by jboullion | Apr 8, 2011 | Uncategorized
From an editorial in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Wind farms in Wisconsin can lessen the state’s reliance on coal-fired power plants at the same time that they add jobs to the economy. But instead of moving forward on this economic development tool, Gov. Scott Walker’s administration is taking a step back. That’s a mistake and something Walker should rethink.
What the governor and the Legislature have done is change the rules under which wind farms are sited, seeking to put greater distance between homes and wind farms. As a result, at least two firms have announced they are canceling or suspending plans to build wind farms in Wisconsin – and that means a loss of potential jobs.
Here’s what happened: Two years ago, the Legislature called on the state Public Service Commission to establish a uniform standard for wind projects across the state. The idea was that a statewide standard was better than the patchwork of local rules and moratoriums that were in place. It was a good idea, and the PSC came up with a rule.
One of its elements was a 1,250-foot setback from a neighbor’s property line; it also would have provided decibel and shadow flicker requirements for wind farm turbines.
The setback wasn’t enough for Walker and wind farm opponents; in January, the governor introduced a bill with a 1,800-foot setback, although he said this week that his administration remains open to wind energy. Last week, a legislative committee sent the PSC’s new rule back to the PSC for more work. The concern is that wind farms will hurt property values of neighboring residents.
That’s resulted in enough uncertainty over the future of wind farms in Wisconsin that Invenergy of Chicago canceled plans to develop a wind farm near Green Bay and Midwest Wind Energy suspended development of two wind farms.
A statewide standard still needs to be set by the PSC. And the legitimate concerns of neighbors of wind farms need to be taken into account without giving too much credence to fears that are unfounded and overstated. But the standard should not be so restrictive that wind farms become impractical in Wisconsin. That takes Wisconsin out of the clean energy economy – a bad bet.
by jboullion | Apr 7, 2011 | Uncategorized
From an editorial in the Sheboygan Press:
President Barack Obama has twice in the last year called for the nation to reduce its dependence of foreign oil by embarking on a multi-faceted plan on energy.
Obama’s first call for energy independence was followed less than a month later by the Deep Water Horizon oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
We hope that the president’s latest energy initiative is followed not by a disaster, but by a commitment from Congress to develop a national energy policy. A commitment from the American people to be receptive of alternative energy sources would be nice, too. . . .
Until recently, we thought Wisconsin was poised to become a leader in helping the nation reach that goal.
Wind power was one area where Wisconsin was setting the pace.
The state had sensible rules on where wind turbines could be located in relation to residential properties and the state was on its way toward making progress on using this renewable energy resource. But those rules are on hold and are likely to be changed to the point where it will be impractical for companies interested in locating wind farms to do business in Wisconsin.
This is not only shortsighted in development of renewable energy sources, it is also a job-killer because the companies that now make wind turbines in Wisconsin are already talking about relocating to states where wind power is welcomed.
The easy thing to do is to keep relying on oil and coal to power our cars and heat our homes. The wise thing is to develop a long-range plan that relies on renewable energy.
by jboullion | Apr 6, 2011 | Uncategorized
From an article by Steve Schultze in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Gov. Scott Walker’s proposed 10% cut in transit funding could mean dramatic service cuts or bus fare increases in Milwaukee and elsewhere, Milwaukee County supervisors were told Wednesday.
The cut to the Milwaukee County Transit System would be nearly $7 million, under Walker’s state two-year budget plan. It would take an 8% cut in routes or a 30% increase in fares to make up for the reduction, said Kenneth Yunker, executive director of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.
“It’s a very significant reduction in transit services or increase in fares,” Yunker told the County Board’s Transportation and Public Works Committee.
Milwaukee County’s single adult bus fare is currently $2.25.
Lloyd Grant, managing director of the county transit system, said if the $7 million reduction was absorbed through service cuts, it would mean the loss of 100,000 hours of bus service.
Other bus and transit systems in southeast Wisconsin would face potential service cuts ranging from 6% to 10% or fare increases of up to 60%, according to a study by the planning commission.
Supervisors told Grant to prepare a plan for how the Milwaukee County Transit System would handle the cut, saying that information would be useful in lobbying legislators to slow or reverse the governor’s cuts.
by jboullion | Apr 5, 2011 | Uncategorized
From an article by Tom Content in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
The heat-producing bulbs are gone from the freezers at Olsen’s Piggly Wiggly. And the natural gas furnace isn’t getting used much.
These are two of the ways the expanded Cedarburg grocery store scored the highest of any of nine other supermarkets across Wisconsin that are participating in the Wisconsin Green Grocer program.
Store co-owner Ryan Olsen said he and his family saw the opportunity to become more energy efficient as they pursued a remodeling project that increased the size of their store by one-third, to 43,000 square feet.
“With energy prices forever climbing, it just made sense for us to (make an) investment now to reap the rewards of not having as high energy consumption later on,” he said.
As a result, the store’s energy bills are about the same, or slightly more than before, but the store has grown by 11,000 square feet and has six more full-time and 10 more part-time workers.
“This is an example of how we can create jobs and grow our economy but keep our energy use about the same,” said Brett Hulsey, an environmental consultant who worked with the grocers association on its initiative. Hulsey is also a Democratic state Assembly representative from Madison.
Some changes can be small – like giving shoppers the ability to recycle plastic bags – but others can be much more extensive.
“They’re heating almost all the building with reclaimed heat from their compressors,” Hulsey said. “That was the first time I’d seen that.”
by jboullion | Apr 4, 2011 | Uncategorized
From a commentary by Mark Z. Jacobson in the New York Daily News:
The powerful earthquake and tsunami that caused reactors at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant to shut down – releasing radiation and endangering workers and evacuees – have many Americans asking whether nuclear energy is worth the investment and risk.
I say not. In fact, it should not have taken a disaster of this kind to move us decisively away from nuclear and toward safe, clean, renewable energy. . . .
If the world’s energy needs were converted to electricity for all purposes – and nuclear supplied such energy – 15,800 large nuclear reactors, one installed every day for the next 43 years, would be needed. The installation of even 5% of these would nearly double the current number of reactors, giving many more countries the potential to develop weapons. If only one weapon were used in a city, it could kill 1 to 16 million people.
***
Why do we need nuclear energy when we have safer, cleaner options that can provide greater power for a much longer period and at lower cost to society? These better options are called WWS, for “wind, water and sunlight.” The chance of catastrophe caused by nature or terrorists acting on wind or solar, in particular, is zero.
During their lifetimes, WWS technologies emit no pollution – whereas nuclear does, since continuous energy is needed to mine, transport and refine uranium and reactors require much longer to permit and install than do WWS technologies. Overall, nuclear emits 9 to 25 times more air pollution and carbon dioxide than does wind per unit energy generated.
***
Some argue that nuclear is more reliable than WWS systems. This is not true. A nuclear reactor affects a larger fraction of the grid when it fails than does a wind turbine. The average maintenance downtime of modern wind turbines on land is 2%. That of France’s 59 reactors is 21.5%, with about half due to scheduled maintenance.
