November 28, 2004
Government at work
A racket: Pass laws requiring the purchase of wind power, grant tax credits to the developers, create a secondary market for "green" credits, and choose your own company over others to take advantage of it all. That's what they just did in Ontario. The tightness of legislators and businessmen around the world suggests it is not uncommon.
To the editor, The New Republic
Some opponents of wind power may be initially NIMBY, as Gregg Easterbrook says they all remain ("Cape Hope," November 29), but once they examine the claims of the sales brochure they quickly deduce that utility-scale wind turbines should not be erected anywhere on the grid. As Easterbrook's article only echos the developer's own material in defending the Cape Wind facility proposed for Nantucket Sound, a response is warranted.
He repeats the claim that modern turbines don't kill many birds. Ongoing studies in Spain and Belgium, however, find that a single turbine kills an average 20-40 birds per year. A study at the Mountaineer facility in West Virginia is following up the finding that over 2000 bats were killed in just 2 months last fall. The blades of new turbines are indeed slower in terms of revolutions per minute, but they are so large (typically sweeping over an acre of air) that the speed at the tips is well over 125 mph.
His unqualified claim of "zero greenhouse gas emissions, zero air pollution, zero waste product" also is typical. The parts have to be manufactured and transported (using dirty energy), each foundation requires tons of cement (a major source of greenhouse gases), access roads typically have to be built or widened or strengthened, trees have to be cleared and vegetation kept down with herbicides, each turbine contains hundreds of gallons of oil which has to be periodically replaced, new high-voltage transmission lines have to be built, and the turbines themselves use power from the grid.
Typical, too, is Easterbrook's dismissal of aesthetic concerns. He admits that they are well over 300 feet high (over 400 feet in Cape Wind's case) and usually sited on prominent ridgelines and in open spaces. These are places any sensible person would be appalled to see industrial development. They are not just big (and include roads, transformers, and power lines), they add significant and disturbing noise to rural environments and must be lit with flashing lights day and night.
Easterbrook says all this is necessary to help resolve the problems caused by our thirst for power. He fails, however, to question the developer's claim of the project's potential contribution of an average 170 MW (which represents a whopping five one-thousandths of one percent of our energy use). That projection is based only on the generous formula from the wind industry, which says -- despite all evidence -- that the output of an off-shore turbine will be 40% of its rated capacity over a year. Existing facilities -- when they're working at all; it is still a very problematic technology -- produce at 20-30% (the figure is even lower on-shore). The wind data from Cape Wind's own measurement station in the Sound suggests that its output will be at the lower end of the range.
And because 20% is the average, two-thirds of the time output will be less than that. A lot of the time, such as the day I am writing this, the whole 24-square-mile installation wouldn't generate enough electricity to make up for its own consumption. It certainly wouldn't be replacing any more reliable source on the grid if Mr. Easterbrook wants the light to go on when he flicks that switch.
As the experience of, for example, Denmark (20% wind) and Germany (4% wind) shows us, large installations of wind turbines would not reduce our use of any existing source of power. This is not to dismiss the very real energy issues that Easterbrook has elsewhere written about. It is only to recognize that industrializing our land- and seascapes with wind towers (it would require hundreds of thousands to produce just a few percent of U.S. electricity needs) is a highly destructive (however profitable) folly.
He repeats the claim that modern turbines don't kill many birds. Ongoing studies in Spain and Belgium, however, find that a single turbine kills an average 20-40 birds per year. A study at the Mountaineer facility in West Virginia is following up the finding that over 2000 bats were killed in just 2 months last fall. The blades of new turbines are indeed slower in terms of revolutions per minute, but they are so large (typically sweeping over an acre of air) that the speed at the tips is well over 125 mph.
His unqualified claim of "zero greenhouse gas emissions, zero air pollution, zero waste product" also is typical. The parts have to be manufactured and transported (using dirty energy), each foundation requires tons of cement (a major source of greenhouse gases), access roads typically have to be built or widened or strengthened, trees have to be cleared and vegetation kept down with herbicides, each turbine contains hundreds of gallons of oil which has to be periodically replaced, new high-voltage transmission lines have to be built, and the turbines themselves use power from the grid.
