United Technologies (NYSE:UTX), a maker of jet engines and other industrial products based in the U.S., said today that it has agreed to buy in cash the remaining 51.1% of Clipper Windpower (LON: CWP) it does not own.
The deal, valued at about 70 million pounds (about US$112 million), or 65 pence per share, will give United Technologies full control of the London-based wind turbine manufacturer. The offer represents a 34% premium to Clipper’s closing price last Friday and values the entire company at 139.8 million pounds (about US$223.7 million).
Back in January, United Technologies acquired a 49.5% stake in Clipper as the wind-turbine manufacturer faced difficulties financing operations.
For the first half of 2010, Clipper recorded a loss of $26.7 million, or 13 cents per share, on revenues of about $154 million.
As of June 30, 2010, Clipper had current assets of $385 million, $140 million of which is in cash. Liabilities due within one year totalled $467 million.
The transaction is pending the approval of Clipper’s shareholders and subject to other customary closing conditions.
Since the announcement, Clipper’s shares have jumped almost 29% to close at 63.75 pence per share on the London markets. For the year to date, the company’s share price has plunged 63%.
Monday, October 18, 2010
40-turbine wind project under way
LINCOLN, Maine — First Wind of Massachusetts has started final construction of its $130 million Rollins Mountain wind project with hopes of having it finished by April 1, officials said Friday.
“It is hard to predict, and God knows the weather in Maine doesn’t cooperate all the time, but that’s our hope,” First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne said.
First Wind leaders told town Economic Development Director Ruth Birtz that they would continue installation work that began with site clearing and road building on Sept. 21 at Rollins Ridge off Route 6 by pouring concrete bases for the 40 turbines, each generating 1½ megawatts, slated for ridgelines in Burlington, Lincoln, Lee and Winn, she said.
“We’re psyched. We are thrilled to be moving forward on this,” Lamontagne said Friday. “It typically takes six to nine months to build one of these projects and get it generating power.”
About 90 percent of the land slated for clearing has been cleared. One turbine concrete foundation has been poured with several more due to be poured shortly. About 30 percent of the rights of way for the proposed transmission line hooking the project to the New England power grid have been acquired, Lamontagne said.
Company officials hope to have most if not all of the turbines and other materials being stored at their Chester site installed by April, but that hope rests on good weather, Birtz said.
The Lincoln Planning Board approved the project on Dec. 1, 2008, with the other host towns eventually following suit. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection’s permit for the First Wind subsidiary came in April 2009, but the project, probably the most protested since wind-to-energy companies began investing in Maine, had been in civil court since then.
The Friends of Lincoln Lakes, a citizens group formed to oppose the project, took its series of appeals to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court but lost. Its latest appeal, to the Board of Environmental Protection on Oct. 7, was rejected.
The group’s president, Brad Blake, said he was angered by the rejection.
“I am outraged that the citizens of this state have had their rights to determine what happens in their own communities severely curtailed and subjugated to the interests of big wind, an industry that should not exist and would not exist without massive government subsidies and preferential treatment, which includes the heinous expedited wind permit statute,” Blake said.
The statute allows for industrial wind projects to be fast-tracked through the state permitting process in exchange for project proponents’ providing tangible benefits for their host communities, which, besides tax revenue, could include everything from scholarships to community parks.
The law, Blake said, “has essentially opened the floodgates to this industry, ruining the landscape of rural Maine from New Hampshire to Canada.”
Birtz took a distinctly different view. The Rollins project, the state’s first due to sell power to Maine utilities, will benefit Lincoln Lakes region construction workers and businesses, including hotels, restaurants and other stores, as soon as the work begins in earnest, she said.
Blake said he wasn’t sure whether the group would file further protests or what form they might take.
“It is hard to predict, and God knows the weather in Maine doesn’t cooperate all the time, but that’s our hope,” First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne said.
First Wind leaders told town Economic Development Director Ruth Birtz that they would continue installation work that began with site clearing and road building on Sept. 21 at Rollins Ridge off Route 6 by pouring concrete bases for the 40 turbines, each generating 1½ megawatts, slated for ridgelines in Burlington, Lincoln, Lee and Winn, she said.
“We’re psyched. We are thrilled to be moving forward on this,” Lamontagne said Friday. “It typically takes six to nine months to build one of these projects and get it generating power.”
About 90 percent of the land slated for clearing has been cleared. One turbine concrete foundation has been poured with several more due to be poured shortly. About 30 percent of the rights of way for the proposed transmission line hooking the project to the New England power grid have been acquired, Lamontagne said.
Company officials hope to have most if not all of the turbines and other materials being stored at their Chester site installed by April, but that hope rests on good weather, Birtz said.
The Lincoln Planning Board approved the project on Dec. 1, 2008, with the other host towns eventually following suit. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection’s permit for the First Wind subsidiary came in April 2009, but the project, probably the most protested since wind-to-energy companies began investing in Maine, had been in civil court since then.
The Friends of Lincoln Lakes, a citizens group formed to oppose the project, took its series of appeals to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court but lost. Its latest appeal, to the Board of Environmental Protection on Oct. 7, was rejected.
The group’s president, Brad Blake, said he was angered by the rejection.
“I am outraged that the citizens of this state have had their rights to determine what happens in their own communities severely curtailed and subjugated to the interests of big wind, an industry that should not exist and would not exist without massive government subsidies and preferential treatment, which includes the heinous expedited wind permit statute,” Blake said.
The statute allows for industrial wind projects to be fast-tracked through the state permitting process in exchange for project proponents’ providing tangible benefits for their host communities, which, besides tax revenue, could include everything from scholarships to community parks.
The law, Blake said, “has essentially opened the floodgates to this industry, ruining the landscape of rural Maine from New Hampshire to Canada.”
Birtz took a distinctly different view. The Rollins project, the state’s first due to sell power to Maine utilities, will benefit Lincoln Lakes region construction workers and businesses, including hotels, restaurants and other stores, as soon as the work begins in earnest, she said.
Blake said he wasn’t sure whether the group would file further protests or what form they might take.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
“Wind Turbine Syndrome” (Pierpont)
Editor’s note: The following was written by Nina Pierpont as an Op-Ed for the NY Times, responding to Tom Zeller’s flawed article on wind turbine noise/vibration on the island of Vinalhaven, ME. WTS.com contacted Clay Risen, head of the Op-Ed department, and made a cogent case for Pierpont to explain why the Lindgrens & Wylies were being made ill by the turbines next door.
Mr. Risen responded promptly, urging her to submit the editorial. He told her to keep it within 700 words, noting that he wanted it as soon as possible, while cautioning it would have to be approved by all the editors. When Nina offered to interview the Wylies & Lindgrens for her piece, he told her “no.” ”The piece should be purely about Nina’s argument, supported by the data she’s collected.”
So, that’s what she did.
We waited a few days, then, of course, got the rejection notice. (Does anyone really think the Times wants to risk losing those lucrative Siemens wind turbine ads? Or getting a call from the American Wind Energy Association and National Renewable Energy Laboratory, or Al Gore?)
Noam Chomsky once explained that there’s really only one political party in America: the Business Party. The same might be said of the major media.·
Wind turbines majestically threshing the wind—what marvels of human engineering! To stand beneath one is breathtaking. To live near one can be hell on earth. So I have been told by countless people who suddenly find themselves grievously ill from the subtle yet devastating infrasonic jackhammer generated by these “clean, green, renewable energy” giants.
The explanation may be tucked away in the inner ear in a cluster of tiny, interconnected organs with a remarkable evolutionary pedigree. The vestibular organs—the semicircular canals, saccule, and utricle—function as Mother Nature’s gyroscope, controlling our sense of motion, position, and balance, including our spatial thinking. (Remember when you got carsick as a kid? Or seasick?)
Humans share these enigmatic organs with a host of other backboned species, including fish and amphibians. Some scientists indeed see them as a kind of pan-species master key for an extraordinarily broad range of brain function—amounting to a sixth sense.
One of those functions, it now appears, is to register and respond to the sounds and vibrations (infrasound) we don’t consciously hear, but feel—as from wind turbines. For many people, the response is swift and disastrous.
Sometimes it’s advantageous being a country doctor. Six years ago I began hearing health complaints from people living in the shadow of these gigantic turbines. At first it was merely local and regional, then global. Tellingly, virtually everyone described the same constellation of symptoms. Symptoms that were being triggered, I began to suspect, by vestibular dysregulation. (1) Sleep disturbance. Not simply awakened, but awakening in a panic (“flight or fight” response). (2) Headache. (3) Tinnitus. (4) Ear pressure. (5) Dizziness. (6) Vertigo. (7) Nausea. (8) Visual blurring. (9) Tachycardia. (10) Irritability. (11) Problems with concentration and memory. (12) Panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering, which arise while awake or asleep. (This latter involving other, non-vestibular organs of balance, motion, and position sense.)
