Ms. Industrial Wind get’s hitched to Mr. National Grid while Pastor Politics holds the shotgun.

Posted on December 12, 2009 by morgan

Ever find yourself talking back to a TV show?  You know, one of the opinion commentators or member on a panel show rattling on about some nonsense you just know needs challenged?

I’ve just had a similar experience with an article in Trading Markets.com.  The article, titled “National Grid OKs deal to buy Deepwater’s wind-generated power” is quite good, but the content of the article soon had me talking back to the computer screen.  Take a look – (article text in bold):

Hmmm … so, what’s this all about? National Grid has agreed to purchase electricity from Deepwater Wind’s proposed wind farm off Block Island.

OK! What’s that do for me? (The agreement is) a critical step forward for the offshore wind developer’s plans to bring clean energy to Rhode Island.

No, not the wind developer … for me? What’s the deal? National Grid will pay Deepwater 24.4 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity starting in 2013. The price will then rise by 3.5 percent annually over the 20-year agreement.

But, even so, that will make my electric bill cheaper, right? National Grid estimates that the typical Rhode Island household’s annual electric bill — which currently stands at about $957 — will see an increase of $16.20 in the first year of the contract.

What?  How come?  I thought the wind was free. That includes a 2.75-percent markup on electricity generated from renewable sources that National Grid is allowed by state law. It also includes the cost of a power cable from Block Island to the mainland that would be required for the project. The wind farm would supply power to Block Island, but any excess would be fed to the rest of the state.

National Grid is just jumping into this, so how does their increase stack up against what the developer was forecasting? National Grid’s estimate of the additional cost for its customers differs significantly from Deepwater’s calculation, which is about $7.

How can that be?  Do you one of you guys need a new calculator? The discrepancy can be explained, in part, because Deepwater’s number does not account for the cost of the cable. Deepwater did not factor in that cost because it’s still unclear who would install it.

Oh, yeah, a little oversight!  Who would have thought you’d need a cable to actually move the power!  Anything else you missed, like who will pay to cart the turbines off when they stop producing?  Or do we, perhaps, have the makings of a row of fish shelters for flying fish?

Who thinks this is a good idea for us Consumers? Jerry Elmer, staff attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation, which has been monitoring the talks closely, said the premium that customers will pay for clean energy is reasonable, especially considering the detrimental effects on the environment from cheaper sources of power.

Wait a minute, a lawyer, who likely makes a ton more than us average folks, thinks it’s better for me to pay higher prices for electricity?  Help me out with that one, please! “We think it is very, very important to get new renewable-energy projects up and running,” he said in an interview. “It’s worth paying a small premium to do that. It’s important to account for wind generation that has zero carbon emissions. When you internalize the cost of carbon, that raises the price of electricity from fossil fuels.”

What a lot of baloney!  Wind could be called zero carbon emissions during the time it happens to be running and producing 30% of the nameplate capacity.  But I hear reports that 16% is about all grids expect to see from these towers, so before we dump bags of taxpayer funds into this little adventure, how about the name of the fossil fueled power plant you’re shutting down as a result.  Because remember, if you don’t close fossil fuel plants, wind’s contribution to carbon emission reduction is zero.

Who else thinks this is a great idea? Governor Carcieri’s office announced the agreement minutes after the filing was made, heralding it as “a significant milestone in Rhode Island’s path toward developing the nation’s first offshore wind farm and establishing a green-collar industry.”

Oh, Lord!  A politician … “This is a tremendous accomplishment and ensures that Rhode Island remains the leader in developing the nation’s first offshore wind farm,” Carcieri said in a statement. “I commend National Grid and Deepwater Wind for recognizing the importance of this agreement both to the ratepayer and the Rhode Island economy. Investing in renewable energy reduces our exposure to the volatility of energy prices on the world market and this agreement establishes confidence in the financial feasibility of the project.”

They should have just captured the energy from that burst of gas and scrapped the turbine idea!  So how did this all come together? The accord comes after months of negotiations and two rejections by National Grid of earlier offers from Deepwater.

