by jboullion | Apr 7, 2009 | Uncategorized
From a story on WSAW-TV:
A new state report says Wisconsin utilities should meet the state’s basic energy needs over the next five years without building more new plants.
The Public Service Commission issued its latest biennial Strategic Energy Assessment Monday. The report found the state should not need any new baseload generation — energy needed for a reliable supply barring electricity-sapping events such as heat waves — through 2014 if all currently authorized projects are constructed.
The report directs PSC staff to evaluate how utilities can cheaply prepare for greenhouse gas limits, saying state, regional and federal constraints look inevitable.
From a news release issued by the Public Service Commission on the final Strategic Energy Assessment – Energy 2014:
Biennially the PSC prepares a strategic energy assessment to evaluate the state’s current and future energy demands. The final report, based on data and information collected in 2007 and 2008 from Wisconsin utilities and power cooperatives highlights several conclusions:
· Mandatory constraints on greenhouse gas emissions at the state, regional and federal level appear to be inevitable, and will carry significant implications for Wisconsin’s electric utilities, as electric power generation is responsible for more than 30 percent of Wisconsin’s greenhouse gas emissions;
· Significant approved new generation coming online is expected to keep planning reserve margins near or above 19 percent through 2012 and based on already approved construction, the planning reserve margin for 2014 is expected to be nearly 12 percent. This number is expected to increase as more energy efficiency is implemented and new generation is proposed;
· Generation planning shows no new baseload generation is needed during this SEA period on a statewide basis;
· It is expected that the current and ongoing transmission system expansion and improvements will greatly enhance the ability to move electricity into and within Wisconsin by 2010; and
· Energy efficiency, conservation, and load control will play an important role in reducing Wisconsin’s energy costs and environmental impacts.
by jboullion | Apr 7, 2009 | Uncategorized
The 2nd Sawyer County Earth Day Event of 2008 was listed as one of the top news stories in the Sawyer County Record’s Year in Review.
We didn’t need to read that the Celebration of Earth Day-local solutions to global problems- drew more than two hundred local people to the Sawyer County Fairgrounds We were there again bringing together organizations, businesses, schools, & people from our area exhibiting and speaking about renewable energy, composting, fuel efficiency, gardening, natural & locally produced foods, water quality, and many other displays
Sustainability is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
The first & second Earth Day Events facilitated by the Sawyer County Democratic Party and Good Friends highlighted and informed the visitors as to what is available in our area to assist them in not only becoming more sustainable in their individual lives, but how our communities can work together to be sustainable.
Because we know you are a community leader and pioneer in the sustainability movement and have been working hard in assisting our county’s residents in understanding and incorporating green and healthy practices in their lives, we would like to invite you to participate in the 3rd Earth Day Event- Local Solutions to Global Issues, April 25, 10-4 pm at the Sawyer County Fairgrounds near Hayward.
There is no charge to you for table or space for displays. You will be responsible for whatever taxes or fees for any products that might be sold by you. You are encouraged to fill out the attached document and return it at your earliest convenience. This will help us to assist you with your needs and assure a space for you. Set up time will begin at 9am on the 25th.
This year instead of a separate area for speakers and presentations, we will provide a “roving mic” which will be available throughout the day in the exhibition hall for you to do a short presentation about your display to visitors and other participants if you wish.
Protecting the earth and living lives individually and as communities that ensure that our grandchildren & their grand children will enjoy the good sustainable life has never been a politically partisan goal. It is all of our goal. We all are responsible for leaving the earth in better shape than we inherited. We all need to work together, no matter our beliefs or political leanings.
Thank you for what you are already doing and providing to the people of Sawyer County and our region. And thank you for your consideration in being a participant in the 3rd Sawyer County Earth Day Event this year.
For more information, questions, comments, you can call Waldo at 715-354-7450 or email sawyerdemocrats@yahoo.com. You can also contact damzel02@gmail.com
by jboullion | Apr 7, 2009 | Uncategorized
From a commentary by Mark Hirsch on Smelsertownship.com:
With an eroding tax base and an expected reduction in the state’s shared revenue (county and municipal aid payments) local municipalities and townships will need to adjust their spending or find other sources of revenue to support their operating budgets in 2010 and 2011.
