Maine offshore wind compromise comes out of committee
Ellsworth American - Ethan Genter - June 23, 2021
AUGUSTA — A compromise has emerged in the state Legislature that would install a permanent ban on wind energy development in state waters and give the fishing industry a seat at the table on any federal projects that want to connect to land through the state’s jurisdiction.
The compromise came from the Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology, which had been considering a pair of dueling bills on offshore wind. The first was an outright ban of state agencies permitting wind development in the Gulf of Maine proposed by local state Rep. Billy Bob Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor). The second was a 10-year moratorium on offshore wind power projects in state waters that came from Governor Janet Mills.
Faulkingham has been the fishing industry’s standard bearer in Augusta, filing his proposed ban and headlining an anti-wind development protest at the civic center. Mills tried to appease fishermen with the moratorium, but many fishermen felt it didn’t go far enough and called for a complete halt to offshore wind projects in Maine.
Faulkingham said he had been working with state Rep. Nicole Grohoski (D-Ellsworth) on this compromise and wanted to make sure fishermen had a...
http://wind3.herokuapp.com/posts/52517-offshore-wind-compromise-com...
*************************************
Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Views: 131
Comment
-
Comment by Willem Post on June 27, 2021 at 11:53am
-
Pelosi, a No-holds-barred, Uncompromising Extremist
Dem/Progs pols, etc., use the coercive power of Socialist-centralized government to create more and more government in every area.
Their latest fads are:
1) Open borders to all comers from all sorts of s…h… countries; criminals, rapists, human traffickers, illiterates, unskilled. Spread them all throughout the US. THEIR way of MAGA.
2) Have everyone vote, citizen or not, even dead people, criminals, illegals, under-age people, out-of-state people, and the mentally retarded.
If they HAVE any address, valid or not (we are too, too busy to check), mail them a ballot. We will count itWe “care” who fills it out., but we are too, too busy to check it. We will count it
Send it in, signed or not, dated or not, return address or not. We will “curate it” and count it
No signature on file? We will count it.No photo ID on file? We will count it.
We will count, count, count, until the opposition croaks; break their willWe will keep and extend our power come hell or high water.
3) Global warming
4) HUMAN infrastructures. Pelosi says no physical infrastructures, without HUMAN infrastructures
Bernie Sanders, a Life-long Socialist/Communist
Bernie Sanders is a card-carrying Socialist/Communist, from Brooklyn, NY, who migrated to Burlington, VT, who celebrated his HONEYMOON in the USSR, before the Iron Curtain came down, now heads Senate Budget Committee.
His aim-high number is $6 TRILLION, including about $5 TRILLION for human infrastructures
Oh, he will “compromise” at 5.7 TRILLION
He says, “the need is so great, a large number is needed”.Dem/Progs in “Business”
Dem/Progs are not business people; their career-path is in command/control of the GOVERNMENT, including fraudulent counting of ballots in elections.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/preperation-of-288-000...If they have a “business”, or are “associated” with a business, it likely is a subsidized non-profit (oops a dirty word) connected to a subsidized government program.
The more of Socialist-centralized government, the more Dem/Progs and their families, friends and allies thrive, at the expense of all others.
It does not matter what area of “goods and services” they provide, whether in energy, healthcare, education, transportation, infrastructure, “fighting” global warming, open-borders/no-check immigration, etc.
The steady, insidious growth of socialist-centralized government in the US is ruining the US.
The 2010 Election showed the extent of fraudulence Dem/Progs will engage in to grab and extend their total power and keep it.
-
-
HIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...
Future Build-outs of Offshore Wind Turbine Systems
- MA, RI, and CT are planning to have 8460, 880, and 4160 MW, respectively, a total of 13,500 MW of offshore wind by 2035, much greater than the above 1600 MW.
- If the same simulation were made for 13,500 MW of wind turbines, the up/down spikes would be about 10,000 MW
- The existing CCGT plants would be inadequate to counteract them, i.e., output curtailments would be required.
- The 2035 date has a ring of urgency to it, but likely would be unattainable in the real world. See page 13 of NE-pool URL
It would take at least 20 years to build out 13,500 MW wind turbines off the coast of New England, plus large-scale solar systems to reduce the NE grid CO2/kWh by about 30%
With that much wind and solar, the NE grid would become very unstable. The NE grid would need:
1) Curtailments of wind output, kWh, on windy days
2) Curtailments of solar output bulges on sunny days
2) Major connections to the Canadian grid
3) Grid-scale batteries, with a capacity of 3 to 4 TWh; turnkey capital cost about $1.5 to $2 TRILLION, at $500/kWh, delivered as AC
https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/02/2020_reo.pdf
https://nepool.com/uploads/NPC_20200305_Composite4.pdf
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/reality-check-regardin...
