To the Editor, Vermont Guardian:
So the Free Press thinks clean coal and nuclear power are better options than wind for providing Vermont's electricity in the future. Yet they are accused of burying their head in the sand about energy issues. True, they have not published editorials about clean coal and nuclear power. That is because those are not currently being debated throughout the state, with ten large projects newly threatening dozens of towns. It is clear that the wind power industry considers the Free Press to be ignoring energy issues only for writing off wind power as an obvious boondoggle.
As David Blittersdorf himself is quoted as saying, there is no silver bullet. It is not an either/or question, yet Vermont Guardian implies exactly that in connecting the Free Press's rejection of wind power with their reported interest in clean coal and support for nuclear.
Industrial-scale wind power can be debated on its own costs and benefits. It is irrelevant and dishonest to change the subject to nuclear power (one can oppose both) or, for another common example, to the number of birds killed by cars. Even in the larger debate about electricity (let alone the four-fifths of Vermont's energy use that is not electric), there are, as Blittersdorf mentions, peaking and base load plants. Nuclear and coal plants make up the latter, and wind power would have nothing to do with their level of use, even if hundreds of redundant wind facilities are built in the hope that somewhere the wind is blowing.
Proponents of industrial-scale wind power want to bury everyone's head in the sand.
If you reject the idea of 400-ft-high machines flashing on prominent ridges, producing no power at all a third of the time, a trickle another third of the time, and at or above their 25% average output only the remaining third of the time, you are accused of ignoring energy issues.
If you reject badly worded surveys in the conviction as well that the people who actually have to live with the noise and vibration and ecological degradation from the machines are the only ones whose opinion might be informed and relevant, then you are denying reality.
If you note that the intermittency (see above) is defended as unproblematic because the fluctuating contribution from wind would be inconsequential to the larger grid, and therefore you wonder how anyone could justify building on vigorously protected sites for such an inconsequential power source, then you are ignorant of the facts.
A debate based on facts is exactly what promoters of the wind industry do not want. Blinded in their lust to develop what remains of our wild places, to take for profit what belongs to all of us, they lash out at all who question them. That is to be expected. That the Vermont Guardian joins them in that endeavor is sad, even disgusting.
wind power, wind energy, Vermont, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, ecoanarchism
May 19, 2006
May 18, 2006
"All the eco-news that's fit to sell ads"
Andrew Leonard wrote yesterday in his "How the World Works" column for Salon about a special "green business" section in the New York Times, filled with smarmy ads from the likes of Wal-Mart, GM, Shell, and ADM. He remarks on the greenwashing it promotes and the obvious fact that it is an advertising supplement pretending to be objective editorial content (there's even an article about "eco-ads"!), and he is remarkably perceptive about the fact that this business is part of, not an alternative to, the whole model of economic growth that threatens the environment so egregiously.
There's also a more fundamental snake-eating-its-own-tail problem. The general tone of the section is hopeful, packed with tales of environmentalists and business executives working together, full of heartwarming news about advances in energy efficiency, renewable technologies and corporate commitments to social responsibility. But it would have been nice to have just one essay exploring the question of whether environmental destruction is built into the deep structure of the current global economy. Nowhere is the possibility raised that even as some slivers of society in the developed world are beginning to understand the importance of sustainable development, rampaging economic growth in countries such as China and India threatens to utterly overwhelm what little, incremental progress is being made in, say, Northern California or Sweden. ... [A]ny discussion of "the business of green" ought to tackle directly the fundamental problem: Economic growth, historically speaking, is an eco-killer.environment, environmentalism, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
Hull wind facts
The following is from the Hull wind website:
The 15% exaggeration may not seem like much, but with such a marginal power source it is indeed significant. In fact, 27% is the average capacity factor voluntarily reported by wind facilities in the U.S. to the Energy Information Agency, and since those reports apparently allow discounting turbines that are temporarily broken down the actual capacity factors are lower. Yet promoters continue to claim that new facilities will have capacity factors of 30-40%. Then when the turbines are up and running, it's on to the next project and if the actual output actually becomes known, why, new technology will have a much higher capacity factor, yes, don't dwell on the past, let's move on.
And let us return to the other aspect of that output that is problematic on the grid (where large-scale storage is impractical): the fact that one third of the time wind turbines are idle (from either too little or too much wind). Related to this is the fact that from the "cut-in" wind speed up to the "rated" wind speed -- at which the generator's output reaches its full capacity, typically around 30 mph -- the output is cubically related to the wind speed. That is, if the wind speed doubles the power output increases by 8. The result is that in addition to being idle a third of the time, another third of the time wind turbines produce power below their already low average rate.
In other words, whatever the capacity factor is (from historical experience it would be expected to be 20-30%), that level of output is seen only one third of the time.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism
Hull Wind 2, a Vestas V80 - 1.8 Megawatt turbine has been installed in Hull!And right below it are data from Hull Wind 1 that call into question that claim:
The new turbine will produce 5 million kWhs every year.
May 8, 2006After more than 4 years (1,594 ÷ 365), Hull 1 has generated electricity only 66% of the time (25,403 hours ÷ [1,594 days × 24 hours]) and its capacity factor is 27% (6,853,738 kWh ÷ [1,594 days × 24 hours × 660 kW]), yet in complete denial of that fact, a capacity factor of 31.5% is projected for Hull 2 (5 million kWh ÷ [1,800 kW × 365 days × 24 hours]).
6,853,738 kWhs
Capacity Factor: 27.1%
Days Commissioned: 1594
Total Hours Generating: 25403
The 15% exaggeration may not seem like much, but with such a marginal power source it is indeed significant. In fact, 27% is the average capacity factor voluntarily reported by wind facilities in the U.S. to the Energy Information Agency, and since those reports apparently allow discounting turbines that are temporarily broken down the actual capacity factors are lower. Yet promoters continue to claim that new facilities will have capacity factors of 30-40%. Then when the turbines are up and running, it's on to the next project and if the actual output actually becomes known, why, new technology will have a much higher capacity factor, yes, don't dwell on the past, let's move on.
And let us return to the other aspect of that output that is problematic on the grid (where large-scale storage is impractical): the fact that one third of the time wind turbines are idle (from either too little or too much wind). Related to this is the fact that from the "cut-in" wind speed up to the "rated" wind speed -- at which the generator's output reaches its full capacity, typically around 30 mph -- the output is cubically related to the wind speed. That is, if the wind speed doubles the power output increases by 8. The result is that in addition to being idle a third of the time, another third of the time wind turbines produce power below their already low average rate.
In other words, whatever the capacity factor is (from historical experience it would be expected to be 20-30%), that level of output is seen only one third of the time.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism
May 15, 2006
Cape Wind: shoveling public money into private pockets
A new Beacon Hill Institute report on Cape Wind cash flow over the projected 25-year life of the facility found that 77% of the construction costs will be paid for by subsidies and tax credits, i.e., by the public, or 48% of its operating revenues. Only 20% of that public money will be returned to the public (in tax payments). Meanwhile, the analysis found, Cape Wind's investors will enjoy a 25% return on their equity.
Only 54% of the facility's revenue will be from electricity sales. Thirty-one percent will be from the sale of Massachusetts green credits, 11% from the federal 10-year production tax credit, and 4% from federal accelerated depreciation.
The press release is available here, and a 200-KB PDF of the report is available here.
Note to investors: Don't count on that 25% return. This analysis apparently uses projected production figures from the Cape Wind company itself, which are grossly inflated. They're lying to you, too.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
Only 54% of the facility's revenue will be from electricity sales. Thirty-one percent will be from the sale of Massachusetts green credits, 11% from the federal 10-year production tax credit, and 4% from federal accelerated depreciation.
The press release is available here, and a 200-KB PDF of the report is available here.
Note to investors: Don't count on that 25% return. This analysis apparently uses projected production figures from the Cape Wind company itself, which are grossly inflated. They're lying to you, too.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
May 13, 2006
Pointless poll on wind energy
WCAX-TV of Burlington, Vt., focused their telephone poll this week on wind energy, with all of one very leading and one almost meaningless question.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, Vermont, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, ecoanarchism, animal rights
QUESTION: Do you favor or oppose wind turbines as a way to offset the rising costs of fuel prices and electricity rates?Who wrote these questions?! The evidence is if rates change at all they only go up. And it is our taxes that already pay for two-thirds of the cost of erecting wind energy facilities. The developers and their investors win. You lose.
QUESTION: Would you favor or oppose wind turbines if they can be seen from your property? (Note: Question only asked of those who responded "favor" in previous question.)Once again, there is no effort to find out the respondent's knowledge level or even if they are anywhere near a proposed project. The question should be, "Knowing that they are 330-420 feet tall, are constantly moving, create noise and vibration day and night, cause light and shadow flicker, must be sited on prominent ridge lines (where their blades, with a tip speed of up to 180 mph, endanger birds and bats and the the noise disturbs other wildlife), require clearance of several acres and a deep foundation of thousands of tons of cement and steel for each tower, and that wide strong roads have to be cut through already dwindling and fragmented habitat -- all for an intermittent and variable power source that averages only a fourth of its rated capacity but reaches that average level only a third of the time, meaning its effect on other sources is minimal and perhaps even causes an increase of harmful emissions -- do you favor or oppose the erection of industrial wind turbines in Vermont?"
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, Vermont, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, ecoanarchism, animal rights
May 12, 2006
Delahunt: Cape Wind averse to rules
Democratic Congressman William Delahunt of Massachusetts writes in today's Boston Herald:
Recently, some have suggested that Congress is trying to change the rules of the game for the developers of the wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound. ...
