Will Ohio legislators believe BigWind or look to the TRUTH that has happened in Minnesota?

Ohio legislators have a couple of BigWind legislation pieces to vote on, in the upcoming weeks.  Informed, educated Ohioans do NOT want BigWind in their backyard, for a variety of reasons. However, most legislators don’t really care about doesn’t directly affect them.  Below, is a prime example of how BigWind AFFECTS ALL OF US.  Ohioans, like Minnesota, enjoy the benefits of cheap electricity.  Yes, our electric bills are rising, but they are nowhere near many Americans pay for electricity.  Ohio does not need BigWind and neither do our bills.  Below is proof that BigWind WILL RAISE ELECTRICITY RATES for ALL Ohioans.  Senator Cliff Hite refuses to acknowledge these truths…

In recent years, the state of Minnesota has pursued a series of increasingly aggressive renewable energy and “clean energy” policies that cost electricity consumers billions of dollars, without achieving its ambitious environmental protection goals….

Historically, Minnesota enjoyed the advantage of relatively cheap electricity, with rates typically 18 percent less than the national average. However, since spending an estimated $10 billion on building wind farms and billions more on new and upgraded  transmission lines, Minnesota has lost this competitive advantage with little to show for it, except higher electric bills. As electricity generation from carbon free wind approaches 20 percent of total generation, Minnesota has not experienced any appreciable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions relative to the U.S. average.

This report evaluates Minnesota’s energy policy and reaches five main findings that buttress one conclusion: Minnesota’s aspirational energy policy is a grand exercise in virtue signaling that does little to reduce either conventional pollution or greenhouse gas emissions.

Minnesota has lost its advantage on electricity pricing. Between 1990 and 2009, the retail price of electricity in Minnesota was, on average, 18.2 percent lower than the national average. However, in just seven years, this price advantage has completely disappeared. February 2017 marked the first month the average retail price of electricity in Minnesota rose above the U.S. price. (Data are available dating back to 1990.) If in the past seven years Minnesota would have maintained its historic price advantage versus the rest of the country, the state’s consumers would have paid nearly $4.4 billion less than what the actual cost of electricity turned out to be.

Minnesota’s energy policy primarily promotes wind power. Minnesota’s energy policy emphasizing renewable energy is mostly an electricity policy, which represents only about 40 percent of the state’s total energy consumption. Because Minnesota’s geography is not suitable for large-scale solar power, it aims, to date, for only modest increases in solar. As such, Minnesota’s energy policy is primarily a wind-energy policy.

Minnesota’s energy policy is failing on its own terms, as it has not achieved a significant reduction in CO2 emissions….

Advertisements

BigWind bullies Ohio community

How ILLogical is it for a community to pay 14 cents per kWh for electricity, when they can purchase it for 10? This is the dilemma of the city of Conneaut, Ohio.  You will read that the turbine has $250,000 worth of repairs and NexGen will happily repair it IF the city renews a 10 year purchase contract with them….for more expensive energy than they can purchase from the grid.  Once again, another turbine is plagued with expensive repairs. Don’t they pay this electric bill with tax dollars?….

The owner of a damaged wind turbine that provides some of the electricity used at Conneaut’s sewage treatment plant wants a reworked contract with the city in order to make repairs financially feasible.

City Manager James Hockaday told City Council members at Monday night’s work session that NexGen is seeking a 10-year extension to the existing 10-year contract that will expire in 2020. The company says it needs a new contract to make repairs to the 400-kilowatt turbine — which has been idle since a lightning strike at the end of February.

Lighting blasted away one of the turbine’s blades and essentially destroyed its generator, Hockaday said. NexGen has said it will cost $250,000 to fix the machine, erected in January 2010.

 To justify the expense, NexGen has submitted a contract proposal that would stretch the contract, set to expire in three years, through 2030. NexGen’s initial proposal calls for slight kilowatt-per-hour increases each of the contract years, officials have said.

The turbine supplies about 20 percent of the electricity used at the plant located along the Lake Erie shore.

In 2016, the city paid NexGen almost $59,000, according to information from the city finance office. In February, NexGen charged the city $11,135 for its services.

The city is not paying NexGen while the turbine is inoperable, Hockaday said.

Last year, the city paid NexGen a combined generation/distribution charge of 12 cents per kilowatt hour. In 2017, the seventh year of the 10-year original contract, the city is paying 12.5 cents per kWh, according to the finance office. NexGen’s combined charge will climb to 12.9 cents per kWh next year, topping out at 14 cents in 2020, per the contract.

Direct Energy has been the primary power supplier to the sewage plant, and is filling the void left by the turbine, officials said. Direct Energy this year is charging a combined 10 cents per kWh, Finance Director John Williams said at Monday’s meeting.

Hockaday told council the city has multiple options regarding the turbine, such as explore pricing available through conventional utilities, talk with other turbine operators or negotiate with NexGen.

“We can counter-offer (NexGen),” he said. “(The contract) is a proposal.”

Hockaday said he feels the turbine has merit…

Source: Conneaut will examine options regarding damaged turbine | Local News | starbeacon.com

Illinois ‘over’pays for BigWind power, will Ohio?