Let’s see, I’ll come back to all that insider financial mumbo jumbo and stay focused on the most important part … what’s in if for me, the Consumer?  Why a multi-year contract in the first place? In an interview, William Moore, chief executive officer of Deepwater, said the agreement is critically important to his company in securing financing for the project.  “A project like this would not happen without a PPA [power-purchase agreement],” he said.

No, darn it, that’s the wind developer again!  I asked what’s in it for me – you know – the ultimate bill payer?  We know these clunkers won’t see the light of day unless the developers have everyone in the chain tossing cash at them.  What exactly does it do for us Consumers? In a letter filed with the signed agreement, National Grid attorney Ronald T. Gerwatowski said power from the wind farm will be more expensive than from conventional sources, which average about 9.2 cents per kilowatt hour.

Wait a minute, more expensive???  Then would someone please explain why I should go for this boondoggle. “Having said this, however, there are valid policy reasons to move forward,” he wrote.

Policy reasons???  What “policy reasons?” “Specifically, if the State of Rhode Island desires to meet climate-change objectives through the development of offshore wind, this small demonstration project is a reasonable place to start.”

So, it has nothing to do with me, the Consumer, at all?  Is that what you’re saying?  I pay higher prices so a developer can make a lot of money building a power plant that doesn’t power, selling it to the National Grid, a forced, presumably reluctant buyer, with the main purpose of the project being the reduction of emissions, which it won’t?  And I should be grateful?  How exactly does this crap happen?

TIMELINE How the deal happened

June 26: Governor Carcieri signs law requiring National Grid to purchase renewable energy.

Aug. 31: Deepwater Wind is the only developer to submit a proposal by National Grid’s deadline.

Oct. 15: National Grid rejects Deepwater’s first offer, estimated at 30.7 cents per kilowatt hour.

Nov. 18: National Grid rejects a second offer from Deepwater of 25.3 cents per kilowatt hour.

Dec. 9: An agreement is reached at 24.4 cents per kilowatt hour.

There you go!  The law forced National Grid to accept the power from the only bidder in the game.  So, it was a shotgun wedding after all and we Consumers pay for the whole thing, and don’t even get invited to the reception.

Can you at least bring us back a T-shirt from the honeymoon trip?

Go to Trading Markets.com for the complete article.

Posted in Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

URGENT: Update on Camp Allegheny – Hearing Set for December 22

Posted on December 11, 2009 by morgan

From Brightside Acres:

Hearing Set for December 22

Friday December 11, 2009

On December 8, Assistant Attorney General Steven Owens, acting on behalf of the Department of Historic Resources (DHR), filed a Motion with the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) requesting a new hearing date of December 22, 2009, on the matter of DHR’s complaint against Highland New Wind Development.

The Motion states: “The parties have engaged in dialogue and have discussed many avenues of mitigation and minimization of the impacts of the Defendant’s proposed development on the nearby historic Camp Allegheny Battlefield site. The parties have concluded that further dialogue will not be fruitful, and they have reached an impasse that requires a Hearing on the merits.”

A “hearing on the merits” is another term for an “evidentiary hearing,” which is another term for a trial, defined as: “A formal proceeding before a judge who hears testimony under the rules of evidence and makes a final decision relating to the matters presented. All such decisions are with prejudice since they are final adjudications of the matters presented.”

Read the Motion:

Hearing Examiner Alexander Skirpan issued a Ruling December 9, in which he found in favor of DHR’s pleading. The final line states: “It is directed that a public hearing shall be convened on Tuesday, December 22, 2009, at 10:00 am in the Commission’s Courtroom, Second Floor, Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, to receive evidence on this matter from DHR and Highland Wind.”

Read the Ruling:

December 22? As a date for a public, evidentiary hearing? Good grief!

We have no idea why DHR requested this date.

We do know that December 22 is a date absolutely, positively not conducive to broad-based public participation.

The universal reaction I have received is: “You have GOT to be kidding me!” Followed by groans of frustration.

After everything that has happened since August, the selection of this particularly problematic date for such a long-anticipated public hearing is simply hard to fathom.

