WASHINGTON The wind-power industry is pushing to get its favorite federal subsidy extended amid concerns that the program's expiration next year could halt the expansion of the fastest-growing renewable electricity source in the U.S.
For nearly two decades, wind power has benefited from the production tax credit, a federal incentive providing 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour to companies for new wind capacity for the first 10 years it's online. The industry says the credit has helped wind account for 35 percent of all new U.S. power capacity in the last four years while making the zero-emissions source cost-competitive with coal and natural gas.
With the credit set to expire after Dec. 31, 2012, expansion may slow if Congress doesn't approve an extension.
A recent report from IHS Emerging Energy Research, an independent research group, said expiration would cause wind-power installations to decrease from 5.6 gigawatts a year since 2005 to 2.3 gigawatts a year from 2013 to 2016 and leave wind vulnerable to competition from low natural-gas prices.
The wind-energy trade group wants Congress to extend the credit now and not wait until late next year. Rob Gramlich, senior vice president for public policy at the American Wind Energy Association, said uncertainty already has led some site developers and turbine-component makers to scale back their 2013 plans because they have to make business decisions now.
A bipartisan group of 24 governors in July called for extending the credit by up to seven years. Gramlich said he was optimistic that Congress would act because both parties like policies that provide tax relief to businesses without imposing mandates.
The industry, rushing to build while the credit is certain to be around, could add a record high 10.5 gigawatts in generating capacity next year, up from 6.5 gigawatts in 2011, the IHS report projects. The huge expansion next year means that comparable measures of wind installations will suffer in future years, dropping to 6.6 gigawatts in 2013 with the credit's extension and to less than 2 gigawatts without it, the report projects.
Wind installations decreased 73 to 93 percent each of the three years the tax credit lapsed in the 2000s, according to the wind-energy group.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Saturday, October 29, 2011
The Governor's Green Jobs Program Unveiled
The Governor announced Wednesday, the first of what he hopes will be hundreds of new green jobs in Vermont at his Sheffield Wind Project "Ribbon Cutting Ceremony".
According to the Governor, Sheffield's Wind Project will create 10 fulltime jobs.
(First Wind's Website says it will be 3 or 4 part and full-time positions)
At a cost of about 100 million dollars to build, (1 million in state dollars and 60 million in federal subsidies) that works out to just ten million dollars for each position created. That sounds like a bargain.
What the Governor is forgetting is that, likely as a result of this project being built, Sheffield lost the King George Farm Private School in Sheffield, a long time opponent to this project - due to the noise, health effects, and environmental damage. The school spent nearly four hundred thousand dollars in legal fees.
KGFS was an employer with 1 million dollars a year in professional salaries and also brought another one million dollars into the community purchasing goods and services. They also paid fifty thousand dollars a year in taxes. That is just one of the industries we have lost.
The Governor would be wise to take some advice from former Governor Jim Douglas, when he coined the phrase, "Vermont Scale". It creates good business, good neighbors, and good policy. These large projects do just the opposite.
Greg Bryant
PO Box 36
Sheffield, Vermont 05866
802 745 7491
According to the Governor, Sheffield's Wind Project will create 10 fulltime jobs.
(First Wind's Website says it will be 3 or 4 part and full-time positions)
At a cost of about 100 million dollars to build, (1 million in state dollars and 60 million in federal subsidies) that works out to just ten million dollars for each position created. That sounds like a bargain.
What the Governor is forgetting is that, likely as a result of this project being built, Sheffield lost the King George Farm Private School in Sheffield, a long time opponent to this project - due to the noise, health effects, and environmental damage. The school spent nearly four hundred thousand dollars in legal fees.
KGFS was an employer with 1 million dollars a year in professional salaries and also brought another one million dollars into the community purchasing goods and services. They also paid fifty thousand dollars a year in taxes. That is just one of the industries we have lost.
The Governor would be wise to take some advice from former Governor Jim Douglas, when he coined the phrase, "Vermont Scale". It creates good business, good neighbors, and good policy. These large projects do just the opposite.
Greg Bryant
PO Box 36
Sheffield, Vermont 05866
802 745 7491
Friday, October 28, 2011
Appeals court overturns key Cape Wind clearance
A federal appeals court has rejected the Federal Aviation Administration’s ruling that the Cape Wind project’s turbines present "no hazard" to aviation, overturning a vital clearance for the nation’s first offshore wind farm.
A decision Friday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the FAA didn’t adequately determine whether the planned 130 turbines, each 440 feet tall, would pose a danger to pilots flying by visual flight rules.
The court ordered the "no hazard" determinations vacated and remanded back to the FAA.
It also ruled that if the FAA found the project posed aviation risks, the U.S. Interior Department would likely revoke or modify the lease granted Cape Wind - the first granted to a U.S. offshore wind project.
The decision signals further delays for the project, which has struggled to find financing.
A decision Friday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the FAA didn’t adequately determine whether the planned 130 turbines, each 440 feet tall, would pose a danger to pilots flying by visual flight rules.
The court ordered the "no hazard" determinations vacated and remanded back to the FAA.
It also ruled that if the FAA found the project posed aviation risks, the U.S. Interior Department would likely revoke or modify the lease granted Cape Wind - the first granted to a U.S. offshore wind project.
The decision signals further delays for the project, which has struggled to find financing.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
The High Cost of Wind Energy as a Carbon-Dioxide Reduction Method
For years, politicians, environmental groups, and the renewable energy lobby have been claiming that widespread use of wind energy would result in substantial reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions.
