The debate surrounding the Production Tax Credit (PTC) intensified last quarter following several high-profile attempts by Congress to extend the credit before it expires at year-end. Industry warnings of precipitous declines in clean-tech investment and imminent job losses have reached a fevered pitch. The New York Times, for example, reflexively accused budget-hawks in Congress of being preoccupied with safeguarding the dominance of the oil and gas industries.
The idea that wind, which represents less than 3% of total electricity generation in the country after huge taxpayer benefits and state mandates, could threaten the continued use of fossil fuels in electric generation is fantasy. It demonstrates a general ignorance about wind energy’s purpose and its limited contribution to our energy portfolio.
While we might forgive a newspaper editor’s misunderstanding of the complexities of renewable energy policy, it’s quite another thing to see the same level of ignorance on display on Capitol Hill by the very people tasked with understanding and voting on these policies.
Last month, the House Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures invited fellow House members to speak on behalf of bills they introduced or co-sponsored that would extend more than sixty expiring tax provisions, including the PTC. Of the nearly thirty witnesses who testified, one-third pressed for immediate extension of the credit.
Representatives Bass and Welch from New England, Deutch of Florida, Reichert of Washington and others repeatedly echoed the same AWEA talking points about job creation, the need to reduce reliance on fossil fuel, risks of climate change and, my favorite, economic opportunity for their state.
Like the Times, they touted the importance of the U.S. remaining a strong global clean energy market.
And like the Times, not one of those advocating for the PTC had a clue the role of the subsidy in the power market or the likely outcome if the subsidy were to expire. Either that, or political expediency ruled the day and they didn’t care.
PTC and RPS Policy Links
In the early 1990′s following enactment of the PTC there was no demand for wind power. States did not have renewable mandates and by time the Asian Financial crisis hit, oil prices collapsed taking with them any financial incentive to install costly renewables. When energy prices recovered somewhat there was an uptick in wind development but it was concentrated in four states with renewable programs — California, Iowa, Minnesota and Texas.
In the years 2000, 2002 and 2004, the PTC expired and wind development stalled but in that same period, energy prices were fluctuating, the 9/11 terrorist attack shocked the US economy and we slipped into recession. Claims that expiration of the PTC alone caused wind development to stall are overly simplistic. In fact, given available data, it’s impossible to isolate the PTC’s affect. Some energy experts maintain the PTC was largely irrelevant in those years.
After 2004, the subsidy may have contributed to growth, but so did State policies mandating renewables.[1].
When states adopted Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) [2] as a means of addressing climate change wind installations showed marked growth. Legislators believed claims made by wind proponents that wind, with no fuel costs, would protect ratepayers from dramatic swings in fuel prices, and eventually stabilize and lower energy prices. In return, they envisioned a transition to more renewables, the decommissioning of older fossil plants and cleaner air.
But wind is an unpredictable, non-dispatchable resource that’s built long distances from load and largely delivers energy at a time of day and year when least needed. With high upfront costs and fewer hours to spread the cost over, wind cannot compete with reliable, lower-priced fossil and nuclear generation. It’s inherently a low-value resource, that demands above market prices.
The PTC subsidizes project capital costs by providing an outside revenue stream [3] for investors and project owners. The credit, in turn, artificially shields ratepayers from the true price of wind power.
Yet, federally subsidizing wind is not enough to incite utilities to buy.
RPS policies created demand for wind [4] by establishing non-competitive segments of the power market for qualifying renewables. Today, over half of the states have RPS policies which apply to more than 50-percent of total U.S. electricity load.
Life after the PTC: No Free Lunch
The PTC and RPS combined provide the wind industry a market for its energy and a means of shielding ratepayers from the true cost of their product. But the PTC disproportionately benefits ratepayers in States with renewable mandates by distributing the high cost of wind to taxpayers at large.
Some complain that Americans are double-paying for wind — once through above-market energy prices and again in their taxes, but this is not true. In fact, we are paying the true price of wind allocated in both the rate-base and the tax-base. If the PTC were to expire, people living in Georgia, Wyoming and other states with no RPS policies would rightfully be relieved of subsidizing policies enacted in other states. But what would happen in states with mandates?
Existing wind projects that are still collecting the PTC would not be impacted, but proposals for new wind would be under pressure to significantly lower their capital costs and improve their production numbers in order to account for the lost federal revenue. In addition, the value of the renewable energy credits would likely increase thus placing even more upward pressure on renewable energy prices. Legislatures will be forced to confront the real cost of wind power and evaluate whether the policy will ever deliver on goals originally envisioned.
The AWEA insists the PTC is an effective tool to keep electricity rates low. In fact, it is nothing more than a cost imposed on all taxpayers in order to accommodate development of a politically well-connected, high-priced, low-value resource that cannot meet our electric capacity needs.
[1]Wind also benefited from rising natural gas prices (over $5 per million BTU) making wind power contracts an attractive way to displace higher-cost natural gas generation.
[2]RPS policies mandate utilities supply a minimum percentage of their customer load with electricity from qualified renewable sources.
[3]The open-ended subsidy of 2.2¢/kWh in after-tax income represents a pre-tax value of approximately 3.7¢/kWh.. The PTC is tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and therefore is scaled each year. Today, the PTC costs US taxpayers $1.5 billion per year.
[4] Wiser, R., Namovicz, C., Glelecki, M., Smith, R., Renewables Portfolio Standards: A Factual Introduction to Experience from the United States http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/62569.pdf Some states allow out-of-state generation to count toward their RPS requirements. Renewable capacity built in a non-RPS state may be used to meet another state’s mandate.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
Prattsburgh, Ecogen may face off again
The town of Prattsburgh and wind developer Ecogen may be headed back to state Supreme Court Justice John Ark’s courtroom.
Town board members voted 3-2 Monday to respond to Ecogen’s latest legal action – a stay -- which could force another hearing by Ark on a three-year old dispute between the town and the developer.
One of the issues is a 168-day window Ark left open for Ecogen to show it had “vested rights” to the wind farm. Ecogen has claimed for at least four years it has those rights and is prepared to begin construction on a 16-turbine wind farm.
The question is when Ark’s 168-day deadline started, town board members said.
But the unity the board has shown in the past several months split wide open over concerns about mounting legal fees, now pegged at $120,000.
Town Supervisor Lenny McConnell said the town faces as much as $50,000 - $60,000 in additional court costs if the matter goes to the state Court of Appeals. The town could pull about $53,000 from reserves, but would have to float a bond if legal fees exceeded that.
McConnell also questioned Town Councilman Chuck Shick’s report that responding to the current issue would cost in the neighborhood of $10,000. Shick’s estimate was later verified during a teleconference by the town’s attorney Ed Hourihan.
The two men also clashed several times during the meeting, with McConnell insisting the town cannot win the lawsuit, and Shick saying the town has the upper hand in the current dispute and should not give up.
Other board members said they wanted more information on what’s at stake before the town pursues the matter to the appellate court.
After the teleconference with Hourihan, the board agree by a narrow margin to the interim legal step that could bring the matter back to Ark’s court.
Shick and councilwomen Anneke Radin-Snaith and Angela Einwachter voted for the resolution, while McConnell and Councilman Greg Booth voted against it.
Town board members voted 3-2 Monday to respond to Ecogen’s latest legal action – a stay -- which could force another hearing by Ark on a three-year old dispute between the town and the developer.
