CARROLL PLANTATION - The euphemisms of pro-wind developers at a LURC hearing to add Kossuth Township to the expedited wind development zone highlight last fall offered a picture of disturbing political and financial alliances that scar Maine landscapes.
First Wind, a money-losing firm needing federal stimulus money for its projects, proposes to build turbines in the viewshed of the beautiful Downeast chain of lakes.
First Wind declared to LURC that the Downeast lakes would not be compromised by its development.
Yet, its petition does not refer to strong evidence of economic and ecological drawbacks to wind power.
The burden of proof should rest with First Wind to provide rigorous evidence it won't harm rural communities, mountaintop ecosystems or birds.
First Wind utilizes Gov. John Baldacci's short-sighted regulations that grease the skids for wind developers to erect inefficient, money-losing wind farms over cherished Maine's landscapes.
Wind development in Maine has contributed to $2.5 trillion in debt amassed by the Obama administration.
Environmental and civic groups often support wind projects because developers like First Wind give them pre-permitting donations to insure their support.
At the meeting, Maine Audubon, Natural Resources Council of Maine and Baskahegan Land Co. capitulated to First Wind's petition to expand the haphazard expedited wind development zone.
Maine Audubon received donations from First Wind, and has also ignored the fact that wind turbines kill huge numbers of birds.
The pro-industry American Wind Energy Association reports that each megawatt of installed wind-power kills between one and six birds annually.
The United States had 25,000 megawatts of wind turbines by 2009, and no fines to wind developers for roughly 100,000 annual bird deaths.
How long will this capitulation continue? The departing governor wants wind energy development on 25,000 to 50,000 acres of priceless Maine mountaintops. Mainers need look no further than Mars Hill to see what "green" development really looks like.
Roger Milliken of Baskahegan Land testified at the meeting.
Baskahegan stands to make lease money from First Wind, so I wasn't surprised to hear Milliken's slant.
But I was surprised by his short-sighted reasons, for Baskahegan's record was once heralded for how timberlands could be sustainably managed.
Milliken cited Appalachian coal mines and the BP spill as reasons for wind turbines. Yet, he failed to divulge the rest of the tale.
First Wind claims that wind development would help the economy sounds similar to Appalachian coal miners trying to keep employment they already have.
Wind farms require only one permanent job for every 10 megawatts of installation. No turbine parts are made instate.
Increasing domestic wind production won't reverse climate change. American coal is being exported to China, to whom we owe debt amassed in part to finance wind energy.
Coal that we won't burn, China will, and thus global carbon emissions will be the same, with or without inefficient wind development.
Due to inconsistent and inefficient production, wind turbines need 100 percent back-up from energy sources like coal.
Milliken failed to mention that the Obama administration, which provides taxpayer-supported stimulus money to develop wind power in Maine, also gave BP critical exemptions to deepwater drilling one week before the well explosion.
Is it just coincidence that BP supported Obama's campaign?
In the Rangeleys, Baldacci recently declared, "It's all about that view. That view says, 'Maine. It gives people an inspiration and it's going to be that way forever.' "
His statements seemed unusually paradoxical coming from a man so aggressive at courting wind developers like First Wind and Iberdrola.
The latter company now demands a continuation of Maine policies (taxpayer subsidies) to bankroll wind development and upgrade transmission lines.
I wondered how Maine reached this precipice, where developers and politicians permanently scar beautiful Maine landscapes.
It seemed a strange twist for a state that had once prided itself on financially sound, aesthetically pleasing development, and even outlawed billboards decades ago.
I was reminded of Baldacci's comments after the hearing, when I climbed atop a wild Maine mountain at the peak of leaf season.
The slate-gray skies of autumn seemed to pull brilliant fall colors to the far reaches of the horizon.
Gazing upon miles of lakes and forests, I too concluded that "It's all about that view.'
And thanks to Baldacci, the future of that view is as uncertain as the legacy of the governor himself.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Hammond wind panel OKs property guarantee
HAMMOND — The town's Wind Committee voted 9-1 Tuesday evening to adopt the controversial Residential Property Value Guarantee and move it on to the Town Council as part of its proposed wind zoning law.
Committee member and wind farm leaseholder Michele W. McQueer cast the lone dissenting vote.
With the move, the committee appears to have taken direct aim at the company most interested in locating a wind farm in Hammond.
In a recent letter from Iberdrola Renewables to the committee, Mark Epstein, senior counsel, wrote, "We believe that if the Committee chooses to pursue the RPVG, it will prevent any development of windpower facilities in Hammond."
Read the entire article
Committee member and wind farm leaseholder Michele W. McQueer cast the lone dissenting vote.
With the move, the committee appears to have taken direct aim at the company most interested in locating a wind farm in Hammond.
In a recent letter from Iberdrola Renewables to the committee, Mark Epstein, senior counsel, wrote, "We believe that if the Committee chooses to pursue the RPVG, it will prevent any development of windpower facilities in Hammond."
Read the entire article
Hammond’s got balls! (New York)
Hammond, NY. (Full disclosure. For decades, my family had a summer property in Hammond Township. Dark Island in the Thousand Islands.) As I remember Hammond, it was one of the deadest towns this side of Montana. Right up there with those almost-ghost towns in the Sand Hills of Nebraska.
What passes for “downtown” is a half dozen houses, threadbare Presbyterian church, feed store, and two or three derelict storefronts. When I lived there the only traffic light was blinking—on a county road you could safely sit (literally) on when you were stupid and seventeen, and swill a six-pack with a buddy while enjoying the crickets of a warm summer evening.
