Senate lawmakers this afternoon brought the state a step closer to a total ban on commercial wind development on North Caorlina's mountain tops with an overwhelming vote in the Senate Finance Committee of the General Assembly.
Panel members agreed to restrict wind power development to residential uses on towers limited to 100 feet tall. That restriction prohibits commercial wind farms, which link multiple turbines that can exceed 300 feet.
Wind power advocates say banning wind power development in the western part of the state would prevent harnessing nearly 800 megawatts of estimated wind potential in the mountains, equivalent to a mid-sized nuclear power plant.
The full Senate could take up the measure as early as this week in Raleigh. The House also will review the proposal.
Sen. Martin Nesbitt Jr., a Democrat of Buncombe County, said erecting a fleet of industrial-scale wind turbines would destroy pristine views and mar the landscape by requiring new roads to be built to access the turbines for maintenance and to run transmission lines.
"You're not going to plop them down along our ridge lines and destroy everything we have up there," he said to other lawmakers before today's vote.
"Some of these things are as tall as the Bank of America in Charlotte," Nesbitt said. "If anyone wants to bring in a whole fleet, we will have a holy war."
The vote this afternoon clarified the 1983 Mountain Ridge Protection Act, which bans tall structures along mountain ridges, but makes exemptions for steeples, flagpoles, antennas and windmills. Wind power advocates have argued that windmills include commercial wind turbines, but wind energy developers were reluctant to invest in a costly project as long as the meaning of the law was not settled.
A proposal several years ago to build between 25 and 28 commercial wind turbines in Ashe County died after meeting fierce opposition from local communities.
North Carolina's tallest mountains have among the best wind energy resources in the nation, with average annual speeds as high as 25 miles per hour. Wind resources on the coast and offshore average between 15 m.p.h. and 20 m.p.h., while wind speeds in Raleigh average about 9 m.p.h. and are considered inadequate for commercial development.
Sen. Joe Sam Queen, a Democrat who represents western counties, said the proper place for commercial wind development is on the coast, offshore and in the Midwest.
"Let wind be developed elsewhere while we protect the mountains," said Queen, who represents Avery, Haywood, Madison, McDowell, Mitchell and Yancey counties.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Victor adopts wind turbine moratorium
Victor, N.Y. — .Potential wind farmers will have to wait at least until January before building turbines to harness the breeze.
On Monday night, the Victor Town Board adopted a six-month moratorium on wind turbine development while a committee devises a code to regulate the turbines.
All board members voted for the measure except for Peter Hessney, who was absent.
At a public hearing before the vote, only one resident, Jerry Collier of Rawson Road, addressed the board, expressing his interest in building a wind turbine on his property.
“I’m kind of thinking that it gets pretty windy on my hill, and I might want to do something,” Collier said.
Supervisor Jack Marren said he expects to have a code in place before six months pass, but they wanted to give the drafters and relevant committees enough time to make sure all of their questions are answered.
Last month, Planning Board member Joe Logan presented a draft of wind turbine codes designed to allow the machinery for private use but barring any large-scale operations.
In its current draft form, the codes would restrict the height of turbines to 200 feet, require owners to submit a decommission plan for projects costing more than $250,000, and limit the decibel level of the turbines.
The town’s wind power committee began looking into a wind turbine code in May 2007 and started fine-tuning possible regulations earlier this year, with the help of LaBella Associates.
The effort was spurred in part because of subsidies provided by the state for individuals looking to install turbines as well as the construction of a single, private-use turbine at a home on Brace Road in East Bloomfield.
Marren said the Town Board will hold an informational workshop about the proposed code in August or September and copies of the draft will be available at the Victor Town Hall.
On Monday night, the Victor Town Board adopted a six-month moratorium on wind turbine development while a committee devises a code to regulate the turbines.
All board members voted for the measure except for Peter Hessney, who was absent.
At a public hearing before the vote, only one resident, Jerry Collier of Rawson Road, addressed the board, expressing his interest in building a wind turbine on his property.
“I’m kind of thinking that it gets pretty windy on my hill, and I might want to do something,” Collier said.
Supervisor Jack Marren said he expects to have a code in place before six months pass, but they wanted to give the drafters and relevant committees enough time to make sure all of their questions are answered.
Last month, Planning Board member Joe Logan presented a draft of wind turbine codes designed to allow the machinery for private use but barring any large-scale operations.
In its current draft form, the codes would restrict the height of turbines to 200 feet, require owners to submit a decommission plan for projects costing more than $250,000, and limit the decibel level of the turbines.
The town’s wind power committee began looking into a wind turbine code in May 2007 and started fine-tuning possible regulations earlier this year, with the help of LaBella Associates.
The effort was spurred in part because of subsidies provided by the state for individuals looking to install turbines as well as the construction of a single, private-use turbine at a home on Brace Road in East Bloomfield.
Marren said the Town Board will hold an informational workshop about the proposed code in August or September and copies of the draft will be available at the Victor Town Hall.
Iberdrola Renovables Eyes Up to $500 Million in US Government Grants
Spanish clean energy firm Iberdrola Renovables has said that it is hoping to secure between $400 million and $500 million in US government aid over the coming months in order to develop new wind projects in the US.
The US Department of the Treasury has announced an estimated minimum of $3 billion for the development of renewable energy projects in the US.
Iberdrola Renovables plans to start up and bring on stream around 850MW of wind energy installations in 2009 for commercial purposes, which could be eligible for $400 million and $500 million in Treasury aid over the coming months.
The company has said that this grant program stems from the economic stimulus bill ushered in by the Obama Administration and, according to a Treasury announcement, will entail direct payments in lieu of tax credits in support of an estimated 5,000 bio-mass, solar, wind and other types of renewable energy facilities.
Iberdrola Renovables holds that the ITC (Investment Tax Credit) program offers the best possible alternative to the Production Tax Credit (PTC) scheme offering direct funding for 30% of such investments (covering approximately 95% of the cost of the wind farm) and payment is made in cash 60 days from the date on which the farm enters into commercial operation. The Treasury has announced that the period for applications from interested companies will open on August 1, 2009.