One of the issues is a 168-day window Ark left open for Ecogen to show it had “vested rights” to the wind farm. Ecogen has claimed for at least four years it has those rights and is prepared to begin construction on a 16-turbine wind farm.
The question is when Ark’s 168-day deadline started, town board members said.
But the unity the board has shown in the past several months split wide open over concerns about mounting legal fees, now pegged at $120,000.
Town Supervisor Lenny McConnell said the town faces as much as $50,000 - $60,000 in additional court costs if the matter goes to the state Court of Appeals. The town could pull about $53,000 from reserves, but would have to float a bond if legal fees exceeded that.
McConnell also questioned Town Councilman Chuck Shick’s report that responding to the current issue would cost in the neighborhood of $10,000. Shick’s estimate was later verified during a teleconference by the town’s attorney Ed Hourihan.
The two men also clashed several times during the meeting, with McConnell insisting the town cannot win the lawsuit, and Shick saying the town has the upper hand in the current dispute and should not give up.
Other board members said they wanted more information on what’s at stake before the town pursues the matter to the appellate court.
After the teleconference with Hourihan, the board agree by a narrow margin to the interim legal step that could bring the matter back to Ark’s court.
Shick and councilwomen Anneke Radin-Snaith and Angela Einwachter voted for the resolution, while McConnell and Councilman Greg Booth voted against it.
Saturday, May 05, 2012
NextEra plans wind turbines at WGI
NextEra Energy, the company that’s planning a $200 million wind farm project across Schuyler and Chemung counties, has reached a deal with a high-profile landowner – Watkins Glen International.
NextEra – one of the largest power providers in the country – plans to locate multiple wind turbines, 400 feet tall, on the 1,832 acres that surround the historic race track in Schuyler County, officials announced Thursday.
The turbines at the race track would be among 50 to 75 scattered across the towns of Dix, Catharine and Hector in Schuyler County, and Catlin in Chemung County.
NextEra installed towers in the area to measure wind capacity in 2010, and has been negotiating with landowners about possible locations for the turbines.
They’ve also contacted local governments about the project, and will be seeking tax break packages through the county industrial development agencies. The bulk of the permits required will come from the state. An environmental impact review is required prior to approval.
NextEra hopes to begin building access roads, laying connecting lines and assembling the giant turbines in 2014 or 2015, and says the project will create about 200 construction jobs and 8 to 10 permanent jobs. The project will take six to nine months to complete.
WGI is not the first landowner that NextEra has reached a tentative agreement with, but is “certainly the largest,” NextEra spokesman Ross Groffman said during a press conference Thursday afternoon at WGI’s Media Center.
Groffman says having one of the most prominent businesses in the area on board gives the project a significant boost.
Michael Printup, WGI president, says the land lease will be the “first step of many” in the relationship between the two companies.
“I think there’s nothing like clean energy that can move the little needle, and with us and the popularity of NASCAR, and we have 5 or 6 million people watching us on TV, that’s the crux of this relationship,” Printup said.
The huge turbines will likely be visible from the grandstands during races, officials say.
Printup was asked if NextEra planned to advertise at the race track.
“We would expect to sit down and talk once they have a project, but at this point, it’s only a land lease,” he said. “But of course we would like to expand that relationship to include something else down the road.”
WGI’s biggest draw, the NASCAR Sprint Cup race in August, is currently without a title sponsor, as the track announced back in February that it was unable to reach a deal for Heluva Good! Sour Cream Dips to return.
Groffman didn’t say if NextEra would consider sponsoring the Cup race, saying only: “Going forward, we expect we’ll have some marketing activity here, if and when the project comes to fruition.”
There’s already a relationship between WGI’s parent company, the International Speedway Corp., and NextEra. They have deals involving renewable energy credits, marketing and sponsorships at ISC’s two tracks in Florida, Daytona International Speedway and Homestead Miami Speedway.
NextEra, based in Florida, is a Fortune 200 company with approximately $15 billion in annual revenues.
It’s the largest renewable energy provider in North America, with wind, solar and hydro facilities. It also has electricity-generating plants fueled by nuclear, natural gas and oil.
NextEra has 90 wind farms with 8,900 turbines across the U.S. and Canada, but they’ve never put a wind farm at a major outdoor sporting complex, Groffman said.
“We have not built a wind farm in a location like (WGI) before,” he said. “We’re really excited about the potential of doing something like this.”
WGI would not be able to draw power directly from the turbines. Rather, the turbines feed power into the local grid.
Deals with landowners typically involve an up-front bonus along with annual payments. Groffman called the payments a “generous sum.”
Multiple elected officials from the area -- including Congressman Tom Reed, state Senator Tom O’Mara, state Assemblyman Tom Reed, Schuyler County Administrator Tim O’Hearn and several economic development officials -- attended Thursday’s announcement.
“While it’s preliminary, we’re certainly excited about the potential this project brings, from an economic development standpoint as well as the renewable energy front,” O’Hearn said.
Wind farms in Steuben County have been met with resistance from some residents who don’t want the huge turbines located near their homes.
Concerns have included their impact on property value, as well as noise, the potential to kill birds and bats, and “shadow flicker,” a strobe-like effect inside homes created by the spinning turbines which studies have linked to health issues.
Also, some towns in Steuben have become involved in legal disputes with other wind companies.
But NextEra officials said there were no issues so far with their Schuyler/Chemung project.
O’Hearn agreed.
“The comments we’ve gotten so far have been more along the lines of questions, landowners doing their due diligence, to find out what opportunities might present for them,” he said. “We have not received any significant opposition at this point.”
“Ultimately, as a community -- as in any development -- we want to make sure that it’s done responsibly,” O’Hearn added. “Certainly we’d be foolish not to recognize the economic potential of this. The question now is to balance the economic impact with responsible development.”
NextEra – one of the largest power providers in the country – plans to locate multiple wind turbines, 400 feet tall, on the 1,832 acres that surround the historic race track in Schuyler County, officials announced Thursday.
The turbines at the race track would be among 50 to 75 scattered across the towns of Dix, Catharine and Hector in Schuyler County, and Catlin in Chemung County.
NextEra installed towers in the area to measure wind capacity in 2010, and has been negotiating with landowners about possible locations for the turbines.
They’ve also contacted local governments about the project, and will be seeking tax break packages through the county industrial development agencies. The bulk of the permits required will come from the state. An environmental impact review is required prior to approval.
NextEra hopes to begin building access roads, laying connecting lines and assembling the giant turbines in 2014 or 2015, and says the project will create about 200 construction jobs and 8 to 10 permanent jobs. The project will take six to nine months to complete.
WGI is not the first landowner that NextEra has reached a tentative agreement with, but is “certainly the largest,” NextEra spokesman Ross Groffman said during a press conference Thursday afternoon at WGI’s Media Center.
Groffman says having one of the most prominent businesses in the area on board gives the project a significant boost.
Michael Printup, WGI president, says the land lease will be the “first step of many” in the relationship between the two companies.
“I think there’s nothing like clean energy that can move the little needle, and with us and the popularity of NASCAR, and we have 5 or 6 million people watching us on TV, that’s the crux of this relationship,” Printup said.
The huge turbines will likely be visible from the grandstands during races, officials say.
Printup was asked if NextEra planned to advertise at the race track.
“We would expect to sit down and talk once they have a project, but at this point, it’s only a land lease,” he said. “But of course we would like to expand that relationship to include something else down the road.”
