Category Archives: Wind Power

Indian Point 1 – A Zombie Nuclear Power Plant

Bucolic? Pastoral? Looks that way, but looks can be deceiving. First of all, there’s Indian Point 1. Then there’s the water issue. Other issues are waste and national security.

Operating Modalities, Copyright, (c), 2011 L. J. Furman

Indian Point 1

Brought online in August, 1962.
Shutdown in October, 1974.
Spent fuel is stored on site.
Scheduled to be closed in 2026.
Operated 13 years.
“Zombie” 52 years.

Talk about externalities! “Zombie” since ’74 and scheduled as such for another 25 years, total of 52 years. NRC. What does it cost to maintain and manage as a “zombie?” And who pays? The owners or the taxpayers? And did the plant produce so much power in the 12 years of operation that it will make a profit after 52 years of being managed and serviced?

Indian Point 2

Rated Thermal Power: 3216 MW
Net Electrical Rating: 1032 MW
Water Requirements: 840,000 gallons per minute

Indian Point 3

Rated Thermal Power: 3188 MW
Net Electrical Rating: 1051MW
Water Requirements: 840,000 gallons per minute

(source: Entergy / Indian Point website)

Summary – Indian Point is a 2.083 GW complex. Replacing it with new nuclear would cost about $12 to $18 billion, plus the cost of fuel, security, and the costs of interest during the 8 to 10 years of construction. Replacing it with solar would require about 2 million PV solar panels, at a cost of $8 to $12 billion, or 570 wind turbines at a cost of $4 to $6 billion. 2.0 gw of wind and solar do not require 1,680,000 gallons per minute of cooling water, or even 1.0 gallons per minute. Solar and wind do not require fuel and do not produce waste. Nor do they present national security challenges.

Energy Alternatives

2 Gigawatts
Modality Nuclear Solar Wind
Cost (billions) $12 to $18 $8 to $12 $4 to $6
Fuel Yes No No
Waste Yes No No
Security Hole Huge No No

Keynes, Reluctance to hire, & 21ST Century Energy

in black and white, because some ideas are.

Tweet During the Great Depression the Classical Economists said “Unemployment is voluntary. Business owners will not voluntarily keep the means of production idle.” While he had been a student of classical economics, John Maynard Keynes observed that the data didn’t fit the theory. And, he reasoned, if the observable data don’t fit the theory, the theory must be flawed. “Business owners are risk averse,” he saw. “A employee needs to be productive, needs to make widgets. But if no one is buying widgets, then contrary to classical theory, factory owners will fire workers and keep capital idle rather than hire workers to create excess inventory. That’s just common sense.”

We see this today.

When unemployment was low, for example in the United States during the tech boom of the 1990’s, people acted on the premise that “There is so much work that we could hire and good people and train them.” Today hiring managers seem to be acting on the premise that “There are so many people looking for work that they can wait for the perfect candidate.” Perfection being unattainable, jobs go unfilled. This is ok, in this context, because

“Budgets are tight.”
“The future is uncertain.”
“Money not spent on a new hire can be saved or used to pay down debt.”

Keynes also observed that the government is an employer that does not need to worry about going out of business. Building infrastructure is government employment that is investment for the future. These observations are as valid today as they were 80 years ago.

Continue reading →

Renewable Energy & Efficiency Expo + Policy Forum

Taken from the web site:

The Sustainable Energy Coalition, in cooperation with Members of the U.S. House and Senate Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Caucuses, invites you to the 14th annual Congressional Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency EXPO + Policy Forum. This year’s EXPO will bring together more than 50 businesses, sustainable energy industry trade associations, government agencies, and energy policy research organizations (see list below) to showcase the status and near-term potential of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. Members of the U.S. Congress, Obama administration, and exhibiting organizations will give presentations on the role sustainable energy technologies can play in stimulating the economy, strengthening national security, protecting the environment, and saving consumers money. Click here for video and other details from last year’s EXPO.

This event is free and open to the public. No RSVP required.

