Green glitches in Germany; Energy angst abroad and confusion at home
April 12, 2010 by Charles C. Johnson in City Journal
In Germany, Weltschmerz is the sadness one feels when comparing the way the world is to the way it ought to be. German environmentalists must be suffering a profound case of it as not-in-my-backyard protests derail industry- and government-planned alternative-energy projects. Germany's Renewable Energy Sources Act (Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz, or EEG) was supposed to help the German Ministry for the Environment achieve its goal of renewables producing 30 percent of the country's electricity by 2020. Instead, the EEG has met with widespread opposition.
Crucial to the EEG is a "feed-in" scheme, hailed by greens the world over, which encourages ordinary German households to become energy producers. Under the EEG, any German has the right to feed unlimited electricity-from home-based windmills or solar panels, for example-into the country's grid. Government-run utilities are then required to buy this energy from the households at a government-determined price. That price, which includes a profit for the households, is locked in under a 20-year contract. In theory, every individual could run a power plant, and every backyard could produce clean, renewable energy.
But in reality, every individual also has a neighbor who doesn't want a power plant next door. With the help of social-networking websites, Germans-Europe's most litigious people-have been using the country's arcane ballot initiatives to delay or shut down their neighbors' planned energy investments.
Nor is the EEG Germany's only ill-advised energy regulation. Another recent law requires new German homes to meet 10 percent of their heating needs with renewable energy. But the carbon-emission reductions that this measure achieves are effectively nonexistent, according to the journal Energy Policy. Further, the law's incentives to use only certain kinds of renewables wind up freezing technology in an industry that needs to be more dynamic.
The worst obstacle to Germany's grand plans is physics itself. A solar panel converts only 11 percent of the solar energy that it receives into usable energy, while coal and natural gas facilities convert around 40 percent of their fuel into electricity. Vast panel arrays are the only way to make solar economical: a single solar module on a very sunny day in the Sahara can create only enough energy to power one 75-watt lightbulb-and Germany on the brightest of days receives just half the sunlight that the Sahara does.
The government's intentions were good. Germany's foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, had hoped that a diversification of the country's energy portfolio would make it less dependent on Russia, from which Germany buys a third of its oil and gas. And it's true that unless renewables pick up the slack, Germany will become even more dependent on Russia for its fuel. But that's partly Germany's own fault: by 2020, it intends to phase out its 17 nuclear power plants, which now supply about a quarter of the nation's electricity and provide the only form of renewable energy capable of meeting German demand.
Greens had promised that Germany would be a Mecca for energy investment, but instead it has become a Potemkin village-fooling foreign governments into believing that its economy is a model for the future. President Obama seems to be among those taken in. "We invented solar technology, but we've fallen behind countries like Germany and Japan in producing it," he told a joint session of Congress in February. The president has indulged in his own brand of environmental fooling, trying to persuade Americans to support his wasteful cap-and-trade bill and as much as $5 billion in tax credits for weatherization schemes like insulating homes for the winter. Obama calls this a "real stimulus." The Germans have another word for it: Volksverdummung, a deliberate deception of the public.
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0412cj.html
Film examines drawbacks of wind turbines
Wind energy farms may sound environmentally friendly. Nettie Pena's documentary film "They're Not Green" aims to show that they're anything but. The one-hour film was shown last Saturday night at the Yucca Valley Community Center in an event hosted by the Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy and the Homestead Valley Community Council.
March 23, 2010 by Kris Reilly in The Leader
YUCCA VALLEY • Wind energy farms may sound environmentally friendly. Nettie Pena's documentary film "They're Not Green" aims to show that they're anything but.
The one-hour film was shown last Saturday night at the Yucca Valley Community Center in an event hosted by the Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy and the Homestead Valley Community Council.
The issue is relevant to Lucerne Valley, as 28 wind turbines are planned for the mountains northwest of town.
The film shows interviews with people who live near wind farms, and they say their negative consequences go far beyond the effects on views and property values.
One man who lived near a turbine that caught fire said that firefighters can do little or nothing when the turbines burn because they are so tall. He said he inhaled so much toxic smoke from the burning fiberglass that his coughing resulted in hernia surgery. He also said the company that owned the turbines refused to pay his medical bills.
Other residents spoke of the strobe effect that the windmills create inside their houses as they intermittently block sunlight during the day as well as the flashing red lights that go off during the night.
A scientist interviewed in the film said thousands of birds are killed each year by windmills, and many other problems were examined. Furthermore, the film asserts that the amount of energy provided by these turbines is relatively minuscule.
Pena, who has worked as an assistant film editor at NBC News and Paramount Studios, has been making documentary films since attending UCLA as a graduate student. The destruction of the 1992 Los Angeles riots inspired here to try to improve society, and she became an inner-city math teacher.
Pena said she moved from Los Angeles to Palm Springs three years ago and the windmills "were right in my face." She took her camera to a city council meeting where citizens protested new wind farm developments, and thus "They're Not Green" was born.
Pena spoke after the screening, as did Jim Harvey of the Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy. Both of them are supportive of rooftop solar energy, which does not destroy desert environments and can help people lower their energy costs.
Harvey spoke about AB 811, a state law that makes it easier for homeowners to get low-interest loans for rooftop solar installation. The funding for this program comes from municipal bonds sold by local governments, Harvey said. He's hopeful San Bernardino County will enact an AB 811 program.
Pena said she would like to eventually show "They're Not Green" in Lucerne Valley. Visit web.me.com/thrnotgreen to view portions of the film.
http://www.lucernevalleyleader.com/node/396
Study of Wind Turbines effect on Real Estate Values
This is a study of the impact that wind turbines have on residential property value. The wind turbines that are the focus of this study are the larger turbines being approximately 389ft tall and producing 1.0+ megawatts each.
Study of Wind Turbines effect on Real Estate Values
Utility Rates Rocket to Pay for Wind Power
Alliant Energy's Iowa customers will be seeing higher bills this month to pay for the utility's investments in green energy.
The utility plans to ask state regulators for a 13.8 percent, $163 million annual rate increase today to pay for a new $468 million wind farm, and to improve its ability to transmit energy from renewable sources.