In this dire economic downturn, the good luck fairy has offered to sprinkle the dust of fortune on Grant County in the form of a commercial project that fits very well in an agricultural economy. On top of the nice fit, we have the opportunity to augment our budget shortfall with some newfound and state-mandated revenue.
That newfound revenue would come in the form of the $80,000 a year Smelser Township would receive in lieu of taxes through state requirements enacted in 2003 Act 31. This act guarantees income in lieu of taxes to the host municipalities. In simplest terms, the additional $80,000 would be equal to 23% of the township’s 2008 operating revenue of $350,000.
For Smelser Township though, it seems some local citizens would rather pay higher taxes than embrace the financial windfall the township would receive from the proposed White Oak Wind Project.
by jboullion | Apr 6, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an article on North American Windpower:
Seventy-nine percent of Americans do not believe a large wind farm project is detrimental to their health and welfare, according to the 2009 Saint Index survey of attitudes toward real estate development projects.
Slightly more than one in 10 adults, 11%, say a large wind project could diminish health and welfare.
The fourth annual Saint Index survey involved interviews with 1,000 adults nationwide. The study is conducted by The Saint Consulting Group, which tracks the politics of land use in the U.S, Canada and U.K.
Eighty-two percent of Americans support a wind farm project in their hometown – an increase from 76% a year ago. Opposition to a local wind project dropped to 15%, which is down 5 percentage points from last year, according to the survey.
Forty-three percent of Americans say they support a local power project, an increase from the 38% who expressed support a year ago, and just 23% in 2006.
However, America’s not-in-my-back-yard attitude toward local development remains strong. Nearly three out of four Americans, 74%, stated that they do not want new development in their communities, saying their hometown is fine the way it is or is already over-developed.
by jboullion | Apr 6, 2009 | Uncategorized
We Energies Renewable Energy Research and Development (R&D) Grant Program
We Energies has established the Renewable Energy Research and Development (R&D) Grant Program to offer financial assistance in the form of a grant (up to a maximum award of $200,000) to conduct research on renewable energy technologies that results in the generation of electric energy, or to help demonstrate a renewable energy product associated with the production of renewable electricity. Eligible applicants include We Energies electric business and non-profit customers. Organizations other than We Energies customers may apply if partnered with a customer. A proposed research project must be located within We Energies electric service territory, or if not located within the service territory it must clearly provide local benefits to the electric service territory. Grants are intended for research and development endeavors that will clearly advance a technology or product, and will clearly contribute positively to the renewable energy industry. Applications received on an ongoing basis through 2009.
We Energies Renewable Energy Scholarship Program
The 2009 Renewable Energy Scholarship Program provides grants to We Energies electric customers or individuals employed by a We Energies customer to attend a renewable energy conference. Eligible participants of this Scholarship Program include:
+ Private industry representatives whose companies are located within We Energies’ electric service territory, whose companies are engaged in the training, development or manufacturing of a renewable energy product or technology. Also considered are representatives of companies that are actively pursuing on-site installation of a renewable energy generating facility. Applicants must be full-time employees in good standing and directly engaged in renewable energy related activities.
+ Full-time staff members of non-profit organizations engaged in activities directly related to the renewable energy industry, such as policy development, where such activities have a direct impact within We Energies’ electric service territory.
+ More information.
+ Also, separate scholarship program for K-12, Post-Secondary and Community Educators.
by jboullion | Apr 6, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an article on North American Windpower:
Seventy-nine percent of Americans do not believe a large wind farm project is detrimental to their health and welfare, according to the 2009 Saint Index survey of attitudes toward real estate development projects.
Slightly more than one in 10 adults, 11%, say a large wind project could diminish health and welfare.
The fourth annual Saint Index survey involved interviews with 1,000 adults nationwide. The study is conducted by The Saint Consulting Group, which tracks the politics of land use in the U.S, Canada and U.K.
Eighty-two percent of Americans support a wind farm project in their hometown – an increase from 76% a year ago. Opposition to a local wind project dropped to 15%, which is down 5 percentage points from last year, according to the survey.
