UPC Wind misinforms

UPC, the company proposing 26 400-foot-high wind energy machines in Sheffield and Sutton [Vt.], took out a full-page ad in the July 1 Caledonian-Record (page B4). This was in reponse to the 48 people that were not employees of UPC who testified at the June 26 Public Service Board hearing in Sutton -- all of them describing the project's many negative impacts and its lack of significant benefits. UPC's ad quotes Abraham Lincoln that a dog still has four legs even if you call the tail a leg. They then proceed to argue that the tail of their dog is indeed a leg. But, as Bill Clinton used to say, that dog don't hunt.

1. The Sheffield/Sutton wind energy facility will not help Vermont meet its energy needs. One third of the time, it will produce no energy at all. Another third of the time, it will produce at a rate well below its already low annual average of 20-30% of capacity. The largely unpredictable variability is in response to the wind rather than user demand. It is therefore mostly useless for meeting our energy needs.

2. Wind energy does not make the air cleaner. Because it is so variable, it does not displace the use of other fuels. Because it adds to the balancing burden on other sources, wind energy may even cause more pollution. No promoter has been able to show any evidence of reduced greenhouse gas emissions due to wind energy on the grid.

3. Property values and the tourist economy will obviously be affected. Twenty-six 400-ft-high machines -- turning, strobe-lit, and wump-wumping night and day -- are hard to ignore. A significant proportion of people with a choice will obviously buy or visit elsewhere. Every effort the industry has made to design surveys to show otherwise has been easily deflated.

4. Noisier than you think. Noise is the most common complaint from neighbors of giant wind turbines. It is an unnatural noise, compounded by a resonant aspect that can rattle windows and make some people ill. The noise is usually worse at night. While denying its significance, wind developers try to pay neighbors to sign "forbearance easements" to squelch complaints.

5. Green credits don't mean anything. The logic of renewable energy credits is sound for a more reliable source of energy. But wind does not displace other sources, so the companies are taking advantage of the extra revenue stream without having to show any actual benefit in return.

There is no "New England 'green credits' program" as the UPC ad claims. Several states have renewable portfolio standards, whose requirements are met by showing green credits, but UPC can sell green credits, or tags, to anyone, anywhere.

Vermont is, however, part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which is indeed a "cap and trade" system. If the Sheffield/Sutton facility would not be involved in it, as UPC and Washington Electric Co-op insist, that's because it would have no measurable effect on greenhouse gas emissions.

6. Who gets the big subsidies? UPC cites only one minor source of the many subsidies for industrial-scale wind energy. The industry's own seminars describe how taxpayers can pay for two-thirds to three-fourths of the cost of erecting giant wind turbines. That's potentially several million dollars per machine. It is true that other energy sources are also heavily subsidized. Other sources, however, unlike big wind, provide useful energy.

7. UPC Wind Partners is a subsidiary of UPC Group, which is based in Italy. UPC Group was established by New Englanders, but in Italy.

This dog of a project doesn't even bark convincingly. The Sheffield/Sutton project is, like all industrial wind facilities, a boondoggle whose only success will be the transfer of public money to private investors. The promoters cannot show any evidence to back up their claim of reducing greenhouse gases and pollution. That is the empty hat they are desperate to fill with full-page ads proclaiming "the truth." But their arguments are as puffs of air and don't have a leg to stand on.

[published in the Burlington (Vt.) Free Press, July 8, 2006]

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont

Good blog out of Cohocton, N.Y.

Cohocton Clean -- The Light and Truth on the Shadows of Industrial Wind Development

Also see Cohocton Wind Watch.

wind power, wind energy, New York

Big wind

wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, Vermont

Wind Farm Neighbor Easement Agreement

Here are extracts from a "Wind Farm Neighbor Easement Agreement" drawn up by Zilkha Renewable Energy, which is now owned by Goldman Sachs and called Horizon Wind Energy. Reportedly, current agreements from Horizon are identical.