NOTE: Nearby countries import German overflow electricity, when it is windy and sunny, at low grid prices (because of a German surplus), and export to Germany, when it is not windy and not sunny, at high grid prices (because of a German shortage).
The Netherlands is one of the major beneficiaries.
German households get to “enjoy” the highest electric rates in Europe, about 2.5 times as high as the US
Denmark, another wind country, is second!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/08/germanys-windexitold-wind-tu...
Maine Offshore Wind Turbine Systems are Dead
The ocean waters near Maine are deep. Almost all offshore wind turbines would need to be floating units, anchored at the seafloor with at least 3 long cables.
The 700-ft tall wind turbines would need to be located at least 25 miles from any inhabited islands, to reduce the visuals, especially with strobe lights, 24/7/365
The wind turbines would be far from major electricity demand centers, such as Montreal and Boston.
Transmission systems would be required to connect the wind turbines to demand centers
All that would make the cost of electricity produced by these wind turbines more expensive than those south of MVI.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/deep-water-floating-off...
Maine is Desperate to Stay in the Wind Turbine Business
Maine wind/solar bureaucrats likely are in active discussions with stakeholders to add 751 MW of onshore wind turbines.
Maine wind/solar bureaucrats are not in active discussions with stakeholders to add offshore wind turbines, as shown by the interconnection proposals on page 13 of URL
-
-
HIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...
Heat Pumps are Money Losers in my Vermont House (as they are in almost all people's houses)
My annual electricity consumption increased about 50% (the various taxes, fees, and surcharges also increased), after I installed three Mitsubishi, 24,000 Btu/h heat pumps, each with 2 heads; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms.
The heat pumps last about 15 years.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...
They are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, well-sealed/well-insulated house. It has 2” of blueboard (R-10 vs R-0.67 for 8” concrete) on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab which has saved me many thousands of heating dollars over the 35 years.
Before heat pumps, my heating propane was 1000 gal/y, after heat pumps, it was 830 gal/y, a reduction of 170 gal/y, or $310/y, at $2.399/gal. Additional electricity costs were $609/y. I am losing money
Domestic hot water, DHW, heating, requires about 200 gallon/y
My existing Viessmann propane system, 95%-efficient in condensing mode, is used on cold days, 15F or less, because heat pumps have low efficiencies, i.e., low Btu/kWh, at exactly the same time my house would need the most heat; a perverse situation, due to the laws of Physics 101!!
The heat pumps would be slightly more efficient than electric resistance heaters at -10F, the Vermont HVAC design temperature. It would be extremely irrational to operate air source heat pumps, at such temperatures.
I have had no energy cost savings, because of high household electric rates, augmented with taxes, fees and surcharges. Vermont forcing, with subsidies, the addition of expensive RE electricity to the mix, would make matters worse!!
Amortizing the $24,000 turnkey capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y; I am losing money.
There likely will be service calls and parts for the heat pumps, as the years go by, in addition to annual service calls and parts for the existing propane system; I am losing more money.
https://www.myamortizationchart.com
NOTE:
If I had a highly sealed, highly insulated house, with the same efficient propane heating system, my house would use very little energy for heating.
If I would install heat pumps* and would operate the propane system on only the coldest days, I likely would have energy cost savings.
However, those annual energy cost savings would be overwhelmed by the annual amortizing cost, i.e., I would still be losing money, if amortizing were considered.
* I likely would need 3 units at 18,000 Btu/h, at a lesser turnkey capital cost. Their output, very-inefficiently produced, would be about 27,000 Btu/h at -10F, the Vermont HVAC design temperature.
NOTE: VT-Department of Public Service found, after a survey of 77 heat pumps installed in Vermont houses (turnkey cost for a one-head HP system is about $4,500), the annual energy cost savings were, on average, $200, but the annual amortizing costs turned that gain into a loss of $200, i.e., on average, these houses were unsuitable for heat pumps, and the owners were losing money.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-savings-of-air-sou...
