Resite Now

Advocating responsible siting of industrial wind turbines in Tippecanoe County

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

A few articles of general interest

E-mail Print PDF
EverPower purchasing Invenergy wind lease options

KATHLEEN FOX
Assistant Editor

At least some Champaign County property owners' wind lease option agreements with Invenergy have been purchased by EverPower, so state EverPower letters dated Dec. 20 welcoming property owners to the "project family" and inviting them to visit the Buckeye Wind project's Bellefontaine office Dec. 29 to receive a holiday ham and information about the "Buckeye Projects." The invitation does not extend to public or media, EverPower officials say.

Invenergy originally had about 62 leases in the county, according to records at the county Recorder's Office, but how many of these may be involved in a transfer is not known. One property owner with an Invenergy lease told the Daily Citizen he has not been informed of a transfer.

Daniel E. Bline, 4820 Allison Road, Mechanicsburg, said his lease agreement is now with EverPower. He said the terms are the same except that Wind Energy is no longer the lease holder for his options or his mother's.

Bline said EverPower seems a progressive company and professional. He would not discuss details of any EverPower letters or legal agreements.

An anonymous lease holder leasing Wayne Township parcels to EverPower for turbine development said she and her husband know little about the wind energy lease option transfer, only that theirs were purchased by EverPower from Invenergy.

The anonymous person shared with the Daily Citizen a letter sent by EverPower on Dec. 20. The notice, welcoming the couple "into our project family," tells of the transfer and asks the couple to attend an information meeting at EverPower's Bellefontaine office on Dec. 29.

Walter Bumgarner, 8743 E. state Route 29, Mechanicsburg, told the Daily Citizen he hasn't received a letter or word of any kind that his lease agreement had been sold to EverPower. Bumgarner said, as far as he knows, his pact to lease a Goshen Township parcel for turbine development is still with Invenergy.

EverPower and Invenergy officials are not commenting on any transfer of leases or communication with lease holders.

"Our goal is to make a very community-friendly wind project, and by that I mean we continue to want to work with the land owners and the community to make sure this wind project is sited properly and is around for a long time" is the only comment Buckeye Wind spokesman Jason Dagger would give for this article.

In 2009, the Ohio Power Siting Board approved 54 wind turbines (Buckeye Wind project) to be built on the east side of Champaign County. The company would need to go before the board again if EverPower were to expand this original project or embark on a second project, according to state regulations.

Noise, safety and setbacks were among topics discussed when attorneys appeared before the Ohio Supreme Court in September to answer questions and state their cases concerning the OPSB's approval of EverPower's Buckeye Wind project.

Union Neighbors United, a citizens group, opposed the project, citing a number of concerns, including noise, health and safety. While not supporting or opposing the project, Champaign County and the townships of Goshen, Union and Salem also appealed the OPSB decision due to concerns about adequate financial coverage for repair of roads and bridges damaged by construction of the project and for the eventual removal of turbines.

Supreme Court personnel reiterated Friday that cases generally are decided four to six months after they are before the court.

Asked about his quote in another publication that a court decision was expected "any day," Dagger said he did not mean he expected a decision shortly, but rather that it could come at any time, sooner or later.

Staff Writers Jim Painter and Craig Shirk contributed to this article.

Wind power company could build more than 50 turbines

EverPower buying rights in Champaign County from Invenergy.

URBANA — A company that wants to build more than 50 wind turbines in Champaign County is acquiring leases that could allow to build even more in the future.

Local residents with lease agreements from Invenergy Wind North America LLC said they received a letter from the company notifying them of an agreement between Invenergy and EverPower Wind Holdings Inc.

Ted Black, who owns a farm in Union Twp., said Invenergy first approached him about a lease agreement about six years ago. But Black said he received a letter from the company in October stating that Invenergy was in the process of selling its leasing rights to Champaign Wind LLC, a subsidiary of EverPower.

Invenergy had more than 30 agreements with local residents, according to a News-Sun review of records in the Champaign County Recorder’s Office.

