This one's really off the radar.
Wind farms, along with solar power and other alternative energy sources, are supposed to produce the energy of tomorrow. Evidence indicates that their countless whirring fan blades produce something else: "blank spots" that distort radar readings.
Now government agencies that depend on radar -- such as the Department of Defense and the National Weather Service -- are spending millions in a scramble to preserve their detection capabilities. A four-star Air Force general recently spelled out the problem to Dave Belote, the director of the Department of Defense’s Energy Siting Clearinghouse.
"Look there’s a radar here -- one of our network of Homeland surveillance radars -- and [if you build this wind farm] you essentially are going to put my eyes out in the Northwestern corner of the United States,” Beloite related during a web conference in April.
Spinning wind turbines make it hard to detect incoming planes. To avoid that problem, military officials have blocked wind farm construction near their radars -- and in some cases later allowed them after politicians protested.
Shepherd’s Flat, a wind farm under construction in Oregon, was initially held up by a government notice that the farm would “seriously impair the ability of the (DoD) to detect, monitor and safely conduct air operations."
Then Oregon’s senators got involved.
“The Department of Defense's earlier decision threatened to drop a bomb on job creation in Central Oregon,” democratic Senator Ron Wyden noted in a press release.
Beloite told FoxNews.com that the project was given the green light by the military only after scientists at MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory assured the Department of Defense “that there were algorithms and processors they could design for not too much money that would mitigate the problem.”
Beloite said that the MIT technology has proven successful in the last few months.
"[The problem] has been addressed. And I have a letter from the deputy director of operations from U.S. NORAD that says 'step one of the two-step fix worked so well that we recommend we don't spend any more money on step two.'"
The fix the MIT scientists came up with tells the radar not to pay attention to signals in a very small area.
“You just tell the radar processor, ‘you're going to have clutter here. Don't display it.’ You create a tiny blank spot [in the radar map] directly above the turbine,” Beloite told FoxNews.com.
In addition to the cost of the radar development, taxpayers are on the hook for more than $1 billion in subsidies for the construction of the Shepherd’s Flat wind farm, according to a 2010 memo from Larry Summers and two other White House economic advisors.
The fix for military radar doesn't work so well for weather forecasters, however.
“It's a lot easier to filter out interference for aviation,” Ed Ciardi, a meteorologist at the National Weather Service Radar Operations Center in Norman, Okla., told FoxNews.com. “The real problem is when rain and the wind turbines are mixed together [on the radar map.] And it's all confusing… sometimes [forecasters] throw up their hands and say, ‘who knows?’”
When the situation is unclear, Ciardi said, “they'll play it safe and maybe extend a warning.”
Ciardi said there have been occasional false alarms due to wind farm interference, but the Weather Service hasn't failed to issue any storm warnings yet.
“We're more worried about the future ... we've seen quite a few proposals for wind farms around our radars. And we have been ... trying to convince them to stay a good distance away,” he said.
One strategy is to ask wind farm owners to turn off the propellers during storms. Another is to convince them to install devices that measure wind speeds and rainfall, so that there would no longer be much need for radar there.
“It all comes down to money and who's going to pay for it,” he noted.
Meanwhile, top radar scientists are working on developing a fix that works for weather radar.
“It's slow progress, and they say it's extremely difficult -- that they need more money and more time. The solution, I would say, is probably five years down the road," Ciardi said.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
Hirschey defeats White in Cape Vincent; victory for anti-wind group
CAPE VINCENT — Town supervisor Urban C. Hirschey defeated challenger Harvey J. White, who ran on the Conservative line, 518-388 Tuesday in what appeared to be a victorious night for Cape Vincent’s anti-wind group.
In the race for Town Council, Wind Power Ethics Group member Clifford J. Schneider, with 471, led the pack in a tight race. Incumbent and wind lease holder Marty T. Mason received 453 votes, just ahead of Republican WPEG member John L. Byrne, with 448 votes. Incumbent Donald J. Mason, also a wind-power advocate, polled 423.
However, with 503 absentee ballots issued, many of them to seasonal residents who registered to vote in Cape Vincent and who nearly exclusively supported Mr. Hirschey in the Republican primary, the anti-wind forces appear confident they will control the council.
