Thursday, June 28, 2007
"Offshore Wind Farm’s Cost Doubles"
by MARK HARRINGTON
Newsday, New York
The projected construction cost to build a 40-turbine wind farm in the waters off the South Shore ballooned to $697 million at last year’s end, according to a June 25 letter from the winning bidder of the project, FPL Energy.
The cost - roughly double FPL’s initial winning bid of $356 million in 2003 - has cast a shadow over the project. FPL, noting it is still “very interested” in the project, told the project’s sponsor, the Long Island Power Authority, the ball is essentially in LIPA’s court. LIPA has yet to finalize a power purchase agreement needed for FPL to move ahead, and FPL said it had already spent “several million dollars” on the project.
While LIPA would not pay the cost of constructing the wind turbines, energy purchased by LIPA from FPL would cost more to help cover the construction costs. Newsday last year reported that based on the initial cost estimate of $356 million, LIPA would pay two to three times the regular cost for energy from the wind farm. The latest estimate pushes it well beyond those estimates. LIPA also would have to pay for cables to deliver the energy and other costs, which are estimated at $100 million.
“These numbers confirm our worst fears,” Babylon Supervisor Steve Bellone said. “How much more do they think ratepayers can take here?”
LIPA chief executive Richard Kessel, the project’s most ardent supporter, noted that wind farm costs aren’t the only ones rising. “While the offshore wind project costs have increased, so has the price of oil, which the wind park will use none of,” he said in a statement.
He noted that LIPA has commissioned a study, due out next month, to examine the costs.
When it first proposed the wind farm earlier this decade, LIPA estimated the cost to build it at between $150 million and $200 million.
But demands for wind turbines and related equipment have increased markedly since that time, as have costs for raw materials, construction equipment and labor, FPL noted. The FPL letter, provided to Newsday by LIPA, also notes a “reduced offshore market appetite” since 2003.
As previously reported, the prospect of LIPA sharing some of the risk for the project was discussed, but LIPA declined to accept “any commercial exposure” or construction-cost overruns. One such cost was a $75- million cancellation fee in the event FPL ordered turbine equipment but decided not to go forward with the project, the letter said. An FPL spokesman declined to comment.
Martin Cantor, director of the Long Island Economic and Social Policy Institute at Dowling College, said the latest estimate “should drive a nail in the wind-power coffin for LIPA” given the price of the power.
Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for the Minerals Management Service, the federal agency overseeing offshore energy projects, yesterday said a draft environmental impact statement for the Long Island project has been stalled because technical studies from FPL required to complete it have not been provided.
“MMS has not received the needed information to complete the draft EIS, so at this point we no longer have a projected release date” for the report, said spokeswoman Nicolette Nye.
================
Counter Cape Wind Blog
Friday, June 22, 2007
Senate Plan to Tax Big Oil & Favor Wind Defeated
"Dems Suffer Defeat On Taxing Big Oil, Renewable Energy"
BY SEAN HIGGINS
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
6/21/2007
Senate Democrats’ efforts to impose $29 billion in taxes on oil companies as part of larger energy reform bill collapsed Thursday when they failed to break a Republican-led filibuster.
Hours later a mandate that utilities get 15% of their energy from renewable resources by 2020, apparently also was out of the bill.
Jude McCartin, spokeswoman for Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., the provision’s lead sponsor, said time to add the renewables provision had run out now that the overall bill was headed towards a final vote, expected late Friday.
The provision had drawn opposition from Republicans who claimed it was tilted toward wind power and would hurt Southern states not suited for it.
[Click headline for full story.]
Counter Cape Wind Blog
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Wales Public Official Comments on Wind Power
June 19, 2007
LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Huntington News,
Huntington, West Virginia
Many of us here in Wales, UK, have read the article on “Wind Turbines” in your paper on 14-6-07. It has been posted about by e mail. We in Wales UK are planning a national ANTI Wind Turbine demonstration on July 8th.
This horrendous industry will never ever halt global climate change it will only enrich its developers via the obscene level of subsidies being paid in Europe. Are there such massive subsidies your side of the Atlantic?
I enclose some facts as we see it over here:- WIND ENERGY is Kinetic. Mass(weight) of Wind(air) molecules multiplied by velocity (speed) going in to the circumference of turbine blades - minus the mass multiplied by velocity of it going out the other side.
Air is very light and speeds are even low in a storm - the energy available is thus very tiny. Some is lost as friction; transformer heat; noise energy and line voltage drops. Water is a thousand times heavier, thus a Wind Turbine blade has to be a thousand times bigger than a water turbine.
The only plus point is it is clean and free, but in real energy terms it is basically so low it’s farcical. A 400 ft tall Wind Turbine is rated at Maximum at TWO MEGAWATT or two thousand kilowatt. As Wind is so erratic it only averages 24% of 2MgW cutting output down to 480 kilowatts – or 480 single bar electric fires. In a year this sounds a lot :- 480 kw X 24 hrs X 365 days = 4,204,800 kwhrs. Seems big. In a year the UK uses 340,000,000,000 kw hrs.
The concept of big numbers is difficult for the brain to wrap itself around – imagine writing 340,000,000,000 and each figure “0” to be drawn ten times the size of its preceding “0” – try it on paper – after a few it gets so huge you can’t write it even on a large wall let alone paper. So 340,000,000,000 is a truly immense figure and by comparison 4,204,800 is really insignificant.
