Maine Wind Farm plan revisited

[Tim Seaver]

Marginal?

From:New England Wind Forum

How Does Wind Compare to the Cost of Other Electricity Generation Options?

In terms of direct costs, larger wind farms in windier areas are now considered economically competitive with "conventional" fossil fuel power plants in many locations. In New England, wind power direct costs are approaching the cost of alternatives, particularly given the recent high natural gas and oil prices.

But to compare the costs of wind power to other types of electricity generation on an apples-to-apples basis, it is critical to consider both direct and indirect costs, as well as to consider the value of the output.

* All generation sources have indirect costs imposed on society as a whole that are not paid for by generators and therefore not reflected in the direct costs of electricity. In comparing the true costs of wind power with the costs of other alternatives, the costs of air, water, and land pollution from generation as well as fuel extraction and transport, nuclear waste disposal, oil spill prevention and cleanup, exposure to physical or economic disruption of supply lines, and military intervention to ensure supply, usually tilt in favor of wind power.

 

[forestgnome]

Guess who owns Redington Mt.?
Endless Energy!

Ouch!!!

Well, I was under the impression that they were trying to first get approvals, then they would buy the land. I must grudgingly accept the thought of another chunck prescious forest being trashed. The right to private property is just too important, and I cannot be hypocritical, since I am a strong advocate of property rights and outraged at Kelo v. New London/eminent domain abuse.

I wonder if EE owns all the land through which the tramission lines must be installed. If not, that is probably a sticking point they seek to overcome, along with the usual type of red tape. If so, I pray the land needed for the lines is owned by someone unwilling to sell.

I agree with Stan. We will probably all pay for this in part. It will produce a little bit of energy, which will be gobbled up, and will not result in a single pound less of coal to be burned elsewhere. But some people feel good, man!

A windtower is what it is. It will not learn to produce more as it ages. The only way to increase production is to build more and more of them.

jjmcgo, you think a wind factory looks awesome? We have different opinions of what is beautiful. I like forested land, which is shrinking.

 

[Stan]

It's generally accepted in energy circles that, absent subsidies in the form of grants and tax incentive, windpower is not economically competitive with conventional sources. However, it is probably the most viable of all "alternate energy" sources (e.g. solar, tidal etc.) but that can vary by location and application.

... in other words, I ain't buying into that report.

I do agree that indirect costs, not in the accounting sense but in the environmental sense, should be considered. The "indirect cost" here is clearly much higher in the perception of some people than in others.

Before we industrialize our mountains and our shorelines I do believe we should first exhaust highly efficient measures: distributed generation, demand management, higher efficiency lighting and heating ... all can have paybacks of under 10 years for the owners, all have already stood the test of time, and none have adverse environmental effects of any kind.

 

[Tim Seaver]

I don't think the Department of Energy is simply making it up as they go along, but i would be interested in seeing actual sources that counter their contentions.

Wind power is one of the most promising and cost-effective renewable energy technologies available today. Worldwide there are more than 13,000 megawatts (MW) of wind power installed.

In the 1980s, California purchased large quantities of wind power, investments that provided the manufacturing and operating experience needed to bring the cost of wind power down to affordable levels. There are now 1600 MW of wind power installed in California, and another 1000 MW installed in other parts of the country. Combined, this is enough to generate electricity for over 750,000 homes.

The number of wind farms in the US has increased substantially in the last few years. In 1999, there were 730 MW of new wind farms installed. The US Department of Energy projects that by the end of 2001, the US will have 4600 MW of wind power, enough to generate electricity for 1.7 million homes. Due to the increasing number of wind farms, the price for wind power will fall. Currently, wind power costs between 3 and 6 cents per kWh to generate. By 2005, it is expected to be closer to 2 cents, making it one of the cheapest resources available.

 

[dms]

Both the summits of Redington and Black Nubble are located in mountain protection subdistricts, no development is allowed in areas over 2,700 ft. in elevation. The proposed wind turbines will require rezoning by LURC.

 

[forestgnome]

Both the summits of Redington and Black Nubble are located in mountain protection subdistricts, no development is allowed in areas over 2,700 ft. in elevation. The proposed wind turbines will require rezoning by LURC.

Ahhh! ...and there is the reason for the p.r. campaign. Although I am a property-rights advocate, I accept zoning ordinances in such cases, especially if the ordinance is in place at the time the land is purchased.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

I'd rather not jump in here with my opinion (particularly), as I suspect that most people are rather polarized at this point. Suffice to say - my views have changed substantially over the past few years as I viewed 1st hand the large wind farms in California and other places. I now live within a few miles of a very large wind farm in the the Tehachpi (sp?) mountains in California. Tim's reference to the US DOE is not blowing smoke - CA now derives approx 5% of it's AC power from wind, and the plan is to rapidly increase it to 20%. The original time frame was to reach that goal by 2016 - Gov. Aaaanold urged the goal be reduced substantially, and there was very broad support for it.

