Wind farm project dies down with bill: Senator slips in provision

Boston Herald ^ | Thursday, October 7, 2004 | John Strahinich

[Radix]

A provision quietly attached to a Defense Department spending bill earlier this week will take the wind out of a mighty wind-energy project on Cape Cod, project supporters say.

The amendment, filed by U.S. Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, will delay indefinitely a proposed wind farm in Nantucket Sound.

``At a time when Americans are more concerned than ever about our reliance on overseas oil, it seems like a particularly bad time to put the brakes on developing a clean and local source of energy,'' said Mark Rodgers, of Cape Cod Wind Associates, which hopes to build the nation's first offshore wind farm.

The amendment - which prohibits the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from approving offshore wind-energy projects without the OK of Congress - is the latest obstacle thrown in the firm's path. Last week, Pentagon officials decided to put off releasing a massive environmental review of the developer's proposal to build 130 of its 400-plus-foot-high wind turbines in a 24-square mile area off Nantucket Sound.

``An indefinite delay in developing that resource would be a step in the wrong direction,'' said Seth Kaplan, senior attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation.

The controversial proposal has created conflicting alliances of unlikely bedfellows. The Conservation Law Foundation is among 10 environmental groups that have come out in support of the privately developed project.

Joining Warner against the project are U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy [related, bio] (D-Mass.), who also sits on the Armed Services Committee, Congressman William Delahunt [related, bio] (D-Quincy) and Bay State Gov. Mitt Romney [related, bio].

``Gov. Romney agrees that before we start developing the oceans, we need to proceed carefully,'' said Romney communications director Eric Fehrnstrom.

Warner has reportedly vacationed on the Cape for years and has two daughters who are summer residents of Osterville. Kennedy and his family, of course, spend summers at their family compound in Hyannisport.

As the debate has turned vitriolic, some project supporters are quietly accusing Warner and Kennedy of engaging in NIMBY behavior - though Not on My Private Beach may be more accurate.

Fehrnstrom says that's not fair. ``(Warner and Kennedy) wouldn't put a wind farm in the middle of the Grand Canyon or at the foot of Mount Rushmore, either,'' he said. ``Nantucket Sound is also a precious natural resource, and it needs to be protected.''

[stuartcr]

OK

[Labyrinthos]

Bottomline, wind energy is one of the most inefficent, ineffective forms of energy and hugely destructive. Kennedy's effort is excellent. The wind companies are being bolstered by plain stupid energy policy.

I agree, but that's not why Warner and Kennedy oppose the project. They oppose it because they don't want the windmills to disrupt their view from their repsective vacation houses. You and I both know that they wouldn't give a RAT's ass if the windmill farm was off the coast of Staten Island or the Bronx.

[DTogo]

Bottomline, wind energy is one of the most inefficent, ineffective forms of energy and hugely destructive. Kennedy's effort is excellent. The wind companies are being bolstered by plain stupid energy policy.

Please elaborate on your claims, and explain what a "plain stupid" energy policy is, or isn't. I'd like to see your supporting documents.

[ridesthemiles]

The original NIMBY's.

[Tunehead54]

Previously a nice desert view near Palm Springs, CA. There are worse sites but cannot find one right now :-(

---

[LisaS]

Thank you for asking.

The below link presents a concise argument for why wind is a boondoggle. (I hope it posts ok.)

http://www.gardnermountain.org/Schleede%27s%20best%206_04.PDF

WRT energy policy, I am referring to the combination of federal tax credits for wind (expired December 2003 and re instituted this month and retroactive) and State renewable energy laws (renewable portfolio standard) that mandate a specific percentage of electricity sold into the state come from renewables.

On the federal side, the tax credits encourage wind investment companies to build their plants, write the costs off within 5 years through accelerated depreciation plans. They then sell the plants to the power companies who, thanks to State mandates, are guaranteed a market.

No one stops to think about the impacts of these renewables as everyone rushes to satisfy the mandates. The link I provided addresses how ineffective current renewables are in terms of addressing our dependence on fossil fuels.

Colorado has on the November ballot, a constitutional amendment to require that 10% of all electricity in the state come from renewables (wind) by 2015. Establishing fixed numbers like this is not smart policy.

I hope this helps.
--Lisa

[LisaS]

Sadly, I am sure you are correct. In this case, I plead guilty to taking a win wherever I can get it.

[Radix]

"There are worse sites but cannot find one right now..."

I actually made the round trip drive from LA to Phoenix a while back. I found the wind farms to be an interesting view. I mean what is the problem? Nothing else was growing there.

