46.0°F Fair [Forecast]
:: Friday, November 20th, 2009CapeCodToday Blog Chowder
Welcome to CapeCodToday's Blog Chowder! This page aggregates the most recent postings from all the CapeCodToday bloggers for your convenience. Bookmark this page or see below left for RSS options.Latest comments
Please visit these local CapeCodToday sponsors:
Falmouth Academy
Summer Programs at Falmouth Academy for students of all ages and skill levels run through the summer, mostly one week in length. Spend some time this summer exploring the arts, sciences, music, languages, athletics and more. (Falmouth)
Summer Programs at Falmouth Academy for students of all ages and skill levels run through the summer, mostly one week in length. Spend some time this summer exploring the arts, sciences, music, languages, athletics and more. (Falmouth)
Community Care Resource Group
An organization of caring professionals who provide a wide range of services to seniors on Cape Cod. Our mission is to connect with one another, collaborate on ideas and provide information and referrals for seniors in our community. (Dennis)
An organization of caring professionals who provide a wide range of services to seniors on Cape Cod. Our mission is to connect with one another, collaborate on ideas and provide information and referrals for seniors in our community. (Dennis)
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Wind energy is a must for America and for Cape Cod
In response to: Wind energy is a must for America and for Cape Cod
A response to Tony and others.
For your information, the power plant nearest you, the Canal Plant is an oil fueled power plant. As are Unit 4 at Brayton Point and Unit 4 at Salem Harbor.
In fact, according to ISO New England, the folks that run the power grid, almost 25 percent of the installed capacity in New England is oil fueled power plants.
And most important, the single most expensive fossil fuel to generate electricity is oil (mostly imported), next is natural gas, and last is coal… that cheap dirty stuff.
It is a fact that every megawatt-hour of wind (or solar) power will offset, or back off, a megawatt-hour of electricity generated from an oil fueled plant, then from a gas fired plant and then a coal burner, in that order. You can’t store electrical energy on the grid.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
President, Clean Power Now
For your information, the power plant nearest you, the Canal Plant is an oil fueled power plant. As are Unit 4 at Brayton Point and Unit 4 at Salem Harbor.
In fact, according to ISO New England, the folks that run the power grid, almost 25 percent of the installed capacity in New England is oil fueled power plants.
And most important, the single most expensive fossil fuel to generate electricity is oil (mostly imported), next is natural gas, and last is coal… that cheap dirty stuff.
It is a fact that every megawatt-hour of wind (or solar) power will offset, or back off, a megawatt-hour of electricity generated from an oil fueled plant, then from a gas fired plant and then a coal burner, in that order. You can’t store electrical energy on the grid.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
President, Clean Power Now
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Wind Electricity Costs Clarified
In response to: Cape Wind Electricity Costs Clarified
A response to maverick
One local example is Hull wind where the cost of their electricity has declined three times in recent years according to Malcom Brown a member of the Hull Municipal Light Board where their two turbines generate about 12 percent of the town’s needs. “As a result of the turbines, we pay 12 cents per kilowatt hour in comparison to other forms of power which cost us 19 or 20 cents,” the town’s light board Chairman Pat Cannon.
With little penetration in the U.S. electric markets overall, wind energy has managed to keep prices from growing even higher due to the increase in natural gas fueled generation.
For example, largely due to the increase in gas prices, NStar’s retail generation charge has gone from 3.9 cents/kWh in 2001 to 12.7 cents/kWh now.
As I said, Cape Wind will always lower the wholesale price to retail suppliers. If not, why would the NStars of the world buy power from Cape Wind? Again, it’s a cost competitive market.
Regards,
Chuck K.
One local example is Hull wind where the cost of their electricity has declined three times in recent years according to Malcom Brown a member of the Hull Municipal Light Board where their two turbines generate about 12 percent of the town’s needs. “As a result of the turbines, we pay 12 cents per kilowatt hour in comparison to other forms of power which cost us 19 or 20 cents,” the town’s light board Chairman Pat Cannon.
With little penetration in the U.S. electric markets overall, wind energy has managed to keep prices from growing even higher due to the increase in natural gas fueled generation.
For example, largely due to the increase in gas prices, NStar’s retail generation charge has gone from 3.9 cents/kWh in 2001 to 12.7 cents/kWh now.
As I said, Cape Wind will always lower the wholesale price to retail suppliers. If not, why would the NStars of the world buy power from Cape Wind? Again, it’s a cost competitive market.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Wind Electricity Costs Clarified
In response to: Cape Wind Electricity Costs Clarified
A response to bft.
As noted in my article, there are only two ways a power plant can sell power, either into the day-ahead real time market or through a confidential power purchase agreement with a retail supplier.
I have no idea how Cape Wind will choose to sell their power into the competitive wholesale market.
However, all renewable energy developers that I am aware of, be they landfill gas generators or wind farms, sell their power through long term PPAs as a necessity. To get a loan to finance building a plant, the developer must convince the lending agency that he has a viable financial plan with long term contract to sell the power. Some retail suppliers may want to sign a long term contract to insure their competitive position in the volatile world of gas and oil prices. Time will tell.
If Cape Wind can’t negotiate a long term PPA contract buyer, no loan, no windfarm.
Regards, Chuck Kleekamp
As noted in my article, there are only two ways a power plant can sell power, either into the day-ahead real time market or through a confidential power purchase agreement with a retail supplier.
I have no idea how Cape Wind will choose to sell their power into the competitive wholesale market.
However, all renewable energy developers that I am aware of, be they landfill gas generators or wind farms, sell their power through long term PPAs as a necessity. To get a loan to finance building a plant, the developer must convince the lending agency that he has a viable financial plan with long term contract to sell the power. Some retail suppliers may want to sign a long term contract to insure their competitive position in the volatile world of gas and oil prices. Time will tell.
If Cape Wind can’t negotiate a long term PPA contract buyer, no loan, no windfarm.
Regards, Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Rep. Patrick's position on the gas tax
In response to: Rep. Patrick's position on the gas tax
When gasoline was $1.50 a gallon, less than bottled water, it was consumed like water. When the world consumption neared the world maximum pumping rate a few months ago, of course the price soared to $3 to $4 a gallon enriching foreign producers like Iran, Russia, and the OPEC at our expense. Folks grumbled but still paid it. But seeing the future, some drivers started buying more efficient cars and trucks.
Then the greedy housing bubble burst suddenly causing a worldwide recession. That resulted in a 5% decline in the use of gasoline followed by a dramatic decline in the price. Enjoy the low price while it lasts. For if we as a society do not move to the most efficient cars, that are no more costly than the typical gas guzzling SUV, we will once again fall into the trap of be willing captors to the oil producers.
So why should we decry a gas tax that stays here fixng our roads, bridges, providing jobs while at the same time reducing our imports of oil? It’s short sighted to do otherwise.
Then the greedy housing bubble burst suddenly causing a worldwide recession. That resulted in a 5% decline in the use of gasoline followed by a dramatic decline in the price. Enjoy the low price while it lasts. For if we as a society do not move to the most efficient cars, that are no more costly than the typical gas guzzling SUV, we will once again fall into the trap of be willing captors to the oil producers.
So why should we decry a gas tax that stays here fixng our roads, bridges, providing jobs while at the same time reducing our imports of oil? It’s short sighted to do otherwise.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Rep. Patrick's position on the gas tax
In response to: Rep. Patrick's position on the gas tax
Allow me to share an opinion on Matt’s gas tax position. I certainly agree with his principles, all worthy considerations. But I think he has left out, or didn’t emphasize enough, the principle of reducing our nations “addiction to oil,” as a rationale for the tax.
As most readers know, or should know, we are importing about 70 percent of our oil from unfriendly and unstable countries, that is about 12 million barrels a day. Our domestic production has decreased from 9 million barrels a day in 1970 (Hubbert’s peak) to about 5 million a day now.
Remember the Arab oil crisis of 1973? We only imported about 30% of our oil then. We are now a nation at grave risk from a security standpoint.
Our gasoline consumption was 9 million barrels a day in 2007, about 50% of our total consumption.
The way to quell an addiction is not to lower the price of the drug (gasoline) but to increase it. Buy a car that gets 46 MPG instead of 23. The result is clear.
As most readers know, or should know, we are importing about 70 percent of our oil from unfriendly and unstable countries, that is about 12 million barrels a day. Our domestic production has decreased from 9 million barrels a day in 1970 (Hubbert’s peak) to about 5 million a day now.
Remember the Arab oil crisis of 1973? We only imported about 30% of our oil then. We are now a nation at grave risk from a security standpoint.
Our gasoline consumption was 9 million barrels a day in 2007, about 50% of our total consumption.
The way to quell an addiction is not to lower the price of the drug (gasoline) but to increase it. Buy a car that gets 46 MPG instead of 23. The result is clear.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: The fabulous debate over wind power on Nantucket Sound
In response to: The fabulous debate over wind power on Nantucket Sound
typo in response to possee...
sorry about that, the total energy of "1.69 MWh" from the Dept. of Energy report should have read "1.69 million MWh".
sorry about that, the total energy of "1.69 MWh" from the Dept. of Energy report should have read "1.69 million MWh".
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: The fabulous debate over wind power on Nantucket Sound
In response to: The fabulous debate over wind power on Nantucket Sound
Response to possee continued.
All the energy produced will be consumed on the Cape and Islands unless it is producing more than that being consumed, in which case the excess will be transported off Cape according to testimony by Mr. Salamone P.E. a representative for NStar during the stakeholder meetings in Hyannis in October, 2002.
According to the Secretary of Environmental Affairs in their FEIR (2007) the project will annually offset 802 tons of SO2, 497 tons of NOx, and 733,876 tons of CO2 with nearly one-half of the pollution offsets would occur in the Cape and Islands area.
These are the equivalent emissions from marginal fossil plants in New England according to ISO NE.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
All the energy produced will be consumed on the Cape and Islands unless it is producing more than that being consumed, in which case the excess will be transported off Cape according to testimony by Mr. Salamone P.E. a representative for NStar during the stakeholder meetings in Hyannis in October, 2002.
According to the Secretary of Environmental Affairs in their FEIR (2007) the project will annually offset 802 tons of SO2, 497 tons of NOx, and 733,876 tons of CO2 with nearly one-half of the pollution offsets would occur in the Cape and Islands area.
These are the equivalent emissions from marginal fossil plants in New England according to ISO NE.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: The fabulous debate over wind power on Nantucket Sound
In response to: The fabulous debate over wind power on Nantucket Sound
A response to possee.
Every MWH of wind power will always replace a MWH of fossil generated electricity. That’s because you can’t store electricity on the grid, someone has to get backed off.
The actual reduction of fossil generated electricity when Cape Wind is running will be an average of approximately 170 MW with a peak of 420 MW. The annual energy delivered will be about 1.6 million MWh.
For example, a report by the U.S. Dept. of Energy revealed that had it been operating from Apr. 03 to Mar. 04, it would have delivered an average power of 193 MW with a total energy of 1.69 MWh. The exact amount will vary from year-to-year.
Incidentally, the power provided by the Canal plant in 2006 was 1.7 million MWh, essentially the same as Cape Wind.
For comparison, the average load for the Cape and Islands delivered by NStar transmission lines is 230 MW. So Cape Wind will provide on average 170 MW divided by 230 MW or 74% of the total.
Every MWH of wind power will always replace a MWH of fossil generated electricity. That’s because you can’t store electricity on the grid, someone has to get backed off.
The actual reduction of fossil generated electricity when Cape Wind is running will be an average of approximately 170 MW with a peak of 420 MW. The annual energy delivered will be about 1.6 million MWh.
For example, a report by the U.S. Dept. of Energy revealed that had it been operating from Apr. 03 to Mar. 04, it would have delivered an average power of 193 MW with a total energy of 1.69 MWh. The exact amount will vary from year-to-year.
Incidentally, the power provided by the Canal plant in 2006 was 1.7 million MWh, essentially the same as Cape Wind.
For comparison, the average load for the Cape and Islands delivered by NStar transmission lines is 230 MW. So Cape Wind will provide on average 170 MW divided by 230 MW or 74% of the total.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: The end of the age of oil generated electricity
In response to: The end of the age of oil generated electricity
A response to Peter Kenney.
Yes, all new natural gas plants are reasonable gap fillers until something better comes along like wind power. And indeed, fast reacting gas turbines can complement variations in wind production.
Remember, a kilowatt-hour of wind energy will always replace a kilowatt-hour of fossil fueled energy. You can’t store energy on the grid.
The Westfield plant is one of about three new gas fired combustion turbine plants in the process of being built or in permitting in Massachusetts.
What are the other choices? Coal? There is no such thing as “Clean Coal” because of the cost of construction, the separating and sequestering of carbon dioxide. No such plant has ever been built.
Nuclear? The cost, not to mention the perceived risk, is estimated from $12 billion to $18 billion for construction of a 1,000 MW nuclear plant resulting in an estimated cost of electricity of 15 to 20 cents per kilowatt-hour. And you think wind power is expensive?
Yes, all new natural gas plants are reasonable gap fillers until something better comes along like wind power. And indeed, fast reacting gas turbines can complement variations in wind production.
Remember, a kilowatt-hour of wind energy will always replace a kilowatt-hour of fossil fueled energy. You can’t store energy on the grid.
The Westfield plant is one of about three new gas fired combustion turbine plants in the process of being built or in permitting in Massachusetts.
What are the other choices? Coal? There is no such thing as “Clean Coal” because of the cost of construction, the separating and sequestering of carbon dioxide. No such plant has ever been built.
Nuclear? The cost, not to mention the perceived risk, is estimated from $12 billion to $18 billion for construction of a 1,000 MW nuclear plant resulting in an estimated cost of electricity of 15 to 20 cents per kilowatt-hour. And you think wind power is expensive?
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: LNG tanker powerless 16 miles north of Provincetown
In response to: LNG tanker powerless 16 miles north of Provincetown
Although Bush recognized the country is “addicted to oil,” he never mentioned the looming national crisis of natural gas imports.
Like Europe we are becoming more and more beholden to unfriendly foreign gas producers placing us at risk for natural gas as well as for oil.
If you liked OPEC, you’ll love the cartel just formed on Dec. 23, which is the “Forum of Gas Exporting Countries (FGEC),” based in Doha (where’s that?).
A coup for Russia, expressed by Putin at the gathering: “The time of cheap energy resources, and cheap gas is surely coming to an end.” Members are: Algeria, Bolivia, Brunei, Venezuela, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Qatar, Libya, Malaysia, Nigeria, the UA E, Russia, Trinidad and Tobago.
Where does our electricity in New England come from? According to ISO NE: Gas 38.1%, Oil 24.4%, Nuclear 14.4%, Coal 9.2%, Hydro 5.5%, Pumped Storage 5.4%, Renewables 3.0%.
Note, a megawatt-hour of wind energy will always replace a megawatt-hour of oil and or gas generated electricity. So what’s your choice?
Like Europe we are becoming more and more beholden to unfriendly foreign gas producers placing us at risk for natural gas as well as for oil.
If you liked OPEC, you’ll love the cartel just formed on Dec. 23, which is the “Forum of Gas Exporting Countries (FGEC),” based in Doha (where’s that?).
A coup for Russia, expressed by Putin at the gathering: “The time of cheap energy resources, and cheap gas is surely coming to an end.” Members are: Algeria, Bolivia, Brunei, Venezuela, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Qatar, Libya, Malaysia, Nigeria, the UA E, Russia, Trinidad and Tobago.
Where does our electricity in New England come from? According to ISO NE: Gas 38.1%, Oil 24.4%, Nuclear 14.4%, Coal 9.2%, Hydro 5.5%, Pumped Storage 5.4%, Renewables 3.0%.
Note, a megawatt-hour of wind energy will always replace a megawatt-hour of oil and or gas generated electricity. So what’s your choice?
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Coast Guard gives in to Oberstar, delays report for a month; New stealth moves to block Cape Wind
In response to: Coast Guard gives in to Oberstar, delays report for a month; New stealth moves to block Cape Wind
The continuing opposition of the wealthy and politically influential elite to stop the Cape Wind project is a tragedy of epic scope. Never has there been a NIMBY group that so values the view of a few which has hypocritically raised millions to stop a project so crucial to America’s quest for energy independence and effort to curtail global warming.
Now under the pretext of a hazard to navigation, in spite of the Coast Guard finding otherwise, they have the gall to entice another willing congressional accomplice to politically interfere, at the last hour, with the most responsible agencies of the government.
In the 10 years of experience with 15 operational shallow water offshore windfarms in Europe, there has never been a vessel collision with a wind turbine or between two shallow draft vessels within a windfarm itself. Having been in a fishing vessel myself within the Nysted windfarm between Denmark and Germany and observing the on-board radar I can assure you that there is obviously no risk to misinterpretation of the radar signals.
Now under the pretext of a hazard to navigation, in spite of the Coast Guard finding otherwise, they have the gall to entice another willing congressional accomplice to politically interfere, at the last hour, with the most responsible agencies of the government.
In the 10 years of experience with 15 operational shallow water offshore windfarms in Europe, there has never been a vessel collision with a wind turbine or between two shallow draft vessels within a windfarm itself. Having been in a fishing vessel myself within the Nysted windfarm between Denmark and Germany and observing the on-board radar I can assure you that there is obviously no risk to misinterpretation of the radar signals.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Final Cape Wind report due Friday; Alliance, CPN tempers flare; Cranberry Festival cancelled
In response to: Final Cape Wind report due Friday; Alliance, CPN tempers flare; Cranberry Festival cancelled
On Siemens Turbines.
For those interested in facts, Siemens is doing well with their current 3.6 MW offshore turbine. In fact, the Siemens 3.6 MW model SWT-3.6-107 dominates the world of large scale offshore turbines particularly in the United Kingdom with sales of at least 296 of these units. Here’s the current list of UK projects either currently in operation or under contract: Burbo Bank - 25, Lynn Skegness (with Inner Dowsing) - 54, Rhyl Flats - 25, Gunfleet Sands I and II – 52, Greater Gabbard - 140. Total: 296. With the NaiKun project in Canada the total jumps to 406 turbines.
Like all progressive manufactures, they are doing development of a direct drive unit to see if it’s feasible. In the mean time sales of the SWT-3.6-107 are progressing very well by all indications of product already sold. It seems inconceivable that Siemens would not want to sell their turbines for offshore projects in the U.S.
For those interested in facts, Siemens is doing well with their current 3.6 MW offshore turbine. In fact, the Siemens 3.6 MW model SWT-3.6-107 dominates the world of large scale offshore turbines particularly in the United Kingdom with sales of at least 296 of these units. Here’s the current list of UK projects either currently in operation or under contract: Burbo Bank - 25, Lynn Skegness (with Inner Dowsing) - 54, Rhyl Flats - 25, Gunfleet Sands I and II – 52, Greater Gabbard - 140. Total: 296. With the NaiKun project in Canada the total jumps to 406 turbines.
Like all progressive manufactures, they are doing development of a direct drive unit to see if it’s feasible. In the mean time sales of the SWT-3.6-107 are progressing very well by all indications of product already sold. It seems inconceivable that Siemens would not want to sell their turbines for offshore projects in the U.S.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Budget cuts at DA's office; Turbines galore available; Economy claims Cape Cod Sports Report; Thanksgiving is No Turkey; Giving, not forgetting
In response to: Budget cuts at DA's office; Turbines galore available; Economy claims Cape Cod Sports Report; Thanksgiving is No Turkey; Giving, not forgetting
On Wind Turbine Choice
Wind farm developers have a choice of which turbine manufacture they choose just as power plant developers have choices for gas fired combustion turbines, like GE and Siemens for example.
Siemens is a competitor for both kinds of turbines. The Siemens 3.6 MW model SWT-3.6-107 dominates the world of large scale offshore turbines particularly in the United Kingdom with sales of at least 296 of these units. Here’s the current list of UK projects either currently in operation or under contract: Burbo Bank - 25, Lynn Skegness (with Inner Dowsing) - 54, Rhyl Flats - 25, Gunfleet Sands I and II – 52, Greater Gabbard - 140. Total: 296. With the NaiKun project in Canada the total jumps to 406 turbines.
I’m sure Siemens would be happy to sell their offshore turbines anywhere in North America.
It’s too bad that America trails the world in the offshore arena. The first in Europe was 1991. They have built 15 offshore windfarms since Cape Wind issued their application in 2001 and 11 more are under construction.
Here we sit and fuss over the view.
Wind farm developers have a choice of which turbine manufacture they choose just as power plant developers have choices for gas fired combustion turbines, like GE and Siemens for example.
Siemens is a competitor for both kinds of turbines. The Siemens 3.6 MW model SWT-3.6-107 dominates the world of large scale offshore turbines particularly in the United Kingdom with sales of at least 296 of these units. Here’s the current list of UK projects either currently in operation or under contract: Burbo Bank - 25, Lynn Skegness (with Inner Dowsing) - 54, Rhyl Flats - 25, Gunfleet Sands I and II – 52, Greater Gabbard - 140. Total: 296. With the NaiKun project in Canada the total jumps to 406 turbines.
I’m sure Siemens would be happy to sell their offshore turbines anywhere in North America.
It’s too bad that America trails the world in the offshore arena. The first in Europe was 1991. They have built 15 offshore windfarms since Cape Wind issued their application in 2001 and 11 more are under construction.
Here we sit and fuss over the view.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Wind will power our future
In response to: Wind will power our future
Peter,
Statoil Hydro in Norway is not a little outfit in Norway. Statoil Hydro and Siemens are Fortune 500 companies. Statoil (previously Norsk Hydro) has been developing the Hywind project over 6 years and not floated it yet. And it is not competitive with shallow water projects. Here are their joint statements.
“Making floating offshore foundations commercially viable is a significant technological challenge,” said Andreas Nauen, head of the Siemens PG Wind Power division, the turbine supplier for Hywind (speaking of their offshore floating experiment with Statoil – one turbine to be floated at $80 million). And Bech Gjørv, Senior Vice President of Statoil Hydro adds: “The goal [of wind farms with 200 turbines] is far in the future, but if we're to succeed in 10-15 years, we have to start the work today.
Blue H has a very small 80 kW 2-blade turbine offshore but not connected to land. Only 5 one-megawatt two blade turbines have ever been built compared to over 50,000 three-blade turbines. We cheer them on… but don’t expect it to be an alternative anytime soon.
Statoil Hydro in Norway is not a little outfit in Norway. Statoil Hydro and Siemens are Fortune 500 companies. Statoil (previously Norsk Hydro) has been developing the Hywind project over 6 years and not floated it yet. And it is not competitive with shallow water projects. Here are their joint statements.
“Making floating offshore foundations commercially viable is a significant technological challenge,” said Andreas Nauen, head of the Siemens PG Wind Power division, the turbine supplier for Hywind (speaking of their offshore floating experiment with Statoil – one turbine to be floated at $80 million). And Bech Gjørv, Senior Vice President of Statoil Hydro adds: “The goal [of wind farms with 200 turbines] is far in the future, but if we're to succeed in 10-15 years, we have to start the work today.
Blue H has a very small 80 kW 2-blade turbine offshore but not connected to land. Only 5 one-megawatt two blade turbines have ever been built compared to over 50,000 three-blade turbines. We cheer them on… but don’t expect it to be an alternative anytime soon.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Wind will power our future
In response to: Wind will power our future
Peter, I think you may want to know what Musial recently said in a presentation for Woods Hole last November on offshore energy.
In summary: “Shallow water offshore wind (to 30 meters) is here today. Transitional (30 to 60 meters) and deep water wind is experimental but will grow from shallow water experience and sustained R&D. A fully funded effort for deepwater wind (60 to 90 meters) would take 10 to 20 years to commercialize.”
With respect to Blue H, Musial recently said: “Blue H appears very serious about this, but it cannot yet be viewed as an alternative to the kind of reliable energy Cape Wind would be able to produce.” Regarding floating turbine technology he said: “It hasn’t been proven yet. It’s very important people’s expectations don’t get beyond the demonstration project level.”
Shallow water offshore is alive and well in Europe with 15 windfarms in operation and about 10 more under construction now.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
In summary: “Shallow water offshore wind (to 30 meters) is here today. Transitional (30 to 60 meters) and deep water wind is experimental but will grow from shallow water experience and sustained R&D. A fully funded effort for deepwater wind (60 to 90 meters) would take 10 to 20 years to commercialize.”
With respect to Blue H, Musial recently said: “Blue H appears very serious about this, but it cannot yet be viewed as an alternative to the kind of reliable energy Cape Wind would be able to produce.” Regarding floating turbine technology he said: “It hasn’t been proven yet. It’s very important people’s expectations don’t get beyond the demonstration project level.”
Shallow water offshore is alive and well in Europe with 15 windfarms in operation and about 10 more under construction now.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: US Dept. of the Interior to expand offshore energy research
In response to: US Dept. of the Interior to expand offshore energy research
Gentlemen,
If you would care to debate with an engineer the technical and substantiated merits of offshore wind, or even land based wind, I’d be happy to join the discussion. While most may choose to bloviate with personal opinions, I’d be happy to share with you the facts. How about an opener with a 6-minute video from Nysted, Denmark? Name the place and time. I’ll bring a bottle of wine. Name your desire. No elitism here. A library is a great place to start.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
If you would care to debate with an engineer the technical and substantiated merits of offshore wind, or even land based wind, I’d be happy to join the discussion. While most may choose to bloviate with personal opinions, I’d be happy to share with you the facts. How about an opener with a 6-minute video from Nysted, Denmark? Name the place and time. I’ll bring a bottle of wine. Name your desire. No elitism here. A library is a great place to start.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Know thy ...friends and enemies.
In response to: Know thy ...friends and enemies.
Peter,
I sincerely hope you are feeling better after your hospital visits. It can be unsettling to say the least.
But to your article. A note of clarification. Jim Gordon apparently did study the LIPA project prior to 2003. However he refused to bid on that RFP. The reason was revealed in a letter from Gordon to LIPA in 2003 stating “the anticipated sea conditions in the Target Area pose unacceptable conditions. Both the significant wave and extreme storm wave are nearly three times that associated with current state-of-the-art offshore wind projects.” Foundation designs would weigh 500 tons. “The Project would also have significantly lower availability because of the difficulty in getting to the equipment.” In that prescient letter of 2003 Gordon said, for many reasons: “the cost of the Project’s energy would be far above current and projected future market prices for power on Long Island.” End of story.
In New England, Mr. Gordon will have to sell into a deregulated market at a competitive price, or it won’t be sold.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
I sincerely hope you are feeling better after your hospital visits. It can be unsettling to say the least.
But to your article. A note of clarification. Jim Gordon apparently did study the LIPA project prior to 2003. However he refused to bid on that RFP. The reason was revealed in a letter from Gordon to LIPA in 2003 stating “the anticipated sea conditions in the Target Area pose unacceptable conditions. Both the significant wave and extreme storm wave are nearly three times that associated with current state-of-the-art offshore wind projects.” Foundation designs would weigh 500 tons. “The Project would also have significantly lower availability because of the difficulty in getting to the equipment.” In that prescient letter of 2003 Gordon said, for many reasons: “the cost of the Project’s energy would be far above current and projected future market prices for power on Long Island.” End of story.
In New England, Mr. Gordon will have to sell into a deregulated market at a competitive price, or it won’t be sold.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Wind and the Cost of Electricity
In response to: Wind and the Cost of Electricity
Peter,
Right, fossil plants are slightly less efficient at less than full load. However virtually all run at less efficient partial load regimes anyway regardless of wind; e.g., Brayton coal: capacity factor is about 70% to 80% capacity factor. Canal in its hay-day of late 1990s ran from 50% to 66% percent, in 2006, only 15% to 20%. The tradeoff for not producing fossil power when replaced by wind is still paramount.
Which plants get backed off depends on their confidential spot market bids and PPAs. So no one can say exactly which plant(s) will be reduced. However with the price of fuel alone for oil plants now about $116/MWh and climbing, natural gas at $60/MWh, coal at $19/MWh, and nuclear at about $5/MWh, it is simply obvious which generation category’s electricity is most expensive (oil), thus who gets backed off first.
We are all working to curtail coal plant production with stringent emission regulations and hopefully a significant carbon tax in the next administration.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp. P.E. Ret.
Right, fossil plants are slightly less efficient at less than full load. However virtually all run at less efficient partial load regimes anyway regardless of wind; e.g., Brayton coal: capacity factor is about 70% to 80% capacity factor. Canal in its hay-day of late 1990s ran from 50% to 66% percent, in 2006, only 15% to 20%. The tradeoff for not producing fossil power when replaced by wind is still paramount.
Which plants get backed off depends on their confidential spot market bids and PPAs. So no one can say exactly which plant(s) will be reduced. However with the price of fuel alone for oil plants now about $116/MWh and climbing, natural gas at $60/MWh, coal at $19/MWh, and nuclear at about $5/MWh, it is simply obvious which generation category’s electricity is most expensive (oil), thus who gets backed off first.
We are all working to curtail coal plant production with stringent emission regulations and hopefully a significant carbon tax in the next administration.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp. P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Wind and the Cost of Electricity
In response to: Wind and the Cost of Electricity
Peter, every megawatt-hour of wind power will avoid a megawatt-hour of fossil fueled power. You can’t store energy on the grid (laws of physics).
When fossil fueled generators are backed off, they do not burn as much fuel, hence the emission reductions.
If they did not back off the fuel in a boiler, the temperature and pressure would blow the safety valves, just like the boiler in a home heating system. Gas turbine generators can only be backed down by reducing fuel delivery to reduce the power output (like a jet engine on an airplane).
On RECs, perhaps you would like to do away with the RPS. That’s your choice, but I think the wisdom of the MA elected officials will prevail and continue the program just like 20 other states. Indeed, all new renewable energy projects, be they landfill gas, wood generators, and wind can use their RECs, and even the future sale of their RECs, to help defray the cost of building and operating the plants.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
When fossil fueled generators are backed off, they do not burn as much fuel, hence the emission reductions.
If they did not back off the fuel in a boiler, the temperature and pressure would blow the safety valves, just like the boiler in a home heating system. Gas turbine generators can only be backed down by reducing fuel delivery to reduce the power output (like a jet engine on an airplane).
On RECs, perhaps you would like to do away with the RPS. That’s your choice, but I think the wisdom of the MA elected officials will prevail and continue the program just like 20 other states. Indeed, all new renewable energy projects, be they landfill gas, wood generators, and wind can use their RECs, and even the future sale of their RECs, to help defray the cost of building and operating the plants.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Wind and the Cost of Electricity
In response to: Wind and the Cost of Electricity
Peter, you are welcome to your personal opinion about my facts and about La Capra. La Capra is a premier consulting agency for the electric and gas industry with more expert knowledge than you or I could ever profess.
Second, no one, to my knowledge, from Cape Wind or Clean Power Now has ever said that the energy from the wind farm will force any particular plant to shut down.
I have said repeatedly that oil fueled generators will be the first to be backed off based on the price of oil, then natural gas generators. ISO NE states that for 80 percent of all hours oil and gas generators set the clearing price as marginal (top) bidders.
The calculations of CO2 emissions come from ISO NE Marginal Emission Rate Analysis and which generators get bumped from the bid stack.
REC’s? That’s from the RPS, a Massachusetts mandate. There are never enough until Cape Wind comes on line. A much longer story than word count permits here.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Second, no one, to my knowledge, from Cape Wind or Clean Power Now has ever said that the energy from the wind farm will force any particular plant to shut down.
I have said repeatedly that oil fueled generators will be the first to be backed off based on the price of oil, then natural gas generators. ISO NE states that for 80 percent of all hours oil and gas generators set the clearing price as marginal (top) bidders.
The calculations of CO2 emissions come from ISO NE Marginal Emission Rate Analysis and which generators get bumped from the bid stack.
REC’s? That’s from the RPS, a Massachusetts mandate. There are never enough until Cape Wind comes on line. A much longer story than word count permits here.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Christy goes renewable today
In response to: Christy goes renewable today
Since deregulation, all merchant power plants like Brayton Point, Mirant Canal, and yes, Cape Wind, must sell into a completive wholesale market. In the ISO NE bid stack, low bidders get dispatched (their power injected into the grid). Bidders above the completive clearing price do not. Or, merchant power plants may make private power purchase agreements to retail distribution utilities like NStar and National Grid. Distribution utilities are not philanthropic organizations. They will not buy wind power unless it is completive with every other source of wholesale electricity since they themselves are in a competitive retail market. No merchant power plant reveals it private competitive sales agreements nor does ISO NE disclose competitor’s offers on the bid stack. That’s all confidential information. This competitive scheme assures that the public gets to lowest cost electricity. Therefore Cape Wind will always have to be sold into the competitive wholesale market at a price lower or equal to any other source.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Delaying Cape Wind while hastening its own demise
In response to: Delaying Cape Wind while hastening its own demise
Jack, simply outstanding reporting! You detailed exposure defines the hypocrisy of the Commission. They are plainly blinded by self interests without regard to the larger issues and opportunities leading to energy independence and counteracting global warming. Just where do they, and others, think the electricity for the additional cable that doubles the power to Nantucket is coming from without the windfarm? Well it’s from oil, coal and natural gas, at the environmental expense to all of us.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Cod Commission gives thumbs down to Cape Wind
In response to: Cape Cod Commission gives thumbs down to Cape Wind
Commission Misses the Big Picture
In denying the application for the Cape Wind project the Cape Cod Commission has tragically and shamefully ignored the benefits of it’s impact on reducing global warming as it is the single largest such project in the United States. Their attempt to defeat this project will certainly slow this step as well as future efforts to protect our future generation’s well being and to regain our energy independence.