-
-
MAINE Has Much Better Options Than Expensive Wind/Solar/Battery Systems
Buildings: A state-wide building code, which would require new buildings to be highly sealed, highly insulated so they could easily be energy-surplus buildings, or be entirely off-the -grid. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc., have had such codes for at least a decade.
MAINE should be replacing run-of-the-mill, old houses, with up-to-date, energy-surplus, off-the-grid, new houses, at a rate of at least 5,000 houses per year. There would be 150,000 such houses by 2050.
Dabbling at weatherizing, at $10,000 per house, is politically attractive, but a gross waste of money. The goal should be energy conservation and high efficiency. Their combined effect would reduce CO2 at the least cost.
Energy efficiency measures to reduce energy consumption, CO2, and energy costs, such as by:
1) Exchanging traditional light bulbs for LEDs
2) Insulating and sealing energy-hog housing and other buildings
3) Increasing the mileage of existing gasoline vehicles
Such measures would cost $50 to $200 per metric ton, much less than the $2,100/Mt of electric school buses.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-l...
Vehicles: MAINE needs a gas-guzzler code to impose a fee on low-mileage vehicles.
The more below 40-mpg, the greater would be the fee.
Vehicles with greater than 40-mpg, such as the 54-mpg Toyota Prius, would be exempt.
RE folks would have everyone drive unaffordable EVs, that would not reduce much CO2 compared with EFFICIENT gasoline vehicles.
On a lifetime, A-to-Z basis, with travel at 105,600 miles over 10 years, the CO2 emissions, based on the present New England grid CO2/kWh, would be:
NISSAN Leaf S Plus, EV, compact SUV, no AWD, would emit 25.967 Mt, 246 g/mile
TOYOTA Prius L Eco, 62 mpg, compact car, no AWD, would emit 26.490 Mt, 251 g/mile
SUBARU Outback, 30 mpg, medium SUV, with AWD, would emit 43.015 Mt, 407 g/mile
VT LDV mix, 22.7 mpg, many with AWD or 4WD, would emit 56.315 Mt, 533 g/mile
The above shows,
A NISSAN Leaf, a compact vehicle, would have CO2 reduction of 30.3 Mt over 10 years (3 Mt/y), if compared with the VT LDV mix, which contains small and big vehicles.
A NISSAN Leaf would have CO2 reduction of 16.3 Mt over 10 years (1.63 Mt/y), if compared with my 30-mpg Subaru Outback, a vastly more useful vehicle
NOTE: EAN estimated 4.5 Mt/y, based on an artificial 25 g CO2/kWh electricity, instead of using the 300 g/kWh of the NE rid, calculated by ISO-NE on a rational basis. EAN neglected: 1) the CO2 of MAKING the battery, etc., and 2) LIFETIME conditions
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-elec...
NOTE: These URLs show, EVs are driven an average of 7,000 miles/y, compared to 12,000 miles/y for the US LDV mix. The difference holds for: 1) all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, 2) single- and multiple-vehicle households, and 3) inside and outside California. This means, as a fleet, EVs would reduce less CO2 than envisioned by RE folks’ dream scenarios.
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/ldavis/Davis%20AEL%202019.pdf
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a35498794/ev-owners-low-mileage-s...
Any analyses by EAN, or VT-DOT, or Concerned “Scientists” (anyone can join), etc., using 12,000, or even 15,000 miles per year, would be GROSSLY in error and DECEPTIVE.
HUGE investments to implement EVs would be required, including:
Chargers everywhere,
Additional generation with HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED, EXPENSIVE, VARIABLE, INTERMITTENT wind and solar,
Additional grid build-outs
Additional grid-scale batteries everywhere,Additional costs for balancing
Worldwide battery materials supply chainsThis means, as a fleet, EVs would reduce less than 50% of the CO2 envisioned by RE folks’ dream scenarios.
RE promoters of “GOING EV” are seriously deranged, if they keep spouting EVs have no CO2 emissions.
-
-
DEEP-WATER FLOATING OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES IN MAINE
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/deep-water-floating-off...
First Experimental Floating Wind Turbine in Norway
Equinor (formerly Statoil, a Norwegian government controlled company) launched the world's first operational deep-water, floating large-capacity wind turbine in 2009. The turbine trade name is “Hywind”.
The wind turbine consists of a 120 m (390 ft) tall tower, above the sea water level, and a 60 m (195 ft) submerged extension below the sea water level, with a heavy weight at the bottom to keep the wind turbine steady and upright, even with very high waves and strong wind conditions. The design was tested and perfected under storm and wind conditions simulated in a laboratory.