The 200-megawatt Whispering Willow Wind Farm in Franklin County is the first owned by Alliant's Interstate Power & Light utility.
It began operating in December, and has enough capacity to serve about 150,000 homes at full output.
Improving the transmission grid to enable transmission of power from new wind farms is a major part of Alliant's request for an additional $228 million to improve its reliability.
The third-largest item is a $188 million investment in new controls to reduce emissions of mercury and nitrogen oxides by 90 percent at a coal-burning power plant in Lansing.
The average residential customer would see rates go up by about $10.62 per month or 11.7 percent to $101.36 when the interim increase takes effect March 20, and an extra 2 percent to 8 percent when the final rates take effect later this year.
"We fully support the move towards green power, but there's a cost," Alliant spokesman Ryan Stensland said.
Interstate Power & Light received final approval on a 7 percent rate increase in January, mainly to pay for costs of recovering from record floods in June 2008 and ice storms in recent winters.
IPL President Tom Aller told The Gazette Editorial Board on Tuesday that the utility isn't thrilled to be asking for back-to-back rate increases.
"We're very sensitive to the economic circumstances our customers are facing," Aller said. He said Alliant decided not to carry over several requests it was denied in its last rate case.
The utility plans to offer consumer groups an incentive to settle before it goes to a full Iowa Utilities Board hearing. The proposed "cost management plan" would lower the rate increase to a total of 6 percent overall for the first three years, then increase it to 13.8 percent.
The increase would be temporarily reduced mainly by tapping regulatory reserve accounts from the sale of the Duane Arnold Energy Center to the company that's now NextEra Energy, and the sale of the company's transmission assets to ITC Midwest.
Transmission costs have jumped since Alliant sold the transmission system.
The utility is asking state regulators in the case for a transmission "rider" clause on bills that would pass along ITC's rate changes to customers in the same way that changing fuel costs are quickly tacked onto bills.
The rate increase could be considerably higher than 13.8 percent for some general service and residential Alliant customers. That's because Alliant is proposing to make the final implementation date the roll-in date for the fifth and final phase of a process to equalize rates between different Alliant service territories.
http://gazetteonline.com/breaking-news/2010/03/09/alliant-seeks-13-8-percent-rate-increase
Wind-power farms ‘vanity projects’
Vice-minister criticises mainland green energy sector despite global praise
Environmentalists worldwide have praised China as a leading harnesser of the wind for electricity, but a vice-minister says most of the ventures in the country were "vanity projects" - all for show.
Miao Wei , of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, also said on Sunday that one particular project that is backed by the country's top economic planner would have a "fatal result" in five years because of the sand that came with the dry wind.
Miao made the rare open criticism at a National People's Congress session that the country was unsuitable for developing wind power, according to the Beijing Times, a newspaper owned by the People's Daily.
"Most of the wind-power farms under construction on the mainland are vanity projects," the newspaper quoted Miao, who is ranked third among the ministry's seven vice-ministers, as saying.
He said other countries built their wind farms in places that had no dust or sand, but it was impossible to find such ideal locations on the mainland. Wherever the wind blows in the country, sand prevails.
The sand clogs the expensive rotating arms and power generators, which were precision-engineered products. By design, a generator, for instance, can run for 20 years. But on the mainland, the lifespan of wind-power equipment will be much shorter.
"You will see the fatal result in five years, especially the vanity project in Gansu ," Miao said.
The Gansu project, launched in 2008, was hailed as a flagship project and strongly supported by the National Development and Reform Commission, which oversees the industry and infrastructural development of the country.
The farm was expected to produce 20,000 megawatts of power by 2020 - as much as the Three Gorges Dam project - at an estimated cost of 120 billion yuan (HK$136 billion). The NDRC has already planned six more wind farms of the same scale.
But Miao's criticism indicated that even within the circle of senior government officials, opinions varied over whether the government should invest such a huge amount of taxpayers' money in the industry.
Wang Huisheng , the president of the State Development and Investment Corp, said yesterday some locations of wind farms on the mainland were indeed unsuitable.
"The equipment does not fit the environment, and the investment return is poor," Mr Wang said.
But Miao's comments met opposition within the industry. A senior manager in charge of renewable energy development at the Beijing headquarters of a Fortune 500 energy company said his comments would not slow the rapid development of wind farms.
"This guy knows little about wind-power technology. Scientists and engineers have been working on the sand and dust issue for decades. The problem exists but is far less severe than he said," said the manager, who refused to give his name, citing company policy.
"Above all, his ministry is not in charge of the development of wind power. The commission is in charge, and the officials of the commission are very powerful and determined. They won't be affected by his comments."
Web link: http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af6...
Wind Turbine O&M costs to spiral in coming years
This is especially important for inexperienced operators like Wellfleet who have no idea how to maintain a wind turbine.
March 5, 2010
As turbines emerge from their warranty phase, wind farm operators face the stark reality that operation and maintenance costs will embark on a steep, upward trajectory, before leveling off over the next five years. What strategies can be deployed to mitigate these costs?
By Rikki Stancich in Paris
Currently, roughly 79 percent of operational turbines are still under warranty. For the 21 percent of operators on the other side of the comfort zone, an incisive O&M strategy could be the deciding factor between success and failure.
According to new research, operating and maintenance costs could be up to three-times higher than originally projected, particularly in the case of the multi-MW class of turbines coming online.
These higher-than-anticipated costs are the result of several factors. Chief among these is that the recent wind energy boom stretched the capacity of the existing supply chain. With manufacturers forced to rely on new - and often inexperienced - component suppliers, quality suffered heavily.
In addition, unexpected stresses placed upon today’s multi-MW machines have led to failures in gearboxes, generators, and blades. Consequently, components such as gearboxes, initially designed with a 20-year lifespan, are failing prematurely - in as few as 6-8 years.
“The increasing size of rotors and towers is placing unforeseen stresses on equipment not anticipated by existing design standards,” explains Peter Asmus, president of Pathfinder Communications and lead author of the latest Wind Energy Operations & Maintenance report.
According to the report, these problems may have peaked insofar as manufacturers have re-designed components and now rely more on in-house components rather than “off-the-shelf” components.