“I think you’ll see a lot of changes in our local government,” Mr. Hirschey, a Republican and past member of WPEG, said late Tuesday. “Will there be a wind moratorium? Probably. You’ll just have to come to our January meeting to find out.”
Read the entire article
In the race for Town Council, Wind Power Ethics Group member Clifford J. Schneider, with 471, led the pack in a tight race. Incumbent and wind lease holder Marty T. Mason received 453 votes, just ahead of Republican WPEG member John L. Byrne, with 448 votes. Incumbent Donald J. Mason, also a wind-power advocate, polled 423.
However, with 503 absentee ballots issued, many of them to seasonal residents who registered to vote in Cape Vincent and who nearly exclusively supported Mr. Hirschey in the Republican primary, the anti-wind forces appear confident they will control the council.
“I think you’ll see a lot of changes in our local government,” Mr. Hirschey, a Republican and past member of WPEG, said late Tuesday. “Will there be a wind moratorium? Probably. You’ll just have to come to our January meeting to find out.”
Read the entire article
Monday, November 07, 2011
Steuben official: Any new windfarms a year away
Any action on locally proposed wind farms is still in the future, according to Steuben County Industrial Development Agency Executive Director Jamie Johnson.
Johnson’s agency is exploring wind farm development and the impact of the state’s renewed Article X energy generation siting law.
“Part of what they had to do was to develop regulations to begin with,” Johnson said. “It will take at least a year for that to happen. And the state won’t accept any applications until then.”
The law was signed on Aug. 4 by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and calls for a state commission to review any project generating more than 25 megawatts of electricity.
The commission includes the heads of the state energy-related boards, and commissioners from the state departments of Environmental Conservation, Health and Economic Development. Two members from the community also will sit in on the reviews of projects affecting their home area.
The law was enthusiastically endorsed by the energy industry, which hopes for a more streamlined process in siting projects. Opponents charged the law takes away towns’ right to home rule and argue the commission may be swayed by industrial lobbyists.
So far, the local focus has been on wind energy, but the siting law includes all energy projects, including nuclear, geothermal, coal and natural gas, Johnson said.
However, for those involved for years in bitter disputes over proposed wind-turbine projects, the issue has thrown more fuel on the fire.
Supporters of wind farms have long held the multi-billion businesses are a source of renewable energy, and provide needed revenues and services in their towns. They maintain legal delays forced by opponents have cost the towns millions of dollars in revenue — money they fear will go into state coffers.
But the siting commission has no say in what revenues and services counties, towns, and schools receive, Johnson said.
“What it does is take the environmental review out of the hands of industrial groups, such as (SCIDA),” Johnson said. “That’s all it does.”
According to nationwide reports, the wind-energy industry is looking at new technologies, in order to make turbines — now highly inefficient — more productive, and answer critics complaints the 400-foot tall machines endanger humans and the environment.
Those changes may mean companies have to start over again for the commission’s environmental reviews, Johnson said.
As far as revenues, Steuben’s laws mandate any energy development firm enter tax incentive agreements through SCIDA, or face full taxation by the county. That means the towns will receive the lion’s share of multi-million payments, with the schools and county dividing the remainder.
“On the town level, what they negotiate with a company (for extra services) is up to them,” Johnson said.
The county is now the site of two wind farms, in Cohocton and Howard. In Prattsburgh, both sides in the dispute between wind developer Ecogen and the town claim a favorable ruling by the state Supreme Court earlier this year. The town of Troupsburg is reportedly studying a wind project there.
Johnson’s agency is exploring wind farm development and the impact of the state’s renewed Article X energy generation siting law.
“Part of what they had to do was to develop regulations to begin with,” Johnson said. “It will take at least a year for that to happen. And the state won’t accept any applications until then.”
The law was signed on Aug. 4 by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and calls for a state commission to review any project generating more than 25 megawatts of electricity.
The commission includes the heads of the state energy-related boards, and commissioners from the state departments of Environmental Conservation, Health and Economic Development. Two members from the community also will sit in on the reviews of projects affecting their home area.
The law was enthusiastically endorsed by the energy industry, which hopes for a more streamlined process in siting projects. Opponents charged the law takes away towns’ right to home rule and argue the commission may be swayed by industrial lobbyists.