By nit-picking the details of what has already been approved by the Massachusetts Energy Facility Siting Board, it appears that the Commission is simply biased against the Cape Wind project since it didn’t even bother to review the similar new cable landfall that doubles the energy available to wealthy homeowners on Nantucket Island.
Charles Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
In denying the application for the Cape Wind project the Cape Cod Commission has tragically and shamefully ignored the benefits of it’s impact on reducing global warming as it is the single largest such project in the United States. Their attempt to defeat this project will certainly slow this step as well as future efforts to protect our future generation’s well being and to regain our energy independence.
By nit-picking the details of what has already been approved by the Massachusetts Energy Facility Siting Board, it appears that the Commission is simply biased against the Cape Wind project since it didn’t even bother to review the similar new cable landfall that doubles the energy available to wealthy homeowners on Nantucket Island.
Charles Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Curious Bill asks about connectivity
In response to: Curious Bill asks about connectivity
Bill, I love your quote. I’m going to frame it on my study wall right under Mark Twain’s.
A similar experience? Not personally. But after their copious editorializing about their presumed evils of the Nantucket wind farm they have never told the public what they need to know about its positive impact on sustainability, energy independence and global warming.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
A similar experience? Not personally. But after their copious editorializing about their presumed evils of the Nantucket wind farm they have never told the public what they need to know about its positive impact on sustainability, energy independence and global warming.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Long Island wind project may not be dead in water
In response to: Long Island wind project may not be dead in water
Typo: offshore, not oofshore.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Long Island wind project may not be dead in water
In response to: Long Island wind project may not be dead in water
A megawatt of wind energy will always displace a megawatt of fossil fueled electricity. See my blog, Footnotes, of 9/21/07.
Oil generators like Canal emit about 1,800 pounds of CO2 per MWh. Coal, the same. The Cape Wind project will generate about 1.6 million MWh of energy per year. That’s equivalent to 2,880 million pounds of CO2 or 1.4 million tons a year. That is the single biggest project in the world (the London Array exception).
One oofshore windfarm is not the entire solution, but it’s a beginning.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Oil generators like Canal emit about 1,800 pounds of CO2 per MWh. Coal, the same. The Cape Wind project will generate about 1.6 million MWh of energy per year. That’s equivalent to 2,880 million pounds of CO2 or 1.4 million tons a year. That is the single biggest project in the world (the London Array exception).
One oofshore windfarm is not the entire solution, but it’s a beginning.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: "Not in God's Backyard"
In response to: "Not in God's Backyard"
On far offshore.
The Germans, bless their hearts, are willing to heavily subsidize the construction and guaranteed rate for power to the offshore project developers. See Comment above.
Not so lucky here. Until the U.S. government is willing to subsidize the construction cost and guarantee high power rates, it’s going to be “return of investment.” A U.S. developer must be able to make a profit or go broke.
Therefore, the power here must be able to sell less than the clearing price of conventional generation or it simply won’t get sold. And by the way, that will save you money.
The 1.9 cent incentive here as a production tax credit is a far cry from the German rates of 15 to 19 cents (equivalent) for generated offshore power there.
The Germans, bless their hearts, are willing to heavily subsidize the construction and guaranteed rate for power to the offshore project developers. See Comment above.
Not so lucky here. Until the U.S. government is willing to subsidize the construction cost and guarantee high power rates, it’s going to be “return of investment.” A U.S. developer must be able to make a profit or go broke.
Therefore, the power here must be able to sell less than the clearing price of conventional generation or it simply won’t get sold. And by the way, that will save you money.
The 1.9 cent incentive here as a production tax credit is a far cry from the German rates of 15 to 19 cents (equivalent) for generated offshore power there.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: "Not in God's Backyard"
In response to: "Not in God's Backyard"
On German Deepwater Wind.
It’s called Borkum West, a joint research program launched by the government and energy utilities Vattenfall, E.ON, and EWE AG. The utilities are funding $165 million to build the small 12-turbine wind farm in water up to 100 feet deep in the Baltic Sea some 35 miles from land. The German government will donate an additional $65 million.
But that’s not all. The cost of that long landfall cable will be nearly $240 million with another donation of $40 million by the German State.
So what’s the price of the Borkum experimental windfarm? The total cost is $470 million for this 60 megawatt (MW) project and reveals a unit investment of almost $8 million per MW installed. That’s three times the cost of shallow water wind on Horseshoe Shoal.
Germany is guaranteeing a rate of between 15 and 19 cents per kWh for these projects. In addition, transmission utilities will be responsible to finance the landfall cables, not the offshore developer.
That won’t happen in the U.S. Or would the Alliance donate a few hundred million $ ?
It’s called Borkum West, a joint research program launched by the government and energy utilities Vattenfall, E.ON, and EWE AG. The utilities are funding $165 million to build the small 12-turbine wind farm in water up to 100 feet deep in the Baltic Sea some 35 miles from land. The German government will donate an additional $65 million.
But that’s not all. The cost of that long landfall cable will be nearly $240 million with another donation of $40 million by the German State.
So what’s the price of the Borkum experimental windfarm? The total cost is $470 million for this 60 megawatt (MW) project and reveals a unit investment of almost $8 million per MW installed. That’s three times the cost of shallow water wind on Horseshoe Shoal.
Germany is guaranteeing a rate of between 15 and 19 cents per kWh for these projects. In addition, transmission utilities will be responsible to finance the landfall cables, not the offshore developer.
That won’t happen in the U.S. Or would the Alliance donate a few hundred million $ ?
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Delahunt’s deepwater deceptions
In response to: Delahunt’s deepwater deceptions
On German Deepwater Wind.
It’s called Borkum West, a joint research program launched by the government and energy utilities Vattenfall, E.ON, and EWE AG. The utilities are funding $165 million to build the small 12-turbine wind farm in water up to 100 feet deep in the Baltic Sea some 35 miles from land. The German government will donate an additional $65 million.
But that’s not all. The cost of that long landfall cable will be nearly $240 million with another donation of $40 million by the German State.
So what’s the price of the Borkum experimental windfarm? The total cost is $470 million for this 60 megawatt (MW) project and reveals a unit investment of almost $8 million per MW installed. That’s three times the cost of shallow water wind on Horseshoe Shoal.
Germany is guaranteeing a rate of between 15 and 19 cents per kWh for these projects. In addition, transmission utilities will be responsible to finance the landfall cables, not the offshore developer. That won’t happen in the U.S.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
It’s called Borkum West, a joint research program launched by the government and energy utilities Vattenfall, E.ON, and EWE AG. The utilities are funding $165 million to build the small 12-turbine wind farm in water up to 100 feet deep in the Baltic Sea some 35 miles from land. The German government will donate an additional $65 million.
But that’s not all. The cost of that long landfall cable will be nearly $240 million with another donation of $40 million by the German State.
So what’s the price of the Borkum experimental windfarm? The total cost is $470 million for this 60 megawatt (MW) project and reveals a unit investment of almost $8 million per MW installed. That’s three times the cost of shallow water wind on Horseshoe Shoal.
Germany is guaranteeing a rate of between 15 and 19 cents per kWh for these projects. In addition, transmission utilities will be responsible to finance the landfall cables, not the offshore developer. That won’t happen in the U.S.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Delahunt’s deepwater deceptions
In response to: Delahunt’s deepwater deceptions
The folly of deepwater wind for the uninformed reader.
The Talisman Beatrice demonstration project consists of two wind turbines in 150 feet of water off the Scotland cost. The facts: Each 5 MW turbine is perched atop four-legged undersea lattice-type foundation structures (like an oil rig platform) that weigh 1,250 tons compared to a monopole in shallow water at 180 tons. There is no expensive landfall cable whatsoever, it feeds nearby oil platforms.
The total project cost is some $61 million, of which $27 million are government construction subsidies. This brings the cost to $6.1 million/MW installed, two and a half times the cost of shallow water projects.
This is not a utility scale project. In a cautious statement Talisman Energy has said “current forecasts for electricity prices will never render this Demonstrator Project economic. It is an R&D project, not a commercial one, and as such requires public sector funding in order to proceed.”
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
The Talisman Beatrice demonstration project consists of two wind turbines in 150 feet of water off the Scotland cost. The facts: Each 5 MW turbine is perched atop four-legged undersea lattice-type foundation structures (like an oil rig platform) that weigh 1,250 tons compared to a monopole in shallow water at 180 tons. There is no expensive landfall cable whatsoever, it feeds nearby oil platforms.
The total project cost is some $61 million, of which $27 million are government construction subsidies. This brings the cost to $6.1 million/MW installed, two and a half times the cost of shallow water projects.
This is not a utility scale project. In a cautious statement Talisman Energy has said “current forecasts for electricity prices will never render this Demonstrator Project economic. It is an R&D project, not a commercial one, and as such requires public sector funding in order to proceed.”
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Two dozen, give or take a couple dozen
In response to: Two dozen, give or take a couple dozen
On Dredging
I have no idea whether or not dredging will be needed for the wind farm.
But in perspective, let me share with you a dredging industry that is going on right now in Nantucket Sound. It’s called hydraulic dredging. What’s that, you ask?
Hydraulic dredges are devices pulled behind vessels that harvest shellfish, similar to a dragger. Only these dredges pump some 8,000 gal/min of water at 125 psi through an 8-inch hose to a 9-foot wide manifold with jets aimed to fluidize the benthic community up to a foot deep to dislodge shellfish and bycatch that are scoped up in the following cage.
According to the Harwich harbormaster, up to a dozen of these dredges operate on Nantucket Sound. The trails left by these dredges viewed by side-scan sonar look like lazy figure 8’S.
Jack, if you’d like to do an article on hydraulic dredging in the sound, I have photos, sonar images, etc. It may be revealing to readers to know about the impact of this dredging industry on fluidizing the benthic community.
Chuck Kleekamp
I have no idea whether or not dredging will be needed for the wind farm.
But in perspective, let me share with you a dredging industry that is going on right now in Nantucket Sound. It’s called hydraulic dredging. What’s that, you ask?
Hydraulic dredges are devices pulled behind vessels that harvest shellfish, similar to a dragger. Only these dredges pump some 8,000 gal/min of water at 125 psi through an 8-inch hose to a 9-foot wide manifold with jets aimed to fluidize the benthic community up to a foot deep to dislodge shellfish and bycatch that are scoped up in the following cage.
According to the Harwich harbormaster, up to a dozen of these dredges operate on Nantucket Sound. The trails left by these dredges viewed by side-scan sonar look like lazy figure 8’S.
Jack, if you’d like to do an article on hydraulic dredging in the sound, I have photos, sonar images, etc. It may be revealing to readers to know about the impact of this dredging industry on fluidizing the benthic community.
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Long Island offshore wind farm scuttled; Cape Wind predicted this outcome 4 years ago
In response to: Long Island offshore wind farm scuttled; Cape Wind predicted this outcome 4 years ago
A note to Mr. Bennett
You are in error to suggest that I am against the South of Tuckernuck site. I have always welcomed the prospect of legitimate developers building additional offshore windfarms.
In fact I have made suggestions to Mr. Willauer, your chairman, as to how this may be approached. However, I also pointed out the disadvantages of deeper water development (high foundation costs) in high wave open locations (less serviceability hence lower availability). Until an engineering design has been completed by an experienced professional organization with data from a met tower, it speculative at best to judge the cost of construction and return on investment.
The folly of jumping into deeper water wind is illustrated by the LIPA project. The South of Tuckernuck site is similar in depth and wave height. I would suggest you substantiate your claim of 2 cents/kWh more of that site.
Do you have a legitimate developer ready to submit a permit application? Please let us know.
C. Kleekamp, P.E. Ret., VP Clean Power Now
You are in error to suggest that I am against the South of Tuckernuck site. I have always welcomed the prospect of legitimate developers building additional offshore windfarms.
In fact I have made suggestions to Mr. Willauer, your chairman, as to how this may be approached. However, I also pointed out the disadvantages of deeper water development (high foundation costs) in high wave open locations (less serviceability hence lower availability). Until an engineering design has been completed by an experienced professional organization with data from a met tower, it speculative at best to judge the cost of construction and return on investment.
The folly of jumping into deeper water wind is illustrated by the LIPA project. The South of Tuckernuck site is similar in depth and wave height. I would suggest you substantiate your claim of 2 cents/kWh more of that site.
Do you have a legitimate developer ready to submit a permit application? Please let us know.
C. Kleekamp, P.E. Ret., VP Clean Power Now
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Response to Senator Kennedy, Unabridged
In response to: Response to Senator Kennedy, Unabridged
A note to Buzz concluded,
Is it time to act now? I believe it is. The reason is, the only other rational choice for new generation is natural gas combustion turbines. This is based on low construction costs and lower emissions (than oil or “clean coal”) and certainly less cost than nuclear.
So if we build more gas plants we will need to import more natural gas. The U.S. hit its peak gas production around 1973. Gas imports from Canada are limited. This means we will have to build more LNG terminals and import the LNG from the same unfriendly and unstable countries that hold us hostage to their oil. OPEC will love it.
Matt’s right. The faster we develop wind power the less we will have to import natural gas or oil. A megawatt of wind power will replace a megawatt of oil or gas generated electricity.
I believe there is a sense of urgency for national security, sustainability and to reduce global warming.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Is it time to act now? I believe it is. The reason is, the only other rational choice for new generation is natural gas combustion turbines. This is based on low construction costs and lower emissions (than oil or “clean coal”) and certainly less cost than nuclear.
So if we build more gas plants we will need to import more natural gas. The U.S. hit its peak gas production around 1973. Gas imports from Canada are limited. This means we will have to build more LNG terminals and import the LNG from the same unfriendly and unstable countries that hold us hostage to their oil. OPEC will love it.
Matt’s right. The faster we develop wind power the less we will have to import natural gas or oil. A megawatt of wind power will replace a megawatt of oil or gas generated electricity.
I believe there is a sense of urgency for national security, sustainability and to reduce global warming.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Response to Senator Kennedy, Unabridged
In response to: Response to Senator Kennedy, Unabridged
A note to Buzz continued,
I prefer to call these “additional sites” as they all have somewhat lesser qualities. I believe some of these will be developed as the cost of fossil generation increases and they each become economically viable in turn. I’m sure the MMS will detail their findings in their upcoming DEIS.
The siting criteria generally examines the following: wind speed (power sensitive to the cube of the speed), water depth (foundation costs go up with deeper water), wave height (limits service hence availability), proximity to grid connection (cost of cabling and jump from low cost AC to expensive DC), and out of shipping channels. And also proximity threat to endangered species.
This has been the trend of European shallow water development for the existing 15 offshore windfarms and 10 under construction now.
I prefer to call these “additional sites” as they all have somewhat lesser qualities. I believe some of these will be developed as the cost of fossil generation increases and they each become economically viable in turn. I’m sure the MMS will detail their findings in their upcoming DEIS.
The siting criteria generally examines the following: wind speed (power sensitive to the cube of the speed), water depth (foundation costs go up with deeper water), wave height (limits service hence availability), proximity to grid connection (cost of cabling and jump from low cost AC to expensive DC), and out of shipping channels. And also proximity threat to endangered species.
This has been the trend of European shallow water development for the existing 15 offshore windfarms and 10 under construction now.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Response to Senator Kennedy, Unabridged
In response to: Response to Senator Kennedy, Unabridged
A note to Buzz,
To debate the cause of global warming is an endless argument that I don’t care to get into. In my opinion from studying the issues and listing to experts I respect, I believe man-made CO2 is the dominant effect. You have your opinion for your reasons. I think we should leave it there.
So back to the topic of Matt’s blog, i.e., wind replacing some fossil generation starting with the site on Horseshoe Shoal.
You may recall the Army draft EIS that did suggest alternate sites... a total of 12. The MMS has identified some of the same and others: Monomoy Shoals, South of Tuckernuck, Nantucket Shoals, East of Nauset Beach, Phelps Bank, Outer Harbor Maine, Cape Ann, Outer Harbor (Boston), and Block Island.
In addition, the Governor of Rhode Island has delineated 10 offshore sites in his state waters (mostly within the 3 mile limit). Continued...
To debate the cause of global warming is an endless argument that I don’t care to get into. In my opinion from studying the issues and listing to experts I respect, I believe man-made CO2 is the dominant effect. You have your opinion for your reasons. I think we should leave it there.
So back to the topic of Matt’s blog, i.e., wind replacing some fossil generation starting with the site on Horseshoe Shoal.
You may recall the Army draft EIS that did suggest alternate sites... a total of 12. The MMS has identified some of the same and others: Monomoy Shoals, South of Tuckernuck, Nantucket Shoals, East of Nauset Beach, Phelps Bank, Outer Harbor Maine, Cape Ann, Outer Harbor (Boston), and Block Island.
In addition, the Governor of Rhode Island has delineated 10 offshore sites in his state waters (mostly within the 3 mile limit). Continued...
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Response to Senator Kennedy, Unabridged
In response to: Response to Senator Kennedy, Unabridged
A note to Buzz.
You’re welcome to your own minority opinion on global warming.
However on the “pristine site’? Sewage dumping (Hy-line), fuel spills (one yesterday: Hy-Line), hydraulic dredging industry fluidizing the bottom? Hardly pristine!
It’s oh so easy to tell a developer to build somewhere else... at someone else’s economic risk. Let’s start where there is a chance at a return on investment (Horseshoe Shoal), then if that works, develop the next best site (Tuckernuck Shoal? Handkerchief Shoal? South of Tuckernuck?), and so on...
If deepwater wind is ever economical and constructed, then the present site can be decommissioned at the end of its useful life (20 to 25 years) by jacking out the monopoles (or cutting off below the bed) and jetting out the cables, thus returning it to it’s pristine condition using the decommissioning bond required by MMS.
Other than wind, what are your alternatives for near term power plant capacity additions?
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
You’re welcome to your own minority opinion on global warming.
However on the “pristine site’? Sewage dumping (Hy-line), fuel spills (one yesterday: Hy-Line), hydraulic dredging industry fluidizing the bottom? Hardly pristine!
It’s oh so easy to tell a developer to build somewhere else... at someone else’s economic risk. Let’s start where there is a chance at a return on investment (Horseshoe Shoal), then if that works, develop the next best site (Tuckernuck Shoal? Handkerchief Shoal? South of Tuckernuck?), and so on...
If deepwater wind is ever economical and constructed, then the present site can be decommissioned at the end of its useful life (20 to 25 years) by jacking out the monopoles (or cutting off below the bed) and jetting out the cables, thus returning it to it’s pristine condition using the decommissioning bond required by MMS.
Other than wind, what are your alternatives for near term power plant capacity additions?
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Wind Double Feature, Part One coming Thursday at 11pm; Part One, Better than Ted's Plan
In response to: Cape Wind Double Feature, Part One coming Thursday at 11pm; Part One, Better than Ted's Plan
A note to Peter,
Christy Mihos is certainly a smart business man and welcome to spend his money anyway he chooses. The problem may be if he, or anyone else, who installs turbines expecting to make a reasonable return without at least a modicum of engineering, and the project turns out to be a loosing situation, and then removes the turbines, it give the public a bad impression of wind power. The general rule of thumb for example is to keep the bottom of the blades at least 20 feet above the local buildings and treetops. The substantiation is instrumented data at each site elevation.
If he’s had site engineering done, it would be interesting to know what the technical data revealed. But it’s his choice to do as he pleases. I just hope it is a well engineered project at each location that yields useful results and doesn’t end up a debacle. With the dearth of information available there is no way to know.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Christy Mihos is certainly a smart business man and welcome to spend his money anyway he chooses. The problem may be if he, or anyone else, who installs turbines expecting to make a reasonable return without at least a modicum of engineering, and the project turns out to be a loosing situation, and then removes the turbines, it give the public a bad impression of wind power. The general rule of thumb for example is to keep the bottom of the blades at least 20 feet above the local buildings and treetops. The substantiation is instrumented data at each site elevation.
If he’s had site engineering done, it would be interesting to know what the technical data revealed. But it’s his choice to do as he pleases. I just hope it is a well engineered project at each location that yields useful results and doesn’t end up a debacle. With the dearth of information available there is no way to know.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Wind Double Feature, Part One coming Thursday at 11pm; Part One, Better than Ted's Plan
In response to: Cape Wind Double Feature, Part One coming Thursday at 11pm; Part One, Better than Ted's Plan
Let’s be technically correct. The AP statement... “Each turbine would generate about 2,600 kilowatts per year,” is a meaningless dimensional statement. Do they (Mihos) mean 2,600 kilowatt-hours a year? If so, how is that substantiated?
It would be most helpful if Mihos or the journalist reporting would give some factual information like: The turbines are a xx kilowatt rated model yy turbine from manufacture xyz. The power output vs. wind-speed curve follows. At location x the anemometer data shows an average annual wind speed of xx mph at an elevation of 31 feet. Therefore the expected output of that turbine at that location is approximately yy kWh/year.
With that knowledge, one could make a judgment on viability. Otherwise it’s merely opinion at best or an ill-advised experiment at worst.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
It would be most helpful if Mihos or the journalist reporting would give some factual information like: The turbines are a xx kilowatt rated model yy turbine from manufacture xyz. The power output vs. wind-speed curve follows. At location x the anemometer data shows an average annual wind speed of xx mph at an elevation of 31 feet. Therefore the expected output of that turbine at that location is approximately yy kWh/year.
With that knowledge, one could make a judgment on viability. Otherwise it’s merely opinion at best or an ill-advised experiment at worst.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: The hypocrisy of power
In response to: The hypocrisy of power
It’s a fact. ISO NE points out that 24% of installed capacity in NE is oil fired generation. Knowing the efficiency (heat rate) of oil fired generators and the btu content of a bbl of oil one can calculate the cost of fuel alone to product electricity. For oil plants its about $72/MWh, gas fired $52/MWh, coal and nuclear about $20/MWh. Wind and hydro are zero fuel cost. So who gets bumped off the ISO bid stack when wind comes on line? Its obvious, oil generators like Canal. The wind production of 1.6 million MWh a year is equivalent to about 2 million barrels of oil (that’s 84 million gallons).
By the way, all the oil wells in the continental US produce about 4.5 million bbls a day. Mirant Canal alone in the 1990s consumed some 8.5 million bbls a year, equivalent to almost two days production of all the U.S. oil wells.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
By the way, all the oil wells in the continental US produce about 4.5 million bbls a day. Mirant Canal alone in the 1990s consumed some 8.5 million bbls a year, equivalent to almost two days production of all the U.S. oil wells.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Sea Sea Breeze at Cape Wind site during times of highest electric demand
In response to: Sea Sea Breeze at Cape Wind site during times of highest electric demand
Mark,
Your report and the Department of Energy report put to rest with factual data the myth that wind doesn’t blow when you need it most. It bodes well as an argument for offshore wind energy development off the coast of all New England and Mid-Atlantic states. A real beginning for energy independence and sustainability. Thanks for the substantiated information.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
Your report and the Department of Energy report put to rest with factual data the myth that wind doesn’t blow when you need it most. It bodes well as an argument for offshore wind energy development off the coast of all New England and Mid-Atlantic states. A real beginning for energy independence and sustainability. Thanks for the substantiated information.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: The far enemy draws near
In response to: The far enemy draws near
Bittersweet, good question. And indeed, most oil consumption in the US is for refined gasoline. The technology and practicality are here now to dramatically reduce our addiction to oil hence reduce financial support to unfriendly nations. The Prius gets about 50 MPG. My old Chrysler sedan gets a bit over 20 MPG. Driving 10,000 miles a year works out to 200 gallons a year for the Prius, 500 gallons for the Chrysler sedan. In terms of CO2: its 5 tons emission a year for the Chrysler (or any vehicle getting about 20 MPG) and 2 tons for a Prius. I know a Prius is not the right car for every family, but perhaps for the second car. I love my new Prius; it cost less than the Chrysler 10 years ago. Now the Chrysler is relegated to the ignominious role of taking the trash to the dump. Whatever happened to GM, Ford and Chrysler?
Regards, Chuck K.
Regards, Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: The far enemy draws near
In response to: The far enemy draws near
Peter, 2 million bbls of oil a year (that’s 84 million gallons) is not a tiny portion of oil. ISO NE points out that 24% of installed capacity in NE is oil fired generation. Knowing the efficiency (heat rate) of oil fired generators and the btu content of a bbl of oil one can calculate the cost of fuel alone to product electricity. For oil plants its about $72/MWh, gas fired $52/MWh, coal and nuclear about $20/MWh. Wind and hydro are zero fuel cost. So who gets bumped off the ISO bid stack when wind comes on line? Its obvious. The wind production of 1.6 million MWh a year is equivalent to about 2 million barrels of oil.
By the way, all the oil wells in the continental US produce about 4.5 million bbls a day. Mirant Canal alone in the 1990s consumed some 8.5 million bbls a year, almost two days production of all the U.S. oil wells.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
By the way, all the oil wells in the continental US produce about 4.5 million bbls a day. Mirant Canal alone in the 1990s consumed some 8.5 million bbls a year, almost two days production of all the U.S. oil wells.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Missing the Mark
In response to: Missing the Mark
Niel, the cost of construction is important, but so is the cost of fuel. About 60% to 80% of the cost of producing electricity is the cost of fuel.
Natural gas plants cost about $0.6 million per MW to build. Great bargain, but we’re running out of natural gas too. OPEC anyone? Checked the price lately? Where to put the LNG terminals?
Conventional coal about $1 million/MW... and you like the pollution? FutureGen coal, $1 billion for a 275 MW plant... you (taxpayer) pay $750 million of that. And add $30 to $100 million a year just to sequester its million tons of CO2, plus the cost of coal.
Nuclear plant cost? Don’t know, except its decommissioning cost is about 10 times the construction cost. New nuclear plants get a production tax credit of 1.9 cents/kWh. Heard that before?
Land base wind: $1.5 million/MW, shallow water offshore: $2.5 million/MW, deepwater offshore $6 million/MW... deepwater can’t compete. Shallow water and big land based farms are the answer for a big part of the mix.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Natural gas plants cost about $0.6 million per MW to build. Great bargain, but we’re running out of natural gas too. OPEC anyone? Checked the price lately? Where to put the LNG terminals?
Conventional coal about $1 million/MW... and you like the pollution? FutureGen coal, $1 billion for a 275 MW plant... you (taxpayer) pay $750 million of that. And add $30 to $100 million a year just to sequester its million tons of CO2, plus the cost of coal.
Nuclear plant cost? Don’t know, except its decommissioning cost is about 10 times the construction cost. New nuclear plants get a production tax credit of 1.9 cents/kWh. Heard that before?
Land base wind: $1.5 million/MW, shallow water offshore: $2.5 million/MW, deepwater offshore $6 million/MW... deepwater can’t compete. Shallow water and big land based farms are the answer for a big part of the mix.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Missing the Mark
In response to: Missing the Mark
Missing the mark on Cape Wind impact. Framing the oil argument on auto use has nothing to do with electrical generation. According to ISO NE 24% of NE generation capacity is from oil fueled power plants. Oil generated electric power is the most expensive of all. At present the fuel cost alone of oil generated electricity is about $72/MWh. Natural gas is $52/MWh, coal and nuclear about $20/MWh. Wind and hydro fuel cost: $zero. Grid power dispatch by ISO is based on a bid stack, low to high. Wind will always bump oil, thus saving some 2 million bbls of oil a year, thus saving both money and reducing oil imports. Just the facts please.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Do as I say and not as I do, Cape Wind review
In response to: Do as I say and not as I do, Cape Wind review
Facts on Nantucket Wind
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not to make up facts. When substantiated, facts speak for themselves.
On averages. If wind produces 100 MWh for on hour and 200 MWh the next, the average for those two hours are 150 MWh. Everyone (almost) understands that.
As documented by the Dept. of Energy, the total wind production on Horseshoe Shoal for the year Apr. 03 to Mar. 04, according to wind measured by the data tower (every ten minutes), would have been 1,691,261 MWh or an average of 193 MW. And that’s a capacity factor of 42%. Not too bad.
Every MWh from wind dispatched on the grid means one less MWh from a fossil generation plant. You can’t store energy on the grid.
Fossil plants do no run at full load or burn more fuel than necessary to produced the power they are allowed to dispatch by ISO NE. Right now all generators in NE are putting out about 15,000 MW from a total installed capacity of about 33,000 MW.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not to make up facts. When substantiated, facts speak for themselves.
On averages. If wind produces 100 MWh for on hour and 200 MWh the next, the average for those two hours are 150 MWh. Everyone (almost) understands that.
As documented by the Dept. of Energy, the total wind production on Horseshoe Shoal for the year Apr. 03 to Mar. 04, according to wind measured by the data tower (every ten minutes), would have been 1,691,261 MWh or an average of 193 MW. And that’s a capacity factor of 42%. Not too bad.
Every MWh from wind dispatched on the grid means one less MWh from a fossil generation plant. You can’t store energy on the grid.
Fossil plants do no run at full load or burn more fuel than necessary to produced the power they are allowed to dispatch by ISO NE. Right now all generators in NE are putting out about 15,000 MW from a total installed capacity of about 33,000 MW.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Vineyard Gazette is first with review of "Cape Wind"
In response to: Vineyard Gazette is first with review of "Cape Wind"
A response to Neil
Neil, I don’t believe I wrote that. If you find substantiation, let me know.
I have always said the Horseshoe Shoal is the “optimum” site for offshore wind. And that is based on the 5 fundamental parameters for siting an offshore windfarm. And those are, wind speed, shallow water over sand, low wave height, out of ship channels, and close to high voltage distribution lines. It will be developed first, then the second most optimum, then the third... etc.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Neil, I don’t believe I wrote that. If you find substantiation, let me know.
I have always said the Horseshoe Shoal is the “optimum” site for offshore wind. And that is based on the 5 fundamental parameters for siting an offshore windfarm. And those are, wind speed, shallow water over sand, low wave height, out of ship channels, and close to high voltage distribution lines. It will be developed first, then the second most optimum, then the third... etc.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Vineyard Gazette is first with review of "Cape Wind"
In response to: Vineyard Gazette is first with review of "Cape Wind"
Remember Ex. Governor Romney? “I have seen wind farms and they are not pretty.”
Does anyone think Romney would have approved 130 turbines in state waters?
Now we have Governor Patrick. The political winds have changed. The Cape Wind project will go forward much to the chagrin of the politicians identified in the book.
Does anyone think Romney would have approved 130 turbines in state waters?
Now we have Governor Patrick. The political winds have changed. The Cape Wind project will go forward much to the chagrin of the politicians identified in the book.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Vineyard Gazette is first with review of "Cape Wind"
In response to: Vineyard Gazette is first with review of "Cape Wind"
I wonder how the hypocrisy of the Alliance crowd will play after Delaware and Rhode Island move ahead with windfarms the size of Cape Wind.
Especially when three-quarters of the Rhode Island offshore sites are within state waters, i.e. within three miles of the RI coast. All that according to Governor Carcieri who wants 15% of RI power from wind in five years.
In those states it’s not about the view, it’s the Vision.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Especially when three-quarters of the Rhode Island offshore sites are within state waters, i.e. within three miles of the RI coast. All that according to Governor Carcieri who wants 15% of RI power from wind in five years.
In those states it’s not about the view, it’s the Vision.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Buried, Residual Oil is Still Affecting Wildlife Decades After a Spill in Falmouth
In response to: Buried, Residual Oil is Still Affecting Wildlife Decades After a Spill in Falmouth
Following are more boring factual statistics on oil spills in our area.
Nearly 1.6 billion gallons of oil is barged through the Canal each year bringing us the oil we are addicted to.
2003, Bouchard barge, 98,000 g. No. 6 oil (for Canal Plant)
2000, Tug and barge collide, 14,000 g. Narragansett Bay
1997, Fishing boat leak, 2,000 g. Woods Hole
1996, Grounded barge, 828,000 g. No. 2 oil, Point Judith
1990, Bouchard barge No. 145, 200 g. Buzz. Bay
1990, Bermuda Star grounding, 7,500 g. No. 6 oil, Buzz. Bay
1979, Argo Merchant break-up, 7.7 million g. No. 6 oil, Nantucket Shoal
1978, Barge Ocean, 682,000 g. Block Island
1977, Bouchard Barge No. 65 caught in ice, 81,000 g. No. 2 oil, Buzz. Bay
1974, Bouchard Barge No. 65 grounded, 37,000 g. No. 2 oil, Buzz. Bay
1973, Bouchard Barge No. 45 and tug sunk in Canal
1969, Barge Florida, 140,000 g. No. 2 oil, Falmouth Harbor
Enough.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Nearly 1.6 billion gallons of oil is barged through the Canal each year bringing us the oil we are addicted to.