Another key factor resulting in early turbine failure is sub-optimal turbine positioning. Often, in order to maximize power production, multi-MW machines have been clustered in too-close proximity.
Positioning the turbines too close together creates tip turbulence, which magnifies loads on down-wind turbines. According to the report, the end result of this interference is increased wear-and-tear on the rotating parts of a wind turbine, boosting O&M costs and exposure.
Supply chain uncertainty
But component failure is only half the story. The real costs kick in when operators need to source and install replacement components.
Take gearboxes for example, which currently account for a large majority of turbine failures. The cost of component replacement, crane hire, post-installation testing and operational losses, can quickly add up to around US$500,000 per turbine.
To mitigate these costs, Asmus stresses that a preventative maintenance regime is crucial for curbing O&M costs. He points out that in this area, European operators have an advantage over their U.S. counterparts.
Europe’s premium power prices (achieved via feed-in tariffs) provide operators with a margin to invest in costly condition monitoring and performance systems, such as vibration, thermal and oil and debris sensors.
In addition, a broader O&M service experience pool and the proximity of wind farms to O&M support infrastructure in Europe has enabled European operators to deploy preventative maintenance strategies. Subsequently, European operators face lower overall lower maintenance costs than U.S. operators.
U.S. operators are further penalized by the fact that currently, many components must be shipped from Europe, creating costly delays in repairs. While the U.S. government recently introduced measures to stimulate domestic supply, such as the Manufacturing Tax Credit, suppliers complain that several factors are creating barriers to entry.
A lack of standardization means that new components suppliers trying to break into the market are met with distrust. Unless standards, processes and procedures are introduced, it is unlikely that this problem will be resolved, suggests the report.
With the imminent emergence of many turbines from the warranty phase, many suppliers are viewing the aftermarket as potentially lucrative. As such, establishing industry standards and benchmarks would result in a more responsive supply chain.
O&M data elusive
On the flip side, operators – particularly those in the US – should be investing more in preventative maintenance strategies. But when it comes to forward planning, operators are facing a major hurdle in terms of a lack of relevant data.
Given the higher-than-expected failure rate of many turbine components, original equipment manufacturers are holding component failure data close to their chests to curb the risk of litigation and a negative public backlash.
And with the majority of turbines still under warranty, many operators simply do not have access to their own data sets.
Meanwhile, publicly available data sets are in short supply and where they do exist, have often proven to be a poor fit, given that wind energy projects vary widely depending on terrain and wind regimes.
“This is an industry in transition, operating within an incredible vacuum of knowledge about O&M costs,” says Asmus.
Despite the problems, the report authors note that the problems facing the wind industry are typical of all industries as they scale up rapidly.
“Even with the unexpected increases in O&M costs, most projects in Europe still pencil out,” he adds.
Initiatives are currently underway in the US and Europe to ensure that more robust data is available in the future. In the US, the National Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) launched a voluntary data collection programme on January 1, 2010 known as 'GADS'.
The GADS programme will likely evolve into a mandatory program in coming years, but for the time being, many operators are restricted to using limited, in-house data sets.
Despite looming O&M issues the wind industry remains optimistic about the future of wind technology, according to the report. Asmus suggests that the key lies in preemptive maintenance and the introduction of industry standards.
“The industry needs to shift from reactive to preventative maintenance and bring its supply chain up to a higher standard,” he concludes.
To respond to this article, please write the editor:
Rikki Stancich: rstancich@gmail.com
http://social.windenergyupdate.com/industry-insight/turbine-om-costs-spiral-coming-years
NStar Requests Green Premium increase to total bill of 16%
Shocking Rise in Cost of Wind Power!
By D.C. Denison, Globe Staff | March 6, 2010
About 8,000 NStar customers who pay a premium to ensure that a portion of their electricity is generated by wind could be hit with a rate hike that will increase their monthly bills by as much as 16 percent by next month.
NStar this week informed users of its NStar Green program that it has applied for a rate increase for the service with the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities because of rapidly changing energy prices. The program has attracted less than 1 percent of the company’s 1.1 million electricity customers since it started in July 2008.
NStar spokesman Michael Durand said yesterday that the increase “is beyond our control.’’
“We have to sell energy for what we pay for it,’’ he said. “This change is a way to reconcile the cost of the Green program with fluctuating energy prices.’’
The program, which enables customers to support electricity generated from renewable sources, offers the choice of having half or all of a customer’s electricity use support wind power for a premium.
If approved, the rate hike that NStar is proposing to take effect on April 1 would increase the premium for customers in the 50 percent plan to 2.356 cents per kilowatt hour of power from 0.837 cents per hour, raising the average bill by about $7.50. For those electing to have all their electricity use powered by wind, the premium would rise to 4.435 cents per kilowatt hour from 1.396 cents, adding about $15 more per month. A total bill increase for Green 50 customers 9.4% and Green 100 customers 16%! That is a massive one year increase...how much money is being given away to big money wind turbine operators? The Green Premium will increases 282% and 318%.
Lisa Capone, a spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, said the agency is reviewing NStar’s request. The complicated pricing and regulatory factors that go into calculating NStar’s Green premium rates “are really confusing for customers,’’ said Sue Reid, a senior attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation.
“We hope this won’t have a negative impact on the program. We hope people will continue to support this option,’’ she said.
The news angered at least one NStar customer. David Baeumler, a writer and filmmaker who lives in Jamaica Plain, has been paying “an extra five or six bucks a month’’ for more than a year for the utility’s green program. When Baeumler read that an average customer like him would be paying an additional $15 for the service in an e-mail from NStar earlier this week, it “felt like a slap in the face,’’ he said.
“It’s more than just the hit to my wallet,’’ Baeumler, 39, said yesterday. “What worries me is what effect this will have on everyone who felt concerned enough to sign up for the program.’’
The move comes just after NStar chief executive Thomas May in January told Globe editors and writers that the utility was “disappointed’’ that participation in the company’s Green program was not greater.
“We thought it would do better,’’ he said.
Lori Bird, a senior analyst at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory who has studied green pricing, is not surprised at the level of participation in the NStar program. Of the 25 percent of the nation’s utilities that offer premium green programs, Bird said, most enroll about 2 percent of a company’s total customer base.