So far, the local focus has been on wind energy, but the siting law includes all energy projects, including nuclear, geothermal, coal and natural gas, Johnson said.
However, for those involved for years in bitter disputes over proposed wind-turbine projects, the issue has thrown more fuel on the fire.
Supporters of wind farms have long held the multi-billion businesses are a source of renewable energy, and provide needed revenues and services in their towns. They maintain legal delays forced by opponents have cost the towns millions of dollars in revenue — money they fear will go into state coffers.
But the siting commission has no say in what revenues and services counties, towns, and schools receive, Johnson said.
“What it does is take the environmental review out of the hands of industrial groups, such as (SCIDA),” Johnson said. “That’s all it does.”
According to nationwide reports, the wind-energy industry is looking at new technologies, in order to make turbines — now highly inefficient — more productive, and answer critics complaints the 400-foot tall machines endanger humans and the environment.
Those changes may mean companies have to start over again for the commission’s environmental reviews, Johnson said.
As far as revenues, Steuben’s laws mandate any energy development firm enter tax incentive agreements through SCIDA, or face full taxation by the county. That means the towns will receive the lion’s share of multi-million payments, with the schools and county dividing the remainder.
“On the town level, what they negotiate with a company (for extra services) is up to them,” Johnson said.
The county is now the site of two wind farms, in Cohocton and Howard. In Prattsburgh, both sides in the dispute between wind developer Ecogen and the town claim a favorable ruling by the state Supreme Court earlier this year. The town of Troupsburg is reportedly studying a wind project there.
Sunday, November 06, 2011
Republican congressman pushes for an end to all energy tax credits
A Republican congressman from Kansas plans to introduce a bill this week to end all tax credits for the energy sector, saying he believes it’s time for conventional and alternative sources alike to show their worth without government help.
Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., told lawmakers in a letter last week that his bill would save the U.S. government up to $90 billion over 10 years in what he says is spending that distorts the market. He pointed to the ongoing scandal over the Energy Department’s $535 million loan guarantee to the now-bankrupt Fremont, Calif., solar-panel maker Solyndra LLC.
“The Solyndra scandal has demonstrated the danger of government interference in energy markets,” he wrote, calling his bill “a reasonable approach to ending the decades-long practice of trying to pick winners and losers.”
Among the credits the bill would end are the renewable electricity production tax credit, which rewards companies for each kilowatt-hour of generating capacity they install from sources such as wind, biomass, geothermal, landfill-gas, municipal-waste or hydroelectric. Credits for plug-in electric and fuel-cell vehicles and alternative fuels would also end.
The bill would also end credits for enhanced oil recovery and technologies that reduce emissions from coal.
Pompeo wrote that his bill would preserve “general deductions available to multiple industries.”
But his legislation is sure to face resistance. Democrats, who control the Senate, have sought to target tax breaks for oil-and-gas companies but may be hesitant to end federal support for alternative sources, which they say can help address pollution and climate change.
The American Wind Energy Association, a wind-power trade group in Washington, has issued a statement blasting Pompeo’s bill.
“Representative Pompeo seems to misunderstand how a key federal tax incentive has built a thriving American wind manufacturing sector and tens of thousands of American jobs,” CEO Denise Bode said in a statement, referring to the production tax credit for wind electricity, which will expire after Dec. 31, 2012, without action from Congress.
Bob Deans, associate director of communications for the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, has criticized Republicans for using the Solyndra scandal to target all clean energy: “We should learn the lessons of Solyndra, to be sure, but then move forward — because, as China and our other global competitors have grasped all too well, solar energy, wind, and other emerging technologies hold the promise and potential to help power the world into the 21st century.”
Pompeo also said his bill would be revenue-neutral by including a corporate tax rate reduction that corresponds to the money his bill saves.
The bill isn’t meant to raise money for the government, Pompeo said, “but rather to correct decades of taxpayer funded handouts to industries more than capable of thriving in the open market.”
