Let me preface by saying I’m all for harnessing wind for power.

In almost every TV advertisement on PBS for wind power, I see a wind farm of large turbans and they’re not moving or moving extremely slowly.

It would seem to me that the industry would want to show these machines moving at a decent clip so that people got the sense that there is actually enough wind around to make them move and generate electricity.

I realize that they may be geared in such a way that very little movement will generate electricity but no movement doesn’t seem like a good way to show these expensive assets.

I hope the reason is not that these companies are concerned about environmentalist blowback because birds might get cut up flying through. If that’s the case, showing them standing still is deception.

Judging by the credentials of the published guest list, you have not invited any critics of the wind power movement on todays show, which is a shame. I know many advocates of alternative energy who have their reservations with wind power and it would be nice to get a more objective take on this issue.

But, I will be listening nonetheless!

Whoops: turbans = turbines.

I live in west central Texas where wind farms thrive. For someone who is enthusiastically in favor of harnessing wind energy, I have to admit there are real problems associated with it.

As we debate, county-wide, how to incorporate wind power generators into our landscape, the environmentalists among us (myself included) are suddenly faced with a) the very real damage done to wildlife, and b)the unpleasant fact of wind power transmission lines fanning out across gorgeous and historic Texas Hill Country landscapes.

We’re on a bird migration route and dread the damage that could be done, spring and fall. And generations have worked hard in this county to adhere to high environmental standards and to preserve the architecture of the original German settlers. So wind power isn’t free of problems. What began as an enthusiasm is quickly becoming a burden.

The only way to increase renewable energy demand and to spur research and investment, is to fully tax carbon. Enough with the cap and trade talk, we need to price our goods, services and energy supplies to reflect their true costs, including the costs to the environment. The US can lead the world in renewable energy only when we lose our fossil fuel dependence. Tax the heck out of what Thomas Freidman calls the “fuels from hell”; coal, oil and gas, and lets get going on the “fuels from heaven”; wind, solar and biomass.

What the wind energy folks do not tell you is that most of the wind energy production occurs at a time when we need it least.

In most of the country, the wind blows most at night (when our air conditioners are needed less and the lights are off) and most during the spring and fall (when we use less electricity than during the summer and winter). Utilities that must take this type of power are backing down their most efficient fossil-fired units and filling in the gaps left by the wind with much dirtier fossil-fired generating units. In some cases, being forced to take wind actually causes a net increase in pollution.

This is not true of off-shore production (particularly off of the Atlantic Coast). That wind energy is truly green.

I’m all for wind power, as long as my taxes don’t get raised to pay for it.

I am for clean power but I also believe the sell to the American public should be honest.

I don’t hear anyone challinging the validity of the statement that up to 20% of the electric power can come from wind. How accurate is this data? Is this seasonal? It appears to be about 10% higher than previous data.

I have read that the cost reimbursement for a wind turbine is 15 years. This technology is more expensive than coal. I don’t think the American people realize that wind power will cost more than coal. This fact seems to be left out of the conversations.

By all means lets debate alternative sources of energy but lets be honest with ourselves and with the American public.

I think this is one of those technologies that on paper looks and sounds good. However in practice it is a disaster for migratory birds. Then there are all those huge turbines and power lines. Is this as green as they say it is? Everyone is using “green” as a buzz word these days and I for one am very suspicious the over use of the word.

The problem with Renewable Electricity Portfolio Standards is that it requires utilities to purchase theoretically “green” power that actually makes net pollution worse, e.g., wind energy at night that displaces power displaced by efficient fossil-fired units.

The wind in Europe is more constant than it is in most of the United States.

I’d like them to discuss the transmission line problems leaving the wind belt. I’ve heard that a lot of the wind turbines are idleing, because of lack of transmission lines.

Wind will never be baseload power without better energy storage technology.

Instead of subsidies of alternative, renewable, green fuels, do ‘full costing’ on use of oil, coal, etc. Carbon dioxide emissions, military might needed to maintain our supply lines, no control over pricing, etc.

Also, as per comment above about winds blowing at night when electric needs lower, then moving to battery-powered automobiles that can recharge at night could absorb some of that. Pluse changing our habits: running dishwashers, washers, dryers, etc. more at night than during the day.

It needs to be a systemic approach as well as lots of alternative choices that are fully costed.

There actually is an easy answer to our energy crisis, the only problem is a lack of political will. If we implemented this one law, we could achieve our energy independence and shift to more sustainable energy systems and usage patterns.

