Climate change–fueled weather demands action now, sez Sarah Copeland Hanzas — annotated

Sarah Copeland Hanzas was a Vermont House member for 18 years before being elected as Secretary of State in 2022. This commentary, reproduced here in full with notes following, was published in several news outlets (without the notes).

Vermonters have always rallied to protect and care for our friends and neighbors in a crisis. I am grateful for Governor Scott’s calm and measured response when Vermont is in crisis. During the Covid-19 pandemic, Governor Scott followed the science and took the appropriate steps, despite considerable opposition,^a to keep Vermonters safe and to prevent a greater tragedy. Now, we need the same courage and focus as we grapple with flood recovery and take action to address the underlying forces of climate change^b that drove its severity.

So far this summer, Vermont has seen a record heat wave in May,^c the state’s worst air quality in history in June, and recently a record rainstorm^e that dumped as much as two months of normal rain on towns around the state in just over a day.

And this is clearly the new normal^f for Vermont as the impacts of global warming hit us. Nolan Atkins, the former chair of the atmospheric sciences department at Vermont State University said: “In a warmer world and a warmer climate, [we should expect] these more frequent and more intense weather events.”

Yet despite the science, and clear evidence of increasingly severe weather, the Governor has vetoed every major piece of climate legislation the Vermont Legislature has put before him in recent years. We need Governor Scott to direct state agencies to recognize the climate emergency and treat climate action with the same emergency response and focus we are seeing right now during the floods, and that we did during Vermont’s Covid response.^g

As the former co-chair of the Legislature’s Climate Solution Caucus, I traveled throughout the state listening to Vermonters’ concerns about the looming impacts of global warming and the urgent need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I heard over and over that if we don’t act on climate and curb our emissions we will run out of time; we will be too consumed by the effects of climate change to focus on transitioning to renewable energy.^h

I have seen our pragmatic Governor do a policy pivot when faced with an emergency. After the shooting threat in Fair Haven High School, he was a constructive and supportive partner for meaningful gun safety reforms.

It is time for the Governor to pivot on climate policy. There are a few simple things the Governor can do right now to make a difference and help Vermont be a leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And more importantly, prevent greater tragedy.

First, the Governor should direct his appointees on the Climate Council to shift to an emergency response.ⁱ The most immediate and constructive action he could take at this moment is to make sure Vermonters whose heating systems were destroyed in the flood are encouraged and incentivized to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.^j Let’s help provide loaner heating systems to get through the upcoming heating season and accelerate our investment in our green energy workforce. This will not only speed up Vermont’s green energy transition but also create jobs; we can combat climate change and help Vermont’s economy at the same time.

Second, direct his Agency of Natural Resources and Department of Public Service to become willing partners in implementing the Clean Heat Standard to help all Vermonters transition from fossil fuels for heating and cooling their homes and businesses. Over one-third of Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions come from heating and cooling our homes and businesses. Despite this, Governor Scott and his administration have inexplicably been an anchor in getting this groundbreaking initiative into action.

And third, support legislation to ensure Vermont gets 100% of its electricity from renewable energy by the end of the decade. With the passage of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, wind and solar power are cheaper than ever^k and price competitive with new natural gas. Vermont needs to do its part to clean up its electric sector and end our environmentally unjust practice of importing our power from oil- and natural gas–burning plants in low-income communities in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

I’m not saying it’s simple and easy, I understand firsthand the challenges rural Vermonters face in heating their homes and getting to work. But if we think transitioning to renewable heating and transportation is inconvenient or possibly a little more expensive, just look around at what we will be facing if we don’t.^l Can we afford not to?

-------------------

^a“despite considerable opposition” — Actually, the considerable opposition was that he wasn’t draconian and dictatorial enough.

^b“to address the underlying forces of climate change” — The earth revolves around the sun with a tilted axis, thus causing the seasons, and turns on that axis, thus causing day and night. These cause weather.

^c“Vermont has seen a record heat wave in May” — And then it was over. We’re looking at a rather cool end of July and early August.

^d“the state’s worst air quality in history in June” — Canadian forest fires, which we can hardly do anything about.

^e“a record rainstorm” — Well, no, it wasn’t.

^f“clearly the new normal” — If you were born yesterday.