To power the UK we would in theory need 81,000 giant Wind Turbines desecrating the windy West of Wales and Scotland on land and sea. (Peak winter demand would mean over 100,000).Yet all the UK learned Institutes of Engineers have told the UK Government (which is not listening) that not more than 20% of erratic power could supply the National Grid without power surges causing black outs, and 20% would mean 16,200 giant wind turbines.
Even these would need all the existing Power stations (unless new Gas ones are built) running and burning uneconomically on standby “spinning reserve” - all consuming fuel and still emitting Carbon Dioxide, whether Coal; Gas or Oil, ready to swing in to full output when the wind dies down or simply gusts unsteadily. Meteorological weather records clearly show we get many such periods and even weeks of relatively calm especially on still frosty nights every year.
If we build new Gas Power stations to replace dirty coal we still have to run the main trans-continental gas pipeline gauntlet through the problem fraught Balkans or Middle East to satisfy the equation of Wind supported by Gas. Then there’s crippling costs – currently Carbon (coal) fired power as at Aberthaw (capacity 1,500 megawatt) sells its electricity at about £18 per megawatt in to the Grid.
We buy it at approx £71 per megawatt (7.08p per unit), yet Wind Power sells in to the Grid at £68 per megawatt which is 400% more than coal power via a massive SUBSIDY – although the politicians call it a number of names such as “Carbon levy” or “renewable obligation” etc but at the end of the day Wind Power is the highest ever subsidised commodity since the industrial revolution.
Currently over ONE THOUSAND Wind Turbines in UK supply less than 0.3% of UK electricity – in other words next to nothing – yet if that figure rises significantly the cost of energy will go through the roof, and ruin our economy – and without subsidy there would be no Wind Turbines – it’s as simple as that.
Also remember that electricity generation only accounts for one third of our carbon emissions – ONE THOUSAND GIANT WIND TURBINES only save 0.09% of our Carbon emissions and pollution is a global issue. The bulk of Carbon emissions come from vehicle exhausts; aircraft; domestic heating; factory and basic industrial processes. UK Government claims we could save 30% of our electricity by careful energy saving schemes.
We could cut down dramatically on vehicle exhausts if we really penalised heavy cars and the 90% of unnecessary 4X4 vehicles we see on school runs! These should be the easy immediate targets, while we are achieving these we need to urgently pursue other technologies – clean coal; tidal and even carbon sequestration – being anti wind desecration does not mean pro nuclear although Tony Blair’s New Labour Government is now clearly pro nuclear.
What is an interesting thought provoking FACT is that if the UK reaches all its ambitious Carbon Emission reduction targets in the future it will reduce global Carbon emissions by only four ten thousandths! Does anyone really think that that tiny fraction will alter climate changes in this vast planetary system? If so, what planet are you on?
Ioan M. Richard
City & County Councillor.
Swansea, Wales, U.K.
--------------------------------
Counter Cape Wind Blog
LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Huntington News,
Huntington, West Virginia
Many of us here in Wales, UK, have read the article on “Wind Turbines” in your paper on 14-6-07. It has been posted about by e mail. We in Wales UK are planning a national ANTI Wind Turbine demonstration on July 8th.
This horrendous industry will never ever halt global climate change it will only enrich its developers via the obscene level of subsidies being paid in Europe. Are there such massive subsidies your side of the Atlantic?
I enclose some facts as we see it over here:- WIND ENERGY is Kinetic. Mass(weight) of Wind(air) molecules multiplied by velocity (speed) going in to the circumference of turbine blades - minus the mass multiplied by velocity of it going out the other side.
Air is very light and speeds are even low in a storm - the energy available is thus very tiny. Some is lost as friction; transformer heat; noise energy and line voltage drops. Water is a thousand times heavier, thus a Wind Turbine blade has to be a thousand times bigger than a water turbine.
The only plus point is it is clean and free, but in real energy terms it is basically so low it’s farcical. A 400 ft tall Wind Turbine is rated at Maximum at TWO MEGAWATT or two thousand kilowatt. As Wind is so erratic it only averages 24% of 2MgW cutting output down to 480 kilowatts – or 480 single bar electric fires. In a year this sounds a lot :- 480 kw X 24 hrs X 365 days = 4,204,800 kwhrs. Seems big. In a year the UK uses 340,000,000,000 kw hrs.
The concept of big numbers is difficult for the brain to wrap itself around – imagine writing 340,000,000,000 and each figure “0” to be drawn ten times the size of its preceding “0” – try it on paper – after a few it gets so huge you can’t write it even on a large wall let alone paper. So 340,000,000,000 is a truly immense figure and by comparison 4,204,800 is really insignificant.
To power the UK we would in theory need 81,000 giant Wind Turbines desecrating the windy West of Wales and Scotland on land and sea. (Peak winter demand would mean over 100,000).Yet all the UK learned Institutes of Engineers have told the UK Government (which is not listening) that not more than 20% of erratic power could supply the National Grid without power surges causing black outs, and 20% would mean 16,200 giant wind turbines.
Even these would need all the existing Power stations (unless new Gas ones are built) running and burning uneconomically on standby “spinning reserve” - all consuming fuel and still emitting Carbon Dioxide, whether Coal; Gas or Oil, ready to swing in to full output when the wind dies down or simply gusts unsteadily. Meteorological weather records clearly show we get many such periods and even weeks of relatively calm especially on still frosty nights every year.