The US needs to commit to a permanent and cumulative petroleum tax.
Every year for the next 20 years we add 20 cents to the petroleum tax. This would add $8 to the tax after 20 years.

The affect is people would start to change their habits now, we would keep more money in the country, and we would have all the resources we needed to invest in alternative energy, transportation systems etc. Some money would also go to assisting people of low incomes cope with the increase in cost.

I wonder why no one ever factors in the cost of the military support for the oil industry as part of the true cost of oil? How much would a gallon of gas be if we didn’t have to guard supply lines etc. I suspect the true number would blow us away.

I think you are confusing our electric energy with our automobile fuels. Our electrical energy in the U.S. is mostly supported by the U.S. Our dependance on foreign fuels is due to the automobile industry.

How does wind stack up against coal? Iowa happens also to be heavily reliant on coal-fired generating plants. Can wind generation replace coal generation within an economically viable and foreseeable future? (Yes, I am in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and my neighbor is one of those people laid off at Clipper…)

Last year Spain produced 40% of it’s energy from wind power. It took them ten years to set up their network of windmills. Clearly if Spain can figure this out… America can.

You just entertained one of the leading opponents of Cape Wind as a caller. She relied upon some completely discredited studies from places like the Beacon Hill Institute to advance her very narrow agenda while pretending to be talking about wind power in general.

Given the crying need for zero carbon generation in the long term it is really quite silly to be decrying wind as having outsized costs.

Wind energy is not about the environment.

“The clean tech sector is the fastest growing area of the venture asset class and fertile ground for growth and profits, said Ira Ehrenpreis, general partner, Technology Partners, and conference chairman. The environment and profit go hand in hand, according to Ehrenpreis. “Clean tech is all about the green, not the environment,” he said.”

Source, the Chairman of the Clean Tech Investor Summit: “The Clean Tech Investor Summit, now in its fifth year, brought venture capitalists and emerging clean tech companies from diverse sectors together in Palm Springs, CA, in January, for two days of panel sessions and networking opportunities.”
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/02/venture-capitalists-money-is-tight-in-the-green-sector

What about conservation??? Why do we just keep increasing production of energy instead of really looking at how we are using what we have? What about good tax credits for the purchase of energy saving appliances, what about turning off lights that burn all night, do we need bill boards lit all night? People need to rethink how we use what little resources we have on the planet. Is it critical to survival? Plug it in – if not rethink and don’t plug in.

Arguing to keep the current coal-fired power into the future is really no different than wanting to keep mud roads and model t’s because it is cheap.

We need to build with an eye toward our energy future. To get there we will need a distributed energy system: renewables along with traditional sources to get us through a transition to more energy efficient homes & businesses and clean energy.

It will take an investment by us in transmission and emerging technologies to get us there. Those who are talking cents per kilowatts are not seeing the forest through for the trees.

this link reports 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas
found in Louisiana

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124104549891270585.html

The cost of “clean” coal is the same as “clean” oil and all fossil fuels. Trillions of tons of heavy metals, carbon, benzene and other petro-chemical gases and liquids that are ejected into the air, land, water and into our bodies are killing us and the planet. The REAL cost of fossil fuels is disease and death of our children and the Earth.

If renewable energy resources had the government subsidies of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries, we would be generating all of our electricity using solar, wind and geothermal; and our cars would not need gasoline or ethanol.

I have had a bergey 10kw wind turbine since 2002. Located on the east shore of Cayuga Lake in central NY, it provides about 80% of my electrical usage. I am delighted that I installed the windmill when I did.

NY’s energy subsidy, touted as a great boon to us all, has a serious drawback, in my opinion; only the wealthy can now afford to install one.

In order to receive the subsidy, it must be installed by a certified installer. Good idea, but — The cost of the same wind turbine is now 34-35,000 dollars, grid intertied, but the cost installed by a certified installer is 64 – 65,000 dollars. Which is to say, the full amount of the subsidy goes to the installer, none to the one who buys it. Although the benefit to the public of the additional energy that comes from green sources is great, it seems that the primary benefit is to those who install them, a more diffuse benefit to reducing our collective dependence on fossil fuels.

The bill to subsidize wind power was (I’m told) written by the utilities. If that is true, then it makes sense to make individual production of energy a rich man’s game; if the goal is to allow the utilities to control the production of green wind energy, because they are the only ones who can afford it, the bill makes sense.

My “agenda”, Attorney Kaplan, is to serve public and environmental interests’, not the interest of a Limited Liability Corporation seeking tax sheltering opportunities.

You may recall telling me that if I was worried about anything related to Cape Wind, it should be the marine mammals.