Meanwhile, John Rowe, chief executive of Exelon Corp., one of the nation’s largest electric utilities, and a former head of both the New England Electric System and Central Maine Power Co., said customers may continue to see premiums for renewable energy go up as the cost of traditional energy drops.
“When they [utilities] charge a premium for wind power - lets say that’s the most economical - and natural gas is high, that premium can be really small,’’ he said. “But if gas goes down - and it’s gone down from $14 to $5 - that premium is actually big.’’
Cape college fails to clear wind turbine hurdle
Following more than four hours of passionate debate and deliberation, the Old King's Highway Regional Historic District Commission voted 5-0 yesterday to uphold a denial of the college's plan to build a 243-foot-tall turbine on its West Barnstable campus.
"The height as you move away from it becomes more and more obvious, it becomes more and more imposing," George Jessop, Barnstable's representative to the commission, said prior to the vote, which was cast in a meeting room at the West Barnstable fire station packed with more than 50 people. "The size is key here."
Jessop, who could not vote because it was a decision by the Barnstable Old King's Highway Historic District Committee that the project's proponents appealed to the regional commission, said the size of the turbine was simply inappropriate for the area.
Several neighbors agreed, arguing the project would have a negative effect on their property values and quality of life.
"The turbine has no place in this historic district," said Mark Bonaiuto, who lives on Acorn Drive, less than a half mile from the turbine's proposed location. The noise from the turbine, he said, would be like "dripping water."
For Bonaiuto's wife, Marianne, the flicker from the spinning blades she experienced during a visit to the turbine at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy in Buzzards Bay was "disturbing," especially because of her tendency to develop migraine headaches.
"I'd love to see a turbine," just not in the style, scale and location of the college project, she said.
'What could be better?'
But for every person who objected to the turbine two rose to support it.
"We are losing youth on Cape Cod precisely because of that type of mind-set," said Sarah Cote of Sandwich, an executive assistant at the pro-wind energy group Clean Power Now.
As for setting a precedent by approving the turbine: "What could be better?" she said.
Other speakers questioned how communication and water towers are built in the district but a wind turbine is denied.
Attorney Bruce Gilmore, who represented the college and the state, argued the Barnstable historic district committee did not account for benefits the turbine would bring to the college and the community in energy savings, environmental protection and educational.
"I would say on its face that that is a fatal flaw," he said of overlooking the project's benefits. The historic district's enabling act specifically requires that energy benefits of a proposal be considered, he said.
The wind turbine would produce more than one million kilowatt hours of energy and save the college an estimated $170,000 annually, said Dixie Norris, vice president of administration and finance at the school.
The college uses about 4.6 million kilowatt hours of electricity annually and spent an average of $725,049 a year on electricity over the past four years, she said.
Norris said an estimated $50,000 of revenue each year from unused energy the turbine produced would have gone to a low-income energy conservation program.
The project would also provide a "living laboratory" for students learning about renewable energy, college president Kathleen Schatzberg said.
No one is benefiting from the turbine now. The windmill is sitting in pieces inside a hangar at Otis Air National Guard Base, where it has been since arriving from India last year.
The Barnstable historic district committee called a halt to the project in the fall because the college and state had neglected to seek the local panel's approval before moving forward.
The college, which is typically exempt from local zoning law, was unaware that it needed the historic district committee's approval, Gilmore said.
Little room to compromise
After receiving approval from the state, the college moved the project from one side of the campus to the other and reduced the turbine's height from 400 feet to 243 feet because of demands from the Federal Aviation Administration, he said.
The FAA's stance left the regional historic district committee and the college with little room to compromise, said the panel's chairman, Peter Lomenzo of Dennis. "What could we do?" he said after the regional commission found the Barnstable historic district committee had not acted arbitrarily and capriciously in its decision. Local historic district committees and alternative energy committees should get together in the future to work out issues like this before they get to this point, he said.
The college and state have 20 days after a written decision is filed with the Barnstable town clerk to appeal the ruling to Barnstable District Court, a move Schatzberg said she will try to push forward. "That would be a joint decision," she said, citing the state Division of Capital Asset Management's responsibility for the project.
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100303/NEWS/3030307/-1/NEWS11
Maine: Myths, opinions, and facts
WindAction Editorial (Posted February 23, 2010)
This week, Angus King, former Maine Governor turned wind developer, set out to correct the record on what he termed 'myths' about wind power now circulating. His opinion piece, while devoid of any substantive proof other than his say so and a link to his project's web site, in fact, was teeming with his own myths and half-truths that deserve clarification.
King first takes issue with Jonathan Carter of Forest Ecology Network and Carter's description of mountaintop wind operations resulting in "the building of thousands of miles of additional power lines and roads [and]...the clear cutting of more than 50,000 acres of carbon-sequestering forestlands. Literally the tops of the mountains are blown-up in order to establish a bedrock base for the massive concrete pads needed to support 400-to-500-foot turbines."
King quibbles over the petty claiming dirt and rock on the mountain top are not actually removed from the mountain but merely "moved from one place to another in building the gravel access road and foundations." Perhaps the Governor missed the photos taken at the TransCanada wind site atop Kibby Mountain in Maine, where 50-60 foot ledge cuts into the side the of the mountain were required to construct roads stable enough to handle the weight and width of the turbine components. Or the more infamous photo of the Mars Hill wind site, also in Maine, showing just how much the mountaintop was blown off to make way for the towers. We believe that most people would agree with Jonathan Carter.
The next 'myth' King takes on is that of noise. He claims "our" law, presumably Maine's law, is "pretty restrictive" but that "several of the early wind projects in Maine got waivers from the noise limits and there are neighbors who are hearing them and are pretty upset." King would do well to check his facts. Only one wind project, Mars Hill Wind, was granted a variance that would permit the project to operate at 50 db(A) as opposed to the required 45 db(A). Nonetheless, his statement is not relevant to the project sites in Vinalhaven and Freedom, Maine -- both of which are experiencing severe noise issues. Nor does it apply to the Stetson wind facility, approved by Maine's Land Use Regulatory Commission, which follows different standards altogether for noise.