2003, Bouchard barge, 98,000 g. No. 6 oil (for Canal Plant)
2000, Tug and barge collide, 14,000 g. Narragansett Bay
1997, Fishing boat leak, 2,000 g. Woods Hole
1996, Grounded barge, 828,000 g. No. 2 oil, Point Judith
1990, Bouchard barge No. 145, 200 g. Buzz. Bay
1990, Bermuda Star grounding, 7,500 g. No. 6 oil, Buzz. Bay
1979, Argo Merchant break-up, 7.7 million g. No. 6 oil, Nantucket Shoal
1978, Barge Ocean, 682,000 g. Block Island
1977, Bouchard Barge No. 65 caught in ice, 81,000 g. No. 2 oil, Buzz. Bay
1974, Bouchard Barge No. 65 grounded, 37,000 g. No. 2 oil, Buzz. Bay
1973, Bouchard Barge No. 45 and tug sunk in Canal
1969, Barge Florida, 140,000 g. No. 2 oil, Falmouth Harbor
Enough.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Buried, Residual Oil is Still Affecting Wildlife Decades After a Spill in Falmouth
In response to: Buried, Residual Oil is Still Affecting Wildlife Decades After a Spill in Falmouth
On oil generator shut down.
In fact oil generating units are shut down when the demand is not high due to the high cost of oil compared to coal.
For example, Brayton Point has four generating units. Three coal and one oil. The three coal units totaling some 1,139 MW operated at a capacity factor of 74% during 2006. Their oil unit #4 with 446 MW of capacity operated at a capacity factor of only 1% during 2006. It was simply turned off most of the year.
Example 2, Salem Harbor has four units also, three coal one oil. The total capacity of three coal units is 314 MW and they ran at a CP of about 76% in 2006. Their big oil unit of some 394 MW capacity operated at a CP of only 5.5% in 2006, and was turned off completely for two months.
I expect it is a similar story for other residual oil generating units in New England. It is also a fact that 24% of all generating capacity in New England is from oil fired units.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
In fact oil generating units are shut down when the demand is not high due to the high cost of oil compared to coal.
For example, Brayton Point has four generating units. Three coal and one oil. The three coal units totaling some 1,139 MW operated at a capacity factor of 74% during 2006. Their oil unit #4 with 446 MW of capacity operated at a capacity factor of only 1% during 2006. It was simply turned off most of the year.
Example 2, Salem Harbor has four units also, three coal one oil. The total capacity of three coal units is 314 MW and they ran at a CP of about 76% in 2006. Their big oil unit of some 394 MW capacity operated at a CP of only 5.5% in 2006, and was turned off completely for two months.
I expect it is a similar story for other residual oil generating units in New England. It is also a fact that 24% of all generating capacity in New England is from oil fired units.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Buried, Residual Oil is Still Affecting Wildlife Decades After a Spill in Falmouth
In response to: Buried, Residual Oil is Still Affecting Wildlife Decades After a Spill in Falmouth
On Oil Offset by Wind
Every megawatt of power from wind will offset an equivalent megawatt of power from being dispatched by ISO NE.
The bid stack ranks bid prices from low to high. Bidders of zero fuel cost like hydro and wind enter the bottom of the stack and push off the top the most expensive bids.
The fuel cost alone (with no O&M) of oil generated power is 7 cents/kWh, natural gas 5 cents/kWh and coal and nuclear at about 2 cents/kWh.
It is absolutely clear that oil generated power is backed off first, then natural gas. The ISO president says oil and gas set the clearing price 80% of all hours.
Generators backed off consume only enough fuel to keep meet their dispatch load, no more.
Therefore, when wind, hydro and solar power are dispatched to the grid, oil gets backed off first, then gas, then coal. Nuclear never, it’s on a must run basis.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Every megawatt of power from wind will offset an equivalent megawatt of power from being dispatched by ISO NE.
The bid stack ranks bid prices from low to high. Bidders of zero fuel cost like hydro and wind enter the bottom of the stack and push off the top the most expensive bids.
The fuel cost alone (with no O&M) of oil generated power is 7 cents/kWh, natural gas 5 cents/kWh and coal and nuclear at about 2 cents/kWh.
It is absolutely clear that oil generated power is backed off first, then natural gas. The ISO president says oil and gas set the clearing price 80% of all hours.
Generators backed off consume only enough fuel to keep meet their dispatch load, no more.
Therefore, when wind, hydro and solar power are dispatched to the grid, oil gets backed off first, then gas, then coal. Nuclear never, it’s on a must run basis.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Valid criticism - from the opposition
In response to: Valid criticism - from the opposition
On wind power in the Sound
Following are data from the US Dept. of Energy Analysis, June 6, 2004, Exhibit III, for one year on a monthly basis in Apr of 03, with the Capacity Factor (CP) based on full load of 454 MW.
Apr 03 150,390 MWh, CP 46.0%
May 03 108,910 MWh, CP 32.2%
Jun 03 49,267 MWh, CP 15.1%
Jul 03 109,517 MWh, CP 32.4%
Aug 03 112,952 MWh, CP 33.4%
Sep 03 89,717 MWh, CP 27.4%
Oct 03 148,365 MWh, CP 43.9%
Nov 03 145,959 MWh, CP 44.6%
Dec 03 219,112 MWh, CP 64.8%
Jan 04 212,333 MWh, CP 62.8%
Feb.04 146,670 MWh, CP 48.1%
Mar 04 198,067 MWh, CP 58.6%
Total: 1,691,261 MWh, CP 42.5% over a year.
It’s not instantaneous power at any moment in time that’s relative. It’s the total over a month or year. Every megawatt of power from wind is a megawatt less from oil or gas generated electricity.
Following are data from the US Dept. of Energy Analysis, June 6, 2004, Exhibit III, for one year on a monthly basis in Apr of 03, with the Capacity Factor (CP) based on full load of 454 MW.
Apr 03 150,390 MWh, CP 46.0%
May 03 108,910 MWh, CP 32.2%
Jun 03 49,267 MWh, CP 15.1%
Jul 03 109,517 MWh, CP 32.4%
Aug 03 112,952 MWh, CP 33.4%
Sep 03 89,717 MWh, CP 27.4%
Oct 03 148,365 MWh, CP 43.9%
Nov 03 145,959 MWh, CP 44.6%
Dec 03 219,112 MWh, CP 64.8%
Jan 04 212,333 MWh, CP 62.8%
Feb.04 146,670 MWh, CP 48.1%
Mar 04 198,067 MWh, CP 58.6%
Total: 1,691,261 MWh, CP 42.5% over a year.
It’s not instantaneous power at any moment in time that’s relative. It’s the total over a month or year. Every megawatt of power from wind is a megawatt less from oil or gas generated electricity.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Valid criticism - from the opposition
In response to: Valid criticism - from the opposition
Just a note. Jetting in power cables is not dredging. Again, I have no have no idea whether or not dredging will be needed for the wind farm. Jack, I’ll send you some information on hydraulic clam dredges.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Valid criticism - from the opposition
In response to: Valid criticism - from the opposition
A matter of perspective and balance.
Laying in power cables once every 25 years or so is far different from a dozen hydraulic dredges operating every day. On balance which is more destructive?
On birds, balance the few killed by offshore wind farms compared to domestic cats, bird hunters, high buildings, etc. Should we have open season on cats? Outlaw all bird hunting? And take down all high buildings? Someone helped us with that on 9/11. Global warming is far more likely to cause extinction of bird species. And let’s wean ourselves from importing oil and natural gas... sending our wealth to those unfriendly and unstable foreign sources that support terrorists.
And in perspective, if not wind power then what? Conservation sure, but that’s not the total solution anymore than wind alone. Like the ad says “The world’s demand for energy will never stop.” The other power options are coal, oil, gas, and nuclear. Your choice.
Laying in power cables once every 25 years or so is far different from a dozen hydraulic dredges operating every day. On balance which is more destructive?
On birds, balance the few killed by offshore wind farms compared to domestic cats, bird hunters, high buildings, etc. Should we have open season on cats? Outlaw all bird hunting? And take down all high buildings? Someone helped us with that on 9/11. Global warming is far more likely to cause extinction of bird species. And let’s wean ourselves from importing oil and natural gas... sending our wealth to those unfriendly and unstable foreign sources that support terrorists.
And in perspective, if not wind power then what? Conservation sure, but that’s not the total solution anymore than wind alone. Like the ad says “The world’s demand for energy will never stop.” The other power options are coal, oil, gas, and nuclear. Your choice.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Valid criticism - from the opposition
In response to: Valid criticism - from the opposition
On Dredging
I have no idea whether or not dredging will be needed for the wind farm.
But in perspective, let me share with you a dredging industry that is going on right now in Nantucket Sound. It’s called hydraulic dredging. What’s that, you ask?
Hydraulic dredges are devices pulled behind vessels that harvest shellfish, similar to a dragger. Only these dredges pump some 8,000 gal/min of water at 125 psi through an 8-inch hose to a 9-foot wide manifold with jets aimed to fluidize the benthic community up to a foot deep to dislodge shellfish and bycatch that are scoped up in the following cage.
According to the Harwich harbormaster, up to a dozen of these dredges operate on Nantucket Sound. The trails left by these dredges viewed by side-scan sonar look like lazy figure 8’S.
Jack, if you’d like to do an article on hydraulic dredging in the sound, I have photos, sonar images, etc. It may be revealing to readers to know about the impact of this dredging industry on fluidizing the benthic community.
I have no idea whether or not dredging will be needed for the wind farm.
But in perspective, let me share with you a dredging industry that is going on right now in Nantucket Sound. It’s called hydraulic dredging. What’s that, you ask?
Hydraulic dredges are devices pulled behind vessels that harvest shellfish, similar to a dragger. Only these dredges pump some 8,000 gal/min of water at 125 psi through an 8-inch hose to a 9-foot wide manifold with jets aimed to fluidize the benthic community up to a foot deep to dislodge shellfish and bycatch that are scoped up in the following cage.
According to the Harwich harbormaster, up to a dozen of these dredges operate on Nantucket Sound. The trails left by these dredges viewed by side-scan sonar look like lazy figure 8’S.
Jack, if you’d like to do an article on hydraulic dredging in the sound, I have photos, sonar images, etc. It may be revealing to readers to know about the impact of this dredging industry on fluidizing the benthic community.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: State gives OK to Cape Wind
In response to: State gives OK to Cape Wind
Finally, we have an administration with common sense!
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Any good alternatives for Cape Wind?
In response to: Any good alternatives for Cape Wind?
No Maverick, I am not suggesting your suggestions....Birth control or abortion.
My comment was meant to contrast draconian measures to the most appropriate choice which is to add wind power to the mix of energy sources for a growing and hopefully prosperous society with out the emissions, limitations, and national risk of importing more oil and natural gas.
My comment was meant to contrast draconian measures to the most appropriate choice which is to add wind power to the mix of energy sources for a growing and hopefully prosperous society with out the emissions, limitations, and national risk of importing more oil and natural gas.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Any good alternatives for Cape Wind?
In response to: Any good alternatives for Cape Wind?
Capri, I agree with you, that as a society we need to clean up our power plants and institute conservation measures.
As Vice President of Cape Clean Air (in addition to CPN), along with may other similar organizations across the state, we worked to have MA institute the most stringent emissions regulations (CMR 7.29) in the nation for old power plants, Canal and Brayton among them. The benefits are starting to be realized now. Grist for a future article. None-the-less, they will not be zero-emissions plants.
And indeed we espouse conservation and efficiency, see the CPN mission statement.
I hope all that read these blogs and the popular press have switched to compact-fluorescents, and as they can afford, replaced old appliances with energy star units and, as old cars wear out, bought or intend to buy efficient hybrid vehicles that get 50 MPG.
However, unless we limit the population, forbid new construction, and cap individual energy use to last year’s value, we will need new sources of electric power. What are the choices?
As Vice President of Cape Clean Air (in addition to CPN), along with may other similar organizations across the state, we worked to have MA institute the most stringent emissions regulations (CMR 7.29) in the nation for old power plants, Canal and Brayton among them. The benefits are starting to be realized now. Grist for a future article. None-the-less, they will not be zero-emissions plants.
And indeed we espouse conservation and efficiency, see the CPN mission statement.
I hope all that read these blogs and the popular press have switched to compact-fluorescents, and as they can afford, replaced old appliances with energy star units and, as old cars wear out, bought or intend to buy efficient hybrid vehicles that get 50 MPG.
However, unless we limit the population, forbid new construction, and cap individual energy use to last year’s value, we will need new sources of electric power. What are the choices?
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Any good alternatives for Cape Wind?
In response to: Any good alternatives for Cape Wind?
Capri, you are mistaken that I defend dirty power from anyone. Fast-start peaker plants are required for system stability. It’s called 10 minute reserve (can be added in 10 minutes). Do you like your lights to come on when you flip the switch?
I’ll repeat for the last time, the peaker combustion turbine (not a diesel engine) will burn ultra low distillate fuel oil with 15 ppm sulfur content as fuel, the cleanest there is.
Please compare that to the 10,000 ppm sulfur fuel used at Canal. In terms of output, the comparison is 5 tons per of SO2 per year from Chelsea to 30,000 tons from Canal.
I could be sarcastic and say if you object to the peaker in Chelsea, let’s just trade. Build the peaker in Sandwich and send the Canal plant to Chelsea. But that’s not environmental justice.
Again, in fairness we all must be willing to accept some part of emissions from fossil plants, at least until we can begin to offset their emissions with non-polluting wind power.
Just where would you put the next peaker?
I’ll repeat for the last time, the peaker combustion turbine (not a diesel engine) will burn ultra low distillate fuel oil with 15 ppm sulfur content as fuel, the cleanest there is.
Please compare that to the 10,000 ppm sulfur fuel used at Canal. In terms of output, the comparison is 5 tons per of SO2 per year from Chelsea to 30,000 tons from Canal.
I could be sarcastic and say if you object to the peaker in Chelsea, let’s just trade. Build the peaker in Sandwich and send the Canal plant to Chelsea. But that’s not environmental justice.
Again, in fairness we all must be willing to accept some part of emissions from fossil plants, at least until we can begin to offset their emissions with non-polluting wind power.
Just where would you put the next peaker?
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Any good alternatives for Cape Wind?
In response to: Any good alternatives for Cape Wind?
Capri, let’s compare the environmental justice between Sandwich and Chelsea.
The Canal plant has been fueled by heavy residual fuel oil with a high sulfur content of 1% or 10,000 ppm.
This plant, within a mile of our elementary school, consumes some 8 million barrels of oil a year emitting 30,000 tons of sulfur dioxide running continuously. Making matters worse, Cape Cod has the worst air quality in the state, numerically 50% worse than in the Boston area as measured by DEP monitoring stations.
In comparison, the Chelsea peaker may run some 200 to 800 hours a year maximum and is fueled with expensive ultra-low distillate fuel oil with just 15 ppm sulfur content. It will emit from 1.23 tons to 4.9 tons of sulfur dioxide a year. At most this is just two-ten thousandths of the emissions spewed out over the town of Sandwich from the Canal plant.
The point is not to wish the worst on any community, but we all must be willing to accept our share. We do. That’s justice.
Regards, Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
The Canal plant has been fueled by heavy residual fuel oil with a high sulfur content of 1% or 10,000 ppm.
This plant, within a mile of our elementary school, consumes some 8 million barrels of oil a year emitting 30,000 tons of sulfur dioxide running continuously. Making matters worse, Cape Cod has the worst air quality in the state, numerically 50% worse than in the Boston area as measured by DEP monitoring stations.
In comparison, the Chelsea peaker may run some 200 to 800 hours a year maximum and is fueled with expensive ultra-low distillate fuel oil with just 15 ppm sulfur content. It will emit from 1.23 tons to 4.9 tons of sulfur dioxide a year. At most this is just two-ten thousandths of the emissions spewed out over the town of Sandwich from the Canal plant.
The point is not to wish the worst on any community, but we all must be willing to accept our share. We do. That’s justice.
Regards, Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Any good alternatives for Cape Wind?
In response to: Any good alternatives for Cape Wind?
A note for mattmesi.
I submit my commentary articles to many newspapers. Some editors will publish them, some not. It’s their decision, not mine, I only make the offer. Funny, I just noticed my commentary article in the Upper Cape Codder. I wonder if it will be in other Cape papers. Let me know if you see it elsewhere.
On zoning... off limits are within shipping channels. Mother Nature dictates where offshore wind turbines are viable... as noted in the article... where there are high wind speeds, shallow water, and low waves.
Unlike terrestrial views, all ocean views are exquisite. No one more or less than any other, be it off Osterville, Falmouth or Fairhaven. If one believes in offshore wind, then it is hard to take sides in whose view is more or less valuable than another’s. It would be a travesty of justice to allow to moneyed interest and political influence to zone for NIMBY.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
I submit my commentary articles to many newspapers. Some editors will publish them, some not. It’s their decision, not mine, I only make the offer. Funny, I just noticed my commentary article in the Upper Cape Codder. I wonder if it will be in other Cape papers. Let me know if you see it elsewhere.
On zoning... off limits are within shipping channels. Mother Nature dictates where offshore wind turbines are viable... as noted in the article... where there are high wind speeds, shallow water, and low waves.
Unlike terrestrial views, all ocean views are exquisite. No one more or less than any other, be it off Osterville, Falmouth or Fairhaven. If one believes in offshore wind, then it is hard to take sides in whose view is more or less valuable than another’s. It would be a travesty of justice to allow to moneyed interest and political influence to zone for NIMBY.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Booklist raves about new "Cape Wind" book debut
In response to: Booklist raves about new "Cape Wind" book debut
I can’t wait! From two of the best journalist in New England.
The rest of the country will soon get to read what’s behind the privileged opposition to America’s first offshore windfarm.
It couldn’t come at a better time to highlight their obfuscation of offshore wind while turning a blind eye toward the looming global warming crisis and the ever increasing dependence on foreign oil and natural gas to meet their energy needs.
The rest of the country will soon get to read what’s behind the privileged opposition to America’s first offshore windfarm.
It couldn’t come at a better time to highlight their obfuscation of offshore wind while turning a blind eye toward the looming global warming crisis and the ever increasing dependence on foreign oil and natural gas to meet their energy needs.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: The Alliance takes on another target
In response to: The Alliance takes on another target
Environmental justice means equitably sharing the negative aspects of a required capability (electrical generation in this case) equally. I would say with 30,000 tons of SO2 over Sandwich schools we have our share of justice along with more than our share of asthma. I’d much rather have only 5 tons here, but some communities, like Sandwich, wind up with more than their share, or is my logic backwards?
So in protecting Cape Cod, like Jack’s poster illustrates, just where would you like to relocate the Canal plant to? I could be cynical and say I’d be happy to have the environmental justice of putting Chelsea peaker here instead of the Canal plant, but I wouldn’t want to infer driving a wedge between two communities.
And I wouldn’t want to wish the Canal plant on anybody, much less Chelsea.
However, if we all want the lights to come on, we must all be willing to accept our fair share of the consequences.
So in protecting Cape Cod, like Jack’s poster illustrates, just where would you like to relocate the Canal plant to? I could be cynical and say I’d be happy to have the environmental justice of putting Chelsea peaker here instead of the Canal plant, but I wouldn’t want to infer driving a wedge between two communities.
And I wouldn’t want to wish the Canal plant on anybody, much less Chelsea.
However, if we all want the lights to come on, we must all be willing to accept our fair share of the consequences.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: The Alliance takes on another target
In response to: The Alliance takes on another target
Keeping on the topic of the Mirant plant emissions, allow me to share some data.
The Mirant Canal plant historically emits about 30,000 tons of SO2 a year burning about 8 million barrels of high sulfur residual fuel oil (1% sulfur content or 10,000 ppm). Its base load Unit 1 has a capacity factor of about 66%, their cycling Unit 2 operates at a CP of only 50%. (Ref: Emission Control Plan DEP).
That plant is a mile away from the Sandwich elementary school.
Cape Cod has the worst air quality in the state, in fact numerically 50% worse than in Roxbury according to DEP monitors. (Ref Sustainability Indicators Report 2004).
Let me compare the Chelsea plant burning ultra low sulfur fuel (15 ppm) for at most 800 hours a year emitting some 5 tons maximum of SO2.
The emissions from the Chelsea peaker are 5/30,000 or 0.00017 times less than Canal.
The point: we must all accept some responsibility for the electricity we use. Where would you put the next peaker?
C. Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
The Mirant Canal plant historically emits about 30,000 tons of SO2 a year burning about 8 million barrels of high sulfur residual fuel oil (1% sulfur content or 10,000 ppm). Its base load Unit 1 has a capacity factor of about 66%, their cycling Unit 2 operates at a CP of only 50%. (Ref: Emission Control Plan DEP).
That plant is a mile away from the Sandwich elementary school.
Cape Cod has the worst air quality in the state, in fact numerically 50% worse than in Roxbury according to DEP monitors. (Ref Sustainability Indicators Report 2004).
Let me compare the Chelsea plant burning ultra low sulfur fuel (15 ppm) for at most 800 hours a year emitting some 5 tons maximum of SO2.
The emissions from the Chelsea peaker are 5/30,000 or 0.00017 times less than Canal.
The point: we must all accept some responsibility for the electricity we use. Where would you put the next peaker?
C. Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: The Alliance takes on another target
In response to: The Alliance takes on another target
There are times with the wind is less than 8 MPH (no wind power).
However, since wind is bid in at zero fuel cost it will always get dispatched by ISO. For every MWh of wind power on the grid, the most expensive fossil fueled unit, like Canal, will be backed off, hence that amount of fossil fuel use will be avoided.
Based on met data, if the wind farm had been in operation, the following data is from the US Dept. of Energy Analysis of June 6, 2004, with the Capacity Factor (CP) based on full load of 454 MW.
Apr 03: 150,390 MWh, CP 46.0%
May 03: 108,910 MWh, CP 32.2%
Jun 03: 49,267 MWh, CP 15.1%
Jul 03: 109,517 MWh, CP 32.4%
Aug 03: 112,952 MWh, CP 33.4%
Sep 03: 89,717 MWh, CP 27.4%
Oct 03: 148,365 MWh, CP 43.9%
Nov 03: 145,959 MWh, CP 44.6%
Dec 03: 219,112 MWh, CP 64.8%
Jan 04: 212,333 MWh, CP 62.8%
Feb.04: 146,670 MWh, CP 48.1%
Mar 04: 198,067 MWh, CP 58.6%
Total: 1,691,261 MWh, CP 42.5% over a year
However, since wind is bid in at zero fuel cost it will always get dispatched by ISO. For every MWh of wind power on the grid, the most expensive fossil fueled unit, like Canal, will be backed off, hence that amount of fossil fuel use will be avoided.
Based on met data, if the wind farm had been in operation, the following data is from the US Dept. of Energy Analysis of June 6, 2004, with the Capacity Factor (CP) based on full load of 454 MW.
Apr 03: 150,390 MWh, CP 46.0%
May 03: 108,910 MWh, CP 32.2%
Jun 03: 49,267 MWh, CP 15.1%
Jul 03: 109,517 MWh, CP 32.4%
Aug 03: 112,952 MWh, CP 33.4%
Sep 03: 89,717 MWh, CP 27.4%
Oct 03: 148,365 MWh, CP 43.9%
Nov 03: 145,959 MWh, CP 44.6%
Dec 03: 219,112 MWh, CP 64.8%
Jan 04: 212,333 MWh, CP 62.8%
Feb.04: 146,670 MWh, CP 48.1%
Mar 04: 198,067 MWh, CP 58.6%
Total: 1,691,261 MWh, CP 42.5% over a year
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Cod Chamber ad scares away visitors
In response to: Cape Cod Chamber ad scares away visitors
A point of clarification. The “Chuck” above is not Chuck Kleekamp. I always put my full name in a blog note. Some prefer, for whatever reason, not to fully identify themselves which is their privilege.
I prefer not to engage in endless opinionated argument about the view of turbines or the service platform. The arguments are simply intractable, like arguing about which religion is right.
However, on a factual note, Euclidian geometry shows that the height of the service platform as viewed from the shore some 7 miles distant, that the top of the 100 foot platform will appear as an eighth of an inch high above the horizon when measured with a ruler held at arms length (3 feet). That would be a good MCAS test calculation for high school geometry students.
It’s too bad I don’t know how to publish a photo of a shore view of the Nysted windfarm in Denmark. Then you could judge the view for yourselves.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
I prefer not to engage in endless opinionated argument about the view of turbines or the service platform. The arguments are simply intractable, like arguing about which religion is right.
However, on a factual note, Euclidian geometry shows that the height of the service platform as viewed from the shore some 7 miles distant, that the top of the 100 foot platform will appear as an eighth of an inch high above the horizon when measured with a ruler held at arms length (3 feet). That would be a good MCAS test calculation for high school geometry students.
It’s too bad I don’t know how to publish a photo of a shore view of the Nysted windfarm in Denmark. Then you could judge the view for yourselves.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: It all adds up for Chris, but you may need a calculator
In response to: It all adds up for Chris, but you may need a calculator
A note to Capri.
Matt Palmer came to Clean Power Now with exceptional qualifications from working as an professional engineer for a number of years at a large nationally known power utility that was not related in any way to Mr. Gordon’s company.
Prior to that employment he did work for a power plant owned by Gordon.
Mr. Palmer resigned from Clean Power Now for personal reasons. Some time after his resignation he accepted employment with Mr. Gordon’s company.
The community of qualified power engineers is a small one and they choose where and when they seek employment. We are all free to seek employment as we please.
Mr. Palmer’s past and present employment in no way implies that Mr. Gordon set up Clean Power Now as an arm of Energy Management, Inc. as you falsely claim. Clean Power Now was organized well before Mr. Palmer joined us as executive director.
Charles Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
Matt Palmer came to Clean Power Now with exceptional qualifications from working as an professional engineer for a number of years at a large nationally known power utility that was not related in any way to Mr. Gordon’s company.
Prior to that employment he did work for a power plant owned by Gordon.
Mr. Palmer resigned from Clean Power Now for personal reasons. Some time after his resignation he accepted employment with Mr. Gordon’s company.
The community of qualified power engineers is a small one and they choose where and when they seek employment. We are all free to seek employment as we please.
Mr. Palmer’s past and present employment in no way implies that Mr. Gordon set up Clean Power Now as an arm of Energy Management, Inc. as you falsely claim. Clean Power Now was organized well before Mr. Palmer joined us as executive director.
Charles Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: It all adds up for Chris, but you may need a calculator
In response to: It all adds up for Chris, but you may need a calculator
Regarding Clean Power Now.
Endless debate on unsubstantiated opinions is not helpful to a public understanding of factual information about offshore wind and I don’t intend to engage in it here.
But let me correct one egregious claim boarding on libelous that is outright false. A statement above was made about Jim Gordon that: “He even managed to set up a not for profit arm for his for profit company called Clean Power Now”
As a founding member of Clean Power Now, I was at the first organizational meeting at Reverend Bill Eddy’s house, who is also a founding director. It was understood form the outset that there was to be absolutely no financial or employment connection to Jim Gordon. Nor is there today, and purposely so.
The mission of Clean Power Now is to provide people with factual information about renewable energy and our focus is to increase citizen support of offshore wind power in Nantucket Sound and bring its benefits to us all.
Charles Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
Endless debate on unsubstantiated opinions is not helpful to a public understanding of factual information about offshore wind and I don’t intend to engage in it here.
But let me correct one egregious claim boarding on libelous that is outright false. A statement above was made about Jim Gordon that: “He even managed to set up a not for profit arm for his for profit company called Clean Power Now”
As a founding member of Clean Power Now, I was at the first organizational meeting at Reverend Bill Eddy’s house, who is also a founding director. It was understood form the outset that there was to be absolutely no financial or employment connection to Jim Gordon. Nor is there today, and purposely so.
The mission of Clean Power Now is to provide people with factual information about renewable energy and our focus is to increase citizen support of offshore wind power in Nantucket Sound and bring its benefits to us all.
Charles Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Patrick appoints another Cape Codder; Birds are safe from turbines
In response to: Patrick appoints another Cape Codder; Birds are safe from turbines
Just another thought:
One can chose to ignore the results of investigators on numerous studies about avian risks in offshore wind that show there are no harm to bird species. Just as one can choose to ignore the preponderance of scientific evidence that human activates are the cause of global warming.
There are always critics of well founded scientific evidence.
Non-polluting renewable power sources dominated by wind, with evolving solar and ocean energy will play ever increasing roles in our demands for energy and reducing the impact of carbon sources. Renewable biomass may be helpful even at a carbon neutral level.
But short of limiting the earth’s population, conservation alone will not fix the problem. What other choices do we have? Coal, oil, gas, or nuclear? Take your choice and make a stand.
One can chose to ignore the results of investigators on numerous studies about avian risks in offshore wind that show there are no harm to bird species. Just as one can choose to ignore the preponderance of scientific evidence that human activates are the cause of global warming.
There are always critics of well founded scientific evidence.
Non-polluting renewable power sources dominated by wind, with evolving solar and ocean energy will play ever increasing roles in our demands for energy and reducing the impact of carbon sources. Renewable biomass may be helpful even at a carbon neutral level.
But short of limiting the earth’s population, conservation alone will not fix the problem. What other choices do we have? Coal, oil, gas, or nuclear? Take your choice and make a stand.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: The Allure of German Wind
In response to: The Allure of German Wind
On European Wind
As a comparison, and more successfully, experience shows the average capacity factor of shallow water offshore wind in Denmark is 39%, with the highest at Horns Rev at 45%.
Offshore winds are not subject to long periods of no wind and have relatively constant and predictably strong winds. That’s why the governments in Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK have encouraged private utilities to have built 14 projects with 11 more under construction now or staring this year (see footnote 10).
Most are within 20 km of shore in water less than 60 feet using economic monopole foundations. This building boom now is grist for another article.
In comparison, the Cape Wind project, under permitting since 2001, will have a CP of about 40% based on measured data.
While Europe surges ahead, we fuss over the view.
As for integration, it is generally considered that wind energy can meet in their region 20% of electricity demand without posing any serious technical or practical problems for the network – as proven by the example of Denmark.
As a comparison, and more successfully, experience shows the average capacity factor of shallow water offshore wind in Denmark is 39%, with the highest at Horns Rev at 45%.
Offshore winds are not subject to long periods of no wind and have relatively constant and predictably strong winds. That’s why the governments in Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK have encouraged private utilities to have built 14 projects with 11 more under construction now or staring this year (see footnote 10).
Most are within 20 km of shore in water less than 60 feet using economic monopole foundations. This building boom now is grist for another article.
In comparison, the Cape Wind project, under permitting since 2001, will have a CP of about 40% based on measured data.
While Europe surges ahead, we fuss over the view.
As for integration, it is generally considered that wind energy can meet in their region 20% of electricity demand without posing any serious technical or practical problems for the network – as proven by the example of Denmark.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: The Allure of German Wind
In response to: The Allure of German Wind
On German Wind
It is indeed true that unlike other northern European nations most of the 29 offshore wind farm applications in Germany are at significant distances (30 to 40 km) from shore in deep water over 60 feet, although not all.
The expected return on private investment of these expensive to develop deep water sites may well explain why German utilities have not built any to date.
In their effort to curb global warming the Germans have built several thousand land based wind turbines. The problem is that the land winds are not very strong resulting in an average capacity factor (CP) of only 16%. And worse, there are periods in summer when the land wind is very low for several days at a time resulting in the need for large amounts of back up fossil plants. And they are well aware of their dilemma... hence the need for heavy government subsidies for construction costs for their first experimental offshore project.
This doesn’t seem like a good model to adopt. (To be continued)
It is indeed true that unlike other northern European nations most of the 29 offshore wind farm applications in Germany are at significant distances (30 to 40 km) from shore in deep water over 60 feet, although not all.
The expected return on private investment of these expensive to develop deep water sites may well explain why German utilities have not built any to date.
In their effort to curb global warming the Germans have built several thousand land based wind turbines. The problem is that the land winds are not very strong resulting in an average capacity factor (CP) of only 16%. And worse, there are periods in summer when the land wind is very low for several days at a time resulting in the need for large amounts of back up fossil plants. And they are well aware of their dilemma... hence the need for heavy government subsidies for construction costs for their first experimental offshore project.
This doesn’t seem like a good model to adopt. (To be continued)
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: War of the Worlds Redux
In response to: War of the Worlds Redux
Jack,
Wasn’t it in “Guns, Germs, and Steel,” that Jared Diamond wrote about the same concept? You’re up for a Pulitzer Prize if you expand your article into a book. I think you both come to the same conclusion.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Wasn’t it in “Guns, Germs, and Steel,” that Jared Diamond wrote about the same concept? You’re up for a Pulitzer Prize if you expand your article into a book. I think you both come to the same conclusion.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Wind's president too nice of a guy?