Have lead federal Cape Wind reviewing agency, Minerals Management Service, and the U.S. EPA been discredited, too, Seth?

U.S. EPA response (CEQ #20090006) to the MMS Cape Wind MMS Final Environmental Impact Statement of 2/17/09 to MMS James Bennett:

“Alternatives”

“We also noted that discussion about economic viability of the smaller scale project are complex given statements in the DEIS that the proposed project and other sites are not economically viable.”

“In addition, the information contained in the Economic Model in Appendix F remains unchanged.”

Appendix F:

“Given the estimated COST OF ENERGY IS $122/MWh, TWICE THAT OF THE CURRENT MARKET AND THIS IS AFTER THE FULL BENEFIT OF TAX AND RPS INCENTIVES, the prospects of entering a long-term purchase power contract would seem low.”

Source: http://www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy/PDFs/FEIS/Appendix%20F%20-%20Economic_Model.pdf

David Cottingham, Executive Director of the Marine Mammal Commission, the federal agency established under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 2/23/2005 to the USACE Col. Koning:

“There is little doubt that activities associated with the proposed action, particularly the use of pile drivers for tower construction will result in the taking of marine mammals by harassment.”

The truth is outing, Seth.

I keep hearing people talk about the ‘true’ cost of wind being higher than advertised, which is blatantly false. With wind energy, ALL costs are known at the outset and are included in all discussions. What these people fail to realize is that when the coal, oil, and especially nuclear lobbies advertise their costs, they do NOT include the cost of disposing of the waste. These costs are significant! Also, the cost of fuel for these other forms of energy fluctuate wildly at the whim of the market, while the cost of wind is $ZERO. A recent study that took ALL costs into account showed that wind is truly ‘the low price leader’.

I don’t know where you get your information about wind energy costs, Marty Gardner, but I do note that you offer no citations. The reason why you keep hearing about the high cost of wind energy is because it’s true.

The rule of thumb is that offshore wind costs twice as much as onshore wind that cost twice as much as conventional sources of energy.

Please note that most of the studies I cite and provide links for, do not pertain to offshore wind.

Cape Wind is not economically viable even with public subsidies:

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/05/2400385-even-rich-nimbys-cant-afford-cape-winds-energy?mode=edit

Cape Wind represents a public safety hazard:

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/01/2762454-cape-wind-faa-notice-of-presumed-hazard-

Cape Wind represents immitigable harm to endangered species:

http://bjdurk.newsvine.mobi/_news/2009/03/11/2534556-dear-secretary-salazar-please-do-not-sign-off-on-cape-wind-

Clipper’s origins are with Enron. The reason this co is in financial trouble has more to do with their building junk that required recalling their entire 2007 production of turbines with faulty gears than with the financial crisis. Now their blades are also cracking and bubbling requiring warranty repairs.
Mr.Dehlsen said that Clipper stock is listed on the London AIM exchange (CWP.L). I don’t know why he failed to mention that it is also listed on the Pink Sheet in the US (CRPWF.PK). The stock had deservedly lost over 75% of it’s value in the past year.
Giving this co. gov’t money is worse than giving it to GM for building crappy cars.
The wind industry can’t stand on it’s own without tax breaks, subsidies and renewable energy mandates.
So called wind “farms” are destroying much of rural America with noise and habitat destruction. Properties near wind plants are being rendered worthless.
The claims of this industry are bogus. The only thing green about it is the money that investors and developers will make at the expense of ratepayers and taxpayers.
SCAM

Thank you for sharing your astute observation, Rob Pforzheimer. Enron’s “Hypothetical Future-Value Accounting” is the business model being used by the wind industy. This is about turf and taxes, not environmental, public, or economic benefits. The craven interests’ of multi-national corporations are being served by wind, not us, and not the environment.

Enron Wind was bought out by GE, and GE’s motto is: “Green is green”.

June 8, 2005 by the Providence Journal (Rhode Island)

‘Hypothetical Future-Value Accounting — The Tragicomedy that was Enron’

http://www.desmogblog.com/enron-type-accounting-used-to-calculate-carbon-offsets
0A

LA Times 1 1/02
General Electric Co. is seeking the refund of almost half the $358 million it paid to an Enron Corp. unit for wind-turbine manufacturing assets, lawyers told a federal bankruptcy judge in New York on Thursday.

E2It’s standard procedure,” said Dennis Murphy, a spokesman for GE Power Systems, who confirmed the company’s refund request.