None of these people had experienced these symptoms to any appreciable degree before the turbines became operational. All said their symptoms disappeared rapidly whenever they spent several days away from home. All said the symptoms reappeared when they returned home.
Many had supported the wind farm project before all this happened. Now, some became so ill, they literally abandoned their homes—locked the door and left.
Taking my cue from a British country doctor who was reporting identical “wind turbine” symptoms among her patients, I did what clinicians call a case series. I interviewed 10 families (38 people) both here and abroad, who had either left their homes or were about to leave. I found a statistically significant correlation between the telltale symptoms and pre-existing motion sensitivity, inner ear damage, and migraine disorder. Each is a risk factor for what I now christened Wind Turbine Syndrome. My data suggest, further, that young children and adults beyond age 50 are also at substantial risk.
The response from ear, nose, throat clinicians (otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists) was immediate and encouraging. One was Dr. F. Owen Black, a highly regarded neuro-otologist who consults for the US Navy and NASA on vestibular dysregulation.
Another was Dr. Alec Salt at the Washington University School of Medicine, who recently published a peer-reviewed study demonstrating that the cochlea (which links to the vestibular organs) responds to infrasound without registering it as sound. Infrasound, in fact, increases pressure inside both the cochlea and vestibular organs, distorting both balance and hearing. Salt thus effectively shatters the dogma that “what you can’t hear, can’t hurt you.”
It can indeed hurt you. The growing uproar among wind turbine neighbors testifies to this inconvenient truth.
My role is over. My waiting room is full. It’s time for governments to study this wind-generated scourge whose cure is simple. A 2 km setback (larger in hilly or mountainous terrain) fixes it. Wind developers, not unexpectedly, refuse to acknowledge the problem. They ridicule it as hysteria and NIMBYism (“Not In My Back Yard!”)—and refuse to build their machines 2 km (1.24 miles) away from homes.
“It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it,” suggested Upton Sinclair. Perhaps so. In that case, expect more empty houses and (easily avoidable) suffering.
Mr. Risen responded promptly, urging her to submit the editorial. He told her to keep it within 700 words, noting that he wanted it as soon as possible, while cautioning it would have to be approved by all the editors. When Nina offered to interview the Wylies & Lindgrens for her piece, he told her “no.” ”The piece should be purely about Nina’s argument, supported by the data she’s collected.”
So, that’s what she did.
We waited a few days, then, of course, got the rejection notice. (Does anyone really think the Times wants to risk losing those lucrative Siemens wind turbine ads? Or getting a call from the American Wind Energy Association and National Renewable Energy Laboratory, or Al Gore?)
Noam Chomsky once explained that there’s really only one political party in America: the Business Party. The same might be said of the major media.·
Wind turbines majestically threshing the wind—what marvels of human engineering! To stand beneath one is breathtaking. To live near one can be hell on earth. So I have been told by countless people who suddenly find themselves grievously ill from the subtle yet devastating infrasonic jackhammer generated by these “clean, green, renewable energy” giants.
The explanation may be tucked away in the inner ear in a cluster of tiny, interconnected organs with a remarkable evolutionary pedigree. The vestibular organs—the semicircular canals, saccule, and utricle—function as Mother Nature’s gyroscope, controlling our sense of motion, position, and balance, including our spatial thinking. (Remember when you got carsick as a kid? Or seasick?)
Humans share these enigmatic organs with a host of other backboned species, including fish and amphibians. Some scientists indeed see them as a kind of pan-species master key for an extraordinarily broad range of brain function—amounting to a sixth sense.
One of those functions, it now appears, is to register and respond to the sounds and vibrations (infrasound) we don’t consciously hear, but feel—as from wind turbines. For many people, the response is swift and disastrous.
Sometimes it’s advantageous being a country doctor. Six years ago I began hearing health complaints from people living in the shadow of these gigantic turbines. At first it was merely local and regional, then global. Tellingly, virtually everyone described the same constellation of symptoms. Symptoms that were being triggered, I began to suspect, by vestibular dysregulation. (1) Sleep disturbance. Not simply awakened, but awakening in a panic (“flight or fight” response). (2) Headache. (3) Tinnitus. (4) Ear pressure. (5) Dizziness. (6) Vertigo. (7) Nausea. (8) Visual blurring. (9) Tachycardia. (10) Irritability. (11) Problems with concentration and memory. (12) Panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering, which arise while awake or asleep. (This latter involving other, non-vestibular organs of balance, motion, and position sense.)
None of these people had experienced these symptoms to any appreciable degree before the turbines became operational. All said their symptoms disappeared rapidly whenever they spent several days away from home. All said the symptoms reappeared when they returned home.
Many had supported the wind farm project before all this happened. Now, some became so ill, they literally abandoned their homes—locked the door and left.
Taking my cue from a British country doctor who was reporting identical “wind turbine” symptoms among her patients, I did what clinicians call a case series. I interviewed 10 families (38 people) both here and abroad, who had either left their homes or were about to leave. I found a statistically significant correlation between the telltale symptoms and pre-existing motion sensitivity, inner ear damage, and migraine disorder. Each is a risk factor for what I now christened Wind Turbine Syndrome. My data suggest, further, that young children and adults beyond age 50 are also at substantial risk.
The response from ear, nose, throat clinicians (otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists) was immediate and encouraging. One was Dr. F. Owen Black, a highly regarded neuro-otologist who consults for the US Navy and NASA on vestibular dysregulation.
Another was Dr. Alec Salt at the Washington University School of Medicine, who recently published a peer-reviewed study demonstrating that the cochlea (which links to the vestibular organs) responds to infrasound without registering it as sound. Infrasound, in fact, increases pressure inside both the cochlea and vestibular organs, distorting both balance and hearing. Salt thus effectively shatters the dogma that “what you can’t hear, can’t hurt you.”
It can indeed hurt you. The growing uproar among wind turbine neighbors testifies to this inconvenient truth.
My role is over. My waiting room is full. It’s time for governments to study this wind-generated scourge whose cure is simple. A 2 km setback (larger in hilly or mountainous terrain) fixes it. Wind developers, not unexpectedly, refuse to acknowledge the problem. They ridicule it as hysteria and NIMBYism (“Not In My Back Yard!”)—and refuse to build their machines 2 km (1.24 miles) away from homes.
“It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it,” suggested Upton Sinclair. Perhaps so. In that case, expect more empty houses and (easily avoidable) suffering.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Turbine collapse probe completed
The state Public Service Commission decided Thursday that Noble Environmental Power LLC has strong maintenance and inspection policies at Altona Wind Farm, closing its investigation into a turbine collapse.
The commission investigated the wind farm after one turbine collapsed and another was damaged March 6, 2009, at the project in Clinton County. Noble, the largest wind developer in the state, operates several projects with 612 megawatts of installed capacity and 216 in development.
Noble now has stronger site control documentation and record-keeping on each individual turbine, a PSC spokesman said.
PSC staff concluded in May that the collapse of the turbine and failure of a second at the 65-turbine Altona project were a result of incorrect wire installation. That prevented the turbines from going into an automatic shutdown mode when they lost power.
But Thursday, after independent reviews of Noble's records, management protocols, operations and maintenance procedures and site conditions, the commission decided Noble was in compliance with appropriate specifications and procedures.
"The Commission is encouraged by the steps that Noble has taken to implement robust site control and internal reporting and scheduling procedures subsequent to the Altona turbine failure investigation," Chairman Garry Brown said in a news release.
Noble has responded to a commission order to show cause, stating its affiliates were complying with all quality assurance and quality control measures and manufacturer's recommendations.
Meanwhile, in response to the turbine failure incident, General Electric Co., which manufactures the involved turbines, has implemented remote testing procedures to preclude a repetition of the circumstances that led to the incident.
The full decision will be available soon on the commission's website.
ON THE NET
Public Service Commission: www.dps.state.ny.us
The commission investigated the wind farm after one turbine collapsed and another was damaged March 6, 2009, at the project in Clinton County. Noble, the largest wind developer in the state, operates several projects with 612 megawatts of installed capacity and 216 in development.
Noble now has stronger site control documentation and record-keeping on each individual turbine, a PSC spokesman said.
PSC staff concluded in May that the collapse of the turbine and failure of a second at the 65-turbine Altona project were a result of incorrect wire installation. That prevented the turbines from going into an automatic shutdown mode when they lost power.
But Thursday, after independent reviews of Noble's records, management protocols, operations and maintenance procedures and site conditions, the commission decided Noble was in compliance with appropriate specifications and procedures.
"The Commission is encouraged by the steps that Noble has taken to implement robust site control and internal reporting and scheduling procedures subsequent to the Altona turbine failure investigation," Chairman Garry Brown said in a news release.