^g“We need Governor Scott to direct state agencies to recognize the climate emergency and treat climate action with the same emergency response and focus we are seeing right now during the floods, and that we did during Vermont’s Covid response.” — That “emergency response” to Covid was futile and harmful, as indeed is almost all of the “climate legislation” that the legislature has passed. In fact, Montpelier, along with other towns on rivers regularly floods and businesses bounce back. But they are only now recovering from that Covid response and don’t have the resilience and resources they would have otherwise.

^h“transitioning to renewable energy” — From normal New England weather to CO₂ emissions as the culprit to renewable energy as the solution, this is a study in non sequitur. It is telling that as co-chair of the Legislature’s Climate Solution Caucus, she heard only people clamoring for what she is here clamoring for.

ⁱ“shift to an emergency response” — If everyone is already clamoring, it most certainly does not require an emergency response to force it on them. This “emergency response” is required precisely because people like to make their own decisions about how their homes are heated, weighing costs and benefits for their individual situation. Again, that “Covid emergency” was similarly imposed precisely to prevent people from making personal risk-benefit decisions, even to punish people for insisting on their right to make such decisions for themselves.

^j“replace fossil fuels with renewable energy” — What is she talking about? She means replacing systems that burn fuel on site to provide warmth with electric space heaters. Granted, in Vermont, much of that electricity is from Canadian hydro, but the expanded demand of electric heat (and cars) will be provided by burning natural gas, converting a fraction of the released energy to electricity, transporting that electricity over powerlines at further loss, and then converting it back to heat. The inefficiency compared to burning fossil fuels on site is staggering, not to mention insanely bad policy.

Furthermore, every Vermonter knows that they need to be prepared for power outages, which can sometimes last for days. Depending on electricity for anything that you don’t have to is simply foolish. You will effectively be replacing efficient fossil-fuel systems with increased reliance on fossil fuel–powered back-up generators.

^k“wind and solar power are cheaper than ever” — In fact, wind and solar are only getting more expensive. They completely depend on subsidies from taxpayers and ratepayers to be built at all.

^l“just look around at what we will be facing if we don’t” — And we close with the veiled threat, based on the false premises the whole essay started with. “We’ll make sure you can’t afford not to make the choices we make for you.”

[[[[ ]]]]

From The History of Athens Vermont, Lora Wyman, 1963:

«Freshets and floods occurred too frequently down the years to mention more than a sample of them. A few that did the most extensive damage to Athens were the freshet of Oct. 4, 1869; the great blizzard of Mar. 12, 1888; the floods of 1927, 1936; and the great hurricane of 1938. Practically all adults living today can remember the destruction caused by the hurricane of 1938. In Athens countless trees were blown down, the roof on Henry Ward’s milk house and one side of the barn were blown off. A small bridge near Camp Nai-neh-ta was washed away and abutments on others were weakened. About one-half mile of the main road to Cambridgeport, parallel with the brook above Brookside bungalow was washed away. Traffic was detoured around the road past the David Karlson farm. Two of Ned Wyman’s 10′ × 12′ chicken houses on the lower road, floated down stream, one lodging in a tangle of brush. Next morning, expecting to find the 50 or more chicks housed inside drowned, Mr. Wyman happily discovered them all perched on the roost above the water, waiting for breakfast.»

Also see: 1816: The Year Without a Summer

The Lie of “100% Renewable”

It’s been recently reported that Georgetown “plans to be the first city in Texas entirely powered by renewable energy”. Of course, “plans to be” is a long way from “is”, but the first problem in most such reports is that they are talking only about electrical energy. Other energy consumption, such as for heating and transport, is not affected, so it is misleading indeed to say “entirely powered by renewable energy”.

Earlier this year, it was more accurately reported that the city of Burlington, Vermont, “became the first in the country to use 100 percent renewable energy for its residents’ electricity needs”. The news was further spread with far less care (and predictably) as, e.g., “the first city in the U.S. to be powered 100 percent by renewables”. Again, it is about electricity only, which is only about a third of our overall energy use. (Note should also be taken of the qualifier of “residents’ needs”: The University of Vermont, for example, is not included in this accounting.)