EverPower is in the process of constructing more than 50 wind turbines in Champaign County as part of the Buckeye Wind Project.

Although the project was approved by the Ohio Power Siting Board last year, opponents filed an appeal, and the case is now being reviewed by the Ohio Supreme Court.

If approved, the project is expected to generate 150 to 200 temporary jobs and 8 to 10 full-time jobs. It would provide as much as $20 million in taxes to the state, county and township governments and to local schools over the life of the project, according to information from the company.

Jason Dagger, a spokesman for Buckeye Wind, said the project cannot move forward without a decision by the Ohio Supreme Court, but said a ruling is expected any day.

Dagger declined to discuss the agreement with Invenergy but said construction on Buckeye Wind could begin as early as the second quarter of 2012.

Environmental permits, road use agreements and other items must first be completed.

“We expect a Supreme Court ruling any day, and we feel that’s going to be very positive for the project,” Dagger said.

Representatives from Invenergy, based in Chicago, declined to comment Thursday.

Black said he has yet to sit down with representatives from either company since receiving the letter.

“It’s just going to kind of simplify the project in this area,” Black said.

Jon Berry, a Champaign County resident who also has a lease agreement with Invenergy, said he received a similar letter informing him of the agreement between Invenergy and EverPower. Berry said the terms of his lease with Invenergy will not change.

Matt Butler, a spokesman for the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, said if EverPower decides to use the leases to add a second phase to the project, it would have to submit a new application for approval. He said the state would not have to approve the lease agreement, but would have to approve any proposal for new turbines.

In the meantime, the Ohio Supreme Court is still reviewing an appeal filed in the Buckeye Wind Project, which would include 54 turbines throughout the county.

Union Neighbors United, a group opposed to the wind farm, objected to the process in which the Ohio Power Siting Board approved the project.

Chris Walker, an attorney for UNU, said the siting board failed to set a clear standard for how much noise turbines could produce and did not do enough to hold the project accountable to residents before issuing its approval.

“It all boils down to how far away should the turbines be from adjoining neighbors’ properties,” Walker said.

Walker argued the siting board also did not provide enough opportunities for opponents to present evidence on certain aspects of the plan, including which turbine will be used.

Champaign County prosecutors have said they neither oppose nor approve of the Buckeye Wind Project. But they argued that although the OPSB required Buckeye Wind to provide $5,000 per turbine for decommissioning, no evidence was presented to show how the OPSB decided on that amount.

Buckeye Wind is waiting on the court’s decision before selecting the model of turbine that will be used in the project. Dagger said Buckeye is in talks with several vendors and will narrow the list after the court’s ruling.

“Technology continues to change at lightning speed,” Dagger said.

When it was first proposed, Buckeye Wind was the first large-scale wind project in Ohio to begin the approval process with the OPSB. While it has been delayed in the courts, other projects in the state have since become operational.

Dagger said he is not sure why there was more opposition to the Champaign County project.

“We fall under the same siting regulations as those other projects,” he said.

Contact this reporter at (937) 328-0355.

 

How far should turbines be? Counties have different standards for setbacks

Credit: BY DAVID GIULIANI, www.saukvalley.com 25 December 2011 ~~

DIXON – Is there a magical number for how far wind turbines should be from homes?

In Whiteside and Lee counties, the required distance is 1,400 feet.

Some counties have shorter setbacks; at least one county’s is greater. A few months ago, Brown County in central Illinois voted in a 2,000-foot setback, which may be the state’s longest.

In Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker proposed a statewide 1,800-foot setback.

In most cases, wind energy companies can negotiate with their neighbors to put wind turbines even closer than setback requirements allow. Such waivers usually mean cash for neighbors.

In recent months, the issue came up in the Whiteside County Board’s committees. One proposed a 100-foot increase, while another voted for the status quo. The matter never reached the full board.

For 6 months, the Lee County Zoning Board of Appeals has been reviewing its wind regulations. Only 2 weeks ago did the panel get to the controversial issue of setbacks, and that was just 10 minutes before adjournment.