When Jim Gordon and Cape Wind applied [in 2001] for a permit with the Army Corps of Engineers, ... he possessed no clear legal right to build a wind farm in federal waters. Congress only authorized the development of such facilities in federal waters last August. ...
The emergence of the Cape Wind project and others prompted Congress last year to authorize creation of a policy for offshore wind farms. The rules are now being written by the Minerals Management Service and will most likely call for wind farm sites to be chosen based on a consultation process with states. The rules will no doubt require wind projects to avoid marine sanctuaries, participate in a transparent competitive bidding process and
ensure that the rights to use federal waters produce tax revenues. ...
Tucked away in the energy bill that was signed into law last year was a cleverly written, innocuous provision that would exempt Cape Wind from many rules now being written to regulate emerging wind farms -- specifically, federal competitive bidding requirements. ...
Cape Wind has morphed into a no-bid deal, engineered in secret and financed with $1 billion in taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies [annually]. ...
The so-called "exhaustive process" that Cape Wind claims it has participated in has been extensively criticized by the U.S. Oceans Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Interior.
Cape Wind's draft Environmental Impact Statement ... earned EPA's lowest grade. Interior's criticisms are over 50 pages long. ...
With respect to the substance of the Coast Guard provisions, Congress has already established a precedent by giving our governors and the Coast Guard the authority to veto and regulate offshore LNG projects. Nobody is suggesting that was a mistake.
Let's not forget that 30 years ago it was the people of the Cape and Islands who convinced Massachusetts to designate all of Nantucket Sound an ocean sanctuary. It was the state that designated much of this area off-limits to development, and nominated it for national sanctuary protection.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
Recently, some have suggested that Congress is trying to change the rules of the game for the developers of the wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound. ...
When Jim Gordon and Cape Wind applied [in 2001] for a permit with the Army Corps of Engineers, ... he possessed no clear legal right to build a wind farm in federal waters. Congress only authorized the development of such facilities in federal waters last August. ...
The emergence of the Cape Wind project and others prompted Congress last year to authorize creation of a policy for offshore wind farms. The rules are now being written by the Minerals Management Service and will most likely call for wind farm sites to be chosen based on a consultation process with states. The rules will no doubt require wind projects to avoid marine sanctuaries, participate in a transparent competitive bidding process and
ensure that the rights to use federal waters produce tax revenues. ...
Tucked away in the energy bill that was signed into law last year was a cleverly written, innocuous provision that would exempt Cape Wind from many rules now being written to regulate emerging wind farms -- specifically, federal competitive bidding requirements. ...
Cape Wind has morphed into a no-bid deal, engineered in secret and financed with $1 billion in taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies [annually]. ...
The so-called "exhaustive process" that Cape Wind claims it has participated in has been extensively criticized by the U.S. Oceans Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Interior.
Cape Wind's draft Environmental Impact Statement ... earned EPA's lowest grade. Interior's criticisms are over 50 pages long. ...
With respect to the substance of the Coast Guard provisions, Congress has already established a precedent by giving our governors and the Coast Guard the authority to veto and regulate offshore LNG projects. Nobody is suggesting that was a mistake.
Let's not forget that 30 years ago it was the people of the Cape and Islands who convinced Massachusetts to designate all of Nantucket Sound an ocean sanctuary. It was the state that designated much of this area off-limits to development, and nominated it for national sanctuary protection.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
Canada taking low-frequency noise from wind turbines seriously
A Canadian Press article yesterday described the issue of low-frequency sound from wind turbine facilities. The problem has been raised by the case of the D'Entremonts, formerly of Lower West Pubnico, Nova Scotia, who started feeling ill as soon as the neighboring facility began operation.
"The noise is unbearable," [Daniel d'Entremont] says from Abrams River, the nearby community he recently relocated to with his wife and four of his six children.Charles Demond, president of the Pubnico wind company, insists the facility conforms to existing laws, but that's exactly the point: The laws do not consider the inaudible frequencies generated by the giant machines. Even the noise regulations for audible noise are inadequate for the rural areas in which wind plants are usually erected, especially as the turbines are more active and the noise more intrusive at night.
"It's like a surround sound -- you can't avoid it, you can't ignore it. It just comes right into your head." ...
He says his family couldn't sleep, his children were constantly tired and suffering headaches, and nobody in the house could concentrate.
The d'Entremont family's complaints touch on a little-known -- and little-studied -- debate over whether inaudible sounds from wind farms can cause health problems for residents living nearby.
While the operator of the wind farm brushes off the family's claims, experts say vibrations from the turbines embedded deep into the ground have the potential to affect the health of some.
And new sound testing commissioned by the federal government hopes to offer more insight into what, if anything, is happening at d'Entremont's home. ...
"Around wind turbines, it appears there are always some people who are very disturbed by them," Dr. Nina Pierpont says from her office in Malone, N.Y.
"It's not everybody, so it creates a lot of controversy."
"When the exposure is inside a house, occurring 24 hours a day, even if the sound intensity is less, there is potential to produce serious pathology."
Michael Sharpe, another Dalhousie University audiologist, says even if someone isn't affected directly by low-frequency noise, the constant swoosh of the blades, even at allowable levels, can have psychological effects.wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines
"If the sound is audible and it annoys you, then it can seem louder," says Sharpe, who compares it to a dripping tap that can keep someone awake at night.
"As your stress level increases, your awareness of the annoying sound increases as well. As we know, elevated stress levels for a prolonged period of time can have a negative health effect."
May 11, 2006
"Cape Wind, oil, gasoline and outrage"
The economics of electricity are complex, but two things about it are obvious yet unmentioned in Charles Kleekamp's flaccid commentary in today's Barnstable (Mass.) Register (he's vice president of Clean Power Now). First, if wind power is cheap to the grid (which it has to be, since it is so variable and intermittent that it is almost worthless), it is because we have already paid for two-thirds of it with our taxes (while the developer and his investors pocket all of the profits, particularly those not from energy but from renewable energy certificates). Second, when was the last time your electric rate went down -- it is an unlikely event.
The other thrust of Kleekamp's piece is explaining how wind power in New England will make us less dependent on foreign oil. But he notes that what is used to generate electricity is residual fuel oil, that is, the sludge left over from refining gasoline and diesel. Even if wind power could reduce the use of other sources (a debatable point), it would not reduce the demand for gasoline and diesel and therefore would not affect our use of foreign oil.
Kleekamp also mentions that fear helps drive up the price of oil. The instability and antagonism towards the U.S. in so many oil-rich countries (not to mention the continuing growth of domestic demand) are direct results of the policies (and outright invasions) promoted by the oilmen who run (or is that "ruin") our country. Armageddon is obviously very good for business. It gives knuckleheads like Kleekamp something to do, too.
wind power, wind energy, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
The other thrust of Kleekamp's piece is explaining how wind power in New England will make us less dependent on foreign oil. But he notes that what is used to generate electricity is residual fuel oil, that is, the sludge left over from refining gasoline and diesel. Even if wind power could reduce the use of other sources (a debatable point), it would not reduce the demand for gasoline and diesel and therefore would not affect our use of foreign oil.
Kleekamp also mentions that fear helps drive up the price of oil. The instability and antagonism towards the U.S. in so many oil-rich countries (not to mention the continuing growth of domestic demand) are direct results of the policies (and outright invasions) promoted by the oilmen who run (or is that "ruin") our country. Armageddon is obviously very good for business. It gives knuckleheads like Kleekamp something to do, too.
wind power, wind energy, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
Homeland Security Halts Wind Energy Hubris
Das Ministerium der Heimatsicherheit has halted all wind power projects within the range of military defense radars until they complete a study of effects and possible mitigation, which may be done by this fall (don't hold your breath -- in fact, take advantage of the breathing space). This has inspired the FAA to hold off on approvals as well where wind facilities may interfere with airport radar and communication.
In response, a long rambling collection of non sequiturs from Renew Wisconsin culminated in the farcical declaration by their executive director, Michael Vickerman, that "the terrorists have already won the war." My goodness.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
In response, a long rambling collection of non sequiturs from Renew Wisconsin culminated in the farcical declaration by their executive director, Michael Vickerman, that "the terrorists have already won the war." My goodness.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
May 9, 2006
Another company misinformed or misinforming about wind energy
Tom's of Maine announced in January that they have moved to "100% renewable wind energy":
In other words, Tom's is using the same electricity from the same sources as before, and the Nebraska wind plant's energy is still being sold into the grid over there. Nothing is changed by Tom's purchase of the RECs. The claim of reducing "our carbon dioxide emissions by 1.5 million pounds per year" is delusional.
If (that's a big "if") wind power reduces the emissions from other sources, then the Nebraska plant is doing so by selling their power into the grid, not by selling RECs.
Tom's heart is in the right place, but they are fooling themselves -- or their customers -- to believe they have moved to any wind energy at all, let alone "100% renewable wind energy."
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, sustainability, green energy, green living, green business, carbon offset, ecoanarchism
Using renewable wind energy to power our manufacturing and fulfillment facility will reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 1.5 million pounds per year ...Obviously, Tom's of Maine is not getting their electricity from Nebraska. They're still getting the same electricity they did before from their own local utility, which they continue to pay for. What they're buying are only the renewable energy certificates of the wind energy generated by the plant in Nebraska.