The 2.3 MW wind turbine is mounted on top of the tower. It was fully assembled in a deep-water harbor near Stavanger, Norway.
It was towed to a site 10 km (6.2 mi) offshore into the Amoy Fjord in 220 m (720 ft) deep water, near Stavanger, Norway, on 9 June 2009, for a two-year test run, which turned out to be successful.
First Commercial Floating Wind Turbine Plant in Scotland
Hywind Scotland project is the world's first commercial wind turbine plant using floating wind turbines.
It is located 29 km (EIGHTEEN MILES) off Peterhead, Scotland to minimize visual impacts from shore.
It has five Hywind floating turbines with a total capacity of 30 MW.
It is operated by Hywind (Scotland) Limited, a joint venture of Equinor, Norway (75%) and Masdar, Kuwait (25%).
In 2015, Equinor received permission to install 5 Hywind turbines in Scotland.
Manufacturing started in 2016 in Spain (wind turbine, rotor), Norway (tower, underwater base, assembly), and Scotland (various parts)
The turnkey capital cost was $263 million for five 6 MW turbines, or $8,767/kW.
They were designed to float on the surface, with about 180 m (600 ft) above the sea water level and 80 m (265 ft) submerged below the seawater level.
Total steel weight is about 2300 metric ton, total ballasted weight is about 20,000 metric ton.
Heavy weights in the bottom of the submerged parts serve to keep them steady and upright.
The turbines were assembled at Stord in Norway in the summer of 2017, using the specialized Saipem 7000 floating crane, and then towed to the north of Scotland by sea-going tugboats.
Make sure to see the videos showing the crane assembling the entire wind turbine.
Nothing like that exists in Maine, or in the rest of New England.
That means offshore wind turbine assembly and servicing would largely be performed by foreign companies, which already have built the infrastructures and other facilities during the past 25 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUlfvXaISvc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmkA6hbJ_j8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQVU7UaMuck
The huge, sea-going, specialized, crane (14,000-metric ton lifting capacity) is required for partial assembly on land and final assembly in an area close to shore with a very deep harbor, before towing, fully assembled, to the site.
The finished turbines were towed to Peterhead, Scotland.
Three cup anchors hold each turbine in place.
About 2400 meter of chain is required, weighing 400 metric ton, for each turbine.
The Hywind Scotland project was commissioned in October 2017.
Hywind Wind Turbines for Demonstration Purposes in Maine
Hannah Pingree and other Maine's wind bureaucrats in state government are engaging in mindless prattle, eager to do the bidding of various multi-millionaires and foreign companies that may be providing some wining/dining boondoggle trips to “view the Hywind turbines” in Norway and Scotland.
The turnkey cost of those two Hywind turbines would be about $10,000 per kW, versus NE ridgeline wind at $2,000/kW, and regular offshore, south of Martha’s Vineyard, at $4,000/kW.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/iso-ne-study-of-1600-mw...
That would be at about $120 million for a two 6 MW Hywind wind turbines, plus whatever facilities would need to be built in Maine to support the project.
The turnkey capital cost of the wind turbine plant in Maine would be much higher, because Maine does not have the experience of the Norwegians and the specialized equipment and specialized ships, and other facilities. It would be very costly to build those facilities and ships in Maine, or elsewhere.
600-ft Tall Hywind Turbines Highly Visible From Mohegan Island, Plus Infrasound
The 600-ft tall Hywind wind turbines would be highly visible from Mohegan Island, if they were located TWO MILES east of the island.
At that distance, the problem would not be just cyclical, audible noises keeping people awake, but also low frequency infrasound, which can travel many miles, and passes through walls of houses, and can be felt but not heard, and has been shown to have adverse health impacts on people and animals.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-turbine-noise-adve...
The FAA-required aviation beacons would be clearly visible during nighttime. BTW, they would need to be located about 15 - 20 miles away from Mohegan Island to be unobtrusive to the Islanders.
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.
http://visualimpact.anl.gov/offshorevitd/docs/OffshoreVITD.pdf
“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).”
One has to feel sorry for all the residents of Mohegan Island, but the bureaucrats in Augusta, Maine, do not care about that, because there are not enough votes to stop them. Those bureaucrats are hell-bent to use federal and state grants, subsidies, taxpayer and ratepayer money of already-struggling Joe and Jane Worker to save the world, and to enrich a host of multi-millionaires seeking tax shelters. See Appendix.