Forty-three percent of Americans say they support a local power project, an increase from the 38% who expressed support a year ago, and just 23% in 2006.
However, America’s not-in-my-back-yard attitude toward local development remains strong. Nearly three out of four Americans, 74%, stated that they do not want new development in their communities, saying their hometown is fine the way it is or is already over-developed.
by jboullion | Apr 6, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an article by Craig Reber in the Telegraph Herald (Dubuque, Iowa):
SMELSER, Wis. — The fate of a proposed southwest Wisconsin wind farm could be decided Tuesday at the polls, where supporters of the controversial plan face off with opponents.
Wind Capital Group, headquartered in St. Louis, wants to build about 61 towers — 400feet high from the base to tip of blade — in portions of three townships: Smelser, Paris and Hazel Green. The proposed White Oak Wind Farm would have a total capacity of 100 megawatts.
Opponents of the White Oak Wind Farm proposal cite safety and health issues with the siting of the wind turbines. They seek a one-half mile setback minimum requirement (as opposed to the proposed 1,000 feet) to minimize what they call the “noise, safety and health risks” to families and their houses.
They say the shipment of the wind turbine components — tower sections, blades and the hub — would require large trucks that would “likely” damage the area’s roadways. They question what happens to the wind turbines after they have served their “useful” lives. They say the “risk” is that the turbines will never get torn down after they are abandoned.
Foes want an ordinance enacted by the Smelser Town Board of Supervisors that they say would “protect” the township’s residents. There are five people on the Tuesday ballot challenging three incumbent supervisors, the township clerk and treasurer. The incumbent chairman and supervisors have been in support of the wind farm.
A town board could adopt a moratorium on a wind farm development by passing an ordinance. However, such an ordinance still could be subject to a legal challenge since no state statute specifically gives townships such authority. Several state Assembly members plan to reintroduce legislation that will provide the state Public Service Commission the authority to establish state standards for wind turbine setbacks and acceptable noise levels.
Also on the state level, Gov. Jim Doyle has a goal of generating 25 percent of the state’s electricity and 25 percent of transportation fuel from renewable fuels (including wind power) by 2025.
RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide nonprofit organization, advocates for public policies and private initiatives to support renewable energy. It supports the project. RENEW Wisconsin Executive Director Michael Vickerman said wind farms are an important source of revenue to local governments, in terms of payments and taxes — not to mention the supplemental income to the host landowners.
Grant County could collect $400,000 annually for the next 25 years, with an option of 10 additional years. As mandated by state law, the county would distribute 40 percent of the revenue to the townships that host the turbines. Smelser Township would have half of the turbines and receive $80,000. Paris and Hazel Green townships, hosting a quarter of the turbines each, $40,000.
Wind farm proponents offer their views on Smelsertownship.com.
by jboullion | Apr 6, 2009 | Uncategorized
Commentary
by Michael Vickerman, RENEW Wisconsin
April 6, 2009
The average American adult exhibits some proficiency with basic arithmetic–the adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing of numbers. With these tools we are able to calculate a baseball player’s batting average, the amount of interest income earned on a three-month certificate of deposit, the service tip on a $50 dinner, and the duration of a driving trip from Madison to Minneapolis. Very few motorists need a calculator to figure out the total cost of a fill-up when the per-gallon price of gasoline goes up by a dime.
Yet, when the subject turns to America’s energy future, a subject where some facility with number-crunching is essential for understanding the issues at stake, our native competence seems to desert us. How else to explain the preponderance of newspaper articles, radio and television programs and Internet sites that either fumble the numbers that represent reality, or simply ignore them altogether.
If, as participants in a democratic process, we believe in the concept of informed consent, it is incumbent on ourselves to acquire some familiarity with the numbers that matter. Absent a grounding in the realm of quantities, durations and physical properties, public discussions on energy cannot help but devolve into exercises in magical thinking.
