Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

US Leads in Wind Power Production, But Policy Uncertainty Weighs on Industry

By Christine Real de Azua, AWEA
August 14, 2008 | 62 Comments

Do you like this news?

Bookmark

Feed

Washington, D.C. United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com] U.S. wind farms now generate more electricity than those in any other nation in the world and are on track to expand by over 45% this year, but the looming expiration of the federal production tax credit (PTC) less than five months from now threatens this spectacular progress, AWEA said in its second quarter market report.

"The nation needs an ambitious plan to promote the deployment of wind and other renewable energy technologies -- and the urgent first step it must take is to rapidly extend the expiring renewable energy credits, which are the primary incentive that the nation provides for these technologies today."

-- Randall Swisher, Executive Director, AWEA

While Germany still has more generating capacity installed — about 23,000 megawatts (MW) — the U.S. is producing more electricity from wind because of its much stronger winds, making it the world leader in wind electricity generation.

"The U.S. is now the world's largest wind energy producer, with wind development sparking job creation and economic opportunity in a troubled economy," said AWEA Executive Director Randall Swisher. "But the current figures hide a dire reality: the pipeline of investment for 2009 has been on hold for months, with escalating risks and costs for the industry, because of the uncertainty about the production tax credit. At a time when unemployment is at a four-year high and the economy needs every stimulus it can get, a rapid extension of the credit should be on any economic priority list for Congress."

Total U.S. installed wind power capacity now stands at 19,549 MW. The industry installed 1,194 MW in the second quarter, down from 1,532 MW during the first. This brings the year's new capacity to 2,725 MW, more than was installed in any year except 2007. More is under construction for completion either by the end of this year or the beginning of next year, depending on when the PTC is extended. Uncertainty regarding the PTC is causing a rush to complete projects by the end of the year, with increased risks and costs for the industry and eventually for customers, AWEA said. Under the best-case scenario for the industry, Congress will move quickly in September to extend the credit, which would ease the pressure for immediate project completion and reopen the pipeline for 2009. Under that scenario, AWEA projects at least 7,500 MW of new capacity to be added in 2008.

AWEA also reports a strong increase in domestic investment in wind turbine and wind turbine component manufacturing facilities over the past year and a half. At least 41 facilities have been announced, opened or expanded over that period of time. Those facilities are expected to create over 9,000 jobs when they are at full capacity, although uncertainty about the PTC threatens that level of investment as well.

"It's clear that wind power is not only a major technology with which to fight climate change, but also one of the most promising and dynamic economic engines we have today," said Swisher.

"The nation needs an ambitious plan to promote the deployment of wind and other renewable energy technologies — and the urgent first step it must take is to rapidly extend the expiring renewable energy credits, which are the primary incentive that the nation provides for these technologies today."

Christine Real de Azua is assistant director of communications with the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

This article first appeared in Wind Energy Weekly, and was republished with permission from the American Wind Energy Association.

Additional Information

AWEA Second Quarter 2008 Market Report

Wind Power

62 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 62

jim-berry-51310

August 14, 2008

The growth in Wind is astonishing.

We are putting up roughly the equal of 1.6 nuclear reactor in power ever 3 months. (Nuclear reactors are around 1,000 MW though it varies and sites tend to have more than one reactor)

When you McCain building 50 nuclear plants over the next decade, do you think he understands the scope of our Wind potential over then next 10 years?

I doubt it. It seems Wind can quickly provide the power that those Nuclear plants would do if they ever got built.

All these Wind Mills are going up quietly without protest for the most part.

Comment
2 of 62

dennis-markatos

August 14, 2008

This is incredible growth! I didn't realize our electricity generation already matched Germany due to our faster winds - nice!

My blog today discusses the potential wind has to lower natural gas prices:
www.setenergy.org

Let me know what you think-

Dennis

Comment
3 of 62

adrian-akau-36758

August 14, 2008

The stupidity of our Congress never seeks to amaze me. They speak one way and act in another. They are all for energy independence and clean energy production but fail to place their money where their mouth is located. How in the world can our leaders expect the wind industry to grow properly if they act this way.

If a farmer raises food, does he not see to it that the plants receive sufficient fertilizer, water and sunlight? Congress wants the wind industry to derive all its growth nutrients practically from thin air (excuse the pun). The situation is only a laughable one in the sense that it shows the stuntedness in the brains and hearts of our Washington leaders.

adrianakau2aol.com

Comment
4 of 62

georges-mougin-151491

August 15, 2008

Don't forget that 1 Gwe of wind mills produce over the year 2000/2500 Gwh
when 1 Gwe nuclear plant will produce 7500 Gwh for practically the same
investment .
Wind energy is intermittent at random and needs back up from others sources of energy .

Comment
5 of 62

jeffrey-anthony-17535

August 15, 2008

Georges Mougin is incorrect on two counts:

1) Wind power plants can be installed for around $2000/kW today, whereas a new nuclear plant would likely cost between $5000-6000/kW.

What's more, new wind power plants can be permitted and constructed in 2-3 years (actual construction time is using just a few months). Whereas no new nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. in decades and the next ones will likely take at least 10 years to permit and construct.

Wind power is the only form of clean energy available today to be deployed on a wide-scale readily.

Jeffrey Anthony
American Wind Energy Association

Comment
6 of 62

jeffrey-anthony-17535

August 15, 2008

2) Wind energy is not "intermittent" nor "random" -- both terms express a lack of understanding as to how wind energy operates and implies that it is unpredictable and changes output haphazardly. This is not the case -- the output from wind projects is variable, changing clowly over time, allowing system operators to make adjustments in the course of hours, not minutes or seconds (as opposed to fossil or nuclear plants, who are actually more intermittent that wind plants, because when they trip off-line, they do so in seconds). That is why the grid is operated in a fashion such that reserve margins are provided for large thermal units tripping off-line with no notice -- or, in the case of wind projects, the variable output changes over the course of hours. In addition, state of the art "wind forecasting" techniques provide hour-ahead and day-ahead predictions of the expected wind plant output, providing system operators with tools to anticipate and plan for changes in the variable output of wind energy.

Thus, wind energy is neither "intermittent" not "random" -- it is very predictable and in one sense of the word, MORE reliable than thermal power plants -- but it is not, of course, a dispatchable source of electricity. Thus, while wind power is different, and system operators need to make adjustments in how they operate the grid as wind power increases on a given system, the is no need to back up wind power "from other sources of energy" as was stated above -- this is a common myth and is being recognized to not be the case.

For more information, see: www.20percentwind.org

Jeffrey Anthony
American Wind Energy Association

Comment
7 of 62

john-obrien-153722

August 15, 2008

The installed kilowatt number represents the rated capacity but does not reflect their actual output. I have been reading quite a few horror stories about their effect on people, animals and birds. I would also add that the main reason large scale wind farming is being promoted is because they are capital intensive and thus extremely attractive to the investment banking community.

There is also the cost of connecting the prospective wind farm sites to the grid because many sites are often in difficult terrain.

I am not pro nuclear and have an 8.3 kilowatt solar system installed on our house. I believe that the country and the environment would benefit much more rapidly from the conversion of old coal fired plants to newer,cleaner burning methodologies and that the concept of combined cycle generation should be exploited to the fullest extent possible.

Comment
8 of 62

la-fekken-150273

August 15, 2008

Wind is the thing that we can use with great ease as our air currents are the best in the world!

We need to let our politicans and EVERY American know that wind power can save our environment and our money!

FREE THE WIND!

Comment
9 of 62

jeffrey-anthony-17535

August 15, 2008

John -- your statement about "installed kilowatt number represents the rated capacity but does not reflect their actual output" is true for all forms of electric generation. If I talk about a 1000 MW nuclear plant, I am talking about its capacity and am saying nothing about its' energy output -- in other words, saying nothing about forced outages or a couple months a year for periodic refueling and maintenance outages. A natural gas fired peaking plant may only run a few tens of hours during peak load conditions each month, too -- so when you refer to it as a 200 MW gas plant, you are also referring to its capacity and saying nothing about how much energy it does or does not produce in a given period of time. The same thing applies to wind plants, too -- just like all power plants, they are described in terms of their installed capacity, and then how much they run during a period determines their energy output.

Many of the "horror stories about their effect on people, animals and birds" you refer to are just that -- stories, often made up by anti-wind activists. There are many real and legitimate concerns for habitat and wildlife impacts on birds and bats, in particular, that are entirely legitimate and are being address by the wind industry, but many other "stories" and "uban legends" are fabricated myths.