If we build new Gas Power stations to replace dirty coal we still have to run the main trans-continental gas pipeline gauntlet through the problem fraught Balkans or Middle East to satisfy the equation of Wind supported by Gas. Then there’s crippling costs – currently Carbon (coal) fired power as at Aberthaw (capacity 1,500 megawatt) sells its electricity at about £18 per megawatt in to the Grid.
We buy it at approx £71 per megawatt (7.08p per unit), yet Wind Power sells in to the Grid at £68 per megawatt which is 400% more than coal power via a massive SUBSIDY – although the politicians call it a number of names such as “Carbon levy” or “renewable obligation” etc but at the end of the day Wind Power is the highest ever subsidised commodity since the industrial revolution.
Currently over ONE THOUSAND Wind Turbines in UK supply less than 0.3% of UK electricity – in other words next to nothing – yet if that figure rises significantly the cost of energy will go through the roof, and ruin our economy – and without subsidy there would be no Wind Turbines – it’s as simple as that.
Also remember that electricity generation only accounts for one third of our carbon emissions – ONE THOUSAND GIANT WIND TURBINES only save 0.09% of our Carbon emissions and pollution is a global issue. The bulk of Carbon emissions come from vehicle exhausts; aircraft; domestic heating; factory and basic industrial processes. UK Government claims we could save 30% of our electricity by careful energy saving schemes.
We could cut down dramatically on vehicle exhausts if we really penalised heavy cars and the 90% of unnecessary 4X4 vehicles we see on school runs! These should be the easy immediate targets, while we are achieving these we need to urgently pursue other technologies – clean coal; tidal and even carbon sequestration – being anti wind desecration does not mean pro nuclear although Tony Blair’s New Labour Government is now clearly pro nuclear.
What is an interesting thought provoking FACT is that if the UK reaches all its ambitious Carbon Emission reduction targets in the future it will reduce global Carbon emissions by only four ten thousandths! Does anyone really think that that tiny fraction will alter climate changes in this vast planetary system? If so, what planet are you on?
Ioan M. Richard
City & County Councillor.
Swansea, Wales, U.K.
--------------------------------
Counter Cape Wind Blog
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Wind Power Not All it Cracks up to be
Industry analysts say growth in wind power is stressing the system.
KENNEWICK, Wash.- Growth in renewable energy threatens to cripple the northwest's power grid.
The constant on and off of wind power stresses the system.
Think of it the same as city driving versus highway driving, the accelerations in city driving are harder on your car.
Experts say that's stressing the grid so much they're almost to the point where they'll have to fix the grid before adding much more wind power.
"The notion of just building more wind turbines to produce more electricity is admirable, but there are some very serious constraints that fall into the area of transmission, how do you get it to the customer?" said Brad Peck with Energy Northwest.
It's unknown whether BPA will upgrade the grid soon and whether that would impact prices.
The BPA grid distributes power throughout the northwest.
=====================
Counter Cape Wind Blog
Monday, June 18, 2007
High Price for Load of Hot Air
by Professor Bob Carter
The Courier Mail, Australia
WITH understandable reluctance, Prime Minister John Howard recently donned the political hair-shirt of a carbon trading system.
On the same day, NASA chief Michael Griffin commented in a US radio interview that "I am not sure that it is fair to say that (global warming) is a problem that we must wrestle with".
NASA is an agency that knows a thing or two about climate change. As Griffin added: "We study global climate change, that is in our authorisation, we think we do it rather well.
"I'm proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change."
Such a clear statement that science accomplishment should carry primacy over policy advice is both welcome and overdue.
Nonetheless, there is something worrying about one of Griffin's other statements, which said that "I have no doubt . . . that a trend of global warming exists".
Griffin seems to be referring to human-caused global warming, but irrespective of that his opinion is unsupported by the evidence.
The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.
Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.
How then is it possible for Griffin to assert so boldly that human-caused global warming is happening?
Well, he is in good company for similar statements have been made recently by several Western heads of state at the G8 summit meeting. For instance, German Chancellor Angela Merkel asserts climate change (i.e. global warming) "is also essentially caused by humankind".
In fact, there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming.
For leading politicians to be asserting to the contrary indicates something is very wrong with their chain of scientific advice, for they are clearly being deceived. That this should be the case is an international political scandal of high order which, in turn, raises the question of where their advice is coming from.
In Australia, the advice trail leads from government agencies such as the CSIRO and the Australian Greenhouse Office through to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations.
As leading economist David Henderson has pointed out, it is extremely dangerous for an unelected and unaccountable body like the IPCC to have a monopoly on climate policy advice to governments. And even more so because, at heart, the IPCC is a political and not a scientific agency.
Australia does not ask the World Bank to set its annual budget and neither should it allow the notoriously alarmist IPCC to set its climate policy.
It is past time for those who have deceived governments and misled the public regarding dangerous human-caused global warming to be called to account. Aided by hysterical posturing by green NGOs, their actions have led to the cornering of government on the issue and the likely implementation of futile emission policies that will impose direct extra costs on every household and enterprise in Australia to no identifiable benefit.
