by jboullion | Mar 29, 2013 | Uncategorized
This article from Media Matters breaks down the overstated safety risks of wind power (released in a recent Forbes article). This type of misinformation is embarrassing, and we applaud Shauna Theel for this article, breaking down and analyzing the numbers. Find the original posting of this article here.
In a column for Forbes, the head of the Institute for Energy Research exaggerated the safety risks associated with wind power by including suicides, murders, and several other fatalities that have little to do with wind industry safety in order to misleadingly claim that the oil and gas is “one of the safest” industries.
Robert Bradley Jr., the CEO of the fossil fuel
industry-funded Institute for Energy Research,
claimed that wind turbines “present significant safety risks for humans,” adding: “Since the 1970s, 133 fatalities have occurred on turbines — that’s a high figure considering the relatively small size of the wind sector.” That figure comes from an
anti-wind group whose
list includes a wind plant construction worker
shot during a protest against the plant, a wind turbine operator found hanging in an apparent
suicide, a man who committed
suicide after opposition to wind turbines on his land, a man that died while climbing a turbine for a
class, a
snowmobile hitting the fence around a wind farm construction site, and a
“shirtless and shoeless” man electrocuted inside of a windmill.
More credible statistics show that in 2012 there were
12 wind industry deaths worldwide — eight of which were in China where workplace safety standards are lax. In the U.S., the American Wind Energy Association has
allied with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to train workers on fall, electrical, and crane hazards. By comparison,
1,384 people died in coal mine accidents in China last year, and sulfur pollution alone contributes to about
400,000 premature deaths in China annually.
Estimates of the number of deaths per terawatt hour based on data from the World Health Organization and occupational safety statistics have also found that fossil fuels contribute to far more deaths than wind energy:
by jboullion | Mar 27, 2013 | Uncategorized
An editorial from The Journal Times about how Wisconsin could benefit from new solar legislation. Find the original posting of this article here.
Unlike many other states, Wisconsin hasn’t fully taken advantage of the potential for energy savings through the expansion of homegrown solar generation.
That could change under a bipartisan proposal by state Reps. Gary Tauchen, R-Bonduel, and Chris Taylor, D-Madison, who are crafting legislation that would exempt owners of renewable generation at a home or business from being regulated as a public utility.
The heart of the proposal is that it would allow third-party ownership of solar systems — allowing solar companies to come in and install solar generation systems and assume the upfront costs and then have the business or homeowner repay that over time through savings on their energy bills.
It’s a plan that has been adopted in other states to good effect. Carl Siegrist, a solar energy consultant, said nearly three-fourths of the solar market last year came from third-party ownership, according to a recent story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
While the upfront costs of solar installation have dropped considerably in recent years — some reports put the drop at 50 percent — those initial costs still represent a hurdle for renewable energy, and the Tauchen-Taylor bill could help Wisconsin businesses and homeowners to clear that barrier.
According to a recent Milwaukee Business Journal report, the return on investment for solar installations is between seven and 10 years. But after that, the solar systems could provide low- or no-cost energy for another 30 years.
One of the companies that’s been a fan of third-party ownership is Kohl’s Corp., which has contracted with SunEdison for installation of solar generating panels at many of its stores in other parts of the country. The Milwaukee newspaper report said those Kohl’s department stores generate “three times as much power as all the solar electricity being generated in Wisconsin today.”
“If there was third-party ownership allowed, they would have it on every one of their stores in the state,” the report quoted Steve Johnson, a solar energy developer in Delavan.
That kind of impact not only saves energy and dollars, but it would buoy Wisconsin’s economy by creating a potential groundswell of solar installations and the attendant jobs that work would create across the state.
The fly in the ointment is opposition from the state’s utility industry, which argues that increased use of renewable energy would create “partial customers” and reduce their sales. This would result in a cost shift to regular customers because the fixed costs for poles, wires and business operations would be spread across those users.
That’s a legitimate concern and we would hope it could be addressed in the legislation, but it is not dissimilar from the effects of energy conservation and those efforts have been pushed by the state — and by utilities themselves — for decades.
A low-cost financing system to encourage the use of solar generation makes sense for the long-term energy profile of Wisconsin and we urge the Legislature to give this bill the bipartisan support it deserves.
Find the original posting of this article here.
by jboullion | Mar 26, 2013 | Uncategorized
|
Epic Systems of Verona has erected six
wind turbines along Kickaboo Road near
Highway 12 in the town of Springfield. |
A timely editorial (relating to the SB-71 proposal) in the Wisconsin State Journal about why Wisconsin should keep it’s wind siting rules intact. Find the original posting here.
The state regulation of wind farms that Wisconsin put in place a year ago improves on the previous patchwork of local regulations.