“Purchasers have certain protections built in. If the purchase price didn’t accurately reflect the value of the asset, we can petition,” he said.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/nov/15/business/fi-wind15

‘Report Says Sun and Wind Power Could Threaten Nation’s Electrical Grid’

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/10grid.html

‘Blackout puts outdated power grid in spotlight’

“European regulators have launched an enquiry over the power cut that briefly left 10 million people in the dark last week-end. But the outing also raised questions about the grid’s ability to cope with the addition of renewable energy sources.

The outage that left 10 million Europeans without power on 6 November is still=2 0bein g investigated, but some think that the grid’s inability to deal with ever-increasing amounts of wind power might be an explanation.”

http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/blackout-puts-outdated-power-grid-spotlight/article-159530

I think that On Point should do research as to who calls in. The person “Barbara from Northboro” is a business associate of Billionaire waterfront estate owner Richard Egan of Osterville, Massachusetts. Hundreds (if not thousands) of her comments can be found all over the net against Cape Wind. She professes to be a concerned citizen – and she is certainly quite dedicated, but she is obviously a leader of the NIMBY crowd and I think she should not be able to get on the air without some kind of transparency. You guys messed up on this one.

I have no financial interest in the outcome of any wind project except as a ratepayer and taxpayer. I am not a business associate of Richard Egan. I am dedicated to spreading the knowledge I have accumulated over six years by my independent research of cost v benefits of wind for the greater public good. I live 90 miles away from Cape Cod, so the NIMBY crowd does not include me.

My research reveals the benefits extend to industry and business. While wind energy costs are borne by ratepayers, taxpayers, and wildlife.

You know not what you speak, Nathan Lemmon.

While we here in this country are sitting around arguing about wind energy the Germans have been building model suburbs that are designed not to need cars.

This is the model of the future, they have houses so well built that they do not need heating systems.

NY Times

/sorry I meant to say this was in today’s NY Times in the Environment section. It’s a town called Vauban and it looks great to me.

I thought distribution was the reason that wind power is not economically viable except in a few limited areas of low population density, you no commenter has addresed that issue. Our electrical grid is over-stressed and insecure (re recent stories about how it was “hacked” by unknown persons). Every mile that wind-generated power needs to travel to population centers increases costs astronomically.

A few points: Saving energy is always the cheapest.
Low tech hot water solar is used successfully in many parts of the world, Israel/Palestine for two. Standardizing on one design and cheap labor work wonders.
Wind, nuclear, solar don’t have to be subsidized in Europe; instead they have incredibly high taxes on gas and oil, making the others cheaper by comparison.
Between high maintenance cost and windless periods, wind is only available 65% of the time.
THE BIGGEST POINTS: No one in the press has the guts to honestly address nuclear energy. One major accident and one minor one, both caused by stupidity, AND the constant scare tactics of the press have kept us from the most green, SAFEST, AND easily mass produced source of energy. You question the word “safest”? The industry reports that we’ve had no deaths in running our nuclear plants, (but some suspected 2 or 3) throughout our US civilian industry’s history. Just mining coal loses more than that every year in just mining the stuff. And how safe is working on a 300 foot high wind tower? We forget what danger really is. Danger to any one person is the product of how dangerous the product is times the risk of your being seriously exposed to it. We have deep, multiple protection on all our systems and many outside inspectors doing contiuous safety inspections.
Understand that we don’t even reprocess our spent fuel so we only get 5% of the energy out of it.
One more thought: There’s nothing out there by that Nevada dessert cave. We should use eminent domain, nationalize it and put a guard facility to protect it.
If you want some speakers/experts in this area, please contact me.

John McLeod, former manager of Hull Municipal is a terrific speaker and should really be brought on the show to speak of Hull’s experience with wind and their plan to expand to offshore…this is nuts and bolts decision making.

It would be interesting to hear Ms. Durkin and Christy Mihos speak against Hull’s offshore turbines…it’s not Cape Wind, but I wonder if she would present the same points to the citizens of Hull who are obviously in favor of this effort.

Dear Ms. Kelly,

Hull, MA. is “competing” with Cape Wind seeking 130, 3.6 MW offshore wind turbines, when the Hull plan calls for only 4, and Cape Wind has no source for their spec’d 3.6 MW wind turbines.

The Hull MTC grant provided $1.8 million for related studies, now spent. You have also been awarded $951,000 from the Obama Administration $410 billion spending bill. And, you have learned during this process that the original offshore site is not suitable. You’re seeking another $40 million for construction, and more studies as some may have to be redone.