Why is Public Participation So Important?

On September 21, Highland New Wind filed a “Motion in Limine-Viewshed” in an attempt to have evidence of visual impact on Camp Allegheny Battlefield withheld from future hearings regarding the company’s compliance with the SCC’s Final Order. On September 23, Hearing Examiner Skirpan denied this Motion, ruling that “visual impact evidence will be presented.”

As a practical matter, what does this mean? We are not exactly sure. However, judging by Highland New Wind’s sustained efforts to avoid a hearing, we’ve made an educated guess.

We think it means that the Hearing Examiner, in determining whether or not Highland New Wind has complied with the terms of the Final Order and entered into constructive consultation with DHR regarding the minimization of impact on Camp Allegheny, will consider actual empirical evidence of visual impact on the historic site. If so, then the Hearing Examiner’s determination of compliance will be based, at least in part, on his evaluation of the sincerity of the company’s efforts both to fully consider and to mitigate such impact.

So, what does “visual impact evidence” include? What “evidence” will DHR present to the Hearing Examiner?

Again, we are not certain; however, it should include a broad array of documentation available to DHR. Recent written statements of the American Battlefield Protection Program define the Battlefield boundaries and thus establish the site as being well-within two miles of the proposed wind turbines, belying Highland New Wind’s statement to the Hearing Examiner on September 23 that Camp Allegheny is more than two miles away. Maps, photo simulations, line-of-sight analyses, and at least one video, narrated by the President Emeritus of the Pocahontas County Historical Society, attest to the many vantage points from which the turbines will be visible at a distance of two miles or less. The inclusion of Camp Allegheny on the Civil War Preservation Trust’s 2009 list of most “at-risk” sites is eloquent testimony to the negative visual impact of 19, 400-foot structures on a location virtually unchanged in nearly 150 years, as are the statements of renowned historians bemoaning the desecration of this “hallowed ground.”

All of this “evidence” should be presented for the Hearing Examiner’s consideration along with something else: the testimony of the biggest stakeholders—The People. After all, Camp Allegheny is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Camp Allegheny is where Americans died in sacred struggle for our Union. Camp Allegheny belongs to Us.

We’re the ones who will experience the negative impact—up close and personal. We’re the ones whose eyes will be affronted, whose experience of history will be diminished if not destroyed. This land is, quite literally, Our Land.

How can the Hearing Examiner give full consideration to “visual impact evidence” unless he hears from Us?

He can’t.

And so, despite the most-unfortunate and inconvenient selection of December 22 as the date for this “public hearing,” Brightside is asking all who can to attend.

We are petitioning the Hearing Examiner for assurance that The People will have the opportunity to speak. If you are interested in making a statement on December 22, please use the Contact Us link to let us know. Given the fact that this hearing has already been changed, postponed, or canceled five times, please check back here for updates.

Thank you.

Posted in Camp Allegheny | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Confucius say, “adding more polluting coal-fired power plants is unavoidable if you want to be green.”

Posted on December 10, 2009 by morgan

From Southern California Public Radio comes:  “China’s Wind Power Plans Turn On Coal.”

Ms. Louisa Lim writes, “Today, wind energy makes up a tiny percentage of China’s electricity supply, but Beijing is building the world’s biggest wind power project. Paradoxically, adding wind power also means adding new polluting coal-fired power stations in the short term.”

She adds, “So far, wind energy makes up just 0.4 percent of China’s electricity supply. However, Beijing is building the world’s biggest wind power project, although paradoxically, adding wind power in China also means adding new polluting coal-fired power stations.”

And, silly us … we thought industrial wind turbines would replace coal fired plants.   But, you see, in the province where the massive “Three Gorges on the Land” is being built, “new coal-fired power plants with 13.6 million kilowatts of installed capacity — the same amount of energy generated by Chile in 2009 — will be added by 2020. The need to add baseload coal-fired power plants has the effect of reducing the clean benefits of wind power.”

