The book is written, the peer reviews are in. All that remains are explanatory side-bar notes. Consider the following paragraph.
"The second critical element is central processing: how sensory information about motion and position is integrated by the brain, what other brain centers are activated, and what kinds of signals the system then sends back out to the body. Balaban and colleagues describe how the parabrachial nucleus network receives motion and position information from visual, vestibular, somatosensory, and visceral sensory input, and is linked to brain centers and circuits that mediate anxiety and fear, including serotonin and norepinephrine-bearing neurons from the midbrain and the amygdala, a key mediator of fear reactions. Neurologically, fear or anxiety and a sense of balance or stability in space are closely connected."
Wouldn’t you like to read this in plain English? So would I. That’s the reason for the side-bars: to render the tough clinical stuff into layman’s language.
The good news is, the majority of the report is readily comprehensible to laymen. (At least we think so.) However, where it launches into mind-numbing passages like that above, Dr. Pierpont is writing simple, non-technical explanations of what’s being discussed and its significance for Wind Turbine Syndrome.
Back to the excerpts. You will notice they are all in manuscript (typescript) format. In each case they represent the latest version of the ms. Be aware that the final, published version may differ somewhat from the text you read below, since the ms. is still, as of this writing, a work in progress. Nevertheless it is very close to final draft. Whatever revisions are made between now and publication will likely be minor. The Editor
»Preface
»Abstract
»Body of report: Text
»References
»Body of report: Tables
»Glossary
Published by K-Selected Books (Santa Fe, NM)
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Peer reviews - Dr. Nina Pierpont - Wind Turbine Syndrome
Professor Lord (Robert) May of Oxford University OM AC Kt FRS calls the book “impressive, interesting, and important.”
(Click here and here for further information on Lord May’s prodigious research accomplishments and honors, including President of the Royal Society and Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK government. Lord May is currently at the forefront of global warming research.)
Excerpts from peer reviewers (referees):
This “report … deserves publication…. The careful documentation of serious physical, neurological and emotional problems provoked by living close to wind turbines must be brought to the attention of physicians who, like me, are unaware of them until now.”
—from the referee report by Jerome Haller, MD, Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York. Dr. Haller is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Neurology (Child Neurology Section), and the Child Neurology Society.
“This [report] addresses an under-reported facet of Noise Induced Illnesses in a fashion that is detailed in its historical documentation, multisystemic in its approach and descriptions, and painstakingly and informatively referenced…. [It] opens up the area of low frequency vibration to the medical community….I applaud her.”
—from the referee report by Joel F. Lehrer, MD, Fellow of the American College of Surgeons,
Clinical Professor of Otolaryngology, University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey.
“Let me congratulate you on your case-series investigation on Wind Turbine Syndrome…. As an epidemiologist I fully appreciate your truly remarkable effort, one that smacks of being well done and with a full respect for honest inquiry….
“Your high level of scientific integrity is revealed both in your [research] design decisions and in your writing, both of which are of the highest order….
“You have laid a remarkable, high quality, and honest foundation for others to build upon with the next stages of scientific investigation. In doing so, you have made a commendable, thorough, careful, honest, and significant contribution to the study of (what we can now call) Wind Turbine Syndrome.”
—from the referee report by Ralph V. Katz, DMD, MPH, PhD, Fellow of the American College of Epidemiology,
Professor and Chair, Department of Epidemiology & Health Promotion
New York University College of Dentistry
“Dr. Pierpont has gathered a strong series of case studies of deleterious effects on the health and well-being of many people living near large wind turbines. Furthermore, she has reviewed medical studies that support a plausible physiological mechanism directly linking low frequency noise and vibration (like that produced by wind turbines and which may not in itself be reported as irritating) to potentially debilitating effects on the inner ear and other sensory systems associated with balance and sense of position. Thus the effects are likely to have a physiological component, rather than being exclusively psychological….
“It is … clear that many people are affected at far greater distances than the minimum set-backs currently allowed between turbines and residences. Accordingly, it would be prudent to establish much longer set-backs from houses as a criterion for siting new turbines, pending further studies on this newly documented Wind Turbine Syndrome. Documentation of the syndrome itself is strong evidence that current set-backs are woefully inadequate.”
—from the referee report by Henry S. Horn, PhD, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and Associate of the Princeton Environmental Institute, Princeton University
(Click here and here for further information on Lord May’s prodigious research accomplishments and honors, including President of the Royal Society and Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK government. Lord May is currently at the forefront of global warming research.)
Excerpts from peer reviewers (referees):
This “report … deserves publication…. The careful documentation of serious physical, neurological and emotional problems provoked by living close to wind turbines must be brought to the attention of physicians who, like me, are unaware of them until now.”
—from the referee report by Jerome Haller, MD, Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York. Dr. Haller is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Neurology (Child Neurology Section), and the Child Neurology Society.
“This [report] addresses an under-reported facet of Noise Induced Illnesses in a fashion that is detailed in its historical documentation, multisystemic in its approach and descriptions, and painstakingly and informatively referenced…. [It] opens up the area of low frequency vibration to the medical community….I applaud her.”
—from the referee report by Joel F. Lehrer, MD, Fellow of the American College of Surgeons,
Clinical Professor of Otolaryngology, University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey.
“Let me congratulate you on your case-series investigation on Wind Turbine Syndrome…. As an epidemiologist I fully appreciate your truly remarkable effort, one that smacks of being well done and with a full respect for honest inquiry….
“Your high level of scientific integrity is revealed both in your [research] design decisions and in your writing, both of which are of the highest order….
“You have laid a remarkable, high quality, and honest foundation for others to build upon with the next stages of scientific investigation. In doing so, you have made a commendable, thorough, careful, honest, and significant contribution to the study of (what we can now call) Wind Turbine Syndrome.”