This report—which relies on data published by the Energy Information Administration and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory— finds that if wind energy were to reduce carbon dioxide, the savings would be so small as to be insignificant and so expensive as to be impractical.
Achieving the oft-stated goal of getting 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs from wind by 2030 would require a total expenditure of more than $850 billion. Yet the likely carbon-dioxide savings from that expenditure would be just 2 percent of global emissions in 2030.
If the “20 by ‘30” target were achieved, it would impose a tax on U.S. electricity consumers of $45 to $54 for each ton of carbon dioxide that was removed. The tax would take the form of an increase of as much as 48 percent over the current price of residential electricity in coal-dependent regions of the country.
A carbon tax at that level would be 23 to 28 times higher than the carbon-taxation regime now being used in the eastern United States. It would greatly exceed the carbon tax recently imposed in Australia and be more than three times as costly, on a per-ton basis, as the European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme.
Introduction
In 2008, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), an arm of the U.S. Department of Energy, issued a report that said the United States could produce 20 percent of its electricity from wind by 2030.[1] The report said that the United States is working toward generating more “energy that can be cost-effective, and replaced or ‘renewed’ without contributing to climate change or major environmental impacts.”[2] Since the report was released, the wind industry, along with numerous politicians and environmental groups, has promoted wind energy as an integral part of the strategy to increase the use of renewable energy.
President Barack Obama has expressed his support for a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which will “require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, geothermal, wind, and biomass, by 2025.”[3] In July 2011, the Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition, which represents governors from 24 states, implored Obama to push for policies that will “support the continued development of wind manufacturing in the United States.” The group asked that the president extend the tax credits for wind energy production “for at least seven years.” [4]
Two bills now pending in the Senate—S.559 and S.741—would require the United States to get 25 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2025.[5]
About two-thirds of the U.S. population now face RPS mandates—29 states and the District of Columbia have passed rules requiring that varying amounts of electricity used by consumers come from renewable sources. Those mandates cannot be met just with solar energy, which, despite enormous growth in recent years, remains a tiny player in the renewable sector. (In 2010, the United States produced more than 70 times as much electricity from wind as it did from solar.)[6] Therefore, if policymakers want to comply with the mandates, wind energy will be the primary source of renewable generation.
The Obama administration is providing money for numerous wind projects. In August, the Department of Energy finalized a $102 million loan guarantee for a 50-megawatt wind project in Maine.[7] That deal follows the June announcement of a conditional loan guarantee for a $135 million, 99-megawatt wind project in New Hampshire.[8] In announcing the Maine deal, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said that it was part of the administration’s goal of “doubling clean energy produced in America by 2035.” He added that “clean energy is a major driver of American competitiveness, and investments like these are essential to secure our position as global leader.”[9]
Behind the rhetoric about “clean” energy—and wind energy in particular—is the claim that using more of it will result in major reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions.
Costs
Last year, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), electricity generation in the United States totaled 4.1 trillion kilowatt hours.[10] Of that amount, wind energy produced 94.6 billion kilowatt hours, or about 2.3 percent of total generation.[11] For wind to expand so that it could supply 20 percent of U.S. electricity consumption, it would require a nine-fold increase in the size of the installed wind generation base, which, at the end of 2010, stood at about 40,000 megawatts of capacity.[12]
Therefore, meeting the “20 by ‘30” goal would likely require the United States to obtain about 360,000 megawatts of wind-generation capacity. That’s a huge amount given that the total installed electric-generation capacity in the United States (from all sources, i.e., coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, etc.) is about 1 million megawatts.[13]
The land requirements for 360,000 megawatts of wind-generation capacity would be substantial. The Roscoe Wind Complex in Texas, one of the world’s largest wind projects, has a capacity of 781.5 megawatts and covers about 154 square miles—about 0.2 square miles per installed megawatt of wind capacity.[14] Using Roscoe as an example, then, 360,000 megawatts of capacity would require about 72,000 square miles of land to be occupied with wind turbines.
That area, if taken together, would rank as the 17th-largest state in the country, just ahead of North Dakota, which has 69,000 square miles.[15] Put another way, that much land is equivalent to nearly ten New Jerseys.[16] Few people could live on that 72,000 square miles because the noise (including infrasound) generated by the wind turbines is so disruptive. The deleterious health effects of wind-turbine noise have been documented by health professionals in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.[17]
Even if we assume that the installation of massive amounts of new wind capacity poses no health risks, and creates no conflicts with rural landowners, the costs of attempting to achieve the “20 by ‘30” goal will be staggering. The latest data from the EIA put the cost of installing one megawatt of wind-energy capacity at $2.43 million.[18] (Note that this is a major increase over the estimate of $1.7 million per megawatt used by NREL in its 2008 report.)[19] The cost of locating wind turbines offshore will be even higher. The latest EIA estimate for installing one megawatt of wind-generation capacity offshore is $5.97 million.[20] (Here, too, the cost is increasing, not decreasing. In 2009, EIA’s offshore estimate was $3.4 million per megawatt.)[21]
The United States has already spent about $68 billion installing the 40,000 megawatts of wind capacity now in place.[22] Installing an additional 320,000 megawatts of wind power at $2.43 million per megawatt will cost the United States about $777.6 billion, or about $44.7 billion every year for the next 19 years. (As noted above, if policymakers prefer to pursue offshore wind, the annual total would be more than double that sum.)