Even stated accurately, however, it remains misleading. Georgetown will be purchasing wind and solar power from faraway facilities. That means that they will in fact be using the same electricity on the grid as neighboring towns. The decision was strictly financial, not because wind and solar are cheaper, but because the country as a whole subsidizes them and the required new powerlines so that they can sell the power relatively cheaply. Furthermore, for Georgetown to find the price particularly attractive, as well as considering their non-ideological view, they will probably not be buying the Enron-invented “renewable energy credits”, i.e., they will not actually have the “right” to claim the purchase as “renewable”. (Instead, someone else, who also gets the same electricity from the grid as everyone else, will buy the RECs to claim the “green credit”.)

Sale of RECs also benefits Burlington, which sells them for its woodchip-fired plant and their ownership of wind plants in Georgia and Sheffield. Technically, they can therefore no longer claim that electricity themselves as “renewable”, although they account for almost two-thirds of the city’s electricity. As Burlington Electric itself shows, in 2013, ignoring their selling of RECs, 95% of their electricity was renewably sourced. After selling the RECs, that percentage dropped to 39%. And 67% of that was represented by the purchase of RECs.

Again, everything these cities do not generate themselves is taken from the regional grid, a pool of electrical energy that does not distinguish among its many sources. Georgetown will be using the same electricity as its “nonrenewable” neighbors. Burlington generates about half of its own electricity from wood chips, a little hydro, and negligible solar and wind. The rest is from the same pool as its “less renewable” neighbors.

And besides the charade of exclusive claims on renewable electricity that everyone shares equally on the grid, electricity is itself only about a third of their total energy use.

Tofurky claims to be, but is not, "wind powered"

As a devoted Tofurky fan, I was upset to notice on a package of Tofurky Deli Slices that you claim to be "100% wind powered".

Unless you have your own on-site wind turbines without backup and without connection to the grid, that is obviously not true. You are no more wind powered than your neighbors who get the same power from the same grid.

In fact, the accounting trick with which you claim to be "wind powered" was invented by Enron, who convinced regulators that renewable energy could actually be sold twice: once as energy, and once as "environmental benefit".

So your purchase of "green tags" that allow you to claim to be "wind powered" simply represents the purchase of the right to claim the wind power that is actually going to everyone on the grid, perhaps not even the grid you are on.

It's as if meat-eaters could "offset" their burgers and drumsticks by purchasing Tofurky packaging, thereby purchasing the right to call themselves vegan, with actual vegans thereby losing that right.

If you feel strongly about supporting wind energy development (and there are many reasons to be dubious, with its addition of industrial harm to our environment, particularly in previously undeveloped areas, with little or nothing to show in corresponding reduction of fossil and nuclear fuel use), then please limit your claim to that: You offset your electricity use by helping to subsidize the expansion of wind energy on the grid.