—from the referee report by Ralph V. Katz, DMD, MPH, PhD, Fellow of the American College of Epidemiology,
Professor and Chair, Department of Epidemiology & Health Promotion
New York University College of Dentistry
“Dr. Pierpont has gathered a strong series of case studies of deleterious effects on the health and well-being of many people living near large wind turbines. Furthermore, she has reviewed medical studies that support a plausible physiological mechanism directly linking low frequency noise and vibration (like that produced by wind turbines and which may not in itself be reported as irritating) to potentially debilitating effects on the inner ear and other sensory systems associated with balance and sense of position. Thus the effects are likely to have a physiological component, rather than being exclusively psychological….
“It is … clear that many people are affected at far greater distances than the minimum set-backs currently allowed between turbines and residences. Accordingly, it would be prudent to establish much longer set-backs from houses as a criterion for siting new turbines, pending further studies on this newly documented Wind Turbine Syndrome. Documentation of the syndrome itself is strong evidence that current set-backs are woefully inadequate.”
—from the referee report by Henry S. Horn, PhD, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and Associate of the Princeton Environmental Institute, Princeton University
Texas consumers to pay steep price for rush to wind energy
Foundation report looks at costs, challenges of harnessing wind for electricity
AUSTIN – Texas’ efforts to make it the nation’s leading wind energy state have come at a cost – at least $60 billion between now and 2025 – that will be borne by consumers and taxpayers, according to a report released today by the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
“The combined cost of subsidies, tax breaks, market disruptions, and increased production and ancillary costs associated with wind energy in Texas could top out at more than $4 billion per year, and total at least $60 billion through 2025,” according to Bill Peacock, Director of the Foundation’s Center for Economic Freedom.
The report, “Texas Wind Energy: Past, Present, and Future,” examines the growth of wind energy in Texas over the last decade. While many policymakers and business leaders foresee wind as a major contributor to America’s electricity supply, the report identifies several practical obstacles that stand in the way of achieving that vision.
“Wind power is, and will continue to be, part of Texas’ energy supply,” said Drew Thornley, the report’s author. “However, Texas’ policymakers must thoroughly examine both the benefits and limitations of wind energy, particularly the issues of reliability, transmission, and cost.”
The Public Utility Commission’s recent approval of a $5 billion plan to connect proposed West Texas wind farms to Texas’ metropolitan centers is just the beginning of the costs to Texas’ electric ratepayers. “These costs do not include escalating labor and material costs or financing costs during construction,” Thornley said. “Thus, the installed costs, which will be used to establish future transmission rates, should be considerably higher. The total cost of transmission construction should increase electricity prices by about $17.1 billion through 2025.”
Texas wind energy will be subsidized to the tune of $28.3 billion through 2025. Besides transmission costs, the subsidies include Texas’ program for mandating production of wind energy through the renewable portfolio standard and renewable energy credits ($1.4 billion) and the federal production tax credit ($9 billion). Texas consumers and taxpayers should expect to bear more than $20 billion of this directly, with the rest paid by U.S. taxpayers. The remainder of the $60 billion cost of Texas wind energy comes from increased generation and system management costs, economic costs from disruptions of service due to unreliability, and from additional tax breaks.
In addition to the cost, Thornley identified the three major challenges to the expansion of Texas wind energy as the intermittent nature of wind, the inability to store electricity on a large scale, and the limitations on electric transmission infrastructure.
“The greatest impediment to wind’s large-scale contribution to our energy supply is its intermittent nature,” Thornley said. “The wind must blow in order for wind turbines to produce power. In Texas, however, wind blows the least during the summer months when we need power the most.” He added that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas relies on a mere 8.7 percent of wind power’s installed capacity during peak summer hours.
Thornley debunked the notion that wind could replace natural gas as a fuel source for electricity. “Because there is presently no adequate wind-power storage system, wind-generating units must be backed up by units that generate electricity from traditional fuels,” Thornley said. “In Texas’ case, that has most often meant natural gas.”
“Wind power is not an energy-supply panacea,” Thornley said, “but rather a supplement with the potential to play a beneficial role in Texas’ energy mix for years to come.”
The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin, Texas. The report, “Texas Wind Energy: Past, Present, and Future” is available online at http://www.TexasPolicy.com.
Bill Peacock is Director of the Center for Economic Freedom at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
Drew Thornley is a natural resources and economic freedom policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
AUSTIN – Texas’ efforts to make it the nation’s leading wind energy state have come at a cost – at least $60 billion between now and 2025 – that will be borne by consumers and taxpayers, according to a report released today by the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
“The combined cost of subsidies, tax breaks, market disruptions, and increased production and ancillary costs associated with wind energy in Texas could top out at more than $4 billion per year, and total at least $60 billion through 2025,” according to Bill Peacock, Director of the Foundation’s Center for Economic Freedom.
The report, “Texas Wind Energy: Past, Present, and Future,” examines the growth of wind energy in Texas over the last decade. While many policymakers and business leaders foresee wind as a major contributor to America’s electricity supply, the report identifies several practical obstacles that stand in the way of achieving that vision.
“Wind power is, and will continue to be, part of Texas’ energy supply,” said Drew Thornley, the report’s author. “However, Texas’ policymakers must thoroughly examine both the benefits and limitations of wind energy, particularly the issues of reliability, transmission, and cost.”
The Public Utility Commission’s recent approval of a $5 billion plan to connect proposed West Texas wind farms to Texas’ metropolitan centers is just the beginning of the costs to Texas’ electric ratepayers. “These costs do not include escalating labor and material costs or financing costs during construction,” Thornley said. “Thus, the installed costs, which will be used to establish future transmission rates, should be considerably higher. The total cost of transmission construction should increase electricity prices by about $17.1 billion through 2025.”