Such was the town I knew.
Last night this bullshit town (don’t get me wrong; I adore the place) electrocuted energy giant Iberdrola. Right in its testicles.
Testicles, really? Spain’s smug steroid-bloated Wind Bull—the ballsiest of the ballsy.
Yeah, well, last night one crappy little upstate New York town fried the bull’s machismos. Both of ‘em.
How? Want the short answer? Brilliantly! Hammond’s wind committee overwhelmingly voted (9 to 1) to insist the town’s wind law must include a Residential Property Value Guarantee Agreement (RPVG). (The only member to vote “nay” was, unsurprisingly, a dead-ender with a lease. You couldn’t make this stuff up!)
Flexing its testosterone a couple weeks ago, Iberdrola blustered that any such provision would kill the entire project. To which the committee responded, with incredulity, “But didn’t you jokers tell us that property values are not damaged by your wind machines? Didn’t you rapturously assure us with (horseshit) expert studies that property value actually improves when a township is turned into an industrial wasteland of spinning monsters pounding like freight trains through the night?” Plus, “Hey, we’re prepared to believe you! If you clowns swear there’s no risk that people will flee their homes to escape your howling monsters—then for heaven’s sake you can have no quarrel with this by-your-own-admission wholly irrelevant and unnecessary clause we just wrote into our law!”
Talk about calling Big Wind’s bullshit bluff! Way to go Hammond! Run the bums out of town!
Carpetbaggers, carnies, cons, and grifters—all of ‘em. And not even elegant about it.
Okay, dear reader. Here it is: the text of Hammond’s RPVG. Download it, march this into your town meeting and insist it be included in your wind law.
Simple. Easy. Brilliant. So obvious you want to weep.
And when the Spanish thugs with their legal lackeys threaten to crucify your town in court, tell ‘em Dr. Calvin Luther Martin and Dr. Nina Pierpont, who are proud as punch this evening to have had the privilege of living in Hammond, NY, will gleefully contribute to your town’s legal defense fund.
No bull.
If you’re ever in the Thousand Islands, go see the castle at Dark Island and visit Boldt Castle and blah blah blah. But be sure to visit Hammond. And when you do, get out of your car, kiss the pavement—and sit by (the side of) that road and have a beer for a stupid 17-year-old on a hot July night long ago.
What passes for “downtown” is a half dozen houses, threadbare Presbyterian church, feed store, and two or three derelict storefronts. When I lived there the only traffic light was blinking—on a county road you could safely sit (literally) on when you were stupid and seventeen, and swill a six-pack with a buddy while enjoying the crickets of a warm summer evening.
Such was the town I knew.
Last night this bullshit town (don’t get me wrong; I adore the place) electrocuted energy giant Iberdrola. Right in its testicles.
Testicles, really? Spain’s smug steroid-bloated Wind Bull—the ballsiest of the ballsy.
Yeah, well, last night one crappy little upstate New York town fried the bull’s machismos. Both of ‘em.
How? Want the short answer? Brilliantly! Hammond’s wind committee overwhelmingly voted (9 to 1) to insist the town’s wind law must include a Residential Property Value Guarantee Agreement (RPVG). (The only member to vote “nay” was, unsurprisingly, a dead-ender with a lease. You couldn’t make this stuff up!)
Flexing its testosterone a couple weeks ago, Iberdrola blustered that any such provision would kill the entire project. To which the committee responded, with incredulity, “But didn’t you jokers tell us that property values are not damaged by your wind machines? Didn’t you rapturously assure us with (horseshit) expert studies that property value actually improves when a township is turned into an industrial wasteland of spinning monsters pounding like freight trains through the night?” Plus, “Hey, we’re prepared to believe you! If you clowns swear there’s no risk that people will flee their homes to escape your howling monsters—then for heaven’s sake you can have no quarrel with this by-your-own-admission wholly irrelevant and unnecessary clause we just wrote into our law!”
Talk about calling Big Wind’s bullshit bluff! Way to go Hammond! Run the bums out of town!
Carpetbaggers, carnies, cons, and grifters—all of ‘em. And not even elegant about it.
Okay, dear reader. Here it is: the text of Hammond’s RPVG. Download it, march this into your town meeting and insist it be included in your wind law.
Simple. Easy. Brilliant. So obvious you want to weep.
And when the Spanish thugs with their legal lackeys threaten to crucify your town in court, tell ‘em Dr. Calvin Luther Martin and Dr. Nina Pierpont, who are proud as punch this evening to have had the privilege of living in Hammond, NY, will gleefully contribute to your town’s legal defense fund.
No bull.
If you’re ever in the Thousand Islands, go see the castle at Dark Island and visit Boldt Castle and blah blah blah. But be sure to visit Hammond. And when you do, get out of your car, kiss the pavement—and sit by (the side of) that road and have a beer for a stupid 17-year-old on a hot July night long ago.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Vermont group pledges continued opposition to wind farm
A local opposition group in Vermont has pledged to make an appeal to the state’s Supreme Court if a current challenge to a utility-scale wind project fails.
Energize Vermont, a group fighting development of utility-scale wind projects in the Green Mountain State, said yesterday that it will continue action against First Wind’s Sheffield Wind project if an appeal to the facility’s stormwater construction permit fails.
The permit was granted by the state’s Agency of Natural Resources, regulating the impact of construction on local streams.