 

Wise people learn from the mistakes of others, so they don’t repeat the mistakes, themselves. Will Ohio legislators learn from this lesson (and a multitude of other states and countries)? Let us hope so, for the sake of our businesses and residents…

For Springfield aldermen opposed to the 10-year-old Sierra Club deal that required the city to buy power from two wind farms, December 2018 can’t come fast enough.
By then, both contracts will have expired, at which point City Water, Light and Power estimates it will have spent up to $150 million. So far, the utility has spent about $101 million.
Ward 10 Ald. Ralph Hanauer, who wasn’t on the city council when the deals were approved, calls the wind-power contracts “the most costly mistake in the city of Springfield.” He added that the lack of a clause that allows the restructuring of the contacts to keep costs closer to market value — as just happened with CWLP’s coal contract — was part of the mistake….

The Sierra Club’s wind-power agreement… The 2016 price for both contracts for wind power is $58.97/MWh, according to figures provided by the city.
The variable cost of producing the same power from CWLP’s own generation has been about half that — less than $30/Mwh — over the course of the wind contracts. And the new price in the most recent coal contract makes CWLP’s variable cost of generation even lower — roughly $17 to $26/MWh, depending on the unit….

“Wise economics should determine whether future wind and solar investments are pursued,” McMenamin said. “Generally speaking, going forward, municipally owned electric utilities should concentrate on electricity distribution rather than generation.”…

“At the time, we didn’t realize how devastating it was going to be,” Redpath said.
While walking his ward and talking to the residents, Redpath said he’s run into a lot of people who are opposed to the wind-power contracts.
“There’s definitely a lesson for the future,” he said. “We have to be very, very careful when this contract comes back up. I don’t know how I could vote for it in most any form.”
Source: CWLP shells out $100M-plus for wind power

NW Ohio, eyed for ‘wind corridor’, may now change map

Due to the POOR wind in Ohio, per the National Renewable Energy Lab, Representative Brown must surely be including OTHER STATES in his ‘wind corridor’?! All the Ohio turbines produce energy a mere 30% of the time, and we know from our previous post, this intermittent energy is EXPENSIVE and not necessary.  Is someone padding the pockets of these legislators? Why would they want to INcrease our electricity rates? Why would they want to HURT our businesses and, eventually, our job security? Why would they want to take away our property rights???????

State lawmakers are considering a bill that would create an Ohio Wind Corridor encompassing much of the northwestern portion of the state that could be spared from property setback restrictions the industry contends make new large-scale wind farms impractical.

“This is the area that has the most consistent wind patterns to allow [the wind industry] to make investment with a reasonable return,” said Rep. Tim Brown (R., Bowling Green), who is sponsoring House Bill 190 with Rep. Tony Burkley (R., Payne).

Mr. Brown said he’s open to adding other geographic territory to the corridor.

The language was inserted in House Bill 190 last week as a possible way for the region to get around restrictions enacted in 2014 that require newly installed wind turbines to be located at least 1,300 feet from the nearest property line. Prior law required the extended tip of a turbine to be at least 1,125 from the nearest home….

The bill would allow the Ohio Power Siting Board to develop alternative minimum setback restrictions within the northwest wind corridor that, Mr. Brown said, could be geographic or project specific. As introduced, the bill would have given counties the option of imposing the old setback requirement instead of the more restrictive one…
The bill is pending before the House Public Utilities Committee but is not expected to move before lawmakers recess as early as next week for the summer…

In testimony submitted last week, Julia F. Johnston of Urbana told the committee that the impact of wind farms, particularly in mechanical accidents, can stretch well into neighbors’ property.

“Not every location is a good place for wind development,” she said. “Most wind developers are not in the energy business but are private equity investors looking for a handsome return subsidized by taxpayers and ratepayers.

“H.B. 190 would now add Ohio families living in the Wind Corridor as subsidy providers where they would be forced to donate their land if setbacks are not measured from property lines,” Ms. Johnston said. “We call this ‘trespass zoning.’…”
Source: NW Ohio eyed for creation of ‘wind corridor’

BigWind is NOT Cheaper than Coal: Obama ignores facts

Share this everywhere and educate others!!!….

Wind advocates frequently argue that wind power has competitive prices. Recently, PolitiFact even granted a rating of “True”—its highest rating—to President Obama’s claim that “in Texas, wind power is already cheaper than dirty fossil fuels.” Let’s ignore for a moment that the word “dirty” could be ascribed to nearly any industrial process, including the process used to mine materials for and manufacture wind turbines. On the question of wind power being cheaper than coal, Obama’s statement could easily have received a rating of “mostly false” under Politifact’s rating system because, as Politifact defines that rating, “[t]he statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.”