Not only do humans not dominate Earth's current temperature trend but the likelihood is that further large sums of public money are shortly going to be committed to, theoretically, combat warming when cooling is the more likely short-term climatic eventuality.
In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion ($60 billion) on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one.
Yet that expenditure will pale into insignificance compared with the squandering of money that is going to accompany the introduction of a carbon trading or taxation system.
The costs of thus expiating comfortable middle class angst are, of course, going to be imposed preferentially upon the poor and underprivileged.
Professor Bob Carter, environmental scientist at James Cook University studies ancient climate change
----------------------
Counter Cape Wind Blog
The Courier Mail, Australia
WITH understandable reluctance, Prime Minister John Howard recently donned the political hair-shirt of a carbon trading system.
On the same day, NASA chief Michael Griffin commented in a US radio interview that "I am not sure that it is fair to say that (global warming) is a problem that we must wrestle with".
NASA is an agency that knows a thing or two about climate change. As Griffin added: "We study global climate change, that is in our authorisation, we think we do it rather well.
"I'm proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change."
Such a clear statement that science accomplishment should carry primacy over policy advice is both welcome and overdue.
Nonetheless, there is something worrying about one of Griffin's other statements, which said that "I have no doubt . . . that a trend of global warming exists".
Griffin seems to be referring to human-caused global warming, but irrespective of that his opinion is unsupported by the evidence.
The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.
Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.
How then is it possible for Griffin to assert so boldly that human-caused global warming is happening?
Well, he is in good company for similar statements have been made recently by several Western heads of state at the G8 summit meeting. For instance, German Chancellor Angela Merkel asserts climate change (i.e. global warming) "is also essentially caused by humankind".
In fact, there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming.
For leading politicians to be asserting to the contrary indicates something is very wrong with their chain of scientific advice, for they are clearly being deceived. That this should be the case is an international political scandal of high order which, in turn, raises the question of where their advice is coming from.
In Australia, the advice trail leads from government agencies such as the CSIRO and the Australian Greenhouse Office through to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations.
As leading economist David Henderson has pointed out, it is extremely dangerous for an unelected and unaccountable body like the IPCC to have a monopoly on climate policy advice to governments. And even more so because, at heart, the IPCC is a political and not a scientific agency.
Australia does not ask the World Bank to set its annual budget and neither should it allow the notoriously alarmist IPCC to set its climate policy.
It is past time for those who have deceived governments and misled the public regarding dangerous human-caused global warming to be called to account. Aided by hysterical posturing by green NGOs, their actions have led to the cornering of government on the issue and the likely implementation of futile emission policies that will impose direct extra costs on every household and enterprise in Australia to no identifiable benefit.
Not only do humans not dominate Earth's current temperature trend but the likelihood is that further large sums of public money are shortly going to be committed to, theoretically, combat warming when cooling is the more likely short-term climatic eventuality.
In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion ($60 billion) on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one.
Yet that expenditure will pale into insignificance compared with the squandering of money that is going to accompany the introduction of a carbon trading or taxation system.
The costs of thus expiating comfortable middle class angst are, of course, going to be imposed preferentially upon the poor and underprivileged.
Professor Bob Carter, environmental scientist at James Cook University studies ancient climate change
----------------------
Counter Cape Wind Blog
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Cost of Wind Farms More Than Monetary
by Jack Hunt
Special to the San Antonio Express-News
06/16/2007
The cancellation of a large offshore industrial wind project in South Texas sheds lights on the precarious path that advocates of this so-called alternative technology travel in pursuit of an energy nirvana ("Developer cites cost for pulling plug on South Texas wind farm," Tuesday).
The dollars and sense of this project simply did not add up last year, and they don't now. It is wise that the Australian-based inventors took a second look, put their checkbooks back into the desk drawer and averted what assuredly would have been a big money loser for them and the taxpayers and ratepayers.
The economics of wind farms are only part of the sad story, however. The subsequent pages of this story reveal that there are serious environmental and social costs associated with these enterprises. As an illustration, the proposed on-land projects at the Kenedy Ranch along the South Texas coast are saddled with many of these problems.
Experts suggest that the large wind turbines on the Kenedy Ranch may well create havoc in this pristine wildlife environment, which is located in the major migratory path for birds and bats in North America. Promoters of projects on Kenedy Ranch have asked for future electric interconnections for as many as 600 of these massive turbines covering as much as 30,000 acres of pristine coastline along the Laguna Madre and Baffin Bay.
The construction of these giant turbines — more than 400 feet in the air — will require enormous concrete and steel footing deep into the ground in an area prone to blowing sand and home to many sensitive and important species of plants and animals. Roads and other infrastructure associated with these giants will forever change the land.
It is important to recognize that Europe, the birthplace of modern-day wind-farm technology, is revising some of its most ambitious projects. The Netherlands and Germany have scaled back major projects after well-documented research suggests wind farms are not all they are promoted to be.
With that said, wind farm technology may have a place in the effort to develop alternative energy supplies. Random efforts, however, to score a quick buck or tax deduction by embracing this politically correct energy source are risky at best and can be very damaging in the short and long term.
State and federal governments would be well-advised to consider a reasoned public policy in developing industrial wind project technology. They can start by enacting into law a simple permit process to ensure the environmental concerns of the entire area are considered before the turbines go up and the human and natural environment brace for the aftermath.
No such law or regulatory structure exists in Texas. Shame on us.
