Denmark’s State Owned Electric Company gives up Land based Wind Turbines!
Mass protests mean the energy firm will look offshore
State-owned energy firm Dong Energy has given up building more wind farms on Danish land, following protests from residents complaining about the noise the turbines make.
It had been Dong and the government’s plan that 500 large turbines be built on land over the coming 10 years, as part of a large-scale national energy plan. This plan has hit a serious stumbling block, though, due to many protests, and the firm has now given up building any more wind farms on land.
Anders Eldrup, the CEO of Dong Energy, told TV2 News: ‘It is very difficult to get the public’s acceptance if the turbines are built close to residential buildings, and therefore we are now looking at maritime options.'
The move has met resistance from parliament, where amongst others Anne Grete Holmgaard, the chairperson of the Parliamentary Environmental Committee, said, ‘It is rather unacceptable that Dong - which is our large, state-owned energy firm - says goodbye to an investment in wind on land, and that they are doing so after we have cleared the way for a test centre where new types of turbines can be tested.’
Five myths about green energy
Americans are being inundated with claims about renewable and alternative energy. Advocates for these technologies say that if we jettison fossil fuels, we'll breathe easier, stop global warming and revolutionize our economy. Yes, "green" energy has great emotional and political appeal. But before we wrap all our hopes -- and subsidies -- in it, let's take a hard look at some common misconceptions about what "green" means.
The Washington Post By Robert Bryce Sunday, April 25, 2010
1. Solar and wind power are the greenest of them all.
Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats. Even an aging natural gas well producing 60,000 cubic feet per day generates more than 20 times the watts per square meter of a wind turbine. A nuclear power plant cranks out about 56 watts per square meter, eight times as much as is derived from solar photovoltaic installations. The real estate that wind and solar energy demand led the Nature Conservancy to issue a report last year critical of "energy sprawl," including tens of thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines needed to carry electricity from wind and solar installations to distant cities.
Nor does wind energy substantially reduce CO2 emissions. Since the wind doesn't always blow, utilities must use gas- or coal-fired generators to offset wind's unreliability. The result is minimal -- or no -- carbon dioxide reduction.
Denmark, the poster child for wind energy boosters, more than doubled its production of wind energy between 1999 and 2007. Yet data fromEnerginet.dk, the operator of Denmark's natural gas and electricity grids, show that carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation in 2007 were at about the same level as they were back in 1990, before the country began its frenzied construction of turbines. Denmark has done a good job of keeping its overall carbon dioxide emissions flat, but that is in large part because of near-zero population growth and exorbitant energy taxes, not wind energy. And through 2017, the Danes foresee no decrease in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation.
2. Going green will reduce our dependence on imports from unsavory regimes.
In the new green economy, batteries are not included. Neither are many of the "rare earth" elements that are essential ingredients in most alternative energy technologies. Instead of relying on the diversity of the global oil market -- about 20 countries each produce at least 1 million barrels of crude per day -- the United States will be increasingly reliant on just one supplier, China, for elements known as lanthanides. Lanthanum, neodymium, dysprosium and other rare earth elements are used in products from high-capacity batteries and hybrid-electric vehicles to wind turbines and oil refinery catalysts.
China controls between 95 and 100 percent of the global market in these elements. And the Chinese government is reducing its exports of lanthanides to ensure an adequate supply for its domestic manufacturers. Politicians love to demonize oil-exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, but adopting the technologies needed to drastically cut U.S. oil consumption will dramatically increase America's dependence on China.
3. A green American economy will create green American jobs.
In a global market, American wind turbine manufacturers face the same problem as American shoe manufacturers: high domestic labor costs. If U.S. companies want to make turbines, they will have to compete with China, which not only controls the market for neodymium, a critical ingredient in turbine magnets, but has access to very cheap employees.
The Chinese have also signaled their willingness to lose money on solar panels in order to gain market share. China's share of the world's solar module business has grown from about 7 percent in 2005 to about 25 percent in 2009.
Meanwhile, the very concept of a green job is not well defined. Is a job still green if it's created not by the market, but by subsidy or mandate? Consider the claims being made by the subsidy-dependent corn ethanol industry. Growth Energy, an industry lobby group, says increasing the percentage of ethanol blended into the U.S. gasoline supply would create 136,000 jobs. But an analysis by the Environmental Working Group found that no more than 27,000 jobs would be created, and each one could cost taxpayers as much as $446,000 per year. Sure, the government can create more green jobs. But at what cost?
4. Electric cars will substantially reduce demand for oil.
Nissan and Tesla are just two of the manufacturers that are increasing production of all-electric cars. But in the electric car's century-long history, failure tailgates failure. In 1911, the New York Times declared that the electric car "has long been recognized as the ideal" because it "is cleaner and quieter" and "much more economical" than its gasoline-fueled cousins. But the same unreliability of electric car batteries that flummoxed Thomas Edison persists today.
Those who believe that Detroit unplugged the electric car are mistaken. Electric cars haven't been sidelined by a cabal to sell internal combustion engines or a lack of political will, but by physics and math. Gasoline contains about 80 times as much energy, by weight, as the best lithium-ion battery. Sure, the electric motor is more efficient than the internal combustion engine, but can we depend on batteries that are notoriously finicky, short-lived and take hours to recharge? Speaking of recharging, last June, the Government Accountability Office reported that about 40 percent of consumers do not have access to an outlet near their vehicle at home. The electric car is the next big thing -- and it always will be.
5. The United States lags behind other rich countries in going green.
Over the past three decades, the United States has improved its energy efficiency as much as or more than other developed countries. According to data from the Energy Information Administration, average per capita energy consumption in the United States fell by 2.5 percent from 1980 through 2006. That reduction was greater than in any other developed country except Switzerland and Denmark, and the United States achieved it without participating in the Kyoto Protocol or creating an emissions trading system like the one employed in Europe. EIA data also show that the United States has been among the best at reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per $1 of GDP and the amount of energy consumed per $1 of GDP.
America's move toward a more service-based economy that is less dependent on heavy industry and manufacturing is driving this improvement. In addition, the proliferation of computer chips in everything from automobiles to programmable thermostats is wringing more useful work out of each unit of energy consumed. The United States will continue going green by simply allowing engineers and entrepreneurs to do what they do best: make products that are faster, cheaper and more efficient than the ones they made the year before.
Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His fourth book, "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future," will be out Tuesday, April 27.
This Nuclear Option Is Nuclear; The costs of fads and superstition
Meanwhile, America, which pioneered nuclear power, is squandering money on wind power, which provides 1.3 percent of the nation's electricity: it is slurping up $30 billion of tax breaks and other subsidies amounting to $18.82 per megawatt-hour, 25 times as much per megawatt-hour as the combined subsidies for all other forms of electricity production. Wind power involves gargantuan "energy sprawl."
