidents say while carrying out their official duties and the unclassified records are publicly available. The White House web site has a complete 15-page transcript covering the President's remarks on February 21, 2006, while participating in an Energy Conservation and Efficiency Panel at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, CO.[8]
A review of the transcript shows that DOE and the others cited above are guilty of (a) lifting some of the President's words out of context, (b) claiming as a Presidential announcement or statement a quote from some unnamed, unreliable source, and (c) failing to acknowledge what they (DOE and others cited) must have known to be a totally unrealistic statement.
Specifically, the words that are lifted out of context are from the third to last paragraph of a long (2,650 word), at least partially extemporaneous monolog covering virtually all sources of energy that the President delivered to an assemblage of Colorado politicians and NREL employees. The paragraph from which the words were lifted by DOE and others actually reads as follows:
And finally, wind. We don't have a lot of turbines in Washington, but there's a lot of wind there, I can assure you of that. (Laughter.) But there are parts of the country where there are turbines. They say to me that there's about six percent of the country that's perfectly suited for wind energy, and that if the technology is developed further, that it's possible we could generate up to 20 percent of our electricity needs through wind and turbine.[9]
The underscored words are the ones that DOE and others have lifted out of context.
It's unclear from the official record who the they are that the President is quoting but it's unlikely that it was anyone credible. Further, if the comments had been prepared in advance, White House speech writers and fact checkers almost certainly would have keep the President from engaging in such unrealistic rhetoric and pandering to his NREL audience.
Quite likely, the White House research staff would have checked with EIA and learned that wind provided 36/100 of 1% of US electricity production in 2004 and, as indicated earlier, that EIA was then forecasting that wind would account for 1.09% of US electricity by 2030.[10]
Apparently, neither DOE nor other wind industry advocates cited above have fact checkers or they probably would not permit such gross distortions of the President's comments. Repeating the false claim makes it appears that DOE officials are less concerned about making President Bush look a fool by attributing an outrageous claim to him than they are about pleasing the wind industry.
Background on President Bush's Interest in Wind Energy.
While President Bush isn't guilty of making an outrageous statement that 20% of US electricity could come from wind, public records show that there have been times in the past when he was unduly enthusiastic about wind energy.
For example, New York Times writer, Thomas L. Friedman, in a December 15, 2006, article[11] reports extensively on an interview with former FERC and Texas PUC Chairman, Pat Wood. Mr. Wood had left FERC and become an adviser to UK-US “wind farm developer Airtricity, Inc. The interview apparently took place while Mr. Friedman and Mr. Wood were touring a Texas “wind farm. According to the article, in mid-1996, then Governor George W. Bush instructed then PUC member Wood to go get smart on wind and to work on wind with the utilities and the environmentalists. Friedman reports that this effort led to the Texas Renewable Portfolio Mandate, which Mr. Bush got passed by the Texas Legislature in 1999.
Public records[12] also show that that Enron Chairman and CEO, Ken Lay, lobbied then Governor Bush to support federal tax breaks for wind energy. Specifically, on August 10, 1998, Mr. Lay, wrote to Governor Bush urging him to write to US House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer in support of a bill that would extend for 5 years the wind production tax credit (PTC), which was passed by the [President George H.W.] Bush Administration in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Whether the Governor complied with the request is unclear but the highly lucrative PTC has repeatedly been extended. It is a huge benefit for wind farm owners but the tax burden that the owners escape is, in effect, shifted to ordinary taxpayers who are not as well represented in Washington as the wind industry).
Huge wind turbines produce little electricity
Since 1996, a lot of wind energy generating capacity has been built in Texas. In fact, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) reports that wind turbine capacity in Texas at the end of 2006 totaled 2,631 megawatts.[13] If all this capacity were to operate at a 30% capacity factor,[14] Texas wind farms, now scattered over thousands of acres of land, would produce 6,914,268,000 kWh of electricity in a year. That sounds like a lot of electricity but:
It is equal to 1.75 % of the 394,360,000,000 kWh of electricity produced in Texas during 2005.[15]
It is equal to about one third of the electricity produced during 2005 by each of the following reliable, dispatchable Texas electric generating stations:
South Texas project that produced 19,789,293,000 kWh.
W. A. Parish plant that produced 18,469,681,000 kWh.
Comanche Peak plant that produced 18,443,2000,000 kWh.
The intermittent, unreliable electricity from wind farms has less real value than electricity from reliable generating plants because it is available only when the wind is blowing in the right speed range, which is most likely to be at night and in winter not on hot weekday summer afternoons of July and August when electricity demand is highest.
A questionable legacy?
Undoubtedly, the growth of wind generating capacity in Texas was due largely to (a) the Texas Renewable Portfolio Mandate, (b) the generous federal wind Production Tax Credit favored by Mr. Lay, (c) the generous federal 5-year double declining balance accelerated depreciation deduction for wind generating equipment, and (d) Texas political leaders and regulators willingness to approve construction of substantial additional transmission capacity to move electricity from wind farms to places where the electricity is needed but with the costs borne by electric customers, not by wind farm owners.
Undoubtedly, owners of the wind farms in Texas have prospered mightily from the extremely generous federal tax breaks and other measures listed above. However, Texas enthusiasm for wind energy has not been beneficial for everyone. For example:
Electricity from wind farms, while having less value, is more expensive than electricity from traditional energy sources.
Tax burden escaped by wind farm owners is shifted to ordinary taxpayers who do not have tax shelters.
The cost of building new electric transmission capacity to move electricity from wind farms to areas where the electricity is used -- as well as the higher cost of wind-generated electricity -- is passed on to electric customers in their monthly bills..
Electric industry and ERCOT ISO officials have reported their concern about the amount of wind turbine generating capacity that could be counted on during times of peak electricity demand. Apparently they have considered recommending a capacity value of only 2%.[16]
In recent months, some in Texas have become so concerned about the adverse impacts of wind farms that they have begun taking their concerns and opposition to the Texas courts.
When the President George W. Bush Library is eventually opened, it's unlikely that the insidious Texas Renewable Portfolio Mandate or wind energy will be prominent exhibits.
Evidence continues to grow that wind farms are being built primarily for their tax benefits for wind farm owners, not because of their environmental or energy benefits.
Unreliability of electricity from wind
Concerns about the intermittence and unreliability of electricity from wind such as those expressed in the ERCOT ISO report cited above -- from wind are growing.
Interestingly, Mr. Friedman's December 15, 2006, New York Times article cited above expressing enthusiasm for wind energy was followed on December 28, 2006, by a New York Times article by Mr. Matthew L. Wald that provided a much more sober and objective picture. The article, entitled, Wind energy turns out to have a complication: reliability identified one of wind energy's major Achilles heals; i.e., wind energy is an unreliable source that cannot be relied on at times of peak electricity demand. Specifically, Mr. Wald states:
But for all its promise, wind also generates a big problem: Because it is unpredictable and often fails to blow when electricity is most needed, wind is not reliable enough to assure supplies for an electricity grid that must be prepared to deliver power to everybody who wants it even when it is in greatest demand.
In Texas, as in many other parts of the country, power companies are scrambling to build generating stations to meet growing peak demands, generally driven by air-conditioning for new homes and businesses. But power plants that run on coal or gas must "be built along with every megawatt of wind capacity," said William Bojorquez, director of system planning at the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, a power grid that covers most of the state.
The reason is that in Texas, and most of the United States, the hottest days are the least windy.
As a result, wind turns out to be a good way to save fuel, but not a good way to avoid building plants that burn coal. A wind machine is a bit like a bicycle that a commuter keeps in the garage for sunny days. It saves gasoline, but the commuter has to own a car anyway.[17]
A politically correct throwaway line?
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.
However, increase our use of wind and solar energy or something very similar seems to remain as a sort of throwaway line in the President's speeches and messages. Similar lines are often uttered by governors, members of Congress and state legislatures, and regulators who are faced with pressure from constituents to do something about high energy costs and the fear of energy supply shortages. In these situations, relying on popular wisdom and referring to wind and solar energy may be the best they have to offer.
However, as demonstrated clearly by EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2007, neither source offers any possibility of supplying a significant share of US energy requirements even when looking as far into the future as 2030. Specifically, EIA projects that, by 2030:
Wind will supply 4/10 of 1% of US energy consumption and 89/100 of 1% of US electric generation.
Solar energy will supply 9/100 of 1% of US energy consumption and 12/100 of 1% of US electric generation.
Apparently those who make use of such statements have either (a) not caught up with the facts about wind energy benefits and costs that have been uncovered during the past 3 years or (b) they are aware of these facts but are assuming that their listeners are unable to distinguish between fact and political rhetoric.
Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
Endnotes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] DOE-EERE, “Wind Power Today,†May 2006 http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39479.pdf
[2] Secretary Bodman’s prepared text can be found at http://www.doe.gov/news/4353.htm
[3] http://www.airtricity.com/ireland/media_center/press_releases/usa/Pat%20Wood%20announcement.doc. April 4, 2006
[4] Wald, Matthew L, Wind energy turns out to have a complication: reliability, December 28, 2006,
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/28/business/wind.php The story also appeared in the New York Times.