Some Questions
Who are these Aqua Ventus multi-millionaire owners pushing for this expensive project?
How much would be the subsidies?
What would be the energy cost/kWh?
How long would the project last before it would have to be repaired?
How would it be repaired?
Would any special ships, facilities be required?
Does Maine have the required, at least 100-meter, deep-water port?
Is anyone looking at the entire picture on an A to Z basis, or are Maine bureaucrats just dreaming/prattling about castles in Spain?
Does anyone think the Norwegians would not want to make money to maintain/service and provide spare parts for their Hywind wind turbines?
Extremely Adverse Impact on CMP Electric Rates
LePage’s energy director, Steven McGrath, has focused exclusively on the cost of electricity from the demonstration project.
The rate is at least FOUR TIMES above wholesale market value, reflecting the custom design and experimental nature of the platforms.
It would start at 23 cents per kilowatt-hour in the first year, escalating at 2.5% per year to 35 cents after 20 years.
The PUC estimates it would add up to $208 million over the term, or about $10.5 million a year from Central Maine Power ratepayers. Maine Aqua Ventus had calculated the extra cost would add 73 cents a month to the average household electric bill, in the first year of operation, more thereafter..
That is a total rip-off, because Massachusetts pays only an average of 8 - 9 c/kWh over the life of the project.
Main bureaucrats need to learn from Governor Baker.
NOTE: The above prices should be compared with NE wholesale prices, which have been about 5 c/kWh since 2008, courtesy of abundant, domestic, low-cost, low-CO2 electricity from gas at about 5 c/kWh, and low-cost, near CO2-free electricity from nuclear at about 4.5 - 5.0 c/kWh.
This project is insanity on STEROIDS.
One has to feel sorry for the already-struggling Joe and Jane Workers in Maine who will ultimately pay for all this.
https://www.pressherald.com/2018/04/01/effort-to-build-offshore-win...
NOTE:
Dear Mr. Greg Kesich, Editor Portland Press Herald
(Mr. Greg suggested I write an op-ed regarding the referenced PPH article, so here it is.)
This op-ed is in reference to an article on floating wind turbines off the coast of Maine in the Portland Press Herald, dated 20 May 2019.
https://www.pressherald.com/2019/05/20/our-view-blown-off-course-ma...
The article states, Statoil had proposed a $120 million demonstration project for two 6 MW Hywind turbines ($10,000/kW) off Boothbay Harbor, but that Governor Page had rejected it. As you recall, his main reason was the higher electricity prices Joe and Jane Worker/Ratepayer would have to pay for 20 years.
The article states, Statoil instead took its project to Scotland, where it has invested more than $200 million for five 6 MW Hywind turbines. After some checking, the actual turnkey cost turned out to be $263 million.
Scotland got the turbines at $8,767/kW in 2017, but Maine would have gotten the same turbines at $10,000/kW.
The article states, “.....and given that country (Scotland) a head start on establishing itself as developer, manufacturer and exporter of offshore technology. Such potential was recognized by the wind energy task force, which was created in 2008 by Gov. John Baldacci and released its findings in December 2009.”
That statement is highly naïve and unrealistic. Norway has invested billions of dollars in infrastructures to develop specialized facilities and seagoing ships for shallow-water and deep-water wind turbines during the past 10 - 15 years. Norway has absolutely no intention of establishing Scotland and Maine as competitors.
The Scotland/UK actual contributions to the project were:
1) Scotland making some parts that were shipped to Norway for assembly
2) Scotland providing the site 18 miles from shore to minimize visual impacts from shore.
3) The UK providing a subsidy of 18.5 c/kWh, plus Statoil selling electricity at about 6.5 c/kWh on the wholesale market, for a total wholesale cost of 25 c/kWh for 20 years. This compares with New England wholesale prices averaging about 5 c/kWh since 2008.
4) The Scotland people paying higher prices/kWh for low-value, variable/intermittent electricity for 20 years that requires the services of other generators for peaking, filling in and balancing year-round. Statoil had to provide a 1.0 MWh li-ion battery system, at a capital cost of about $700,000, to help smooth the flow of the variable electricity from Hywind to minimize disturbances of the Scotland grid.