Observers of the proposed Sheffield Wind project reacted with surprise to last week’s announcement from First Wind that financing had been secured for the project.
Initial construction on the Sheffield project began this fall.
Local opposition to the wind project has focused on questions about First Wind’s ability to finance the project in the light of the company’s decision to cancel a public offering of stock owing to the state of the wind market (see this BrighterEnergy.org story).
However, Boston-based First Wind announced last week that it had secured $76 million in financing for the 40-megawatt Sheffield project, with KeyBank National Association as lead arranger (see this BrighterEnergy.org story).
Energize Vermont said yesterday that it believed securing finance for a wind project before the end of permit litigation was “unusual”.
“Uncertainty”
Stephanie Kaplan, an attorney representing Sheffield project neighbors, pledged continued uncertainty for the project even if a current motion against the project’s permit fails.
She said: “The level of uncertainty that exists for this project is very significant. A motion to alter the court decision that we filed in early September still has not been resolved, and if the court does not reverse its decision, we intend to appeal to the Supreme Court.
“We would not appeal if we did not strongly believe that the permit was improperly granted and we are likely to prevail on appeal.” Kaplan continued. “I hope that the banks and project financers know that the stormwater permit is not yet final and is subject to reversal until all appeals are over.”
First Wind focuses on developing wind farms in the Northeast and western regions of the US, including Hawaii. The company current has seven wind power facilities in operation, with a capacity of 504MW.
Energize Vermont describes itself as a “pro-renewable energy non-profit”, but argues against the development of utility-scale wind farms in Vermont. The group states that it believes energy efficiency measures and solar power are the answers to the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Ms Kaplan said that the filing of the Supreme Court appeal awaited Judge Meredith Wright’s decision on the motion to alter that neighbors in Environmental Court filed in September.
“This case is critical because the application of basic water quality protections is at issue. The ANR permit for Sheffield did not enforce well-established state and federal standards. If that disregard for the law that protects pristine waters in Vermont is acceptable in this case, then it will also be ignored for other projects, and Vermont’s entire stormwater pollution prevention and water quality protection programs are at risk,” Ms Kaplan concluded.
Energize Vermont, a group fighting development of utility-scale wind projects in the Green Mountain State, said yesterday that it will continue action against First Wind’s Sheffield Wind project if an appeal to the facility’s stormwater construction permit fails.
The permit was granted by the state’s Agency of Natural Resources, regulating the impact of construction on local streams.
Observers of the proposed Sheffield Wind project reacted with surprise to last week’s announcement from First Wind that financing had been secured for the project.
Initial construction on the Sheffield project began this fall.
Local opposition to the wind project has focused on questions about First Wind’s ability to finance the project in the light of the company’s decision to cancel a public offering of stock owing to the state of the wind market (see this BrighterEnergy.org story).
However, Boston-based First Wind announced last week that it had secured $76 million in financing for the 40-megawatt Sheffield project, with KeyBank National Association as lead arranger (see this BrighterEnergy.org story).
Energize Vermont said yesterday that it believed securing finance for a wind project before the end of permit litigation was “unusual”.
“Uncertainty”
Stephanie Kaplan, an attorney representing Sheffield project neighbors, pledged continued uncertainty for the project even if a current motion against the project’s permit fails.
She said: “The level of uncertainty that exists for this project is very significant. A motion to alter the court decision that we filed in early September still has not been resolved, and if the court does not reverse its decision, we intend to appeal to the Supreme Court.
“We would not appeal if we did not strongly believe that the permit was improperly granted and we are likely to prevail on appeal.” Kaplan continued. “I hope that the banks and project financers know that the stormwater permit is not yet final and is subject to reversal until all appeals are over.”
First Wind focuses on developing wind farms in the Northeast and western regions of the US, including Hawaii. The company current has seven wind power facilities in operation, with a capacity of 504MW.
Energize Vermont describes itself as a “pro-renewable energy non-profit”, but argues against the development of utility-scale wind farms in Vermont. The group states that it believes energy efficiency measures and solar power are the answers to the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Ms Kaplan said that the filing of the Supreme Court appeal awaited Judge Meredith Wright’s decision on the motion to alter that neighbors in Environmental Court filed in September.
“This case is critical because the application of basic water quality protections is at issue. The ANR permit for Sheffield did not enforce well-established state and federal standards. If that disregard for the law that protects pristine waters in Vermont is acceptable in this case, then it will also be ignored for other projects, and Vermont’s entire stormwater pollution prevention and water quality protection programs are at risk,” Ms Kaplan concluded.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Wind turbine destroyed by fire
This is in Clear Lake, Iowa. It burned up a week or two ago. The skeleton is still standing there. Click the pictures for full size.
Friday, December 24, 2010
First Wind aims to put more financing in its sails
First Wind Holdings Inc. could have gone public in October, but it wouldn’t have been on ideal terms, the company’s CEO said.
“We could’ve done a deal,” CEO Paul Gaynor said in a recent interview. But the company would have only pulled in about $200 million from investors, far short of what the company had hoped to raise through the IPO. The proceeds would have been used as equity for new projects and to pay off a high-interest loan.
Now, the Boston-based wind farm developer is pursuing Plan B. The company expects to complete private financing in the range of ...
“We could’ve done a deal,” CEO Paul Gaynor said in a recent interview. But the company would have only pulled in about $200 million from investors, far short of what the company had hoped to raise through the IPO. The proceeds would have been used as equity for new projects and to pay off a high-interest loan.