Texas wind energy will be subsidized to the tune of $28.3 billion through 2025. Besides transmission costs, the subsidies include Texas’ program for mandating production of wind energy through the renewable portfolio standard and renewable energy credits ($1.4 billion) and the federal production tax credit ($9 billion). Texas consumers and taxpayers should expect to bear more than $20 billion of this directly, with the rest paid by U.S. taxpayers. The remainder of the $60 billion cost of Texas wind energy comes from increased generation and system management costs, economic costs from disruptions of service due to unreliability, and from additional tax breaks.
In addition to the cost, Thornley identified the three major challenges to the expansion of Texas wind energy as the intermittent nature of wind, the inability to store electricity on a large scale, and the limitations on electric transmission infrastructure.
“The greatest impediment to wind’s large-scale contribution to our energy supply is its intermittent nature,” Thornley said. “The wind must blow in order for wind turbines to produce power. In Texas, however, wind blows the least during the summer months when we need power the most.” He added that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas relies on a mere 8.7 percent of wind power’s installed capacity during peak summer hours.
Thornley debunked the notion that wind could replace natural gas as a fuel source for electricity. “Because there is presently no adequate wind-power storage system, wind-generating units must be backed up by units that generate electricity from traditional fuels,” Thornley said. “In Texas’ case, that has most often meant natural gas.”
“Wind power is not an energy-supply panacea,” Thornley said, “but rather a supplement with the potential to play a beneficial role in Texas’ energy mix for years to come.”
The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin, Texas. The report, “Texas Wind Energy: Past, Present, and Future” is available online at http://www.TexasPolicy.com.
Bill Peacock is Director of the Center for Economic Freedom at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
Drew Thornley is a natural resources and economic freedom policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Ill Wind: FPL Cites Bad Third-Quarter Breezes
Wind is free, but you can’t make it blow.
FPL Energy, the biggest U.S. renewable-energy operator, said wind conditions in the third quarter were the worst it has seen since starting a wind-power database in the early 1970s. Electricity generated by FPL’s wind farms—esecially in prime wind-power country like Texas and the Great Plains—came in well below the expected output. FPL’s Texas wind generation, for example, was just 72% of expected output in the quarter—and just 53% in September.
That affects the bottom line. Variable weather (including some good news for hydropower) in the end knocked off about 7 cents a share for FPL, the company said.
Granted, variable wind is just that. FPL enjoyed a better-than-average second quarter of wind, and for the year the company’s wind-power operations have generated 98% of the juice they expected.
But the third-quarter doldrums underscore one of the lingering concerns about massive use of renewables like wind power. Even though wind-farm developers use sophisticated tools to pick sites with the best wind, wind turbines generally only produce about one-third as much electricity as advertised.
That variable output gets even harder to predict when normally windy areas, like Texas, get suddenly calm. FPL recently detailed (p. 32) all the variables that affect its wind-power earnings—expected wind speed, actual wind speed, the theoretical turbine output, the actual output, and the price the electricity finally fetches on the market.
For now, though, FPL is more worried about stormy weather than a lack of wind. The utility said it would push back some wind-farm development next year, given the financial crisis, and shave about $1.7 billion off capital expenditure next year.
FPL Energy, the biggest U.S. renewable-energy operator, said wind conditions in the third quarter were the worst it has seen since starting a wind-power database in the early 1970s. Electricity generated by FPL’s wind farms—esecially in prime wind-power country like Texas and the Great Plains—came in well below the expected output. FPL’s Texas wind generation, for example, was just 72% of expected output in the quarter—and just 53% in September.
That affects the bottom line. Variable weather (including some good news for hydropower) in the end knocked off about 7 cents a share for FPL, the company said.
Granted, variable wind is just that. FPL enjoyed a better-than-average second quarter of wind, and for the year the company’s wind-power operations have generated 98% of the juice they expected.
But the third-quarter doldrums underscore one of the lingering concerns about massive use of renewables like wind power. Even though wind-farm developers use sophisticated tools to pick sites with the best wind, wind turbines generally only produce about one-third as much electricity as advertised.
That variable output gets even harder to predict when normally windy areas, like Texas, get suddenly calm. FPL recently detailed (p. 32) all the variables that affect its wind-power earnings—expected wind speed, actual wind speed, the theoretical turbine output, the actual output, and the price the electricity finally fetches on the market.
For now, though, FPL is more worried about stormy weather than a lack of wind. The utility said it would push back some wind-farm development next year, given the financial crisis, and shave about $1.7 billion off capital expenditure next year.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Windmills in farm country and furrowed brows
I'm obviously not an acoustical engineer, and I had no measuring equipment with me on a recent windy day as Derek Gee, a Buffalo News photographer, and I took a look at the wind turbines in Wyoming County. But I can say this. You can certainly hear these giant tubes with their huge blades.
From a distance, they look like a field of Mercedes Benz emblems, spinning in the wind. As we stood on Telegraph Road in the Town of Eagle, looking at a landscape of turbines erected by Noble Environmental, on a beautiful October day when the wind was blowing, at probably 15 to 20 miles an hour, one turbine in particular almost seemed to whistle. The rest of them raised a steady whoosh, whoosh, woosh.
Maybe it was just one errant whistling turbine, and a field of them may be scenic, but what if New York fulfills its alternative energy goal, and there are thousands of these 400 foot towers in the upstate countryside? Would you live next to one?
With New York's goal of having 25 percent of its electricity produced by alternative energy in just five years, it's a future that all of New York now faces, whether you live in the countryside, spend time there, or just enjoy driving through it.
