“Lessons from New York”

“Lessons from New York”

—Jack Sullivan, MS (Nuclear Physics, Cornell University), Rutland
Herald 2/14/13

As Vermonters grapple with the pros and cons of industrial wind power,
many of their questions may be answered by studying the track record of
northern New York wind projects.

This area has been host to hundreds of turbines for nearly five years.
The wind resource of northern Vermont is very close to that of northern
New York. We can certainly expect nearly the same performance from
turbines in both locations. I have tracked four northern New York
projects since their inception with a comprehensive study centered on
the Noble Chateaugay project, which has 71 GE 1.5 SLE turbines and is
capacity-rated at 106.5 megawatts. The capacity rating is the maximum
sustained output of the project.

The actual annual output of the Chateaugay was only 23 megawatts,
giving an efficiency (capacity factor ) of 21.6 percent. The other
northern New York projects had similar capacity factors. This is quite
far removed from the 30 percent to 35 percent commonly predicted by
wind developers.

All northern New York wind projects had more than 1,200 hours annually
that they produced no electricity at all (that’s the equivalent of 50
24-hour days) or 14 percent of the time with zero generation. It
appears wind developers notoriously inflate expected capacity factors
to entice investors and increase chances of permitting approvals.

Both Vesta and GE turbines have a manufacturer’s life expectancy rating
of 20 years, yet no northern New York wind project is on track to sell
enough electricity in 20 years to pay for itself. There are few
locations in the Northeast that have a sufficient wind resource to
support a viable wind generating project;; not only are area winds
light compared to the Midwest, but they have a huge problem of being
very intermittent.

Wind power can never supply a steady base-load power, nor can it supply
reliable and predictable electricity in any amount. This is especially
true in marginal wind areas like New York and Vermont. Large-scale
power storage is only a future dream, so a huge influx of wind power
only increases its inefficiency.

Vermonters must look carefully at the current rush to cover their
ridgelines with giant industrial wind turbines. Wind advocates,
including Gov. Peter Shumlin, claim Vermont must switch to wind power
in order to avoid another Hurricane Irene.

If this wasn’t so serious, it would be laughable. Irene originated in
the Caribbean, so I find it hard to believe that a few wind turbines on
Lowell Mountain can stop a major storm forming in the Caribbean. If
storms of Irene’s ilk are caused by climate change, then Vermont’s
electrical generation is a very minor concern, since 96 percent of its
carbon dioxide is caused by heating and transportation. It might make
more sense for Vermonters to concentrate on conservation and energy
efficiency rather than destroy their ridgelines with inefficient wind

An in-depth study done by the prestigious Pacific Research Institute
found that a wind project needed to have a capacity factor of 35
percent before it could erase its carbon footprint within its life
expectancy. Manufacture, transport and construction of a wind project
produces huge amounts of carbon dioxide emissions;; for example, just
moving a single turbine across northern New York produces nearly five
tons of carbon dioxide.

Even if Vermont wind projects produced less emissions, little reduction
would occur since most of Vermont’s electricity comes from hydro and
nuclear, both already emission free.

A driving force behind the Shumlin administration’s strong support of
wind power seems to be the desire to destroy Vermont Yankee. The fact
of the matter is that it would take more than 1,000 3-megawatt wind
turbines to produce the average output of Yankee, and that output would
be erratic and unpredictable.

Since Vermont electrical generation produces an infinitesimal part of
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, there is no way they have any measurable
effect on climate change.

The Lowell Mountain project is interesting in that Green Mountain Power
claims its 21 three-megawatt turbines will produce an annual average of
20 megawatts. This would mean a capacity factor of approximately 32
percent, rather unbelievable for a Northeast installation. I fear the
people of Vermont are being sold a bill of goods not unlike what
happened in northern New York.

Other considerations in the northern New York wind projects were
changes in the rural ambiance of the landscape, a major factor for
Vermonters as ridgelines are scalped and bulldozed. Here in northern
New York woodlot and meadow scenery gave way to an industrial array of
500-foot turbines. The landowners who were near turbine sites found
their property values decreasing. Studies in New York, Texas,
Wisconsin, the United Kingdom and
Ontario all agree that sites in view of turbines less than a mile away
lost 20 percent to 50 percent of their value once they were installed.

Additionally, we have had cases of ill health caused by neighboring
turbines, a condition known as wind turbine syndrome and verified by
medical professionals worldwide. A further negative effect that wind
developers in northern New York have generally denied is the death of
birds and bats due to wind turbines. It has been alleged that some
projects have employees who scour the areas around turbines and remove
carcasses, thus literally “knowing where the bodies are buried.”

Vermonters should remember that once their ridgelines are dynamited,
bulldozed and covered with giant wind turbines they will never be


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: