 |
| A 'cut' on Kibby Mountain. Developers like to down-play the damage to Maine's mountains. This single gouge on a previously unspoiled high alpine ridge was ninety feet deep. See the size of the humans walking on the road. Photo by Nancy O'Toole. |
We all know the difference between a wind turbine's rated capacity--what it could produce if it turned properly, and at the proper speeds, 24 hours a day and 365 days a year--and what a turbine's actual production levels are. Often, we are sold a bill of goods: "This project, when completed, can generate enough electricity to power 44,000 Maine homes!"
Yep, it can, but it's not going to. And that's because this world isn't perfect, the weather isn't predictable, the winds aren't steady...and these massive turbines aren't immune to the incredible stress brought upon them or to the climate challenges in mountainous regions...
Please consider the following findings by Willem Post, and feel free to check out the links he has shared.
KIBBY I & II
The above 132 MW wind turbine facility, capital cost $330 million, is owned by TransCanada and was built, after a lot of destruction, on one of the most beautiful ridge lines in Maine. TransCanada and Vestas the claimed that the capacity factor would be 0.32, or greater. It was placed in service on 10/31/2009.
Its FERC designation is Trans Canadian Wind Development, Inc. in case you want to look up the below data.
In 2009 and 2010, the facility had a lot of startup problems and its energy production was negligible.
In 2011, it had a capacity factor of 22.5% for the first 9 months.
For the 3rd quarter of 2011, it was 14.42%. Monthly capacity factors were as follows:
July 18.48%
Aug 12.31%
Sept 12.41%
Why are the CFs so low?
 |
| Kibby wind project under construction.... |
Winds on ridge lines have highly-irregular velocities AND directions. This does not show up when one does wind velocity testing for feasibility, but when rotors are 373 feet in diameter, one part of a rotor will likely see a different wind velocity AND direction from another part. This leads to highly inefficient energy production and CFs. Wind vendors are very familiar with this, but do not mention it. However, all is explained in this article. I recommend the VT-DPS and House Environment and Energy Committee, and all others, finally read this article, before "leading" Vermont into an expensive energy la-la-land.
The Bolton Valley Ski Resort wind turbine CF also does not live up to claims.
The New York State wind turbine CFs also do not live to claims. The Vendor promises were for capacity factors of 30% to 35%, before installation.
The reality, after installation:
Installed capacity, MW: 1035.5 in 2008; 1,274 in 2009: 1,274 in 2009; 1,348 in 2010
Production, MWh: 1,282,325 in 2008; 2,108,500 in 2009, 2,532,800 in 2010
Capacity factors: 14.1% in 2008; 18.9% in 2009; 22.7% in 2010
The data for the table was obtained from the 2011 New York ISO Gold Book
Because no wind turbines were added during 2010, the 22.7% capacity factor of 2010 is the best proof of the lack of performance of the New York State wind turbine facilities.
This reality is not unique to Maine, Bolton Valley and NY State. It has replicated itself in The Netherlands, Denmark, England, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, etc. The production is invariably less than promised. Add this to the fact that the CO2 emissions reduction is much less than claimed, as shown in below articles, makes further investments in wind energy an extremely dubious and expensive
proposition.
 |
| Kibby Mountain...before wind. |
Compared to entire mountains being excavated for coal in other states, this is pretty low impact stuff...
ReplyDeleteHello, Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteThanks for chiming in (although I'm always more comfortable speaking to people who sign their own names...)
I suppose you're right. Your statement is precisely what the wind industry continues to say.
My question is this: why should Maine (and Maine citizens) sacrifice our mountaintops for ANY energy system that we don't need and won't use? Why do something environmentally damaging, fiscally irresponsible, or ethically challenging if it is unecessary? Are you advocating for mountaintop industrial wind simply because it's the 'lesser of two evils'?
Maine's wind energy plan was politically motivated--yet is funded by Americans who had no say in the matter and who don't stand to gain--while many stand to lose a great deal. Maine is already an exporter of energy, and we have one of the cleanest portfolios and the highest percentage of 'renewables' in the nation. Only one small plant in Maine produces energy with coal (the paper mill in Rumford, amounting to 1/2 of 1% of all energy produced in Maine.) Adding hundreds of miles of industrial wind to our mountain summits will not reduce coal mining elsewhere.
I appreciate your perspective, but urge you to do some independent research on this topic. Repeating wind indsutry spin only propagates the dissemination of rhetoric...not factual data.
Please come back again. We welcome all perspectives,
Kaz