Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Wind Advocates Are Blowing Smoke

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

I am appending this e-mailed response from Rick Webb and Dan Booth, publishers of the Virginia Wind website, to my column, “Voltage Hogs.”

It’s very appropriate that you highlight Virginia’s extravagant electricity use in your commentary, “Voltage Hogs.” You have identified our real problem with respect to both energy supply and air pollution. Unfortunately it seems that you have been misinformed by the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN). With their extreme pro-wind development agenda, the CCAN folks are less than careful with the facts.

First, you aren’t getting the whole story on the proposed Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) legislation. CCAN was a participant in a Virginia Conservation Network (VCN) energy committee that developed the VCN position on RPS legislation. The position that VCN adopted was to support an RPS, but only if wind project siting standards for protection of natural and cultural resources were in place prior to implementation. (For details, click here.) CCAN subsequently worked to ensure that siting guidelines were not included in the bill, and the bill that went before the legislature would have resulted in significant environmental tradeoff for little benefit. For details, click here.)

Second, claims about the potential benefits of wind energy in Virginia are wildly exaggerated. Your commentary repeats one of the most outrageous of the assertions — the claim that the proposed 39 MW Highland County wind project will serve 39,000 homes. That’s off by a factor of more than 13.

The 13,666 kWh per capita figure you cite appropriately accounts for the electricity use of all sectors (commercial, industrial, residential, etc), and it doesn’t treat households as if they exist in isolation from the rest of the infrastructure. Given that there is an average of 2.54 persons per household in Virginia, the average per household use of electricity is 34,701 kWh per year. So how many of these average households can a 39 MW mountain-top wind project serve?

39 MW x 365 days/year x 24 hours/day x 0.30 = 102,492 MWh/year, where 0.30 is the approximate maximum annual capacity factor associated with Appalachian wind projects.

102,492 MWh/year / 34,701 kWh/household/year = 2,954 households/year It’s also important to recognize that households don’t run on average annual electricity. Electricity is needed all the time, and wind power is intermittent, seasonal, and often unavailable. The average capacity factor for wind projects in August is only about 0.10. A 39 MW capacity wind project could serve fewer than 1000 households in August. On individual days when the wind isn’t blowing, a 39 MW capacity wind project could serve zero households.

Rick Webb
Dan Boone
Virginia Wind

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

49 responses to “Wind Advocates Are Blowing Smoke”

  1. Dan Avatar
    Dan

    I wonder what VaWind.org feels about the 330 GW of wind energy just discovered off of the mid-Atlantic, as released on Feb 8th by the University of Delaware?

    I don’t see wind power being a major source our future for the state of Virginia. It seems it isn’t very viable only because Virginia is not geographically situated to capitalize on the resource in comparison to the cost and the environmental impact.

    It seems as if it holds only as a measure of “feel good” energy source for those against current means of production. Safe nuclear and clean coal power plants are only real sources I see this state ever producing on a scale worthy to note.

  2. Jim Patrick Avatar
    Jim Patrick

    Virginia Wind wrote … Given that there is an average of 2.54 persons per household in Virginia, the average per household use of electricity is 34,701 kWh per year.

    Huh? National per-household electricity consumption is measured in a survey every 4 years. The mid-Atlantic region is 7,799 kWh per household.

    Unless their 450% over-representation (34,701 kWh/HH/yr) figure can be defended, I’d suspect the rest of their figures are ‘cooked’ too.

  3. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    What are project siting standards for protection of natural and cultural resources? sounds like another way of saying you can’t put these things anywhere where anyone can see them.

    It seems to me we are missing the point here. It doesn’t matter if a windmill can serve 100 houses or 1000, and it doesn’t matter if the service is available 100% of the time.

    What matters is if you can get a reasonable return on the investment considering the life cycle costs and benefits. It might not even matter if it is actually cheaper as long as you can find enough customers (suckers) to pay the premium.

  4. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    I’d like to know the return on investment in costs and energy to produce and operate systems at sea that capture wind and wave action to generate energy.

    Where are the numbers?

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    When the wind is not blowing you can use energy from two places- fuel cells that have stored wind energy and energy from the traditional grid.

    Sure, some wind advocates may have overstated their case, that comes as no surprise, but I don’t understand the hostility towards more energy independence.

    Technology is going to make renewable energy more and more attractive and other states are surging ahead of Virginia in recognizing that.

  6. Dan Avatar
    Dan

    I wonder if the poster has per capita and average household, confused?

    The average household uses appx 11,000 to 13,000 kwh per year, whereas the average household surveyed was around 2050 sq.ft.