California began this debate before much of the US (as usual) and eventually most reach the same point -- oil and coal won't last forever. And we need power, so what are our viable choices? Define those, plan how to implement them with the least impact, and get on with making appliances and all devices which consume power as energy efficient as possible. CA has an initiative (I believe it's called the Million Roof project or something similar) which will provide tax credits for new residential homes which install solar panels on the roofs, and feed excess power back into the grid. Granted that approach may have limited feasibility in some areas of the country, but it's a start.

Kevin

 

[jjmcgo]

Forestnome, indeed beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I moved to Eastern Pa. shortly after 3 Mile Island. It's less than 2 hours west of me. The Limerick nuclear plant is about 45 minutes due west of me. Salem is due south. They scare the crap out of me. The technology is dated, the plants radioactive and deteriorating and accusations of sloppy maintenance routrine. Plus, the end product has to be shipped cross country to a cave in Washington owned by a company that aggressively sues journalists that write about them.
Big, slow moving windmills on the sides of ridges give me a comfortable feeling, knowing they are an alternative to nuclear power and petroleum, and that the design was modified to avoid harming birds.
Stan, I agree the power sources should be closer to population centers and I predict they will be soon after the "pioneers" on the Cape and at Redington overcome the Luddites.
Windfarmer, why can't the technology be adopted to buildings and bridges? That should be one of the next steps.

 

[funkyfreddy]

Windfarmer, why can't the technology be adopted to buildings and bridges? That should be one of the next steps.

Hello! That's what I've been asking since I first heard about this technology! NYC, Boston, Chicago, Portland, etc. are windy cities with lots of skyscrapers and bridges. I think wind turbines should be REQUIRED on all of them.

A combination of turbines and solar panels on these structures could supply a lot of power to the areas it's used in. No need then for miles and miles of transmission lines or to industrialize forested areas of Maine.

NOTICE:What I'm saying here is PIMBY - Put It In My Backyard!

 

[dms]

jjmcgo, it's not the "Luddites", it's the LURC that is responsible for the enforcement of the zoning laws in ME, they look at the facts, the law, and listen to both sides of the issue, and then make a determination based on those things.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Industrial Quality Air

Before we industrialize our mountains and our shorelines...

In my view, we are way past that point - air pollution from coal fired plants affects the air EVERYWHERE, not just a mountain ridge here or there. Ever been to the Smokies or Joshua Tree? Take a trip to Newfound Gap (GSMNP) or Keys View in Joshua and check out the "view" - a sickening sea of smog. To me, that's a whole lot more offensive than a ridge with some spinning blades. On some days, you'll be lucky to see the next ridgeline a few miles away. Granted, much of this is from automobiles in Joshua, but the coal fired power plants in the south are a huge factor as to the air quality in the Smokies.

.....In the United States, traffic fatalities total just over 40,000 per year, while air pollution claims 70,000 lives annually. U.S. air pollution deaths are equal to deaths from breast cancer and prostate cancer combined. This scourge of cities in industrial and developing countries alike threatens the health of billions of people.

.....Air pollutants include carbon monoxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. These pollutants come primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels, principally coal-fired power plants and gasoline-powered automobiles.

70,000 lives...a year.

Am I advocating sticking windmills on every ridgeline...of course not.

But we really need to get past the hollow arguments that:

1. Wind power isn't cost effective.
2. Wind power is an insignificant source of energy.

 

[forestgnome]

Chernobyl?!!! Soviet technology is like anything else in a communist country. That's a ridiculous comparison. Even the Three Mile Island plant was built decades ago, with technology that is now ancient.

The threat of more rolling blackouts presicely proves my point, that we don't make nearly enough energy to meet demand. That's why it is obvious that a small increase in production ( from a wind factory ) would be barely noticed. Please explain where it is written that the coal-fired plants will automatically produce less if wind power adds to the energy pool.

If you owned a manufacturing plant that was producing a product in extremely high demand and low supply, would you just stop producing your product just because someone else opened a tiny plant that produced a tiny bit of the same product? Your product is still in huge demand.

It is pure utopian fantasy to believe that the coal plants will decrease production as a result of a wind factory.
I love the thought of wind energy replacing fossil-fuels. Reality is that we need countless towers to do it. The cure is worse that the disease if ridgelines and mountain tops are the only place to put them.

Windfarmer, I still haven't seen any input from you about hiking, which is the subject of this website. That says it all about your degree of reverence for the mountains.

 

[Peakbagr]

Enough is enough.