CapeCodToday Blog Chowder

Maver-ack-ack looks an awful lot like the Freedom ;)

Bob W.

"I can't see how its output will amount to more than a fart in a windstorm."

You are basically right. No single plant of any type will have a huge impact in US energy independence...its the total size of the fleet that matters. Where you gonna start?

"I've been trying to get informed"

Start here ... http://www.capelightcompact.org/resource_mix.html.

NE electricity is 70% gas/oil/coal fired. US imports upwards of 70% of our oil from unfriendlies, coal is cheap but spews out all sorts of bad stuff, gas is better but will fluctuates wildly in price.

Demand is eventually heading up, global prices for gas, oil, and coal headed back up.

US economy must move to cheap, clean energy base. Light transport needs to move to electric. More nukes and renewables needed.

Please feel free to ask away, I'll tell you what I've learned over the past couple years.

Piggie,

I actually agree with Barbara re: the need for more nuclear power. The US politically stuck its head in the nuclear sand following TMI and Chernobyl.

There is no shortage of better nuclear options, we've lacked the political will to pursue them (wicked shocka!).

Small, modular, mass produced, liquid sodium and flourides, traveling wave reactors. Run them on Thorium instead of Uranium. Fuel reprocessing. Less waste and lower risk of proliferation.

All of this is on the drawing boards and NOT adequately funded for the last several decades.

Obama's DOE man, Dr. Chu, is pro nuke. I hope he follows through.

BTW, this won't be a choice between renewables and nuke or whatever. We need them all.

Barbara

"transmission cost ... for WIND ENERGY ISO NE is up to $3.9 billion". This # has not a thing to do with CW, which is connecting to the grid in Yarmouth.

We do not actually know what CW juice will cost, which (yes) is frustrating.

You lose me when you start in with the Big Dig and Enron sound bites. Might as well add Peanut Corp. of America to that list.

voiceofreason22

"we can accomplish much more somewhere else"

Lets here it. What and where?

Chuck,

As you are quoting nuclear numbers, where to do expect CW's cost of electricity to fall? Appreciate something more accurate than appendix F of the MMS EIS.

Thanks.

A nit for Chuck,

A MWh of wind will not replace same from an oil or gas plant if the wind is not blowing.

But I get your main point. US has got to get off the the imported energy sources.

Nuclear for baseload juice. Solar and wind to peak it. Electrify the transport sector. Move it all onto a smart grid.

BTW...claiming the house is falling in the ocean due to GW...that is a stretch.

Answers to Mav's Qs.

> Speaking of crap. Are you suggesting that Cape Wind will affect any of the above?

Cape wind and similar...absolutely.

> Do me a favor. Walk to work in the AM. Shut your home power off while at work.

Just did a complete appliance eval, replaced a couple hogs, emptied and shut off the second fridge.

> Do you fertilize your lawn? Do you cut your lawn with a gas powered mower?

Yes, and yes ... looking for a way out of that.

Also just had National Grid out for audit, will be dropping several K on insulation and high efficiency heating system.

> You are a joke.

Glad you are entertained.

Anyone thinking that the US energy situation is not going to change significantly over the next decades is deluding themselves.

More nukes, solar, wind, geothermal, efficiency improvements, second gen biofuels...its all got to happen.

Folks,

Pick any one of the following:

- global warming/weirding
- fossil fuel prices going up
- fossil fuel burning pumping all kinds of crap into the air.

You only need believe strongly in any one of these three to support clean energy sources.

Hello Mr. Patrick,

Re: Canal/Mirant. The recently signed Green Communities law....

"Utility companies (NSTAR, National Grid, Western Mass. Electric, etc.) will be required to purchase all available energy efficiency improvements that cost less than it does to generate power, ultimately saving money on consumers’ electricity bills"

Maybe a path to closing Canal?

Re: New England and petroleum. We (US) import 70% of our oil to the tune of 100s of billions annually (mostly for cars and trucks). This is an unprecedented transfer of wealth OUT of the US. New England has a further whammy in that home heating and electricity generation also use a lot of oil.

How to fix? First, as you said...efficiencies. Better insulated homes, solar hot water, etc. If you are making a car purchase, go for the more fuel efficient model.

Increased renewables for electricity generation. Maybe 4th gen nuclear.

Get the transport sector off of oil. Hybrids, plugin in hybrids, electric vehicles. Cellulosic ethanol and algae based biodiesel.

