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.
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
Wind Turbines Cause More Pollution!
Wind energy is seen as a vital piece of the renewable-energy movement.
But it may be contributing to the pollution problem along the Front Range, according to a draft report sponsored by members of Colorado’s natural gas industry.
The report says that the greatly increased use of wind energy in the past few years may have raised pollution levels from coal and natural gas-fueled power plants owned by Xcel Energy Inc. That’s because the frequent change in output asked of power plants, in response to the availability of wind and solar power, adds to pollution, the report says.
If the report’s conclusions are true, then that challenges beliefs about the connection between renewable wind power and improved air quality.
But representatives of environmental groups and Xcel say they have doubts about its methods and are skeptical about its conclusions. The final report is expected to be completed within weeks.
“We have some questions,” said Roy Palmer, Xcel’s director of state government affairs.
“We think this study has some very serious flaws and doesn’t consider the overall air pollution and public health benefits on an annual or seasonal basis,” said Vickie Patton, the Boulder-based deputy general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund who works on clean-air programs for the advocacy group.
Conventional wisdom says the use of renewable resources, such as wind or solar, to generate electricity cuts pollution levels and improves air quality because they don’t use coal or natural gas to generate power. Fossil fuels have pollutants, such as mercury, sulphur dioxide (SOx), nitrogen oxide (NOx) and carbon dioxide (C02), that are released when the coal or natural gas is burned for heat, which generates the steam needed to turn a turbine and make electricity.
At the end of 2009, Colorado’s wind farms were capable of generating as much as 1,241 megawatts of renewable energy, up nearly 3,800 percent since 2000, according to Interwest Energy Alliance, a Conifer-based trade group for wind power companies in the Rocky Mountains.
But when there’s no wind or sun, conventional power plants that use coal or natural gas supply the energy grid.
In Colorado, the wind typically blows the best — for power-generating purposes — at night, when demand for power is low and has traditionally been met by coal-fired power plants. Through the years, the state has added much more wind power, made necessary due to state laws mandating Xcel get 20 percent of its power supply from renewable resources by 2020. Gov. Bill Ritter is scheduled to sign a bill March 22 that raises that goal to 30 percent by 2020.
But the new report concludes that emissions levels at some coal and natural-gas power plants have increased because they’re throttled up and down to accommodate the fickle nature of renewable energy — particularly the wind, according to the Independent Petroleum Association of the Mountain States (IPAMS), which paid for the report, and Evergreen’s Bentek Energy Inc., which prepared it.
The study found that power output by coal-fired power plants fluctuated as much as 20 percent hour to hour, said Porter Bennett, Bentek president.
The impact on emissions, according to the study, are higher levels ranging between 2 million or 3 million pounds of SOx and NOx, to as much as 10 million pounds of increased emissions, when a power plant is throttled up, Bennett said.
“It’s like running your car in fifth gear, and then slowing to five miles per hour and then trying to speed back up again,” said Marc Smith, executive director of IPAMS. “Coal plants are meant to run only in fifth gear.”
Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz said via email that the utility’s first choice is to throttle back natural gas-fueled power plants, which are better designed to handle quick changes in operations, when the wind picks up. But the utility sometimes is “forced” to cut back coal plants’ output also in response to wind energy — and when it does, Xcel tries to minimize the impact on the plant’s operations and emissions, he said.
The increased emissions stem from two main factors, according to IPAMS and Bentek:
• Inefficiencies occur as power plants are ramped up and down.
• Rapidly increasing plants’ power output — particularly big, coal-fired ones — throws off the operation of air-quality control equipment meant to capture emissions, Bennett said.
It’s like a sudden blast of air tearing a hole in a net. The net still works in some areas, but more emissions get through until the hole is repaired, he said.
It can take up to 20 hours to recalibrate the control equipment, Smith said.
A recent presentation about the draft report was attended by representatives of Xcel; Western Resource Advocates (WRA), a Boulder-based environmental advocacy group that focuses on power issues; and the Environmental Defense Fund, a national advocacy group based in New York City. All three said they plan to study the final report when it’s complete.
“Analyzing system operations is very complex and isolating one specific activity, such as the impact of high wind events on coal operations, in comparison to the operation of the entire generation fleet in Colorado, is even more complex,” Stutz said.
Xcel’s emissions of NOx, and all emissions from Xcel’s fossil-fuel power plants, have dropped nearly 9,000 tons, or about 25 percent, since 2007 due to equipment upgrades that capture more emissions before they leave the plant, Stutz said.
Bennett agreed, but said the upgrades and overall drop in emissions mask increases at some of Xcel’s power plants.
John Nielsen, director of WRA’s energy program, said he thought there were two “serious flaws” in the draft study:
• The analysis didn’t include operations and emissions at power plants that supply power to Xcel, and its customers, in Colorado, but which aren’t owned by Xcel.
• Power plants might be ramped up and down due to a number of issues — such as maintenance at the individual plant or another plant, congestion on transmission lines or other reasons. Also, extrapolating the impact of a few windy days across an entire year could throw off conclusions, he said.