Typical, too, is Easterbrook's dismissal of aesthetic concerns. He admits that they are well over 300 feet high (over 400 feet in Cape Wind's case) and usually sited on prominent ridgelines and in open spaces. These are places any sensible person would be appalled to see industrial development. They are not just big (and include roads, transformers, and power lines), they add significant and disturbing noise to rural environments and must be lit with flashing lights day and night.
Easterbrook says all this is necessary to help resolve the problems caused by our thirst for power. He fails, however, to question the developer's claim of the project's potential contribution of an average 170 MW (which represents a whopping five one-thousandths of one percent of our energy use). That projection is based only on the generous formula from the wind industry, which says -- despite all evidence -- that the output of an off-shore turbine will be 40% of its rated capacity over a year. Existing facilities -- when they're working at all; it is still a very problematic technology -- produce at 20-30% (the figure is even lower on-shore). The wind data from Cape Wind's own measurement station in the Sound suggests that its output will be at the lower end of the range.
And because 20% is the average, two-thirds of the time output will be less than that. A lot of the time, such as the day I am writing this, the whole 24-square-mile installation wouldn't generate enough electricity to make up for its own consumption. It certainly wouldn't be replacing any more reliable source on the grid if Mr. Easterbrook wants the light to go on when he flicks that switch.
As the experience of, for example, Denmark (20% wind) and Germany (4% wind) shows us, large installations of wind turbines would not reduce our use of any existing source of power. This is not to dismiss the very real energy issues that Easterbrook has elsewhere written about. It is only to recognize that industrializing our land- and seascapes with wind towers (it would require hundreds of thousands to produce just a few percent of U.S. electricity needs) is a highly destructive (however profitable) folly.
Bias
Todays' Burlington Free Press contains two letters criticizing a recent editorial against putting utility-scale wind-generated power plants on Vermont's undeveloped and supposedly protected mountain ridges. One of them is the typical wind-at-all-costs jeremiad that is blind to the general rejection of putting these erections on the ridges. The other, hilariously, accuses the Free Press of bias. Of course, bias implies ignorance rather than informed opinion. Or it suggests an interest -- like Rob Roy Macgregor's in the letter already described -- in seeing something succeed or fail that has little to do with the facts of experience. The second letter is from "Thomas O. Gray," a citizen from Norwich. Though he neglects to mention the affiliation, he is former executive director and currently deputy executive director and director of communications of the American Wind Energy Association, the industry lobbying group. He is usually known by plain old "Tom." I suspect he is biased.
Slaughter
Animal Place, a sanctuary and educational organization, reports a study by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization finding that more than 50 billion animals (not counting fish and other aquatic animals) were killed for food in 2003. In the U.S., the slaughter of animals for food represents 98% of all animals killed, including by euthanasia in pounds and shelters, hunting, trapping and farming for fur, research, testing, etc. Worldwide, 46.5 billion chickens and turkeys are killed, 9.8 billion of them in the U.S., where they are specifically not covered by the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.
In all but the most extreme situations, this is a choice we make. We do not need to kill other animals to thrive ourselves. Yet we do. That is a morally indefensible choice. We ought to have the self-respect (or call it an eye for the karmic scales of justice) to expect better of ourselves.
In all but the most extreme situations, this is a choice we make. We do not need to kill other animals to thrive ourselves. Yet we do. That is a morally indefensible choice. We ought to have the self-respect (or call it an eye for the karmic scales of justice) to expect better of ourselves.
Thought for the day
"[A] civilization with such a pervasively violent history, in the course of which it has acquired the highest estimation of its own decency and mildness, has developed a peculiar trick of mind, not to be called a divided nature, since the conviction of particular goodness always one way or another justifies or conceals or expedites really remarkable transgression."
-- Marilynne Robinson, Mother Country (1989)
November 23, 2004
Cape Wind output
Data from the Cape Wind measuring station in Nantucket Sound is available on line (click the title of this post), with the wind speed updated every 10 minutes (you have to "reload" the page yourself to update it). Right below the table of data is an estimate of what the complete 420-MW complex would have generated over the previous hour, and at the bottom of the page is a table of data from the previous 12 hours. As I write this, the generation figure is 16 MW-hours, or 3.8% of the plant's capacity, equivalent to 5% of the average electricity use on Cape Cod and the Islands. This falls rather short of the developers' claim that it will provide three-quarters of the Cape and Islands' electricity.