Bridging tactic? Our vast oils shales out West (not ANWAR/OCS)

And just so we don't lose focus on the big picture...

http://www.energyxxi.org/xxi/open_letter.html#principle8

"An open letter to the 44th President of the United States and the 111th U.S. Congress:"

"America is facing a long-term energy crisis, one which could become one of the most significant economic and national security challenges of the 21st century. We strongly recommend that you attach the highest priority to developing and implementing a strategic energy policy that has a long-term, commonsense vision and the full attention of our national leadership. Energy fuels our competitiveness in the world economy and supports our quality of life. It underpins our innovative high-tech economy, resilient manufacturing base, bountiful agricultural sector, and courageous armed forces. In short, energy, and how we use it, will define who we are as a nation for the foreseeable future."


"Increase Renewable Sources of Electricity"

Note who's signed this letter.

Barbara,

You've implied to Posse that you have an economic model for Cape Wind. I think we'd all like to see that. Please post it up here.

Best I can figure from various sources, FERC puts 2008 electricity prices as high as 14 cents. CW is currently at 15 to 18 cents. Gap is closing and will continue to close if natural gas prices rise faster than CW construction costs (which so far seems to be holding true).

Mr. Koch is obviously a very shrewd business man. "I didn't make the rules; I just took advantage of them". You can't honestly slam CW for doing same re: CW subsidies.

The Big Dig sound bites and Trojan horse analogies don't help a fact based discussion. Big dig was run by state and feds, not a private develeper under the gun of his investors.

Re: shortages of construction ships. Market will fix that in a few years. Supply and demand.

"MMS DEIS states that Cape Wind would double the current wholesale cost of energy."

MMS DEIS indeed said CW wholesale of 0.12 KWh versus then market rate of 0.06.

May 2008, ISO NE says peak rates are now up to 0.12, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission puts 2008 summer peak at 0.14.

CW costs up too, said to be in the 0.15 to 0.18 range.

So its no longer CW at double the price. It appears to be more like 10 to 20%. The gap is closing as fuel prices rise.

"Without public subsidy..."

No fair to point a finger at CW subsidies unless you also take away all the billions in subsidies to oil, gas, coal, nuclear, etc.

Barbara,

Thank you for that info.

My understanding of your position is that 1. CW should not be built as MA Audubon claims 6600 bird deaths/year 2. MA Audubon caved on their CW opposition in order to procure a multi million $$$ adaptive management contract.

Might not a contract seeking MA Audubon have initially inflated the 6600 number?

All in all, the bottom line here is that nobody has definitive data for bird threats at CW's specific site, correct?


Thanks again

"...how CW is going to get the transport sector off of imported oil...alternative is demonstrated at http://www.energybulletin.net/node/18239"

I read the link. My understanding...these options all mean continued burrowing, blasting, and burning of fossil fuels == CO2 issues, said likely to be heavily taxed, etc in the coming years.

Germany did coal to liquid during WWII. This is also considered a way to keep the US military gased up in the event we are denied petrol. We have lots of coal.

Pumping the CO2 into the ground = carbon sequestration. My understanding is that this is barely off the drawing board and many years away. Google FutureGen. Also book "Big Coal".

Shale oil...again, carbon.

IMO (I'm no expert) for transport sector. Efficiency improvements, PHEVs and EVs, cellulosic ethanol w/ flex fueled vehicles, algae based petrol, longer term maybe get to hydrogen. Renewable juice for the EVs.

From DOE...interesting...Hydrogen using Wind. http://www.physorg.com/news87494382.html

BTW, NE grid is currently 25% oil fired (from Cape Light Compact).

Cheers

Barbara,

Upon what specific info source are you basing that 6600 bird deaths/ year #?

Upon what specific info source are you basing the plovers, terns, etc. claims?

Thanks

Further driving awayfromthebay's points home...

#5. The NE grid being 50% natural gas dependent is exactly why rates are currently soaring. We're over dependent on gas. CW and similar mitigate this issue.

"Independence? From whom? Arab oil? Cape Wind will have no effect"

Just one major example...get the transport sector off of oil. How? Looky here ... https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php

See that big green slice at the bottom labeled "Imports"? That be the insane amount of US wealth going overseas for crude. Shift that section to PHEVs, EVs, second gen biofuels, etc. Juice the PHEVs and EVs with renewable electricity (no peak oil issues, no fuel cost issues, no CO2 issues). That is how CW and similar projects get us off of oil.

This is not a pipe dream.