That’s one reason why lawmakers should leave the regulation intact and reject the latest proposal to turn back to the patchwork approach.
Here’s another reason: A return to patchwork regulation would threaten the public’s interest in developing clean, renewable energy.
Wisconsin’s wind farm regulations set standards for projects, including how far turbines must be set back from nearby homes and how noisy the turbines can be. If local governments develop their own regulations, they cannot be more restrictive than the state standards.
To develop the standards, the Public Service Commission considered a range of viewpoints and studied scientific evidence on the effects of wind turbines. The resulting regulations fairly protect local interests in safety and property rights as well as the general interest in taking advantage of a green energy source.
Nonetheless, wind farm opponents continue to argue for more restrictions. This month, a group of lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 71 to permit local governments to go beyond the state regulations. Bill supporters have seized upon a study of a Brown County wind farm. The study, conducted by acoustics experts, detected largely inaudible, low-frequency sound inside three homes near the wind turbines. The study also noted that some residents complained of health problems, such as nausea and headaches.
However, the study could link the noise in only one home to a turbine. Furthermore, the study could not attribute the health complaints to the noise. The indecisive findings do not offer evidence to change the state’s regulations.
Lawmakers should appreciate the perils of putting the regulatory burden for wind farms on local governments.
First, local governments typically lack the time and resources the PSC employed to study the issue. Before the state standards were developed, some local governments rushed into extreme regulation without scientific foundation. Trempealeau County required turbines to be set back one mile from neighboring homes. That restriction virtually banned wind farm development.
Second, without state standards, the wind energy industry faces the uncertainty of a varying collection of costly local regulation. The chilling effect deprives the state of wind power development.
The effects of wind turbines should continue to be examined. Regulations may need future updating. But Wisconsin cannot afford to go backward in regulation. Wind power is too important for its potential to improve energy security, reduce air pollution and boost economic development.
Find the original posting of this article here.
by jboullion | Mar 20, 2013 | Uncategorized
Lenore Taylor, Chief Political Correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald, debunks “wind turbine sickness”. See the original posting of this article here.
|
A new study has found that 63 per cent of Australia’s 49 wind farms have
never been the subject of any health complaint from nearby residents. Photo: Nicolas Walker |
”Wind turbine sickness” is far more prevalent in communities where anti-wind farm lobbyists have been active and appears to be a psychological phenomenon caused by the suggestion that turbines make people sick, a study has found.
The study found that 63 per cent of Australia’s 49 wind farms had never been the subject of any health complaint from nearby residents.
It found 68 per cent of the 120 complaints that have been made came from residents living near wind farms heavily targeted by the anti-wind farm lobby, and that ”the advent of anti-wind farm groups beginning to foment concerns about health (from around 2009) was also strongly correlated with actual complaints being made”.
Study author, Simon Chapman, professor of public health at Sydney University, said the results suggested that ”wind turbine sickness” was a ”communicated disease” – a sickness spread by the claim that something was likely to make a person sick. This was caused by the ”nocebo effect” – the opposite of the placebo effect – where the belief something would cause an illness created the perception of illness.
He found a much greater correlation between negative attitudes to wind turbines and reports of sickness than any ”objective measures of actual exposure”.
And he cited studies suggesting that the spread of communicated diseases was much faster when the ”illness” had a name – such as Wind Turbine Syndrome, Vibro Acoustic Disease and Visceral Vibratory Vestibular Disturbance.
Professor Chapman also cites a recent New Zealand study in which some healthy volunteers were exposed to actual ”infrasound” – the sub-audible noise from wind farms claimed to cause health problems – and others to complete silence, which they had been told was ”infrasound”. In both cases the volunteers who had been told about the potential harmful effects of infrasound were more likely to report symptoms.
There have been several parliamentary inquiries into concerns about the health impacts of wind farms and the National Health and Medical Research Council is conducting a second study into the available medical evidence for the health complaints.
Parliament recently rejected a private members bill by independent Senators Nick Xenophon and John Madigan, which would have removed government subsidies from wind farms operating above certain noise levels.
But the Coalition has said that if it is elected in September it will hold another ”expert” inquiry into wind farm noise.
The most recent Senate inquiry into the issue found no causal link between the noise from wind farms and symptoms reported by those who lived near them, but accepted that people were reporting that they felt unwell.
After a ”rapid review” in 2010 NHMRC said there was ”insufficient published scientific evidence” to link wind turbines with adverse health effects.
But some residents have continued to report suffering from sleep deprivation, stress and serious long-term health problems.