The US Department of the Treasury has announced an estimated minimum of $3 billion for the development of renewable energy projects in the US.
Iberdrola Renovables plans to start up and bring on stream around 850MW of wind energy installations in 2009 for commercial purposes, which could be eligible for $400 million and $500 million in Treasury aid over the coming months.
The company has said that this grant program stems from the economic stimulus bill ushered in by the Obama Administration and, according to a Treasury announcement, will entail direct payments in lieu of tax credits in support of an estimated 5,000 bio-mass, solar, wind and other types of renewable energy facilities.
Iberdrola Renovables holds that the ITC (Investment Tax Credit) program offers the best possible alternative to the Production Tax Credit (PTC) scheme offering direct funding for 30% of such investments (covering approximately 95% of the cost of the wind farm) and payment is made in cash 60 days from the date on which the farm enters into commercial operation. The Treasury has announced that the period for applications from interested companies will open on August 1, 2009.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Tossed to the wind; Noble drops its area easements
Noble Environmental Power says tough economic times has made it necessary for the company to release a number of easement agreements between the wind energy company and local landowners.
Twenty-two "releases were filed at the Franklin County Clerk's Office between April 17 and July 8. The documents say the agreements have "been fully satisfied, released, and discharged."
Noble Environmental Power spokesperson Maggy Wisniewski said the company has decided to focus its resources on more developed projects.
"Due to the challenging economic conditions, Noble Environmental Power has streamlined its wind generation portfolio," Wisniewski said, in a prepared statement. "We have decided to focus on later-stage development projects.
As a result, we have released the wind rights on some early-staged projects that we do not intend to further develop in 2009 or 2010.
The released agreements were between Noble Burke Windpark LLC, Noble Malone Windpark LLC, Noble Cherry Hill Windpark LLC and Noble Chateaugay Windpark LLC and local landowners.
Also named in the documents, were several property owners named in multiple released, are Debra and Ronald King, Ruth Cromp, James Tavernier, David, Mary, Sandra and Silas Vincent Jr., Kim and Mary Reynolds, Sheila and Adam Spaulding, Sharon and Joseph Germann, Alton and Janice Cook, Kenneth Philpot, Ronald and Deborah Carroll, Susan and Charles Gerow, Charlotte and Mark Martin, Judith and Michael Flynn, Darryl Bell, Richard and Kristine Cassidy, and Krista Gerow and Daniel Laflesh.
Several landowners contacted said the wind energy company contacted them via mail saying Noble was pulling out of the Burke area completely.
"I don't know what happened to Noble but they either overspent themselves, or the people who were backing them stopped backing them, but they pulled out of the Burke area," said James Tavernier. "I can say it's lost income for me, though."
Tavernier also noted that landowners were required to pay the $56 filing fee associated with the releases.
Another landowner, Town Councilman David Vincent, said Noble has not yet officially communicated its intent to the town board.
"Not that I know of, at least," Vincent said.
As a landowner, though, Vincent said he is "disappointed" to see the company abandon its plans for a Burke wind park.
"I have no regrets with Noble whatsoever," Vincent said. "Noble, in my opinion, had been good. I obviously like the revenue, and I thought it would create jobs and create revenue for the people of Burke."
Vincent, a dairy farmer struggling with low milk prices, said the easement release represents "a loss of revenue at a poor time."
Burke Town Supervisor Albert Johnson confirmed Vincent's assertion that Noble has not been in contact with the town regarding the status of its easement agreements nor its plans for a wind project in the town.
"They have not been in contact with the town board," he said. "I've been told by several residents that Noble is backing out of some or all of the agreements, but we haven't heard anything from Noble."
Johnson said the town's financial standing would likely not be impacted by the wind energy company's withdrawal from Burke.
"To my knowledge, there are no agreements between Noble and the Town of Burke," he said. "We haven't been getting anything from them."
While Noble was canceling some of its easement agreements, it was also released from 43 liens filed by Aristeo Construction Company of Livonia, Mich. The liens totaled $2.99 million.
The liens were filed in March.
Twenty-two "releases were filed at the Franklin County Clerk's Office between April 17 and July 8. The documents say the agreements have "been fully satisfied, released, and discharged."
Noble Environmental Power spokesperson Maggy Wisniewski said the company has decided to focus its resources on more developed projects.
"Due to the challenging economic conditions, Noble Environmental Power has streamlined its wind generation portfolio," Wisniewski said, in a prepared statement. "We have decided to focus on later-stage development projects.
As a result, we have released the wind rights on some early-staged projects that we do not intend to further develop in 2009 or 2010.
The released agreements were between Noble Burke Windpark LLC, Noble Malone Windpark LLC, Noble Cherry Hill Windpark LLC and Noble Chateaugay Windpark LLC and local landowners.
Also named in the documents, were several property owners named in multiple released, are Debra and Ronald King, Ruth Cromp, James Tavernier, David, Mary, Sandra and Silas Vincent Jr., Kim and Mary Reynolds, Sheila and Adam Spaulding, Sharon and Joseph Germann, Alton and Janice Cook, Kenneth Philpot, Ronald and Deborah Carroll, Susan and Charles Gerow, Charlotte and Mark Martin, Judith and Michael Flynn, Darryl Bell, Richard and Kristine Cassidy, and Krista Gerow and Daniel Laflesh.
Several landowners contacted said the wind energy company contacted them via mail saying Noble was pulling out of the Burke area completely.
"I don't know what happened to Noble but they either overspent themselves, or the people who were backing them stopped backing them, but they pulled out of the Burke area," said James Tavernier. "I can say it's lost income for me, though."
Tavernier also noted that landowners were required to pay the $56 filing fee associated with the releases.
Another landowner, Town Councilman David Vincent, said Noble has not yet officially communicated its intent to the town board.
"Not that I know of, at least," Vincent said.