During that short time, the board’s chairman, Ron Conderman, said he was fine with the current setback, while another member, Tom Fassler, suggested a 1 mile barrier.

The other three members didn’t offer a distance.

In October, a scientist suggested to the board that the setback be somewhere between 1 and 2 miles. He said there was “overwhelming evidence” that turbines hurt some people’s health.

Wind farms create noise, vibrations and shadow flicker that cause people to develop sleep, stress and mood disorders, the scientist said.

Issues related to wind farms don’t draw as much interest in communities such as Sterling, Dixon and Rock Falls. That’s because they have such high concentrations of people that there’s little likelihood that industrial turbines will be nearby.

Many in rural areas are becoming increasingly worried about the coming of wind farms. They hear stories about turbines’ effects on their friends near turbines.

The villages of Franklin Grove and Ashton in Lee County and Deer Grove in Whiteside County have passed ordinances regulating wind farm development in the 1.5-mile buffer zones around their communities. They have the right to do that.

Given political sentiment, it’s doubtful any of these towns will allow turbines anywhere near.

Earlier this year, Hamilton Township in southwestern Lee County passed a nonbinding comprehensive land-use plan that calls for banning turbines altogether.

Hamilton is where much of Ireland-based Mainstream Renewable Power’s three-county wind farm is planned.

The company said it plans to be a good neighbor.

The setback issue likely will be the major topic at the Lee County Zoning Board’s meeting on Thursday.

The County Board will have the final say.

 

 

Community threatened by wind farm staff
October 25, 2011 in Amnesty International

 

Farmer upset with wind company

Credit: BY DAVID GIULIANI, www.saukvalley.com 7 November 2011 ~~

COMPTON – Gale Barnickel, a Compton farmer, says he’s not against the wind farm being built in his area.

He and his parents decided against having turbines on their farm, but he said they respected the rights of others to have them.

“We have no problems with what the neighbors want,” he said.

Now, he is alleging that wind energy company Goldwind USA has been repeatedly trespassing on his family’s property. And that has resulted in crop damage, he said.

The property is well posted, he said, so trespassers knew what they were doing.

He brought the allegations to last week’s meeting of the county Zoning Board of Appeals, which is recommending changes to the county’s wind energy ordinance.

On Sunday, Goldwind admitted that its contractor mistakenly crossed into Barnickel’s land.

“When they realized this, they contacted Mr. Barnickel to apologize and address the issue,” spokesman Colin Mahoney said in a statement.

Since then, he said, the contractor has taken “concrete steps” to clearly mark Barnickel’s land, so it’s more visible to construction crews.

At last week’s meeting, those attending expressed concern about Barnickel’s situation. Another wind company weighed in, saying such things shouldn’t happen.

Goldwind, a subsidiary of a Chinese company, is putting up 71 turbines in an area of roughly 6 square miles near Compton in eastern Lee County. It hopes to finish the project – known as Shady Oaks – by year’s end.

In September, a farmer reported that the company had built a road through his cornfield that, he said, was unnecessary. He and another farmer pointed out roads and easements that, they contend, the company mistakenly built through faulty planning.

Other paths for transmission lines were curved, when a straight line would have taken out less cropland, they said.

Unlike Barnickel, those farmers allowed wind turbines on their property, which means they’ll get money every year from the company. In the contracts, Goldwind has agreed to compensate farmers for cropland lost in the construction project.

Barnickel has no agreement with Goldwind.

“Something has to be done to control these guys,” he said. “We try to be neighborly, but we’ve caught them mowing down our crops. They’re cutting corners wherever they can.”

Board member Tom Fassler asked Barnickel whether he had called authorities. The farmer said he had filed two reports with the Lee County Sheriff’s Department, but that it was a waste of taxpayers’ money to keep calling out the sheriff.

“It’s nerve-wracking being pushed around,” Barnickel said. “Why should I have to put up with that?”

“You shouldn’t,” Fassler responded.

Franklin Grove Village President Bob Logan, who attended the Zoning Board meeting, said that was what happens when wind farms are rushed through.

“You’re seeing the rush in the southern part of the county,” he said.

