The comments on this one in particular, from Robert Germinara, caught my attention.
Germinara has the fuel oil business across the street from the Richey property. I believe those are the only 2 industrial-type businesses on that stretch of the road, but they are in the industrial park. Why the industrial park extends that far is another issue I have, but that's another post.
I don't disagree with what Germinara is saying because I don't necessarily disagree with wind power. If we got wind, use it.
But I do believe that the way these things work, in order to get grants from the state, is that the windmill generates power that goes onto the grid. Then the meter at the business in effect runs backwards to reflect the power that the device is putting onto the grid.
I could be wrong in this instance, but I know that's the way it works at Cider Hill Farm - having done several stories on the turbines there.
This is from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative website:
A project is eligible for funding if it is located at a commercial, industrial, institutional, or public site, and if the electric system will be served by a Massachusetts investor-owned electric utility company or a Municipal Light Plant Department that pays into the Renewable Energy Trust.
Richey got a grant from the Collaborative, so ...
The problem they were having at Cider Hill (Amesbury) was that the energy company was making it so that the high-energy usage months and the low-energy usage months were cancelling each other out.
In other words, the energy generated and used in months their buildings are shut down (like now) was not helping with their energy bills in the months they are up and running.
You didn't think that anything was "free," did you?
So I'm not clear about how the Richey turbine is not hooked into the grid and how not everyone who uses electricity is getting some benefit from it.
4 comments:
Hi,
This topic has also been running around the snooze website.
I find it rather interesting since Mr. Richey said up front that the turbine would only be powering his facility. This was reported in the Daily News.
He stated that the amount that he would receive from National Grid would not cover the expense of the unit (maintenance/wear&tear).
The text you quote from the MTC site certainly does not make a requirement for returning power to the grid.
We certainly do all get a benefit from it since the electricity that the turbine generates for the facility is now not taken from the grid.
This provides extra capacity (reducing power purchases from external providers) from the present sources therefore it will save money for the rest of us.
Let us all remember that electricity on the grid is not stored. And at 3am in the morning there's plenty of extra capacity. Unused electricity generation is just waste.
thanks,
sds
Good point about the waste, sds.
However ... doesn't the word "served" in the text I quoted imply that the facility still has to take power from the utility company?
And there's the fact that I was told by the Planning Dept. last week that the turbine wasn't turning because they were connecting it to the grid ... of course, the story in the Daily News said something different.
And finally, there's a whole slew of info I've received from readers via email about how we all pay for these turbines through taxes and surcharges to fund the Renewable Energy Trust ...
Hi,
I believe the word "served" is rather unique when used in this context.
All power utilities are de jure monopolies. The word "served" in this use means that the site is within the boundaries of the area that the power company is licensed for, not necessarily that it purchases power from that company.
No matter, they certainly still are taking power from the utility company since they need it when the wind does not blow.
I have no idea about the power sale issue except for what i mentioned above. I did find what i remember on the snooze site.
"Markey said a 600-kilowatt wind turbine is the ideal right now because a company's goal is to use all the electricity it generates. The alternative is producing additional energy and selling it back to National Grid. But he said in that situation, a company would only get paid about 6 cents per kilowatt hour, or about a third of what National Grid charges.
"You can't be making electricity for these people," Markey said. "The best economics is using what you produce.""
http://www.newburyportnews.com/archivesearch/local_story_157234221.html
I certainly have no idea if this has changed, it would be great to hear directly from the company since it does seems to be an issue that the community would like to know.
Mr. Richey is a very smart man.
He moved to the city and got a tax break on the property.
He purchased a furnace to heat the building with a state grant. And it uses the waste wood that his business generates. Wood that is certainly billed to the customer and otherwise would have to be disposed.
Now another grant to generate electricity and save him more in the long run.
All power to him. He seems to be a great example of someone who sees the rocks in the stream and figures out how to get across.
We certainly do pay for the grant. The MTC site estimates $6/year on our electric bill.
thanks,
sds
Thanks, sds. I should have grabbed Richey yesterday at the ribbon cutting. But I was too busy getting quotes from the mayor about something else ...
The "served" thing is all semantics. It should say "within the service area of" if that's what it means to say. I'm pretty literal ... which is why I use words to serve my purpose ...
Post a Comment