Diesel plant proposed for Chelsea
Critics see hypocrisy by Cape Wind firm
By Beth Daley, Boston Globe, July 3, 2006
The company fighting to build a landmark clean wind power project off Cape Cod is raising eyebrows among friends and foes alike with its latest energy idea: a diesel-burning power plant in Chelsea across the street from the city's elementary school complex that will emit soot and other pollutants.
Energy Management Inc., which is headed by Cape Cod wind developer Jim Gordon, has proposed a 240-megawatt power plant that would operate only on hot summer days and other times of peak energy demand to prevent blackouts across New England. At the company's request, the group that runs the region's power system has begun a study of the idea. ...
Chelsea has one of the worst air pollution problems in New England, in large part because of diesel exhaust from trucks rumbling through city streets and on nearby highways. Any diesel plant, no matter how clean the technology, will spew additional pollution into the air that can contribute to childhood asthma rates that are already among the state's highest, said [Roseann Bongiovanni, vice president of the Chelsea City Council].
[Dennis Duffy, vice president of regulatory affairs,] said Energy Management originally wanted a 346-megawatt plant on the 6-acre plot on the Chelsea River, but has scaled back the plant to 240 megawatts, enough to provide electricity for about 240,000 homes when running. The plant would consist of two generators -- essentially giant jet engines -- that can start up quickly and inject power into the grid within 10 minutes. Diesel made the most sense, Duffy said, because fuel can be delivered on tankers that use Chelsea's industrial port. Duffy declined to say how often the plant would run, but city officials said the company wants permission to operate it 2,000 hours annually ...
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
July 6, 2006
July 5, 2006
Statement from Protect the Flint Hills, Kansas
From Protect the Flint Hills:
PPM Energy [a subsidiary of Scottish Power] has fragmented and damaged 8,000 acres of the endangered Flint Hills Tallgrass Prairie ecosystem with the Elk River industrial wind complex.
They pay no state or local taxes, but will donate $150,000 per year to Butler County in hopes that we will overlook the fact that foreign and out-of-state investors transformed pristine virgin prairie into a "government subsidy farm."
It's time for the public to recognize that wind energy developers are not as concerned about the environment as they are about making large amounts of money. If developers really cared about the environment, they would not target ecologically sensitive areas. They would pursue wind leases in locations that are suitable for industrial development.
This problem is not unique to the Kansas Flint Hills. Throughout the world wind developers are attempting to build facilities in unspoiled natural places. Rather than focus on finding appropriate locations for wind turbines and protecting the environment, they focus on the corporate bottom line.
For more information on inappropriate wind turbine siting, go to the Protect the Flint Hills web site at protecttheflinthills.org
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, animal rights
PPM Energy [a subsidiary of Scottish Power] has fragmented and damaged 8,000 acres of the endangered Flint Hills Tallgrass Prairie ecosystem with the Elk River industrial wind complex.
They pay no state or local taxes, but will donate $150,000 per year to Butler County in hopes that we will overlook the fact that foreign and out-of-state investors transformed pristine virgin prairie into a "government subsidy farm."
It's time for the public to recognize that wind energy developers are not as concerned about the environment as they are about making large amounts of money. If developers really cared about the environment, they would not target ecologically sensitive areas. They would pursue wind leases in locations that are suitable for industrial development.
This problem is not unique to the Kansas Flint Hills. Throughout the world wind developers are attempting to build facilities in unspoiled natural places. Rather than focus on finding appropriate locations for wind turbines and protecting the environment, they focus on the corporate bottom line.
For more information on inappropriate wind turbine siting, go to the Protect the Flint Hills web site at protecttheflinthills.org
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, animal rights
July 3, 2006
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
July 2, 2006
July 1, 2006
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
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:
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
To talk power, Scudder Parker went to NRG Systems in Hinesburg, a company that manufactures wind measuring equipment used by wind power developers. ...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.
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."
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)