Jack Hunt is president and chief executive officer of King Ranch Inc.
----------------------------------------------------
[The Counter Cape Wind Blog]
Friday, June 15, 2007
Denmark Not So Green After All, Says EU
The Copenhagen Post
June 14, 2007
Claims of Denmark’s exceptional environmental efforts are contradicted by EU numbers detailing the nation’s contributions to sustainable energy
Rows of windmills and international praise for our use of green energy sources create a picture at odds with the European Union’s own version of the country’s energy efforts.
EU data on sustainable energy casts a shadow over Denmark’s image as a global green leader, as the country was at the bottom of the 27-member union list for funding towards sustainable energy sources.
Opposition parties were quick to attack the Liberal-Conservative coalition, calling for an immediate change in environmental policies. Politicians were already scheduled to meet next week to re-negotiate the nation’s current energy agreement.
Anne Grete Holmsgaard, energy spokesperson for the Socialist People’s Party, said it was ‘absurd’ that Denmark’s funding for sustainable energy was placed so far under that of the other EU countries. ‘We risk losing our position as a leader in the field of green energy,’ she said.
Denmark’s dominant energy symbol, the wind turbine, has suffered under the current government, with the country losing 19 turbines last year - 28 were junked while only nine new ones were raised. The total wind energy produced nationwide was only 11 megawatts in 2006 compared with 600 megawatts in 2000.
Yet around 16 percent of the nation’s total energy production comes from sustainable sources, which puts Denmark near the top of that category amongst EU countries. But that figure dropped in 2006 for the first time in several years.
Lars Lilleholt said the Liberal party will likely vote to increase contributions to sustainable energy, but added the lack of space for new wind turbines presented a problem.
‘We have to find a balance between securing continued development and not sending consumers a huge energy bill,’ he said, pointing out that more spending on sustainable energy sources would result in higher utility prices.
========================================
[The Counter Cape Wind Blog]
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Alexander warns of wind-power bill in Senate
By BILL THEOBALD
Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander warned Tuesday that utility bills could jump dramatically in the state and that its mountains might be threatened if a proposal to require every state to generate a certain amount of wind power is included in an energy bill being considered by the Senate.
Alexander sent out a release and called a news conference to decry a proposal by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, even though the New Mexico Democrat's amendment requiring each state to generate a certain portion of its energy through renewable methods has not even been offered.
Bingaman is chairman of the Senate Energy Committee and will manage debate on the bill.
Alexander said the Tennessee Valley Authority estimates the proposal would add
$410 million a year to utility bills in the state. Alexander said building large wind farms would deface the beauty of the Smoky Mountains.
Most of the wind energy potential in the country is west of the Mississippi, Alexander said. The energy bill, H.R. 6, already has passed the House.
Alexander has long been a critic of wind energy, saying that the gigantic modern windmills scar the landscape and that the production of wind energy is not feasible without government subsidies.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Developer Nixes Texas Offshore Wind Project
June 11, 2007 by John Porretto in The Associated Press
HOUSTON - Plans to build what would have been the nation's largest offshore wind farm in South Texas have been called off because the multibillion-dollar project didn't make economic sense, the developer said Monday.
John Calaway, chief development officer for Babcock & Brown Ltd., the Australian investment bank, said the company notified the state a month ago it was giving up its 30-year lease on nearly 40,000 acres in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Padre Island.
Calaway was chief executive of Houston-based Superior Renewable Energy when the agreement was announced 14 months ago. Superior was acquired by Babcock & Brown last summer.
"We just don't see the economics working offshore in Texas," Calaway said, noting the project cost would have been "in the billions."
He said offshore wind farms on the East Coast, such as a proposed project off the coast of Massachusetts, are more logical and potentially viable because of land constraints and higher energy prices in the region.
The now-defunct Texas project called for construction of about 170 turbines, each 400 feet tall, with the capacity to generate 500 megawatts of energy _ enough to power about 125,000 homes.
Babcock is moving on with an onshore wind farm in South Texas' Kenedy County, a $700 million-plus venture that calls for 157 turbines on thousands of acres, Calaway said. He noted the expense of building an offshore farm can be more than double the cost of one on land.
Like the nixed offshore project, Babcock's Kenedy County wind farm, slated to begin spinning late next year, has been criticized by some conservationists because of its potential to kill migrating birds and harm the pristine nature of the area, which is popular for hunting and fishing.
Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson said he was disappointed to see Babcock drop the project, but he was confident another developer would be found because of the ideal location and the ease of doing business with only one land owner _ the state of Texas.
In fact, Patterson said he spoke to a few potential suitors at a wind conference last week in Los Angeles. He said those entities were good prospects because they've built offshore wind projects overseas.
"They want to do a little more due diligence," he said.
Land Office spokesman Jim Suydam said the offshore lease had called for an annual payment of $80,000 plus a percentage of production that could have generated anywhere from $34 million to $100 million for public schools.
The state also has leased 11,355 acres off the coast of Galveston to a Louisiana company building a similar but smaller farm. That venture, with 50 turbines, is moving forward and could be operating in the next few years, Patterson's office said.
Texas last year gained acclaim by surpassing California as the nation's top producer of wind energy, and that capacity is forecast to grow rapidly in the next several years.