Recitals

... Owner understands and accepts that operation of Generating Units may have some impact on the Wind Farm's neighbors, including the Owner's Property.

... Grantee wishes to obtain Effect, Sound and Shadow Easements from landowners who are neighbors of the Wind Farm for the benefit of the Wind Farm and as an opportunity to provide Owner with certain economic benefits to accrue from operation of the Wind Farm.

Agreement

Effects Easement. Owner grants to Grantee an easement, right and entitlement on, over, across and under Owner's Property for any audio, visual, view, light, vibration, air turbulence, wake, electromagnetic, ice or other weather created hazards or other effect of any kind whatsoever resulting directly or indirectly from (a) operations or activities of any Wind Farm or (b) the facilities of any Wind Farm now or hereafter locate on the Wind Farm Property. Owner agrees to consult with and obtain Grantee's prior written approval, in Grantee's sole discretion, as to the location of all new structures greater than sixty-five (65) feet in height proposed for Owner's Property.

Sound Easement. Owner grants Grantee an easement, right and entitlement on, over, across and under Owner's Property for any sound level (audible or otherwise) in excess of fifty (50) dB(A). As measured at the outer walls of any occupied residence sound shall not exceed the greater of: (i) a contribution from the Generating Units of fifty (50) dB(A), or (ii) a rise of sound level of six (6) dB(A) over ambient sound levels. ...

[note: that includes at night]

Shadow Easement. Owner grants Grantee an easement, right and entitlement on, over, across and under Owner's Property for any shadows cast by the Generating Units and Met Towers, wherever located, onto Owner's Property. ...

[note: those shadows move, i.e., flicker]

Term. The term of the Easements ... shall commence upon the Effective Date and shall end on the date that is thirty (30) years following the date on which the Wind Farm begins Commercial Operation. ...

Confidentiality. Owner shall not disclose to others ... the terms of this Easement Agreement.

Payment Schedule

[$250 on signing, $250 when constructionstarts, $1,000/year (increasing with Consumer Price Index) when facility starts operating.]

Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, Grantee shall not be required to make any payments hereunder unless and until a wind turbine generator is constructed within twenty-five hundred (2,500) feet of any occupied residential structure on Owner's Property existing on the Effective Date, such distance as measured from the center of the wind turbine generator foundation to the nearest outer wall of such structure.

[note: the industry considers a zoning setback of 2,500 feet to be burdensome, yet here considers that the very distance within which it considers it necessary to pay off the neighbors to keep quiet about problems]

wind power, wind energy, wind farms

Scudder Parker's wind turbine sales tour

WCAX-TV reported from Hinesburg (Vt.) on June 27:

To talk power, Scudder Parker went to NRG Systems in Hinesburg, a company that manufactures wind measuring equipment used by wind power developers. ...

Parker supports wind development and thinks the state can get 15% of its energy from wind, he says that would require at least 100 turbines on ridge lines all over Vermont.

"I don't see it as a question of aesthetics I see it as a question of people recognizing wind turbines as we recognize church steeples and silos in barns as a part of something that is making our economy healthy and giving us choices as a state."

Vermont uses over 5,600 gigawatt-hours of electricity in a year. That's an average load of about 640 megawatts (5,600,000 megawatt-hours divided by 8,760 hours in a year). Fifteen percent of that is 96 megawatts. The wind power salesmen say the turbines will generate more than 30% of their capacity in a year. The facility in Searsburg, however, generates only around 21% of its capacity each year. The national average output as reported to the federal Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency is 27%, but that apparently does not count out-of-commission turbines. Twenty-five percent (1/4) output is therefore a more realistic, though still generous, estimate.

That means that 384 (96 × 4) megawatts of wind power capacity would have to be installed to produce an average of 96 megawatts, or 15% of Vermont's electricity. That would require 256 330-ft-high machines like the four proposed in East Haven, or 192 400-ft-high machines like the 26 proposed in Sheffield and Sutton -- much more than "at least 100" which Parker promises.