He goes on to say that "our" experience shows that setback distances of around half a mile are adequate for addressing noise problems. Since King has never operated a wind facility we're not sure whose experience he's relying on, but he may wish to speak with Ethan Hall of Vinalhaven. Hall, who lives 3,500 feet from three industrial towers, recently explained that the noise penetrates his home where he is unable to read, work, or get good rest.
King's third myth argues that Maine's wind power law was not pushed through the legislature by wind proponents as claimed by some. What he doesn't bother to tell his readers is that the "Expedited Permit" wind law was declared an emergency bill from the governor and it passed through the legislature in 15 days with very little scrutiny. And that State Representative Jon Hinck, co-chairman of Maine's utilities and energy committee, who was responsible for giving the bill the emergency designation, is married to Juliet Browne, an attorney who represents wind interests in the State and who sat on the Governor's Wind Task Force. This week, Hinck asked the Maine Ethics Commission for an advisory opinion on whether he has a conflict of interest when considering wind legislation. A little late, but at least he's asking.
Finally, King scoffs at the idea that wind turbines can make you sick. He makes vague reference to "independent analyses" including Maine's own Dr. Dora Mills and the Maine Center for Disease Control in claiming turbines can annoy people but nothing more.
In December, Windaction.org reported on the Industry's misuse of the term 'annoyance' in claiming that noise impacts are of no consequence.
Equally significant is the e-mail paper trail -- one that King is well aware of -- which begins February 10, 2009 after Dr. Albert Aniel of Rumford, Maine forwarded an open letter from the Rumford Hospital Medical staff, together with links to articles, to Dr. Mills asking for her support for a moratorium on new permits for wind turbine projects until further research could be done on possible health effects of wind turbines.
As detailed in the e-mails, Dr. Mills looked to Maine's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner David Littell, and others at DEP involved in reviewing wind turbine projects, for assistance in refuting the health concerns of Dr. Aniel.
King then closes with some misrepresentations of his own.
In a subsection of his essay entitled "A Dangerous Dependence" he claims that Maine is "dangerously dependent upon fossil fuels " citing 55 percent of its electricity coming from oil and gas with 100 percent imported "often from people who don't like us." But what he doesn't tell you is that Maine's net electricity generation is among the lowest in the United States with a large percentage of its energy exported to other states in the region. As with most of New England, natural gas -- imported mostly from friendly Canada --accounts for around 40 percent of generation. And renewable sources, mainly wood and hydroelectric, account for almost half of Maine's net electricity generation. In fact, nonhydroelectric renewable energy sources make up a larger share of net electricity generation in Maine than in any other State.
Maine is hardly the poster-state for dirty electricty!
Governor King is certainly welcome to respond to statements by those in his State who are raising concerns about wind, and of course he is entitled to his own opinion. But apparently, he also believes he's entitled to his own facts.
http://www.windaction.org/faqs/25780
Investigators still looking for cause of wind turbine collapse – NY
video link of report on collapse in NY
http://www.9wsyr.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=275356@wixt.dayport.com
Fenner (WSYR-TV) - Teams of engineers are still trying to figure out what caused one of the huge Fenner wind turbines to collapse in late December.
Piece by piece engineers are going over the wreckage of what was once a 328 foot tall, 187 ton wind turbine. The key section, however, will only be accessible when it's all cut up and removed.
They're anxious to get to the hole left in the foundation where the turbine separated from the base, but so far nobody's been able to access that spot. More than a month after the crash they still have no answers on what caused the giant turbine to come crashing down.
"They have kept us very well informed, I've got to applaud them for that,” said Fenner Town Supervisor Russell Cary. “They had an executive come in all the way from Boston for our Free Center and he also came to my Madison County Energy Committee meeting at Morrisville College just to catch us up, answer questions."
While the cleanup goes on at the site, they have continued to keep the other 19 wind turbines shut down until they get a better idea of what happened. “This is a lesson and we're going to learn. All the engineering in the world, nothing beats hindsight. I think they're doing a good job of really analyzing it and setting up to make the whole process better going forward,” said Cary.
With more and more turbines popping up as wind power becomes more common, there will likely be people from around the world interested in what did cause this collapse.
Enel North America, which operates the wind farm, had hoped to have a determination by the end of last month. Now, it says it’s unclear when the company will have something final.
Concern Over Potential High Costs of Cape Wind
Yesterday, Ian Bowles, the state’s environmental and energy chief and an outspoken backer of Cape Wind, addressed the growing concern over the potential high costs of Cape Wind to ratepayers in the Commonwealth. In a February 17th letter to Cape Wind and National Grid, he urged them to consider consumer costs: “Let me be clear: Our expectation is that the Cape wind project must produce electricity at a substantial discount to the Rhode Island offshore wind project.” This concern was precipitated by “suggestions in the media” that the project could end up costing ratepayers as much as a wind pilot program off Rhode Island, quoted as 30 cents per kilowatt hour versus an average current cost of only 9 cents per kilowatt hour.
Read articles discussing the high cost of Cape Wind:
APNS Press Release: Cape Wind Cost Claims Misleading, Developer's Study Advances Myth of Offshore Wind Savings
Audra Parker’s My View- “Ratepayers will regret Cape Wind”: Link to Article
Boston Herald: Official to Grid: Curb Wind Costs
Cape Cod Times: Bowles Warns Cape Wind on Electric Rates
Please let Ian Bowles know that MA ratepayers are not willing to pay higher electric bills for this irresponsibly sited project. Send your letters, emails, and faxes to Ian Bowles at:
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
Telephone: 617.626.1000
Fax: 617.626.1181
Email: env.internet@state.ma.us
Let your voice be heard –
Letters to the Editor:
Cape Cod Times, 319 Main Street, Hyannis MA 02601, letters@capecodonline.com
The New York Times, 229 West 43rd Street, New York, New York 10036, Fax: (212) 556-3622, letters@nytimes.com
The Wall Street Journal, 200 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10281, Fax: (212) 416-2255, Wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
The Providence Journal, 75 Fountain Street, Providence, RI 02902, letters@projo.com
The Boston Globe, Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 2378, Boston, MA 02107-2378, Fax: (617) 929-2098, letter@globe.com
The Boston Herald, One Herald Square, P.O. Box 2096, Boston MA 02106 letterstotheeditor@bostonherald.com
Washington Post, Letters to the Editor, 1150 15 Street NW, Washington, DC 20071, letters@washpost.com
Maine residents push back against wind power farms
By GLENN ADAMS
The Associated Press
Thursday, February 18, 2010; 2:43 AM
AUGUSTA, Maine -- As wind power expands in Maine, the industry is feeling a gust of push back from those who worry about the turbines' noise and impact on scenery and about whether too many towers are going up too fast.