As a landowner, though, Vincent said he is "disappointed" to see the company abandon its plans for a Burke wind park.
"I have no regrets with Noble whatsoever," Vincent said. "Noble, in my opinion, had been good. I obviously like the revenue, and I thought it would create jobs and create revenue for the people of Burke."
Vincent, a dairy farmer struggling with low milk prices, said the easement release represents "a loss of revenue at a poor time."
Burke Town Supervisor Albert Johnson confirmed Vincent's assertion that Noble has not been in contact with the town regarding the status of its easement agreements nor its plans for a wind project in the town.
"They have not been in contact with the town board," he said. "I've been told by several residents that Noble is backing out of some or all of the agreements, but we haven't heard anything from Noble."
Johnson said the town's financial standing would likely not be impacted by the wind energy company's withdrawal from Burke.
"To my knowledge, there are no agreements between Noble and the Town of Burke," he said. "We haven't been getting anything from them."
While Noble was canceling some of its easement agreements, it was also released from 43 liens filed by Aristeo Construction Company of Livonia, Mich. The liens totaled $2.99 million.
The liens were filed in March.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Planned wind farm session criticized as biased
CLAYTON — Thousand Islands High School will host a wind information session next week which has already been questioned by some as biased.
The session, called "Life in a Wind Farm," will have three speakers from the region who are living on wind farms. It is billed as an opportunity for people to learn the pros and cons of what it's like after the wind farm has been built.
The free session will be at 7 p.m. Wednesday at the school, 8481 County Route 9. A question-and-answer session will follow.
Cape Vincent resident John L. Byrne, one of the organizers, said the sponsors of the session are not the local groups who have voiced opposition to proposed local wind projects, but a collection of citizens from Cape Vincent, Clayton, Hammond, Lyme and other surrounding towns.
"Some are members of the groups and some aren't," he said. "We want a fair non-biased look at this issue."
Mr. Byrne is a member of Wind Power Ethics Group in Cape Vincent.
The speakers include Cohocton Town Justice Hal E. Graham, a leaseholder in First Wind's Cohocton Wind Farm; Steve Trude, a nonparticipating resident in Cohocton and president of opposition group Cohocton Wind Watch; and Gail Kenney, a nonparticipating resident on Wolfe Island and a founding member of opposition group Wolfe Island Residents for the Environment.
Though all three speakers are known for their criticism of the completed projects, Mr. Byrne said they were chosen because they supported wind power at some point.
"It was important to have people speaking who are not 'anti-wind,'" he said. "We wanted to get a fair assessment as to the effects of wind farms."
But the session's fairness has already been questioned by some.
At the Cape Vincent Town Council meeting Thursday night, Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck said to session sponsors, "Now my understanding is that if somebody wants to speak, they are not going to be allowed."
Carol A. Simpson, another organizer for the event and member of WPEG, responded, "The citizens of the townships have gotten together and are paying for this thing and, yes, we have a full schedule for this time."
Mr. Rienbeck asked if people from other areas living near wind farms who want to talk would be allowed.
"Uh, no," she said. "They can ask questions. And, if you wanted, you could have a presentation of your own."
Mr. Byrne said the forum is in response to questions and requests from local citizens.
"We'd all like to learn from people who are living with this," he said. "This is the largest development that has ever hit this area."
The session, called "Life in a Wind Farm," will have three speakers from the region who are living on wind farms. It is billed as an opportunity for people to learn the pros and cons of what it's like after the wind farm has been built.
The free session will be at 7 p.m. Wednesday at the school, 8481 County Route 9. A question-and-answer session will follow.
Cape Vincent resident John L. Byrne, one of the organizers, said the sponsors of the session are not the local groups who have voiced opposition to proposed local wind projects, but a collection of citizens from Cape Vincent, Clayton, Hammond, Lyme and other surrounding towns.
"Some are members of the groups and some aren't," he said. "We want a fair non-biased look at this issue."
Mr. Byrne is a member of Wind Power Ethics Group in Cape Vincent.
The speakers include Cohocton Town Justice Hal E. Graham, a leaseholder in First Wind's Cohocton Wind Farm; Steve Trude, a nonparticipating resident in Cohocton and president of opposition group Cohocton Wind Watch; and Gail Kenney, a nonparticipating resident on Wolfe Island and a founding member of opposition group Wolfe Island Residents for the Environment.
Though all three speakers are known for their criticism of the completed projects, Mr. Byrne said they were chosen because they supported wind power at some point.
"It was important to have people speaking who are not 'anti-wind,'" he said. "We wanted to get a fair assessment as to the effects of wind farms."
But the session's fairness has already been questioned by some.
At the Cape Vincent Town Council meeting Thursday night, Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck said to session sponsors, "Now my understanding is that if somebody wants to speak, they are not going to be allowed."
Carol A. Simpson, another organizer for the event and member of WPEG, responded, "The citizens of the townships have gotten together and are paying for this thing and, yes, we have a full schedule for this time."
Mr. Rienbeck asked if people from other areas living near wind farms who want to talk would be allowed.
"Uh, no," she said. "They can ask questions. And, if you wanted, you could have a presentation of your own."
Mr. Byrne said the forum is in response to questions and requests from local citizens.
"We'd all like to learn from people who are living with this," he said. "This is the largest development that has ever hit this area."
Friday, July 10, 2009
First Wind Employees Update
Steve Schauer and Steven Chwiecko have new jobs at First Wind, a wind power company headquartered in Newton. Schauer, who has served as First Wind's vice president of finance since joining the company in November 2008, was promoted to senior vice president of finance and treasurer. In this new position, he will be responsible for all project finance, tax equity, corporate debt capital, and treasury operations. Chwiecko joins the company as senior vice president of commercial asset management. Mr. Chwiecko has more than 25 years of experience in the unregulated power generation area focusing on asset management and acquisitions, most recently for Atlantic Power Corp. In this newly created role at First Wind, Chwiecko will oversee the company's leases, power sales agreements, REC sales contracts, and interconnection agreements for current operating wind projects.