Jeffrey Anthony
American Wind Energy Association

Comment
10 of 62

jeffrey-anthony-17535

August 15, 2008

The reason that large scale wind farming is being promoted is because it not only offers a good return to investors, but it offers a good deal for utilities who can add a known-priced source of electricty to their portfolio to hedge against fossil fuel price volatility -- and it offers a good deal for consumers of electricity and they receive cleaner electricity, without emissions and environmental degradation from the burning of fossil fuels.

Transmission and interconnection costs are a very real issue, because as you point out, the best wind resources are typically remote from population centers, and that is one of the biggest challenges for the growth of wind energy in the U.S., indeed.

Jeffrey Anthony
American Wind Energy Association

Comment
11 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

August 15, 2008

Opposing viewpoint:

Pelosi And The Big Wind Boone-Doggle

By MICHELLE MALKIN | August 13, 2008

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently called congressional Republicans who want up-or-down drilling votes "handmaidens of the oil companies." Let's call Pelosi what she is: House girl of the Big Wind boondogglers.

Though she seemingly backtracked on labeling drilling a "hoax" this week, Pelosi refuses to consider GOP energy proposals that don't include massive government subsidies for so-called eco-alternatives that have never panned out.

Which brings us to the Speaker's 2007 financial disclosure form. Schedule III lists "Assets and Unearned Income" of between $100,001-$250,000 from Clean Energy Fuels Corp.-Public Common Stock.

Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE) is a natural gas provider founded by T. Boone Pickens. Yep, that T. Boone Pickens — ex-oilman turned wind-power evangelist whose ads touting a national wind campaign are now as ubiquitous as Viagra promos.

Pickens and Pelosi share the same talking points downplaying the need to drill and open up more access to American oil. Instead, the Pickens pie-in-the-sky plan proposes to replace natural gas with wind power in power generation and theoretically free up natural gas for America's transportation needs.

All well and good in la-la land, but let's be real about the limitations and costs of wind power. Past and ongoing experience demonstrates the unreliability of wind and the miserably low operating capacity of wind-power facilities here and around the world.

Depending on wind requires supplemental fossil fuel plants as backup to be turned on and off to compensate for wind-power supply shortfalls — nullifying any reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, which are minuscule, according to the National Academy of Sciences..."

Comment
12 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

August 15, 2008

Jeffrey Anthony:

The "horror stories about their effect on people, animals and birds" continues in expert testimony:

George Wallace of the American Bird Conservancy provided their testimony before the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, "Going, Going, Gone? An Assessment of the Global Decline in Bird Populations" on July 10, 2008:

"Last year, my colleague at ABC, Dr. Michael Fry presented testimony to the full Committee on the ongoing impact of commercial wind energy production. While the actual number of birds killed by wind turbines is unknown, estimates have been made in the range of 30,000 to 60,000 birds per year at the current level of wind development."

'Wind whips up health fears'
August 10, 2008

"...Pierpont, 53, is a 1991 graduate of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and has a doctorate in population biology from Princeton University.

"Pierpont's findings suggest that low-frequency noise and vibration generated by wind machines can have an effect on the inner ear, triggering headaches; difficulty sleeping; tinnitus, or ringing in the ears; learning and mood disorders; panic attacks; irritability; disruption of equilibrium, concentration and memory; and childhood behavior problems.

Concerns also are coming out of Europe about low-frequency noise from newly built wind turbines. For example, British physician Amanda Harry, in a February 2007 article titled "Wind Turbines, Noise and Health," wrote of 39 people, including residents of New Zealand and Australia, who suffered from the sounds emitted by wind turbines.
According to Pierpont, eight of the 10 families in her study moved out of their homes.

All these problems were resolved as soon as these people got away from the turbines, got in the car and drove away from the house," she said..."

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1218250522129010.xml&coll=7&thispage=1

Comment
13 of 62

william-hughes-66196

August 15, 2008

So instead of supporting renewable energy in every way possible, the US of A will be off to another military adventure to assure her oil resources. (Georgia?) More young Americans killed. Another generation of Americans brutalized by participating in a war. If America had used the wealth squandered in just the most recent Gulf war to build wind turbines, she would have 20% more electrical generation than she has at present. Imagine where she would be if the wealth of the previous Gulf War and the war in Afganistan was added. I know, I know, electricity doesn't replace fuel for automobiles. Well wake up America. The long awaited elecric car using the new lithium titanate batteries is just around the corner and the countries which have lots of lovely, fuel free, renewable energy resources will be ideally positioned to charge their cars with this energy. Even better, with the advent of smart grids, they will sometimes be able to charge their cars with energy when it is in excess of demand, and for a very good price. This will make the renewable energy sources even more economically viable while making driving even less expensive.
http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2007/07/excess-energy-what-to-do.html
http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2007/07/solar-electric-government-role.html

http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2008/01/car-id-like-to-drive.html

http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2008/04/double-metering-its-insidious.html

http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2007/09/kiwisaver-and-solar-panels.html

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=51290

http://www.energy.com/School/FAQ.Net-Metering.html

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/energybasics101.html

Comment
14 of 62

jeffrey-anthony-17535

August 15, 2008

Nina Pierpont's "work" has been discredited and is part of the anti-wind agenda that Barbara Durkin and other anti-wind activist. Barbara Durkin is determined to spread bad information and myths about wind power -- to what end, we do not know.

The work by "Dr." Pierpont has been roundly identified as of no validity. Several experts has found her research to be flawed and baseless.

Jeffrey Anthony
American Wind Energy Association

Comment
15 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

August 15, 2008

My thoughts, Mr. Hughs, are in response to your comment:

"This will make renewable energy sources even more economically viable while making driving less expensive.", are that heavily subsidized wind projects are not viable now unless you're sheltering your taxes as partner/owner. And, your hope is that they will be economically viable in the future. Please come back to the table then with all due respect.

Wind or war? Is a testimony to global warming propaganda and hysteria if you include, "wind tubines will stop tsunamis".

"These aren't wind farms, they're tax farms." Pete Stark CA Rep.

Investors Business Daily May 7, 2007:

"The fact is that after more than 30 years and billions of dollars of government subsidies, neither wind nor solar power is economically competitive."

Howard C. Hayden Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut from, 'Put not thy faith in the Princes of Wind'

"In recent years, the little country Denmark has gained a certain amount of fame with its wind turbines. No, they don't get much electricity from them. They sell them to suckers."

"After all, since wind energy schemes have a thousand-year head start, there must be some reason or reasons why wind makes so little contribution to our energy picture."

Comment
16 of 62

john-obrien-153722

August 15, 2008

All power plants are rated by their capacity factor which is the amount of power actually generated over a given period of time divided by the the amount it would have generated at full operating capacity for the same period of time. Fuel powered plants have more predictable capacity factors than wind farms for obvious reasons.

According to the article. 'The Capacity Factor of Wind Power' on http://www.leonardo-energy.org/drupal/node/3214 submitted by Bruno De Wachter on Thu, 2008-06-12 05:30, the Global Average is twenty percent.

From a strategic planning perspective , it would be far more efficient to update our existing generating plants to decrease their carbon footprint and increase their efficiency as rapidly as possible. The bulk of our power is generated using coal which is found in great abundance here in the USA. Cleaner burning technologies have already been developed and generating improvements such as combined cycle generation can increase a power plant's capacity by some fifty percent. Such an approach would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce air pollution and increase our generating capacity with a greater degree of economic certainty in the short term and
permit a more pragmatic approach to the development and implementation of alternative approaches to sustaining our economy and way of life.

Comment
17 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

August 15, 2008

Jeffrey Anthony:

Please make note that I've arrived with testimony and news with links and that you have not. You're dealing in conjecture and hyperbole while I act as messenger, in this forum and others, for Dr. Wallace of the American Bird Conservancy; Dr. Piedmon graduate of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine who holds her doctorate in population biology from Princeton University; and Dr. Howard C. Hayden, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut.

Quite simply, my actions, (as well as theirs I imagine), are taken to the end that the wind industry's overstated benefits and understated risks are recognized by all; despite AWEA self-serving efforts, agenda, methods, and rhetoric.

