Letters to the Editor: Wind Power 04.14.16

What Is the Cost?

East Hampton

April 11, 2016

To the Editor:

Two letters in last week’s Star raised concerns about wind power. Their points were, more or less: Wind energy can’t provide peak power (power that is typically needed in the hottest part of the day when the most energy is used for air-conditioning); wind farms have been closed down in Sweden; throughout Europe they are inefficient; in Denmark conventional fossil fuel plants have to run at the same time; windmills are destructive to the sea floor and to marine life, and power generated by wind will cost two times more than what we are now paying for electricity.

In doing a little looking, I came up with different information. With regard to peak power, graphs I have seen show the wind in areas offshore here frequently picks up concurrent with times of peak demand. As well, battery storage can go a long way to solve discrepancies between when the wind blows and when there is demand for peak power. While the Swedish company Vattenfall is decommissioning an old wind farm, they are also installing a net increase of more than 22 percent wind capacity, and any financial losses they report are related to their nuclear and conventional power production, not wind. 

Denmark’s official wind energy site proudly states that they provide 40 percent of their energy with wind now; they continue to add more capacity and will provide 50 percent of the country’s needs with wind by 2020, and they will reach a 100-percent renewable energy goal by 2050, with wind as a major component of that supply. 

But the real misunderstanding illustrated by the letters, I would submit, is about cost. We have to make choices. Wind farms have to be considered next to other options, like the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that blew up in the Gulf of Mexico and released 210 million gallons of oil into the sea. This killed untold amounts of marine life and poisoned our food chain. Windmills won’t do that. There is the Fukushima nuclear plant that is apparently still leaking hundreds of tons of radioactive water into the Pacific every day and will do so for perhaps decades more. Windmills won’t do that either. Don’t read up on Fukushima; you’ll have a hard time sleeping at night. The radiation from the plant is spreading all over the ocean, and we know radiation is not good for sea creatures and humans who eat them. 

What are the real costs of extracting, transporting, and burning fossil fuels? It is certainly not reflected in what we pay for electricity now. Think of the Alberta tar sands and the skinning of the earth and destruction of hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of forest. No doubt driving piles into the sea floor for offshore wind probably hurts cetaceans and other creatures nearby when it is happening because of loud vibrations, and the anchors will create some navigational issues that may compromise fishing efforts. But consider the footprint of that compared to hundreds of thousands of square kilometers for the tar sands and the footprint of all the oil rigs at sea and on land, of fracking operations, pipelines, mountain-topping in Appalachia, toxic ash waste pools, etc. And we have not even mentioned the costs of climate change and sea level rise largely due to the burning of fossil fuels. 

As was recently reported in The New York Times, the rapid melting of Greenland and Arctic ice sheets may cause four-to-six-foot sea level rise before the end of this century — much sooner than had been anticipated. Something like 80 percent of world population lives within 62 miles of the coasts, including in many of the major low-lying coastal cities in the world. What is the cost of sea rise going to be? 

I would think anyone seriously interested in comparing the costs and havoc reaped by our use of fossil fuels and nuclear power with that of wind power would take these things into consideration. 

KRAE van SICKLE

Offshore Wind Project

Springs

April 11, 2016

Dear David,

Two letters to last week’s Star expressed negative sentiments about the proposed offshore wind project. This discussion should be put in the context of why this project is even proposed: Scientists warn that to continue with business as usual will result in cataclysmic effects from climate change. Evolving science indicates that those effects are happening now and accelerating beyond expectations with each passing year. 

From that starting point, it is useful to consider the negative aspects of potential solutions, but equally important to ask, given the urgency of the problem, which solutions can be enacted quickly? To say there are other solutions begs the question without offering what those solutions are, or advocating for something else. As to comparative cost, anything on land, for Long Island, faces astronomical land cost as well as 5 or 10 years of legal battles with the neighbors.

One letter claimed these turbines were as destructive to marine environment as an oil rig. Really? There are no oil spills from wind turbines. And carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels as it settles into the ocean becomes carbonic acid and begins to dissolve the shells of sea creatures, including phytoplankton, the bottom of the marine food chain. There are already reports of areas of the sea with 40 percent reduction in phytoplankton in the last 40 years. Wind turbines won’t do that. 

Rising sea temperatures from global warming are already killing coral reefs around the world. From The New York Times, April 9, “Coral reefs are the crucial incubators of the ocean’s ecosystem, providing food and shelter to a quarter of all marine species, and they support fish stocks that feed more than one billion people. . . . An estimated 30 million small-scale fishermen and women depend on reefs for their livelihoods, more than one million in the Philippines alone. In Indonesia, fish supported by the reefs provide the primary source of protein for a billion people. . . . This is a . . . planetary crisis, and we are sticking our heads in the sand about it.” Wind turbines won’t do that.

Claiming all manner of problems with wind turbines in Europe, the letter writers fail to explain why, then, are they building them as fast as they can all over the North Sea, off Scotland and elsewhere? In 2015, 419 offshore turbines were added, with seven being decommissioned in Sweden, for a net gain of 412 turbines. That was 108 percent better than the previous year, so clearly, the people already doing offshore wind love it and are accelerating deployment. 