Town eyes selective wind moratorium
CAPE VINCENT — While a new wind power development zoning law is in a holding pattern, the Town Council at its August meeting will consider a moratorium on all wind power development in the river and lake districts.
On Thursday night, Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck suggested a yearlong moratorium "since we can't seem to come up with a suitable zoning law dealing with wind power."
The other council members at the meeting agreed it was a good idea.
"We've said all along we didn't want them in the lake and river district," said Councilman Marty T. Mason.
Councilman Joseph H. Wood suggested the moratorium could expire in the event that a zoning law is passed.
Town resident Thomas M. Gormel asked why the rest of the town would not be covered.
"Currently, we have two projects under review in the ag district and we're not going to suspend those," Mr. Rienbeck said. "One is almost complete."
The proposed Cape Vincent Wind Farm would be in the southern part of the town's agricultural district and the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Farm is planned for the northern agricultural district.
Councilman Donald J. Mason agreed. "Those projects are too far along and it's not fair to the wind companies, to begin with, to suspend them now."
Town resident John L. Byrne asked where recommendations from the town's Wind Committee stood regarding the new wind power development zoning law. Mr. Rienbeck said the town's Albany-based law firm, Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, is continuing to fine-tune the new law.
"We're trying to get it so that if we do enact it, that it will be able to stand up for any legal challenges, from either side," Mr. Rienbeck said. "And we've been criticized that we didn't have enough voting members on the board to enact a law, so I'm not sure about that now."
Town officials are hesitant to bring a new law up for a vote because they have faced criticism from the Wind Power Ethics Group charging that councilmen Marty Mason, Donald Mason and Mr. Wood have conflicts of interest due to leases on their property for turbines.
Mr. Rienbeck said other holdups on the law include developing an enforcement mechanism and establishing a set ambient noise level.
According to the committee's suggestions, the town would field complaints on noise and other compliance issues from residents. He said he wanted to avoid repeated, groundless nuisance calls.
"We would like to have an ambient noise level established," he said. "The wind farms have done their own sound studies and they paid the piper, and WPEG has done a sound study and they paid the piper, and the question is whose tune is right."
The council will hold a public hearing on the moratorium at 6 p.m. Aug. 13 at the town office.
On Thursday night, Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck suggested a yearlong moratorium "since we can't seem to come up with a suitable zoning law dealing with wind power."
The other council members at the meeting agreed it was a good idea.
"We've said all along we didn't want them in the lake and river district," said Councilman Marty T. Mason.
Councilman Joseph H. Wood suggested the moratorium could expire in the event that a zoning law is passed.
Town resident Thomas M. Gormel asked why the rest of the town would not be covered.
"Currently, we have two projects under review in the ag district and we're not going to suspend those," Mr. Rienbeck said. "One is almost complete."
The proposed Cape Vincent Wind Farm would be in the southern part of the town's agricultural district and the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Farm is planned for the northern agricultural district.
Councilman Donald J. Mason agreed. "Those projects are too far along and it's not fair to the wind companies, to begin with, to suspend them now."
Town resident John L. Byrne asked where recommendations from the town's Wind Committee stood regarding the new wind power development zoning law. Mr. Rienbeck said the town's Albany-based law firm, Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, is continuing to fine-tune the new law.
"We're trying to get it so that if we do enact it, that it will be able to stand up for any legal challenges, from either side," Mr. Rienbeck said. "And we've been criticized that we didn't have enough voting members on the board to enact a law, so I'm not sure about that now."
Town officials are hesitant to bring a new law up for a vote because they have faced criticism from the Wind Power Ethics Group charging that councilmen Marty Mason, Donald Mason and Mr. Wood have conflicts of interest due to leases on their property for turbines.
Mr. Rienbeck said other holdups on the law include developing an enforcement mechanism and establishing a set ambient noise level.
According to the committee's suggestions, the town would field complaints on noise and other compliance issues from residents. He said he wanted to avoid repeated, groundless nuisance calls.
"We would like to have an ambient noise level established," he said. "The wind farms have done their own sound studies and they paid the piper, and WPEG has done a sound study and they paid the piper, and the question is whose tune is right."
The council will hold a public hearing on the moratorium at 6 p.m. Aug. 13 at the town office.
Sheffield Wind Project Awaits Permit From Barton Village
Another delay has stopped the progress of the Sheffield windmill project. The retirement of the Commissioner of Transportation, Bonnie Rutledge, has put a hold on Barton Village’s issuance of the permit First Wind needs to use Duck Pond Road to transport the wind turbines to the Sheffield site. This delay is bad news for First Wind but good news to the project’s opponents.
Last week the Barton Village trustees met with the village’s attorney to discuss the idea of getting a bond from First Wind to guarantee damage done to the road or to village systems will be repaired, Village Supervisor Brian Hanson said.
“The village is concerned. We want to make sure all our t’s are crossed and the i’s are dotted to make sure water lines and sewage and drainage systems are protected,” Hanson said.
The village originally asked First Wind for a $1 million bond. The company did not agree.
“A million dollar bond would cost them about $25,000 to $30,000 depending on the rates. I think the amount may be negotiable but we’re really trying to protect the village,” Hanson said.
A First Wind representative was not available to comment on the reason the company does not want to put up a bond.
(Click to read entire article)
Last week the Barton Village trustees met with the village’s attorney to discuss the idea of getting a bond from First Wind to guarantee damage done to the road or to village systems will be repaired, Village Supervisor Brian Hanson said.
“The village is concerned. We want to make sure all our t’s are crossed and the i’s are dotted to make sure water lines and sewage and drainage systems are protected,” Hanson said.
The village originally asked First Wind for a $1 million bond. The company did not agree.
“A million dollar bond would cost them about $25,000 to $30,000 depending on the rates. I think the amount may be negotiable but we’re really trying to protect the village,” Hanson said.
A First Wind representative was not available to comment on the reason the company does not want to put up a bond.
