To the editor, Rutland (Vt.) Herald:
It is good to read that the Rutland Herald recognizes that, like any energy producer, industrial-scale wind power has serious environmental and social costs (editorial, May 20). The task, then, is to weigh those costs along with the financial expense against the actual contribution such a source can practically make.
As the Rutland Herald also recognizes, "even the industrial wind farms [Gov. James Douglas] opposes barely cut into the state's demand for electricity."
Yet, ignoring this information that they themselves have placed before their own and our eyes, the Herald criticizes Douglas's opposition to industrial wind in Vermont as "a short-term argument."
Look again: high costs, low benefit. If you're serious about our long-term energy plans, it's time to stop talking about industrial wind as anything more than a predatory boondoggle.
wind power, wind energy, Vermont, environment, environmentalism
May 19, 2006
Tilting at turbine foes in Vermont
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
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 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)