From 24 December, 2017 to 8 January, 2018, New England was gripped by cold weather stretch of cold weather, with all major cities in New England averaging temperatures below normal for 16 consecutive days, including 10 days with average temperatures more than 10 degrees Fahrenheit below normal. This cold spell resulted in a temporary spike in the price of natural gas in New England, which in turn triggered heavy use of oil for electricity production and high wholesale electricity prices.


NOTE: The temporary price spike, etc., likely would have been avoided if:


- More existing gas turbine plants had been arranged for firing with gas and fuel oil

- More gas and fuel oil storage facilities had been installed near the gas turbine plants.

During this 16-day cold period it happened to be very windy, and if 1600 MW of offshore wind turbines had been located south of Martha’s Vineyard, they would have produced about 435 GWh of electricity during the period; 1600 MW x (16 x 24) h x 0.708, capacity factor = 435 GWh*; the high capacity factor is due to very high winds


* The annual production is expected to be about 1600 x 8766 x 0.45 = 6312 GWh, which would be about 100 x 6312/121059 = 5.2% of annual electricity loaded onto the NE HV grid.

On an hour-to hour basis, which is what really counts, the wind output can often be near zero. See below graph and Appendix.


NOTE: During another 16-day period, occurring around the same time, it could be not so windy, and much less GWh would have been produced.

It would be unwise and premature to make any production pronouncements, without an analysis of about 10 years of weather data of the notoriously variable NE weather in that area.

696-ft Tall Wind Turbines Highly Visible From Martha‘s Vineyard South Shore


The wind turbines would be located about 12 to 14 miles from Martha’s Vineyard south shore. The masts and rotors would be clearly visible during daytime and the aviation beacons would be clearly visible during nighttime, because the 9.5 MW turbines would be about 187 meter tall, or 617.1 ft, plus about 79 ft for the above-water platform = 696 ft above water at the tip of the blade.


Here is a research report of daytime and nighttime visibility of wind turbines that are about 3 to 4 MW and about 500 ft tall. See URL with photos.


“Study objectives included identifying the maximum distances the facilities could be seen in both daytime and nighttime views and assessing the effect of distance on visual contrasts associated with the facilities. Results showed that small to moderately sized facilities were visible to the unaided eye at distances greater than 42 km [26 miles (mi)], with turbine blade movement visible up to 39 km (24 mi). At night, aerial hazard navigation lighting was visible at distances greater than 39 km (24 mi). The observed wind facilities were judged to be a major focus of visual attention at distances up to 16 km (10 mi), were noticeable to casual observers at distances of almost 29 km (18 mi), and were visible with extended or concentrated viewing at distances beyond 40 km (25 mi).”

Electricity Cost of 800 MW Vineyard Wind Project


The electricity cost for Phase 1 of the Vineyard Wind project would start at 7.4 c/kWh in year 1, and escalate at 2.5% for 20 years to become 12.13 c/kWh in year 20; average (7.4 +12.13)/2 = 9.763 c/kWh


The electricity cost for Phase 2 of the Vineyard Wind project would start at 6.5 c/kWh in year 1, and escalate at 2.5% for 20 years to become 10.65 c/kWh in year 20; (6.5 + 10.65)/2 = 8.576 c/kWh. See Appendix 5.


NOTE: NE wholesale electricity prices have averaged about 5 c/kWh since 2009, courtesy of:


1) The great increase of electricity produced with low-cost, clean burning, low-CO2, domestic natural gas, and


2) Electricity produced by near-zero-CO2, NE nuclear plants, which together with gas provided about 67% of electricity loaded onto the NE HV grid in 2017. See Appendix.


MassCEC Requested ISO-NE to Perform a Study of 1600 MW of Offshore Wind


MassCEC, is a renewable energy promotion organization, likely financed by wind proponents. It has been actively promoting offshore wind for Massachusetts.

MassCEC requested ISO-NE to perform a study of 1600 MW of offshore wind during the 16-day period.