NOTE: If Maine government would have insisted Statoil would build significant infrastructure in Portland, ME, or elsewhere in Maine, Statoil, if willing to do so, would merely have increased the cost of the electricity, c/kWh, to cover its additional costs.
NOTE: Massachusetts has signed contracts for 800 MW of offshore wind turbines south of Martha’s Vineyard. If the state government would have insisted the consortium of European companies would build significant infrastructure in New Bedford, MA, or elsewhere in Massachusetts, the consortium, if willing to do so, would merely have increased the cost of the electricity, c/kWh, to cover its additional costs. However, Governor Baker insisted on lowest electricity cost, as that would benefit all of Massachusetts, not just New Bedford, etc. Counting votes is important. See URL.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/iso-ne-study-of-1600-mw...
NOTE:
School Students Playing with Floating Wind Turbines
The main objective with floating wind turbines is to isolate the wind turbine from any wave action, including 30 - 40 ft waves. That can only be done with a long, submerged extension of the wind turbine mast, with a heavy weight inside the bottom of the extension (ballast) to keep the wind turbine steady and upright.
Dr. Habib Dagher, Executive Director of the Advanced Structures & Composites Center, should have watched the youtube video, and then given proper instructions to teachers all over Maine, so those teachers could have educated these students regarding the physical requirements, to ensure these students would not waste their valuable time and money building inappropriate models. See URLs and watch both videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmkA6hbJ_j8
https://www.wabi.tv/content/news/Students-compete-to-build-most-sta...
-
-
HIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...
Cost Shifting from Owners to Ratepayers and Taxpayers
The owning and operating cost of wind, solar and battery systems, c/kWh, is reduced by about 45%, due to subsidies. However, because no cost ever disappears, per Economics 101, the subsidy costs are “socialized”, i.e., added, in one way or another, onto:
1) The rate bases of utilities, i.e., paid by ratepayers
2) Taxpayers, by means of extra taxes, fees and surcharges on electric bills and fuel bills
3) Government budgets
4) Government debt
5) Prices of goods and services other than electricity
If the subsidies had to be paid by owners of wind and solar systems, the contract prices paid to owners would need to be:
- At least 19.3 c/kWh, instead of 11 c/kWh, for large-scale solar- At least 15.5 c/kWh, instead of 9 c/kWh, for ridge line wind. See table 1 and URL
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...
Shifting Grid Costs
Many small-scale solar systems and/or a few large-scale solar systems on a distribution grid would excessively disturb the grid, especially at midday. Battery systems, with sufficient capacity could counteract the output variations of those solar systems.
Wind and solar systems could not be connected to the grid without the services of the CCGT plants, i.e., shutting down CCGT plants, and artificially diminishing/obstructing their domestically produced gas supply, advocated by pro RE folks, would not be an economic option for decades, if ever, because of the high costs of battery systems.
1) The cost of extension/augmentation of electric grids to connect widely distributed wind and solar systems (not paid by wind and solar system owners)
2) The cost of services rendered by other generators, mostly CCGT plants, which counteract the ups and downs of weather/season-dependent, variable, intermittent wind and solar outputs, 24/7/365 (not paid by wind and solar system owners).
3) The cost of battery systems to stabilize distribution grids, due to variations of the solar and wind system outputs (not paid by wind and solar system owners).
Shifting Owning and Operating Costs
The combined effect of cost shifting, determined behind closed doors, increases a project’s annual cash flow, i.e., “left-over-money”, to provide an ample profit for the RE system owner.
RE system owners are happy, having the “ears” of friendly politicians, saving the world from climate change, and claiming: “See, my project is profitable and competitive”, while everyone else gets hosed.
1) Grants from various sources, such as the VT Clean Energy Development Fund
2) 26% federal investment tax credits, plus state FITs. Tax credits reduce, dollar-for-dollar, the taxes GMP pays on profits
3) 100% depreciation over 5 years; the normal for utilities is 20 to 25 years. Write-offs reduce GMP taxable income
4) Deductions of interest on borrowed money. Interest deductions reduce GMP taxable income.
5) Various O&M payments are waved, such as sales tax, fees, property tax, school tax, municipal tax, etc.
6) RE system owners sell their output at two to four times NE wholesale market rates, which have averaged about 5 c/kWh starting in 2009, courtesy of:
- Low-cost, low-CO2, very-low-particulate, gas-fired CCGT plants
- Highly reliable, very-low-CO2, zero-particulate, nuclear plants
- Low-cost, very-low-CO2, zero-particulate, hydro plants Canada.
