The recent proposal by the Maine Citizens for Clean Energy coalition to impose a new mandate on consumers to pay for higher-priced electricity will place an enormous burden on Maine people. Electricity rates in Maine are already the 12th highest in the nation and the ballot initiative will require people to pay even more.
The coalition’s proposal would require that Maine ratepayers pay a huge subsidy to certain renewable energy generators to achieve a higher percentage of a particular electricity source. Maine’s current Renewable Portfolio Standard is at 35 percent and is the highest in the nation.
As proposed, the new mandate would require that 50 percent of electricity used in Maine be from specific renewable sources. No other state places such a requirement on their ratepayers. Preliminary estimates indicate that the additional 20 percent renewables by 2020 mandate could add $44 million to $88 million per year to people’s electricity bills. This new subsidy would go to a select few generators both in state and out of state who may not even supply the energy needs of Maine.
While it is understandable that consumers may want to support certain types of electricity generation, I would suggest that they should have the right to decide rather than be forced to comply with a government-imposed mandate. Rather than letting consumers decide, the coalition’s proposal would put in law that certain sources of generation must be used regardless of the cost impact to consumers.
Gov. LePage’s approach is to allow consumers to make the choice as to their energy decisions. Consumers will have the choice to select more renewable energy in the first months of this year through a new offering from the Maine Public Utilities Commission. Why not let the consumers who are paying the bills decide if they want more renewable energy?
Maine deregulated electricity supply in 1998 for the specific purpose of allowing the open market to determine which generation could compete and be most cost-effective. The basic premise was that generators would assume the risk of their decisions as to what source of generation they decided to construct. In turn, the generators would bid in to the market and the lowest cost supply would be selected.
Consumers were supposed to be protected from having to subsidize poor decisions of developers and generators. The coalition’s proposal is going in the opposite direction and would add millions of dollars to consumers’ electric bills.
It would seem once again, that Maine ratepayers are being forced to bail out a few select developers and generators who have apparently invested in technologies that cannot compete in an open market. Many of these generators are already receiving significant taxpayer subsidies but now are demanding more.
Also included in the coalition’s proposal is the elimination of the authority of elected representatives to approve fees and taxes that are added to people’s electric bills. As has been the law for years, any fees imposed on electric rates to subsidize government-run energy efficiency programs have required the approval of the Legislature and governor.
In addition, the Legislature has had oversight of the government agency that administers the efficiency program to ensure that the ratepayers’ money is used appropriately. Not only does the proposal remove the Legislature’s authority to approve any fee increases, it also would remove the oversight and decision-making ability on budgets and spending.
In essence, a quasi-governmental agency would be able to raise fees on electricity ratepayers if it received approval from another state agency without the people’s elected representatives being involved.
Gov. LePage supports all energy technologies that are economically viable and sustainable but also believes that consumers should not be forced to pay more to give preferential benefits to generators who decided to invest in technologies that cannot compete in the marketplace.
While the governor continues to work to lower Maine people’s electricity and energy costs, it is disheartening to see that there are still groups that want to burden Maine people with higher energy costs for the benefit of their own special interests.
The governor believes it is time for the Maine ratepayers and taxpayers to be represented rather than a select few special interests who benefit from government-imposed mandates and subsidies.
Ken Fletcher is director of the Governor’s Office of Energy Independence and Security.
Knowledge is Power.
The public is now on the steep part of the learning curve, and the wind scoundrels know that.
The application of science, logic and physics will kill this farce callled wind power.
In effect, it is really government meddling and attempted control, and waste big time.
No, we will not accept increased costs for the elitists who benefit off of our backs, in a grand lie.
Please read below, fact seekers only..
Natural gas price plunge aids families, businesses (and hurts wind scammers )
By JONATHAN FAHEY, the associated press
Posted Jan. 15, 2012, at 9:36 p.m.
NEW YORK —” The price of natural gas is plummeting at a pace that has caught even the experts off guard.
A 35 percent collapse in the futures price over the past year has been a boon to homeowners who use natural gas for heat and appliances and to manufacturers who power their factories and make chemicals and materials with it.
The country is flush with natural gas as a result of new drilling techniques that have enabled energy companies to tap vast supplies that were out of reach not so long ago. The country’s natural gas surplus has been growing even as the country burns record amounts…………….”
The most recent FERC data for the period ending 9-30-2011 indicates that Maine is already producing 50% of its power using renewables (hydro/wood/biomass/muni). Current wind generation adds another 2.5%. Maine’s 2006 Law will push Maine renewables up to 60% by 2017. The new ballot initiative mandating “new renewables” (i.e. those constructed after 2005) would increase renewables to 70% for Maine by 2020.
What is even more problematic is the mandate to enter into long-term contracts with New Renewables will be in an era when the huge federal tax susidies have expired. Existing wind projects have funded their capital cost with an average debt/equity mix of 50/50 since equity has reaped their financial returns exclusively thru tax shelter. But with the subsidies gone the debt/equity mix will return to the normal 80/20 mix and that means that the projects will need an additional +30% premium just to fund the debt.
The Clean Energy Initiative repeats the same mistakes Maine made with biomass two decades ago. This is a really dumb idea.
I hope that everyone reads this comment!
you ain’t justa shi–in!
LaPage is right- on concerning energy for Maine,and the non-sense of “renewables”.
The Report the White House Doesn’t Want You To Read:
Neither do Rep. Fitts and Hinck of the Maine EUT !
———————————-
WASHINGTON D.C.
The Institute for Energy Research released today a groundbreaking NorthAmerican EnergyInventory exposing the decades-long myth that the U.S. is running out of coal, oil, and
natural gas because of inadequate domestic supplies. As a part of
IER’s year long “Energy for America” campaign, the report
details the vast energy resources that could power the nation’s
future, if not for government policy that stands in the way.
“The current administration and its green energy allies in business and in
Washington appear willing to drive up the price of energy for
American consumers by limiting access to our vast resources. For the
past several years, taxpayer dollars have been spent to fund unproven
green energy pipe dreams, while Americans have been denied the
opportunity to utilize the coal, oil, and natural gas that is
literally under our feet,” said IER President Tom Pyle about the
report.
“This energy report should change the conversation in Washington and
promote policies that reproduce nationwide the energy boom in places
like North Dakota, where unemployment is at now at 3.5 percent (the
lowest in the nation) and domestic production on private lands has
more than tripled in the last five years. The Institute for Energy
Research is proud to release this report, the culmination of months
of research and analysis by IER experts. We have drawn from a broad
array of government, industry, and university data to present hard
facts — not myths — about our energy future. The report presents
a clearer picture than the anti-fracking, anti-drilling, and
anti-exploring ideologues in Washington want the American people tos see.
Among the report’s findings are:
– When combined with resources from Canada and Mexico, the total recoverable
oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels. That’s more than
the entire world has used in 150 years, and sufficient to fuel the
present needs in the United States for the next 250 years.
-In the last 30 years, the United States produced 77 billion barrels of
oil, which was more than 150 percent of the estimated reserves in
1980.
-The total amount of recoverable natural gas in North America is
approximately 4.2 quadrillion (4,244 trillion) cubic feet. That is
enough natural gas in North America to last for the next 175 years at
current rates of consumption.
– There is more recoverable natural gas in North America, Canada, and Mexico
than the combined proved reserves in Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, and Turkmenistan.
-North America has more than 497 billion short tons of recoverable coal, or
nearly three times as much as Russia, which has the world’s second
largest reserves. In fact, North America’s recoverable coal
resources are bigger than the five largest non-North American
countries’ reserves combined (Russia, China, Australia, India,
Ukraine.)
-A scarcity of good policies, not a scarcity of energy, is responsible
for U.S. energy insecurity.
IER will preview the report during a weekly briefing at The Heritage
Foundation in Washington D.C. at 12:00 noon on Tuesday, December 6,
2011.
watch a video presentation of the report’s central findings, click
here.http://www.canadafreepress.com…
Attached
PDF from: http://energyforamerica.org/wp…
everybody,google, Obama’s video, on his cap and trade plan, he says”under my cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” se for your self, there is no mistaking, not a rumor, you fools that voted for him, can see him say it!