In a recent report, the Department of Energy said the nation's wind-power capacity increased by 27 percent in 2006, and that the U.S. had the fastest-growing wind-power capacity in the world in 2005 and 2006.
Still, despite wind farms now operating in 36 states, wind accounts for less than 1 percent of the U.S. power supply.
Monday, June 11, 2007
West Virginia Supreme Court Overturns Wind Project Decision
Mona Ridder
Cumberland Times-News
MOUNT STORM — Residents of the Mount Storm area seeking an injunction against the NedPower wind turbine project adjacent to the Dominion Power Plant will have their day in court — circuit court, that is — according to an opinion handed down by the of Appeals on Friday.
The high court re-sponded to an appeal by the residents, including Jerome Burch, Levi Miller, Frank Fitzpa-trick, Charles Thomas, Richard Fiedler, Robert Hurley and John Mitchell, after Circuit Judge Phil Jordan ruled against them last fall by dismissing the case in which they cited noise, unsightliness and the devaluation of property as nuisances warranting a halt to the project.
At that time, Jordan said that the state Public Service Commission had already ruled by granting the project permits, which effectively removed it from the court’s jurisdiction.
The high court heard the appeal during its LAW Day program in Hampshire County in late April when attorney Richard Neely of Charleston argued on behalf of the residents and Samuel Brock of Charleston argued on behalf of NedPower.
Supreme Court Justices Robin Davis, Elliott Maynard, Larry Starcher and Joseph Albright disagreed with Jordan, saying in the opinion, written by Maynard, that the residents were entitled to their day in court on the nuisance complaint and that the PSC’s only jurisdiction was in siting the project.
Supreme Court Clerk Rory Perry said that the case will return to the circuit court jurisdiction where new proceedings will be held.
Jordan had no comment on the decision.
Brock said that he expects the case to move forward with a new hearing on the nuisance complaint.
“I expect it will proceed fairly quickly,” he said.
Neely, a former supreme court justice, said Friday that he plans “to litigate this case as hard as I can.”
“These things are worthless, they provide no significant contribution to the electricity needs of this country, they are a tax boondoggle,” he said of wind farms.
He added that the only reason wind is being considered is “because of the environmentalists.”
“They are against everything, they are against nuclear, gas, coal, oil,” he said.
Neely said the 200-turbine NedPower project at Mount Storm will serve only to “destroy the highest and best use of property in Grant County,” which he described as a refuge for people from Baltimore, Washington, Philadelphia and other Eastern cities.
He said he will likely submit a motion to disqualify Jordan from hearing the case again.
He said that it could be heard by Judge Andrew Frye, the other judge serving in the circuit, or by someone else who is “completely neutral.”
The justices emphasized several points in their opinion, one of which is that “the circuit court has great latitude in fashioning an appropriate remedy.”
It can completely enjoin the construction of the project or create an equitable remedy short of complete injunction. It should be one that causes NedPower no more injury than is necessary to protect the plaintiff’s rights, according to the opinion.
“Finally, our decision in this case is merely that the appellants have alleged sufficient facts in their complaint to avoid a dismissal on the pleadings,” states the opinion. “In other words, the appellants should have their day in court. Beyond this, we offer no opinion on the ultimate success or failure of the claim.”
Justice Brent Benjamin dissented and is expected to write the dissenting opinion.
None of the appellants, nor representatives of NedPower could be reached for comment Friday.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Wind Developers = Vultures
by Lindsay David Milsom
Dunraven Street, Glyncorrwg
South Wales Evening Post
9 June 2007
An application for the erection of four 410ft wind turbines to be erected on Corrwg Fechan Mountain has been received by the planning department of Neath Port Talbot Council.Corrwg Fechan is in the heart of the village of Glyncorrwg, where there is great opposition to these highly visible monstrosities being sited.
As chairman of the Glyncorrwg Action Group, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the very many residents of the village who have written to the planning department objecting to this outrageous proposition.
Our group has not only the support of the local residents but of many ex-pats associated with Glyncorrwg. These people have also written to the authority objecting to the proposals. They have written from as far afield as Canada and Australia. Our local politicians Dr Hywel Francis MP and Dr Brian Gibbons AM have also supported our objections.
We’ve received letters of support from two members of the House of Lords. I have
written to HRH the Prince of Wales and informed him of these developers gathering like vultures to prey on our little community.
If these turbines get off the ground, there is no doubt our house prices will fall. Our otherwise picturesque skyline will alter dramatically. Much of our rare wildlife will suffer.
Companies like ECO2, Gamesa and Airtricity should beware - we are not going to take these intrusions into our lives lightly. We will use every means at our disposal to thwart your plans.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Sparks between LIPA execs over costs
by Mark Harrington in Newsday
Long Island Power Authority Chairman Kevin Law found out just how tightly held the cost of the proposed offshore wind farm is - even he couldn't worm it out of LIPA officials at a public meeting yesterday.
In a sometimes-tense exchange at a LIPA board of trustees meeting, Law told LIPA chief executive Richard Kessel that he had received a number of requests to disclose the controversial figure, and requested its release.
Kessel at first seemed to agree to provide it, saying he'd request updated figures from contractor FPL Energy, whose officials attended the meeting. "We will get that within a week or so, and we will make that public."
When Law pressed him on it, Kessel went on to say some figures had "certainly been reported in the press," then seemed to argue against the release. "It's difficult to negotiate a power purchase agreement when you're throwing out numbers willy-nilly."
