Comments on: The Wind and the Warmth http://www.vermontnewsguy.com/the-wind-and-the-sun Real News for Real Vermonters Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:10:43 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Trip http://www.vermontnewsguy.com/the-wind-and-the-sun/comment-page-1#comment-184 Trip Sun, 05 Apr 2009 20:00:35 +0000 http://www.vermontnewsguy.com/?p=762#comment-184 While I agree that we need to incorporate the costs of pollution into our pricing, I disagree with the premise that there may be no environmental benefit from wind power absent such pricing. Electricity generated by wind displaces the need for power generated by another source, so the question then becomes what sources is wind displacing. Is it, say hydro, or natural gas (which constitutes approximately 40% of the generation capacity within the New England electrical grid) - both of which are generally "fast start" capacity resources. Since the composition of the grids generation resources changes based upon variables such as system load and generator availability, it is all but impossible to know what resource wind will be displacing at any given time, and thus it is difficult to substantiate specific environmental benefit claims. It is worth noting, however, that the US Department of Energy, in it's report titled "20% Wind Energy by 2030" stated that meeting 20% of the nation's electrical needs with wind could “reduce the electrical sector’s natural gas requirements by about 50% and its coal requirements by about 18%” - which translates into avoiding up to 825 million tons of CO2 emissions annually, along with a multitude of other pollutants. Thus I submit that the issue is not whether there are reductions in greenhouse gas emissions attributable to wind generation under the current electrical market, but rather to what extent. While I agree that we need to incorporate the costs of pollution into our pricing, I disagree with the premise that there may be no environmental benefit from wind power absent such pricing. Electricity generated by wind displaces the need for power generated by another source, so the question then becomes what sources is wind displacing. Is it, say hydro, or natural gas (which constitutes approximately 40% of the generation capacity within the New England electrical grid) – both of which are generally “fast start” capacity resources. Since the composition of the grids generation resources changes based upon variables such as system load and generator availability, it is all but impossible to know what resource wind will be displacing at any given time, and thus it is difficult to substantiate specific environmental benefit claims. It is worth noting, however, that the US Department of Energy, in it’s report titled “20% Wind Energy by 2030″ stated that meeting 20% of the nation’s electrical needs with wind could “reduce the electrical sector’s natural gas requirements by about 50% and its coal requirements by about 18%” – which translates into avoiding up to 825 million tons of CO2 emissions annually, along with a multitude of other pollutants. Thus I submit that the issue is not whether there are reductions in greenhouse gas emissions attributable to wind generation under the current electrical market, but rather to what extent.

]]> By: Doug Hoffer http://www.vermontnewsguy.com/the-wind-and-the-sun/comment-page-1#comment-179 Doug Hoffer Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:43:19 +0000 http://www.vermontnewsguy.com/?p=762#comment-179 You said wind will not reduce greenhouse gases "Unless the expansion of wind, solar, and other renewable power sources is accompanied by some mechanism to reduce the demand for - and therefore the production of - electricity from coal and oil." Do not forget natural gas. The industry has attempted to paint gas as "clean" but it's not. A 50 MW plant fired by gas will produce about 87,000 tons of air pollution (most of that CO2). In contrast, a biomass plant produces under 14,000 tons. As for efficiency, other parts of the country are ripe for huge savings. Those areas dependent on coal are incredibly wasteful. For example, Kentucky brags about its cheap power but (not surprisingly) the average residential consumption is twice Vermont's. As a result, the average bill in Kentucky is actually higher than in Vermont (even though our rates are double theirs). But since efficiency is so cheap (< 3 cents / KWh), even Kentucky will get the message. Huge savings are available even before a carbon tax regime. Note: The Governor's proposed "Green Growth" zones would allow a fossil fuel generating plant if it also produced thermal energy (combined heat & power). Natural gas is neither green nor sustainable. But VT Gas succeeded in getting the legislature to define CHP as including gas fired facilities. Green growth indeed. BTW - CLF may be "uncompromising" but their goal is simple: VT should comply with existing law. Why should any of us compromise on that? You said wind will not reduce greenhouse gases “Unless the expansion of wind, solar, and other renewable power sources is accompanied by some mechanism to reduce the demand for – and therefore the production of – electricity from coal and oil.”

Do not forget natural gas. The industry has attempted to paint gas as “clean” but it’s not. A 50 MW plant fired by gas will produce about 87,000 tons of air pollution (most of that CO2). In contrast, a biomass plant produces under 14,000 tons.

As for efficiency, other parts of the country are ripe for huge savings. Those areas dependent on coal are incredibly wasteful. For example, Kentucky brags about its cheap power but (not surprisingly) the average residential consumption is twice Vermont’s. As a result, the average bill in Kentucky is actually higher than in Vermont (even though our rates are double theirs). But since efficiency is so cheap (< 3 cents / KWh), even Kentucky will get the message. Huge savings are available even before a carbon tax regime.

Note: The Governor’s proposed “Green Growth” zones would allow a fossil fuel generating plant if it also produced thermal energy (combined heat & power). Natural gas is neither green nor sustainable. But VT Gas succeeded in getting the legislature to define CHP as including gas fired facilities. Green growth indeed.

BTW – CLF may be “uncompromising” but their goal is simple: VT should comply with existing law. Why should any of us compromise on that?

]]> By: Rama Schneider http://www.vermontnewsguy.com/the-wind-and-the-sun/comment-page-1#comment-178 Rama Schneider Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:15:34 +0000 http://www.vermontnewsguy.com/?p=762#comment-178 The News Guy wrote: "The Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation, generally considered the most uncompromising environmental group active in Vermont," Yeah ... according to Douglas and other anti-citizen participation politicians maybe, but I've found them not only measured in their approaches ... but also willing to work on alternatives. The News Guy wrote: “The Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation, generally considered the most uncompromising environmental group active in Vermont,”

Yeah … according to Douglas and other anti-citizen participation politicians maybe, but I’ve found them not only measured in their approaches … but also willing to work on alternatives.

]]>