Not un-noticed by others apparently:

"ATTORNEY GENERAL CUOMO LAUNCHES INVESTIGATION INTO WIND POWER COMPANIES' CONDUCT ACROSS UPSTATE NEW YORK Allegations of Improper Dealings with Public Officials and Anti-Competitive Practices"

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2008/july/july15a_08.html

And, didn't Natural Resources Chairman Nick J. Rahall II call AWEA's response to his efforts to protect endangered species from wind turbines, "hysterical"?

My question is rhetorical. The anwer is, "Yes".

Comment
18 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

August 15, 2008

John OBrien:

You make sense: "From a strategic planning perspective , it would be far more efficient to update our existing generating plants to decrease their carbon footprint and increase their efficiency as rapidly as possible."

However; there isn't a parasite, (ie; AWEA), or a host, (ie; taxpayers and ratepayers), in this sound strategy. So don't expect the AWEA to support this pragmatic approach.

Comment
19 of 62

chuck-conover-55161

August 16, 2008

"Barbara Durkin" has found every reason that we should continue to polute our land with our current coal plants and give up on wind. She has researched the question diligently, which means "she" has also come across hundreds of articles that say exactly what we see happening: that wind is a viable, cost-effective, polution-free way to make energy. Yet "she" ignores those hundreds of sources (there are so many, it would be folly to try to quote them). But here are a few: "wind could generate 20 percent of U.S. power needs by 2030, matching what nuclear power provides today." - Dan Kulpinski. "The German government hopes wind energy will provide 25 percent of electricity consumption by 2020, which is not an unreasonable aspiration" -PPIonline.com "She" is obviously paid by coal companies to put out mis-information. This misinformation is based on hugely underestimating the cost of coal-generated electricity vs. the actual cost of wind-generated electricity. They say coal is inexpensive, but they don't include all the costs or the original plant cost.

I currently get most of my energy from solar, since wind is not viable here. My estimate is that it costs me $.09/KWh, which was MORE expensive than the $.085/KWh than I was paying APS. AND I had to pay it all up front, a huge investment. But it's not all about money. It's about clean air, and showing my children that we need to respect the land. And, how about that? The cost of grid power is now $.125/KWh. Where will it be in 5 years?

Comment
20 of 62

chuck-conover-55161

August 16, 2008

To further comment on the cost of coal:
In order to mine coal, they have several square miles of land that they have to destroy, dozens on tractors costing 7 figures, dozens of huge dump trucks costing 7 figures, conveyor belts and loads of other machinary, tons of gasoline for the vehicles and machinary, machines to separate the coal. Dozens of trucks to haul the coal to the plant. A plant that costs 8 figures. Hundreds (thousands?) of employees to pay. Huge furnaces to turn the coal into energy, then millions of miles of lines to move the energy to the consumer. The capital expenditure if in the billions, and the daily cost just to run the machines and plant must be millions. Even if we assume the land is free (which it's not), and the electric lines are free to install and maintenance free (which they are not), and, of course cleanup is free since they don't clean up, not to mention the damage the pollution does, coal is hugely expensive.

FutureGen: "The cost of a [275 MW] federal project... cleanly burning coal and sequestering carbon dioxide emissions has nearly doubled to $1.8 billion" (Greenwire, 11/12/07) = $6,500/kW or 17-19 c/kWh. That's just for the plant before you've started your bulldozers and begun mining. But when Republicans quote coal costs, they never include the capital or maintenance cost, they only use the costs of mining and transporation. When quoting wind and solar (industries that don't pay them millions), they include all costs, (which is just capital and maintenance, since there is no fuel to mine). Oh, and they always mention the birds - LOL.

Comment
21 of 62

chuck-conover-55161

August 16, 2008

Perhaps we should also include:
externalities & subsidies:
1. Increased asthma downwind of coal plants impose health care costs:
Portugal study: 2c/kWh
2. Premature fatalities
Ontario Medical Association study: 12c/kWh
U.S. Army Core of Engineers study: 6c/kWh
3. Costs of global warming (??)
But UK says higher than any purported cost of GHG regulation (Sern Report)
4. Guaranteed equity returns to regulated utilities enable cheaper debt
0.5 - 1.0 c/kWh based on current coal plant prices, capacity factors
5. Add tax breaks, gov't grants
GAO: $16.8 billion to fossil industries (primarily coal) from 2002-07
This is 2/3rds of $25.2 billion to all electric sources during same period ($6.2 nuke, $4,2 renewables)

Comment
22 of 62

william-cormeny-116859

August 16, 2008

President Obama or Presiden McCain will be hard pressed by Congressional leaders,utilities and others to provide more tax incentives for wind,solar,tidal and biomass fuels.Obviously,railroads,coal companies,oil companies,and many banks will fight these subsidies since they have their own massive subsidies staked out.
Has anyone opted to remove the tax breaks for oil,rail,pipeline,and coal and place these breaks on the side of the utilities and turbine producers?

Comment
23 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

August 16, 2008

National Center for Policy Analysis:

'Why Renewable Energy Is Not Cheap and Not Green'

"Wind power has proven itself to be a perpetual "infant industry," with its competitive viability always somewhere on the horizon."

http://www.ncpa.org/studies/renew/renew2c.html

My focus is the Cape Wind project that poses threats to endangered wildlife as well as to navigators, air travelers, fishing and marine trades, NHL's, marine mammals, this Essential Fish Habitat and spawning ground, Sacred Land and the tourism industry dependent on the Cape and islands' views.

The Cape Wind MMS draft EIS states that CW would produce energy that is twice the cost of current wholesale energy, with a disclaimer, public subsidies are not factored. And, MMS hasn't factored project bonding, upgrades to existing infrastructure and transmission lines, or vastly expensive operation and maintenance O&M contract cost. I doubt that MMS draft EIS reflects the $13 million dollar loss estimated by the fishing industry over the life of the project; or the annual $123 million dollar loss, by Suffolk University study, to the tourism industry....in an, "If all goes well", scenario.

Please be sure to read the Cera report accessed by link provided within the link below...

"Vestas, the world's largest manufacturer of wind turbines, has today urged political leaders to focus more on increasing capacity from onshore wind farms, amid warnings that the cost of installing offshore wind turbines will continue to rise."

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2217931/vestas-calls-greater-focus

I'm not paid to provide the facts or my opinions regarding the perpetual infant industry, wind energy, or a NIMBY.

Comment
24 of 62

thomas-schmidt-36371

August 16, 2008

So, how many billions of dollars of taxpayers money are we talking about here? I live of grid, but I still pay taxes. Why should my tax dollars go towards helping make some RE corperate CEO filthy stinkin rich?
It seems to me that the RE industries are no different than any other industries. You all have your hands out wanting taxpayers to fund your projects, and then your charging those same taxpers for your products.
Laughing about it all the way to the bank.
Who are the CEO of this wind energy industry?
How many hundreds of millions of dollars are they getting payed?
Talk about paying for electricity out of more then one pocket.

Comment
25 of 62

alan-arnold-73138

August 16, 2008

The arrival of the baying hounds of Rovewellian agitprop at our watering hole indicates that certain established interests have finally realized that transformation is here, is real, and is accelerating. Eventually, most of these interests will stop trying to lick us, and join us, as GE and BP already have, for example. The hounds need not bay so: an energy-hungry humanity will utilize "all of the above" energy sources. Nuclear yields five orders of magnitude more energy per unit input, but drags a huge industrial tail, and requires a full fuel cycle, meaning plutonium breeding (a mostly unexplored thorium alternative may be safer), for sustainability. Coal use is massive and currently increasing, which is why it is essential to bring practical sequestration out of the lab and into implementation. The counterargument to low energy density for solar based sources is ubiquity: vast amounts of solar energy shower down everywhere. Wind is at grid parity now, and hi-tech solar is racing ahead: the company SunRgy aims at grid parity in 12-15 months using thin film concentrated photovoltaic. Nanosolar is deploying state-of-the-art near-parity first gen thin film solar now. Cheap solar will be ubiquitous, matching the ubiquity of the source. In Nature, cheap and simple wins: insects, the simplest multicellular animals, have dominated the earth for half a billion years. Simple can produce complex: termite mounds create engineering only otherwise produced by humans. By the time some ideologues stop arguing and take a look around, the transformation will already have taken place.

Comment
26 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

August 16, 2008

Excellent questions, Thomas, regarding industrial parasites and their hosts, you and I.

"Baying hounds" threaten your religion, Alan, so I understand your angst and I'm accordingly undaunted by your rude remark.

GE is the consummate, opportunistic, parasite.