"The wind industry has had a decade head start working behind the scenes, working below the radar and positioning itself to have a favored status," said Brad Blake, of Cape Elizabeth, spokesman for the Citizens Task Force on Wind Power, an umbrella group of residents fighting wind projects around the state. "It's been a stealth attack on rural Maine, and the citizens of Maine are catching up."
State officials acknowledge heightened awareness across the state to wind power as it transforms "from the theoretical to the practical," said Karin Tilberg, senior policy adviser to Gov. John Baldacci. But the administration remains committed to wind and other forms of renewable energy to help wean the oil-dependent state from fossil fuels, she said.
"It is important that people have a discussion based on science and good information," Tilberg said Wednesday.
In 2008, the Legislature streamlined the permitting process for wind farms. With a regulatory welcome mat out, five commercial-grade wind farms are online or under construction, and more are on the drawing boards. In the meantime, the state has moved aggressively toward making offshore wind power a reality.
But as the windmills have risen on the mainland, so have concerns over their impact. Some critics, including Blake, question the very economics of the renewable energy source. Others, including some who live near the state's first major wind farm in Mars Hill, dislike windmills' looks and say they're too noisy.
In Penobscot County, Dixmont passed a one-mile setback ordinance. Just south in Jackson, Waldo County, a moratorium was imposed before passage of an ordinance stipulating that any 400-foot-tall turbines erected must be at least a mile from any houses, largely out of noise concerns.
In Oakfield, where the state Department of Environmental Protection has approved Massachusetts-based FirstWind's application for a wind farm, a family trust that owns land near the Aroostook County site said it would appeal the DEP's action, citing visual concerns.
Union, which has two small wind farms, has drafted for public review a measure aimed at addressing noise and light reflection from spinning windmill blades. Fort Kent is considering an ordinance limiting noise even though no large-scale wind project has been proposed in the northern Maine border town.
New Vineyard, in Franklin County, is asking voters to put a moratorium on commercial wind power development until it can pass an ordinance regulating the industry.
Noise has become an issue on Vinalhaven island, where New England's largest community-owned wind farm has begun generating power. Opposition has organized in western Maine to the project under construction in Roxbury near Rumford. And a proposal to build a wind farm along the ridgelines of five mountains in Highland Plantation in Somerset County has already generated vocal opposition from people who say the area's scenery would be marred.
The Highland group's chairman, Alan Michka, said there's good reason why towns have taken those actions and why people are complaining about turbines that have already gone up in Mars Hill, Freedom and Vinalhaven.
"It's not a good track record for a state trying to accelerate its development of wind power," Michka said.
Critics who say the state's been moving too fast have taken their case to the state Supreme Court, which last week heard arguments from a Penobscot County group called Friends of Lincoln Lake. The residents, who oppose a 40-turbine project on Rollins Mountain, are challenging the state law that expedites the permitting process for setting up a wind farm, saying it's technically flawed.
Tilberg said those and other concerns have drawn the Baldacci administration's attention. She said the 2008 law doesn't pre-empt local control to regulate windmills and even includes a model ordinance towns can adopt.
The state also is continuing to review technical information on setbacks, noise, health implications and other aspects of wind power to see whether regulations should be revisited.
FirstWind spokesman John LeMontagne said the company has sought to work closely with communities such as Oakfield to make sure they understand all the implications of their developments. He said people should not lose sight of the benefits of wind power, including clean energy, jobs and spinoff economic activity.
While it may seem as though the flurry of wind worries is new, the matter has long been a subject of public debate in Maine, observed state Rep. Jon Hinck, House chair of the Utilities and Energy Committee, who was an environmental advocate before being elected to the Legislature.
Hinck, D-Portland, noted that the issue has been debated in Maine at least since the mid-1990s, when a proposal to rezone areas in western Maine's Boundary Mountains for wind development prompted opponents to organize. Now, with turbines up and turning, people have developed a variety of perspectives on wind power, he said.
"In terms of opposition in Maine, I don't think it has too many consistent threads," said Hinck, whose attorney wife represents the wind power industry in Maine. "There is not, as far as I know, a perfect source of power."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/18/AR2010021800309_pf.html
PR’ing Industrial Wind: Government and Media versus Common Sense
The following is a critique of PR efforts by the wind industry.
PR’ing Industrial Wind: Government and Media versus Common Sense
by Jon Boone
January 30, 2010
Understanding CO2 Emissions With Wind Turbines
At first blush Wind Energy makes total sense...the wind is blowing and if we erect a big turbine then all will be good. Well not so good if you build in a National Park, but if you were responsible and built in a proper location. You would have free energy(less the cost of turbine, maintenance, etc) and CO2 will be reduced. Wellfleet's $5 Million dollar turbine is super costly, but they claim that CO2 will be reduced. The problem is the wind only blows sometimes and you still expect to have electricity. Did you ever think how your typical electric grid will respond to a Wind Turbine going on and off? Did you ever think that maybe a wind turbine actually might generate more CO2 because the electric company has to be ready all the time for the moment the wind stops.
The following is a bit complex but if you really want to understand what happens with CO2 emissions when the Electric Grid has to respond to the wind turbines producing power intermittently.
Wind Integration: Incremental Emissions from Back-Up Generation Cycling (Part V: Calculator Update)
Three more Cape Cod towns along with 11 more get Wind Turbine Funding.
Three Cape projects total $450,000
The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (CEC) today announced grants supporting 20 new wind energy projects under the Commonwealth Wind Community-Scale Wind initiative.
The six projects receiving design and construction grants are in the towns of Charlton, Plymouth, Brewster, Harwich, and Milton. Awards for the 14 feasibility studies go to the town of Auburn, Bristol Community College, Chesterfield-Goshen Regional School District, Endicott College, the town of Gardner, Gordon College, the town of Lenox, the MBTA, Nantucket Public Schools, Spencer East Brookfield Regional School District, the town of Northborough, and the city of Salem.