April 19, 2010 by George Will in Newsweek
The 29 people killed last week in the West Virginia coal-mine explosion will soon be as forgotten by the nation as are the 362 miners who were killed in a 1907 explosion in that state, the worst mining disaster in American history. The costs of producing the coal that generates approximately half of America's electricity also include the hundreds of other miners who have suffered violent death in that dangerous profession, not to mention those who have suffered debilitating illnesses and premature death from ailments acquired toiling underground.
Which makes particularly pertinent the fact that the number of Americans killed by accidents in 55 years of generating electricity by nuclear power is: 0. That is the same number of Navy submariners and surface sailors injured during six decades of living in very close proximity to reactors.
America's 250-year supply of coal will be an important source of energy. But even people not much worried about the supposed climate damage done by carbon emissions should see the wisdom-cheaper electricity, less dependence on foreign sources of energy-of Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander's campaign to commit the country to building 100 more nuclear power plants in 20 years.
Today, 20 percent of America's electricity, and 69 percent of its carbon-free generation of electricity, is from nuclear plants. But it has been 30 years since America began construction on a new nuclear reactor.
France gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power; China is starting construction of a new reactor every three months. Meanwhile, America, which pioneered nuclear power, is squandering money on wind power, which provides 1.3 percent of the nation's electricity: it is slurping up $30 billion of tax breaks and other subsidies amounting to $18.82 per megawatt-hour, 25 times as much per megawatt-hour as the combined subsidies for all other forms of electricity production.
Wind power involves gargantuan "energy sprawl." To produce 20 percent of America's power by wind, which the Obama administration dreamily proposes, would require 186,000 tall turbines-40 stories tall, their flashing lights can be seen for 20 miles-covering an area the size of West Virginia. The amount of electricity that would be produced by wind turbines extending the entire 2,178 miles of the Appalachian Trail can be produced by four reactors occupying four square miles of land. And birds beware: the American Bird Conservancy estimates that the existing 25,000 turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds a year. Imagine the toll that 186,000 turbines would take.
Solar power? It produces less than a tenth of a percent of our electricity. And panels and mirrors mean more sprawl. Biomass? It is not so green when you factor in trucks to haul the stuff to the plants that burn it. Meanwhile, demand for electricity soars. Five percent of America's electricity powers gadgets no one had 30 years ago-computers.
America's nuclear industry was a casualty of the 1979 meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania, which was and is referred to as a "catastrophe" even though there were no measurable health effects. Chernobyl was a disaster because Russians built the reactor in a way no one builds today-without a containment vessel.
Since the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Alexander's state has played a special role in U.S. energy policy. The last commercial reactor opened in America is Watts Bar, Unit 1 in Tennessee. And, in a sense, all uses of nuclear power began in that state.
In September 1942, the federal government purchased 59,000 acres of wilderness in eastern Tennessee and built an instant city-streets, housing, schools, shops, and the world's most sophisticated scientific facilities. This was-is-Oak Ridge. Just 34 months later, a blinding flash illuminating the New Mexico desert announced the dawn of the atomic age. That is what Americans can do when motivated.
Today, a mini-Manhattan Project could find ways to recycle used nuclear fuel in a way that reduces its mass 97 percent and radioactive lifetime 98 percent. Today, Alexander says, 10 percent of America's lightbulbs are lit with electricity generated by nuclear material recycled from old Soviet weapons stocks. This is, as Alexander says, "one of the greatest swords-into-plowshares efforts in world history, although few people seem to know about it." It is a travesty that the nation that first harnessed nuclear energy has neglected it so long because of fads about supposed "green energy" and superstitions about nuclear power's dangers.
Spanish Solar-Panel Trade Group Calls for Fraud Investigation
I highlight this news article to show the possibility of renewable energy sources that are funded purely by government fiat to be ripe for fraud and abuse!
April 12 (Bloomberg) -- A Spanish trade group called on authorities to investigate possible fraud among solar-power generators after a news report said that some were getting paid for producing power at night.
ASIF wants the “identification, charges and rigorous application of the law” applied to any power producer guilty of such practices, the Madrid-based association for Spain’s photovoltaic-panel industry said today in a statement.
An audit of solar-power generation from November 2009 to January 2010 found that some panel operators were paid for doing the “impossible” -- producing electricity from sunlight during the night, El Mundo reported today, citing a letter from Secretary of State for Energy Pedro Marin.
Officials at Marin’s office in Madrid weren’t immediately available for comment.
“ASIF regrets that, with relative frequency, supposed photovoltaic fraud is leaked to the press -- with harmful consequences for the public image of the sector -- which later don’t translate into any public case that identifies the guilty,” the group said.
Preliminary evidence shows some solar stations may have run diesel-burning generators and sold the output as solar power, which earns several times more than electricity from fossil fuels, El Mundo said, citing unidentified people from the energy industry. The power grid received 4,500 megawatt-hours of power from midnight to 7 a.m. in the months audited, El Mundo said.
--Editors: Stephen Cunningham, Mike Anderson.
Stealing the heat
Here are some more ideas for energy conservation that don't involve destruction of lots of open space.Energy: The idea of recycling paper, glass, metal and plastics has become commonplace. New technologies allow heat to be recycled, too
Mar 4th 2010 | From The Economist print edition
“WATER, water everywhere, nor any drop to drink,” lamented the becalmed Ancient Mariner. Oddly, the same is true of energy. As with the water that surrounds a desert island, there is abundant energy right under people’s noses, in the form of wind, sun, tides and heat. The trouble is that, like saltwater, none of these sources is easily tapped. Wind turbines, solar panels and devices that extract energy from wave and tide have become more common in recent years. But technologists have been slower to exploit the vast amounts of ambient heat available in the atmosphere, or produced by machinery.
True, some simple forms of heat recycling have been around for a while: using heated waste water to warm flooring and melt ice on driveways, for example. Such systems can also reduce the need to heat water in a home. By running pipes that carry outgoing waste hot water alongside those carrying incoming fresh cold water, it is possible to warm the inlet stream and thus reduce the amount of energy needed to heat it up. “Combined heat and power” stations produce electricity while also warming nearby homes using their waste heat. In industrial settings, waste heat from boilers and large refrigeration units is sometimes recycled to reduce heating costs elsewhere. And some green-minded householders are fitting “air-source heat pumps” to keep their homes cosy using heat extracted from outdoor air.
Yet, with the spread of computers, which generate vast amounts of heat and need to be kept cool, tactics for recycling are getting ever more creative. Power and cooling demands grow in tandem and, as machines get more powerful, the world is paying dearly to keep them cool enough to run properly. From 2006 to 2011 the cost of powering and cooling servers in America alone is expected to grow from $4.5 billion to $7.4 billion, according to the country’s Environmental Protection Agency.