[5] Miles, Jonathan J., Letter to Mr. Joel H. Peck, Clerk, Virginia State Corporation Commission, July 13, 2006, p. 10.
[6] US EIA, AEO2006, Tables A8 and A16.
[7] US EIA, AEO2007, Tables A8 and A16.
[8] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060221.html (Page 5)
[9] Ibid.
[10] US EIA, AEO2006, Tables A8 and A16.
[11] Friedman, Thomas L., Whichever Way the Wind Blows, New York Times, December 15, 2006.
[12] Page 1 of Ken Lay letter to Gov. G .W. Bush: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushlayb11.html; Page 2 of Ken Lay letter to Gov. G.W. Bush: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushlayb12.html
[13] http://www.awea.org/projects/
[14] According to EIA Form 902 data, the actual average capacity factor in 2005 for “wind farms†in Texas was 28.8%
[15] US EIA, Electric Power Monthly, March 2006, Table 1.6.B. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/electricity/epm/02260603.pdf
[16] Electric Reliability Council of Texas Independent System Operator (ERCOT ISO) and electric industry Informal White Paper for the Texas Legislature, 2005, Transmission Issues Associated with Renewable Energy in Texas, March 28, 2005. http://www.ercot.com/news/presentations/2006/RenewablesTransmissi.pdf
[17] See footnote 4, above.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Glenn R. Schleede letter to Marianne Lavelle of US News and World Report
Dear Ms. Lavelle,
Thanks for your October 26, 2007, story, "Getting a Second Wind; Bigger blades boos offshore potential." Unfortunately, you were a bit "taken in" by GE's VP for renewables.
For future reference, you should be aware that President Bush did NOT state that wind could supply 20% of US electricity.
That statement is just one more of the many false and misleading statements made by wind industry and U.S. DOE officials. I looked into the claims in some detail and demonstrated in the paper shown below that the claim is not only false, it's also totally unrealistic.
If you do other stories on wind energy, I'd suggest catching up with the facts about wind energy that have been uncovered during the past 3 years -- which facts demonstrate clearly that wind energy advocates have greatly overstated its environmental, energy and economic benefits and greatly understated the adverse impacts. You should consider spending some time with documentation that you can find at www.wind-watch.org and www.windaction.org.
Good luck.
Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
Thanks for your October 26, 2007, story, "Getting a Second Wind; Bigger blades boos offshore potential." Unfortunately, you were a bit "taken in" by GE's VP for renewables.
For future reference, you should be aware that President Bush did NOT state that wind could supply 20% of US electricity.
That statement is just one more of the many false and misleading statements made by wind industry and U.S. DOE officials. I looked into the claims in some detail and demonstrated in the paper shown below that the claim is not only false, it's also totally unrealistic.
If you do other stories on wind energy, I'd suggest catching up with the facts about wind energy that have been uncovered during the past 3 years -- which facts demonstrate clearly that wind energy advocates have greatly overstated its environmental, energy and economic benefits and greatly understated the adverse impacts. You should consider spending some time with documentation that you can find at www.wind-watch.org and www.windaction.org.
Good luck.
Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
Getting a Second Wind by Marianne Lavelle
No renewable energy is growing faster than wind power, and yet those gigantic white turbines—one built every four hours—are churning out less than 1 percent of the nation's electricity. To get to 20 percent—President Bush's aim—production would have to ramp up to one every 15 minutes for 25 years, says Vic Abate, vice president for renewables at General Electric.
GE—a technology powerhouse not only for wind but also for natural gas, nuclear, and advanced coal—doesn't see the assembly line speeding up that quickly but anticipates steady, continued growth as nations seek energy diversification. "The percentage share is in a sense irrelevant," Abate says.
However, there is a push for bigger-scale wind power. Last month, Carpinteria, Calif.-based manufacturer Clipper announced its Britannia Project, a research program in England to develop the world's largest offshore wind turbine. The 7.5-megawatt behemoth would have a 492-foot-diameter rotor, 50 percent wider and providing more than double the juice of Clipper's current largest model. Offshore, it would take advantage of higher, steadier wind and proximity to population centers.
Pricey power. Although offshore wind power is big in Europe, it's not moving so quickly in the United States. Local opposition is often cited, but just as important is that offshore developments cost twice as much as onshore wind. Sure, the East and West coasts have enough wind to power the whole country, but the same could be said of the Great Plains and Texas.
"On shore, there's plenty of resource," says Abate, who thinks the next wave of technology will be to try to squeeze more efficiency out of large wind farms and deal with wind's greatest problem—its intermittency. When GE first entered the business five years ago, utilities would usually figure that the wind power they brought on line would deliver 30 percent of its potential capacity, because of the on-off nature of the power. But Abate says that with better turbines, the capacity factor has been upped to 40 percent.
Developers are focused in the center of the country, especially in Texas. The cost of wind power is just 8 cents per kilowatt-hour unsubsidized in a country where the average price of electricity is 10.5 cents. The economics certainly have worked well for GE, which bought the business for $250 million from the collapsed Enron in 2002 and built it into a $4 billion-a-year business.
GE—a technology powerhouse not only for wind but also for natural gas, nuclear, and advanced coal—doesn't see the assembly line speeding up that quickly but anticipates steady, continued growth as nations seek energy diversification. "The percentage share is in a sense irrelevant," Abate says.
However, there is a push for bigger-scale wind power. Last month, Carpinteria, Calif.-based manufacturer Clipper announced its Britannia Project, a research program in England to develop the world's largest offshore wind turbine. The 7.5-megawatt behemoth would have a 492-foot-diameter rotor, 50 percent wider and providing more than double the juice of Clipper's current largest model. Offshore, it would take advantage of higher, steadier wind and proximity to population centers.
Pricey power. Although offshore wind power is big in Europe, it's not moving so quickly in the United States. Local opposition is often cited, but just as important is that offshore developments cost twice as much as onshore wind. Sure, the East and West coasts have enough wind to power the whole country, but the same could be said of the Great Plains and Texas.
"On shore, there's plenty of resource," says Abate, who thinks the next wave of technology will be to try to squeeze more efficiency out of large wind farms and deal with wind's greatest problem—its intermittency. When GE first entered the business five years ago, utilities would usually figure that the wind power they brought on line would deliver 30 percent of its potential capacity, because of the on-off nature of the power. But Abate says that with better turbines, the capacity factor has been upped to 40 percent.
Developers are focused in the center of the country, especially in Texas. The cost of wind power is just 8 cents per kilowatt-hour unsubsidized in a country where the average price of electricity is 10.5 cents. The economics certainly have worked well for GE, which bought the business for $250 million from the collapsed Enron in 2002 and built it into a $4 billion-a-year business.
TV Channel 13 WHAM interview with Judith Hall
Be sure to watch the Kathy Kriz interview with Judith Hall - Reform Cohocton Candidate for Supervisor. The TV spot will air on Monday, Nov. 5, 2007 sometime between 5:30 to 6:15 PM on Channel 13 WHAM Rochester, NY. The interview will be archived on the station's web site after it airs. http://www.13wham.com/Default.aspx
Anne Britton letter to the editor Watertown Times
WATERTOWN TIMES- NEWS-EXPLOSION IN TURBINE
To the editor:
Myself, many residents of Tug Hill and around the country would like to know why this WAS NOT in the paper.
Flat Rock Wind has had a tractor trailer scrambling around the first phase of turbines at night. Midnight to be exact. WHY??? Because the deteriorating oil in the transformers is about to explode like ONE ALREADY has and caused a fire.
NEWS WHERE IS WHAT THE PEOPLE NEED TO HEAR????
AFTER LEARNING OF THE EXPLOSION WE DID SOME RESEARCH. THE FOLLOWING LINK MAY HELP YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WENT WRONG.
Now...where is the news that people need to hear???? A hydrogen explosion is not reportable?
I look forward to reading your article on this real soon, and it should be before the election.
Anne Britton
Brandon, NY
http://www.practici ngoilanalysis. com/article_ detail.asp? articleid= 546
The life of the electrical transformer actually depends on the life of the internal insulation system. It can be shortened by a number of events - exposure to extreme conditions, aging and wear and tear. Many conditional items can be replaced in a timely manner to extend the life of the transformer. However, the oil-cellulose insulation system is one component of the transformer that cannot be replaced. Due to the omnipresence of oxygen and water, insulating oil deterioration is normal. The reaction between unstable hydrocarbons in the oil with oxygen, moisture or other chemicals and contaminants in the atmosphere, along with the assistance of accelerators such as heat, creates decay products in the oil.