Logan warned that the county may face class-action lawsuits because “rights aren’t being respected.”

“It’s not a level playing field,” he said. “We are here to level it.”

John Martin of Mainstream Renewable Power, which plans a three-county wind farm, told Barnickel that “it’s just not right. No company should operate like this.”

The next day, Barnickel’s wife, Christina Barnickel, said in an interview that the state should fine companies that trespass.

“We have tried to stop them and showed them where the property line is,” she said. “You put so much hope and investment in the crop, and then someone knocks it over. It rubs you wrong.”

Mahoney said the company would continue to work hard to make sure it is a responsible neighbor throughout the rest of the project. He noted that the project is complex, with more than 100 workers busy building access roads, erecting turbines and delivering components on site.

“Despite this complexity, Goldwind is committed to minimizing the impact on the local community, including both participating landowners and neighboring landowners alike.”

 

Invenergy in the Serengeti of North Carolina

E-mail Print PDF

Friends of Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge just finished waving goodbye to the Navy, its fighters and their outlying landing field only to turn around and see seeds planted that would sprout 500-foot tall wind turbines, each with a blade sweep of about one acre, in almost the same location as the proposed landing field.

The Friends of Pocosin was created in 2008 from the outpouring of grassroots support garnered by North Carolinians Opposing the Outlying Landing Field. One would think it would be simple to rekindle the passions of those myriad and diverse supporters that included individuals, elected officials, town and county governments, hunt clubs, businesses, civic organizations and environmental organizations that faced down the Navy. But there are some wild cards to consider.

One is timing. This industrial wind project dubbed the Pantego Wind Facility is apparently on the fast track. If things click the way corporate interests would like, 49 acres of cuisinart blades could be churning in the skies next to Pocosin Lakes when hundreds of thousands of waterfowl, including about 60 percent of the entire population of tundra swans, return to the area in 2012.

Another factor is marketing. The NAVY is the NAVY, and the Navy is an integral part of the nefarious government and there’s little difficulty in stirring up opposition to almost anything government-related. However, for many in rural eastern North Carolina, Pantego has a nice ring to it. After all Pantego is a small, rural community in Beaufort County with a population of around 170, according to the 2000 census. But what is Pantego Wind Energy LLC? It is a subsidiary of Invenergy, a Chicago-based energy corporation that is one of the five largest (and the No. 1 one independent) owners of wind generation plants in the U.S. This corporation with more than $130 million in assets wants you (and me) to subsidize their Pantego Wind Facility. This might be a good time to interject that there are at least 14,000 abandoned wind projects across the U.S. It seems that after subsidies were exhausted and profits didn’t materialize, these farms were simply abandoned.

So in these money-strapped times Invenergy (AKA Pantego Wind Energy LLC) is intimating that Beaufort County government could see $1 million annually in tax revenue. Plus there would be lease agreements with a few local farmers and after 100 jobs during construction, Invenergy is promising a whopping 5 full-time jobs to tend the turbines. But money is money and according to local news reports Tom Thompson of the Beaufort County Economic Development Commission is already endorsing the plan and Invenergy reports already having signed at least 20 leases with area farmers.

And about all that energy, it’s a drum I intend to keep beating until wind developers and their supporters decide to come clean and be honest with the public. The Pantego projects calls for 49 1.6 MW (megawatts) turbines to be built. They are touting 80 MW of electricity — enough, they say to power 15,000 homes. The fact is, the actual generating capacity will be much closer to 26 MW and perhaps the ability to power 5,000 homes.

Some that helped de-wing the Navy are still on alert. Derb Carter of the North Carolina Office of the Southern Environmental Law Center and Robert Scull of the Cypress Group of the North Carolina Sierra Club spoke out against the proposal at a Nov. 17 meeting of the Utilities Commission in Washington, D.C.

