Thursday, January 06, 2011
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Taxpayers subsidize wind power ‘scam’
Hidden in the tax bill passed by Congress last month is a grant program that pays cash to the wind industry to cover 30 percent of the cost of installing a wind farm. This is on top of state and federal tax breaks, doubly accelerated depreciation, and above market pricing that already amounts to 60 percent of capital cost. This costly stimulus program will provide billions of dollars to Spanish and Chinese companies.
The wind industry does claim to hire American workers. According to an energy expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the stimulus subsidies cost taxpayers about $475,000 for every job generated. This is a lousy return on an investment even for government. It is pretty obvious that the public should take another look at industrial wind and that both Democrat and Republican parties share the blame.
The wind industry gave the vast majority of its campaign contributions this election cycle to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party. Top Democratic fundraisers and lobbyists with links to the White House are behind a proposed wind farm in Texas that stands to get $450 million in stimulus money, even though a Chinese company would operate the farm and its turbines would be built in China. How will our government deal with the issue of Homeland Security when all of our power is controlled by foreign companies? These same foreign companies control the computer systems that control the power generators.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the Dallas entrepreneur T. Boone Pickens has finally admitted the obvious: “The wind energy business isn’t a very good one.” Pickens finally had the sense to abandon the wind business. But then, it’s his own money and he cares what happens to it. On the other hand, Congress is using our money, and they frankly don’t seem to care that it’s wasted. The industrial wind business is a scam from beginning to end.
It’s time for our federal, state and local elected officials to be held accountable if we are serious about the need to shrink the federal budget and end corporate welfare. Citizens in Wyoming County will continue to fight to preserve public safety, property values, economic viability, environmental integrity and quality of life for residents and future generations and we will continue to ask our Congressman, Senators, Assemblymen, New York Senator, county chairman, town boards and party chairmen where they stand on this issue. Are any of these elected officials part of the problem? Are any of these elected officials standing in line for this stimulus money? Are they adding to the debt that our grandchildren will have to pay?
The 2011 Budget/Appropriation bills will soon be presented at both the state and federal levels and our elected officials need to hear from us that we do not agree with these wasteful programs.
Steven Moultrup
Attica
The wind industry does claim to hire American workers. According to an energy expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the stimulus subsidies cost taxpayers about $475,000 for every job generated. This is a lousy return on an investment even for government. It is pretty obvious that the public should take another look at industrial wind and that both Democrat and Republican parties share the blame.
The wind industry gave the vast majority of its campaign contributions this election cycle to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party. Top Democratic fundraisers and lobbyists with links to the White House are behind a proposed wind farm in Texas that stands to get $450 million in stimulus money, even though a Chinese company would operate the farm and its turbines would be built in China. How will our government deal with the issue of Homeland Security when all of our power is controlled by foreign companies? These same foreign companies control the computer systems that control the power generators.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the Dallas entrepreneur T. Boone Pickens has finally admitted the obvious: “The wind energy business isn’t a very good one.” Pickens finally had the sense to abandon the wind business. But then, it’s his own money and he cares what happens to it. On the other hand, Congress is using our money, and they frankly don’t seem to care that it’s wasted. The industrial wind business is a scam from beginning to end.
It’s time for our federal, state and local elected officials to be held accountable if we are serious about the need to shrink the federal budget and end corporate welfare. Citizens in Wyoming County will continue to fight to preserve public safety, property values, economic viability, environmental integrity and quality of life for residents and future generations and we will continue to ask our Congressman, Senators, Assemblymen, New York Senator, county chairman, town boards and party chairmen where they stand on this issue. Are any of these elected officials part of the problem? Are any of these elected officials standing in line for this stimulus money? Are they adding to the debt that our grandchildren will have to pay?
The 2011 Budget/Appropriation bills will soon be presented at both the state and federal levels and our elected officials need to hear from us that we do not agree with these wasteful programs.
Steven Moultrup
Attica
Monday, January 03, 2011
False claims that “wind farms” provide large economic and job benefits
One would think that by now Obama Administration officials would admit that “wind farms” do not provide large economic and job benefits. However, recent Administration statements suggest the delusion continues and, perhaps, that officials do not understand why their expectations are unrealistic.