Now, the Boston-based wind farm developer is pursuing Plan B. The company expects to complete private financing in the range of ...
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Chamber head speaks out against wind project
HAMMOND — The leader of the local business community says wind development here would deal a "devastating blow" to the local economy.
Cara A. "Candie" Bliss, president of the Black Lake Chamber of Commerce, said her view was shaped after examining wind development in other communities.
"As wind facilities were installed closer to home, we've followed the effects on their communities," she said. "As more time has passed, it has become harder and harder to discount the testimonies of folks who are actually dealing with the realities of living in or near these industrial wind farms."
She said residents in Jefferson and Lewis counties, as well as Ontario, have made it clear that wind development has affected them negatively.
Read the entire article
Cara A. "Candie" Bliss, president of the Black Lake Chamber of Commerce, said her view was shaped after examining wind development in other communities.
"As wind facilities were installed closer to home, we've followed the effects on their communities," she said. "As more time has passed, it has become harder and harder to discount the testimonies of folks who are actually dealing with the realities of living in or near these industrial wind farms."
She said residents in Jefferson and Lewis counties, as well as Ontario, have made it clear that wind development has affected them negatively.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
First Wind seeks $300M in private funding
Editors note: Next announcement from First Wind is that they are selling the Brooklyn Bridge.
First Wind Holdings Inc. expects to raise more money through private financing than it could have through an initial public offering, which the Boston-based wind farm developer abandoned in October.
Company CEO Paul Gaynor said in an interview that the firm expects to complete private financing in the range of $300 million in the first half of 2011, which will allow the company to develop wind projects into 2013. The company expects the funding to come from strategic investors who have financed wind power projects outside of the Northeast and want to expand into the region, Gaynor said.
“It was more prudent for us to stay private given the other private options that we have,” he said. “The private strategic sources of capital are a lot less nervous than the public markets.”
First Wind had expected to price its IPO in late October at up to $312 million, with shares in the range of $24 to $26. Proceeds would have been used to pay off a high-interest loan and as equity for new projects.
But midway through the week during which the IPO was expecting to price, First Wind cut the range down to $18 to $20, which would have raised up to $240 million.
In the end, Gaynor said, “we could've done a deal,” but the company would have only been able to pull in about $200 million from investors.
“The decision was, do you do (the IPO), take two-thirds of your money and go try to build two-thirds of your business plan,” he said. “Or do you say, ‘I’m going to stay private and try to raise from other sources of capital.’”
Though the IPO market overall has been weak, the public markets have been especially skittish about wind power companies after some major European wind companies have seen their shares fall by 50 percent or more, Gaynor said. Investors who’d lost money on European wind firms told First Wind, “I just don’t want to make that same mistake again,” he said. “That’s kind of what came through in the pricing.”
First Wind, which first filed its intentions to pursue an IPO in 2008, will consider trying again in another two years or so, Gaynor said.
First Wind has developed wind projects that are operational in Maine, New York, Hawaii and Utah and is in the process of developing a project in Vermont. The company said in a filing that it operated seven projects, with a combined capacity of 504 megawatts, as of Sept. 30. First Wind said it had four projects under construction, totaling 232 megawatts.
First Wind Holdings Inc. expects to raise more money through private financing than it could have through an initial public offering, which the Boston-based wind farm developer abandoned in October.
Company CEO Paul Gaynor said in an interview that the firm expects to complete private financing in the range of $300 million in the first half of 2011, which will allow the company to develop wind projects into 2013. The company expects the funding to come from strategic investors who have financed wind power projects outside of the Northeast and want to expand into the region, Gaynor said.
“It was more prudent for us to stay private given the other private options that we have,” he said. “The private strategic sources of capital are a lot less nervous than the public markets.”
First Wind had expected to price its IPO in late October at up to $312 million, with shares in the range of $24 to $26. Proceeds would have been used to pay off a high-interest loan and as equity for new projects.
But midway through the week during which the IPO was expecting to price, First Wind cut the range down to $18 to $20, which would have raised up to $240 million.
In the end, Gaynor said, “we could've done a deal,” but the company would have only been able to pull in about $200 million from investors.
“The decision was, do you do (the IPO), take two-thirds of your money and go try to build two-thirds of your business plan,” he said. “Or do you say, ‘I’m going to stay private and try to raise from other sources of capital.’”
Though the IPO market overall has been weak, the public markets have been especially skittish about wind power companies after some major European wind companies have seen their shares fall by 50 percent or more, Gaynor said. Investors who’d lost money on European wind firms told First Wind, “I just don’t want to make that same mistake again,” he said. “That’s kind of what came through in the pricing.”
First Wind, which first filed its intentions to pursue an IPO in 2008, will consider trying again in another two years or so, Gaynor said.
First Wind has developed wind projects that are operational in Maine, New York, Hawaii and Utah and is in the process of developing a project in Vermont. The company said in a filing that it operated seven projects, with a combined capacity of 504 megawatts, as of Sept. 30. First Wind said it had four projects under construction, totaling 232 megawatts.
Turbine noise raising concerns
It wasn’t noisy, but decibels were the issue during a public hearing at Cohocton’s town board meeting Monday.
The town board tabled a local law regarding windmill decibel levels after a resident raised concerns about noise impacting people on adjacent properties.
The law now goes back to the town planning board for review at their January meeting. It will come before the town board again during their February meeting.