From my point of view, however, we are missing one of the strongest players that took the lead in aborting the Navy’s plans to infringe upon what many biologists and environmentalists call North Carolina’s Serengeti — that part of eastern North Carolina that rivals the majestic migrations of Africa’s Serengeti. Audubon North Carolina (ANC) was at the forefront in protecting Pocosin Lakes and its environs. To date, I have found one mention of ANC’s stance regarding the Pantego facility. It was a very thoughtful and clear pronouncement from ANC’s, Curtis Smalling, Important Bird Areas (IBA) Coordinator (39 of the 49 planned turbines are sited on ANC IBAs). in a brochure from Friends of Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. The brochure can be seen at www.pocosinlakesfriends.org.

In a kind of summation, Smalling writes: “Area is highly sensitive and if permitting moves forward, the bar must be very high on showing that impacts are minimal, mitigated, and that adaptive management is in place to correct any problems that arise (if the facility makes it to construction).” Searches of ANC’s website and blog site, however, (as of early Nov. 21) made no mention of the Pantego Wind facility.

National Audubon appears to be quite fervent in their support of wind power. But the caveat has been responsible siting. Pocosin Lakes is the perfect place for Audubon to step forward and show unequivocally that their support of wind power does not supersede their support of wildlife, wildlife habitat and wild places.

To find out how you can make your voice heard regarding the Pantego wind project contact Larry Hodges at (available at source) or at hodgeswas at aol dot com.

(Don Hendershot is a writer and naturalist. He can be reached a This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .)

Last Updated on Wednesday, 23 November 2011 22:31
 

Field Fragmentation

E-mail Print PDF

00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Decommissioning and Salvage Value

E-mail Print PDF

If you don't play by Invenergy's rules...

Impasse over salvage value of wind turbines in Champaign County

 

URBANA -- Developers of a 30-turbine wind farm proposed for northeast Champaign County said Thursday that they have reached an impasse with county officials over the role of including the value of salvaged materials in covering the decommissioning costs of the project.

The county's negotiator in the project, Assistant State's Attorney Joel Fletcher, said that including salvage value is a policy issue regarding the interpretation of the county's wind farm ordinance, and that that issue must be decided by either the county zoning board of appeals or the county board.

"Salvage value can, I believe, play a role here," Fletcher said. "That's why this is a policy role for you to make. It's not a black and white legal decision."

Invenergy officials argued that Champaign County officials have attached a stricter interpretation to their ordinance that could kill the project in the county.

“My point is that if you interpret it as excluding salvage value," said Invenergy attorney Michael Blazer, ‘you would be interpreting cost in a way that no other county has."

Invenergy has estimated its decommissioning costs in Champaign County at $5.7 milion, and projected the salvage value of the 30 turbines at $4.8 million.

Kevin Parzyck, vice president of development for Invenergy, said that not including salvage value in calculations would add millions of dollars to the cost of the project.

"As you can imagine, as we evaluate this, that just makes it unreasonable for us to provide turbines in the location," he said. "Going beyond that would be very difficult, and we'd have to look at some alternatives to our layout if that's the case."

Already most of the so-called California Ridge project would be located to the east in Vermilion County.

Even though Thursday's meeting of the zoning board was the sixth on the wind farm project, the board continued the case to a seventh evening, meaning the county board will get the case no sooner than its November meeting. The next zoning board meeting will be at 6 p.m. Oct. 20 at the Brookens Administrative Center, 1776 E. Washington St., U

Invenergy also said Thursday that it has reached road agreements with the two townships affected by the project, but the details of the agreements were not released.

 

Recent News

E-mail Print PDF

Wind Power is Dying (the world over)

Tait Trussell on Aug 28th, 2011

 

While the U.S. is dumping billions of dollars into wind farms and onshore and offshore wind turbines, this energy source is being cast aside as a failure elsewhere in the world.

Some 410 federations and associations from 21 European countries, for example, have united against deployment of wind farms charging it is “degrading the quality of life.”

The European Platform Against Wind farms (EPAW) is demanding “a moratorium suspending all wind farm projects and a “complete assessment of the economic, social, and environmental impacts of wind farms in Europe.” The EPAW said it objects to industrial wind farms which “are spreading in a disorderly manner across Europe” under pressure from “financial and ideological lobby groups,” that are “degrading the quality of life living in their vicinity, affecting the health of many, devaluing people’s property and severely harming wildlife.” A petition for a moratorium has been sent to the European Commission and Parliament, said EPAW chairman J.L Butre.

