by jboullion | Jan 11, 2011 | Uncategorized
From an editorial in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Wind turbines on the lakefront would be a good sign for the city’s renewable energy portfolio.
Milwaukee’s lakefront may in some ways indeed be sacred to local residents. Its natural beauty is a defining characteristic of the city and the region. But it is not so sacred that worthwhile projects can’t be developed for the lakefront.
One such project that deserves serious consideration is placing one to three wind turbines near the Lake Express car ferry terminal to provide renewable power for the Port of Milwaukee administration. It also is designed to demonstrate the city’s commitment renewable energy. These are all good things.
The project would be funded with a block grant from federal economic stimulus dollars, Erick Shambarger, a city environmental sustainability manager, told Journal Sentinel reporter Thomas Content. “No property tax dollars would be involved,” Shambarger said.
Most of the $5.8 million block grant would go to programs aimed at boosting energy efficiency and conservation, but city officials saw the wind turbine project as an opportunity “to show the city’s commitment to renewable power. Having this at the port building would be a visible way to do that,” Shambarger said.
The cost of the project would depend on the type of turbine selected. A larger turbine is expected to cost $550,000, but the price could be reduced by incentives that the city would seek from the Focus on Energy program and We Energies.
by jboullion | Jan 6, 2011 | Uncategorized
From a letter to the editor by Matt Howard, a new resident of Bay View, as well as the Environmental Sustainability Director for the City of Milwaukee, in the Bay View Compass:
My name is Matt Howard, a new resident of Bay View, as well as the Environmental Sustainability Director for the City of Milwaukee. My office is exploring the feasibility of constructing a wind turbine in Bay View on Port property to supply the Port with clean, renewable energy. I wanted to give you some basic information on the options we’re exploring so that we as a community will have a more fruitful discussion next Thursday evening. (Thanks to Ald. Zielinski for organizing this meeting on my behalf.)
The purchase and construction of this turbine would be fully paid for through federal grant funds my office administers, as well as potential incentive contributions from Focus on Energy and We Energies. The federal grant can only be used for energy saving and renewable energy projects. We are looking at two possible site options on city-owned land near the lakefront: next to the Port Administration building at 2323 S. Lincoln Memorial Drive and next to the Lake Express Ferry terminal building. These sites are at the top of our list because (1) they are high visibility sites and thus could be a bold demonstration of the City’s commitment to renewable energy, (2) are somewhat removed from residences, and (3) just as importantly, the wind profile at these sites is among the best in the region.
The wind turbine options we are exploring are commercial scale (not utility scale) and, as a result, could range in total height from 115 ft to 156 ft, are 20 kW to 100 kW systems, and would generally be free from the noise and vibration associated with older, larger wind turbines. This is less than half the height of the utility scale turbines you may have seen in Fond du Lac County. Both wind turbines under consideration are made in the USA. We are diligently running economic analysis to ensure we wisely spend tax payer dollars.
by jboullion | Jan 5, 2011 | Uncategorized
From a column by John LaForge of Nukewatch, a Wisconsin-based organization, in The Capital Times:
The owners of two 40-year-old nuclear reactors at Point Beach, on Lake Michigan north of Two Rivers, want to increase the power output for each unit by 17 percent — from 1,540 megawatts to 1,800.
The gunning of rickety old nukes is getting a green light all over the region.
The Monticello reactor, 30 miles from Minneapolis, will boost its output to 120 percent of the original licensed limit — from 613 megawatts to 684. Monticello’s been rattling along since 1971, and it rattles badly. In 2007, a 35,000-pound turbine control box (6 feet by 6 feet and 20 feet long) broke its welds and fell onto a large steam pipe that was cut open, causing the loss of so much pressure that an automatic reactor shutdown was tripped. Decades of intense vibration and poor welding were blamed for the crash. The reactor had been operating at 90 percent power. So why not push the limits to 120 percent?