The audio of that statement which 99% of America has never heard can be heard right here:
http://www.windtaskforce.org/video/green-elite-we-will-make-electricity-costs-skyrocket
Thank you, Mr. Fletcher, for bringing common sense back to the table. Let the consumer decide if they want to support certain types of renewables. If hydro power is NOT considered a renewable in Maine, I don’t think many people will opt to pay those higher rates to support the unproven, problematic and controversial build out of industrial wind mandated by the Baldacci administration. If hydro is considered a renewable, we’ve already met our goal.
The # 1 enemy of the wind industry is an educated public. Word is now getting out to the masses that wind is a costly joke. Once the people know, put a fork in Maine wind.
Sorry NRCM, sorry Hinck, sorry Angus, sorry Fitts, sorry Du Houx, sorry Kurt Adams – but the adults are in charge in Augusta now and you lose.The following is a wind industry consulting telling this to the wind industry in a wind webinar:
“The most astounding thing to come out of Rolfe-Redding’s mouth — and yes, I heard him say it myself — was this: “The things people are educated about are a real deficit for us.” After the briefings on the pros and cons of wind, said Rolfe-Redding, “enthusiasm decreased for wind. That’s a troubling finding.” The solution to these problems, said Rolfe-Redding, was to “weaken counterarguments” against wind as much as possible. He suggested using “inoculation theory” by telling people that “wind is a clean source, it provides jobs” and adding that “it’s an investment in the future.”
SEE:http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/279802/america-s-worst-wind-energy-project-robert-bryce
It would seem that as the wind thieves are building these wretched wind complexes in people’s hard won paradises, there is a bottleneck in Orrington preventing them from even getting the electricity into the grid. We can have smart meters and smart grids but as long as we have dumb Baldacci types, we will all smart.
Read about the bottleneck in Orrington at the following link in the entry dated 1/3/12:
http://www.windtaskforce.org/page/transmission-lines
By specifying that the additional share of energy come only from “new renewables” the Maine Citizens for Clean Energy coalition has shown their hand. There are only three possible explanations for this “new renewables” requirement:
1) They expect to profit somehow from the passage of the mandate; or
2) In their ignorance they only care about feeling warm and fuzzy by being
as ‘green’ as possible at any cost;
3) No, I guess I was wrong. There are only two possible explanations.
Two rules about NRCM’s elitists:
Rule # 1: NRCM is always right.
Rule # 2: If NRCM is wrong, reread Rule # 1.
Where did Fletcher come up with a rate increase of $44-88 million dollars?
Given the LePage administration’s math difficulties when it comes to the state budget (ex. DHHS) and LePage’s well known problems with credibility in general, We The People want to see their math and the assumptions used in their analysis (if one even exists).
Real world experience from other states is clearly at odds with LePage’s notion that renewable energy is “too expensive” .
Iowa generates 20% of its electricity from wind power – yet its residential power rate is 10.2 cents per kWh – far lower than Maine’s new (reduced) standard offer of 14 cents per kWh.
In Colorado and North Dakota, wind power displaces more expensive electricity from coal and gas-fired power plants during periods when wind power generation is high – and reduces spot prices of electricity in those those markets.
How does LePage explain this?
LePage wants Maine citizens to send their money to Hydro Quebec for “cheap electricity” – and opposes wind power development in Maine.
Does he realize that Hydro Quebec is building 3,100 MW of wind power capacity – to export cheap electricity to the US?
Does he realize that Kestrel aircraft is moving jobs to NH to take advantage of a new biomass power plant being built there?
LePage and his cronies in the Maine Heritage Policy Center do not want Maine to be energy self-sufficient.
The want to import natural gas from western Canada, LNG from foreign sources and electricity from Quebec.
They want Maine people to send their dollars out of state and overseas to support those far flung economies.
They want Maine to be held hostage by energy speculators and events beyond our borders.
It’s just plain dumb.
yessah
“LePage and his cronies in the Maine Heritage Policy Center do not want Maine to be energy self-sufficient.”
Energy self sufficient? Who do you think owns the generators – the citizens of Maine? How about TransCanada, First Wind, Florida Power and Light, Patriot Renewable, Brookfield, the list goes on and on. The money made by these out of state or foreign owned generators does not come to Maine. It goes directly from the ISO-NE to their bank accounts.
Ken Fletcher is absolutely right. Renewable mandates do nothing but make electricity more expensive for Maine’s ratepayers. What do Mainer’s get in return for more expensive “green” electricity? Mountain ridges plastered with turbines, quiet valleys inundated with turbine noise, communities divided.
Remember, it was government run by progressive democrats who forced our utilities to sell all our generators to these out of state or foreign companies in the first place.
And this hackjob of some of the best run utility companies in the nation was perpetrated by a gentleman from Pennslyvania who knew all about the state of Maine because he “spent time here at a summer camp on the coast”.
When will Maine realize that we have the talent RIGHT HERE in the state to govern ourselves without outside interference.
The only reason Quebec is building that 3,100 MW of wind power capacity it to export it to the US. Note, they are not building it for their own use. They are building it for export because they expect these government mandates in the US to force Americans to buy that power no matter how expensive it is.
Even if Maine builds all these new wind farms you support our money will STILL be leaving the state. Wind power is expensive to build and most of the capital used to build the turbines will come from out of state. All that money has to be paid back, with interest, and will leave the state.
In liberal Massachusetts, when the people were given the opportunity to vote with their pocketbooks and voluntarily purchase more wind energy only a tiny percentage (1% I think) agreed to pay the higher costs. In other words, they preserve the hard earned green in their wallets when it comes to having to pay for the so called green that is bogus wind power.
Where did Fletcher come up with a rate increase of $44-88 million dollars?
Given the LePage administration’s math difficulties when it comes to the state budget (ex. DHHS) and LePage’s well known problems with credibility in general, We The People want to see their math and the assumptions used in their analysis (if one even exists).
Real world experience from other states is clearly at odds with LePage’s notion that renewable energy is “too expensive” .
Iowa generates 20% of its electricity from wind power – yet its residential power rate is 10.2 cents per kWh – far lower than Maine’s new (reduced) standard offer of 14 cents per kWh.
In Colorado and North Dakota, wind power displaces more expensive electricity from coal and gas-fired power plants during periods when wind power generation is high – and reduces spot prices of electricity in those those markets.
How does LePage explain this?
LePage wants Maine citizens to send their money to Hydro Quebec for “cheap electricity” – and opposes wind power development in Maine.
Does he realize that Hydro Quebec is building 3,100 MW of wind power capacity – to export cheap electricity to the US?
Does he realize that Kestrel aircraft is moving jobs to NH to take advantage of a new biomass power plant being built there?
LePage and his cronies in the Maine Heritage Policy Center do not want Maine to be energy self-sufficient.
The want to import natural gas from western Canada, LNG from foreign sources and electricity from Quebec.
They want Maine people to send their dollars out of state and overseas to support those far flung economies.
They want Maine to be held hostage by energy speculators and events beyond our borders.
It’s just plain dumb.
yessah
Spoken like a true wind shill.
Renewable policies crushing New England’s economy
http://www.windaction.org/faqs/32263
Spoken like someone that can’t refute what I posted.
yessah
MB: You keep perpetutaing all these wind myths as if you were parroting the AWEA website. As TruthinMaine states and the FERC reports, Mars Hill sells all of its power to New Brunswick Power. Iowa’s rates have risen five straight years (EIA says Residential rates average 10.57 cents) and Iowa now exports the equivalent of 100% of wind energy generated. If wind is so great environmentally why are Iowa’s CO2 emissions rising at the same time as wind capacity? Could it be they need constant fossil fired backup?
And not only does wind require the backup, but when the grid operator attempts to incorporate it, his having to follow the constant fluctuations of the variable wind requires stops and starts and stops and starts, etc. This ramping up and down creates very inefficient combustion and may even result in MORE CO2.