Owners and operators of electrical transmission and distribution systems take action to prevent fires and explosions in transformers with deteriorating insulating oils. But these companies need a reliable method for predicting transformer failure before it reaches such extreme conditions. A new instrument designed to continuously monitor hydrogen in insulating oils promises to aid in predicting when a transformer is in the danger zone. Because a high hydrogen level in electrical insulating oils can indicate an imminent explosion, closely monitoring hydrogen can be an effective tool in predicting and preventing transformer failure.
To the editor:
Myself, many residents of Tug Hill and around the country would like to know why this WAS NOT in the paper.
Flat Rock Wind has had a tractor trailer scrambling around the first phase of turbines at night. Midnight to be exact. WHY??? Because the deteriorating oil in the transformers is about to explode like ONE ALREADY has and caused a fire.
NEWS WHERE IS WHAT THE PEOPLE NEED TO HEAR????
AFTER LEARNING OF THE EXPLOSION WE DID SOME RESEARCH. THE FOLLOWING LINK MAY HELP YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WENT WRONG.
Now...where is the news that people need to hear???? A hydrogen explosion is not reportable?
I look forward to reading your article on this real soon, and it should be before the election.
Anne Britton
Brandon, NY
http://www.practici ngoilanalysis. com/article_ detail.asp? articleid= 546
The life of the electrical transformer actually depends on the life of the internal insulation system. It can be shortened by a number of events - exposure to extreme conditions, aging and wear and tear. Many conditional items can be replaced in a timely manner to extend the life of the transformer. However, the oil-cellulose insulation system is one component of the transformer that cannot be replaced. Due to the omnipresence of oxygen and water, insulating oil deterioration is normal. The reaction between unstable hydrocarbons in the oil with oxygen, moisture or other chemicals and contaminants in the atmosphere, along with the assistance of accelerators such as heat, creates decay products in the oil.
Owners and operators of electrical transmission and distribution systems take action to prevent fires and explosions in transformers with deteriorating insulating oils. But these companies need a reliable method for predicting transformer failure before it reaches such extreme conditions. A new instrument designed to continuously monitor hydrogen in insulating oils promises to aid in predicting when a transformer is in the danger zone. Because a high hydrogen level in electrical insulating oils can indicate an imminent explosion, closely monitoring hydrogen can be an effective tool in predicting and preventing transformer failure.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Governor Spitzer among the dignitaries on hand for the announcement that GE is adding 500 jobs in its Power Generation Division in Schenectady.
ALBANY -- The millions of dollars Gov. Eliot Spitzer is promising as he unveils big-ticket economic development projects for struggling upstate cities has one hitch: the money is not a sure thing.
The state does have the $5 million Spitzer pledged to General Electric on Wednesday, but in other cases, he still needs to negotiate the funds with the Legislature. That includes, said Budget Director Paul Francis, $50 million Spitzer promised earlier this month to help redevelop Rochester's Midtown Plaza and $20 million for Syracuse's "Connective Corridor" project.
(Click to read entire article)
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Shame on you Ted Liddiard and YES supporters
Cohocton Voters:
Many folks have read the full page ad in the Valley News on Oct 30, 2007 by YES spokesman Ted Liddiard, which attacked my wife and Eric Massa. For months we have built a solid and factual case that Cohocton Town Officials and Yes/UPC Wind can’t be trusted. Truth matters and documented facts are true reality.
Listen to the entire Massa in the Morning radio program that broadcasted on Oct. 21, 2007 on the above link: http://www.massaforcongress.com/multimedia/massa1021.mp3
Judge for yourselves what was said on that radio program. Then demand an answer and a formal apology from Mr. Liddiard and YES Wind for deceiving the public in the Valley News. Mr. Liddiard was a call in guest on Oct. 21 and on a second occasion on Oct 28, 2007 to the same Eric Massa radio program.
YES Wind members debase their own reputations if they associate themselves with the falsehood that Mr. Liddiard was not given the opportunity to speak his mind (what may be left of it) on the radio program. He embarrasses himself continually and shame on you if you accept sure disgraceful conduct.
The public deserves to have the record corrected. Call in this coming Sunday to WHHO-AM - 607-654-0322, 10:00 AM to NOON. The best advertisement possible for electing Reform Cohocton Candidates comes from the words out of the mouth of YES Wind.
James Hall
Many folks have read the full page ad in the Valley News on Oct 30, 2007 by YES spokesman Ted Liddiard, which attacked my wife and Eric Massa. For months we have built a solid and factual case that Cohocton Town Officials and Yes/UPC Wind can’t be trusted. Truth matters and documented facts are true reality.
Listen to the entire Massa in the Morning radio program that broadcasted on Oct. 21, 2007 on the above link: http://www.massaforcongress.com/multimedia/massa1021.mp3
Judge for yourselves what was said on that radio program. Then demand an answer and a formal apology from Mr. Liddiard and YES Wind for deceiving the public in the Valley News. Mr. Liddiard was a call in guest on Oct. 21 and on a second occasion on Oct 28, 2007 to the same Eric Massa radio program.
YES Wind members debase their own reputations if they associate themselves with the falsehood that Mr. Liddiard was not given the opportunity to speak his mind (what may be left of it) on the radio program. He embarrasses himself continually and shame on you if you accept sure disgraceful conduct.
The public deserves to have the record corrected. Call in this coming Sunday to WHHO-AM - 607-654-0322, 10:00 AM to NOON. The best advertisement possible for electing Reform Cohocton Candidates comes from the words out of the mouth of YES Wind.
James Hall
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Judge rejects NYRI's challenge to state eminent domain law
Homeowners in the path of New York Regional Interconnect's power line proposal got a reprieve Friday.
That is, for now.
U.S. District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy dismissed NYRI's lawsuit challenging a law written by Assemblywoman Donna Lupardo, D-Endwell, which would protect homeowners from private companies trying to obtain property they need through eminent domain. Lupardo has no problem with eminent domain which she says can be a "valuable economic development tool." However, what did bother her was that this proposal "could have devastating impacts on New York's economy, environment and energy policy."
If NYRI wants to pursue its proposal, the next step is the federal government. This hurdle has been lowered substantially for NYRI after the Department of Energy designated two national interest electric transmission corridors this month -- one of which is the mid-Atlantic corridor. That corridor comprises 10 states including New York. By doing this, the federal government has the right to bypass any state in the corridor that does not approve a proposal within a year, because the designated corridor has shows a need for increased power beyond current energy resources.
Of course that's good news for private companies such as NYRI, but bad news for the thousands of people who have protested the NYRI proposal, will lose their property and fear the environmental impact. As state Sen. Thomas W. Libous, R-Binghamton, said, "It's a dangerous precedent." He adds that "allowing a private organization like New York Regional Interconnect (NYRI) to seize property without the approval of our community or our state violates constitutional integrity."
When the corridor designation was announced Oct. 2, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley, said "The reality is the only thing that matters to the DOE is how much more of a profit it can create for the energy industry." Hinchey, along with 29 other members of Congress, sent a letter Oct. 12 calling on the Department of Energy to "order an immediate study of cutting-edge alternatives using 21st-century technology that can be utilized without resorting to the standard answer that building transmission infrastructure is the only solution."
They're right. There must be a better, less-environmentally invasive solution to transporting power through a grid. Hideous 10-story towers lower property value, destroy its aesthetic appeal and present hazards for wildlife. You can understand the anger of those who fear the loss of their property and the destruction of upstate rural beauty so downstate can access more power. There is no win-win in this situation.
That is, for now.
U.S. District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy dismissed NYRI's lawsuit challenging a law written by Assemblywoman Donna Lupardo, D-Endwell, which would protect homeowners from private companies trying to obtain property they need through eminent domain. Lupardo has no problem with eminent domain which she says can be a "valuable economic development tool." However, what did bother her was that this proposal "could have devastating impacts on New York's economy, environment and energy policy."
If NYRI wants to pursue its proposal, the next step is the federal government. This hurdle has been lowered substantially for NYRI after the Department of Energy designated two national interest electric transmission corridors this month -- one of which is the mid-Atlantic corridor. That corridor comprises 10 states including New York. By doing this, the federal government has the right to bypass any state in the corridor that does not approve a proposal within a year, because the designated corridor has shows a need for increased power beyond current energy resources.
Of course that's good news for private companies such as NYRI, but bad news for the thousands of people who have protested the NYRI proposal, will lose their property and fear the environmental impact. As state Sen. Thomas W. Libous, R-Binghamton, said, "It's a dangerous precedent." He adds that "allowing a private organization like New York Regional Interconnect (NYRI) to seize property without the approval of our community or our state violates constitutional integrity."
When the corridor designation was announced Oct. 2, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley, said "The reality is the only thing that matters to the DOE is how much more of a profit it can create for the energy industry." Hinchey, along with 29 other members of Congress, sent a letter Oct. 12 calling on the Department of Energy to "order an immediate study of cutting-edge alternatives using 21st-century technology that can be utilized without resorting to the standard answer that building transmission infrastructure is the only solution."