May 16, 2005 issue of Barrons, Thomas Donlon:

"It is shameful that GE, a highly profitable company, has decided to take advantage of faulty federal and state wind energy policies by producing turbines for "wind farms". In addition to environmental damage, wind power has an economic flaw that any GE engineer ought to be able to imagine: Since no human power can turn the wind on and off when it's wanted for electricity, every bit of wind power capacity must be backed up by another generating source...Immelt, an engineer, understands this but he provided the executive's counter argument:"

"The customers want it, so it's GE's job to produce it."

Editors note: "Immelt, an engineer", is Jeffrey Immelt, CEO and Chairman of the Board of GE, operating in more than 100 countries, employing over 300,000 people, with revenues of over $131 billion in 2002. Immelt concedes that he understands the flaws behind the premise that wind turbines provide any "solution. GE is responding to demand by supplying the CEO and Chairman of the GE acknowledged placebo, wind turbines.

This sound-bite is from a Wall Street Journal moderated debate that punctuates GE's motivation: "green is green"

Benjamin W. Heineman, Jr., has served as a senior vice president, general counsel and secretary of GE since 1997:

"Mr. Heineman writes: Fred, when Jeff Immelt announced this initiative he made absolutely clear it was about business and increasing profits. Our short form summary was, as I mentioned a moment ago, "green is green."

"The whole initiative is market driven. We are not asking for government regulation. We believe our customers want this technology."

http://cei.org/pdf/5081.pdf

Comment
27 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

August 16, 2008

Thomas:

Regarding your observation:

"It seems to me that the RE industries are no different than any other industries."

That's because you're perceptive. PetroCats and WindCats are one in the same involved in the diversification of their energy investment portfolios.

Jim Gordon of EMI is behind Cape Wind; a 130, 440' industrial wind turbine array proposed by Jim for Nantucket Sound. Here, where a data tower exists, due to special interest language inserted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Jim has a "no bid" deal.

Jim Gordon:

"We looked at the portfolio -- we've got gas, we've got oil, and we've got coal," Gordon says, drumming his desk for emphasis. "But we don't have renewable energy."

http://in.rediff.com/money/2007/jul/21spec.htm

Comment
28 of 62

ian-sampson-72933

August 16, 2008

The bird issue is a "straw dog" put up by fossil fuel industry.
3- 6 million birds are killed each year by household cats.

How many birds, frogs, fish and eventually people are killed each year by the mercury from coal plants. Coal plants are the biggest source of mercury pollution in our environment and have made the fish in the ocean so toxic that pregnant women are advised not to eat them and the rest of us not more than 1 a week.

Does anybody know how much was the subsidy per windmill? (or per MW?)

thanks

Ian

Comment
29 of 62

miles-adam-25848

August 16, 2008

Barbara Durkin
Your comments ignore the planet destruction and illnesses caused by coal mining so clearly stated by Chuck Conover.
You foolishly equate, "Petrocats" and "Windcats", when the former has led us to:
War, Trillions of Dollars in Debt, a Failing Economy, The Death of thousands of innocent people, and the destruction of foreign economies.
(I have to admit that the war has been good for the US War Industries)
Windcats on the other hand, if successful will lead us to world peace, a healthy environment and low cost power forever.
Jeffrey Anthony clearly shows the viability of windpower. Unfortunately, there will always be those, who, for personal gain, or like yourself, who seem to have no reqard for the well being of our planet, will present specious arguements to continue the stranglehold of the middle east and coal interests on our energy supply.
I do however agree that coal plants should clean up their combustion while they are still needed, before they are finally phased out.

Comment
30 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

August 16, 2008

Ian,

Sadly, you're wrong about birds v wind turbines. They're being killed in unacceptable numbers by them, paraphrasing CA scientists with 175 collective years focus on raptors.

From avian expert Mark Duchamp of Spain:

"The following compilation of scientific reports provides compelling evidence of significant bird mortality at windfarms. Its cumulative effect with other causes of bird deaths may bring many species to extinction - especially as captivity-bred specimens will be lacking turbine-free habitats where they can be released safely."

http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1875

www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3686

'Fatal Attraction: Birds and Wind Turbines" with Dr. Shawn Smallwood- KQED QUEST'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtgBWNKwBkE&feature=related

George Wallace, PhD Vice President for International Programs American Bird Conservancy to Chairwoman Bordello of Fisheries Oceans and Wildlife July 10, 2008:

"ABC recommends that any renewal of the production tax credit by Congress include provisions that require minimizing bird and bat kills by wind projects, and require developers to follow standard Best Management Practices in avoiding and minimizing bird and wildlife impacts in order to qualify for the full, taxpayer-provided subsidy."

Comment
31 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

August 16, 2008

Miles,

Royal Dutch Shell pulled their investment out of the offshore London Array. That should indicate to you that:

A. Maybe the economics don't work.

B. The Princes of Fossil Fuel and Wind are indivisble.

Quite frankly, Jeffrey Anthony seems to have you in a stranglehold as wind energy will not take us to the Promised Land.

He hasn't demonstrated the "viability" of wind to me.

Ian:

wind and other subsidies compared:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf

fireofenegy:

Are these the "enviro-laws" to which refer?

16 U.S.C. 703-712, Migratory Bird Treaty Act; 16 U.S.C. 668-668-d, Bald Eagle Protection Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, Endangered Species Act; and 42 U..C. 4371 et seq., National Environmental Policy Act.

Comment
32 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

August 16, 2008

Ian:

The AWEA is fighting against the DOI USFWS interim wind turbine siting guidelines being "required". These guidelines reflect wind industry bad experience and indicate the areas you mention be avoided when siting wind turbines.

Donald Michael Fry, PhD Director, Pesticides and Birds Program of the American Bird Conservancy to Chairwoman Bordello of Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee on May 1, 2007; Oversight Hearing on: "Gone with the Wind: Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats." :

"The Fish and Wildlife Service developed an interim series of voluntary siting guidelines in 2003, and revised them after a prolonged comment period in 2005. Federal guidelines must be required rather than voluntary. The wind industry has provided ample evidence that voluntary guidelines are regarded as unimportant and are thus summarily dismissed"

The Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines for siting wind towers in 2003:

"--Avoid placing turbines in documented locations of any species of wildlife, fish, or plant protected under the ESA.

-- Avoid locating turbines in known local bird-migration pathways or in areas where birds are highly concentrated, unless mortality risk is low (e.g., birds rarely enter the rotor-swept area). Examples of high-concentration areas for birds are wetlands, state or federal refuges, private duck clubs, staging areas, rookeries, roosts, riparian areas along streams, and landfills.

-- Avoid known daily-movement flyways (e.g., between roosting and feeding areas) and areas with a high incidence of fog, mist, low cloud ceilings, and low visibility."

Avoid siting Cape Wind in Nantucket Sound, in other words.

Comment
33 of 62

christopher-bucci-19973

August 17, 2008

This Durkin character is a real piece of work. She quotes studies that have been long discounted or found to be faulty with new studies that have been discounted and found to be funded by anti-renewable groups. I would guess by the studies that she is spouting that she lives on the Cape and doesn't want to see windmills at 1/8" viewable on the horizon from her oppulent second beach house that she drives to in her Hummer H1.

I challenge her with this: What is the answer? You quickly discount everything that has been done thus far in fledgling industries whose scrutiny oil or coal would not have survived in their infancy, yet you provide no viable solutions. If you have no answer, please do not use a response to my post as an excuse to vomit more rhetoric onto a page where people care to improve the quality of life everywhere, not just their own back yard.

Comment
34 of 62

william-hughes-66196

August 17, 2008

Hi Barbara
Sorry to be so long in answering your comments. I wanted to recheck my facts first. My sources are the energy advisor of one of our NZ political parties and an executive of a power distribution company, soon to become a power generator with the erection of a large wind farm (which I will fortunately be able to see from the window where I am typing).

Fact:
New Zealand gives no subsidies, incentives or tax breaks to anyone putting in renewables of any kind except for a small one for the installation of home solar water heating.

Fact:
We have quite a few wind farms spread across our country to "test the water" and see if they are economically viable.

Fact:
They are. Their present cost per unit (kwh) is 8.3 of our cents which competes with our other sources of energy (about .$06 US)

Fact:
Domestic power in New Zealand costs the consumer between 15c to 20c per unit so there is about 10c per unit of 'meat on the bone' for the power company.

I can't reconcile the above with your comments that wind power is not economically feasible or that it can only exist with subsidies. Ours seems to be doing well with no government help.