All-in Cost of Wind and Solar
Pro RE folks always point to the “price paid to owner” as the cost of wind and solar, purposely ignoring the other cost categories. The all-in cost of wind and solar, c/kWh, includes:
1) Above-market-price paid to owners
2) Subsidies paid to owners
3) Owner return on invested capital
4) Grid extension/augmentation (not paid by owners)
5) Grid support services (not paid by owners)
6) Future battery systems (not paid by owners)
Comments on table 1
- The owners of legacy systems were paid much higher prices, than owners of newer systems.
- Vermont legacy “Standard Offer” solar systems had greater subsidies, up to 30 c/kWh paid to owner, than newer systems, about 11 c/kWh
- Wind prices paid to owner did not have such drastic reductions as solar prices.
- Vermont utilities are paid about 3.5 c/kWh for various costs they incur regarding net-metered solar systems
- "Added to the rate base" is the cost wind and solar are added to the utility rate base, which is used to set electric rates.
- “Traditional cost”, including subsidies to owner and grid support, is the cost at which traditional is added to the utility rate base
- “Grid support costs” would increase with increased use of battery systems to counteract the variability and intermittency of increased build-outs of wind and solar systems.
NOTES:
1) The prices should be compared with the NE wholesale grid price, which has averaged about 4.2 c/kWh, starting in 2009, due to low-cost CCGT and nuclear plants, which provided at least 65% of all electricity loaded onto the NE grid in 2019.
- Wind, solar, landfill gas, and methane power plants provided about 4.8%, after 20 years of subsidies
- Pre-existing refuse and wood power plants provided about 4.6%
- Pre-existing hydro power plants provided about 7.4%
- The rest was mostly hydro imports from the very-low-CO2 Canada grid, and from the much-higher-CO2 New York State grid
https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/
https://nepool.com/uploads/NPC_20200305_Composite4.pdf
2) There are O&M costs of the NE grid, in addition to wholesale prices.ISO-NE pro-rates these costs to utilities, at about 1.6 c/kWh. Charges for:
Regional network services, RNS, are based on the peak demand occurring during a monthForward capacity market, FCM, are based on the peak demand occurring during a year.
3) Each local utility has its own O&M grid costs, in addition to item 2, some of which are detailed on electric bills.
4) Vermont utilities buy electricity from various sources; average cost about 6 c/kWh, plus ISO-NE charges of about 1.6 c/kWh, for a total of 7.6 c/kWh.
Table 1/Vermont & NE sources
Paid to
Subsidies
Grid support*
GMP
Added to
Total
Traditional
Times
owner
to owner
cost
adder
rate base
cost
cost
c/kWh
c/kWh
c/kWh
c/kWh
c/kWh
c/kWh
c/kWh
Solar, residential rooftop, net-metered, new
17.4
5.2
2.1
3.5
20.9
28.2
7.60
3.7
Solar, residential rooftop, net-metered, legacy
18.2
5.4
2.1
3.5
21.7
29.2
7.60
3.8
Solar, com’l/ind’l, standard offer, combo
11.0
6.74
2.1
11.0
19.84
7.60
2.6
Solar, com’l/ind’l, standard offer, legacy
21.7
10.5
2.1
21.7
34.3
7.60
4.5
Wind, ridge line, new
9.0
4.1
2.4
9.0
15.5
7.60
2.0
Wind, offshore, new
12.1
5.4
2.8
12.1
20.3
7.60
2.7
* Excludes future battery costs
-
-
My Lord-o-Christ!
I just cannot believe, it took that long, about 15 years?, to preserve the fishing habitats; a NO-BRAINER.
HOW MANY BIG OFFSHORE, FLOATING, WIND TURBINE COMPANIES HAVE COME KNOCKING ON THE MAINE GOVERNMENT DOOR?
You guessed it.
ZERO.
HEY, Maine Government, get a life!
Maine cannot do diddly-squat regarding GLOBAL WARMING.
MAINE’s best LOW-COST approach is to insulate and seal like crazy, and build NET-ZERO-ENERGY houses and other buildings.
Forget about the IMPOVERISHING wind and solar subsidies, and all the rest of malarkey.
ISO-NE does not even want Maine to do more wind, and certainly not floating offshore.
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
******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********
(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 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From 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?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From 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.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/
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."
https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/
© 2024 Created by Webmaster.
Powered by
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