Wither wind energy in New York? A very interesting question you raise, Simon. I read your thoughts and found them provocative. Here are mine.
I think it is useful to think of wind as a natural resource, as you do, but it is a resource akin to land, rather than the depletable resources like coal or gas. Like land, wind is a distributed resource, making it impossible to exploit with large centralized facilities. That doesn't mean that there isn't an economy of scale. The best quality wind is at higher altitudes, making tall turbines (read expensive) the most efficient way to harvest the resource. That fact alone is enough to drive the investment in the direction of investors with deep pockets to organize the efforts and win approval. Given how easy it is to thwart small-scale efforts with limited financial backing, it is not surprising that the development is driven by utilities. Since the resource is land-associated, it will tend to be seen as an asset connected to the land. Control of the asset depends on controlling the land. Of course, controlling the land does not suffice, since land use controls give the government and those controlling it a say. We can influence how the resource is tapped, and who gets to do it. Given the imperative to rapidly ramp up our alternative energy production, and given wind's compelling advantage in being already competitive with new coal plants at today's price of coal, we should make a real effort to rapidly come to agreement about how best to expedite use of this resource. I can easily imagine big money rapidly gobbling up the best sites. There is money to be made, and the world needs the investment. I can also imagine at least regional cooperative wind energy development, perhaps with government playing an enabling role in a public-private partnership, or with completely municipally-owned systems as exists for electricity distribution in Groton. Rather than argue about whether we should use wind (arguably our best available alternative energy technology), I think we should focus on how it gets used and who profits. We are already exporting our capital to our energy suppliers with our dependence on oil. It would be a sad outcome if we position ourselves to continue doing so after we switch to renewable energy sources because foreigners were the ones to seize the opportunities to exploit our resource and then profit by selling the harvested energy back to us. While we can tax the production, it would be much better to keep more of the money local. Can we organize a county wind utility? One further thought: why not treat wind the same way we treat underlying gas deposits? Those who want to tap the resource would need to get control of the right to use the wind within a "production unit". A certain minimum percentage of the wind rights would have to be accumulated to gain approval, and the benefits of production in the form of royalties could be paid to all properties within the production unit. That way, all those most impacted would benefit from the harvesting of the resource. It might go a long way toward reducing opposition. Joel At 07:59 AM 2/29/08 -0500, you wrote: >John Miller wrote: > > Simon, > > Excerpt from your living in Dryden wind article: > > > > Finally, I think I figured out and wrote up why > > <http://simonstl.com/random/2008/02/wind-power-as-extractive-indus.html> > > I'm not automatically a supporter of large-scale wind. Mostly it comes > > down to the basic problem of not trusting the people who want to build > > these, and realizing that the consequences aren't all bright > > > > Check out Empire State Wind Energy- org Tom Golisano (billionare- > > founder of PayChecx, a payroll and human resource services solutions > > company from which he departed Oct 1, 2004)- from Rochester who ran for > > Governor) > >Now you're asking me if I trust Tom Golisano, and that's another >complicated question, though they do seem willing to put it in writing. > >This sounds better than a lot of wind power options - but that doesn't >mean we should pass laws supporting wind power that assume developers >are all going to live up to Golisano's promises. They aren't, even if >he might. I'm also not sure how/whether it would be legal to endorse >development on his terms while barring developers with less attractive >notions of their role in the community. > >So yes, very cool - but an answer that solves part of the question. (I >also wonder what other wind developers think of this approach, and its >impact on their cash return on investment. It's nice to think this >could be a model, but then I think about the energy business, and >suspect the consensus answer would be 'no'.) > >Thanks, >Simon St.Laurent >http://livingindryden.org/ >_______________________________________________ >RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: >[email protected] >http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins >free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org _______________________________________________ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