You seem to be against subsidies. I agree with you completely in this respect. However there are many things that any government can do to reduce the capital cost of these various fuel free systems without dipping into the pocket of the electorate. (next)

Comment
35 of 62

william-hughes-66196

August 17, 2008

Take Sales tax as an example. Some people would argue that eliminating sales tax to encourage the uptake of renewables would reduce the money a government has for it education, hospitals and so forth. This is an illusion. If it turns out that the elimination of sales tax is the critical move that makes solar, wind or small hydro financially feasible, then it wouldn't be installed without this measure and no revenue would accrue to the government anyway. There are a raft of other measures the government can take and just the ones I have found suggests that the capital costs of any renewable energy source could be cut by over 50%. The list is by no means complete. See
http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2007/07/solar-electic-government-role.html
The comments are on solar electric but apply equally to any renewable energy source and to electric cars.

Lastly, I stand by my comment that if you make a bomb and explode it you have nothing to show for it. If you put the same money into a wind turbine -- even if you were correct that wind turbines are only feasible when subsidized -- you would have a few decades of fuel free electrical generation to show for your investment.

At present in America, a lot more electricity generation would replace fuel oil for heating. When Electric cars are finally practical, a lot more electricity generation will replace both fuel and lubricants. (electric cars not only use no fuel, they use much less lubrication oil). We all know how elastic the oil market is (a slight excess or deficite of supply over demand has a big influence on price.) Imagine the effect if the biggest consumer of oil on the planet cut back sharply on the amount of oil they use.

Comment
36 of 62

steven-mielke-81365

August 17, 2008

Jeffrey Anthony writes in comment #5:
"1) Wind power plants can be installed for around $2000/kW today, whereas a new nuclear plant would likely cost between $5000-6000/kW.

What's more, new wind power plants can be permitted and constructed in 2-3 years (actual construction time is using just a few months). Whereas no new nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. in decades and the next ones will likely take at least 10 years to permit and construct."

Perhaps Jeffrey will cite the source of these estimates for us?

Presumably these numbers are after subsidies and neglect the costs of transmission--which will become more significant as wind increases its share of the market.

Once wind reaches 20-30% of the market intermittency or variability (intermittency is a widely accepted term in energy journals and I find it hard to believe its use causes significant confusion, but I won't quibble on semantics now) is likely to become a significant barrier to further increases in market share. If the first new nuclear plants are really going to take 10 years to bring online, now is a very good time to get the ball rolling because nuclear plants are an excellent replacement for coal--and climate change concerns are likely to force us to eventually wean ourselves from coal-fired energy generation.

Quoting installation costs based on peak power rating seems designed to mislead the unwary. The fact remains that you still need at least 3 times as much peak capacity for wind compared to nuclear if the goal is to achieve the same mean energy production. This factor of 3 makes nuclear competitive with wind even if we accept Jeffrey's unsourced cost estimates.

Comment
37 of 62

william-hughes-66196

August 18, 2008

Hi Steven
Intermittency (isn't it an awful term) is ususlly sited as a draw back of wind power but can be an asset if properly managed. It involves demand balancing rather than supply balancing as we do at present.
If you have a site with a capacity factor of, say, 33% and you want on average to generate a megawatt then you have to install wind turbines with a nominal generating capacity of 3 megawatts. Of course you end up sometimes producing less power than you need and sometimes more. Let's look at the 'more' since that is where demand balancing comes in.
When the sum of your hydro, wind and solar are producing more power than is being demanded by people on "power-on-demand", you can, with smart grids, send a signal to turn on various users who can manage with 'power-when-available". These can include charging an electric car, heating a water cylinder, generating hydrogen and oxygen for later use, heating a storage space heater, pumped storage and so forth. The incentive to the customer is cheaper power and the incentive to the power company is to get some money for every unit they generate. Remember there are no fuel costs so every dollar earned is without extra expense. The good side of this is that someone with a full battery in his car or a heated water cylinder won't be demanding power when it is at a low ebb. See
http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2007/10/excess-energy-what-to-do.html

Comment
38 of 62

danatt

August 18, 2008

Hi Barbara,

In comment# 18 in reference to coal fired power plants you said:
"However; there isn't a parasite, (ie; AWEA), or a host, (ie; taxpayers and ratepayers), in this sound strategy. So don't expect the AWEA to support this pragmatic approach."

I'm just curious... What is your response to Jeff Goodall (author of "Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America's Energy Future" - see: http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/booksellers/press_release/goodell/) when he responded to the question "What is Clean Coal?" with the following:

"It's a promotional slogan designed to help spiff up coal's image from a relic of the nineteenth century to a viable fuel source for the twenty-first century. But all you have to do is spend a few hours in southern West Virginia, where coal mining has blasted away the mountains and old men sit alone in diners gasping for air with coal-blackened lungs, to understand that "clean coal" is not just an oxymoron, but an insult to the very real suffering that our dependence on coal causes.

That said, it's indisputably true that the coal-fired power plants that are being built today are much cleaner than the coal plants that were built thirty years ago. And the electric power industry is rightly proud of the progress that has been made in many parts of the country when it comes to cleaning up the air. Despite these improvements, however, the American Lung Association estimates that 27,000 people a year still die prematurely as a result of pollution from coal-fired power plants. Coal-fired power plants are also the largest emitters of mercury in the United States, releasing forty-eight tons of this potent neurotoxin each year. Combustion wastes from coal plants - fly ash, scrubber sludge - are also a significant environmental and public health concern."

Parasites? Hosts?

Almost exactly one year ago: "Families Outraged After Utah Mine Official Says Miners May Not Be Found"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293776,00.html

?

Comment
39 of 62

william-hughes-66196

August 19, 2008

Hi Dan
Your comment is very much to the point. I think I am correct in saying that megawatt for megawatt, coal burning also releases far more radioactivity into the air than a nuclear plant. I'm talking about the amount released, not the total amount created. Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating nuclear power. As far as I know, the wastes created in the original pile which led to the first A-bombs is still waiting to be disposed of. Fortunately, I think it is pretty well accepted that nuclear power is more expensive than wind power when you take into account the cost of disposing of the waste (estimated since no one has managed to do it yet) and the decomissioning of the plant at the end of its life.

Comment
40 of 62

steven-mielke-81365

August 19, 2008

Dan writes in comment 43:

"I'm just curious... What is your response to Jeff Goodall (author of "Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America's Energy Future" - see: http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/booksellers/press_release/goodell/) when he responded to the question "What is Clean Coal?" with the following:

"It's a promotional slogan designed to help spiff up coal's image from a relic of the nineteenth century to a viable fuel source for the twenty-first century. But all you have to do is spend a few hours in southern West Virginia, where coal mining has blasted away the mountains and old men sit alone in diners gasping for air with coal-blackened lungs, to understand that "clean coal" is not just an oxymoron, but an insult to the very real suffering that our dependence on coal causes. "

Possibly Goodall has observed that paranoid hyperbole sells more books that the truth. Clean coal is a catch-all phrase to describe many means to mitigate the environmental effects of using coal as a fuel source, including gasification and carbon sequestration. Worldwide, new electricity generation from coal dwarfs renewable adoption and no one should believe these new coal fired power plants will be taken off line anytime soon. Clean coal technologies are our best hope for mitigating the consequences of our continued reliance on coal. Continued research into these technologies is highly desirable.

Comment
41 of 62

steven-mielke-81365

August 19, 2008

william hughes writes in comment 42:
"Intermittency (isn't it an awful term) is ususlly sited as a draw back of wind power but can be an asset if properly managed. It involves demand balancing rather than supply balancing as we do at present."

I don't see the objection to the use of the word intermittency, and when terms are continually modified I am always a bit suspicious that a measure of obfuscation is being employed (no one continually modifies nomenclature for favorable terms). When people go on about how we should replace use of "intermittency" with "variability", it gives the impression that this is a bigger problem that it really is. Now William is trying to convince me that intermittency can be an "asset". Certainly if my employer told me my salary was going to become "intermittent" but that I should not be concerned because this was really and asset, I might very well balance my demand for food, etc. to better match my means. However, I'd become very suspicious of the word "asset". Demand balancing may very well mitigate some of the limitations of intermittency, but it surely is a restriction rather than a benefit....