Frustrated by seeing ice on his roof at the same time as being told that his computer simulations could not run faster because cooling costs were too high, Paul Brenner, a computer scientist at the University of Notre Dame, in South Bend, Indiana, decided to take action. Dr Brenner and his colleagues explored the idea of using waste heat from computers as part of a thermostat-controlled indoor heating system. In theory, such a system would save on heating and cooling bills by exposing computers to low-temperature offices while exposing office workers to the warmth of the computers.
To try the idea out, the team secured an office and plonked some servers in it, linked to the Notre Dame campus computer pool used for big calculations. A thermometer in the office detected when it was getting too cold and sent a signal to the network requesting that calculations be diverted to the servers in the office. Once the temperature had risen, a second signal suspended work on the servers.
Having proved that their idea worked on campus, Dr Brenner and his team tried it out in the wider world—specifically, at the South Bend Botanical Conservatories and Greenhouse, a botanical garden that was spending $115,000 a year running boilers and propane heaters to keep temperatures high enough for its plants to survive.
By constructing a computer rack similar to that used in the office test, the researchers were able to provide the greenhouse with badly needed heat. A short while later, the rack was joined by three more racks that today provide the greenhouse with enough heat to cut its gas bills by $15,600 a year—while simultaneously saving Notre Dame $38,000 in cooling costs.
More than just hot stuff
Dr Brenner’s system, then, is helpful when heat itself is a valuable commodity, and it is simply a question of delivering it where it is useful. The most transportable form of energy, though, is electricity, so systems that convert waste heat into electricity are also desirable. The usual way to do this is with a thermocouple—a sandwich of two metals that produce a current when one side of the sandwich is hotter than the other. But Steven Novack, Dale Kotter and their colleagues at the Idaho National Laboratory are working on a new approach, using devices called nanoscopic antennae (nantennae), which are built out of gold or a nickel-chromium alloy.
Hot objects emit infrared radiation, and the electrons in these metals vibrate when exposed to such radiation. This vibration creates an alternating current that can be tapped. Though the current in each nantenna is small, an array of them can produce a useful amount of electricity. The nantennae themselves are built with a large-scale stamp that is used to emboss their underlying structure onto slightly heated, thin sheets of plastic. Once these structures are in place, the trenches made by the stamp are filled with metal. Only small amounts of metal are needed, though, so the end result is a cheap and flexible material.
The main problem is that the alternating current created is very high frequency. Mains electricity in America is supplied as alternating current at 60 hertz. The nantennae produce about 30 terahertz, or some 500 billion times that frequency. To make use of such a current, the nantennae require a device called a rectifier that reduces the frequency to something manageable. The trouble is that commercially available rectifiers can only cope with frequencies of up to 100 gigahertz. The frequency of the current from the nantennae is around 300 times higher.
To deal with this problem, Dr Novack and his collaborators are trying to embed a nanoscopic diode into the nantennae. A diode is a device which only allows current to flow in one direction. This would turn the rapid alternating current into a direct current, which is easier to handle. The researchers hope this addition will turn their heat-scavenging technology into a practical reality.
Getting closer
Another way to recycle heat that is being explored is to capture infrared with photovoltaic cells similar to those used in solar panels. Photovoltaic cells depend on packets of light (photons) knocking electrons free from atoms. They then employ the electrons so liberated to create a current. Photovoltaic cells are usually most responsive to photons in the visible and ultraviolet parts of the spectrum, but they can also respond to high-frequency infrared photons. Objects at a temperature of 1,000-1,500ºC produce plenty of such photons.
But only those that are travelling at a near-perfect right-angle to the surface of the hot material can escape and travel outwards. Photons travelling at any other angle within the material are reflected back inside when they reach the surface. As a result, photovoltaic cells placed near hot objects have only been able to generate around 0.02 watts per square centimetre. By contrast, photovoltaic cells absorbing sunlight can produce about 20 watts per square centimetre, provided the light is carefully concentrated using mirrors.
Bob DiMatteo of MTPV, a start-up based in Boston, is working on a way around this problem. He and his colleagues have discovered that the conditions change if a photovoltaic cell is placed a few hundred nanometres (billionths of a metre) from a hot surface made of silicon carbide alloy. When the width of the gap is smaller than the wavelength of the infrared radiation coming off the alloy, the photons are not internally reflected, but continue to travel into the cell. This approach, which is being called micron-gap thermal photovoltaics (hence MTPV), is capable of generating 5-10 watts per square centimetre, a massive increase over what has been possible before. The technology looks most promising for use in industrial facilities near exceedingly hot objects, like the machinery used to manufacture glass, or to reclaim waste heat in power stations.
Peter Hagelstein, an electrical engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is pursuing a related approach that also involves very small gaps between hot objects and photovoltaic cells. As an object heats up it radiates heat, but it also generates an electric field near its surface as a result of the random thermal motion of its atoms. Although this electrical field is exceedingly small, Dr Hagelstein and his colleagues theorised that if they could expose the electrons in a photovoltaic cell to it, those electrons would be knocked free from their atoms just as if they had been struck by photons.
But even the tiny gap involved in Mr DiMatteo’s approach proved to be too wide: the electric field of the hot object was still too far away to interact with the electrons in the photovoltaic cell. The researchers found that they had to close the distance to just 5-20 nanometres. At such close proximity, the electrons in the photovoltaic cell were being liberated by the electric field generated by the hot object, but the usual process of generating a current was going awry. Normally, in a photovoltaic cell, electrons knocked free by photons are then carried away by an electric field within the photovoltaic material to a contact wire. The electrons knocked free at the surface of the cell, however, were not being carried away in this manner. Instead, they were merely shuffling between different atoms at the surface.
So Dr Hagelstein and his colleagues changed the design of the cell, adding tiny metal wires to the usual sandwich of semiconductor materials in order to pick up the liberated electrons and allow them to be carried off to create an electric current. Although the new device is still at an experimental stage, the team’s calculations, published in a paper in theJournal of Applied Physics in November, suggest that it could convert heat to electricity at a rate of 100 watts per square centimetre. Installed on a laptop, it could recycle heat from the microprocessor and extend running time by around 20%. One way or another, it seems likely that the abundant reservoirs of waste heat are about to be tapped.
http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15582193
It is time to end this lunacy
The announcement of plans for a £200million windfarm at Moy, near Inverness, was accompanied by the claim that it would provide power to 100,000 homes. This great lie is perpetuated every time a new wind development is reported. People need to understand what is actually being claimed, and this can be found in the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) publication Calculations for Wind Energy.
March 26, 2010 by Stuart Young in Press and Journal
The announcement of plans for a £200million windfarm at Moy, near Inverness, was accompanied by the claim that it would provide power to 100,000 homes.