Agenda

9:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. Exhibits open for viewing
9:30 a.m. – 11:20 a.m. Morning speakers (located in Room 340, next to the EXPO)
11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Presentations by Members of Congress (to be announced)
12:50 p.m. – 2:05 p.m. Presentations by Executive Branch Speakers
2:20 p.m. – 4:20 p.m. Afternoon speakers (located in Room 340, next to the EXPO)

More details:

Continue reading →

NegaWatts Save MegaBucks

The Newark Star Ledger reported (here and here) that Public Service Electric and Gas, PSE&G, a subsidiary of Public Service Enterprise Group, PSEG, is installing a 2,700-ton chiller the University of Medicine and Dentristy of New Jersey, UMDNJ. This an $11.4 million investment in negawatts. The Star Ledger reported that UMDNJ will save $1.3 million per year on energy costs.What’s the payback? An $11.4 million investment will save $1.3 million per year. That means the system will pay for itself within 9 years, assuming the price of energy remains constant. I think it’s a much more reasonable to assume that the price of energy will go up, so the payback will be higher and the system will pay for itself sooner.

The system will work long after it is paid for. It will save $13 Million over the next 10 years and $26 Million over the next 20 years – assuming electricity costs are constant. Assuming electricity costs increase an average of 5% per year, this will save $16.35 Million over the next 10 years, and $42.99 over the next 20 years.

Projected Savings of $11.4 Million investment.
After 1 Year: $1.3 Million, a return on investment of 11.4% in one year.
After 5 Years: Save $7.18 Million, for a total ROI of 63%, assuming a 5% annual increases in cost of energy.
After 10 Years: Save $16.35 M; total ROI of 143.4%).
After 15 Years: Save $28.05 M; total ROI of (246%)
After 20 Years: Save $42.99 M; total ROI of 377%).

cialis prix pharmacie

We have Governor Corzine to thank. as well as Governors Whitman, McGreevey, Codey, and Christie.

Continue reading →

Why Cape Wind Still Matters

Tweet On May 25, 1961 President John Kennedy said, “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.” (Kennedy library and NASA)

Ten years ago, before Sept. 11, Jim Gordon and his team set out to build a small wind farm on the waters on which the young President, his wife, brothers, sisters, nieces and nephews sailed. Size is relative. It’s small compared to a large coal or nuclear power complex. The wind farm will be composed of 130 turbines and produce up to 430 megawatts of power (here).

In 2010 Jim Gordon and Cape Wind, LLC, finally, got their permits to build the wind farm. For a variety of reasons it took longer for Cape Wind, LLC to get the permits to build the wind farm than it took this nation to land a man on the moon and bring him home safely. Had the wind farm been built by the winter of 2004, Cape Wind would have provided power during the bitter January of ’04, the heat wave of ’05, and every day, especially the coldest days of winter and the hottest days of summer – when the winds are strongest and New Englander’s electricity needs are highest.

It’s also clear, from reading Cape Wind, by Wendy Williams and Robert Whitcomb, that the alliance to “Save Our Sound,” created an anti-wind rogue’s gallery, a bipartisan coalition of moneyed special interests which led Senator Edward M. Kennedy, D-MA, Governor Willard Mitt Romney, R-MA, Senator Ted Stevens, R-AK, Representative Dan Young, R-AK, Sen. Trent Lott, R-MS, Sen. John Warner, R-VA, and very wealthy residents of Cape Cod, including Bill Koch, the late Richard Egan, Rachel “Bunny” Lambert Mellon (Sen. Warner’s ex-mother-in-law), professional environmentalist Robert F Kennedy, Jr. to obstruct the regulatory and the legislative processes and which slowed the development of Cape Wind and offshore wind farms off of the mid-Atlantic and elsewhere.

For them to oppose this project or say “I favor wind power, as long as it’s somewhere else,” was and remains cynical. Given that we have combat troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, that Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006 described the mission in Iraq as a war for oil, was unpatriotic, perhaps traitorous.

Yet another bipartisan coalition rose up to challenge them and support Cape Wind: Ted Roosevelt, IV, who lives on the Cape, Rep. Jim Bass, R-NH, Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-ME, Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM, Matt Patrick, Massachusetts, Gov. Deval Patrick, Greenpeace, unions, Fox News’ Sean Hannity. What these politicians have in common is an understanding of the values of energy independence and renewable energy.