They are obviously a lot taller and more intrusive than silos and church steeples (in fact, they're a lot taller than the Statue of Liberty, base and all), they are necessarily sited prominently, their jumbo-jet-sized rotors sweep vertical air spaces of 1-1.5 acres, and they are lit by strobes day and night.

For practical planning purposes, even more would be required. Because generation occurs only within a certain range of wind speeds and the rate of generation is cubically related to the wind speed between the "cut-in" and "rated" wind speeds (typically 8-30 mph), wind turbines generate power only two-thirds of the time and at or above their average rate only one-third of the time. And since the production responds only to the wind, it rarely correlates with user demand. Even with sufficient excess capacity from other sources on the grid to balance its intermittency and variability, the effective capacity of wind is therefore typically assumed to be a third of its expected output.

So 1,152 megawatts of wind -- 576 to 768 machines -- would be needed to reliably provide 15% of Vermont's electricity.

The absurdity goes beyond the outrageous scale for such little benefit, because if all of those turbines were actually producing power at once, most of them would have to be shut down, since base load plants can't rapidly ramp off and on.

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, Vermont

Scudder Parker running for wind turbine salesman

Scudder Parker for Governor:
My Vision for Vermont's Energy Future
[excerpts]
Just as healthcare is a right, not a privilege, I believe that all Vermonters have shared, basic rights concerning energy.

Vermont Energy Empowerment Principles

• Reliability: All Vermonters should have access to secure and reliable heat, electricity and transportation, even in the face of external problems such as market changes, supply disruptions or political instability abroad.


• Security: All Vermonters (individuals, communities and businesses) should be able to stay warm, keep the lights on, and get from one place to another without having to sacrifice other basic needs.


• Responsibility: Vermonters have the right to an energy supply that reflects concern for economic strength, the environment and their communities.


• Leadership ...

Energy problems facing Vermont have been left unaddressed:

• Rising energy costs and price volatility.


• Higher demand, fewer traditional resources, looming threat of Peak Oil.


• End of contracts with Hydro-Québec and Vermont Yankee.


• Negative effects of global warming theaten Vermont's economy (i.e.: ski industry, maple trees, agriculture).


• Unreliable and strained electric grid.

... [T]he Douglas administration has proposed wind-siting regulations that are the most sweeping and complex of any regulations in the history of the state.

... In my first year in office, I will help businesses stabilize energy costs and create jobs by implementing the following: ... A plan to promote -- not discourage -- renewable energy, including wind, thus creating more jobs and protecting our environment.

Most of what Parker says and proposes is spot on (about health care, too). But his "leadership" on wind power has obviously been hijacked by the industry. Tom Gray of the American Wind Energy Association, after all, is a county chairman of the Vermont Democratic Party. The comments below pertain only to electricity and the push for big wind (Parker doesn't even mention home generation).

Reliability: Wind turbines generate only two-thirds of the time. They generate at or above their annual average (which is 21% of capacity at Searsburg) only one-third of the time. They respond to the minute-to-minute fluctuations of the wind, not to user demand.

Security: Not only will industrial wind facilities not "keep the lights on" (see Reliability, above), their erection requires many Vermonters to "sacrifice other basic needs," such as health, wildness, and rural tranquility.

Responsibility: Two-thirds or more of the cost of erecting industrial wind facilities is paid for by tax- and ratepayers to ensure handsome returns for private investors. Yet they do not add reliability or security to the electrical supply.

Rising and volatile prices: As they have discovered in Judith Gap, Montana, wind power on the grid has added substantial variability to the system which must be balanced by increased purchase of energy on the spot market.

Fewer resources: Vermont uses almost no fossil fuel for electricity. Even if we did, wind's intermittency and variability ensure that the use of other fuels is not reduced. Germany, with about a third of the world's installed wind capacity, is planning new coal plants as much as ever.