This great lie is perpetuated every time a new wind development is reported. People need to understand what is actually being claimed, and this can be found in the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) publication Calculations for Wind Energy.
BWEA claims: "A typical turbine therefore produces enough electricity each year to meet the needs of 1,000 homes."
I have no argument with this statement. A 1.75MW turbine at 30% load factor will annually generate 4,599MWh, which is close enough to the 4,700kWh average annual consumption per home for me.
But does it actually meet the needs? The answer is no. To meet the needs, the power needs to be there when needed.
At 2am on March 19, the 1,588MW connected windpower metered by the National Grid was generating 1,355MW when nobody wanted it, and at the morning peak demand time of 8.35am on March 20, the same 1,588MW wind fleet could manage only 107MW.
The overnight excess generation wasn't used by households, and when it was needed at breakfast time, it just wasn't there. An average of 731MW was generated over the period, but it was needed at breakfast time, not over the period. This surplus generation formed part of the "electricity produced each year", but it didn't "meet the needs" of homes.
So what happened to that surplus wind-generated electricity? The wind conditions on March 22 provide a good example.
At midnight on March 21, the output from the metered windfarms was 305MW. This rose steadily to 1,024MW at 8.05am on the 22nd, then fell steadily to 456MW at midday.
It continued falling after midday, but let's just consider this 12-hour period.
As the wind output rose, National Grid was switching off output from coal-fired power stations and, as the wind output fell, the same power stations were being reconnected.
Note that coal output was switched off, not that the coal fire was doused. During that 12-hour period, almost the same amount of coal was burned as would have been if the power was being fed into the grid.
That coal was burned and no benefit whatsoever was derived from it. It was burned solely so that wind energy could be used.
It was an obscene waste of a valuable and rare resource. The wind-generated electricity the consumer was forced to buy - because the government says the National Grid must take wind energy when it is being generated - cost about three times the coal-generated power, and the cost of constraining off the coal plant was almost as much as the electricity would have been.
During this period, our electricity was about four times the cost of coal-generated power, and virtually no carbon emission was saved.
Then there is the other great lie. BWEA says: "Electricity from wind turbines replaces the output of coal and gas-fired power stations as these are the most flexible plant on the system."
Actually, this is not a lie, simply throw a switch and you stop the electricity being transmitted, and throw it again and electricity flows into the system once more. You can't get any more flexible than that.
The great lie is in the unspoken implication that just because you are using wind energy, carbon emissions are being reduced.
The coal stations can't be turned off. The wind is about to drop, but nobody knows when.
In the 12 hours from midday on March 22, wind generation went down from 456MW to 405MW, up to 554MW, then down to 381MW, up to 511MW, then down to 460MW, up to 679MW, and then down to 522MW at midnight, after which it fell to 322MW at 4.35am on March 23.
All of these swings required juggling coal power stations on and off to keep the grid balanced, and all the switches were costly.
Not one ounce of carbon emission was saved.
It is time to end this lunacy.
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1661...
Start by challenging the claim "Enough power for X thousands of homes".
Follow on by exposing the deceitful disingenuity of "Electricity from wind turbines replaces the output of coal and gas-fired power stations".
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
Feeble wind farms fail to hit full power
THE first detailed study of Britain’s onshore wind farms suggests some treasured landscapes may have been blighted for only small gains in green energy.
The analysis reveals that more than 20 wind farms produce less than a fifth of their potential maximum power output.
One site, at Blyth Harbour in Northumberland, is thought to be the worst in Britain, operating at just 7.9% of its maximum capacity. Another at Chelker reservoir in North Yorkshire operates at only 8.7% of capacity.
Both are relatively small and old, but larger and newer sites fared badly, too, according to analyses of data released by Ofgem, the energy regulator, for 2008.
Siddick wind farm in Cumbria, now operated by Eon, achieved only 15.8% of capacity, the figures suggest. The two turbines at High Volts 2, Co Durham, the largest and most powerful wind farm in Britain when it was commissioned in 2004, achieved 18.7%.
Turbine efficiency is calculated by comparing theoretical maximum output with what the farms actually generate. The best achieve about 50% efficiency and the norm is 25%-30%.
Experts say the figures for individual wind farms have to be treated with caution as output can vary sharply because of factors such as breakdowns.
The revelation that so many wind farms are performing well below par, however, will reinforce the view of objectors who believe many turbines generate too little power to justify their visual impact.
Britain has 245 onshore wind farms. Although wind power is expensive, the industry has boomed because of the “renewable obligation” subsidy system, under which consumers pay roughly double the normal price for energy from wind.
The analyses were compiled by Allan Tubb, a former power engineer, on behalf of the Campaign to Limit Onshore Wind Development (CLOWD) and were based on data published by Ofgem showing the capacity and performance of Britain's renewable power generators. The original data can be found athttps://www.renewablesandchp.ofgem.gov.uk/
Michael Jefferson, professor of international business and sustainability at London Metropolitan Business School, who is also a former lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has cited the efficiency figures in peer-reviewed papers. He says the subsidy encourages the construction of wind farms.
“Too many developments are underperforming,” he said. “It’s because developers grossly exaggerate the potential. The subsidies make it viable for developers to put turbines on sites they would not touch if the money was not available.”
Nick Medic of Renewable UK, which represents the wind industry, said Britain’s ambitious targets for clean power meant the country needed “every bit of green energy it could generate”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7069938.ece
RECORD ACTIVITY FOR SAVEOURSEASHORE.ORG
Yesterday March 22, 2010 broke the record for the most active day for our website SAVEOURSEASHORE.ORG We recorded 192 hits which considering the modest Wellfleet population, IS HUGE! The previous most active day was set five months ago just after our startup. I want to thank the many people getting involved in saving Cape Cod National Seashore. Let's keep getting the word out to protect our National Parks.
If the town is successful in developing this commercial industrial wind farm in our National Park; will the National Park Service see this as a opportunity to develop all the NATIONAL PARKS? No one debates whether this land is in the park boundaries. There is no doubt this is industrial equipment and the commercial purpose is to make money. Once Pandora's box is open then will any park be protected? Mr Price the CCNS Superintendent currently believes this is part of a National mission. Let's not give them that green light!