As you have mentioned Christy Mihos, whom I don’t speak for, I consider that you may have read our op-ed that expresses our frustration as taxpayers continue to fund Cape Wind hardware specific GE 3.6 MW studies being conducting by 17 agencies, over a period of years, to determine the costs v benefits, radar interference, ACHP, USFWS, USCG, FAA, etc., effects of this “discontinued” “prototype” wind turbine.

Multi-millions of taxpayers’ dollars are being wasted on studies related to “discontinued” offshore wind turbines. Time is money and that’s been wasted, too.

For every advantage you may perceive has been delivered by Hull land based WTGs, in bottom line economic terms, it appears that you’re not as progressive as you think you may be.

I don’t wish to insult you, or any Hull resident, but being in favor of an effort is conditioned upon the consideration that benefits will be realized. GE has left the risky business of sea altogether as their offshore wind dream is unrealized.

“Being first isn’t always the best,” Hull Municipal Light Plant operations manager Richard Miller says – especially when it comes to a multi-million-dollar offshore construction project.”

As it stands, Cape Wind and Hull Wind offshore projects are both phantom projects, each burning taxpayer dollars, with no potential return on our investments in sight.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/hull/archive/x1683621822/Permitting-process-slow-going-for-offshore-wind-project-in-Hull

Even the captains of the wind industry think we’re nuts.

World’s largest manufacturer of wind turbines, Vestas, President and CEO Ditlev Engle stated of the Cape Wind project proposal to the Boston Globe:

“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?”

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/09/21/the_answers_to_him_are_blowing_in_the_wind/

Senior VP of Vestas Peter Kruse:

“The only way forward is more turbines in virgin ground onshore,” and, “Politicians want offshore so they can avoid the Nimby discussion, but they are allowing a tiny minority to force the rest of the population to pay double for renewable energy.”

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2217931/vestas-calls-greater-focus

“But G.E. no longer makes any offshore turbines, according to Steve Fludder, the head of G.E.’s green business unit who sat down for a wide-ranging interview
with The Times on Wednesday.

G.E. has instead focused its turbine business where it sees the vast majority of demand: on land. Offshore wind, said Mr. Fludder, is “just a vastly costlier proposition — not for us but for the world.”

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/cape-wind-navigates-shifts-in-market/#comment-45839

Seth Kaplan says that the Beacon Hill Institute studies of Cape Wind have been “completely discredited.” I invite him to point out one instance in which a source other than Cape Wind and its backers has even criticized our work. The fact is that we found that the social costs of their project would exceed the social benefits by a factor of two-to-one. If there is something wrong with our cost-benefit analysis, then tell us what it is. Otherwise, please concede that the project is what we found it to be: a huge waste of resources.

David G. Tuerck
Executive Director
Beacon Hill Institute

Durkin and the Alliance for Nantucket Sound (Mr. Koch, zillionaire owner of an energy company) will eventually lose their costly battle. They have spent millions of $$$ and don’t want to give up their fossil fuel profits. They’ve used legal tactics to block progress and have wasted precious time.

This is the 21st century; climate change is a real threat to humankind. It’s time for B.D. to face the fact that we need renewable energy. It doesn’t matter that it might be visible from her porch or Mr. Egan’s or Mr. Koch’s bedroom window. Even the rich people on Cape Cod will suffer from sea level rise, increasingly strong hurricanes, droughts, food shortages, insect borne diseases, etc.

If B.D. has children, it’s time to think about their future. Wind, solar and other clean, green energy solutions will enable us to leave a safer world for future generations. Our time on this planet is short; let’s think about how we’re treating the Earth.

The bitter irony, pseudo-imposter, is that you’re not only entirely fabricating my involvement in the issue of Cape Wind as an independent researcher, who has no fossil fuel interests’, or property at the Cape or islands’, you’re attempting to incite a class war against ” zillionaire” owners of energy companies as a pathetic strategy to gain support for Cape Wind.

I do have children in whose future I am invested. Your flowery suppositions, “clean”, “green”, “safer world”, indicate to me that you know very little about the International Cartel behind Jim Gordon of Cape Wind’s misadventure. And, they don’t care about my children.

This video of the leaders of the State of Massachusetts, and U.S. Energy Secretary Chu, should give you a clue. Appearing with them, and speaking, is a very powerful “zillionaire”, who generally hides behind Cape Wind’s curtain.

Your English accent is annoyingly affected, by the way.

http://www.necn.com/Boston/Business/2009/05/12/Wind-turbines-to-be-tested-in/1242160830.html

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2005Summer/windpower.html

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1434804/000104746908008563/a2186834zs-1.htm#ew77801_experts

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=6499926