The law deals with decibel levels for residential windmills. The legal limit for all windmills is 45 decibels, regardless of the height difference between residential and industrial turbines.
Read the entire article
The town board tabled a local law regarding windmill decibel levels after a resident raised concerns about noise impacting people on adjacent properties.
The law now goes back to the town planning board for review at their January meeting. It will come before the town board again during their February meeting.
The law deals with decibel levels for residential windmills. The legal limit for all windmills is 45 decibels, regardless of the height difference between residential and industrial turbines.
Read the entire article
Monday, December 20, 2010
The Wind Subsidy Bubble
Green pork should be a GOP budget target.
Ethanol isn't the only heavily subsidized energy source that won a multibillion dollar jackpot in last week's tax deal. The other big winner was the wind industry, which received a one year extension of a $3 billion grant program for renewable energy projects.
Talk about throwing good money after bad. Despite more than $30 billion in subsidies for "clean energy" in the 2009 stimulus bill, Big Wind still can't make it in the marketplace. Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, had warned that without last week's extension of the federal 1603 investment credit, the outlook for the wind industry would be "flatline or down." Some 20,000 wind energy jobs, about one-quarter of the industry's total, could have been lost, the wind lobby concedes. For most industries that would be an admission of failure, but in Washington this kind of forecast is used to justify more subsidies.
But what have these subsidies bought taxpayers? According to AWEA, in the first half of 2010 wind power installations "dropped by 57% and 71% from 2008 and 2009 levels." In the third quarter, the industry says it "added just 395 megawatts (MW) of wind-powered electric generating capacity," making it the lowest quarter since 2007. New wind installations are down 72% from last year to their lowest level since 2006. And this is supposed to be the miracle electricity source of the future?
The coal industry, which Mr. Obama's Environmental Protection Agency and Interior Department have done everything possible to curtail, added almost three times more to the nation's electric power capacity in the first nine months of 2010 (39%) than did wind (14%), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The grant program that Congress has extended was created in the 2008 stimulus bill. It forces taxpayers to pay 30% of a renewable energy project's costs. Big Wind insisted on these grants because wind energy producers don't make enough net income to take advantage of the generous renewable energy tax credit.
The industry also wants a federal renewable energy standard, which would require utilities to buy power from green energy projects regardless of price. Without that additional subsidy, AWEA concedes that wind power will "stall out." It is lobbying for billions of dollars of subsidies to cover the cost of hooking off-shore wind projects to the electricity transmission grid. And now that the cap-and-tax scheme on coal and oil and gas has failed in Congress, the windmillers want the EPA to use regulation to raise costs on carbon sources of power.
Big Wind also has lobbying operations in state capitals, where it has been pushing state renewable energy standards. More than half the states—mostly in the West and Northeast—have enacted these mandates, which are already inflating home and business electricity bills.
According to an analysis by Chris Horner, an energy expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the stimulus bill's subsidies for renewable energy cost taxpayers about $475,000 for every job generated. That's at least four times what it costs a nonsubsidized private firm to create a job—a lousy return on investment even for government.
The wind industry claims to employ 85,000 Americans. That's almost certainly an exaggeration, but if it is true it compares with roughly 140,000 miners and others directly employed by the coal industry. Wind accounts for a little more than 1% of electricity generation and coal almost 50%. So it takes at least 25 times more workers to produce a kilowatt of electricity from wind as from coal.
Given this level of inefficiency, it's no wonder that wind and solar energy require at least 20 times more in government subsidies per unit of electricity generated than the average for coal and natural gas, according to a 2007 study by the Energy Information Administration.
The wind industry gave the vast majority of its campaign contributions this election cycle to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Democrats. If Republicans are serious about shrinking the federal budget and ending corporate welfare, a very good target would be green pork, starting with wind.
Ethanol isn't the only heavily subsidized energy source that won a multibillion dollar jackpot in last week's tax deal. The other big winner was the wind industry, which received a one year extension of a $3 billion grant program for renewable energy projects.
Talk about throwing good money after bad. Despite more than $30 billion in subsidies for "clean energy" in the 2009 stimulus bill, Big Wind still can't make it in the marketplace. Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, had warned that without last week's extension of the federal 1603 investment credit, the outlook for the wind industry would be "flatline or down." Some 20,000 wind energy jobs, about one-quarter of the industry's total, could have been lost, the wind lobby concedes. For most industries that would be an admission of failure, but in Washington this kind of forecast is used to justify more subsidies.
But what have these subsidies bought taxpayers? According to AWEA, in the first half of 2010 wind power installations "dropped by 57% and 71% from 2008 and 2009 levels." In the third quarter, the industry says it "added just 395 megawatts (MW) of wind-powered electric generating capacity," making it the lowest quarter since 2007. New wind installations are down 72% from last year to their lowest level since 2006. And this is supposed to be the miracle electricity source of the future?
The coal industry, which Mr. Obama's Environmental Protection Agency and Interior Department have done everything possible to curtail, added almost three times more to the nation's electric power capacity in the first nine months of 2010 (39%) than did wind (14%), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The grant program that Congress has extended was created in the 2008 stimulus bill. It forces taxpayers to pay 30% of a renewable energy project's costs. Big Wind insisted on these grants because wind energy producers don't make enough net income to take advantage of the generous renewable energy tax credit.