    Webb appears to suggest this amount is per person, and being that the average household comprises 2.54 persons each, he multiplies the kwh total by 2.54 to arrive at his 34,000 kwh total.
    ——————–
    Also with regards to wind potential in Virginia, I find the onshore report by VaWind.org (Webb) more thorough and reasonable that the Chesepeake group. http://www.vawind.org/Assets/Docs/EnergyVa-101706.pdf
    ——————–
    Lastly, check out this study released in Feb 07 about offshore wind off of Va. http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2007/feb/wind020107.html

    this could be a big potential, however, will a mass wind farm such as this devastate migratory birds? Would shutting down the farm during periods when birds use the coastal pathway to migrate make such a project less reliable? How will the cost factor in regarding damage from winter storms and hurricane activity? Will the shut down of the wind mills from storm damage relate to the overall benefit?

    It seems easier, cheaper, more productive, and safe, if nuclear and clean-coal is used here in Virginia. If our state was better situated geographically, other renewables would be more plausible, but from what I have read, I don’t see their potential in the state’s energy portfolio.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Solar, Solar, Solar!

    and some wind and tidal too.

    Don’t listen to these nuclear and ‘clean coal’ shills.

    But more importantly- don’t listen to anyone in Virginia- listen to people in New Jersey and Connecticut- places where renewables have made a huge difference in not just the environment, but the economy.

    We need a revolution folks!

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=47355

    The wind resource off the Mid-Atlantic coast could supply the energy needs of nine states from Massachusetts to North Carolina, plus the District of Columbia — with enough left over to support a 50 percent increase in future energy demand — according to a study by researchers at the University of Delaware (UD) and Stanford University.

    “The United States began producing 2,000 warplanes per year in 1939 for World War II, increased production each year, and, by 1946, had sent 257,000 aircraft into service. We did that in seven years, using 1940s technology.”

    Willett Kempton, Richard Garvine and Amardeep Dhanju at the University of Delaware and Mark Jacobson and Cristina Archer at Stanford, found that the wind over the Middle Atlantic Bight, the aquatic region from Cape Cod, Mass., to Cape Hatteras, N.C., could produce 330 gigawatts of average electrical power if thousands of wind turbines were installed off the coast.

    The estimated power supply from offshore wind substantially exceeds the region’s current energy use — which the scientists estimate at 185 gigawatts — from electricity, gasoline, fuel oil and natural gas sources.

    The study marks the first empirical analysis in the United States of a large-scale region’s potential offshore wind-energy supply using a model that links geophysics with wind-electric technology — and that defines where wind turbines at sea may be located in relation to water depth, geology and “exclusion zones” for bird flyways, shipping lanes and other uses.

  9. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    All these alternative generation options need to be explored and the best ones implemented as soon as posible.

    However, it Mass Over-Consumption to only persue those from which someone is making a lot of money at the expense of long term sustaianability.

    Citizens need to understand the realities of conservation and conservative approaches to the future.

    EMR

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    It’s true that wind and solar cannot be depended on 100% of the time but the argument is seriously flawed because the real issue is the base load plus the facilities that are needed for peak hour.

    Wind/Solar could be dependably used to cut into the need for more base load plants.

    They certainly could be leveraged into a role much like hydro and pump-back hydro is.

    The simple reality is that there is more money and more profit to be made from coal and nukes since coal is allowed mercury pollution and nukes are subsidized for liability purposes.

    Why would anyone, Dominion or any other profit-making enterprise want to replace their high profit assets with lower-profit assets?

    That’s the bottom line.

    With the current playing field – ONLY when wind/solar can compete directly with coal and nukes will Dominion and others started using it.

    And if we took away the subsidies for nukes and required coal-power to not emmit mercury OR pay for the damage – just like the Cigarette settlement – .. THEN you’d see Wall Street scrambling for solar and wind.

    Plain old money is why a perfectly reasonable technology is put in the position of having to defend itself against “bird kills” when the mercury that spews out of coal-power plants probably fills 10 times as many birds… that eat mercury-laced critters…. not to mention the aquatic critters in the Chesapeake Bay.. as well as kids and pregnant women.

  11. Dan Avatar
    Dan

    Clean coal technologies
    http://www.futuregenalliance.org/about/benefits.stm
    http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/

    “…expanding the use of safe, emissions-free nuclear power worldwide” Secretary Bodman said. “As our need for energy will increase, so too does our need for nuclear power, and the Energy Department has a strong set of nuclear programs that we believe can create an environment for a nuclear renaissance.”
    http://www.ne.doe.gov/

    For the state of Virginia, I don’t see how shredding the ridgeline in the state forest and wilderness areas of trees, for windwills with 30% of capacity potential is worth it.