In response to: Cape Wind's president too nice of a guy?
On the topic of wind farm CO2 avoidance.
Perhaps the accurate way of addressing the topic is to say technically that, a non-polluting electrical source that feeds the New England grid will avoid the equivalent amount of electricity from other sources. Its simply the law of physics.... you can’t store electrical energy on the transmission grid.
By the bidding rules of ISO NE the most expensive generated electricity (from oil) will be bumped off the bid stack and not be dispatched. The amount of emissions (CO2, SO2, and NOx) reduced are calculated from the ISO NE marginal emission rate schedule.
Based on ISO data and according to the findings of the MA Energy Facility Siting Board in their 2004 decision under Governor Romney: “The Siting Board finds that in the near term, operation of the wind farm would reduce regional air emissions by approximately 4,480 tons of SO2, 1,323 tons of NOx, and 1,062,554 tons of CO2 annually” p. 168.
Let’s let authoritative sources determine the facts, not speculation.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Perhaps the accurate way of addressing the topic is to say technically that, a non-polluting electrical source that feeds the New England grid will avoid the equivalent amount of electricity from other sources. Its simply the law of physics.... you can’t store electrical energy on the transmission grid.
By the bidding rules of ISO NE the most expensive generated electricity (from oil) will be bumped off the bid stack and not be dispatched. The amount of emissions (CO2, SO2, and NOx) reduced are calculated from the ISO NE marginal emission rate schedule.
Based on ISO data and according to the findings of the MA Energy Facility Siting Board in their 2004 decision under Governor Romney: “The Siting Board finds that in the near term, operation of the wind farm would reduce regional air emissions by approximately 4,480 tons of SO2, 1,323 tons of NOx, and 1,062,554 tons of CO2 annually” p. 168.
Let’s let authoritative sources determine the facts, not speculation.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: God forbid it's "awesome" here
In response to: God forbid it's "awesome" here
Jack, thanks for the wrap-up of the Danish experience. As another participant in the investigative trips let me testify that indeed the Danish Parliament did not notify the local mayors of adjacent communities of the world’s two largest offshore windfarms before the decision to proceed was made.
What the Danish Parliament did do was to choose locations that Mother Nature provided to ensure the economic viability of these projects with no construction subsidies. And that was to use the 5 basic criteria of: high wind resources, shallow water for low cost construction, location near transmission facilities, low wave height protected waters, and out of commercial shipping lanes and aircraft instrument approaches.
Indeed those technical criteria are precisely what drive the technical and economic viability considerations of siting any offshore windfarm be it in Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, England, or New England. The most economic sites are first chosen; more expensive alternative sites await better economic and risk tradeoffs.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
What the Danish Parliament did do was to choose locations that Mother Nature provided to ensure the economic viability of these projects with no construction subsidies. And that was to use the 5 basic criteria of: high wind resources, shallow water for low cost construction, location near transmission facilities, low wave height protected waters, and out of commercial shipping lanes and aircraft instrument approaches.
Indeed those technical criteria are precisely what drive the technical and economic viability considerations of siting any offshore windfarm be it in Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, England, or New England. The most economic sites are first chosen; more expensive alternative sites await better economic and risk tradeoffs.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: The sky is falling, the sky is falling, windmills in the briny !
In response to: The sky is falling, the sky is falling, windmills in the briny !
Let’s hear it for the Brits!
Apparently they can navigate ships down the Black Deep channel to foggy London in the busy Thames Estuary where the edge of the London Array windfarm will run parallel to the channel for about four miles just 400 yards from channel edge buoys No. 4 and 6. Of course, the wind turbines will provide a better navigational aid. Our Coast Guard will take note.
It seems the Brits are running out of North Sea oil and gas and would rather have wind than coal or nuclear since they have a choice.
Let’s see.... they have 4 offshore wind farms operational now built since 2003 and six more under construction this year and next.
And here we fuss about the view of our first. America can’t even get started. We should be so smart!
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Apparently they can navigate ships down the Black Deep channel to foggy London in the busy Thames Estuary where the edge of the London Array windfarm will run parallel to the channel for about four miles just 400 yards from channel edge buoys No. 4 and 6. Of course, the wind turbines will provide a better navigational aid. Our Coast Guard will take note.
It seems the Brits are running out of North Sea oil and gas and would rather have wind than coal or nuclear since they have a choice.
Let’s see.... they have 4 offshore wind farms operational now built since 2003 and six more under construction this year and next.
And here we fuss about the view of our first. America can’t even get started. We should be so smart!
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Which state produces the most wind power?
In response to: Which state produces the most wind power?
Neil,
Following are data from the US Dept. of Energy Analysis, June 6, 2004, Exhibit III, for one year on a monthly basis starting in Apr of 03, with the Capacity Factor (CP) based on full load of 454 MW.
Apr 03 150,390 MWh, CP 46.0%
May 03 108,910 MWh, CP 32.2%
Jun 03 49,267 MWh, CP 15.1%
Jul 03 109,517 MWh, CP 32.4%
Aug 03 112,952 MWh, CP 33.4%
Sep 03 89,717 MWh, CP 27.4%
Oct 03 148,365 MWh, CP 43.9%
Nov 03 145,959 MWh, CP 44.6%
Dec 03 219,112 MWh, CP 64.8%
Jan 04 212,333 MWh, CP 62.8%
Feb.04 146,670 MWh, CP 48.1%
Mar 04 198,067 MWh, CP 58.6%
Total: 1,691,261 MWh, CP 42.5% over a year
If you would like the hour by hour for the 3 day cold snap of 2004, it’s in Exhibit II. Too long to reproduce here.
You will note the wind resource is best in the winter, least in the summer. And the total can vary from year-to-year by 20% or so.
Current wind data is on the Cape Wind site updated every 10 minutes. One could write a program to record that data.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Following are data from the US Dept. of Energy Analysis, June 6, 2004, Exhibit III, for one year on a monthly basis starting in Apr of 03, with the Capacity Factor (CP) based on full load of 454 MW.
Apr 03 150,390 MWh, CP 46.0%
May 03 108,910 MWh, CP 32.2%
Jun 03 49,267 MWh, CP 15.1%
Jul 03 109,517 MWh, CP 32.4%
Aug 03 112,952 MWh, CP 33.4%
Sep 03 89,717 MWh, CP 27.4%
Oct 03 148,365 MWh, CP 43.9%
Nov 03 145,959 MWh, CP 44.6%
Dec 03 219,112 MWh, CP 64.8%
Jan 04 212,333 MWh, CP 62.8%
Feb.04 146,670 MWh, CP 48.1%
Mar 04 198,067 MWh, CP 58.6%
Total: 1,691,261 MWh, CP 42.5% over a year
If you would like the hour by hour for the 3 day cold snap of 2004, it’s in Exhibit II. Too long to reproduce here.
You will note the wind resource is best in the winter, least in the summer. And the total can vary from year-to-year by 20% or so.
Current wind data is on the Cape Wind site updated every 10 minutes. One could write a program to record that data.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Which state produces the most wind power?
In response to: Which state produces the most wind power?
Capri,
Engineers deal in data, like that collected from the met tower in the Sound and in performance curves for turbines like those from GE.
This leads to predictions of power that would have been produced by Cape Wind at any point in time over the last three years. That data shows the annual average production is over 40% of the rated capacity. For the summer months, like July 2003 it would have been 32% and in December 64%. Outstanding for a wind farm. [data from: US Dept. of Energy Analysis, June 6, 2004]. Outstanding for a wind farm.
To quote an old statistician: “Those with the data have the facts, others have an opinion.”
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Engineers deal in data, like that collected from the met tower in the Sound and in performance curves for turbines like those from GE.
This leads to predictions of power that would have been produced by Cape Wind at any point in time over the last three years. That data shows the annual average production is over 40% of the rated capacity. For the summer months, like July 2003 it would have been 32% and in December 64%. Outstanding for a wind farm. [data from: US Dept. of Energy Analysis, June 6, 2004]. Outstanding for a wind farm.
To quote an old statistician: “Those with the data have the facts, others have an opinion.”
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Which state produces the most wind power?
In response to: Which state produces the most wind power?
Capri,
Again, you are welcome to your opinion, but not to change facts.
And the fact is that Cape Wind would have provided significant power, 236 MW, during the record hot day in August as well as significant power over the last 5 highest demand days in summer heat.
In addition, during the cold snap of 2004, Cape Wind would have delivered an average of 369 MW per hour in that period. [Ref. U.S. Dept. of Energy report, June 6, 2004.]
With respect to electricity offset by wind, it never has to be made up again, it’s history. Oil not burned is oil saved.
AS for backup we have in MA huge back up from pumped storage plants (Northfield Mountain 1,080 MW and Bear Swamp, 570 MW) and peaker plants and gas turbine plants already in place to step in, if for example, Pilgrim Nuclear goes off line or the wind temporarily dies. These merchant power plants can offer 10 minute spinning reserve and/or 30 minute spinning reserve now. ISO calls this contingency planning.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Again, you are welcome to your opinion, but not to change facts.
And the fact is that Cape Wind would have provided significant power, 236 MW, during the record hot day in August as well as significant power over the last 5 highest demand days in summer heat.
In addition, during the cold snap of 2004, Cape Wind would have delivered an average of 369 MW per hour in that period. [Ref. U.S. Dept. of Energy report, June 6, 2004.]
With respect to electricity offset by wind, it never has to be made up again, it’s history. Oil not burned is oil saved.
AS for backup we have in MA huge back up from pumped storage plants (Northfield Mountain 1,080 MW and Bear Swamp, 570 MW) and peaker plants and gas turbine plants already in place to step in, if for example, Pilgrim Nuclear goes off line or the wind temporarily dies. These merchant power plants can offer 10 minute spinning reserve and/or 30 minute spinning reserve now. ISO calls this contingency planning.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Which state produces the most wind power?
In response to: Which state produces the most wind power?
A note to Seneca,
Mirant canal produces some 6 million MWh of electrical energy a year. The wind farm will produce about 1.5 million MWh a year, equivalent to about one-quarter of the Canal plant output. The Canal plant consumes about 8 million barrels of 1% sulfur residual fuel oil a year.
Therefore, the wind power will replace about 2 million barrels of oil a year, whether it is burned in the Canal plant or oil fired units at Brayton, or Salem Harbor. They all have about the same heat rate (efficiency).
Bouchard barge #120, typical of their barges, delivers 120,000 barrels of oil. [note 1 barrel equals 42 gallons].
This offset of 2 million barrels a year is equivalent to the reduction of about 17 barge loads into our area every year.
No one has ever said the wind farm will close the Canal plant, but it certainly will reduce its, and others, output, hence their need for barged oil.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Mirant canal produces some 6 million MWh of electrical energy a year. The wind farm will produce about 1.5 million MWh a year, equivalent to about one-quarter of the Canal plant output. The Canal plant consumes about 8 million barrels of 1% sulfur residual fuel oil a year.
Therefore, the wind power will replace about 2 million barrels of oil a year, whether it is burned in the Canal plant or oil fired units at Brayton, or Salem Harbor. They all have about the same heat rate (efficiency).
Bouchard barge #120, typical of their barges, delivers 120,000 barrels of oil. [note 1 barrel equals 42 gallons].
This offset of 2 million barrels a year is equivalent to the reduction of about 17 barge loads into our area every year.
No one has ever said the wind farm will close the Canal plant, but it certainly will reduce its, and others, output, hence their need for barged oil.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Which state produces the most wind power?
In response to: Which state produces the most wind power?
Capri,
You may have your opinion and that’s fine.
However, the fact is that the most expensively produced electricity is that from oil fueled plants like Canal, Brayton Point #4, and Salem Harbor #4.
The oil fuel cost alone is 7 cents/kWh placing it on the top of the ISO NE bid stack. When wind power, or for that matter hydro power, is bid in at zero fuel cost, it will always bump the most expensive bidder off the top, again that’s oil generated electricity. So wind power will replace the equivalent amount of oil produced power.
And just how is that oil delivered? Another fact, by barge.
And you still don’t think wind will reduce that oil consumption? Hence diminish the shipment by barge and the possibility of another moving vessel oil spill?
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
You may have your opinion and that’s fine.
However, the fact is that the most expensively produced electricity is that from oil fueled plants like Canal, Brayton Point #4, and Salem Harbor #4.
The oil fuel cost alone is 7 cents/kWh placing it on the top of the ISO NE bid stack. When wind power, or for that matter hydro power, is bid in at zero fuel cost, it will always bump the most expensive bidder off the top, again that’s oil generated electricity. So wind power will replace the equivalent amount of oil produced power.
And just how is that oil delivered? Another fact, by barge.
And you still don’t think wind will reduce that oil consumption? Hence diminish the shipment by barge and the possibility of another moving vessel oil spill?
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Which state produces the most wind power?
In response to: Which state produces the most wind power?
Here are some interesting oil spill facts in our neighborhood.
Nearly 1.6 billion gallons of oil is barged through the canal each year [Ref CCT 4/29/03]
13 oil spills since 1969. Most significant...
4/27/03 Bouchard Barge to Canal plant for your electricity, 98,000 gal. residual fuel oil.
July 2000, Tug and barge collide, Narragansett Bay, 14,000 gal.
Feb, 97, Fishing boat leaked, Woods Hole, 2,000 gal.
1/19/96, Grounded Fuel Barge, Point Judith, RI, 828,000 gal.
1/10/90, Grounding of Bermuda Star cruise ship, Buzzards Bay, 7,500 gal.
12/21/79, Argo Merchant tanker breakup, 25 mi. southwest Nantucket, 7.7 million gal.
10/10/74, Bouchard Barge, Buzzards Bay, 37,000 gal.
9/16/69, Barge Florida, West Falmouth Harbor, 189,000 gal.
Offshore windfarms in Europe since 1991, no oil spilled.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Nearly 1.6 billion gallons of oil is barged through the canal each year [Ref CCT 4/29/03]
13 oil spills since 1969. Most significant...
4/27/03 Bouchard Barge to Canal plant for your electricity, 98,000 gal. residual fuel oil.
July 2000, Tug and barge collide, Narragansett Bay, 14,000 gal.
Feb, 97, Fishing boat leaked, Woods Hole, 2,000 gal.
1/19/96, Grounded Fuel Barge, Point Judith, RI, 828,000 gal.
1/10/90, Grounding of Bermuda Star cruise ship, Buzzards Bay, 7,500 gal.
12/21/79, Argo Merchant tanker breakup, 25 mi. southwest Nantucket, 7.7 million gal.
10/10/74, Bouchard Barge, Buzzards Bay, 37,000 gal.
9/16/69, Barge Florida, West Falmouth Harbor, 189,000 gal.
Offshore windfarms in Europe since 1991, no oil spilled.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Coming soon to a bookstore near you ...
In response to: Coming soon to a bookstore near you ...
Neil,
You are certainly welcome to your opinion. And yes we disagree. I’d rather cast my lot with the consensus of the world’s leading scientists so vividly expressed in Al Gore’s documentary. We’ll never agree on this one. So be it. Dialog is great, but no use exploring this point further.
Regards,
Chuck K.
You are certainly welcome to your opinion. And yes we disagree. I’d rather cast my lot with the consensus of the world’s leading scientists so vividly expressed in Al Gore’s documentary. We’ll never agree on this one. So be it. Dialog is great, but no use exploring this point further.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Report: Little harm from offshore wind farms in Denmark
In response to: Report: Little harm from offshore wind farms in Denmark
A note to Ms. Durkin,
Many folks think that Nantucket Sound is a pristine body of water, both above and below the surface. Allow me to comment on an industry that ravages the bottom right now.
According to the Harwich harbormaster there are about 12 hydraulic dredges that operate in the Sound. What’s that? You ask.
A hydraulic dredge, sometimes called a scallop dredge, is a bottom trawling vessel that pulls a stern dredge and pumps 6,000 gallons/minute at 125 PSI down an 8-inch hose to a manifold of nozzles that fluidizes the bottom up to a foot in depth and 10-feet wide with a cutting bar to uproot and capture shellfish.
Sonar show dredge tracks in lazy figure 8’s all over the bottom. These dredges operate at 2 to 3 MPH and make tracks hundreds of miles long every year.
Do you think that fluidizing the bottom by these dredges will disturb that ancient landscape?
And that WWII torpedo brought up by a dragger of Provincetown? Do they have permits from the Arch. Lab. to do that?
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, p.E. Ret.
Many folks think that Nantucket Sound is a pristine body of water, both above and below the surface. Allow me to comment on an industry that ravages the bottom right now.
According to the Harwich harbormaster there are about 12 hydraulic dredges that operate in the Sound. What’s that? You ask.
A hydraulic dredge, sometimes called a scallop dredge, is a bottom trawling vessel that pulls a stern dredge and pumps 6,000 gallons/minute at 125 PSI down an 8-inch hose to a manifold of nozzles that fluidizes the bottom up to a foot in depth and 10-feet wide with a cutting bar to uproot and capture shellfish.
Sonar show dredge tracks in lazy figure 8’s all over the bottom. These dredges operate at 2 to 3 MPH and make tracks hundreds of miles long every year.
Do you think that fluidizing the bottom by these dredges will disturb that ancient landscape?
And that WWII torpedo brought up by a dragger of Provincetown? Do they have permits from the Arch. Lab. to do that?
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, p.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Coming soon to a bookstore near you ...
In response to: Coming soon to a bookstore near you ...
Despite the anti-wind press (there’s one in every country) on Scroby Sands, Jason Scagell, Director of E.ON UK Renewables, said: “we had to carry out an extensive programme of modifications but, despite that, the wind farm still generated 153GWh, which is around 90% of our forecast annual output. We are very happy with Scroby's performance.”
Since Cape Wind issued its ENF in 2001, 11 offshore windfarms have been built in Northern Europe and 7 more are under construction at present totaling 1,500 megawatts of offshore capacity. In addition, over 27 more are under consent application or licensed.
Europe is concerned about global warming, energy independence and sustainability.
And here we sit fussing about the view. America, wake up and catch up with the rest of the world! It’s no laughing matter.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Since Cape Wind issued its ENF in 2001, 11 offshore windfarms have been built in Northern Europe and 7 more are under construction at present totaling 1,500 megawatts of offshore capacity. In addition, over 27 more are under consent application or licensed.
Europe is concerned about global warming, energy independence and sustainability.
And here we sit fussing about the view. America, wake up and catch up with the rest of the world! It’s no laughing matter.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Report: Little harm from offshore wind farms in Denmark
In response to: Report: Little harm from offshore wind farms in Denmark
On a Pristine Sound.
Many folks think that Nantucket Sound is a pristine body of water, both above and below the surface. Allow me to comment on an industry that ravages the bottom right now.
According to the Harwich harbormaster there are about 12 hydraulic dredges that operate in the Sound. What’s that? You ask.
A hydraulic dredge, sometimes called a scallop dredge, is a bottom trawling vessel that pulls a stern dredge and pumps 6,000 gallons/minute at 125 PSI down an 8-inch hose to a manifold of nozzles that fluidizes the bottom up to a foot in depth and 10-feet wide with a cutting bar to uproot and capture the shellfish. I wonder if squid like that?
Side scan sonar shows the dredge tracks in lazy figure 8’s all over the bottom. These dredges operate at 2 to 3 MPH and make tracks hundreds of miles long every year.
Most don’t like to criticize fishermen. It’s a hard life looking for diminishing resources. But I don’t see the Alliance to Protect mentioning this industry.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Many folks think that Nantucket Sound is a pristine body of water, both above and below the surface. Allow me to comment on an industry that ravages the bottom right now.
According to the Harwich harbormaster there are about 12 hydraulic dredges that operate in the Sound. What’s that? You ask.
A hydraulic dredge, sometimes called a scallop dredge, is a bottom trawling vessel that pulls a stern dredge and pumps 6,000 gallons/minute at 125 PSI down an 8-inch hose to a manifold of nozzles that fluidizes the bottom up to a foot in depth and 10-feet wide with a cutting bar to uproot and capture the shellfish. I wonder if squid like that?
Side scan sonar shows the dredge tracks in lazy figure 8’s all over the bottom. These dredges operate at 2 to 3 MPH and make tracks hundreds of miles long every year.
Most don’t like to criticize fishermen. It’s a hard life looking for diminishing resources. But I don’t see the Alliance to Protect mentioning this industry.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Report: Little harm from offshore wind farms in Denmark
In response to: Report: Little harm from offshore wind farms in Denmark
A comment on Nantucket Shoals as an alternative.
This area was examined in the Army Corps DEIS, (pg ref below).
The facts are:
1. The maximum wave height on Nantucket Shoals are 65 feet (p. 3-34) compared to 17 feet on Nantucket Sound. (p. 3-35). This makes serviceability difficult to say the least (especially in the winter) and is additional stress on the structure. This means more risk and less return on investment.
2. The transmission line on Nantucket Shoals will have to be over 40 miles long (p. 3-34). This would necessitate a very expensive DC transmission system (much more expensive for example than the Cross Sound Cable between CT and Long Island... and that one is 300 MW, 24 miles long, cost $150 million in 2002). Now it would be in the neighborhood of $400 million. This is compared to the cost of the cable from Horseshoe Shoal, 15 miles at about $70 million.
3. The presence of a high concentration of whales on Nantucket Shoals. (p. 3-34) No so on Horseshoe Shoal.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
This area was examined in the Army Corps DEIS, (pg ref below).
The facts are:
1. The maximum wave height on Nantucket Shoals are 65 feet (p. 3-34) compared to 17 feet on Nantucket Sound. (p. 3-35). This makes serviceability difficult to say the least (especially in the winter) and is additional stress on the structure. This means more risk and less return on investment.
2. The transmission line on Nantucket Shoals will have to be over 40 miles long (p. 3-34). This would necessitate a very expensive DC transmission system (much more expensive for example than the Cross Sound Cable between CT and Long Island... and that one is 300 MW, 24 miles long, cost $150 million in 2002). Now it would be in the neighborhood of $400 million. This is compared to the cost of the cable from Horseshoe Shoal, 15 miles at about $70 million.
3. The presence of a high concentration of whales on Nantucket Shoals. (p. 3-34) No so on Horseshoe Shoal.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Report: Little harm from offshore wind farms in Denmark
In response to: Report: Little harm from offshore wind farms in Denmark
To Neil Good,
In response to you questions of 12/06/06 @ 8:19 am.
I have no idea if the Greenlander’s saga matches the description of Nantucket Sound. I wasn’t with them.
As to you question on not may places like NS?
Since you ask for an opinion, mine is that every ocean view is exquisite, whether it be from Osterville, Gloucester, off New Hampshire toward the Isles of Shoals,. Buzzards, Bay, etc.
That is unlike terrestrial views like the Grand Canyon or Mt. Rushmore. Each of those are unique and different.
Allow me to paraphrase and old nursery rhyme?
“Window, Window, on the wall...
Who’s view is most expensive of all?”
I expect the answer to that is the view from Osterville and Newport, RI.
If the windfarm were to be put in Buzzards Bay off Fairhaven I suspect the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound would be very happy.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
In response to you questions of 12/06/06 @ 8:19 am.
I have no idea if the Greenlander’s saga matches the description of Nantucket Sound. I wasn’t with them.
As to you question on not may places like NS?
Since you ask for an opinion, mine is that every ocean view is exquisite, whether it be from Osterville, Gloucester, off New Hampshire toward the Isles of Shoals,. Buzzards, Bay, etc.
That is unlike terrestrial views like the Grand Canyon or Mt. Rushmore. Each of those are unique and different.
Allow me to paraphrase and old nursery rhyme?
“Window, Window, on the wall...
Who’s view is most expensive of all?”
I expect the answer to that is the view from Osterville and Newport, RI.
If the windfarm were to be put in Buzzards Bay off Fairhaven I suspect the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound would be very happy.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Report: Little harm from offshore wind farms in Denmark
In response to: Report: Little harm from offshore wind farms in Denmark
A note to fcuta14
You may want to refer to my blog “Footnotes” posted here on 07/31/06
Titled “The Allure of Deepwater Wind Power”
An excerpt...
The technical viability and economic practicality [of deepwater wind] lay somewhere in the future. The question is how far in the future? And what must be done to get there? And must we wait?
Compared to conventional shallow water offshore windfarms that cost about $2 million per MW installed, the fixed-pile four-leged foundation Talisman project at $5.8 million per MW is almost three times as expensive and prohibitively uneconomical in the near term.
In a cautious statement Talisman Energy has said “current forecasts for electricity prices will never render this Demonstrator Project economic. It is an R&D project, not a commercial one, and as such requires public sector funding in order to proceed.” Furthermore, they say it is impossible, at this stage to give any definitive answer regarding the go ahead for the commercialization of this project “but it certainly should not be regarded as inevitable.”
C. Kleekamp
You may want to refer to my blog “Footnotes” posted here on 07/31/06
Titled “The Allure of Deepwater Wind Power”
An excerpt...
The technical viability and economic practicality [of deepwater wind] lay somewhere in the future. The question is how far in the future? And what must be done to get there? And must we wait?
Compared to conventional shallow water offshore windfarms that cost about $2 million per MW installed, the fixed-pile four-leged foundation Talisman project at $5.8 million per MW is almost three times as expensive and prohibitively uneconomical in the near term.
In a cautious statement Talisman Energy has said “current forecasts for electricity prices will never render this Demonstrator Project economic. It is an R&D project, not a commercial one, and as such requires public sector funding in order to proceed.” Furthermore, they say it is impossible, at this stage to give any definitive answer regarding the go ahead for the commercialization of this project “but it certainly should not be regarded as inevitable.”
C. Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Report: Little harm from offshore wind farms in Denmark
In response to: Report: Little harm from offshore wind farms in Denmark
Barbara,
In a midnight discussion, do you think any of our professional captains would ever fly into the Copenhagen Airport or navigate a large vessel into Copenhagen Harbor? After all, there are 20 very large wind turbines smack in the middle of the Harbor a mile from shore and four miles from the airport. They don’t call it Middelgrunden for nothing. Nary a one has been hit yet.
Or do you think the Danish pilots on Iceland Air are just a bunch of cavalier Norsemen coming home from a foreign quest? Been there a couple of times myself. Seems safe enough for me. How about you?
Regards,
Chuck K.
In a midnight discussion, do you think any of our professional captains would ever fly into the Copenhagen Airport or navigate a large vessel into Copenhagen Harbor? After all, there are 20 very large wind turbines smack in the middle of the Harbor a mile from shore and four miles from the airport. They don’t call it Middelgrunden for nothing. Nary a one has been hit yet.
Or do you think the Danish pilots on Iceland Air are just a bunch of cavalier Norsemen coming home from a foreign quest? Been there a couple of times myself. Seems safe enough for me. How about you?
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Report: Little harm from offshore wind farms in Denmark
In response to: Report: Little harm from offshore wind farms in Denmark
With respect to energy efficiency. Absolutely important! But I don’t think realistically its going to turn the tide. As long as gasoline is priced as low as bottled water folks are going to burn it like water. And unless the price of electricity is doubled, same attitude.
So what’s your solution to increasing demand for electricity? Unless you think you are in Utopia, ever more is going to be required... listen to what ISO NE is telling you. Rolling blackouts or build more coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear or would you choose wind power? Your choice.
Energy independence? In NE 24% of generating capacity is from oil fired plants, 35% from natural gas.
The U.S. reached peak oil production in 1973, likewise natural gas. Now U.S. imports 60% of our oil and 24% of our gas... from you know who.
The cost of fuel alone is about 6 cents/kWh for oil generated electricity (i.e., Canal plant) and about 5 cents for gas generated electricity. Coal and nuclear: about 2 cents/kWh.
So who do you think gets backed off when wind power comes on line?
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
So what’s your solution to increasing demand for electricity? Unless you think you are in Utopia, ever more is going to be required... listen to what ISO NE is telling you. Rolling blackouts or build more coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear or would you choose wind power? Your choice.
Energy independence? In NE 24% of generating capacity is from oil fired plants, 35% from natural gas.
The U.S. reached peak oil production in 1973, likewise natural gas. Now U.S. imports 60% of our oil and 24% of our gas... from you know who.
The cost of fuel alone is about 6 cents/kWh for oil generated electricity (i.e., Canal plant) and about 5 cents for gas generated electricity. Coal and nuclear: about 2 cents/kWh.
So who do you think gets backed off when wind power comes on line?
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Report: Little harm from offshore wind farms in Denmark
In response to: Report: Little harm from offshore wind farms in Denmark
Folks,
Lets not get all worked up over personal opinions about the perceived threats to the environment by the Cape Wind project. Be patient. Any fatal flaws will show up in the Mineral Management Service Environmental Impact Report reasonably soon and the wind farm will simply not be permitted if so determined. Likewise with FAA and the Coast Guard findings.
However, when compared to the favorable Danish experience and the other northern European countries (12 operating offshore wind farms and another half-dozen under construction), I suspect there will be no fatal flaws found here and the permitting will go inexorable on. But that’s just my personal opinion.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Lets not get all worked up over personal opinions about the perceived threats to the environment by the Cape Wind project. Be patient. Any fatal flaws will show up in the Mineral Management Service Environmental Impact Report reasonably soon and the wind farm will simply not be permitted if so determined. Likewise with FAA and the Coast Guard findings.
However, when compared to the favorable Danish experience and the other northern European countries (12 operating offshore wind farms and another half-dozen under construction), I suspect there will be no fatal flaws found here and the permitting will go inexorable on. But that’s just my personal opinion.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Cod helps the Democrats sweep the state
In response to: Cape Cod helps the Democrats sweep the state
A note to Yarmouth Taxpayer
I’ll not speculate on the outcome of future Yarmouth town meetings or the legality of canceling an existing contract without due cause. That’s best left to an attorney.
Certainly you are welcome to your opinion on “giving up the beauty” of Nantucket Sound. And I respect that.
However, the fact remains that the windfarm is in federal waters that belong to all of us. Let me share with you my opinion that these majestic images of grace and power on the distant horizon will provide the majority of electric power for Cape Cod while easing the import of oil and avoiding significant CO2 emissions from fossil fueled plants among many other benefits.
So it seems like the visual aspect is an intractable argument.
In any case the public will be compensated with a federal lease of which 27% will go to the Commonwealth. This is the price Cape Wind will pay for the use of the site for some 20 years or so. It seems like a better choice than the other options for a significant part of our power and energy independence.
Regards, Chuck Kleekamp
I’ll not speculate on the outcome of future Yarmouth town meetings or the legality of canceling an existing contract without due cause. That’s best left to an attorney.
Certainly you are welcome to your opinion on “giving up the beauty” of Nantucket Sound. And I respect that.
However, the fact remains that the windfarm is in federal waters that belong to all of us. Let me share with you my opinion that these majestic images of grace and power on the distant horizon will provide the majority of electric power for Cape Cod while easing the import of oil and avoiding significant CO2 emissions from fossil fueled plants among many other benefits.
So it seems like the visual aspect is an intractable argument.
In any case the public will be compensated with a federal lease of which 27% will go to the Commonwealth. This is the price Cape Wind will pay for the use of the site for some 20 years or so. It seems like a better choice than the other options for a significant part of our power and energy independence.
Regards, Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Cod helps the Democrats sweep the state
In response to: Cape Cod helps the Democrats sweep the state
The Yarmouth Taxpayer notes that: “It is up the Yarmouth or Barnstable where the cable is laid to hook up the supposed wind farm. The Yarmouth Board Selectmen is still on record against the Wind Farm.”
It should be noted that on July 25, 2003 a 20-year Host Community Agreement with the Town of Yarmouth was signed (certainly not publicized by the selectmen at the time) with Cape Wind for rights to build the landfall transmission line under the streets to the substation.
For this privilege Cape Wind will pay some $9.5 million to the town of Yarmouth. Of that $6.7 million is for taxes and $2.6 million is a charitable gift for good works for seniors, youth, low-income residents, and education.
Cape Wind is indeed a good neighbor. It looks like a land-fall in Yarmouth is certain.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E., Ret.
It should be noted that on July 25, 2003 a 20-year Host Community Agreement with the Town of Yarmouth was signed (certainly not publicized by the selectmen at the time) with Cape Wind for rights to build the landfall transmission line under the streets to the substation.
For this privilege Cape Wind will pay some $9.5 million to the town of Yarmouth. Of that $6.7 million is for taxes and $2.6 million is a charitable gift for good works for seniors, youth, low-income residents, and education.
Cape Wind is indeed a good neighbor. It looks like a land-fall in Yarmouth is certain.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E., Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: That which does not kill me...
In response to: That which does not kill me...
Ahhh... but for the grace and power of those wings in the sky....
Chuck K.
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: That which does not kill me...
In response to: That which does not kill me...
Dear Monponsett,
Welcome back! What a story. It seems nothing can keep a spunky gal like you out for long.
Now that we’re over the political blogs we can get back to building the windfarm. It seems considerably easier now that we have support from the State House. Looking forward to your feisty and humorous comments with a smile.
By the way, where’s that beautiful windmill? I wonder what the Alliance ancestors had to say about it.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Welcome back! What a story. It seems nothing can keep a spunky gal like you out for long.