A list of tax credits his bill will target, according to the letter:
•Plug-in electric and fuel cell vehicles
•Alternative fuel and alternative fuel mixtures
•Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Credit
•Alternative fuel infrastructure
•Production Tax Credit for electricity produced from renewable sources, including wind, biomass, and hydropower
•Investment Tax Credit for equipment powered by solar, fuel cells, geothermal or other specified renewable sources
•Enhanced oil recovery credit, and credit for producing oil and gas from marginal wells
•Advanced Nuclear Power Generation Credit
•Clean coal investment credits
Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., told lawmakers in a letter last week that his bill would save the U.S. government up to $90 billion over 10 years in what he says is spending that distorts the market. He pointed to the ongoing scandal over the Energy Department’s $535 million loan guarantee to the now-bankrupt Fremont, Calif., solar-panel maker Solyndra LLC.
“The Solyndra scandal has demonstrated the danger of government interference in energy markets,” he wrote, calling his bill “a reasonable approach to ending the decades-long practice of trying to pick winners and losers.”
Among the credits the bill would end are the renewable electricity production tax credit, which rewards companies for each kilowatt-hour of generating capacity they install from sources such as wind, biomass, geothermal, landfill-gas, municipal-waste or hydroelectric. Credits for plug-in electric and fuel-cell vehicles and alternative fuels would also end.
The bill would also end credits for enhanced oil recovery and technologies that reduce emissions from coal.
Pompeo wrote that his bill would preserve “general deductions available to multiple industries.”
But his legislation is sure to face resistance. Democrats, who control the Senate, have sought to target tax breaks for oil-and-gas companies but may be hesitant to end federal support for alternative sources, which they say can help address pollution and climate change.
The American Wind Energy Association, a wind-power trade group in Washington, has issued a statement blasting Pompeo’s bill.
“Representative Pompeo seems to misunderstand how a key federal tax incentive has built a thriving American wind manufacturing sector and tens of thousands of American jobs,” CEO Denise Bode said in a statement, referring to the production tax credit for wind electricity, which will expire after Dec. 31, 2012, without action from Congress.
Bob Deans, associate director of communications for the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, has criticized Republicans for using the Solyndra scandal to target all clean energy: “We should learn the lessons of Solyndra, to be sure, but then move forward — because, as China and our other global competitors have grasped all too well, solar energy, wind, and other emerging technologies hold the promise and potential to help power the world into the 21st century.”
Pompeo also said his bill would be revenue-neutral by including a corporate tax rate reduction that corresponds to the money his bill saves.
The bill isn’t meant to raise money for the government, Pompeo said, “but rather to correct decades of taxpayer funded handouts to industries more than capable of thriving in the open market.”
A list of tax credits his bill will target, according to the letter:
•Plug-in electric and fuel cell vehicles
•Alternative fuel and alternative fuel mixtures
•Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Credit
•Alternative fuel infrastructure
•Production Tax Credit for electricity produced from renewable sources, including wind, biomass, and hydropower
•Investment Tax Credit for equipment powered by solar, fuel cells, geothermal or other specified renewable sources
•Enhanced oil recovery credit, and credit for producing oil and gas from marginal wells
•Advanced Nuclear Power Generation Credit
•Clean coal investment credits
Friday, November 04, 2011
Vote Republican for Cape Vincent's future
There are not many times when a local election can be called the most important since a town was founded. Nevertheless, this aptly describes the importance of this year’s election in the town of Cape Vincent. What is at stake is Cape Vincent’s future and, fortunately for voters, the choices are clearly defined this year.
One future, endorsed by Conservative Party candidates for supervisor and council, proposes two wind projects totaling 135 turbines, which when combined with the Wolfe Island Wind Project would represent the largest commercial wind complex east of the Mississippi River — even larger than Maple Ridge.
The other future, supported by Republican candidates, would follow the “Joint Comprehensive Plan for the Village and Town of Cape Vincent 2003.” The plan represents the foundation for our zoning law and provides a guide to future growth and community development. Cape Vincent’s plan prescribes maintaining the Cape’s “small-town quality of life.” It advises to “further develop the tourism industry.” The plan also dictates what not to do: “discourage the location of towers, prisons or utility facilities where their impact would have a negative impact on scenic vistas and tourism assets.”