An allocation of $44.7 billion per year would exceed the current combined budgets of the Environmental Protection Agency, Commerce Department, Treasury Department, and Interior Department.[23] It’s not clear how such a program would be funded, however, since the federal government has no money to spare. State governments are also in financial peril. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a nonpartisan research and policy institute, the states had a combined budget shortfall of $130 billion for fiscal year 2011. In 2012, the CBPP expects the combined shortfall to be $103 billion, with another $46 billion shortfall looming in 2013.[24]
Adding the $68 billion spent on existing wind generation capacity to the $777.6 billion cited above produces a total $845.6 billion. But that figure doesn’t include any money for the gas-fired generation capacity that will be needed to counteract the intermittency of the wind. Nor does it include any money for the construction of the additional transmission lines that will be needed to carry the electricity from windy rural areas to customers in distant cities.
Building new transmission capacity will be extremely expensive. For instance, Texas alone is planning to spend about $7 billion on new transmission capacity for wind energy.[25] Adding the expected transmission costs in Texas to the sum mentioned above (while ignoring the additional transmission costs and gas-fired generation costs that will be incurred in other states) shows that achieving the “20 by ‘30 goal” will cost more than $850 billion, or about $7,548 for each U.S. household.[26]
Potential Carbon-Dioxide Reductions
The Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), an industry group, maintains that reducing the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere “is the most important environmental benefit from wind power generation.”[27] For its part, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), a national trade association, says “there is no need to wait for a new climate solution. Wind power is one of only a few near-term options to reduce emissions.”[28] In its 2008 report, the NREL claimed that if the United States were to derive 20 percent of its electricity from wind, it “could avoid approximately 825 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in the electric sector in 2030.”[29]
How does that 825 million tons of carbon dioxide compare with global emissions? In 2010, global carbon-dioxide emissions totaled 33.1 billion tons.[30] Thus, if the United States were somehow able to instantly increase its wind-generated electricity to 20 percent of total consumption, doing so might reduce global emissions by about 2.5 percent. But it is unlikely that global emissions will be the same in 2030 as they were in 2010. By 2030, the International Energy Agency (IEA) expects global emissions will total about 40.2 billion tons.[31] Thus, the 825 million tons that NREL claims might be reduced by achieving the “20 by ‘30” goal will result in a global reduction of just 2 percent.[32]
Therefore, to justify a total investment of $850 billion in wind, U.S. policymakers would have to agree that reducing carbon dioxide in the year 2030 is worth spending $1,030 per ton. Of course, that amount would not be spent all at once. Instead it would be allocated over the coming 19 years and would be, in effect, a carbon tax set at $54 per ton.
However, the actual cost may be somewhat lower. In its 2008 report, NREL claimed that only 305,000 megawatts of wind capacity would be needed to meet the “20 by ‘30” goal. Recall that the United States has built about 40,000 megawatts of wind capacity at a cost of about $68 billion. Thus, building an additional 265,000 megawatts of wind capacity (again, at $2.43 million per megawatt) at a cost of $644 billion, would lead to a total cost of $712 billion, thereby implying that cutting one ton of carbon dioxide by 2030 would cost about $863. Spread over the next 19 years, the cost would be the equivalent of a carbon levy set at $45 per ton.
Achieving the “20 by ‘30” goal will have a significant impact on electricity rates. In 2007, Steven Hayward and Kenneth Green of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) estimated that a $15 carbon tax would likely increase the cost of coal-fired generation by about $0.0163 per kilowatt-hour. Therefore, we can assume that a carbon levy of $54-per-ton could increase electricity rates in coal-reliant regions by about $0.058 per kilowatt-hour. That’s a major increase given that the average price of electricity for residential consumers in the United States is currently $0.12 per kilowatt-hour.[33]
Put another way, if the United States were to achieve the “20 by ‘30” goal, U.S. residential electricity prices in coal-dependent regions could increase by about 48 percent over current levels. If we use the lower range of wind costs outlined by NREL in its 2008 report, and assume that reducing a ton of carbon by 2030 will cost $45 per year, the increase in electricity costs in coal-dependent areas will amount to about $0.049 per kilowatt-hour. That would result in an increase of 40 percent over current levels for residential customers in those regions.
These higher electricity costs will likely accelerate the pace of electric rate increases now underway around the country. Since 2004, the average cost of residential electricity has gone from $0.0895 per kilowatt-hour to $0.1218 per kilowatt-hour, an increase of 36 percent.[34]
A Comparison of Existing Carbon-Tax Regimes
Achieving the “20 by ‘30” goal would create a carbon tax—at $45 or $54 per ton—that would be far higher than similar levies being imposed by other regulatory jurisdictions. The only extant carbon-pricing regime in the United States, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a carbon market established by 10 states in the eastern part of the country, recently sold allowances for $1.89 per ton.[35] (Each allowance gives the owner the right to emit one ton of carbon.) And RGGI, America’s first carbon market, is faltering. In May 2011, New Jersey governor Chris Christie announced that his state would be quitting the program.[36] Christie said the program “is not working as it was intended to work. It’s a failure.”