-- Michael Beebe
From a distance, they look like a field of Mercedes Benz emblems, spinning in the wind. As we stood on Telegraph Road in the Town of Eagle, looking at a landscape of turbines erected by Noble Environmental, on a beautiful October day when the wind was blowing, at probably 15 to 20 miles an hour, one turbine in particular almost seemed to whistle. The rest of them raised a steady whoosh, whoosh, woosh.
Maybe it was just one errant whistling turbine, and a field of them may be scenic, but what if New York fulfills its alternative energy goal, and there are thousands of these 400 foot towers in the upstate countryside? Would you live next to one?
With New York's goal of having 25 percent of its electricity produced by alternative energy in just five years, it's a future that all of New York now faces, whether you live in the countryside, spend time there, or just enjoy driving through it.
-- Michael Beebe
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Catastrophic Turbine Failure At Vermont Wind Farm Raises Doubt
Turbine #10 at the Searsburg wind energy facility in Searsburg, Vermont experienced a catastrophic failure when one of the blades came in contact with the turbine's tower causing it to buckle during high winds. This turbine's 28-ton nacelle and 3-blade rotor assembly crashed to the ground scattering debris several hundred feet from the structure. Approximately 20-gallons of heavy oil spilled from the unit when its fluid reservoirs were damaged. The 11-turbine Searsburg facility was brought online in 1997 and according to preconstruction documents, the Zond Z-P40-FS turbines had an expected lifespan of 30-years[1].
[To see photos, click http://www.windaction.org/pictures/18387 and http://www.windaction.org/pictures/18386 ]
Industrial Wind Action (IWA) Group's executive director, Lisa Linowes, was not surprised by the failure. "The Searsburg towers are located at an elevation of nearly 3000-feet in some of the harshest weather conditions in New England. Performance issues and blade failures have plagued this project for some time, " she said pointing to incidences in May 2006[2] and again in May 2008[3].
While the eleven-year old Searsburg turbines are failing, newer models have not improved the safety record. "Wind developers today tout life expectancies of industrial wind turbines that exceed 20 years," Linowes said, "but the fact remains that estimates of the functional lifespan of modern utility-scale wind turbines are speculative and cannot be substantiated since so far very few have been operating for ten years."
Unfortunately, unless a person or property is damaged in a turbine failure, there is no obligation for the owner of an industrial wind turbine to report the incident. Information on the number and types of failures is sparse and poorly reported, and thus this vital data is not adequately incorporated into estimates of turbine longevity. The Searsburg failure occurred on September 15th.
"What's more ominous," Linowes said, "is that reports of turbine failures in the United States are increasing. These failures include blade throws, oil leaks, fires, and collapse." IWA attributes the increase in reporting to the fact that the machines are more visible, being erected close to where people live, and also due to the growing interest in wind energy development. In the last year alone, IWA has tracked catastrophic failures in Idaho, Minnesota, California, New York, Pennsylvania and elsewhere, raising concerns about public safety.
While weather conditions and climate are taking a toll on the machines, reports from the industry indicate the rush to erect industrial wind turbines is being accomplished at the expense of quality assurance and safe installation practices. Business Week published a report[4] in August 2007, which found, "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." A report this year found that turbine owners were not conducting regularly scheduled maintenance necessary to ensure the mechanical towers remain in good operating condition. An informal survey of approximately seventy-five wind farm operators in the United States found as many as sixty-percent were behind in their maintenance procedures[5].
"Public safety should be paramount when siting industrial wind turbines," Linowes said, adding "there's a perception that the 400-foot structures can safely be erected merely a few hundred feet from property lines, public areas and rights-of-way." She pointed to a private high school in Massachusetts[6] as an example where a massive turbine was installed just feet from the school's driveway. Barrington, Rhode Island is deliberating on the location of an even larger turbine that will stand within 200-feet of the public high school building[7], although that turbine might be relocated in response to parents and residents raising concerns over noise and safety. In both cases, the turbines exceed the size of the destroyed Searsburg tower.
Manufacturers recommend a safety zone with a radius of at least 1300 feet from a wind turbine, and that children be prohibited from standing or playing near the structures[8]. "Green energy should not override common sense," Linowes said.
[To see photos, click http://www.windaction.org/pictures/18387 and http://www.windaction.org/pictures/18386 ]
Industrial Wind Action (IWA) Group's executive director, Lisa Linowes, was not surprised by the failure. "The Searsburg towers are located at an elevation of nearly 3000-feet in some of the harshest weather conditions in New England. Performance issues and blade failures have plagued this project for some time, " she said pointing to incidences in May 2006[2] and again in May 2008[3].
While the eleven-year old Searsburg turbines are failing, newer models have not improved the safety record. "Wind developers today tout life expectancies of industrial wind turbines that exceed 20 years," Linowes said, "but the fact remains that estimates of the functional lifespan of modern utility-scale wind turbines are speculative and cannot be substantiated since so far very few have been operating for ten years."
Unfortunately, unless a person or property is damaged in a turbine failure, there is no obligation for the owner of an industrial wind turbine to report the incident. Information on the number and types of failures is sparse and poorly reported, and thus this vital data is not adequately incorporated into estimates of turbine longevity. The Searsburg failure occurred on September 15th.
"What's more ominous," Linowes said, "is that reports of turbine failures in the United States are increasing. These failures include blade throws, oil leaks, fires, and collapse." IWA attributes the increase in reporting to the fact that the machines are more visible, being erected close to where people live, and also due to the growing interest in wind energy development. In the last year alone, IWA has tracked catastrophic failures in Idaho, Minnesota, California, New York, Pennsylvania and elsewhere, raising concerns about public safety.
While weather conditions and climate are taking a toll on the machines, reports from the industry indicate the rush to erect industrial wind turbines is being accomplished at the expense of quality assurance and safe installation practices. Business Week published a report[4] in August 2007, which found, "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." A report this year found that turbine owners were not conducting regularly scheduled maintenance necessary to ensure the mechanical towers remain in good operating condition. An informal survey of approximately seventy-five wind farm operators in the United States found as many as sixty-percent were behind in their maintenance procedures[5].