Popular Logistics is a policy blog, not a politics blog. However, it’s worth noting that several political campaigns were won in Massachusetts by Democrats who supported Cape Wind, including Matt Patrick, the 5-term Democratic Representative of the 3rd District of Barnstable, Cape Cod, and Deval Patrick who started his 2006 Gubenatorial campaign in front of the Hull, MA, wind turbine.

Mitt Romney, who signed Ted Kennedy’s health care plan into law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, (also known as Obamacare 1.0) appears to be running for President in 2012. He lost in the 2008 Primary to John McCain. Mr. Romney signed on to the Kennedy-Koch-Egan-Mellon anti-Cape Wind jihad. Americans favor wind power. Will they support Romney in 2012?

Scott “Mitt-Lite” Brown, said (here) “While I support the concept of wind power as an alternative source of energy, Nantucket Sound is a national treasure.” Massachusetts voters favor Cape Wind 70 to 30. Will they support Brown in his re-election campaign in 2012? The Statue of Liberty is a “National Treasure,” as is the Constitution. I last visited Cape Cod when I was 7. Nantucket Sound is not a “National Treasure.” Getting America off coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power, moving to clean, renewable, sustainable energy means our children and grandchildren will enjoy our national treasures.

In their book Williams and Whitcomb suggest that Senator Kennedy may have realized that he had made a bad decision in opposing Cape Wind, but that for a variety of reasons he refused to back down. They may be right. While I think Kennedy was wrong, I can’t speak to whether he came to that understanding. As I noted on this blog, back in August, 2009, (here) President Obama said of Ted Kennedy,”His ideas and ideals are stamped on scores of laws and reflected in millions of lives: in seniors who know new dignity; in families who know new opportunity; in children who know education’s promise; and in all who can pursue their dream in an America that is more equal and more just, including myself.”

Obama said “More equal and more just,” but he didn’t say “perfect.” America is not perfect. It is nation of men and women governed by the rule of law. The laws are not perfect, and neither are the men and women who make, enforce and interpret the laws.

Our energy policy is electricity flows when people flip a switch. Most of that electricity comes from burning fossil fuels and harnessing nuclear fission. We can pretend that the carbon we are pumping into the oceans and the atmosphere will have no effect, that we have unlimited supplies of fossil fuels, and uranium, that all the waste from coal mining, processing, transporting, and burning, and all the radiation leaks from nuclear plants (and radioactive waste from coal) are trivial or routine. Or we can get real. The choice is between coal, oil, methane, and nuclear, or wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal. I choose wind, solar, tidal and geothermal; for myself, for my backyard, not just for people who are my equal in the eyes of the law, whether they have more or less money than me.

—

Index to the series that explores Offshore Wind and Politics:

Cape Wind, Leadership and Vision, here.
Why Cape Wind Still Matters, here.
Ted Roosevelt, IV, on Cape Wind (coming soon).

Cape Wind, Leadership and Vision

Tweet

On Friday, March 25,2011, Cape Wind LLC‘s CEO Jim Gordon spoke at Columbia University about the long delayed project. When he started the project, back in 2001, the Europeans were 10 years ahead of us. Today the Europeans are 20 years ahead of us, and the Chinese too are years ahead of us.

Mr. Gordon quoted Theodore Roosevelt, IV, as saying, “I live on the Cape. If we don’t do this, in 50 years the Cape will be under water.” Cape Cod’s highest point is about 300 feet above sea level so Mr. Roosevelt was exaggerating. His home may wind up under water, but at least some of the Cape will be one or more islands. Speaking of islands, Nantucket, which in 2006 had the highest median property values in Massachusetts, rises some 30 feet above sea level. If sea level rises 30 feet, Nantucket will get washed away.