Consider a recent article in The New York Times titled “Cost Works Against Alternative and Renewable Energy Sources in Time of Recession.” In that article, reporter Matthew Wald states that solar and wind electric generating capacity sources are more expensive than new coal, natural gas or nuclear power plants. The yardstick Wald uses to compare the cost-effectiveness of different energy sources is their estimated kilowatt-hour cost, which is the same measure used to calculate the monthly electric bill.
However, Wald makes no mention of the size of the generating stations that are being compared, a critical omission. Coal and gas are relatively inexpensive fuels if an electric utility is looking to build one large power plant, say, 500 megawatts (MW). But what if the utility only needs 100 MW of additional capacity? In those situations, the large size of a typical coal plant becomes an economic liability, unlike a wind power plant, which can be easily adjusted to fill any gap up to 200 MW.
This isn’t rocket science, just simple math. Even if a kilowatt-hour (kWh) generated at new wind power plant costs 40% more than one produced by a new coal plant four times the size, the wind project will put less pressure on electric rates because the utility spent less money overall to build it. This is an important benefit from relying on a resource that comes in multiples of 2 MW increments instead of one 500 MW unit.
In this era of trillion-dollar bailouts, it is impossible to overstate the risk of building too much capacity that’s not needed. Utility loads have leveled off in the last nine months, caused by the economic contraction that has wreaked havoc in the industrial sector. In some utility territories with large industrial loads, the demand for electricity is falling. Indeed, the recent shutdowns of the General Motors plant in Janesville and the Domtar paper mill in Wisconsin Rapids are certain to depress this year’s sales at Alliant Energy’s Wisconsin utility below last year’s totals.
Given the above, one has to wonder if Alliant is still disappointed with the Public Service Commission’s decision in late 2008 not to let it build a new coal-fired plant in southwest Wisconsin. I dare say it would not have been possible to amortize the $2 billion project over a shrinking revenue base without asking for permission to raise rates. Perhaps Alliant will thank the agency later for stopping this undertaking before ground was broken. But perhaps I have too rich a fantasy life.
The Commission’s rejection of Alliant’s Nelson Dewey 3 project demonstrated the value of asking questions and burrowing into the quantitative details of a particular issue. Instead of simply accepting Alliant’s representations at face value, the agency challenged the underlying assumptions and studied alternative resource acquisition scenarios that were at least as plausible and certainly less expensive than what the utility wanted to pursue. As a result of the agency’s inquiries and the decision it reached, it’s fair to say that adding new central station generators is the furthest thing from a Wisconsin utility’s mind right now.
That Alliant’s ratepayers would be vulnerable to a carbon tax or a ceiling on carbon dioxide emissions also figured prominently in the Commission’s decision-making calculus. Though electric utilities can legally discharge CO2 into the atmosphere and not suffer any economic penalty for it, the agency was not willing to assume that such an arrangement will last in perpetuity. Avoiding a substantial downstream liability is a cost individuals and companies routinely absorb today as long as it is labeled “insurance.”
In contrast, Wald’s article assumes that the future will follow the trajectory of the immediate past. The reporter never tested his assumptions on future load growth, environmental regulation, financial risks and fuel prices, nor did he present any other arguments for increasing renewable energy production besides the environmental ones.
For example, one searches in vain for any reference to the financial risks avoided by pursuing zero-fuel cost resources that do not deplete over time. Compared with coal, nuclear and even natural gas, solar and wind energy are the energy world’s equivalent of Treasury bills—a safe haven offering steady and reliable returns. Much recent economic carnage would have been avoided if the trillions of dollars that were heedlessly plowed into McMansions and zero-interest car loans had been redirected instead into renewable energy production.
Another issue unaddressed in Wald’s article is job creation. Part of the reason renewable energy costs more is that the labor comprises a larger share of the expense. The economies of scale that come with central station generation results in fewer job-hours per kWh generated. Nations like Germany, however, have deliberately tailored their energy policies to support solar electric, community-scale wind power and on-farm methane digesters. For what reason, one may ask? To build up a renewable energy economy employing hundreds of thousands of people.
Last week, over 600 people, many of them small manufacturers and commodity suppliers, crowded into a hotel ballroom in Appleton to take part in a one-day seminar on the wind energy supply chain. The turnout surpassed the seminar organizers’ most optimistic expectations. What were the attendees looking for? A chance to establish a business relationship with an industry with reasonable prospects for long-term vitality, in contrast to the automobile sector.