They're right. There must be a better, less-environmentally invasive solution to transporting power through a grid. Hideous 10-story towers lower property value, destroy its aesthetic appeal and present hazards for wildlife. You can understand the anger of those who fear the loss of their property and the destruction of upstate rural beauty so downstate can access more power. There is no win-win in this situation.
Constitution Party of New York Radio Ads for Reform Cohocton Candidates
http://www.nyconstitutionparty.com/candidates.htm
Listen for Constitution Party of New York ads for Reform Cohocton Candidates on the radio stations - WLEA, WHHO, and WDNY
Click on above link to hear the ad.
Listen for Constitution Party of New York ads for Reform Cohocton Candidates on the radio stations - WLEA, WHHO, and WDNY
Click on above link to hear the ad.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Judith Enck Deputy Secretary for the Environment April 26, 2007 Letter by GARY A. ABRAHAM
J%20Enck%20re%20Art%20X%20Apr07.pdf
April 26, 2007
Judith Enck
Deputy Secretary for the Environment
Office of Governor Eliot Spitzer
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
Dear Judy,
I am writing about Governor Spitzer’s recent announcement of support for Article X reform, and particularly about one small element of the Governor’s proposal, the consequences of insufficiently critical promotion of wind power.
It takes 60 industrial 1.5 megawatt wind turbines, each 400 feet high producing intrusive noise levels as far as one mile away to produce 90 megawatts of power–theoretically. In fact, because wind is intermittent and thus unreliable, at best only 20 percent of that rated capacity can be achieved. Thus five wind farms with 60 turbines will be required to produce 90 megawatts and, as Europe has learned, due to its unreliability the need for convention power plants will not be lessened by wind power.1 As the Governor notes, a moderate-size conventional power plant generates 14,500 megawatts.2 That means 805 industrial wind plants, each with 60 turbines, will be required to produce the energy generated by a conventional power plant.
What landfills were in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s (New York has since enlarged the permitted size of its commercial landfills rather than sited new ones), industrial wind farms are today. Every community in New York where a wind farm proposal has been made has formed a concerned citizens group, and now regional watchdog groups have formed to counter the misinformation of the industry, which covets the federal Production Tax Credit for wind, providing about half the cost of each $2 million turbine installation. Benefitting additionally from the 15-year tax exemption for wind in New York, the fast-tracking of wind power plants began running roughshod over rural communities two years before the Governor took office. Now NYSERDA and PSC will offer millions more.
What’s wrong with this picture is that the host communities are not in the picture. Public interest lawyers like myself, Bob Cohen, Richard Lippes, Art Giacalone and Drayton Grant have taken cases for citizens groups against towns wooed by false claims of the wind industry and against the environmental impact statements wind power companies offer, but as with landfills, that route promises little success. Once a polluting industrial project finds a permissive political and regulatory climate, it’s usually too late to do anything about it.
New York is not an ideal environment for the development of wind energy because the rural areas, in contrast to the western United States, are highly populated. A public health risk is created by the sound levels generated by industrial wind turbines. While the gearbox has been engineered to run more quietly than earlier turbines, the increased size of new turbines results in noise-generating air displacement that has more than offset mechanical sound reduction. A recent, unbiased analysis of the latest research on sound generated by the newest generation of wind turbines by the UK Noise Association recommends a minimum setback of one mile from homes to avoid the risk of chronic sleeplessness and resulting serious health effects. In light of growing complaints about noise from wind farms, European officials are redirecting the development of wind energy off shore.
A consistent M.O. of wind power companies has emerged: first they urge the host town to enact a local law with setbacks from homes of about 1,000 feet and noise limits of about 50 dbA (neglecting altogether nighttime noise impacts: this is the level of normal conversation in a small room), promising the town board about a quarter-million dollars in a PILOT agreement, a fraction of what it would pay if taxed at its assessed value. In return, the town board issues a negative declaration as lead agency under SEQRA, deferring any meaningful look at the potential impacts of such short setbacks and high noise limits till later, when a project application comes in pursuant to the local law. By then, the town will be loathe to deny approval of a project application that complies with the noise levels and setbacks. And the town will be lead agency for the DEIS, relegating other involved agencies to restricted review.
I approve of almost everything in the Governor’s proposal for Article X reform. But a new Article X must include siting restrictions on wind power plants informed not by the industry’s facts, but by a scientific and public health approach to noise pollution in areas where people live precisely for peace and quiet. It will not do to rely on project-specific DEIS’s offered by a wind power company to a rural community with insufficient resources to obtain expert review of what is offered. This is an instance where failure to set sufficiently protective ground rules will allow the market to trample the weakest communities. There will be no wind farms in Westchester County, but there are already wind farms and wind farm proposals all over rural upstate New York.
Those of us who have come up from the trenches must not forget to listen to new voices that come from the trenches. I urge you to take twenty minutes out of your day to listen to some of those voices on the enclosed DVD.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary A. Abraham
gaa/encs:
UK Noise Association, “Location, Location, Location: An investigation into wind farms
and noise,” July 2006 (on enclosed DVD under folder “UKNA”). Saveupstateny.org, “Life Under a Wind Farm,” 2006 (DVD).
1 In 2004, the New York System Independent Operator (NYSIO), a non-profit corporation managing the state's electricity grid, commented to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that new wind power facilities pose reliability issues, requiring greater flexibility on the part of system operators like NYSIO. See NYSIO, Comments on American Wind Energy Association’s Petition for Rulemaking, FERC Docket RM02-12-000 et al. (September 20, 2004).
2 Governor Spitzer, “A Clean Energy Strategy for New York” (April 19, 2007).
3 Id. (“NYSERDA and the PSC will announce the approval of 21 contract awards for clean, renewable power plants . . . total[ing] approximately $295 million”). NYSERDA says 19% of New York’s electricity already comes from renewable energy sources, and of the remaining six percent needed to reach the goal of 25% renewable energy, wind energy can “supply a significant portion.”
April 26, 2007
Judith Enck
Deputy Secretary for the Environment
Office of Governor Eliot Spitzer
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
Dear Judy,
I am writing about Governor Spitzer’s recent announcement of support for Article X reform, and particularly about one small element of the Governor’s proposal, the consequences of insufficiently critical promotion of wind power.
It takes 60 industrial 1.5 megawatt wind turbines, each 400 feet high producing intrusive noise levels as far as one mile away to produce 90 megawatts of power–theoretically. In fact, because wind is intermittent and thus unreliable, at best only 20 percent of that rated capacity can be achieved. Thus five wind farms with 60 turbines will be required to produce 90 megawatts and, as Europe has learned, due to its unreliability the need for convention power plants will not be lessened by wind power.1 As the Governor notes, a moderate-size conventional power plant generates 14,500 megawatts.2 That means 805 industrial wind plants, each with 60 turbines, will be required to produce the energy generated by a conventional power plant.
What landfills were in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s (New York has since enlarged the permitted size of its commercial landfills rather than sited new ones), industrial wind farms are today. Every community in New York where a wind farm proposal has been made has formed a concerned citizens group, and now regional watchdog groups have formed to counter the misinformation of the industry, which covets the federal Production Tax Credit for wind, providing about half the cost of each $2 million turbine installation. Benefitting additionally from the 15-year tax exemption for wind in New York, the fast-tracking of wind power plants began running roughshod over rural communities two years before the Governor took office. Now NYSERDA and PSC will offer millions more.
What’s wrong with this picture is that the host communities are not in the picture. Public interest lawyers like myself, Bob Cohen, Richard Lippes, Art Giacalone and Drayton Grant have taken cases for citizens groups against towns wooed by false claims of the wind industry and against the environmental impact statements wind power companies offer, but as with landfills, that route promises little success. Once a polluting industrial project finds a permissive political and regulatory climate, it’s usually too late to do anything about it.
New York is not an ideal environment for the development of wind energy because the rural areas, in contrast to the western United States, are highly populated. A public health risk is created by the sound levels generated by industrial wind turbines. While the gearbox has been engineered to run more quietly than earlier turbines, the increased size of new turbines results in noise-generating air displacement that has more than offset mechanical sound reduction. A recent, unbiased analysis of the latest research on sound generated by the newest generation of wind turbines by the UK Noise Association recommends a minimum setback of one mile from homes to avoid the risk of chronic sleeplessness and resulting serious health effects. In light of growing complaints about noise from wind farms, European officials are redirecting the development of wind energy off shore.
A consistent M.O. of wind power companies has emerged: first they urge the host town to enact a local law with setbacks from homes of about 1,000 feet and noise limits of about 50 dbA (neglecting altogether nighttime noise impacts: this is the level of normal conversation in a small room), promising the town board about a quarter-million dollars in a PILOT agreement, a fraction of what it would pay if taxed at its assessed value. In return, the town board issues a negative declaration as lead agency under SEQRA, deferring any meaningful look at the potential impacts of such short setbacks and high noise limits till later, when a project application comes in pursuant to the local law. By then, the town will be loathe to deny approval of a project application that complies with the noise levels and setbacks. And the town will be lead agency for the DEIS, relegating other involved agencies to restricted review.