(Click to read entire article)
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Looming Large
Wind energy is marketed as a clean alternative to powering homes and businesses, one that should cut greenhouse gas emissions, and, at the same time, slowly wean the nation away from its dependence on fossil fuels. It sounds like a miracle cure to global warming and foreign investment - all at the same time.
But that may not be the case.
Some say these predictions are not necessarily true, and that further research must be conducted to get a comprehensive picture of the true efficiency of harvesting the wind. Some say wind farms might not be as functional and reliable as we think. Some say there's actually nothing green about wind energy - except the gross profit.
Recent negotiations have hovered over a proposed construction of a wind farm in Enfield, currently under development by John Rancich, who has reported that his farm would generate enough electricity to power homes across the entire county.
"At 100 percent peak production, the wind farm will power all of the residences in Tompkins County," Rancich said. There is no guarantee, however, that homes within the county would receive wind energy from the Enfield Wind Farm.
"The wind farm will produce 50 megawatt-hours, but the electricity from these wind mills will not actually for sure go into every residence in the county. I'm saying they'll power the equivalent amount of energy, to give people and idea," he said, adding that his statement was a way of phrasing the situation in comprehensible terms, in a way that people would understand.
In fact, such language adjustments are not uncharacteristic of wind developers, lobbyists and politicians in pursuit of community support, as documented by Glen Schleede, a former associate director of energy and science for the White House Domestic Council.
And, according to New York scientists, it leaves many questions unanswered.
John Droz, a physicist from the Adirondacks, said Americans ought to think more critically before believing everything they're told.
"Marketers know that the average person won't do more than a superficial, trivial analysis of wind power," Droz said. "When they realize you're not going to think, they throw out words like 'clean' and 'green,' and to the average person, it sounds like a good idea. That's what has happened with wind power in New York State."
While wind is considered a "renewable" source of energy, benefiting the environment is not the real objective of this business. The primary goal is the potentially immense profit.
Financial windfall
Through a program called the Renewable Portfolio Standard, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority pays $14.75 for every megawatt of renewable energy capacity generated by a facility that harvests "clean" or "green" sources of energy, like wind. This is equal to approximately 1.5 cents (i.e. $0.015) per kilowatt.
"We procure contracts that basically pay these developers an average payment per megawatt of production," said Sal Graven, records access officer at NYSERDA.
The funds for this program ultimately come from ratepayers, however.
According to James Denn, a spokesman for the Public Service Commission, said the RPS was an initiative of the PSC that was developed several years ago. NYSERDA plays the role of administrator.
The main purpose of the RPS was to patronize and promote the development of all renewable resources in New York State, Denn said, including hydro, solar, and wind.
"In that initiative, it set forth a collection of a certain amount of money to be collected from all ratepayers, so all ratepayers have an assessment on their bill," Denn said. "That's money NYSERDA uses to provide credits to wind energy."
Each investor-owned public utility charges customers this additional and separate fee for renewable power usage, based on each individual household's consumption of electricity.
The RPS fee fluctuates depending on the size of a household's utility bill and is calculated at $0.00070 per kilowatt-hour of electricity used. This equates to 70 cents (i.e. $0.70) for every megawatt-hour.
NYSERDA euphemistically refers to this fee as a "systems benefit charge." New York State utility companies collect this surcharge via consumer electricity bills and transfer the capital to NYSERDA, which in turn hands the money to developers - of wind, for example - for generating renewable energy.
This tax thus supports the growth of wind commerce, basically turning ratepayers' money into a lucrative income for businessmen of the wind industry.
"This is the rate set forth in tariffs for each of the utilities," Denn said, adding that public hearings were held for more than a year prior to establishment of the RPS.
"You're being charged to develop renewable resources in New York State, including wind," Denn said. "All of us ratepayers are making an investment in the development of renewable energy supplies in New York State because that is the best way to ensure fuel diversity and to help safeguard the environment."
As of January 2009, there are 1,164 megawatts of renewable energy now under contract with the RPS program, Graven said. The PSC has a statutory role to approve wind farms at 80 megawatts or larger.
(Click to read entire article)
But that may not be the case.
Some say these predictions are not necessarily true, and that further research must be conducted to get a comprehensive picture of the true efficiency of harvesting the wind. Some say wind farms might not be as functional and reliable as we think. Some say there's actually nothing green about wind energy - except the gross profit.
Recent negotiations have hovered over a proposed construction of a wind farm in Enfield, currently under development by John Rancich, who has reported that his farm would generate enough electricity to power homes across the entire county.
"At 100 percent peak production, the wind farm will power all of the residences in Tompkins County," Rancich said. There is no guarantee, however, that homes within the county would receive wind energy from the Enfield Wind Farm.
"The wind farm will produce 50 megawatt-hours, but the electricity from these wind mills will not actually for sure go into every residence in the county. I'm saying they'll power the equivalent amount of energy, to give people and idea," he said, adding that his statement was a way of phrasing the situation in comprehensible terms, in a way that people would understand.
In fact, such language adjustments are not uncharacteristic of wind developers, lobbyists and politicians in pursuit of community support, as documented by Glen Schleede, a former associate director of energy and science for the White House Domestic Council.
And, according to New York scientists, it leaves many questions unanswered.
John Droz, a physicist from the Adirondacks, said Americans ought to think more critically before believing everything they're told.
"Marketers know that the average person won't do more than a superficial, trivial analysis of wind power," Droz said. "When they realize you're not going to think, they throw out words like 'clean' and 'green,' and to the average person, it sounds like a good idea. That's what has happened with wind power in New York State."
While wind is considered a "renewable" source of energy, benefiting the environment is not the real objective of this business. The primary goal is the potentially immense profit.
Financial windfall
Through a program called the Renewable Portfolio Standard, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority pays $14.75 for every megawatt of renewable energy capacity generated by a facility that harvests "clean" or "green" sources of energy, like wind. This is equal to approximately 1.5 cents (i.e. $0.015) per kilowatt.
