Marcus Rand, chief executive of the British Wind Energy Association, asks, "If this stuff doesn't work, why would major companies be investing millions of pounds in developing it?"
Meanwhile in Ireland, "Sustainable energy firm Airtricity said it will not go ahead with any further wind energy projects due to the uncertainty over continued Government support. ... [Chief executive Eddie O'Connor] said the industry was struggling because banks were not prepared to provide finance with the amount of uncertainty surrounding the sector."
Seminars in the U.S. explain that tax breaks can cover 75% of the cost of a wind facility.
That is to say, this isn't investment. It's piracy. Without the government's support, forget it. Why, Marcus Rand? Because putting this technology on the grid doesn't work.
P.S. Even if those "major companies" (such as military contractors GE and Halliburton) were honestly putting their own money into them, that doesn't mean anything. The U.S. has spent billions for a "star wars" defense system that still isn't anywhere near working (not to mention that it would be totally unnecessary even if it did work). Money is a marker of folly more often than wisdom.
January 14, 2005
January 13, 2005
The wind power song
On The Simpsons yesterday, a scam artist suckered Springfield into building a monorail (season 4, episode 71). A timely repeat, substituting a certain current craze . . .
Ned Flanders: Wind power!
- Lyle Lanley: Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
- Like genuine,
- Bona fide,
- Electrified,
- Three-winged
- Wind power!
- What'd I say?
Lyle Lanley: What's it called?
Patty & Selma: Wind power!
Lyle Lanley: That's right! Wind power!
[crowd chants 'wind power' softly and rhythmically]
Miss Hoover: I hear those things are awfully loud...
Lyle Lanley: They spin as softly as a cloud.
Apu: Is there a chance the blades could bend?
Lyle Lanley: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
Barney: What about us brain-dead slobs?
Lyle Lanley: You'll be given cushy jobs.
Abe: Were you sent here by the devil?
Lyle Lanley: No, good sir, I'm on the level.
Wiggum: The ring came off my pudding can.
All: Wind power!
- Lyle Lanley: Take my pen knife, my good man.
- I swear it's Springfield's only choice...
- Throw up your hands and raise your voice!
Lyle Lanley: What's it called?
All: Wind power!
Lyle Lanley: Once again...
All: Wind power!
Marge: But Main Street's still all cracked and broken...
Bart: Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken!
[big finish]
- All: Wind power!
- Wind power!
- Wind power!
Wind power !!!!
Homer: Wind... D'oh!
Misinformation
To the [North Adams] Transcript editor:
In the Jan. 13 article about Enxco's plans to build 20-25 turbines in Readsboro, Vt., many of the numbers are confusing.
According to John Zimmerman (whose pose as part of Vermont Environmental Research Associates hides his other role as Enxco's northeast representative), the proposed turbines will be rated at 1.5 MW each. Times 20-25, that's a facility rated at 30-37.5 MW.
The industry typically claims that each MW of installed wind capacity produces the amount of electricity used by 333 homes. This is of course a meaningless value, but the 10,000-13,000 homes figure cited thus fits the calculated rating of 30-37.5 MW.
The article says that the output of the existing Searsburg facility is one third of the proposed plant. Searsburg's rating is 6 MW, three times which is 18 MW. What was meant is that each new turbine -- not the whole facility -- has almost three times the capacity of each of the older Searsburg turbines (of which there are 11).
The claim that the proposed project would generate 750 MW remains unclear. At most, the 25-turbine facility could generate 37.5 MW. Depending on the wind being just right, this would of course rarely occur. The annual output of the existing Searsburg facility is less than 25% of its capacity. At that rate, the new facility would generate about 82,000 MW-hours over a year, equivalent to 1.5% of Vermont's electricity use.
Unfortunately, two-thirds of the time the facility would be generating at a rate less than its annual average. When its production is better, it would rarely correspond to actual demand on the grid. In other words, the only thing it will be powering is the sale of "green credits."
(((((((( ))))))))
There are a few of other items of note in the article responded to above.
First, as noted in the letter, John Zimmerman, Enxco's eastern-region representative in the U.S., presents himself only as the president of Vermont Environmental Research Associates, whose consulting and management services are used by Enxco. (Be sure to pronounce it "enksco.")
Second, related to the first, is that the proposal was submitted by Deerfield Wind, a newly created company with a local name for Enxco to hide behind.
Third: '"The concern early on was to put turbines on the ridge line you would have to clear cut the forests, and the fact is you don't," Zimmerman said. He said there would be minimal clearing in a circle around each turbine, and along the roads that would have to be built in order to connect the turbines to each other.' That is to say, there will be no clearcutting except where there will be.
Fourth, the proposed site is completely on federal land (the Green Mountain National Forest). Having until now avoided federal land (the Forest has refused a swap to accommodate Enxco's plan to expand the Searsburg facility), Enxco is clearly now testing the process, which may turn out to be easier for them than the increasing resistance of local citizens and the state.