I approve of almost everything in the Governor’s proposal for Article X reform. But a new Article X must include siting restrictions on wind power plants informed not by the industry’s facts, but by a scientific and public health approach to noise pollution in areas where people live precisely for peace and quiet. It will not do to rely on project-specific DEIS’s offered by a wind power company to a rural community with insufficient resources to obtain expert review of what is offered. This is an instance where failure to set sufficiently protective ground rules will allow the market to trample the weakest communities. There will be no wind farms in Westchester County, but there are already wind farms and wind farm proposals all over rural upstate New York.
Those of us who have come up from the trenches must not forget to listen to new voices that come from the trenches. I urge you to take twenty minutes out of your day to listen to some of those voices on the enclosed DVD.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary A. Abraham
gaa/encs:
UK Noise Association, “Location, Location, Location: An investigation into wind farms
and noise,” July 2006 (on enclosed DVD under folder “UKNA”). Saveupstateny.org, “Life Under a Wind Farm,” 2006 (DVD).
1 In 2004, the New York System Independent Operator (NYSIO), a non-profit corporation managing the state's electricity grid, commented to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that new wind power facilities pose reliability issues, requiring greater flexibility on the part of system operators like NYSIO. See NYSIO, Comments on American Wind Energy Association’s Petition for Rulemaking, FERC Docket RM02-12-000 et al. (September 20, 2004).
2 Governor Spitzer, “A Clean Energy Strategy for New York” (April 19, 2007).
3 Id. (“NYSERDA and the PSC will announce the approval of 21 contract awards for clean, renewable power plants . . . total[ing] approximately $295 million”). NYSERDA says 19% of New York’s electricity already comes from renewable energy sources, and of the remaining six percent needed to reach the goal of 25% renewable energy, wind energy can “supply a significant portion.”
The policy problem wind energy presents to New York by Gary A. Abraham
NYS%20wind%20policy%20problem.pdf
The policy problem wind energy presents to New York
Gary A. Abraham garyabraham.com October 29, 2007
To begin to understand this problem it is necessary to assess realistically the contribution industrial wind plants can make to New York’s electricity needs, and to assess the land resources that will be needed. Utility terms “capacity factor,” the “capacity credit” assigned to a power plant by a regional electric grid operator, and the plant’s “baseload capacity” are helpful for understanding the ability of wind to generate electricity.1
Capacity Factor
Only some power plants operate at near full capacity, also called “nameplate,” “rated” or “installed” capacity. The “capacity factor” for a power plant is calculated based on the amount of energy actually generated over the course of a year as a proportion of the energy the plant would have produced at full capacity, operating 24/7 every day of the year. Conventional power plants that burn coal typically operate at around 70% of their full capacity (70% capacity factor), nuclear power plants operate at 90% to 100%. Wind power plants typically operate at a capacity factor between 20% and 40%, depending on the local wind resource.2
The low capacity factor for wind reflects poor performance. Commercial wind turbines begin to generate electricity at about 9 mph and reach their rated capacity when winds reach about 27 mph. Below 9 mph, no electricity will be 3 generated, and between 9 and 27 mph less that full capacity will be generated. The energy actually generated (capacity factor X rated capacity) reflects the average wind resource over the year.
The diminished capacity factor of wind plants is obscured in official reports of wind’s “capacity.” For example, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) states: “NYSERDA’s, New York Energy $martSM program through 2001, has supported the construction and operation of 41.5 megawatts (MW) of wind energy generation in New York.”4 This statement refers to two wind energy projects rated at 30 MW and 11.5 MW, respectively.5 Similarly, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) states: “U.S. wind power generating capacity quadrupled between 1990 and 2003—to 6,374 MW.”6 However, because they refer to installed capacity these statements provide no insight about how much actual energy would be generated by these investments.7
To date, on an annual basis no wind power plant in New York has achieved a 30% capacity factor.8 The primary reason for this is that Class 4 winds (average winds ranging from 15.7 to 16.8 miles per hour) are the minimum necessary for large-scale wind power projects, and there are few areas in New York that possess such wind resources.9 Accordingly, many wind power plants in New York are being proposed for locations with less optimal wind resource areas, with an exponential decrease in capacity factors.10
Capacity credit
The capacity factor is only part of the story of wind power’s ability to contribute to New York’s energy needs. The New York System Independent Operator (NYSIO), a non-profit company that manages the electricity grid for the state, needs to secure the amount of energy needed at times of peak load plus a reserve margin. NYSIO therefore assigns a “capacity credit” to each power plant in the state, representing the amount of electricity that the grid operator can rely on to meet peak demand.11
Based on NYSERDA-funded research, NYSIO assigns to wind power plants a 10% capacity credit in the summer and a 30% capacity credit the in winter.12 This represents the grid operator’s judgment about how much energy per unit of rated capacity can be relied on in each season. Thus, for the Maple Ridge Wind Farm on the Tug Hill Plateau in Lewis County, New York’s largest wind power plant, located in the highest land-based wind resource area in the state, NYSIO calculates the plant can provide 32 megawatts in the summer, compared to its rated capacity of 322 MW.13
The poor capacity credit NYSIO assigns to wind probably overestimates wind’s reliability since there will be many days in any summer when there will be little or no wind–less than 9 mph–and therefore wind plants will generate no energy at all. This means, to meet our peak demand needs we need to continue to build new more dependable capacity or continue to delay retiring old, polluting but dependable power plants.
Baseload capacity
An assigned capacity credit is based on an expected average over a season. Wind’s contribution diminishes even further when we look at how daily fluctuations in electricity demand and electricity generation are managed. Most power plants can provide steady generation of electricity around-the-clock at a large fraction of their rated capacity. These plants provide what is called baseload capacity, that is, a minimum amount of electric power required over a given period of time at a steady rate.14 “Fluctuations, peaks or spikes in customer power demand are handled by smaller and more responsive types of power plants.”15
Daily demand for electricity is usually highest in the afternoon and early evening, “with about 16 hours of ‘on-peak’ time in the day and about 8 hours of ‘off-peak’ time during the night.”16 Due to the degree of its unreliability, wind power is unable to respond to fluctuations, peaks or spikes in customer power demand and therefore provides no baseload capacity.17 Baseload plants must be kept on line even if substantial wind-generated electricity is added to the grid.
In fact, substantial amounts of wind-generated electricity increase the fluctuation in the grid as wind power comes on and off, and may increase the demand for responsive baseload plants. Fluctuations caused by integrating wind power into the regional electricity grid also require additional “balancing” services from the grid operator, potentially increasing the cost of electricity.
Baseload plants may also be operated at reduced capacity when electricity from wind plants is added to the grid. If operated at reduced capacity (for example in the winter, when substantial wind-generated electricity might be added to the grid), power plants that burn fossil fuels operate less efficiently, emitting more pollution per unit of energy produced than if they were allowed to run continuously at maximum capacity. “Combined with the pollutants emitted and CO2 released in the manufacture and maintenance of wind towers and their associated infrastructure, substituting wind power for fossil fuels does not improve air quality very much.”18
Land resources
Wind power is being promoted in New York not because it is cheaper or effective in achieving the state’s energy needs, but because it might provide a some of the last few percent mandated by the state’s policy to obtain 25% of its energy from renewable sources, the “renewable portfolio standards” mandate.19 A central consideration in any policy to increase the role of commercial wind power in achieving renewable portfolio standards in New York should be the amount of land required to reach such a goal.
In 2005 New York consumed 154 million MWh of electricity.20 NYSERDA has said that New York has enough “land based wind potential . . . to generate . . . 10 percent of the State’s electricity consumption.”21 A typical 60-turbine wind plant in New York requires about 10,000 acres (a conservative assumption).22 Thus, to generate 15.4 million MWh with wind plants that on average achieve a 20% capacity factor will require about 146 wind plants and 1,460,000 acres, or 2,281 square miles.23
The small potential contribution commercial wind power can make to New York’s electricity generation needs coupled with the large land resources wind power requires raises the following policy questions:
(1) Whose landscape will bear the burden of the effort to achieve maximum windpowered electricity in New York? Put differently, do downstate electricity consumers want to sacrifice upstate land values to feel good about unreliable renewables?
(2) Do New York taxpayers want their renewable energy capital investments to be directed at the lowest energy output of any current alternative24 while avoiding little if any building of new fossil fuel capacity?
(3) Should wind power require greater scrutiny into the potential adverse impacts of wind plants on rural communities (such as changes to nighttime noise and viewscapes, habitat fragmentation, avian mortality)? Put differently, should New York consider state-wide siting restrictions on commercial wind plants?
1. Cf. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Agency (EIA), “Glossary” (“capacity factor,” “capacity credit,” “base load,” “base load capacity, and “base load plant”), available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/glossary/.