Well, for those promoting industrial wind as a replacement for fossil fuel that must be a bit hard to swallow, don’t you think?  Heck NO!  “the local economic planner, Wang Jianxin, chairman of the Jiuquan Development and Reform Commission, says adding more polluting coal-fired power plants is unavoidable if you want to be green.”

But what about the existing power plants that were supposed to be closed?  You mean to tell me that not only will they not be shut down, you’re going to need more?  C’mon!  You’re pulling my leg, aren’t you?  “There’s no such thing as a free lunch. We’re trying to get the best benefit for the lowest cost. But nothing happens without a sacrifice, and this is a necessary cost,” Wang says.”

But what about spending a ton of money to alter the grid to accept the little burps the wind turbines put out when the wind happens to come along?  “Charlie McElwee, an energy and environmental lawyer based in Shanghai, says the modernization of the grid system won’t solve all the problems immediately.”

“There are still going to be issues with the intermittent nature of wind energy, and it’s going to take 15 years or so until the grid itself is in a position to handle these intermittent power sources without these coal-fired power sources built in the same vicinity,” he says.”

“Nonetheless, China is undergoing a green revolution, says Jonathan Woetzel of McKinsey, the consulting firm. He argues that having turbines blowing aimlessly in the wind isn’t necessarily wasted effort — if your intent is to build an industry.”

But I thought the intent was to reduce emissions, you know – green the planet, save the world –  with wind.  Isn’t that what it’s all about?  “The intent of the government is also not only that these farms are built and operated, but also that the equipment itself is Chinese-made and the technology is developed in China, and that ultimately it becomes a global industry, and that China will become the exporters of wind technology to the world,” (Consultant Jonathan) Woetzel says.”

Darn, sometimes when you want the truth, you ask a kid … or someone who just doesn’t give a damn what you think!  When you’re powerful, you don’t have any need to make stuff up.

Read the entire story here.

Posted in China Wind, Wind v Coal | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Follow-up email to Governor Manchin regarding monetary mitigation of industrial wind’s negative impact on historic sites.

Posted on December 10, 2009 by morgan

What follows is text from an email sent December 7, 2009 to Governor Joe Manchin’s representative to express renewed urgency to our email sent to the Governor on November 17, 2009, linked here for your convenience.

We felt it important to highlight recent concerns raised at Brightside acres regarding rapidly developing events at Camp Allegheny, a historic Civil War site in Pocahontas County, WV.

Text of email begins:

Mon, Dec 07, 2009 10:17 am

I appreciate that it’s only been a few days, discounting weekends and Thanksgiving, since you received and replied to my email to the Governor regarding the matter of mitigation of historic sites.  Please understand this mail is not intended to express concern for the speed of your reply.  To the contrary, we appreciate that you indicated you would look into the matter and get back to us.

I do write today however, to express a new urgency regarding Camp Allegheny, a subject of my earlier email, and the information brought to light by Ms. Dawn Barrett of Pocahontas County.  I urge you to read her summary of the rapidly developing efforts of the State of Virginia to resolve the acknowledged serious negative impact the proposed industrial wind complex will have on historic Camp Allegheny.  Ms. Barrett’s comments can be found Brightside Acres EX A Ms. Barrett just wrote to Kathleen Kilpatrick, Director of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the text of which can be found here – at Brightside Acres EX B.

These cross border issues, if allowed to be settled with a pittance rather than corrective action, set a horrible precedent.  While the Governor can only direct the actions of West Virginia agencies, it will be his decision whether the state will protect historic sites in West Virginia or continue to permit “selling the rights” to them, that may influence our bordering states in their consideration of our request not to be negatively impacted by their decisions.  We recognize, with the push of opposing forces, it is a difficult circumstance for the Governor, and I don’t envy his position.

However, we recognize that the severe impact of industrial wind on our region must be considered in the aggregate, both within and in union with our neighbors.  It is our position that Governor Manchin should take the lead in perhaps forming a working group of neighboring Governors to deal with this issue at a level worthy of its importance to the environment, on which it has such a significant impact.  I understand Governor Manchin has taken steps to deal with the border location issue, but, unless those talks lead to a greater debate about cross border view-shed issues, an opportunity will be lost.