"Public safety should be paramount when siting industrial wind turbines," Linowes said, adding "there's a perception that the 400-foot structures can safely be erected merely a few hundred feet from property lines, public areas and rights-of-way." She pointed to a private high school in Massachusetts[6] as an example where a massive turbine was installed just feet from the school's driveway. Barrington, Rhode Island is deliberating on the location of an even larger turbine that will stand within 200-feet of the public high school building[7], although that turbine might be relocated in response to parents and residents raising concerns over noise and safety. In both cases, the turbines exceed the size of the destroyed Searsburg tower.
Manufacturers recommend a safety zone with a radius of at least 1300 feet from a wind turbine, and that children be prohibited from standing or playing near the structures[8]. "Green energy should not override common sense," Linowes said.
Wind power is changing the landscape in WNY
SHELDON –Wyoming County, the farming community that’s home to Letchworth State Park and the state’s leading dairy region, now lays claim as the wind capital of Western New York.
Wind has brought a whole new industry to Wyoming County, with $655 million spent so far on three projects already built and at least three more on the books.
It’s conceivable that within the next few years, the wind industry will have spent $1 billion on wind turbines in Wyoming County.
The only business with a billion next to it here now is the dairy industry, which produces 1.02 billion pounds of milk a year, making Wyoming County the state’s top producer.
But along with the money here and elsewhere has come a change in the landscape in upstate New York. An industry has come to the farmland, and not everyone is happy.
People either seem to love the turbines or hate them. There is little common ground.
“I see communities being split
down the middle because of the money coming in over the years,” said East Aurora attorney Arthur Giacalone, who represents wind opponents in Sheldon.
“They’ve destroyed this town,” said Sheldon resident Nadja Laska, who sued to stop the project with four of her neighbors.
(Click to read entire article)
Wind has brought a whole new industry to Wyoming County, with $655 million spent so far on three projects already built and at least three more on the books.
It’s conceivable that within the next few years, the wind industry will have spent $1 billion on wind turbines in Wyoming County.
The only business with a billion next to it here now is the dairy industry, which produces 1.02 billion pounds of milk a year, making Wyoming County the state’s top producer.
But along with the money here and elsewhere has come a change in the landscape in upstate New York. An industry has come to the farmland, and not everyone is happy.
People either seem to love the turbines or hate them. There is little common ground.
“I see communities being split
down the middle because of the money coming in over the years,” said East Aurora attorney Arthur Giacalone, who represents wind opponents in Sheldon.
“They’ve destroyed this town,” said Sheldon resident Nadja Laska, who sued to stop the project with four of her neighbors.
(Click to read entire article)
Friday, October 24, 2008
Suzlon's Shares Drop After Turbine-Tower Accident
Shares of India's Suzlon Energy Ltd., the world's fifth-largest maker of wind turbines, crashed 39% on Friday after a report that a 140-foot-long blade had shorn off a turbine tower at a project financed by Deere & Co. in the U.S. Midwest.
The accident is the latest and most serious in a series of blade splitting and other technical problems in the U.S. and India which have hurt Suzlon's image. The share-price decline Friday also reflected investor concerns that Suzlon will be unable to raise the money it needs in coming months to fund an ambitious global expansion plan, and may be forced to sell assets, analysts said.
In a statement, Suzlon said the incident in the U.S. was "extremely rare and unusual." The company added: "Other turbines owned by that customer and our other customers at various locations in the U.S. are operating without interruption." It gave no further details.
A report Thursday in the Peoria Journal Star, an Illinois.-based newspaper, quoted Richard Shertz, a farmer from near Wyanet, Ill., as saying he heard a noise like thunder Wednesday morning and later found the huge blade lying in one of his cornfields, 150 feet away from the turbine's tower. A photo accompanying the article shows the Suzlon turbine tower with a stump near the central hub where one of the blades should have been attached.
Stewardship Energy LLC, an Illinois.-based wind farm developer, began operating four 2.1 megawatt Suzlon turbines on Mr. Shertz's farmland in mid-2007. The project was financed by John Deere Wind Energy, a unit of Deere & Co., according to Stewardship Energy's Web site. A spokesman for Deere couldn't be immediately reached.
Two other turbines, which sit atop 80-meter towers, were turned off after the accident, local media reported. A fourth turbine, reports said, hasn't worked all summer because of cracks on its blades.
Earlier this year, Suzlon said it was recalling 1,251 blades, or almost the entire number it has sold to date in the U.S. after cracks were found on over 60 blades on turbines run by Deere and Edison International's Edison Mission Energy.
Suzlon acknowledged the blades were too thin near the point where they attach to the turbine's tower to deal with strong gusts. The company, which is based in Pune, India, planned to replace blades that had split and add an extra layer of lamination to the remainder. It is unclear whether any other blades have come off completely.
Suzlon's share drop weighed on an Indian market already buffeted by concerns over the credit crisis and the Indian central bank's decision not to cut interest rates. Suzlon's shares closed 39% lower at 47.25 rupees. The benchmark Sensex index on the Bombay Stock Exchange closed 11% lower at 8701.07 points, its lowest level since November 2005. Suzlon's shares have now lost 88% since the start of the year; the Sensex is down 57% in the same period.
Investors are increasingly worried about the fact that Suzlon plans to raise $380 million by mid-December to complete its $1.7 billion takeover of REpower Systems AG, a German wind turbine producer, analysts said. Suzlon had lined up euro-denominated bank loans for the purchase before the credit crisis, but late last month said it was instead planning a rights issue to raise the cash, sparking a major fall in its share price.