The reality is the Baldacci administration was either incompetent, naive, drunk on green Kool-aid or heavily involved in cronyism — and because of this, this lunacy has pervaded our state. We elected a new administration and a new legislature to stop this wastefulness and to put the people first. I hope the LePage administration really puts the pedal to the medal on repairing this and all of Baldacci’s other damage.
HELP! PLEASE HELP! SOS GOVERNOR LEPAGE and MR. FLETCHER.
Not so – real world experience, where wind power comprises a substantial amount of the generating mix, clearly indicates there is no need for increased spinning reserve or “back up”.
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1805295/national-grid-takes-wind-energy-critics
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/49019.pdf
http://www.pscc2011.net/uploads/files/pscc11-sp1-soder.pdf
Large nuclear power plants on the other hand require large generating reserves as they frequently trip and go off-line – without warning.
try again
yessah
LOL – Maine’s electricity prices are the lowest in New England and we produce more of our electricity from renewable sources than any other state.
Maine has installed more than 350 MW of new wind power since 2006 – and electric rates have fallen – and will be reduced again this March.
How can this be if renewables are “crushing New England’s economy”?
…and what is LePage’s solution?
Import renewable power from Quebec – renewable power that we could produce here in Maine.
try again
yessah
Oh yeah – electricity costs in The County are going down (not up) by 10-21% .
If the Mars Hill wind farm was sooooo “expensive” – how could that happen.
yessah
Spoken as a true enviro zealot, fact is Maines electric rates are some of the highest in New England.
well, even once in a while, an enviro crackpot, has something accurate to say. congrats! except forrest gore, aka al gore.
Spoken by someone who obviously does not know that Maine’s electric costs are the LOWEST in New England.
yessah
munebaght: “Maine has installed more than 350 MW of new wind power since 2006 – and electric rates have fallen – and will be reduced again this March. How can this be if renewables are “crushing New England’s economy”.
Lower natural gas prices, maybe. 350 MW of wind power is nothing – especially considering its 30% capacity factor. New England gets over 45% of its electricity from natural gas fired generators and something in the low (very low) single digits (if that) from wind generators.
Most wind promoters have already admitted that they can’t compete head to head with today’s low natural gas prices. If we were forced to buy wind power, as you apparently desire us to be, we certainly wouldn’t be seeing falling rates.
The only downward pressure on electricity pricing has come from natural gas. You should learn about the economics of electricity before making comments that are way off the mark but seem to be put out there to denigrate Gov. LePage and push the most costly and least effective form of electricity generation—wind power.
Once again, wind cannot be part of base load and base load following requirements of the grid operator, ISO-New England due to being unpredictable and unreliable. It is just added in as surplus and likely wouldn’t even be purchased if it weren’t for mandates.
Installed capacity of 350 MW of wind translates to 91 MW at 25% capacity factor and we are seeing the initial figures for Maine’s newest utility scale wind project, Rollins in Lincoln Lakes, come in well below that cf. Regarding your once again referencing the Mars Hill wind site as being responsible for rate reduction in Aroostook County, the power for all but large industrial users comes from New Brunswick Power Generating Corp. The fickle trickle of Mars Hill wind production goes into that grid. The sources of the NBPG electricity, from the website, are as follows:
Grand Total of 3,043 MW total out put
Nuclear: 21%; Petroleum: 47%; Hydro: 18%; Coal: 14%; Wind: 3%; Mars Hill: .4%
four-tenths of one percent comes from Mars Hill.
My point – if wind power is soooo expensive, why are rates going DOWN – not up – in the County where NB utilities distribute power from Mars Hill LOCALLY.
LePage’s silly notion that renewable energy will increase Maine’s electric rates is not based on real world experience in Maine.
Vinalhaven’s electric rates went down by an annual average of 27% after Fox Island Coop began using locally produced wind power.
In December 2011 electric rates were half of what they were in December 2008 – because of wind power.
If LePage’s sill y notion was correct, Maine’s electric rates would go up – not DOWN – like they REALLY are – as Maine adds wind power to its generating mix.
yessah
Hi Wind Shill,
Please explain how renewables can address the physics of electron production for commercial use today.
Dense energy sources are needed to power modernity.
How does wind trickle meet the criteria every electrical generating source must meet?
Any electric utility must meet the following, well known in the industry to survive.
Defying the laws of thermodynamics along with the religious fervor of the climate computerized theories that defy reality do not work..
Dense energy sources are needed to power modernity.
Any electric utility must meet the following, well known in the industry to survive.
1.The source must provide large amounts of electrons (it must be dense)
2.The power must be reliable and predictable.
3.The electrons must be dispatchable (high or low amount must be generated on demand)
4.It must serve one or more grid demand elements(base load, load following and peak load).
5.The utilization of environment must be minimal and compactness is a must, or it is non-green and damaging the environment.
6.It must be economical.
Please address the above.
Hey whatevah:
Installed global wind power capacity is currently more than 200,000 MW and growing at 25% per year.
Europe, Asia (and especially China), Africa and South America are investing billions of dollars in new wind power – and solar – each year.
Quebec is investing billions into new wind power – more than 3,100 MW – for export tothe US.
The US installed a record 1.7 GW of new photovoltaic (that’s solar – FYI) capacity in 2011 – Germany installed 2 GW in December 2011 – alone – and 7.5 GW for the entire year.
The rest of the world is investing heavily in renewable energy – especially wind and solar.
The proof is in the pudding.
try again
yessah
The proof IS in the pudding. Take a look at Vinalhaven’s energy rates which have shot UP with the wind turbines. Islanders were told their energy costs would be 6 cents. This month the energy charge was almost double that and it had gone DOWN from the 13 cents charged last month! The sad reality is that the wind is not reliable and it is a very expensive energy source, not only in terms of our environment, but also in terms of our pocket books.
Wind power cut Vinalhaven’s electricity costs IN HALF in December 2011.
and the turbines produced 20% MORE power than previously estimated…
http://workingwaterfront.com/articles/As-electric-co-op-conducts-sound-experiment-Vinalhaven-residents-debate-solution-to-turbine-noise-issue/13674/
and this is a bad thing?
and what was the cost of electricity BEFORE the wind turbines were commissioned?
try again
yessah
Look at your bill again and you will see that your 15 cents on the mainland is energy PLUS distribution. We are talking JUST energy charge here. In October, 2009 before the turbines came on, islanders were billed 7 cents a KWH. Since then the rates have climbed steadily.
Here is last month’s billing: Vinalhaven islanders paid 13.1 cents a kwh for energy and 12.9 cents for transmission/delivery which adds up to 26 cents a KWH. On the mainland, CMP energy charge was 8.5 cents and distribution/transmission charge 8.5 which adds up to 17 cents a KWH. For hard working island families this makes a very real difference.
WITHOUT the turbines, Vinalhaven islanders would be paying 7.5 a KWH for energy and 12.9 for transmission/delivery which adds up to 20.4 a KWH or a SAVINGS of about 6 cents a KWH. Wind energy is expensive!
Sorry – Fox Island Coop electric rates DECLINED by 27% because of the wind turbine project.
And citizens on Vinalhaven support the project – they are not going back the bad old days of expensive electricity.
There is a thing called The Google
It is not your friend
nossuh
Some people like to tell that story, but it is not true. I got those numbers right from my own Fox Islands Electric bill. If you do not believe me, give them a call! Ask them about last month’s energy cost AND the transmission/distribution cost. It is easy enough to verify. Sorry to disappoint you, but no mystery here…just some simple facts. Islanders are paying more for electricity than they would without the turbines.
Sorry – you’re busted
Vinalhaven residents REDUCED their Fox Island CoOp power bills when those turbines went on-line.
Those savings were substantial…
http://www.foxislandswind.com/pdf/April2011FIECWindProjectUpdateFINAL.pdf
http://www.foxislandswind.com/proddata.html
http://www.foxislandswind.com/proddata.html#year1
The rest of the world invested heavily in sub prime mortgages too.
