Go Back   The Environment Site Forums > Energy Forums > Wind Energy Forum

Notices

Wind Energy Forum "I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination." - Jimmy Dean

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 17th-February-2008, 04:43 PM
CWW CWW is offline
Sapling
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cohocton, NY USA
Posts: 31
CWW is an unknown quantity at this point
Smile Who's behind it?

North Texas Wind Resistance Alliance
Promoting the Truth about Wind Energy

Who's behind it?

Powerful corporate and financial interests

When you understand that wind energy does not work on a “utility-scale”, the next questions are “Why are they doing it?” and ultimately “Who is behind it?”

Simply put, it’s a corporate tax-avoidance scam, put in place by investment banking lobbyists, energy industry lobbyists, and the late Ken Lay and his Enron Wind subsidiary. Through manipulation in Congress and state legislatures, they have created a guaranteed high-return investment program, heavily subsidized by taxpayers and utility ratepayers, to benefit themselves at the expense of the public. They then market this scheme to the victimized public and gullible politicians as an environmentally-friendly "renewable energy" program, and have the "big" environmental groups that they support and sustain join in a chorus of approval.

This shameful tale is not unique. The corporate and financial interests promoting Wind Energy were helped in Congress by a "renewable energy" alliance with corn-state Senators, and their equally fraudulent, heavily-subsidized "ethanol" replacement for gasoline, but that's another story. See Taxpayers for Common Sense and Cornell Scientist Opposes Ethanol.

A little history

The first round of wind energy mal-investment occurred in 1981, with the enactment of financial incentives in Congress and in California. A mad scramble was on to get them built and installed - the Great California Wind Rush. In 1985 the incentives were withdrawn and the industry collapsed. Without the subsidies and incentives, wind energy was then, and is now, totally unworkable. In the interim more than 14,000 wind turbines, small by current standards, had been built, in Altamont Pass north of Livermore, San Gorgonio Pass near Palm Springs, and Tehachapi Pass north of LA. With the withdrawal of incentives, many turbines were quickly abandoned. They still stand today, rusted and broken, their developers long since gone or bankrupted, with no one to take them down. They are an unsightly industrial junk-yard, a horrible blight on the landscape, a monument to failed public policy.

Along comes ENRON

The second round began in the late 1990’s, when the politically connected Ken Lay and the financial engineers figured they could do it again, only on a national scale. They disguised it as an environmentally-friendly “renewable energy” project, and packaged it in with their “electricity deregulation” lobbying and political maneuvering efforts. They got laws passed at both the state and federal levels to (1) permit them to tie onto the grid; (2) require utilities to buy the unreliable and unpredictable electricity under “Renewable Portfolio Standards”; (3) allow them to sell “Renewable Energy Certificates” separate and apart from the electricity; (4) provide them with an inflation-adjusted 10-year “Production Tax Credit” that now equals $.019/kWh; and (5) allow tax write-off of the 20-year project cost using an accelerated 5-year double-declining-balance method (40% per year). The subsidies are costing taxpayers and utility ratepayers more than $1 billion per year.

Enron was touted prior to exposure of its fraud and bankruptcy as “the world’s only fully-integrated wind power company”. But wind energy didn’t die with Enron. It lives on, feeding off the subsidies. General Electric (GE) purchased Enron’s wind turbine manufacturing business, while Florida Power and Light (FPL) and others purchased Enron’s wind farm projects and adopted their business model. All now push for expanded tax credits. They succeeded last year in extending the federal production tax credit to projects starting-up through 2007, and in raising the “renewable energy" purchase requirement in Texas to over 5,000 mega-watts by 2015.

The Shift from Electrical Engineers to Investment Bankers

Electricity Deregulation and the manipulated embrace of Wind Energy have shifted the focus of our power system from "reliability" to "profitability", and shifted the management of our power system from electrical engineers to investment bankers and their lobbyists and politicians.

See "The Revolt of the Engineers", Today's Engineer, and other publications from the experienced, courageous John A. "Jack" Casazza and his Power Engineers Supporting Truth (POWER ENGINEERS SUPPORTING TRUTH).

Billions have been invested in useless wind turbines, while our national electricity infrastructure has been allowed to deteriorate. How much damage can our economy sustain, as we waste our capital on the wind energy hoax, while destroying the electrical grid that powers our nation?