In 2009 the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission rejected claims that the accident record at the two Prairie Island reactors, south of Minneapolis, is so bad that its license extension should be denied. In May 2006, one of them accidentally spewed radioactive iodine-131 gas over 110 of its own workers, who inhaled it. Internal radiation poisoning is the kind for which there is no decontamination. Even so, the NRC could soon OK letting the Prairie Island jalopies run until 2033 and 2034, respectively, rather than shut them down in 2013 and 2014 as the license now requires.
Back in Wisconsin, Point Beach’s “extended power uprate” (EPU) plan was published in the Federal Register by the NRC Dec. 10. The draft environmental assessment and “finding of no significant impact” are hair-raising. The public has until Jan. 8 to comment.
Should we be skeptical? Point Beach has received two of only four “Red findings” — the worst failure warning available — ever issued by the NRC. In 2006, the NRC found that operators had harassed a whistle-blower who documented technical violations. In 2005, Point Beach was fined $60,000 for deliberately giving false information to federal inspectors. In May 1996, it was the site of a potentially catastrophic explosion of hydrogen gas that upended the 3-ton lid on a huge cask filled with high-level radioactive waste. The lid was being robotically welded when the gas exploded.
by jboullion | Jan 3, 2011 | Uncategorized
From an article by Judy Newman in The Capital Times:
W Solar Group, a privately owned company with technology for manufacturing solar panels, said it will move to Wisconsin and set up its corporate headquarters and a separate research and development center in Dane County. No specific locations were given in the announcement Thursday by Gov. Jim Doyle’s office.
The state Department of Commerce will provide up to $28 million in enterprise zone tax credits for the Chatsworth, Calif., company, which says it plans to invest more than $300 million in facilities in Wisconsin and create more than 600 jobs by 2015.
“W Solar Group was attracted to Wisconsin early in our search for a project location,” said Chris Hamrin, president and chief executive officer. “We are impressed with the high-quality work force, extensive supply chain and the commitment to producing world-class products.”
Established in 2009, W Solar has fewer than 20 employees, and all are involved in research and development, company spokesman Evan Zeppos said.
Plans call for opening the headquarters and research and development operations in the first half of 2011 and starting manufacturing in 2012.
by jboullion | Dec 29, 2010 | Uncategorized
From an article by Tom Content in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Household prices will rise less than 5%, still much higher than inflation
By Thomas Content of the Journal Sentinel
We Energies customers will see their electric bills rise Jan. 1, with double-digit increases projected for the utility’s biggest ratepayers.
The utility’s largest energy-users – factories and other large businesses -can expect their bills to jump about 13% on average, said Brian Manthey, utility spokesman. Most other business customers can expect electric bills to rise 8% to 10%.
Residential customers can expect an increase of less than 5%.
By comparison, the rate of inflation increased 1.1% from a year ago, according to the latest report from the U.S. Labor Department.
The culprit behind the Jan. 1 increase is the loss of credits that were linked to the sale of the Point Beach nuclear power plant several years ago. Those credits, which have expired, helped mask a substantial rate increase in 2008.
Since 2008, We Energies has refunded more than $700 million to Wisconsin customers from the $1 billion sale of the Point Beach nuclear plant to NextEra Energy Resources, a subsidiary of FPL Group Inc. of Juno Beach, Fla.
For business customers in particular, the credits have helped offset increases on their bills, even as the utility has received approval to raise rates to compensate for higher fuel costs and power plant construction.
Todd Stuart, executive director of the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, said his members who are We Energies customers face increases in the range of 12% to 15%, although one energy-intensive firm faces a 20% increase.
“Most of our members have been aware of it for some time, but that doesn’t mean it’s not going to hurt when those credits come off,” he said. “There’s going to be a sting; there’s no doubt about it.”
Stuart was lobbying the state Public Service Commission to reject a big rate increase three years ago when the commission also authorized the credits to start flowing back to customers.
“That’s truly the underlying problem, that the increase in 2008 was 17%,” Stuart said. “And the credits have been masking that, until now.”