As of January 31, 2006, the energy procured for Tom’s of Maine 100,000 square foot manufacturing facility in Sanford, Maine, will be generated by the Ainsworth Wind Energy Facility in Nebraska. The 100% Wind Renewable Energy Certificate [REC] product is certified by the Green-e certification program administered by the Center for Resource Solutions. Tom’s is purchasing 130,000 kilowatt hours of energy per month or approximately 1,150 megawatts per year of renewable energy certificates from the wind farm. This purchase will avoid the emission of more than 1,587,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide pollution each year.
In other words, Tom's is using the same electricity from the same sources as before, and the Nebraska wind plant's energy is still being sold into the grid over there. Nothing is changed by Tom's purchase of the RECs. The claim of reducing "our carbon dioxide emissions by 1.5 million pounds per year" is delusional.
If (that's a big "if") wind power reduces the emissions from other sources, then the Nebraska plant is doing so by selling their power into the grid, not by selling RECs.
Tom's heart is in the right place, but they are fooling themselves -- or their customers -- to believe they have moved to any wind energy at all, let alone "100% renewable wind energy."
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, sustainability, green energy, green living, green business, carbon offset, ecoanarchism
Words
My modest solutions, such as spreading straw and growing clover, create no pollution. They are effective because they eliminate the source of the problem. Until the modern faith in big technological solutions can be overturned, pollution will only get worse.
-- Masanobu Fukuoka
The One-Straw Revolution
May 8, 2006
Against wind power in Skye
Responding to the recruitment by the opposition group SWAG of notorious defense lawyer Giovanni di Stefano, Moira Macdonald of Skeabost and District Community Council (which has been hoping to get their own industrial wind plant) reminded the BBC today that a ballot of Edinbane residents last July found 57% in favor of the ill-conceived wind power facility in northern Skye:
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, anarchism, animal rights
"It is clear that there are people within the community who are ignoring the wishes of the majority and attempting to enforce their own minority view by any means possible."As with all such surveys, the majority will not be directly effected by the wind turbines. As with all issues of civil rights, it is the experience of the minority that must be considered. Also crucial is the impact on those who have no voice at all: the animals. It is therefore not to be dismissed that 30% of the respondents were against the project. The only votes that should matter are of the people who must live with the machines every day. Or perhaps Mrs. Macdonald believes in the mob rule instead.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, anarchism, animal rights
May 7, 2006
Offshore wind power construction harms dolphins
The noise of construction at offshore wind power facilities adversely affects dolphin behavior, according to research published in the quarterly Water and Environment Journal. The author, J.A. David, writes that industrial noise, particularly pile driving, interferes with the dolphins' echo-location and thus their ability to navigate, find food, and avoid predators. This can seriously impair their health and their ability to breed successfully. Lactating females and young calves are especially vulnerable.
This paper may be part of on-going research by industry and government in the U.K. into the impacts of large offshore wind power facilities. Its focus is the unique noises of construction and does not examine the effects of vibration and noise from the regular operation of the giant machines. One recalls the story from last year about hundreds of seals apparently affected by the wind turbines on Scroby Sands, with babies being born dead and live ones being abandoned.
One also wonders where Greenpeace is on this issue.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, animal rights
This paper may be part of on-going research by industry and government in the U.K. into the impacts of large offshore wind power facilities. Its focus is the unique noises of construction and does not examine the effects of vibration and noise from the regular operation of the giant machines. One recalls the story from last year about hundreds of seals apparently affected by the wind turbines on Scroby Sands, with babies being born dead and live ones being abandoned.
One also wonders where Greenpeace is on this issue.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, animal rights
May 6, 2006
Conservation Law Foundation ignores standards
The Associated Press report of Thursday's arguments before the Vermont Public Service Board over constructing wind turbines in East Haven (for which the hearing officer recommended denial of permission) describes the testimony of one supporter of the project.
Wind turbines are not being held to a higher standard. They are huge and uniquely intrusive (don't forget the noise and vibration and the effect on wildlife as well as humans), and they particularly target ridgelines which are rigorously protected.
We would have to be in desperate straits, and wind power would have to be an incredibly beneficial technology, to consider erecting industrial power plants on the ridgelines. But we have hardly begun to seriously reduce our energy demand, and wind power has in fact proved to be almost useless in supplying the grid. Industrial wind power is a symptom of waste and sprawl, not part of a solution. Rather than being held to higher standards, developers and their agents complain that they are being held to any standards at all.
It is understandable that predatory capitalists, abetted by lazy politicians, push these things. But that organizations like CLF, VPIRG, and Greenpeace willfully fall for the sales pitch is disturbing indeed.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, Vermont, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
Sandra Levine, a CLF [Conservation Law Foundation] lawyer, told the board she frequently climbs Hunger Mountain in Worcester, which is near her home. From the summit, she can see ski trails and power lines. She wanted to know why those weren't visual blight but wind power is. "I'm concerned now that we're holding wind turbines to a higher standard," Levine said.Is she now a supporter of ski trails and power lines? Would she support developing the top of Hunger Mountain with ski trails and power lines? Would she support a line of 250-foot-high towers with 150-foot-long rotating wings attached to bus-sized generator housings, all anchored in huge holes filled with thousands of tons of cement and steel -- along with strong and straight access roads and power lines and clearcutting -- on the top of Hunger Mountain, or all along the Worcester and Northfield mountains?
Wind turbines are not being held to a higher standard. They are huge and uniquely intrusive (don't forget the noise and vibration and the effect on wildlife as well as humans), and they particularly target ridgelines which are rigorously protected.
We would have to be in desperate straits, and wind power would have to be an incredibly beneficial technology, to consider erecting industrial power plants on the ridgelines. But we have hardly begun to seriously reduce our energy demand, and wind power has in fact proved to be almost useless in supplying the grid. Industrial wind power is a symptom of waste and sprawl, not part of a solution. Rather than being held to higher standards, developers and their agents complain that they are being held to any standards at all.
It is understandable that predatory capitalists, abetted by lazy politicians, push these things. But that organizations like CLF, VPIRG, and Greenpeace willfully fall for the sales pitch is disturbing indeed.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, Vermont, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
May 5, 2006
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'. ...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."
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.
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
May 3, 2006
Wind energy promoters take advantage of state-issued Non-Veracity Licenses
On energy giant Gruppo UPC's Sheffield Wind site, the following statements are made: "More people turned out for the non-binding referendum in support of UPC’s project in Sheffield than voted in the last presidential election. A strong majority [sic] voted in favor of the project (120-93). An opinion poll conducted after the election showed that people favored the project because it provided clean, renewable energy and a positive economic impact for the town."
Notice the trickiness of that last sentence. It does not say that the poll corroborated the vote but only describes the reasons given for those who "favored" the project.
In fact, the question was whether one would like to see none, less, the same, or more wind development in Sheffield. It was part of a general survey along with other items such as agriculture and cell towers and the reasons one chooses to live in the town (or township, as it would be called in other places). In contrast to UPC's statement, it did not specify the project. The level of wind development in Sheffield is currently none, so UPC's agents campaigned vigorously to make sure people understood that support of their project required a "more" vote.
Nevertheless, the result was that only 40% (69 of 173) wanted to to see wind development. Forty-five percent (78 of 173) clearly chose "none," and the rest chose "less" (8) or "the same" (18), which meant in effect "none." Hence the slipperiness of the statement on the UPC web site. And even that is dishonest, because the survey gave no indication of the reasons people made their choices. UPC's spin is simple projection of their, well, their own spin.
That 2-1 rejection of industrial-scale wind power corroborated a survey the year before in which 79% of the residents and property owners -- 346 out of 436 -- signed a petition from Ridge Protectors against UPC's project.
The vote of 120-93 (56%-44%, hardly a "strong" majority) was clearly the aberration, and it followed a "grass roots" organizing campaign run by a Burlington advertising firm hired by UPC and apparent outright vote buying. The developer's tactics clearly served as a wake-up call, and the vote was corrected in the subsequent poll.
Another example on the web site of the developer's deceit is hidden in their output projections. By calculating back, one can determine that they are based on a capacity factor of 32%, even though the actual experience in the U.S., including Vermont, is less than four-fifths of that, around 25%.
As a correspondent from Malone, N.Y., has quipped, wind power promoters carry a Non-Veracity License (NVL) stamped for a nominal fee by the secretary of state. That's why they're taken seriously. The law requires that they not be questioned.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, Vermont, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
Notice the trickiness of that last sentence. It does not say that the poll corroborated the vote but only describes the reasons given for those who "favored" the project.
In fact, the question was whether one would like to see none, less, the same, or more wind development in Sheffield. It was part of a general survey along with other items such as agriculture and cell towers and the reasons one chooses to live in the town (or township, as it would be called in other places). In contrast to UPC's statement, it did not specify the project. The level of wind development in Sheffield is currently none, so UPC's agents campaigned vigorously to make sure people understood that support of their project required a "more" vote.
Nevertheless, the result was that only 40% (69 of 173) wanted to to see wind development. Forty-five percent (78 of 173) clearly chose "none," and the rest chose "less" (8) or "the same" (18), which meant in effect "none." Hence the slipperiness of the statement on the UPC web site. And even that is dishonest, because the survey gave no indication of the reasons people made their choices. UPC's spin is simple projection of their, well, their own spin.
That 2-1 rejection of industrial-scale wind power corroborated a survey the year before in which 79% of the residents and property owners -- 346 out of 436 -- signed a petition from Ridge Protectors against UPC's project.
The vote of 120-93 (56%-44%, hardly a "strong" majority) was clearly the aberration, and it followed a "grass roots" organizing campaign run by a Burlington advertising firm hired by UPC and apparent outright vote buying. The developer's tactics clearly served as a wake-up call, and the vote was corrected in the subsequent poll.