I can assure you we are not a small fringe of naysayers or NIMBYS wishing to hold back progress.  As exampled by Ms. Barrett, the individuals I work with on these matters, to a person, are very well informed, dedicated and have only the best interest of our state at heart.  Contrary to the developers of industrial wind, there is nothing to gain except to protect our state’s heritage from what many feel is the uncontrolled onslaught of industrial wind.  We are frankly concerned that some agencies are unprepared to deal with issues that have the potential to negatively alter our lands and cultures for decades to come.

We respectfully request that, as you assess our concerns regarding the West Virginia Division of Culture and History handling of the mitigation matter, you forward our urgent concern to the Governor regarding Camp Allegheny and ask that he consult immediately with Governor Kaine.  We respectfully request that the Governor also consider suspending all pending construction approvals for industrial wind within West Virginia until such time as a full evaluation of inter- and intra-state protection of historic sites and our ancient lands can be resolved.  As I wrote earlier, it is difficult for the State of West Virginia to request considerations from Virginia when not providing the same courtesy to Maryland.  Citizen groups are cooperating in such fashion and we hope that the Governors in the region will form the same cooperative spirit, under the leadership of Governor Manchin.

We are, of course, available to meet with you at a time of your convenience, or happy to provide any and all information you may require to assist you and the Governor to understand our concerns.

Thank you for your continued consideration,

Text of email ends.

We will publish replies from the Governor’s office as provided.

Posted in Allegheny Mountains, Camp Allegheny, WV State Government, WVSHPO | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Beech Ridge industrial wind Court Injunction and Summary documents.

Posted on December 9, 2009 by morgan

Courtesy of the Mountain Community for Responsible Energy:

Judge Titus ruling:

Summary:

Related Post:  “Federal Judge halts Beech Ridge industrial wind project!“

Posted in Beech Ridge, Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Hey boss, when I report the energy produced at the wind turbines, should I add in the lightning strikes?

Posted on December 9, 2009 by morgan

From the Signon SanDiego, Lightning damages East County wind turbines:

“BOULEVARD — Lightning struck most of the wind turbines along Interstate 8 on the Campo Indian Reservation Monday night or Tuesday morning, causing severe damage to at least two of them, an official said. Nobody was hurt.”

“Winds in the area was measured above 70 mph, so the turbines, which automatically shut down at 55 mph, were not operating, said Neal Emmerton, regional asset manager for Bluarc Management Group, which operates the wind farm.

Two of the 25 turbines near Boulevard were working Tuesday morning. It’s unclear how much damage the lightning strikes caused the other turbines.

When lightning strikes an unprotected area of a blade, it heats the air within to 54,000 degrees, causing explosions, cracks, melting and damage that can destroy or severely damage them.

The turbines are still under warranty, he said, and the manufacturer is preparing to ship replacement blades this week, he said.

Workers will inspect the turbine blades with binoculars to see if they have further damage and the manufacturer plans to bring two cranes to hoist technicians up to the blades for a closer look and repairs, if possible, Emmerton said.

The wind turbines are taller than 20-story buildings with blades longer than the wing of a 747.

Without knowing the extent of the damage, it’s unclear how long the repairs will take.

“It’s going to take a while,” Emmerton said.

Wind turbines are designed to take lightning hits, but no system is fail safe, he said.

Industry standards require wind turbines to withstand 98 percent of lightning strikes, according LM Glasfiber, a company that makes blades and lightning protection systems.”

ARTICLE ENDS

Well, at least …

Posted in Wind Tower Safety | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Federal Judge halts Beech Ridge industrial wind project!

Posted on December 9, 2009 by morgan

From the Industrial Wind Action Group:

Federal judge halts Greenbrier wind project

A federal district court judge in Maryland placed a huge roadblock in the path of a planned industrial wind facility in northern Greenbrier County, saying construction of the wind turbines would violate the Endangered Species Act. Judge Roger W. Titus issued an order Tuesday afternoon granting an injunction, which halts the project in its tracks.