The California Carbon Allowance cap-and-trade system began trading in August 2011 at a price of $17 per ton.[37] But the program will not launch until 2013. And while the trading now underway will help market participants to structure forward deals and consider compliance strategies, it remains to be seen how the allowances will be priced when covered entities must begin actually complying with the cap-and-trade system.[38]
In mid-2012, the Australian government is to begin imposing a carbon tax of about $24 per ton on major industrial plants.[39] That levy, which is being fought by Australia’s big industrial users, is scheduled to rise by 2.5 percent per year until 2015, after which the country expects to switch to a carbon-trading system. Meanwhile, in Europe, the price of carbon allowances under the European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme is falling rapidly as the region’s economic troubles have become more pronounced. In early May, the cost of a one-ton carbon allowance was more than $24. By mid-October, that allowance was trading for about $14.[40]
Conculsion
Wind energy is not a cost-effective method of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions. Any effort—whether at the state level or the federal level—to dramatically increase the use of wind energy will result in a new tax on electricity consumers. If the United States were to achieve the “20 by ‘30” goal, the effective carbon tax of $45 to $54 per ton would far exceed any such tax regime currently in place. Further, if the stated goal were met by 2030, the likely reduction in carbon dioxide emissions would amount to just 2 percent of the expected global total.
Robert Bryce, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute
This report—which relies on data published by the Energy Information Administration and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory— finds that if wind energy were to reduce carbon dioxide, the savings would be so small as to be insignificant and so expensive as to be impractical.
Achieving the oft-stated goal of getting 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs from wind by 2030 would require a total expenditure of more than $850 billion. Yet the likely carbon-dioxide savings from that expenditure would be just 2 percent of global emissions in 2030.
If the “20 by ‘30” target were achieved, it would impose a tax on U.S. electricity consumers of $45 to $54 for each ton of carbon dioxide that was removed. The tax would take the form of an increase of as much as 48 percent over the current price of residential electricity in coal-dependent regions of the country.
A carbon tax at that level would be 23 to 28 times higher than the carbon-taxation regime now being used in the eastern United States. It would greatly exceed the carbon tax recently imposed in Australia and be more than three times as costly, on a per-ton basis, as the European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme.
Introduction
In 2008, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), an arm of the U.S. Department of Energy, issued a report that said the United States could produce 20 percent of its electricity from wind by 2030.[1] The report said that the United States is working toward generating more “energy that can be cost-effective, and replaced or ‘renewed’ without contributing to climate change or major environmental impacts.”[2] Since the report was released, the wind industry, along with numerous politicians and environmental groups, has promoted wind energy as an integral part of the strategy to increase the use of renewable energy.
President Barack Obama has expressed his support for a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which will “require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, geothermal, wind, and biomass, by 2025.”[3] In July 2011, the Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition, which represents governors from 24 states, implored Obama to push for policies that will “support the continued development of wind manufacturing in the United States.” The group asked that the president extend the tax credits for wind energy production “for at least seven years.” [4]
Two bills now pending in the Senate—S.559 and S.741—would require the United States to get 25 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2025.[5]
About two-thirds of the U.S. population now face RPS mandates—29 states and the District of Columbia have passed rules requiring that varying amounts of electricity used by consumers come from renewable sources. Those mandates cannot be met just with solar energy, which, despite enormous growth in recent years, remains a tiny player in the renewable sector. (In 2010, the United States produced more than 70 times as much electricity from wind as it did from solar.)[6] Therefore, if policymakers want to comply with the mandates, wind energy will be the primary source of renewable generation.
The Obama administration is providing money for numerous wind projects. In August, the Department of Energy finalized a $102 million loan guarantee for a 50-megawatt wind project in Maine.[7] That deal follows the June announcement of a conditional loan guarantee for a $135 million, 99-megawatt wind project in New Hampshire.[8] In announcing the Maine deal, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said that it was part of the administration’s goal of “doubling clean energy produced in America by 2035.” He added that “clean energy is a major driver of American competitiveness, and investments like these are essential to secure our position as global leader.”[9]
Behind the rhetoric about “clean” energy—and wind energy in particular—is the claim that using more of it will result in major reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions.
Costs
Last year, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), electricity generation in the United States totaled 4.1 trillion kilowatt hours.[10] Of that amount, wind energy produced 94.6 billion kilowatt hours, or about 2.3 percent of total generation.[11] For wind to expand so that it could supply 20 percent of U.S. electricity consumption, it would require a nine-fold increase in the size of the installed wind generation base, which, at the end of 2010, stood at about 40,000 megawatts of capacity.[12]
Therefore, meeting the “20 by ‘30” goal would likely require the United States to obtain about 360,000 megawatts of wind-generation capacity. That’s a huge amount given that the total installed electric-generation capacity in the United States (from all sources, i.e., coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, etc.) is about 1 million megawatts.[13]
The land requirements for 360,000 megawatts of wind-generation capacity would be substantial. The Roscoe Wind Complex in Texas, one of the world’s largest wind projects, has a capacity of 781.5 megawatts and covers about 154 square miles—about 0.2 square miles per installed megawatt of wind capacity.[14] Using Roscoe as an example, then, 360,000 megawatts of capacity would require about 72,000 square miles of land to be occupied with wind turbines.