MassCEC likely knew the study would show high electricity production, because it had been very windy during the 16-day period.

MassCEC wanted to use ISO-NE to confirm the high electricity production, CO2 reduction, and fuel quantities displacement, so MassCEC could use these values in its press releases.


Mass CEC provided ISO-NE with offshore wind production estimates for three offshore project scenarios of varying nameplate sizes: 400 MW, 800 MW, and 1600 MW.

These estimates were based on the very high wind speeds recorded for three offshore sites (Sites A, B, and C) during the 16-day period.

The offshore wind production estimate for each project scenario is shown in Table 1 of URL


Extreme Variations of Wind Output During the 16-day Period


The below graph from the ISO-NE study shows the simulated output of the 1600 MW of wind turbines.

The extreme output variations are typical for wind turbine systems during windy conditions.

These output variations are counteracted by the other power plants, which places an extra financial burden on the owners of those plants for which they are not compensated.

In Germany, the UK, Spain, etc., with higher percent wind on their grids, the owners are compensated.


The below graph shows winds were so strong that wind outputs were maximal for many hours of the 16-day period, i.e., the flat lines near about 1550 MW.

That means the wind was very strong, at least 40 mph.

The rotor blades were partially feathered to avoid rotor overspeed.

Note the sudden decrease and sudden increase of outputs on 8 January 2018.


The below graph shows wind outputs were varying from about 1550 MW to between 0 and 200 MW (5 times).

During each of the 5 dips, the MW decrease, from about 1550 MW to near zero MW, was very rapid, which meant other plants (mostly combined-cycle, gas-turbine plants, CCGTs) had to ramp up their outputs to make up the shortfall of wind production


General Comments


It is a good thing those CCGT plants were ready to provide electricity, on a 24/7/365 basis, and were in good working order, staffed and fueled, to increase/decrease their outputs, as required, by ISO-NE, the grid operator.


The more wind turbines (onshore and offshore) in the future, the more CCGT plant capacity, MW, would be needed to counteract the larger and larger ups and downs of wind production.See Appendix.


Wind electricity is totally dependent on those CCGT plants, as is the case for solar.

Wind electricity could not be fed into the grid, if no adequate capacity, MW, of power plants were available for peaking, filling in and balancing, 24/7/365.


It is far beyond lunacy, to subsidize wind, that provides such cripple electricity for at most 25 years, “because it is (partially) CO2-free”


By comparison, nuclear provides low-cost, steady, 24/7/365 electricity for about 60 years, plus is almost entirely CO2-free


If the NE grid were to have 40% of its electricity from wind and solar, and with existing tielines to other grids, there would be no way the other CCGT plants could balance the wind and solar electricity.


Ireland: It could not be done in Ireland, with minor tielines to other grids, with only 17% wind.


Ireland received subsidies from Brussels to build additional tielines to the much larger UK and French grids, so it could add more wind turbines.


Any excess wind electricity during strong wind periods is exported to the UK and France and any electricity shortage during weak wind periods is made up by imports from the UK and France.


Denmark and Germany, two countries with high renewable electricity, and very high household electric rates, already have strong tielines to nearby grids for the same purpose. See graph in Appendix and URL for analysis of Irish grid.


ISO-NE energy systems analysts are well aware of this, but, for political reasons, do not want to speak out against the MassCEC rosy scenarios regarding the high levels of wind and solar planned for the NE grid. 


The 1600 MW of Offshore Wind Just A Small Part of the NE grid Load


During the 16-day period, the electricity fed to the NE HV grid, was approximately 6400 GWh. Based on the data provided by MassCEC, the electricity from the three offshore project scenarios represented, respectively, 2%, 3% and 7% (rounded percentages) of electricity fed to the NE HV grid during the period.