Now that we’re over the political blogs we can get back to building the windfarm. It seems considerably easier now that we have support from the State House. Looking forward to your feisty and humorous comments with a smile.
By the way, where’s that beautiful windmill? I wonder what the Alliance ancestors had to say about it.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: The Kennedys are leaving Hyannisport.
In response to: The Kennedys are leaving Hyannisport.
Capri,
I measure all things (well most things) by the future prospects for the America.
It’s not just one wind farm, it’s the goal of energy independence and sustainability of which this wind farm will help unlock with the many that will follow. We have little time to waste in reducing large quantities of carbon emissions. Utility scale wind power is the most cost effective way to avoid those emissions now for the electrical generation needs of New England and the country. This one windfarm will open the way and set the policy for all to come.
No other issue, technically or politically, is as serious as global warming and energy independence.
Regards,
Chuck K.
I measure all things (well most things) by the future prospects for the America.
It’s not just one wind farm, it’s the goal of energy independence and sustainability of which this wind farm will help unlock with the many that will follow. We have little time to waste in reducing large quantities of carbon emissions. Utility scale wind power is the most cost effective way to avoid those emissions now for the electrical generation needs of New England and the country. This one windfarm will open the way and set the policy for all to come.
No other issue, technically or politically, is as serious as global warming and energy independence.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: The Kennedys are leaving Hyannisport.
In response to: The Kennedys are leaving Hyannisport.
Jack,
Thanks for the thoughtful article.
It is kind of sad to see a family that contributed so much to the greatness of America spiral down to the ordinary at best.
From President Kennedy who picked us up in the race to the moon after Russia’s frightful lead into space...
to Senator Kennedy’s attempted torpedoing of America’s first offshore windfarm following Europe’s 15 year lead with more than 14 operational and 7 under construction.
Hopefully, Senator Kennedy will change his mind when he realizes the potential Deval Patrick will bring to regain a leadership role in renewable energy for Massachusetts and America.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Thanks for the thoughtful article.
It is kind of sad to see a family that contributed so much to the greatness of America spiral down to the ordinary at best.
From President Kennedy who picked us up in the race to the moon after Russia’s frightful lead into space...
to Senator Kennedy’s attempted torpedoing of America’s first offshore windfarm following Europe’s 15 year lead with more than 14 operational and 7 under construction.
Hopefully, Senator Kennedy will change his mind when he realizes the potential Deval Patrick will bring to regain a leadership role in renewable energy for Massachusetts and America.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Invisible Structures
In response to: Invisible Structures
Barbara,
No one, not even Jim Gordon, can predict exactly what the lowered price will be when the wind farm is constructed in the future. It depends on world events, meaning the price of steel for the monopoles, the price of the turbines, price of labor to install, the price of competitive oil and gas generated electricity, etc, etc. Do you have such a crystal ball? If you do, you ought to be a millionaire!
In any case, Cape Wind will ALWAYS be cheaper than the wholesale clearing price at ISO NE or it won’t get dispatched (sold). Thus it will always lower the price to the consumer presuming the middleman retailer (who buys the wind power like NStar) passes along the savings to the end user.
That’s the way the system works. Period. Furthermore, wind power will tend to stabilize that wholesale price because the cost of fuel is zero, unlike oil and natural gas.
And there is no PTC for wind after Dec. 31, 2007 (see the energy bill). No way can it be built by then. Hence there is no PTC incentive for Cape Wind.
Regards,
Chuck K.
No one, not even Jim Gordon, can predict exactly what the lowered price will be when the wind farm is constructed in the future. It depends on world events, meaning the price of steel for the monopoles, the price of the turbines, price of labor to install, the price of competitive oil and gas generated electricity, etc, etc. Do you have such a crystal ball? If you do, you ought to be a millionaire!
In any case, Cape Wind will ALWAYS be cheaper than the wholesale clearing price at ISO NE or it won’t get dispatched (sold). Thus it will always lower the price to the consumer presuming the middleman retailer (who buys the wind power like NStar) passes along the savings to the end user.
That’s the way the system works. Period. Furthermore, wind power will tend to stabilize that wholesale price because the cost of fuel is zero, unlike oil and natural gas.
And there is no PTC for wind after Dec. 31, 2007 (see the energy bill). No way can it be built by then. Hence there is no PTC incentive for Cape Wind.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Invisible Structures
In response to: Invisible Structures
Barbara,
Regardless of the generating plant's costs (like the wind farm or a hydro plant), bidders above the clearing price don’t get dispatched by ISO NE. Therefore, the price to all retail electrical sellers will be less when anybody underbids the clearing price.
From ISO NE: “The ISO dispatches generators in the region starting from the lowest-priced bids (this includes generators that bid $0, such as hydro units and nuclear units) and progressing to higher-priced bids (i.e., gas-fired generating units), until New England has enough generation to meet consumers’ demand for electricity.”
Wind, like hydro will be bid in at $0. Therefore it cannot possibly increase the cost to the retail distributor.
As for Koch comment on subsidies, there are no federal subsidies to construct wind farms. The production tax credit incentive expires in 2007.
And without sufficient renewable energy available, the retail sellers must make alternative payments of some $53 per MWh that IS passed on to you. The wind farm will lower these REC costs, a savings for you and I.
Chuck K.
Regardless of the generating plant's costs (like the wind farm or a hydro plant), bidders above the clearing price don’t get dispatched by ISO NE. Therefore, the price to all retail electrical sellers will be less when anybody underbids the clearing price.
From ISO NE: “The ISO dispatches generators in the region starting from the lowest-priced bids (this includes generators that bid $0, such as hydro units and nuclear units) and progressing to higher-priced bids (i.e., gas-fired generating units), until New England has enough generation to meet consumers’ demand for electricity.”
Wind, like hydro will be bid in at $0. Therefore it cannot possibly increase the cost to the retail distributor.
As for Koch comment on subsidies, there are no federal subsidies to construct wind farms. The production tax credit incentive expires in 2007.
And without sufficient renewable energy available, the retail sellers must make alternative payments of some $53 per MWh that IS passed on to you. The wind farm will lower these REC costs, a savings for you and I.
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Invisible Structures
In response to: Invisible Structures
A note to Barbara Durkin
You are certainly welcome to your own opinion. But not welcome to make up “facts”.
Can you substantiate how Cape Wind will increase our electric bill by $400 a year?
Especially in the face of the fact that Cape Wind, like any merchant power plant, can’t sell their power at a price greater than the clearing price for most expensive electricity bid into the open market stack at ISO NE.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
You are certainly welcome to your own opinion. But not welcome to make up “facts”.
Can you substantiate how Cape Wind will increase our electric bill by $400 a year?
Especially in the face of the fact that Cape Wind, like any merchant power plant, can’t sell their power at a price greater than the clearing price for most expensive electricity bid into the open market stack at ISO NE.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Wind increases output, reduces lights
In response to: Cape Wind increases output, reduces lights
Neil,
I may have preferred a house in Osterville overlooking the beautiful Nantucket Sound and the potential of an exquisite view of an offshore windfarm five miles away, but I couldn’t afford the 3 million dollar price tag.
But I am very happy in Sandwich, thank you. It’s up to all of us to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and gas as well as to do all we can to reduce power plant emissions and insure a sustainable future.
Regards,
Chuck K.
I may have preferred a house in Osterville overlooking the beautiful Nantucket Sound and the potential of an exquisite view of an offshore windfarm five miles away, but I couldn’t afford the 3 million dollar price tag.
But I am very happy in Sandwich, thank you. It’s up to all of us to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and gas as well as to do all we can to reduce power plant emissions and insure a sustainable future.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Wind increases output, reduces lights
In response to: Cape Wind increases output, reduces lights
One could even cover the stack with a paint that makes it invisible (yes that’s silly). But how do you stop the emissions coming out of it?
Regards,
Chuck K.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Wind increases output, reduces lights
In response to: Cape Wind increases output, reduces lights
I would suggest the visual impact should be framed in the context of the Canal Power Plant. It’s stack at the gateway to the Cape is 500 feet tall hovering over the Sagamore Bridge.
The tip of the turbine blades are 60 feet lower than the stack of “other power producer.”
The Canal stack is one mile from my house, visible from my study window. Personally I’d rather have the view of the wind turbines 5 miles away on the hazy horizon (the haze is from the power plants by the way).
Indeed, it’s not so much the view of the Canal stack, but what comes out of it (you know the facts) and it’s impact on the health of all of us that bothers me, to say the least.
By the way, there are no unhealthful emissions from the wind farm and the fuel is free and forever... not so from unfriendly oil producers, like Venezuela and Iran.
Or do you prefer sending our wealth and our army to foreign nations that support terrorist?
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
The tip of the turbine blades are 60 feet lower than the stack of “other power producer.”
The Canal stack is one mile from my house, visible from my study window. Personally I’d rather have the view of the wind turbines 5 miles away on the hazy horizon (the haze is from the power plants by the way).
Indeed, it’s not so much the view of the Canal stack, but what comes out of it (you know the facts) and it’s impact on the health of all of us that bothers me, to say the least.
By the way, there are no unhealthful emissions from the wind farm and the fuel is free and forever... not so from unfriendly oil producers, like Venezuela and Iran.
Or do you prefer sending our wealth and our army to foreign nations that support terrorist?
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Calling Sen. Kennedy
In response to: Calling Sen. Kennedy
Correction. The above figure of 20 million barrels of oil should have been 2.0 million barrels of oil a year. Sorry about that. By the way that’s still about a half day’s production from all the oil wells in the continental U.S.
C. Kleekamp.
C. Kleekamp.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Calling Sen. Kennedy
In response to: Calling Sen. Kennedy
Peckham,
Eddy is a local pastor. Another of his quotes: “It will be the flagship of our nation.”
As a society we have to wake up to the facts... Global warming from human activity... The avoidance of a million tons of carbon dioxide by this first offshore windfarm (that’s equivalent to the CO2 emissions from 200,000 cars and trucks). It’s the vision of the single largest project to avoid CO2 emissions in the United States.
The fact of peak oil and gas production in the U.S. and an addictive need to import same from unfriendly and unstable dictators abroad... This first offshore wind farm will offset the need for importing some 20 million barrels of oil a year (for oil fueled generators, the most expensively produced electricity known to man). It’s the vision of breaking this destructive habit.
It’s the vision of making a significant improvement to the air quality of Cape Cod (currently the worst in the state).
Enough? Or do you need more?
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Eddy is a local pastor. Another of his quotes: “It will be the flagship of our nation.”
As a society we have to wake up to the facts... Global warming from human activity... The avoidance of a million tons of carbon dioxide by this first offshore windfarm (that’s equivalent to the CO2 emissions from 200,000 cars and trucks). It’s the vision of the single largest project to avoid CO2 emissions in the United States.
The fact of peak oil and gas production in the U.S. and an addictive need to import same from unfriendly and unstable dictators abroad... This first offshore wind farm will offset the need for importing some 20 million barrels of oil a year (for oil fueled generators, the most expensively produced electricity known to man). It’s the vision of breaking this destructive habit.
It’s the vision of making a significant improvement to the air quality of Cape Cod (currently the worst in the state).
Enough? Or do you need more?
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Calling Sen. Kennedy
In response to: Calling Sen. Kennedy
The public understands! It’s the beginning of the end of fossil fuel domination with Deval leading the way.
As Bill Eddy said: “It’s the Vision, not the view!”
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
As Bill Eddy said: “It’s the Vision, not the view!”
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Oil man, one of America's 400 richest , stopping renewable energy for his view
In response to: Oil man, one of America's 400 richest , stopping renewable energy for his view
Barbara,
ISO New England marginal emission rates show that the wind farm will avoid a million tons of CO2 a year. You want to argue with the experts?
The federal tax credit for wind power expires in 2007. No way the wind farm will be finished by then. So no federal incentive. Period.
The state Renewable Energy Portfolio (RPS) is not a guarantee. Two attempts in the MA legislature to gut the program have already been attempted. At most there is a speculative $37 million a year to Cape Wind. Would you suggest the RPS be rescinded, or only for Cape Wind?
The wind power must be less costly than the most expensive generated electricity or who would buy it? It simply won’t get dispatched into the grid. Hence wind power (or any power source that is lower than the clearing price set by the bid stack) will lower the overall cost to everybody. That’s how the biding process works in ISO NE.
Birds? No one has ever seen or picked up a dead bird under the Hull or MMA wind turbines. Looks like a pretty clean record to me.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
ISO New England marginal emission rates show that the wind farm will avoid a million tons of CO2 a year. You want to argue with the experts?
The federal tax credit for wind power expires in 2007. No way the wind farm will be finished by then. So no federal incentive. Period.
The state Renewable Energy Portfolio (RPS) is not a guarantee. Two attempts in the MA legislature to gut the program have already been attempted. At most there is a speculative $37 million a year to Cape Wind. Would you suggest the RPS be rescinded, or only for Cape Wind?
The wind power must be less costly than the most expensive generated electricity or who would buy it? It simply won’t get dispatched into the grid. Hence wind power (or any power source that is lower than the clearing price set by the bid stack) will lower the overall cost to everybody. That’s how the biding process works in ISO NE.
Birds? No one has ever seen or picked up a dead bird under the Hull or MMA wind turbines. Looks like a pretty clean record to me.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Oil man, one of America's 400 richest , stopping renewable energy for his view
In response to: Oil man, one of America's 400 richest , stopping renewable energy for his view
Peckham,
Only ninety eight barrels of oil left. The last barrel is pure sulfur. That’s the high sulfur (1%) oil from Venezuela. Remember Chaves? That’s Delahunt’s pal.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Only ninety eight barrels of oil left. The last barrel is pure sulfur. That’s the high sulfur (1%) oil from Venezuela. Remember Chaves? That’s Delahunt’s pal.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Oil man, one of America's 400 richest , stopping renewable energy for his view
In response to: Oil man, one of America's 400 richest , stopping renewable energy for his view
Koch could care less about global warming and the security of the United States. The electricity for his mansion and his pals’ homes comes from the oil fueled Canal power plant. And the fuel for his seven boats?
Gordon cares. Who else has a plan to avoid the emission of a million tons of carbon dioxide every year, particularly at no cost to the public or the environment? This wind farm could avoid the use of some 20 million barrels of oil a year that produces the most expensively generated electricity in New England.
Chuck Kleekamp
Gordon cares. Who else has a plan to avoid the emission of a million tons of carbon dioxide every year, particularly at no cost to the public or the environment? This wind farm could avoid the use of some 20 million barrels of oil a year that produces the most expensively generated electricity in New England.
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
Capri,
I’m not employed by Cape Wind so I don’t know which mineral oil manufacturer they will choose.
Do realize that mineral oil is a laxative sold over the counter at CVS. And it is the basic ingredient of Johnson’s baby oil. Doesn’t sound so dangerous to me... unless you overdose.
Look in the DoE document I cited for a years worth of wind generation performance data.
And, or look at the wind resource map by True Wind Solutions paid for by the MTC (from renewable energy funds by you an me on our electric bill) as a good indication. You’ll see the average wind speed is about 19 MPH. Check out the performance curves of the GE 3.6 turbine at that speed and calculate the average power developed. You’ll see it’s about 170 MW. Compare to the NStar load of 230 MW avg. for the Cape and Islands. Yes.... 74%.
Wind data reports... yes, any sharp high school grad can figure out a program to record the free public wind data on Cape Wind’s site.
Or call Cape Wind.
Regards,
Chuck K.
I’m not employed by Cape Wind so I don’t know which mineral oil manufacturer they will choose.
Do realize that mineral oil is a laxative sold over the counter at CVS. And it is the basic ingredient of Johnson’s baby oil. Doesn’t sound so dangerous to me... unless you overdose.
Look in the DoE document I cited for a years worth of wind generation performance data.
And, or look at the wind resource map by True Wind Solutions paid for by the MTC (from renewable energy funds by you an me on our electric bill) as a good indication. You’ll see the average wind speed is about 19 MPH. Check out the performance curves of the GE 3.6 turbine at that speed and calculate the average power developed. You’ll see it’s about 170 MW. Compare to the NStar load of 230 MW avg. for the Cape and Islands. Yes.... 74%.
Wind data reports... yes, any sharp high school grad can figure out a program to record the free public wind data on Cape Wind’s site.
Or call Cape Wind.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
On wind power priority to the grid.
The wind power as bid into the ISO NE stack will always be dispatched to the grid since it is on the bottom of the stack when bid in with zero dollars fuel cost (just like hydro).
Thus, the 1.5 million MWh will always be dispatched if sold into the grid.
Again, the most expensive bids (like oil generated electricity) are knocked off the top stack until the clearing price is reached. This is by design of the ISO NE grid rules and operating system.
One wind farm has never been said to solve the whole problem or close any one oil fired plant. But it will replace the equivalent oil generated electricity.
It is just the beginning, the first of may offshore wind farms I am sure. We can be a leader of the world, not the last or least as we are now.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
The wind power as bid into the ISO NE stack will always be dispatched to the grid since it is on the bottom of the stack when bid in with zero dollars fuel cost (just like hydro).
Thus, the 1.5 million MWh will always be dispatched if sold into the grid.
Again, the most expensive bids (like oil generated electricity) are knocked off the top stack until the clearing price is reached. This is by design of the ISO NE grid rules and operating system.
One wind farm has never been said to solve the whole problem or close any one oil fired plant. But it will replace the equivalent oil generated electricity.
It is just the beginning, the first of may offshore wind farms I am sure. We can be a leader of the world, not the last or least as we are now.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
Hydraulic dredges proceed at about 3 MPH. A dozen operating would be 36 miles of seabed disturbance per hour. To cover a 130 miles dredges would take about 4 hours.
How many hours a day do the dredges operate and how many days in a year do they operate? I don’t know. Maybe someone could find out.
And compare that mileage to once in twenty years for burying the wind farm cables.
Regards,
Chuck K.
How many hours a day do the dredges operate and how many days in a year do they operate? I don’t know. Maybe someone could find out.
And compare that mileage to once in twenty years for burying the wind farm cables.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
Capri,
“It’s just the facts ma’am.”
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
“It’s just the facts ma’am.”
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
A note on power to the grid.
The wind farm will generate some 1.5 million megawatt-hours of energy to the grid. Compare this to the Canal plant’s production of 6 million MWh.
I’d say this is wind contribution is more than just a ‘weee bit of power” to the grid. In fact it is enough to supply ¾ of the Cape and Islands consumption. And I’d say that’s a considerable amount.
In addition, oil generated electricity is the most expensive on the grid. That being the case, it will be the first knocked off the top of the bid structure as it is replaced by the equivalent wind power.
The Canal plant won’t be shut down, but it and other oil fueled plants will be the first to be backed off with the equivalent wind power.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
The wind farm will generate some 1.5 million megawatt-hours of energy to the grid. Compare this to the Canal plant’s production of 6 million MWh.
I’d say this is wind contribution is more than just a ‘weee bit of power” to the grid. In fact it is enough to supply ¾ of the Cape and Islands consumption. And I’d say that’s a considerable amount.
In addition, oil generated electricity is the most expensive on the grid. That being the case, it will be the first knocked off the top of the bid structure as it is replaced by the equivalent wind power.
The Canal plant won’t be shut down, but it and other oil fueled plants will be the first to be backed off with the equivalent wind power.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
These draggers are the most invasive and destructive industry that one could imagine on the ocean floor by fluidizing the benthic community up to a foot deep and 10 feet wide. The endless trail of the dredges look like overlaid figure 8’s on the bottom.
The disturbance to the benthic community is orders of magnitude greater than the one time jetting in of the cables for the wind farm.
The draggers are their own worst enemies in the destruction they cause. If this were not and old industry, can you imagine the difficulty of getting permits now based on an environmental impact statement? Of course it is “out of sight, out of mind” to the public.
And just where does the Alliance to Protect the Sound stand on this issue. Never heard them speak about it. They must think it’s just fine.
If the facts were known, the wind farm is far more benign than this fishing (dragging) industry on the Sound.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
The disturbance to the benthic community is orders of magnitude greater than the one time jetting in of the cables for the wind farm.
The draggers are their own worst enemies in the destruction they cause. If this were not and old industry, can you imagine the difficulty of getting permits now based on an environmental impact statement? Of course it is “out of sight, out of mind” to the public.
And just where does the Alliance to Protect the Sound stand on this issue. Never heard them speak about it. They must think it’s just fine.
If the facts were known, the wind farm is far more benign than this fishing (dragging) industry on the Sound.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
A note on the Nantucket Sound fishing industry.
Most people don’t know about the hydraulic clam dredges that operate in Nantucket Sound. According to the Harwich harbor master about a dozen of these vessels ply those waters.
The hydraulic dredge is actually a drag, which is towed behind the vessel by 3" polypropylene towline. The dredge is connected by a large hose which is 8" in diameter. Large centrifugal pumps deliver 6-8,000 gallons of seawater per minute at 125 PSI to the dredge. This water is directed through specially constructed nozzles on the front of the dredge and dislodges the clams from the sea bottom so that the cutting bar of the dredge can scoop up the clams and everything else in its way. (Continued)
Most people don’t know about the hydraulic clam dredges that operate in Nantucket Sound. According to the Harwich harbor master about a dozen of these vessels ply those waters.
The hydraulic dredge is actually a drag, which is towed behind the vessel by 3" polypropylene towline. The dredge is connected by a large hose which is 8" in diameter. Large centrifugal pumps deliver 6-8,000 gallons of seawater per minute at 125 PSI to the dredge. This water is directed through specially constructed nozzles on the front of the dredge and dislodges the clams from the sea bottom so that the cutting bar of the dredge can scoop up the clams and everything else in its way. (Continued)
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
Capri,
Gordon’s peaker plant in Chelsea is not a diesel power plant. It is a combustion turbine driving the generator burning highly refined distillate fuel oil with 15 ppm (parts per million) sulfur. It will run perhaps 200 hours a year to help keep the grid system from crashing on hot summer days or very cold winter days when natural gas in not obtainable.
Compare that to a diesel (internal combustion engine) standby or peakers like the ones at the Pave Paws radar station that were turned on in the last heat spell.
Diesel oil contains about 3,400 ppm sulfur content, and the Mirant plant residual fuel oil contains 1% sulfur or 10,000 ppm.
Mr. Gordon is in the electrical generation business, always has been. And has always run the cleanest power plants. Who else would you like to build your peaker plants? Mirant? Or would you prefer to have rolling blackouts?
I know most folks won’t use a simple old fan like you and I instead of an A/C. But that, unfortunately is a reality.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Gordon’s peaker plant in Chelsea is not a diesel power plant. It is a combustion turbine driving the generator burning highly refined distillate fuel oil with 15 ppm (parts per million) sulfur. It will run perhaps 200 hours a year to help keep the grid system from crashing on hot summer days or very cold winter days when natural gas in not obtainable.
Compare that to a diesel (internal combustion engine) standby or peakers like the ones at the Pave Paws radar station that were turned on in the last heat spell.
Diesel oil contains about 3,400 ppm sulfur content, and the Mirant plant residual fuel oil contains 1% sulfur or 10,000 ppm.
Mr. Gordon is in the electrical generation business, always has been. And has always run the cleanest power plants. Who else would you like to build your peaker plants? Mirant? Or would you prefer to have rolling blackouts?
I know most folks won’t use a simple old fan like you and I instead of an A/C. But that, unfortunately is a reality.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
A note to Capri
No, I’m not wealthy. I was referring to wealthy opposing wind power that don’t have to worry about the cost of gasoline or fuel oil to heat their homes (especially ones on the Nantucket shore). I’m sure men like Gordon and Patrick are concerned about the country’s addiction to foreign oil and are obviously doing everything they can to decrease it.
And I do believe in conservation, like you. I’ll avoid over 3 tons of carbon dioxide emissions this coming year conserving some 300 gallons of gasoline that we won’t have to import from you know who. I wish all others would do the same.
The benign mineral oil in the transformer platform is not moving and in indeed triple protected from spills. In shallow water, little chance of collision.
The Coast Guardsman is correct. Marine accidents, like the moving barge bringing dangerous bunker oil to the Mirant Plant, are high consequence. Nearly 1.6 billion gallons of oil barged through the canal each year. Would you like to lower the probability of such barge spills? Endorse Cape Wind.
Regards,
Chuck K.
No, I’m not wealthy. I was referring to wealthy opposing wind power that don’t have to worry about the cost of gasoline or fuel oil to heat their homes (especially ones on the Nantucket shore). I’m sure men like Gordon and Patrick are concerned about the country’s addiction to foreign oil and are obviously doing everything they can to decrease it.
And I do believe in conservation, like you. I’ll avoid over 3 tons of carbon dioxide emissions this coming year conserving some 300 gallons of gasoline that we won’t have to import from you know who. I wish all others would do the same.
The benign mineral oil in the transformer platform is not moving and in indeed triple protected from spills. In shallow water, little chance of collision.
The Coast Guardsman is correct. Marine accidents, like the moving barge bringing dangerous bunker oil to the Mirant Plant, are high consequence. Nearly 1.6 billion gallons of oil barged through the canal each year. Would you like to lower the probability of such barge spills? Endorse Cape Wind.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
typo... above response...
Can't make a profit there.
CK
Can't make a profit there.
CK
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
A note to Capri.
Yes, Clean Power Now is concerned about oil. And most of the rest of the country is too, except perhaps for the very wealthy.
Even President Bush said we’re addicted to oil. On can conclude it behooves us to find alternatives to imported oil anywhere we can, like wind.
As for converting the Canal plant to natural gas, Southern Company attempted that in 2001. But they didn’t follow through. I might speculate they were smart enough to know that the price of natural gas, then $2 a million BTU, was about to go through the roof. And it did. Last winter it hit $15. Can make a profit there.
And yes many gas fuel power plants were offline in the gas crisis of Jan. 2004 due to a shortage and pipeline limitations. Read the Dept of Energy report : “Diversification Analysis – Natural Gas Supply/Wind Production.” 6/6/04.
The high price of oil and natural gas sets the clearing price 80% of the time according to ISO NE. The cheap fuels are coal and nuclear. Take your choice. Nuclear, coal, or Wind.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Yes, Clean Power Now is concerned about oil. And most of the rest of the country is too, except perhaps for the very wealthy.
Even President Bush said we’re addicted to oil. On can conclude it behooves us to find alternatives to imported oil anywhere we can, like wind.
As for converting the Canal plant to natural gas, Southern Company attempted that in 2001. But they didn’t follow through. I might speculate they were smart enough to know that the price of natural gas, then $2 a million BTU, was about to go through the roof. And it did. Last winter it hit $15. Can make a profit there.
And yes many gas fuel power plants were offline in the gas crisis of Jan. 2004 due to a shortage and pipeline limitations. Read the Dept of Energy report : “Diversification Analysis – Natural Gas Supply/Wind Production.” 6/6/04.
The high price of oil and natural gas sets the clearing price 80% of the time according to ISO NE. The cheap fuels are coal and nuclear. Take your choice. Nuclear, coal, or Wind.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
In response to: Dear Lt. Governor, is lying to us worse than not knowing?
Ms. Healy was either grossly misinformed by her staff or was just pandering the wealthy with Nantucket Sound views.
1. She said the wind farm is “permanent.” She is misinformed. She should know that the MMS requires a decommissioning bond to dismantle the wind farm at the end of its useful life (20 to 25 years) or if provisions of the federal lease are violated.
2. With respect to the nation’s oil addiction, she framed her argument with the fact that only 1% of the electricity in the US is generated by oil. It’s actually 3%, but not to nit-pic.
The real story is that according to ISO NE, 24% of New England’s generating capacity is from oil.
And in fact, 44% of Southeastern MA is from oil. Remember the Canal Plant? 8 million barrels of oil a year, much of which would be avoided by the wind farm generation.
3. The federal production tax incentive for wind power ends in 2007. No chance that Cape Wind will benefit from that, and she knows it.
Enough. Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
1. She said the wind farm is “permanent.” She is misinformed. She should know that the MMS requires a decommissioning bond to dismantle the wind farm at the end of its useful life (20 to 25 years) or if provisions of the federal lease are violated.
2. With respect to the nation’s oil addiction, she framed her argument with the fact that only 1% of the electricity in the US is generated by oil. It’s actually 3%, but not to nit-pic.
The real story is that according to ISO NE, 24% of New England’s generating capacity is from oil.
And in fact, 44% of Southeastern MA is from oil. Remember the Canal Plant? 8 million barrels of oil a year, much of which would be avoided by the wind farm generation.
3. The federal production tax incentive for wind power ends in 2007. No chance that Cape Wind will benefit from that, and she knows it.
Enough. Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Danes buying 1/3 of former electric price
In response to: Danes buying 1/3 of former electric price
On Danish and other European Offshore Wind.
Denmark has 6 offshore windfarms starting 15 years ago. The world’s two largest offshore windfarms, Horns Rev (80 turbines) and Nystead (72 turbines) are privately owned and operated by Danish utilities. Neither had any subsidy from the government for construction. Both are being doubled is size (by private Danish utilities) since they are so successful.
And other countries...
Sweden: 3 operational, 3 in planning or under contract.
Netherlands: 2 under contact, 2 applications
Germany: 4 licensed, 1 in planning, 1 application
Ireland: 1 operational, 1 planning application
UK Round 1: 4 operational, 7 under construction now or in 2007, 4 pending
UK Round 2: 6 under consent application ranging from 83 to 270 turbines.
And here sits America where we’re fussing about the appearance of our first offshore windfarm.
Is there something wrong about this picture?
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Denmark has 6 offshore windfarms starting 15 years ago. The world’s two largest offshore windfarms, Horns Rev (80 turbines) and Nystead (72 turbines) are privately owned and operated by Danish utilities. Neither had any subsidy from the government for construction. Both are being doubled is size (by private Danish utilities) since they are so successful.
And other countries...
Sweden: 3 operational, 3 in planning or under contract.
Netherlands: 2 under contact, 2 applications
Germany: 4 licensed, 1 in planning, 1 application
Ireland: 1 operational, 1 planning application
UK Round 1: 4 operational, 7 under construction now or in 2007, 4 pending
UK Round 2: 6 under consent application ranging from 83 to 270 turbines.
And here sits America where we’re fussing about the appearance of our first offshore windfarm.
Is there something wrong about this picture?
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Danes buying 1/3 of former electric price
In response to: Danes buying 1/3 of former electric price
It would be nice if folks used their last names as well. Let it be known the the above"Chuck" is not Chuck Kleekamp.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Wakes...
In response to: Wakes...
If your interested in “just the facts ma’m,” I’ll come and stir the pot.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Results of Cape Wind survey, Gay Tourism, Ptown Doc loses licence, Behind the scene at the Orleans PD, Candidates spar over missing signs
In response to: Results of Cape Wind survey, Gay Tourism, Ptown Doc loses licence, Behind the scene at the Orleans PD, Candidates spar over missing signs
A note on Bill Koch
You may or may not be interested in my response to Bill Koch as posted in my Footnotes Blog of 6/20/06. In any case it starts...
A guy with a Ph.D. from MIT ought to know better—that is, unless he’s the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound and a fossil fuel magnate to boot. That being the case, however, reasonable people cannot let his disparaging prognostications about the economic viability of wind power (William Koch, Wall Street Journal, 5/22/06) pass without a response more grounded in reality.
Mr. Koch declares that the economic uncertainties of Cape Wind Associates' proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm off Cape Cod will make the venture unviable.
But such risks should only be of concern to the private developer and his backers, not Mr. Koch. The wind power has to be sold into a competitive market at a profit or the venture becomes bankrupt. So what are the risks and benefits to the public? Read on. (the blog ref.)
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
You may or may not be interested in my response to Bill Koch as posted in my Footnotes Blog of 6/20/06. In any case it starts...
A guy with a Ph.D. from MIT ought to know better—that is, unless he’s the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound and a fossil fuel magnate to boot. That being the case, however, reasonable people cannot let his disparaging prognostications about the economic viability of wind power (William Koch, Wall Street Journal, 5/22/06) pass without a response more grounded in reality.
Mr. Koch declares that the economic uncertainties of Cape Wind Associates' proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm off Cape Cod will make the venture unviable.
But such risks should only be of concern to the private developer and his backers, not Mr. Koch. The wind power has to be sold into a competitive market at a profit or the venture becomes bankrupt. So what are the risks and benefits to the public? Read on. (the blog ref.)
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Results of Cape Wind survey, Gay Tourism, Ptown Doc loses licence, Behind the scene at the Orleans PD, Candidates spar over missing signs
In response to: Results of Cape Wind survey, Gay Tourism, Ptown Doc loses licence, Behind the scene at the Orleans PD, Candidates spar over missing signs
On Cape Wind Incentives
There are only two government incentives for Cape Wind. Both are “iffy”.
The federal production tax credit of 1.8 c/kWh ends in 2007 and it pays only for 10 years.
Would you bet that congress will renew it? Would you deny all wind power this incentive or only Cape Wind?
By the way, the energy bill provides the same credit for new nuclear plants. You’ll love that.