Seriously, I have lived in Massachusetts for most of my life. I have never been to Martha's Vineyard or Nantucket.  I could not care any less about the view that Kerry and the Kennedy's have problems with while they are out there yachting. That is how I and likely most others see where the contention lays concerning this matter. 

Is wind capturing a bogus science? I suppose it might be. I also suppose that it makes more sense to exploit wind than it does fossil fuels. Some of the other posters here on this thread do not seem willing to acknowledge the fact that oil is a resource which is likely finite and also under the proprietorship (mostly) of hostile societies.

Capturing energy wind from off shore which is out of the line of site of the vast majority of citizens seems like a pretty good idea to me.

As for the whales, well I have never actually seen a whale in person. I am not saying that they do not exist, I just do not personally know any whales. I do know a Bible verse however.  I understand that many do not know nor care about what the Bible says. Still, it is true that Humans have dominion over the Earth, and if the whales have a problem with it then they should adapt or get some ear plugs or some other remedy to their problems with our dominion.

 

Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
(Whole Chapter: Genesis 1 In context: Genesis 1:25-27)

 

[Labyrinthos]

In my state -- NY -- the wind people are having a fair amount of success convincing municipalities to enter long term contracts to buy a certain percentage of their electric power from a wind farm in the western part of the state even though the cost per kilowatt hour is substantially higher than the cost for energy produced from hydronukecoal. Even the Republican whores have swallowed the green cool-aide and are now chanting the mantra that wind power is good for the environment. The good news is that several lawsuits have been commenced to set aside the contracts on the grounds that they violate the competitive bidding laws, which require competitive bidding on all nonemergency municipal contracts with a face value of something like $5000 or more.

[DTogo]

Those turbines are very old and inefficient ones from the '80s. Yes, an eyesore that should be "repowered" by larger more efficient turbines, with greater space between them.

But what constitutes a "nice desert view" is in the eye of the beholder. :)

[DTogo]

Thanks for the link. Many of the arguments are obviously biased against renewables (use of the word "insidious" several times), rely on several "if/then" arguments and assume the initial "if" is true, don't take into account that current sources of fossil fuels are finite (and have costs to deliver and/dispose of), and production tax credits received by wind farms are based on energy generated which requires wind farms to work as efficiently as possible (if the wind don't blow or the turbines are prone to problems, nobody will invest in it and it won't get built).

Another thing is the bonus depreciation are "losses" the investor applies against tax liabilities over the life of the wind farm investment, generally 20 years. I have never heard of an investor who takes the tax benefits (5 year depreciation or 10 year production tax credits) and then abandons the project. That happened in the 1980s when wind farms paid the tax credit up front, regardless of performance, but doesn't apply now.

Plus the link ignores recent charades in the US energy market with "traditional" sources of electricity, unlike wind which has long-term purchase agreements at agreed prices (regardless of market shenanagins, and sometimes inflation).

Offshore wind generally has stonger and steadier winds, resulting in higher capacity factors, and much lower costs of energy to the purchasing utility (3~4 cents per kWh), despite the higher offshore capital costs.

[thackney]

I'm a little uncertain about the relationship.

Given the difference between sound (pressure) waves and magnetic waves, I think you made a bit of an understatement there.

[LisaS]

You are correct, abandonment is a less likely scenario today. More likely, the sites are sold outright to a power company. Again, the power companies are required to buy into these wind plants (or trade the green tags) in order to satisfy laws in the States where they sell their product.

The investment companies that build wind sites are more like venture firms. They raise the money for the projects, outsource construction, do a nice sales job on rural communities on why they are doing right by the world and how their taxes will drop with the revenue stream, and then dissolve when the project is sold. Folks in the view shed are left to deal with the noise, the blade flicker, the impacts to migratory birds and other wildlife habitats, the limits on access to the area, and probably higher electricity rates.

While I understand that fossil fuels are finite, I do not believe renewables will make a difference - Unless we are willing to sacrifice huge regions of the US.

In the case of Colorado, the Platt River Power Authority, which supplies 5% of the electricity in the state, would need to build a wind facility that covers 8000 acres in order to meet the 10% requirement should the constitutional amendment pass. I do wonder whether the folks in Colorado realize this fact.

(I will reread the report again and look for the bias. Since I agreed with the premise, I am afraid I didn't notice words like "insidious". :)

[LisaS]

I hope the fight keeps up. The wind folks are slick in selling their idea. They are also very aggressive. Unfortunately, they've succeeded in pitting conservationist against conservationist.

The pro-wind group is a powerful lobby that has made headway on capitol hill and in the states. I find that politicians and state energy officials are always surprised when someone voices an "anti" argument.