Noble has responded to a commission order to show cause, stating its affiliates were complying with all quality assurance and quality control measures and manufacturer's recommendations.
Meanwhile, in response to the turbine failure incident, General Electric Co., which manufactures the involved turbines, has implemented remote testing procedures to preclude a repetition of the circumstances that led to the incident.
The full decision will be available soon on the commission's website.
ON THE NET
Public Service Commission: www.dps.state.ny.us
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project is no secret
Claims that the New York Power Authority is secretive about the process for identifying the Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project are unfounded. Plenty of information is available and it's easy to find. For potential lake locations, project sizes, environmental issues and much more, go to www.nypa.gov/NYPAwindpower/GreatLakesWind.htm. This website has been up since April 2009 and is updated frequently. That's hardly a way to keep a secret.
NYPA's commitment to sharing information is also seen through numerous meetings, including those with Sen. George Maziarz's staff and the editors at the Democrat and Chronicle; about 500 news items; and responses to 200-plus e-mails, faxes, phone calls and letters.
Fair, objective, completely impartial and without outside influences — like lobbyists and blog writers — is the way NYPA is reviewing proposals for the Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project. Right now, there is no identified project, so there are no details. On the subject of proposals, the disclosure of bid information before one or more is identified for possible construction jeopardizes NYPA's efforts to secure the best project price and compromises a fair review for all bidders.
NYPA is in the midst of a rigorous and thorough evaluation process for each proposal. When and if a project or projects are identified, NYPA has continually indicated that there will be an open and transparent disclosure of what the public wants to know. But it doesn't end there.
No quick decision will be made on moving forward. That takes time and includes extensive input from the public.
There will be a multi-year review by many federal and state environmental and regulatory entities, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the U.S. Coast Guard; the Federal Aviation Agency; the New York Department of Environmental Conservation; the New York Department of State; and the New York State Department of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, to name just a few. In-depth field studies of the wind, lake bottom, birds, bats, radar, icing and much more must be undertaken before a single turbine is built.
We appreciate those who are waiting, without pre-judging any project, as NYPA completes its review. They have shown the courage needed to realize New York's environmental goals and to bring the jobs and economic benefits that come with developing clean wind energy.
NYPA's commitment to sharing information is also seen through numerous meetings, including those with Sen. George Maziarz's staff and the editors at the Democrat and Chronicle; about 500 news items; and responses to 200-plus e-mails, faxes, phone calls and letters.
Fair, objective, completely impartial and without outside influences — like lobbyists and blog writers — is the way NYPA is reviewing proposals for the Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project. Right now, there is no identified project, so there are no details. On the subject of proposals, the disclosure of bid information before one or more is identified for possible construction jeopardizes NYPA's efforts to secure the best project price and compromises a fair review for all bidders.
NYPA is in the midst of a rigorous and thorough evaluation process for each proposal. When and if a project or projects are identified, NYPA has continually indicated that there will be an open and transparent disclosure of what the public wants to know. But it doesn't end there.
No quick decision will be made on moving forward. That takes time and includes extensive input from the public.
There will be a multi-year review by many federal and state environmental and regulatory entities, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the U.S. Coast Guard; the Federal Aviation Agency; the New York Department of Environmental Conservation; the New York Department of State; and the New York State Department of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, to name just a few. In-depth field studies of the wind, lake bottom, birds, bats, radar, icing and much more must be undertaken before a single turbine is built.
We appreciate those who are waiting, without pre-judging any project, as NYPA completes its review. They have shown the courage needed to realize New York's environmental goals and to bring the jobs and economic benefits that come with developing clean wind energy.
First Wind Files Details Of IPO
Massachusetts-based wind developer First Wind has set terms for its initial public offering (IPO), the Wall Street Journal reports. The company is expected to raise as much as $312 million.
First Wind plans to offer 12 million shares ranging in price from $24 to $26 each. It's proposed trading symbol on NASDAQ is "WIND."
The company plans to use up to approximately $98 million to make payments on or to retire loans. The rest of the funds will be used for project development and construction costs.
First Wind plans to offer 12 million shares ranging in price from $24 to $26 each. It's proposed trading symbol on NASDAQ is "WIND."
The company plans to use up to approximately $98 million to make payments on or to retire loans. The rest of the funds will be used for project development and construction costs.
Lyme extends wind moratorium
CHAUMONT — The town of Lyme's moratorium on wind power development will last another year.
The Town Council voted 3-1 Wednesday night to extend the moratorium, which includes personal wind turbines and all ancillary structures. Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine, Councilman Warren A. Johnson and Councilwoman Anne M. "Boo" Harris supported it, while Councilman Donald R. Bourquin opposed it.
The council recognized 26 letters; all but one supported extending the moratorium to Oct. 12, 2011. More than 20 people made comments at the meeting; about 15 voiced support for the moratorium.
Peter J. Rogers, Three Mile Point, was one of them.
"When I came off Three Mile Point tonight, I envisioned what it would look like with a bunch of turbines," he said. "I don't care what the economic benefits are in the town. It's about the quality of life here."
Bruce Way, Three Mile Bay, said, "When I heard about Maple Ridge, I was very optimistic, but there are so many reports about how much noise there is and what the other problems are. Once you put the turbines in, you can't go back."
But wind power proponents argued the town had waited long enough to put a second law together.
A moratorium was first enacted in the town in April 2007. Before Wednesday's action, the board extended it in November 2007, January 2008, April 2008, October 2008, April 2009 and October 2009.
"This will be the moratorium's fourth year," said Julia E. Gosier, Three Mile Bay. "It's illegal and will result in another lawsuit."
She said it was possible the developer of St. Lawrence Wind Farm would consider a lawsuit. Acciona Wind Energy USA has proposed to run 5.7 miles of its 9-mile transmission line through Lyme. But the moratorium prevents submitting an application on the effort.
"Consider the damage you're doing to the town's relationship with Cape Vincent," she said. "You must not throw up a roadblock to the projects they are trying to complete."
Acciona's project manager, Timothy Q. Conboy, presented the positives of the project and asked for an end to the moratorium.
"Lyme has had ample opportunity to enact a local law," he said. "Extending the moratorium is fundamentally unfair to project sponsors and those who wish to see wind power."
The council passed a strict wind development zoning law May 6, 2008, despite a petition from 10 landowners representing more than 20 percent of affected land protesting the decision. Supreme Court Judge Hugh A. Gilbert agreed with the landowners Aug. 21, saying the council acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" when it rejected the petition. That ruling was upheld by a state appellate court Dec. 30.
The council since has tried to work on a wind zoning law, but a divided public has led the council to try to appoint two wind committees and put together a new survey of town residents to determine setbacks.
The council has not yet appointed members to the committees.
The Town Council voted 3-1 Wednesday night to extend the moratorium, which includes personal wind turbines and all ancillary structures. Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine, Councilman Warren A. Johnson and Councilwoman Anne M. "Boo" Harris supported it, while Councilman Donald R. Bourquin opposed it.
The council recognized 26 letters; all but one supported extending the moratorium to Oct. 12, 2011. More than 20 people made comments at the meeting; about 15 voiced support for the moratorium.
Peter J. Rogers, Three Mile Point, was one of them.
"When I came off Three Mile Point tonight, I envisioned what it would look like with a bunch of turbines," he said. "I don't care what the economic benefits are in the town. It's about the quality of life here."
Bruce Way, Three Mile Bay, said, "When I heard about Maple Ridge, I was very optimistic, but there are so many reports about how much noise there is and what the other problems are. Once you put the turbines in, you can't go back."
But wind power proponents argued the town had waited long enough to put a second law together.
A moratorium was first enacted in the town in April 2007. Before Wednesday's action, the board extended it in November 2007, January 2008, April 2008, October 2008, April 2009 and October 2009.
"This will be the moratorium's fourth year," said Julia E. Gosier, Three Mile Bay. "It's illegal and will result in another lawsuit."
She said it was possible the developer of St. Lawrence Wind Farm would consider a lawsuit. Acciona Wind Energy USA has proposed to run 5.7 miles of its 9-mile transmission line through Lyme. But the moratorium prevents submitting an application on the effort.
"Consider the damage you're doing to the town's relationship with Cape Vincent," she said. "You must not throw up a roadblock to the projects they are trying to complete."
Acciona's project manager, Timothy Q. Conboy, presented the positives of the project and asked for an end to the moratorium.
"Lyme has had ample opportunity to enact a local law," he said. "Extending the moratorium is fundamentally unfair to project sponsors and those who wish to see wind power."
The council passed a strict wind development zoning law May 6, 2008, despite a petition from 10 landowners representing more than 20 percent of affected land protesting the decision. Supreme Court Judge Hugh A. Gilbert agreed with the landowners Aug. 21, saying the council acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" when it rejected the petition. That ruling was upheld by a state appellate court Dec. 30.
