Saturday, September 30, 2006

Green Mountain Power Joins Wind Energy Works!

On Tuesday, Sept. 26, Green Mountain Power Co. (GMP) of South Burlington, Vt., became the first investor-owned electric utility to join the Wind Energy Works! partnership.

GMP thus continues its record as a wind power pioneer, having been the first utility in New England to install and operate a wind farm. The GMP wind project at Searsburg, Vt., has been in place and running since 1997 and is still the largest operational wind farm in New England (although it will soon be displaced by the larger Mars Hill wind plant currently under construction in Maine).

The Wind Energy Works! coalition is a national alliance supporting wind energy development across the country as the first major step toward a clean and safe energy future. A list of current members is located here.

Monday, September 25, 2006

Letter to the Editor, Rutland (Vt.) Herald
September 25, 2006

To the Editor:

Close readers of Eric Rosenbloom's anti-wind letter of Sept. 24 will have noted that it was long on rhetoric but remarkably short on substance.

I had cited a study prepared for the company that operates New York's electric transmission system, looking at the effect of adding thousands of wind turbines to the system. The study found that substantial fuel savings and pollution reduction would result. In response, Mr. Rosenbloom criticizes me for not providing sources from European countries on the actual experience with wind energy there.

While such information does exist, there is no need to look so far from home. Just last week (Sept. 21), Green Mountain Power Co. issued a news release on the 10th anniversary of the installation of the first wind turbine at its wind farm in Searsburg, Vt. The release said in part: "The 11 turbines at GMP’s Searsburg plant have generated 110,000 megawatt-hours [110 million kilowatt-hours] since they began operation in 1997, which is the equivalent of approximately 14,000 homes being powered by wind for a full year. Every kilowatt-hour generated by wind avoids a kilowatt-hour generated by another source, which on the New England grid is generally natural gas or oil fired during the peak periods when wind generation is at its height."

Vermont wind turbines would increase our state's energy security and make us less dependent on energy imports. They would generate electricity indefinitely, with no mining, drilling, or water use, and no air pollution, no water pollution, and no global warming pollution. Wind energy makes sense for Vermont.

Thomas O. Gray
Deputy Executive Director
American Wind Energy Association
Care2.Com and Compact Fluorescent Bulbs

Received my "butterfly" (an electronic sticker of recognition) recently for joining the Environmental Defense Million Bulb Swap-Out to Fight Global Warming, which is being propagated through the activist Web network Care2.Com.

I only pledged to swap one bulb, as all of the rest of the suitable fixtures in our house have already had CF bulbs in them for many years. But the campaign did get me to put one in a remaining fixture near our front door (I discovered it was a standard incandescent inside a globe when the bulb burned out a few weeks ago).

Join the Swap-Out! Each bulb that is switched, over its lifetime, will prevent more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, the leading global warming pollutant, from being added to the atmosphere. It will also save you a tidy bundle in lower electricity costs . . .

Sunday, September 24, 2006

National Wind Watch Attacks!

Eric Rosenbloom, the president of an anti-wind group called National Wind Watch, has a letter in today's Rutland (Vt.) Herald responding to my letter of Sept. 3. I have provided a link to Mr. Rosenbloom's letter so that readers may judge for themselves who is providing substance to this debate and who is not.

Mr. Rosenbloom complains that I did not provide a list of European papers documenting wind energy's ability to displace other fuels and reduce emissions, and contends there are none. I don't follow the European literature, but here is a European Commission Staff Working Document that looks at the success of various schemes for supprting renewable energy.

The document says in part:

"Increasing the share of renewables in the EU electricity has well recognised benefits mainly in particular:
– Improved security of energy supply.
– Enhanced competitive edge for the EU in the renewable energies technology industries.
– Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by the EU power sector.
– Mitigation of regional and local pollutant emissions.
– Improved economic and social prospects especially for rural and isolated regions.
Therefore the European Union aims to have renewable energy sources providing 21% of the electricity by the year 2010 (see Annex 1)."

Annex 1 includes some charts showing electric generation from nonhydro renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, biomass) increasing in Europe from 20 billion kilowatt-hours in 1990 to 100 billion in 2003, with wind energy providing about 40 billion kWh, or roughly 3% of European electricity consumption.

I will simply add that contentions that wind energy actually produces no electricity and displaces no emissions are without merit.
The Difference Wind Makes

A press release this week from Green Mountain Power Co. (GMP), a Vermont-based electric utility, talked about the 10th anniversary of the installation of the first wind turbine at the company's Searsburg, Vt., wind farm. It included the following quote:

“The 11 turbines at GMP’s Searsburg plant have generated 110,000 megawatt-hours since they began operation in 1997, which is the equivalent of approximately 14,000 homes being powered by wind for a full year. Every kilowatt-hour generated by wind avoids a kilowatt-hour generated by another source, which on the New England grid is generally natural gas or oil fired during the peak periods when wind generation is at its height.” [emphasis added]

This is an important statement because one of the recent accusations being widely circulated by anti-wind individuals and groups is that wind (a) generates no net electricity, (b) does not offset other fuels and (c) therefore displaces no emissions.

It's a strange contention. About the only explanation I can think of for it is a weakness for conspiracy theories. In any event, GMP owns the wind farm and presumably knows what it is in fact doing. More information on the difference wind power makes can be found here.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Letter to the Editor, Berkshire Eagle (Mass.)
September 8, 2006

We all need wind power

To the editor of THE EAGLE:

John Trimarchi’s letter of Sept. 4 (“The Berkshire wind turbine scam”) contains a number of errors.