For the animals,
~~~

============================

Thanks for your interest in Tofurky. I wouldn’t [sic] be interested in where you see this claim made because as far as I know we do not claim anywhere that we are 100% wind powered. We are however committed to making an environmental difference and have been for the past 31 years. We currently purchase wind power through our local utility and by purchasing Blue Sky Power in the last year we have reduced our own emissions by 3,842,657 pounds of C02 [sic].

Thanks,
Wes Braun
Customer Service/Marketing/Design
Turtle Island Foods
541-386-7766 ex. 19

============================

But you haven't reduced your emissions at all. You're getting exactly the same electricity you would get if you did not purchase Blue Sky Power. ~~~

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, animal rights, vegetarianism, veganism

The piddling contribution of wind power in New England

ISO New England: Seasonal Claimed Capability (SCC), Jan 2012 report

Total New England Claimed Capability (MW)
Winter (March):  34407.889;  125.964 (0.366%) from WIND
Summer (August):  31766.431;  50.735 (0.160%) from WIND

The SCC of Intermittent Power Resources generator assets are determined using the median of net output from the most recently completed Summer Capability and Winter Capability Periods across the Summer (HE 14-18) and Winter (HE 18-19) Intermittent Reliability Hours, respectively.

The ISO-NE report lists 34 wind-powered generators, only 26 providing any winter and 24 summer capability (two of which because they are still under construction or not yet connected and therefore deleted from the list below).

generator	capacity (kW)	winter	summer
MA:
BARNSTABLE_DPW_ID1545	200	80 (40%)	14 (7%)
BARTLETTS OCEAN VIEW FARM WIND	250	0	0
BERKSHIRE WIND POWER PROJECT	15000	6988 (46.6%)	1704 (11.4%)
CITY OF MEDFORD WIND QF	100	0	0
HOLY NAME CC JR SR HIGH SCHOOL	600	0	0
HULL WIND TURBINE II	1800	458 (25.4%)	52 (2.3%)
HULL WIND TURBINE U5	660	180 (27.3%)	46 (7.0%)
IPSWICH WIND FARM 1	1600	342 (21.4%)	125 (7.8%)
JIMINY PEAK WIND QF	1500	0	0
MOUNT ST MARY-WRENTHAM MA WIND	100	4 (4.0%)	2 (2.0%)
NATURE'S CLASSROOM WIND QF	100	0	0
NM-STONE	600	6 (1%)	0
NOTUS WIND I	1650	500 (30.3%)	187 (11.3%)
OTIS_AF_WIND_TURBINE	1500	199 (13.3%)	125 (8.3%)
OTIS_WT_AFCEE_ID1692	1500	1200 (80%)	1200 (80%)
PRINCETON WIND FARM PROJECT	3000	582 (19.4%)	157 (52.3%)
RICHEY WOODWORKING WIND QF	600	0	0
TEMPLETON WIND TURBINE	1650	401 (24.3%)	74 (4.5%)
TOWN_OF_FALMOUTH_WIND_TURBINE	1650	133 (8.1%)	6 (0.4%)
ME:
BEAVER RIDGE WIND	4500	1240 (27.6%)	466 (10.4%)
FOX ISLAND WIND	4500	159 (3.5%)	0
KIBBY WIND POWER	132000	34590 (26.2%)	13375 (10.1%)
ROLLINS WIND PLANT	60000	20860 (34.8%)	6207 (10.3%)
SPRUCE MOUNTAIN WIND	19000	9000 (47.4%)	4500 (23.7%)
STETSON II WIND FARM	25500	6740 (26.4%)	2602 (10.2%)
STETSON WIND FARM	57000	15725 (27.6%)	7056 (12.4%)
NH:
LEMPSTER WIND	24000	8518 (35.5%)	2457 (10.2%)
RI:
NE ENGRS MIDDLETOWN RI WIND QF	100	0	0
PORTSMOUTH ABBEY WIND QF	660	0	0
TOWN OF PORTSMOUTH RI WIND QF	1500	159 (10.6%)	178 (11.9%)
VT:
SEARSBURG WIND (listed in Mass.)	6600	900 (13.6%)	202 (3.1%)
SHEFFIELD WIND PLANT	40000	17000 (42.5%)	10000 (25.0%)
TOTAL WIND	459420	125964 (27.4%)	50735 (11.0%)

Note that several of these figures are obviously bogus, with round numbers and summer values an even fraction of the winter value suggesting developer reports rather than actual data, and the 80% claimed capacity for one of the Otis Air Force Base turbines is clearly impossible.

Therefore, the ISO-NE report of 0.37% of its power in winter and 0.16% in summer is an exaggeration of the true situation. That piddling contribution includes the output from nine very large wind energy facilities, all on mountain ridges that used to provide important forested habitat.

(Note that the 42-MW Mars Hill Wind Farm in Maine is not included here, because it is outside of the ISO-NE network. And according to the New England Wind Forum of the U.S. Department of Energy, there are two other large facilities currently under construction — Record Hill Wind Project [50 MW] in Byron and Roxbury, Me. and Kingdom Community Wind [63 MW] in Lowell, Vt. — and five more that have been permitted — Cape Wind [468 MW] and Hoosac Wind Energy Project [30 MW] in Mass., Spruce Mountain [19 MW] in Me., Granite Reliable Power Windpark [99 MW] in N.H., and Georgia Mountain Community Wind [12 MW] in Vt.; the Hoosac and Granite projects are in fact under construction, and the Record Hill project is operating.)

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism

Two S.D. universities claim to be 100% wind powered while getting the same electricity as everyone else

An Oct. 15 press release from Babcock & Brown states:

The 51-megawatt (MW) Wessington Springs Wind Farm will provide clean and renewable energy to the University of South Dakota (USD) and South Dakota State University (SDSU), which become the first universities in the Midwest to be powered with 100% renewable energy.

It also says:

The power produced will connect to the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) transmission system and be purchased by Heartland through a long-term power purchase agreement.

In other words, the two universities are still getting their electricity from the same grid as everyone else. They can no more claim to be wind powered than any other customer on the system.