2. University of Massachusetts, Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, “Wind Power: Capacity Factor, Intermittency, and what happens when the wind doesn’t blow?”, n.d., p. 1, available at (link)(visited August 20, 2007) (“Typical wind power capacity factors are 20-40%”); American Wind Energy Association, “How Does A Wind Turbine’s Energy Production Differ from Its Power Production?”, available at http://www.awea.org/faq/basicen.html; Wikipedia, “Wind Power,” http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Wind_power.
3. GE Energy, “1.5 MW Wind Turbine Technical Specifications, available at (link). See also Iowa Energy Center at Iowa State University, “Wind Energy Systems,” available at (link); American Wind Energy Association, “How Does A Wind Turbine's Energy Production Differ from Its Power Production?”, available at http://www.awea.org/faq/basicen.html.
4. NYSERDA, “Utility Scale / Large Wind” (n.d.), available at (link) . This statement describes two wind power facilities, the Fenner Wind Project, rated at 30 MW, and the Madison wind Project, rated at 11.5 MW.
5. These are the Fenner Wind Project and the Madison Wind Project. See id. (map).
6. GAO, Renewable Energy: Wind Power’s Contribution to Electric Power Generation and Impact on Farms and Rural Communities, September 2004, at http://www.gao.gov/ new.items/d04756.pdf. The GAO study uses installed capacity as the basis for this statement. See id., p. 15 (Table 3). See also e.g., American Wind Energy Association, “Wind Energy Projects in California,” note (**), available at http://www.awea.org/projects/california.html.
7. The GAO study acknowledges this but only in footnotes. See id., pp. 1.n.3, 14.n.16. However, the study goes on to compare electricity generation from wind with facilities using fossil fuel, nuclear, natural gas and oil, all of which have at least twice the capacity of factor of wind. Id., p. 9.n.6.
8. U.S. Department of Energy, Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2006 (May 2007), p. 17, Fig. 23, available at (link). See also id., p. 4 (“New wind plants contributed roughly 19% of new nameplate capacity added to the U.S. electrical grid in 2006, compared to 13% in 2005”). See also Prefiled Testimony of Thomas A. Hewson, BSE, in the matter of the East Haven Windfarm,
January 1, 2005, available at http://www.windaction.org/documents/720 (average capacity factors for new wind projects in 2003 was 26.9%); NYSERDA, “Madison Windpower Project Final Report, December 2003, p. iii, available at (link) (capacity factor for the Madison Windpower Project in Madison County is 21%). Compare NYSERDA, Frequently Asked Questions for Large-Scale Wind Energy Projects, p. 4 (n.d.), available at (link)(“When averaged over a year, wind projects typically operate at levels equivalent to 30 to 40% of their full capacity (aka capacity factor.”).
9. Wind resource maps for New York are available from NYSERDA, “Wind Speed of New York at 100 Meters [328 Feet],” (link). See also EIA, “Classes of Wind Power Density at Heights of 10m and 50m” (table), July 2007, available at (link); EIA, “Wind Resource Potential” (map), available at (link) (both visited August 20, 2007).
10. Energy output from the wind is proportional to the cube of the wind speed. That is, as mean wind speeds decrease, the capacity factor for wind turbines decreases exponentially. Cf. Brad G. Stevens, P.E., “Wind Energy Resource and wind Farm Siting” (powerpoint for Northwest Wind energy workshop, August 3, 2006), slide 9, available at (link) .
11. NYSIO, 2007 Load & Capacity Data (2007 Goldbook), available at (link) (visited October 5, 2007).
12. Id., p. 58.
13. Id., Table III-2, p. 28.
14. EIA, “Glossary,” note 1, above (“load capacity, and “base load plant”).
15. Wikipedia, “Base load power plant,” at (link) (visited October 5, 2007).
16. EIA, THE CHANGING STRUCTURE OF THE ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY 2000: AN UPDATE, p. 9n.16 (October 2000), available at (link) (visited October 5, 2007).
17. New Jersey Blue Ribbon Panel on Development of Wind Facilities in Coastal Waters, Final Report, p. 21 (April 2006), available at (link) : wind power alone cannot reduce the state’s dependence on fossil fuels. Nor can wind power provide “base load” power needed to meet every day energy demands. Due to these limitations, wind power cannot remedy the current energy related environmental issues facing New Jersey.
Compare the industry advocate Alliance for Clean Energy New York, “New York State Wind Facts,” available at (link)(“20 percent of the total wind energy can be considered base load, like traditional fossil-fuel plants, and that . . . helps to improve overall utility system reliability.”).
18. H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., “Wind Power: Not Green but Red,” testimony presented to the American Legislative Exchange Council Task Force on Energy, the Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Austin, TX (May 1, 2004), available at (link)(visited October 5, 2007).
19. See NYSERDA, “About New York’s Renewable Portfolio Standard,” Available at http://www.nyserda.org/rps/about.asp.
20. EIA, “New York Electricity Profile” (2005), available at (link)(retail sales and direct use).
21. NYSERDA, “Utility Scale/Large Wind,” at (link) .
22. Phase 1 of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in Lewis County, with 120 1.65 MW turbines, “spans approximately 21,000 acres.” PPM Energy, Press Release, “PPM and Zilkha Announce Maple Ridge Wind Farm Landmark Project Will Quadruple New York Wind Energy Capacity,” April 5, 2005, available at (link). However, a recently approved 65-turbine wind power plant in Washington requires 6,000 acres. See Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, Order No. 826, In the Matter of . . . Kittitas Valley Wind Power Project (March 27, 2007), available at (link).
23. That is, (15.4 million MWh ÷ 8,766 hrs. in a year = 1,757 MW) X 20% capacity factor = 8,785 MW rated capacity needed ÷ 60 turbines per wind plant X 10,000 acres = 1.46 million acres or 2,281 square miles.
24. One promising alternative is enhanced geothermal energy, recently assessed by MIT in a study that concludes known deep geothermal resources can provide 57,000 times the current energy needs of the U.S. Links to the MIT study and current information on enhanced geothermal energy are posted on the website of Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County, at (link)
The policy problem wind energy presents to New York
Gary A. Abraham garyabraham.com October 29, 2007
To begin to understand this problem it is necessary to assess realistically the contribution industrial wind plants can make to New York’s electricity needs, and to assess the land resources that will be needed. Utility terms “capacity factor,” the “capacity credit” assigned to a power plant by a regional electric grid operator, and the plant’s “baseload capacity” are helpful for understanding the ability of wind to generate electricity.1
Capacity Factor
Only some power plants operate at near full capacity, also called “nameplate,” “rated” or “installed” capacity. The “capacity factor” for a power plant is calculated based on the amount of energy actually generated over the course of a year as a proportion of the energy the plant would have produced at full capacity, operating 24/7 every day of the year. Conventional power plants that burn coal typically operate at around 70% of their full capacity (70% capacity factor), nuclear power plants operate at 90% to 100%. Wind power plants typically operate at a capacity factor between 20% and 40%, depending on the local wind resource.2
The low capacity factor for wind reflects poor performance. Commercial wind turbines begin to generate electricity at about 9 mph and reach their rated capacity when winds reach about 27 mph. Below 9 mph, no electricity will be 3 generated, and between 9 and 27 mph less that full capacity will be generated. The energy actually generated (capacity factor X rated capacity) reflects the average wind resource over the year.
The diminished capacity factor of wind plants is obscured in official reports of wind’s “capacity.” For example, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) states: “NYSERDA’s, New York Energy $martSM program through 2001, has supported the construction and operation of 41.5 megawatts (MW) of wind energy generation in New York.”4 This statement refers to two wind energy projects rated at 30 MW and 11.5 MW, respectively.5 Similarly, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) states: “U.S. wind power generating capacity quadrupled between 1990 and 2003—to 6,374 MW.”6 However, because they refer to installed capacity these statements provide no insight about how much actual energy would be generated by these investments.7
To date, on an annual basis no wind power plant in New York has achieved a 30% capacity factor.8 The primary reason for this is that Class 4 winds (average winds ranging from 15.7 to 16.8 miles per hour) are the minimum necessary for large-scale wind power projects, and there are few areas in New York that possess such wind resources.9 Accordingly, many wind power plants in New York are being proposed for locations with less optimal wind resource areas, with an exponential decrease in capacity factors.10
Capacity credit
The capacity factor is only part of the story of wind power’s ability to contribute to New York’s energy needs. The New York System Independent Operator (NYSIO), a non-profit company that manages the electricity grid for the state, needs to secure the amount of energy needed at times of peak load plus a reserve margin. NYSIO therefore assigns a “capacity credit” to each power plant in the state, representing the amount of electricity that the grid operator can rely on to meet peak demand.11
Based on NYSERDA-funded research, NYSIO assigns to wind power plants a 10% capacity credit in the summer and a 30% capacity credit the in winter.12 This represents the grid operator’s judgment about how much energy per unit of rated capacity can be relied on in each season. Thus, for the Maple Ridge Wind Farm on the Tug Hill Plateau in Lewis County, New York’s largest wind power plant, located in the highest land-based wind resource area in the state, NYSIO calculates the plant can provide 32 megawatts in the summer, compared to its rated capacity of 322 MW.13
The poor capacity credit NYSIO assigns to wind probably overestimates wind’s reliability since there will be many days in any summer when there will be little or no wind–less than 9 mph–and therefore wind plants will generate no energy at all. This means, to meet our peak demand needs we need to continue to build new more dependable capacity or continue to delay retiring old, polluting but dependable power plants.