In the Jan. 13 article about Enxco's plans to build 20-25 turbines in Readsboro, Vt., many of the numbers are confusing.
According to John Zimmerman (whose pose as part of Vermont Environmental Research Associates hides his other role as Enxco's northeast representative), the proposed turbines will be rated at 1.5 MW each. Times 20-25, that's a facility rated at 30-37.5 MW.
The industry typically claims that each MW of installed wind capacity produces the amount of electricity used by 333 homes. This is of course a meaningless value, but the 10,000-13,000 homes figure cited thus fits the calculated rating of 30-37.5 MW.
The article says that the output of the existing Searsburg facility is one third of the proposed plant. Searsburg's rating is 6 MW, three times which is 18 MW. What was meant is that each new turbine -- not the whole facility -- has almost three times the capacity of each of the older Searsburg turbines (of which there are 11).
The claim that the proposed project would generate 750 MW remains unclear. At most, the 25-turbine facility could generate 37.5 MW. Depending on the wind being just right, this would of course rarely occur. The annual output of the existing Searsburg facility is less than 25% of its capacity. At that rate, the new facility would generate about 82,000 MW-hours over a year, equivalent to 1.5% of Vermont's electricity use.
Unfortunately, two-thirds of the time the facility would be generating at a rate less than its annual average. When its production is better, it would rarely correspond to actual demand on the grid. In other words, the only thing it will be powering is the sale of "green credits."
There are a few of other items of note in the article responded to above.
First, as noted in the letter, John Zimmerman, Enxco's eastern-region representative in the U.S., presents himself only as the president of Vermont Environmental Research Associates, whose consulting and management services are used by Enxco. (Be sure to pronounce it "enksco.")
Second, related to the first, is that the proposal was submitted by Deerfield Wind, a newly created company with a local name for Enxco to hide behind.
Third: '"The concern early on was to put turbines on the ridge line you would have to clear cut the forests, and the fact is you don't," Zimmerman said. He said there would be minimal clearing in a circle around each turbine, and along the roads that would have to be built in order to connect the turbines to each other.' That is to say, there will be no clearcutting except where there will be.
Fourth, the proposed site is completely on federal land (the Green Mountain National Forest). Having until now avoided federal land (the Forest has refused a swap to accommodate Enxco's plan to expand the Searsburg facility), Enxco is clearly now testing the process, which may turn out to be easier for them than the increasing resistance of local citizens and the state.
Rejection of fruitless industrialization
"A huge 87 per cent of responses to the Assembly's controversial Tan 8 policy are opposed to wind farms. It is the largest response to a planning consultation in Wales in living memory. More than 1,700 responses gave the thumbs down to plans to increase the volume of wind power supplied in Wales." (South Wales Evening Post, Jan. 12)TAN8 stands for Technical Advice Note 8 on Renewable Energy. Wales already hosts one third of the wind turbines installed in the U.K., including those at Cefn Croes, where the appalling destruction is well documented at www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc.
Similarly, in Scotland, as of Dec. 29 (Stornoway Gazette) the Scottish Executive had received more than 2,000 objections to plans for the largest wind facility in the world on the western island of Lewis, a wild and magical place. The 45-square-mile project of up to 300 of the largest aerogenerators available will completely encircle protected wilderness areas on the island.
Keep in mind that on the grid, these machines don't work. No sacrifice should be tolerated, because they do not provide any benefit.
See www.kirbymountain.com/rosenlake/wind/windsurvey.html for more about public opinion.
January 12, 2005
Sleaze
Citizens of Lyman, New Hampshire, with Gardner Mountain targeted for a 160-foot wind measurement tower, are moving to define such setups as industrial rather than scientific use for purposes of zoning. The towers' only purpose is to plan the siting of industrial wind turbines -- at least 20 in Lyman's case. (They are also moving to forbid them and any other structures over 35 feet high, excepting farm buildings and antennas.)
As an example of the sleaziness they have to watch out for, a farmer in Fitchburg, Massachusetts, has defied the town ordinance that prevents his installing a measurement tower by putting the equipment on a mobile crane, saying such a "temporary" use is allowed. The town says anchoring it with guy wires doesn't suggest a short-term presence.
Developers typically insist that such towers be considered for permits on their own data-gathering merits, without regard to the reason they're sought, that is, a potential sprawling power plant on the site.
To clinch this deceit, the East Haven Windfarm company has removed all mention from its web site of plans for more towers beyond the 4-turbine "demonstration" project currently in the permitting process. They obviously don't want to remind people that they are planning to construct 50 turbines over three ridges. They want you to put that out of your mind and consider only the impact of the first four foot-in-the-door towers.