That area, if taken together, would rank as the 17th-largest state in the country, just ahead of North Dakota, which has 69,000 square miles.[15] Put another way, that much land is equivalent to nearly ten New Jerseys.[16] Few people could live on that 72,000 square miles because the noise (including infrasound) generated by the wind turbines is so disruptive. The deleterious health effects of wind-turbine noise have been documented by health professionals in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.[17]
Even if we assume that the installation of massive amounts of new wind capacity poses no health risks, and creates no conflicts with rural landowners, the costs of attempting to achieve the “20 by ‘30” goal will be staggering. The latest data from the EIA put the cost of installing one megawatt of wind-energy capacity at $2.43 million.[18] (Note that this is a major increase over the estimate of $1.7 million per megawatt used by NREL in its 2008 report.)[19] The cost of locating wind turbines offshore will be even higher. The latest EIA estimate for installing one megawatt of wind-generation capacity offshore is $5.97 million.[20] (Here, too, the cost is increasing, not decreasing. In 2009, EIA’s offshore estimate was $3.4 million per megawatt.)[21]
The United States has already spent about $68 billion installing the 40,000 megawatts of wind capacity now in place.[22] Installing an additional 320,000 megawatts of wind power at $2.43 million per megawatt will cost the United States about $777.6 billion, or about $44.7 billion every year for the next 19 years. (As noted above, if policymakers prefer to pursue offshore wind, the annual total would be more than double that sum.)
An allocation of $44.7 billion per year would exceed the current combined budgets of the Environmental Protection Agency, Commerce Department, Treasury Department, and Interior Department.[23] It’s not clear how such a program would be funded, however, since the federal government has no money to spare. State governments are also in financial peril. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a nonpartisan research and policy institute, the states had a combined budget shortfall of $130 billion for fiscal year 2011. In 2012, the CBPP expects the combined shortfall to be $103 billion, with another $46 billion shortfall looming in 2013.[24]
Adding the $68 billion spent on existing wind generation capacity to the $777.6 billion cited above produces a total $845.6 billion. But that figure doesn’t include any money for the gas-fired generation capacity that will be needed to counteract the intermittency of the wind. Nor does it include any money for the construction of the additional transmission lines that will be needed to carry the electricity from windy rural areas to customers in distant cities.
Building new transmission capacity will be extremely expensive. For instance, Texas alone is planning to spend about $7 billion on new transmission capacity for wind energy.[25] Adding the expected transmission costs in Texas to the sum mentioned above (while ignoring the additional transmission costs and gas-fired generation costs that will be incurred in other states) shows that achieving the “20 by ‘30 goal” will cost more than $850 billion, or about $7,548 for each U.S. household.[26]
Potential Carbon-Dioxide Reductions
The Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), an industry group, maintains that reducing the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere “is the most important environmental benefit from wind power generation.”[27] For its part, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), a national trade association, says “there is no need to wait for a new climate solution. Wind power is one of only a few near-term options to reduce emissions.”[28] In its 2008 report, the NREL claimed that if the United States were to derive 20 percent of its electricity from wind, it “could avoid approximately 825 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in the electric sector in 2030.”[29]
How does that 825 million tons of carbon dioxide compare with global emissions? In 2010, global carbon-dioxide emissions totaled 33.1 billion tons.[30] Thus, if the United States were somehow able to instantly increase its wind-generated electricity to 20 percent of total consumption, doing so might reduce global emissions by about 2.5 percent. But it is unlikely that global emissions will be the same in 2030 as they were in 2010. By 2030, the International Energy Agency (IEA) expects global emissions will total about 40.2 billion tons.[31] Thus, the 825 million tons that NREL claims might be reduced by achieving the “20 by ‘30” goal will result in a global reduction of just 2 percent.[32]
Therefore, to justify a total investment of $850 billion in wind, U.S. policymakers would have to agree that reducing carbon dioxide in the year 2030 is worth spending $1,030 per ton. Of course, that amount would not be spent all at once. Instead it would be allocated over the coming 19 years and would be, in effect, a carbon tax set at $54 per ton.
However, the actual cost may be somewhat lower. In its 2008 report, NREL claimed that only 305,000 megawatts of wind capacity would be needed to meet the “20 by ‘30” goal. Recall that the United States has built about 40,000 megawatts of wind capacity at a cost of about $68 billion. Thus, building an additional 265,000 megawatts of wind capacity (again, at $2.43 million per megawatt) at a cost of $644 billion, would lead to a total cost of $712 billion, thereby implying that cutting one ton of carbon dioxide by 2030 would cost about $863. Spread over the next 19 years, the cost would be the equivalent of a carbon levy set at $45 per ton.
Achieving the “20 by ‘30” goal will have a significant impact on electricity rates. In 2007, Steven Hayward and Kenneth Green of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) estimated that a $15 carbon tax would likely increase the cost of coal-fired generation by about $0.0163 per kilowatt-hour. Therefore, we can assume that a carbon levy of $54-per-ton could increase electricity rates in coal-reliant regions by about $0.058 per kilowatt-hour. That’s a major increase given that the average price of electricity for residential consumers in the United States is currently $0.12 per kilowatt-hour.[33]
Put another way, if the United States were to achieve the “20 by ‘30” goal, U.S. residential electricity prices in coal-dependent regions could increase by about 48 percent over current levels. If we use the lower range of wind costs outlined by NREL in its 2008 report, and assume that reducing a ton of carbon by 2030 will cost $45 per year, the increase in electricity costs in coal-dependent areas will amount to about $0.049 per kilowatt-hour. That would result in an increase of 40 percent over current levels for residential customers in those regions.
These higher electricity costs will likely accelerate the pace of electric rate increases now underway around the country. Since 2004, the average cost of residential electricity has gone from $0.0895 per kilowatt-hour to $0.1218 per kilowatt-hour, an increase of 36 percent.[34]
A Comparison of Existing Carbon-Tax Regimes
Achieving the “20 by ‘30” goal would create a carbon tax—at $45 or $54 per ton—that would be far higher than similar levies being imposed by other regulatory jurisdictions. The only extant carbon-pricing regime in the United States, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a carbon market established by 10 states in the eastern part of the country, recently sold allowances for $1.89 per ton.[35] (Each allowance gives the owner the right to emit one ton of carbon.) And RGGI, America’s first carbon market, is faltering. In May 2011, New Jersey governor Chris Christie announced that his state would be quitting the program.[36] Christie said the program “is not working as it was intended to work. It’s a failure.”