WGI’s biggest draw, the NASCAR Sprint Cup race in August, is currently without a title sponsor, as the track announced back in February that it was unable to reach a deal for Heluva Good! Sour Cream Dips to return.
Groffman didn’t say if NextEra would consider sponsoring the Cup race, saying only: “Going forward, we expect we’ll have some marketing activity here, if and when the project comes to fruition.”
There’s already a relationship between WGI’s parent company, the International Speedway Corp., and NextEra. They have deals involving renewable energy credits, marketing and sponsorships at ISC’s two tracks in Florida, Daytona International Speedway and Homestead Miami Speedway.
NextEra, based in Florida, is a Fortune 200 company with approximately $15 billion in annual revenues.
It’s the largest renewable energy provider in North America, with wind, solar and hydro facilities. It also has electricity-generating plants fueled by nuclear, natural gas and oil.
NextEra has 90 wind farms with 8,900 turbines across the U.S. and Canada, but they’ve never put a wind farm at a major outdoor sporting complex, Groffman said.
“We have not built a wind farm in a location like (WGI) before,” he said. “We’re really excited about the potential of doing something like this.”
WGI would not be able to draw power directly from the turbines. Rather, the turbines feed power into the local grid.
Deals with landowners typically involve an up-front bonus along with annual payments. Groffman called the payments a “generous sum.”
Multiple elected officials from the area -- including Congressman Tom Reed, state Senator Tom O’Mara, state Assemblyman Tom Reed, Schuyler County Administrator Tim O’Hearn and several economic development officials -- attended Thursday’s announcement.
“While it’s preliminary, we’re certainly excited about the potential this project brings, from an economic development standpoint as well as the renewable energy front,” O’Hearn said.
Wind farms in Steuben County have been met with resistance from some residents who don’t want the huge turbines located near their homes.
Concerns have included their impact on property value, as well as noise, the potential to kill birds and bats, and “shadow flicker,” a strobe-like effect inside homes created by the spinning turbines which studies have linked to health issues.
Also, some towns in Steuben have become involved in legal disputes with other wind companies.
But NextEra officials said there were no issues so far with their Schuyler/Chemung project.
O’Hearn agreed.
“The comments we’ve gotten so far have been more along the lines of questions, landowners doing their due diligence, to find out what opportunities might present for them,” he said. “We have not received any significant opposition at this point.”
“Ultimately, as a community -- as in any development -- we want to make sure that it’s done responsibly,” O’Hearn added. “Certainly we’d be foolish not to recognize the economic potential of this. The question now is to balance the economic impact with responsible development.”
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Monday, April 30, 2012
Wind farms may be warming the planet
The radical environmentalists who push Al Gore-Style alarmism over climate change keep claiming that so-called "alternative energy" is wonderful for the world.
They leave out all the negative environmental and aesthetic effects of giant wind and solar farms.
It's turning out wind isn't so wonderful after all.
The first wind farms turned out to be vast killing fields for migratory birds. And the noise and vibration they create makes them unsuitable as neighbors to humans.
Meanwhile over at the Lew Rockwell blog, I came upon a link to this British newspaper report on yet another negative effect of wind power:
Usually at night the air closer to the ground becomes colder when the sun goes down and the earth cools.
But on huge wind farms the motion of the turbines mixes the air higher in the atmosphere that is warmer, pushing up the overall temperature.
Satellite data over a large area in Texas, that is now covered by four of the world's largest wind farms, found that over a decade the local temperature went up by almost 1C as more turbines are built.
This could have long term effects on wildlife living in the immediate areas of larger wind farms.
Looks like it's time to look for a new magical source of carbon-free power.
Or maybe now the enviros will finally turn to the type of power advocated by those who started the scam.
They leave out all the negative environmental and aesthetic effects of giant wind and solar farms.
It's turning out wind isn't so wonderful after all.
The first wind farms turned out to be vast killing fields for migratory birds. And the noise and vibration they create makes them unsuitable as neighbors to humans.
Meanwhile over at the Lew Rockwell blog, I came upon a link to this British newspaper report on yet another negative effect of wind power:
Usually at night the air closer to the ground becomes colder when the sun goes down and the earth cools.
But on huge wind farms the motion of the turbines mixes the air higher in the atmosphere that is warmer, pushing up the overall temperature.
Satellite data over a large area in Texas, that is now covered by four of the world's largest wind farms, found that over a decade the local temperature went up by almost 1C as more turbines are built.
This could have long term effects on wildlife living in the immediate areas of larger wind farms.
Looks like it's time to look for a new magical source of carbon-free power.
Or maybe now the enviros will finally turn to the type of power advocated by those who started the scam.
Windfarms can increase night time temperatures, research reveals
Large windfarms can increase local night time temperatures by fanning warmer air onto the ground, new research has revealed. The study used satellite data to show that the building of huge windfarms in west Texas over the last decade has warmed the nights by up to 0.72C.
"Wind power is going to be a part of the solution to the climate change, air pollution and energy security problem," said Liming Zhou, at the University of Albany in New York. "But understanding the impacts of windfarms is critical for developing management strategies to ensure the long-term sustainability of wind power."
West Texas has seen rapid expansion of windfarms, with turbine numbers rising from 111 in 2003 to 2358 in 2011. Zhou's team compared the land surface temperatures at the windfarms with other areas across this period and detected a clear rise at night.
They note, however, that the effect on the air temperature, which is usually given in weather forecasts, will be lower than 0.72C rise because they respond less quickly to changes than land temperatures.
The scientists say the effect is due to the gentle turbulence caused by the wind turbines. After the sun has set, the land cools down more quickly than the air, leaving a cold blanket of air just above the ground. But the turbine wakes mix this cold layer with the warmer air above, raising the temperature. A previous study found a similar effect but was based on data from only two weather stations over just six weeks.
"The result looks pretty solid to me," said Steven Sherwood at the climate change research centre at the University of New South Wales, Australia. "The same strategy is commonly used by fruit growers, who fly helicopters over the orchards rather than erect windmills, to combat early morning frosts."
"Overall, the warming effect reported in our study is local and is small compared to the strong year-to-year changes" that result from natural variation, said Zhou. The study is published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
He told the Guardian that his results could not be used as an justification for blocking new windfarms. "The warming might have positive effects," he said. "Furthermore, this study is focused only on one region and for only 9 years. Much more work is needed before we can draw any conclusion."
"Wind power is going to be a part of the solution to the climate change, air pollution and energy security problem," said Liming Zhou, at the University of Albany in New York. "But understanding the impacts of windfarms is critical for developing management strategies to ensure the long-term sustainability of wind power."
West Texas has seen rapid expansion of windfarms, with turbine numbers rising from 111 in 2003 to 2358 in 2011. Zhou's team compared the land surface temperatures at the windfarms with other areas across this period and detected a clear rise at night.
They note, however, that the effect on the air temperature, which is usually given in weather forecasts, will be lower than 0.72C rise because they respond less quickly to changes than land temperatures.
The scientists say the effect is due to the gentle turbulence caused by the wind turbines. After the sun has set, the land cools down more quickly than the air, leaving a cold blanket of air just above the ground. But the turbine wakes mix this cold layer with the warmer air above, raising the temperature. A previous study found a similar effect but was based on data from only two weather stations over just six weeks.
"The result looks pretty solid to me," said Steven Sherwood at the climate change research centre at the University of New South Wales, Australia. "The same strategy is commonly used by fruit growers, who fly helicopters over the orchards rather than erect windmills, to combat early morning frosts."