Maine Citizens Task Force on Wind Power
- 350 miles of ridgelines blasted away, including many miles of high altitude, sub alpine ecosystems, home to rare flora and fauna
- 50,000+ acres of permanently clearcut forest, with a loss of carbon sequestration from the forest and fragmenting wildlife habitat
- Silt and herbicide residues from ridgeline clearcuts washing into our streams and lakes, contaminating fish and silting spawning areas
- 1800 turbines, each 380 to 400 feet tall, with blinking aviation lights 24/7, industrializing wilderness and ruining extraordinary viewsheds
- 1800 turbines, killing bats and birds (especially raptors like eagles and hawks), disrupting patterns of wildlife, driving them away
- 1800 turbines, sending out annoying audible noise like the never ending sound of low flying jets, shuddering and "whumping" noises
- 1800 turbines, sending out low frequency sound waves, registered on the dBc scale that are unhealthy to humans and wildlife
- 1,000+ miles of connector powerlines that will be like a spiderweb across rural Maine
- An expansion of 345 kv transmission lines (the big ones whose electromagnetic fields cause health problems) to carry the power out of state
- Higher electric rates to pay for mandated use of more expensive, intermittent, unpredictable, unreliable wind power that Maine does not need
- Higher electric rates to pay for the $1.5 billion transmission line expansion, locking us into sharing the future high costs of other NE states
- Ask everyone you know who is concerned about this issue to also join the website, as we need to grow membership to look strong
- Write letters to the editor of the state's three regional dailies and your local weekly newspaper; comment on-line against pro-wind stories
- Contact your local State Rep and State Senator and tell them how this is bad for the state and to support repeal of PL 661
- Use the website as a resource; letters can be written by mining material here, a bit of "cut & paste", some personal tweaking & Voila--a letter!
- Use the website as a resource; feel free to go viral by sending our material or links to our material to everyone---help spread the word!
- Attend public hearings and speak out! Get your local community to pass an ordinance to control wind development (See Dixmont's ordinance)
- Arm yourself with the truth about industrial wind and counter in every way the propaganda that the iconic wind turbine will save the world
Wind turbines: ‘Eco-friendly’ – but not to eagles
Telegraph By Christopher Booker Published: 6:51PM GMT 13 Mar 2010
In all my scores of items over the years on why the obsession with wind turbines will be seen as one of the major follies of our age, there is one issue I haven’t touched on. The main practical objection to turbines, of course, is that they are useless, producing derisory amounts of electricity at colossal cost. (Yet the Government wants us to spend £100 billion on building thousands more of them which, even were it technically possible, would do virtually nothing to fill the fast-looming 40 per cent gap in our electricity supply.)
A feature of these supposedly environment-friendly machines that I haven’t mentioned, however, is their devastating effect on wildlife, notably on large birds of prey, such as eagles and red kites. Particularly disturbing is the extent to which the disaster has been downplayed by professional bodies, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in Britain and the Audubon Society in the US, which should be at the forefront of exposing this outrage, but which have often been drawn into a conflict of interest by the large sums of money they derive from the wind industry itself.
There is plenty of evidence for the worldwide scale of this tragedy. The world’s largest and most carefully monitored wind farm, Altamont Pass in California, is estimated to have killed between 2,000 and 3,000 golden eagles alone in the past 20 years. Since turbines were erected on the isle of Smola, off Norway, home to an important population of white-tailed sea eagles, destruction is so great that last year only one chick survived. Thanks to wind farms in Tasmania, a unique sub-species of wedge-tailed eagles faces extinction. And here in Britain, plans to build eight wind farms on the Hebridean islands, among Scotland’s largest concentration of golden eagles, now pose a major threat to the species’ survival in the UK.
The real problem is that birds of prey and wind developers are both drawn, for similar reasons, to the same sites – hills and ridges where the wind provides lift for soaring birds and heavily subsidised profits for developers. Eagles may thus be drawn from hundreds of square miles to particular wind farms. And, as can be seen from the YouTube video of a vulture circling above a turbine in Crete (Google “Fatal accident with vulture on windmill”), the vortices created by blade tips revolving at up to 200mph can destabilise such large birds, plunging them into a fatal collision.
This ecological disaster has been abundantly documented and publicised, not least in Europe by Save The Eagles International, run by Mark Duchamp, a retired French businessman living in Alicante. Spain has one of the three highest concentrations of turbines in Europe and, according to the Spanish Ornithological Society (see Mr Duchamp’s Iberica 2000 website), they may be killing up to a million birds a year. But he focuses his campaign on what he sees as the disturbing failure to protect birds by the bodies whose job it is to do so, from the RSPB to the European Commission.
In the US, the local branch of the Audubon Society withdrew its opposition to a giant wind farm off Cape Cod after a substantial sum of money was promised for ornithologists to monitor its effects on bird life. In Britain, the RSPB claims to keep a critical eye on those effects, but nevertheless urges a major expansion of wind farms, on the grounds that “climate change is the most significant threat to biodiversity on the planet”. The RSPB receives £10 from the wind-farm builder Scottish & Southern Energy for every customer signing up for electricity under its “RSPB Energy” scheme. Ornithologists also derive a good income from developers for providing impact assessments for planning applications or for monitoring existing wind farms for bird collisions.
Various official bodies, such as Scottish National Heritage (SNH), are responsible in law for protecting bird populations. One particular scheme that sparked a long and fierce controversy – and was mildly opposed by the RSPB – was a wind farm now under construction at Edinbane on the Isle of Skye, on hills known to attract young golden eagles and sea eagles. A first run of the SNH “collision model” showed that, over 25 years, this was likely to kill 137 golden eagles, nearly 10 times the permissible conservation limit of 15. But when SNH revised a key parameter, the “avoidance rate”, from 95 per cent to 98 per cent, and the developer removed nine turbines from its plan, the result was that predicted eagle deaths fell to exactly 15, allowing the scheme to go ahead.
Details of what Mr Duchamp calls “the scandal of the Edinbane wind farm” are included in a complaint he has lodged with the European Commission (also available on his Iberica 2000 website), asking Brussels to be much more rigorous in enforcing its own environmental legislation, such as the Birds and Habitats Directives, which are widely disregarded by national authorities. The Commission did order the Scottish Executive to veto a 178-turbine wind farm on the Hebridean island of Lewis (for once, strongly opposed by the RSPB) because its devastating effect on eagles and other protected birds would breach its directives. But many similarly damaging schemes on Lewis and elsewhere are still being driven forward as part of Edinburgh’s mad dream that 40 per cent of Scotland’s electricity should come from wind and other renewable sources within 10 years.
Large birds of prey are far from being the only victims of wind farms, and the thousands of miles of power lines needed to connect them to the grid. A study cited by Birdlife International shows that, each year, power lines can be responsible for up to 800 bird kills per mile. Vast numbers of other birds are killed by turbines each year, as are countless thousands of bats, which also seem to be drawn to wind farms, and which recent studies have shown die with their lungs distended by air pressure from the blades.
For the rest of us, it is a criminal offence to kill bats and golden eagles. But it seems that all those under the spell of the infatuation with windpower and global warming can claim exemption from the law. In return for ludicrously small amounts of very expensive electricity, wildlife must pay the price for their dreams.
Seagen Passes 1000 Operational Hours
SeaGen, the world-leading prototype commercial tidal energy turbine designed and deployed by Marine Current Turbines Ltd (MCT) has exceeded 1000 hours of operation in Northern Ireland’s Strangford Lough. It is the first and only tidal current energy system in the world to have achieved this milestone.