Mr. Gordon said, “Cape Cod has the most polluted air in New England. When you harness the wind you get clean electricity: No arsenic, lead, mercury, thorium, uranium, or zinc or carbon dioxide like you get from burning coal. No barges of oil that can spill. No radioactive waste like you get from nuclear power. Last year we read about the coal mine disaster in West Virginia. Then the Deepwater Horizon. Now we’re reading about the disaster in Japan. With wind there is no possibility of a disaster, Zero.”

And, he added, “Fossil fuels are a finite resource. New England has neither coal, oil, or natural gas – but there is a tremendous amount of wind. When you factor in the costs of storms and sea level rise – you would think it’s a no-brainer.” The question is not “Can wind power provide base line capacity?” But “How can wind power provide base line capacity.”

Mr. Gordon told how during a trade mission to China, one of his engineers was grilled about wind power, offshore wind, engineering, costs, and siting. After the end of the grilling his hosts said “we read Cape Wind, by Wendy Williams and Robert Whitcomb. We would never allow that here.” In 2009 China built a 100 mw wind farm off the coast of Shanghai – completed the project quickly. By the end of 2010 they had 41.8 gigawatts of nameplate capacity wind power – enough for about 45 million Americans (wikipedia). Continue reading →

21 Century Energy or Business As Usual?

NY Times Special (Business As Usual) Energy Section

Clifford Krauss’ “Can We Do Without the Mideast?” sets the tone for the “Special Energy Section” in the NY Times, March 31, 2011. “The path to independence – or at least an end to dependence on the Mideast – could well be dirty, expensive and politically explosive.” Is this an April Fool’s Day joke? The path to sustainable energy requires vision and hard work. a solar array on every roof and insulation in every wall and every attic. It will be better for the economy, better for the environment, and better for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren. Continue reading →

Nuclear Power and Cocaine

Asking a nuclear engineering professor “Is radiation bad?” is like asking Charlie Sheen “Is cocaine bad?”

On “Morning Edition” today, 3/30/11, Renee Montagne did just that when she interviewed Professor Peter Caracappa, a member of the faculty of the nuclear engineering department of RPI (Interview / nuclear engineering at RPI). As is typically the case, what was left out of the conversation could have been more interesting than what was in the conversation. My questions for Professor Caracappa are below: Continue reading →

Is Fukushima Dai-ichi Worse than Chernobyl?

Nicole Polozzi, as "Snooki"

Are there differences between Fukushima Dai-ichi and Chernobyl?

And is Fukushima worse than Chernobyl?

A teenager might say “Du-uh!”

My friends from Brooklyn might ask “Is the Pope Catholic?”

Even “Snooki” and “The Situation” might ask “Are you stoopid or what?”

But the people at CNN, ProPublica and the NY Times are asking nuclear power industry experts. That’s like asking Charlie Sheen if cocaine is bad, or asking Lindsay Lohan if she really stole that necklace. They should be asking people like Amory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Institute, Roger Saillant at Case Western’s Fowler Center for Sustainable Value, Jeremy Grantham at GMO, Cary Krosinsky at Columbia University CERC, anyone connected with academic programs in Sustainability, such as at Marlboro College, the Presidio, Bainbridge, ecological economics, systems dynamics, etc.

So for the record – here are six real differences (as opposed to the nonsense at Pro Publica here and here) and two major points of congruence.

Continue reading →

After Fukushima, Wall Street Bearish on Nuclear Power

before the catastrophe

(Second in a series on the ecological economics, financial ramifications, logistics, and systems dynamics of nuclear power in the light of the ongoing catastrophe at Fukushima.)

Cary Krosinsky, VP at Trucost, is once again teaching a course on Sustainable Investing at the Center for Environmental Research and Conservation, CERC, at Columbia University. At the March 10 seminar a student spoke about her recent 400% “home run” in a uranium mining operation. She bought in because the earnings were high, debt was low, yet the price was low. It was a classic “value” play of a well-run company undervalued by the market.

But would a “Sustainable Investor” buy a uranium stock? My goal, as a “Sustainable Investor” is “To outperform the S&P 500 index by investing in the top companies, from the perspective of environmental impact, sustainability, management and governance, in the sectors I hope will thrive over the next 25 to 50 years.”