Suzlon already has a majority stake in REpower but, under strict German corporate laws, needs to acquire one more large block of shares and offer to buy out minority shareholders before it can transfer technology out of the German company. Suzlon needs access to REpower's cutting-edge technology, including blueprints for blade designs, to overcome its current technology problems, say people who know the two companies. Suzlon has said the REpower takeover was driven by a desire to penetrate the European market and get access to large offshore wind turbines, not for other technology.
The market is now nervous that Suzlon may have to sell stakes in other units like Belgian gearbox maker Hansen Transmissions International NV, says one analyst who covers Suzlon. Both shares in REpower and Hansen have also fallen sharply since Suzlon announced its rights issue.
The accident is the latest and most serious in a series of blade splitting and other technical problems in the U.S. and India which have hurt Suzlon's image. The share-price decline Friday also reflected investor concerns that Suzlon will be unable to raise the money it needs in coming months to fund an ambitious global expansion plan, and may be forced to sell assets, analysts said.
In a statement, Suzlon said the incident in the U.S. was "extremely rare and unusual." The company added: "Other turbines owned by that customer and our other customers at various locations in the U.S. are operating without interruption." It gave no further details.
A report Thursday in the Peoria Journal Star, an Illinois.-based newspaper, quoted Richard Shertz, a farmer from near Wyanet, Ill., as saying he heard a noise like thunder Wednesday morning and later found the huge blade lying in one of his cornfields, 150 feet away from the turbine's tower. A photo accompanying the article shows the Suzlon turbine tower with a stump near the central hub where one of the blades should have been attached.
Stewardship Energy LLC, an Illinois.-based wind farm developer, began operating four 2.1 megawatt Suzlon turbines on Mr. Shertz's farmland in mid-2007. The project was financed by John Deere Wind Energy, a unit of Deere & Co., according to Stewardship Energy's Web site. A spokesman for Deere couldn't be immediately reached.
Two other turbines, which sit atop 80-meter towers, were turned off after the accident, local media reported. A fourth turbine, reports said, hasn't worked all summer because of cracks on its blades.
Earlier this year, Suzlon said it was recalling 1,251 blades, or almost the entire number it has sold to date in the U.S. after cracks were found on over 60 blades on turbines run by Deere and Edison International's Edison Mission Energy.
Suzlon acknowledged the blades were too thin near the point where they attach to the turbine's tower to deal with strong gusts. The company, which is based in Pune, India, planned to replace blades that had split and add an extra layer of lamination to the remainder. It is unclear whether any other blades have come off completely.
Suzlon's share drop weighed on an Indian market already buffeted by concerns over the credit crisis and the Indian central bank's decision not to cut interest rates. Suzlon's shares closed 39% lower at 47.25 rupees. The benchmark Sensex index on the Bombay Stock Exchange closed 11% lower at 8701.07 points, its lowest level since November 2005. Suzlon's shares have now lost 88% since the start of the year; the Sensex is down 57% in the same period.
Investors are increasingly worried about the fact that Suzlon plans to raise $380 million by mid-December to complete its $1.7 billion takeover of REpower Systems AG, a German wind turbine producer, analysts said. Suzlon had lined up euro-denominated bank loans for the purchase before the credit crisis, but late last month said it was instead planning a rights issue to raise the cash, sparking a major fall in its share price.
Suzlon already has a majority stake in REpower but, under strict German corporate laws, needs to acquire one more large block of shares and offer to buy out minority shareholders before it can transfer technology out of the German company. Suzlon needs access to REpower's cutting-edge technology, including blueprints for blade designs, to overcome its current technology problems, say people who know the two companies. Suzlon has said the REpower takeover was driven by a desire to penetrate the European market and get access to large offshore wind turbines, not for other technology.
The market is now nervous that Suzlon may have to sell stakes in other units like Belgian gearbox maker Hansen Transmissions International NV, says one analyst who covers Suzlon. Both shares in REpower and Hansen have also fallen sharply since Suzlon announced its rights issue.
Noble Sells Michigan Wind Farm to John Deere, Lays Off Staff
Connecticut-based project developer Noble Environmental has sold both phases of its 159MW Noble Thumb wind farm to John Deere and has laid off an unspecified number of staff.
The move appears to be part of a company effort to raise cash and reduce costs. New Energy Finance could not reach a current spokesperson for comment.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the sale of the Noble Thumb project on October 14, according to a commission document. The two companies first notified FERC of their intentions on August 27.
Noble Thumb is being developed in two phases. In July, Noble announced it had begun construction of 69MW phase one, which will use 46 GE 1.5MW turbines. RMT WindConnect began performing construction.
Last spring, Noble announced plans for a $450 million IPO on Nasdaq but the company's prospects of a successful float are now very much in doubt. Since filing its prospectus with the Securities Exchange Commission, one of the company's underwriters on the offering, Lehman Brothers, has gone bankrupt. It has also since been revealed that the company is under investigation by the New York State attorney general's office for allegedly attempting to influence local officials with gifts. Finally, tax equity capital has dried up in recent weeks as major players, including GE Energy Financial Services, have retreated from making such investments.
A spokesperson for Deere did not return a call seeking comment.
The move appears to be part of a company effort to raise cash and reduce costs. New Energy Finance could not reach a current spokesperson for comment.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the sale of the Noble Thumb project on October 14, according to a commission document. The two companies first notified FERC of their intentions on August 27.
Noble Thumb is being developed in two phases. In July, Noble announced it had begun construction of 69MW phase one, which will use 46 GE 1.5MW turbines. RMT WindConnect began performing construction.