BREWSTER: 3,300-kW (2 Wind Turbines)
Award: $200,000
The town of Brewster will build two 1.65 megawatt (MW) wind turbines at Commerce Park, an industrial zoned area. The proposed wind turbines will provide power for the Town to offset electrical expenses and will be an economically meaningful renewable energy project for surrounding towns located on the Cape peninsula.
Cape & Vineyard Electric Cooperative
3,300-kW (2 Wind Turbines)
Award: $200,000
HARWICH: CVEC will own the turbines and will be responsible for financing, overseeing the overall design, permitting, construction, operation and maintenance of the project. The town will be the primary user of the electricity and the remaining kWh shall be allocated to CVEC member towns and counties under the MA Net Metering Regulations.
HARWICH: 3,000-kW (2 Wind Turbines)
Award: $200,000
The town of Harwich will build two 1.5 megawatt (MW) wind turbines at the Town Water Department. The proposed wind turbines will provide the majority of the town's electricity needs and highlight the use of renewable energy for surrounding towns on the Cape peninsula.
CVEC will own the turbines and will be responsible for financing, overseeing the overall design, permitting, construction, operation and maintenance of the project
Harwich will be the primary user of the output. The remaining kWh shall be allocated to CVEC member towns and counties under the MA Net Metering Regulations.
YARMOUTH: 600 kW Wind Turbine
Award: $45,000
The Department of Public Works (DPW) Water Division Headquarters, the site of the town's new wastewater treatment facility (WWTF), is to be studied for a possible wind turbine project. A meteorological tower was constructed on-site in August 2009 to collect a year's worth of wind data because this site is thought to be favorable with respect to the wind resource.
The new WWTF construction will be completed in Fall 2013. It is proposed that the feasibility study, design, and construction of the wind turbine take place concurrently with the WWTF development so that both facilities are brought online around the same time. A 600 kilowatt (kW) turbine is intended for the site and is projected to produce 36% of the energy consumed by the WWTF once all phases of construction are complete.
Dutch Study on adverse affect of Wind Turbines
In 2007 and 2008 the WINDFARMperception project investigated the perception of Dutch wind farms by its surrounding residents. The research focused on noise annoyance and visual impact of wind turbines.
The study was based on a questionnaire, as well as on detailed calculations of sound power levels and visual impact of wind farms for its surrounding residents.
In Sweden two studies were performed in 2005 and 2007 respectively. The conclusions from these studies were that wind turbine size and noise affected surrounding residents. Moreover, wind turbine sound is more annoying than equally loud traffic noise.
http://www.rug.nl/wewi/deWetenschapswinkels/natuurkunde/publicaties/WFp-final-1.pdf
Danes go cold on wind farms
The nation that leads the world in wind-farm development is going cool on the environmentally friendly source of power.
Since the boom year of 2000, when as many as 748 turbines were erected, the number being built in Denmark has steadily fallen. So far this year, only six new wind turbines have been put up.
While many countries around the world are clamouring to buy Danish wind turbines, Denmark’s government is finding it difficult to convince its own population to accept an increase in the domestic use of the green technology.
Describing turbines as “poorly located, noisy and unsightly”, a number of local authorities, backed by grass-roots campaigners, are rejecting plans for new wind farms.
The situation has not been helped by a 2004 decision — the architect of which was Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish prime minister — to remove state subsidies for wind power, leaving it to market forces.
Two years on, the ruling Social Liberal-Conservative coalition appears ready to accept its mistake but, despite intense government efforts to promote clean technology, local opposition to a new wave of wind-power construction has reached fever pitch. Leading politicians say that is potentially catastrophic for the Danish energy sector.
The situation has resonance in Scotland, because Denmark is about a decade ahead in terms of wind-farm usage and the current dispute is indicative of what may transpire here.
After an about-turn on the issue in the summer, Mr Fogh Rasmussen says he is committed to reducing Denmark’s dependence on traditional fossil fuels. According to a forthcoming initiative, the government plans to meet 30 per cent of the country’s fuel needs with alternative forms of energy by 2025.
According to both councillors and local residents, the government’s decision to launch a new generation of 150m “super windmills” is as firmly rooted in economics as ideology.
Citing environment ministry figures, which confirm that offshore windmills cost nine times as much land-based ones, opponents have vehemently criticised the government for its willingness to ignore strict local authority planning guidelines in order to save money.
Notwithstanding these concerns, the government seems unrepentant about its plans to target rural areas for intensified energy development. Defending this decision, environment ministry officials have been at pains to underline the fact that many Danish wind farms are no longer energy-efficient and are in need of replacement if the government is to live up to its commitments.
Connie Hedegaard, the environment minister, is ready to overrule attempts by councillors to delay new-generation technology.
“We simply cannot continue to lead the world in the field of wind-power technology if we don’t even make room for wind parks in our own country,” she said. “The local authorities have a gigantic responsibility for the development of sustainable energy and the success of wind turbines. If they can’t find a solution in the near future, we [the Danish government] will pass a directive on the matter.”
Ms Hedegaard is awaiting the findings of a special wind energy committee, which will report later this month.
LEADING LIGHTS
THERE are 5,276 land-based wind turbines in Denmark — one for every 8sq km. In addition, it has 210 turbines in offshore farms.
Scotland, by contrast, has 643 land-based turbines, meaning one for every 122sq km — although many more wind farms are in the planning stage.
The Danish wind-turbine industry is the world’s largest, employing 30,000 people and supplying 40 per cent of the world’s turbines. Only Germany comes close to this.
Worldwide, installed wind- power capacity has now reached 59,322 megawatts, an increase of 25 per cent over 2004.
By Alistair Thomson
Cash, Not Climate, Drives Wind Farm Development in UK
I WAS very surprised at Mr Bundock's criticism of Councillors Boddington and West regarding the proposed wind farm near Graveley.
These councillors could not represent the villages that elected them during the two-year fight against the npower wind farm project. This is because they are on the planning committee and had to remain muzzled and impartial until the determination on November 16. To do so before would have left them open to being barred from voting by protest from the wind farm developer.