wind power, wind energy

Fools or Liars: the sham of "100% wind"

They are either fooling themselves or lying to their customers. Hardly a week goes by without another prominent company announcing that it is suddenly "100% wind powered." Some of the companies that make the transparently ridiculous claim are Frontier Co-op and its divisions Simply Organic and Aura Cacia ("we're 100% green powered"), Tom's of Maine ("100% of our electricity consumption is powered by wind energy"), Aveda ("manufacturing with 100% certified windpower"), and Co-op America.

Like every otherwise socially conscious event, politician, and rock band that is also playing this game, all of these companies are getting the same electricity -- and paying for it -- as before. They are not buying wind energy. They are buying "renewable energy credits" (RECs), or "green tags," in addition to their regular electricity.

RECs are only the environmental packaging of the desired power. They were invented by Enron so they could sell the same energy twice. Just as they helped enrich that famously corrupt company, RECs still provide substantial gravy on a scheme for moving public funds into private bank accounts that rivals Halliburton's purchase of the U.S. presidency to start its own wars.

The fact is that RECs are free money for the likes of General Electric (the purchaser of Enron Wind), Florida Power & Light, Babcock & Brown, J.P. Morgan Chase, British Petroleum, Shell Oil, and other energy and investment giants. Not only is three-quarters of the capital costs of a wind energy facility paid for by taxpayers, not only do governments force utilities to by it, but otherwise socially and environmentally conscious people willingly give the companies even more to offset their guilt for using electricity.

They still use all that electricity, of course, but somehow they convince themselves and their customers that buying certificates for their walls is the same as not using all that electricity, or as using someone else's electricity (which that someone else pays for and uses, too).

Like the whole idea of "offsets" that allow consumers to continue consuming the same as ever -- like medieval indulgences to allow sin and enrich the church -- RECs are an obvious fraud. But when they support wind energy, they are also irresponsible.

Not only is wind energy of doubtful value in reducing the use of other fuels, it represents a massive industrialization of rural and wild places -- a heedless destruction of landscapes, the environment, and animals' (including peoples') lives. All for very little, if any, measurable benefit.

Not only are they wrong to claim they are "wind powered," industrial wind energy is incompatible with the social and environmental values that these companies claim and otherwise commendably put into practice. Let them know:

Frontier Co-op (Simply Organic, Aura Cacia)

customercare@frontiercoop.com, 1-800-669-3275

Tom's of Maine

Susan Dewhirst, Media & Public Relations Leader
sdewhirst@tomsofmaine.com, 1-800-367-8667

Aveda

1-800-644-4831, www.aveda.com/contactus/contactus.tmpl

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights

Green tags: breathtaking gall, deflating gullibility

Activewear marketer Prana (which means "breath," in the sense of "spirit" or "life-force," in Sanskrit) has clambered on to the "100% wind powered" charade with its "Natural Power" initiative. The goal of offsetting the negative environmental impacts of the company's activities is commendable. The use of renewable energy certificates, or green tags, from wind power, however, makes it a sham.

Even the symbol of the initiative is misleading: an old wind-powered water pump, which never had anything to do with electricity, let alone transport and heating (electricity being only one source of emissions).

Consumer excitement about "offsetting" one's carbon emissions (without, of course, giving anything up except a few spare dollars) is understandable. When it involves actually planting trees, insulating roofs, or switching to compact fluorescents, or even buying renewable energy where one's utility makes it available, it is worthwhile. But the willful self-deception of buying green tags is inexcusable.

On Prana's web site they write, "Wind generated power is a clean, renewable source of energy which produces no greenhouse gas emissions or waste products." That is an obviously simplistic statement. Greenhouse gases and waste are indeed produced during the manufacture, transport, construction, and maintenance of wind turbines. Acres of trees, often in ecologically vital interior forests, are cut down for each tower, access roads, and transmission infrastructure. Hundreds of gallons of lubricating and cooling oil in each turbine must be periodically replaced (and often leaks). The giant rotor blades are often destroyed by wind, lightning, and fire.

Prana goes on to explain how they offset their electricity use (although not the energy used in transport and heating):

Prana has committed to offsetting approximately 6,000,000 kilowatt hours, or 100% of the electricity generated to power 250 retail locations nationwide by supporting the generation of an equal amount of renewable energy by purchasing US EPA approved Renewable Energy Certificates, also known as 'RECs' or 'Green Tags'. ...