"We procure contracts that basically pay these developers an average payment per megawatt of production," said Sal Graven, records access officer at NYSERDA.
The funds for this program ultimately come from ratepayers, however.
According to James Denn, a spokesman for the Public Service Commission, said the RPS was an initiative of the PSC that was developed several years ago. NYSERDA plays the role of administrator.
The main purpose of the RPS was to patronize and promote the development of all renewable resources in New York State, Denn said, including hydro, solar, and wind.
"In that initiative, it set forth a collection of a certain amount of money to be collected from all ratepayers, so all ratepayers have an assessment on their bill," Denn said. "That's money NYSERDA uses to provide credits to wind energy."
Each investor-owned public utility charges customers this additional and separate fee for renewable power usage, based on each individual household's consumption of electricity.
The RPS fee fluctuates depending on the size of a household's utility bill and is calculated at $0.00070 per kilowatt-hour of electricity used. This equates to 70 cents (i.e. $0.70) for every megawatt-hour.
NYSERDA euphemistically refers to this fee as a "systems benefit charge." New York State utility companies collect this surcharge via consumer electricity bills and transfer the capital to NYSERDA, which in turn hands the money to developers - of wind, for example - for generating renewable energy.
This tax thus supports the growth of wind commerce, basically turning ratepayers' money into a lucrative income for businessmen of the wind industry.
"This is the rate set forth in tariffs for each of the utilities," Denn said, adding that public hearings were held for more than a year prior to establishment of the RPS.
"You're being charged to develop renewable resources in New York State, including wind," Denn said. "All of us ratepayers are making an investment in the development of renewable energy supplies in New York State because that is the best way to ensure fuel diversity and to help safeguard the environment."
As of January 2009, there are 1,164 megawatts of renewable energy now under contract with the RPS program, Graven said. The PSC has a statutory role to approve wind farms at 80 megawatts or larger.
(Click to read entire article)
Study to determine health effects of turbines
By now, the residents of Wolfe Island, Ont., are getting used to the whirr and thump of wind turbines overhead. By next year, they'll get a glimpse of whether those whirrs and thumps could be damaging their health.
Researchers at nearby Queen's University have embarked on the first study to probe whether wind turbines built over communities can cause adverse health effects. The study measures residents' health and well-being before the turbines arrived on the island, again when the turbines were built but not yet operational and again after they'd been operating for a few months.
People living close to turbines in other regions have reported nausea, headaches, dizziness, anxiety, sleep deprivation and tinnitus - an incessant ringing in a person's ears.
However, there has yet to be any substantive research linking those ailments to the presence of windmills, says lead study author Neal Michelutti, a research scientist in the Queen's University biology department.
"To our knowledge, this is the first time that people have acquired a snapshot of community health prior to wind turbines," he says. "It gives us [a sense of] community health that we can use in a before-and-after comparison."
The issue of health has become a lightning rod in the debate dividing communities where wind farms have been built, Wolfe Island being no exception.
While the Ontario government recently legislated a 550 metre setback for wind turbines, the 86 machines on Wolfe Island that officially hissed to life on June 26, are only 400 metres from people's homes.
Last July, Dr. Michelutti and his Queen's colleagues mailed out 1,000 SF36 surveys, a standard, multipurpose health questionnaire, to every registered address on Wolfe Island. Between 150 and 200 people returned the anonymous surveys.
On the survey, residents gave a snapshot of their general health, describing any illnesses or health problems both physical and emotional and sharing their level of physical activity and mental concentration. The researchers sent a second questionnaire asking about symptoms commonly reported by people living near wind turbines and for the residents' attitudes toward the wind project.
The same survey was completed this spring and another will be mailed in late August after the turbines have chopped the air for two months. When the third round of surveys comes back, Dr. Michelutti and his colleagues will analyze the data to find out whether community health has suffered, he says.
They plan to follow up on an annual or biannual basis for a number of years to see whether the health impacts, if any, continue to persist or crop up later. It's tricky to attribute ill health effects to turbines, without knowing a person's health beforehand, Dr. Michelutti says, which is why a before-and-after comparison is so crucial.
"A lot of these symptoms are pretty commonly reported symptoms - anxiety, sleeplessness, these sort of things," he says. "It's difficult without having that baseline data to attribute them to a specific cause and effect like the windmills."
Questions in the second survey which ask whether a respondent is for or against the wind farm may help them find out if symptoms are psychosomatic, he says.
Previous research, much of which has not been peer reviewed, links wind turbines with a variety of physical and emotional problems. Researchers in Portugal claimed the turbines contributed to "vibroacoustic disease," a full body reaction to low frequency noise that affects the auditory and vestibular system, which controls a person's ability to balance. A pediatrician in the United States coined the term "wind turbine syndrome" to describe the symptoms people experience from living near wind turbines, such as sleep disturbance, headache, vertigo, ear pressure, tachycardia (rapid heart rate) and concentration and memory problems.
Wind-farm construction has polarized communities across the country. Those in favour of wind energy say the environmental and economic benefits are plenty. Those against the farms have argued that they are annoying, disruptive and that they are harming the health of residents.
Dr. Michelutti says he and his colleagues are neutral on the issue and have not accepted funding from any anti-wind turbine groups or wind-energy development companies.
"What's important to note is no one on this study is against windmills," he says. "I think most people think windmills are great, but the question is does it make sense to build them on top of communities? Really what we're hoping our study can contribute is information on proper setbacks for the turbines."
Conducting unbiased research on the health effects of living near wind turbines is key, says Robert McMurtry, a professor emeritus at University of Western Ontario and former assistant deputy minister of population and public health at Health Canada. Such a hot button issue deserves proper tracking in order to advise on setback rates for future wind farms, he says.
"Repeating it in year two and three will really add important information to the understanding," he says. "And then if you start doing correlations between setbacks and health problems, that will be very important too."