The California Carbon Allowance cap-and-trade system began trading in August 2011 at a price of $17 per ton.[37] But the program will not launch until 2013. And while the trading now underway will help market participants to structure forward deals and consider compliance strategies, it remains to be seen how the allowances will be priced when covered entities must begin actually complying with the cap-and-trade system.[38]
In mid-2012, the Australian government is to begin imposing a carbon tax of about $24 per ton on major industrial plants.[39] That levy, which is being fought by Australia’s big industrial users, is scheduled to rise by 2.5 percent per year until 2015, after which the country expects to switch to a carbon-trading system. Meanwhile, in Europe, the price of carbon allowances under the European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme is falling rapidly as the region’s economic troubles have become more pronounced. In early May, the cost of a one-ton carbon allowance was more than $24. By mid-October, that allowance was trading for about $14.[40]
Conculsion
Wind energy is not a cost-effective method of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions. Any effort—whether at the state level or the federal level—to dramatically increase the use of wind energy will result in a new tax on electricity consumers. If the United States were to achieve the “20 by ‘30” goal, the effective carbon tax of $45 to $54 per ton would far exceed any such tax regime currently in place. Further, if the stated goal were met by 2030, the likely reduction in carbon dioxide emissions would amount to just 2 percent of the expected global total.
Robert Bryce, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Jerusalem wind farm law open for comment
At their regular meeting Oct. 19, the Jerusalem Town Board opened four public hearings:
• The proposed wind farm regulations will remain open for public comment until they come up for a vote at the Nov. 16 meeting.
• The proposed wind farm regulations will remain open for public comment until they come up for a vote at the Nov. 16 meeting.
Monday, October 24, 2011
State's top court denies Clear Skies Over Orangeville's latest appeal
ORANGEVILLE — The state’s highest court has denied Clear Skies Over Orangeville’s latest appeal request.
The Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday. It declined to hear the case.
The group opposing the Stony Hill wind farm filed the request in July. It argued that councilmen Hans Boxler Jr. and Andrew Flint should have recused themselves from voting on the town’s 2009 zoning ordinances, claiming conflicts of interest.
The ordinances had included rules for wind turbine development.
The CSOO lawsuit was originally filed in January 2010. It sought to invalidate the updated zoning, but was dismissed three months later.
In his original decision, State Supreme Court Judge Patrick NeMoyer ruled Town Board members did not act unlawfully when they approved the ordinances. He also found no conflicts of interest among the voting councilmen.
The Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday. It declined to hear the case.
The group opposing the Stony Hill wind farm filed the request in July. It argued that councilmen Hans Boxler Jr. and Andrew Flint should have recused themselves from voting on the town’s 2009 zoning ordinances, claiming conflicts of interest.
The ordinances had included rules for wind turbine development.
The CSOO lawsuit was originally filed in January 2010. It sought to invalidate the updated zoning, but was dismissed three months later.
In his original decision, State Supreme Court Judge Patrick NeMoyer ruled Town Board members did not act unlawfully when they approved the ordinances. He also found no conflicts of interest among the voting councilmen.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Martinsburg wind project could happen in 2012, but no promises
With a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes plan for the proposed Roaring Brook Wind Farm expected to be adopted in early December, construction of the nearly five-year-old project may commence as soon as next year.
However, after previously delaying the 39-turbine project owing to market conditions, the developer is making no promises.
“We are still working to close out some development items, like the PILOT,” Paul C. Copelman, a communications manager with Iberdrola Renewables, said via email. “We are also continually evaluating important factors like the market and equipment and construction costs and expect to make a decision about how to proceed within the next few months. If all goes well, we could make this happen next year.”
Atlantic Wind, a subsidiary of Iberdrola, is proposing a 78-megawatt wind farm on 5,280 acres just south of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm. Iberdrola is part owner of that 195-turbine wind farm, which also extends into the towns of Harrisburg and Lowville.
Read the entire article
However, after previously delaying the 39-turbine project owing to market conditions, the developer is making no promises.
“We are still working to close out some development items, like the PILOT,” Paul C. Copelman, a communications manager with Iberdrola Renewables, said via email. “We are also continually evaluating important factors like the market and equipment and construction costs and expect to make a decision about how to proceed within the next few months. If all goes well, we could make this happen next year.”
Atlantic Wind, a subsidiary of Iberdrola, is proposing a 78-megawatt wind farm on 5,280 acres just south of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm. Iberdrola is part owner of that 195-turbine wind farm, which also extends into the towns of Harrisburg and Lowville.
Read the entire article
Friday, October 21, 2011
First Wind signs first turbine deal with Siemens
UNITED STATES: First Wind has signed a deal with Siemens for 69MW to go to a project in Hawaii.
The Siemens 2.3MW turbines will go to the Kawailoa project on the north shore of Oahu island. It is the first turbine supply agreement First Wind has signed with Siemens.
The project is set for construction by the end of the year.
First Wind also owns the 30MW Kahuku wind farm on Hawaii. The project uses Clipper Windpower 2.5MW turbines.