"Overall, the warming effect reported in our study is local and is small compared to the strong year-to-year changes" that result from natural variation, said Zhou. The study is published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
He told the Guardian that his results could not be used as an justification for blocking new windfarms. "The warming might have positive effects," he said. "Furthermore, this study is focused only on one region and for only 9 years. Much more work is needed before we can draw any conclusion."
Green isle forced to revert to diesel
THE residents of Foula, Scotland’s most remote inhabited island which achieved a remarkable first by becoming 100 per cent self-sufficient with renewable energy, are now forced to endure black-outs.
An all-night black-out has had to be brought into force for the 22 homes on the isolated Shetland community, because of teething problems in the island’s £1.5 million hydro and solar power schemes.
Foula’s three wind turbines have been out of action since Christmas, when 100mph winds damaged the blades of one of the turbines.
Now islanders are back to relying on costly diesel generator until the faults can be rectified.
Two years ago the islanders, who live 20 miles from the Shetland mainland, were awarded £200,000 in funding from the Big Lottery Fund towards their combination of wind, solar and hydro power, enabling Foula to become the first Shetland community to become self-sufficient in energy. The final phase was completed last October.
But it has been revealed a series of problems with the pioneering green energy scheme has left the islanders having to rely on back-up diesel generators to power their homes.
And, because of crippling fuel costs, they are operating a blackout from 12:30am to 7am.
Frank Robertson, the councillor for Shetland West and a member of the Foula Electricity Trust, insisted yesterday the breakdown was a “teething problem” and round-the-clock power could be restored to the island by the end of next week.
Before the renewable energy scheme was installed, Foula was powered through one wind turbine and two dilapidated main diesel generators or individual generators at their homes.
The island now has three small state-of-the-art turbines –currently out of action – a hydro scheme in which a turbine is powered by water from a loch on one of the main hilltops, and a new photovoltaic solar panel scheme, which turns daylight directly into electricity.
For the first time, residents were able to enjoy 24-hour power more than a year ago. But Mr Robertson said two new back-up diesel generators had to be switched on last week after one of the relays feeding the hydro and solar schemes into a computer-controlled central battery storage system fused.
He said: “The whole system is new and there is a snagging period. Obviously with such a system, there is complex control gear which controls each of the elements so they feed into the battery when they are required. But one of the relays connecting the hydro and solar panels to the battery has fused. We have a chap who is very knowledgeable in electronics and he manually switched on the back-up generators. The island still has power.”
Mr Robertson, who lives on the mainland, continued: “We are restricting the power from 7am to 12:30am to save diesel, which was the system on the island for the last 20 years. The price of diesel is horrendous.
“But these are just teething problems. The relays are specialised units, and we are waiting for them coming from Edinburgh and hopefully they will be arriving text week and we will be back to 24-hour electricity.
“The folk on the island aren’t bothered. They are the kind of people used to inconvenience. When there is storm there can be no ferry for four weeks.”
He added: “Once everything is all up and running, we should be totally self-sufficient and hopefully getting cheaper electricity.”
The turbines are not allowed to turn from May to September during the bird breeding season.
An all-night black-out has had to be brought into force for the 22 homes on the isolated Shetland community, because of teething problems in the island’s £1.5 million hydro and solar power schemes.
Foula’s three wind turbines have been out of action since Christmas, when 100mph winds damaged the blades of one of the turbines.
Now islanders are back to relying on costly diesel generator until the faults can be rectified.
Two years ago the islanders, who live 20 miles from the Shetland mainland, were awarded £200,000 in funding from the Big Lottery Fund towards their combination of wind, solar and hydro power, enabling Foula to become the first Shetland community to become self-sufficient in energy. The final phase was completed last October.
But it has been revealed a series of problems with the pioneering green energy scheme has left the islanders having to rely on back-up diesel generators to power their homes.
And, because of crippling fuel costs, they are operating a blackout from 12:30am to 7am.
Frank Robertson, the councillor for Shetland West and a member of the Foula Electricity Trust, insisted yesterday the breakdown was a “teething problem” and round-the-clock power could be restored to the island by the end of next week.
Before the renewable energy scheme was installed, Foula was powered through one wind turbine and two dilapidated main diesel generators or individual generators at their homes.
The island now has three small state-of-the-art turbines –currently out of action – a hydro scheme in which a turbine is powered by water from a loch on one of the main hilltops, and a new photovoltaic solar panel scheme, which turns daylight directly into electricity.
For the first time, residents were able to enjoy 24-hour power more than a year ago. But Mr Robertson said two new back-up diesel generators had to be switched on last week after one of the relays feeding the hydro and solar schemes into a computer-controlled central battery storage system fused.
He said: “The whole system is new and there is a snagging period. Obviously with such a system, there is complex control gear which controls each of the elements so they feed into the battery when they are required. But one of the relays connecting the hydro and solar panels to the battery has fused. We have a chap who is very knowledgeable in electronics and he manually switched on the back-up generators. The island still has power.”
Mr Robertson, who lives on the mainland, continued: “We are restricting the power from 7am to 12:30am to save diesel, which was the system on the island for the last 20 years. The price of diesel is horrendous.
“But these are just teething problems. The relays are specialised units, and we are waiting for them coming from Edinburgh and hopefully they will be arriving text week and we will be back to 24-hour electricity.
“The folk on the island aren’t bothered. They are the kind of people used to inconvenience. When there is storm there can be no ferry for four weeks.”
He added: “Once everything is all up and running, we should be totally self-sufficient and hopefully getting cheaper electricity.”
The turbines are not allowed to turn from May to September during the bird breeding season.
The Ultimate Green Bombshell: New Study Finds Wind Farms Cause Actual Climate Change
For decades they have been touted by green warriors and global warming believers as the lynch pin of their brave new utopian future. Now it seems that something is truly rotten in the state of Denmark, or the great state of Texas in this case.
After years of searching, it appears that scientists have finally identified an actual cause of climate change… wind farms.
Critics have previously cited industrial wind turbine farms as a massive blot on the landscape, as well as accusing them of causing environmental and economic damage. Reports of bird and bat mortality, local deforestation, as well as negative effects on peat bogs in the UK – have all been cited in relation to the operation of wind turbines. Economic concerns include homes located near wind turbines losing significant value with some homes being impossible to sell and abandoned by their owners. Above all of this, the fact still remains that wind farms, like solar farms, cannot produce any significant amount of power required to feed the minimum base-load to electrify a small city.
Supporters and green lobbyists for the wind industry claim that these damages are justified in order to move society off of fossil fuels. Despite their sketchy green credentials, industrial wind farms have still been awarded generous subsidies from governments in North America and Europe.
But all these drawbacks pale in comparison to the latest bombshell to hit this once-celebrated symbol of Al Gore and the IPCC’s new green revolution. Now it’s official: wind turbine farms cause real climate change.
London Telegraph reported yesterday:
“Usually at night the air closer to the ground becomes colder when the sun goes down and the earth cools.
But on huge wind farms the motion of the turbines mixes the air higher in the atmosphere that is warmer, pushing up the overall temperature.
Satellite data over a large area in Texas, that is now covered by four of the world’s largest wind farms, found that over a decade the local temperature went up by almost 1C as more turbines are built.
This could have long term effects on wildlife living in the immediate areas of larger wind farms.
It could also affect regional weather patterns as warmer areas affect the formation of cloud and even wind speeds.”