Comment
42 of 62

william-hughes-66196

August 19, 2008

Sorry about that Steven. You of course are correct. I guess I went overboard trying to make the point that the fluxuations of power that are a characteristic of renewable energy aren't as much of a dissadvantage as is maintained by many people. Demand balancing can make much better use of the power produced by these fluxuating sources of energy than if we stick to supply balancing. Smart grids are the key to this.

Comment
43 of 62

danatt

August 19, 2008

Steven,

Thanks for your comment. I don't know if I'd go as far as to say that Jeff Goodall isn't conveying the truth in his comments about Coal. He is focusing on the dark-side of the story of the primary source of electricity in the U.S.

With that said - of course "clean coal" is better than dirty coal. And technological advancements on that front should continue because whether we like it or not, most of our electricity comes from burning coal. And, as the supply is plentiful, domestic, and established, it will continue to be a major source of electricity for quite some time. That's the reality. But, it doesn't mean we shouldn't also aggressively pursue renewables.

My point in quoting Goodall was in response to Barbara's attempt to paint our reliance on coal as a victimless endeavor. Most of us use the electricity generated from burning coal. And we need to be mindful that there's a very real human cost . People can, and do on occassion, die mining coal. People suffer adverse health effects from the pollutants generated burning coal. In these posts we've heard attacks on wind energy relating to birds, "headaches", and "tourism" (comments #12 and #23). In weighing these concerns (whether real or contrived), let's maintain perspective, and remember those coal miners who have died slow deaths suffocating in collapsed mines.

Every energy source is going to have it's dark-side, which will be exploited, exagerated, or perhaps even fabricated by opponents for their own interests. We need to maintain perspective. And, we need to get beyond the dark-side, because not developing future sources of energy is not an option.

Comment
44 of 62

brendan-gallivan-138038

August 20, 2008

You have got to be kidding me with some of these comments. I don't think wind power is the only solution, but a part of a bigger whole. But more importantly, you need to look at any of these power sources relative to each other, rather than in isolation. Yes, there are some issues with wind turbines, but relative to a nuclear power plant or coal power plant, I'd much rather have wind turbines by my house. I'm sure wind turbines kill birds, but how many species do coal and nuclear power plants kill???

Comment
45 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

August 21, 2008

Hi William:

I am familiar with Anton Oliver's crusade in New Zealand:

"The debate is so dreadfully one-sided, because critics of industrial wind energy are fighting an orchestrated, green-coloured though I don't think it's green underneath moral ideology. One which seems to have the general populace nodding their collective heads in compliance, zombie-like, that all turbines are good."

"He labels our state-owned enterprises (of which Meridian Energy is the largest) a national disgrace. "A few weeks ago I read that the Green Party had uncovered a report hidden by Meridian which said the negative impacts of a proposed dam on the West Coast couldn't be `avoided, remedied or mitigated' as required by the RMA so they simply buried the findings. And another story of Solid Energy spying on protesters exercising their democratic right."

"Just who are these organisations working for? I thought they were supposed to be ultimately accountable to us as taxpayers, but it seems to me that they're all willing to externalise our natural environment, and the impact that has on the lives of New Zealanders, for profit. And that makes me very mad."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4551182a24815.html

Also hailing from Oxford is John Kay, who permanent teaching post in the University of Oxford, "at the embarrassingly young age of 21" :

'Green lobby must be treated as a religion'

Financial Times 09 January 2007

"Business should treat the environmental movement as it treats other forms of religious belief. Business leaders do not themselves have to believe its doctrines. Indeed we should be wary if they do: business linked to faiths and ideologies is a sinister and unaccountable power."

http://www.johnkay.com/political/479

http://www.johnkay.com/about/bio.html

Comment
46 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

August 21, 2008

In the interest of disclosure, I neither own property at the Cape or islands, nor do I receive payment to denounce predatory industrial wind practices.

This Enronesque subject is something that I enjoy researching.

Q: What is the primary industry incentive here? to reduce harmful emissions? lessen our dependency on fossil fuels?

A: "green is green" states Benjamin W. Heineman, Jr., senior vice president, general counsel and secretary of GE

"...the urgent first step it must take is to rapidly extend the expiring renewable energy credits, which are the primary incentive that the nation provides for these technologies today."

-- Randall Swisher, Executive Director, AWEA (pullout quote above)

http://batr.net/cohoctonwindwatch/2008/08/psc-double-whammy-shock-for-nys-utility.html

Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news:

'The Windmills Of His Mind'

"...Wind provides only 1% of our electricity compared with 49% for coal, 22% for natural gas, 19% for nuclear power and 7% for hydroelectric. To replace natural gas' 22% with wind would require building 300,000 1.5-megawatt turbines occupying an area the size of South Carolina. Ask the Nimbys where they want them.

Modern turbines can be as tall as 400 feet and carry 130-foot, seven-ton, endangered bird-slicing blades. And don't forget the transmission towers and power lines to get the juice where it's needed. Building these wind farms requires five to 10 times more steel and concrete than a nuclear plant generating the same amount of power.

Wind turbines operate at only 20% efficiency compared with 85% for coal, gas and nuclear plants. A single 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant would generate more dependable power than 2,800 1.5-megawatt, occasionally operating wind turbines sitting on 175,000 acres..."

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=304125179413815

Comment
47 of 62

danatt

August 26, 2008

Hi Barbara,

With the weakness of your arguments you are actually making the case FOR the viability of wind energy. To the informed reader, the liabilities associated with wind that you raise in this discussion pale in comparison with those of non-renewable energy sources.

You appear to be grasping at straws in your attempt to assemble a collection of anti-wind snippets into something resembling a coherent position. Looking further into the sources you quote reveal how weak they actually are. For example -

In comment# 50 you referenced Anton Oliver's anti-wind "crusade" in New Zealand. You quoted 3 full paragraphs from the article. Yet you neglected these quotes from Anton, which give key insight into his motivation -

"Basically I'm going to be looking at conservation and biodiversity values through the prism of poverty, as part of the research programme run by a couple of Fijian NGOs [non-government organisations Birdlife International and Nature Fiji]," says Oliver, who'll head to the remote Ringgolds archipelago after finishing his Toulon contract in June.
"I'll be collecting data on the attitudes of a subsistence community to their tribal land, which happens to hold a high biodiversity and conservation value. Do they recognise that value? In a modern society like New Zealand, usually conservation is clouded with a lot of other issues like economic and political imperatives that get in the way of core conservation values, but in the Ringgolds it's stripped down to a very basic level: how does poverty affect conservation, and vice versa?"

- Noble and altruistic - maybe. - But hardly an approach geared at solving very real energy problems for modern society. A former rugby player gone tribal subsistence proponent is not an appropriate authority for this discussion. Quoting him weakens your arguments.

Not developing future sources of energy is not an option. Wind IS one of many viable future sources of energy that are drastically needed.

Comment
48 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

August 31, 2008

Dan,

Follow the money. Our forced and generous public subsidies are not tied by index to reduction in harmful emissions by wind turbines~for a reason.

Wind energy "viability" always seems to be addressed in the context of "when" and "if" as it isn't presently viable. It's expensive, environmentally damaging, land and sea guzzling and unreliable, unless you're sheltering taxes..

http://www.livemint.com/2008/07/01003655/Suzlon8217s-US-wind-turbine.html

'Need for tax breaks vexing'
"WIND FARMS: Subsidy opponents say taxpayer cash going to the rich"
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
SUNDAY, AUGUST 31, 2008

"Money doesn't grow on trees, but it may grow on windmills..."

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20080831/NEWS03/308316689/Need+for+tax+breaks+vexing

the money trail~

MA Audubon conditions their "support" for Cape Wind on the acceptance by the agencies of Adaptive Management monitoring and mitigation. AM is handled by contract worth multi-millions of dollars over the term prescribed by MA Audubon in their "Challenge" press release. MA Audubon presents their NGO as a Cape Wind permit reviewing entity; and they are identified by Minerals Management Service as "Key Partner" in the Cape Wind permit review. While, MA Audubon refuses to disclose that AM is handled by a lucrative service contract to count bird carcasses over water, (Nantucket Sound). Over the term prescribed by MA Audubon, their project "support" condition, as a permit reviewing entity, is worth approximately $8 million undisclosed dollars, if Cape Wind is permitted, "beginning at contruction" to count bird carcassess, using technology that "simply does not exist" according to the federal regulator, USFWS.

www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3686

'Why Wind Won't Work' by Jon Boone:

http://www.stopillwind.org/downloads/WhyWindWontWork.pdf

'Better Energy Ideas' by Jon Boone

http://www.stopillwind.org/lowerlevel.php?content=BetterEnergyIdeas

Comment
49 of 62

peter-kenney-156063

August 31, 2008

Even Vestas, the world's largest wind turbine manufacturer has spoken in print of the need to concentrate on land based wind power and not worry about developing the current craze of shallow water offshore wind which is simply not profitable....this means its energy will sell for increased retail costs. BUT...Cape Wind has received a bizarre and stupid approving opinion from U.S. MMS in its DEIS....an opinion resulting from a wholesale disregard of the cooperating U.S. agencies who have expressed serious doubts about Cape Wind. these are, among others, EPA. Coast Guard, FAA and FWS.