False expectations may be due to the infamous “JEDI” model (Jobs and Economic Development Impact model) developed for DOE’s National Renewable Energy “Laboratory” (NREL) by a wind industry consultant-lobbyist. Unfortunately, this “model”( paid for with our tax dollars) has been widely promoted by NREL and DOE and outputs from the model are used by “wind farm” developers to mislead the public, media, and government officials.
Economic models often produce false or misleading outputs because (a) the model itself is faulty, and/or (b) unrealistic assumptions are “fed into” to model, with the result that the models overstate national, state, and/or local job and other economic benefits. In the case of wind energy models, basic flaws and faulty assumptions often include one or more of the following:
1. Ignoring the fact that much of the capital cost of “wind farms” is for equipment purchased elsewhere, often imported from other countries. Some wind energy advocates claim that wind turbines are “manufactured” in the US when, in fact, they are merely assembled in the US using imported parts and components. About 75% of the capital cost of “wind farms” is for turbines, turbine parts and components, towers and blades – so a large share of the “wind farm” cost is for imports. These add to the outflow of wealth from the US and provide no economic or job benefits in the US.
2. Assuming that employment during project construction results in new jobs for local workers -- when most “wind farm” construction jobs are short term (6 months or less) and the overwhelming share of them are filled by specialized workers who are brought in temporarily.
3. Assuming that the very few permanent “wind farm” jobs are new jobs filled by local workers – when, in fact, these few permanent jobs are often filled by people brought in for short periods. Some “wind farm” owners contracts with suppliers of wind turbines and other equipment for maintenance work with the result that no “new” jobs for local workers are added.
4. Assuming that temporary workers who are brought in for short periods live and spend their pay checks -- and pay taxes -- locally when, in fact, these workers spend most of their wages where they and their families have permanent residences -- where the workers spend most of their weekends and where they pay nearly all of their taxes.
5. Assuming that the full purchase price of the goods and services purchased locally (often minimal in any case) has a local economic benefit. In fact, only the local value added may have a local economic benefit. This truth is illustrated by the purchase of a gallon of gasoline -- let's say for $3.00. Only the wages of the service station employees, the dealer's margin, and the taxes paid locally or to the state mayl have a local or state economic benefit. Economic benefits associated with the share of the $3.00 that pays for the crude oil (much of it imported), refining, wholesaling, and transportation generally flows elsewhere.
6. Assuming that land rental payments to land owners for allowing wind turbines all have local economic benefit. In fact, these payments will have little or no local economic benefit when the payments are to absentee landowners OR if the money is spent or invested elsewhere or is used to pay income taxes that flow to Washington DC or state capitals.
7. Using "input-output" models that spit out "indirect" job and other economic benefits that, in effect, magnify (a) all of the overestimates identified above, and (b) use unproven formula and data to calculate alleged “multiplier" effects.
8. Ignoring the environmental and economic COSTS imposed by “wind farm” development, which include (a) environmental, ecological, and economic costs associated with the production of the equipment, and constructing and operating the "wind farm" (e.g., site and road clearing, (b) wildlife habitat destruction, noise, bird and bat kills and interference with migration and refuges, (c) scenic impairment, (d) neighboring property value impairment, and (e) infrastructure costs.
9. Ignoring the fact that electricity produced from wind turbines, has less real value than electricity from reliable generating units -- because that output is intermittent, volatile and unreliable. Also, the electricity is most likely to be produced at night in colder months, not on hot weekday late afternoons in July and August when demand is high and the economic value of electricity is high.
10. Ignoring the "backup power" costs; i.e., the added cost resulting from having to keep reliable generating units immediately available (often running at less than peak efficiency) to keep electric grids in balance when those grids have to accept intermittent, volatile and unreliable output from "wind farms.”
11. Ignoring the fact that electricity from “wind farms” in remote areas generally results in high unit costs of transmission due to (a) the need to add transmission capacity, (b) the environmental, scenic and property value costs associated with transmission lines, (c) the electric transmission "line losses" (i.e., electricity produced by generating units but lost during transmission and never reaches customers or serves a useful purpose), and (d) inefficient use of transmission capacity because “wind farms” output is intermittent and unpredictable and seldom at the capacity of the transmission line that must be built to serve the “wind farm.”
12. Ignoring the fact that the higher true cost of the electricity from wind is passed along to ordinary electric customers and taxpayers via electric bills and tax bills which means that people who bear the costs have less money to spend on other needs (food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care -- or hundreds of other things normally purchased in local stores), thus reducing the jobs associated with that spending and undermining local economies that would benefit from supplying these needs.