France, earlier his year ran into opposition to its plan to build 3,000 megawatts (MW) of offshore wind turbines by 2020. That year is the target date the European Union set for providing 20 percent of its energy through renewable sources. An organization called the Sustainable Environment Association, opposes wind power, saying the subsidies will “not create a single job in France.”

In Canada, Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO) has launched a province-wide drive against wind power. It said Aug. 8 it wants to ensure that the next government is clear that “there is broad based community support for a moratorium…and stringent environmental protection of natural areas from industrial wind development.” WCO claimed, “The Wind industry is planning a high powered campaign to shut down support” for the WCO’s aims. “Our goal is to store the petition until the next legislative session gets underway in the fall…”

The Netherlands has approximately 2,000 onshore and offshore wind turbines. But even though Holland is synonymous with windmills, the installed capacity of wind turbines in the Netherlands at large has been stagnant for the past three years, according to an article in February in the Energy Collective. It was 2237 megawatts (MW) at the end of 2011. That was said to be about 3.37 percent of total annual electricity production. The principal reason for the stagnant onshore capacity “is the Dutch people’s opposition to the wind turbines.” They are up to 400 feet in height.

The Dutch national wind capacity factor is a dismal 0.186. The German wind capacity factor “is even more dismal at 0.167,” the article said.

Expanding wind power to meet the European Union’s 20 percent renewables target by 2020 meant adding at least another thousand 3 MW, 450-foot wind turbines to the Dutch landscape “at a cost of about $6 billion.” Not surprisingly, the Dutch people found that to be far too costly—“an intrusion into their lives and an unacceptable return on their investment, especially when considering the small quantity of CO2 reduction per invested dollar.”  read more:  http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/28/wind-power-is-dying/

 

Where the Jobs Aren't

With the economy stagnating and unemployment high, where are the jobs of the future going to come from? A few years ago, it seemed as though the Green Economy could be a big part of the answer.

New clean-energy sources could address environmental, economic and national security problems all at once. In his 2008 convention speech, Barack Obama promised to create five million green economy jobs. The U.S. Conference of Mayors estimated in April 2009 that green jobs could account for 10 percent of new job growth over the next 30 years.

Alas, it was not to be. The gigantic public investments in green energy may be stimulating innovation and helping the environment. But they are not evidence that the government knows how to create private-sector jobs.

Recently, Aaron Glantz reported in The Times on some of the disappointments. California was awarded $186 million in federal stimulus money to weatherize homes. So far, the program has created the equivalent of only 538 full-time jobs. A $59 million effort to train people for green jobs in California produced only 719 job placements.

SolFocus designs solar panels in the United States, but the bulk of its employment is in China where the panels are actually made. As the company spokesman told Glantz, “Taxes and labor rates” are cheaper there.

There’s a wealth of other evidence to suggest that the green economy will not be a short-term jobs machine. According to Investor’s Business Daily, executives at Johnson Controls turned $300 million in green technology grants into 150 jobs — that’s $2 million per job.

Sunil Sharan, a former director of The Smart Grid Initiative at General Electric, wrote in The Washington Post that the Smart Grid, while efficient and environmentally beneficial, will be a net job destroyer. For example, 28,000 meter-reading jobs will be replaced by the Smart Grid’s automatic transmitters.

read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/opinion/brooks-where-the-jobs-arent.html?_r=4&smid=tw-nytimesopinion&seid=auto

 

Wind Energy Does Little to Reduce CO2 Emissions

Here is an important article regarding wind energy not reducing CO2 on grids. The article is based on 2 studies using measured, real-time operations data of the Colorado, Texas and Irish grids, all with significant wind penetration. The studies show increases of CO2/kWh due to adding wind energy to electric grids.