The industry also wants a federal renewable energy standard, which would require utilities to buy power from green energy projects regardless of price. Without that additional subsidy, AWEA concedes that wind power will "stall out." It is lobbying for billions of dollars of subsidies to cover the cost of hooking off-shore wind projects to the electricity transmission grid. And now that the cap-and-tax scheme on coal and oil and gas has failed in Congress, the windmillers want the EPA to use regulation to raise costs on carbon sources of power.
Big Wind also has lobbying operations in state capitals, where it has been pushing state renewable energy standards. More than half the states—mostly in the West and Northeast—have enacted these mandates, which are already inflating home and business electricity bills.
According to an analysis by Chris Horner, an energy expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the stimulus bill's subsidies for renewable energy cost taxpayers about $475,000 for every job generated. That's at least four times what it costs a nonsubsidized private firm to create a job—a lousy return on investment even for government.
The wind industry claims to employ 85,000 Americans. That's almost certainly an exaggeration, but if it is true it compares with roughly 140,000 miners and others directly employed by the coal industry. Wind accounts for a little more than 1% of electricity generation and coal almost 50%. So it takes at least 25 times more workers to produce a kilowatt of electricity from wind as from coal.
Given this level of inefficiency, it's no wonder that wind and solar energy require at least 20 times more in government subsidies per unit of electricity generated than the average for coal and natural gas, according to a 2007 study by the Energy Information Administration.
The wind industry gave the vast majority of its campaign contributions this election cycle to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Democrats. If Republicans are serious about shrinking the federal budget and ending corporate welfare, a very good target would be green pork, starting with wind.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Wind Turbine Syndrome: “In their own words”
Congress just sent an $801 billion tax cut bill to President Obama for his signature. Obama will sign it into law. At the last minute, as a result of carpet-bombing lobbying and dire prophecies by the American Wind Energy Association, Democrats inserted language into the bill to extend the huge, absurd, direct federal subsidy for wind energy projects—guaranteeing Americans at least one more year of The Great Wind Energy Opera.
This means that you, dear reader, may wind up contemplating a wind turbine or two near your home, soon.
Should this happen, you’re doubtless going to hear (probably for the first time) the phrase “Wind Turbine Syndrome,” as your community debates this so-called “wind farm.” (It’s not a “farm”; it’s a major industrial plant.)
You will soon make an interesting connection. The people who have signed leases with the wind developers consider Wind Turbine Syndrome to be so much moonshine. As a Brewster, MA, town officer recently put it, “hogwash.” (Note: These “WTS = moonshine” experts signed those leases long before you were apprised of this whole project, but that’s a scandalous story for another day.)
Of course, the moonshine crowd has zero credentials, or, for that matter, any real knowledge of what Wind Turbine Syndrome in fact is. (Frankly, they wouldn’t know a syndrome from a Las Vegas hooker. Or a peer review from their pudenda.) They heard it’s moonshine from the wind developers—and that’s good enough for them.
But I digress. The point is, you’re looking down the barrel (a very large barrel!) of a wind turbine—maybe lots of them—and wondering if these things really, honest-to-god make people sick.
Short answer? Yes, they do. Sick enough that many either sell their homes (if they can), or they raise enough hell with the developer that the company (secretly) buys them out, or they abandon their home. (Lock the door and drive away. No kidding.)
Many more sit tight and suffer. And, since they haven’t read Pierpont, they can’t figure out why they’re getting pounding headaches and awakening at night in a panic, and why they feel like puking and get dizzy and have ringing (tinnitus) or pressure in their ears and feel like their insides are crawling, and—for the life of them—why they’re forgetting things, and can’t do many formerly mundane, simple tasks that require spatial thinking and spatial reasoning. (Um, early Alzheimer’s? Nope. Wind Turbine Syndrome.)
But you don’t want to hear it from me, right? You want to hear their beef in their own words, right? (Let’s call it the “unvarnished beef.”)
Pierpont gives it to you—yes, in their own words. Sixty-seven pages of it. Sixty-seven pages of what’s called, in medicine, “case histories.”
They look like this (click here).
Get Pierpont’s book and start reading those 67 pages.
In the remaining 230 pages, Pierpont explains the likely patho-physiology of their beef, which, incidentally, Big Wind (WIND) says is nothing more than, well, garden-variety hysteria. “They’re making it up,” in other words. WIND (“Why I Need Dollars”) calls it a “nocebo” effect. WIND seized on this risible explanation after it hired some shills to write a rebuttal to Pierpont’s research.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention. The big fight in this whole mess is between WIND and NIMBY. ”Why I Need Dollars” versus “Not In My Back Yard.” The WINDies want, um, the dollars, and for that they’re going to make all sorts of righteous speeches about “getting off Arab oil” and “global warming” and “doing our part” and “bringing home the troops” and “Wind Turbine Syndrome is bullshit” and “cats kill more birds than turbines” and “jobs jobs jobs” and “green economy” and so forth. You get the idea. The NIMBYs don’t want the turbines because they devastate their property value, industrialize the neighborhood, make many people seriously ill, do nothing for global warming and energy independence and the jobs are short-lived and wind energy raises your electricity bill, and so forth.
But I’ve digressed once more.
When you’re done reading the case histories, ponder this: Virtually everyone in these 67 pages moved out of their home. (Do people really, truly move out of their homes—or abandon them—over something they made up?)
Finally, this. There are thousands of people around the world who describe the identical cluster of symptoms—symptoms that started when the turbines went online, symptoms that disappear when people go away for several days, symptoms that reappear when people return home. Symptoms that steadily, insidiously worsen over time, because you can never “get used to” the patho-physiological jack-hammering of infrasound. (Sorry, my friend, the body just doesn’t work that way.)