13. Perhaps most important, ignoring the fact that the investment dollars going to "renewable" energy sources would otherwise be available for investment for other purposes that would produce greater economic benefits. “Wind farms” have very high capital costs and relatively low operating costs compared to generating units using traditional energy sources. They also create far fewer jobs, particularly long-term jobs, and far fewer local economic benefits. “Wind farms” are simply a poor choice if the goals are to create jobs, add local economic benefits, or hold down electric bills.
Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
False expectations may be due to the infamous “JEDI” model (Jobs and Economic Development Impact model) developed for DOE’s National Renewable Energy “Laboratory” (NREL) by a wind industry consultant-lobbyist. Unfortunately, this “model”( paid for with our tax dollars) has been widely promoted by NREL and DOE and outputs from the model are used by “wind farm” developers to mislead the public, media, and government officials.
Economic models often produce false or misleading outputs because (a) the model itself is faulty, and/or (b) unrealistic assumptions are “fed into” to model, with the result that the models overstate national, state, and/or local job and other economic benefits. In the case of wind energy models, basic flaws and faulty assumptions often include one or more of the following:
1. Ignoring the fact that much of the capital cost of “wind farms” is for equipment purchased elsewhere, often imported from other countries. Some wind energy advocates claim that wind turbines are “manufactured” in the US when, in fact, they are merely assembled in the US using imported parts and components. About 75% of the capital cost of “wind farms” is for turbines, turbine parts and components, towers and blades – so a large share of the “wind farm” cost is for imports. These add to the outflow of wealth from the US and provide no economic or job benefits in the US.
2. Assuming that employment during project construction results in new jobs for local workers -- when most “wind farm” construction jobs are short term (6 months or less) and the overwhelming share of them are filled by specialized workers who are brought in temporarily.
3. Assuming that the very few permanent “wind farm” jobs are new jobs filled by local workers – when, in fact, these few permanent jobs are often filled by people brought in for short periods. Some “wind farm” owners contracts with suppliers of wind turbines and other equipment for maintenance work with the result that no “new” jobs for local workers are added.
4. Assuming that temporary workers who are brought in for short periods live and spend their pay checks -- and pay taxes -- locally when, in fact, these workers spend most of their wages where they and their families have permanent residences -- where the workers spend most of their weekends and where they pay nearly all of their taxes.
5. Assuming that the full purchase price of the goods and services purchased locally (often minimal in any case) has a local economic benefit. In fact, only the local value added may have a local economic benefit. This truth is illustrated by the purchase of a gallon of gasoline -- let's say for $3.00. Only the wages of the service station employees, the dealer's margin, and the taxes paid locally or to the state mayl have a local or state economic benefit. Economic benefits associated with the share of the $3.00 that pays for the crude oil (much of it imported), refining, wholesaling, and transportation generally flows elsewhere.
6. Assuming that land rental payments to land owners for allowing wind turbines all have local economic benefit. In fact, these payments will have little or no local economic benefit when the payments are to absentee landowners OR if the money is spent or invested elsewhere or is used to pay income taxes that flow to Washington DC or state capitals.
7. Using "input-output" models that spit out "indirect" job and other economic benefits that, in effect, magnify (a) all of the overestimates identified above, and (b) use unproven formula and data to calculate alleged “multiplier" effects.
8. Ignoring the environmental and economic COSTS imposed by “wind farm” development, which include (a) environmental, ecological, and economic costs associated with the production of the equipment, and constructing and operating the "wind farm" (e.g., site and road clearing, (b) wildlife habitat destruction, noise, bird and bat kills and interference with migration and refuges, (c) scenic impairment, (d) neighboring property value impairment, and (e) infrastructure costs.
9. Ignoring the fact that electricity produced from wind turbines, has less real value than electricity from reliable generating units -- because that output is intermittent, volatile and unreliable. Also, the electricity is most likely to be produced at night in colder months, not on hot weekday late afternoons in July and August when demand is high and the economic value of electricity is high.
10. Ignoring the "backup power" costs; i.e., the added cost resulting from having to keep reliable generating units immediately available (often running at less than peak efficiency) to keep electric grids in balance when those grids have to accept intermittent, volatile and unreliable output from "wind farms.”