The council since has tried to work on a wind zoning law, but a divided public has led the council to try to appoint two wind committees and put together a new survey of town residents to determine setbacks.
The council has not yet appointed members to the committees.
Council wary of tax exemption policy
The Watertown City Council is looking for clarification from the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency as to how much control it will have in determining tax exemptions granted for economic development projects.
JCIDA is updating its uniform tax exemption policy, which covers payment-in-lieu-of taxes agreements and sales and mortgage recording tax breaks that can accompany such agreements. JCIDA has asked each potential affected taxing jurisdiction for input on the plan.
The three council members attending a work session on the matter Tuesday — Mayor Jeffrey E. Graham, Councilman Joseph M. Butler Jr. and Councilwoman Teresa R. Macaluso — generally voiced no opposition to aspects of PILOT agreements that grant projects real property tax exemptions.
It is sales tax exemptions that cause the most consternation for Mr. Graham. These exemptions allow a developer to pay no sales tax on materials bought for the construction of a project, including equipment and furnishings.
Mr. Graham said that such exemptions should be subject to the approval of an elected body, specifically the county Legislature, as it is the county that imposes the tax and collects it before distributing it to the municipalities.
He said that as municipalities increasingly rely on sales tax revenues when preparing budgets, and with large-scale projects such as wind farms being considered for PILOT agreements, sales tax exemptions should be "seldom used."
"If you give a $50,000 sales tax exemption to a developer, are you going to cut the city's budget by $50,000? No, you're going to ask others to pick it up," he said. "You're basically selling the exemptions for a fee. I don't know any other way to put it."
Mr. Butler said there appear to be inconsistencies in the language of the proposed exemption policy that allows JCIDA to deviate from the policy to provide enhanced benefits for certain projects on a case-by-case basis at JCIDA's discretion. He said in one section of the policy it appears that such affected taxing jurisdictions will be notified of such deviations, while elsewhere it appears no such notification will be required.
Mr. Butler also said the policy is not clear as to how or if a municipality can recapture benefits provided to a project should the project not fulfill its obligations under a PILOT agreement.
City Assessor Brian S. Phelps said that with the end of the state's Empire Zone program the city can expect to see an increase in the number of requests for PILOT agreements. City Attorney James A. Burrows said that since most development in the county is occurring in and around the city and toward Fort Drum, future PILOT agreements will "affect city residents far more often than those in other municipalities."
Mr. Butler said the "outreach" done by JCIDA in giving municipalities input on its proposed policy is "a positive," but Ms. Macaluso said she is concerned that the council's concerns will have little impact on the policy.
"I think no matter what we suggest, it's going to fall on deaf ears," she said.
Councilman Jeffrey M. Smith and Councilwoman Roxanne M. Burns were absent from Thursday's work session. The remaining council members decided to discuss the policy further at Monday's regular meeting, and possibly during a work session later this month, before giving direction to City Manager Mary M. Corriveau as to what information it wants to forward to JCIDA for consideration.
JCIDA will hold a public hearing on the changes to its policy at 7 p.m. Nov. 3 at the amphitheater at Jefferson Community College, Coffeen Street. The board could vote on the policy Nov. 4.
JCIDA is updating its uniform tax exemption policy, which covers payment-in-lieu-of taxes agreements and sales and mortgage recording tax breaks that can accompany such agreements. JCIDA has asked each potential affected taxing jurisdiction for input on the plan.
The three council members attending a work session on the matter Tuesday — Mayor Jeffrey E. Graham, Councilman Joseph M. Butler Jr. and Councilwoman Teresa R. Macaluso — generally voiced no opposition to aspects of PILOT agreements that grant projects real property tax exemptions.
It is sales tax exemptions that cause the most consternation for Mr. Graham. These exemptions allow a developer to pay no sales tax on materials bought for the construction of a project, including equipment and furnishings.
Mr. Graham said that such exemptions should be subject to the approval of an elected body, specifically the county Legislature, as it is the county that imposes the tax and collects it before distributing it to the municipalities.
He said that as municipalities increasingly rely on sales tax revenues when preparing budgets, and with large-scale projects such as wind farms being considered for PILOT agreements, sales tax exemptions should be "seldom used."
"If you give a $50,000 sales tax exemption to a developer, are you going to cut the city's budget by $50,000? No, you're going to ask others to pick it up," he said. "You're basically selling the exemptions for a fee. I don't know any other way to put it."
Mr. Butler said there appear to be inconsistencies in the language of the proposed exemption policy that allows JCIDA to deviate from the policy to provide enhanced benefits for certain projects on a case-by-case basis at JCIDA's discretion. He said in one section of the policy it appears that such affected taxing jurisdictions will be notified of such deviations, while elsewhere it appears no such notification will be required.
Mr. Butler also said the policy is not clear as to how or if a municipality can recapture benefits provided to a project should the project not fulfill its obligations under a PILOT agreement.
City Assessor Brian S. Phelps said that with the end of the state's Empire Zone program the city can expect to see an increase in the number of requests for PILOT agreements. City Attorney James A. Burrows said that since most development in the county is occurring in and around the city and toward Fort Drum, future PILOT agreements will "affect city residents far more often than those in other municipalities."
Mr. Butler said the "outreach" done by JCIDA in giving municipalities input on its proposed policy is "a positive," but Ms. Macaluso said she is concerned that the council's concerns will have little impact on the policy.
"I think no matter what we suggest, it's going to fall on deaf ears," she said.
Councilman Jeffrey M. Smith and Councilwoman Roxanne M. Burns were absent from Thursday's work session. The remaining council members decided to discuss the policy further at Monday's regular meeting, and possibly during a work session later this month, before giving direction to City Manager Mary M. Corriveau as to what information it wants to forward to JCIDA for consideration.
JCIDA will hold a public hearing on the changes to its policy at 7 p.m. Nov. 3 at the amphitheater at Jefferson Community College, Coffeen Street. The board could vote on the policy Nov. 4.
Monday, October 11, 2010
UTC takeover looms for Clipper Windpower
After rocky sales timing put Clipper Windpower in a cash crunch, its largest investor is in position to take control of the Carpinteria company just as its long-term prospects brighten.
In December, multinational conglomerate United Technologies Corp. acquired a 49.5 percent stake in Clipper in a transaction that pumped $206??million in new capital into the turbine maker, whose shares trade on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange.
The investment included a “standstill provision” that said UTC couldn’t boost its holdings — and take control of Clipper — for at least two years. But it also included a provision that gave UTC the right to boost its stake to 55 percent if Clipper burned through 75 percent or more of UTC’s investment before 2012.
“There was a calculation they performed that indicated we had reached that milestone,” Michael Keane, Clipper’s chief financial officer, told the Business Times. “Whether they exercise that right or not is up to them.”
A UTC spokesman did not return requests for comment by press time.
Clipper said its unrestricted cash position was $139.9 million at June 30, but that total dropped to about $85 million by the end of September.
In some ways, the cash crunch is a positive sign for Clipper — it spent $55 million in less than three months buying up turbine parts to fill orders, according to company officials. The company is the fastest-growing in the Tri-Counties, according to the Business Times’ annual survey, which ranks companies by three-year revenue growth. Clipper’s revenues grew by more than 3,000 percent between 2007 and 2009.
But the timing of Clipper’s revenue in 2010, combined with its flurry of spending, could allow UTC to take control of the company far ahead of its original schedule.
Meanwhile, Clipper needs new cash to stay in business. Without access to capital, the company said in filings, “the current business circumstances create a material uncertainty that casts significant doubt on the [Clipper’s] ability to continue as a going concern.”
Clipper said it’s in talks with UTC for new financing, either in the form of credit support or selling stock. During the talks, Clipper said, UTC said it was interested in buying all of the Clipper shares it doesn’t already own.
The possible change in control at Clipper comes at a time when the company’s leaders are optimistic about its future. After it began making turbines at its plant in Iowa, the 770-employee firm suffered a blow when cracks in its blades led to a remediation program that cost it hundreds of millions of dollars.
Big machines like Clipper’s 2.5-megwatt Liberty turbine cost millions and are designed to last for decades, and the blade problems shook the market’s confidence in the young company. The big benefit in the investment from UTC was the perception that Clipper’s machines had the backing of one of a global industrial powerhouse. That backing was made explicit earlier this year when UTC agreed to provide warranty support for Clipper’s turbines.
Combined with some technology-sharing agreements and backing from UTC’s sales force, “this is a significant game changer for us,” Mauricio Quintana, the UTC veteran who took over as Clipper’s CEO in March, told investors during a conference call.
Clipper says it has about 4.5 gigawatts — about 1,800 of its Liberty turbines — in its sales proposal pipeline, including about 1.8 gigawatts in later-stage talks.