Moonshine? You’ve got brains and you’ve got common sense and you’re an adult. You decide.
This means that you, dear reader, may wind up contemplating a wind turbine or two near your home, soon.
Should this happen, you’re doubtless going to hear (probably for the first time) the phrase “Wind Turbine Syndrome,” as your community debates this so-called “wind farm.” (It’s not a “farm”; it’s a major industrial plant.)
You will soon make an interesting connection. The people who have signed leases with the wind developers consider Wind Turbine Syndrome to be so much moonshine. As a Brewster, MA, town officer recently put it, “hogwash.” (Note: These “WTS = moonshine” experts signed those leases long before you were apprised of this whole project, but that’s a scandalous story for another day.)
Of course, the moonshine crowd has zero credentials, or, for that matter, any real knowledge of what Wind Turbine Syndrome in fact is. (Frankly, they wouldn’t know a syndrome from a Las Vegas hooker. Or a peer review from their pudenda.) They heard it’s moonshine from the wind developers—and that’s good enough for them.
But I digress. The point is, you’re looking down the barrel (a very large barrel!) of a wind turbine—maybe lots of them—and wondering if these things really, honest-to-god make people sick.
Short answer? Yes, they do. Sick enough that many either sell their homes (if they can), or they raise enough hell with the developer that the company (secretly) buys them out, or they abandon their home. (Lock the door and drive away. No kidding.)
Many more sit tight and suffer. And, since they haven’t read Pierpont, they can’t figure out why they’re getting pounding headaches and awakening at night in a panic, and why they feel like puking and get dizzy and have ringing (tinnitus) or pressure in their ears and feel like their insides are crawling, and—for the life of them—why they’re forgetting things, and can’t do many formerly mundane, simple tasks that require spatial thinking and spatial reasoning. (Um, early Alzheimer’s? Nope. Wind Turbine Syndrome.)
But you don’t want to hear it from me, right? You want to hear their beef in their own words, right? (Let’s call it the “unvarnished beef.”)
Pierpont gives it to you—yes, in their own words. Sixty-seven pages of it. Sixty-seven pages of what’s called, in medicine, “case histories.”
They look like this (click here).
Get Pierpont’s book and start reading those 67 pages.
In the remaining 230 pages, Pierpont explains the likely patho-physiology of their beef, which, incidentally, Big Wind (WIND) says is nothing more than, well, garden-variety hysteria. “They’re making it up,” in other words. WIND (“Why I Need Dollars”) calls it a “nocebo” effect. WIND seized on this risible explanation after it hired some shills to write a rebuttal to Pierpont’s research.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention. The big fight in this whole mess is between WIND and NIMBY. ”Why I Need Dollars” versus “Not In My Back Yard.” The WINDies want, um, the dollars, and for that they’re going to make all sorts of righteous speeches about “getting off Arab oil” and “global warming” and “doing our part” and “bringing home the troops” and “Wind Turbine Syndrome is bullshit” and “cats kill more birds than turbines” and “jobs jobs jobs” and “green economy” and so forth. You get the idea. The NIMBYs don’t want the turbines because they devastate their property value, industrialize the neighborhood, make many people seriously ill, do nothing for global warming and energy independence and the jobs are short-lived and wind energy raises your electricity bill, and so forth.
But I’ve digressed once more.
When you’re done reading the case histories, ponder this: Virtually everyone in these 67 pages moved out of their home. (Do people really, truly move out of their homes—or abandon them—over something they made up?)
Finally, this. There are thousands of people around the world who describe the identical cluster of symptoms—symptoms that started when the turbines went online, symptoms that disappear when people go away for several days, symptoms that reappear when people return home. Symptoms that steadily, insidiously worsen over time, because you can never “get used to” the patho-physiological jack-hammering of infrasound. (Sorry, my friend, the body just doesn’t work that way.)
Moonshine? You’ve got brains and you’ve got common sense and you’re an adult. You decide.
Friday, December 17, 2010
First Wind To Launch Sale, Equity Hunt
First Wind is about to launch a search for capital and a stake sale in its Northeast wind farm fleet as a way to capitalize its development pipeline since deciding to shelve its initial public offering. Morgan Stanley has been hired to raise capital at the holding company level, while Credit Suisse and Macquarie Capital run a process to sell stakes in its wind farms in the Northeast. Teasers have not gone out and a timeline for the process could not be learned.
First Wind wants to maintain a stake in the operating assets, says a banker. Infrastructure and pension funds are expected to be interested in buying stakes in its 270 MW Northeast fleet, observers say. First Wind will likely be considered an attractive partner, one banker says, pointing to its operating experience.
It has three operating farms in Maine : the 42 MW Mars Hill, 57 MW Stetson and 26 MW Stetson II. The developer owns the 125 MW Cohocton and 20 MW Steel Winds in New York . The farms have offtakers. At least two projects, including the 50 MW Rollins project in Maine and a 15 MW expansion to Steel Winds, are expected to be operating next year.
The Boston-based developer has 200-250 MW of projects it expects to bring to construction next year and had planned on using funds from the IPO to finance a portion of the development costs (PFR, 10/22). Backers D.E. Shaw & Co. and Madison Dearborn are not looking to exit the company, but want to pull in additional third-party investments, says an observer.
First Wind iced its IPO after investor commitments came in at the $16-18 range, below the roughly $19-20 range the company was targeting (PFR, 11/5).
