New Haven Independent

Posted by: robn | July 7, 2008 9:20 AM

I love Ed Kennedy but he's completely wrong on this issue. These things are beautiful and completely appropriate to the shoreline. Breakwaters, wharves, tall sails, and lighthouses (not to mention windmills if you happen to be in the Netherlands) are all technological manifestations of their time and have an intrinsic beauty and a functional clarity.

Posted by: jackie | July 7, 2008 9:45 AM

New Haven harbor ain't Cape Cod. Heck, we've already got those massive oil tanks or whatever they are. Build 'em as big as can be efficient and profitable. And then cut my property taxes. (Yes, I know, it's not going to make a dent.)

Posted by: facChek | July 7, 2008 10:15 AM

According to Gary Doyens,It's just more HOT air from city hall.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | May 29, 2007 4:08 PM

Well....here we go again. We don't need wind turbines on the water front, we need a way to harness all the hot air blowing out of City Hall. There's no telling what we could power with all that bluster.

Posted by: -fairhavener- | July 7, 2008 12:55 PM

I agree with ROBN that these things are beautiful. I can't wait to take the trolley down to see these things.

Posted by: robn | July 7, 2008 12:58 PM

We should actually be placing these out in the middle of the sound becuase thats where the good wind is...

http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/images/windmaps/ct_50m_800.jpg

...I know thats gonna anger the boaters, but hey...the good news is that windmills DON'T EXPLODE..unlike other recently proposed/defeated energy facilities.

Posted by: write&wrong | July 7, 2008 1:01 PM

YES, YES and YES

We need to look at this for new haven and the entire state. alders, don't screw this up. it is a no brainer....i would even venture to put up more....

Posted by: Gary Doyens | July 7, 2008 4:00 PM

What is it that these wind mills are going to demonstrate...exactly? That you can generate electricity with wind? Is there somebody who doesn't know that already? At $125K each that generates only $2,500 worth of electricity each, (2% return) what are we demonstrating - quality, cost effective, efficient green technology; how to save a city job; or how incompetent the buffoons who run the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund really are?

This is a very silly and trite demonstration of green technology and a complete waste of OUR money to do so. Yes, folks, OUR money. The Connecticut Clean Energy Fund together with its sister, the Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund are fueled from rate payers across Connecticut. They are twin taxes that show up each month on your utility bill. This is how they choose to spend your money.

This is right up there with paying $650K to GE to install the solar panels they manufacture on their own roof.

So ratepayers can look forward to more of these diminutive demonstration projects - the legislators approved an increase in the clean energy taxes this last session so the 50% increase you saw in your utility bill this year, can go even higher.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | July 7, 2008 4:50 PM

I think they are pretty to...but Gary has a point.

Posted by: Webblog 1 | July 7, 2008 5:51 PM

Look at the back side of your UI bill, it will explain how and why you are paying 250K for demonstration projects such as this wind mill project. You pay from $.70 to $1.50 cents per month surcharge.

Combined Public Benefits Charge is the combination of the following three charges:

1. Conservation and Load Management Program - This is the charge to fund programs that promote energy conservation and efficiency.

2. Renewable Energy Investment - To fund programs that promote the use of renewable (or environmentally friendly) fuel sources, such as solar power, wind, fuel cells, methane gas from landfills, biomass, trash-to-energy and water.

3. Systems Benefit Charge - For funding public costs such as public education, hardship protection and nuclear plant decommissioning.

You Get it?

Posted by: robn | July 7, 2008 6:05 PM

Gary,

I'm not sure where you'r getting your return-on-investment numbers from but you're not considering a few important things.

1) Whether or not market speculators have driven up the price of oil, and whether or not we're at or past peak oil production (we probably are) the fact is that in the last 6 years oil prices have risen 5x. This increasing energy cost curve changes the rate of return for wind power.

2) Wind power and other renewables don't have the legacy costs which hydrocarbons and coal do...specifically, they don't contribute to global climate change, bad air/asthma, or military deployment to protect overseas resources.

Renewables aren't just a good idea..they're a neccesity and we can't afford NOT to move forward with them.