December  8, 2009 by Geoff Hamill in The Pocahontas Times

A federal district court judge in Maryland placed a huge roadblock in the path of a planned industrial wind facility in northern Greenbrier County, saying construction of the wind turbines would violate the Endangered Species Act.

Judge Roger W. Titus issued an order Tuesday afternoon granting an injunction, which halts the project in its tracks.

Two organizations and an individual filed suit in June to stop construction on the project, which would include 119 turbines along several miles of ridgelines in northern Greenbrier County. The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy (MCRE) and Greenbrier County resident Dave Cowan argued the project would kill endangered Indiana Bats and that the project should not proceed because the developer, Beech Ridge Energy, LLC, had not obtained an incidental take permit.

Beech Ridge is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Invenergy, a Chicago-based corporation.

AWI is a nonprofit, charitable organization founded in 1951 to reduce suffering inflicted on animals by humans. MCRE is a nonprofit organization formed in September of 2005 to assess and disclose the impacts of the proposed wind energy facility in Greenbrier County.

Judge Titus’ opinion states that Beech Ridge’s only recourse is to apply for an incidental take permit (ITP) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

“This Court has concluded that the only avenue available to Defendants to resolve the self-imposed plight in which they now find themselves is to do belatedly that which they should have done long ago: apply for an ITP. The Court does express the concern that any extraordinary delays by the FWS in the processing of a permit application would frustrate Congress’ intent to encourage responsible wind turbine development. Assuming that Defendants now proceed to file an application for an ITP, the Court urges the FWS to act with reasonable promptness, but with necessary thoroughness, in acting upon that application,” the opinion states in part.

Web link: http://www.pocahontastimes.com/index.php?id=1083

Posted in Bat/Bird Kills, Beech Ridge, Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

State of Maryland announces plan to reduce its carbon footprint from a size 10 1/2 to a size 10 1/2. What? UPDATE – COST

Posted on December 8, 2009 by morgan

According to the AP, Governor Martin O’Malley announced that the state of Maryland “will sign 20-year purchase agreements with four wind and solar developers, demonstrating Maryland’s commitment to reduce its carbon footprint by 25 percent by 2020.”

The Governor added, “With the combined resources of strategic public and private partnerships, we will continue to bring more green jobs to our communities, use public resources more efficiently and lead by example for other states.”

Lacking in this grand announcement was, of course:

  • the fact that thousands of acres of land and air will be consumed by the inefficient and unreliable wind turbines.
  • these turbine installations will become killing fields for migratory birds and golden and bald eagles.
  • the name of the fossil fueled power plant that is closing as a result of this action that would actually provide the carbon reduction claimed in the announcement.

Of course, there’s a reason for not naming the fossil fueled plant to be closed – there won’t be one.

But this nonsense is not about reality, is it?  It is about political exposure.  It is about the next opportunity to sit in an air conditioned office some 150 miles from the nearest turbine and explain to other fawning power brokers how he and his astute administration saved the planet.

Well Governor, you may as well have donned your Dutch Boy outfit and painted the roof of your house white.  That activity would have accomplished more to cool the planet than all the spinning eagle beaters you’ve enabled by spending taxpayer money on this crackpot adventure.

You see, you really can’t buy reductions in your carbon foot print from someone else, Governor.  That’s like some medieval indulgence scam.  You actually have to do something.  And, if you’re going to make an attempt, do something productive with a concept that actually works – like further develop your state’s nuclear power capability or turn the light out when you leave the room, for two examples in the extreme.

The following related posts were formatted especially for candle light, in the event you’re sitting in Maryland sometime in the near future waiting on a gust of wind 150 miles away to power up your light bulb.

UPDATE: When challenged that, in this time of severe budget crisis, “the state should not be promoting clean energy if it costs more than coal- or nuclear-generated electricity,” Malcolm Woolf, director of the Maryland Energy Administration, “would not say what price or prices the state has agreed to pay on behalf of taxpayers. Terms of the deals remain confidential until the contracts are signed, he said. Generally speaking, the prices agreed to are slightly higher than electricity costs today, he said, but would not necessarily be so in the years ahead if energy prices resume growing at 2 percent to 4 percent annually once the economy recovers.”