Obama’s statement and Politifact’s ruling both ignore three critical facts that would give a different impression:

1.) the cost of unreliable (intermittent) sources of electricity like wind cannot be compared directly against the cost of reliable sources like coal (also called “dispatchable” sources by industry insiders),

2.) intermittent wind power actually imposes costs on dispatchable sources by robbing them of production without replacing their generating capacity (which is critically important to grid reliability), and

3.) the evidence shows that the all-in cost of wind power, including the costs imposed on reliable power plants—as opposed to subsidized prices wind producers receive—is significantly higher than the cost of electricity from existing nuclear, hydroelectric, coal, and natural gas plants.

In short, the idea that wind power is cheaper than coal power falls somewhere between a meaningless statement and a myth.

Intermittent Resources Like Wind Are a Separate, Lower Class of Electricity Generation

Wind turbines only generate electricity when the wind is blowing, and it is a fact of life that the wind is an inherently unreliable source of energy. Wind power’s intermittency is a well-known limitation and a significant drawback, especially because the large-scale battery storage required to make wind a reliable resource isn’t commercially viable.

Nevertheless, wind advocates breeze through the fundamental problems of intermittent, unreliable energy and attempt to sell the idea of a wind-fueled future on the fiction that wind power can compete head-to-head with reliable sources of power like coal, nuclear power, or natural gas. In fact, the Politifact piece specifically mentions the argument that “wind-generated electricity can’t (or shouldn’t) be price-compared to electricity generated by fossil fuels or nuclear sources.” However, it appears that critical point did not sway Politifact, given the “true” rating it assigned Obama’s comment. We should note that the argument was put forth by the co-author of a groundbreaking IER study on the cost of electricity, Tom Stacy, who was involved in a lengthy email conversation with the Politifact author attempting to convince him such a comparison (of wind to coal) is bogus.

IER is not alone on this point. The Energy Information Administration (EIA)—a fair referee in this arena—has issued the same warning for years. EIA actually separates dispatchable and non-dispatchable resources in its LCOE calculations and warns that “caution should be used when comparing them to one another.” In essence, dispatchable plants “whose output can be varied to follow demand” (e.g., coal, natural gas, nuclear, etc.) are more valuable than wind turbines “whose operation is tied to the availability of an intermittent resource.”[1]

Because wind cannot dispatch power in response to demand, the electricity it produces is less valuable, and its cost should not be compared directly against dispatchable resources like coal, nuclear power, or natural gas without serious caveats or significant adjustments to factor in the cost of battery storage.

Wind Power Imposes Costs on Reliable Power Plants

Last year, IER released a report on the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) from existing generation resources, a first-ever look at the LCOE of the existing sources on the grid as opposed to new resources. Crucially, the report also introduced the concept of the “imposed costs” created by intermittent resources. The report went one step further and estimated those costs under modeled scenarios to find that one megawatt-hour of wind production imposes a cost of $29 on dispatchable generation from natural gas plants.

The concept of imposed costs is not intuitive, so here’s an example. Suppose a power grid consists of only combined cycle natural gas plants that are allowed to operate freely and satisfy the second-by-second electricity demand on the system. Then, even though the system has enough dispatchable capacity from the natural gas fleet to meet demand, we decide to introduce new, intermittent power from wind turbines.

The natural gas fleet is still needed for those frequent times when wind output is low or zero,[2] but it has to back down to accommodate the intermittent wind generation. In other words, its production is crowded out by the intermittent wind generation. Lower production from the same capital-intense facility is the source of “imposed costs”—wind generation significantly raises the LCOE of the dispatchable resources on the system. By decreasing a reliable power plant’s run time without also reducing its fixed costs, wind power makes it more expensive to generate electricity from existing and new dispatchable resources. [3]

The phenomenon is shown graphically below. New wind production causes the natural gas fleet’s capacity factor to drop from 87 percent to below 60 percent. The imposed cost of wind power in this scenario is nearly $30/MWh, a cost that should be attributed to wind.

LCOE Chart 2
Source: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ier_lcoe_2015.pdf

Analysis of the Full Levelized Cost of Electricity Shows Wind is Not Cheap

The summary table of our LCOE report shows that, when the imposed costs of intermittent resources are taken into account, the LCOE of wind is not competitive with other new sources—especially combined cycle natural gas—and is nowhere near competitive with existing coal, nuclear, hydro, and natural gas resources.

LCOE-Chart
Source: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/wind-lobbyists-critique-of-ier-study-fails-on-all-fronts/

By accounting for imposed costs and adding them to the LCOE for wind power, IER’s report allows for more accurate comparisons between dispatchable and non-dispatchable sources.[4] Under a true apples-to-apples comparison, new wind resources are nearly three times more expensive than existing coal resources.

The article also overemphasizes the importance of wholesale prices for wind power. Wholesale prices don’t take into account the lifetime costs of building and operating a generation resource, nor do they factor in the multiple subsidies that wind producers receive (e.g., federal wind PTC, accelerated depreciation rules, federal loan guarantees, Renewable Energy Certificates, state and local utility property tax rebates).

Conclusion

PolitiFact’s assessment of wind power’s affordability ignores critical facts that would give readers a different impression. By its own standards, we rate Politifact’s conclusion regarding Obama’s statement “mostly false.”…

Source: News Flash: Wind Power is Not Cheaper than Coal – IER