The MA renewable portfolio standard energy certificates (RECs) currently are priced at $53/MWh. When Cape Wind comes on line, it will flood the commodities market and the price will fall as in Texas at $14/MWh.
And, recent efforts in the MA legislature to amend the law to allow old hydro and C&D waste will collapse the price next to zero as it did in CT and ME.
Again, would you deny whatever MA RECs bring to new renewable energy projects as an incentive to build, or just Cape Wind?
As you can see, neither are guaranteed. Yet Mr. Gordon continues to pursue his quest for all of us.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
There are only two government incentives for Cape Wind. Both are “iffy”.
The federal production tax credit of 1.8 c/kWh ends in 2007 and it pays only for 10 years.
Would you bet that congress will renew it? Would you deny all wind power this incentive or only Cape Wind?
By the way, the energy bill provides the same credit for new nuclear plants. You’ll love that.
The MA renewable portfolio standard energy certificates (RECs) currently are priced at $53/MWh. When Cape Wind comes on line, it will flood the commodities market and the price will fall as in Texas at $14/MWh.
And, recent efforts in the MA legislature to amend the law to allow old hydro and C&D waste will collapse the price next to zero as it did in CT and ME.
Again, would you deny whatever MA RECs bring to new renewable energy projects as an incentive to build, or just Cape Wind?
As you can see, neither are guaranteed. Yet Mr. Gordon continues to pursue his quest for all of us.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Turn on, Tune in or Drop out
In response to: Turn on, Tune in or Drop out
A note to Capri,
Cape Wind’s meteorological data has been and is continuously publicly available at http://capewind.whgrp.com/
and is available for anyone to record. It is updated every 10 minutes and summarized hourly for that last 12 hours.
The US Department of Energy report of June 6, 2004 states that the total generation from April 03 to March of 04 (one year total) would have been 1,691,261 MWh or a capacity factor of 42.5%. Monthly data for Aug 03 indicates a CP of 33.4%, Dec = 65.8%.
Most recently, on the hottest day, Aug 2, 2006, the wind farm would have developed:
At 2:20 PM, wind 17 knots, production last hour would have been = 171 MW, a CP of 37.6%
Voltage was reduced by 5% by ISO NE (called a brown-out). Any further load would have meant rolling blackouts. Cape Wind could have saved the day.
Obviously past wind records do not indicate future performance but are usually within plus or minus 20%.
And every location, e.g. Nantucket & Long Island, may be very different.
Regards, Chuck Kleekamp
Cape Wind’s meteorological data has been and is continuously publicly available at http://capewind.whgrp.com/
and is available for anyone to record. It is updated every 10 minutes and summarized hourly for that last 12 hours.
The US Department of Energy report of June 6, 2004 states that the total generation from April 03 to March of 04 (one year total) would have been 1,691,261 MWh or a capacity factor of 42.5%. Monthly data for Aug 03 indicates a CP of 33.4%, Dec = 65.8%.
Most recently, on the hottest day, Aug 2, 2006, the wind farm would have developed:
At 2:20 PM, wind 17 knots, production last hour would have been = 171 MW, a CP of 37.6%
Voltage was reduced by 5% by ISO NE (called a brown-out). Any further load would have meant rolling blackouts. Cape Wind could have saved the day.
Obviously past wind records do not indicate future performance but are usually within plus or minus 20%.
And every location, e.g. Nantucket & Long Island, may be very different.
Regards, Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Can We Drill Our Way Out?
In response to: Can We Drill Our Way Out?
Dear Monponsett,
I like your quick wit and humor! And you last note may be in jest or semi-serious. In any case, to answer your questions.
No. The CPN office is rented in a business building. No solar or wind power available there.
The smallest wind turbine built for home owners is about 1 or 2 kW. But... to make it work you need to live in a windy place and have the lowest point of the blade at least 20 feet above the surrounding trees, at least. Trees grow. So much for home wind unless you live on an estuary or on a prairie (Oklahoma, with the fringe on top).
Try solar PV instead.
And yes. One of our CPN directors is in the business of installing solar and small wind turbines. He was instrumental in installing the small wind turbines at the Cape’s technical high schools (a 2kW and a 10 kW as I recall) as educational examples for the students to learn more about wind power. His name is Tom Wineman, e-mail him at twineman@cape.com
If you are interested.
Regards,
Chuck K.
I like your quick wit and humor! And you last note may be in jest or semi-serious. In any case, to answer your questions.
No. The CPN office is rented in a business building. No solar or wind power available there.
The smallest wind turbine built for home owners is about 1 or 2 kW. But... to make it work you need to live in a windy place and have the lowest point of the blade at least 20 feet above the surrounding trees, at least. Trees grow. So much for home wind unless you live on an estuary or on a prairie (Oklahoma, with the fringe on top).
Try solar PV instead.
And yes. One of our CPN directors is in the business of installing solar and small wind turbines. He was instrumental in installing the small wind turbines at the Cape’s technical high schools (a 2kW and a 10 kW as I recall) as educational examples for the students to learn more about wind power. His name is Tom Wineman, e-mail him at twineman@cape.com
If you are interested.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Can We Drill Our Way Out?
In response to: Can We Drill Our Way Out?
Dear Capri
I would suggest your friends go to the Cape Light Compact site.
http://www.capelightcompact.com/
Look into their energy efficiency programs and give them a call.
Certainly conservation and efficiency can start in the home and with the family auto.
You know the tips, and probably they do to... Energy Star appliances, compact fluorescents, high efficiency cars...
As I have said, increase your (everybody’s) car mileage to 40 MPG and save the country 4 million barrels of oil a day. I saw five Prius autos on the way to Boston yesterday.
Tell your neighbors if they don’t already know.
Unfortunately, the demand for more electricity is ever increasing in spite of our efforts.
How about renewable energy? Wind power, solar power, the two best choices to offset fossil fuels. Again, you know the arguments. Cape Wind... save 2 million barrels of oil right here in New England.
Regards,
Chuck K.
I would suggest your friends go to the Cape Light Compact site.
http://www.capelightcompact.com/
Look into their energy efficiency programs and give them a call.
Certainly conservation and efficiency can start in the home and with the family auto.
You know the tips, and probably they do to... Energy Star appliances, compact fluorescents, high efficiency cars...
As I have said, increase your (everybody’s) car mileage to 40 MPG and save the country 4 million barrels of oil a day. I saw five Prius autos on the way to Boston yesterday.
Tell your neighbors if they don’t already know.
Unfortunately, the demand for more electricity is ever increasing in spite of our efforts.
How about renewable energy? Wind power, solar power, the two best choices to offset fossil fuels. Again, you know the arguments. Cape Wind... save 2 million barrels of oil right here in New England.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Can We Drill Our Way Out?
In response to: Can We Drill Our Way Out?
As an interesting observation on this blog I notice no one has commented on the point of the blog, which was about drilling our way out, using the last of our natural reserves for a luxurious life style in big cars and gluttonous fossil energy use with no plans for the future generations
What am I missing? Does anybody care?
I realize this blog is dominated by a few and I just wonder what other readers think when they read the comments... if they even bother.
Regards,
Chuck K.
What am I missing? Does anybody care?
I realize this blog is dominated by a few and I just wonder what other readers think when they read the comments... if they even bother.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Gasoline Companies-Blame the Oil Companies?
In response to: Gasoline Companies-Blame the Oil Companies?
As an entrepreneur, I would certainly agree that reasonable profit is a necessary incentive for creative industries that benefit society.
As for an opinion on a well-rounded energy policy ending dependency on foreign oil I offer the following for comment...
1. Increase the tax on gasoline by a penny a month until the price reaches the equivalent in Europe. That will inspire user efficiency. It will create a demand for our auto companies to engineer and build more efficient (and profitable) cars and trucks rather than “muscle cars”. Take the lead back for Japan for hybrid technology.
2. Put more incentives on renewable wind and solar energy. Invest in research for low cost solar PV... put an array on every south facing roof in America.
3. Establish a policy for combined heat and power (CHP) whereby new or repowered generating plants distribute waste heat in pipes through surrounding communities for domestic heat and hot water. An old practice mostly forgotten in the U.S. but not Europe.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
As for an opinion on a well-rounded energy policy ending dependency on foreign oil I offer the following for comment...
1. Increase the tax on gasoline by a penny a month until the price reaches the equivalent in Europe. That will inspire user efficiency. It will create a demand for our auto companies to engineer and build more efficient (and profitable) cars and trucks rather than “muscle cars”. Take the lead back for Japan for hybrid technology.
2. Put more incentives on renewable wind and solar energy. Invest in research for low cost solar PV... put an array on every south facing roof in America.
3. Establish a policy for combined heat and power (CHP) whereby new or repowered generating plants distribute waste heat in pipes through surrounding communities for domestic heat and hot water. An old practice mostly forgotten in the U.S. but not Europe.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Can We Drill Our Way Out?
In response to: Can We Drill Our Way Out?
Windsmart,
Sure thing. Anytime!
Regards,
Chuck K.
Sure thing. Anytime!
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Can We Drill Our Way Out?
In response to: Can We Drill Our Way Out?
On Scroby Sands:
Jason Scagell, Director of E.ON UK Renewables, said: "We were very happy with Scroby's performance in the first half of the year, particularly as the operation was in its infancy, but the second half was less satisfactory due to a number of defects. That meant we had to carry out an extensive programme of modifications but, despite that, the wind farm still generated 153GWh, which is around 90% of our forecast annual output.
As for the England Offshore Saga: Developments so far:
North Hoyle 30 Turbines, Vestas V80, 2MW, Operational Dec 03
Scroby Sands, 30 Turbines, Vestas V80, 2MW, Operational Dec. 04
Kentish Flats, 30 Turbines Vestas, V90, 3 MW, Operational Sep 05
Borrow Offshore Wind, 30 Turbines, Vestas, V90, 3 MW, Operational May 06
Three other offshore sites under construction: Burbo Bank, Teeside, Shell Flat.
About 25 more offshore sites are under consent. An aggressive program.
Similar programs are in process for German, Dutch, and Swedish Offshore projects. Too much info for a short blog response. Maybe grist for another Footnotes Blog.
Chuck
Jason Scagell, Director of E.ON UK Renewables, said: "We were very happy with Scroby's performance in the first half of the year, particularly as the operation was in its infancy, but the second half was less satisfactory due to a number of defects. That meant we had to carry out an extensive programme of modifications but, despite that, the wind farm still generated 153GWh, which is around 90% of our forecast annual output.
As for the England Offshore Saga: Developments so far:
North Hoyle 30 Turbines, Vestas V80, 2MW, Operational Dec 03
Scroby Sands, 30 Turbines, Vestas V80, 2MW, Operational Dec. 04
Kentish Flats, 30 Turbines Vestas, V90, 3 MW, Operational Sep 05
Borrow Offshore Wind, 30 Turbines, Vestas, V90, 3 MW, Operational May 06
Three other offshore sites under construction: Burbo Bank, Teeside, Shell Flat.
About 25 more offshore sites are under consent. An aggressive program.
Similar programs are in process for German, Dutch, and Swedish Offshore projects. Too much info for a short blog response. Maybe grist for another Footnotes Blog.
Chuck
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Can We Drill Our Way Out?
In response to: Can We Drill Our Way Out?
I love a party, anytime. And responses welcome. Back to discussion...
The Vestas V80 turbine at Scroby Sands is the same model that had transmission and transformer problems in the early days of the Danish Horns Rev wind farm.
Vestas has learned some expensive lessons. As the world’s largest manufacturer of wind turbines (30% of the market) the retrofit of equipment the Horns Rev offshore station now has achieved the highest capacity factor in Europe at 45 percent.
Furthermore, the successful Danish utility, Energy E2, that built the Nysted offshore wind farm will construct Horns Rev II, with 200 MW of capacity.
From Windstats Newsletter “the combined capacity factor of all 424 MW of offshore wind in Denmark was 39 percent in 2005, a year of relatively low winds."
This compares to Germany with a 16 percent average capacity factor. Hence the reason for poor performance in Germany was apparently poor siting with insufficient wind resources. That gives the industry a bad reputation. I would have thought the Germans to be smarter.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
The Vestas V80 turbine at Scroby Sands is the same model that had transmission and transformer problems in the early days of the Danish Horns Rev wind farm.
Vestas has learned some expensive lessons. As the world’s largest manufacturer of wind turbines (30% of the market) the retrofit of equipment the Horns Rev offshore station now has achieved the highest capacity factor in Europe at 45 percent.
Furthermore, the successful Danish utility, Energy E2, that built the Nysted offshore wind farm will construct Horns Rev II, with 200 MW of capacity.
From Windstats Newsletter “the combined capacity factor of all 424 MW of offshore wind in Denmark was 39 percent in 2005, a year of relatively low winds."
This compares to Germany with a 16 percent average capacity factor. Hence the reason for poor performance in Germany was apparently poor siting with insufficient wind resources. That gives the industry a bad reputation. I would have thought the Germans to be smarter.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Can We Drill Our Way Out?
In response to: Can We Drill Our Way Out?
With respect to Coast Guard rescue issues.
In England, the a requirements for off shore windfarms is that the rotors must be able to be quickly stopped by request, and in fact be stopped in the “Y” position. This allows their rescue helicopters to drop a line to the top of the nacelle so a technician in distress on the wind turbine can be rescued.
In addition, it allows safe rescue of boaters in the vicinity of wind turbines.
That seems a reasonable and sufficient requirement for new turbines which are now so equipped.
And so it goes with more off shore wind development in Europe.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
In England, the a requirements for off shore windfarms is that the rotors must be able to be quickly stopped by request, and in fact be stopped in the “Y” position. This allows their rescue helicopters to drop a line to the top of the nacelle so a technician in distress on the wind turbine can be rescued.
In addition, it allows safe rescue of boaters in the vicinity of wind turbines.
That seems a reasonable and sufficient requirement for new turbines which are now so equipped.
And so it goes with more off shore wind development in Europe.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Can We Drill Our Way Out?
In response to: Can We Drill Our Way Out?
It should also be noted that In Denmark, the country in the world with the highest penetration of wind power, 21% of total consumption was met with wind power in 2004. In the west-Denmark transmission system, which is not connected to the eastern part of the country, some 25% of electricity demand is met by wind power in a normal wind year and, on some occasions, the wind has been able to cover 100% of instantaneous demand.
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Can We Drill Our Way Out?
In response to: Can We Drill Our Way Out?
The ABS report cites some interesting facts. Most pointed is the criticism regarding costs and transmission integration issues related to wind energy. It is apparent that there are indeed issues that need to be addressed in Europe as well as here regarding the capacity of the grid system whether or not wind energy is included.
The attitude of many grid operators to wind power can best be illustrated by the following quote from Eltra, the TSO in west-Denmark, “Seven or eight years ago, we said that the electricity system could not function if wind power increased above 500 MW. Now we are handling almost five times as much. And I would like to tell the Government and the Parliament that we are ready to handle even more, but it requires that we are allowed to use the right tools to manage the system.”
The capacity of European power systems to absorb significant amount of wind power is determined more by economics and regulatory rules than by technical or practical constraints.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
The attitude of many grid operators to wind power can best be illustrated by the following quote from Eltra, the TSO in west-Denmark, “Seven or eight years ago, we said that the electricity system could not function if wind power increased above 500 MW. Now we are handling almost five times as much. And I would like to tell the Government and the Parliament that we are ready to handle even more, but it requires that we are allowed to use the right tools to manage the system.”
The capacity of European power systems to absorb significant amount of wind power is determined more by economics and regulatory rules than by technical or practical constraints.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Chris Gabrieli announces his supports Cape wind farm
In response to: Chris Gabrieli announces his supports Cape wind farm
Enough! personal insults by all. Opinions, facts, and humor... welcome. Let’s just agree to disagree on items of intractable debate. Unkind references to other,s particularly family or spouses... verboten and unhelpful.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: The next day of infamy?
In response to: The next day of infamy?
Jack,
I’ve long been an avid reader of Lewis. Can you give us a link to his essay in the WSJ?
And thanks for the information. It is deeply disturbing. I have often though about isolationism and MAD. Wondering what the future may hold....
I think Lewis may be on target.
Regards,
Chuck K.
I’ve long been an avid reader of Lewis. Can you give us a link to his essay in the WSJ?
And thanks for the information. It is deeply disturbing. I have often though about isolationism and MAD. Wondering what the future may hold....
I think Lewis may be on target.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Chris Gabrieli announces his supports Cape wind farm
In response to: Chris Gabrieli announces his supports Cape wind farm
It's been a long day. I'm going to go read my latest issue of North American Windpower. Boring....?
Regards,
Chuck.
Regards,
Chuck.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Chris Gabrieli announces his supports Cape wind farm
In response to: Chris Gabrieli announces his supports Cape wind farm
I stand corrected. It was on national TV, a morning show. Not news (the printed version). Or so the story goes from one who saw it. (I don't watch the morning (or evening) shows.)
Regards,
Chuck K.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Chris Gabrieli announces his supports Cape wind farm
In response to: Chris Gabrieli announces his supports Cape wind farm
On Gabrieli’s unequivocal support for Cape Wind
I find it fascinating that the national news has picked up the story.
Where else but Nantucket would such a wealthy NIMBY blockade of the most benign source of pollution free electricity be of the nation’s interest.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
I find it fascinating that the national news has picked up the story.
Where else but Nantucket would such a wealthy NIMBY blockade of the most benign source of pollution free electricity be of the nation’s interest.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Wind generates other coastal wind projects here
In response to: Cape Wind generates other coastal wind projects here
Excuse the typo... the quote should read:
“The new report puts in graphic terms what we have long known: air pollution is the single biggest environmental health threat we face today.”
“The new report puts in graphic terms what we have long known: air pollution is the single biggest environmental health threat we face today.”
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Wind generates other coastal wind projects here
In response to: Cape Wind generates other coastal wind projects here
Capri,
The facts are provided in a letter addressed to “Whom it may concern,” by Dr. Jonathan Levy, of the Harvard School of Public Heath dated 12/4/02.
He reviewed my extrapolation of health benefits (12 premature deaths a year) based on his report related to 1.5 million megawatt-hours provided by a non-polluting source [the windfarm]. And I quote: “his [Kleekamp’s] calculations are reasonable... his framework is appropriate.” And in fact Dr. Levy further commented that based on his estimates in later reports that: “Applying Mr. Kleekamp’s approach to our revised estimates yields a mortality offset of approximately 15 fewer deaths per year.”
You may choose to discredit the peer-reviewed landmark Harvard report, but it was given credibility by Attonery General Tom Reilly as well when he said in a CCT commentary of 5/22/00 titled: “Fighting for the air we breathe.” And I quote: “The new report puts in graphic terms what we have long known: air pollution is the single biggest environmental health threat we fact today.”
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
The facts are provided in a letter addressed to “Whom it may concern,” by Dr. Jonathan Levy, of the Harvard School of Public Heath dated 12/4/02.
He reviewed my extrapolation of health benefits (12 premature deaths a year) based on his report related to 1.5 million megawatt-hours provided by a non-polluting source [the windfarm]. And I quote: “his [Kleekamp’s] calculations are reasonable... his framework is appropriate.” And in fact Dr. Levy further commented that based on his estimates in later reports that: “Applying Mr. Kleekamp’s approach to our revised estimates yields a mortality offset of approximately 15 fewer deaths per year.”
You may choose to discredit the peer-reviewed landmark Harvard report, but it was given credibility by Attonery General Tom Reilly as well when he said in a CCT commentary of 5/22/00 titled: “Fighting for the air we breathe.” And I quote: “The new report puts in graphic terms what we have long known: air pollution is the single biggest environmental health threat we fact today.”
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Wind generates other coastal wind projects here
In response to: Cape Wind generates other coastal wind projects here
A few observations.
By comparison, the tip of the blade on the wind turbines will be 90 feet below the level of the Canal Stack in beautiful Sandwich that provides electricity to the Cape.
And the Canal plant emits 29,823 tons of sulfur dioxide a year, 8,185 tons of NOx, and 5,331,820 tons of earth warming CO2. And it burns 8 million barrels of oil a year.
The windfarm will avoid about a quarter of that.
And the windfarm will avoid 12 to 15 premature human deaths per year and make significant reductions in air pollution over the Cape which now has the ignominious public record for the worst air quality in Massachusetts.
Dying a premature death from respiratory ailments is not pretty, nor are teenagers using inhalators.
To prevent further crisis in the demand for electricity shall we build another fossil plant in Orleans or... you name it. I know Capri leans to more nuclear.
Conservation is great, I practice it, and so should everyone else. But it’s not enough alone unless you are willing to limit the population growth.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
By comparison, the tip of the blade on the wind turbines will be 90 feet below the level of the Canal Stack in beautiful Sandwich that provides electricity to the Cape.
And the Canal plant emits 29,823 tons of sulfur dioxide a year, 8,185 tons of NOx, and 5,331,820 tons of earth warming CO2. And it burns 8 million barrels of oil a year.
The windfarm will avoid about a quarter of that.
And the windfarm will avoid 12 to 15 premature human deaths per year and make significant reductions in air pollution over the Cape which now has the ignominious public record for the worst air quality in Massachusetts.
Dying a premature death from respiratory ailments is not pretty, nor are teenagers using inhalators.
To prevent further crisis in the demand for electricity shall we build another fossil plant in Orleans or... you name it. I know Capri leans to more nuclear.
Conservation is great, I practice it, and so should everyone else. But it’s not enough alone unless you are willing to limit the population growth.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Catching a wave for energy
In response to: Catching a wave for energy
I wonder how much Massachusetts Tidal Energy Company (a subsidiary of Oceana Energy) bid for their permit application to use the public waters off Martha’s Vineyard for their tidal energy project.
In addition, I wonder how much West Coast Wind (Cashman) bid for their permit application to use public waters in Buzzards Bay for their three wind farms.
I haven’t heard anything from elected representatives or the Alliance on bids related to these permit applications. I wonder if someone else obtain apply for a permit in these same locations? I think not.
Oh, I forgot, its The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. Not interested in elsewhere I guess.
Chuck Kleekamp
In addition, I wonder how much West Coast Wind (Cashman) bid for their permit application to use public waters in Buzzards Bay for their three wind farms.
I haven’t heard anything from elected representatives or the Alliance on bids related to these permit applications. I wonder if someone else obtain apply for a permit in these same locations? I think not.
Oh, I forgot, its The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. Not interested in elsewhere I guess.
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
Capri,
By the way, as for Denmark being a small country, hence wind works, let me share the fact that Denmark is about twice the size of Massachusetts with about the same population.
If they can become self reliant and sustainable on energy without nuclear (now) and coal (15 years from now), there is no technical reason we (in Massachusetts) could not do the same. It’s just the political mindset that prevents it.
Of course, Denmark is the model of efficiency and conservation as I have noted. With gas at $6/gallon and electricity about twice the cost of ours, I’ll bet the average per-person energy use is far, far less that in the US. And from my visits there they seem to live the good life.
I must get on with many other tasks now. See you all later. Perhaps we should just have a big party sometime. It would save a lot of time at the keyboard.
Or maybe you would like to join CPN with the spring visit to Ireland and England to visit their offshore windfarms. It's really a fun and informative experience.
Regards,
Chuck K.
By the way, as for Denmark being a small country, hence wind works, let me share the fact that Denmark is about twice the size of Massachusetts with about the same population.
If they can become self reliant and sustainable on energy without nuclear (now) and coal (15 years from now), there is no technical reason we (in Massachusetts) could not do the same. It’s just the political mindset that prevents it.
Of course, Denmark is the model of efficiency and conservation as I have noted. With gas at $6/gallon and electricity about twice the cost of ours, I’ll bet the average per-person energy use is far, far less that in the US. And from my visits there they seem to live the good life.
I must get on with many other tasks now. See you all later. Perhaps we should just have a big party sometime. It would save a lot of time at the keyboard.
Or maybe you would like to join CPN with the spring visit to Ireland and England to visit their offshore windfarms. It's really a fun and informative experience.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
Footnotes on more nuclear.
Pilgrim will probably get their license extended for another 20 years. Originally is was to have two units. They only built one (a 660 MW unit). They probably could get a license for the second if the owners think it would be profitable.
It helps that new nuclear plants will get the same production tax credit as wind turbines (1.8 cents/kWh) plus insurance paid for by the government (that means you and me). Tell me about subsidies again...
Unlike a wind farm that has a decommissioning bond required for permit, nuclear does not... in general the folks in the state of the nuclear plant generally wind up paying for its decommissioning. And that's not cheap!
Capri, joining the ranks of the nuclear club puts you in with a good company with nuclear advocates and that’s a free choice of course. This is a democracy. And arguing about the appearance of a wind turbine is like arguing about religion... intractable... one must just agree to disagree and be friends anyway.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Pilgrim will probably get their license extended for another 20 years. Originally is was to have two units. They only built one (a 660 MW unit). They probably could get a license for the second if the owners think it would be profitable.
It helps that new nuclear plants will get the same production tax credit as wind turbines (1.8 cents/kWh) plus insurance paid for by the government (that means you and me). Tell me about subsidies again...
Unlike a wind farm that has a decommissioning bond required for permit, nuclear does not... in general the folks in the state of the nuclear plant generally wind up paying for its decommissioning. And that's not cheap!
Capri, joining the ranks of the nuclear club puts you in with a good company with nuclear advocates and that’s a free choice of course. This is a democracy. And arguing about the appearance of a wind turbine is like arguing about religion... intractable... one must just agree to disagree and be friends anyway.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
Windsmart,
There will be a bunch of bright young engineers designing the next generation of nuclear power plants. I hope they ask a lot of questions about the “what ifs...” and do something about it.
I liked the Smothers Brothers and All in the Family.
I understand and respect the reason and need for “handles” i.e. anonymity for some people who may be subject to unwanted ramifications of what they say. They are certainly welcome to their own opinions when expressed sincerely.
Some of us could (should) tone down the vulgarities at least wee bit....
It’s time to go to sleep.
Got to work on a senate article tomorrow.
Regards,
Chuck K.
There will be a bunch of bright young engineers designing the next generation of nuclear power plants. I hope they ask a lot of questions about the “what ifs...” and do something about it.
I liked the Smothers Brothers and All in the Family.
I understand and respect the reason and need for “handles” i.e. anonymity for some people who may be subject to unwanted ramifications of what they say. They are certainly welcome to their own opinions when expressed sincerely.
Some of us could (should) tone down the vulgarities at least wee bit....
It’s time to go to sleep.
Got to work on a senate article tomorrow.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
Footnotes on Nuclear.
In 1960 a young engineer joined a small computer startup company. His first job was to build a control computer to open and close the emissions stack valve at the nearby Enrico Fermi nuclear power plant under construction just south of Detroit. The requirements included monitoring the wind direction, speed, and dispersion characteristics of the wind to calculate when an emission plume would go out over Lake Erie (toward our friends in Canada). Obviously not north over Detroit. When conditions were “right” the valve would open releasing... you guessed it... very low level radioactive contaminated air to the atmosphere. Humm.... was that really a good idea? It was not supposed to be harmful to humans. And so it was built, installed and operated until the plant closed in 1972.
Did it do any harm? I’ll never know. That young engineer was me. I’ve hopefully learned a thing or two in the mean time. Now I’d rather support the construction of harmless non-polluting renewable wind energy not nuclear.
Regards,
Chuck K.
In 1960 a young engineer joined a small computer startup company. His first job was to build a control computer to open and close the emissions stack valve at the nearby Enrico Fermi nuclear power plant under construction just south of Detroit. The requirements included monitoring the wind direction, speed, and dispersion characteristics of the wind to calculate when an emission plume would go out over Lake Erie (toward our friends in Canada). Obviously not north over Detroit. When conditions were “right” the valve would open releasing... you guessed it... very low level radioactive contaminated air to the atmosphere. Humm.... was that really a good idea? It was not supposed to be harmful to humans. And so it was built, installed and operated until the plant closed in 1972.
Did it do any harm? I’ll never know. That young engineer was me. I’ve hopefully learned a thing or two in the mean time. Now I’d rather support the construction of harmless non-polluting renewable wind energy not nuclear.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
Notes on Nuclear
Nuclear advocates have a point. It doesn’t contribute to air pollution... Unless there is an accident! Then you (we) have a problem.
And just where would you like to store nuclear wastes... Yucca Mountain... seems like a no-starter after billions have been spent. 100,000 years?
I like the Denmark policy.
In 1973 they found themselves buying oil for 90% of their electrical production.
You know what happened... yes, the oil embargo. They said “never again.”
They began to develop wind turbines.
Their parliament outlawed the use of nuclear power in 1985.
Then they banned the construction of new coal plants, existing to be decommissioned by 2030.
They became self-sufficient in energy in 1997.
In fact they now export 50% of their oil, 30% natural gas, and 19% of their electricity. Sustainability!
Do they conserve? Yes!
Gasoline costs $6 a gallon. They drive small efficient cars, use commuter rail, and bikes.
Excess hot water from their power plants is piped under the streets to heat homes and business.
And more...
Regards,
Chuck K.
Nuclear advocates have a point. It doesn’t contribute to air pollution... Unless there is an accident! Then you (we) have a problem.
And just where would you like to store nuclear wastes... Yucca Mountain... seems like a no-starter after billions have been spent. 100,000 years?
I like the Denmark policy.
In 1973 they found themselves buying oil for 90% of their electrical production.
You know what happened... yes, the oil embargo. They said “never again.”
They began to develop wind turbines.
Their parliament outlawed the use of nuclear power in 1985.
Then they banned the construction of new coal plants, existing to be decommissioned by 2030.
They became self-sufficient in energy in 1997.
In fact they now export 50% of their oil, 30% natural gas, and 19% of their electricity. Sustainability!
Do they conserve? Yes!
Gasoline costs $6 a gallon. They drive small efficient cars, use commuter rail, and bikes.
Excess hot water from their power plants is piped under the streets to heat homes and business.
And more...
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
Capri... sorry to repeat myself... but...
The peaker proposed by EMI is a combustion turbine that will use ultra low sulfur fuel oil with a maximum of 15 ppm sulfur content. Compare that to the Mirant Canal Plant that burns high sulfur residual fuel oil (1% or 10,000 ppm).
Note: the Canal plant emits 59,646,000 pounds of Sulfur dioxide a year.
The Chelsea peaker will emit 1,920 pounds a year. Quite a difference!
Would you rather live in Chelsea with a peaker that runs on ultra low sulfur fuel at about 2% of the time, or on Cape Cod with the Mirant plant with its sulfurous pollution (666 times worse than Chelsea) blowing over you and your schools 58% of the time?
I’d rather live on Cape Cod where we will get 75% of our electricity from non-polluting wind and a few ultra low sulfur fuel oil or natural gas cycling or peaker units filling in the gaps, even if they were in my backyard too.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E., Ret.
The peaker proposed by EMI is a combustion turbine that will use ultra low sulfur fuel oil with a maximum of 15 ppm sulfur content. Compare that to the Mirant Canal Plant that burns high sulfur residual fuel oil (1% or 10,000 ppm).
Note: the Canal plant emits 59,646,000 pounds of Sulfur dioxide a year.
The Chelsea peaker will emit 1,920 pounds a year. Quite a difference!
Would you rather live in Chelsea with a peaker that runs on ultra low sulfur fuel at about 2% of the time, or on Cape Cod with the Mirant plant with its sulfurous pollution (666 times worse than Chelsea) blowing over you and your schools 58% of the time?
I’d rather live on Cape Cod where we will get 75% of our electricity from non-polluting wind and a few ultra low sulfur fuel oil or natural gas cycling or peaker units filling in the gaps, even if they were in my backyard too.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E., Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
A note to Capri,
Certainly conservation is important, we can both agree on that. However it’s not stopping people from building new houses, buying new appliances, TVs, etc. Regardless of the governor’s, mayor’s pleas, little is happening. Perhaps just enough cajoling today to avoid blackouts, but that’s not an answer to our long term problems. And we can’t limit the size of the growing population, although some wish we could. So demand grows.
You may disagree, but as I see it, like the Europeans, the answer is in renewable energy, specifically, you know it... wind power. With the dozen or more offshore unit in operation and several more under construction they have not caused the disasters you are afraid of.
As for alternate sites, the Army Corps examined some 17 different terrestrial and offshore sites. The most viable was... you know. The second and third were also in Nantucket Sound.
Mr. Cashman has found three sites he thinks are the next best viable options in Buzzards Bay.. We’ll see. There will be more.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Certainly conservation is important, we can both agree on that. However it’s not stopping people from building new houses, buying new appliances, TVs, etc. Regardless of the governor’s, mayor’s pleas, little is happening. Perhaps just enough cajoling today to avoid blackouts, but that’s not an answer to our long term problems. And we can’t limit the size of the growing population, although some wish we could. So demand grows.
You may disagree, but as I see it, like the Europeans, the answer is in renewable energy, specifically, you know it... wind power. With the dozen or more offshore unit in operation and several more under construction they have not caused the disasters you are afraid of.
As for alternate sites, the Army Corps examined some 17 different terrestrial and offshore sites. The most viable was... you know. The second and third were also in Nantucket Sound.
