The political winds are blowing favorably for what could be America’s first offshore wind farm.
On Tuesday, the Maryland Senate Finance Committee –- where wind power legislation hit the doldrums the last two years –- voted 7-4 in favor of Governor Martin O’Malley’s bill that would help subsidize 40 huge wind turbines east of Ocean City.
Wind power, where it exists in the United States, is almost the most subsidized form of energy available. Only solar energy is more supported by the government.
Last Friday, the House of Delegates voted 86 to 48 in favor of the Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2013.
The final hurdle will be an upcoming vote by the full state senate.
The legislation would require electric utilities to buy a portion of their power from the proposed offshore wind farm, which would generate enough pollution-free electricity to power about a third of the homes on the Eastern Shore.
And wind energy is one of the most expensive forms of power despite (or perhaps in a contrarian sense due to), the subsidies.
The bill would contribute to the fight against climate change. More wind power would reduce the amount electricity purchased from coal-fired power plants, which today produce half of the electricity for Maryland -– and also release a huge amount of pollution, including microscopic soot particles that trigger and asthma and heart attacks; mercury, which contaminates fish and can damage the brains of developing infants; and nitrogen oxide air pollution, which feeds algal blooms and low-oxygen “dead zones” in the Chesapeake Bay.
Chesapeake region power plants contribute negligibly to world wide CO2 concentrations; and in any event, the climate hasn't changed in 16 years (about the time they started yammering about it the hardest, ironically). I think the models EPA uses to predict asthma and heart attacks based on out door air pollution are gross exaggerations, and even coal burning power plants are become much cleaner for nitrogen, soot and Hg as a result of advanced treatment systems.
Air pollution is responsible for about a third of the nitrogen in the Bay. So reducing air pollution by shifting some generation to wind power will help the Bay states meet EPA pollution limits for the Chesapeake and the related state plans for cleaning up the Bay, called the Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Blueprint.
That might make the farmers happy; they could use the allocation that the wind power will generate. I'll bet it won't happen though. All of these excuses would be reasons for CBF to support more nuclear power in the region, but I'll wager they'll never go there.
The proposed bill’s mandate that utilities buy power from offshore wind would also mean an electricity rate increase of up to $1.50 per month for an average household, and 1.5 percent more for commercial customers (although not many industries and farms, which have some exemptions). The rate increase will come because wind power is more expensive (in the short term) than energy from fossil fuels, especially natural gas from hydraulic fracturing, which is increasingly cheap but may have some potential impacts to drinking water, streams, and air quality.
I'm neutral on wind power; the day it can economically compete with other energy sources, and proves save for wildlife and humans (both are issues), I'll be all for it. Until then, I don't think we should be subsidizing expensive bird blenders that drive people crazy.
My problem with wind power, it don't always blow, even on the water. Sunrise,sunset, yes rest of the day, you can just flip a coin. And not fly a kite. You have to have as much back up as the estimated power available from the wind plant. In conjunction with, it is a good way to have a wind farm, away from people, In Scotland, and Germany, people hve been getting sick, that live near the big fans, here the annoyance factor is real, just like running a noisy fan all day and night, and 7x24 thubbing of the props.
ReplyDelete