“Fifty-four percent of that pipeline represents opportunities outside of the U.S. That’s a sea change for Clipper,” Keane said. “We have the ability now to compete on a level with tier-one turbine suppliers,” such as General Electric, one of UTC’s rivals in many markets.
For the first half of the year, Clipper’s net loss was $26.7 million, compared with $120.2 million in the first half of last year. One big difference was revenue. It was $154 million on 43 turbines in the first half of 2010, compared to $357.3 million from 127 turbines in the first six months of 2009.
Clipper said it expects two-thirds of its sales to come in the second half of this year. But while Clipper gets payments from customers as it’s building turbines for them, the company generally doesn’t book revenue until a machine is delivered. It has had to dig deep into its cash in recent months to buy parts.
“We were starting to ramp up production. We were also ramping up our procurement of components. So it’s not a straight line,” Keane said of Clipper’s recent costs.
One deal Clipper is hoping to replicate as it moves into new markets is the $81 million financing granted last year by the Export-Import Bank of the United States to a Mexican wind project using Clipper’s turbines.
“We have sufficient U.S. content to be able to qualify for that Ex-Im financing, and Ex-Im Bank has expressed a desire for more opportunities to finance Clipper Liberty turbines outside the U.S.,” Keane said. “That’s a very important sales tool for us. It helps differentiate us from our competition.”
In December, multinational conglomerate United Technologies Corp. acquired a 49.5 percent stake in Clipper in a transaction that pumped $206??million in new capital into the turbine maker, whose shares trade on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange.
The investment included a “standstill provision” that said UTC couldn’t boost its holdings — and take control of Clipper — for at least two years. But it also included a provision that gave UTC the right to boost its stake to 55 percent if Clipper burned through 75 percent or more of UTC’s investment before 2012.
“There was a calculation they performed that indicated we had reached that milestone,” Michael Keane, Clipper’s chief financial officer, told the Business Times. “Whether they exercise that right or not is up to them.”
A UTC spokesman did not return requests for comment by press time.
Clipper said its unrestricted cash position was $139.9 million at June 30, but that total dropped to about $85 million by the end of September.
In some ways, the cash crunch is a positive sign for Clipper — it spent $55 million in less than three months buying up turbine parts to fill orders, according to company officials. The company is the fastest-growing in the Tri-Counties, according to the Business Times’ annual survey, which ranks companies by three-year revenue growth. Clipper’s revenues grew by more than 3,000 percent between 2007 and 2009.
But the timing of Clipper’s revenue in 2010, combined with its flurry of spending, could allow UTC to take control of the company far ahead of its original schedule.
Meanwhile, Clipper needs new cash to stay in business. Without access to capital, the company said in filings, “the current business circumstances create a material uncertainty that casts significant doubt on the [Clipper’s] ability to continue as a going concern.”
Clipper said it’s in talks with UTC for new financing, either in the form of credit support or selling stock. During the talks, Clipper said, UTC said it was interested in buying all of the Clipper shares it doesn’t already own.
The possible change in control at Clipper comes at a time when the company’s leaders are optimistic about its future. After it began making turbines at its plant in Iowa, the 770-employee firm suffered a blow when cracks in its blades led to a remediation program that cost it hundreds of millions of dollars.
Big machines like Clipper’s 2.5-megwatt Liberty turbine cost millions and are designed to last for decades, and the blade problems shook the market’s confidence in the young company. The big benefit in the investment from UTC was the perception that Clipper’s machines had the backing of one of a global industrial powerhouse. That backing was made explicit earlier this year when UTC agreed to provide warranty support for Clipper’s turbines.
Combined with some technology-sharing agreements and backing from UTC’s sales force, “this is a significant game changer for us,” Mauricio Quintana, the UTC veteran who took over as Clipper’s CEO in March, told investors during a conference call.
Clipper says it has about 4.5 gigawatts — about 1,800 of its Liberty turbines — in its sales proposal pipeline, including about 1.8 gigawatts in later-stage talks.
“Fifty-four percent of that pipeline represents opportunities outside of the U.S. That’s a sea change for Clipper,” Keane said. “We have the ability now to compete on a level with tier-one turbine suppliers,” such as General Electric, one of UTC’s rivals in many markets.
For the first half of the year, Clipper’s net loss was $26.7 million, compared with $120.2 million in the first half of last year. One big difference was revenue. It was $154 million on 43 turbines in the first half of 2010, compared to $357.3 million from 127 turbines in the first six months of 2009.
Clipper said it expects two-thirds of its sales to come in the second half of this year. But while Clipper gets payments from customers as it’s building turbines for them, the company generally doesn’t book revenue until a machine is delivered. It has had to dig deep into its cash in recent months to buy parts.
“We were starting to ramp up production. We were also ramping up our procurement of components. So it’s not a straight line,” Keane said of Clipper’s recent costs.
One deal Clipper is hoping to replicate as it moves into new markets is the $81 million financing granted last year by the Export-Import Bank of the United States to a Mexican wind project using Clipper’s turbines.
“We have sufficient U.S. content to be able to qualify for that Ex-Im financing, and Ex-Im Bank has expressed a desire for more opportunities to finance Clipper Liberty turbines outside the U.S.,” Keane said. “That’s a very important sales tool for us. It helps differentiate us from our competition.”
Editorial: “Wind Parks? Really?”
—Eric Bibler, WTS.com guest editor
I just discovered that Cape Wind’s 25-square mile industrial plant in Nantucket Sound is in fact not a “wind factory,” a “sprawling open air industrial wind plant” or even a “wind farm,” as I had supposed.
According to Cape Wind, it is officially a “Wind Park.”
This is an inspired choice of words!
I am already drafting letters to my local town selectmen asking if we can change a few names around here, such as: “Trash Park,” “Sewage Treatment Park,” “Coal Fired Electric Park” and “Maximum Security Correctional Park.” (Well, we don’t actually have one of those, but perhaps we can call the local jail a “Liberty Deprivation Park” –- or something like that.)
I’d also like to see if we can’t change the name of I-95, to call it an “Interstate Highway Park,” and I think we should have a few “Cell Tower Parks” and “Water Tower Parks,” don’t you? Perhaps that strip of the highway that runs past downtown Bridgeport, MA, can be rechristened a “Billboard Park” — to avoid any confusion about its true purpose.
Perhaps wind turbine noise should be renamed “Wind Turbine Mood Music.”
We could refer to the individual wind turbines as “Gleaming Energy Independence Mobiles.”
We could refer to the flicker effect as the “Wind Turbine Prankster Effect,” to recall the antics of an out-of-control eight-year-old who won’t lay off the light switch.
Perhaps the bird and bat kill aspects could be accepted as a “New Age Darwinian Wind Turbine Effect” that gives modern expression to the phenomenon of natural selection by encouraging the genetic selection of new super-species that are impervious to blows from the blades (moving at 180 mph), or to burst lungs from the abrupt changes in pressure.
We could paint numbers on the offshore ones and claim they are an invaluable aid to navigation –- if you can avoid hitting them.
And we could all try to exert some self-control and refer to wind turbines on mountain ridges as “Wind Turbine Landscape Accents.”
I just discovered that Cape Wind’s 25-square mile industrial plant in Nantucket Sound is in fact not a “wind factory,” a “sprawling open air industrial wind plant” or even a “wind farm,” as I had supposed.
According to Cape Wind, it is officially a “Wind Park.”
This is an inspired choice of words!
I am already drafting letters to my local town selectmen asking if we can change a few names around here, such as: “Trash Park,” “Sewage Treatment Park,” “Coal Fired Electric Park” and “Maximum Security Correctional Park.” (Well, we don’t actually have one of those, but perhaps we can call the local jail a “Liberty Deprivation Park” –- or something like that.)
I’d also like to see if we can’t change the name of I-95, to call it an “Interstate Highway Park,” and I think we should have a few “Cell Tower Parks” and “Water Tower Parks,” don’t you? Perhaps that strip of the highway that runs past downtown Bridgeport, MA, can be rechristened a “Billboard Park” — to avoid any confusion about its true purpose.
Perhaps wind turbine noise should be renamed “Wind Turbine Mood Music.”
We could refer to the individual wind turbines as “Gleaming Energy Independence Mobiles.”
We could refer to the flicker effect as the “Wind Turbine Prankster Effect,” to recall the antics of an out-of-control eight-year-old who won’t lay off the light switch.
Perhaps the bird and bat kill aspects could be accepted as a “New Age Darwinian Wind Turbine Effect” that gives modern expression to the phenomenon of natural selection by encouraging the genetic selection of new super-species that are impervious to blows from the blades (moving at 180 mph), or to burst lungs from the abrupt changes in pressure.
We could paint numbers on the offshore ones and claim they are an invaluable aid to navigation –- if you can avoid hitting them.
And we could all try to exert some self-control and refer to wind turbines on mountain ridges as “Wind Turbine Landscape Accents.”
