Archive for the 'Wind Power' Category

Wired Gets It Wrong - Nuclear Power is Not Good For the Planet

Published
by
Larry
on May 27, 2008
in Cogen, Energy, Geothermal, Global Warming, Marine Kinetic, Negawatts, Nuclear Power, Solar and Wind Power
. 0 Comments
Hummers: Illogical, Un-Economical, and Bad for The Environment. But They Sure Are Big!

Spencer Reiss, writing in Wired Magazine says “Nuclear Power is The Most Climate Friendly Insdustrial Scale Form of Energy“. Forgetting for a moment that nuclear power requires fuel, waste management, national security infrastructure, massive government subsidies, including artificial limits to liability, nuclear releases tremendous amounts of heat into the environment, and new nuclear are estimated to cost about 2 to 4 times the price of new wind facilities, without cost overruns (and cost overruns are a given with nuclear power plants) and take 10 to 12 years.

The climate friendly industrial scale forms of energy are Solar, Offshore Wind, large scale Marine Kinetic - tapping the Gulf Stream, Deep Geothermal, CoGen, and the NegaWatts available via conservation. Just as a screw can propel a ship thru the water, a screw anchored to the ocean floor will spin because of currents, and can power turbines. Marine Current Turbines, Ltd., based in Bristol, England has just completed the world’s first megawatt scale tidal/marine current driven power plant in the Strangford Narrows in Northern Ireland. If with wind, the sky’s literally the limit, with MCT the sea’s the limit. Geothermal exploits temperature differentials for heating and cooling. Deep Geothermal would use the earth’s heat in abandoned mines and wells to generate steam for industrial process power. Recycled Energy Development, RED, of Westmont, Il does CoGen. RED captures industrial waste energy to produce electricity and thermal power, often without burning any additional fuel or emitting any additional pollution. For industrial partners, RED reduces energy costs substantially, increases reliability, and offers the opportunity for emissions credits. Akeena, Evergreen Solar, First Solar, Sunpower, World Water and Solar, and Vestas Wind are old news. Ausra develops and deploys utility-scale solar thermal technologies to serve global electricity needs in a dependable, market competitive, environmentally responsible manner.

Wired Magazine also published a companion piece by Matt Power that says “Pound for pound, making a Prius contributes more carbon to the atmosphere than making a Hummer” (click here). The fallacy here is that they forget to mention that a Hummer weighs about three times more than a Prius, so to have an honest statistic you need to compare 3 pounds of Hummer to each pound of Prius. They do note that the operating efficiency of the Prius outweighs any manufacturing inefficiency. And they point out that it is better for the planet to buy a used car than a new car.

Nuclear Plants: High Cost in Time and Money

Published
by
Larry
on May 17, 2008
in Nuclear Power, Solar and Wind Power
. 0 Comments

Rebecca Smith reported in the Wall Street Journal that Florida Power and Light, FPL, is considering spending $12 to $18 Billion to construct two nuclear reactors at its appropriately named Turkey Point facility in southeast Florida.

Florida Power says “two advanced-design nuclear plants at Turkey Point that would add between 2,200 and 3,000 megawatts. If built, the units are expected to go into service in the years 2018 and 2020.”

John Dorschner writes in the Miami Herald that FPL wants to start billing today for plants that may or may not be built and running in 10 to 12 years! “The average home electric bill in South Florida is likely to increase about $2.50 a month next year to start paying for two nuclear power plants that Florida Power & Light hopes to put in service in 10 or 12 years.” That’s like ‘buy now pay later,’ except it’s ‘pay now, buy later.’ And the plants haven’t been approved by Florida’s Public Service Commission. So it’s ‘Pay now, buy later - maybe!‘

What about Wind Power? The 7.5 MW Atlantic County Utilities Authority Wind Farm cost an estimated $12 million, approximately $1.6 per watt. (click here)

Putting the pieces of this puzzle together, FPL wants to spend $12 to $18 Billion, assuming no cost overruns, to add 2200 to 3000 mw of capacity in 2018 or 2020. If $12 Billion builds 2200 MW, then we are looking at $5.46 per watt of capacity. Similarly, if $18 Billion builds 3000 MW, we are looking at $6.00 per watt. That’s about what it costs to install commercial scale PV solar, and about four times what it costs to build land based wind farms, and twice what it costs to construct an offshore wind farm. And it takes a whole lot less than 10 or 12 years to install solar panels and build wind farms. Since there is no fuel, there is no fuel cycle, there are no fuel costs, there is no waste heat, and are no toxic or radioactive wastes with wind and solar.