Law ordered them released. "If we have the numbers to give and we're not violating trade secrets, I want to disclose them," he said.
Those in attendance were largely silent during the exchange.
Last year, LIPA initially refused a Newsday request for the figures under the Freedom of Information Law. When the newspaper appealed further, LIPA provided outdated figures showing the cost for the 40-turbine windfarm was $356 million in 2004. But the cost had increased "substantially" since then, according to the documents.
FPL told LIPA last fall that the target cost was more than $600 million, Newsday reported in April. A source briefed on the project recently said the target cost was in fact $650 million, with a range of $450 million to $900 million.
==========================================================================
The Cape Wind Project is now expected to cost over $1,000,000,000
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Nantucket Sound Belongs To All
"Gluttony Would Devour Our Rich Beauty"
By MARTHA POWERS
My View, Cape Cod Times
Those of us who have migrated to the edge of this continent to be in the presence of the ocean hold it dear. The wealthiest among us live right next to it, waking up with it and going to sleep with it. Yet, even those of us with little money can easily go to enjoy the same view that people pay lots of money for. How can we feel "poor"? This view belongs to all who cherish it and it gives us a very rich life.
Now the view is threatened in a major way with the large industrial development proposed by Cape Wind for Nantucket Sound.
Much magic happens at the shoreline. The tinkling of moon shells along the tide line as the incoming water gently lifts them, an osprey diving, tiny sparkling fish jumping, horseshoe crabs mating, ducks floating, all giving us an inkling of an enormous world under this surface, rich with life all interdependent on the rest. Millions have come to experience this ocean, as the Cape is a world-renowned treasure. It is not "my" backyard, but one that belongs to all.
Ocean gazing is a major activity here, enriching our souls, providing a backdrop for creativity, for expanding our boundaries, healing our sorrows, for opening our hearts to grace. It can thrill us with joy and inspiration; its vastness can hold our despair, our pain and confusion and give us back peace. Some feel our lives depend on it, this frequent nurturing and delight the ocean provides. This basic human feeling is so difficult to find words for, and almost impossible to explain to those asleep to it. Yet, that is our task.
For now, even this ocean and the web of life in it and above it are threatened by intrusion; a gigantic, experimental, money-making industrial development the size of Manhattan that would destroy so much of what is indescribably precious to us. Nothing like it has ever been done. Anywhere.
There are countless excellent reasons, detailed throughout the years of this discussion, to keep this enormous development from moving forward. The one most ridiculed is caring about the "view," even though that is what brings most of us to the Cape and Islands. Rich people are particularly derided, ironically, by those who support the developers in becoming excessively rich through this blatant exploitation of public waters.
How can you ask us to give up our view, our deep experience of one of the great natural places of the world, so that others can continue to live gluttonously, exploitively, using and misusing, consuming and wasting and reproducing as if there is no tomorrow? We are now on a fast track to no tomorrows, and I think most everyone knows global warming is a serious threat to all life. Should that not wake us up to using less and caring more for what we have?
There are plenty of alternative-energy resources to explore and support that are not destructive.
A developer is primarily motivated by money, and no amount of gobbledygook can separate him from that truth. When he wants to build the biggest, tallest, firstest, greatest of anything, you can guess there's a bit of ego involved as well. It is up to the rest of us, crippled by the lack of adequate language to hold our experience, to defend what matters in this world in any way we can.
There will always be developers whose goal will prevent them from feeling and seeing beyond their own needs. With each one defeated, many more pop up, and generation after generation will need to stand tall against their single-mindedness. They seem to forget who they are.
I say to this developer, and all who champion him: Take a few moments each day to go to the ocean's edge and gaze out, letting yourself melt into the vastness while opening your soul to the grace that is there for you. Come to your senses, breathing in the richness of life above and below the surface, connecting to the ancient mysteries held therein.
And to those who support this developer in his pursuit of riches, do you really want to give away something priceless that will be forever changed, destroying so much life and beauty in the process, and wrecking the experience of this ocean for many of us who come to this place to feed our souls? If you truly care about the environment, then this one, this intricate fragile ecosystem, needs our protection now.
Martha Powers lives in West Yarmouth.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Idiot wind
by Henry S. F. Cooper Jr., Cooperstown, NY
The New York Times, June 3, 2007
Much of upstate New York, from north of Albany to Buffalo, from the Catskills to the Adirondacks, is in danger of being transformed beyond recognition by industrial wind parks. Some 50 of these wind parks are being planned and even built.
All of this is being done in the name of clean energy and saving the planet. But it isn't clear that wind power is such a panacea in the battle against global warming that developers of these wind parks should be allowed to run roughshod over some of our loveliest land. What we need are statewide siting guidelines that take other environmental factors, including visual impacts, into consideration.
One upstate project, 70 miles west of Albany, is the Jordanville Wind Power Project proposed by Community Energy, a subsidiary of the Spanish conglomerate Iberdrola. The project is not far from where I live in Cooperstown. About 70 turbines, as tall as 40-story buildings, are proposed near the top of a ridge where they will be visible far across the Mohawk Valley to the north and to the south down the length of Otsego Lake, the centerpiece of the Glimmerglass National Historic District. There are six national historic districts and sites eligible or listed, in the area, covering some 40,000 acres. One that is eligible but not listed is the Holy Trinity Monastery, the spiritual center of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Another, Glimmerglass, includes the landscape that inspired the artists of the Hudson River School and novelists like James Fenimore Cooper (an ancestor of mine).