The Shore Is Alive With the Sound of Turbines
To the Editor:
Re “For Those Living Nearby, That Miserable Hum of Clean Energy” (front page, Oct. 6):
My husband and I spent a week on the island of Vinalhaven in Maine in August, within sight and sound of the three giant wind turbines. Not only are they visually disturbing in the otherwise pristine landscape, but the ebb and flow of sound is also more reminiscent of a jet plane than the woods of Maine.
After we spent two days driving, and an hour and a half on the ferry, to get away from the hustle and bustle of New York, it was quite ironic to find our rental house located across from the intermittently noisy power plant.
I can only imagine the effect of the proposed Long Island-New York City offshore wind project. Although the giant turbines are to be 13 to 15 miles off the shore of Long Island, I would guess that any endangered fish swimming above the proposed location on the Atlantic’s outer continental shelf might just call it quits altogether when they hear the roar of the turbines.
Ennid Berger
Glen Cove, N.Y., Oct. 6, 2010
•
To the Editor:
The number of people complaining about noise from wind turbines is “small but growing” because the number of people who live near industrial-scale wind turbines is small but growing. In addition, leases and neighbor easements often include “gag orders” against publicizing complaints.
The Acoustic Ecology Institute notes as well that local news coverage of the issue may be wanting and that social and economic constraints can keep people from going public.
And a growing number of doctors and other scientists are taking the health effects seriously, even for what you call the “most extreme claims.”
The solution is simple: adequate distance from homes. The affected Vinalhaven residents live within one mile of the turbines. Most independent researchers suggest two kilometers, or 1.24 miles, as a minimum.
Eric Rosenbloom
President, National Wind Watch
Hartland, Vt., Oct. 6, 2010
Re “For Those Living Nearby, That Miserable Hum of Clean Energy” (front page, Oct. 6):
My husband and I spent a week on the island of Vinalhaven in Maine in August, within sight and sound of the three giant wind turbines. Not only are they visually disturbing in the otherwise pristine landscape, but the ebb and flow of sound is also more reminiscent of a jet plane than the woods of Maine.
After we spent two days driving, and an hour and a half on the ferry, to get away from the hustle and bustle of New York, it was quite ironic to find our rental house located across from the intermittently noisy power plant.
I can only imagine the effect of the proposed Long Island-New York City offshore wind project. Although the giant turbines are to be 13 to 15 miles off the shore of Long Island, I would guess that any endangered fish swimming above the proposed location on the Atlantic’s outer continental shelf might just call it quits altogether when they hear the roar of the turbines.
Ennid Berger
Glen Cove, N.Y., Oct. 6, 2010
•
To the Editor:
The number of people complaining about noise from wind turbines is “small but growing” because the number of people who live near industrial-scale wind turbines is small but growing. In addition, leases and neighbor easements often include “gag orders” against publicizing complaints.
The Acoustic Ecology Institute notes as well that local news coverage of the issue may be wanting and that social and economic constraints can keep people from going public.
And a growing number of doctors and other scientists are taking the health effects seriously, even for what you call the “most extreme claims.”
The solution is simple: adequate distance from homes. The affected Vinalhaven residents live within one mile of the turbines. Most independent researchers suggest two kilometers, or 1.24 miles, as a minimum.
Eric Rosenbloom
President, National Wind Watch
Hartland, Vt., Oct. 6, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Which investment would be more cost effective: energy efficient light bulbs to reduce electricity demand or wind turbines to produce electricity?
Both approaches are widely touted as good for the environment but their relative cost effectiveness is seldom compared. It can be done with simple arithmetic. Assume $2 million is available to invest.
1. Energy efficient light bulbs. Home Depot is offering four (4) 14-watt compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs for $7.97 that are claimed to provide the same light as a 60-watt incandescent light bulb, with a projected lifetime of 8000 hours.
· Assume the price is $2 per bulb to make the arithmetic easier.
· If the bulbs were used an average of 4 hrs per day over 5 years, that would add up to 7,300 hours (365 days x 5 years x 4 hours), or less than the claimed lifetime.
· Each 14-watt CFL would save 46 watts per hour of use in lieu of a 60-watt incandescent bulb.
· Over a 5-year period (4 hours per day) electricity savings from a single bulb would be 335,800 watt-hours (46 watts x 7300 hours). 335,800 watt-hours = 335.8 kilowatt-hours (kWh).
· $2 million could pay for 1,000,000 of the CFLs advertised by Home Depot.
Using these assumptions, 1,000,000 CFLs could save 335,800,000 kWh of electricity over 5 years.
2. Wind Turbine. The current “rule of thumb” price for a 1 Megawatt (MW) wind turbine seems to be roughly $2 million (if installed in quantity).
· A 1 MW wind turbine operating at a generous 35% capacity factor[1] over 1 year would produce 3,066,000 kWh of electricity (1,000 kW x 8760 hours in year x 35% = 3,066,000.
· Thus, a 1 MW wind turbine operating over 20 years[2] at a 35% capacity factor could produce 61,320,000 kWh of electricity (i.e., 20 x 3,066,000 = 61,320,000).
3. Comparison: Based on these calculations:
· A $2 million investment in a wind turbine would produce 61,320,000 kWh of electricity over a 20-year period.
· A $2 million investment in CFLs could save 335,800,000 kWh of electricity over a 5-year period.
· Therefore, the investment in CFLs would save more than 5 times as much electricity in 5 years than the wind turbine would produce in 20 years. ( 335,800,000 divided by 61,320,000 = 5.48.)
4. Other important considerations: Electricity not used means less need for adding electric generation, transmission and distribution capacity and the economic cost and environmental impact of building and maintaining that capacity. Less cost means lower monthly electric bills.
[1] Capacity factor is determined by dividing the amount of electricity produced (in megawatt-hour – MWh or kilowatt-hours – kWh) divided by the rated capacity of a generating unit (e.g., wind turbine) x the hours in the period being measured. Thus, a 1 megawatt (1,000 kW) wind turbine that produced 3,066,000 kWh of electricity during a one year period would have a capacity factor of 35%.
[2] Wind energy advocates often assume that industrial scale wind turbines will have a useful life of 20 years though none of the type now being installed in the US has been in service anywhere near 20 years.
1. Energy efficient light bulbs. Home Depot is offering four (4) 14-watt compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs for $7.97 that are claimed to provide the same light as a 60-watt incandescent light bulb, with a projected lifetime of 8000 hours.
· Assume the price is $2 per bulb to make the arithmetic easier.
· If the bulbs were used an average of 4 hrs per day over 5 years, that would add up to 7,300 hours (365 days x 5 years x 4 hours), or less than the claimed lifetime.
· Each 14-watt CFL would save 46 watts per hour of use in lieu of a 60-watt incandescent bulb.
· Over a 5-year period (4 hours per day) electricity savings from a single bulb would be 335,800 watt-hours (46 watts x 7300 hours). 335,800 watt-hours = 335.8 kilowatt-hours (kWh).
· $2 million could pay for 1,000,000 of the CFLs advertised by Home Depot.
Using these assumptions, 1,000,000 CFLs could save 335,800,000 kWh of electricity over 5 years.
2. Wind Turbine. The current “rule of thumb” price for a 1 Megawatt (MW) wind turbine seems to be roughly $2 million (if installed in quantity).
· A 1 MW wind turbine operating at a generous 35% capacity factor[1] over 1 year would produce 3,066,000 kWh of electricity (1,000 kW x 8760 hours in year x 35% = 3,066,000.
· Thus, a 1 MW wind turbine operating over 20 years[2] at a 35% capacity factor could produce 61,320,000 kWh of electricity (i.e., 20 x 3,066,000 = 61,320,000).
3. Comparison: Based on these calculations:
· A $2 million investment in a wind turbine would produce 61,320,000 kWh of electricity over a 20-year period.
· A $2 million investment in CFLs could save 335,800,000 kWh of electricity over a 5-year period.
· Therefore, the investment in CFLs would save more than 5 times as much electricity in 5 years than the wind turbine would produce in 20 years. ( 335,800,000 divided by 61,320,000 = 5.48.)
4. Other important considerations: Electricity not used means less need for adding electric generation, transmission and distribution capacity and the economic cost and environmental impact of building and maintaining that capacity. Less cost means lower monthly electric bills.
[1] Capacity factor is determined by dividing the amount of electricity produced (in megawatt-hour – MWh or kilowatt-hours – kWh) divided by the rated capacity of a generating unit (e.g., wind turbine) x the hours in the period being measured. Thus, a 1 megawatt (1,000 kW) wind turbine that produced 3,066,000 kWh of electricity during a one year period would have a capacity factor of 35%.
[2] Wind energy advocates often assume that industrial scale wind turbines will have a useful life of 20 years though none of the type now being installed in the US has been in service anywhere near 20 years.