Courtesy of the "Wayback Machine," the web site used to proudly say, "Once operational, the six-megawatt East Mountain Demonstration Project is expected to stimulate substantial local and statewide support for Vermont wind energy. East Haven Windfarm will then propose increasing the size of the project to fifty turbines. ... As planned, the larger project will be composed of fifty 1.5-megawatt turbines, making it the largest wind farm in the Northeast. The turbines will be located on three ridgelines of Seneca, East, and East Haven Mountains."
What they have stimulated is substantial opposition. So no more boasting. Forget about the ambition to build "the largest wind farm in the Northeast." They now pretend to be satisfied shooting for just four turbines, and further interest is only in more "data gathering": They have applied to erect measurement towers on three other peaks nearby, this time without a hint about plans for actual turbine towers.
Claiming to be saving the planet, these people sure make a big effort to hide the facts.
As an example of the sleaziness they have to watch out for, a farmer in Fitchburg, Massachusetts, has defied the town ordinance that prevents his installing a measurement tower by putting the equipment on a mobile crane, saying such a "temporary" use is allowed. The town says anchoring it with guy wires doesn't suggest a short-term presence.
Developers typically insist that such towers be considered for permits on their own data-gathering merits, without regard to the reason they're sought, that is, a potential sprawling power plant on the site.
To clinch this deceit, the East Haven Windfarm company has removed all mention from its web site of plans for more towers beyond the 4-turbine "demonstration" project currently in the permitting process. They obviously don't want to remind people that they are planning to construct 50 turbines over three ridges. They want you to put that out of your mind and consider only the impact of the first four foot-in-the-door towers.
Courtesy of the "Wayback Machine," the web site used to proudly say, "Once operational, the six-megawatt East Mountain Demonstration Project is expected to stimulate substantial local and statewide support for Vermont wind energy. East Haven Windfarm will then propose increasing the size of the project to fifty turbines. ... As planned, the larger project will be composed of fifty 1.5-megawatt turbines, making it the largest wind farm in the Northeast. The turbines will be located on three ridgelines of Seneca, East, and East Haven Mountains."
What they have stimulated is substantial opposition. So no more boasting. Forget about the ambition to build "the largest wind farm in the Northeast." They now pretend to be satisfied shooting for just four turbines, and further interest is only in more "data gathering": They have applied to erect measurement towers on three other peaks nearby, this time without a hint about plans for actual turbine towers.
Claiming to be saving the planet, these people sure make a big effort to hide the facts.
January 10, 2005
Bosnia's #1 dance band
Dino Merlin. Our 8-year-old makes us dance around the kitchen table every night to the songs from the latest album, "Burek." Energetic 80's style eurodisco with a touch of Balkan arabism. You can download the title song from the web site.
January 9, 2005
Wind power works -- until it does
To the Editor of THE [Berkshire, Mass.] EAGLE:
Charles Komanoff's neat theory ("Wind power works," Jan. 7) that every kilowatt of wind energy generated means one less kilowatt of fossil fuel consumed is attractive. It would be even more so if he could show some evidence to support such an obviously simplistic model.
He dismisses Eleanor Tillinghast's charge that the unpredictable variability of wind power requires spinning reserve -- that is, a plant burning fuel but not generating electricity -- to be ready to balance it on the grid. He asserts that "windmills don't require extra spinning reserve so long as they're not a huge share of the regional grid."
With that established, Komanoff expects wind power to lead us to "an oil- and coal-free future." But if it becomes a "huge share" of the grid, he has admitted it will require spinning reserve. How exactly does he expect it to liberate us from fossil fuels without becoming a significant presence on the grid?
It may be that economists are privy to more sophisticated logic than I am able to perceive, but to this layman science editor it looks like a self-defeating argument: Wind power "works" only when its contribution is insignificant.
For this, self-described "environmental activists" are eager to sacrifice our land- and seascapes?
Charles Komanoff's neat theory ("Wind power works," Jan. 7) that every kilowatt of wind energy generated means one less kilowatt of fossil fuel consumed is attractive. It would be even more so if he could show some evidence to support such an obviously simplistic model.
He dismisses Eleanor Tillinghast's charge that the unpredictable variability of wind power requires spinning reserve -- that is, a plant burning fuel but not generating electricity -- to be ready to balance it on the grid. He asserts that "windmills don't require extra spinning reserve so long as they're not a huge share of the regional grid."
With that established, Komanoff expects wind power to lead us to "an oil- and coal-free future." But if it becomes a "huge share" of the grid, he has admitted it will require spinning reserve. How exactly does he expect it to liberate us from fossil fuels without becoming a significant presence on the grid?
It may be that economists are privy to more sophisticated logic than I am able to perceive, but to this layman science editor it looks like a self-defeating argument: Wind power "works" only when its contribution is insignificant.
For this, self-described "environmental activists" are eager to sacrifice our land- and seascapes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)