Gov’t investment in the form of subsidies to wind have contributed to the credit problems of most of the nearly bankrupt countries in Europe; Spain, Italy, Greece, Ireland.
The proof is in the pudding.
Yes, Denmark has been investing in wind for 20 years or more and has 5 times more installed wind power capacity than the U.S. on a per capita basis. Still, it has the same dependence on fossil fuels as the U.S. as a percentage of its total energy portfolio. 2010 data (Statistical Review of World Energy 2011) : U.S. 87.4%. Denmark 87.2%. Go figure. All that wind power capacity hasn’t made that much difference in Denmark’s big picture, apparently.
Even in Europe, where wind power has been more prominent for longer, development is dependent on government support. It still cannot compete on its own merits. Every time governments pull back public assistance to wind development, development slows or stalls.
From the Wall Street Journal this week: “Faced with budget deficits, governments are losing enthusiasm for green energy. Spain and the Netherlands already have cut support for wind energy; the U.S. is expected to cut tax credits next year.”
Denmark’s per capita energy consumption is far lower than the US and they plan to expand wind generation to more than 40% of their demand by 2020.
Denmark’s fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions have declined dramatically because of their use of wind power and carbon taxes – and their sky has not fallen.
There is no energy development in Europe that does not have government support – France’s nuclear industry is government owned – so was Britain’s.
Do your homework
yessah
9/12/11 – “Denmark to abandon future onshore wind farms in the country”
SEE:
http://www.windtaskforce.org/page/the-truth-about-europe
Well, there’s An Inconvenient Truth if I ever saw one – LOL.
LOL – they are decommissioning some of their older wind projects – which used small (25-50 kW) first geneneration turbines – and will replace them with larger high capacity (1 MW or larger turbines)
…and they are concentrating on offshore wind power.
http://inhabitat.com/denmark-brings-worlds-largest-offshore-wind-farm-online/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/25/wind-power-to-make-up-half-of-danish-energy-use-in-2020/
http://www.windpowermonthly.com/news/1097807/Offshore-feature-Danish-2020-targets/
anti-renewable energy propaganda is easily debunked by reality
try again
yessah
Maine can’t even get the small amount of wind electricity produced from many of the projects onto the grid. Did you know that?
no, did not, and not a surprise, either.how many stupid ideas will the dems and like ilk try to shove down our throats? as Obama is trying to do, every moment he is alive, sadly, he is breathing still.
To make Maine Business friendly we need to lower our energy costs, everyone benefits from that, under the Democrats we were taking out dams when we should be building more of them, building subsidized high cost wind mills and raising taxes on gas and oil. The environmentalist had to much power under the Dems time to get Maine moving and we have a Governor that understands this and can get the job done.
munebaght: “Real world experience from other states is clearly at odds with LePage’s notion that renewable energy is “too expensive”.”
From North Carolina, California, Washington and Massachusetts:
From the Charlotte Observer, 12/15/11: The developer of the largest wind farm ever proposed in North Carolina says the project has stalled because no utility wants to buy the power the project would produce.
From the San Francisco Chronicle, 11/24/11: “You’re going to see significant price increases over time from renewables,” said Aaron Johnson, director of renewable energy policy at Pacific Gas and Electric Co. “As you add it to the system, it is going to result in higher costs for consumers.”
From The Columbian, 01/24/10: Renewable electricity generation is more expensive than existing generation and new natural gas-fired electricity generation.
From The Boston Herald, 12/28/11: National Grid agreed to buy half of Cape Wind’s power at 18.7 cents per kilowatt-hour for the first year. That amount would increase 3.5 percent annually for 15 years. The electricity will most likely cost ratepayers between $420 million and $695 million above market prices for the life of the contract, according to the DPU.
Apparently these states haven’t experienced the “miracle” of wind power pricing yet.
Logically, if wind power could really lower rates, would it need mandates from the government to force consumers to buy it?
Renewable policies crushing New England’s economy
http://www.windaction.org/faqs/32263
The following provides a link to some pretty rotten anti-citizen trampling of the people of Maine by the goons of Baldacci-land.
Report of the Citizens’ Task Force on Wind Power in Maine to the legislature:
1. Assumption of health and climate benefits
2. Assumptions about the moderating effect of wind power on the market price of electricity
3. Disregard for the degree to which wind turbines alter the character of the area where they are located, based on the misguided belief that turbines deserve special treatment because of their supposed benefit to society
4. Failure to acknowledge the experiences of people living near turbines, not only in Maine but worldwide, whose lives are invaded by the sounds produced by these massive machines
5. The appearance of conflict of interest by lawmakers
6. Irregularities in the permitting process
7. Refusal of DEP to hold public hearings on controversial aspects of wind project applications, particularly noise
8. Maine’s wind power agenda was foisted upon a misinformed and uninvolved public
9. Wind sprawl requires massive transmission upgrades
10. Maine’s RPS mandate of 20% of electricity to be supplied by renewables by 2020 will require a huge increase in the number of wind plants or Alternate Compliance Payments will be required
11. Decommissioning language in permits issued is not in compliance
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/report-of-the-ctfwp-to-the-legislature
Anyone who is pushing wind should have to live near one of the wind sites first for a year.
Apparently
there are transmission lines carrying wind and other power to
Orrington, ME, and from Orrington to the NE grid. There is a glut of
generation so congestion occurs from Orrington. In this case I believe the other
generators are a gas plant and a pooling hydro that are backed down or curtailed to allow transmission of intermittent wind power. You would think these
baseload generators would oppose being curtailed, but because they’ve
contracted to provide power in the day ahead market, they will be paid anyway, by ratepayers, for the power they are not producing.Ratepayers will hopefully soon wake up to the fact that all the mandated, “free,” useless wind power has driven up rates, killed thousands of birds and bats, and destroyed wildlife and human habitat, and property values. Policy makers, politicians and regulators like FERC and ISO are corrupt and not doing
their jobs which I believe, are to keep the grid reliable and rates at a minimum. Use Less
Mr. Fletcher is right on the mark. The NRCM led, wind industry backed referendum initiative has got to be one of the worst ideas that has come along in a long time. It serves no one but the special interests pursuing it.
50% of Maine electricity production already comes from renewables – but it’s not the right renewable for the special interest groups. They want wind turbines, lots of ’em, and nothing but.
Mainers, don’t let the NRCM, Environment Maine and their wind industry cohorts hijack Maine’s energy policy. We already have a de facto state mandate to cover the state’s mountains with wind turbines, courtesy of this group. Apparently that isn’t enough. They want to force Mainers to give in to wind developers and pay the resulting higher rates.
When you force ratepayers to pay higher prices for bad alternatives, there’s really no reason to ever find better – and less expensive – alternatives.
Thank you Governor LePage and Mr. Fletcher.
Drill baby…Drill!
Why should I care? By all the reports from the anti-wind and renewable crowd we have enough coal, oil, LNG, to last for the next 250 years. I’ll be long dead and forgotten.
I wonder what the world conditions will be like in the next century? By then how many of the Appelachian mountains will have been removed for coal. Will the ever decreasing supplies of oil have become harder to find and bring to the surface, and become the root cause of global wars?
Maybe the world will look back on these days of development of alternative energy sources like we look back at the first steam engines.
Even the biggest proponents of fossil fuel energy have admitted that there is a finite amount of fossil fuel left on this planet.
When do we as the human race wish to start looking at alternatives? Should we not be doing everything possible to extend the availability of fossil fuels into a thousand years or more?
The NRCM’s referendum initiative is a proposed mandate that would force us to buy energy from sources that don’t necessarily make sense. There is no requirement in the RPS that the qualified energy sources be smart, efficient, or cost effective. And, as it is currently written, Maine’s RPS gives special treatment to wind power, to the exclusion of other renewable sources that might make more sense.
I am not thinking about Maine. I am thinking about the world.
Good news. The relatively small amount of coal burned in New England will likely be on its way out in the coming years. Generators are getting old and likely won’t be able to keep up with EPA requirements as time goes on.