A Macquarie spokeswoman and First Wind spokesman declined to comment while calls to officials at D.E. Shaw and Madison Dearborn were not returned. Spokespeople at Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley did not reply to inquiries.
First Wind wants to maintain a stake in the operating assets, says a banker. Infrastructure and pension funds are expected to be interested in buying stakes in its 270 MW Northeast fleet, observers say. First Wind will likely be considered an attractive partner, one banker says, pointing to its operating experience.
It has three operating farms in Maine : the 42 MW Mars Hill, 57 MW Stetson and 26 MW Stetson II. The developer owns the 125 MW Cohocton and 20 MW Steel Winds in New York . The farms have offtakers. At least two projects, including the 50 MW Rollins project in Maine and a 15 MW expansion to Steel Winds, are expected to be operating next year.
The Boston-based developer has 200-250 MW of projects it expects to bring to construction next year and had planned on using funds from the IPO to finance a portion of the development costs (PFR, 10/22). Backers D.E. Shaw & Co. and Madison Dearborn are not looking to exit the company, but want to pull in additional third-party investments, says an observer.
First Wind iced its IPO after investor commitments came in at the $16-18 range, below the roughly $19-20 range the company was targeting (PFR, 11/5).
A Macquarie spokeswoman and First Wind spokesman declined to comment while calls to officials at D.E. Shaw and Madison Dearborn were not returned. Spokespeople at Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley did not reply to inquiries.
CROH: Current Law's Setbacks Inadequate
HAMMOND - Concerned Residents of Hammond President Mary D. Hamilton made a presentation to the wind committee Thursday, including the group's recommendations for setback requirements for the placement of industrial wind turbines.
The first part of CROH's position paper focuses on Hammond's natural water resources - the shorelines of the St. Lawrence River and Black Lake.
Citing several resources, including the New York State Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance (SASS), New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO), Department of Environmental Conservation's New York Natural Heritage Program, and the Audobon Society, Mrs. Hamilton said, "The fact Hammond lies between two amazing water resources not only provides a unique distinction but poses a special situation, particularly with regards to the wildlife and migratory bird and bat population, and their scenic, environmental, recreational, and historical significance.
"These areas deserve special consideration in formulating setback conditions for an industrial wind law for the Town of Hammond."
Read the entire article
The first part of CROH's position paper focuses on Hammond's natural water resources - the shorelines of the St. Lawrence River and Black Lake.
Citing several resources, including the New York State Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance (SASS), New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO), Department of Environmental Conservation's New York Natural Heritage Program, and the Audobon Society, Mrs. Hamilton said, "The fact Hammond lies between two amazing water resources not only provides a unique distinction but poses a special situation, particularly with regards to the wildlife and migratory bird and bat population, and their scenic, environmental, recreational, and historical significance.
"These areas deserve special consideration in formulating setback conditions for an industrial wind law for the Town of Hammond."
Read the entire article
Thursday, December 16, 2010
A reason not to do business with Iberdola
I read with a great deal of interest the article covering the proceedings of the Hammond Wind Committee. Iberdrola threatening to leave caught my eye, but really did not come as a big surprise to me.
Apparently, some Hammond wind committee members would like a guarantee that their residents are not harmed by property value loss by living next to a farm of 75 500-foot-tall spinning structures. Wind developers across the country (including Iberdrola) have been touting their own financed findings of no impact on property values.
If Iberdrola were genuine in their claim that a wind project has no negative economic consequences for adjacent property owners, then any guarantee to make them whole costs Iberdrola nothing but still allows adjacent property owners to sleep comfortably in the knowledge that they can and will be made whole, if the development in Hammond results in significant loss in property values.
Why can't Iberdrola put their money where their mouth is? Number one, living next to a wind turbine farm does decrease the desirability and will decrease values. There are numerous studies that have shown that, which have been swept under the rug.
Number two, CNBC Financials in a report characterized Iberdrola as a troubled Spanish business desperate to raise cash and reported that they are selling off assets. This company is in financial trouble and wants to use unknowing landowners for their profit and wants to dismiss any responsibility for any damage they do.
The very approach of the developer saying to the community "we're going to take our money and go away if you don't do things our way" should be enough to convince anyone that Hammond has no business doing any business with these people.
Brooke Stark
Hammond
Apparently, some Hammond wind committee members would like a guarantee that their residents are not harmed by property value loss by living next to a farm of 75 500-foot-tall spinning structures. Wind developers across the country (including Iberdrola) have been touting their own financed findings of no impact on property values.
If Iberdrola were genuine in their claim that a wind project has no negative economic consequences for adjacent property owners, then any guarantee to make them whole costs Iberdrola nothing but still allows adjacent property owners to sleep comfortably in the knowledge that they can and will be made whole, if the development in Hammond results in significant loss in property values.
Why can't Iberdrola put their money where their mouth is? Number one, living next to a wind turbine farm does decrease the desirability and will decrease values. There are numerous studies that have shown that, which have been swept under the rug.
Number two, CNBC Financials in a report characterized Iberdrola as a troubled Spanish business desperate to raise cash and reported that they are selling off assets. This company is in financial trouble and wants to use unknowing landowners for their profit and wants to dismiss any responsibility for any damage they do.
The very approach of the developer saying to the community "we're going to take our money and go away if you don't do things our way" should be enough to convince anyone that Hammond has no business doing any business with these people.
Brooke Stark
Hammond
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)