Mr. Cashman has found three sites he thinks are the next best viable options in Buzzards Bay.. We’ll see. There will be more.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Codder holding online poll on Cape Wind; plans roundtable discussion
In response to: Cape Codder holding online poll on Cape Wind; plans roundtable discussion
To Windsmart,
For ISO details go to their web site: www.iso-ne.com
Look under “At a Glance” (the price ticker is down lower)
Click on “Power System Conditions” you’ll get a new screen
It shows all states in “”Power Watch” condition
- put your cursor over the word “Power Watch”... an explanatory note opens
- Scroll lower to the next darker blue title line with “OP 4 Status”
- put your cursor over the word “Action 13” and get an explanation, and so on...
Look out for OP 7... that means man the substations for manual intervention (open the switches) to implement rolling blackouts as directed. That’s another long explanation from ISO.
While you are there, look at the price ticker for SEMASS... where we live... the wholesale price of electricity here is now $1,001.56 per MWh or $1.00 dollar per kWh. Ouch! Sure wish we had that wind power!
By the way the wind farm would be producing 236 MW now in 17 knot winds.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
For ISO details go to their web site: www.iso-ne.com
Look under “At a Glance” (the price ticker is down lower)
Click on “Power System Conditions” you’ll get a new screen
It shows all states in “”Power Watch” condition
- put your cursor over the word “Power Watch”... an explanatory note opens
- Scroll lower to the next darker blue title line with “OP 4 Status”
- put your cursor over the word “Action 13” and get an explanation, and so on...
Look out for OP 7... that means man the substations for manual intervention (open the switches) to implement rolling blackouts as directed. That’s another long explanation from ISO.
While you are there, look at the price ticker for SEMASS... where we live... the wholesale price of electricity here is now $1,001.56 per MWh or $1.00 dollar per kWh. Ouch! Sure wish we had that wind power!
By the way the wind farm would be producing 236 MW now in 17 knot winds.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
Capri,
So you do think we need more electric plants?
Right now, 2:36 PM we are at 27,960 MW, well above yesterday’s record breaker of 27,401 and last year’s record of 25, 282 MW. Looks like, in spite of the governor’s and mayor’s pleas on TV, we are consuming more and more.
ISO NE has put all of New England on a “Power Watch,” with “Action 12,” which means a warning of reducing voltage 5% within 10 minutes.
So if not peakers what else? And who will build them? Will they make a profit? Or should the government take over the electric industry?
One way to get people to use less electricity is to double its retail cost like in Europe. The financial incentive to get efficient is great. It’s either that or more power plants.
Right now the wind farm would be generating 236 MW of pollution free power that would offset fossil plants’ equivalent production.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
So you do think we need more electric plants?
Right now, 2:36 PM we are at 27,960 MW, well above yesterday’s record breaker of 27,401 and last year’s record of 25, 282 MW. Looks like, in spite of the governor’s and mayor’s pleas on TV, we are consuming more and more.
ISO NE has put all of New England on a “Power Watch,” with “Action 12,” which means a warning of reducing voltage 5% within 10 minutes.
So if not peakers what else? And who will build them? Will they make a profit? Or should the government take over the electric industry?
One way to get people to use less electricity is to double its retail cost like in Europe. The financial incentive to get efficient is great. It’s either that or more power plants.
Right now the wind farm would be generating 236 MW of pollution free power that would offset fossil plants’ equivalent production.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Codder holding online poll on Cape Wind; plans roundtable discussion
In response to: Cape Codder holding online poll on Cape Wind; plans roundtable discussion
So you do think we need more electric plants?
Right now, 2:36 PM we are at 27,960 MW, well above yesterday’s record breaker of 27,401 and last year’s record of 25, 282 MW. Looks like, in spite of the governor’s and mayor’s pleas on TV, we are consuming more and more.
ISO NE has put all of New England on a “Power Watch,” with “Action 12,” which means a warning of reducing voltage 5% within 10 minutes. That's called a "brown-out".
So if not peakers what else? And who will build them? What fuel? Will they make a profit? Or should the government take over the electric industry?
One way to get people to use less electricity is to double its retail cost like in Europe. The financial incentive to get efficient is great. It’s either that or more power plants.
Right now the wind farm would be generating 170MW of pollution free power that would offset fossil plants’ equivalent production.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Right now, 2:36 PM we are at 27,960 MW, well above yesterday’s record breaker of 27,401 and last year’s record of 25, 282 MW. Looks like, in spite of the governor’s and mayor’s pleas on TV, we are consuming more and more.
ISO NE has put all of New England on a “Power Watch,” with “Action 12,” which means a warning of reducing voltage 5% within 10 minutes. That's called a "brown-out".
So if not peakers what else? And who will build them? What fuel? Will they make a profit? Or should the government take over the electric industry?
One way to get people to use less electricity is to double its retail cost like in Europe. The financial incentive to get efficient is great. It’s either that or more power plants.
Right now the wind farm would be generating 170MW of pollution free power that would offset fossil plants’ equivalent production.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Codder holding online poll on Cape Wind; plans roundtable discussion
In response to: Cape Codder holding online poll on Cape Wind; plans roundtable discussion
On public funding for Cape Wind
Audra Parker, in her article simply has it wrong, stating that “more than $1 billion that the Cape Wind project would garner from state ratepayers in public subsidies or the more than $300 million they would get in federal taxpayer subsidies.”
Fact 1. There are no subsidies whatsoever for the constriction of this wind farm.
Fact 2. The government production tax credit incentive ends in 2007. No way will the project be built by the end of next year. Even so, it would have provided 1.8 cents a kilowatt hour for power produced by any wind turbine. That would have amounted to some $27 million. By the way, new nuclear plants get the same credit.
Fact 3. The state incentive from renewable energy certificates of $53/MWh would amount to some $80 million a year provided that the legislature doesn’t kill the program now with a current revision that's likely to happen.
A developer needs to make a reasonable profit or no power plants will get built.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Audra Parker, in her article simply has it wrong, stating that “more than $1 billion that the Cape Wind project would garner from state ratepayers in public subsidies or the more than $300 million they would get in federal taxpayer subsidies.”
Fact 1. There are no subsidies whatsoever for the constriction of this wind farm.
Fact 2. The government production tax credit incentive ends in 2007. No way will the project be built by the end of next year. Even so, it would have provided 1.8 cents a kilowatt hour for power produced by any wind turbine. That would have amounted to some $27 million. By the way, new nuclear plants get the same credit.
Fact 3. The state incentive from renewable energy certificates of $53/MWh would amount to some $80 million a year provided that the legislature doesn’t kill the program now with a current revision that's likely to happen.
A developer needs to make a reasonable profit or no power plants will get built.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Codder holding online poll on Cape Wind; plans roundtable discussion
In response to: Cape Codder holding online poll on Cape Wind; plans roundtable discussion
(Part 2)
The peaker proposed by EMI is a combustion turbine that will use ultra low sulfur fuel oil with a maximum of 15 ppm sulfur content. Compare that to the Mirant Canal Plant that burns high sulfur residual fuel oil (1% or 10,000 ppm).
Note: the Canal plant emits 59,646,000 pounds of Sulfur dioxide a year.
The Chelsea peaker will emit 1,920 pounds a year.
Would you rather live in Chelsea with a peaker that runs on ultra low sulfur fuel at about 2% of the time, or on Cape Cod with the Mirant plant with its sulfurous pollution (666 times worse than Chelsea) blowing over you and your schools 58% of the time?
I’d rather live on Cape Cod where we will get 75% of our electricity from non-polluting wind and a few ultra low sulfur fuel oil or natural gas cycling or peaker units filling in the gaps, even if they were in my backyard too.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E., Ret.
The peaker proposed by EMI is a combustion turbine that will use ultra low sulfur fuel oil with a maximum of 15 ppm sulfur content. Compare that to the Mirant Canal Plant that burns high sulfur residual fuel oil (1% or 10,000 ppm).
Note: the Canal plant emits 59,646,000 pounds of Sulfur dioxide a year.
The Chelsea peaker will emit 1,920 pounds a year.
Would you rather live in Chelsea with a peaker that runs on ultra low sulfur fuel at about 2% of the time, or on Cape Cod with the Mirant plant with its sulfurous pollution (666 times worse than Chelsea) blowing over you and your schools 58% of the time?
I’d rather live on Cape Cod where we will get 75% of our electricity from non-polluting wind and a few ultra low sulfur fuel oil or natural gas cycling or peaker units filling in the gaps, even if they were in my backyard too.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E., Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Codder holding online poll on Cape Wind; plans roundtable discussion
In response to: Cape Codder holding online poll on Cape Wind; plans roundtable discussion
On Peakers (not the rear window)
Peaker plants, such as the one being proposed by EMI, have always been the third leg of the electrical supply system. In spite of the fact that several exist more are needed and are necessary for system growth and stability according to ISO NE. We are setting a record demand today with 1,500 MW over yesterday’s record peak.
Permit me to explain.
The first leg in the system are “base load units” like Pilgrim nuclear, running at 98% capacity factor on a “must run” status and Mirant’s Canal unit #1, an oil unit that has a capacity factor of about 66%. These plants are designed to run most efficiently at full load.
The second leg are “cycling units” like Canal Unit #2 that are designed to run better over a wide range of power following night and day load requirements. Canal Unit 2 has a capacity factor of 50%.
The third leg are “peaker” units for extremes in load demand that have capacity factors of typically 1% to maybe 14% and are very expensive to run.
Peaker plants, such as the one being proposed by EMI, have always been the third leg of the electrical supply system. In spite of the fact that several exist more are needed and are necessary for system growth and stability according to ISO NE. We are setting a record demand today with 1,500 MW over yesterday’s record peak.
Permit me to explain.
The first leg in the system are “base load units” like Pilgrim nuclear, running at 98% capacity factor on a “must run” status and Mirant’s Canal unit #1, an oil unit that has a capacity factor of about 66%. These plants are designed to run most efficiently at full load.
The second leg are “cycling units” like Canal Unit #2 that are designed to run better over a wide range of power following night and day load requirements. Canal Unit 2 has a capacity factor of 50%.
The third leg are “peaker” units for extremes in load demand that have capacity factors of typically 1% to maybe 14% and are very expensive to run.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Codder holding online poll on Cape Wind; plans roundtable discussion
In response to: Cape Codder holding online poll on Cape Wind; plans roundtable discussion
Capri,
The Harvard School of Public Health report on the health impacts of emissions from power plants details the tradeoffs. Even Attorney General Reilly has quoted that study and said: “The new [2000] report puts in graphic terms what we have long known: air pollution is the single biggest environmental health treat that we face today. Given the health impacts of people who live downwind of these power plants should not have to wait another decade for an end to the pollution. How may people are going to unnecessarily die or face respiratory problems in the interim?” (CCT, 5/22/2000).
Wind power will avoid the most expensive power plants from dispatching the equivalent amount of power thus lowering their output emissions. In fact, that reduction is 4,480 tons of SO2, 1,323 tons of NOx, and 1,062,544 tons of CO2 (source: Energy Facility Siting Board decision on Cape Wind approval). Their direct statement: “The record clearly documents significant and lasting air quality benefits resulting from the wind farm’s displacement of other primary fossil fueled generators.”
Chuck K.
The Harvard School of Public Health report on the health impacts of emissions from power plants details the tradeoffs. Even Attorney General Reilly has quoted that study and said: “The new [2000] report puts in graphic terms what we have long known: air pollution is the single biggest environmental health treat that we face today. Given the health impacts of people who live downwind of these power plants should not have to wait another decade for an end to the pollution. How may people are going to unnecessarily die or face respiratory problems in the interim?” (CCT, 5/22/2000).
Wind power will avoid the most expensive power plants from dispatching the equivalent amount of power thus lowering their output emissions. In fact, that reduction is 4,480 tons of SO2, 1,323 tons of NOx, and 1,062,544 tons of CO2 (source: Energy Facility Siting Board decision on Cape Wind approval). Their direct statement: “The record clearly documents significant and lasting air quality benefits resulting from the wind farm’s displacement of other primary fossil fueled generators.”
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Codder holding online poll on Cape Wind; plans roundtable discussion
In response to: Cape Codder holding online poll on Cape Wind; plans roundtable discussion
A note to Barbara,
What is the price of a human life? Immeasurable. But the EPA has established the price of a human life at $3.7 million (source: NYT 5/8/03, p.A26) for cost-benefit analysis. And if the wind farm were operating it would offset unhealthful emissions that would avoid 12 to 15 premature deaths a year, thousands of asthma and respiratory attacks, etc. Let’s see, that’s some $45 million a year plus more savings in heath care and emergency room visits. It turns out that Cape Cod has the worst air quality in the state as measured by DEP monitors around the state including the one in Truro which could be improved with the wind project.
Would you rather sacrifice the life of a bird for the life of a person? Let me know your choice.
We should keep the impacts and benefits of pollution free wind power in balance and perspective.
Respectfully,
Chuck Kleekamp
What is the price of a human life? Immeasurable. But the EPA has established the price of a human life at $3.7 million (source: NYT 5/8/03, p.A26) for cost-benefit analysis. And if the wind farm were operating it would offset unhealthful emissions that would avoid 12 to 15 premature deaths a year, thousands of asthma and respiratory attacks, etc. Let’s see, that’s some $45 million a year plus more savings in heath care and emergency room visits. It turns out that Cape Cod has the worst air quality in the state as measured by DEP monitors around the state including the one in Truro which could be improved with the wind project.
Would you rather sacrifice the life of a bird for the life of a person? Let me know your choice.
We should keep the impacts and benefits of pollution free wind power in balance and perspective.
Respectfully,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
A note to Capri, 7:50 PM
Certainly Clean Power Now, as you note, believes in conservation and efficiency. It comes first and easiest. And I hope all responsible folks follow the admonition of the Cape Light Compact (a government organization right here on the Cape) of switching to compact fluorescent bulbs, energy star appliances (with CLC rebates in some cases), LED traffic lights,... and on... a very admiral job! I certainly follow these recommendations myself and I hope you do to.
That being said, pleas for efficiency and conservation alone are not curbing the growth for electricity. Clean Power Now can’t fight all the battles. We are focused on obtaining renewable energy, namely the easiest, quickest, and most benign that is wind power, especially from utility scale projects like Cape Wind.
My point today (and tomorrow) is that in spite of all good will and efforts efficiency and conservation is simply not enough. The load is increasing. Where do you want the rolling blackouts to begin... your neighborhood, mine, or some one else’s.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Certainly Clean Power Now, as you note, believes in conservation and efficiency. It comes first and easiest. And I hope all responsible folks follow the admonition of the Cape Light Compact (a government organization right here on the Cape) of switching to compact fluorescent bulbs, energy star appliances (with CLC rebates in some cases), LED traffic lights,... and on... a very admiral job! I certainly follow these recommendations myself and I hope you do to.
That being said, pleas for efficiency and conservation alone are not curbing the growth for electricity. Clean Power Now can’t fight all the battles. We are focused on obtaining renewable energy, namely the easiest, quickest, and most benign that is wind power, especially from utility scale projects like Cape Wind.
My point today (and tomorrow) is that in spite of all good will and efforts efficiency and conservation is simply not enough. The load is increasing. Where do you want the rolling blackouts to begin... your neighborhood, mine, or some one else’s.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
Another Update on the price and system stability. 4:40 PM, 8/1/06
Watching the ISO ticker, I see the wholesale price on the tie lines (Highgate, New York AC, and Phase I/II) just hit $1,000/MWh (that’s one dollar per kWh). That’s the regulatory limit. Southeast Mass (SEMASS) zone (here) is at $597.86/MWh.
ISO NE has put Northeast Massachusetts zone (that’s Boston and north) and Vermont on an Emergency Operation Level 4 (OP4) until 6PM today.
Among other things that may mean the New England Control Area's available Resources are insufficient to meet the anticipated load plus Operating Reserve Requirements, or one or more contingencies have occurred resulting in an immediate deficiency, or transmission facilities into a sub area of the New England Control Area are loaded beyond established transfer capabilities.
The next level is OP7, The need to implement manual load shedding. That means rolling blackouts. We’re not quite there yet.
Cross your fingers. The wind farm would be producing 150MW of power right now.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Watching the ISO ticker, I see the wholesale price on the tie lines (Highgate, New York AC, and Phase I/II) just hit $1,000/MWh (that’s one dollar per kWh). That’s the regulatory limit. Southeast Mass (SEMASS) zone (here) is at $597.86/MWh.
ISO NE has put Northeast Massachusetts zone (that’s Boston and north) and Vermont on an Emergency Operation Level 4 (OP4) until 6PM today.
Among other things that may mean the New England Control Area's available Resources are insufficient to meet the anticipated load plus Operating Reserve Requirements, or one or more contingencies have occurred resulting in an immediate deficiency, or transmission facilities into a sub area of the New England Control Area are loaded beyond established transfer capabilities.
The next level is OP7, The need to implement manual load shedding. That means rolling blackouts. We’re not quite there yet.
Cross your fingers. The wind farm would be producing 150MW of power right now.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
An update.
The temperature (in the shade) at my house in Sandwich is 93 degrees now (3:20 PM). My wife tells me the Stop & Shop in East Sandwich is closing because they lost power and have emptied all the freezers... (I wonder where all that stuff goes?).
What’s next? My computer backup power supply is rated for 5 minutes (enough time to shut down without loosing my latest work). Too hot to work outside.
Well there’s always the fan... oh, forgot it won’t work either. Guess I’ll go out and sit under the lawn sprinkler. Where’s my wind turbine?
Regards,
Chuck K.
The temperature (in the shade) at my house in Sandwich is 93 degrees now (3:20 PM). My wife tells me the Stop & Shop in East Sandwich is closing because they lost power and have emptied all the freezers... (I wonder where all that stuff goes?).
What’s next? My computer backup power supply is rated for 5 minutes (enough time to shut down without loosing my latest work). Too hot to work outside.
Well there’s always the fan... oh, forgot it won’t work either. Guess I’ll go out and sit under the lawn sprinkler. Where’s my wind turbine?
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
In response to: Heat Wave - Watch ISO NE Today & Tomorrow
A note to Thumper,
You make some intelligent points and ask good questions.
The cut in speed of the GE turbines is 8 MPH.
At the year round average of 19 MPH each turbine would generate 1.33 MW from the GE performance curves. Multiply by 130 turbines the wind farm would generate 170 MW on the average.
The turbine blades will be feathered and locked down at speeds over 56 MPH.
You are right about summer wind. It is indeed considerably lower on the average that in the winter (when there is a crisis for both electricity and natural gas to both heat our homes and run the gas fired power plants.
However, right now (1:47PM, Tuesday) the wind on the sound is at 15 knots (multiply by 1.15 to get MPH) which is: 17 MPH.
If you look at the Cape Wind Web site http://capewind.whgrp.com/ you’ll see that over the last hour the farm would have produced 184 MW. Scroll down and you’ll see the wind speed for the last 12 hours.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
You make some intelligent points and ask good questions.
The cut in speed of the GE turbines is 8 MPH.
At the year round average of 19 MPH each turbine would generate 1.33 MW from the GE performance curves. Multiply by 130 turbines the wind farm would generate 170 MW on the average.
The turbine blades will be feathered and locked down at speeds over 56 MPH.
You are right about summer wind. It is indeed considerably lower on the average that in the winter (when there is a crisis for both electricity and natural gas to both heat our homes and run the gas fired power plants.
However, right now (1:47PM, Tuesday) the wind on the sound is at 15 knots (multiply by 1.15 to get MPH) which is: 17 MPH.
If you look at the Cape Wind Web site http://capewind.whgrp.com/ you’ll see that over the last hour the farm would have produced 184 MW. Scroll down and you’ll see the wind speed for the last 12 hours.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Big Dig needs an Independent Commission
In response to: Big Dig needs an Independent Commission
I’m not sure who to blame on this disaster that was waiting to happen (and it did). But it certainly doesn’t speak well for someone the team of design engineers, contractors, independent inspectors (if there were any) and for the management that overlooked several apparent warnings form insiders.
It seems modern engineering isn’t what it used to be. From walkways in hotels that fall with a crowd to domed stadiums that the roof blows off.
I recall reading that the engineer for the Brooklyn Bridge, Mr. Roebling, had discovered by testing samples of suspension wire nearing the end of construction that the manufacturer had knowingly cheated and substituted a poorer quality (strength) of wire than initially supplied. Roebling had to substantially increase the number of wires in the final cables to compensate with a higher safety factor. The bridge still stands.
Too bad this engineering team didn’t hire inspectors to test all the final ceiling bolts to a higher level of safety and then again to test at least some a year later. The disaster could have been averted.
It seems modern engineering isn’t what it used to be. From walkways in hotels that fall with a crowd to domed stadiums that the roof blows off.
I recall reading that the engineer for the Brooklyn Bridge, Mr. Roebling, had discovered by testing samples of suspension wire nearing the end of construction that the manufacturer had knowingly cheated and substituted a poorer quality (strength) of wire than initially supplied. Roebling had to substantially increase the number of wires in the final cables to compensate with a higher safety factor. The bridge still stands.
Too bad this engineering team didn’t hire inspectors to test all the final ceiling bolts to a higher level of safety and then again to test at least some a year later. The disaster could have been averted.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Codder holding online poll on Cape Wind; plans roundtable discussion
In response to: Cape Codder holding online poll on Cape Wind; plans roundtable discussion
Some have questioned why not wait for far offshore deepwater wind farms.
The quick answer is that it is simply too expensive, about 3 to 4 times as much per MW installed. One can’t make a profit on that.
Furthermore, the technology for the financial viability to happen is estimated to be 10 to 15 years away by experts in the field.
If you care to read in more depth (pun intended) on the subject refer to my very recent blog called “The Allure of Deepwater Wind Power” posted a few minutes ago at 8:40 PM. You can find it under Blog Chowder, Most Recent Blog Postings.
Regards
Chuck Kleekamp
The quick answer is that it is simply too expensive, about 3 to 4 times as much per MW installed. One can’t make a profit on that.
Furthermore, the technology for the financial viability to happen is estimated to be 10 to 15 years away by experts in the field.
If you care to read in more depth (pun intended) on the subject refer to my very recent blog called “The Allure of Deepwater Wind Power” posted a few minutes ago at 8:40 PM. You can find it under Blog Chowder, Most Recent Blog Postings.
Regards
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Codder holding online poll on Cape Wind; plans roundtable discussion
In response to: Cape Codder holding online poll on Cape Wind; plans roundtable discussion
A note to Mcfly,
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Arguing about the likes and dislikes of wind turbines is simply intractable.
That being said... here’s my opinion. After seeing both land based and offshore wind turbines in Denmark, as well as in Hull, I think they are visions of majestic power and grace.
I’d certainly rather look at a wind turbine a mile form my house rather than the stack of the Canal power plant which I now view from my study window. The tip of the blade would be almost 100 feet lower than that smoke stack. That stack is enormous, it dwarfs the community. You can't take a picture of it and get a feel for the magnificent size, you have to see it.
But even worse, breathe in the emissions from burning 8 million barrels of high sulfur fuel oil every year. Tell me about the impacts on health, global warming, the import of that oil from unfriendly countries.
I’ll take the wind turbine anytime. Especially if they are five miles off the coast and would measure just a half-inch high with a ruler held at arm’s length.
Regards, Chuck Kleekamp
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Arguing about the likes and dislikes of wind turbines is simply intractable.
That being said... here’s my opinion. After seeing both land based and offshore wind turbines in Denmark, as well as in Hull, I think they are visions of majestic power and grace.
I’d certainly rather look at a wind turbine a mile form my house rather than the stack of the Canal power plant which I now view from my study window. The tip of the blade would be almost 100 feet lower than that smoke stack. That stack is enormous, it dwarfs the community. You can't take a picture of it and get a feel for the magnificent size, you have to see it.
But even worse, breathe in the emissions from burning 8 million barrels of high sulfur fuel oil every year. Tell me about the impacts on health, global warming, the import of that oil from unfriendly countries.
I’ll take the wind turbine anytime. Especially if they are five miles off the coast and would measure just a half-inch high with a ruler held at arm’s length.
Regards, Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Those allegedly insurmountable problems at Horns Rev
In response to: Those allegedly insurmountable problems at Horns Rev
Achilles,
Capacity factor (CP) is defined as the ratio of the actual output of a generator over a year’s time divided by the rated capacity (Nameplate Capacity) as if it were running at full load over the entire year.
For example, the Pilgrim nuclear plant (a base load unit) runs at a CP of about 98%
The Canal plant unit #1 (a base load unit) runs at a CP of 66% on average
The Canal plant unit #2, a cycling unit, runs at a CP of 50% on the average
The Horns Rev windfarm is running at a CP of 45%
The Cape Wind project is expected to run at a CP of 40%
The Hull wind turbine #1 (just on shore) is running at a CP of 27%
Solar PV panels on your roof top run at a CP of about 14% in New England.
Peaker plants that run only at peak demand on very hot days or very cold days. They typically run at a CP of 1% to maybe 14%. (And it’s very expensive electricity).
Hope this clarifies and puts in perspective the question.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Capacity factor (CP) is defined as the ratio of the actual output of a generator over a year’s time divided by the rated capacity (Nameplate Capacity) as if it were running at full load over the entire year.
For example, the Pilgrim nuclear plant (a base load unit) runs at a CP of about 98%
The Canal plant unit #1 (a base load unit) runs at a CP of 66% on average
The Canal plant unit #2, a cycling unit, runs at a CP of 50% on the average
The Horns Rev windfarm is running at a CP of 45%
The Cape Wind project is expected to run at a CP of 40%
The Hull wind turbine #1 (just on shore) is running at a CP of 27%
Solar PV panels on your roof top run at a CP of about 14% in New England.
Peaker plants that run only at peak demand on very hot days or very cold days. They typically run at a CP of 1% to maybe 14%. (And it’s very expensive electricity).
Hope this clarifies and puts in perspective the question.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Those allegedly insurmountable problems at Horns Rev
In response to: Those allegedly insurmountable problems at Horns Rev
A note to Thumper,
At Horns Rev the turbine nacelle is at 230 feet (that’s the hub where the generator is). The blades of the Vestas wind turbines are 131 feet long. That puts the tip in the highest position at 361 feet and at the lowest position (your question) is 99 feet (230-131) above the sea.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
At Horns Rev the turbine nacelle is at 230 feet (that’s the hub where the generator is). The blades of the Vestas wind turbines are 131 feet long. That puts the tip in the highest position at 361 feet and at the lowest position (your question) is 99 feet (230-131) above the sea.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Those allegedly insurmountable problems at Horns Rev
In response to: Those allegedly insurmountable problems at Horns Rev
Jack,
This should end all the doubts and misinformation. It is a credit to Vestas, the world’s largest manufacturer of wind turbines and to the Danes for their foresight and leadership in renewable and sustainable energy.
The Horns Rev wind farm will be doubled in size by the end of 2009 continuing its status as the world’s largest offshore windfarm.
Regards,
Chuck K.
This should end all the doubts and misinformation. It is a credit to Vestas, the world’s largest manufacturer of wind turbines and to the Danes for their foresight and leadership in renewable and sustainable energy.
The Horns Rev wind farm will be doubled in size by the end of 2009 continuing its status as the world’s largest offshore windfarm.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Coal yes, wind no.
In response to: Coal yes, wind no.
By the way, the energy bill also gives the same production tax credit of 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour for new nuclear as it does for wind. In addition, the bill offers $2 billion in federal insurance to cover delays [caused by litigation] in building 6 new nuclear power reactors. No such insurance relief for wind projects.
And, the great oil-give-away of the century, the Royalty Relief act is giving $10 billion to energy companies that drill new oil and gas wells in the Gulf of Mexico.
The federal government is supposed to collect a royalty of 12 or 16 percent on all oil and gas produced in federal waters that belong to you and me.
We should follow Denmark. In 1985 the Danish parliament decided that nuclear power should not be an element of Danish energy supply. It should be noted that this was one year before the Chernobyl accident. They also banned the construction of new coal plants. Remaining coal plants will be converted to other fuels or decommissioned by 2030.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
And, the great oil-give-away of the century, the Royalty Relief act is giving $10 billion to energy companies that drill new oil and gas wells in the Gulf of Mexico.
The federal government is supposed to collect a royalty of 12 or 16 percent on all oil and gas produced in federal waters that belong to you and me.
We should follow Denmark. In 1985 the Danish parliament decided that nuclear power should not be an element of Danish energy supply. It should be noted that this was one year before the Chernobyl accident. They also banned the construction of new coal plants. Remaining coal plants will be converted to other fuels or decommissioned by 2030.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Vice President, Clean Power Now
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Energy - The Nuclear Option
In response to: Energy - The Nuclear Option
Not all countries are going nuclear. Look at Denmark. In 1985 the Danish parliament decided that nuclear power should not be an element of Danish energy supply. It should be noted that this was one year before the Chernobyl accident. They also banned the construction of new coal plants. Remaining coal plants will be converted to other fuels or decommissioned by 2030.
Denmark progressed from the situation where imported cheap oil was fuelling 90% of the electricity production in the years before the oil crisis of 1974. This nation is not only self-sufficient now in energy, but exports oil, natural gas, and electricity to other countries. They are currently producing 19% of their electrical energy from wind with a goal of 50% by 2030. In the depth of this last long winter, the high wind power production in January was a record 32% of the total domestic electric supply.
In America, we could easily replace the current 20% nuclear plant generators with 20% wind energy.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Denmark progressed from the situation where imported cheap oil was fuelling 90% of the electricity production in the years before the oil crisis of 1974. This nation is not only self-sufficient now in energy, but exports oil, natural gas, and electricity to other countries. They are currently producing 19% of their electrical energy from wind with a goal of 50% by 2030. In the depth of this last long winter, the high wind power production in January was a record 32% of the total domestic electric supply.
In America, we could easily replace the current 20% nuclear plant generators with 20% wind energy.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: ENERGY - THERE IS A PROBLEM
In response to: ENERGY - THERE IS A PROBLEM
Capri,
I’d be very happy to have the Canal plant switch to ultra low sulfur fuel oil like Chelsea... again that’s 30 ppm vs. Canal’s 10,000 ppm. A difference of 333 times. I’d say that’s a bit cleaner wouldn’t you? But no way will Mirant switch, it’s simply too expensive for base load or cycling plants to burn... they are already in bankruptcy. Only peakers that run a few hundred hours a year can afford that high quality fuel oil. (The electricity they sell under full grid load conditions is very, very expensive).
Or would you rather have rolling blackouts? Your house first? Mine? Or someone’s house in Chelsea?
I’d be happy to put the clean Chelsea peaker in Sandwich and move the dirty Canal plant to Chelsea... but that would certainly be unfair and at odds with environmental justice. So what’s your solution to peaker power plants?
Of course, all fossil plants with have some polluting emissions, but the measure is how polluting.
Regards,
Chuck K.
I’d be very happy to have the Canal plant switch to ultra low sulfur fuel oil like Chelsea... again that’s 30 ppm vs. Canal’s 10,000 ppm. A difference of 333 times. I’d say that’s a bit cleaner wouldn’t you? But no way will Mirant switch, it’s simply too expensive for base load or cycling plants to burn... they are already in bankruptcy. Only peakers that run a few hundred hours a year can afford that high quality fuel oil. (The electricity they sell under full grid load conditions is very, very expensive).
Or would you rather have rolling blackouts? Your house first? Mine? Or someone’s house in Chelsea?
I’d be happy to put the clean Chelsea peaker in Sandwich and move the dirty Canal plant to Chelsea... but that would certainly be unfair and at odds with environmental justice. So what’s your solution to peaker power plants?
Of course, all fossil plants with have some polluting emissions, but the measure is how polluting.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: ENERGY - THERE IS A PROBLEM
In response to: ENERGY - THERE IS A PROBLEM
By the way Capri, if you are training to run a marathon, go to Roxbury, not Cape Cod to get in shape. The DEP air quality monitors show that the air quality index that measures ground based ozone (formed from nitrogen oxides from dirty fossil fueled power plants like Canal and Brayton Point) is 50% worse on the Cape.
We must work to reduce the harmful emissions of old fossil fuel plants all over the country. You know the many reasons, global warming, buying foreign fuel, and adverse health impacts. Wind power is the most benign source of utility scale power known and is now cost effective when measured against oil and natural gas.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
We must work to reduce the harmful emissions of old fossil fuel plants all over the country. You know the many reasons, global warming, buying foreign fuel, and adverse health impacts. Wind power is the most benign source of utility scale power known and is now cost effective when measured against oil and natural gas.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: ENERGY - THERE IS A PROBLEM
In response to: ENERGY - THERE IS A PROBLEM
A Response to Capri on where I prefer to live and feeling for others.
Yes, I prefer to live on the Cape rather than Chelsea. However, I do indeed have a feeling for the health of the people of Chelsea and indeed, in every community! Along with other organizations all over the state, I have worked assiduously as Vice President of Cape Clean Air to get the most stringent emission regulations in the United States passed in Massachusetts relating to old power plants, the filthy five, (public law known as CMR 7.29).