After Tsunami, STR/AFP/Getty Images

Cary didn’t exactly write the book on sustainable investing. He edited it. In Sustainable Investing, the Art of Long Term Performance, copyright, (C) Cary Krosinsky and Nick Robins, 2008 (Earth Scan) he defines “Sustainable Investing” as “an approach to investing driven by the long-term economic, environmental, and social risks and opportunities facing the global economy.”

Jane and Michael Hoffman, in Green, Your Place in the New Energy Revolution, wrote that the nuclear industry was killed not by the protesters at Seabrook, and the environmentalists at Environmental Defense (EDF), Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), or local groups like NY Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) who hired lawyers and scientists to force the utilities to build plants more safely. But it was bankers on Wall Street who, in the aftermath of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, realized that their Million-dollar investments could turn into Billion-Dollar liabilities in seconds, and stopped investing in new nuclear power plants. Even though their liability was limited by the Price Anderson Act in the US and by corresponding legislation in other governments, they might never see a return on their investment. Despite promises by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama of loan guarantees – government subsidies – to build plants, Wall Street is reacting to Fukushima with a mix of caution and skepticism. According to the Wall Street Journal, “The Street” is now, once again, bearish on nuclear power but it is looking again at solar and wind. (click here).

“The nuclear industry is on edge after last week’s quake caused serious damage to several reactors. Bank of America Merrill Lynch cut its stock-investment rating of Entergy ($69.76, -$3.93, -5.33%) and Scana Corp. (SCG, $38.54, -$1.51, -3.77%) to underperform from neutral, citing risks including delays and higher approval costs for relicencing of existing plants. Dahlman Rose says as many as 10 reactors could be affected, which consume the equivalent of 340,000 pounds of uranium each month. The firm cut its price targets for Cameco Corp. (CCJ, $30.90, -$6.48, -17.34%) and Uranerz Energy Corp. (URZ, $3.08, -$0.87, -22.03%).

“Renewable-energy stocks rose in the U.S. in the wake of the nuclear-plant concerns in Japan putting a fresh pall over that industry and some investors believing non-nuclear energy sources away from fossil fuels will get a boost. Solar companies are leading the way, including First Solar Inc.

“CreditSights and other analysts form a chorus that the “nuclear renaissance” of new plants in emerging markets and developed nations will slow, while the potential for new design and safety measures could challenge sector economics .

“Japan’s nuclear crisis is hammering shares in the U.S. nuclear sector, but investors should keep an eye on engineering-and-construction stocks that work in the sector as well, JP Morgan says, citing Shaw Group Inc. Babcock & Wilcox Co. , URS Corp. and EnergySolutions Inc. “We believe the safety features of newer generation reactors will be considerably more advanced” than the older Fukushima units causing havoc over the weekend, the firm writes, but still sees likelihood that renewed nuclear worries are a headwind for these stocks.”

Here are the data:

Company	Symbol	Quote	Change	Percent
Entergy	ETR	$69.76	($3.93)	-5.33%
Uranium Energy	UEC	$4.03	($0.82)	-16.91%

Shaw	SHAW	$30.92	($7.49)	-19.50%
Babcox	BWC	$31.58	($2.79)	-8.12%
URS	URS	$43.88	($1.58)	-3.48%

First Solar	FSLR	$145.13	$5.39	3.86%
(data from March 14, 2011.)

My analysis –

Peter Crowell, professor of Finance and Logistics in the Marlboro College MBA in Managing for Sustainability asked “What happens if you – we – take away all the subsidies?”

If we take away the subsidies from nuclear power, the industry would collapse. The same holds for the fossil fuel industry – if you factor in the hidden “externalized” costs of environmental cleanup. It makes no sense to build nuclear plants, or coal plants, drill for oil or use fracking for natural gas. These are more expensive to build, run, and maintain than solar and wind. Rather than keeping nuclear and fossil fuels on life support while fuel gets harder and more expensive to extract we need to put our best engineering minds to work on clean, sustainable power.

And I expect the vultures on Wall Street to buy Japanese stocks as soon as they sense the market has hit bottom, but only if they see investment in infrastructure.