 

For some years wind turbines were presented to the public as renewable energy producers that would reduce the CO2 emissions from fossil plants, because less fossil fuels would be burnt, while making the US less dependent on energy imports from unstable regions.

 

Wind turbine vendors, project developers, financiers, trade organizations, etc., popularized wind energy as saving the planet from global warming with PR campaigns that claimed there would be significant CO2 reductions/kWh, that capital costs/MW would decrease, and that wind energy costs/kWh would be at grid parity in the near future.

 

Apparently many people, including many legislators and the US president, believed it all, because a fear-driven, heavily-subsidized, multi-billion dollar build-out of wind turbine facilities occurred.

 

End December 2010 installed US wind turbine capacity: 41400 MW; top 5 states: Texas 10085 MW, Iowa 3675 MW, California 3177 MW, Minnesota 2192 MW, Washington 2104 MW. Estimated capital cost about $70 billion, mostly during the past 10 years.

 

US 2010 wind energy production: 2.3% of total production, or 94,650 GWh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States

 

It may take another 10 years to install the next 40,000 MW and have 4.6% wind energy. However, there may not be sufficient capital due to shrinking subsidies, because the US economic, fiscal and monetary conditions are not favorable.

 

Skepticism About CO2 Reductions: After skepticism was expressed by power systems engineers in the US, the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, Australia, etc., about claims regarding CO2 reductions/kWh due to wind energy for at least the past five years, several studies were performed which have accurately quantified the CO2 reductions/kWh based on measured operations data of the grids of Colorado, Texas and Ireland, all with significant wind energy penetration.

 

ERCOT of Texas, Public Service of Colorado, and EirGrid of Ireland are three grid operators that publish 1/4-hour or 1-hour operations data of relevant parameters that can be used to analyze the effects of wind energy on the operations of the other plants (coal, nuclear, hydro, gas) on their grids.

 

Prior studies, such as the one below, used simulations, modeling and statistical methods and made assumptions regarding grid operations, dispatch of generators, wind energy variation, wind energy forecasting, etc., instead of using real-time, 1/4-hour operations data sets.

 

Denny & O'Malley "Wind generation, power system operation, and emissions reduction" Feb. 2006

http://ee.ucd.ie/erc/member/2005transdenny.pdf

 

They reach incorrect conclusions because of the assumptions made and methodologies used. They should have been based on real-time, 1/4-hour operations data sets, but they were unavailable at that time.

 

It is unfortunate those studies were used to justify investments in wind turbines totaling several hundred billion dollars during the past 15 years.

 

There may be a deliberate withholding of 1/4-hour data sets by utilities and wind turbine owners to make it difficult for energy analysts to accurately determine the wind energy impacts on the grid, CO2 emissions and fuel consumption. That sort of fine-grained data is essential to perform accurate analyses of wind energy impacts.

 

Public Service of Colorado records 1/4-hour wind energy production but refuses to release the data; it is citing "trade secrets". These wind turbine facilities were built with public subsidies; should not the public know that its money is invested in the most effective manner to reduce CO2.

 

STUDY OF COLORADO AND TEXAS WIND ENERGY

 

The Bentek study of the Colorado and Texas grids, based on measured hourly (in case of Colorado) and 1/4-hourly (in case of Texas) power plant operations data of fuel consumption and CO2, NOx and SOx emissions, proved that wind energy on the grid needs to be:

 

- balanced with energy from other plants, preferably quick-ramping CCGTs and OCGTs, to ensure grid stability and,

- that this balancing produces more CO2/kWh, more NOx/kWh, and more SOx/kWh (from coal plants on the grid), and uses more fuel/kWh with wind energy on the grid than without.

 

Balancing Wind Energy: The balancing plants, usually consisting of quick-ramping gas turbines or hydro plants, would need to ramp down when wind energy surges and ramp up when wind energy ebbs at least 100 to 200 times per day to ensure a near-perfect balance of supply and demand is maintained on the grid. The balance needs to be maintained to minimize excessive frequency and voltage deviations from target values to avoid brownouts and blackouts and to avoid overloads.