There you have it. Global warming collectivists, backed by activist scientists have pushed hard for the last two decades, have breached academic ethics, routinely rigged temperature data, and even perverted the trusted pier review process – all in the drive to promote the idea of anthropogenic ‘climate change’ caused by man’s CO2 contribution to the earth’s atmosphere.
No other green technology has racked up such a poor record in terms of environmental damage and the huge sums of public money spent on it as wind farms.
According to a government study commissioned in 1998, by the Norwegian Ministry of Energy on wind power in Denmark, it was concluded that turbine farms have “serious environmental effects, insufficient production, and high production costs.”
The study continues: “Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (the primary “greenhouse” gas). So when the wind is blowing just right for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the turbines are simply shut off.”
Wind energy was also envisioned by warmists as a central plank in their new global Carbon Trading scheme backed by Wall Street and City of London financiers hoping to cash in on a new fictional trillion dollar global market. Unlike most real markets, the carbon market was created by banks and governments so that new investment opportunities could seamlessly dovetail with specific government policies.
Its failure has been pushed along by the 201o collapse of Al Gore’s Chicago Climate Exchange - the fantasy casino based on the IPCC’s pure science fiction.
The global warming and climate change mythology continues to spiral down into irrelevancy – much like a toilet bowl.
After years of searching, it appears that scientists have finally identified an actual cause of climate change… wind farms.
Critics have previously cited industrial wind turbine farms as a massive blot on the landscape, as well as accusing them of causing environmental and economic damage. Reports of bird and bat mortality, local deforestation, as well as negative effects on peat bogs in the UK – have all been cited in relation to the operation of wind turbines. Economic concerns include homes located near wind turbines losing significant value with some homes being impossible to sell and abandoned by their owners. Above all of this, the fact still remains that wind farms, like solar farms, cannot produce any significant amount of power required to feed the minimum base-load to electrify a small city.
Supporters and green lobbyists for the wind industry claim that these damages are justified in order to move society off of fossil fuels. Despite their sketchy green credentials, industrial wind farms have still been awarded generous subsidies from governments in North America and Europe.
But all these drawbacks pale in comparison to the latest bombshell to hit this once-celebrated symbol of Al Gore and the IPCC’s new green revolution. Now it’s official: wind turbine farms cause real climate change.
London Telegraph reported yesterday:
“Usually at night the air closer to the ground becomes colder when the sun goes down and the earth cools.
But on huge wind farms the motion of the turbines mixes the air higher in the atmosphere that is warmer, pushing up the overall temperature.
Satellite data over a large area in Texas, that is now covered by four of the world’s largest wind farms, found that over a decade the local temperature went up by almost 1C as more turbines are built.
This could have long term effects on wildlife living in the immediate areas of larger wind farms.
It could also affect regional weather patterns as warmer areas affect the formation of cloud and even wind speeds.”
There you have it. Global warming collectivists, backed by activist scientists have pushed hard for the last two decades, have breached academic ethics, routinely rigged temperature data, and even perverted the trusted pier review process – all in the drive to promote the idea of anthropogenic ‘climate change’ caused by man’s CO2 contribution to the earth’s atmosphere.
No other green technology has racked up such a poor record in terms of environmental damage and the huge sums of public money spent on it as wind farms.
According to a government study commissioned in 1998, by the Norwegian Ministry of Energy on wind power in Denmark, it was concluded that turbine farms have “serious environmental effects, insufficient production, and high production costs.”
The study continues: “Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (the primary “greenhouse” gas). So when the wind is blowing just right for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the turbines are simply shut off.”
Wind energy was also envisioned by warmists as a central plank in their new global Carbon Trading scheme backed by Wall Street and City of London financiers hoping to cash in on a new fictional trillion dollar global market. Unlike most real markets, the carbon market was created by banks and governments so that new investment opportunities could seamlessly dovetail with specific government policies.
Its failure has been pushed along by the 201o collapse of Al Gore’s Chicago Climate Exchange - the fantasy casino based on the IPCC’s pure science fiction.
The global warming and climate change mythology continues to spiral down into irrelevancy – much like a toilet bowl.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Wind developer Iberdrola filed complaints about New York State's Article X draft regulations
Iberdrola, the Spanish industrial wind developers targeting the towns of Hammond and Clayton, NY with their crappy white towers of testosterone are apparently having a hissy fit over certain regulations that are being imposed by the New York State Article X legislation that takes decisions on major energy facility sitings away from local citizens and puts them into the hands of a state siting board.
According to a representative from Concerned Citizens of Hammond who passed on the information to JLL:
CROH just checked the PSC's website and found that Iberdrola filed comments yesterday regarding their displeasure with the Article X draft regulations.
To quote the beginning of IBER's comments:
With the reduction of the regulatory threshold to 25 MW under Article 10, the Siting Board will decide how the State will meet its policy objectives. The State is already behind schedule for meeting its renewable energy objective of achieving 30% renewable supply by 2015,2 and will require substantially more new generation to come on line if these goals are to be met in the next three years. Additionally, Governor Cuomo’s “New York Open for Business” program and the related and recently announced “New York Energy Highway” initiative also will rely on the investment and economic benefits that renewable energy projects can bring to the State. As such, in order to achieve these policy goals, the Article 10 regulations must facilitate responsible review that avoids unnecessary delay and avoids unduly burdensome review requirements.
Despite positive improvements to the earlier draft of the proposed regulations, several critical amendments are still necessary. Certain application requirements defined in the regulations are contrary to Article 10 and/or seek information that is in some cases burdensome and in others represents the most highly confidential and proprietary information held by wind energy developers. The confidentiality of this information is essential to success in a competitive market. Iberdrola Renewables does not believe this information is necessary to make the findings required by Public Service Law (PSL) § 168. We respectfully request that the proposed regulations be modified in the following important ways.
Here is a summary list of their complaints.
1) Applicants Should Not Be Required to Disclose Proprietary Information such as Capital Costs or Meteorological Data.
2) Section 1001.31(e) Should Not Conflict With PSL §168(3)(e) or Previous Siting Decisions in New York, and the Regulations Should Not Restrict the Siting Board’s Granted Authority Over Unreasonably Burdensome Local Laws.
3) Requirements for Exhibits 8 and 10 Should Not Exceed the Requirements of PSL § 164(b)(viii), nor Conflict with or Conflate the NYISO Interconnection Process.
4) The Regulations Should Not Impose Unnecessarily Burdensome Application Requirements.
5) The Provisions for “Modification” and “Revision” Should Not Be Rigid, Impractical or Inconsistent with the PSL.
6) The Proposed Regulations Should Not Impose Burdensome Timing Requirements.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Cape Vincent Wind Farm gets new project manager; tweaking layout as a “compromise” to please critics
With a new project manager at its helm, BP Wind Energy is tweaking the layout of the proposed Cape Vincent Wind Farm to show that it is “willing to compromise” with critics who seek to kill the project.
Peter A. Gross said Wednesday he is leaving BP to “pursue an opportunity at another company” but that the wind farm project will move ahead with Richard F. Chandler.
Mr. Chandler, the wind farm’s new project manager, has been involved in a number of large-scale, commercial solar-photovoltaic projects and has most recently completed the 31-megawatt Long Island Solar Farm as the director of development at BP Solar.
The change comes in the midst of rethinking the placement and number of turbines for the approximately 200-megawatt project.
