Strong breeze ahead: N.J. considers boosting wind farm program

star ledger ^ | 10.03.08 | Tom Johnson

[Coleus]

With two neighboring states having recently approved massive offshore wind farm projects, the Corzine administration is considering expanding New Jersey's future reliance on wind power as a clean source of energy.

The state's draft energy master plan currently calls for developing 1,000 megawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2020 -- enough to power nearly 1 million homes -- but that target is expected to double and possibly even triple when the administration finalizes the plan later this month, according to three people who have been briefed on the administration's thinking. A spokesman for the Corzine administration declined to comment.

Wind power is viewed as a crucial component of the state's goal of dramatically reducing greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming and shifting to cleaner ways of producing electricity. It is a strategy already being adopted by other states: Last month, Rhode Island approved a large-scale wind project, and Delaware cleared plans for an offshore wind farm in June.

Today, the N.J. Board of Public Utilities is expected to select a developer to build the state's first offshore wind farm, a step that could eventually lead to the construction of hundreds of giant wind turbines off the Jersey coast. The pilot project is expected to cost in excess of $1 billion.

It is all part of a nationwide push to tap a domestic renewable energy resource that has seldom been exploited. Wind power accounts for just 1 percent of the electricity generated in the United States today, but a report by the Department of Energy projects that could rise to 20 percent by 2030, with most of that coming from offshore wind farms. There are no offshore wind farms currently operating in the U.S.

[Coleus]

just don't build them by ted kennedy or john kerry. they don't like the view.

[Coleus]

Can Renewable Energy Be Sustained?

[Doogle]

...and if Corzine would keep his mouth shut we’d save even more.

[ari-freedom]

[FrankR]

Put those things right outside of the Capitol and the hot air from Congress would keep them spinning forever...

[ari-freedom]

heh he kinda looks like Peter O toole and Sophia Loren is very distracting, sorry.

[TonyStark]

just don't build them by ted kennedy or john kerry. they don't like the view.

Pure sycophantic hot air bluster.
You can't build wind farms with nothing but debt.
New Jersey's commie state and local government has made dependence on Federal money its only option for this fantasy.
And the feds are bankrupt.

[expatpat]

And what will they do on cold nights or hot days when there is no wind?

[JerseyHighlander]

The entire energy industry in the UK has already abandoned the UK's wind energy industry due to costs, grid blockage, and the credit crunch.  The UK wind power energy industry is investing in the US still, because the USA consumers/taxpayers are literally being forced to pay for the wind energy invesment through subsidies.

Credit crunch warning over UK energy security

• High borrowing costs hit firms, says Ofgem chief
• Lords report criticises reliance on wind power

• Mark Milner and Terry Macalister
• guardian.co.uk, Wednesday November 26 2008 00.01 GMT
• The Guardian, Wednesday November 26 2008
• larger | smaller

The credit crunch is forcing Britain's power companies to pay high prices for their borrowing and could have a long term impact on supply, according to the UK's top energy regulator.

Alistair Buchanan, chief executive of Ofgem, said the global financial crisis was making it harder for companies to borrow and, when they could, the terms were increasingly expensive.

Buchanan told the cross-party business and enterprise committee of MPs yesterday that companies were paying 4% to 5% above the benchmark Libor interbank borrowing rate on new debt.

His warning came as a House of Lords committee attacked the government's renewables policies, saying the "dash" for wind and other clean power sources risked undermining the UK's overall energy security and would cost the average household £80 a year more than necessary.

---

 

Economic Affairs Committee

The Economic Affairs Committee is one of the five permanent investigative committees in the House of Lords and is charged with considering economic affairs.

The Committee examines the operation of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England as well as other macroeconomic issues and more specific economic topics.

The Committee’s main function is to examine matters within its remit with which Parliament ought to be concerned, and to report to the House of Lords with recommendations for government action. Each inquiry leads to a report, published together with the evidence on which it is based, setting out the Committee’s findings and making recommendations to the Government and others.

The Committee is usually made up of thirteen members, appointed by the House for each Session of Parliament.

Written evidence | Uncorrected Oral Evidence | Corrected Oral Evidence | Finance Bill Sub-Committee

---

Latest News

The Economics of Renewable Energy

The Committee's Report on The Economics of Renewable Energy, HL Paper 195 was published on 25 November 2008.

You are here: Publications and Records > Select Committees > Economic Affairs > Economic Affairs

The Economics of Renewable Energy - Economic Affairs Committee - Contents

---

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT

The British economy will increasingly feel the impact of the Government's commitment to reducing carbon emissions, including targets for greater use of energy from renewable sources. The Government describes its targets for renewables as challenging; others have suggested they are unachievable. In any event, the effort to meet them will come at a cost and, if not properly managed, risks distracting attention from other means of reducing emissions.

It seems timely, therefore, to examine the economics of renewable energy. We take as a given the Government's wish to reduce carbon emissions; we do not address how far such reductions are justified as a contribution to a world-wide effort. We note the following main points:

—EU targets have focussed the spotlight on renewables rather than other means of reducing emissions such as energy efficiency or greater use of nuclear power.