Maybe someone can explain to me why, the State of Maryland should keep negotiations confidential from the people paying for their very existence.  What?  West Virginia does the same?  Well, shiver me timbers, Matey!  – Lack of transparency seems contagious.

“Will industrial wind replace fossil fuel? Just do the math!” … “Maryland to open new Bald Eagle meat processing facility in Garrett County.” … “A Conversation with Jon Boone – Industrial Wind and the Environment” … “The Allegheny Highlands – Where eagles dare!” … “The Windpower Industry’s “top ten” false and misleading claims … Number 6 – Windplants will reduce the mining/burning of fossil fuels and lessen dependence on foreign oil.” … “Just a little reminder – wind won’t replace coal. Sorry, but it’s just a fact!“

Posted in Mineral County WV, Pinnacle Wind Force LLC, Politicians and Wind Energy, Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Windpower Industry’s “top ten” false and misleading claims … Number 4 – Windplants are highly efficient and provide power for significant numbers of homes.

Posted on December 7, 2009 by morgan

Stop Ill Wind drills another hole in the industrial wind boat.

#4. Windplants are highly efficient and provide power for significant numbers of homes.

The press often prints this inflated fiction as truth. It’s actually a throwback to the 1940s and early 1950s, and was used by the nuclear industry as a public relations tool to make that source of power seem warm and fuzzy. As most people should know, residential use is only one of the demand segments for electricity. Commercial, industrial, and public sector users constitute majority demand.

All conventional sources of power produce their rated capacity—their optimal performance—when dispatched to do, changing their rate of performance only when asked.

The energy produced by wind machines is not dispatchable or controllable (except when they are shut down). A wind turbine is designed to generate optimal electrical power relative to its size, shape, ability to withstand stresses, rotor sweep and efficiency, and location, among other conditions. The wind needs to blow 8-14mph before a turbine will produce electricity, and a turbine is programmed to stop when the wind velocity exceeds 50 or 55 mph to prevent harm to its gears. If the wind were to blow at a sufficiently consistent velocity all the time and the turbine never broke down, the turbine would be operating at 100 percent of its capacity potential—its rated capacity. However, because the wind is intermittent and volatile, and the turbines at various times require maintenance, they actually will produce electricity only some of the time.

Whatever energy the wind turbine produces is always a function of the cube of the wind speed. Consequently, small changes in wind velocity produce major changes in the wind energy. Using a combination of considerations, such as meteorological testing, weather history, the history of turbine effectiveness, among others, energy experts assign a capacity factor for each turbine model, which predicts the amount of electricity a turbine will actually produce in a year.

No existing windplants located in the PJM (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland) region have achieved a capacity factor of more than 30 percent. Therefore, conventional generators provide over 70% of any wind turbine’s rated capacity.

About 60% percent of the time, a wind project will produce less than its capacity factor. It would rarely produce its rated capacity. And about 15-20 % of the time, particularly at peak demand times, it would generate nothing. Whatever it does produce would be continuously skittering; no one can know how much energy any wind project will produce at any future interval.

Consequently, a windplant rated at 40 MW, for example, will generate electricity in the neighborhood of 11-12 MW (25-30 % of its rated capacity).

Consider the following example.

Recently, a wind developer claimed his proposed 40-megawatt windplant would generate enough electricity to power 33,000 homes. A megawatt (MW) is one million watts or one thousand kilowatts (kW). According to the Department of Energy, the average home consumes 12,000 kW hours of electricity annually. In Maryland, the average home use is 13,000 kWh. Using the national average estimate of 12,000kWh, one can rather easily obtain a reasonable annual projection for the number of homes this windplant might power, if it produced at a steady rate. The following example assumes a 24-turbine windplant with 400-foot tall turbines, each rated with a potential of 1.65MW and with a generous capacity factor of 30 percent:

1.65 MW x 30% capacity factor = .50 MW (or 500 KW)

500 KW x 24 hours x 365 days = 4, 380,000 KW hours per year per turbine

4,380,000 KW x 24 turbines = 105,120,000 KW hours annual plant output

105,120,000 KW / 12,000 KW hours average household use per year* = 8760 homes powered annually.