Another example on the web site of the developer's deceit is hidden in their output projections. By calculating back, one can determine that they are based on a capacity factor of 32%, even though the actual experience in the U.S., including Vermont, is less than four-fifths of that, around 25%.
As a correspondent from Malone, N.Y., has quipped, wind power promoters carry a Non-Veracity License (NVL) stamped for a nominal fee by the secretary of state. That's why they're taken seriously. The law requires that they not be questioned.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, Vermont, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
May 1, 2006
April 30, 2006
What are green tags?
Green tags were invented by Enron to be able to sell wind energy twice. First the actual energy is sold, then the packaging. The purchaser of green tags is buying an empty box.
And wind power investors are laughing all the way to their offshore bank accounts (letting drop a few pieces of their folding money to keep the locals happy so they can wave it, along with the jumbo-jet-sized turbine blades, in the face of the newcomers).
Not surprisingly, there turns out to be greater demand for the box -- it is certainly more reliable and a lot prettier -- than for the energy itself.
And for those who must meet renewable energy obligations or portfolio standards, they can hide their pollution in the "green" box, and that's good enough for the government and even for many groups that call themselves environmentalist!
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
And wind power investors are laughing all the way to their offshore bank accounts (letting drop a few pieces of their folding money to keep the locals happy so they can wave it, along with the jumbo-jet-sized turbine blades, in the face of the newcomers).
Not surprisingly, there turns out to be greater demand for the box -- it is certainly more reliable and a lot prettier -- than for the energy itself.
And for those who must meet renewable energy obligations or portfolio standards, they can hide their pollution in the "green" box, and that's good enough for the government and even for many groups that call themselves environmentalist!
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
April 28, 2006
The Maple Ridge Wind Farm "lease"
Here are some features from the lease that the Flat Rock Wind Power company draws up for owners of the land where it wants to erect giant wind turbines. The Maple Ridge facility on the Tug Hill plateau in Lewis County, N.Y., near Lowville, currently boasts 120 390-ft-high turbines and at least 75 more, possibly larger models, are planned. The lease is for 25 years with the option then of the lessee (the wind company) to extend it another 15.
Another lease, with similar features, has been described previously. The Flat Rock company is also getting neighboring property owners to sign agreements, as excerpted here. The consequence of believing the wind company that there will be no reason to complain, because any problems you hear about are just dreamed up by newcomer NIMBYs trying to protect their views, and thus not questioning why then the wind company wants you to sign away your right to complain (see item 4.1.1 above), has been described here, too.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, anarchism
3.3: Right to replace turbines with newer (larger) models, even at new locations as approved by lessor, who shall not "unreasonably" withhold, condition, or delay consent. Operations and improvements may be performed by sublessee or subcontractors of sublessee (making it all the more difficult to remedy violations).Many defenders of those who sign their land up for these facilities invoke "property rights" to justify their disregard for the concerns of neighbors. Other than the bald fact that it is not the landowner who writes the lease and essentially becomes a caretaker on his or her own property for 25 to 40 years, all of the above items, especially those from paragraphs 4.1.1, 37, and 40, make a mockery of the owner's property rights.
4.1.1: Easement to allow "audio, visual, view, light, noise, vibration, air turbulence, wake, shadow flicker, electromagnetic, television reception, ice or other weather created hazards or other effect of any kind whatsoever resulting directly or indirectly" from the project and the leased property. [emphasis added] 5.10: Same for any improvements.
4.1.5: Seventy-five-feet-wide easement for transmission and communication lines.
4.2: Right to use access, utility, water, "or other easements, rights of way or licenses over lands in the general vicinity" of the leased property.
5.1.2: Right to change turbine and road locations up to 50 feet and underground transmission lines by 250 feet -- more by request, to which lessor must respond in 5 days or consent is assumed. If lessor has reasons for denying change, lessee is not required to address concerns if it would increase costs or decrease capture of wind.
20.1: Right to transfer ownership of project without lessor's approval.
34: "[L]evel of power production, the wind capacity of the property and the availability of the wind power facilities" and the lease itself must remain confidential.
37: Lessor or relative forbidden to interfere with flow of air over leased property by, e.g., planting trees or constructing buildings.
40: Requirement of lessor to waive all applicable setback laws and ordinances between leased and remaining part of property.
Another lease, with similar features, has been described previously. The Flat Rock company is also getting neighboring property owners to sign agreements, as excerpted here. The consequence of believing the wind company that there will be no reason to complain, because any problems you hear about are just dreamed up by newcomer NIMBYs trying to protect their views, and thus not questioning why then the wind company wants you to sign away your right to complain (see item 4.1.1 above), has been described here, too.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, anarchism
April 26, 2006
Greens Tags
[press release]
Washington -- A coalition of giant supermarket chains and token small grocers, along with a nutritionist from a supermarkets-funded program at an otherwise little known academic institution, hailed the bipartisan agreement today by the state's legislature and governor to establish the marketing of grocers greens tags.
"A lot of overpaid lobbyists have billed for a lot of hours to make this bill a reality," a spokesman for one supermarket chain is imagined to have said. "It is crucial to our efforts to improve the diets of Americans."
Background
In the past, the effort to introduce leafy greens into diets has been stymied by the extra expense of a product that shrinks substantially when cooked, thus requiring so much more to supply a satisfying meal. A cycle of reluctance to buy enough and consequent disappointment with the shrunken result prevented the movement of greens from grocers' shelves at an adequate rate to remain profitable.
That all changed in the mid-1990s when Enron expanded into the wholesale grocery business. The company's "whiz-kid" accountants perceived that there were two parts in the cost of leafy greens. As food, their cost was comparable to other, more popular, items. The extra cost was for the nutritional attributes. Enron convinced the state of California to require grocers to sell a certain percentage of "healthy" foods, particularly leafy greens which could be quickly grown.
The "greens obligations" were calculated from the purchase of the extra-cost nutritional attributes, as represented by "grocers greens tags," accounted separately from the regular food part of the greens. Grocers greens tags are "grown" at the same time as the food itself, and thus the grocer could buy the greens both as food and as a benefit to the diet.
But what if a grocer's wholesaler did not have enough greens to sell? Since some grocers had more than enough greens to meet their greens obligations, they were allowed to sell, or to allow their wholesaler to sell, the excess greens tags to others. This very effectively promoted the growth of greens by creating a profitable market for their nutritional attributes apart from their value as food. This market also allowed grocers to meet their greens obligations, if not to their own customers then by helping to defray the costs of better nutrition for the customers of other grocers.
Today
The use of grocers greens tags is now commonplace, with brokers springing up across the country and many companies buying them for their cafeterias and vending machines. Even individuals can buy them to "offset" their bad diets. Today's announcement brings the total number of states that have established a greens tags system for a healthier America to 17.
"We can all eat better, even if we don't," an executive of one of the coalition's grocery chains is said to have said.
"It's the market at work -- everyone wins," an analyst from a bloated Wall Street investment company that happens to have substantial investments in the giant grocery business added. "With grocers greens tags, combined with greens obligations standards, venture capitalists are very excited by the lower risk and much larger returns."
The coalition also recognized the untiring efforts of many public interest groups such as Greens Pease International and the state's Public Interest Group.
A statement from Greens Pease in praise of the new bill echoed the business interests: "We can have our greens and eat them, too -- or not and say we did."
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism
Washington -- A coalition of giant supermarket chains and token small grocers, along with a nutritionist from a supermarkets-funded program at an otherwise little known academic institution, hailed the bipartisan agreement today by the state's legislature and governor to establish the marketing of grocers greens tags.
"A lot of overpaid lobbyists have billed for a lot of hours to make this bill a reality," a spokesman for one supermarket chain is imagined to have said. "It is crucial to our efforts to improve the diets of Americans."
Background
In the past, the effort to introduce leafy greens into diets has been stymied by the extra expense of a product that shrinks substantially when cooked, thus requiring so much more to supply a satisfying meal. A cycle of reluctance to buy enough and consequent disappointment with the shrunken result prevented the movement of greens from grocers' shelves at an adequate rate to remain profitable.
That all changed in the mid-1990s when Enron expanded into the wholesale grocery business. The company's "whiz-kid" accountants perceived that there were two parts in the cost of leafy greens. As food, their cost was comparable to other, more popular, items. The extra cost was for the nutritional attributes. Enron convinced the state of California to require grocers to sell a certain percentage of "healthy" foods, particularly leafy greens which could be quickly grown.
The "greens obligations" were calculated from the purchase of the extra-cost nutritional attributes, as represented by "grocers greens tags," accounted separately from the regular food part of the greens. Grocers greens tags are "grown" at the same time as the food itself, and thus the grocer could buy the greens both as food and as a benefit to the diet.
But what if a grocer's wholesaler did not have enough greens to sell? Since some grocers had more than enough greens to meet their greens obligations, they were allowed to sell, or to allow their wholesaler to sell, the excess greens tags to others. This very effectively promoted the growth of greens by creating a profitable market for their nutritional attributes apart from their value as food. This market also allowed grocers to meet their greens obligations, if not to their own customers then by helping to defray the costs of better nutrition for the customers of other grocers.
Today
The use of grocers greens tags is now commonplace, with brokers springing up across the country and many companies buying them for their cafeterias and vending machines. Even individuals can buy them to "offset" their bad diets. Today's announcement brings the total number of states that have established a greens tags system for a healthier America to 17.
"We can all eat better, even if we don't," an executive of one of the coalition's grocery chains is said to have said.
"It's the market at work -- everyone wins," an analyst from a bloated Wall Street investment company that happens to have substantial investments in the giant grocery business added. "With grocers greens tags, combined with greens obligations standards, venture capitalists are very excited by the lower risk and much larger returns."
The coalition also recognized the untiring efforts of many public interest groups such as Greens Pease International and the state's Public Interest Group.
A statement from Greens Pease in praise of the new bill echoed the business interests: "We can have our greens and eat them, too -- or not and say we did."
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism
April 25, 2006
Why a 52-MW wind "farm" is worth only 4.3 MW
I have been asked to clarify the numbers from the "data" paragraph of the previous post, "Why is VPIRG hiding?".
Capacity factor: Searsburg started at about 24% and has now been around 21% for a few years. The national average as reported by facilities themselves to the Energy Information Agency of the DOE is 27%, but they apparently do not count out-of-commission turbines, so I think 25% is a fair estimate. Note that in the U.K., with the "best" wind resource in Europe, the capacity factor also is only 24% or so.
That's the easy one.
For most of the power curve between the cut-in wind speed of 9 mph and the rated wind speed of 30 mph, the power generation increases cubically in relation to the wind speed. That is, as the wind speed doubles, the power output increases eightfold.
Say the wind speeds are evenly distributed within that range, that is, it blows at 12 mph as often as at 24 mph and so on across the range. Because the turbine produces power at much lower rates at slow than at high wind speeds (one-eighth the power, e.g., at 12 mph than at 24 mph), such an even distribution of wind speeds would mean that the turbine is producing at lower rates much more often.
All this is to explain actual observations as shown in this graphic from German grid manager Eon Netz. The curve follows the total output (or infeed to the grid) of Eon Netz's wind plant and the number of hours that level was reached or surpassed. For example, the infeed was at least 2,000 MW during approximately 5,000 quarter-hours of the year and 1,000 MW during about 12,500 quarter-hours. Higher levels of infeed were seen during much fewer quarter-hours.
The heavy horizontal line shows the average infeed (which, as a percentage of the total installed capacity, represents the capacity factor, in this case 16.4%). That level was seen during about 12,500 quarter-hours, which is 35% of the year. The graph shows, therefore, that the average rate of production is seen only a third of the time. That is, only one third of the time the turbines produce at or above their average rate.
A higher capacity factor would simply raise straighten the curve somewhat; the average infeed, although higher, would still be seen only a third of the time.
This graph, from a Views of Scotland paper, shows the same thing even more clearly. Each bar shows how many hours of the year the infeed was in the specified range. The total heights of the first three columns represent two-thirds of the year but only one-fourth of the installed capacity. The capacity factor in Denmark is actually around 20% or less, so a rate of production at or above average was reached less than a third of the time.
That's the time the wind plant is reasonably productive. But that is not really how I got down to 4.3% effective capacity for UPC's proposed 52-MW facility in Sheffield and Sutton.
The "effective" capacity is a measure of how much other sources could be replaced by wind power for the supply system to remain reliable. It is also called "capacity credit." It is a much more speculative number, but study after study of the grid integration of intermittent, nondispatchable, and imprecisely predictable wind energy put it at about a third of the capacity factor.
The scenario is that even as, say, a 52-MW wind plant produces at an average of 13 MW, the grid cannot decommission or plan not to install a corresponding 13 MW but perhaps only a third of that. As more wind plant is added and therefore more often uses more of the rest of the system to balance it, that "credit" approaches zero (which the Irish Grid study I alluded to clearly states).
I'm a bit out of my depth here, but I would assume the capacity credit would be reflected in costs to utilities, which would be similarly unable to contract for less energy to an amount that is anywhere near the amount of wind power they may purchase. Thus, if Washington Electric buys UPC's production from 52 MW of turbines averaging 13 MW, it would be able to buy only 4.3 MW less from other sources.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, Vermont, environment, environmentalism
Capacity factor: Searsburg started at about 24% and has now been around 21% for a few years. The national average as reported by facilities themselves to the Energy Information Agency of the DOE is 27%, but they apparently do not count out-of-commission turbines, so I think 25% is a fair estimate. Note that in the U.K., with the "best" wind resource in Europe, the capacity factor also is only 24% or so.
That's the easy one.
For most of the power curve between the cut-in wind speed of 9 mph and the rated wind speed of 30 mph, the power generation increases cubically in relation to the wind speed. That is, as the wind speed doubles, the power output increases eightfold.
Say the wind speeds are evenly distributed within that range, that is, it blows at 12 mph as often as at 24 mph and so on across the range. Because the turbine produces power at much lower rates at slow than at high wind speeds (one-eighth the power, e.g., at 12 mph than at 24 mph), such an even distribution of wind speeds would mean that the turbine is producing at lower rates much more often.
All this is to explain actual observations as shown in this graphic from German grid manager Eon Netz. The curve follows the total output (or infeed to the grid) of Eon Netz's wind plant and the number of hours that level was reached or surpassed. For example, the infeed was at least 2,000 MW during approximately 5,000 quarter-hours of the year and 1,000 MW during about 12,500 quarter-hours. Higher levels of infeed were seen during much fewer quarter-hours.
The heavy horizontal line shows the average infeed (which, as a percentage of the total installed capacity, represents the capacity factor, in this case 16.4%). That level was seen during about 12,500 quarter-hours, which is 35% of the year. The graph shows, therefore, that the average rate of production is seen only a third of the time. That is, only one third of the time the turbines produce at or above their average rate.
A higher capacity factor would simply raise straighten the curve somewhat; the average infeed, although higher, would still be seen only a third of the time.
This graph, from a Views of Scotland paper, shows the same thing even more clearly. Each bar shows how many hours of the year the infeed was in the specified range. The total heights of the first three columns represent two-thirds of the year but only one-fourth of the installed capacity. The capacity factor in Denmark is actually around 20% or less, so a rate of production at or above average was reached less than a third of the time.
That's the time the wind plant is reasonably productive. But that is not really how I got down to 4.3% effective capacity for UPC's proposed 52-MW facility in Sheffield and Sutton.
The "effective" capacity is a measure of how much other sources could be replaced by wind power for the supply system to remain reliable. It is also called "capacity credit." It is a much more speculative number, but study after study of the grid integration of intermittent, nondispatchable, and imprecisely predictable wind energy put it at about a third of the capacity factor.
The scenario is that even as, say, a 52-MW wind plant produces at an average of 13 MW, the grid cannot decommission or plan not to install a corresponding 13 MW but perhaps only a third of that. As more wind plant is added and therefore more often uses more of the rest of the system to balance it, that "credit" approaches zero (which the Irish Grid study I alluded to clearly states).
I'm a bit out of my depth here, but I would assume the capacity credit would be reflected in costs to utilities, which would be similarly unable to contract for less energy to an amount that is anywhere near the amount of wind power they may purchase. Thus, if Washington Electric buys UPC's production from 52 MW of turbines averaging 13 MW, it would be able to buy only 4.3 MW less from other sources.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, Vermont, environment, environmentalism
April 22, 2006
Why is VPIRG hiding?
It is no secret that VPIRG supports industrial-scale wind power development of Vermont's ridgelines. It has been at the forefront of arguing on behalf of the developers, even as it fights such heedless sprawl in every other issue they are involved in.
After the recommendation from the Public Service Board hearing officer to deny a permit to the four-turbine project in East Haven, the next project they are advocating for is a 26-turbine (each 399 feet high) development in Sheffield and Sutton. But the "group" sent out to rally the people in the developer's favor is called "Clean Power Vermont."
I looked up the group's internet domain (cleanpowervt.org) information some time ago and discovered that it was registered by VPIRG. The main organizer, Tyler Edgar, is an employee of VPIRG. (She was also the sole representative of an earlier group, "Clean Air Vermont," which held an "informational" meeting in Sutton before that town rejected the project by a margin of 6 to 1.) Joining her for the Sheffield push is Drew Hudson, field director of VPIRG. The domain information is now hidden, but the the web pages are still filled (at the time of this writing) with code referring to vpirg.org.
Although they may have been defeated in East Haven, VPIRG board members Dave Rapaport and Mathew Rubin (the developers) are now targeting the string of ridges between East Haven and Island Pond (town of Brighton) that overlook the protected "Champion" lands and the Nulhegan Basin, which has been recognized by National Geographic as one of the world's prime "geotourism" destinations. Obviously VPIRG/EMDC (Rubin & Rapaport's company) needs a favorable precedent to improve their chances of a permit and thus their fanatical -- and dishonest -- promotion of the Sheffield/Sutton installations.
Data: Italy-based UPC has applied to erect 26 two-megawatt (MW) turbines (Gamesa G87 models), each 399 feet high (requiring strobe lights day and night), their rotor blades each sweeping a vertical air space of 1.47 acres. The average output from this 52-MW facility can be expected to be only 25% of its rated capacity, or 13 MW. Because of the cubic relation of output to wind speed below the ideal of 30 mph, however, it would generate at or above that rate only a third of the time, as shown by infeed curves from Germany and Ireland. Its effective capacity, its actual contribution to grid capacity planning, would be about a third of that, or 4.3 MW, since it is nondispatchable, variable, and imprecisely predictable. (This figure of the effective capacity, or capacity credit, of large-scale wind power on the grid is taken from studies by New York, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Germany, all of them supportive of wind power development; the Irish and German studies also noticed that as more wind power is added to the system, presumably as its penetration approaches the excess capacity that can readily serve to balance its fluctuating infeed, the capacity credit of new turbines approaches zero.)
At 4.3 MW effective capacity, the output from the Sheffield/Sutton plant would represent about two-thirds of one percent of Vermont's current electricity needs. Clearly the negative impacts of such a massive and prominently intrusive facility far outweigh this meager possible benefit.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, Vermont, environment, environmentalism, ecoanarchism
After the recommendation from the Public Service Board hearing officer to deny a permit to the four-turbine project in East Haven, the next project they are advocating for is a 26-turbine (each 399 feet high) development in Sheffield and Sutton. But the "group" sent out to rally the people in the developer's favor is called "Clean Power Vermont."
I looked up the group's internet domain (cleanpowervt.org) information some time ago and discovered that it was registered by VPIRG. The main organizer, Tyler Edgar, is an employee of VPIRG. (She was also the sole representative of an earlier group, "Clean Air Vermont," which held an "informational" meeting in Sutton before that town rejected the project by a margin of 6 to 1.) Joining her for the Sheffield push is Drew Hudson, field director of VPIRG. The domain information is now hidden, but the the web pages are still filled (at the time of this writing) with code referring to vpirg.org.
Although they may have been defeated in East Haven, VPIRG board members Dave Rapaport and Mathew Rubin (the developers) are now targeting the string of ridges between East Haven and Island Pond (town of Brighton) that overlook the protected "Champion" lands and the Nulhegan Basin, which has been recognized by National Geographic as one of the world's prime "geotourism" destinations. Obviously VPIRG/EMDC (Rubin & Rapaport's company) needs a favorable precedent to improve their chances of a permit and thus their fanatical -- and dishonest -- promotion of the Sheffield/Sutton installations.
Data: Italy-based UPC has applied to erect 26 two-megawatt (MW) turbines (Gamesa G87 models), each 399 feet high (requiring strobe lights day and night), their rotor blades each sweeping a vertical air space of 1.47 acres. The average output from this 52-MW facility can be expected to be only 25% of its rated capacity, or 13 MW. Because of the cubic relation of output to wind speed below the ideal of 30 mph, however, it would generate at or above that rate only a third of the time, as shown by infeed curves from Germany and Ireland. Its effective capacity, its actual contribution to grid capacity planning, would be about a third of that, or 4.3 MW, since it is nondispatchable, variable, and imprecisely predictable. (This figure of the effective capacity, or capacity credit, of large-scale wind power on the grid is taken from studies by New York, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Germany, all of them supportive of wind power development; the Irish and German studies also noticed that as more wind power is added to the system, presumably as its penetration approaches the excess capacity that can readily serve to balance its fluctuating infeed, the capacity credit of new turbines approaches zero.)
At 4.3 MW effective capacity, the output from the Sheffield/Sutton plant would represent about two-thirds of one percent of Vermont's current electricity needs. Clearly the negative impacts of such a massive and prominently intrusive facility far outweigh this meager possible benefit.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, Vermont, environment, environmentalism, ecoanarchism
April 21, 2006
Greenpeace dishonest
"While you're paying close to $3.00 a gallon at the gas pump, Congress is secretly trying to kill big oil's competition, and only YOU can help us fight back."
That's from Greenpeace's recent appeal to join the fight against the admittedly sleazy effort in Congress to allow Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney to kill the Cape Wind project on the shoals of Nantucket Sound.
First, it is bizarre to hear Greenpeace focusing their reason to back Cape Wind to a claim that it will reduce energy prices. What about the vaunted environmental benefits?
Second, it is pathetic to hear Greenpeace suggesting that wind power provides gasoline for our cars (let alone enough to affect the price).
There's nothing wrong with an honest and open debate -- in fact it is to be much preferred to back-room manipulation and bullying -- but this, along with the many other appeals from Cape Wind's promoters, is not it. It is bad enough when the hucksters investing in and developing these projects misrepresent them, which is (has to be) their normal mode of business. That "defenders of the environment" also throw their integrity overboard and engage in any deceitful means to push these projects is quite disheartening.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, ecoanarchism
That's from Greenpeace's recent appeal to join the fight against the admittedly sleazy effort in Congress to allow Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney to kill the Cape Wind project on the shoals of Nantucket Sound.
First, it is bizarre to hear Greenpeace focusing their reason to back Cape Wind to a claim that it will reduce energy prices. What about the vaunted environmental benefits?
Second, it is pathetic to hear Greenpeace suggesting that wind power provides gasoline for our cars (let alone enough to affect the price).
There's nothing wrong with an honest and open debate -- in fact it is to be much preferred to back-room manipulation and bullying -- but this, along with the many other appeals from Cape Wind's promoters, is not it. It is bad enough when the hucksters investing in and developing these projects misrepresent them, which is (has to be) their normal mode of business. That "defenders of the environment" also throw their integrity overboard and engage in any deceitful means to push these projects is quite disheartening.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, ecoanarchism
April 19, 2006
Support for wind energy declines in statewide poll
According to the latest poll commissioned by big wind flak Renewable Energy Vermont (press release, Feb. 2, 2006), "The number of Vermonters who would like to see more wind energy in Vermont increased to 43%, up from 30% in a 2002 statewide poll." Not mentioned is that the result of this question in the 2004 edition of the poll was 42% for wind. That is, support for wind energy has not increased.
Another deceit in the release of this year's poll was to combine answers to the question about wind turbines on ridges (where the industrialists insist on placing them; also note there were no supportive questions to assess the respondent's knowledge of the technology and the issues). Whereas in the previous polls, four answers besides "other" and "don't know" were reported (beautiful, acceptable, unacceptable, and ugly), this time "acceptable" -- a rather neutral answer, and therefore consistently representing the vast majority, who aren't affected by proposed projects -- was combined with "beautiful."
The fact is, the "beautiful" response declined from 2002 (11%) to 2004 (8%), as did the "acceptable" response slightly (68% to 66%). Again, the latest results are compared with the 2002 results, but only as the combined "beautiful/acceptable": from 79% in 2002 to 81% in 2006 (ignoring the drop to 74% in 2004). Because the individual responses aren't reported, it is evident that "beautiful" continued to decline.
In all three editions of the poll, the more reasonably combined "unacceptable/ugly" responses remained consistent at 16%. In 2004, this was twice the "beautiful" response, and it is probably more in the 2006 results. Again, this poll shows that a favorable view of wind power on mountain ridges continues to decline.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, Vermont, environment, environmentalism
Another deceit in the release of this year's poll was to combine answers to the question about wind turbines on ridges (where the industrialists insist on placing them; also note there were no supportive questions to assess the respondent's knowledge of the technology and the issues). Whereas in the previous polls, four answers besides "other" and "don't know" were reported (beautiful, acceptable, unacceptable, and ugly), this time "acceptable" -- a rather neutral answer, and therefore consistently representing the vast majority, who aren't affected by proposed projects -- was combined with "beautiful."
The fact is, the "beautiful" response declined from 2002 (11%) to 2004 (8%), as did the "acceptable" response slightly (68% to 66%). Again, the latest results are compared with the 2002 results, but only as the combined "beautiful/acceptable": from 79% in 2002 to 81% in 2006 (ignoring the drop to 74% in 2004). Because the individual responses aren't reported, it is evident that "beautiful" continued to decline.
In all three editions of the poll, the more reasonably combined "unacceptable/ugly" responses remained consistent at 16%. In 2004, this was twice the "beautiful" response, and it is probably more in the 2006 results. Again, this poll shows that a favorable view of wind power on mountain ridges continues to decline.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, Vermont, environment, environmentalism
April 17, 2006
"Big Thinker" scared of little questions
Shea Gunther, self-described "big thinker," continues to pettily limit the comments posted to his blog. I was contacted by "Rosa" after she saw a question of hers removed. Gunther's post was about Whole Foods pushing wind energy for Earth Day. Rosa asked if they are talking about buying actual energy (through one's utility) or just "green tags."
After the question's disappearance, she poked around to find out more and came across the description here of Gunther's censorship of "Rucio," even blocking his replies to a post and comments directly attacking him. Rosa added a comment there, too, asking, since Gunther wrote that he looked forward to the "antiwind nutjobs'" replies, why there weren't any. It was soon disappeared.
Gunther calls his hucksterism "eco-entrepreneurship." Since he keeps the comments section of his blog open only to replies that reinforce his view of himself, a more appropriate prefix would be "ego" or "echo." At the least, he should include a disclaimer that only comments that help promote his business (current caper: carbon offsets) are included.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism
After the question's disappearance, she poked around to find out more and came across the description here of Gunther's censorship of "Rucio," even blocking his replies to a post and comments directly attacking him. Rosa added a comment there, too, asking, since Gunther wrote that he looked forward to the "antiwind nutjobs'" replies, why there weren't any. It was soon disappeared.
Gunther calls his hucksterism "eco-entrepreneurship." Since he keeps the comments section of his blog open only to replies that reinforce his view of himself, a more appropriate prefix would be "ego" or "echo." At the least, he should include a disclaimer that only comments that help promote his business (current caper: carbon offsets) are included.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism
April 16, 2006
Sunday papers: Screw the people, screw the planet
Eileen McNamara tears at the Democrats in her Boston Globe column today:
Meanwhile the Bush administration, with the cooperation of most Democrats in Congress, continues its attack on the poor, requiring Medicaid recipients to prove their U.S. citizenship starting July 1. It is meant to stop, As one compassionate conservative, Representative Charlie Norwood of Georgia, is quoted in the New York Times, the "theft of Medicaid benefits by illegal aliens." It is expected to save the government $220 million over five years. Annually, that's equivalent to the cost for seven minutes of the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations.
Of final note, a commentary in the Times by Jamie Lincoln Kitman describes the hucksterism that has embraced hybrid automobiles (as it has so much else that might have been "green" but is now manipulated into meaninglessness to cater to the fads of consumerism).
He points out that a hybrid is best for city driving, with lots of starts and stops, and that many conventional cars have much better mileage than hybrids on the highway. Most egregious are hybrid SUVs, in which the electric motor simply adds a little boost to help haul around the massive vehicle and contributes almost nothing to fuel efficiency. In short, most hybrid vehicles are not any better than conventional vehicles, yet the owner of a hybrid but still gas-guzzling SUV can claim tax incentives and use preferred traffic lanes and parking spots while the owner of a truly fuel-efficient, but not hybrid, car is denied any such privilege.
environment, environmentalism, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
The hapless Democrats, apparently mesmerized by rave reviews of the ["bogus 'universal' health insurance"] legislation in the clueless national press, got punked.and
Democrats, as leery of being labeled "polarizing" as they are of being called "unpatriotic," have developed an irrational fear of rhetorical confrontation that is costing them credibility as well as elections. Voters are eager for bipartisan cooperation, not for blind cooption. They respect compromise, not capitulation. What the public witnessed last week in Massachusetts was Democratic complicity in a staged campaign event designed to promote the presidential ambitions of a Republican governor selling an unproven ability to work cooperatively with his ideological adversaries.Romney vetoed portions of the bill, notably the requirement for employers to provide insurance or pay into a state fund, although the legislature is expected to override that veto. On the other hand, they may not want to jeopardize their standing in the "bipartisan problem-solving" club, even though it is Romney who is the outsider and the one jettisoning key aspects of the "agreement." Or maybe they know it's a sham bill, so they really don't care.
Meanwhile the Bush administration, with the cooperation of most Democrats in Congress, continues its attack on the poor, requiring Medicaid recipients to prove their U.S. citizenship starting July 1. It is meant to stop, As one compassionate conservative, Representative Charlie Norwood of Georgia, is quoted in the New York Times, the "theft of Medicaid benefits by illegal aliens." It is expected to save the government $220 million over five years. Annually, that's equivalent to the cost for seven minutes of the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations.
Of final note, a commentary in the Times by Jamie Lincoln Kitman describes the hucksterism that has embraced hybrid automobiles (as it has so much else that might have been "green" but is now manipulated into meaninglessness to cater to the fads of consumerism).
He points out that a hybrid is best for city driving, with lots of starts and stops, and that many conventional cars have much better mileage than hybrids on the highway. Most egregious are hybrid SUVs, in which the electric motor simply adds a little boost to help haul around the massive vehicle and contributes almost nothing to fuel efficiency. In short, most hybrid vehicles are not any better than conventional vehicles, yet the owner of a hybrid but still gas-guzzling SUV can claim tax incentives and use preferred traffic lanes and parking spots while the owner of a truly fuel-efficient, but not hybrid, car is denied any such privilege.
environment, environmentalism, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
April 15, 2006
The green tag scam
A haiku from comments at Grist Magazine:
Like indulgences
so too will the tags of green
be laughed at later
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, ecoanarchism
Like indulgences
so too will the tags of green
be laughed at later
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, ecoanarchism
Wind power development like logging and mining
According to an Associated Press story yesterday, the Synergics company in Maryland is threatening to sue the state because environmental protection of rare and endangered species may cause their plan to erect seventeen 420-ft-high turbines on Backbone Mountain (Maryland's highest ridge) to be rejected. Their reasoning: there is logging and mining in the area, although apparently outside the state's environmental jurisdiction.
Instead of proving their green credentials by modifying the project to fit the law, Synergics simply threatens the state with legal action. After all, they've spent a lot of investors' money to develop a 40-MW project, and any less could mean some embarrassing losses, threatening Synergics' ability to raise money for future projects. The environment? What's that?
Note that such belligerence which belies the "green" mask is not unusual for wind developers. It was one of their faults in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, which recently passed strict guidelines regulating wind turbine erections. One of the developers there, Emerging Energies, after trying to slip their permit request in the day before a year-long moratorium began last year, stood before the Planning and Parks Supervisors at the last meeting of the ordinance commission and renewed his threat to sue them if they passed the ordinance as it was shaping up. The county attorney was actually so worried that he was urging board members to reject it -- until WINDCOWS members found out and raised the issue at a meeting and got him to admit that it was indeed a defensible ordinance and the behavior of the developers hardly argued in their favor. Another of the developers, Navitas, is in court to get an extension to a conditional use permit they already hold but which expires in December. That county attorney wrote a letter to the judge claiming that the board is in favor of extension. He was forced to admit that he wrote the letter on his own and that the board knew nothing about it and had never even met to discuss the issue.
Shenanigans -- not an interest in the environment or the neighbors -- characterize industrial wind power development. They are indeed Enron's heirs.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, ecoanarchism
Instead of proving their green credentials by modifying the project to fit the law, Synergics simply threatens the state with legal action. After all, they've spent a lot of investors' money to develop a 40-MW project, and any less could mean some embarrassing losses, threatening Synergics' ability to raise money for future projects. The environment? What's that?
Note that such belligerence which belies the "green" mask is not unusual for wind developers. It was one of their faults in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, which recently passed strict guidelines regulating wind turbine erections. One of the developers there, Emerging Energies, after trying to slip their permit request in the day before a year-long moratorium began last year, stood before the Planning and Parks Supervisors at the last meeting of the ordinance commission and renewed his threat to sue them if they passed the ordinance as it was shaping up. The county attorney was actually so worried that he was urging board members to reject it -- until WINDCOWS members found out and raised the issue at a meeting and got him to admit that it was indeed a defensible ordinance and the behavior of the developers hardly argued in their favor. Another of the developers, Navitas, is in court to get an extension to a conditional use permit they already hold but which expires in December. That county attorney wrote a letter to the judge claiming that the board is in favor of extension. He was forced to admit that he wrote the letter on his own and that the board knew nothing about it and had never even met to discuss the issue.
Shenanigans -- not an interest in the environment or the neighbors -- characterize industrial wind power development. They are indeed Enron's heirs.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, ecoanarchism
April 14, 2006
In praise of greyhounds
Greyhounds are the oldest breed of domesticated dog. As hunters, they are the eponym of the "sight hound" family, which includes afghans, borzois, Irish wolfhounds, and whippets. They can spot a rabbit from a mile away and, if trained to do so, have a good chance of catching it, since they can reach a running speed of 40 mph in two or three strides.
Alas, these graceful noble animals are now bred only to race for human betting. When they are around 18 months, they are tested for racing, and if fast enough go on to a full racing career. There they are raced every three or four days, until they are four years old or so or suffer an injury (broken legs and torn ligaments are common). Then they may be transfered to an adoption agency and if lucky retire to a home where they may experience love and companionship and comfort for the first time.
There is, obviously, a period of adjustment. The greyhound must adapt from a life in kennels with dozens of other dogs and a rigid, sometimes cruel, routine to a more relaxed though more complicated life in a home with perhaps more humans than dogs (not to mention stairs and windows and doors that they have to learn about). The greyhound is not used to the high level of attention and affection but quickly learns to enjoy it. They never had a chance to be puppies and are now free to be playful individuals.
They are incredibly smart and sensitive. They are already very well trained for the leash and to "go potty" outside. They must never be hit or yelled at (or laughed at). A firm word rarely has to be repeated more than a couple times. Because they run so fast, however, they must never be off a leash in an open area, and they can not be left on a tether, which could kill them if they ran to the end of it. Electric fences are useless against their speed. They need a decent-sized fenced area to run freely in. Watching them run for the sheer joy of it, and marveling at their astonishing speed, is one of the pleasures of bringing them into your home.
And so I urge people -- especially those who are not away from home all day -- to consider adopting a greyhound. They are large but very gentle. Some will go after your cats, but most ignore them. They don't bark. They smile (baring their teeth, which is a bit startling to see the first time) and bow down in affectionate greeting. They like to laze about, sometimes sprawling their whole glorious length, other times folding their lanky bodies into a compact ball when they sleep. They have astonishingly beautiful paws.
In January, we adopted a shy 2-1/2 year old female from Northern Greyhound Adoptions in St. Albans, Vermont. One by one, she worked us into her social circle. She quickly became a loved and loving part of the family. We plan to get another.
animal rights, Vermont
Alas, these graceful noble animals are now bred only to race for human betting. When they are around 18 months, they are tested for racing, and if fast enough go on to a full racing career. There they are raced every three or four days, until they are four years old or so or suffer an injury (broken legs and torn ligaments are common). Then they may be transfered to an adoption agency and if lucky retire to a home where they may experience love and companionship and comfort for the first time.
There is, obviously, a period of adjustment. The greyhound must adapt from a life in kennels with dozens of other dogs and a rigid, sometimes cruel, routine to a more relaxed though more complicated life in a home with perhaps more humans than dogs (not to mention stairs and windows and doors that they have to learn about). The greyhound is not used to the high level of attention and affection but quickly learns to enjoy it. They never had a chance to be puppies and are now free to be playful individuals.
They are incredibly smart and sensitive. They are already very well trained for the leash and to "go potty" outside. They must never be hit or yelled at (or laughed at). A firm word rarely has to be repeated more than a couple times. Because they run so fast, however, they must never be off a leash in an open area, and they can not be left on a tether, which could kill them if they ran to the end of it. Electric fences are useless against their speed. They need a decent-sized fenced area to run freely in. Watching them run for the sheer joy of it, and marveling at their astonishing speed, is one of the pleasures of bringing them into your home.