During the 16-day period, NE domestic production was approximately 5300 GWh. On an annual basis, NE domestic production is about 87% of electricity fed to the NE HV grid. About 13% is imported, via tielines, from other grids


Offshore Wind Competitive with Traditional Energy Sources Due to Cost Shifting


- Turnkey capital cost of 1600 MW of offshore wind would be about $8 billion, at $5million/MW, including 1) grid from wind turbines to shore, and 2) onshore grid expansion.

- Owners like to make about 10% on their investments.

- We assume the Owner finances the project from his own resources.

- Payment to Owner on his $8 billion investment at 10% for 20 years, would be $926.4 million/y, or $2.54 million/d, or $40.6 million for the 16-day period.

- The 20-year electricity production would be 20 x 6312 GWh = 126,230 GWh

- Payment to Owner per kWh = 20y x $926.4 million/y/126230 x 1000000 = 14.7 c/kWh.


This demonstrates why huge subsidies, such as tax credits, grants, low-cost loans, production tax credits, accelerated depreciation, deduct interest payments from taxable income, etc., are needed to attract owners.


NOTE: It would be much less costly to provide adequate natural gas and fuel oil storage near existing CCGT plants and near any new CCGT plants. If NG were diverted to building heating during cold periods, there would be adequate fuel in storage for CCGT plants.


Subsidies are the Lifeblood of Wind 


With subsidies, the costs* would be shifted in various creative ways from:


1) Investors to the general public

2) Investors to government debt 


* Cash grants, cash subsidies, investment tax credits, depreciation write-offs, interest deductions on borrowed funds, more taxes, fees, surcharges on users, increased prices for goods and services for users, etc.; per Economics 101, no cost ever disappears.


- As a result, investors can offer their electricity at average prices of 8.58 to 9.77 c/kWh under 20-year contracts. See Appendix 5 for actual contract prices.

- Those prices are about 45% less than they would have been without all the cost shifting.

- That greatly pleases various pro-wind entities, because they are able to say to lay people, and to legislators, and in their press releases that wind is competitive with traditional energy sources.


NOTE: NE wholesale electricity prices have averaged about 5 c/kWh since 2009, courtesy of:


1) Electricity produced with low-cost, clean burning, low-CO2, domestic natural gas, and

2) Electricity produced by near-zero-CO2, nuclear plants


1) and 2) provided about 67% of electricity fed to the NE grid in 2017. See Appendix.


NOTE: Table 1 shows electricity costs for 9 and 10 percent amortization at 20 and 25 years to indicate the range of electricity costs.

Table 1/Amortization

Capacity, MW





Cost, incl. grid, $million/MW





Cap cost, $ billion





Interest, %/y





Period, y





Annual payment, $million





Production, lifetime, GWh





Electricity cost, c/kWh





NOTE: Bragging about reduced CO2 emissions and coal and fuel oil displacement by wind is inappropriate. Much more coal and fuel oil had to be used during the 16-day period than would be used during the rest of the year, because of insufficient gas storage near gas turbine plants.


NOTE: ISO-NE has repeatedly urged:


1) More CCGT plants be arranged for dual-fuel firing (gas and fuel oil) and

2) More gas and fuel oil storage near existing gas turbine plants and any new gas turbine plants to ensure the reliability of electricity generation 24/7/365, regardless of the random presence of wind and sun during unusual events, such as the 16-day cold period.


Increased Renewables per Capita Leads to Higher Household Electric Rates


The below graph shows countries with high levels of wind, solar, etc., also have high levels of household electric rates.


Politicians and bureaucrats find ways to place the cost burden of renewables (such as subsidies, grants, taxes, fees and surcharges) mostly on households, but give a free pass to the industrial and commercial sectors low for "competitive reasons"


Industry and commerce are vastly better organized and have vastly more political clout, and are much less easily swayed/bamboozled/conned than households.


The A-to-Z Uses of Fossil Fuels for Wind Turbines

"Fossil fuels are essential for making wind turbines, as Robert Wilson explains in Can You Make a Wind Turbine Without Fossil Fuels?"