Information in the report came from utilities’ filings with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency about the hourly emissions and operations of individual power plants.
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".
U.S. General Victor E. Renuart testifies on radar interference from wind turbines
March 18, 2010 by General Victor E. Renuart, Jr. USAF Commander
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
Wind farms’ effect on radar a clear concern
The U.S. military is growing increasingly concerned that proposed wind farms can disrupt or block radar designed to detect threats and protect America's skies, a problem that is stalling the alternative energy projects around the country. A top U.S. general told Congress on Thursday that federal agencies need to work better together on a formal vetting process for the wind projects.
March 21, 2010 by Lolita C. Baldor in Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The U.S. military is growing increasingly concerned that proposed wind farms can disrupt or block radar designed to detect threats and protect America's skies, a problem that is stalling the alternative energy projects around the country.
A top U.S. general told Congress on Thursday that federal agencies need to work better together on a formal vetting process for the wind projects to prevent them from being built where they will interfere with radar defenses.
Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, head of U.S. Northern Command, said a number of projects raise "real concerns" involving radar interference, and he suggested that requiring companies to conduct early checks during the approval process for such obstruction might be needed.
"We've heard concerns that wind turbines may interfere with radar and impact military training routes," said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo. "While we must find new ways to meet our energy security needs, we must not compromise our national security."
While the radar interference issue isn't new, it has become a bigger problem as more wind projects move through the permit process. Industry leaders and the Energy Department have said that wind power could provide as much as 20 percent of the nation's electricity by 2030.
Last month, Pentagon officials raised the issue with Congress, saying they are devoting a lot of time and effort to the growing challenge of ensuring that energy projects don't conflict with military requirements.
"The current process for reviewing proposals and handling disputes is opaque, time-consuming and ad hoc," said Dorothy Robyn, deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment.
The Federal Aviation Administration reviews wind farm projects, looking at any interference with air navigation or radar systems. But while the FAA can flag problems during its review of a project, it can't force a change or prevent a wind farm from being approved if a change isn't made. Its recommendations, though, sometimes can affect a local zoning or other approval process.
Renuart and others say a more coordinated, interagency process is needed to better evaluate proposals.
It's difficult to say how many projects are tied up regarding the radar issue, but in a 2009 survey, industry executives said that more than a dozen had been stalled, according to Laurie Jodziewicz, manager of siting policy for the American Wind Energy Association.
Jodziewicz said that projects totaling 10,000 megawatts of wind power were built in the U.S. last year, while projects involving another 10,000 megawatts were stalled by the radar issue. Projects vary in size and can include any number of turbines, but one turbine can generate 1.5 to 3 megawatts of power in an hour at higher wind speeds.
The industry, Jodziewicz said, wants to work with federal agencies and officials are getting closer to finding a process that works. She conceded, though, that bringing everyone together can be a challenge.
Jodziewicz also said that, at times, the interference can be solved by upgrading the older radar systems, and that developers will work with the Defense Department to do those improvements.
In other cases the problem can be solved by shifting the configuration of the wind farm.
Renuart said the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which he also heads, is putting together a radar obstruction evaluation team to determine the impacts of proposed wind energy projects in close proximity to our radars.
The Pentagon released a report in 2006 detailing the concerns with the wind farms, and said the Defense Department is developing other ways to deal with the problem, including technology improvements to the radar systems.
http://www.amarillo.com/stories/032110/bus_biz7.sh...
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 Turbine Current Location on Wind Map
The first Wellfleet wind turbine of possibly many is currently planned for one of the least wind stops in Wellfleet, in the National Seashore. This is due to conflicting issues such as noise, danger and the rights to park owned land and a hesitance to place the wind turbine in the harbor. Hence the Wellfleet Energy Committee plans to spend a large amount of town money to place the noisy wind turbine in one of the least windy spots in Wellfleet. Most likely it will never meet the goals and be a costly adventure in Wind Energy by completely inexperienced wind idealists playing with being wind energy operator. Once the warranty is over, who is responsible for the costs of equipment and experts? Already 20 year turbines are breaking down after 6-8 years forcing costly replacements. People near wind farms repeatedly observe turbine ideal for months waiting for experts and parts or mechanical work ongoing.
The first turbine will be more than a 1/2 mile from the area where their meteorological tower was placed. The tower was broken much of the time and sited near the edge of a bluff acting as a wind block when the wind was from the east. The validity of the wind data from the Met tower is quiet impaired. What a tragic waste of resources in a misguided effort at conservation while ruining perfectly good park land.
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.’’
Windfarm Noise Indisputable – Must see video
This video is from the UK, but you need to see the interviews with regular people talking about their experiences and how local office are dealing with issues they may not understand and making promises they have no way of knowing will turnout out true.
Exploring the Truth of Wind Energy
If you believe Wind Turbine will make any difference to CO2 emission please review this entire presentation. It contains lots of hard facts. I challenge anyone to present a fact based presentation countering the facts contained in here.