The effects nearer the turbines will be even more devastating. The towers loom all around; their blades, 150 feet long, cause the sunlight to flicker; the nacelles - the hub of the blades - make a high-pitched whine.
Real estate values, certainly for second and retirement homes, but also primary residences, would likely plummet, damaging the local tax base. The carnage among birds and bats is considerable.
The Jordanville project would be built on an unstable soluble layer of karst limestone riddled with cracks, fissures and caverns. It could affect local wells and fish hatcheries; springs in this area are the source not only of Otsego Lake but of the Susquehanna River, which starts there.
Of course, the sacrifice of much of upstate New York in the name of saving the planet would be admirable and noble if it was clear that wind power would play a major role in combating global warming. But a recent study by the National Academy of Sciences casts doubt on this theory.
Wind is an iffy resource. It blows hard enough to generate electricity about 30 percent of the time. When wind-power companies talk of a project supplying electricity to, say, 60,000 houses, which is what the Jordanville project claims, those homes are dark and powerless 70 percent of the time. Or they would be, if it wasn't for conventional power sources, which need to be kept on line to take over when the wind drops. Realistically, Jordanville will power about 18,000 houses or less. In the trade-offs between wind power and other environmental considerations, the less wind contributes to reducing global warming, the more important other environmental factors - including visual impact - become.
So why then are we destroying large tracts of upstate New York in the name of an uncertain energy source? In part, it is because the Spitzer administration, even more than the Pataki administration did, is increasing subsidies and tax credits for these alternative energy companies. Indeed most wind companies concede that if it weren't for government support, they wouldn't be in business.
The Spitzer administration has introduced wording to the Clean Economic Power Supply Act that would revamp utility siting law. Its Article X would speed approval for industrial wind parks, in particular by circumventing home rule and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, the cornerstone of the state's environmental laws, which is responsible for determining whether local ordinances conform with state environmental law when a town or municipality accepts or rejects a project.
But what we need to do is strengthen the siting provisions in the Clean Economic Power Supply Act. Three bills that are before the State Senate would impose moratoriums on wind projects while siting guidelines are established and the effects of a project on neighboring areas are assessed. One of the bills would give New York's commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation a veto on approving turbine siting. All these bills are steps in the right direction; they have critical elements that are worth incorporating into the new Article X legislation, to assure burdened upstate towns that community character and historic and scenic resources will be protected.
Wind has a role to play, but perhaps not as strong a one as other clean energy sources, especially those like safer nuclear energy and cleaner coal, which provide not erratic but constant energy. We need to think carefully about where we place wind farms and whether the benefits outweigh the losses. But more important, we can't let wind power, and projects like the Jordanville one, distract our attention and financial resources from better solutions for saving our planet. Wind may be something of a red herring hidden inside a pork barrel.
Henry S. F. Cooper Jr., the author of several books about space exploration, is the president of Otsego 2000, a local environmental group.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Cape Cod Commission asserts right to full review of wind project
Barnstable Patriot: 6/01/07
Makes distinction between review and regulation
By Edward F. Maroney
What happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas, but what happens in federal waters in Nantucket Sound that may affect the core resources that the Cape Cod Commission is charged to protect won’t happen without Commission review.
That, at least, is the position the county agency took yesterday afternoon when it voted unanimously to “review and regulate” the land-based and near-shore elements of the 130-turbine power generation project but also “review the impacts, both positive and negative, of the entire project” as they relates to the environmental, economic and cultural values named in the Commission’s enabling legislation.
Following the advice of their Boston counsel, Eric Wodlinger, but challenging him on some matters as well, the members rejected Cape Wind’s contention that its project should be reviewed under the 1996 Regional Policy Plan, advising staff to apply the 2002 version in its preparation of the Development of Regional Impact review. A scoping meeting held with the state in 2001 did not start the clock on review, Wodlinger argued.
Commissioners agreed that the agency cannot require Cape Wind to acquire a lease from the federal Materials Management Service for use of Nantucket Sound beyond the three-mile limit, or a Chapter 91 license from the state for use of near-shore waters, before undergoing DRI review. Wodlinger pointed out that these depend in part of local licensing from the Town of Yarmouth, where Cape’s wind’s cable will come ashore, and town permits cannot be issued until the Commission’s work is complete.
Members made it clear that acquisition of those licenses would be part of the order of conditions that would issue with any DRI approval – if such is forthcoming.
Wodlinger said the Cape Wind proposal cannot undergo DRI review until the company demonstrates ownership of or an easement or lease for land under which its cable will run through Yarmouth to a power station in Barnstable. He said no evidence has been presented that Cape Wind has contacted private property owners along the route to acquire these rights.
Commission members agreed the application would be incomplete until such information was received. Wodlinger pointed out that, should Cape Wind run into trouble getting approvals, it can go to the state Energy Facilities Siting Board and make a case to be given the power of eminent domain.
The Commissioners’ decisions were reached minutes before the Patriot’s deadline late Thursday afternoon. Further information about next steps, as well as a response from Cape Wind’s attorney, will follow.
Edward F. Maroney is Associate Editor of The Barnstable Patriot.