According to the latest Windpower Monthly Windicator, Hawaii has a total wind capacity of 93MW.
The Siemens 2.3MW turbines will go to the Kawailoa project on the north shore of Oahu island. It is the first turbine supply agreement First Wind has signed with Siemens.
The project is set for construction by the end of the year.
First Wind also owns the 30MW Kahuku wind farm on Hawaii. The project uses Clipper Windpower 2.5MW turbines.
According to the latest Windpower Monthly Windicator, Hawaii has a total wind capacity of 93MW.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Unfavorable news blows about wind, solar power
We have not heard much lately regarding the proposed wind project in Highland Plantation.
We are very aware that, at some point in time, First Wind LLC likely will submit another application to the Land Use Regulation Commission with a few tweaks included for the Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife.
There is also a very high probability that wind turbines are in the works for Lexington and Concord.
We have heard a lot in the news in recent weeks regarding the green energy options of wind and solar. Not all of the news has been favorable. The Solyndra scandal is a great example of how the alternative energies can go bust. The public is going to pick up the ticket for Solyndra. How many more poor government choices can we afford to pay for?
Wind power will bring higher electricity rates to an already burdened public. New power lines to carry the power south on the grid will be necessary, adding more to the cost, which will again be passed on to us consumers.
How many more added expenses can we afford to pay in this downward spiraling economy? The cost of food, gas, fuel oil, clothing has risen dramatically over the past few months. It makes it difficult to keep our heads above water.
Social Security has had no cost of living increases. Any additional expense makes it even harder for people on limited incomes to survive.
Linda Miller
Lexington Township
We are very aware that, at some point in time, First Wind LLC likely will submit another application to the Land Use Regulation Commission with a few tweaks included for the Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife.
There is also a very high probability that wind turbines are in the works for Lexington and Concord.
We have heard a lot in the news in recent weeks regarding the green energy options of wind and solar. Not all of the news has been favorable. The Solyndra scandal is a great example of how the alternative energies can go bust. The public is going to pick up the ticket for Solyndra. How many more poor government choices can we afford to pay for?
Wind power will bring higher electricity rates to an already burdened public. New power lines to carry the power south on the grid will be necessary, adding more to the cost, which will again be passed on to us consumers.
How many more added expenses can we afford to pay in this downward spiraling economy? The cost of food, gas, fuel oil, clothing has risen dramatically over the past few months. It makes it difficult to keep our heads above water.
Social Security has had no cost of living increases. Any additional expense makes it even harder for people on limited incomes to survive.
Linda Miller
Lexington Township
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Hopkinton Town Council holds off on wind law
The Hopkinton Town Council has tabled a law regulating wind energy facilities.
The council had intended to vote on the local law, which would establish parameters for wind energy in Hopkinton, after a public hearing Monday night. But after a last-minute lobby from wind energy opponents, the council deferred its vote until November.
During the two-hour hearing, several in attendance submitted testimony and information about wind power for the council’s consideration. When the time came to vote, some of those who submitted information criticized the council for not reading it before voting.
“You’re acting like you’re indifferent to the voice of the citizens by voting tonight,” said Lynda A. Bage, Hopkinton.
Read the entire article
The council had intended to vote on the local law, which would establish parameters for wind energy in Hopkinton, after a public hearing Monday night. But after a last-minute lobby from wind energy opponents, the council deferred its vote until November.
During the two-hour hearing, several in attendance submitted testimony and information about wind power for the council’s consideration. When the time came to vote, some of those who submitted information criticized the council for not reading it before voting.
“You’re acting like you’re indifferent to the voice of the citizens by voting tonight,” said Lynda A. Bage, Hopkinton.
Read the entire article
Lowell wind project fight continues in court and in woods
The highly disputed Lowell Wind Project is now under way.
Green Mountain Power began blasting near where protestors have camped out. Roughly 20 protestors camped out Tuesday on the mountain. The hike takes roughly one hour straight up from behind the Nelson's property.
The protestors are fighting Green Mountain Power's $156 million project planned to build 21 wind turbines-- each more than 400-feet tall. GMP officials say the turbines would power more than 24,000 homes.
The problem is a boundary dispute between GMP and Don and Shirley Nelson. They are unwilling to sell their property that is needed by GMP to blast on.
GMP says the project was supported by 75 percent of Lowell residents.
Protestors claim the town stands behind the Nelsons.
"We will build this wind project. We will most definitely build the wind project. What the issue is now is about safety. We need to clear a zone so that we can blast safely according to normal blasting procedures that are used hundreds of times a year across the state," said Dotty Schnure of GMP.
"Nobody is up there because they are required to be or even asked to be. So individuals are up there based on what they want to do. My folks have never posted their property against hunters and hikers," said Michael Nelson, the landowners' son.
Several protestors we met Tuesday declined to speak on camera and did want their names revealed due to the legal issue at hand. Don Nelson says there is no asking price or compromise aside from shutting the project down. He expects this will likely end in a lawsuit.
Green Mountain Power began blasting near where protestors have camped out. Roughly 20 protestors camped out Tuesday on the mountain. The hike takes roughly one hour straight up from behind the Nelson's property.
The protestors are fighting Green Mountain Power's $156 million project planned to build 21 wind turbines-- each more than 400-feet tall. GMP officials say the turbines would power more than 24,000 homes.
The problem is a boundary dispute between GMP and Don and Shirley Nelson. They are unwilling to sell their property that is needed by GMP to blast on.
GMP says the project was supported by 75 percent of Lowell residents.
Protestors claim the town stands behind the Nelsons.
"We will build this wind project. We will most definitely build the wind project. What the issue is now is about safety. We need to clear a zone so that we can blast safely according to normal blasting procedures that are used hundreds of times a year across the state," said Dotty Schnure of GMP.
"Nobody is up there because they are required to be or even asked to be. So individuals are up there based on what they want to do. My folks have never posted their property against hunters and hikers," said Michael Nelson, the landowners' son.
Several protestors we met Tuesday declined to speak on camera and did want their names revealed due to the legal issue at hand. Don Nelson says there is no asking price or compromise aside from shutting the project down. He expects this will likely end in a lawsuit.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Wyoming supervisors oppose Power NY Act
The Wyoming County Board of Supervisors has approved a resolution opposing the Power NY Act.
The bill gives the state increased authority to site power plants and streamlines the siting process. It was signed into law two months ago.
Supervisors approved the resolution expressing “deep disappointment and concern” over the law during their Oct. 11 meeting.
“This is in opposition to the state of New York being the last approving agency to decide which green energy projects go where in New York state, particularly in the towns and counties,” said Chairman Douglas Berwanger.
The Power NY Act includes a section re-authorizing Article X of the state’s Public Service law. The original Article X had expired about a decade ago, allowing local governments to assume jurisdiction over power plant siting issues.
Albany now has the authority to site electricity-generating projects of 25 megawatts or more. Construction and operating certifications can also be issued more-quickly.
Large-scale commercial wind farms fall under the new rules.
Wyoming County’s resolution argues the Power NY Act puts the authority into the hands of a bureaucratic state board with only nominal input from affected communities.
It also maintains the new legislation is part of a disturbing trend removing powers from local jurisdictions and transferring them to a faceless bureaucracy with no jurisdiction.
The Power NY Act was approved overwhelmingly this past June. Tallies included 117-13 in the State Assembly and 59-3 in the State Senate.
But the law met resistance from some local legislators. Assemblyman Daniel Burling, R-Warsaw and State Senator Michael Ranzenhofer, R-Clarence were among those voting no.
“We needed to take a stand and let people know where we are as far as Article X is,” Berwanger said after the meeting. “We’ve got some enthusiastic supporters and detractors as far as any kind of energy development systems in the county.”
The bill gives the state increased authority to site power plants and streamlines the siting process. It was signed into law two months ago.
Supervisors approved the resolution expressing “deep disappointment and concern” over the law during their Oct. 11 meeting.
“This is in opposition to the state of New York being the last approving agency to decide which green energy projects go where in New York state, particularly in the towns and counties,” said Chairman Douglas Berwanger.
The Power NY Act includes a section re-authorizing Article X of the state’s Public Service law. The original Article X had expired about a decade ago, allowing local governments to assume jurisdiction over power plant siting issues.
Albany now has the authority to site electricity-generating projects of 25 megawatts or more. Construction and operating certifications can also be issued more-quickly.
Large-scale commercial wind farms fall under the new rules.
Wyoming County’s resolution argues the Power NY Act puts the authority into the hands of a bureaucratic state board with only nominal input from affected communities.
It also maintains the new legislation is part of a disturbing trend removing powers from local jurisdictions and transferring them to a faceless bureaucracy with no jurisdiction.
The Power NY Act was approved overwhelmingly this past June. Tallies included 117-13 in the State Assembly and 59-3 in the State Senate.
But the law met resistance from some local legislators. Assemblyman Daniel Burling, R-Warsaw and State Senator Michael Ranzenhofer, R-Clarence were among those voting no.
“We needed to take a stand and let people know where we are as far as Article X is,” Berwanger said after the meeting. “We’ve got some enthusiastic supporters and detractors as far as any kind of energy development systems in the county.”
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
Cohocton Wind Watch Filing Lawsuit To Fight "Corporate Welfare"
Cohocton Wind Watch Filing Lawsuit To Fight "Corporate Welfare"
BUFFALO, NY - There’s a lawsuit in the New York Court of Appeals which seeks to end state and local government cash grants for businesses for economic development purposes. The case is being argued by Buffalo attorney Jim Ostrowski, who calls these sorts of grants crony-capitalism. "Basically, corporate welfare is the glue that holds the whole rotten system in New York together, so it's extremely important that we end it," Ostrowski told WLEA/WCKR News.
We asked Hornell Industrial Development Agency Director Jim Griffin what he thought about grants for businesses being referred to as crony capitalism. "We're in competition with 49 other states," Griffin said. The IDA Director added that New York needs programs that are competive with the other states, such as the Empire Zone Program.
One of the petitioners in the lawsuit is Steuben County’s watchdog group, Cohocton Wind Watch.
BUFFALO, NY - There’s a lawsuit in the New York Court of Appeals which seeks to end state and local government cash grants for businesses for economic development purposes. The case is being argued by Buffalo attorney Jim Ostrowski, who calls these sorts of grants crony-capitalism. "Basically, corporate welfare is the glue that holds the whole rotten system in New York together, so it's extremely important that we end it," Ostrowski told WLEA/WCKR News.
We asked Hornell Industrial Development Agency Director Jim Griffin what he thought about grants for businesses being referred to as crony capitalism. "We're in competition with 49 other states," Griffin said. The IDA Director added that New York needs programs that are competive with the other states, such as the Empire Zone Program.
One of the petitioners in the lawsuit is Steuben County’s watchdog group, Cohocton Wind Watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)