LINK: www.record-eagle.com/2000/feb/20windm.htm

February 20, 2000

Windmills help provide 'clean energy' Officials consider plans for more wind turbines

By DAN SANDERSON Record-Eagle staff writer

PETOSKEY - Nearly half the states in the nation use or plan to use wind turbines to generate power. Michigan is among them, or more appropriately, northwestern Michigan is.

Traverse City Light and Power lays claim to the only wind generator in Michigan. But within six months, a second wind generator is expected to go online in Grand Traverse County to serve the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. In Emmet County, public officials are considering plans for four turbines on 154 acres of farmland in Resort Township.

Steve Smiley, owner of Bay Windpower in Suttons Bay, said it would cost his company $7 million to erect the Emmet County turbines. Smiley said he plans to finance the project through federal subsidies and the sale of the electricity generated to the Michigan Municipal Power Agency, which includes Petoskey, Harbor Springs, Charlevoix, Traverse City, Grand Haven and Lansing.

The four turbines would be 220 feet tall and their blades would reach as high as 320 feet, Smiley said. Each generator would produce 1,650 kilowatts of electricity, compared with the 600 kilowatts the Traverse City wind turbine generates.

Combined, the four turbines could power 2,278 homes.

"I'm optimistic about the project because I think the people in Emmet County are sophisticated and they understand the need for clean energy," said Smiley, who expects it will take six month to get zoning permits for the generators. "Our intentions are to serve as many people as possible, to address concerns about global warming."

Robert Greenwell, chairman of the Resort Township planning commission, was among a group of people that paid a visit to Traverse City a week ago to view its wind turbine. The turbine proposal may be on the township's Feb. 29 agenda.

"With the closing of Big Rock (nuclear plant), we're going to have to find another source of power, but if whether this is the answer, only time will tell," Greenwell said.

Doris Shaler Vernon, an anti-nuclear power activist who belongs to a group called "Don't Waste Michigan," already has formed her impression on wind generators.

"I will be all for the windmills if it's going to give us clean energy," she said.

For the Grand Traverse Band, efforts to take advantage of the wind have stalled of late. Tribal chairman George Bennett said the tribe is still in negotiations with the federal government for a grant to build the wind turbine. The tribe would sell the power to utility companies, he said.

If completed, the first tower would be located in Long Lake Township and a second turbine would be located on the tribe's reservation.

"We've spent a great deal of resources rewiring our community and now here we are at the 11th hour still in negotiations," Bennett said. "We're trying to find a situation that is suitable on the reservation where it will get enough wind to turn the turbine."

The Traverse City wind turbine is in its fourth year. Last year it produced a record-high of 833,215 kilowatts, said Jeff Feldt, executive director of Traverse City Light and Power, the city-owned utility company that operates the turbine.

The $755,000 turbine has been financed by grants and a special rate consumers volunteer to pay. The 115 homeowners and 17 commercial business owners pay 23 percent more for their wind power, about $7.58 more per month for an average homeowner.

"They're all a part of the wind generator, so they really take a positive approach to it," said Feldt said.

Nationally, 23 states in the nation have wind turbines, with California, Iowa and Minnesota having the most.

"In other states, it's mostly people who are interested in green power and local demand for the most cost-effective power," said Christine Real de Azua of the American Wind Energy Association.

The U.S. Department of Energy has a goal of achieving 5 percent of the nation's power production through wind generation by 2020.

-- Lucy (lifeisgoodhere@webtv.net), February 20, 2000

Answers

Sorry about the double post. I've got no idea how that happened. Oh well.

-- Lucy (lifeisgoodhere@webtv.net), February 20, 2000.

Oh,now I see why. I must of been competing for space with the infantile poster from hell.

-- Lucy (lifeisgoodhere@webtv.net), February 20, 2000.