Researchers at nearby Queen's University have embarked on the first study to probe whether wind turbines built over communities can cause adverse health effects. The study measures residents' health and well-being before the turbines arrived on the island, again when the turbines were built but not yet operational and again after they'd been operating for a few months.
People living close to turbines in other regions have reported nausea, headaches, dizziness, anxiety, sleep deprivation and tinnitus - an incessant ringing in a person's ears.
However, there has yet to be any substantive research linking those ailments to the presence of windmills, says lead study author Neal Michelutti, a research scientist in the Queen's University biology department.
"To our knowledge, this is the first time that people have acquired a snapshot of community health prior to wind turbines," he says. "It gives us [a sense of] community health that we can use in a before-and-after comparison."
The issue of health has become a lightning rod in the debate dividing communities where wind farms have been built, Wolfe Island being no exception.
While the Ontario government recently legislated a 550 metre setback for wind turbines, the 86 machines on Wolfe Island that officially hissed to life on June 26, are only 400 metres from people's homes.
Last July, Dr. Michelutti and his Queen's colleagues mailed out 1,000 SF36 surveys, a standard, multipurpose health questionnaire, to every registered address on Wolfe Island. Between 150 and 200 people returned the anonymous surveys.
On the survey, residents gave a snapshot of their general health, describing any illnesses or health problems both physical and emotional and sharing their level of physical activity and mental concentration. The researchers sent a second questionnaire asking about symptoms commonly reported by people living near wind turbines and for the residents' attitudes toward the wind project.
The same survey was completed this spring and another will be mailed in late August after the turbines have chopped the air for two months. When the third round of surveys comes back, Dr. Michelutti and his colleagues will analyze the data to find out whether community health has suffered, he says.
They plan to follow up on an annual or biannual basis for a number of years to see whether the health impacts, if any, continue to persist or crop up later. It's tricky to attribute ill health effects to turbines, without knowing a person's health beforehand, Dr. Michelutti says, which is why a before-and-after comparison is so crucial.
"A lot of these symptoms are pretty commonly reported symptoms - anxiety, sleeplessness, these sort of things," he says. "It's difficult without having that baseline data to attribute them to a specific cause and effect like the windmills."
Questions in the second survey which ask whether a respondent is for or against the wind farm may help them find out if symptoms are psychosomatic, he says.
Previous research, much of which has not been peer reviewed, links wind turbines with a variety of physical and emotional problems. Researchers in Portugal claimed the turbines contributed to "vibroacoustic disease," a full body reaction to low frequency noise that affects the auditory and vestibular system, which controls a person's ability to balance. A pediatrician in the United States coined the term "wind turbine syndrome" to describe the symptoms people experience from living near wind turbines, such as sleep disturbance, headache, vertigo, ear pressure, tachycardia (rapid heart rate) and concentration and memory problems.
Wind-farm construction has polarized communities across the country. Those in favour of wind energy say the environmental and economic benefits are plenty. Those against the farms have argued that they are annoying, disruptive and that they are harming the health of residents.
Dr. Michelutti says he and his colleagues are neutral on the issue and have not accepted funding from any anti-wind turbine groups or wind-energy development companies.
"What's important to note is no one on this study is against windmills," he says. "I think most people think windmills are great, but the question is does it make sense to build them on top of communities? Really what we're hoping our study can contribute is information on proper setbacks for the turbines."
Conducting unbiased research on the health effects of living near wind turbines is key, says Robert McMurtry, a professor emeritus at University of Western Ontario and former assistant deputy minister of population and public health at Health Canada. Such a hot button issue deserves proper tracking in order to advise on setback rates for future wind farms, he says.
"Repeating it in year two and three will really add important information to the understanding," he says. "And then if you start doing correlations between setbacks and health problems, that will be very important too."
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Iberdrola to use 4.5 MW Gamesa Turbines on Clayton Project
Clayton's developer Iberdrola informed the town council that wind turbines are not getting smaller they are increasing in size. Gamesa has produced the largest turbine to date. The GX10 4.5 MW !!
Size: tower: 120 meters: 393.70 ft tall
One blade: 64 meters: 209.97 ft - (blade diameter; 419.94 ft)
TOTAL Height of turbine: 603.67 feet high
More importantly the turbine is made of steel and concrete.
To protect residents from shadow flicker and noise impacts LOCAL WIND LAWS must have responsible regulations regarding the siting of turbines using (whichever is greater) noise levels at property lines (no greater than 5 above ambient) and rotor blade dimensions (setbacks 10x the diameter of the rotor blades).
Gamesa Presents G10X-4.5 MW Wind Turbine Prototype
Size: tower: 120 meters: 393.70 ft tall
One blade: 64 meters: 209.97 ft - (blade diameter; 419.94 ft)
TOTAL Height of turbine: 603.67 feet high
More importantly the turbine is made of steel and concrete.
To protect residents from shadow flicker and noise impacts LOCAL WIND LAWS must have responsible regulations regarding the siting of turbines using (whichever is greater) noise levels at property lines (no greater than 5 above ambient) and rotor blade dimensions (setbacks 10x the diameter of the rotor blades).
Gamesa Presents G10X-4.5 MW Wind Turbine Prototype
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
'Mad Money' Spotlight: Cramer Kicks Zoltek
If you are looking to beef up your retirement account, steer clear of Zoltek(ZOLT Quote), Jim Cramer advised during his "Mad Money" segment on Monday.
Zoltek makes carbon fibers for aircraft brakes and industrial applications including wind energy and deep-sea drilling. While there is potential for the company to resume growth, right now there is little stability in the sector.
During the first quarter ended March 31, profit plunged 89% to $473,000, or 1 cent a share, compared with $4.3 million, or 13 cents, in the year-ago period. This drastically missed analysts' forecast of earnings of 9 cents.
Sales also tumbled 27% to $36 million from $49.6 million last year.
Shares of the company have been trading between $4.29 and $26.08 during the 52-week period, and closed down 4% on Monday to $9.15.