Last spring, Noble announced plans for a $450 million IPO on Nasdaq but the company's prospects of a successful float are now very much in doubt. Since filing its prospectus with the Securities Exchange Commission, one of the company's underwriters on the offering, Lehman Brothers, has gone bankrupt. It has also since been revealed that the company is under investigation by the New York State attorney general's office for allegedly attempting to influence local officials with gifts. Finally, tax equity capital has dried up in recent weeks as major players, including GE Energy Financial Services, have retreated from making such investments.
A spokesperson for Deere did not return a call seeking comment.
Blade break: Is wind sailing against Suzlon?
MUMBAI: Suzlon Energy Ltd, world’s fifth largest supplier of wind turbines seems to be facing rough weather following the breakage of v2 blades on its s.88 turbine in USA. The US media reported that entire energy production at a small wind-scale farm southwest of Wyanet had come to a halt following the blade rash.
According to reports, on Wednesday the blades measuring 140 ft long and 15 ft wide crashed with a loud sound and it was recovered 100 to 150 feet away from the structure. The blades were installed in June 2007.However, Suzlon has informed the National Stock Exchange that there has been no shut down of turbines in USA and dismissed media reports as “baseless and speculative”
In its communication it said that "There has been an accidental breakage of a single V2 blade on a Suzlon S.88 turbine in the United States. This is an extremely rare and unusual incident. The cause of this incident is presently under detailed investigation. Other turbines owned by that customer and our other customers at various locations in the US are operating without interruption, and the planned retrofit programme of the V2 blades is also progressing towards completion as scheduled by the end of this financial year.”
This is not the first time complaints about the Suzlon blades is reported in the media. In April, there were reports that the Indian industrialist-led Suzlon Energy had withdrawn most of the blades it sold in US market following detection of cracks in the blades. The Wall Street Journal reported then that the company had recalled 1,250 blades from its top-of-the-line turbines.
With the company still investigating into the causes of blade break, it isn’t clear why the Suzlon blades are crashing. In a press release, Suzlon has said that the accidental breaks is not deterring the company from installing v2 blades on its s.88 turbines in USA.
According to reports, on Wednesday the blades measuring 140 ft long and 15 ft wide crashed with a loud sound and it was recovered 100 to 150 feet away from the structure. The blades were installed in June 2007.However, Suzlon has informed the National Stock Exchange that there has been no shut down of turbines in USA and dismissed media reports as “baseless and speculative”
In its communication it said that "There has been an accidental breakage of a single V2 blade on a Suzlon S.88 turbine in the United States. This is an extremely rare and unusual incident. The cause of this incident is presently under detailed investigation. Other turbines owned by that customer and our other customers at various locations in the US are operating without interruption, and the planned retrofit programme of the V2 blades is also progressing towards completion as scheduled by the end of this financial year.”
This is not the first time complaints about the Suzlon blades is reported in the media. In April, there were reports that the Indian industrialist-led Suzlon Energy had withdrawn most of the blades it sold in US market following detection of cracks in the blades. The Wall Street Journal reported then that the company had recalled 1,250 blades from its top-of-the-line turbines.
With the company still investigating into the causes of blade break, it isn’t clear why the Suzlon blades are crashing. In a press release, Suzlon has said that the accidental breaks is not deterring the company from installing v2 blades on its s.88 turbines in USA.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Energy Financing Is Gone with the Wind
Financing for wind farms has disappeared and fewer companies will be able to develop the kind of "mega projects" needed to feed the growing demand for energy, said Reyad Fezzani, CEO of BP's (BP) wind and solar operations, at the Dow Jones Alternative Energy Innovations conference Wednesday.
In just the last month, money that typically would be available for building renewable-energy projects has "completely dried up," thanks to the financial market crisis, Fezzani said during a keynote and on-stage interview with Yuliya Chernova, editor of Dow Jones' Clean Technology Insight.
To weather the downturn, BP and other companies will have to fund those wind farms and solar-power plants using equity finance. They can then refinance when the credit crunch eases, Fezzani said.
"This is a serious issue for those who don't have equity on the balance sheet to continue to operate," he said. "You probably will see behind the scene, frantic activities to bridge the gap."
Fezzani's remarks reaffirmed what many solar, wind and biofuel industry executives have expressed since the fall of a series of U.S. investment banks and mortgage lenders (see Lehman's Fall to Create Greentech Woes and VCs to Solar Startups: A Deal You Can't Refuse).
His comments also came the same day that Carpinteria, Calif.-based Clipper Windpower (CRPWF.PK) said it had completed a joint-venture agreement with BP Wind Energy to develop a 5,050-megawatt wind farm in South Dakota.
Fezzani said the South Dakota project represents the "next frontier" for wind-farm development, and one in which only a small group of companies can participate. Iberdrola, the Spanish wind energy giant, is another player (see Iberdrola to Spend $1B on Renewable Energy).
Despite the difficult times ahead, Fezzani said Americans' demand for electricity shows no signs of lagging, making wind and solar projects good bets in the long run. Fezzani also sees a trend in which wind-turbine makers will devote less money and energy on building wind farms to create a market for their products.
"You will find that the days of wind turbine manufacturers bidding into projects are behind us," Fezzani said. "We need them to invest in R&D to prove the efficiency of their products."
Chernova asked Fezzani about his company's plan to nix a solar factory expansion plan in Maryland, and Fezzani largely evaded the question with statements about how bullish he feels about the solar market in the United States.
"When it comes to deciding where we focus on investments, we do it like everybody else," Fezzani said. "It's economically driven."
BP Solar recently halted a $97 million plan to build a silicon-ingot factory at its headquarters in Maryland, citing intense competition from low-cost producers in Asia (see BP Solar Nixes Factory Expansion).
In just the last month, money that typically would be available for building renewable-energy projects has "completely dried up," thanks to the financial market crisis, Fezzani said during a keynote and on-stage interview with Yuliya Chernova, editor of Dow Jones' Clean Technology Insight.