Posted by: Walt | July 7, 2008 8:08 PM

Gary Doyens certainly appears to make sense.; That is definitly what the figures re the Grant say.

Kennedy. as I have read it in other sources, does not have fiscal reasons to oppose windmills. He just wants them somewhere other than visible from the Kwnnedy family compound.

Posted by: Seriously? | July 7, 2008 8:36 PM

Doyens is, as per usual, being pennywise and poundfoolish.

(1) New technology requires upfront investments. Nobody thinks two turbines is the end goal here.

(2) CT's investment in green technology is attracting commercial investment and interest and, as a result, jobs.

(3) The pilot aspect of the project is determining how much energy we can harness in these particular locations and transmission capacity (not whether wind can produce energy as Doyens facetiously suggests).

(4) There's no financial risk here to New Haven (as the article makes perfectly clear).

Being against everything doesn't constitute a policy position. Really. Come up with a decent idea every now and again and people might take you more seriously. Being angry doesn't cut it. Try being intelligent or creative or incisive.

Posted by: robn | July 7, 2008 9:37 PM

Walt and Gary,

I concede that the grant says a hard cost of 250K and an annual payback of 5K, which sounds like a 50 year payback, but if you consider that world energy supply is only going down and that world energy needs are only going up, and that those two things combined means energy cost is only going up, then the value of the generated energy will increase annually. If energy costs increase only a meageer 5% per year then the actual payback is 26 years; if energy costs rise 10% per year, then the payback is 19 years, and so on.

Posted by: Really Green | July 7, 2008 10:14 PM

A link in this story goes to a sight that says average wind speeds of 14 mph are needed. Long Wharf might get 14 mph once or twice a year. This project will be a failure and will stop money being invested in renewable energy. Who can afford brainstormers at city hall.

Posted by: -fairhavener- | July 7, 2008 10:33 PM

robn,

You are so right again. Unfortunately, if the mills are out in the Sound it will be much harder for officials to get all those publicity shots. Don't think that wasn't thought of.

Plus, it's already a pain in the neck to sail, or motor, around in the sound dodging all thoses lobster pots. Imagine having to dodge all those giant blades.

Posted by: -fairhavener- | July 7, 2008 10:40 PM

I forgot my BTW.

BTW, NHI when are you going to fix/upgrade your servers? There is like a 20 second delay for everything I write to see it .update in the comment box. My typos are too much to fix, it takes forever. I'm going to have to start writing in Word and pasting it in. What's going on?

I used to be able to type and see it in the box in realtime. This is too much. It's been weeks now, maybe months, can't remember.

Posted by: Christopher Zurcher | July 7, 2008 10:49 PM

Free energy. Now that's beautiful.

Posted by: Dan | July 8, 2008 2:02 AM

Imagine driving into the city on I-95 and seeing windmills all along the shoreline, and covering the breakwaters into the sound. In the long run they will be a good idea, putting marginal land to good use, and also show anyone coming into the city that New Haven is thinking ahead and is open to new ideas.

Of course that is exactly why it won't happen. Can we fly in the mayors of Portland or Vancouver and let them run the city?

Posted by: Walt | July 8, 2008 6:36 AM

Robn

----but if the cost of money is only a lousy 3% per year, your predicted payoff time would at least double.

We know windpower works, so why pay this monstrous sum for tiny windmills which produce little?

Build the big ones which have hope of really producing worthwhile power, and put the first ones near big winds like Kennedy.

Posted by: robn | July 8, 2008 10:27 AM

Walt,

I'm with you on the scale thing, but a lot of people still aren't on board with renewables, even with gas at 4 buck a gallon. A pilot program is a good way to prod the collective consciousness.

...and i don't think we have to go to Massachusetts for windpower...NHI readers alone could generate 1.21 gigaawatts...

Posted by: Bruce | July 8, 2008 10:41 AM

First of all, a pet peeve of mine -- these are wind TURBINES, not windmills. Windmills have been used to grind grain for thousands of years. Wind turbines have been under development only since the 1930's.