Not incidentally, it turns out that the air quality on Cape Cod is the worst in the state. In fact numerically 50% worse than in Roxbury. The reasons are partially due to being down wind from mid-west coal burning power plants, but equally important is being very close to old coal and oil plants like Brayton Point, Canal, and Salem Harbor to name a few. That’s why we have such high asthma rates and upper respiratory problems on the Cape.
Want to improve your health? Then support wind, solar, wave, and tidal... all non-polluting renewables.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Yes, I prefer to live on the Cape rather than Chelsea. However, I do indeed have a feeling for the health of the people of Chelsea and indeed, in every community! Along with other organizations all over the state, I have worked assiduously as Vice President of Cape Clean Air to get the most stringent emission regulations in the United States passed in Massachusetts relating to old power plants, the filthy five, (public law known as CMR 7.29).
Not incidentally, it turns out that the air quality on Cape Cod is the worst in the state. In fact numerically 50% worse than in Roxbury. The reasons are partially due to being down wind from mid-west coal burning power plants, but equally important is being very close to old coal and oil plants like Brayton Point, Canal, and Salem Harbor to name a few. That’s why we have such high asthma rates and upper respiratory problems on the Cape.
Want to improve your health? Then support wind, solar, wave, and tidal... all non-polluting renewables.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: ENERGY - THERE IS A PROBLEM
In response to: ENERGY - THERE IS A PROBLEM
A Response to Capri on CPN conflict of interest.
Wind power can account for 20% of the electrical demand without major impact on the grid system. Beyond that other renewables such as solar, bio fuels and landfill gas can fill our current need to maybe 50% in the near future if wisdom prevails.
For now however, there will continue be a need for fossil fueled gap fillers. Hopefully they will be more refined and much cleaner fossil fuels such as ultra low sulfur distillate fuel oil and natural gas. However, realize these are limited earth resources are becoming ever more expensive and must be wisely conserved and used only as necessary.
So there is no conflict of interest at Clean Power Now in using clean burning fossil fuels to generate electricity to fill in the gaps of wind, solar, tidal or wave energy. I have made this point in my public presentations.
As time and the evolution of renewables go forward, I believe we can virtually eliminate coal and nuclear as electrical generating fuels.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Wind power can account for 20% of the electrical demand without major impact on the grid system. Beyond that other renewables such as solar, bio fuels and landfill gas can fill our current need to maybe 50% in the near future if wisdom prevails.
For now however, there will continue be a need for fossil fueled gap fillers. Hopefully they will be more refined and much cleaner fossil fuels such as ultra low sulfur distillate fuel oil and natural gas. However, realize these are limited earth resources are becoming ever more expensive and must be wisely conserved and used only as necessary.
So there is no conflict of interest at Clean Power Now in using clean burning fossil fuels to generate electricity to fill in the gaps of wind, solar, tidal or wave energy. I have made this point in my public presentations.
As time and the evolution of renewables go forward, I believe we can virtually eliminate coal and nuclear as electrical generating fuels.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: ENERGY - THERE IS A PROBLEM
In response to: ENERGY - THERE IS A PROBLEM
A Response to Capri on the term “Diesel”
I prefer to use the technically correct term for fuel. It’s true, you can take home heating oil (No. 2 distillate and burn it in your diesel truck or auto (although that’s illegal because you don’t pay a road tax on home heating oil). Or you could go to your gas station and buy diesel fuel, take it home and burn it in your oil fired furnace (but why would you want to do that and pay the extra road tax.)
Distillate fuels come in many varieties all the way from gasoline, kerosene, jet fuel, and diesel, No. 2 distillate with a wide variety of sulfur content (the lower sulfur the more expensive), No. 4 distillate, and No 6 generally called residual or bunker fuel, again with a wide range of sulfur content.
So I simply prefer to identify specifically what I am talking about so there is no ambiguity. Call it diesel if you like, just be aware of and acknowledge the sulfur content.
In any case, EMI is not going down to the gas station to buy diesel for thier peaker plant.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
I prefer to use the technically correct term for fuel. It’s true, you can take home heating oil (No. 2 distillate and burn it in your diesel truck or auto (although that’s illegal because you don’t pay a road tax on home heating oil). Or you could go to your gas station and buy diesel fuel, take it home and burn it in your oil fired furnace (but why would you want to do that and pay the extra road tax.)
Distillate fuels come in many varieties all the way from gasoline, kerosene, jet fuel, and diesel, No. 2 distillate with a wide variety of sulfur content (the lower sulfur the more expensive), No. 4 distillate, and No 6 generally called residual or bunker fuel, again with a wide range of sulfur content.
So I simply prefer to identify specifically what I am talking about so there is no ambiguity. Call it diesel if you like, just be aware of and acknowledge the sulfur content.
In any case, EMI is not going down to the gas station to buy diesel for thier peaker plant.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: ENERGY - THERE IS A PROBLEM
In response to: ENERGY - THERE IS A PROBLEM
(Part 2)
The peaker proposed by EMI is a combustion turbine that will use ultra low sulfur fuel oil with a maximum of 30 ppm sulfur content. Compare that to the Mirant Canal Plant that burns high sulfur residual fuel oil (1% or 10,000 ppm).
Now tell me, would you rather live in Chelsea with a peaker that runs on ultra low sulfur fuel at about 1% of the time, or on Cape Cod with the Mirant plant with its sulfurous pollution (333 times worse than Chelsea) blowing over you 58% of the time?
As for me, I’d rather live on Cape Cod where we will get 75% of our electricity from non-polluting wind and a few ultra low sulfur fuel oil or natural gas cycling or peaker units filling in the gaps, even if they were in my backyard (where the Canal plant is now).
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E., Ret.
The peaker proposed by EMI is a combustion turbine that will use ultra low sulfur fuel oil with a maximum of 30 ppm sulfur content. Compare that to the Mirant Canal Plant that burns high sulfur residual fuel oil (1% or 10,000 ppm).
Now tell me, would you rather live in Chelsea with a peaker that runs on ultra low sulfur fuel at about 1% of the time, or on Cape Cod with the Mirant plant with its sulfurous pollution (333 times worse than Chelsea) blowing over you 58% of the time?
As for me, I’d rather live on Cape Cod where we will get 75% of our electricity from non-polluting wind and a few ultra low sulfur fuel oil or natural gas cycling or peaker units filling in the gaps, even if they were in my backyard (where the Canal plant is now).
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E., Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: ENERGY - THERE IS A PROBLEM
In response to: ENERGY - THERE IS A PROBLEM
A note of explanation to Capri, (two parts).
Peaker plants, such as the one being proposed by EMI, have always been the third leg of the electrical supply system. And in fact more are needed and are necessary for system growth and stability according to ISO NE.
The first leg is “base load units” like Pilgrim nuclear, running at 98% capacity factor on a “must run” status and Mirant’s Canal unit #1, an oil unit that has a capacity factor of about 66%. These plants are designed to run most efficiently at full load.
The second leg are “cycling units” like Canal Unit #2 that are designed with a compromised efficiency but overall run better over a wide range of power following night and day cycling load requirements. Canal Unit 2 has a capacity factor of 50%.
The third leg are “peaker” units for extremes in load demand that have capacity factors of typically 1% to maybe 14% and are very expensive to run.
Peaker plants, such as the one being proposed by EMI, have always been the third leg of the electrical supply system. And in fact more are needed and are necessary for system growth and stability according to ISO NE.
The first leg is “base load units” like Pilgrim nuclear, running at 98% capacity factor on a “must run” status and Mirant’s Canal unit #1, an oil unit that has a capacity factor of about 66%. These plants are designed to run most efficiently at full load.
The second leg are “cycling units” like Canal Unit #2 that are designed with a compromised efficiency but overall run better over a wide range of power following night and day cycling load requirements. Canal Unit 2 has a capacity factor of 50%.
The third leg are “peaker” units for extremes in load demand that have capacity factors of typically 1% to maybe 14% and are very expensive to run.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: ENERGY - THERE IS A PROBLEM
In response to: ENERGY - THERE IS A PROBLEM
Part 2 of comment.
And you think we’ve got an oil energy problem? Well here’s the pending natural gas crisis.
7. The U.S. reached its peak natural gas production in 1972. Then we were essentially self sufficient.
8. By 2004 we were importing 15% of our natural gas (mostly from Canada and Tobago/Trinidad)
9. In 2002 the price of natural gas was $2/mmBTU, now its around $7 in summer and $14 in winter.
10. Most new electrical generating plants built in the U.S. since 1990 are fueled by natural gas.
11. Canada is less able to supply natural gas now... they need it themselves...
12. The U.S. will have to build 8 LNG terminals in the next 5 years to support our appetite for natural gas. And just where do you think this is coming from? Hint... they’re not friendly and they’re unstable. By the way, the folks in Fall River are not happy with a proposed LNG terminal there.
The solution, my friend, (in part) is blowing in the wind.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
And you think we’ve got an oil energy problem? Well here’s the pending natural gas crisis.
7. The U.S. reached its peak natural gas production in 1972. Then we were essentially self sufficient.
8. By 2004 we were importing 15% of our natural gas (mostly from Canada and Tobago/Trinidad)
9. In 2002 the price of natural gas was $2/mmBTU, now its around $7 in summer and $14 in winter.
10. Most new electrical generating plants built in the U.S. since 1990 are fueled by natural gas.
11. Canada is less able to supply natural gas now... they need it themselves...
12. The U.S. will have to build 8 LNG terminals in the next 5 years to support our appetite for natural gas. And just where do you think this is coming from? Hint... they’re not friendly and they’re unstable. By the way, the folks in Fall River are not happy with a proposed LNG terminal there.
The solution, my friend, (in part) is blowing in the wind.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: ENERGY - THERE IS A PROBLEM
In response to: ENERGY - THERE IS A PROBLEM
Robert,
I couldn’t agree with you more. In addition to your brief one liners.... here are some more inconvenient facts:
1. The price of crude oil was $20/barrel in 2002. Today it hit $76. Guess where this money is going.
2. U.S. Oil production reached its peak in 1970 (Hubbert’s Peak) at about 9.5 million barrels/day.
3. Before the Arab oil embargo of 1973 we were importing 4 million barrels/day, about 30% of our total.
4. By 2004 the U.S. was producing only 5.5 million barrels/day including the Alaska North Slope.
5. In 2004 the U.S. was importing 11.8 million barrels/day, about 68% of the total.
6. The Artic National Wildlife Refuge may give us one million barrels/day for 20 years? Maybe.
And you think we’ve got an oil energy problem? Well here’s the pending natural gas crisis.
Comments continue...
I couldn’t agree with you more. In addition to your brief one liners.... here are some more inconvenient facts:
1. The price of crude oil was $20/barrel in 2002. Today it hit $76. Guess where this money is going.
2. U.S. Oil production reached its peak in 1970 (Hubbert’s Peak) at about 9.5 million barrels/day.
3. Before the Arab oil embargo of 1973 we were importing 4 million barrels/day, about 30% of our total.
4. By 2004 the U.S. was producing only 5.5 million barrels/day including the Alaska North Slope.
5. In 2004 the U.S. was importing 11.8 million barrels/day, about 68% of the total.
6. The Artic National Wildlife Refuge may give us one million barrels/day for 20 years? Maybe.
And you think we’ve got an oil energy problem? Well here’s the pending natural gas crisis.
Comments continue...
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: For Gore's critics, inconvenient corroboration - from climate scientists
In response to: For Gore's critics, inconvenient corroboration - from climate scientists
The fuss about who’s right on the issue of global warming is becoming as intractable as the fuss about evolution. Those who firmly believe on one side of the debate will not likely ever change their personal opinion and it is futile and a waste of time to debate the evidence.
As an anonymous statistician once said: “Those with data have the facts, all others have an opinion.”
As far as wind power being intermittent therefore not useful is bogus. There are many gap fillers. Wind could easily replace 20% of the nations electrical demand while using gas or oil fired combustion turbines as peaker units or even better, pumped storage hydro systems that pump water up to a reservoir when wind power is in excess, hence low cost, then reverse as hydro generators when a gap or peak needs to be filled. You can’t store electricity on the grid, but you can store energy in the form of natural gas and oil or elevated water.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
As an anonymous statistician once said: “Those with data have the facts, all others have an opinion.”
As far as wind power being intermittent therefore not useful is bogus. There are many gap fillers. Wind could easily replace 20% of the nations electrical demand while using gas or oil fired combustion turbines as peaker units or even better, pumped storage hydro systems that pump water up to a reservoir when wind power is in excess, hence low cost, then reverse as hydro generators when a gap or peak needs to be filled. You can’t store electricity on the grid, but you can store energy in the form of natural gas and oil or elevated water.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Wind, Rules, and Fairness
In response to: Cape Wind, Rules, and Fairness
Barbara,
I would think the polar bears, among other mammals, would applaud Cape Wind for making a big start in reducing global warming. And the endangered birds, who Jack Clark of the Audubon said, face the bigger danger of extinction from a raising ocean over the Cape’s barrier islands, would applaud for helping save their habitat.
Barbara, can you name another single project in the United States that will avoid the emission of a million tons of carbon dioxide? Have you seen “An Inconvenient Truth” yet? Have you ever visited an offshore windfarm in Europe? There are at least a dozen of them with more under construction, two of which will be larger than Cape Wind.
May this windfarm set the stage for the beginning of offshore wind in the United States.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
I would think the polar bears, among other mammals, would applaud Cape Wind for making a big start in reducing global warming. And the endangered birds, who Jack Clark of the Audubon said, face the bigger danger of extinction from a raising ocean over the Cape’s barrier islands, would applaud for helping save their habitat.
Barbara, can you name another single project in the United States that will avoid the emission of a million tons of carbon dioxide? Have you seen “An Inconvenient Truth” yet? Have you ever visited an offshore windfarm in Europe? There are at least a dozen of them with more under construction, two of which will be larger than Cape Wind.
May this windfarm set the stage for the beginning of offshore wind in the United States.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: A Vote to far?
In response to: A Vote to far?
Mr. Peckham,
Please look to the left under "capecodtoday recent bloggings"
and under:
"Cape Wind, Rules, and Fairness"
Regards, CWK
Please look to the left under "capecodtoday recent bloggings"
and under:
"Cape Wind, Rules, and Fairness"
Regards, CWK
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Wind, Rules, and Fairness
In response to: Cape Wind, Rules, and Fairness
Part 2 to Johnp
4. If you want to buy power from Cape Wind, encourage your representative in the Cape Light Compact to become a cooperative so they can buy Cape Wind power on a long term contract at a wholesale rate, and in turn, sell it to you without markup. It will obviously have to be less than what is available on the market now or Cape Wind won’t be able to sell it to anybody. What that is remains to be seen but it will not be increasing like electricity from conventional sources. Do you know what the price of electricity will be three years from now from ConEdisionSolutions? That depends largely on the world price for oil and natural gas and whatever happens on the world scene in the oil exporting countries.
Remember, the wind is free and forever!
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
4. If you want to buy power from Cape Wind, encourage your representative in the Cape Light Compact to become a cooperative so they can buy Cape Wind power on a long term contract at a wholesale rate, and in turn, sell it to you without markup. It will obviously have to be less than what is available on the market now or Cape Wind won’t be able to sell it to anybody. What that is remains to be seen but it will not be increasing like electricity from conventional sources. Do you know what the price of electricity will be three years from now from ConEdisionSolutions? That depends largely on the world price for oil and natural gas and whatever happens on the world scene in the oil exporting countries.
Remember, the wind is free and forever!
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape Wind, Rules, and Fairness
In response to: Cape Wind, Rules, and Fairness
A note to Johnp on benefits. Thank you for your patience. An answer in two parts.
1. For a condensed list of benefits go to CleanPowerNow.org and pull down the tab for “Wind Energy in Nantucket Sound,” then go down to “Fact Sheets,” then select “21 Reasons.” Also look at “Benefits to Health” and “Emissions Reductions and Oil Imports.”
2. The power generated will physically go to the Cape and Islands first, then off cape if the wind power exceeds the energy load on the cape.
3. In dollars and cents that trickle down.... It will depend on who buys the electrical energy from Cape Wind. You cannot do this as an individual or as a business any more than you can call up Mirant and ask to buy power directly from the Canal plant. Under deregulation power plants like Canal or Cape Wind must sell (wholesale) to a distributor like NStar or ConEdisionSolutions who are retailers of electricity. That’s your choice now. The price is determined by the retailer.
1. For a condensed list of benefits go to CleanPowerNow.org and pull down the tab for “Wind Energy in Nantucket Sound,” then go down to “Fact Sheets,” then select “21 Reasons.” Also look at “Benefits to Health” and “Emissions Reductions and Oil Imports.”
2. The power generated will physically go to the Cape and Islands first, then off cape if the wind power exceeds the energy load on the cape.
3. In dollars and cents that trickle down.... It will depend on who buys the electrical energy from Cape Wind. You cannot do this as an individual or as a business any more than you can call up Mirant and ask to buy power directly from the Canal plant. Under deregulation power plants like Canal or Cape Wind must sell (wholesale) to a distributor like NStar or ConEdisionSolutions who are retailers of electricity. That’s your choice now. The price is determined by the retailer.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: A Vote to far?
In response to: A Vote to far?
For a response to the issue of rules see my blog today at 12:39 PM titled “Cape Wind, Rules, and Fairness.”
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Midwest farmers blame us for their lack of wind
In response to: Midwest farmers blame us for their lack of wind
Delay tactics aimed at Cape Wind are taking a needless toll on the wind industry in general by nefarious blanket appeals.
Each case should be evaluated on its details. For example, the wind turbine in Hull is directly in line with the main water approach to runway 33 at Logan at 5.4 miles from touchdown. No problems there!
The PAVE PAWS military radar on the Cape is 18 miles from the windfarm. It has a minimum beam angle of three degrees above the horizon.
In a letter dated 21 March 2004, by Major General Douglas Fraser, Director of Air and Space Operations: "Our experts have reviewed the proposed locations of the Wind Power Plant near Cape Cod Air Force Station and have determined it poses no threat to the operation of the PAVE PAWS radar. At the nearest proposed location, the main radar beam will clear the towers by more than 4,500 feet."
I doubt the general will find a different result when it is re-examined again. The geometry is the same.
Each case should be evaluated on its details. For example, the wind turbine in Hull is directly in line with the main water approach to runway 33 at Logan at 5.4 miles from touchdown. No problems there!
The PAVE PAWS military radar on the Cape is 18 miles from the windfarm. It has a minimum beam angle of three degrees above the horizon.
In a letter dated 21 March 2004, by Major General Douglas Fraser, Director of Air and Space Operations: "Our experts have reviewed the proposed locations of the Wind Power Plant near Cape Cod Air Force Station and have determined it poses no threat to the operation of the PAVE PAWS radar. At the nearest proposed location, the main radar beam will clear the towers by more than 4,500 feet."
I doubt the general will find a different result when it is re-examined again. The geometry is the same.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Kick-starting the conversation -- five years ago
In response to: Kick-starting the conversation -- five years ago
Oh my goodness, in a state-designated Cape and Islands Ocean Sanctuary!
What to do...
Well we all believe in wind power, but please, just put it somewhere else!
Where next?
Or, let’s just buy more of the high sulfur Venezuelan fuel oil for the Canal Plant. Maybe Delahunt can get a break from Hugo so the most expensively generated electricity can sustain us while we send our money south instead of generating our electricity from the free wind fuel.
What to do...
Well we all believe in wind power, but please, just put it somewhere else!
Where next?
Or, let’s just buy more of the high sulfur Venezuelan fuel oil for the Canal Plant. Maybe Delahunt can get a break from Hugo so the most expensively generated electricity can sustain us while we send our money south instead of generating our electricity from the free wind fuel.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Let the Delahunt Deflection Dance begin
In response to: Let the Delahunt Deflection Dance begin
It’s about the view folks, not the vision!
The governor along with the “against” politicians know that the folks living around Buzzards Bay don’t have the money to fund a $5 million effort (and similar contributions) to stop the Patriot Renewables project. They’re just “ordinary” working people of course.
To paraphrase and old nursery story:
“Window, window on the wall...
Whose view is most valuable of all?”
And Oh My!... those Patriot turbines will appear at 3 miles from shore to be almost an agonizing one-inch tall on the horizon as measured at arms length (3 feet). Compare that to the half-inch high turbines on Nantucket Sound at five miles.
Let’s hear the pols bleat now about that view!
The governor says: “It’s intriguing!”
Senator Kennedy says: “An opportunity”
Rep. Barney Frank: “Supports the idea in principle. Aesthetics are not a problem for me.”
How nice to be hypocritical.
The governor along with the “against” politicians know that the folks living around Buzzards Bay don’t have the money to fund a $5 million effort (and similar contributions) to stop the Patriot Renewables project. They’re just “ordinary” working people of course.
To paraphrase and old nursery story:
“Window, window on the wall...
Whose view is most valuable of all?”
And Oh My!... those Patriot turbines will appear at 3 miles from shore to be almost an agonizing one-inch tall on the horizon as measured at arms length (3 feet). Compare that to the half-inch high turbines on Nantucket Sound at five miles.
Let’s hear the pols bleat now about that view!
The governor says: “It’s intriguing!”
Senator Kennedy says: “An opportunity”
Rep. Barney Frank: “Supports the idea in principle. Aesthetics are not a problem for me.”
How nice to be hypocritical.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Cape's Cashman to build two more wind farms
In response to: Cape's Cashman to build two more wind farms
Great news!
The flagship on Nantucket Sound has inspired the second in Buzzards Bay!
As the price of oil and natural gas generated electricity continues to climb because we have reached the world’s peak pumping rate, the zero fuel cost of wind looks better and better.
The most optimum site on Horseshoe Shoal was first. The second most optimum site in Buzzards Bay. The third most optimum site is.... (Mother Nature picks these, not politicians in 11th hour meetings based on valued contributors).
Welcome to the club Mr. Cashman!
The flagship on Nantucket Sound has inspired the second in Buzzards Bay!
As the price of oil and natural gas generated electricity continues to climb because we have reached the world’s peak pumping rate, the zero fuel cost of wind looks better and better.
The most optimum site on Horseshoe Shoal was first. The second most optimum site in Buzzards Bay. The third most optimum site is.... (Mother Nature picks these, not politicians in 11th hour meetings based on valued contributors).
Welcome to the club Mr. Cashman!
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Fortunately for the Attorney General, he wasn't under oath ...
In response to: Fortunately for the Attorney General, he wasn't under oath ...
Once again, please let me clarify incentives for the Cape Wind project.
First, there are no subsidies of any kind for the construction of the project.
The federal production tax credit for wind energy is 1.9 cents per kWh after it is produced.
For the expected 1.5 million MWh produced each year, that amounts to $28.5 million/year.
The MA Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) provides for renewable energy providers to sell Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) at commodity market rates. There are not enough available to meet the RPS now, so a default price of some $53 per MWh must be paid by the distribution utilities like NSTAR. Cape Wind could flood the market with 1.5 million certificates, more than enough to fulfill the mandate, and the price will fall saving us all money. Currently RECs are sold on the futures market at about $25 each. So this incentive may be worth about $37 million/year for Cape Wind based on speculation.
That’s a far cry from a Billion dollars!
Would one cancel these incentives for all renewables? I think not.
First, there are no subsidies of any kind for the construction of the project.
The federal production tax credit for wind energy is 1.9 cents per kWh after it is produced.
For the expected 1.5 million MWh produced each year, that amounts to $28.5 million/year.
The MA Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) provides for renewable energy providers to sell Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) at commodity market rates. There are not enough available to meet the RPS now, so a default price of some $53 per MWh must be paid by the distribution utilities like NSTAR. Cape Wind could flood the market with 1.5 million certificates, more than enough to fulfill the mandate, and the price will fall saving us all money. Currently RECs are sold on the futures market at about $25 each. So this incentive may be worth about $37 million/year for Cape Wind based on speculation.
That’s a far cry from a Billion dollars!
Would one cancel these incentives for all renewables? I think not.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Former Cousteau staffer joins Cape Cod TODAY
In response to: Former Cousteau staffer joins Cape Cod TODAY
Nice to have Mr. Farley join the CCTODAY team! I’d enjoy having him write on the topic of the environmental impacts and benefits of the Nantucket Wind Farm with his background and experience in ocean research.
Perhaps he could begin with a commentary on the “other” industry in the pristine sound, i.e. the impact of the dozen or so hydraulic scallop draggers that relentlessly fluidize the sea floor benthic community from mile-after-mile of bottom disturbance with high-pressure deep-penetrating water jets. Indeed, a comparison to the impact of the one-time jetting in of the wind farm electrical cables.
Perhaps he could begin with a commentary on the “other” industry in the pristine sound, i.e. the impact of the dozen or so hydraulic scallop draggers that relentlessly fluidize the sea floor benthic community from mile-after-mile of bottom disturbance with high-pressure deep-penetrating water jets. Indeed, a comparison to the impact of the one-time jetting in of the wind farm electrical cables.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Frank and Kennedy should stop blocking windpower
In response to: Frank and Kennedy should stop blocking windpower
Briefly, following are references to Danish wind power production facts.
“The percentage of renewable energy in Danish electricity supply has increased enormously since the mid-1990s and, in 2004, accounted for approximately 28% of electricity produced, of which wind contributed the largest share (approximately 19%), although waste and biomass also made significant contributions.”
From: chapter 2 at http://www.ens.dk
“The figures show that wind power production in the month of January [2005] came up to 1,076 GWh corresponding to 32 per cent of total domestic electric supply.”
From: http://search.ens.dk
“The percentage of renewable energy in Danish electricity supply has increased enormously since the mid-1990s and, in 2004, accounted for approximately 28% of electricity produced, of which wind contributed the largest share (approximately 19%), although waste and biomass also made significant contributions.”
From: chapter 2 at http://www.ens.dk
“The figures show that wind power production in the month of January [2005] came up to 1,076 GWh corresponding to 32 per cent of total domestic electric supply.”
From: http://search.ens.dk
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Frank and Kennedy should stop blocking windpower
In response to: Frank and Kennedy should stop blocking windpower
My “rhetoric” is based on substantiated facts. Others are welcome to their unsubstantiated opinions.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Robert Kennedy?s Misguided Editorial
In response to: Robert Kennedy?s Misguided Editorial
Dear Ms. Durkin,
Multiplying numbers is not fuzzy.
Of course electricity from wind energy is not free, the fuel is.
Can’t say that about electricity generated from natural gas.
As for mineral oil in the transformers... rather than you and I debate the topic, let’s depend on the MMS as you suggest to evaluate it and issue a lease or not. It’s certainly in good hands at the MMS. I’m sure they have plenty of experience with transformer mineral oil.
In the mean time, let’s hope mothers with babies don’t use Johnson’s Baby oil and let them get in the water at the beach next summer, after all Johnson’s Baby oil is almost pure mineral oil... Ref: on their label.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Multiplying numbers is not fuzzy.
Of course electricity from wind energy is not free, the fuel is.
Can’t say that about electricity generated from natural gas.
As for mineral oil in the transformers... rather than you and I debate the topic, let’s depend on the MMS as you suggest to evaluate it and issue a lease or not. It’s certainly in good hands at the MMS. I’m sure they have plenty of experience with transformer mineral oil.
In the mean time, let’s hope mothers with babies don’t use Johnson’s Baby oil and let them get in the water at the beach next summer, after all Johnson’s Baby oil is almost pure mineral oil... Ref: on their label.
Regards,
Chuck K.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member]
In response to: Robert Kennedy?s Misguided Editorial
In response to: Robert Kennedy?s Misguided Editorial
Ms. Durkin,
I didn't see any footnotes by Mr. Kennedy to substantiate his claims. At least you can see mine and do the math and check the sources.
Regards,
Chuck K.
I didn't see any footnotes by Mr. Kennedy to substantiate his claims. At least you can see mine and do the math and check the sources.
Regards,
Chuck K.
About This Blog
What's Blog Chowder?
Local ideas, opinions, humor, politics, musings & a few old salts thrown in for good measure. Thick, tasty and often pungent! You can visit all the Cape Bloggers below, browse blog archives, & even search our blogs. If you're interested in setting up a blog, it's free and easy. Just email us & we'll get you started.
Recent Comments
- Hey Mey, did you ever wonder why little Tommy is
1 min ago - Mey Wordell said her son Thomas, 19, was arrested for
1 min ago - Wildbill - couldn't be any more accurate.
22 mins ago - So is a post about two losers living at home
23 mins ago - Try and figure this out.
Bitter posted:
"And possee..I would like to
55 mins ago
- site sponsors -
CCT Blog List
Blogs with posts in the past 60 days are listed here in order of newest posts. For a list of all blogs, visit Blogs A to Z
- Newest Blog Posts
- Newest Comments
- Bill Snowden's Blog
- Police and Fire News
- Cape & Islands News
- Latimer on Law
- Entering Bourne
- Cape Yoga
- Wellfleet Bay Sanctuary
- The Ballyard
- EXTRA...
- Cape Cod History
- The Poet's Perspective
- Cape Cod Rock Hopper
- Editorial
- Media Watch
- Mr. Mom I am not
- Politicalendar
- Cheap Eats
- Long Bridge Runner
- Rep. Jeff Perry in His Own Words
- The Belly Check
- Conservative's Conscience
- Mahler's Music Notes
- Historic Harwich
- Off-the-Shelf
- Ned Sonntag
- Literary Pop
- Boston Bureau
- Entering Falmouth
- Frugal Internet Marketing
- Cape Native
- Sea Street
- Rog's Gallery
- State of Cape Cod
- Town Notes
- Solon Economou
- Cape Cod Barrister
- Cape Eyes
- CapeCodToday Arts Calendar
- One Day at a Time
- Cape Cod Tracker
- DIY Marketing
- Trail Hound
- Letters to the Editor
- Project I.E.P.
- Op-Ed
- Through a Washashore's Eyes
- Travel Tales
- CapeCodToday Featured Event
- Off Cape
- Bismore Park
- My day
- The Natural
- Buckley's Blog
- Eastham Windmill
- Washington Window
- Seufert's Scenes
- Massachusetts Paranormal Institute
- Cape Cod Pets
- Reflections on a Quarter-life Crisis
- Myrbie & Dax
Archives
- November 2009 (201)
- October 2009 (275)
- September 2009 (271)
- August 2009 (273)
- July 2009 (284)
- June 2009 (260)
- May 2009 (281)
- April 2009 (289)
- March 2009 (311)
- February 2009 (264)
- January 2009 (281)
- December 2008 (294)
- November 2008 (270)
- October 2008 (299)
- September 2008 (288)
- August 2008 (269)
- July 2008 (277)
- June 2008 (249)
- May 2008 (265)
- April 2008 (276)
- March 2008 (325)
- February 2008 (299)
- January 2008 (331)
- December 2007 (300)
- November 2007 (285)
- October 2007 (301)
- September 2007 (284)
- August 2007 (252)
- July 2007 (255)
- June 2007 (234)
- May 2007 (237)
- April 2007 (235)
- March 2007 (225)
- February 2007 (199)
- January 2007 (211)
- December 2006 (188)
- November 2006 (211)
- October 2006 (290)
- September 2006 (270)
- August 2006 (237)
- July 2006 (244)
- June 2006 (229)
- May 2006 (195)
- April 2006 (195)
- March 2006 (214)
- February 2006 (219)
- January 2006 (247)
- December 2005 (106)
- November 2005 (67)
- October 2005 (62)
- September 2005 (47)
- August 2005 (40)
- July 2005 (41)
- April 2005 (1)
Become a CapeCodToday Blogger!
Are you passionate about your community? Do you blog or at least harbor thoughts of doing so?
If so, CapeCodToday.com would like to host your blog on our CapeCodToday weblog publishing platform.
Blog Newsfeed
CapeCodToday uses standard web "newsfeeds" (RSS) to automatically update the latest blog entries in your browser or newsreader.
Use any of the links below in your newsreader or web browser to get "CapeCodToday Blog Chowder" postings delivered to you, or use the RSS icon in your browser's address bar.
In response to: US Interior Secretary Sees Cape Wind Decision By Year-End
Old myths keep reappearing. It’s been so long since the Missile Defense Agency issued its review on November 16, 2007 folks forget. Their third and final release 2007-11-16-01 said: “The Air Force review of the Cape Wind Project’s proposed turbine farm in Nantucket Sound found no impact on the PAVE PAWS radar operations.”
As a further note, at the final Minerals Management Service hearing for Cape Wind in Boston in March of 2008, Mr. Dan Wolf, a 30 year pilot who is the Chief Executive Officer and founder of Cape Air and Nantucket Airlines, testified that the project will not have a negative impact on air navigation. Cape Air is the largest independent regional airline in the U.S. and carries over 700,000 passengers a year in Massachusetts.
For the third time, the FAA is reviewing the impact. Rather than speculate and get in a tizzy on their future findings, let’s just wait and see.
Chuck Kleekamp, P.E. Ret.
President, Clean Power Now