In its 2010 Regional System Plan, ISO New England tells us what will probably replace the coal fired generators? Any guesses? Natural gas generators – NOT wind turbines.
Replacing fossil fuels to the greatest extent is a worthy goal, but the plans to accomplish this should be developed deliberately and rationally – not in a few months by a “wind” task force populated with wind power advocates with no real expertise in energy matters. Do you think the “wind” task force was looking at all the alternatives? Not hardly.
In Maine’s energy arena, we abandoned planning in favor of ideology and advocacy satisfaction. Don’t blame Governor LePage, he wasn’t in office when this mess was created. Blame the NRCM and the wind industry for putting their interests ahead of our state’s. Blame Governor Baldacci for letting them do it. We could be on a sensible plan to integrate more alternatives into our state; instead, we’re on the special interest plan.
You don’t think in 250 years that civilization will have made transformative technological breakthroughs that will give us new energy sources that we just haven’t figured out yet and can’t even conceptualize?
I think that every time someone attempts anything that cuts into the owners of the fossil fuels profits, that barriers will be put up at every turn. Pessimistic on my part but I don’t have much faith that new technology will be pushed for until it’s desperation time.
Capitalism unbridled will prevail. You can relax. The glass is half full.
The voters will decide at polls in November. We have choices. One is to continue to send our energy dollars out of the state to purchase electricity produced by fossil fuels. Another is to buy electricity from Canada, sending our money north. A third choice is to produce electricity here from the sun and wind, producing not only clean green electricity but also creating jobs.
My choice is electricity from renewable sources. Make it here. Use it here. Create jobs that cant be outsourced and pay well. Break the monopolies that control the production and distribution of energy.The cost of electricity produced by gas and coal will only keep rising. The equipment that produces electricity from the sun and wind is getting better and cheaper and the fuel is free.
We will still be sending our money out of Maine, even with wind power. Almost all of the developers/operators of wind turbines in Maine are foreign or out-of-state owned. The “homegrown energy” advertising is more than a bit exaggerated.
The very few permanent jobs that follow the development/construction phase of wind projects is unlikely to have much of an impact on Maine in the long-term. The “jobs” embellishments are one of the many other exaggerations that prop up this industry.
Additionally, the suggestion that most of our electricity can be supplied by variable and intermittent energy sources with a 30% capacity factor is simply false. Our core power still has to be supplied by predictable, on demand generators – something wind power cannot accomplish.
Maine’s current goal for onshore wind development could supply no more than about 5% of New England’s electricity demands – it’s hardly a major player. But, special interests want us to treat it like it is – for their own benefit.
You might wish to study this issue more, because when you do, you may chan ge your tune.
Hmmmmm…..who in that coalition stands to make money from this proposal?
Is ‘GREED’ a factor in promoting wind farms in Maine? HMMMMMM.
NRCM I believe has received “Mitigation” payments, which allow it to go off and protect other lands it wishes to protect. So rather than putting several hundred person-hours into one of their planned project’s acquisition and/or fundraising work, they now have some real money in hand and I imagine that cuts a lot of work out of the picture. Great for NRCM, but when they make these deals, people near the wind factories suffer. In fact their lives are turned upside down. Their health suffers. Their property values decline. Local wildlife lessens. Towns are bitterly divided. Such is left in the wake of a wind company project.
My sense of this is that groups like NRCM will allow a good deed to atone for a bad deed. It’s absurd in the same way carbon credits allow polluters to pollute if they just pay.
“Pay and we will leave you alone – you won’t have to worry about NRCM harassing you on this wind project Mr. Wind Merchant — in fact we will GREENWASH you, giving you our seal of approval”.
I believe on the Sopranos this would be called “protection money”.
During Governor Baldacci’s term, a policy mandated that all state buildings were to enroll in 100% Green Generated Electricity. Knowing this would be more expensive, the former governor assured us the added costs would be offset by conservation measures. Certain members of the Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee promote the idea of adding a tax to our electric bills to achieve conservation ( efficiency ) in government buildings.
Ken Fletcher, please , tell us we are not still employing this policy.
I hope the LePage administration considers that when Angus King made an unprecedented endorsement of Eliot Cutler on the eve of our last Governor’s election in 2010, he was betting that a Cutler win, a derailment of Paul LePage, would guarantee him no problems for his wind factories trampling the people.
dingus king, is no friend to maine or it’s citizens.
Anguish King.
Baldacci, a career politician who never had an original idea in his life, fell under the sway of the “greenwashers” and hoped that he would be seen as a visionary rather than a dupe. His worst legacy was the Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power, a stacked deck designed to justify implementation of what became the Expedited Wind Power Permitting statute. This heinous law, which restricts citizen input and essentially give carte banc pre-approval to every proposal of the wind industry, is leading to wide scale destruction of Maine’s uplands and our vaunted “Quality of Place”. Mainers will be left with higher electricity bills and a forest of under-performing (in the neighborhood of 17-22% capacity factor output) 40 story turbines on ridges in every vista of rural Maine when the subsidies run out and the wind LLCs walk away. What a pathetic legacy!
what did you expect from a “pathetic governor?”
wind as a renewable is Maine is just a bad idea- the hilly forested areas the companies continue too choose are poor returns for the commodities destroyed..wasn’t Maine ok before these unproved and unreliable renew sables came into to destroy our forests, wildlife and human quality of life? many of these comments show the scientific facts why we should not rush or be rash.
correct
Germany Installed 3 GW of Solar PV in December — The U.S. Installed 1.7 GW in All of 2011
In the lead up to another 15% reduction in Germany’s feed-in tariff (the price paid for solar electricity fed into the grid), the German solar industry finished 2011 off with a bang — installing 3,000
megawatts of solar photovoltaic systems in December.
Let’s put those figures in perspective: In just one month, Germany
installed almost twice as many megawatts of solar than the entire U.S.
developed during all of 2011. Preliminary figures show
Germany ended the
year with roughly 7,500 MW of installations; the U.S. ended up with
about 1,700 megawatts, according to GTM Research.
Why the disparity? The Germans have a much more mature solar market. The country’s simple, long-term feed-in tariff
makes financing projects less expensive, and has created a
sophisticated supply chain that allows companies to source product,
generate leads and get systems on rooftops
efficiently.
Some criticize feed-in tariffs for not creating a “market” like we
imagine in the U.S. The activity we saw at the end of 2011 is
representative of what happens every year in Germany: because the
incentives are dropped down to meet market pricing, there is always a
rush in December to install systems quickly. But isn’t that what we do
in the U.S. when tax credits and rebates are about to expire?
It’s fair to criticize feed-in tariffs like those in Spain and the Czech Republic which caused an unsustainable boom
before crashing down. But when looking at the numbers and pricing that
the German solar market continues to post, there’s still a very
compelling argument for states and municipalities to consider moderate,
long-term pricing mechanisms like feed-in tariffs.
Germany Installed 3 GW of Solar PV in December — The U.S. Installed 1.7 GW in All of 2011
In the lead up to another 15% reduction in Germany’s feed-in tariff (the price paid for solar electricity fed into the grid), the German solar industry finished 2011 off with a bang — installing 3,000
megawatts of solar photovoltaic systems in December.
Let’s put those figures in perspective: In just one month, Germany
installed almost twice as many megawatts of solar than the entire U.S.
developed during all of 2011. Preliminary figures show
Germany ended the
year with roughly 7,500 MW of installations; the U.S. ended up with
about 1,700 megawatts, according to GTM Research.
Why the disparity? The Germans have a much more mature solar market. The country’s simple, long-term feed-in tariff
makes financing projects less expensive, and has created a
sophisticated supply chain that allows companies to source product,
generate leads and get systems on rooftops
efficiently.
Some criticize feed-in tariffs for not creating a “market” like we
imagine in the U.S. The activity we saw at the end of 2011 is
representative of what happens every year in Germany: because the
incentives are dropped down to meet market pricing, there is always a
rush in December to install systems quickly. But isn’t that what we do
in the U.S. when tax credits and rebates are about to expire?