See http://www.doe.gov/releases99/seppr/pr99252.htm I do not know how to post this info,I hope that Article is still there for People to read.It describes the largest Windpower Project in the World,recently dedicated in Storm Lake,Iowa.The Europeans are as usual doing a lot in this Field,Wind Power Projects are going full Steam ahead,Nuclear Power is beeing phased out.The Corporate Greedmongers in this Country are doing all they can,(with YOUR Rate Money) to throw a Monkeywrench into every Project that is proposed.They give You Bunk like: Noisy,Eyesore. etc.etc.These large white Machines are beautiful,quiet and do not look like an ugly Cell Phone Tower,that for some Reason are not described as an Eyesore.

-- My Hope (wind@power.com), February 20, 2000.

They ain't cheap! Traverse City's cost, amortized over the 4 years, comes out at 25 cents/kWh. Of course it's getting cheaper as time goes on. I wonder what the "special rates" are that consumers pay?

At least these things will be a heck of a lot easier to decommission than a nuclear power plant, once their life has expired!

-- W (me@home.now), February 20, 2000.

Don't forget the absence of toxic waste. That alone makes it worth going to wind power. Let the nuke plant lovers keep the toxic waste on their property.

-- haha (haha@haha.com), February 20, 2000.

Wind energy farms have been around since the 70s. One of the largest is located in the Banning Pass near Palm Springs, California. Thousands of tower mounted, wind/propeller driven turbines can be observed as far as the eye can see. Because of the various tax credits available to alternative energy projects, these wind farms were an attractive investment early on. Many however have fallen on hard times due to rising maintenance costs and the inability to meet delivery contracts. Much of this energy is purchased by the major delivery systems (PG&E. SoCalEdison, etc.) under contract that calls for minimum kW levels. Many of these projects were not able to meet their contractual requirements resulting in penalties and/or cancellations.

Up until recently, many of these farms had been shut down and the equipment put up for sale at bargain prices. New groups of investors are returning to the arena and bringing the systems back online, for a fraction of new equipment costs. To date, the paybacks have not come close to projections.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), February 20, 2000.

The main difficulty with wind turbines is that maintenance is difficult and expensive, and in an area subject to occasional high winds, they may be subject to severe damage.

My information is dated by this time, but I took a class several years ago dealing with alternate energy sources. There were several wind systems installed on farms in the area. Most of them were something like 10-20 KW systems, or smaller as I recall. Almost none of them are operatonal now.

The figures we ran concerning the practicality of those systems indicated that at the current price of electricity, you would about break even by the time the unit wore out. That did not include any figures for interest. If the cost of the installation were invested at certificate of deposit rates at the time, the interest would pay the average electric bill from the utility.

It is not surprising that wind power has never been as popular as some of us expected: it just isn't yet as economically attractive as it needs to be to attract capital investment. Location is also important, as is the absence of trees and buildings for some distance around the site.

Photovoltaics looked promising a few years ago, and still do today. I believe that Arco Corp. at one time was offering a leased photovoltaic system for homeowners, with payments equal to your monthly electric bills. I don't know what ever became of that project.

With the fuel prices on the rise, the pressure is on again for alternatives.

gene

-- gene (ekbaker@essex1.com), February 20, 2000.

Gene, the economics of alternate energy seem to work only when driven by incentives such as tax credits. Take these away and the bottom line will not equate. When solar power is in widespread use and mass- produced you will find this to be the most viable of the alternatives. Keep in mind that home energy requirements are on demand and this will required stored or buffered power. The equipment to accomplish this on a residential level can be cost prohibitive. Self-sufficiency comes with a big price tag and is simply out of reach for most.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), February 20, 2000.

