New Hampshire is merely a conduit for a private, for-profit organization. We sacrifice our land, property values, beautiful scenery, tourism industry, jobs, second homeowners with the money they bring, possibly our health - and PSNH, its officers and stockholders make more money.
Isn't it questionable why so many people are supporting something that is so bad for New Hampshire?
To produce useable wind-generated electricity, other obstacles must be overcome. Perhaps most importantly, wind power is intermittent ...Therefore, reliable back-up power generating facilities must be on hand and ready to fill in when wind generation is absent.
These realities require duplicate capital investment and, to some extent, duplicate operating expenses.
Widespread myths about Ontario's energy sector have led to disastrous policy choices like the Green Energy Act. Regarding health effects, I am more concerned about the way soaring energy costs and stagnating employment are taking a toll on household budgets, leading to, among other things, compromised family nutrition and higher stress levels. The energy politics promoted by Dr. Oliphant have been a 'cure' far worse that the supposed disease.
A deliberate attempt to obscure the cost of those decisions by releasing only partial numbers? Testimony before the justice committee this week has shown the Liberals knew the $40-million cost of the Oakville cancellation that the former energy minister had insisted was the only true cost, in fact, referred only to sunk costs, and that the final bill would actually be much higher.
The Whitley County Concerned Citizens (WCCC) reviewed the most recent Purdue pro-wind ‘study' that appears to be little more than an editorial from a public university. This study, referenced in an article published in the latest issue of Inside Indiana Business and making its way around the Internet (http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?id=58637), claims to be ‘science-based' but is riddled with problems.
On one "side" of the wind-turbine debate are wealthy corporate behemoths supported by a government that removed the democratic rights of its citizens, without debate, to launch a misguided and ill-advised initiative that's going to cost taxpayers' into the billions. On the other "side," you have vulnerable Ontario residents with limited financial resources who have had their democratic rights trampled and monster industrial monsters rammed down their throats.
A Democratic bill to boost the renewable energy standard in rural Colorado is being rushed through the legislature. Its sponsors should slow down and consider making it less onerous. ...Because they weren't involved in drafting the bill, Tri-State quickly calculated it would cost them between $2 billion and $4 billion to meet the new standard.
Wind Spin leapt up a notch with news out of two new studies showing that people who say wind turbines are making them sick are making it up because they have been influenced by anti-wind campaigns. In other words, the wind industry says if you are sick it is because you are so stupid that you will believe anything someone tells you. And in Vermont, anti-winders were informed that they are part of a conspiracy to undermine the wind industry, in concert with the oil industry and the Koch Brothers.
It took an energy insider this past week to expose the dirty little truth about the future of wind energy - it's too costly, too unreliable and only getting more so because of government subsidies.
Take that, you green zealots.
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick's wind energy agenda has led Commonwealth communities into expensive capital expenditures. Now, agencies, under his watch, fortify his agenda and turn theirs back on the community. Falmouth is left windburned and forced to fix itself.
If our communities can't reasonably afford to purchase and rely on the wind power we sell, it is difficult to make the moral case for our businesses, let alone an economic one. Yet as long as these subsidies and tax credits exist, clean-energy executives will likely spend most of their time pursuing advanced legal and accounting methods rather than investing in studies, innovation, new transmission technology and turbine development.
Vermont utility companies may both sell their renewable energy credits (REC) and count them toward their state-required renewable energy quotas.
According to some authorities, Vermont's renewable energy projects aren't renewable. "If a marketer generates renewable electricity but sells renewable energy certificates for all of that electricity, it would be deceptive for the marketer to represent, directly or by implication, that it uses renewable energy," said the Federal Trade Commission in a report cited by Vermont's Public Service Board.
The upshot is that millions of Californians could soon experience power outages. As the state derives more of its electricity from renewables, it needs more "peak" gas-fired plants that can ramp up to meet demand when the sun isn't shining and wind isn't blowing-namely during dawn and dusk. Otherwise, rolling blackouts could ensue.
Nobody knows exactly how much flexible power is needed to ensure a reliable electric supply.
The [Maine] RPS law limits the amount of energy we can use from renewable sources, such as hydropower, solar, tidal, biomass and geothermal. But in 2009 legislators lifted the cap for wind power, which is expensive to build and produces a minimal amount of our electricity.
In 2011, we got only 4.5 percent of our electricity from wind. While it produces only a fraction of energy, it is some of the most expensive electricity we buy.
The facts in this opinion piece are accurate. The Prime Minister of Bulgaria has resigned and elections will be held in May, 2013.
Last week, we also lost two more of our major coal-fired power stations, forced to close down by an EU pollution directive - leading the head of our second-largest power company, SSE, to warn our generating capacity is being cut back so far that major blackouts may soon be inevitable.
Recently the New Hampshire Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources amended Senate bill 99, placing a moratorium on new wind electricity generation projects for one year. That's a nice start, but it doesn't go quite far enough. What's needed is a repeal of the New Hampshire renewable portfolio standard mandate. Why? Because ratepayers are being forced to buy extremely expensive electricity when cheaper alternatives are available.
Nowadays, a huge chunk of the action on clean energy in the United States is happening at the state level. Some 29 states and Washington D.C. have renewable energy standards requiring electric utilities to get a portion of their power from sources like wind or solar. ...Yet those state laws are now facing a fierce backlash.
Instead of acknowledging that renewable energy development (in particular big wind, but also biomass and large solar) has issues that should be discussed, the efforts of the opponents of S.30 are to shut down the conversation before it has barely started. The fear-mongering and outright lies about the content of the legislation coming from opponents of S.30 is consistent with the behavior of renewable energy developers in our communities.
This much is clear: many people who live near these towers believe that the structures are adversely affecting their health. Local officials do not need Falmouth's experiences to understand that there is virtually nothing that will placate people when they believe that their health, and their property values, are suffering. Better to clear the air ahead of time before trying to harness the wind.