It’s fair to criticize feed-in tariffs like those in Spain and the Czech Republic which caused an unsustainable boom
before crashing down. But when looking at the numbers and pricing that
the German solar market continues to post, there’s still a very
compelling argument for states and municipalities to consider moderate,
long-term pricing mechanisms like feed-in tariffs.
Germany Installed 3 GW of Solar PV in December — The U.S. Installed 1.7 GW in All of 2011
In the lead up to another 15% reduction in Germany’s feed-in tariff (the price paid for solar electricity fed into the grid), the German solar industry finished 2011 off with a bang — installing 3,000
megawatts of solar photovoltaic systems in December.
Let’s put those figures in perspective: In just one month, Germany
installed almost twice as many megawatts of solar than the entire U.S.
developed during all of 2011. Preliminary figures show
Germany ended the
year with roughly 7,500 MW of installations; the U.S. ended up with
about 1,700 megawatts, according to GTM Research.
Why the disparity? The Germans have a much more mature solar market. The country’s simple, long-term feed-in tariff
makes financing projects less expensive, and has created a
sophisticated supply chain that allows companies to source product,
generate leads and get systems on rooftops
efficiently.
Some criticize feed-in tariffs for not creating a “market” like we
imagine in the U.S. The activity we saw at the end of 2011 is
representative of what happens every year in Germany: because the
incentives are dropped down to meet market pricing, there is always a
rush in December to install systems quickly. But isn’t that what we do
in the U.S. when tax credits and rebates are about to expire?
It’s fair to criticize feed-in tariffs like those in Spain and the Czech Republic which caused an unsustainable boom
before crashing down. But when looking at the numbers and pricing that
the German solar market continues to post, there’s still a very
compelling argument for states and
municipalities to consider moderate,
long-term pricing mechanisms like feed-in tariffs.
88 million divided by 560,000 rate payers = over $150 increase a year. For what?
to help convince all that dont want it, ROXY BABY’S NATIONAL PARK! i bet there is a connection, between these idiots.
Germany Installed 3 GW of Solar PV in December — The U.S. Installed 1.7 GW in All of 2011
In the lead up to another 15% reduction in Germany’s feed-in tariff (the price paid for solar electricity fed into the grid), the German solar industry finished 2011 off with a bang — installing 3,000
megawatts of solar photovoltaic systems in December.
Let’s put those figures in perspective: In just one month, Germany
installed almost twice as many megawatts of solar than the entire U.S.
developed during all of 2011. Preliminary figures show
Germany ended the
year with roughly 7,500 MW of installations; the U.S. ended up with
about 1,700 megawatts, according to GTM Research.
Why the disparity? The Germans have a much more mature solar market. The country’s simple, long-term feed-in tariff
makes financing projects less expensive, and has created a
sophisticated supply chain that allows companies to source product,
generate leads and get systems on rooftops
efficiently.
Some criticize feed-in tariffs for not creating a “market” like we
imagine in the U.S. The activity we saw at the end of 2011 is
representative of what happens every year in Germany: because the
incentives are dropped down to meet market pricing, there is always a
rush in December to install systems quickly. But isn’t that what we do
in the U.S. when tax credits and rebates are about to expire?
It’s fair to criticize feed-in tariffs like those in Spain and the Czech Republic which caused an unsustainable boom
before crashing down. But when looking at the numbers and pricing that
the German solar market continues to post, there’s still a very
compelling argument for states and
municipalities to consider moderate,
long-term pricing mechanisms like feed-in tariffs.
@font-face {
font-family: “Times”;
}@font-face {
font-family: “Cambria”;
}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1;
@font-face {
font-family: “Times”;
}@font-face {
font-family: “Cambria”;
}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }
Germany
Installed 3 GW of Solar PV in December — The U.S. Installed 1.7 GW in All of
2011
In the lead up to another 15% reduction in Germany’s feed-in
tariff (the price paid for solar electricity fed into the grid), the
German solar industry finished 2011
off with a bang — installing 3,000
megawatts of solar photovoltaic systems in December.
Let’s put those figures in perspective: In just one month, Germany installed
almost twice as many megawatts of solar than the entire U.S. developed during
all of 2011. Preliminary figures show
Germany ended the year with roughly 7,500 MW of installations; the U.S. ended
up with about 1,700 megawatts, according to
GTM Research.
Why the disparity? The Germans have a
much more mature solar market. The country’s simple, long-term feed-in tariff
makes financing projects less expensive, and has created a sophisticated supply
chain that allows companies to source product, generate leads and get systems
on rooftops
efficiently.
Some criticize feed-in tariffs for not
creating a “market” like we imagine in the U.S. The activity we saw at the end
of 2011 is representative of what happens every year in Germany: because the
incentives are dropped down to meet market pricing, there is always a rush in
December to install systems quickly. But isn’t that what we do in the U.S. when
tax credits and rebates are about to expire?
It’s fair to criticize feed-in tariffs like those in Spain and the Czech
Republic which caused an
unsustainable boom before crashing down. But when looking at the
numbers and pricing that the German solar market continues to post, there’s
still a very compelling argument for states and
municipalities to consider moderate, long-term pricing mechanisms like feed-in
tariffs.
@font-face {
font-family: “Times”;
}@font-face {
font-family: “Cambria”;
}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1;
@font-face {
font-family: “Times”;
}@font-face {
font-family: “Cambria”;
}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }
Germany
Installed 3 GW of Solar PV in December — The U.S. Installed 1.7 GW in All of
2011
In the lead up to another 15% reduction in Germany’s feed-in
tariff (the price paid for solar electricity fed into the grid), the
German solar industry finished 2011
off with a bang — installing 3,000
megawatts of solar photovoltaic systems in December.
Let’s put those figures in perspective: In just one month, Germany installed
almost twice as many megawatts of solar than the entire U.S. developed during
all of 2011. Preliminary figures show
Germany ended the year with roughly 7,500 MW of installations; the U.S. ended
up with about 1,700 megawatts, according to
GTM Research.
Why the disparity? The Germans have a
much more mature solar market. The country’s simple, long-term feed-in tariff
makes financing projects less expensive, and has created a sophisticated supply
chain that allows companies to source product, generate leads and get systems
on rooftops
efficiently.
Some criticize feed-in tariffs for not
creating a “market” like we imagine in the U.S. The activity we saw at the end
of 2011 is representative of what happens every year in Germany: because the
incentives are dropped down to meet market pricing, there is always a rush in
December to install systems quickly. But isn’t that what we do in the U.S. when
tax credits and rebates are about to expire?
It’s fair to criticize feed-in tariffs like those in Spain and the Czech
Republic which caused an
unsustainable boom before crashing down. But when looking at the
numbers and pricing that the German solar market continues to post, there’s
still a very compelling argument for states and
municipalities to consider moderate, long-term pricing mechanisms like feed-in
tariffs.
A very sensible plan by the new Energy office director that will lower the costs for both commercial and residential users in purchasing electricity from renewable(green) sources, primarily hydro.
The average delivery rate(residential, small & large commercial) Hydro rates in Maine at the few remaining municipal utilities range from 2.73 cents/kWH (Houlton); 3.03 cents(Van Buren), down to an astonishing 1.39 cents (Kennebunk Light & Power).
The governor of Vermont negotiated a deal for a number of Vermont utilities with HYDRO QUEBEC which lowered the price down to 6 cents/kWh, triggering the envy of many other New England states; and halting the expansion of Cape Wind and a proposed project in the ‘sacred’ Green Mountains.
IOWA is a poor comparison state, since almost 80%(78%) of it’s power comes from cheap coal fired power plants; and the 20% from Wind is intermittant, expensive, and requires coal fired capacity. Paradoxically, the more wind turbines installed the greater the need for coal fired power plants as fill in power sources!
As long as the rain fall, the tides rise & fall, and gravity works, Maine will remain one of the world’s best places to generate hydroelectric power from ocean and river waters.