    With Virginia this far north from the equator, and this far south of the north pole, and having many days of cloud-filled skies, as well as being subject to damaging weather, I don’t see how the seizure of private property for mass solar farms with today’s technology is beneficial to the overall public in this state.

    By 2015-2025, small photovoltiac solar panels will be a reality, making affordable solar power units market ready for household purchase. This small scale approach could be utilized on a more massive scale where geographically situated states can take great advantage of the free resource, while maintaining a smaller impact more compatible with the environment. http://www.energy.gov/energysources/solar.htm

    When these small higher generating pv panels are a reality, so to it is hoped, industrial-sized electricity storage facilities become market ready and affordable. This type of facility will compliment solar energy generation towards greater usage in practical daily life. http://www.oe.energy.gov/randd/energy_storage.htm

    Don’t get me wrong, I like renewables very very much. I just don’t think that our state is best situated where it can take advantage of the renewable sources as other states have, w/o a heavy impact on the environment and a heavy burden placed on the public, based the potential capacity available through current technology.

    Connecticut and other states (western and northeastern renewable alliances) have initiated a start, but the overall energy footprint on a nationwide level, needs to be widely diverse. What is good for one state, or what is available for another state, isn’t necessarily identical for each every state in the nation.

  12. Dan Avatar
    Dan

    From the Energy Blog….

    Ban Coal Fired Power Plants?

    Banning new coal power plants will slow warming: NASA scientist
    AFP, Mon Feb 26, 2007

    A moratorium on coal-fired power plants is key to cutting carbon dioxide emissions that promote global warming, NASA’s top climatologist said Monday…

    While I agree with this statement in principle, what are we to do to meet our power needs in the meantime? This has been a dilemma of mine for some time. Conservation, renewable energy, nuclear power plants and coal plants with sequestration are all answers, but no technology except conventional coal can meet our near term needs for power. The above statement does’t really address emissions from vehicles, but obviously my stand on this would be to promote vehicles that use battery power.

    Power companies have about 150 conventional coal powered power plants planned for the next few years and, although they are receiving strong opposition by environmentalists, there is little alternative if we are to build anything.

    http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/02/ban_coal_fired_.html#more

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Let’s build for the future, not the status quo with dirty plants, dangerous nuclear, and an antique grid!

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/03/clean_edge_2007.php

    We have reached the point where the steady and rapid growth of clean energy has become an old story. Each year, it seems, brings an ever-higher plateau of success. This appears to be the future of clean energy: a rolling series of technology breakthroughs, landmark corporate investments, industry consolidation, and the not-infrequent emergence of new and sometimes surprising players entering the field.

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    But again, you are assuming Dominion’s involvement/monopoly power, which MUST be stopped.

    Residential/Commercial solar hot water heaters could take a huge bite out of this demand in the southern region you are talking about, without having to worry about transmission.

    Chew on that.

  15. Dan Boone Avatar
    Dan Boone

    In reply to Jim Patrick, the average residential electricity consumption in VA during 2003 was actually 13,980 kWh – see: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table1abcd.xls#Table1!A1 . This total is nearly twice the figure you want us to believe is credible – which was based on 2001 average for the entire Mid-Atlantic region (which is undefined, but likely includes northern states which don’t have high demand for air conditioning).

    As was explained in our commentary, the 34,701 kWh per year figure was not “cooked” as it reflects the real consumption of electricity by VA households – which Jim Bacon’s “Voltage Hogs” article points out should be represented on a per capita basis. Multiplying Jim’s 13,700 kWh (per capita electricity consumed in 2000) by 2.54 – the number of persons per household in VA (according to 2000 US Census – see: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/51000.html ) – yields nearly 35,000 kWh – and reflects an arguably more realistic measure of electricity consumption on a per residence basis.

    It is vital to understand that the goods and services which the residents of VA want or need, such as grocery stores, restaurants, schools, shopping centers, offices, street lights, etc., require large amounts of electricity to produce and maintain. So it seems to be “spinning information” to ignore the commercial and industrial users of electricity in VA by focusing only on the electricity that is metered to residential customers.

    By the way, residential electricity use in VA is only about 40% of the overall demand – with the commercial sector consuming as much as electricity and industrial consumers using 20% of the Commonwealth’s annual electricity intake.