Index to the series

Earthquake, Tsunami and Energy Policy, March 11-13, 2011. Here.
After Fukushima, Wall Street Bearish on Nuclear Power. March 14, 2011. Here.
Fukushima: Worse than Chernobyl? Here.

Offshore Wind Energy – Mitigating climate change

Offshore Wind Energy: Its potential to mitigate climate change

Sunrise

(For Webinar Click Here) New England Faculty Colloquium: Climate Change, Policy, and Energy Solutions Wednesday, March 2, 2011 – 2:30 pm

James Manwell, U Mass Amherst, Director, Wind Energy Center, (Press Release: Renewable Energy Research Laboratory)

Wind power in the United States has grown from 1,800 MW in 1990 to 35,000 MW by the end 2009. And off-shore wind farms are planned from Virginia to Massachusetts. The costs have dropped ten-fold. Electricity from wind is now less expensive than electricity from coal and nuclear – with none of the environmental costs.

Wind and solar are the opposite of fossil fuels and nuclear. With fossil fuels and nuclear it is easy to regulate the electricity the plant produces, but the wastes can be a problem. With wind and solar there is no waste, but we can not regulate the output. Or rather, we can easily turn it down, but we can’t turn it up. If we are to shift to a clean, sustainable energy paradigm we need to develop a more flexible grid and other technologies for a combined cycle system. The Wind Energy Center at University of Massachusetts, Amherst, is, in their words, “responding to the need for superior, cutting edge research solutions to these issues.”

Cats, Mice, and Sustainable Energy

“Join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources.” – President Barack Obama, State of the Union, January 25, 2011.

When a mouse makes noise, only other mice and local cats take notice. When a lion roars, however, everyone notices; other lions, elephants, zebras, gazelles, smaller cats, mice ….

New Jersey is one of 27 states, which, like the District of Columbia, have a Renewable Portfolio Standard, or RPS, mandating that by a certain date, a specific target of a renewable energy capacity will be deployed. An additional five states have non-binding goals. (This are listed by the U. S. Dept. of Energy at Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.)

In New Jersey the RPS is 22.5%, about 1.6 gigawatts (GW), by 2021. New Jersey today, in January, 2011, has about 300 megawatts of renewable energy capacity. I am confident that New Jersey will meet, and possibly exceed its RPS goal. We started with 9.0 kilowatts (KW) of photovoltaic solar in 2001. We were up to 211 megawatts (MW), by the end of September, 2010, and we added an additional 24 MW in December, 2010. Even when you factor in 30 MW of biomass, 8 mw of wind power, and 1.5 mw of fuel cells, this is less than 20% of the goal of 1.6 gw. (This is shown at the NJ Clean Energy Program Renewable Energy Technologies page.) However paradigm shifts are systems phenomena. They occur at exponential rates. We went from 9.0 kw in 2001 to 211 mw in mid-2010, to 360 mw by the end of 2010. In December, 2010, we added an additional 10% – moving from 236 mw to 260 mw. We are hitting the handle of the hockey stick.

California’s RPS is 33% by 2030. In Texas, the RPS calls for 5,880 MW by 2015. California , New Jersey and Texas are the roaring mice in domestic US clean energy policy. And a cat – the lion in the Oval Office – the President of the United States – has listened to the mice in California, New Jersey, and Texas. Last night he roared.

Courtesy of the White House.

In his “State of the Union” address, January 25, 2011, President Obama set a lofty goal: “80% clean electric generation by 2035.” While I think we can do better – 100% clean renewable sustainable energy by 2025 – Obama’s goal is specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound. It’s SMART. It’s also wise.

As a President should, Obama is thinking, and thinking long term. We at Popular Logistics wish him success because success for a President means a better future for the nation.

–

Two observations.

There is no such thing as “Clean Coal.” Even if we capture and sequester all the carbon dioxide produced from burning coal, which is expensive, there are still impurities, such as arsenic, lead, mercury, uranium, zinc in coal. And mining and processing coal is a very dirty business.
Nuclear is heavily regulated. We exercise tighter control over the wastes. In practice, nuclear power is arguably cleaner than coal. But in reality, things happen.