I spoke with one of the key people who once promoted wind farms in Maine the other day. He kept telling me horror stories of the costs to maintain and distribute the power generated by wind turbines, and the ever shortening warranties for large ones….warranties which depend on detailed $$$ maintenance on almost a daily basis.
Hydropower, on the other hand, rarely needs weekly maintenance inspections…remote monitoring is standard. Many of the installations are over 100 years old and still producing power. It is this MWH over time which drops the cost of producing hydropower down to pennies.
I don’t begrudge anyone from installing wind turbines; but lets not subsidize them as if they would save us money. Quite the opposite is the case, and Countries like Denmark and Germany are clustering them to save money maintaining them; and taking them down by replacing 2 with 1 of a larger capacity. This is why Germany now has fewer large wind turbines. Then there is attrition, etc. The preferred mode of wind backup in Europe is, pumped storage of water.
A very sensible plan by the new Energy office director that will lower the costs for both commercial and residential users in purchasing electricity from renewable(green) sources, primarily hydro.
The average delivery rate(residential, small & large commercial) Hydro rates in Maine at the few remaining municipal utilities range from 2.73 cents/kWH (Houlton); 3.03 cents(Van Buren), down to an astonishing 1.39 cents (Kennebunk Light & Power).
The governor of Vermont negotiated a deal for a number of Vermont utilities with HYDRO QUEBEC which lowered the price down to 6 cents/kWh, triggering the envy of many other New England states; and halting the expansion of Cape Wind and a proposed project in the ‘sacred’ Green Mountains.
IOWA is a poor comparison state, since almost 80%(78%) of it’s power comes from cheap coal fired power plants; and the 20% from Wind is intermittant, expensive, and requires coal fired capacity. Paradoxically, the more wind turbines installed the greater the need for coal fired power plants as fill in power sources!
As long as the rain fall, the tides rise & fall, and gravity works, Maine will remain one of the world’s best places to generate hydroelectric power from ocean and river waters.
I spoke with one of the key people who once promoted wind farms in Maine the other day. He kept telling me horror stories of the costs to maintain and distribute the power generated by wind turbines, and the ever shortening warranties for large ones….warranties which depend on detailed $$$ maintenance on almost a daily basis.
Hydropower, on the other hand, rarely needs weekly maintenance inspections…remote monitoring is standard. Many of the installations are over 100 years old and still producing power. It is this MWH over time which drops the cost of producing hydropower down to pennies.
I don’t begrudge anyone from installing wind turbines; but lets not subsidize them as if they would save us money. Quite the opposite is the case, and Countries like Denmark and Germany are clustering them to save money maintaining them; and taking them down by replacing 2 with 1 of a larger capacity. This is why Germany now has fewer large wind turbines. Then there is attrition, etc. The preferred mode of wind backup in Europe is, pumped storage of water.
A very sensible plan by the new Energy office director that will lower the costs for both commercial and residential users in purchasing electricity from renewable(green) sources, primarily hydro.
The average delivery rate(residential, small & large commercial) Hydro rates in Maine at the few remaining municipal utilities range from 2.73 cents/kWH (Houlton); 3.03 cents(Van Buren), down to an astonishing 1.39 cents (Kennebunk Light & Power).
The governor of Vermont negotiated a deal for a number of Vermont utilities with HYDRO QUEBEC which lowered the price down to 6 cents/kWh, triggering the envy of many other New England states; and halting the expansion of Cape Wind and a proposed project in the ‘sacred’ Green Mountains.
IOWA is a poor comparison state, since almost 80%(78%) of it’s power comes from cheap coal fired power plants; and the 20% from Wind is intermittant, expensive, and requires coal fired capacity. Paradoxically, the more wind turbines installed the greater the need for coal fired power plants as fill in power sources!
As long as the rain fall, the tides rise & fall, and gravity works, Maine will remain one of the world’s best places to generate hydroelectric power from ocean and river waters.
I spoke with one of the key people who once promoted wind farms in Maine the other day. He kept telling me horror stories of the costs to maintain and distribute the power generated by wind turbines, and the ever shortening warranties for large ones….warranties which depend on detailed $$$ maintenance on almost a daily basis.
Hydropower, on the other hand, rarely needs weekly maintenance inspections…remote monitoring is standard. Many of the installations are over 100 years old and still producing power. It is this MWH over time which drops the cost of producing hydropower down to pennies.
I don’t begrudge anyone from installing wind turbines; but lets not subsidize them as if they would save us money. Quite the opposite is the case, and Countries like Denmark and Germany are clustering them to save money maintaining them; and taking them down by replacing 2 with 1 of a larger capacity. This is why Germany now has fewer large wind turbines. Then there is attrition, etc. The preferred mode of wind backup in Europe is, pumped storage of water.
Now you know why; the next thing is to look with the booming ‘hydroelectric-powered’ economy of Quebec….with electric rates so low they even heat with it!
sorry about the triple posts….DISQUS is having hiccups.
Maine needs hydro considered renewable , which it is. That doesn’t mean building more dams, it means using what we have and making fishways which work. If Boston needs more power, let them build a new nuke plant with new technology, not Chernoble or Fukoshima old tech designs. It is not Maine’s problem, our obligation to Mass. stopped in 1820. As oil prices go up, coal stoves are selling more. People cannot afford expensive oil or electricity. Can you imagine heating with electricity? It will only get worse as windsprawl drives prices higher.
if we are to accomplish this stupid mandate, then we will need a lot more hydro
Mandate this….
“a new mandate on consumers to pay for higher-priced electricity”
A government mandate
A government requirement
A government edit
Government telling me what to do, how to spend my money-
Government “requiring” me to purchase something,,,,
Government in my life dictating my life—
Well it isnt going to happen-
Its not going to make me with ObamaCare-
It isnt going to force me to pay union dues-
And its not going to make me buy failed green energy that depends on green credits to be viable..!
I am glad I voted for LePage, and I will be voting for him again…!
King, Baldacci’s and NRCM’s stench gets worse with each passing month as we get to view the carnage they created with more clarity and perspective.
I suspect most of us do not know the extent to which all energy sources are subsidized. It’s hard to tell what the total is because so many subsidies are not obvious, with official and nongovernmental estimates ranging from between $60 billion and $100 billion on energy subsidies (2007 figures…don’t have time to look further) , including : Oil & Gas – $41,000,000,000 (yes, billion); Coal – $8,000,000,000; Nuclear – $9,000,000,000; ethanol (it’s that Iowa primary) – $6,000,000,000; and all renewables…biomass, solar, wind, tidal, etc…
So not supporting new and renewable sources of energy with the potential to free ourselves and our descendants would seem to me penny-wise and pound foolish. And the Governor’s stance against these alternatives reveals where his true loyalties lie and/or a profound ignorance of the facts.
Perhaps you are the one who is ignorant — as well as arrogant:
See the posting dated 9/30/08 at the following link, and note it’s far worse now thanks to the President’s neurosis about things green:
http://www.windtaskforce.org/page/unsustainable-subsidies
I may be mistaken, Pete, but I believe one of the reasons windpower strategies in Maine have shifted to develop off-shore wind generators is because the winds on Fundy Bay are both stronger and more constant.
I’ve paid enough electricity bills in Aroostook & Washington counties over the past decades to be interested in alternatives, particularly because we know that petroleum-based energy will inevitably increase on a sharp curve. And even if it costs a bit more initially, as a grandparent I know that reducing carbon outputs is important for future generations.
My larger point is that every energy source we use gets some form of public subsidy, and considering profits, $40-50 billion subsidies to gas, oil, etc., when those industries are making record profits makes a lot less sense to me than putting some R&D funding into alternatives… including wind. Without government subsidies, we wouldn’t have had electricity in much of rural Maine until decades after we did (Rural Electrification Act), we wouldn’t have the roads we now have (National Interstate and Defense Highways Act), and we wouldn’t have the internet we are both utilizing today.
LePage’s notion that renewable energy is too expensive is not supported by reality.