Read the entire article
Peter A. Gross said Wednesday he is leaving BP to “pursue an opportunity at another company” but that the wind farm project will move ahead with Richard F. Chandler.
Mr. Chandler, the wind farm’s new project manager, has been involved in a number of large-scale, commercial solar-photovoltaic projects and has most recently completed the 31-megawatt Long Island Solar Farm as the director of development at BP Solar.
The change comes in the midst of rethinking the placement and number of turbines for the approximately 200-megawatt project.
Read the entire article
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Regulators Reject First Wind's Permit Application For Wind Farm In Maine
The Maine Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) has denied a permit application submitted by First Wind subsidiary Champlain Wind LLC for the Bowers Wind Project, a 69.1 MW wind energy development planned for Maine's Penobscot and Washington counties.
As currently proposed, the project would consist of 27 Siemens wind turbines with maximum height of 428 feet; new access and crane path roads; 34.5 kV above-ground collector lines; permanent meteorological towers; an operation and maintenance building; and a new substation to connect to an existing 115 kV transmission line.
The commission had raised concerns regarding the visual impact of the wind turbines' nighttime lighting, so First Wind began studying whether it could incorporate a radar-assisted warning system into the project’s design. Such a system, however, would first need to be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration.
However, local environmental groups expressed opposition to the wind project, claiming it would have an adverse impact on the area’s landscape and wildlife, especially the lynx, birds and bats.
As a result, First Wind asked LURC to withdraw the company’s application for the site permit and said it would submit a revised project proposal with a new layout design. However, the commission denied that request, and instead rejected the permit application, First Wind spokesperson John Lamontagne tells NAW.
The company is still proceeding with the project and intends to submit a revised plan in the coming months. Lamontagne also notes that First Wind is looking to use more efficient turbines to reduce the project’s footprint.
“We have already analyzed the feedback that was raised during the review and are currently in the process of reconfiguring a new project that will be different than the one originally proposed,” Lamontagne says.
“This is not the first time we have made adjustments in response to community and regulatory feedback and then have continued on to build a successful project,” he continues. “Now that we have received official word from the commission, we plan to file a new proposal in the coming months that will better address stakeholder concerns while also bringing economic benefits to the surrounding community.”
Provided that the project gains all the necessary approvals, First Wind expects the project’s construction to begin next year.
As currently proposed, the project would consist of 27 Siemens wind turbines with maximum height of 428 feet; new access and crane path roads; 34.5 kV above-ground collector lines; permanent meteorological towers; an operation and maintenance building; and a new substation to connect to an existing 115 kV transmission line.
The commission had raised concerns regarding the visual impact of the wind turbines' nighttime lighting, so First Wind began studying whether it could incorporate a radar-assisted warning system into the project’s design. Such a system, however, would first need to be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration.
However, local environmental groups expressed opposition to the wind project, claiming it would have an adverse impact on the area’s landscape and wildlife, especially the lynx, birds and bats.
As a result, First Wind asked LURC to withdraw the company’s application for the site permit and said it would submit a revised project proposal with a new layout design. However, the commission denied that request, and instead rejected the permit application, First Wind spokesperson John Lamontagne tells NAW.
The company is still proceeding with the project and intends to submit a revised plan in the coming months. Lamontagne also notes that First Wind is looking to use more efficient turbines to reduce the project’s footprint.
“We have already analyzed the feedback that was raised during the review and are currently in the process of reconfiguring a new project that will be different than the one originally proposed,” Lamontagne says.
“This is not the first time we have made adjustments in response to community and regulatory feedback and then have continued on to build a successful project,” he continues. “Now that we have received official word from the commission, we plan to file a new proposal in the coming months that will better address stakeholder concerns while also bringing economic benefits to the surrounding community.”
Provided that the project gains all the necessary approvals, First Wind expects the project’s construction to begin next year.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Minnesota Taxpayers Stuck Footing The Bill For Wind They Can’t Use or Sell
Taxpayers in Minnesota ended up paying $70 million more than they needed to for electricity in 2011 because of “green” energy mandates, according to the Minnesota Rural Electric Association (MREA).
“Taxpayers already pay a high price to subsidize wind energy through billions in federal grants, loan guarantees and tax credits that prop up the ‘windustry,’” Tom Steward writes for the Minnesota State News.
“Now the bill for state renewable energy mandates is coming due with hundreds of thousands of Minnesota electric co-op and utility customers picking up the tab,” he adds.
A $70 million dollar tab, that is.
Related: Gov’t-Subsidized Wind Farms Told NOT to Produce Energy
“It’s an enormous subsidy. You have to add wind power, whether you need it or not,” said Mark Glaess, MREA executive director. “Right now we’re paying for wind we don’t need, we can’t use and can’t sell.”
So how did this happen?
Steward explains:
The Renewable Energy Standard (RES) passed by the 2007 Minnesota State Legislature directs electric utilities to ramp up their percentage of renewable energy sales to 25 percent by 2025. Put another way, one of every four kilowatt hours must come from renewable energy by 2025. Unlike many other states, Minnesota does not exempt co-ops and municipal utilities from complying with renewable energy standards. To meet the state’s escalating demands, rural electric co-ops and utilities locked in long-term “take or pay” contracts to purchase power from wind farms.
However, a drop in demand due to the lagging economy and competition from natural gas pushed the price of energy down significantly.
“The RES exists in a sort of price vacuum. No matter that coal-generated power costs considerably less than wind. Dozens of Minnesota co-ops are stuck with higher, pre-recession prices for surplus wind power which must be bought and distributed,” Steward writes.
“The difference between what the wind power costs and what it resells for now adds up to tens of millions of dollars a year statewide with rural residents caught in the middle,” he adds.
Which means Minnesota taxpayers are stuck paying for “green” energy regardless of whether they can sell it.
“It’s a well-intentioned law that did not contemplate the inexplicable law of unintended consequences because it never considered resource planning to meet energy load and demand. What happens when the load goes down? Our members still have to buy it,” Glaess said.
“And we’re going to have to increase rates to pay for our incumbent coal generation, which is getting smacked by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency),” he adds.
Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey is not particularly pleased with the situation:
Spare us, please, from “well-intentioned” laws. The legislature attempted to dictate market supply and demand, and it produced the failure that this kind of central planning always produces. As a result, Minnesotans have to pay energy costs above current market levels at a time when their disposable income has become more and more restricted, thanks to price increases in gasoline and food. It’s yet another demonstration of the folly of central planning.
Co-ops and utilities in Greater Minnesota say some customers already have a difficult enough time paying their utility bills without the mandate. Considering the fact that the MREA is only halfway through implementing the mandate, it’s probably going to a lot worse.
“What’s awful is the percentage of customers who are late in paying their electric bills,” said Glaess.
“The average percentage that poor people are spending on energy has increased by a great deal and then they’re throwing more of this on us? It’s regressive energy economics,” he adds.
“Taxpayers already pay a high price to subsidize wind energy through billions in federal grants, loan guarantees and tax credits that prop up the ‘windustry,’” Tom Steward writes for the Minnesota State News.
“Now the bill for state renewable energy mandates is coming due with hundreds of thousands of Minnesota electric co-op and utility customers picking up the tab,” he adds.
A $70 million dollar tab, that is.
Related: Gov’t-Subsidized Wind Farms Told NOT to Produce Energy
“It’s an enormous subsidy. You have to add wind power, whether you need it or not,” said Mark Glaess, MREA executive director. “Right now we’re paying for wind we don’t need, we can’t use and can’t sell.”