"Oil is used from start to finish; from mining to crushing ore and smelting it; to delivery to the supply chain fabrication plants for the 8,000 parts in a turbine; to the final delivery to the site and erection.

Diesel-powered cement trucks drive to the installation site over roads built by diesel-powered road equipment.

The roads are paved with asphalt made from tar, a byproduct of refineries.

Fossil-fuel-made cement and steel rebar is used for the wind turbine foundations, masts and nacelles.

Diesel-powered trucks haul turbine components to the installation site, and diesel-powered cranes lift the turbine sections and about 8,000 other parts upward.


There are no electric blast furnaces, only fossil-fueled ones to make cement and most steel.

There are no electric mining trucks, electric long haul trucks to deliver the 8,000 parts made all over the world

There are no electric cement trucks, electric cranes, etc., at those sites.

The A-to-Z wind turbine process would need to be “electrified." with zero-CO2 electricity.


"Not only would windmills have to generate enough power to reproduce themselves, but they have to make enough power, above and beyond, to fuel the rest of civilization.

Think of the energy to make the cement and steel of a 300-foot tower with three 150-foot rotor blades sweeping an acre of air at 150 miles per hour. 

The turbine housing alone weighs over 56 tons, the blade assembly 36 tons, and the whole tower assembly over 163 tons. 

Florida Power & Light says a typical turbine site is a 42 by 42 foot area with a 30-foot hole filled with tons of steel rebar-reinforced concrete; about 1,250 tons of foundation to hold the 300-foot tower in place (per Rosenbloom)."


Wind and Solar Conditions in New England 

New England has highly variable weather and low-medium quality wind and solar conditions. See NREL wind map and NREL solar map.



- Wind electricity is zero about 30% of the hours of the year (it takes a wind speed of about 7 mph to start the rotors)

- Wind is minimal most early mornings and most late afternoons/early evenings (peak demand hours), especially during summer

- Wind often is minimal 5 - 7 days in a row in summer and winter, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

- About 60% is generated at night, when demand is much less than during the late afternoons/early evenings

- About 60% is generated in winter.

- During winter, the best wind month is up to 2.5 times the worst summer month

- New England has the lowest capacity factor (about 0.262) of any US region, except the US South. See URL.



- Solar electricity is strictly a midday affair.

- It is zero about 65% of the hours of the year, mostly at night.

- It often is minimal 5 - 7 days in a row in summer and in winter, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

- It is minimal early mornings and late afternoons/early evenings

- It is minimal much of the winter months

- It is minimal for several days with snow and ice on most of the panels.

- It varies with variable cloudiness, which would excessively disturb distribution grids with many solar systems, as happens in southern California and southern Germany on a daily basis. Utilities use batteries to stabilize their grids.

- During summer, the best solar month is up to 4 times the worst winter month; that ratio is 6 in Germany.

- New England has the lowest capacity factor (about 0.145, under ideal conditions) of any region in the US, except some parts of the US Northwest.


NOTE: Even if the NE grid had large capacity connections with Canada and New York, any major NE wind lull and any major NE snowfall likely would affect the entire US northeast, i.e., relying on neighboring grids to "help-out" likely would not be prudent strategy.


Wind Plus Solar:

ISO-NE publishes the minute-by-minute outputs off various energy sources contributing their electricity to the grid.

All one has to do is add the wind and solar and one comes rapidly to the conclusion both are minimal many hours of the year, at any time during the year.


- Wind plus solar production could be minimal for 5 - 7 days in summer and in winter, especially with snow and ice on most of the panels, as frequently happens during December, January and February, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.


If we were to rely on wind and solar for most of our electricity, massive energy storage systems (a few hundred GWh-scale for Vermont, multiple TWh-scale for NE) would be required to cover multi-day wind lulls, multi-day overcast/snowy periods, and seasonal variations. See URLs.