[DTogo]

Companies that buy wind farms are generally large-cap investment firms or power utilities with tax liabilities - in order to utilize the production tax credits. They are not venture cap firms, but they do outsource construction to companies qualified to do so - even traditional utility companies outsource engineering/construction of their own power plants. Wind farm owners, however, are almost always separate from the utility buying the power, otherwise the PTCs do not apply, except in the case of power cooperatives - they sometimes own their own wind farms and keep the power as they are tax exempt entities with no use for the PTCs.

People in the view shed deal with very little noise as the noise of blowing wind in your ears is louder than that of the spinning wind turbines. Impact to migratory birds is unproven, and I doubt many people in the view shed sit in their front lawns eagerly anticipating the flight of migratory birds. Besides, people in the view shed of traditional power plants have to deal with other issues.

As for the actual footprint of wind turbines, it is generally a 50 x 50 concrete pad that is buried under a meter or two of topsoil. Cows can graize right up to the towers and farmers can farm in between them. 8000 acres may be the overall area covered by windfarms to meet this requirement in Colorado, but the actual footprint of the turbines is negligible and would generally not impact land usage.

[LisaS]

It is interesting that you say impact to migratory birds is unproven. If the case, why are wind facilities agreeing to shut down turbines during key migration periods? Wouldn’t that be an expensive concession given a 30-35% average output to begin with?

However the companies are structured, my question continues to be “wind power at what price?”. If I lived in Colorado, I would question how much of the land in my state would need to be consumed by wind turbines to make a difference in our fossil fuel use and corresponding green house gases. Yes, you can graze cows between the towers. But stating that the facility would “generally not impact land usage” could only be true if the land was of no use beyond grazing a cow here and there. Perhaps that is the case – and no one would live between the towers nor fashion any other commercial or residential opportunity. Even “useless” land is pretty to look at.

That said, as you move eastward, the ridgelines of New Hampshire and Vermont are hardly as expansive nor as “useless” in the opinion of many. You clearly have knowledge of the energy business. Do you have reason to believe that wind power can provide average output (minus any backup systems) to make a dent in the 20 million barrels we consume daily? If yes, would all of North Dakota need to be overrun with turbines to make that dent?

[DTogo]

I wasn't aware of any facility that shuts itself down during migratory periods. Do you have a project name or location? Yes, it could be very costly to the wind farm, depending on the time of year it's shut down and for how long.

As for wind power at what price, states with an RPS have a lot of project developers running around trying to get projects going, giving utilities the ability to shop around to get the lowest price. But the project must then find an investor that finds it financially attractive in order to get built, not to mention many other permitting issues. Any Tom, Dick, or Harry can't simply force a utility (and ultimately consumers) to buy energy from inefficient wind farms.

Wind power could probably make a small dent in America's energy consumption, not so much with regards to gasoline, but helping to replace aging coal and oil-fired power plants - often grandfathered from current EPA standards. You'd still need plenty of "baseload" fossil fuel power for when the wind isn't blowing, but with whatever subsidies or tax break/credits each industry receives, wind power is currently just as cost-effective as new fossil fuel power plants (as in $/kWh).

BTW, companies that shop "green" energy to consumers for a premium are just lining their pockets. The wind farms are likely already up and running, power purchased has already been factored into the utility's rates, and they are just playing on consumer's feelings for the environment.

[DTogo]

I wasn't aware of any facility that shuts itself down during migratory periods. Do you have a project name or location? Yes, it could be very costly to the wind farm, depending on the time of year it's shut down and for how long.

As for wind power at what price, states with an RPS have a lot of project developers running around trying to get projects going, giving utilities the ability to shop around to get the lowest price. But the project must then find an investor that finds it financially attractive in order to get built, not to mention many other permitting issues. Any Tom, Dick, or Harry can't simply force a utility (and ultimately consumers) to buy energy from inefficient wind farms.

Wind power could probably make a small dent in America's energy consumption, not so much with regards to gasoline, but helping to replace aging coal and oil-fired power plants - often grandfathered from current EPA standards. You'd still need plenty of "baseload" fossil fuel power for when the wind isn't blowing, but with whatever subsidies or tax break/credits each industry receives, wind power is currently just as cost-effective as new fossil fuel power plants (as in $/kWh).

BTW, companies that shop "green" energy to consumers for a premium are just lining their pockets. The wind farms are likely already up and running, power purchased has already been factored into the utility's rates, and they are just playing on consumer's feelings for the environment.

[biblewonk]

That's Great!!!! I only wish they were a little closer to us. So there go 200 more of that particular GE model. At 2500 units today which is 3.75 GW worth, that is nearly 1/10th of all the 42GW of windpower installed in the world from a single model of wind turbine. Maybe they have found the optimum land based wind turbine size.

[biblewonk]

Hello, it was a back to the future joke.