Will Obama Save Offshore Wind Power--Or Kill It?

[kristopher]

Will Obama Save Offshore Wind Power--Or Kill It?

Wendy Williams is co-author of Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Class, Politics and the Battle for Our Energy Future.

Cape Wind has long been the problem child of the nation's push for renewable energy—and it could end up being one of Barack Obama's biggest energy headaches in his first term, one that may decide the future of offshore wind power in the United States. The Cape Wind project was proposed just before September 11, 2001, and calls for 130 3.6-megawatt wind turbines, sitting five miles off the southern coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts (map here). All told, the wind turbines would provide 75 percent of the Cape's electricity and obviate the use of the peninsula's 40-year-old dirty oil-fired power plant, one of the state's worst polluters.

But even though a majority of the state's residents and politicians, including Governor Deval Patrick, support the project, it's been held up by a handful of wealthy and well-connected elites. Chief among opponents is Ted Kennedy, whose relentless opposition to the Cape Wind project was recently called "Ahab-like" by the Boston Globe, but foes also include House Democrats like Bill Delahunt (who represents Cape Cod) and Nick Rahall of West Virginia. These opponents have raised any number of issues—from a potential decrease in coastal property values to the potentially adverse effects on commercial and sport fishing. In some cases, the objection is personal: "That's where I sail!" Kennedy famously complained.

Over the past seven years, Cape Wind has undergone two separate multimillion-dollar environmental impact statements by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service (MMS). Both studies, running several thousand pages apiece, have given the project a relatively clean bill of health. And, finally, after a long series of pitched political fights that raged through 2005 and 2006, the Kennedy family appeared to have grudgingly accepted that the project was inevitable (even if they remained opposed in principle). All that remained, it seemed, was for MMS to release its final environmental impact statement last month, which would've allowed the Bush administration to issue construction permits.

But at the last minute, Democrat James Oberstar, the normally progressive chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, wrote to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and asked him to delay the MMS statement, citing navigational safety issues. In a follow-up letter, Oberstar stated that he was considering hearings on safety issues concerning all offshore wind projects. (Offshore wind turbines have been operating in Europe for more than a decade without a single navigational incident.) Later, Kennedy aides admitted that they'd been in contact with Oberstar.

Oberstar's position was ...

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environmentandenergy/archive/2009/01/08/will-obama-save-offshore-wind-power-or-kill-it.aspx

[greenman3610]

1. Cape Wind gets too much attention

If the people of Massachusetts are stupid enough to shoot that proposal down,
no problem. The people of Delaware, Maine, New York, Oregon, California and every
other state that has a coastline - including Great Lakes states,
are working hard and moving forward on this technology - and will just be that much
more prosperous 5 years down the road.

[kristopher]

2. The thing is...

it isn't "the people of Massachusetts" that are trying to derail the project. It is a small group of wealthy, politically well connected people who are motivated by either nimbyism, interest in protecting fossil fuel industries, or both. Kennedy is the face of nimby but the leadership and much of the funding for the organized opposition can be tied to people with strong links to coal and oil.

[Barbara Durkin]

6. Even rich NIMBYs can't afford Cape Wind's energy

The world’s largest turbine manufacturer CEO and President Ditlev Engle, has announced Vestas’ return to the less risky and expensive onshore market.

Vestas’ chief was asked about Cape Wind as reported in the Boston Globe on 9/21/08:

“And, therefore, I am really wondering why anybody wants to put them up offshore because it’s twice the price. So just as an outsider, I am just scratching my head saying, “Why?”

The Cape Wind MMS draft EIS states: "Given the estimated cost of energy is twice that of the current market and that is after the full benefit of tax and RPS incentives the prospects of entering a long-term purchase power contract would seem low."

Cape Wind would produce energy at a cost of "twice that of the current market" according to Vestas' Chief and the lead federal regulator reviewing the Cape Wind project, MMS.

We all want clean, renewable energy, but it has to be affordable, too.

Disclaimer: MMS does not include these ratepayer and taxpayer costs beyond "twice the price", Cape Wind cost of: project bonding, upgrades to infrastructure and transmission lines, the very expensive Operation and Maintenance contract, or public subsidies that equal 77% of the project construction costs approaching $2 billion.