The 1.2MW tidal turbine, the largest megawatt scale grid-connected marine renewable energy system in the world, has so far delivered 800MWh into the National Grid with an average Capacity Factor of 66%.
This high capacity factor means that the tidal turbine delivers energy on average at the same rate to be expected from a wind turbine of approximately twice the rated power. Furthermore, the output is totally predictable. This performance has exceeded expectations largely thanks to the intensity of the Strangford Lough tide race and MCT’s own conservative design predictions.
Martin Wright, Managing Director of Marine Current Turbines said: “We are delighted with SeaGen’s performance. Passing the 1000 hours mark is a great milestone which not only demonstrates the potential for tidal power, but will also help to reinforce confidence in extracting energy from the seas in the future.”
Since starting operation in late 2008, SeaGen’s operation has been limited by its licence conditions to daylight hours, and it is only since the autumn (2009) that SeaGen has operated automatically and without the presence of “marine mammal observers” on board. It was this change that has allowed a considerable increase in SeaGen’s operational hours.
The company is now preparing SeaGen for more intensive operation and it is hoped to gain consent for continuous “24/7” operation before the summer. In the next few weeks, MCT also plans to run SeaGen under supervision of specialists from DNV (Det Norsk Veritas), one of the world’s leading marine classification societies, to obtain independent verification of its performance.
Martin Wright added: “SeaGen is operating as it was designed to do. Crucially, the operational experience and data that we are gaining every day is hugely valuable as we work towards deploying the UK’s first tidal farm within the next two years. SeaGen is a commercial scale prototype and already we are incorporating into the design of the next machines subtle changes to improve maintainability and reliability which are vital for commercial generation.”
Last week (February 2nd), MCT secured £2.7m from the Carbon Trust’s Marine Renewables Proving Fund to support the company’s evaluation and operation of SeaGen as a precursor to the deployment of a tidal farm by MCT in UK waters.
Notes to Editors:
1. Marine Current Turbines Ltd (www.marineturbines.com) is based in Bristol, England. The company was established in 2000 and its principal corporate shareholders include BankInvest, Carbon Trust Investments, EDF Energy, ESB International, Guernsey Electricity and High Tide. The company has a power purchase agreement with Ireland’s ESB Independent Energy for SeaGen’s output.
2. In September 2009, MCT was ranked the world’s top tidal energy company in The Guardian/Clean Tech Global 100 Survey and in June 2009 won Renewable Energy Developer of the Year in the UK Renewable Energy Association Annual Awards.
3. The SeaGen turbine is subject to a rigorous monitoring programme imposed under its licensing conditions to ensure it does not threaten the marine life of Strangford Lough where it is located. At present, SeaGen is still only permitted to operate in daylight hours and has to be continuously monitored by an observer on-shore using sonar to see that the marine life, in particular seals and porpoises, are not at risk from the 16m diameter twin rotors which rotate at about 14 rpm.
4. SeaGen is accredited by OFGEM as a UK power station and so is a recipient of Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs).
http://www.marineturbines.com/3/news/article/29/s eagen_passes_1000_operational_hours/
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.’’
Wood fueled biomass energy worse for carbon dioxide emissions than fossil fuels
I have included the following press release to show that the State of Massachusetts is putting in place other harmful directives with regards to energy policy. The state funded Massachusetts Technology Collaborative is the "brains" behind placing a wind turbines in a NATIONAL PARK and cutting down STATE FORESTS to burn, while giving towns and companies money to wreak this destructions. We are strong believers in the environment and are confounded to understand MA's Renewable Energy Policy of siting Wind Turbines in pristine protected forest and clearing state forest for BIOMASS. We need to speak up and tell our governments to FIRST DO NO HARM when it comes to protecting the environment. GET INFORMED! These things are really happening. State and National lands are being destroyed while your tax and utility money are going to greed people who are feeding on your good intentions!
| Wood fueled biomass energy worse for carbon dioxide emissions than fossil fuels
Massachusetts Forest Watch released a report today (www.maforests.org/MFWCarb.pdf) stating that contrary to the belief that wood fueled biomass burning would help lower carbon dioxide emissions, it would instead dramatically increase them. According to the group, wood fueled biomass burning is typically touted as a carbon neutral fuel by biomass proponents, but the key assumption about carbon neutrality is unsubstantiated and impossible when using existing forests as fuel. In the report, wood fueled biomass power plants are shown to be worse than all fossil fuel power plants, including coal, for carbon dioxide emissions per unit of energy produced. Calculations provided show wood fueled biomass power plants emit about 50% more CO2 per MWh than existing coal plants, 150% more than existing natural gas plants and 330% more than new power plants. Forest Watch spokesperson Chris Matera said, “It really is crazy. Hundreds of millions of dollars in public so-called “green” energy subsidies are being wasted on dirty wood biomass burning of forests instead of going to genuinely clean energy sources such as solar, geothermal, appropriate wind and hydro and importantly conservation and efficiency. At a time when budgets are being slashed, we are throwing away scarce taxpayer money on a caveman technology that will worsen our problems, not help solve them.” Last Wednesday, a hearing was held in Boston by the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy on House Bill 4458 that would create into law the citizen’s referendum that recently collected over 78,000 certified signatures, which is enough to put the measure on the ballot in November. The ballot measure would put a limit on carbon dioxide emissions in order for renewable energy sources to be eligible to receive taxpayer subsidies and other benefits and would effectively ban taxpayer subsidies from being directed toward wood fueled biomass plants since their carbon dioxide emissions are so high. "We find that people are willing to support truly clean energy but do not want to pay extra on their electricity bills and tax bills to build these dirty biomass incinerators," said Jana Chicoine of the Concerned Citizens of Russell, "Everyone knows that the proposed biomass incinerators would add to air pollution and make carbon emissions worse, yet the Patrick administration is still forcing us to pay for it. It's a tragic situation, but we have a chance to fix it in the legislature over the next couple of weeks." Meg Sheehan, chair of the Stop Spewing Carbon ballot question committee commenting about the hearing added, “last week the Massachusetts legislature received un-rebutted testimony from medical professionals that particulate emissions from wood burning biomass plants increase human mortality. A broad coalition of medical and citizen groups are urging our elected officials to support House Bill 4458 to address this public health threat. Action is needed now," she added. |
Ways to save Energy without Wind Turbines!
- Replace a regular incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb (cfl)CFLs use 60% less energy than a regular bulb. This simple switch will save about 300 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.