For a “who’s who” of the wind energy business go to the website of their association, AWEA, and see their Board of Directors, at
Board of Directors .
__________________
CWW is a citizen organization dedicated to preserve the public safety, property values, economic viability, environmental integrity and quality of life.
http://cohoctonwindwatch.org/
http://cohoctonwatch.org/
cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 18th-February-2008, 03:05 AM
Sapling
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 73
atdub is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CWW View Post
When you understand that wind energy does not work on a “utility-scale”,
Sorry you lost me there... First line! not bad..
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 18th-February-2008, 03:31 AM
Sapling
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 73
atdub is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

PS please precede your title with "propaganda" when it accurately fits this description..

I mean sheesh, 1/3 of the article is on enron!@#
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 18th-February-2008, 02:59 PM
CWW CWW is offline
Sapling
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cohocton, NY USA
Posts: 31
CWW is an unknown quantity at this point
Talking

atdub,

The author is simply saying that industrial scale wind projects create severe siting issues when located near dwellings.

The Enron model for industrial wind projects is at the heart of the scheme to defraud. If this article is propaganda what is the content on the Alternative Energy Forum?
Alternative Energy Forums Wind Energy

Please ask the moderator of that forum why a post like Who's Behind It? can't be posted on that forum?

Point is simple, folks; the way in which industrial wind projects are being forced on communities that don't have sufficient wind patterns, only benefit foreign companies, gov't bureaucrats and political officials.

James Hall
__________________
CWW is a citizen organization dedicated to preserve the public safety, property values, economic viability, environmental integrity and quality of life.
http://cohoctonwindwatch.org/
http://cohoctonwatch.org/
cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 18th-February-2008, 11:59 PM
Sapling
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 73
atdub is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

James,

thankyou for your cordial response.

I disagree. The article poorly attempts to link all wind investment to the enron disaster.

Quote:
Point is simple, folks; the way in which industrial wind projects are being forced on communities that don't have sufficient wind patterns, only benefit foreign companies, gov't bureaucrats and political officials.
What would be "sufficient" for you? I can tell you that wind projects are pursued for the exact same reason other investments are pursued: they are expected to generate a decent return.

Granted there are subsidies that may lower that "sufficient" threshold, however there are reasons for these subsidies:
- Wind power is classified as a renewable source, which given the political and scientific climate at this time, is a desirable energy generator
- Wind power costs more to produce than traditional thermal generation

You may argue that the source of these subsidies are dark corridor negotiations, although any logical individual will find that hard to swallow given the lobbying power of the fossil fuel industry (esp in USA).

I'd say you just plain don't like wind power, which is where you get the motivation to post the above diatribe.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 19th-February-2008, 12:10 AM
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,029
forfi is on a distinguished road
Default

Given that Enron was behind the scam perpetrated on the people of Ireland in the windfactory department I am not at all surprised at any new revelations about that company. The level of subsidy to wind by the Irish Government is just crazy and, as most of its members are under investigation for corruption, it would not be stretching the imagination to suggest that wads of the folding stuff changed hands.Enron is not the first outfit to buy big favours from Irish politicians.And they are amateurs compared to Bliar and Broon.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 19th-February-2008, 12:41 AM
CWW CWW is offline
Sapling
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cohocton, NY USA
Posts: 31
CWW is an unknown quantity at this point
Thumbs up

atdub,

Review this analysis by our good friend Glenn Schleede. It's a good start to define sufficient wind or to be more exact, the lack thereof, in most of the mid-Atlanta region.

James Hall

Cohocton Wind Watch

Electric Industry Terms Important in Understanding Two of the Critically Important Limitations of Electricity from Wind Energy by Glenn R. Schleede
1KEYEL%7E2.DOC

February 17, 2008

Electric Industry Terms Important in Understanding Two of the Critically Important Limitations of Electricity from Wind Energy; specifically:
· First, wind turbines have little or no “capacity value”; i.e., they are unlikely to be producing electricity at the time of peak electricity demand.
· Second, a kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity from a wind turbine has less value than a kWh of electricity from a reliable (“dispatchable”) generating unit; i.e., from a unit that can be called upon to produce electricity whenever the electricity is needed.

Wind industry lobbyists and advocates often mislead the public, media and government officials by making false claims and by using terms that may be intended to confuse their listeners.

This brief paper explains a few key terms that are needed to understand the critically important differences between the quality and value of (i) the intermittent, volatile and unreliable electricity from wind turbines and (ii) the reliable and more valuable electricity from generating units that can be called upon to produce electricity whenever it is needed.

1. Generating capacity, which is measured in kilowatts (kW) or megawatts (MW). This is a measure of a generating unit’s ability to produce electricity at an instant in time. This term can be confusing because there are different legitimate measures of generating capacity:

a. Nameplate capacity, which is the capacity rating shown on the nameplate attached to the generator by the manufacturer. ("Rated capacity" is often used synonymously with "nameplate capacity.")

b. Summer capacity and winter capacity, which for many units (e.g., fossil-fueled) are often different from nameplate capacity because the units ability to produce is affected by air temperature.