Still, those who oppose Cape Wind are pilloried by the likes of Wendy Williams (Cape Wind, the Book) and Jim Gordon, CEO of Cape Wind. Let's take off the gloves, sports fans....Big Wind is Big Business. So is Big Oil. Wind may be a clean fuel but it is a dirty business. Isn't it interesting that New York state Attorney general Cuomo has unflattering things to say about the American Wind Energy Association? He has actually included them in his investigation of the wind industry. Gee.....?

If Jim Gordon and his like have their way there will be a new endangered species...the Endangered Species Act itself. Ask FWS what happened to Vernon Lang, and if you do not know who Vernon Lang is....shut up! How clean can any renewable technology be that enjoys the support of Dick Cheney?

Comment
50 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

August 31, 2008

'Cost of offshore wind farms soaring'

"Higher prices for steel and copper are being blamed for the increasing unprofitability of offshore wind farms.

A British firm that was going to build one now questions its viability. Stephen Beard reports from London."

http://pepei.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=ONART&PUBLICATION_ID=6&ARTICLE_ID=330018&C=INDUS&dcmp=rss

By Jim Polson BLOOMBERG NEWS:

"Utilities in New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts and two dozen other states may face a credit-crimping consumer backlash over costs to increase power supplies from wind and other renewable sources, Standard & Poor's said."

"Consumers have been led to believe that the cost to shift to renewable energy will be "negligible" while the cost to California may reach $1 billion by 2010, setting up potential for a backlash over rates, Selting said."

'Green goals hit by rise in offshore wind cost'

Fiona Harvey in London, Financial Times , 29 May 2008

"The construction of offshore wind farms is becoming more costly, creating further problems for the European Union in meeting its renewable energy target."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/224d710e-2d0a-11dd-88c6-000077b07658,dwp_uuid=81c13626-53d0-11db-8a2a-0000779e2340.html

'Offshore wind costs set to soar'

"29 May 2008 - The construction of offshore wind farms is becoming more costly, creating further problems for the European Union in meeting its renewable energy target, reports the Financial Times."

Paris, France (May 28, 2008) –

"Supply chain bottlenecks and the resulting increases in capital costs for offshore wind power could create new challenges for Europe's target of generating 20 percent of its energy from renewable resources by 2020, according to a new report by Cambridge Energy Research Associates, an IHS Inc. company:"

http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=9512

Comment
51 of 62

danatt

September 1, 2008

Hi Barbara,

Have you seen this one - "Tilting at Windmills" from the NY Sun? It clarifies what you're really up to here.
http://www.nysun.com/opinion/tilting-at-windmills-2006-04-19/31211/

"Such attacks - those come from www.stopillwind.org, the Web site of Maryland anti-wind activist Jon Boone - are not atypical. Similar language turns up on www.windwatch.org, on www.windstop.org, and on a dozen other anti-wind sites, most started by local groups opposed to a particular project. Their recent, rapid proliferation is not an accident: After languishing for years on the eco-fringe, wind energy has suddenly become mainstream. High oil prices, natural gas shortages, better technology, fear of global warming, state renewable-energy mandates and, yes, tax breaks have finally made wind farms commercially viable as well as clean. Traditional utility companies want to build them - and thus the traditional environmental movement (which supports wind energy) has produced a handful of untraditional splinter groups that are trying to stop them."

So, here you are - a mouthpiece for these "untraditional splinter groups" who oppose "commercially viable as well as clean" wind energy that is becoming "mainstream". Note that the article was published in April of 2006. Since then wind has become more viable due to the increasing cost of energy across the board.

But the last paragraph in that article probably said it best:
"Still, energy projects don't even have to be viable to spark opposition... There's a lot of earnest, even bipartisan talk nowadays about the need for clean, emissions-free energy. But are we really ready, politically, to build any new energy sources at all?"

We need solutions. Not naysayers.

Comment
52 of 62

danatt

September 1, 2008

Hi (again) Barbara,

Like I said above - We need solutions. Not naysayers.

Having said that, it turns out that Jon Boone does offer up a wide array of potential energy solutions in his "Better Energy Ideas" article that you referenced at the very end of comment# 53. They include:
- "getting serious about conservation and protecting our health"
- CAFE standards of 38 mpg
- tax incentives for clean coal
- reversing the deregulation of public utilities
- increasing research for nuclear fusion (Note that he says "research" for "fusion", and not the building of more current technology fission nuclear plants. This could be a topic of quite an interesting debate in itself.)
And he also says…
- "As it does for highways, the federal government could subsidize the building of transmission lines to support fields of wind turbines in very high wind potential areas"

That last one is perhaps the most interesting of all. It appears that Jon Boone may not be as staunchly anti-wind as we might have been led to believe. It appears that his gripe is more with the implementation of wind energy in less than ideal locations, rather than with wind energy itself. Here, he appears to be a proponent in the development of wind energy in "very high wind potential areas".

The transmission line issue is a key one, as it necessary to enable not only delivery of electricity from our resource rich wind corridor in the mid-west US, but also from the rich solar resources in the south-west US. Utility scale solar thermal has tremendous potential, but requires a similar type of transmission infrastructure investment.

Notice that Jon Boone doesn't seem to have a problem with the government subsidizing an infrastructure build-out that enables wind energy where it is most abundant. In fact, he promotes it as one of his "Better Energy Ideas".

So, Barbara - since you referenced that article, is it fair to conclude that you agree with the ideas that Jon Boone put forward?

Comment
53 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

September 2, 2008

Hi Dan,

That "recent" rapid proliferation of anti-wind groups mentioned in 'Tilting at Windmills' is a historical footnote from 2006. What we are "up to" is strength in numbers, (in 2008), debunking myths.

"Commercial viability of wind" is subjective and it finds the public and the environment on the wrong side of the equation. Wind is commercially viable for those seeking tax sheltering opportunities, like GE, AWEA, Enron and Cape Wind.

"The essence of "green" technology is that it strives to leave no trace. Wind is not a "leave no trace" technology. The premise behind the idea of whether we should have wind installations instead of conventional generation is badly skewed. Better to ask whether we should have phlogiston instead of oxygen in the air we breathe. Wind is a supernumerary producer of electricity enabled because the slap and tickle of wind propaganda flatters the gullible, exploits the well intentioned, and nurtures the craven. It is made possible because there's no penalty for lying in the energy marketplace."

http://www.stopillwind.org/downloads/WhyWindWontWork.pdf

"As for subsidies, I'm not generally opposed to them, assuming that one can show a definite public benefit. With wind technology, which has been at the public trough for more than forty years, there is NO benefit. It provides no meaningful product of service and it is wrecking the environment (while falsely claiming to be saving it). Subsidizing an energy source that provides no capacity (that is, specified levels of power upon demand) is the height of stupidity, evidence that, with enough money and a press that cannot examine policy implications, corporations like Enron and GE and, yes, Cape Wind, can fool all of the people most of the time...Jon"

Comment
54 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

September 2, 2008

How do you define "solution", Dan? Wind energy is the antithesis of a solution; unless you're representing the interests' of GE and Enron that seek to transfer our monetary and environmental wealth their way.

"Those promoting wind technology as a means for a better energy future are not even wrong. Since wind provides no effective capacity, it is not equivalent to conventional power generators; it is infinitely inferior to them. Subsidizing a 200MW wind project, say, at a cost of around $400 million, for a plant that would generate about 70MW of sporadic energy and no capacity, seems the height of folly.

Trading nuclear for wind is roughly equivalent to giving up Babe Ruth for a high school substitute first baseman who made the team because of his father's donations to the alumni fund. Nuclear today provides over 35% of the PJM region's electricity--and supplies most of its basic demand. It produces nearly all of its rated capacity more than 90% of the time, providing specified levels of energy whenever needed. It is the grid's superstar, running with high reliability while producing no CO2.