We recommend you purchase your CFL bulbs at 1000bulbs.com, they have great deals on both screw-in and plug-in light bulbs. - Install a programmable thermostat
Programmable thermostats will automatically lower the heat or air conditioning at night and raise them again in the morning. They can save you $100 a year on your energy bill. - Move your thermostat down 2° in winter and up 2° in summer
Almost half of the energy we use in our homes goes to heating and cooling. You could save about 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple adjustment. - Clean or replace filters on your furnace and air conditioner
Cleaning a dirty air filter can save 350 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. - Choose energy efficient appliances when making new purchases
Look for the Energy Star label on new appliances to choose the most energy efficient products available. - Do not leave appliances on standby
Use the "on/off" function on the machine itself. A TV set that's switched on for 3 hours a day (the average time Europeans spend watching TV) and in standby mode during the remaining 21 hours uses about 40% of its energy in standby mode. - Wrap your water heater in an insulation blanket
You’ll save 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple action. You can save another 550 pounds per year by setting the thermostat no higher than 50°C. - Move your fridge and freezer
Placing them next to the cooker or boiler consumes much more energy than if they were standing on their own. For example, if you put them in a hot cellar room where the room temperature is 30-35ºC, energy use is almost double and causes an extra 160kg of CO2 emissions for fridges per year and 320kg for freezers. - Defrost old fridges and freezers regularly
Even better is to replace them with newer models, which all have automatic defrost cycles and are generally up to two times more energy-efficient than their predecessors. - Don't let heat escape from your house over a long period
When airing your house, open the windows for only a few minutes. If you leave a small opening all day long, the energy needed to keep it warm inside during six cold months (10ºC or less outside temperature) would result in almost 1 ton of CO2 emissions. - Replace your old single-glazed windows with double-glazing
This requires a bit of upfront investment, but will halve the energy lost through windows and pay off in the long term. If you go for the best the market has to offer (wooden-framed double-glazed units with low-emission glass and filled with argon gas), you can even save more than 70% of the energy lost. - Get a home energy audit
Many utilities offer free home energy audits to find where your home is poorly insulated or energy inefficient. You can save up to 30% off your energy bill and 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Energy Star can help you find an energy specialist. - Cover your pots while cooking
Doing so can save a lot of the energy needed for preparing the dish. Even better are pressure cookers and steamers: they can save around 70%! - Use the washing machine or dishwasher only when they are full
If you need to use it when it is half full, then use the half-load or economy setting. There is also no need to set the temperatures high. Nowadays detergents are so efficient that they get your clothes and dishes clean at low temperatures. - Take a shower instead of a bath
A shower takes up to four times less energy than a bath. To maximize the energy saving, avoid power showers and use low-flow showerheads, which are cheap and provide the same comfort. - Use less hot water
It takes a lot of energy to heat water. You can use less hot water by installing a low flow showerhead (350 pounds of carbon dioxide saved per year) and washing your clothes in cold or warm water (500 pounds saved per year) instead of hot. - Use a clothesline instead of a dryer whenever possible
You can save 700 pounds of carbon dioxide when you air dry your clothes for 6 months out of the year. - Insulate and weatherize your home
Properly insulating your walls and ceilings can save 25% of your home heating bill and 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Caulking and weather-stripping can save another 1,700 pounds per year. Energy Efficient has more information on how to better insulate your home. - Be sure you’re recycling at home
You can save 2,400 pounds of carbon dioxide a year by recycling half of the waste your household generates. - Recycle your organic waste
Around 3% of the greenhouse gas emissions through the methane is released by decomposing bio-degradable waste. By recycling organic waste or composting it if you have a garden, you can help eliminate this problem! Just make sure that you compost it properly, so it decomposes with sufficient oxygen, otherwise your compost will cause methane emissions and smell foul. - Buy intelligently
One bottle of 1.5l requires less energy and produces less waste than three bottles of 0.5l. As well, buy recycled paper products: it takes less 70 to 90% less energy to make recycled paper and it prevents the loss of forests worldwide. - Choose products that come with little packaging and buy refills when you can
You will also cut down on waste production and energy use... another help against global warming. - Reuse your shopping bag
When shopping, it saves energy and waste to use a reusable bag instead of accepting a disposable one in each shop. Waste not only discharges CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, it can also pollute the air, groundwater and soil. - Reduce waste
Most products we buy cause greenhouse gas emissions in one or another way, e.g. during production and distribution. By taking your lunch in a reusable lunch box instead of a disposable one, you save the energy needed to produce new lunch boxes. - Plant a tree
A single tree will absorb one ton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime. Shade provided by trees can also reduce your air conditioning bill by 10 to 15%. The Arbor Day Foundation has information on planting and provides trees you can plant with membership. - Switch to green power
In many areas, you can switch to energy generated by clean, renewable sources such as wind and solar. In some of these, you can even get refunds by government if you choose to switch to a clean energy producer, and you can also earn money by selling the energy you produce and don't use for yourself. - Buy locally grown and produced foods
The average meal in the United States travels 1,200 miles from the farm to your plate. Buying locally will save fuel and keep money in your community. - Buy fresh foods instead of frozen
Frozen food uses 10 times more energy to produce. - Seek out and support local farmers markets
They reduce the amount of energy required to grow and transport the food to you by one fifth. Seek farmer’s markets in your area, and go for them. - Buy organic foods as much as possible
Organic soils capture and store carbon dioxide at much higher levels than soils from conventional farms. If we grew all of our corn and soybeans organically, we’d remove 580 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere! - Eat less meat
Methane is the second most significant greenhouse gas and cows are one of the greatest methane emitters. Their grassy diet and multiple stomachs cause them to produce methane, which they exhale with every breath. - Reduce the number of miles you drive by walking, biking, carpooling or taking mass transit wherever possible
Avoiding just 10 miles of driving every week would eliminate about 500 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions a year! Look for transit options in your area. - Start a carpool with your coworkers or classmates
Sharing a ride with someone just 2 days a week will reduce your carbon dioxide emissions by 1,590 pounds a year. eRideShare.com runs a free service connecting north american commuters and travelers. - Don't leave an empty roof rack on your car
This can increase fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by up to 10% due to wind resistance and the extra weight - removing it is a better idea. - Keep your car tuned up
Regular maintenance helps improve fuel efficiency and reduces emissions. When just 1% of car owners properly maintain their cars, nearly a billion pounds of carbon dioxide are kept out of the atmosphere. - Drive carefully and do not waste fuel
You can reduce CO2 emissions by readjusting your driving style. Choose proper gears, do not abuse the gas pedal, use the engine brake instead of the pedal brake when possible and turn off your engine when your vehicle is motionless for more than one minute. By readjusting your driving style you can save money on both fuel and car mantainance. - Check your tires weekly to make sure they’re properly inflated
Proper tire inflation can improve gas mileage by more than 3%. Since every gallon of gasoline saved keeps 20 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, every increase in fuel efficiency makes a difference! - When it is time for a new car, choose a more fuel efficient vehicle