The Republican Party of Cape Vincent not only asks for your vote on Tuesday, but also your support for their efforts to work toward the future represented in our village and town’s comprehensive plan. By voting the Republican line on the ballot, you can also be assured that all our candidates have no contracts with commercial wind developers, no conflicts of interest and will serve all the residents of Cape Vincent. Republican candidates John Byrne, Clif Schneider, Colleen Knuth, Pam Youngs and Harry Landers all strongly endorse the spirit of this letter and want to thank you for your support and your vote.
Urban Hirschey
Cape Vincent
One future, endorsed by Conservative Party candidates for supervisor and council, proposes two wind projects totaling 135 turbines, which when combined with the Wolfe Island Wind Project would represent the largest commercial wind complex east of the Mississippi River — even larger than Maple Ridge.
The other future, supported by Republican candidates, would follow the “Joint Comprehensive Plan for the Village and Town of Cape Vincent 2003.” The plan represents the foundation for our zoning law and provides a guide to future growth and community development. Cape Vincent’s plan prescribes maintaining the Cape’s “small-town quality of life.” It advises to “further develop the tourism industry.” The plan also dictates what not to do: “discourage the location of towers, prisons or utility facilities where their impact would have a negative impact on scenic vistas and tourism assets.”
The Republican Party of Cape Vincent not only asks for your vote on Tuesday, but also your support for their efforts to work toward the future represented in our village and town’s comprehensive plan. By voting the Republican line on the ballot, you can also be assured that all our candidates have no contracts with commercial wind developers, no conflicts of interest and will serve all the residents of Cape Vincent. Republican candidates John Byrne, Clif Schneider, Colleen Knuth, Pam Youngs and Harry Landers all strongly endorse the spirit of this letter and want to thank you for your support and your vote.
Urban Hirschey
Cape Vincent
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
NYISO 9/14/11 changes definition of capacity for windfarms!?
Read and save these important changes. More proof NYS known that there is not enought wind for industrial wind . . .
NYISO 9/14/11 changes definition of capacity for windfarms!?
NYISO new definition of nonforced capacity and capacity
NYISO 9/14/11 changes definition of capacity for windfarms!?
NYISO new definition of nonforced capacity and capacity
Galloo Island Wind Farm searches for power purchaser
Galloo Island Wind Farm is shopping its electricity around to state and private buyers to keep the possibility of an underwater transmission line alive.
A representative of developer Upstate NY Power Corp. told parties on a conference call held by the Public Service Commission on Thursday morning that the developer isn’t giving up after the New York Power Authority scrapped its Great Lakes Offshore Wind project in September. The project, which requested proposals from developers for wind power projects in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, would give the developers purchase power agreements, providing a steady stream of income even as the electricity market ebbs and flows.
“It would have been the cleanest method for a PPA,” said Robert W. Burgdorf, attorney with Nixon Peabody, Rochester, and developer representative. “The company is frankly frustrated; it has incurred significant delay. The company believed it was the lowest bidder by far and it believed it had reason to be optimistic as recently as two months ago.”
The developer had told the parties in previous calls that it needed a PPA to make the project viable. But Mr. Burgdorf appeared to leave open the option to construct the 246-megawatt project without a PPA as long as an overland transmission route was pursued. He did not respond to a request for clarification Thursday.
Read the entire article
A representative of developer Upstate NY Power Corp. told parties on a conference call held by the Public Service Commission on Thursday morning that the developer isn’t giving up after the New York Power Authority scrapped its Great Lakes Offshore Wind project in September. The project, which requested proposals from developers for wind power projects in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, would give the developers purchase power agreements, providing a steady stream of income even as the electricity market ebbs and flows.
“It would have been the cleanest method for a PPA,” said Robert W. Burgdorf, attorney with Nixon Peabody, Rochester, and developer representative. “The company is frankly frustrated; it has incurred significant delay. The company believed it was the lowest bidder by far and it believed it had reason to be optimistic as recently as two months ago.”
The developer had told the parties in previous calls that it needed a PPA to make the project viable. But Mr. Burgdorf appeared to leave open the option to construct the 246-megawatt project without a PPA as long as an overland transmission route was pursued. He did not respond to a request for clarification Thursday.
Read the entire article
Monday, October 31, 2011
Wind power subsidy could be in danger
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)