To weather the downturn, BP and other companies will have to fund those wind farms and solar-power plants using equity finance. They can then refinance when the credit crunch eases, Fezzani said.
"This is a serious issue for those who don't have equity on the balance sheet to continue to operate," he said. "You probably will see behind the scene, frantic activities to bridge the gap."
Fezzani's remarks reaffirmed what many solar, wind and biofuel industry executives have expressed since the fall of a series of U.S. investment banks and mortgage lenders (see Lehman's Fall to Create Greentech Woes and VCs to Solar Startups: A Deal You Can't Refuse).
His comments also came the same day that Carpinteria, Calif.-based Clipper Windpower (CRPWF.PK) said it had completed a joint-venture agreement with BP Wind Energy to develop a 5,050-megawatt wind farm in South Dakota.
Fezzani said the South Dakota project represents the "next frontier" for wind-farm development, and one in which only a small group of companies can participate. Iberdrola, the Spanish wind energy giant, is another player (see Iberdrola to Spend $1B on Renewable Energy).
Despite the difficult times ahead, Fezzani said Americans' demand for electricity shows no signs of lagging, making wind and solar projects good bets in the long run. Fezzani also sees a trend in which wind-turbine makers will devote less money and energy on building wind farms to create a market for their products.
"You will find that the days of wind turbine manufacturers bidding into projects are behind us," Fezzani said. "We need them to invest in R&D to prove the efficiency of their products."
Chernova asked Fezzani about his company's plan to nix a solar factory expansion plan in Maryland, and Fezzani largely evaded the question with statements about how bullish he feels about the solar market in the United States.
"When it comes to deciding where we focus on investments, we do it like everybody else," Fezzani said. "It's economically driven."
BP Solar recently halted a $97 million plan to build a silicon-ingot factory at its headquarters in Maryland, citing intense competition from low-cost producers in Asia (see BP Solar Nixes Factory Expansion).
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Town enacts moratorium on wind farm applications
FARMERSVILLE –The Farmersville Town Board voted Monday to place a moratorium on wind farm applications while changes are made to a 2007 law regulating wind-energy conversion facilities in the town.
The updated law will require a host community agreement with a wind-energy developer prior to the town’s approval of a wind farm, according to the town’s wind-energy attorney, Eric Dadd. The moratorium was enacted after a hearing on the issue.
Acting Town Supervisor Joe Brodka said he believes wind energy developers are taking a chance and the money is a “good deal” for the town.
Dadd said he expects to provide a new wind-energy regulatory law to the board within a week, with a public hearing and approval as early as Nov. 15, when the moratorium would be lifted.
Noble Environmental Power has obtained leases from town landowners for placement of turbines, and a project application is expected to link up with a smaller turbine project in the Town of Freedom, where officials have already drafted a host agreement with Noble.
The updated law will require a host community agreement with a wind-energy developer prior to the town’s approval of a wind farm, according to the town’s wind-energy attorney, Eric Dadd. The moratorium was enacted after a hearing on the issue.
Acting Town Supervisor Joe Brodka said he believes wind energy developers are taking a chance and the money is a “good deal” for the town.
Dadd said he expects to provide a new wind-energy regulatory law to the board within a week, with a public hearing and approval as early as Nov. 15, when the moratorium would be lifted.
Noble Environmental Power has obtained leases from town landowners for placement of turbines, and a project application is expected to link up with a smaller turbine project in the Town of Freedom, where officials have already drafted a host agreement with Noble.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Clean Energy Meltdown: Now GE’s Bailing
Meltdown watch, continued. Capital is quickly drying up for new clean-energy projects, and what is available costs more, throwing a wrench into companies’ plans to expand renewable energy.
General Electric is the latest to throw in the towel, after the abrupt departure of Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley. The conglomerate, which makes energy gear like wind and gas turbines as well as underwriting renewable-energy projects, says it is bailing out of the clean-tech investment game for now, once it finishes with existing projects. From Dow Jones Clean Tech Insight:
“Right now we can’t price a deal,” said [GE Financial Services managing director Timothy] Howell in an interview with Clean Technology Insight on the sidelines of the Solar Power International conference in San Diego, Calif. “We can’t go out and borrow. So we can’t commit to a deal today.”
GE Financial Services, like GE’s energy-infrastructure unit, was very bullish on the sector’s prospects just a few months ago. Most clean-energy projects like wind and solar power depend on investments by companies like GE or big banks, which put up development capital to get their mitts on years of tax breaks. That’s the main way that tax credits help fuel the growth of alternative energy.
But while the financial bailout bill extended tax credits for clean energy, the bill hasn’t yet goosed the credit markets into lending freely. That—not uncertainty over federal subsidies—has now become clean-energy’s bogeyman.
General Electric is the latest to throw in the towel, after the abrupt departure of Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley. The conglomerate, which makes energy gear like wind and gas turbines as well as underwriting renewable-energy projects, says it is bailing out of the clean-tech investment game for now, once it finishes with existing projects. From Dow Jones Clean Tech Insight:
“Right now we can’t price a deal,” said [GE Financial Services managing director Timothy] Howell in an interview with Clean Technology Insight on the sidelines of the Solar Power International conference in San Diego, Calif. “We can’t go out and borrow. So we can’t commit to a deal today.”
GE Financial Services, like GE’s energy-infrastructure unit, was very bullish on the sector’s prospects just a few months ago. Most clean-energy projects like wind and solar power depend on investments by companies like GE or big banks, which put up development capital to get their mitts on years of tax breaks. That’s the main way that tax credits help fuel the growth of alternative energy.
But while the financial bailout bill extended tax credits for clean energy, the bill hasn’t yet goosed the credit markets into lending freely. That—not uncertainty over federal subsidies—has now become clean-energy’s bogeyman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)