11. Ignoring the fact that electricity from “wind farms” in remote areas generally results in high unit costs of transmission due to (a) the need to add transmission capacity, (b) the environmental, scenic and property value costs associated with transmission lines, (c) the electric transmission "line losses" (i.e., electricity produced by generating units but lost during transmission and never reaches customers or serves a useful purpose), and (d) inefficient use of transmission capacity because “wind farms” output is intermittent and unpredictable and seldom at the capacity of the transmission line that must be built to serve the “wind farm.”
12. Ignoring the fact that the higher true cost of the electricity from wind is passed along to ordinary electric customers and taxpayers via electric bills and tax bills which means that people who bear the costs have less money to spend on other needs (food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care -- or hundreds of other things normally purchased in local stores), thus reducing the jobs associated with that spending and undermining local economies that would benefit from supplying these needs.
13. Perhaps most important, ignoring the fact that the investment dollars going to "renewable" energy sources would otherwise be available for investment for other purposes that would produce greater economic benefits. “Wind farms” have very high capital costs and relatively low operating costs compared to generating units using traditional energy sources. They also create far fewer jobs, particularly long-term jobs, and far fewer local economic benefits. “Wind farms” are simply a poor choice if the goals are to create jobs, add local economic benefits, or hold down electric bills.
Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
Wind power and big birds
Power from windmills is supposed to be great for the environment. But it’s not.
First, big wind farms are gobbling out vast areas of the West that until now were relatively undisturbed, sitting there as grazing land or farm fields, or as scenery.
Then there’s the deadly effect on birds. THe American Bird Conservancy says golden eagles, whooping cranes and a species of sage grouse are especially in danger from wind developments in the West.
The group reports that according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, more than 400,000 birds a year are killed when they are struck by the fast-moving blades of wind turbines.
“This figure is expected to rise significantly, and will likely eventually pass the million mark as wind power becomes increasingly ubiquitous under a Department of Energy plan to supply 20 percent of America’s power through wind by 2030,” the group says in a statement to the press.
The blades are not the only problem. As wind farms are developed in the desolate places where the wind is the strongest and most steady, additional transmission lines have to be strung across the West. The conservation group says large birds such as whooping cranes, whose migration takes them across the places where transmission lines will have to go, are killed as they hit the wires.
The American Bird Conservancy urges improvements in the design of turbines and towers to minimize the damage. But even if that’s done, large wind farms still will mar the landscape and disrupt the feeding areas of migratory birds. And nothing can be done about transmission wires.
None of that would even come up as a problem if the nation, and states including Oregon, had taken a sensible approach to energy production that doesn’t dam up more rivers and put out more emissions.
It would have been smarter to encourage small generating stations closer to cities, powered by natural gas or the new generation of nuclear stations. And in rural areas where the wind is steady, households can make use of individual generators that are cylindrical and have no bird-chopping blades.
First, big wind farms are gobbling out vast areas of the West that until now were relatively undisturbed, sitting there as grazing land or farm fields, or as scenery.
Then there’s the deadly effect on birds. THe American Bird Conservancy says golden eagles, whooping cranes and a species of sage grouse are especially in danger from wind developments in the West.
The group reports that according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, more than 400,000 birds a year are killed when they are struck by the fast-moving blades of wind turbines.
“This figure is expected to rise significantly, and will likely eventually pass the million mark as wind power becomes increasingly ubiquitous under a Department of Energy plan to supply 20 percent of America’s power through wind by 2030,” the group says in a statement to the press.
The blades are not the only problem. As wind farms are developed in the desolate places where the wind is the strongest and most steady, additional transmission lines have to be strung across the West. The conservation group says large birds such as whooping cranes, whose migration takes them across the places where transmission lines will have to go, are killed as they hit the wires.
The American Bird Conservancy urges improvements in the design of turbines and towers to minimize the damage. But even if that’s done, large wind farms still will mar the landscape and disrupt the feeding areas of migratory birds. And nothing can be done about transmission wires.
None of that would even come up as a problem if the nation, and states including Oregon, had taken a sensible approach to energy production that doesn’t dam up more rivers and put out more emissions.
It would have been smarter to encourage small generating stations closer to cities, powered by natural gas or the new generation of nuclear stations. And in rural areas where the wind is steady, households can make use of individual generators that are cylindrical and have no bird-chopping blades.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Maine Voices: State's record on wind power has little to boast about
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)