Wind and solar cannot ever be expected to charge New England’s EVs, so people can get to work the next day, unless backed up by several TWh of storage, because wind/solar lulls can occur for 5 - 7 days in a row, in summer and in winter. BTW, the turnkey capital cost of one TWH of storage (delivered as AC to the grid) is about $400 billion.



High Levels of Wind and Solar


High levels of wind and solar, say 60% of NE grid annual load (the rest supplied by other sources), could not ever stand on their own, without the NE grid having:


- Much more robust connections to nearby grids (Canada, New York State), plus

- Gas turbine plants and reservoir/run-of-river hydro plants that could quickly vary their outputs to compensate for the quickly varying outputs of wind and solar, including very lowoutputs of wind and solar, which occur at random, at least 30% of the hours of the year, according to minute-by-minute generation data posted by ISO-NE.

Rotor blades are feathered when winds exceed allowable speeds.
The turbine output would be MAINTAINED at about 95% of rated.
Such conditions are very rare in New England, may be up to 100 hours per year.
The AVERAGE out put of ALL wind turbines in New England is about 25 to 28%; it varied with the windiness of the year.

If high levels of wind and solar were built out after a few decades, and the gas turbine, nuclear, coal and oil plants were closed down (according to RE proponent wishes), and with existing connections to nearby grids, and with existing reservoir/run-of-river hydro plants, and with existing other sources, the NE grid would require 6 - 8 TWh of storage to cover:

- 5 to 7 day wind/solar lulls, which occur at random

- Seasonal variations (storing wind when it is more plentiful during fall, winter and spring, and when solar is more plentiful in summer, so more of their electricity would be available in summer when wind usually is at very low levels). See URLs.


That storage would need to have a minimal level at all times (about 10 days of demand coverage), to cover multi-day, scheduled and unscheduled equipment and system outages and unusual multi-day weather events, such as a big snow fall covering the solar panels, plus minimal wind.


– One TWh of storage costs about $400 billion, at $400/kWh, or $100 billion at a Holy Grail $100/kWh.
– Any electricity passing through storage has about a 20% loss, on a high voltage AC-to-high voltage AC basis, to be made up by additional wind, solar and other generation.
– Batteries lose about 10 to 15% of their capacity, kWh, during their lifetime, which means additional capacity has to be installed to offset that loss.
– Any electricity fed to EVs and plug-in hybrids has about a 20% charging and resting loss, from wall meter to “in battery”, as indicated by the vehicle meter, to be made up by additional wind, solar, and other generation. See URLs.;



High Electricity Prices for RE in New England

The highly subsidized wholesale prices of wind and solar paid by utilities to producers are much higher than in the rest of the US, because of New England’s mediocre wind and solar conditions.


Wind and Solar Far from Competitive with Fossil in New England

The Conservation Law Foundation claims renewables are competitive with fossil. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is a list of NE wholesale prices and Power Purchase Agreement, PPA, prices.


NE field-mounted solar is 12 c/kWh; competitively bid

NE rooftop solar is 18 c/kWh, net-metered; GMP adds costs of 3.813 c/kWh, for a total of 21.813 c/kWh

NE wind offshore, until recently, was about 18 c/kWh. See Note.

NE wind ridgeline is at least 9 c/kWh

DOMESTIC pipeline gas is 5 c/kWh

Russian and Middle East imported LNG is at least 9 c/kWh

NE nuclear is 4.5 c/kWh

NE hydro is 4 c/kWh; about 10 c/kWh, if Standard Offer in Vermont.

Hydro-Quebec imported hydro is 6 - 7 c/kWh; GMP paid 5.549 c/kWh in 2016, under a recent 20-y contract.

NE annual average wholesale price about 5 c/kWh, unchanged since 2009, courtesy of low-cost gas and nuclear.

NOTE: Vineyard Wind, 800 MW, 84 wind turbines, supplied by MHI Vestas, a Danish company, on 650 sq km (252 sq mi). The wind turbines would be located about 12 to 14 miles from Martha’s Vineyard south shore. The masts and rotors would be clearly visible during daytime, and the aviation beacons would be clearly visible during nighttime, because the 9.5 MW turbines would be about 187 meter tall, or 617.1 ft, plus about 79 ft for the above-water platform = 696 ft above water at the tip of the blade.