Baseload capacity
An assigned capacity credit is based on an expected average over a season. Wind’s contribution diminishes even further when we look at how daily fluctuations in electricity demand and electricity generation are managed. Most power plants can provide steady generation of electricity around-the-clock at a large fraction of their rated capacity. These plants provide what is called baseload capacity, that is, a minimum amount of electric power required over a given period of time at a steady rate.14 “Fluctuations, peaks or spikes in customer power demand are handled by smaller and more responsive types of power plants.”15
Daily demand for electricity is usually highest in the afternoon and early evening, “with about 16 hours of ‘on-peak’ time in the day and about 8 hours of ‘off-peak’ time during the night.”16 Due to the degree of its unreliability, wind power is unable to respond to fluctuations, peaks or spikes in customer power demand and therefore provides no baseload capacity.17 Baseload plants must be kept on line even if substantial wind-generated electricity is added to the grid.
In fact, substantial amounts of wind-generated electricity increase the fluctuation in the grid as wind power comes on and off, and may increase the demand for responsive baseload plants. Fluctuations caused by integrating wind power into the regional electricity grid also require additional “balancing” services from the grid operator, potentially increasing the cost of electricity.
Baseload plants may also be operated at reduced capacity when electricity from wind plants is added to the grid. If operated at reduced capacity (for example in the winter, when substantial wind-generated electricity might be added to the grid), power plants that burn fossil fuels operate less efficiently, emitting more pollution per unit of energy produced than if they were allowed to run continuously at maximum capacity. “Combined with the pollutants emitted and CO2 released in the manufacture and maintenance of wind towers and their associated infrastructure, substituting wind power for fossil fuels does not improve air quality very much.”18
Land resources
Wind power is being promoted in New York not because it is cheaper or effective in achieving the state’s energy needs, but because it might provide a some of the last few percent mandated by the state’s policy to obtain 25% of its energy from renewable sources, the “renewable portfolio standards” mandate.19 A central consideration in any policy to increase the role of commercial wind power in achieving renewable portfolio standards in New York should be the amount of land required to reach such a goal.
In 2005 New York consumed 154 million MWh of electricity.20 NYSERDA has said that New York has enough “land based wind potential . . . to generate . . . 10 percent of the State’s electricity consumption.”21 A typical 60-turbine wind plant in New York requires about 10,000 acres (a conservative assumption).22 Thus, to generate 15.4 million MWh with wind plants that on average achieve a 20% capacity factor will require about 146 wind plants and 1,460,000 acres, or 2,281 square miles.23
The small potential contribution commercial wind power can make to New York’s electricity generation needs coupled with the large land resources wind power requires raises the following policy questions:
(1) Whose landscape will bear the burden of the effort to achieve maximum windpowered electricity in New York? Put differently, do downstate electricity consumers want to sacrifice upstate land values to feel good about unreliable renewables?
(2) Do New York taxpayers want their renewable energy capital investments to be directed at the lowest energy output of any current alternative24 while avoiding little if any building of new fossil fuel capacity?
(3) Should wind power require greater scrutiny into the potential adverse impacts of wind plants on rural communities (such as changes to nighttime noise and viewscapes, habitat fragmentation, avian mortality)? Put differently, should New York consider state-wide siting restrictions on commercial wind plants?
1. Cf. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Agency (EIA), “Glossary” (“capacity factor,” “capacity credit,” “base load,” “base load capacity, and “base load plant”), available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/glossary/.
2. University of Massachusetts, Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, “Wind Power: Capacity Factor, Intermittency, and what happens when the wind doesn’t blow?”, n.d., p. 1, available at (link)(visited August 20, 2007) (“Typical wind power capacity factors are 20-40%”); American Wind Energy Association, “How Does A Wind Turbine’s Energy Production Differ from Its Power Production?”, available at http://www.awea.org/faq/basicen.html; Wikipedia, “Wind Power,” http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Wind_power.
3. GE Energy, “1.5 MW Wind Turbine Technical Specifications, available at (link). See also Iowa Energy Center at Iowa State University, “Wind Energy Systems,” available at (link); American Wind Energy Association, “How Does A Wind Turbine's Energy Production Differ from Its Power Production?”, available at http://www.awea.org/faq/basicen.html.
4. NYSERDA, “Utility Scale / Large Wind” (n.d.), available at (link) . This statement describes two wind power facilities, the Fenner Wind Project, rated at 30 MW, and the Madison wind Project, rated at 11.5 MW.
5. These are the Fenner Wind Project and the Madison Wind Project. See id. (map).
6. GAO, Renewable Energy: Wind Power’s Contribution to Electric Power Generation and Impact on Farms and Rural Communities, September 2004, at http://www.gao.gov/ new.items/d04756.pdf. The GAO study uses installed capacity as the basis for this statement. See id., p. 15 (Table 3). See also e.g., American Wind Energy Association, “Wind Energy Projects in California,” note (**), available at http://www.awea.org/projects/california.html.
7. The GAO study acknowledges this but only in footnotes. See id., pp. 1.n.3, 14.n.16. However, the study goes on to compare electricity generation from wind with facilities using fossil fuel, nuclear, natural gas and oil, all of which have at least twice the capacity of factor of wind. Id., p. 9.n.6.
8. U.S. Department of Energy, Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2006 (May 2007), p. 17, Fig. 23, available at (link). See also id., p. 4 (“New wind plants contributed roughly 19% of new nameplate capacity added to the U.S. electrical grid in 2006, compared to 13% in 2005”). See also Prefiled Testimony of Thomas A. Hewson, BSE, in the matter of the East Haven Windfarm,
January 1, 2005, available at http://www.windaction.org/documents/720 (average capacity factors for new wind projects in 2003 was 26.9%); NYSERDA, “Madison Windpower Project Final Report, December 2003, p. iii, available at (link) (capacity factor for the Madison Windpower Project in Madison County is 21%). Compare NYSERDA, Frequently Asked Questions for Large-Scale Wind Energy Projects, p. 4 (n.d.), available at (link)(“When averaged over a year, wind projects typically operate at levels equivalent to 30 to 40% of their full capacity (aka capacity factor.”).
9. Wind resource maps for New York are available from NYSERDA, “Wind Speed of New York at 100 Meters [328 Feet],” (link). See also EIA, “Classes of Wind Power Density at Heights of 10m and 50m” (table), July 2007, available at (link); EIA, “Wind Resource Potential” (map), available at (link) (both visited August 20, 2007).
10. Energy output from the wind is proportional to the cube of the wind speed. That is, as mean wind speeds decrease, the capacity factor for wind turbines decreases exponentially. Cf. Brad G. Stevens, P.E., “Wind Energy Resource and wind Farm Siting” (powerpoint for Northwest Wind energy workshop, August 3, 2006), slide 9, available at (link) .
11. NYSIO, 2007 Load & Capacity Data (2007 Goldbook), available at (link) (visited October 5, 2007).
12. Id., p. 58.
13. Id., Table III-2, p. 28.
14. EIA, “Glossary,” note 1, above (“load capacity, and “base load plant”).
15. Wikipedia, “Base load power plant,” at (link) (visited October 5, 2007).
16. EIA, THE CHANGING STRUCTURE OF THE ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY 2000: AN UPDATE, p. 9n.16 (October 2000), available at (link) (visited October 5, 2007).
17. New Jersey Blue Ribbon Panel on Development of Wind Facilities in Coastal Waters, Final Report, p. 21 (April 2006), available at (link) : wind power alone cannot reduce the state’s dependence on fossil fuels. Nor can wind power provide “base load” power needed to meet every day energy demands. Due to these limitations, wind power cannot remedy the current energy related environmental issues facing New Jersey.
Compare the industry advocate Alliance for Clean Energy New York, “New York State Wind Facts,” available at (link)(“20 percent of the total wind energy can be considered base load, like traditional fossil-fuel plants, and that . . . helps to improve overall utility system reliability.”).
18. H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., “Wind Power: Not Green but Red,” testimony presented to the American Legislative Exchange Council Task Force on Energy, the Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Austin, TX (May 1, 2004), available at (link)(visited October 5, 2007).