The action group, parish councillors and supporters were well aware of the councillors' dilemma. After the determination the councillors, now able to voice their opinions, simply wanted to say they were convinced and impressed with the arguments put forward against the wind farm.
I would suggest Mr Bundock looks at the problem of wind energy more closely as we have been forced to do. He will soon realise the energy supplied by a wind farm is very small and totally unreliable. Further research will show him that too many wind turbines installed in the UK will cause a tipping point on the National Grid network system.
It will cause power cuts and power rationing unless there is an enormous increase in back-up power from more reliable generation sources.
The only reason wind farms are continuing to being promoted is because the operators stand to collect a huge 25 per cent return on their guaranteed £2million per turbine investment for up to 25 years.
It has nothing to do with 'green' energy. It is money. This is a massive £500,000 profit per turbine per year. This is paid for by you (and me) as a surcharge on our electricity and gas bills. This renewable energy levy is already costing each average household about £100 extra a year on a bill of £1,100, rising, at today's prices, to about £200 inside three years. It will continue to increase.
If Mr Bundock is a regular reader of The Hunts Post, he will have seen a recent headline recommending the harnessing of water power from the Great Ouse to produce a significant amount of electricity. He will also see, from the CFAG website, that the action group is totally in favour of renewable energy, as are most wind farm action groups up and down the country.
I note he does not consider Cambridgeshire villages, and one must assume the Hemingfords are included in this, as being particularly attractive. Well, he should put in an application to put up a couple of 417 foot wind turbines next to his village. He will find out, I suspect, that the vast majority of his neighbours would totally disagree with him.
BEV GRAY
Governor Wyoming: Tax wind power
Gov. Dave Freudenthal is pushing several bills to regulate the wind energy industry. Chief among them are a $3 per megawatt hour excise tax, and a temporary suspension of eminent domain powers to "merchant" energy companies that want to connect wind turbines to the electrical grid.
February 2, 2010 by Dustin Bleizeffer in Casper Star-Tribune
Gov. Dave Freudenthal is pushing several bills to regulate the wind energy industry. Chief among them are a $3 per megawatt hour excise tax, and a temporary suspension of eminent domain powers to "merchant" energy companies that want to connect wind turbines to the electrical grid.
The governor said he is supporting four separate bills dealing with wind energy, two of which originate from the Legislature's Task Force on Wind Energy, which was created at the end of the 2009 legislative session. He also said he's asking for $25,000 in the budget to continue the work of the task force for another year.
Freudenthal announced the legislative measures during a media conference on Monday in which he described the budding wind energy industry as the "du jour" energy choice of the moment, "ever since you had Al Gore and 'An Inconvenient Truth.'"
Wind energy became a wedge between neighbors in Wyoming last year, separating those landowners who stand to benefit from the development and those who will only see their views obscured by wind turbines and power lines. Freudenthal and others have accused the industry of running amok before the state has a chance to modify its rules to fit an industry it never anticipated.
Cheryl Riley, executive director of the Wyoming Power Producers Coalition, said her group is reserving comment on the governor's proposals and will continue to work with the governor's staff and state legislators on the issues.
"It's the very beginning of the deliberation," Riley said.
Here's a breakdown of the legislative proposals announced by the governor:
* Retool the Wyoming Industrial Information and Siting Act to include wind farms of 30 turbines or more. Developers of such projects would be required to provide bonding or other financial assurances to ensure decommissioning and reclamation.
* Provide minimum state standards, such as buffer zones between wind turbines and other existing facilities. Counties would be allowed to provide their standards that go beyond the state's minimum requirements.
* Impose a $3 per megawatt hour excise tax on wind energy produced in Wyoming, which compares to about a 5 percent severance tax on minerals. This includes a provision to send 40 percent of the revenues to local governments and 60 percent to the state General Fund.
* Suspend the power of condemnation, or eminent domain, for one year "where it might be used to gain access to private lands to construct wind energy collector lines." The purpose is to give the Legislature a year to study the issue before adopting a permanent solution.
Craig Cox, executive director of the wind energy association Interwest Energy Alliance, said the industry supports the idea of setting some minimum standards regarding buffer zones and reclamation.
"If we can get certainty from whatever the Legislature passes, that's important," Cox said. "And it's important not to confuse certainty with punitive measures."
Cox said the excise tax is not a popular idea among wind energy developers, but he said states often do seek some sort of production tax.
"Just so we aren't killing the goose that lays the golden egg," Cox said.
The proposed tax is estimated to generate $5.9 million per year to the six counties where wind projects are already in operation, according to Freudenthal. He said Converse County would receive the largest share of that figure, an estimated $2.25 million in 2011.
The excise tax is comparable to the severance tax rates paid by the oil and natural gas industries. Freudenthal said it's also an attempt to weed out speculators and make sure the industry is paying its fair share to Wyoming residents just like the oil, natural gas, coal and other mineral industries.
"While wind energy is one of the heroes of the former vice president's 'Inconvenient Truth' and it enjoys a most favored position in the federal tax code, we must remember that it remains a profit-oriented business that should be treated the same as other energy producers," Freudenthal said in a prepared statement.
Limited reforms were made to Wyoming's eminent domain laws in 2007 following about 10 years of booming natural gas development in the state. But suspending the power of condemnation wielded against private property owners by oil and gas companies was not on the table.
On Monday, Freudenthal assured that his proposed one-year suspension would not extend to the oil and gas industry, or any other industry but wind. He said the reason for singling out the wind energy industry at this time is because it's a concern that generates the most complaints.
Wyoming has experienced a boom in wind energy development, with more than 450 new wind turbines during the past 1 1/2 years. Yet Wyoming's installed wind energy capacity of about 900 megawatts pales in comparison to its estimated potential of 100,000 megawatts because of the state's Class 5, 6 and 7 wind resources.
Industry officials estimate that a more likely build-out is on the order of 15,000 megawatts, or about 8,500 wind turbines. But the industry expects a serious lull in development during the next five or so years until major new electrical transmission is built to take the green energy to market.
http://www.trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_24173161-489e-5118-a4df-16707fe0009f.html