The electricity cost for Phase 1 of the Vineyard Wind project would start at 7.4 c/kWh in year one, and escalate at 2.5% for 20 years to become 12.13 c/kWh in year 20; average (7.4 +12.13)/2 = 9.77 c/kWh


The electricity cost for Phase 2 of Vineyard Wind project would start at 6.5 c/kWh in year one, and escalate at 2.5% for 20 years to become 10.65 c/kWh in year 20; (6.5 + 10.65)/2 = 8.58 c/kWh. See Appendix 5.


NOTE: NE wholesale electricity prices have averaged about 5 c/kWh since 2009, courtesy of:

1) The great increase of electricity generated with low-cost, clean burning, low-CO2, domestic natural gas, and 2) Electricity generated by near-zero-CO2, NE nuclear plants, which together generated about 67% of electricity fed to the NE grid in 2017. See Appendix.


"The price for energy and RECs in the Phase 1 of the long-term contracts begins at $74 per MWh (nominal $), and the price for energy and RECs in the Phase 2 long-term contracts begins at $65 per MWh (nominal $). Each long-term contract has a 20-year term, starting at the COD of the relevant project, and the prices described above escalate by 2.5 percent each year of that term which starts in 2022 and runs until 2043. The 20-year average cost of the two long-term contracts’ is $84.23 per MWh in levelized nominal dollar terms. This is equivalent to a levelized net present value price in 2017 dollars of $64.97 per MWh." See first URL about siting. See second URL about pricing.

NOTE: The NE grid is divided in regions, each with Locational Marginal Prices, LMPs, which vary from 2.5 - 3.5 c/kWh from 10 pm to about 6 pm; slowly increase to about 6 - 7 c/kWh around noon time, when solar is maximal; are about 7 - 8 c/kWh in late afternoon/early evening (peak demand hours), when solar is minimal. Unusual circumstances, such as power plant or transmission line outages, can cause LMPs to increase to 20 - 40 c/kWh, and even higher when such events occur during peak demand hours.


NOTE: The above prices would be about 50% higher without the subsidies and even higher without cost shifting. See Appendix.


NOTE: Here is an ISO-NE graph, which shows for very few hours during a 13-y period were wholesale prices higher than 6 c/kWh. Those prices are low because of low-cost gas, low-cost nuclear and low-cost hydro. The last four peaks were due to:


- Pipeline constraints, aggravated by the misguided recalcitrance of pro-RE Governors of NY and MA

- Pre-mature closings of coal and nuclear plants

- Lack of more robust connections to nearby grids, such as New York and Canada. See URLs.


Hydro-Quebec Electricity Generation and Purchases

Google this URL for the 2017 facts. The H-Q electricity supply is an order of magnitude cleaner than the Vermont supply.


Table 5/H-Q



Hydropower generated 




- Hydro


- Wind


- Biomass and waste reclamation 


- Other


Total RE generated and purchased



NOTE: Gentilly-2 nuclear generating station, plus three thermal generating stations (Tracy, La Citière and Cadillac) were shut down.


Hydro-Quebec Export Electricity: H-Q net exports were 34.4 TWh/y in 2017; provided 27% of H-Q net income, or $780 million, i.e., very profitable.


H-Q export revenue was $1,651 million in 2017, or 1641/34.4 = 4.8 c/kWh.

See page 24 of Annual Report URL.

This is for a mix of old and new contracts.

Revenue = 1641

Net profit = 780

Cost = 1641 - 780 = 861

Average cost of H-Q generation = 861/34.4 = 2.5 c/kWh


GMP buys H-Q electricity, at the Vermont border, for 5.549 c/kWh, under a recent contract. GMP buys at 5.549 c/kWh, per GMP spreadsheet titled “GMP Test Year Power Supply Costs filed as VPSB Docket No: Attachment D, Schedule 2, April 14, 2017”.