Note about wind speed and electricity generation: The wind turbine produces its rated capacity of electricity only within a specific range of wind speed. The 3.6-MW GE turbines that Cape Wind will use produce their rated capacity at 14 meters/second (m/s), or just over 31 miles/hour (mph). Below that, the output falls off exponentially, so that at about 9 m/s (20 mph) they will produce half, at about 7.5 m/s (17 mph) aquarter, and at about 6 m/s (13.5 mph) an eighth of their rating. Below 3.5 m/s (8 mph), the turbines produce nothing (yet continue to use power themselves). If the wind gusts above 27 m/s (60 mph), they shut down to avoid damage. (Data are from the GE brochure.)
(The Cape Wind data are in knots. 1 knot = 1.15 mph = 0.514 m/s. 1 m/s = 2.24 mph.)
Since I've started writing this, the previous hour's output would have dropped to 10 MW-hours, about 4.3% of the Cape and Islands' average need; the currect wind speed of 6 knots (6.9 mph, 3.1 m/s) is below the speed at which the turbines would start producing even a trickle of electricity. That is, the whole massive installation would be producing nothing right now. Check in often, and ask yourself whether the depredations of such a project are worth it.
Note about Cape Wind's claims: The developers say the complex will provide three-quarters of the electricity used on Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket, which represents an average power need of 230 MW, 3/4 of which is 172.5 MW, which is 41% of the capacity planned for Cape Wind. This claim is not based on the actual measurements made in Nantucket sound nor on the experience of existing offshore wind facilities. It is based solely on the inflated generic assumptions of the American Wind Energy Association, which says that onshore wind turbines produce 30% of their capacity and offshore 40% (this figure is called their load factor). In fact, onshore wind turbines typically produce from well less than 20% up to 25% and offshore between 20% and 30%. It appears that Cape Wind's actual output would be at the low end, half of what the developer claims. And that's an average. Two-thirds of the time, it will be producing less than that. Often (like today) it will be producing close to nothing, not even enough to make up for its own electricity needs. So it will certainly not be replacing any more reliable power source on the grid.
Note about wind speed and electricity generation: The wind turbine produces its rated capacity of electricity only within a specific range of wind speed. The 3.6-MW GE turbines that Cape Wind will use produce their rated capacity at 14 meters/second (m/s), or just over 31 miles/hour (mph). Below that, the output falls off exponentially, so that at about 9 m/s (20 mph) they will produce half, at about 7.5 m/s (17 mph) aquarter, and at about 6 m/s (13.5 mph) an eighth of their rating. Below 3.5 m/s (8 mph), the turbines produce nothing (yet continue to use power themselves). If the wind gusts above 27 m/s (60 mph), they shut down to avoid damage. (Data are from the GE brochure.)
(The Cape Wind data are in knots. 1 knot = 1.15 mph = 0.514 m/s. 1 m/s = 2.24 mph.)
Since I've started writing this, the previous hour's output would have dropped to 10 MW-hours, about 4.3% of the Cape and Islands' average need; the currect wind speed of 6 knots (6.9 mph, 3.1 m/s) is below the speed at which the turbines would start producing even a trickle of electricity. That is, the whole massive installation would be producing nothing right now. Check in often, and ask yourself whether the depredations of such a project are worth it.
Note about Cape Wind's claims: The developers say the complex will provide three-quarters of the electricity used on Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket, which represents an average power need of 230 MW, 3/4 of which is 172.5 MW, which is 41% of the capacity planned for Cape Wind. This claim is not based on the actual measurements made in Nantucket sound nor on the experience of existing offshore wind facilities. It is based solely on the inflated generic assumptions of the American Wind Energy Association, which says that onshore wind turbines produce 30% of their capacity and offshore 40% (this figure is called their load factor). In fact, onshore wind turbines typically produce from well less than 20% up to 25% and offshore between 20% and 30%. It appears that Cape Wind's actual output would be at the low end, half of what the developer claims. And that's an average. Two-thirds of the time, it will be producing less than that. Often (like today) it will be producing close to nothing, not even enough to make up for its own electricity needs. So it will certainly not be replacing any more reliable power source on the grid.
November 22, 2004
No impact whatsoever
This is an old Vestas 1.5-MW model turbine going up at the Tjaereborg test site in western Denmark.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)