Those who might be swayed by the company's involvement in green development, must also consider that the uncertainty over governmental financial support for wind power has stunted the movement.
"New wind-farm activity has slowed as developers, wind-turbine equipment manufacturers and their financing sources are waiting to see what government benefits can be expected," CEO and Chairman Zsolt Rumy said in a statement. "Although project cancellations are very uncommon, a number of them are on hold until the economic uncertainties are cleared up."
Zoltek makes carbon fibers for aircraft brakes and industrial applications including wind energy and deep-sea drilling. While there is potential for the company to resume growth, right now there is little stability in the sector.
During the first quarter ended March 31, profit plunged 89% to $473,000, or 1 cent a share, compared with $4.3 million, or 13 cents, in the year-ago period. This drastically missed analysts' forecast of earnings of 9 cents.
Sales also tumbled 27% to $36 million from $49.6 million last year.
Shares of the company have been trading between $4.29 and $26.08 during the 52-week period, and closed down 4% on Monday to $9.15.
Those who might be swayed by the company's involvement in green development, must also consider that the uncertainty over governmental financial support for wind power has stunted the movement.
"New wind-farm activity has slowed as developers, wind-turbine equipment manufacturers and their financing sources are waiting to see what government benefits can be expected," CEO and Chairman Zsolt Rumy said in a statement. "Although project cancellations are very uncommon, a number of them are on hold until the economic uncertainties are cleared up."
Pickens paring down wind farm project
T. Boone Pickens' plan to build the world's largest wind farm is off.
Instead, Pickens said he will build five or six smaller wind farms, in the Midwest and possibly Texas, though he hasn't settled on locations.
Last year, Pickens announced that he would build a 1,000-megawatt wind farm in Pampa, Texas. The problem a lack of a transmission line to bring the juice to population centers, Pickens said in an interview last week.
"I don't think the first place we build, though, is where we thought we would because we don't have the transmission," he said.
Remember that idea he had to build his own transmission line? "It was a little more complicated than we thought," he said.
In May 2008, Pickens announced that his company, Mesa Power LP, would order 687 wind turbines, or 1,000 megawatts of capacity, from GE for about $2 billion. By 2014, he expected to expand the Panhandle wind farm to 4,000 megawatts.
That's a massive amount of wind power. One nuclear power reactor is typically about 1,000 megawatts of capacity. Most wind farms offer only a few hundred megawatts.
Shortly after announcing the plan, Pickens ran into roadblocks. Natural gas prices took a dive, bringing electricity prices down with them, and making it difficult to finance a new wind farm.
"You had them standing in line to finance you when natural gas was $9" per million British thermal units, he said. "Natural gas at $4 doesn't have any people trying to finance you."
But, he said, he's lined up financing.
He couldn't easily line up a transmission line.
The Public Utility Commission created a plan to build $5 billion in transmission lines to bring wind power from several areas of West Texas to North Texas and the Houston area. The lines will reach as far as the Panhandle but won't follow a path that Mesa had suggested for the Pampa project.
Still, Pickens already ordered the initial round of wind turbines.
GE will start delivering them in the first quarter of 2011. Pickens has about 18 months to find a place to put them.
"I don't have that big a garage to put them in, so I've got to start getting ready to use them," he said.
Pickens said company officials are considering six sites, including places in Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas. He aims to build three or four wind farms with around 150 turbines each.
He said he still wants to expand to 4,000 megawatts, but he hasn't placed that order yet.
Pickens also said he is rebuilding his three hedge funds after turning them into cash last year.
When the markets dropped, Pickens decided to allow his investors to take their money out of the funds early.
Before the markets declined, Pickens managed more than $4 billion in the funds. Now the funds hold about $1.5 billion.
Pickens is reinvesting the energy funds and said, "We got a good year going."
Instead, Pickens said he will build five or six smaller wind farms, in the Midwest and possibly Texas, though he hasn't settled on locations.
Last year, Pickens announced that he would build a 1,000-megawatt wind farm in Pampa, Texas. The problem a lack of a transmission line to bring the juice to population centers, Pickens said in an interview last week.
"I don't think the first place we build, though, is where we thought we would because we don't have the transmission," he said.
Remember that idea he had to build his own transmission line? "It was a little more complicated than we thought," he said.
In May 2008, Pickens announced that his company, Mesa Power LP, would order 687 wind turbines, or 1,000 megawatts of capacity, from GE for about $2 billion. By 2014, he expected to expand the Panhandle wind farm to 4,000 megawatts.
That's a massive amount of wind power. One nuclear power reactor is typically about 1,000 megawatts of capacity. Most wind farms offer only a few hundred megawatts.
Shortly after announcing the plan, Pickens ran into roadblocks. Natural gas prices took a dive, bringing electricity prices down with them, and making it difficult to finance a new wind farm.
"You had them standing in line to finance you when natural gas was $9" per million British thermal units, he said. "Natural gas at $4 doesn't have any people trying to finance you."
But, he said, he's lined up financing.
He couldn't easily line up a transmission line.
The Public Utility Commission created a plan to build $5 billion in transmission lines to bring wind power from several areas of West Texas to North Texas and the Houston area. The lines will reach as far as the Panhandle but won't follow a path that Mesa had suggested for the Pampa project.
Still, Pickens already ordered the initial round of wind turbines.
GE will start delivering them in the first quarter of 2011. Pickens has about 18 months to find a place to put them.
"I don't have that big a garage to put them in, so I've got to start getting ready to use them," he said.
Pickens said company officials are considering six sites, including places in Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas. He aims to build three or four wind farms with around 150 turbines each.
He said he still wants to expand to 4,000 megawatts, but he hasn't placed that order yet.
Pickens also said he is rebuilding his three hedge funds after turning them into cash last year.
When the markets dropped, Pickens decided to allow his investors to take their money out of the funds early.
Before the markets declined, Pickens managed more than $4 billion in the funds. Now the funds hold about $1.5 billion.
Pickens is reinvesting the energy funds and said, "We got a good year going."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)