Mercedes is doing it ...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/motors/phil_lanning/article1314732.ece

Toyota is doing it ...

http://www.leftlanenews.com/toyota-to-release-plug-in-hybrid-two-new-hybrids-for-2010.html

GM is doing it..

http://uk.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUKN0741637620080707?sp=true

No one single electric generation plant of any technology is going to make a significant dent in any fuel price. Its the size of the fleet that matters. SEMASS electricity price surge is due mainly to all the gas fired generation capacity built in the last decade. Price of gas goes up, price of juice goes with it.

SEMASS needs more electric generation capacity, and a healthy piece of that needs to come from renewables. Clean juice, no fuel costs, etc.

There will probably no quick fix to our energy issues. CEO of Duke energy states it well "There’s no silver bullet, just silver buckshot.”

Mav, I'm hoping you or your children will have the opportunity to be driving a PHEV that is flexibly fueled with second gen biofuels and charged from clean juice. Bye bye OPEC.

Barbara,

Construction costs are indeed rising. But you must be aware of the following...ANY type of power plant's construction costs are soaring. Coal, IGCC, nuclear, gas...all construction costs are soaring. This is not a unique or specific problem with wind technology.

For starters, see the FERC report at...

http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/06-19-08-cost-electric.pdf

See the "estimated Cost of New Generation" slide. Wind is actually on the lower end of the spectrum.

Possee...PHEVs and flex fueled vehicles (second gen biofuels) absolutely will reduce the need for petroleum. BUT...the juice to power the PHEVs must be generated from renewables, cleaner burning coal plants (IGCC), etc.

Thanks Peter,

I agree with all you've said except your last statement. Construction of any renewable electricity generation means reduced need to build the equivalent fossil fuel project.

Good discussion of such issues can be found in the DOE 20% Wind by 2030 report, available here.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf

Cheers

Hello Barbara,

I'm hoping you can help re: Cape Wind's cost of generated electricity.

Appendix F of the MMS DEIS prices Cape Winds output at $122/MWh. Recent Boston Business article by one George West (cross posted on the Alliance site) puts Cape Wind's output at about $150/MWh. So the Cape Wind output price is in the $122 to $150 range using 2007-ish pricing.

The recently released FERC report puts the 2008 forward price of electricity for the Mass Hub at $141/MWh.

These numbers seem to indicate that Cape Wind juice is only 6% more expensive than 2008 market rates. Assuming further price increases in coal/gas/etc., does this not then make Cape Wind juice increasing more attractive with each passing year?

Thank You

P.S. Re: your comments re: Vestas, I assume you got that from the same source as Mr. Kenney, correct? businessgreen.com?

"And cape wind will not lower the price of heating oil, natural gas, nor gas for your cars."

Disagree. One of the ways the US transportation sector will move off of petroleum will be via pluggin hybrid electric vehicles. You'll start to see them in the dealerships 2010 or so. Plug in versions of the Prius, the Chevy Volt (lord I hope GM can pull this off), etc. Ample supply of electricity + pluggin hybrids cars = beginning of "bye bye OPEC". Can't happen fast enough.

Thanks Peter

FYI that CNW "Dust to Dust" study is highly suspect. For starters, it assumes a Hummer H1 will last for 379K miles yet a Prius will only last 109K miles. Also assumes a Prius is only driven 6700 miles/year. The CNW study suggests that most of the energy is consumed by the production of the vehicle, which contradicts many other studies that say operation costs dominate.... i.e Prius beats the Hummer.

Suggest taking at a look at the following...

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf

https://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Transportation/T07-01_DustToDust.pdf

Or Google "dust to dust hybrid"

Cheers

Hello Peter,

Upon what information are you basing your statement re: hybrid/non-hybrid total energy costs?

Thanks

Thanks Peter,

That graph is hard to read, but I beleive it is the 4% offshore # mentioned earlier in the report (54 of 242 GW) number I was talking about. The scale on the left is not just the 20% wind, its the entire electricity mix.

Ms. Durkin,

I'm having a very hard time accepting the Bush/Chenney controlled DOE is rigging the deck for the renewables industries.

Subsidies for energy technologies are nothing new.

"Vestas, MMS, Shell and others all say offshore economics are difficult and twice as expensive". I assume you got this from the same source as Mr. Kenney. businessgreen.com.

You did not point out a conflicting article at...

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2218131/wind-energy-firms-poised-ride

...which claims the offshore costs issues will ease in the near future as more vessels come on line. Also claims some of the cost increases are due to deeper water technology.