DON MATHESON

Cost Is High

Springs

April 10, 2016

Dear Editor; 

A few months ago I wrote a letter to The Star commenting on an article you published concerning the coming attempt to site a wind farm in the ocean to provide green energy to the East End. The rationale was that PSEG-LI couldn’t meet our electrical needs, especially in summer, mostly due to the large number of McMansions we’ve built and all their numerous luxuries, particularly the need to heat the pools. 

Green energy is a goal we need to achieve. There’s no doubt global warming is real, and if we don’t find a way to curb our lust for energy we’ll leave our children a poor and dangerous planet. I truly believe that. But I also believe we need to examine this project and not be lured by pretty words and panicked into just doing “something.” I’ve said before the fee is small. We only have to jump on the bandwagon. It’s free. But the cost is high, and we’ll hear about that after it’s been started. 

Since I wrote that letter, the headlines in The Star have been all about the enthusiasm and gung-ho attitude the promoters of the project could only hope for. I couldn’t see any real thought into the important aspects of building wind generators. However, I was glad to read two letters you published last week, from Mr. Giardina and Mr. Scola, that raised some of the questions we need to think about. Good for them. 

We need to say slow down to this wind generating project. We need someone who’s willing to be unpopular and ask questions about the costs, including environmental, financial, and even social. We need someone who is just plain skeptical. Then we need someone who will tell government the truth, and ask why we and our grandchildren need to pay to heat swimming pools.

We’ve been dazzled before by people with great ideas and greater promises, only to find out it just didn’t quite work like we expected, or it was a bit more expensive than we thought, or we didn’t think we would ruin your environment this badly. This is serious and a big deal and it will impact us all. Let’s find out if the impact hurts. 

BRAD LOEWEN

Wind Turbines

East Hampton

April 4, 2016

Dear David, 

Wind turbines are exceptionally expensive to buy, about $2.2 million-plus each, and plunking them 30 miles south offshore would likely increase the price 500 percent or more. Possibly much more. They are not maintenance-free, and offshore, the maintenance expense would be staggering. Insurance? Maybe Lloyd’s of London. Logic says all expenses should be on the table before we commit to or back such a plan. 

Alternately is the use of natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica shale formations that underlying most of New York State south of the Mohawk River into Pennsylvania. There is enough there to power all of New York State for centuries. All that is required is that New York permit horizontal drilling and “octopus” wellheads. New York State would earn a considerable amount in tax revenues, and would enjoy an employment boom that could last a couple of decades. 

The fear of carbon dioxide is simply incorrect, and the sooner we get over the lemming-like behavior around it, the better.

Yours truly,

PETER C. OSBORNE

Battery Storage Is Key

Amagansett

April 11, 2016

Dear David,

New energy projects should deserve intense scrutiny, and the implementation process should always be democratic. In response to last week’s letter writers concerning the proposed Deepwater Wind project southeast of Long Island, I recognize the concerned citizens’ perceived complaints about offshore wind farms — namely costs and environmental impact — and offer a few insights that may counteract their argument. 

Costs associated with the Deepwater Block Island project are initially more than for our European counterparts because this is a brand-new industry for the U.S. Deepwater has to use European manufacturers and equipment because we’ve never done this before, and the project already on its way to completion on Block Island will demonstrate on a small scale how the Northeast can harness its incredible renewable resource. We have unfortunately lagged behind our E.U. neighbors in introducing renewable energy sources, and now will make up lost time by leading the nation in independent energy production.

Long Island pays among the highest electric rates in the country, and what is great about offshore wind power is that we can lock in a fixed rate for decades that is dependable and not tied to fossil fuel prices that we all know fluctuate. The effective rate we will pay is calculated to be much lower than current ates from LIPA that rely on fossil fuel-powered “peaker plants.”

The key element that Mr. Scola has left out of his argument in energy savings is battery storage. New technology, such as the Tesla Powerwall, has revolutionized electric storage. It collects when energy is plentiful and can release when it is needed, as our peak energy usage in the summer will necessitate. Battery storage is key to Deepwater’s plan, and these batteries will be stored in buildings in the Town of East Hampton. As for damage from salt to the turbines, there is no basis to the claim whatsoever. Just look at the European model and see for yourself. This technology is sound, and getting better all the time. Offshore wind turbines are designed to withstand a harsh marine environment and Category 4 hurricane wind speeds.

To address another major argument against offshore wind power, as an environmentalist and ocean advocate, I rest assured that Deepwater Wind’s plan is one of the most carefully considered and sound I have ever seen. Migratory bird patterns, presence of whales, fisheries health, and even Native American tribes were studied and consulted and checked out on many levels from multiple third-party research conclusions. In short, the proposed site is not an avenue for migratory birds, whales would not be affected, they have the blessing of most of the Rhode Island fishermen, as well as the Narragansett Indian nation. An undersea transmission cable would be laid very noninvasively along the sea floor to onshore locations in East Hampton at existing substations. That means very little new infrastructure. The wind turbine foundations themselves have even been shown to support marine growth and even bolster the existing ecosystems in terms of fish diversity and marine health. 

In all, after my own consideration of the project, I wholeheartedly support the Deepwater Wind project and hope to see its completion as one step toward a true renewable energy revolution in the U.S., as well as getting us closer to our own town’s goal of 100-percent renewable electricity production by 2020. We can’t get there without a major project like this, and its support should be based on facts and weighing our future as sustainable versus a dead-end catastrophe for civilization as we know it. I urge the public to view the company’s website at dwwind.com and decide for yourself. 

SCOTT BLUEDORN