Consequently, a 40 MW windplant, if it produced at a steady rate, would power less than 9,000 homes annually. But wind rarely produces at a steady rate. Because electricity from wind is inherently intermittent and volatile, it would only “serve” those homes where the occupants were willing to have electricity only when the wind was blowing in the right speed range—or for them to invest in an expensive battery storage system, which would require about 20 years of use to offset the cost, far longer than the equipment itself would last. Wind energy would service no homes in any conventional sense of that term’s use.

The Mid-Atlantic region requires the PJM grid to supply many millions of households; it generates over 140,000 MW at peak demand times. A windplant with a rated capacity of 40 MW might on average deliver about 14 MW. As shown in the earlier example, this would provide electricity to about 9,000 households–if it weren’t so unreliable and variable. Even so, notice how statistically negligible this amount is, virtually meaningless in terms of cleaner air and improved health—.0000858 of one percent of the PJMs production.

The reality is that wind technology at industrial scale can provide energy for no home, no industry, no commercial establishment, no hospital or police station or traffic system—consistent with today’s standards of reliability and performance.

AT comment:  When Ill Wind was asked if the same could be said for West Virginia’s Mount Storm wind project, Mr. Boone said, “yes, this would apply virtually everywhere, including WV. There are very few wind projects with a capacity factor exceeding 30%, nearly all in extremely wind rich Class 6 or 7 areas.“

Posted in Jon Boone, Uncategorized, Wind Energy Shenanigans, Windpower Industry False Claims | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The dirty little secret – Denmark still generates most of its energy from coal.

Posted on December 6, 2009 by morgan

From the Los Angeles Times:  Denmark’s green credentials obscure some unpleasant facts – Though lauded for adopting wind power, its high recycling rate and its progressive policies, Denmark generates the most waste per capita in the EU and most of its energy still comes from coal.

Gee, weren’t we just talking about this wind v coal thing, yesterday?

Well, the article by Mr. Henry Chu, presumably not related to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, goes on to discuss “the fact that, pound for pound, Denmark produces more trash per capita than any other country in the 27-member European Union,” which I guess is not necessarily why Copenhagen was chosen to host the 15th United Nations Conference on Climate Change.

It seems Copenhagen might not have been chosen because if its policy of legalized prostitution, since city managers supplied postcards which contained the message “Be sustainable: Don’t buy sex,” to hosting hotels, suggesting that they hand them to guests.  Well, much like the signatories to the Kyoto treaty, the “ladies of the evening” just skirted around that little bump in the road which negatively impacts their ability to earn a living, and countered with “All delegates who come to Copenhagen for the world climate summit will be able to use the postcards for payment.”  Cool, huh?  Just bring along one of the postcards and your climate summit pass and you can experience a free cultural exchange with one of Hans Christian Andersen’s Little Mermaids.  Sorta reminds you of the negotiating tactics going on in the halls of the US Congress, doesn’t it?

Sorry, that wasn’t really a big part of Mr. Chu’s story, but I thought it was interesting.  Anyway, what is included in his article, if even only for a few lines, is this:  “The Danish may lead the world in producing wind turbines, but much of their power still comes from coal-fired plants, major emitters of greenhouse gases.

Wind furnishes about 20% of the electricity supply — an impressive proportion compared with other nations, but actually less than what many Danes think is the case.

“There are many myths about Denmark,” (Martin Lidegaard, chairman of Concito, an environmental think tank here in the Danish capital) said. “Yes, we have a lot of wind [power], and we are good at that. But it’s still very, very little compared with coal.”

So, maybe if they double, triple, quadruple the number of wind turbines they can stop using coal.  No?  How about if they throw the people out of the country, tear down the houses and put one on every acre of land?

I don’t know the answer!  But it’s not in the silly windmills.  They went out of style with the wooden shoes.

Posted in Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment