Sun Edison (First Wind Owner) In trouble with finances.

Comment

Comment by Kathy Sherman on August 8, 2015 at 1:47pm

I apologize to any who have been unable to link to the above. I think that it is for phones with a special app (although I do not have it, I could access it on my phone. Having read the entire comment, I would clarify that I only fully agree with what was said about government indebtedness for this 'energy transformation' and the role of PTC and RPS in fostering this foolishness - points that have been better articulated on this blog. What causes me to disagree with the full post is a list of references that purportedly support infrasound as the basis for health impacts of neighbors living too close to wind turbines. The list includes Nissenbaum et al. When I heard a very compelling talk by Dr. Nissenbaum, I did not hear the word infrasound cross his lips, except perhaps in showing Rick James spectrograph that included spikes on infrasound crossing into the audible sound pressure levels (or close anyway). I have read Dr. Nissenbaum say that in fact the infrasound issue was an industry-created distraction from the real issue of amplitude-modulated low frequency and aversive noise in the audible portion of wind turbine immissions. There is no doubt that Maine's permissive regulation of both day and nighttime levels for industrial sources allowed the facilities in Mars Hill and Vinalhaven to vastly exceed limits that were applied in Europe such as 35 dB nighttime near dwellings. Dr. Nissenbaum acknowledged the variance granted to First Wind's first project (?) to exceed even those inadequate Maine limits in Mars Hill. And the consultant to Maine DEP for both the compliance studies in Mars Hill and the pre-construction models for Fox Island Wind/Vinalhaven (also Massachusetts/Harvard driven via George Baker, economist) predicted that noise would exceed, models are wrong, etc. because of terrain/topography, wind shear and temperature inversions - stable atmosphere. But 1.5 miles is considered within the audible range by the folks who did noise surveys in Nordic Countries for largely much smaller (rotor, height and capacity and much owner installed and operated with responsibility to self and neighbors - that is what 'economic benefit' meant in early 2006 when the latest of the surveys, in Netherlands, used as installation date for the surveys at least one year after construction. It did not mean do you still have petro in your 401k or do you perceive that your real estate taxes will go down if a fire truck is purchased by the wind developer or heat pump/energy storage is installed in the community to offset the KNOWN FICKLENESS of wind resource where they propose to erect.

Not everyplace has as fickle wind as New England or as fickle and low as most places east of the Mississippi or maybe it is east of the Continental divide. That is my concern lately - there were good resources in 6-12 states accounting for approx 90% -95% of wind potential, at least as previously categorized. Say prior to 2010 at 50 meters. Note that is a far, far distance from 100-120 m hubs and 140 meter towers on places as in Maine at xxx meters elevation. Maine was no Saudi at #25 and Massacusetts was 35-37th at 80 meters hub. Those projections did exclude urban areas, state parks etc. The result for Massachusetts is that a very large portion of the population-dense and energy sucking land area is a no-go zone for the wind developments. Unfortunately for me, that exclusion zone did not include communities that were pretty quiet and considered rural 10 years ago. I give that as my index date because if I understand correctly that is the date against which fed EPA intends to hold states for electric generation within their state. This is unfair to states such as Massachusetts that passed legislation, I believe in '84 with an 'end'-compliance date of 2012. It certainly targetted coal and probably oil. There was a significant oil spill locally involving a local power plant (big taxpayer, big local employer) but yes it was a disaster.

Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on August 8, 2015 at 12:39pm

Kathy, your link is broken or has died I guess, as it says no longer available and takes me to https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wind-farms-worst-idea-since-cash-clu...

I did, however, find the article at the complete link location.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wind-farms-worst-idea-since-cash-clu...

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/96-years-ago-310-billion-man-reveale...

Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on August 8, 2015 at 10:53am

This behavior or signing long term agreements to produce then request permission to construct is backwards. Then once the permission to construct is given, usually due to the pressures by these sales agreements (whining by corporations to EPA et al), a go bust tactic is used to promulgate public assistance (corporate welfare) on these new unsound unsustainable technologies until any real funding appears from mislead investors from the private sector. By the time it is realized it did not do the job of being "greener" overall, they have the public seed money as a collateral to encourage investors, and end up walking away with Public funds (state and federal), Investor funds, and any sales profits along the way. With Wind and Solar, under the new Global Corporate structure that has been allowed to fester since the days of import / export taxes were eliminated, we are now finding ourselves supporting (albeit debt) indirectly foreign corporations and nations with these free trade agreements as a law of backing to do such without any recourse.

MRC of Maine is applying this same principle, getting the long term sales agreements first, then going to the DEP for permission to construct. The first time, in the Argyle / Greenbush facility/landfill proposal they came without even a plan, but a model of two concepts of either a gaseous methane production or an ethanol production facility, one based on a now defunct Indiana concept. 

We need to affect our laws to the extent that they provide the plans first, with proven abilities that pose the least harm to all life on this earth, then once completed seek permissions and upon approval seek out and secure these contracts based on their ability or let them succumb to market prices due to their inability of production.

Some small communities encourage Big Box stores to their community, often to small to support the sales, and leaving behind a vacant building which destroyed land for its construction. This in effect was displacing a smaller facility (probably existing) that would have grown as the community's needs grew and given community support, successful and developed in a way agreeable to the community.

This is planting a Seed for Growth, vs Dropping a Bomb for failure. This is the method of Commercial Wind and Solar, the Bomb method, vs the Homeowner method of meeting their own needs and selling excesses to the grid.  

Comment by Kathy Sherman on August 8, 2015 at 10:17am

We already are giving them their 'bailout"- it is called the Production Tax Credit. And then the projects dropped to Terra involve a lot of long-term power purchase agreements made by governmental entities or mandated by governmental entities and their renewable portfolio standards- i.e., ratepayers of the future are paying off the mortgage. Taxpayers are also being obligated by renewable bonds to finance these projects and the infrastructure for industrial wind offshore. And the capital is already pouring out to non-domestic turbine manufacturers and developers.

Until recently I would not have found so much agreement with this piece, but the logic seems sound to me now:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wind-farms-worst-idea-since-cash-clu...übner

Comment by Penny Gray on August 8, 2015 at 9:58am

Oh my heart just breaks for them...

Comment by Long Islander on August 8, 2015 at 9:38am

Candidates on wind power:

For instance, Fiorina describes wind power as the pet of “ideologues in the environmental movement.” Those turbines are “slicing up hundreds of thousands of birds every year.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421677/carly-fiorina-communic...

It would reward states and utility companies that move quickly to expand their investment in solar and wind power.

Clinton called the plan "the floor, not the ceiling," and said she would go further.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/02/hill...

Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on August 7, 2015 at 7:09pm

This is why TerraForm was established as their YeildCo to help get their finances in order. Pawning it off on investors that will take the hit, like another Enron bubble. Selling themselves to themselves eventually, and owning their own debts. Then "We the People" will hand them a Government Bail out. Except this will be going to a foreign nation by the time the bubble bursts.