Let’s ignore for a second the fact that nuclear plants present terrorists with targets, the massive subsidies that the government provides nuclear power, the national security ramifications of nuclear power, and the fact that the NRC fires whistleblowers and ignores critics – which in and of itself is a cause for concern – the regulator appears to be incompetent. Why should we spend Billions to build nuclear plants that won’t be operational for at least 10 or 12 years when we could spend a fraction to build solar and wind systems – which are available almost immediately with no pollution, no security challenges, no potential for disaster, and no need for incompetent government regulators?


 Nuclear PV Solar PV Solar Wind – Offshore Wind – Onshore

FPL Turkey Point NJ Residential NJ Commercial Estimated NJ ACMUA
Cost $12 Billion
 $80,000 $20 Million
 $24 Million
 $12 Million
Capacity 2.2 GW
 10 KW
 3.5 MW 7.5 MW
 75 MW
Cost / watt $5.45 $8.00 $5.71 $3.20 $1.60
Fuel Unknown $Zero $Zero $Zero $Zero
Safety & Oversight Unknown $Zero $Zero $Zero $Zero
Security Unknown $Zero $Zero $Zero $Zero
Waste Management High $Zero $Zero $Zero $Zero

BMCC Student Channels Jack Abramoff

Published
by
Larry
on May 13, 2008
in Clean Energy, Good Government, Voter Registration and Wind Power
. 0 Comments

Curtis Brown, president of the Student Government at the Borough of Manhattan Community College is following in the footsteps of a young Jack Abramoff. As reported in the New York Daily News, May 13, 2008, Brown is trying to evict the New York Public Interest Research Group, NYPIRG from BMCC.The PIRGs have always focused on things like responsible government, consumer protection, and an informed citizenry making intelligent decisions. As chairman of the College Republicans, in 1983, Abramoff and his right-wing storm troopers did not “seek peaceful coexistence with the left.” They felt that their “job is to remove them from power permanently.” Brown is doing what Abramoff tried to do 25 years ago.

Here’s what Thomas Frank wrote in the New York Times, August 29, 2006, “Defunders of Liberty”

Abramoff and his clean-cut campus radicals pushed their own “defund the left” campaign with characteristic élan, declaring war on Ralph Nader’s Public Interest Research Groups, or PIRG, environmental and consumer activist outfits that were funded by student activity fees on some campuses. The young conservatives were always careful to cast the issue as a matter of “student rights” versus political coercion, but Abramoff clearly saw it as an avenue to ideological victory. “When we win this one,” he boasted in 1983, “we’ll have done more to neutralize Ralph Nader than anyone else, ever.”

The NY Times article is re-published in the blogosphere, click here, and here, and can be googled or yahooed.

Abramoff, currently serving 70 months for conspiracy and fraud, has also admitted to tax evasion, defrauding his clients and conspiring to bribe public officials.

The Future of Energy

Published
by
Larry
on March 15, 2008
in Clean Energy, Energy, Nuclear Power, Solar and Wind Power
. 1 Comment

Thursday, March 6, 2008, I attended a seminar on solar and wind power at the Atlantic County Utilities Authority, ACUA, clean energy plant, hosted by Cassandra Kling of Clean Energy Holdings. It’s a small plant: 7.0 MW of wind and 0.5 MW of solar, it provides about 0.1% of New Jersey’s power. On the way back I drove into the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Ocean County, NJ, to look around and to get a visceral feel for the place. Oyster Creek provides about 10% of New Jersey’s power. (Click here for the official story or here for NJPIRG.)

There are armed guards outside the nuclear plant. There are watchtowers, presumably with armed sentries. They really don’t want people looking around, “getting a feel for the place”. They looked me over, looked at my driver’s license, searched my car – looked in the trunk, looked under the hood, looked in the front seat, the back seat, under the car, and then escorted me out of the complex. I felt like Arlo Guthrie in ” Alices’s Restaurant” (Click here for Arlo on YouTube“, here for Arlo.net) exceptin’ the fact that I wasn’t arrested.