So how did this happen?
Steward explains:
The Renewable Energy Standard (RES) passed by the 2007 Minnesota State Legislature directs electric utilities to ramp up their percentage of renewable energy sales to 25 percent by 2025. Put another way, one of every four kilowatt hours must come from renewable energy by 2025. Unlike many other states, Minnesota does not exempt co-ops and municipal utilities from complying with renewable energy standards. To meet the state’s escalating demands, rural electric co-ops and utilities locked in long-term “take or pay” contracts to purchase power from wind farms.
However, a drop in demand due to the lagging economy and competition from natural gas pushed the price of energy down significantly.
“The RES exists in a sort of price vacuum. No matter that coal-generated power costs considerably less than wind. Dozens of Minnesota co-ops are stuck with higher, pre-recession prices for surplus wind power which must be bought and distributed,” Steward writes.
“The difference between what the wind power costs and what it resells for now adds up to tens of millions of dollars a year statewide with rural residents caught in the middle,” he adds.
Which means Minnesota taxpayers are stuck paying for “green” energy regardless of whether they can sell it.
“It’s a well-intentioned law that did not contemplate the inexplicable law of unintended consequences because it never considered resource planning to meet energy load and demand. What happens when the load goes down? Our members still have to buy it,” Glaess said.
“And we’re going to have to increase rates to pay for our incumbent coal generation, which is getting smacked by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency),” he adds.
Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey is not particularly pleased with the situation:
Spare us, please, from “well-intentioned” laws. The legislature attempted to dictate market supply and demand, and it produced the failure that this kind of central planning always produces. As a result, Minnesotans have to pay energy costs above current market levels at a time when their disposable income has become more and more restricted, thanks to price increases in gasoline and food. It’s yet another demonstration of the folly of central planning.
Co-ops and utilities in Greater Minnesota say some customers already have a difficult enough time paying their utility bills without the mandate. Considering the fact that the MREA is only halfway through implementing the mandate, it’s probably going to a lot worse.
“What’s awful is the percentage of customers who are late in paying their electric bills,” said Glaess.
“The average percentage that poor people are spending on energy has increased by a great deal and then they’re throwing more of this on us? It’s regressive energy economics,” he adds.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
State Moving Quickly Along Energy Highway
Just one week after a summit meeting among New York's leading energy luminaries about Gov. Andrew Cuomo's energy highway proposal, the state has issued a Request for Information (RFI), seeking ideas for potential projects from private developers, investor-owned utilities, the financial community, and others able and willing to construct a robust transmission infrastructure.
A conference for interested parties will be held on Thursday, April 19 from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. at the DoubleTree Hotel in Tarrytown. Advance registration is required as space is limited. Those planning to attend should e-mail info@nyenergyhighway.com.
The governor's task force will issue an Energy Highway Action Plan this summer, following its review of the RFI responses. The action plan, with the Task Force's recommendations, will be available to the public on the Energy Highway Web site.
The swiftness with which the administration is advancing the project underscores the significance that Gov. Cuomo has placed on it.
"Building a new energy highway for New York State will not only create thousands of jobs, but lay a new foundation for future economic growth," the governor said. "If we want to truly make New York State open for the businesses of tomorrow, we cannot rely on the power supply of yesterday."
A conference for interested parties will be held on Thursday, April 19 from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. at the DoubleTree Hotel in Tarrytown. Advance registration is required as space is limited. Those planning to attend should e-mail info@nyenergyhighway.com.
The governor's task force will issue an Energy Highway Action Plan this summer, following its review of the RFI responses. The action plan, with the Task Force's recommendations, will be available to the public on the Energy Highway Web site.
The swiftness with which the administration is advancing the project underscores the significance that Gov. Cuomo has placed on it.
"Building a new energy highway for New York State will not only create thousands of jobs, but lay a new foundation for future economic growth," the governor said. "If we want to truly make New York State open for the businesses of tomorrow, we cannot rely on the power supply of yesterday."
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Don’t waste money on wind turbines
I was literally blown away by The News editorial “Harness the wind.” Accepting wind energy’s inefficiencies and unreliability, yet endorsing it, makes no sense. Wind is not a good deal for pursuing alternative energy.
As a leading opponent to industrial wind turbines in Lake Erie, the issues were not that they were going to be sited too close to shore or an obstruction to fishermen. We understood the New York Power Authority plan and fishermen knew the environmental negatives. Global experience proves there are no environmental or economic benefits from industrial- scale wind energy. In addition, the facts do not support the wind industry’s claims for jobs per megawatt.
We opposed placing wind turbines in Lake Erie because they are an environmental nightmare. Birds, bats and even eagles struggling to make a comeback along Lake Erie will become casualties. Wind turbines cannot reduce carbon dioxide emissions. They must be backed up by power plants, which cannot efficiently cycle on and off at the whim of the wind.
There is no question that wind turbines have a huge impact on the aesthetics of the view. Wind turbines have an impact not only on those who live with the view but also those who will be impacted by the loss of income from people coming here to enjoy the unencumbered lake vistas and sunsets.
Wasting time, resources and money on wind turbines is not a boost for renewable energy. What is so renewable about wind turbines that require oil to make many of the component parts and tons of rare earth minerals for magnets? This just scratches the surface of the non-renewable wind turbines. Finally, the question is: Why add such an economic and environmental burden on New Yorkers for an energy source that cannot replace any conventional fossil fuel source, or reduce carbon dioxide?
Thomas Marks
Executive Director, Great Lakes Wind Truth; New York Director, Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council Derby
As a leading opponent to industrial wind turbines in Lake Erie, the issues were not that they were going to be sited too close to shore or an obstruction to fishermen. We understood the New York Power Authority plan and fishermen knew the environmental negatives. Global experience proves there are no environmental or economic benefits from industrial- scale wind energy. In addition, the facts do not support the wind industry’s claims for jobs per megawatt.
We opposed placing wind turbines in Lake Erie because they are an environmental nightmare. Birds, bats and even eagles struggling to make a comeback along Lake Erie will become casualties. Wind turbines cannot reduce carbon dioxide emissions. They must be backed up by power plants, which cannot efficiently cycle on and off at the whim of the wind.
There is no question that wind turbines have a huge impact on the aesthetics of the view. Wind turbines have an impact not only on those who live with the view but also those who will be impacted by the loss of income from people coming here to enjoy the unencumbered lake vistas and sunsets.
Wasting time, resources and money on wind turbines is not a boost for renewable energy. What is so renewable about wind turbines that require oil to make many of the component parts and tons of rare earth minerals for magnets? This just scratches the surface of the non-renewable wind turbines. Finally, the question is: Why add such an economic and environmental burden on New Yorkers for an energy source that cannot replace any conventional fossil fuel source, or reduce carbon dioxide?
Thomas Marks
Executive Director, Great Lakes Wind Truth; New York Director, Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council Derby
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Maine regulators OK wind deal against advice of staff
State regulators on Tuesday approved a multi-million-dollar deal that could fund construction of hundreds of wind turbines in Maine and the Northeast, despite a staff recommendation to reject the proposal.
All three members of the Public Utilities Commission voted for a complex series of transactions among First Wind, Bangor Hydro and Maine Public Service and their parent, Nova Scotia-based Emera, Inc., and Ontario-based Algonquin Power and Utilities Corp.