And so I urge people -- especially those who are not away from home all day -- to consider adopting a greyhound. They are large but very gentle. Some will go after your cats, but most ignore them. They don't bark. They smile (baring their teeth, which is a bit startling to see the first time) and bow down in affectionate greeting. They like to laze about, sometimes sprawling their whole glorious length, other times folding their lanky bodies into a compact ball when they sleep. They have astonishingly beautiful paws.
In January, we adopted a shy 2-1/2 year old female from Northern Greyhound Adoptions in St. Albans, Vermont. One by one, she worked us into her social circle. She quickly became a loved and loving part of the family. We plan to get another.
animal rights, Vermont
April 13, 2006
Taking the wind from developers' sails
The County Board of Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, after a year-long moratorium while viable guidelines for wind power development were hashed out, passed an ordinance last night regulating large wind turbines by a vote of 23-2.
Notable aspects limit the noise to 5 dB(A) above the ambient level, prohibit shadows to touch any part of neighboring property, and require the turbines to be at least 1,000 feet from neighboring property lines.
According to WINDCOWS, whose members worked long and hard for this ordinance, one of the big backers of the developers on the county board, who was chair of Planning and Parks, was voted out of office last week, replaced by a WINDCOWS member. Three other members were elected to town boards last year. Besides the group's clear mastery of the facts, these elections showed the public support for strong protection against industrial wind development.
The noise limit is significant. In Oregon, where the limit for rural areas was 10 dB(A) above the ambient level, the wind developers complained that they could not possibly meet that standard. Instead of sending them packing and preserving this modest protection from noise pollution, however, the state revised the law to satisfy the industry.
Congratulations, WINDCOWS and Manitowoc County!
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines
Notable aspects limit the noise to 5 dB(A) above the ambient level, prohibit shadows to touch any part of neighboring property, and require the turbines to be at least 1,000 feet from neighboring property lines.
According to WINDCOWS, whose members worked long and hard for this ordinance, one of the big backers of the developers on the county board, who was chair of Planning and Parks, was voted out of office last week, replaced by a WINDCOWS member. Three other members were elected to town boards last year. Besides the group's clear mastery of the facts, these elections showed the public support for strong protection against industrial wind development.
The noise limit is significant. In Oregon, where the limit for rural areas was 10 dB(A) above the ambient level, the wind developers complained that they could not possibly meet that standard. Instead of sending them packing and preserving this modest protection from noise pollution, however, the state revised the law to satisfy the industry.
Congratulations, WINDCOWS and Manitowoc County!
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines
April 12, 2006
NWW encourages funding to research impacts of commercial wind energy
[press release]
Submits Comments to House Appropriations Committee
Rowe, MA (April 11, 2006). National Wind Watch submitted comments to the House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy & Water Development calling for funding to be redirected away from wind energy research and development (R&D) and instead focused on the detrimental impacts of commercial wind energy installations and possible mitigation techniques. The subcommittee determines annual spending levels for programs at the Department of Energy (DOE).
National Wind Watch stressed in its comments that "Continued installation of wind turbines throughout our rural and mountainous landscapes without scientific, impartial review of the impacts of this industrialization, would have devastating effects on some of the most precious ecosystems in the world." Further, it stated that after decades of government subsidized research and implementation, it was time for the wind industry to start paying for much of its way, consistent with the maturation of the technology. "Any money now should go to research, once and for all, the impacts of these massive turbines on our wildlife, open spaces, property values, health and safety of residents living in the vicinity of turbines, and the quality of rural life." National Wind Watch recommended that, given the inherent and perceived conflict of interest, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory not hold responsibility for such research but only be permitted to participate. The document submitted to the subcommittee can be viewed at www.wind-watch.org/press-060411-doc.html. Similar comments will be submitted in the Senate.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism
Submits Comments to House Appropriations Committee
Rowe, MA (April 11, 2006). National Wind Watch submitted comments to the House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy & Water Development calling for funding to be redirected away from wind energy research and development (R&D) and instead focused on the detrimental impacts of commercial wind energy installations and possible mitigation techniques. The subcommittee determines annual spending levels for programs at the Department of Energy (DOE).
National Wind Watch stressed in its comments that "Continued installation of wind turbines throughout our rural and mountainous landscapes without scientific, impartial review of the impacts of this industrialization, would have devastating effects on some of the most precious ecosystems in the world." Further, it stated that after decades of government subsidized research and implementation, it was time for the wind industry to start paying for much of its way, consistent with the maturation of the technology. "Any money now should go to research, once and for all, the impacts of these massive turbines on our wildlife, open spaces, property values, health and safety of residents living in the vicinity of turbines, and the quality of rural life." National Wind Watch recommended that, given the inherent and perceived conflict of interest, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory not hold responsibility for such research but only be permitted to participate. The document submitted to the subcommittee can be viewed at www.wind-watch.org/press-060411-doc.html. Similar comments will be submitted in the Senate.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism
April 9, 2006
The woolly world of green tags
On Alternet's April 5 Wiretap, Holly Beck posted an interview with Guster guitarist Adam Gardner about the band's impressive effort to minimize the carbon emissions and other impacts of their next tour, notably by running their bus on vegetable oil. But then there's this:
We're also offsetting each concert's power consumption. We've partnered with NativeEnergy, which is a Native American–owned wind power company, and they are assessing how many kilowatt-hours each concert is consuming. We'll then replenish the grid with that amount of clean power. So it's not like we're directly powering my electric guitar with a wind turbine it's an offset that happens afterwards."How exactly is the electricity "offset"?
Say they use 1,000 kWh, which they (or the concert venues) buy from the local utilities. Then they buy 1,000 kWh of wind energy "green tags" (also called "renewable energy certificates") from Native Energy. But since they're not the ones using it, the actual 1,000 kWh of wind energy still goes to the grid. Native Energy sells it twice.
If Guster didn't buy the green tags, nothing would be different: the same 1,000 kWh of wind-generated electricity would have entered the grid, and Guster would have used the same 1,000 kWh of nonrenewable electricity. Where is the "offset"?
According to Native Energy, of Charlotte, Vermont (which was founded in August 2000 and has been majority-owned by the midwestern Intertribal Council on Utility Policy only since August 2005),
To get the extra revenues they need, some wind farms sell "Green Tags," which are a widely traded commodity that consists of the rights to claim the emissions reductions and other environmental benefits of green electricity. Green Tags became a commodity because people who want to buy green electricity often don't have it available to them. The industry [Enron, actually] developed Green Tags so everybody can achieve the same environmental benefits by buying Green Tags to offset the pollution caused by their consumption of electricity generated by fossil fuels. Environmentally, buying Green Tags (and ordinary electricity from your utility) is the same as buying green electricity. [emphasis added]That comparison explains the imaginary separation of the energy from its attributes and gives lie to the claim emphasized above. If one dares to think clearly, they are obviously not separate entities. If the energy from wind turbine generators goes into the grid and reduces energy from other sources, then that alone is its environmental attribute. If the attribute -- the "green tag" -- is then sold separately, it is clearly meaningless.
Compare Green Tags to green electricity ...
Here's another way to look at it. If the energy from wind turbines is not purchased, then it is not contributing to the grid and therefore not affecting other sources. The turbines would have to shut down and there would be no ability to claim an environmental benefit. If, however, the energy is sold, then it is part of the mix on the grid and the producer can claim the benefit. If, however, the green tags aren't sold, there is no change in the effect on the grid, which depends only on whether the actual energy is sold. Similarly, if the green tags are indeed sold there is no extra benefit created on the grid.
Or put yet another way: You can sell the energy without the green tags, but not the other way around. The energy is the attribute. To sell the attribute in addition to the energy is a confidence game.
Native Energy goes even further -- selling 25 years of green tags from wind turbines that haven't even been built yet (and that if they are built will not necessarily generate as much electricity as the green tags already sold, let alone actually reduce carbon emitted from other sources):
Most Green Tag providers sell them as they are generated by existing generators, and will only commit to buy few year’s of Green Tags from the wind farm. We took a new approach, using Green Tags to help build new wind farms. We seek out wind farms under development that need to be sure of long-term Green Tag revenues to complete development. On behalf of our WindBuilders participants, we use our patent-pending business process to buy -- in advance -- all the Green Tags to be generated by the wind farms over their expected operating life -- usually 25 years. This provides critically important up-front financial support and so helps get these wind farms up and running. ... Each of our WindBuilders participants buys a share of the wind farm’s Green Tags on this same long-term basis. That way your purchase helps finance new wind farms, and so helps create new environmental benefits.They're selling shares in future wind power facilities but without the worry of ever having to return the investment. The final step in the "patent-pending" charade is in the clear explanation that the "buyer" doesn't even get anything:
Clean Air–Cool Planet has agreed with NativeEnergy to accept all the Green Tags purchased by WindBuilders members. Also, Clean Air–Cool Planet promises to you that they will "retire" your green tags, which means that they will never be sold to someone who would otherwise buy more green tags or who would use them instead of reducing their own emissions.The wind turbine owners are clearly able to get away with selling the "attributes" twice, but any more would clearly be a bit much. The good people at Native Energy very honestly take your money and then have a third party certify that what you bought is now nonexistent.
Which it was all along.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, Vermont, environment, environmentalism, sustainability, green energy, green living, green business, carbon offset, ecoanarchism
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)