See the original posting of this article here: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/wind-turbine-sickness-all-in-the-mind-study-20130315-2g4zd.html#ixzz2O5v0FOVS
by jboullion | Mar 19, 2013 | Uncategorized
For all of you folks interested in biomass, check out this conference coming up:
by jboullion | Mar 18, 2013 | Uncategorized
A great article from Tom Content at JS Online on the third-party ownership bill. Find the original article here.
State’s electric utilities oppose move to allow third-party solar financing
Wisconsin is missing out on a wave of solar power development that’s going on around the country.
One example: Kohl’s Department Stores around the country generate three times as much power as all the solar electricity being generated in Wisconsin today.
What’s driving the boom in other states is third-party financing, which allows a company such as SunEdison, a builder of solar power plants, to own the panels on the roof of a Kohl’s store. That’s not allowed in Wisconsin, but would be under a bill being drafted in Madison.
The proposal, backed by a group of clean energy companies and the Wisconsin Farmers Union, faces opposition from the lobbying group for the state’s electric utilities.
The utilities worry that such a change would open the door to more renewable energy and drive up costs for other ratepayers.
The legislation is being crafted by Rep. Chris Taylor (D-Madison) and Rep. Gary Tauchen (R-Bonduel). It’s expected to be among a host of energy issues that may come before the Legislature now that the debate over mining legislation is finished.
The change would exempt owners of renewable generation at a home or business from being regulated as a public utility. Supporters say it’s a low-cost step that would stimulate economic development in the form of increased investment by solar installers that have moved work to states that are encouraging renewable energy.
“This will open up the renewable energy market to companies that don’t have a lot of money lying around to finance clean energy projects,” said Michael Vickerman, policy director for Renew Wisconsin, a clean energy advocacy group.
For Renew Wisconsin, the effort could make up ground lost in recent years after the failure to expand the state’s renewable energy standard, and following moves by state regulators and utilities to shift their focus away from support for customer-owned renewable systems.
The markets where solar has taken off are dominated by those that permit third-party ownership, said Carl Siegrist, a solar energy consultant who was a renewable energy strategist at We Energies.
“Nearly three-fourths of the solar market last year came from third-party ownership,” said Siegrist, who discussed the proposal at the recent Sustainability Summit in Milwaukee.
At stores around the country, Kohl’s buys power from SunEdison, which built the panels on the roofs of the Kohl’s stores.
“If there was third-party ownership allowed, they would have it on every one of their stores in the state,” said Steve Johnson of solar energy developer Convergence Energy, which developed a solar project in Delavan.
Fears of cost shifting
Utilities are concerned that the proposal could lead to higher rates.
According to Bill Skewes, who heads the Wisconsin Utilities Association, the lobbying arm for the utility industry, the biggest concern is that utilities will see cost shifting because they will sell less power to customers who install solar systems.
The fixed costs of paying for the poles, wires and day-to-day business operations of the utility would then have to be spread across the remaining customers, he said in a memorandum to lawmakers on the issue.
“The customers who become partial customers because of a distributed generation agreement would be subsidized by the other customers on the utility system,” Skewes said.
Supporters of the renewable energy shift see potential for helping farmers address their phosphorus and manure challenges by enabling them to put up more anaerobic digesters.
But, Skewes said, “advocates that want to help farmers may, in the next breath, decry the utility rate increases that further discourage economic development at a time when Wisconsin is trying to foster job growth.”
Supporters concede that the shifts could help businesses that install solar generation avoid some of the rate pressure in Wisconsin, and it could result in reduced power sales by utilities.
At the same time, they note that utilities see lower sales every time a business takes steps to cut energy waste or replaces an incandescent light bulb with an LED bulb.
Making solar affordable
Nationwide and worldwide, solar development is booming, with solar generation now reaching more than 6,000 megawatts, or enough to supply 1 million homes, according to GTM Research.
While the price of solar systems is coming down quickly – it has fallen by 50% over five years – companies are conserving cash rather than looking for places to spend it.
So when an efficiency consultant such as Johnson Controls Inc. contracts with a building owner to help cut energy waste, the upfront cost is paid for by Johnson Controls, not the utility customer. The customer then pays Johnson back over time through the savings on energy bills.
The renewable proposal works the same way, said Amy Heart, solar program manager for the City of Milwaukee. The solar company would pay the upfront costs, with the customer paying a fixed price over time for the power generated by the panels.
“We see the opportunity to not only support our solar industry, but we also have the opportunity to reduce our energy costs and lock in those rates for a 10- to 20-year term, which is that consistency we’re looking for,” Heart said. “In the long run, if we can lower our energy bills for taxpayers, that’s the idea.”
It’s a way to lock in prices over time from solar, even if utility rates go up, Siegrist said.
The proposal also overcomes one of the biggest hurdles facing renewable energy – that its upfront cost makes it affordable to a select few.
(See the original posting of this article here.)