Continue reading ‘The Future of Energy’

Michael Bergey: A Primer on Small Wind Turbines

Published
by
Jon
on February 24, 2008
in Wind Power
. 0 Comments

Michael Bergey of Bergey Power Company, a manufacturer of wind-power hardware, is the author of the very helpful Primer on Small Wind Turbines.

Outstanding information graphic: New York Times chart of growth in wind energy capacity

Published
by
Jon
on February 24, 2008
in Energy, GreenTechnology, Uncategorized and Wind Power
. 0 Comments

Check out the following information graphic, prepared by The New York Times based on data provided by the American Wind Energy Association:

nyt-2008-2-23-windgraphic.jpg

This graphic accompanied Clifford Krauss’s article “Move Over Oil, There’s Money in Texas Wind,” in yesterday’s paper.

More on Krauss’s excellent article in another post - but - if you’re also aware that Krauss reported a 45% increase in wind-energy production from 2006 to 2007 - and have that in mind while looking at this chart - this is very good news. If we were to continue at this rate, it would mean a doubling of capacity would occur in slightly over two years.

This is part of a Times series called The Energy Challenge. Check out this series, and you can see that the Times has, perhaps slowly but steadily, been providing good, detailed coverage of energy issues; look closely at the bylines, and it’s apparent that the Times has assigned some of its best reporters to covering energy issues. (As to the chart - which is only credited “The New York Times” - we suspect that Khoi Vinh may have had something to do with it. Why the infographic designer, as who, as much as the reporter and her/his editors, has interpretive responsibility, gets no byline, we don’t understand).

Nuclear Power - Not Green, Not Cheap. But It’s A Security Nightmare.

Published
by
Larry
on January 26, 2008
in 9/11, Chernobyl, Clean Energy, Energy, Nuclear Power, September 11th Attacks, Solar, Terrorisim, Three Mile Island, Uncategorized, Wind Power and nuclear terrorism
. 0 Comments

This Letter to the Editor, written by Larry, was published in the Asbury Park Press, Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 (Click Here). The full text is reproduced below.

Nuclear power too dangerous.

Nuclear power is not green or cheap. It is a security nightmare.

When you look at mining, milling and transporting nuclear fuel, nuclear power emits four to five times as much carbon dioxide as wind and solar. The fuel cycle also creates massive amounts of radioactive waste — 100,000 metric tons per plant per year. Thermal pollution from Oyster Creek kills fish, shellfish and amphibians. And radioactive wastes must be isolated from the environment for a long time.

No new nuclear power plants were built in the United States after electricity was deregulated. That’s not because of the Three Mile Island accident or the Chernobyl disaster, and not because of the protests against nuclear power or rational fears of the technology, but because of the time and expense to build new nuclear power plants. When you look at the capital costs of building nuclear plants, and add the costs of insurance, evacuation plans, security systems and government regulation, nuclear power becomes too expensive to compete.

So in 2005, the federal government mandated $125 million in tax breaks for each new nuclear power plant and provided loan guarantees of 80 percent of a plant’s cost, including overruns. Taxpayers pay for those tax breaks and loan guarantees. That does not make it cost-effective; it just shifts the burden.

Nuclear power is a security nightmare. If the Sept. 11 killers had crashed one of the hijacked planes into Oyster Creek rather than the World Trade Center or the Pentagon, much of the Jersey Shore would be like the area around Chernobyl — condemned, abandoned and uninhabitable.

If we were smart, we would move forward quickly on offshore wind, photovoltaic solar, geothermal, ocean current turbines and conservation.

Larry Furman

Energy Bills - Good for the Environment and the Economy.

Published
by
Larry
on December 7, 2007
in Clean Energy, Nuclear Power, Solar, Wind Power and cafe standards
. 0 Comments

Last summer’s energy bills were not good for the environment.

Yes, both houses of Congress passed energy bills “oriented toward increasing energy efficiency and boosting renewable power and biofuels.” But the House version had no Corporate Average Fuel Economy program (CAFE) car mileage mandate, thanks to the shortsightedness of Michigan Rep. John Dingell, (who believes himself to be an auto industry champion, but is killing the patient), and the Senate version had no Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) due to strong opposition from Senate Republicans. People who think about sustainable economies and environmentalists wanted both mandates in a final bill.