Second of all -- thank you Giovanni and others who pushed this through!

As Robn pointed out, this is not paid for by tax money. It is paid for by tiny surcharge on our electricity bills that goes into a fund dedicated towards developing renewable generation (of which this is a perfect application). The more electricity you use, the more money you donate towards renewable energy research. If we are not approved for this project, the money will likely go towards a fuel cell or solar project at a cost of $4500-$10,000 per KW.

The cost is rather high, but don't overlook the fact that this is a research project. The price tag includes monitoring equipment, which can be costly. To answer your question, Gary, my understanding is that this project is an exploration to see if micro-scale wind generation is feasible here. Regardless of the outcome of this study, New Haven will keep the wind turbines and they will continue to provide clean, renewable electricity to the city for many decades.

Really Green: which source are you referring to. I couldn't find any information on the specific turbines to be used for this program. Wind turbines can be designed to operate at just about any air speed, so part of the planning for this project will surely include selecting an appropriate turbine for the observed wind speed at the installation site (also keep in mind that wind speed at the ground is different from wind speed just 20 or 30 feet off the ground).

Here is an example. A wind turbine with a 25 ft dia blade sweep has about 2500 W of wind power available at 10mph (P=.5 x Density of Air x swept area x velocity^3). If a turbine has a typical coefficient of performance of say .4 at that rated wind speed, it will generate about 1000W of power.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | July 8, 2008 11:22 AM

Seriously?:

The sweeping generalizations in your post and your blanket dismissive attitude of my points are as breathtaking as they are unfounded.

Pennywise and pound foolish? Would you spend $125,000 of your own money that generated a return of $2,500 per year without factoring in maintenance and the present cost of money? Didn't think you would.

New technology does require upfront investments. These windmills are not that kind of investment. It's a demonstration project. Green technology is a growing commercial interest and is across the next 20 years, expected to generate thousands of jobs. These windmills have nothing to do with that.

You don't need a $250,000 pilot project to determine how much energy you can produce in these particular locations or its ability for transmission capacity. A friend of mine right now, is monitoring wind speeds on an exposed knoll of his property. He is doing it across many months so he can calculate an average, extrapolate how much power he can generate to test whether it is worth the $10,000 up front investment to put a windmill at his home in North Branford. Is there a reason this can't be done in New Haven or is the real reason, just to introduce windmills to the public and pretend they actually accomplish something?

I didn't say there was a financial risk for New Haven.

Posted by: anon | July 8, 2008 1:35 PM

Wind turbines are a technology of the future and it would be great to see them developed here. They would be interesting to look at from the highway.

However, it is much cheaper to save energy than to build new capacity. I wonder what the "hidden costs" of this project to the city will be, in terms of staff time, permitting, etc.

It would be great to see what you could do with $250,000 in terms of making the city more walkable, bikeable or transit-friendly (also, making investments like narrowed, more walkable streets and bike shelters can last forever; wind turbines last a couple decades at best). The vast majority of our daily oil consumption goes to power automobiles, putting citizens even farther into the $14 trillion debt hole they are currently in -- if you could just get people to avoid an additional 5% of auto trips, I think you would save more money, CO2 and energy than a whole billion-dollar sea full of wind turnbines.

Unfortunately, our national energy policy is not going to change until oil hits $250 per barrel next year.

Next time you decide to drive 75mph on the highway instead of 55mph, consider how much additional oil you are burning to get to your destination a few minutes earlier (calculators are available online). Then consider how helpful that oil would be to a family that will not be able to afford to pay for heat this winter.

Posted by: growsmartNH | July 8, 2008 1:49 PM

Long Island is a wind breaker to the Conn shore. We need to use our resources and our intelligence co-operatively.

size does matter, the taller the better...

erecting turbines @ home is important, hopefully one day the surplus of wind energy will power our electric cars @ home and @ work

Posted by: robn | July 8, 2008 3:27 PM

Gary,

Both you and Walt have mentioned the cost of money as something which erodes the payoff on wind power. It might not seem so much if you consider it a high priority and blend the financing cost in with all of your annual expenditures.