[kristopher]

7. Nice try slick.

However Cape Wind has, from the beginning, planned the project with the intent of selling into the spot market for electricity. While they may have cast a net for power purchase agreements to see what was available, they DID NOT predicate the project on selling into that market.

I'm also impressed by your use of vague and incomplete information to attempt to create a false impression that offshore wind power is somehow a rip off of the tax payer. It isn't true, and I don't doubt that you already know that. But good try nonetheless. All energy infrastructure has to start somewhere. This project is being developed strictly with private funds that are and have been more than willing to build the project since 2003. All price inflation since that time can be laid squarely at the feet of those doing the bidding of companies like Phelps Dodge Minerals Mining Company (their long time CEO is titular head of the astroturf opposition group) and a few wealthy homeowners who don't want to have to steer their yachts around turbine towers spaced 1/2 mile apart.

It is also worth noting that similar projects offshore Delaware, NJ, and RI have been initiated in much less favorable ocean conditions (read that more expensive to build and operate the facilities) than Cape Wind would enjoy. In fact, of all the locations in US waters, it is highly unlikely there is a better location than Nantucket Sound.

[NNadir]

8. You're objecting to "vague" information?

I can't recall you producing too many references to back up the crap you cite here.

According to the Danish Energy Agency, they've decommissioned http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/28/185825/42/388/677953">brazillions of windmills with lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of people who have never read the http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/4/193134/7158/685/678689">Vestas Company Reports claiming that it was part of an "all new stuff" philosophy.

As usual the "references" for this claim consisted entirely of "this is what I want to hear" pablum and handwaving.

I note that you, as is typical, cite no references.

It turns out that Vestas plainly confesses in its corporate reports that its windmills fall apart with a decidedly unhappy frequency. That's why the Vestas Wind Company has decided to rebrand itself as the Vestas Wind, Oil and Gas Company.

Finland will complete ONE nuclear reactor in 2012 that will produce 5 times the amount of energy as all the windmills in Denmark, and do so with a much higher level of safety.

[kristopher]

9. Good points.

To aid others: the link to "brazillions of windmills" http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/28/185825/42/388/677953 in the post I'm responding to ends at a hysterical rant typical of the poster's contributions here. In addition we also learn that this "author" found a report on Danish wind turbines showing:
all installed turbines,
when they came online,
their production capacity,
their rotor size and
their actual production data by year.

It is a valuable source of information if used properly and can be downloaded here: http://www.ens.dk/sw34512.asp at these links:

Wind turbine master data as at end of November 2008 (data from 19 December 2008)

Wind turbine master data incl. links as at end of August 2007

Review tables and graphs as at the end of November 2008 (data from 22 December 2008)

The data is sorted into two groups, decommissioned turbines and existing turbines. Working from the first link above (these are only the link labels, plz go to ens.dk site to download) the "author" of the "analysis" has followed this process:

"Microsoft Excel provides a YEAR function that converts numerical date strings into integer years that can be used in numerical calculations.

I have used this function to extract the lifetime for every decommissioned windmill, all 1,927 of them.

I have then used this data and the Excel MEAN function - not to be mean but to make a serious point - to determine what the mean lifetime of decomissioned Danish windmills is. It is 15.9 years, carrying one insignificant figure, or 15 years and 10 months.

I have used the MEDIAN function to determine that half of the windmills lasted less than 16 years and that half lasted more than 16 years.

I have used the MAX function to determine that the longest surviving windmill lasted for 28 years.

There was only ONE windmill that lasted 28 years, the 22 kW unit manufactured by Kongsted described on Row 188 of the spreadsheet for decommissioned units."

From this so called "analysis" these claims emerge :

"I think it is great that our fine President-elect has committed to building infrastructure - because this infrastructure is a gift to generations we have only saddled with the terrible consequences of our self-absorbed desire to maintain our car CULTure suburban lives.

Thus it matters what the life time and utility of that infrastructure is. Sixteen years does not qualify.

Here in New Jersey, we have the Oyster Creek Nuclear reactor, which came on line in 1969 and operates perfectly well. This reactor was a gift from my father's generation to mine.

Angry, vicious, malicious and ill informed people are trying to vandalize and destroy this New Jersey nuclear infracture that has already lasted and served for longer than any windmill in Denmark and could serve for decades to come with proper maintainence."