2. Capacity credit, which is also measured in kW or MW. This is a critically important measure to generating companies and grid managers. This measure indicates the amount of generating capacity that can be counted on to help meet peak electricity demand. There are many reasons why the assigned capacity credit may differ from any of the above measures. Generally, this number is determined empirically; i.e., with a specific test of what the unit can produce (again in kW or MW) under specific test conditions.

a. Wind turbine "capacity credits." In fact, the real capacity value of a wind turbine is the kW or MW of generating capacity that is available at the actual time of peak electricity demand on the electric grid serving the area. The real capacity value of a wind turbine or “wind farm” is generally less than 10% of nameplate capacity and often 0% or slightly above -- simply because, at the time of peak electricity demand, the wind isn’t blowing at a speed that will permit the turbine to produce any or much electricity. Claims of wind turbine capacity value have been exaggerated by wind industry officials and lobbyists, by regulatory agencies, ISOs, RTOs,[1] or other grid manager's arbitrary decisions. Capacity value was also exaggerated in a misleading report produced by GE in March 2005 for the New York State Energy R&D Authority (NYSERDA). That report has been cited by the NY ISO to arbitrarily assign “wind farms” in NY a 10% capacity credit (i.e., 10% of nameplate capacity) during summers and 30% in winters.

b. Capacity credits for normally reliable ("dispatchable") generating units -- i.e., those designed to be available whenever called upon -- may be less than their "nameplate" (or "summer" or "winter") capacity for a variety of reasons. For example, they may have mechanical problems that prevent them from running at full rated capacity but which problems are not serious enough to take them out of service for repair or overhaul. Grid managers often require that generating unit owners/operators report each day (perhaps around noon) how much capacity can be counted on during the next day from each generating unit.

3. Availability. The wind industry often tries to mislead people with this term. Generally, it means that a unit is physically available and has fuel needed to permit it to generate electricity when needed. Or, put another way, it is NOT out of commission ('off line") for maintenance, repair or overhaul. Wind industry spokespersons often misuse this term by ignoring the critical second criterion; i.e. "has the fuel" (wind) needed to permit it to generate electricity. A wind turbine without wind has no real value to electric customers.

4. Generation, which is measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh) or megawatt-hours (MWh). This is an after the fact measure of the amount of electricity produced over some period of time (hour, day, week, month, year, etc.) Most reports by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) show "net" generation -- which is usually measured at a substation entry point to a transmission line. The term "net" reflects the fact that some of the electricity produced by a generating unit is used BY that generating unit (lights, pumps, scrubbers, precipitators, etc.).

5. Capacity factor, which is measured as a percentage of nameplate capacity. It is an after the fact measure with the percentage determined by dividing the actual (metered) output (in kWh or MWh), divided by the nameplate capacity (in kW or MW) times the number of hours in the period for which the calculation is done (e.g., 8760 for a year).

a. Wind turbine capacity factors. Wind turbines have low capacity factors because they are dependent on wind speed. They start producing a small amount of electricity with a wind speed about 6 or 7 miles per hour (mph), reach “rated” capacity around 31 mph and cut out around 56 mph. Therefore, their output is inherently intermittent, volatile and unreliable. A 1 MW (1,000 kW) wind turbine that produces 2,190,000 kWh of electricity during a year has achieved a capacity factor of 25%. That is 2,190,000 kWh divided by 1,000 kW x 8760 hours; or 2,190,000 divided by 8,760,000 = .25).

b. Dispatchable unit capacity factors. Capacity factors for reliable or “dispatchable” generating units vary widely depending upon (i) the design and intended purpose of the unit (i.e., for baseload, intermediate or peak load service) and (ii) the plans and choices of the operator who is responsible for keeping the electric grid in balance (electricity supply & demand, voltage and frequency).

i. “Baseload” units (often powered by coal or nuclear energy that heat water to produce steam that spins the turbine that produces electricity) are designed to run all or most of the time and often have annual capacity factors in the 70% to 90% range. They tend to take longer to start up and bring to full generating capacity.

ii. “Intermediate load” units are those that can be “ramped” up and down (i.e., output increased or decreased) more quickly than units designed for “baseload” service. Some “intermediate load” units will use steam turbines and some will use gas turbines and some will use both. Often these units will be powered by natural gas and, much less often, oil. Their annual capacity factors vary widely, perhaps from percentages in the teens to percentages in the 50s or 60s

iii. “Peak load” units are those intended for use primarily when electricity demand is at high levels. Generally these units will use gas turbine technology or internal combustion engines, powered by natural gas or oil. They can be started up and shut down quickly. Their annual capacity factors will often be in the range of 3% to 7% because they are intended for use only when electricity demand is high. Hydropower units (falling water turns the turbines) may be used for baseload, intermediate or peak load service – depending on the availability of water in the area. For example, hydropower units provide baseload power in the Pacific Northwest but are used only for peaking service in areas with fewer water resources. Hydropower units are used for “load leveling” (i.e., keeping electricity supply equal to demand) because their output can be controlled instantaneously.