By contrast, wind, unlike all other conventional generators, can never be relied upon to produce specified energy levels at any particular time, generating only a variable statistical average of its rated capacity, fluttering unpredictably and often producing no energy at times of highest demand. Consequently, it cannot keep us from "going dark in future years" because of a shortage of capacity, since it does not produce any capacity. Tax and rate payers, who would finance the entire wind project costs, would pay a high price for very little. One should also note that none of wind's incredible array of subsidies is indexed to actual measured reductions in CO2 in the production of electricity. This is true in spades for Germany, which, despite all its installed wind capacity, continues to increase its carbon dioxide emissions. Ditto for West Denmark.

The rea

Comment
55 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

September 2, 2008

cont..

"...The reason oil man Pickens is in the wind business parallels Enron's and GE's reasons: the income sheltering that Congressional wind subsidies provide large corporations via tax avoidance. At its demise, Enron owned the nation's largest stock of wind projects, which GE bought in the bankruptcy proceedings. Today, GE, which owns NBC, features multi-million dollar product placement commercials for its wind projects during the Olympic coverage on that network, no doubt hoping to daze and dizzy people with razzle dazzle, rather than invoke reality.

What a fraud. No one should believe the claims of industry spokesmen or those with the financial stake in the outcome of any technology...Jon"

Comment
56 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

September 4, 2008

fireofenergy:

Where do I begin to help you focus your starry eyes?

Perhaps with RE "will be cheaper"...RE is then not "wind energy" to you? As if you consider it to be...you may be waiting until your children have children to realize "savings".

If you consider that the wind industry "cares" about your kid's future, you likely think that Gordon Gekko does, too. AWEA "cares" about your money and as Mr. Gekko would say, "If you need a friend, get a dog."

More Gekkoisms that might shed light on corporate social conscience, a theory by the example of the AWEA:

"It's not a question of enough, pal. It's a zero sum game, somebody wins, somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply transferred from one perception to another."

"You're walking around blind without a cane, pal. A fool and his money are lucky enough to get together in the first place."

"Greed captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit."

"It's all about bucks, kid. The rest is conversation."

Comment
57 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

September 4, 2008

" A private party sponsored by the wind and solar energy industries for the Republican National Convention Tuesday night featured belly dancers as the entertainment.

The party at Solera restaurant in downtown Minneapolis was sponsored by the American Wind Energy Association and the Solar Energy Industries Association, the main trade groups for their respective industries.

While delegates stood by solar panel displays and noshed appetizers of Spanish sausages, marinated red peppers and olives from tables with decorated with little white wind turbine centerpieces, belly dancers gyrated on stage."

How gauche.

Comment
58 of 62

danatt

September 9, 2008

Hi fireofenergy - Good points.

I'm still trying to understand what exactly Barbara's angle is (other than being staunchly anti-wind for any reason she can possibly dig up). It's difficult to discern, because the vast majority of her comments aren't her own words. Rather, they are disjointed quotes taken from others out of context, in an attempt to build an argument that wind energy is somehow bad, and that somehow we've all been duped into believing that it is good. Who know's? She may be trying to build a case that wind turbines are actually weapons of mass destruction. But the WMD argument has been used before, and the American public is wary of it.

Seriously though, when you go back and read the articles she references in their entirety (see my comments# 52, 56, & 57) you get a much more complete picture than you ever would from the snippets she posts out of context. When you do this, you find that her position has more holes in it than a 100 lb block of Swiss cheese.

Comment
59 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

September 10, 2008

Dan,

It's not my "angle" that should have you concerned. You should be following the money, ours, and asking if we're getting what we pay dearly for in economic and environmental terms.

I have no financial interest in the matter of wind energy other than the economic and environmental damages.

If wind power produced benefits to the environment and the public, I'd be all for it. But the benefits associated with wind power are extended to Big Wind, not us, and not our environment.

National Center for Policy Analysis:

'Why Renewable Energy Is Not Cheap and Not Green'

"Wind power has proven itself to be a perpetual "infant industry," with its competitive viability always somewhere on the horizon."

http://www.ncpa.org/studies/renew/renew2c.html

Saturday, September 06, 2008

'The problem with wind power in the UK: increased dependence on fossil fuels'

http://biopact.com/2008/09/problem-with-wind-power-in-uk-increased.html

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa422.pdf

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/27692829.html

Comment
60 of 62

barbara-durkin-58707

September 11, 2008

Dan,

Big Wind and Big Oil are indivisible.

And who's minding the "public store", "collecting" cash royalties, creating Outer Continental Shelf "alternative use" rules and regs and partying like rock stars?

The Department of Interior Minerals Management Service DOI MMS;

Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/09/11/oil_brokers_sex_scandal_may_affect_drilling_debate/?page=1

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html?_r=1&ei=5070&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1221131317-uiaQZeDLG9Y4+rx9D4GxfQ

"Even after Enron's mile long lists of fraud were exposed and they declared bankruptcy and as millions of people lost their life savings because of Ken Lay and Enron, the Large Wind Energy business lived on. General Electric (GE) purchased Enron's wind turbine manufacturing business, while Florida Power and Light (FPL) purchased Enron's wind farm projects and adopted their business model. Florida Power and Light (FPL) has carried on Enron's tradition of lobbying Congress to get what they want and according to the political watchdog group Opensecrets.org the $26 billion corporation has spent $30million lobbying members of Congress since 1998."

http://www.saveourstateri.org/wind_power_problems.htm

Shell

http://www.shell.com/home/content/shellgasandpower-en/products_and_services/wind/wind_1017.html

Chevron

http://technologyventures.chevron.com/invest_tech/portfolio.asp#PowerEnergy

Dan, you have stated to me, "So, here you are - a mouthpiece for these "untraditional splinter groups" who oppose "commercially viable as well as clean" wind energy that is becoming "mainstream".

I submit for your consideration, "So, here you are - a mouthpiece for Petro-Cats employing the business model of Enron as WindCats."

Comment
61 of 62

danatt

September 13, 2008

Hi Barbara,

Wow. I've never been called a "Petro-Cat" before. I guess there's a first for everything. I'm not familiar with that term. Did you make it up? If so, then I compliment you for your creativity.

But, as someone who does everything in their power to reduce their own consumption of petroleum based fuels, I don't think that I'd be a good "mouthpiece" for your cause. I'm proud to say that this winter, for the first time, I will not be burning any home heating oil. The wood gasification furnace that I am now installing will supply all of my home's heat and hot water needs. Unfortunately, like most Americans I still use a substantial amount of gasoline for transportation. Even the Prius that I drive (55 mpg on average) still burns too much gasoline for my taste.

I would love to own an electric vehicle. But these aren't really available, yet. That lack of availability is whole separate story in itself. Critics of EV's claim that the grid won't be able to power the transportation infrastructure that currently runs on petroleum. This brings us back to the issue at hand. IF WE WANT TO FREE OURSELVES FROM THE PETROLEUM STRANGLEHOLD WE ARE CURRENTLY IN, WE NEED MORE ENERGY; PREFERABLY FROM DOMESTIC, CLEAN, RENEWABLE SOURCES. This is the PROBLEM that requires the "solutions" that I referred to back in comments# 56 & 57.

Rather than more quotes from articles, I would honestly like to hear what you think would be better than wind for helping (as the solution will have to come from many sources) to solve the PROBLEM, as I have defined it here. Perhaps we could find some common ground there. Or, perhaps you don't believe that the PROBLEM, as I have stated it really is a problem. It would be good to know your perspective on this. If all of us (or, whoever's left) reading this thread understood that, it might help your arguments.

Please address this simple YES or NO question: Do you agree with the PROBLEM as I have stated it above in caps?

Comment
62 of 62

danatt

September 13, 2008

Hi (again) Barbara,

Back in comment# 57 I gave you credit for referencing the Jon Boone "Better Energy Ideas" article which he did lay out some very reasonable suggestions for energy solutions. I agreed with many of those. At the end of comment #57 I asked you if you agreed with the ideas that Jon Boone laid out in the very article that you referenced. I don't believe you responded to that. As far as I can tell, your responses were just more quotes from "Jon", who I assume to be Jon Boone.

Another simple YES or NO question: Do you agree with energy solution ideas that Jon Boone laid out in his article "Better Energy Ideas", that I captured in comment# 57? If you agree with some of them, but not others, please share.

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!