You can save 3,000 pounds of carbon dioxide every year if your new car gets only 3 miles per gallon more than your current one. You can get up to 60 miles per gallon with a hybrid! You can find information on fuel efficiency on FuelEconomy and on GreenCars websites. - Try car sharing
Need a car but don’t want to buy one? Community car sharing organizations provide access to a car and your membership fee covers gas, maintenance and insurance. Many companies – such as Flexcar - offer low emission or hybrid cars too! Also, see ZipCar. - Try telecommuting from home
Telecommuting can help you drastically reduce the number of miles you drive every week. For more information, check out the Telework Coalition. - Fly less
Air travel produces large amounts of emissions so reducing how much you fly by even one or two trips a year can reduce your emissions significantly. You can also offset your air travel carbon emissions by investingin renewable energy projects. - Encourage your school or business to reduce emissions
You can extend your positive influence on global warming well beyond your home by actively encouraging other to take action. - Join the virtual march
The Stop Global Warming Virtual March is a non-political effort to bring people concerned about global warming together in one place. Add your voice to the hundreds of thousands of other people urging action on this issue. - Encourage the switch to renewable energy
Successfully combating global warming requires a national transition to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and biomass. These technologies are ready to be deployed more widely but there are regulatory barriers impeding them. U.S. citizens, take action to break down those barriers with Vote Solar. - Protect and conserve forest worldwide
Forests play a critical role in global warming: they store carbon. When forests are burned or cut down, their stored carbon is release into the atmosphere - deforestation now accounts for about 20% of carbon dioxide emissions each year. Conservation International has more information on saving forests from global warming. - Consider the impact of your investments
If you invest your money, you should consider the impact that your investments and savings will have on global warming. Check out SocialInvest and Ceres to can learn more about how to ensure your money is being invested in companies, products and projects that address issues related to climate change. - Make your city cool
Cities and states around the country have taken action to stop global warming by passing innovative transportation and energy saving legislation. If you're in the U.S., join the cool cities list. - Tell Congress to act
The McCain Lieberman Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act would set a firm limit on carbon dioxide emissions and then use free market incentives to lower costs, promote efficiency and spur innovation. Tell your representative to support it. - Make sure your voice is heard!
Americans must have a stronger commitment from their government in order to stop global warming and implement solutions and such a commitment won’t come without a dramatic increase in citizen lobbying for new laws with teeth. Get the facts about U.S. politicians and candidates at Project Vote Smart and The League of Conservation Voters. Make sure your voice is heard by voting! - Share this list!
Send this page via e-mail to your friends! Spread this list worldwide and help people doing their part: the more people you will manage to enlighten, the greater YOUR help to save the planet will be (but please take action on first person too)!
Cost and Quantity of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Avoided by Wind Generation By Peter Lang
Emission Cuts Realities – Electricity Generation
We get comments saying we don't suggest alternatives. Well here is a well reasoned analysis from Australia
Emission Cuts Realities – Electricity Generation
By Peter Lang, January 2010
Cost and CO2 emissions projections for different electricity generation options for Australia to 2050
Peter Lang is a retired geologist and engineer with 40 years experience on a wide range of energy projects throughout the world, including managing energy R&D and providing policy advice for government and opposition. His experience includes: coal, oil, gas, hydro, geothermal, nuclear power plants, nuclear waste disposal, and a wide range of energy end use management projects.
Abstract
Five options for cutting CO2 emissions from electricity generation in Australia are compared with a ‘Business as Usual’ option over the period 2010 to 2050. The six options comprise combinations of coal, gas, nuclear, wind and solar thermal technologies.
The conclusions: The nuclear option reduces CO2 emissions the most, is the only option that can be built quickly enough to make the deep emissions cuts required, and is the least cost of the options that can cut emissions sustainably. Solar thermal and wind power are the highest cost of the options considered. The cost of avoiding emissions is lowest with nuclear and highest with solar and wind power.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/09/emission-cuts-realities/
The full 32 page
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/lang_2010_emissions_cuts_realities_v1a1.pdf
Dutch build towering wind turbines out at sea
IJMUIDEN, Netherlands (Reuters) - There is no shortage of wind in the densely-populated Netherlands but there is a shortage of space and in a nation which likes its houses small and its gardens cosy, opposition to wind farms is immense.
That is why a new Dutch wind farm is being built so far out to sea it is barely visible on the horizon, reducing the visual impact of its 60 turbines to virtually nil whilst at the same time harnessing higher offshore wind speeds.
Offshore wind farms are likely to appear more and more frequently off European coastlines as governments seek to increase their use of renewable energy without angering their citizens by placing giant turbines on their doorsteps.
The 383 million euro ($522.3 million) Q7 wind park development, 14 miles from the Dutch North Sea coast, is the farthest offshore wind park anywhere in the world, and its developers Econcern and Eneco Energie say a further five to 10 such wind parks will likely follow in the next few years.
"Q7 will contribute enough electricity for 125,000 households, but it is also a learning process. We are learning how to build these wind farms, how to organize the supply chain, and how to manage and operate them," said Bernard van Hemert, one of the wind farm's engineering directors.
"Most campaigns against turbines are based around the noise and the visual impact, and these have been reduced by going offshore. It is more expensive to do it here than to do it on land, but we have all agreed we don't have enough space on land," said van Hemert.
Blessed with shallow sandy soils around their coastline, Dutch engineers say the foundations for the turbines can be hammered 82 feet into the ground in just a matter of hours, although there are myriad other challenges.
The proportions are breathtaking. The turbines extend about 320 feet from the ocean, with three sharp narrow blades, each 130 feet long.
It is hoped that when they start rotating in early 2008 they will cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 225,000 tonnes, helping the Dutch to meet a target of 20 percent renewable energy use by 2020.
TRICKY LOGISTICS
The turbines are so massive they can only be transported by sea and there is just one factory in Europe which can weld and construct the 15-foot-diametre piles, which must be first driven into the sea to form the base of the turbines, van Hemert explains.
"It is a huge logistical operation which requires lots of space. There are only a few crane vessels which can handle those huge structures and hammer them down."
"But bringing up the cables is the most challenging for all offshore wind projects."
Expert divers are helping to fit the electrics.
Developers have also had to ensure that the wind park is well away from busy shipping channels.
"Studies in the United Kingdom have shown that there can be some radio interference but in the situation we have here it is completely safe and there is no risk of confusion or reduced visibility for vessels."
Jim Mollet, chairman of a Dutch group campaigning against wind energy acknowledges off-shore wind farms have some benefits over land-based wind turbines.
"They can be a better solution. But the problem is people tend to believe they are an entire solution. We think the vast sums spent on wind farms would be better spent on research and innovation in other energy sources."
Wind farms cannot generate the sheer amounts of energy the continent requires with cost or space efficiency, he added.