First Wind opens office in Rumford
RUMFORD — With a pending $60 million wind farm project on the line, Boston-based wind developer First Wind has rented an office at 180 Congress St., spokesman John Lamontagne stated via e-mail late Tuesday afternoon.
“We are not planning to staff it full time, but (will) instead use it as a base of operations as we launch our efforts to inform the citizens of Rumford about the benefits of wind energy and the serious flaws with the anti-wind ordinance that was placed on the Nov. 2 ballot,” Lamontagne said.
Earlier this year, First Wind proposed a $60 million project to build 12 turbines on sections of Black Mountain and a nearby mountain.
Their Longfellow project instantly created a rift between pro- and anti-wind residents in Rumford.
Voters, however, enacted and then extended a moratorium on such projects to develop a law regulating such development.
Few residents attended the first of two public hearings on Monday night on the proposed ordinance that was described as a protective measure for townspeople.
It was drafted by the Board of Selectmen's appointed Wind Power Advisory Committee and promptly labeled anti-wind by First Wind's Director of Development, Neil Kiely, and as anti-business by Selectman Mark Belanger.
When presented to selectmen on Sept. 15, the board approved it 4-1 with Belanger the lone dissenter.
Since then, board Chairman Brad Adley attempted to put a second less-restrictive ordinance on the ballot but withdrew it last month after learning it's only a state template and not a working ordinance.
Adley and Belanger have also been threatened and publicly accused of taking bribes from First Wind, because of their stance on the proposed ordinance. Town Manager Carlo Puiia said he, too, was also targeted.
Adley and Puiia declined to reveal who they said threatened to start a recall against them for “unethical behavior” if they put a second wind ordinance on the ballot.
“It's like a car accident, it's gotten personal,” Adley said recently.
“It got nasty. I got a call from a lady in New York and a couple of threatening e-mails from her after."
"I've gotten nasty e-mails," he said. "It's almost like there is an outside influence working this and there very well could be. It's like they're using a playbook.”
All Puiia would say is that it “was local residents that were discussing the removal of two selectpersons for unethical conduct and myself included.”
He said no town official has taken any bribes.
“It's very ironic that those that point the finger at the developers for having a lack of ethics would resort to tactics of bullying or insinuations that would be damaging to the credibility of the individual that's serving,” Puiia said.
Messages to Belanger have not been returned, but he spoke about being threatened by committee members via a letter to the editor published on Sept. 29 in the Rumford Falls Times.
“It troubles me to think that members of this committee and others who support them would resort to political blackmail to coerce the majority of the board,” Belanger wrote.
“I can assure you that I have not taken anything from First Wind, not even as much as a coffee,” he said. “They were nothing but professional throughout this whole process.”
Late last month, First Wind polled 175 Rumford residents by phone to learn whether they favored the Longfellow project and to create an awareness of the proposed wind ordinance. Lamontagne declined to reveal what they learned.
Residents can view and discuss the ordinance at the special business meeting at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 12, in Muskie Auditorium at Mountain Valley High School, and at the second public hearing at 7 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 14, in Rumford Falls Auditorium.
Kiely, from First Wind, is scheduled to talk about the ordinance at both meetings.
Lamontagne said the First Wind office at 180 Congress St. is considered temporary pending the outcome of the Nov. 2 vote. Balloting is from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Nov. 2 at the American Legion near First Wind's new office.
“We will be making a permanent commitment to an office in Rumford if the proposed Longfellow project is allowed to proceed,” Lamontagne said.
“We are not planning to staff it full time, but (will) instead use it as a base of operations as we launch our efforts to inform the citizens of Rumford about the benefits of wind energy and the serious flaws with the anti-wind ordinance that was placed on the Nov. 2 ballot,” Lamontagne said.
Earlier this year, First Wind proposed a $60 million project to build 12 turbines on sections of Black Mountain and a nearby mountain.
Their Longfellow project instantly created a rift between pro- and anti-wind residents in Rumford.
Voters, however, enacted and then extended a moratorium on such projects to develop a law regulating such development.
Few residents attended the first of two public hearings on Monday night on the proposed ordinance that was described as a protective measure for townspeople.
It was drafted by the Board of Selectmen's appointed Wind Power Advisory Committee and promptly labeled anti-wind by First Wind's Director of Development, Neil Kiely, and as anti-business by Selectman Mark Belanger.
When presented to selectmen on Sept. 15, the board approved it 4-1 with Belanger the lone dissenter.
Since then, board Chairman Brad Adley attempted to put a second less-restrictive ordinance on the ballot but withdrew it last month after learning it's only a state template and not a working ordinance.
Adley and Belanger have also been threatened and publicly accused of taking bribes from First Wind, because of their stance on the proposed ordinance. Town Manager Carlo Puiia said he, too, was also targeted.
Adley and Puiia declined to reveal who they said threatened to start a recall against them for “unethical behavior” if they put a second wind ordinance on the ballot.
“It's like a car accident, it's gotten personal,” Adley said recently.
“It got nasty. I got a call from a lady in New York and a couple of threatening e-mails from her after."
"I've gotten nasty e-mails," he said. "It's almost like there is an outside influence working this and there very well could be. It's like they're using a playbook.”
All Puiia would say is that it “was local residents that were discussing the removal of two selectpersons for unethical conduct and myself included.”
He said no town official has taken any bribes.
“It's very ironic that those that point the finger at the developers for having a lack of ethics would resort to tactics of bullying or insinuations that would be damaging to the credibility of the individual that's serving,” Puiia said.
Messages to Belanger have not been returned, but he spoke about being threatened by committee members via a letter to the editor published on Sept. 29 in the Rumford Falls Times.
“It troubles me to think that members of this committee and others who support them would resort to political blackmail to coerce the majority of the board,” Belanger wrote.
“I can assure you that I have not taken anything from First Wind, not even as much as a coffee,” he said. “They were nothing but professional throughout this whole process.”
Late last month, First Wind polled 175 Rumford residents by phone to learn whether they favored the Longfellow project and to create an awareness of the proposed wind ordinance. Lamontagne declined to reveal what they learned.
Residents can view and discuss the ordinance at the special business meeting at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 12, in Muskie Auditorium at Mountain Valley High School, and at the second public hearing at 7 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 14, in Rumford Falls Auditorium.
Kiely, from First Wind, is scheduled to talk about the ordinance at both meetings.
Lamontagne said the First Wind office at 180 Congress St. is considered temporary pending the outcome of the Nov. 2 vote. Balloting is from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Nov. 2 at the American Legion near First Wind's new office.
“We will be making a permanent commitment to an office in Rumford if the proposed Longfellow project is allowed to proceed,” Lamontagne said.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Letter: Misquoted? Tell the DEC, USFWS ...
In reply to Invenergy’s current promoter of Stony Creek energy project, Michael Mulcahey, and his unfounded attack (“Facts about Stony Creek Wind Farm misrepresented,” letter, Sept. 15) on “Selling out Orangeville?” (letter, Aug. 21) by Cathi Orr. Given that the state Department of Environmental Conservation and the Department of the Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) were quoted verbatim ...
There is a harvest moon this warm September evening just breaking the eastern horizon, Mr. Mulcahey, dusk has arrived and as I walk out into the seemingly never ending fields, hills and endless unencumbered evening skies ... all I hear is the soft rustling of a pleasant breeze in the willows and the harmony of crickets, Canadian geese and the Orangeville nightlife ... and no industrial wind turbines with their constant noise at decibel levels that the DEC guidelines on “noise” classify as “intolerable,” noise that drives people away from their homes, and farms.
In the minutes from the Aug. 12, 2010, Orangeville town meeting ... it is recorded that I asked Supervisor (Susan) May how the Town Board as lead agency was going to deal with the inadequacies, missing data, and errors of Invenergy’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that had been mentioned by NYDEC, USFWS, and several other agencies. Supervisor May received these letters in April and May 2010, addressed to her at the Town Hall, but she replied: “Right now it is in the experts’ hands. The Town Board has not even seen any of this information yet. That is why we hired an engineer (Stantec ).” (Remember, Invenergy is paying Stantec and used this same engineer for the High Sheldon wind energy project).
You can find several federal and state agencies’ critiques and comments on the Orangeville DEIS at the Attica and Warsaw libraries, or check the CSOO website (www.csoo.info). These are also on file at the Orangeville Town Hall.
The Town Board of Orangeville as the lead agency in this industrial wind project should be interested to know what is in the DEIS prepared by Invenergy, and federal and state agency comments on the inadequacies of it. Wouldn’t Town Board officials find it very difficult to remain objective when their land leases with Invenergy might be in jeopardy if they didn’t help facilitate the industrial wind turbine project?