One question is “Can we achieve Obama’s Clean Electricity Goal?” But a better question is “How can we achieve this goal? ” My back of the envelope response is:

100 gigawatts offshore wind,
100 gigawatts land based wind,
50 gigagwatts solar,
75 gigawatts stored micro-hydro or biofuel, for when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.

And as Amory Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute, says, “The cheapest unit of energy is the ‘Negawatt’ – the energy you don’t have to buy.” How much can we reduce our energy requirements? How much can we gain by conservation?

Wind Power and Noise

How Loud Is A Wind Turbine? Our friends at Treehugger re-published this graphic from GE, which builds wind turbines.

If a wind turbine spins in a forest do you hear it?

If you’re standing next to a utility scale wind turbine, then you’ll hear it. At 300 meters, which is as close to residences as we can build them, they are about as loud as a refrigerator. People report that a set of wind turbines – they tend to be built in sets – produce noise and subsonic vibrations, which can be irritating. But what should we do? PV solar modules are silent. However, they don’t produce power at night. Coal produces tons of toxic waste, from arsenic to zinc, including cadmium, mercury, lead, uranium, thorium – actually producing more radioactive waste than nuclear power. And coal produces carbon dioxide. Mining coal and uranium is dirty. We are converting mountains of natural beauty into mountains of toxic waste. (see Coal Tattoo, or I Love Mountains)

So how loud is a wind turbine? And if wind power is too loud, how should we turn on the lights?

Renewable Energy, The Wall St. Journal, Faux News

George Gilder, writing in the Wall Street Journal, 11/18/10, in California’s Destructive Green Jobs Lobby complained of the defeat of the repeal of the “Global Warming Solutions Act.”

“Economic sanity lost out in what may have been the most important election on Nov. 2—and, no, I’m not talking about the gubernatorial or senate races. … This was the California referendum to repeal Assembly Bill 32, the so-called Global Warming Solutions Act, which ratchets the state’s economy back to 1990 levels of greenhouse gases by 2020. That’s a 30% drop followed by a mandated 80% overall drop by 2050. Together with a $500 billion public-pension overhang, the new energy cap dooms the state to bankruptcy.”

Gilder also wrote: “California officials acknowledged last Thursday that the state faces $20 billion deficits every year from now to 2016.” That’s $120 Billion over the next 6 years. This is a state of 37 million people (US Census). It should be able to borrow that money at 4% or 5% – which is $3083 per capita. Borrowed at 5% interest over 20 years, it’s $20.35 per person per month – which does not seem to be enough to push someone into bankruptcy.

Continue reading →

Google announces Biggest OffShore Wind Project

Schematic Map of Atlantic Wind Connection

Google is putting its money where its mouth is. Back in early September, 2008, Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt said, “We have a total failure of political leadership, at least in the U. S., and perhaps the world.” He then called for 100% of U. S. power to come from green energy in 20 years – with 500,000 wind energy jobs. (See “Google’s Eric Schmidt Details Energy Plan, Chides Lack of Leadership,” by By Katie Fehrenbacher, Sep. 9, 2008, on Gigacom.) Schmidt combined Al Gore’s call for 100% clean electricity in 10 years with Intel CEO Andy Grove’s call for millions of plug-in hybrid cars. (I would like to add that they should be plug-in hybrid biofuel, with the fuel coming from sewage and factory farm waste, not food crops.)

Recently, 10/12/10, Erick Schonfeld at GreenTech (onTechCrunch) wrote Google Backs Biggest U.S. Offshore Wind Project:

“Using its cash to kickstart renewable energy businesses, Google is now backing the largest U.S. offshore wind farm project to date. The Atlantic Wind Connection is a proposed string of offshore wind turbines that will stretch 350 miles off the Atlantic coast from Virginia to New Jersey. Once completed, the project will produce 6,000 megawatts of power, which is equivalent to 60 percent of all the wind power built in the U.S. last year. The wind project will serve nearly 2 million homes. Continue reading →