Peter,

Please give me the specific figure or graph designator within the DOE report in which you claim to have found the 1% number.

Again Mr. Kenney.

I checked out the article as you suggested on businessgreen.com. "The consensus in Europe is that offshore costs at least twice as much as on shore...". This "consensus" is the statement of a two entities...Vestas and CERA...citing raw material costs and lack of installation vessels.

You did not point out a conflicting article at...

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2218131/wind-energy-firms-poised-ride

...which claims the offshore costs issues will ease in the near future as more vessels come on line. Also claims some of the cost increases are due to deeper water technology.

Further, I'm having a hard time finding any statement made within Mr. Roger's op-ed that is not supported by the DOE report.

Mr. Kenney,

You're quoting #s from DOE's "20% Wind Energy by 2030", right? If so, your page 154 is not the page 154 I'm looking at.

Further...

Figure 1-7. "The 20% scenario envisions 241 GW of land based and 54 GW of SHALLOW offshore wind...". That's more like 4% overall for SHALLOW offshore wind, not 1%.

Figure 2-1 clearly shows one of the prime wind resources is on the upper Atlantic coast (along with upper Pacific and mid country).

Section 2.5, based on Musial/NREL, makes the case for SHALLLOW water wind in the NorthEast. The best wind resource is coastal, most of the population is on the coast.

There are 26 offshore projects generating 1.1 GW...now operating in Europe.

Full report can be found here...

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/

Re: the wind speed question and U.S. regional suitability for wind power, see the following...

- DOE's "20% Wind by 2030". http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf

- University of Delaware Mid Atlantic Coast wind resource study. http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2007/feb/wind020107.html

Central US, upper Atlantic Coast, etc. are prime wind resources.

Splitting hairs a bit. My understanding is that USF&W has stated that more information is needed. That's a bit different than "the site is unacceptable" (implying that all required info is available and the site has been rejected based on hard fact).

Some perspective on the bird issues, no doubt wind biased...

http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html

To be clear, CW is not the technology of the AltaMont Cuisinarts.

From http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/pb3ch5.pdf ...

"Of the 9,817 known bird species, roughly 70 percent are declining in number. Of these, an estimated
1,217 species are in imminent danger of extinction. Habitat loss and degradation affect 91 percent of all threatened bird species". That partially be your coal fired power plants.

I've found the following sources useful re: wind issues.

- The DOE "20% Wind By 2030". http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf.

- University of Delaware Mid Atlantic Coast wind resource study. http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2007/feb/wind020107.html

- Plan B 3.0's Renewable energy section. http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/pb3ch12.pdf

Info re: many of the questions you raise can be found within.

Many feel world oil supply is at or near the Hubbert point or "peak" oil. Essentially, half of all geological reserves have been extracted from the ground (the easy stuff). The rest is more expensive to get to. Add that to major new economies coming online ... price of oil is going up and staying up.

How do we deal with that?

- hydrid electric vehicles and pluggin hybrid electric vehicles...juiced by clean power from wind, solar, etc.

- cellosic ethanol (not food crop based!) to keep the current fleets running.

- more effficient buildings, etc.

- the list goes on...

U.S. needs a diversified, renewable energy portfolio NOW. Its a matter of economic and national security. Completely doable, just a matter of leadership.

For those interested, additional info re: green energy...

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/buy-green-power.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/new-massachusetts-green-power-program-0114.html

http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/Contents.htm

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/home-garden/news/2007/07/
buy-green-power-and-electricity-to-help-the-environment

Why is there not a coal fired plant in the picture at the top?

Consumer demand driving renewable energy demand...OK, what's the point of this article? Yeah, it all comes out of the same grid, but the percentage of renewable goes up if we all demand it.

More info here http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/home-garden/news/2007/07/buy-green-power-and-electricity-to-help-the-environment/overview/0707_buying_green_power_ov.htm

"for the most profitable charity on earth?", "You'd think they would have found the cure by now."

Overall cure rates for children's cancers have reached more than 75 - 90 percent. Dana Farber and Jimmy Fund had a lot to do with that. Jimmy fund passes 90% of its intake through to Dana Farber.

No idea who most of the characters are on this board. Mav is anti CW and has fact based opposition (which is seriously lacking in most of the stuff I've been listening to). Just trying to understand the anti position. I'll check out your links.

Seems we both came out of a tough neighborhood, eh?

Stay safe out there.