H-Q is eager to sell more of its surplus electricity to New England and New York.


That is at least 50% less than ridgeline wind and large-scale field-mounted solar, which are heavily subsidized to make their electricity appear to be less costly than reality. 


GMP sells to me at 19 c/kWh, per rate schedule. Consumers pricing for electricity is highly political. That is implemented by rate setting, taxes, fees, surcharges, etc., mostly on household electric bills, as in Denmark and Germany, etc. The rate setting is influenced by protecting “RE policy objectives”, which include highly subsidized, expensive microgrids, islanding, batteries and net metered solar and heat pumps.


World Fossil Fuel Percentage Unchanged for Over 43 years


 In the 1970s the big worry was fossil fuels would soon run out, and so we should “use them wisely”. But in the 1980s the risk changed to one of an overheating planet, and so we “should leave them in the ground.”


This article shows unchanged fossil energy use from 1970 to 2013, a period of 43 years. See URL - sthash.ppb98WN4.dpbs


Fossil fuels have been 78 to 80 percent of the world’s primary energy for at least 43 years, despite trillions of dollars spent on wind, solar and other RE during the past 20 years. See URL


Worldwide Nuclear is a Rational Way Forward


Wind and solar, despite huge subsidies for more than 20 years, have not reduced world CO2 emissions

As a more rational alternative, the world should build 200,000 MW of nuclear plants each year.

Nuclear typically requires only about one half acre of site area per MW

That would take up far less acreage than onshore and offshore wind.

That would require far less grid work than hooking up all those wind and solar plants.


No futuristic, expensive, energy-guzzling, short-lived batteries would be required.

No microgrids would be required

No islanding would be required


Within 20 years, world generation would be 20 x 200,000 x 8766 x 0.90 = 31,558 TWh/y

Capital cost about $100 billion/y, at $5000/kW. See Note.


World generation was about 25,000 TWh/y in 2018.

World generation likely would be about 40,965 kWh/y 20 years from now, at growth of 2.5%/y.

The world would have 31558/40,965 = 77% of all electricity from nuclear, just as France has today.

France has CO2/kWh about ten times lower than Germany had in 2018.

A large part of the world’s CO2 problem would finally be solved


NOTE: Korea is building a nuclear plant with four 1400 MW units for $24.4 billion, or $4360/kW, in the United Arab Emirates, UAE. This can be repeated all over the world. See URL


“Let’s go Bio” is Not a Rational Way Forward


Some uninformed people say: “Let’s go bio”.

They have no idea how much land area would be required.

Replacing US gasoline consumption of 2017 with ethanol, E100, would require 424 million acre in corn

Replacing US diesel consumption of 2017 with bio fuel, B100, would require 651 million acre in soybeans

At present, the US total crop area is about 350 million acre. See URL

Views: 522


You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Willem Post on January 10, 2019 at 9:59am


When I saw the ISO-NE study, I almost flipped.

It was grossly tilted in favor of wind,

ISO0-NE bending over backwards and forwards to not offend politically well-connected wind folks.

None of the drawbacks were mentioned.

For example, the enormous AREA requirements, compared to nuclear.

And the wholesale electricity cost, c/kWh, being at least 50% more than traditional sources.

Comment by arthur qwenk on January 10, 2019 at 9:59am

Feckless wind is ruining the  required  baseload dependent NE ISO grid.

Bring in the gas lines !

Hydro and nuclear will be needed in the future , not ideologically and  politically motivated low density  feckless renewables   trying to replace dense energy reliable and dispatchable generation sources.

Thermodynamics and real science is needed here , not politically motivated ideological motivations of the "green dream"  that are ruining the grid and driving up the cost for New Englanders.

When will real science be used here, not ideological politics?


Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power


Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT


(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.”

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

© 2024   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service