Orangeville is unique with its 14,500 acres of agriculture and forest which dominate the study area (USFWS). It contains some of the largest remaining blocks of forest habitat — 7,438 acres in total. Approximately 41 percent of the turbines would be built in forest habitat. Roads, buried electric cable, and turbine pad installation within forests can result in reduced habitat quality, smaller forest patch size, and changes in vegetation structure, etc.
So how could one figure that an industrial wind turbine project complete with all the negative impacts including Invenergy’s statement in the DEIS that 163 Orangeville residents would be subject to noise, shadow flicker, etc., be beneficial to the environment?
Industrial wind salesmen offer to give communities just pennies back of their own money, over 50 percent of the citizens’ own tax money goes to finance these wind projects. This money Invenergy talks about in the form of economic benefits is a trade-off for permission to destroy the very environment, they claim, they wish to save.
Mulcahey states, “Since operations ( Invenergy’s High Sheldon industrial wind turbine project) began more than a year ago, a vast majority of Sheldon residents have been extremely pleased with the results.”
I would then ask Mr, Mulcahey: “Would these be the same Sheldon residents that have signed approximately 70 industrial wind turbine land-lease contracts? And are these also the residents that have signed ‘good neighbor’ contracts (also known as gag, ‘shut-up,’ or confidentiality contracts)?”
Consider the actual wording of an Orangeville landowner contract with Invenergy: Owner shall not disclose the terms of this agreement to any parties other than its attorney or immediate family members (pg. 6, 9.1). Is this Invenergy and the Orangeville Town Board’s idea of transparency and ethical behavior? How much do you think your property will be worth if you try to sell it tied to these stipulations?
The contracted landowner also waives the right the right to sue.(“Owner also waives the right to institute summary proceedings in connection with this agreement including any action pursuant to New York Property Action and Proceedings. Law Article 7.”)
And lastly, we the Orangeville residents will not rest assured that Invenergy is concerned about the environment based on past example. One such example is the 45,000 tons of slag that was ordered by Invenergy from the 100-year-old federal brownfield cleanup operation on the grounds of the former Bethlehem Steel plant site (“Sheldon News,” Nov. 18, 2008, vol.1, by Councilman Glenn Cramer). This slag is what remains from over 100 years of industrial steel production and pollution. Pockets of contamination can and do exist there. This “iron slag” was hauled into Sheldon and subsequently dumped on Invenergy leased land, on agricultural fields of Sheldon, at depths of 4 feet deep and 32 feet wide. This done despite the fact that the Sheldon DEIS called for stone fill.
In a letter dated Sept. 13, 2008, the state Department of Agriculture and Markets responded to an inquiry by the High Sheldon Wind Farm in regards to the use of “iron slag” on nearly 20 miles of new (access) roads needed for the new wind project. “It appears that the use of this industrial by-product may be acceptable as “structural fill’ in an urban or industrial setting, however, the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets does not support the use of any adulterated industrial by-product material (such as steel slag) as road base on, or adjacent to, agricultural lands used for the production of food and/or forage crops.” This letter goes on to explain the reasons behind their position. (A copy can be found at the Sheldon Town Hall.)
The Sheldon residents will now be stuck with the future consequences of that nasty decision. Can Invenergy be trusted not to use this “slag” on Orangeville agricultural fields in light of their questionable tactics?
Therefore, Invenergy, when Orangeville municipal officers put their personal financial agenda and business dealings with a multinational million-dollar corporation, before the health, safety and welfare of the people of Orangeville, forming zoning laws that facilitate this very same business project that is located in Orangeville, that is what I, in my opinion, call the “selling out of Orangeville.”
Cathi Orr is founder of the Clear Skies Over Orangeville Rural Preservation Coalition.
There is a harvest moon this warm September evening just breaking the eastern horizon, Mr. Mulcahey, dusk has arrived and as I walk out into the seemingly never ending fields, hills and endless unencumbered evening skies ... all I hear is the soft rustling of a pleasant breeze in the willows and the harmony of crickets, Canadian geese and the Orangeville nightlife ... and no industrial wind turbines with their constant noise at decibel levels that the DEC guidelines on “noise” classify as “intolerable,” noise that drives people away from their homes, and farms.
In the minutes from the Aug. 12, 2010, Orangeville town meeting ... it is recorded that I asked Supervisor (Susan) May how the Town Board as lead agency was going to deal with the inadequacies, missing data, and errors of Invenergy’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that had been mentioned by NYDEC, USFWS, and several other agencies. Supervisor May received these letters in April and May 2010, addressed to her at the Town Hall, but she replied: “Right now it is in the experts’ hands. The Town Board has not even seen any of this information yet. That is why we hired an engineer (Stantec ).” (Remember, Invenergy is paying Stantec and used this same engineer for the High Sheldon wind energy project).
You can find several federal and state agencies’ critiques and comments on the Orangeville DEIS at the Attica and Warsaw libraries, or check the CSOO website (www.csoo.info). These are also on file at the Orangeville Town Hall.
The Town Board of Orangeville as the lead agency in this industrial wind project should be interested to know what is in the DEIS prepared by Invenergy, and federal and state agency comments on the inadequacies of it. Wouldn’t Town Board officials find it very difficult to remain objective when their land leases with Invenergy might be in jeopardy if they didn’t help facilitate the industrial wind turbine project?
Orangeville is unique with its 14,500 acres of agriculture and forest which dominate the study area (USFWS). It contains some of the largest remaining blocks of forest habitat — 7,438 acres in total. Approximately 41 percent of the turbines would be built in forest habitat. Roads, buried electric cable, and turbine pad installation within forests can result in reduced habitat quality, smaller forest patch size, and changes in vegetation structure, etc.
So how could one figure that an industrial wind turbine project complete with all the negative impacts including Invenergy’s statement in the DEIS that 163 Orangeville residents would be subject to noise, shadow flicker, etc., be beneficial to the environment?
Industrial wind salesmen offer to give communities just pennies back of their own money, over 50 percent of the citizens’ own tax money goes to finance these wind projects. This money Invenergy talks about in the form of economic benefits is a trade-off for permission to destroy the very environment, they claim, they wish to save.
Mulcahey states, “Since operations ( Invenergy’s High Sheldon industrial wind turbine project) began more than a year ago, a vast majority of Sheldon residents have been extremely pleased with the results.”
I would then ask Mr, Mulcahey: “Would these be the same Sheldon residents that have signed approximately 70 industrial wind turbine land-lease contracts? And are these also the residents that have signed ‘good neighbor’ contracts (also known as gag, ‘shut-up,’ or confidentiality contracts)?”
Consider the actual wording of an Orangeville landowner contract with Invenergy: Owner shall not disclose the terms of this agreement to any parties other than its attorney or immediate family members (pg. 6, 9.1). Is this Invenergy and the Orangeville Town Board’s idea of transparency and ethical behavior? How much do you think your property will be worth if you try to sell it tied to these stipulations?
The contracted landowner also waives the right the right to sue.(“Owner also waives the right to institute summary proceedings in connection with this agreement including any action pursuant to New York Property Action and Proceedings. Law Article 7.”)
And lastly, we the Orangeville residents will not rest assured that Invenergy is concerned about the environment based on past example. One such example is the 45,000 tons of slag that was ordered by Invenergy from the 100-year-old federal brownfield cleanup operation on the grounds of the former Bethlehem Steel plant site (“Sheldon News,” Nov. 18, 2008, vol.1, by Councilman Glenn Cramer). This slag is what remains from over 100 years of industrial steel production and pollution. Pockets of contamination can and do exist there. This “iron slag” was hauled into Sheldon and subsequently dumped on Invenergy leased land, on agricultural fields of Sheldon, at depths of 4 feet deep and 32 feet wide. This done despite the fact that the Sheldon DEIS called for stone fill.
In a letter dated Sept. 13, 2008, the state Department of Agriculture and Markets responded to an inquiry by the High Sheldon Wind Farm in regards to the use of “iron slag” on nearly 20 miles of new (access) roads needed for the new wind project. “It appears that the use of this industrial by-product may be acceptable as “structural fill’ in an urban or industrial setting, however, the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets does not support the use of any adulterated industrial by-product material (such as steel slag) as road base on, or adjacent to, agricultural lands used for the production of food and/or forage crops.” This letter goes on to explain the reasons behind their position. (A copy can be found at the Sheldon Town Hall.)
The Sheldon residents will now be stuck with the future consequences of that nasty decision. Can Invenergy be trusted not to use this “slag” on Orangeville agricultural fields in light of their questionable tactics?
Therefore, Invenergy, when Orangeville municipal officers put their personal financial agenda and business dealings with a multinational million-dollar corporation, before the health, safety and welfare of the people of Orangeville, forming zoning laws that facilitate this very same business project that is located in Orangeville, that is what I, in my opinion, call the “selling out of Orangeville.”
Cathi Orr is founder of the Clear Skies Over Orangeville Rural Preservation Coalition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)