CW is sited on HS for economic reasons. Its not as simple as saying Gordon could move it and make less money. Moving it could very well kill it economically.

Not too different a situation as berthing the Maverick in Harwich versus, say, Plymouth. If you had to run from Plymouth everyday to fish Nantucket Sound, the charter business could possibly fail. Similar deal with the transmission lines for CW.

You lose me re: CW having no impact on : environmental improvement. Can you point me to that info re: CW admission that it will have no effect?

Thanks

Appreciate the info Mr. Mav. I wasn't aware of the alledged flaws in the bird study.

It still leaves one with the following choices... 1) don't support something like CW based on incomplete info re: affect on local birds. 2) do support projects such as CW to ease the pressure on the 12% of the entire bird population on the planet alledgedly at risk of extinction due to deforestation, warming, air quality issues, etc.

Thanks, I read the link http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3686

It contradicts the MMS report, which classifies impact on birds to be minor. But for the sake of discussion, let's say MMS is wrong...say there will be some non trivial impact on birds if CW gets built.

If I'm worried about birds, I have to balance versus other information that claims some 70% of the 10,000 or so bird species are in decline and about 1200 are in danger of extinction (due to deforestation, warming, air quality issues, etc.)

I'd much rather CW not be built. I don't want to look at it. I'm sincerely looking for good reasons to not support CW.

Of the current set of land based and offshore wind installations with which I'm familiar, I can't honestly frame their end results as having destroyed their immediate environments.

Sincere question, how exactly is CW going to destroy Nantucket Sound?

"destruction of Nantucket Sound and the Cape way of life"?

There is ample evidence that the US is way out on an economic and environmental limb due to fossil fuel dependencies.

I'd much rather not look at a wind farm on Horseshoe Shoal. But I do want a strong US in complete command of its own energy destiny.

Global demand for fossil fuels is going up. Supplies are going down. Prices are going up. You've all no doubt seen the recent announcements that cape electric and gas rates are going up. Your food prices will be next as these foolish corn based ethanol programs crank up.

This is the country that won WWII, landed a man on the moon, brought down the Soviet Union. Green technologies are an opportunity, not a problem. IMO it will be an national embarassment if we don't lead.

Cape Wind, Blue H, tide turbines, clean coal, conservation, etc. are all part of a diversified energy picture for a strong US and a planet in better shape for your future generations.

If they are technically and economically viable, build them all..Cape Wind, Blue H, the proposal for south of Block Island, etc. Start the US down the path of command of our own energy destiny.

Anyone that doubts we're looking at increased competition for waning fossil fuel supplies best give a read to something like Lester Brown's Plan B 3.0. Its freely avaiable online.

You need not wait for the results from Logan. Town of Hull already has that information for you. Its been successful enough that they are shooting for 4? more in the coming months.

Peter

Re: your question: "...RECs...that they could be used to continue the operation of really foul coal plants."

Here's my understanding. Overly simple example.

I have one coal fired plant already online. I need more electricity. I have two choices.

A. Build another coal fired plant.
B. Build a renewable plant that is subsidized by the sale of RECs to the original coal fired plant.

Choice B means one less coal fired plant....spewing far less CO2 into the air than choice A. When/if CO2 emission standards on the original coal plant are further lowered, it has to either cut back production or buy more RECs....further leveling the playing field.

Re: where are the financial details? I don't know for sure. IMO I'm no more entitled to these details from Cape Wind than I am from Ernie Boc junior (privately held company).

Cape Wind won't be built unless the investors are convinced it has a sound business plan.

- the sale of RECs by a renewable energy producer (wind, hydro) to a non renewable producer (coal, etc) is not in any way underhanded or evil. This is exactly what RECs are intended to do...level the paying field between renewables and polluting, highly subsidized coal, gas, etc.

- coal and gas are themselves heavily subsidized. Lots of hidden costs also in health care, defense budgets to keep the oil flowing, etc. Some estimates put the true cost of a gallon of gas at $13/gallon (the other $10 is extracted from your federal and state taxes).

Cape Wind being built means its RECs will permit a coal fired plant somewhere to remain operating, but at a higher cost. And another coal, gas, or oil fired plant won't be built. So the playing field begins to level.

Cape Wind is no silver bullet to solve all our energy problems. But it is one step on the path to a diversified energy picture.

I'm not sure I want to look at it. I'd have concerns bringing a boat through there in bad weather, but its not a smart idea to be poking around in the shallows of Horseshoe Shoal anyway.