No...not really cost prohibited...if you re-think you residential living and power usage out, you can begin to eliminate the non- essential uses... I thought it was beyond my finances to convert my home to a stand alone alternative energy home...but in two years I did. There was some big expenses...your right about that... like the 6 volt Trojan l-16 batteries...at a price of $150.00 each I had to acquire them 2 at a time...presently I have 14... they can store enough power to run my home for days if there wasn't any sunlight or wind and no backup generator... the point is... I began to remove things in my home that cost lots of money to have...first the forced air heating was terminated which saved us about $300.00 per month...hummm! that meant that we could acquire 2 - L-16's a month for the winter months at what we were saving... but first we had to find an alternative to heating our home... I found that in the first year I had to make the altimate sacrifice, I had to get off my rear end and go find wood and cut it and stack it and learn how to use a stove again. it was a process in reventing our home as to make the heat work... then we got rid of the homebreaker (the microwave) the machine that has divided more families up by simply making it easy for everyone to reheat and eat on their own schedule and so we never ate together...now when dinner is ready...if you want to eat it hot then you eat with the rest of the family...sort of neat to see the family together again and its not thanksgiving or something like that... the coffee maker is a real convience... but it eats energy... but we decided to invest into a few glass crafts that would sit on the wood stove 24/7 for instant access and hand poured thru the filter for fresh dripped coffee at whatever quanity you desire... we began to change our lights from 100watt bulbs to 40's and then we changed them again to 12 volt DC bulb and ran the house circuits not through the grid box but from the battery bank...lighting is better since it doesn't vibrate and the bulbs last 2000 hours longer. Eventually we have a hme that runs off 4 Trace DR2412 inverters with some back up generators for when there isn't any wind or sun... but as for the expense prohibitedness... we have lost anything but bills...we don't have worry about food loss from our freezer and refrigerator when the grid goes down and we have the security of when I am at work that my family is safe and comfortable. Sure the government would have us believe we can't do it on a residential level within our expense guidelines...but thats the lie...they don't want us to believe we can be independent because it doesn't profit them... even if you wanted to start slow and proceed cautiously with converting a home over...you would find that the security and accomplishment of doing it would out weigh the cost and slavery to the substandard grid system.

-- SB Ryan G III (sbrg3@juno.com), February 21, 2000.

Exactly. A good answer, Mr. Ryan.

It took thought, and it took time. And, it took a decision to do it instead of laying all the money out on a new SUV.

You can forget about tax credits for alternative energy systems. The development of such systems does not fit in too well with the concept of globalization endorsed by our leaders. What will drive a few forward looking people to install alternate energy systems will be exactly what we have now -- increased fuel costs. Since the remaining lifetime of the US oil reserves are about 10 years, how long do you think it will be before we see permenant and very large increases in the cost of oil?

-- rocky (rknolls@no.spam), February 21, 2000.

Fossil fuel-derived energy prices for residential and industrial use are artificially low. A total accounting of fuel costs must factor in tax breaks, depletion allowances, R&D grants, military and finacial support, health costs resulting from pollution, environmental degradation, and a host of other factors difficult to quantify in dollar terms.

Similar accounting of nuclear energy generation indicates it is, and always has been, a net financial loser. Hydro-power is limited both in application and longevity.

Total cost accounting of so-called alternate energy generation--- wind, solar, tidal, geo-thermal, etc.---shows that, by equalizing tax and other incentives (preferrably to zero)these non-fossil technologies are nearly competitive right now.

Fossil fuel is a mature technology with few significant efficiencies easilly attainable. Whereas, alternate generation is brand new and, as with most new technology, suggests a host of efficiencies relatively easy to develop.

Of course the oil barons who run the world would never agree to leveling the playing field. And, now that the government and media are even deeper in their pockets than in the 1970s, rapid alternate energy development on an industrial scale is even less likely.

-- (First=Last@Last.=First), February 21, 2000.

As long as petroleum products are skyhigh, we'll begin making token efforts towards renewable energy again. The big problem is that we wait until petroleum is skyhigh before we do it. But that's market forces for ya!

IF every home and business had a solar hot water heater in the sunbelt we could reduce our energy requirements enormously. No new plants would have to be built for decades.

-- Guy Daley (guydaley@bwn.net), February 21, 2000.