End of contract and license: The contract with Hydro-Québec will have to be renewed. How hard is that? And though it ought to be shut down, there's no sign that Vermont Yankee is going to be.

Global warming: In Vermont, our greenhouse gas emissions have almost nothing to do with electricity. They're from transport and heating, which Parker does address. In the realm of electricity, however, this issue requires a national and global effort to reduce consumption and clean up generation. New more sustainable sources of energy will be a part of that, but industrial wind power is a symbolic but ultimately meaningless and destructive sideshow.

Strained grid: See Reliability, above. Giant wind turbines will strain it even more, with huge surges and dips that are largely unpredictable.

Regulations: Vermont's environmental law, Act 250, effectively prevents development of the upper elevations and ridgelines of our mountains. Many towns have zoning laws further protecting such areas. But those are precisely the locations targeted by wind developers. In the Section 248 guidelines for public utilities, there was no mention of the special circumstances of large-scale wind plant siting. The state Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) determined that industrial wind was incompatible with its mission to preserve state lands for the benefit of all Vermonters. They also emphasize the unique ecosystems of higher elevations and the importance of keeping them undeveloped. As for the public service board, the "sweeping and complex" changes essentially require better public notification and allow a greater area for intervenors, since the sites would be prominent and the machines are so large (and, day and night, move and are lit), and specify that the ANR is an automatic intervenor.

Naturally, the industry does not want a fair process. They want one that they control, like they apparently control Scudder Parker's thinking about big wind. They want us to swallow their pablum about energy costs, jobs, and the environment and not have to show any evidence to back up their claims. They want to industrialize Vermont's mountaintops and don't want any one questioning the usefulness, much less the wisdom, of it.

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

"Treehugger" protects wind industry from criticism

A correspondent has been valiantly challenging some of the many ill-founded assumptions about industrial wind power at "green lifestyle" site Treehugger. In their inability to imagine that a lot of people see the problems with big wind, she was even accused of being me! (Both of us using dial-up with the same Vermont ISP, our traffic is apparently routed through the same IP address in Connecticut.) When she did not properly defer to the authority of (or rather the evasive namecalling by) Thomas Gray of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), her further response was at first delayed -- then published when she reposted it half a day later. Further response to Gray's empty retort now appears to have been completely censored. She wrote to the editor of Treehugger but received no reply.

It seems the reputations of AWEA and Andrew Perchlik of Renewable Energy Vermont and now "Reimaginations" (with its fascist slogan, "the beauty of power") are fragile and must be protected. Their arguments are certainly fragile. She sent me her last reply to post here (links added).

() () ()
It is apparent that Tom Gray has a problem with misrepresentation, both of his product and his critics.

I noted only that the NYSERDA report's effective capacity value was fantasy.

The UWIG report, as I also noted, is a phantasmagoria. From that report:

"The addition of a wind plant to a power system increases the amount of variability and uncertainty of the net load. This may introduce measurable changes in the amount of operating reserves required for regulation, ramping and load-following. Operating reserves may consist of both spinning and non-spinning reserves."

They describe the cost of that extra burden as small, but they do not consider the effect on fuel use, i.e., more inefficiency causing more fuel burning and cancelling much of the theoretical benefit of wind power on the grid. Nor do they consider the cost (let alone the negative envronmental and social impacts) of adding the wind plant itself.

Gray points to GE's work on the UWIG report and on others. Yes, they know energy, but they are also the primary wind turbine manufacturer in the U.S., after buying the business from Enron. That could be perceived as a conflict of interest.

I already provided data showing the lack of change in Denmark's fuel use despite claiming that 20% of their electricity is produced by wind. And I already mentioned recent news stories about Germany's expansion of coal use.

For his part, if Tom Gray believes Denmark and Germany are success stories in replacing other fuels with wind, where are the data that substantiate that claim?

-- Rosa

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont, anarchism, ecoanarchism