—The EU is committed to a binding target that 20% of its energy consumption should be from renewable sources by 2020. Individual states' contributions to the overall target are still only proposals and some remain a matter of dispute. The Government seems ready to accept the Commission's proposal that the UK target should be 15% of energy from renewables by 2020.

—The expected UK target implies a dash from 1.8% renewable energy now to a near-tenfold increase in 12 years.

—Most of the increase in renewable energy in Britain is expected to come from electricity generation—although electricity represents only a fifth of the country's energy consumption—with an anticipated rise from 5-6% renewables now to 30-40% in 2020.

—Most of the extra renewable generation is expected from wind turbines, which offer the most readily available short-term enhancement of renewable electricity at a relatively cheap base cost; but they produce electricity only intermittently and the scope in the UK for increases in more dependable supply from other renewable sources—particularly hydro-electric, domestic biomass and solar—is limited, while tidal barrage and wave are still at an early stage of development in Britain.

—To make up for its intermittency, a significantly greater capacity of wind than of conventional or nuclear plant is needed for any given output of electricity; furthermore, in the absence of technological advances in electricity storage and of greater interconnection of the British and Continental transmission networks, back-up conventional plant will be essential to guarantee supply when required, to compensate for wind's very low capacity credit (probable output of power at the time of need).

—Wind generation should be viewed largely as additional capacity to that which will need to be provided, in any event, by more reliable means; and the evidence suggests that its full costs, although declining over time, remain significantly higher than those of conventional or nuclear generation.

—The dash for intermittent renewable generation will coincide with, and be in addition to, the programme to replace substantial amounts of old coal and nuclear plant and to meet increases in demand—amounting to about a quarter of current capacity.

—In short, the pursuit of a 15% renewables target will roughly double the requirement for new capacity for power generation that would otherwise be due in the UK between now and 2020; the scale and urgency of such investment is formidable. It is also subject to planning consents.

—The extra cost of electricity generation and transmission in Britain in 2020 with 34% renewables is likely to be £6.8billion a year, an extra 38%. Most of this would be met by the consumer; about £80 a year (at current prices) for the average household.

—There would be little investment in renewable electricity generation without Government support.

—Heating and transport each represent some two-fifths of the country's energy consumption but have received relatively little Government support or attention by comparison with electricity generation.

The UK has a poor record in meeting targets in this area and it must be doubtful whether a 15% EU target can be met under current policies. If it were met, it would mark a step change in the use of renewable energy but take Britain into a degree of dependence on intermittent renewables unprecedented elsewhere in Europe, with the attendant risks. Determination to meet the target may lead to over-emphasis on short term options, simply because they are available, rather than because they offer the most effective and economical means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions over the longer term.

The Government rightly aims to ensure reliable and affordable energy supplies and is right to say that a portfolio of policies is needed if we are also to reduce carbon emissions. But, in pursuing its renewable energy target, to guard against the risk of power shortages it should look beyond the generation of electricity by intermittent means and encourage other economic and effective ways of reducing carbon emissions across all sectors, so that investment in them is not diverted by incentives for intermittent sources of supply. Specifically, the Government should:

—Give a firm lead and maintain a stable investment framework for large-scale, low carbon alternatives to renewable power generation. Nuclear is not intermittent; neither is fossil fuel generation with carbon capture and storage, if and when that becomes available.

—Emphasise and promote the opportunities for renewable heat as strongly as for renewable electricity generation.

—Look afresh at the UK's research effort into renewables and consider how to promote more, and more focussed, research leading to new, effective and economical ways to reduce carbon emissions; it should also consider offering a substantial annual prize for the best technological contribution.

—In particular, encourage research into energy storage technologies with a view to mitigating the disadvantage of intermittency in the types of renewable generation likely to prevail in the UK.

---

 

And exactly how is NJ going to build conventional powerplants on the NJ shore to supply power between the intermittent wind power generation, and how exactly is NJ going to afford to pay 38% more for it's power supplies?

This is getting utterly insane, the quick answer is:  Corzine's inner circle are controlled by the power industry's astroturf NGo groups, and Corzine also will make money after he leaves the governorship consulting to the financiers doing the mezzanine financing for these subsidies, they are only interested in getting their consulting fees, and do not give a damn about the long term viability of these projects.  I wouldn't be surprised if the law firms that will sue the state for the Audonbon society are making campaign contributions to make sure this law passes.  It will be a full employment bill for every environmental law specialist in the state for a generation as they fight over migratory bird routes and low frequency disturbances that disturb shark dolphin and whale migrations off the NJ shore.

[factoryrat]

A 1000 Megawatts capacity? That’s It? One westinghouse AP1000 Reactor on a few dozen acres could easily produce that for far less cost, be more reliable, and would be a baseload power source (always on tap). No unsightly windmills and cheap electricity.

[steelyourfaith]

"Wind power is viewed as a crucial component of the state's goal of dramatically reducing greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming and shifting to cleaner ways of producing electricity."


Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Thunder90]

New Jersey can expect a visit from the Audubon Society, as that group says that windmills harm owls and seagulls and thus justifies not putting the windfarms up. Therefore, using that idiotic logic, those windmills will never go up as NJ is so liberal that they will listen to the Audubon freaks.