The final bill now includes a 35 mpg CAFE standard, an Renewable Electricity Standard of 15 percent, and 21 billion dollars of investment in the renewable energy economy.

Among other things, the 21 billion dollars will fund production tax credits for solar and wind power over a four-year period; it will fund research and development programs for renewable energy and job training programs for solar power installers; and it will fund individual tax credits for solar energy, home weatherization and purchase of fuel efficient vehicles like plug-in hybrid cars.

And 50 billion dollars in loan guarantees for new nuclear plants were dropped from the Senate version. (They were in the summer’s version.

While the Republicans like subsidizing the nuclear industry, and they like subsidizing the oil industry, they don’t like the Renewable Electricity Standard and the $21 billion tax package that will fund the bill, especially the $13.5 billion in higher taxes on oil companies. President Bush warned that he is likely to veto the bill if it passes the Senate. Sen. Pete Domenici said, “If it comes over here, we have no alternative but … war.” One sardonic environmentalist said “This war is as well thought out as the War in Iraq. Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who put a hold on the bill back in October, called the tax increase “discrimination against one industry.” (Please note that Hutchison received $284,000 in contributions from the oil and gas industries in 2005 and 2006, (click here) and a total of$1.3 million as of May, 2001 (click here).

The Republicans will fall on their swords. Then they will return as lobbyists. Truthout. Houston Chronicle. Washington Post. LA Times.

Texas v Massachusetts & NJ. Go Texas.

Published
by
Larry
on November 20, 2007
in Clean Energy, Massachusetts, NIMBY Not In My Back Yard, New Jersey, Texas, Wind Power and mercurio
. 0 Comments

Texas, with environmentalists like T. Boone Pickens (official site) is building wind turbines. Click Here. In Texas, when they find that they have wind in their backyard, they want to use it to make money. In Massachusetts and New Jersey, when someone finds wind in his backyard his neighbors say ‘Hold on there, Cowboy. What you think you’re doin? You think this is Texas or somethin?’ Just ask Mike Mercurio.

Massachusetts, with Environmentalist Liberals like Ted Kennedy, is not building wind turbines. Cape Wind is swinging like an albatross, like NJ’s Offshore Wind Farm. Maybe they are worried they’ll find Jimmy Hoffa’s body swinging from the nacelle.

I’m glad the Texans are doing something right. And I’m not proud of Kennedy or Jon Corzine. Makes me almost wish I was a Texan.

Wind Power - 1976 - 2005, More Questions than Answers

Published
by
Larry
on November 19, 2007
in 911 systems, Clean Energy, New Jersey and Wind Power
. 0 Comments

Testimony before the NJ Governor’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Offshore Wind
April 14, 2005, Cape May Courthouse, 4 Moore Road, Cape May, NJ

Wind Power - 1976 and 2005 - More Questions Than Answers

Thank you for this opportunity today to share my observations regarding electricity generation technologies. I am a consultant with an academic background that includes utility economics and energy systems. I have provided consulting services to Public Service Enterprise Group at the Salem nuclear facility and at their corporate data center in Newark, NJ. I have also provided IT consulting services to Exelon / Amergen, to systems administrators of the Oyster Creek facility in an off-site location.

The first time I spoke before a body such as this was 1976, in Albany, NY, before a committee of the New York State Legislature on Energy, the Economy, and the Environment. The gist of my statement back then was “It is theoretically possible to power the New York City Subway System with wind driven turbines located in New York Harbor and off of Long Island.”

Continue reading ‘Wind Power - 1976 - 2005, More Questions than Answers’

Green Light on Wind Farm in Maine

Published
by
Larry
on November 12, 2007
in Clean Energy and Wind Power
. 0 Comments

UPC Partners of Newton Mass, is building the 57 MW Stetson Wind Project on Stetson Mountain in Washington County, Maine. Click Here or Here. They will be using 38 GE turbines, of 1.5 mw each, producing enough electricity to power 27,500 homes. Project cost is expected to be $100 million, about $1.75 per watt. The capital costs for new coal plants are said to be about the same, perhaps a little cheaper. However, keep in mind:

  • No Fuel Cost associated with Wind, as with coal.
  • No Possibility of a catastrophic accident in a “Wind Mine” as happens with coal.
  • Wind workers don’t get ‘Black Lung.’
  • And of course, wind alleviates global warming. Coal causes it.

When you factor in fuel costs and environmental impact wind is cheaper. How much cheaper? I will try to find out.

I would rather have a wind farm in my backyard than a coal plant or a coal mine. (I just planted plum trees and cherry trees. A wind turbine turbine would look good.)

Red White and Blue - Green Power

Published
by
Larry
on November 11, 2007
in GreenTechnology, NJPIRG, New Jersey, PIRG, Sierra Club, Solar, Stock Market and Wind Power
. 1 Comment

There is a tremendous market for photovoltaic modules and wind turbines. Consequently the stock price of companies that make them well are going thru the roof. (Look at Akeena, Evergreen Solar, First Solar, Sun Power, Vestas Wind, World Water and Solar. ) I think these will follow the trajectory of Apple, Compaq, Intel, Microsoft, Sun, etc, (I hope so, because I invested in them, but that’s another story.)

We could buy solar panels made in China, India, Phillipines, Germany, Spain, or - god forbid - the US. The Sierra Club, NJ PIRG, and the Steel Workers want to manufacture turbines and PV Solar mods in New Jersey, which will create 18,600 jobs over the next 10 years. Click here for local news.

The opponents whine that government investment in infrastructure is wasting Tax revenues. I believe that governments, like people, can squander their resources or invest them wisely. For example, the $2.4 Trillion we are “investing” in the war in Iraq could build and install PV Solar modules that produce 1 to 1.5 KW for every man, woman, and child in America. Building and modernizing factories, especially in the nascent clean energy sector is wise and patriotic investment.

Infrastructure and Emergency Shelters

Published
by
Larry
on November 5, 2007
in Citizen Response, Clean Energy, Emergency Power Systems, Energy, Shelter, Solar and Wind Power
. 0 Comments

If every elementary school in the country had a Photovoltaic Solar system installed onthe roof, then in a ‘Katirina like event’ each school would be an emergency shelter with power. If terrorists took one out, there’d be another one a short distance away.

Solar Panels work when the sun shines. Period!

The money we are spending on the war in Iraq - currently estimated at $2.4 Trillion - would pay for for 300 gigawatts of PV Solar generating capacity - at full retail, and about 800 gigawatts of offshore wind electric capacity. (Solar is about $8.00 per watt, offshore wind is about $3.00 per watt.)

Which would make this country more secure?

Wind & Solar: Clean Energy, National Security & Energy Independence

Published
by
Larry
on October 27, 2007
in Clean Energy, Energy, Green household, GreenTechnology, NIMBY Not In My Back Yard, National Security, New Jersey, Nuclear Power, Solar and Wind Power
. 0 Comments

Chez Mercurio

 

Mike Mercurio understands national security and knows the way to energy independence. He feels it with the cool breezes and the warm light of the sun outside his Long Beach Island, NJ home. He knows that clean energy stops global warming, enhances national security, and provides jobs.

He sees it on his electric bills – $9.50 per month – $114 per year – which reflect the clean power generated by the photovoltaic solar array on his roof. Without them the bill would be $150 in the winter, $350 in the summer - about $3,000 per year.

His neighbors can’t feel it, can’t see it, and have sued to stop him alleging that it is slightly louder than an air conditioner. What are they thinking? (Not in my backyard. Give me nuclear and give me death. Rad-Waste makes Teeth Shine.)

Photo curtesy The New York Times.
Send contributions to the Mike Mercurio Wind Power Defense Fund,
C/O X B ColdFingers, P. O. Box 202, Englishtown, NJ 07726.
100% of all contributions will be given to Mr. Mercurio to help defray his legal expenses.

Jay Leno builds a garage powered by Wind Turbines.

Published
by
Jon
on October 14, 2007
in GreenTechnology and Wind Power
. 0 Comments

And, in california, you can - apparently - get 100% reimbursement for capital investment. (New York’s maximum is 70%). Here’s the coverage in Popular Mechanics, complete  with videos.