Peer reviewed analyses of the cost of solar electricity have concluded it has achieved grid parity (it is the same cost as electricity from conventional sources) in many market regions – and solar power costs will continue to decline as the cost of PV modules decline…
http://www.ases.org/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Residential-PV-Achieves-Grid-Parity.html&Itemid=27
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/New-Study-Solar-Grid-Parity-Is-Here-Today
http://www.environmental-finance.com/news/view/1959
Solar power would compliment wind power on a daily and annual basis – and reduce variability in renewable power production.
Maine has an excellent solar resource and there are already thousands of Maine homes that use solar energy.
Maine needs to look to the future if it is to grow and prosper – LePage and his cronies are wrong to oppose this referendum.
yessh
learn from experience:
“Built in 1985, at the end of the boom, Kamaoa soon suffered from lack of maintenance. In 1994, the site lease was purchased by Redwood City, CA-based Apollo Energy.
Cannibalizing parts from the original 37 turbines, Apollo personnel kept the declining facility going with outdated equipment. But even in a place where wind-shaped trees grow sideways, maintenance issues were overwhelming.
By 2004 Kamaoa accounts began to show up on a Hawaii State Department of Finance list of unclaimed properties. In 2006, transmission was finally cut off by Hawaii Electric Company. California’s wind farms — then comprising about 80% of the world’s wind generation capacity — ceased to generate much more quickly than Kamaoa.
In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills.”
End the wind fiasco yesterday!
Wow – Hawaii just commissioned a 21 MW wind farm with 11 MW of battery storage – that will produce power on-demand…
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-57347037-54/hawaii-wind-farm-leans-on-giant-battery-bank/
and just authorized construction of a 69 MW wind farm on Oahu…
http://sustainablebusinessoregon.com/national/2011/12/first-win-gets-green-light-for-big.html
and the Big Island of Hawaii…
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/01/133384379/hawaiis-big-wind-power-project-stirs-up-fans-foes
…that will add to existing wind generating capacity in Hawaii…
http://www.hawaiisenergyfuture.com/articles/Wind_Energy.html
and there are not 14,000 abandoned wind turbines in Hawaii
try again
yessah
Some clips on Solar PV that should make you think twice about believing solar marketing hype:
“As I have told you numerous times, people who claim that PV is anywhere near grid parity have absolutely no ideas of the risks associated with such a long-term investment as PV . Yeah, I read the pre-print of the paper – the authors pay lip-service to the risks, but somehow fail to show us the fail rate and the true O&M costs of actual PV systems that have been in the field at least 10 years. I wonder why.”
“I had a lot of time on my hands today so I looked up the FiT in Germany for offshore wind. It appears to be 15 cent/Watt until 2015. This price does not include transmission interconnection. There Germans wanted to encourage offshore wind so they built 1200 MW worth of offshore transmission at a cost that I’d have to imagine is quite high – I’m no expert but I know those DC lines/subs are expensive and I’d ballpark guess the cost at 1.5 to 2.0 billion for that 1200 MW worth of transmission. So think about it… The off-shore wind developers are being offered 15 cents/kWh even though they don’t have to pay for interconnection. This indicates to me that offshore wind cannot compete with PV farms. ”
Hydro impounds grow fish for food; wind farms kill birds and give people headaches and trigger seizures….It’s only when you consider the full range of benefits from using hydropower that wind/solar options are so unidimensional and have such large footprints that remove biomass and hurt our environment in so many other ways.
…and then you have SOLYNDRA. FIRST WIND, etc. and all the corruption they have brought to Maine!
Some clips on Solar PV that should make you think twice about believing solar marketing hype:
“As I have told you numerous times, people who claim that PV is anywhere near grid parity have absolutely no ideas of the risks associated with such a long-term investment as PV . Yeah, I read the pre-print of the paper – the authors pay lip-service to the risks, but somehow fail to show us the fail rate and the true O&M costs of actual PV systems that have been in the field at least 10 years. I wonder why.”
“I had a lot of time on my hands today so I looked up the FiT in Germany for offshore wind. It appears to be 15 cent/Watt until 2015. This price does not include transmission interconnection. There Germans wanted to encourage offshore wind so they built 1200 MW worth of offshore transmission at a cost that I’d have to imagine is quite high – I’m no expert but I know those DC lines/subs are expensive and I’d ballpark guess the cost at 1.5 to 2.0 billion for that 1200 MW worth of transmission. So think about it… The off-shore wind developers are being offered 15 cents/kWh even though they don’t have to pay for interconnection. This indicates to me that offshore wind cannot compete with PV farms. ”
Hydro impounds grow fish for food; wind farms kill birds and give people headaches and trigger seizures….It’s only when you consider the full range of benefits from using hydropower that wind/solar options are so unidimensional and have such large footprints that remove biomass and hurt our environment in so many other ways.
…and then you have SOLYNDRA. FIRST WIND, etc. and all the corruption they have brought to Maine!
Some clips on Solar PV that should make you think twice about believing solar marketing hype:
“As I have told you numerous times, people who claim that PV is anywhere near grid parity have absolutely no ideas of the risks associated with such a long-term investment as PV . Yeah, I read the pre-print of the paper – the authors pay lip-service to the risks, but somehow fail to show us the fail rate and the true O&M costs of actual PV systems that have been in the field at least 10 years. I wonder why.”
“I had a lot of time on my hands today so I looked up the FiT in Germany for offshore wind. It appears to be 15 cent/Watt until 2015. This price does not include transmission interconnection. There Germans wanted to encourage offshore wind so they built 1200 MW worth of offshore transmission at a cost that I’d have to imagine is quite high – I’m no expert but I know those DC lines/subs are expensive and I’d ballpark guess the cost at 1.5 to 2.0 billion for that 1200 MW worth of transmission. So think about it… The off-shore wind developers are being offered 15 cents/kWh even though they don’t have to pay for interconnection. This indicates to me that offshore wind cannot compete with PV farms. ”
Hydro impounds grow fish for food; wind farms kill birds and give people headaches and trigger seizures….It’s only when you consider the full range of benefits from using hydropower that wind/solar options are so unidimensional and have such large footprints that remove biomass and hurt our environment in so many other ways.
…and then you have SOLYNDRA. FIRST WIND, etc. and all the corruption they have brought to Maine!
Nonsense – there is no “long term risk” to investing in solar power.
The costs are up front – buying and installing the PV array – and the costs fixed over the 40 year lifespan of the modules.
Those costs will not magically increase in the future – sorry.
FIT policies have worked – the price of PV modules and solar electricity has declined over the last 10 years because of them.
That is why solar has achieved real world grid parity in many markets …
http://www.ases.org/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Residential-PV-Achieves-Grid-Parity.html&Itemid=27
and that is why those costs will continue to decline.
It is called Smart Government – something we will never get from LePage.
yessah
No risk, just watching then depreciate and their output decline with every year; along with all the inverters, wiring, trackers and other paraphernalia that makes up an installation. A ten year old PV installation is a danger which causes insurance to increase…and then there are lightening strikes and other electrical events.
Power on…cloud bank appears…power off…yeah, that’s reliability Maine needs..NOT!
How much do you wind shills make?
**I just read the background paper on the Relative Costs of Electricity Generation Technologies, by the Canadian Energy Research Institute, which is the only one cited in the report that compares all modalities.
Solar PV is nearly off the chart at 80 cents/KwH while large hydro is down at the bottom at 10 cents/KwH.
The rest of the study sounds like one of those global warming propaganda ‘research’ studies used by people selling investments.
A couple of days ago you wrote that Kestrel was already building planes here, so your credibility is somewhat lacking.
Credibility is doing just fine. Kestrel is ‘building’ the three prototypes for FAA approval in Hanger SIX. I rode in one and listened to their plans for the company several months ago.
The City of Superior,Wisc. just announced Kestrel would be headquartered there along with their manuf. facilities as I predicted all along.
My credibility comes from first hand experience and discussions w/company personnel. and yours?