The commissioners said the economic benefit of such investment was substantial, that any potential harm from the deal could be mitigated by PUC-imposed conditions and that the deal helped meet the ambitious goals of Maine's 2008 Wind Power Act. Maine currently has 205 commercial wind turbines that can produce 400 megawatts of electricity. Tuesday's deal could pave the way for construction of turbines producing an additional 1,200 megawatts.
"I'm not sure it would be sound policy for the commission to turn down a several hundred million dollar investment on the ground," said Commission Chairman Thomas Welch.
"The magnitude of this investment in Maine is seldom seen and even less so in renewable, clean development," said Commissioner David Littell.
"The Emera transactions meet a number of public policy goals which encourage the development of investment in wind energy projects," said Commissioner Vendean Vafiades.
The deal originally proposed that First Wind, Emera Inc. and Algonquin Power and Utilities Corp. would jointly build and operate wind energy projects in Maine and elsewhere in the Northeast. After a failed bid to go public in 2010, which left First Wind cash-hungry, the deal is a way for the Boston-based company to continue building wind towers across Maine and the region, as well as a way for Emera and Algonquin to reach new energy consumers in the U.S.
Legal filings estimate the worth of the deal at the "high end" as $880 million.
Algonquin subsequently pulled out of the portion of the deal to invest in First Wind's holdings, but remained a partner with Emera in related plans to expand into the Northeast energy markets.
Tuesday's decision runs against the January recommendation of PUC staff that commissioners reject the deal because "the risk of harm to ratepayers exceeds the benefits."
In a draft decision, staff wrote that the deal posed unacceptable potential for hikes in electricity prices "even if conditions intended to mitigate the risk of harm to ratepayers were imposed."
Several other parties also objected to the deal in filings with the commission over the past year.
Small electricity generators were joined in their objections by industrial energy users such as Verso, Huhtamaki and Madison Paper and the Maine Public Advocate, which represents the interests of utility customers. Some of them, like PUC staff, argued that electricity rates would rise; others said the plan would violate the state's Restructuring Act of 2000, which prohibits utilities from owning both transmission and generation on the premise that allowing them to do so would be anti-competitive and lead to higher electricity prices.
Anthony Buxton, attorney for the industrial energy users who protested the deal, said Tuesday that the commissioners had hurt Maine's energy consumers.
"The irony is that at a period when the competitive market is working very well, we have taken the risk of impairing the competitive market by allowing the vertical integration of utilities," said Buxton. "We did away with that in 2000 and got a very competitive market – and now it will be at risk."
"I agree that there are risks associated with the transactions," said Vafiades, "but have determined the benefits are significant."
Those risks, commissioners said, could be dealt with by imposing a number of conditions on the deal.
"There are a lot of them, probably 30, maybe more," said Welch, following the meeting.
One set of conditions, said Welch, would ensure that the companies did not favor their newly affiliated partners over lower-priced transmitters and distributors of power, thus costing customers more. Other conditions would limit employees of the affiliated companies from moving back and forth between companies, carrying information that they would normally be prevented from sharing.
Then, said Welch, "you want to have a healthy utility so they can do the things you rely on them to do." So the PUC will impose conditions "that insulate both Bangor Hydro and Maine Public Service from any financial problems that Emera might have as a result of this transaction."
Emera spokeswoman Sasha Irving said Tuesday, "We're very pleased the three commissioners agreed unanimously that this is a positive transaction for the state of Maine and we look forward to receiving the final written order and we'll review it at that time."
First Wind's CEO Paul Gaynor thanked the commissioners for their approval. "The partnership will drive further growth of well-sited and well-run wind energy projects in the Northeast," Gaynor said.
All three members of the Public Utilities Commission voted for a complex series of transactions among First Wind, Bangor Hydro and Maine Public Service and their parent, Nova Scotia-based Emera, Inc., and Ontario-based Algonquin Power and Utilities Corp.
The commissioners said the economic benefit of such investment was substantial, that any potential harm from the deal could be mitigated by PUC-imposed conditions and that the deal helped meet the ambitious goals of Maine's 2008 Wind Power Act. Maine currently has 205 commercial wind turbines that can produce 400 megawatts of electricity. Tuesday's deal could pave the way for construction of turbines producing an additional 1,200 megawatts.
"I'm not sure it would be sound policy for the commission to turn down a several hundred million dollar investment on the ground," said Commission Chairman Thomas Welch.
"The magnitude of this investment in Maine is seldom seen and even less so in renewable, clean development," said Commissioner David Littell.
"The Emera transactions meet a number of public policy goals which encourage the development of investment in wind energy projects," said Commissioner Vendean Vafiades.
The deal originally proposed that First Wind, Emera Inc. and Algonquin Power and Utilities Corp. would jointly build and operate wind energy projects in Maine and elsewhere in the Northeast. After a failed bid to go public in 2010, which left First Wind cash-hungry, the deal is a way for the Boston-based company to continue building wind towers across Maine and the region, as well as a way for Emera and Algonquin to reach new energy consumers in the U.S.
Legal filings estimate the worth of the deal at the "high end" as $880 million.
Algonquin subsequently pulled out of the portion of the deal to invest in First Wind's holdings, but remained a partner with Emera in related plans to expand into the Northeast energy markets.
Tuesday's decision runs against the January recommendation of PUC staff that commissioners reject the deal because "the risk of harm to ratepayers exceeds the benefits."
In a draft decision, staff wrote that the deal posed unacceptable potential for hikes in electricity prices "even if conditions intended to mitigate the risk of harm to ratepayers were imposed."
Several other parties also objected to the deal in filings with the commission over the past year.
Small electricity generators were joined in their objections by industrial energy users such as Verso, Huhtamaki and Madison Paper and the Maine Public Advocate, which represents the interests of utility customers. Some of them, like PUC staff, argued that electricity rates would rise; others said the plan would violate the state's Restructuring Act of 2000, which prohibits utilities from owning both transmission and generation on the premise that allowing them to do so would be anti-competitive and lead to higher electricity prices.
Anthony Buxton, attorney for the industrial energy users who protested the deal, said Tuesday that the commissioners had hurt Maine's energy consumers.
"The irony is that at a period when the competitive market is working very well, we have taken the risk of impairing the competitive market by allowing the vertical integration of utilities," said Buxton. "We did away with that in 2000 and got a very competitive market – and now it will be at risk."
"I agree that there are risks associated with the transactions," said Vafiades, "but have determined the benefits are significant."
Those risks, commissioners said, could be dealt with by imposing a number of conditions on the deal.
"There are a lot of them, probably 30, maybe more," said Welch, following the meeting.
One set of conditions, said Welch, would ensure that the companies did not favor their newly affiliated partners over lower-priced transmitters and distributors of power, thus costing customers more. Other conditions would limit employees of the affiliated companies from moving back and forth between companies, carrying information that they would normally be prevented from sharing.
Then, said Welch, "you want to have a healthy utility so they can do the things you rely on them to do." So the PUC will impose conditions "that insulate both Bangor Hydro and Maine Public Service from any financial problems that Emera might have as a result of this transaction."
Emera spokeswoman Sasha Irving said Tuesday, "We're very pleased the three commissioners agreed unanimously that this is a positive transaction for the state of Maine and we look forward to receiving the final written order and we'll review it at that time."
First Wind's CEO Paul Gaynor thanked the commissioners for their approval. "The partnership will drive further growth of well-sited and well-run wind energy projects in the Northeast," Gaynor said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)