19. See NYSERDA, “About New York’s Renewable Portfolio Standard,” Available at http://www.nyserda.org/rps/about.asp.
20. EIA, “New York Electricity Profile” (2005), available at (link)(retail sales and direct use).
21. NYSERDA, “Utility Scale/Large Wind,” at (link) .
22. Phase 1 of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in Lewis County, with 120 1.65 MW turbines, “spans approximately 21,000 acres.” PPM Energy, Press Release, “PPM and Zilkha Announce Maple Ridge Wind Farm Landmark Project Will Quadruple New York Wind Energy Capacity,” April 5, 2005, available at (link). However, a recently approved 65-turbine wind power plant in Washington requires 6,000 acres. See Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, Order No. 826, In the Matter of . . . Kittitas Valley Wind Power Project (March 27, 2007), available at (link).
23. That is, (15.4 million MWh ÷ 8,766 hrs. in a year = 1,757 MW) X 20% capacity factor = 8,785 MW rated capacity needed ÷ 60 turbines per wind plant X 10,000 acres = 1.46 million acres or 2,281 square miles.
24. One promising alternative is enhanced geothermal energy, recently assessed by MIT in a study that concludes known deep geothermal resources can provide 57,000 times the current energy needs of the U.S. Links to the MIT study and current information on enhanced geothermal energy are posted on the website of Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County, at (link)
FERC Extends Financial Houses’ Leave to Acquire Utility Securities
The role of financial institutions in energy markets is steadily increasing. In furtherance of this trend, FERC recently granted blanket authorizations to three financial and investment companies allowing them to acquire securities of electric utility companies in the course of their business, without needing advance FERC approval under the Federal Power Act (FPA) for each transaction.
As part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress amended the FPA to require prior FERC approval for holding companies to acquire securities with a value of over $10 million of utilities or holding companies owning utilities. Financial institutions have since sought and received from FERC waivers to allow them or their affiliates to acquire these securities in amounts exceeding $10 million without advance FERC approval, provided the acquisition is in their ordinary course of their business, which includes taking security for a loan, in connection with their asset management business, or as part of their routine activities as a broker, dealer, and trader.
In 2006, FERC granted these blanket approvals for only one-year terms. But having grown more comfortable with these arrangements, FERC now granted blanket approvals for a three-year term. The authorization granted two of the companies, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Morgan Stanley, were renewals for these longer terms, while the third, Legg Mason, Inc., received an initial three-year authorization. The conditions FERC imposed on each company include not exercising control over public utilities whose securities they acquire and compliance with reporting requirements.
As part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress amended the FPA to require prior FERC approval for holding companies to acquire securities with a value of over $10 million of utilities or holding companies owning utilities. Financial institutions have since sought and received from FERC waivers to allow them or their affiliates to acquire these securities in amounts exceeding $10 million without advance FERC approval, provided the acquisition is in their ordinary course of their business, which includes taking security for a loan, in connection with their asset management business, or as part of their routine activities as a broker, dealer, and trader.
In 2006, FERC granted these blanket approvals for only one-year terms. But having grown more comfortable with these arrangements, FERC now granted blanket approvals for a three-year term. The authorization granted two of the companies, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Morgan Stanley, were renewals for these longer terms, while the third, Legg Mason, Inc., received an initial three-year authorization. The conditions FERC imposed on each company include not exercising control over public utilities whose securities they acquire and compliance with reporting requirements.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Terry Tree Service - Cohocton, NY
Natural disasters and land-clearing projects keep Terry Tree Service of Chili busy. Russ Hathaway of Cape Vincent helps to clear land for a wind farm in Cohocton.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Turbine Foe's Barn Burns in Starkville
STARKVILLE Just after midnight Friday, Oct. 19, Willow – one of Denise Como’s whippets – barked. Denise, one of the three-person team challenging Stark town board incumbents in the Nov. 6 election, heard an engine running. A truck door slammed, and the vehicle drove off down Ellwood Road toward Salt Springville. “A few minutes later my dogs went crazy,” she recalled that Saturday afternoon, sitting on the long front porch of the family’s rambling farm house, guinea hens pecking at the chrome fender of a nearby truck. “When I got to the front porch, everything was aglow.” She hurried across the road to the century-old barn, but it was engulfed. There was no wind. The flames shot straight up into the air. “A perfect night for arson,” Denise called it. “I just came back here and watched it burn,” she said.
When the firemen arrived from Starkville a few minutes later, there was nothing they could do either. “I never saw anything burn so fast in my life.” Three fire trucks were at the scene, and firefighters executed a “controlled fall,” ensuring the structure didn’t collapse into the roadway. The embers were still smoking amid the drizzle 36 hours later when a neighbor, Walter Bych, pulled over in his pick-up truck. The morning before, he had seen the glow from his bedroom window and had come to the scene. The word that kept cropping up in the conversations of the firefighters and investigators was “suspicious, suspicious.” “That’s the word I kept hearing,” he said. The candidate – she and Steve Reichenbach, running for town council, and Sue Brander, for supervisor, are all Advocates for Stark, members of the anti-wind-turbine group – doesn’t know why her barn was targeted. The week before, she’d knocked down a hunter’s stand set up on her property without permission. Maybe it was the disgruntled hunter. However, the political signs she’d set up in front of her barn were gone. “It’s hard to make a conclusion,” she said, adding, “I think it’s some kind of statement. Why would you burn down some little barn?”
Wednesday, Oct. 24, a state police investigator at the Herkimer barracks said the troopers were at the scene, but lacked sufficient evidence at that point “to open an arson case.” Down the road in Van Hornesville, Sue Brander is fearful Como, who moved up from Lakehurst, N.J., just four years ago with her husband, Richard Whritenour, was being punished for her politics. The Brander-Como-Reichenback team grew out of the Town of Stark’s support for Community Energy/Iberdrola’s Jordanville Wind Project, recently reduced from 68 turbines to 49. Landowners who stood to benefit from leases with the wind company have been irate about the opponents. “I’m saddened this has happened,” said Brander. “It’s certainly sobering to have a barn burned in this community under these circumstances.” Next to Como’s barn is a corrugated metal shed, where haying equipment is kept. (Denise and Richard train whippets, borzois and salukis, and keep the fields cut to run the dogs.) The door was open and two cans full of gasoline were missing. There was power to the barn, but Como said the troopers told her the fire started in a corner of the structure away from the electrical connections.
When the firemen arrived from Starkville a few minutes later, there was nothing they could do either. “I never saw anything burn so fast in my life.” Three fire trucks were at the scene, and firefighters executed a “controlled fall,” ensuring the structure didn’t collapse into the roadway. The embers were still smoking amid the drizzle 36 hours later when a neighbor, Walter Bych, pulled over in his pick-up truck. The morning before, he had seen the glow from his bedroom window and had come to the scene. The word that kept cropping up in the conversations of the firefighters and investigators was “suspicious, suspicious.” “That’s the word I kept hearing,” he said. The candidate – she and Steve Reichenbach, running for town council, and Sue Brander, for supervisor, are all Advocates for Stark, members of the anti-wind-turbine group – doesn’t know why her barn was targeted. The week before, she’d knocked down a hunter’s stand set up on her property without permission. Maybe it was the disgruntled hunter. However, the political signs she’d set up in front of her barn were gone. “It’s hard to make a conclusion,” she said, adding, “I think it’s some kind of statement. Why would you burn down some little barn?”
Wednesday, Oct. 24, a state police investigator at the Herkimer barracks said the troopers were at the scene, but lacked sufficient evidence at that point “to open an arson case.” Down the road in Van Hornesville, Sue Brander is fearful Como, who moved up from Lakehurst, N.J., just four years ago with her husband, Richard Whritenour, was being punished for her politics. The Brander-Como-Reichenback team grew out of the Town of Stark’s support for Community Energy/Iberdrola’s Jordanville Wind Project, recently reduced from 68 turbines to 49. Landowners who stood to benefit from leases with the wind company have been irate about the opponents. “I’m saddened this has happened,” said Brander. “It’s certainly sobering to have a barn burned in this community under these circumstances.” Next to Como’s barn is a corrugated metal shed, where haying equipment is kept. (Denise and Richard train whippets, borzois and salukis, and keep the fields cut to run the dogs.) The door was open and two cans full of gasoline were missing. There was power to the barn, but Como said the troopers told her the fire started in a corner of the structure away from the electrical connections.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Inhofe slams two-hour Senate speech debunking climate fears
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDXDmsgaBfA
According to a Science and Public Policy Institute release on September 13:
"The authors [David and Gordon] present unsuspecting children with an altered temperature and CO2 graph that reverses the relationship found in the scientific literature. The manipulation is critical because David's central premise posits that CO2 drives temperature, yet the peer-reviewed literature is unanimous that CO2 changes have historically followed temperature changes."
David has now been forced to publicly admit this significant scientific error in her book.
According to a Science and Public Policy Institute release on September 13:
"The authors [David and Gordon] present unsuspecting children with an altered temperature and CO2 graph that reverses the relationship found in the scientific literature. The manipulation is critical because David's central premise posits that CO2 drives temperature, yet the peer-reviewed literature is unanimous that CO2 changes have historically followed temperature changes."
David has now been forced to publicly admit this significant scientific error in her book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)