All these lines of inquiry and avenues of research could have been explored in the course of writing this article. Instead of digging into the details and doing the math, Wald chose to skim along the surface and frame this story around the talking points that were prevalent 10 years ago. The result is stale journalism that neither enlightens or edifies. No wonder the print journalism industry is losing money hand over fist—they can’t seem to do the math.
Sources:
“Cost Works Against Alternative and Renewable Energy Sources in Time of Recession.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/business/energy-environment/29renew.html?_r=3&ref=business
“The Gray Lady Stumbles Over Wind Facts”
http://www.awea.org/blog/?mode=viewdate&date_no=1&month_no=4&year=2009
“Wisconsin Gov. Doyle Talks Up Wind at Workshop”
http://www.awea.org/blog/?mode=viewdate&date_no=31&month_no=3&year=2009
– – – – – – – –
Michael Vickerman is executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a sustainable energy advocacy organization. For more information on the global and national petroleum and natural gas supply picture, visit “The End of Cheap Oil” section in RENEW Wisconsin’s web site: www.renewwisconsin.org. These commentaries also posted on RENEW’s blog: http://renewenergyblog.wordpress.com and Madison Peak Oil Group’s blog: http://www.madisonpeakoil-blog.blogspot.com
by jboullion | Apr 3, 2009 | Uncategorized
An editorial in The Tomah Journal:
One of these days, the world will no longer have access to fossil fuels. Oil and coal are finite resources, and while they might last well into the 22nd, 23rd or 24th centuries, they will be depleted at some time in our history. And long before they run out, they will become more difficult and expensive to extract. Remember the oil that John McCain wants to get from the Atlantic Coast? Drilling there can’t be sustained until oil hits $60 per barrel and stays there, which translates into at least $2.50 for a gallon of gas.
Renewable energy must replace fossil fuels sometime, and the process may as well start now. Part of the solution is wind energy. Unfortunately, it has proven to be a contentious issue in Wisconsin. It’s almost impossible for a private-property owner to put a wind turbine on his or her property without the threat of a lawsuit. Wind projects in the Monroe County townships of Ridgeville and Wilton have been halted by ordinances that, in effect, outlaw wind-generated power.
Wind power won’t reach its full potential until the state establishes uniform standards for siting wind turbines. Obviously, health and safety concerns must be considered in any legislation. Opponents have legitimate concerns over noise, flicker and ice buildup. However, it’s an unavoidable reality that that energy generation must occur somewhere. Would wind-turbine opponents like an oil refinery in the township? How about a coal-fired power plant? A nuclear power plant? Even solar power creates controversy. A solar developer in California is stymied because he can’t get powerlines built across the desert.
While wind can’t come close to filling our energy needs, it certainly has a role to play in a diversified, renewable energy network. Somehow, we must resolve the tension between a public that wants all the conveniences of modern life but doesn’t want to live anywhere near a facility that makes those conveniences possible. An honest debate over statewide standards for wind turbines would be a good start.
by jboullion | Apr 3, 2009 | Uncategorized
From a post by Tom Content on JS Online:
The carbon dioxide catch-and-release experiment in Pleasant Prairie, which started last year, is getting some more attention today.
The We Energies power plant is the site of a project funded in part by the Electric Power Research Institute and the French company Alstom. Alstom has built a system at the state’s largest coal-fired power plant that uses chilled ammonia to separate the carbon dioxide that’s heads out into the atmosphere.
If all goes well with this test, the utility industry is planning a bigger demonstration of this technology at a coal plant in West Virginia.
Whatever technological change is forced on utilities, it won’t come cheap, Wall Street Journal Environment Editor Jeffrey Ball writes in his column today.
“Whatever the truth about ‘clean coal,’ consumers will be paying for it one way or another,” Ball writes.
The test is one way that the utility sector is preparing for regulation of greenhouse gases at some point by Congress. That’s significant for Wisconsin given how much we rely on coal for power.