I refer to this as a "so called analysis" because it really fails to achieve the most basic function of an analysis - that is, an attempt to determine what is actually happening without prejudice or bias. The unseemly rush to judgment has ended at the conclusion that a 16 year life span is the typical physical limit of performance that can be expected of modern wind turbine technology. Unfortunately the data derived from this exercise does not provide a rational basis for this claim.

What it DOES tell us is this:
1) Between 28 years ago and today, 1927 turbines were installed and decommissioned.
2) The mean time in service of these turbines was 15 years 10 months.

That is it. Nothing more. There is nothing provided to explain the circumstances behind the time in service data.

There is absolutely no basis for concluding that these turbines had reached any sort of mechanical limit to their functionality. In fact, elsewhere in the data is strong evidence that the decommissionings were not motivated by a limit to their functionality. I'll explain in a moment.

There is absolutely no basis for concluding that these turbines are in any way representative of the state of current technology or that conclusions drawn from their decommissioning is at all relevant to understanding the performance or failure to perform of current generation technology. None. In fact, elsewhere in the data is strong evidence that these turbines are, in fact, definitely NOT representative of, and cannot be used to predict, the performance or failure to perform of current technology.

The data starts in 1977 and runs through the end of 2008. That coincides, of course, with the site selection and placement of turbines as they have evolved from small deca-kilowatt units on short towers with small diameter rotors, to the large multi-megawatt units on 260 foot towers with 340 foot diameter rotors that are current generation technology.

If you go to the third link you'll find charts detailing the rate of installation by production and number of turbines, and another dealing with decommissioning. These charts make clear that at the time of the Kyoto Protocol (1997) there was a large increase in activity to commission and decommission wind turbines. The nearly 2000 small turbines that were taken off-line were replaced with larger, more productive units on larger towers. We know that these small turbines were 1) sited early and can infer with reasonable confidence 2) they were therefore logically occupying the areas with superior wind regimes.

A rule of thumb for spacing wind turbines is they should be placed about 5 rotor distances apart for correct wind flow. This means that fewer larger, more productive turbines replaced many smaller, less productive turbines, and in fact the data on rotor size and production capacity verifies this conclusion. The data tables and charts also confirm that a steady, nearly uninterrupted increase in both production capacity and number of installed turbines even though nearly all of the 2000 decommissioned turbines were accomplished within a relatively short time frame.

Now I will engage in some speculation that I believe is warranted. If you were to investigate the market where small used turbines are bought and sold, you can (or could have) picked up a nice, used, fully functioning 20-75KW Danish turbine for a pretty good price.

Now, it is evident that the "author" of this analysis went to a great deal of trouble to obtain and present erroneous and misleading information to the readers of this and other forums.

It is equally evident that the "author" of this "analysis" has the intelligence and knowledge to review the data and place it in the proper context as I have done. So please, ask your self why wasn't this done. Then go to the link under "brazillions of windmills" in his post and read the screed with that question in mind.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/28/185825/42/388/677953

[valerief]

3. Read the second paragraph before calling people stupid or else

we may have to call you, well, I'll be nicer.

[KakistocracyHater]

4. breathe right nose strips-how many use them?

We HAVE to find new ways to generate electricity-I can't breathe at night easily, & I am not a smoker. Lately, beginning at the end of this past August my nasal passages have swollen & I am taking antihistamine for it. I thought I was joking when I said 'I can't breathe very well with this 19thC air', but it is not funny when I start to have trouble breathing, I get panic attacks. I will most likely go to my doctor & hope they prescribe proscription-strength antihistamine. It must be widespread enough-there is a market for "nose strips"-they just pull the nostrils more open, they have them in both child & adult size.

How many people are already suffering from global pollution & they haven't quite been told that the pollution is what is making it difficult to breathe at night? Asthma meds for cats, for kids, for dogs, & horses=global warming.

[Systematic Chaos]

5. If you're waking up constantly, out of breath, it may not be due to air quality.

If you have not had a sleep study done, I would strongly encourage you to do so. There is a chance you might have sleep apnea. I have it because I'm a huge guy, but even when I was in high school and only slightly overweight I snored like a chainsaw, so it's likely I may have developed sleep apnea anyway as I got older.

Please talk with your doctor more about this issue you're having, because if it is sleep apnea then the cure is simple and non-invasive and you will feel like a new person once you have your CPAP machine!