 

The balancing plants would need to operate at a percent of rated output to be able to ramp up and down. Such operation is very inefficient for gas turbines and ramping up and down at a percent of rated output is even less efficient. This results in significantly increased Btus/kWh and increased CO2 and NOx emissions/kWh and SOx emissions/kWh by coal plants.

 

When coal plants are used as wind energy balancing plants, as is the case with Colorado and Texas, the rapid up and down ramping at part-load causes their combustion systems (designed for optimum, steady operation near rated output) to become unstable, and because the up and down ramping causes the chemical composition of the flue gas to vary, the scrubber-based air pollution control systems (designed for optimum, steady operation near rated output) also become unstable as the required stoichiometric chemical ratios cannot be maintained in a timely manner. The up and down ramping increases wear and rear of equipment and shortens rheir useful service lives, just as with a car.

 

read more:  http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/64492/wind-energy-reduces-co2-emissions-few-percent

 

Opinion:

Just how “green” and eco friendly are industrial wind turbines?

Consider the reinforced concrete foundation base used to anchor a turbine into the soil. A typical base can contain 250 to 650 cubic meters of concrete. The size of the base depends on the turbine height, the mass of the blades and gearing systems, and the foundation engineering requirements of the turbine.

A typical ready mixed concrete truck holds 8 to 9 cubic meters each so that is a LOT of truck loads to fill just one single base (30 loads minimum, 70 loads maximum). Each cubic meter of concrete typically has an average mass of 2400 kg. Of that 2400 kg, one can expect 355 kg will be cementing materials and the remainder will be water (130 to 150 kg), chemical admixtures (mass is negligible) and aggregates (1915 kg to 1935 kg of stone & sand).

If we suppose that the Province were to follow through with their plans for 7000 turbines in Ontario, that would require the following amounts of materials: CEMENT 621,250 tonnes to 1.615 million tonnes, WATER (at 150 kg per cubic meter): 262.5 million liters to 682.5 million liters, STONE & SAND (at 1935 kg per cubic meter) 1.636 million tonnes to 4.25 million tonnes. That is a staggering amount of resources.

All of this material is extracted, mined, processed and transported using machinery that is either powered by diesel fuel, coal or electricity. Cement kilns are monster consumers of coal and natural gas. The bulldozers, crushers, screeners, trucks, railway cars and ships used to create and move this stuff all gobble countless thousands of liters of fuel.

The quarries needed to produce the cement and aggregates are stripped of their vegetation, and then they are rehabilitated (more fuel and energy consumed in that process).

Not to mention the construction roads and construction activity to “access” and develop all 7,000 IWT sites; and the energy and efforts required to create a new electrical grid that is necessary to connect all 7,000 IWT sites into the existing power supply grid.

Ontario has a finite amount of what are considered to be “prime” aggregate sources. Will there be any left for our existing roads, bridges, public buildings, homes, factories and farms? If so, how much will be left and at what premium will we have to pay to use it? The 7,000 turbines will be “competing” for these same “prime” aggregate sources.

So, how “green” is all of this going to be after all?

Replacing Ontario’s coal plants with Industrial Wind Turbines substitutes one set of air pollutants for another set of air / sound and ground pollutants. Is this protecting Ontario in the way that Minister Wilkinson would have us believe it is?

W. Dean Trentowsky

Mitchell, ON.

 

 
  • «
  •  Start 
  •  Prev 
  •  1 
  •  2 
  •  3 
  •  4 
  •  5 
  •  6 
  •  7 
  •  8 
  •  9 
  •  10 
  •  Next 
  •  End 
  • »


Page 1 of 12

Donate to Resite Now

Upcoming Events

06/03/2013 :: 10:00 - 12:00
Commissioner's Meeting

06/05/2013 :: 16:30 - 18:00
Ordianance Committee (APC)

06/17/2013 :: 10:00 - 12:00
Commissioner's Meeting

06/19/2013 :: 19:00 - 21:00
Area Plan Commision meeting

06/26/2013 :: 19:00 - 21:00
Board of Zoning Appeals meeting

Polls