Units powered by biomass (wood, etc.) or geothermal energy are considered “dispatchable” and may also be used in baseload or intermediate service in areas where these energy sources are available.As indicated above, wind turbines are “intermittent” and neither reliable nor dispatchable because they are dependent on wind speed. Solar photovoltaic panels are also intermittent sources of electricity because they are dependent on sunlight.

6. Efficiency. Unfortunately, some in the rapidly growing wind opposition movement (and some in the wind industry) use this term incorrectly; i.e., they use the term "efficiency" when they should be using the term "capacity factor." Efficiency, as that term is used in the electric industry, refers to the relationship between BTU input and kWh output. The result of the calculation is generally referred to as the unit's "heat rate."

Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958

[1] ISO = Independent System Operator; RTO = Regional Transmission Operator. Both types of organizations are involved in managing an electric grid.
__________________
CWW is a citizen organization dedicated to preserve the public safety, property values, economic viability, environmental integrity and quality of life.
http://cohoctonwindwatch.org/
http://cohoctonwatch.org/
cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 19th-February-2008, 01:17 AM
Sapling
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 73
atdub is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CWW View Post
atdub,
Review this analysis by our good friend Glenn Schleede. It's a good start to define sufficient wind or to be more exact, the lack thereof, in most of the mid-Atlanta region.
Ahhh no its a list of definitions.

What would you classify a sufficient wind regime for viable wind project? Use any metric you require.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 19th-February-2008, 12:42 PM
kev67's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 302
kev67 is on a distinguished road
Default

Enron doesn't exactly have a good reputation, but some of the criticism seems a bit unreasonable. The renewable energy certificates sound rather like our renewable obligation certificates. Renewable energy producers are allowed to sell their certificates to other energy suppliers who are unable to produce the required amount of energy by renewable means. It's a way of supporting a renewable industry until it is able to compete with the established energy companies. It's not exactly unusual for any business to want to make money.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 19th-February-2008, 02:31 PM
CWW CWW is offline
Sapling
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cohocton, NY USA
Posts: 31
CWW is an unknown quantity at this point
Cool

atdub,

Quote:
Originally Posted by atdub View Post
Ahhh no its a list of definitions.

What would you classify a sufficient wind regime for viable wind project? Use any metric you require.
The bottom line is that any project MUST produce ELECTRICITY generation. Industrial turbines in most of the Northeast, mid-Atlantic region don't have wind patterns that WILL produce meaningful electric generation. Investigate the Steel Winds UPC project.

kev6t stated:"Renewable energy producers are allowed to sell their certificates to other energy suppliers who are unable to produce the required amount of energy by renewable means. It's a way of supporting a renewable industry until it is able to compete with the established energy companies."

The facts are that REC credits have been sold from Steel Winds to the State of Mass.. as in the above example) when NO ELECTRICITY was generated. That's call FRAUD in our world!

If atdub is so insistent to site industrial wind turbines in NYS the only wind patterns for a class 4 or 5 wind exist along Long Island and Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. Steel Winds in located ON Lake Erie, near Buffalo in a brownzone. That may be a reasonable site. However, the Clipper turbines have never worked and are in the process of be disassembled at this very time.

CWW could support a C-BED model (community base project restricted to an industrial zoned area) and would encourage small residential generation systems.

You may be in love with the fantasy that wind is a broad base solution, but the reality in the States is that industrial wind projects can’t be justified in any populated area that doesn’t have consisted wind patterns (gov’t stats clearly provide the evidence).

The mid-West has sufficient wind in many areas. But the ex-Enron executives are NOT in the business to actually generate electricity. They have refined their old scam to the level that electric utilities are bound by law to pay for electric production that IS NEVER PRODUCED. Payment based upon nameplate capacity is insane and immoral.

Is this a sufficient answer Mr. Atdub ???

James Hall
__________________
CWW is a citizen organization dedicated to preserve the public safety, property values, economic viability, environmental integrity and quality of life.
http://cohoctonwindwatch.org/
http://cohoctonwatch.org/
cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
alternative energy, enron, industrial wind, wind subsidy

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5
The Environment Site
Google