Generating electricity from wind still costs more than generating it from fossil fuel sources, in spite of exciting advancement in wind energy technology [i.e., the towers and rotor blades get bigger --Ed.]. The additional funds provided to renewable energy generators through the purchase of certificates by Prana and others provide critical additional financial incentive for project expansion and future development.

There it is: The sale of green tags simply provides an extra income stream to the generator. It does not add wind power to the grid. It does not offset anything, because the energy (along with the benefits it represents) has entered the grid anyway. It's lovely to donate extra money to wind power companies (such as GE, Florida Power & Light, Goldman Sachs, and J.P. Morgan) if you believe they need it or you think it relieves your energy-use guilt. But you cannot claim that you are offsetting the electricity you use (which doesn't change). You cannot claim that you are "100% wind powered."

The purchase of green tags does not cause any more or less wind power to enter the grid. Nor does it cause any more or less conventional power to be used. As Prana themselves clarify, "The electricity will continue to be uninterrupted even when the wind isn't blowing. As always, the retail locations are still connected to the respective regional electricity systems."

Enron invented the accounting trick that allows separating the actual energy generated by a renewable source from its "environmental attributes." This essentially allowed them to sell wind energy twice. Prana uncritically describes this absurd fraud:

Renewable energy has two components: the energy commodity and the corresponding green power attribute. The Energy Commodity is the actual electricity produced at facilities that generate the renewable electricity. The electricity generated is sold as conventional/generic (market) power stripped of its environmental benefits, or attributes. No environmental claims can be made on this power, because it is separate from the associated environmental benefits that are at the center of a Renewable Energy Certificate.

In other words, the energy goes into the grid whether or not its green tags are sold, but it's only "green" when the tags are sold. It's magic!

And although the energy is already used, only the buyers of the green tags, which cost a fraction of what the actual energy costs, get to be able to say they "use green energy." Elaborate accreditation and certification processes ensure that none of the many brokers blunder and knock over the house of cards.

Prana again:

It is not possible to send the electricity directly to store facilities or any other specific end user location because of the nature of the electricity grid. ... Once renewable electricity is delivered to the electric grid, it mixes with power from other generating plants. This means the actual electricity generated from 'green' sources cannot be directed to a specific home or business.

Either the energy has environmental benefits or it doesn't. If it does, that is because it enters the grid, not because RECs are sold. (sigh)

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, Vermont, environment, environmentalism, sustainability, green energy, green living, green business, carbon offset, ecoanarchism

"100 percent wind-powered"

The Sunday New York Times Travel section went to Boulder, Colo., and recommends an eatery that boasts it is "100 percent wind-powered."

The claim is amusing, since they're getting the same electricity their nonwind-powered neighbors are getting. They're just paying extra so they can say it's different.

categories:  wind power, wind energy

A brief explanation of why industrial wind plants don't work

The biggest problem with large-scale wind-powered electricity generation is the grid. A home system can work well because the fluctuating output (even in the windiest places it is highly variable) can be regulated by batteries or flywheels, and another source (the grid or a gas-powered generator) is tied in to kick in when need be. This is the model where larger systems work in isolated villages, too.

But industrial-scale wind plants designed to supply the grid do not work well, even where the wind is superb. The grid is meant to respond to demand, constantly modulating the various suppliers to match the demand exactly. Wind plants respond only to the wind, forcing the more controllable "conventional" plants to change their output in response to wind production as well as grid demand. And the need to respond within seconds to a drop in wind production requires a plant that runs more inefficiently than one that could run if the grid didn't have to cope with the fluctuations of significant wind-powered sources. That is to say, wind farms may actually cause more fossil fuel burning.

The huge turbines designed for the grid can't work without electricity from the grid, either. They produce on average 25%-35% of what they are capable of, but they are using electricity (apparently free) 100% of the time.

And a problem about sites with good steady strong winds is that they are too windy. The turbines can't handle strong gusts and automatically shut down (typically around 55 mph). So "good" sites turn out to be very little more productive than less windy ones.