Leaving aside the overblown (pun intended) rhetoric:

Mr. Trimarchi contends that wind energy is “unreliable” and cannot be stored. While the wind is indeed variable, so is our demand for electricity, rising and falling throughout a typical day. Utility system operators must turn generators up and down to match demand, and adding wind generators to the system does not significantly increase its overall variability. That is why, for example, the Reliability Committee of the New England Independent System Operator, which runs our regional utility system, voted unanimously to approve hooking up the Cape Wind project to the system.

Mr. Trimarchi contends that “electricity must be produced on demand.” While this is true, it applies to the entire utility system, not to each individual generator. That is why even very large generators like nuclear power plants can sometimes experience unexpected outages, while we continue to enjoy a dependable supply of electricity.

Mr. Trimarchi criticizes incentives for wind. But our tax dollars have helped support fossil fuels for decades, and continue to do so today. The result has been enormous economic growth and prosperity, but also an addiction that we need to curb. In fact, it is good public policy to support wind power—an energy source that requires no mining, no drilling, and no water, and that produces no air pollution, no water pollution, no global warming pollution, and no waste.

Mr. Trimarchi says that wind turbines installed in the Berkshires will sit idle most of the time. At a typical U.S. wind site, the turbines are generating electricity 65-80% of the time.

Mr. Trimarchi claims that wind energy will not displace energy from other sources. A fairly detailed recent study of the effects of adding wind to New York’s power system found otherwise. It said that 65 percent of the wind-generated electricity would displace electricity from natural gas, 15 percent would displace coal, 10 percent would displace oil, and 10 percent would displace imported power from other states. The study also found, “By displacing energy from fossil-fired generators, wind generation causes reductions in emissions from those generators. Based on wind and load profiles for years 2001 and 2002, annual [nitrogen oxides] emissions would be reduced by 6,400 tons and [sulfur dioxide] emissions would be reduced by 12,000 tons."

Aside from the environmental benefits enumerated above, wind farms in the Berkshires would increase Massachusetts' energy security and help keep a lid on natural gas prices (a growing amount of natural gas is used for electricity generation, and that causes price pressure on gas for home heating).

We all need to think long and hard before abandoning this inexhaustible energy resource.

Saturday, September 09, 2006

YES to Plug-In Hybrids!

One of the most exciting technologies on the U.S. energy horizon is the plug-in hybrid automobile. Plug-in hybrids would have extra batteries and could carry a larger electric charge, allowing them to drive more on electricity and save even more gasoline. According to Austin (Tex.) Energy, a municipal utility, plug-in hybrids could get up to 100 miles per gallon of gasoline.

From the big-picture standpoint, the beauty of plug-in hybrids is that they would, in effect, allow electricity to displace oil use in an even more major way. They would also add a new form of storage to the utility system, making it easier to accommodate variable--but inexhaustible--sources of electricity like wind and solar power. The potential for reducing oil imports and global warming pollution emissions is huge.

You can help bring this transformation about. Visit the Plug-In Partners Web site today!

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Addicted to Blogging . . .

Long weekend, and I've spent much of it blogging on wind. Always an educational experience--learning about "splogs" (spam blogs, the scourge of the blogosphere) and social networking sites, responding to many questions. Wrote the letter below to the Rutland Herald (of Rutland, Vt.) and will be trying to spend a bit more time in the future addressing the issues raised by the anti-wind community here in Vermont. While it is annoying to see so much misinformation about wind energy, it's also refreshing and energizing to take keyboard in hand and respond. Hope your weekend is going well . . .

Tomorrow, my wife and I will be heading up to Burlington to take part in the final day of Bill McKibben's walk against global warming. It's great to see people demanding action on this issue.
Letter to the Editor, Rutland (Vt.) Herald
September 3, 2006

To the Editor:

Hugh Kemper’s anti-wind letter of Sept. 3 contains some errors of fact and omission.

First, he correctly states that Vermont’s current power plants emit very little pollution. This is true, but doesn’t speak to the future, when Vermont Yankee’s license and the Hydro Quebec contracts expire. Something will replace those sources of electricity, and there is no guaranteeing that it will be clean unless we make it so.

Second, he mistakenly claims that because the wind is a variable energy source, it cannot displace electricity generated from other sources. A fairly detailed recent study of the effects of adding wind to New York’s power system found otherwise. It said that 65 percent of the wind-generated electricity would displace electricity from natural gas, 15 percent would displace coal, 10 percent would displace oil, and 10 percent would displace imported power from other states.

Third, he claims that wind produces little net electricity generation or emissions reductions. The New York study disagrees with that also, finding, “By displacing energy from fossil-fired generators, wind generation causes reductions in emissions from those generators. Based on wind and load profiles for years 2001 and 2002, annual [nitrogen oxides] emissions would be reduced by 6,400 tons and [sulfur dioxide] emissions would be reduced by 12,000 tons."

Finally, Mr. Kemper claims that opposition to wind is growing around the country. While this is true, the wind energy industry is also growing by leaps and bounds, with a growth rate of 29 percent per year over the last five years. Since wind farms are being built in many more places, it is not surprising that the number of opponents—and the number of supporters—is growing.

Wind machines installed in Vermont would generate electricity indefinitely, with no mining, drilling, or water use, and no air pollution, no water pollution, and no global warming pollution. They would increase Vermont's energy security and help keep a lid on natural gas prices (a growing amount of natural gas is used for electricity generation, and that causes price pressure on gas for home heating).

Vermonters need to think long and hard before abandoning this inexhaustible energy resource.

Thomas O. Gray
Deputy Executive Director
American Wind Energy Association