  16. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’m not able to navigate to this link:

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table1abcd.xls#Table1!A1‘

    can you recheck it?

  17. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I have often commented in favor of better metrics and less spin, this thread is a good example of why. From what is posted here I can’t decide who has the high ground.

    —————————–

    For those of you who think I’m an insufferable know-it-all, here is your chance to watch me eat my words with regard to metrics.

    I previously opined that due to the high cost and losses of transmitting electricity that I doubted that all electric cars would turn out to be significantly environmentally friendly, over all.

    I was wrong.

    American Lifestyle Magazine recently published an article on the Tesla all electric sports car (previosly written up on Bacon’s Rebellion Blog). (I don’t subscribe to AFM but picked up in an office.)

    According to the article:

    “When we work through all the numbers [from the initial spurce of power to the wheel] we find that the electric car is significantly more efficient and pollutes less than the other alternatives.”

    Expressed in kilometers traveled per megajoule of source fuel the Honda insight rates 0.54km/MJ while the Tesla comes in at 1.14 km/Mj. A Honda Civic is only 0.51km/Mj.

    With regard to emissions the Tesla measures 1`2.5 grams of CO2 per kilometer compared to a conventional auto which emits 39g/km or a hybrid at 31.1 gm/km. This, in a contraption capable of zero to sixty in four seconds.

    There you have it. I publicly eat my hat.

    But, the Tesla suffers the same problem the wind turbines have: high cost due to the fact we have not ramped up to produce them well, plus a basic mismatch in infrastructure. At $80,000 a copy it is pretty much in George Clooney and Jay Letterman territory.

    I’m now convinced there is a practical future for electric cars, and maybe not that far off.

    I’m convinced there is a future for wind power, too. I had a (late) friend who carried freight under sail on his schooner until the late 1950’s and I’m convinced there will come a time when it is profitable again.

    The electic car has one big advantage over the wind turbines: nearly everyone fantasizes over a fast, sleek roadster in their yard.

  18. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Citizens need to understand the realities of conservation and conservative approaches to the future.”

    Here is a statement from EMR with which I can wholeheartedly agree, and yet I suspect that the direction in which my agreement leads me is pretty close to 90 degrees away from the meaning EMR intended.

    In yesterdays WSJ William Larson writes about the “substitute religion of environmentalism”

    He writes:

    “A religion need dogma: its tenets must foster strong feelings among its adherents…” “Faith and belief are the most necessary components, Consumerism falls way short on these counts.”

    He says this new religion arose in response to Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”.

    “These concerns led to national legislation, institutional action, and the founding of groups to “Save the Planet” and inculcate a sense of sinfulness among the nonbelievers.”

    I’m not sure you could provide a better description of the purpose of EMR’s ramblings, among others.

    But he concludes by saying, “The religions of environmentalism is a pervasive cultural, political, and economic force today that can do great good and great harm. I hope that it can reconsile itself to using not faith, but good science and sound economic analysis to avoid pursuing false ideas or unreachable goals.”

    ———————

    I wish I could write like that.

  19. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “There you have it. I publicly eat my hat.”

    Ray.. my friend… I’ve been telling you this for months.

    From now on – pay attention. 🙂

    ditto for congestion pricing…

    🙂

  20. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    No gloating allowed.

    I stand corrected. I would have bet that with electicity distribution only at 30%, plus the losses while charging the batteries that the net overall emsiions would not be very different from, say a hybrid.

    I was wrong, now we have a new agreed on metric. Let’s move ahead.

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Environmentalism is NOT a Religion

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/environmentalis_4.php

    When you google the words “environmentalism” and “religion” the first thing that shows up is a quote “Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists”- from the official website of Michael Crichton in a speech in 2003. The third item that comes up is David Roberts in Grist on the subject, in 2005. This theme has been around for a while but now that Al Gore is attracting crowds, the anti-gore bloggers are calling his presentations “revival meetings” and cranking up the religious analogies significantly.

    John Kay in the Financial Times went so far as to describe it as the successor to organized religion and marxism. “Environmentalism now fulfils for many people the widespread longing for simple, all-encompassing narratives. Environmentalism offers an alternative account of the natural world to the religious and an alternative anti-capitalist account of the political world to the Marxist.”

    We are not Green Moonies. It is time to push back.

    When normally sensible writers think the idea of Al Gore as tent revivalist is original and cute, we should complain.

  22. Dan Boone Avatar
    Dan Boone

    In response to Larry Gross, the weblink I provided is working – it appears that you may have added an extraneous appostrophe to the URL. Try this one again –

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table1abcd.xls#Table1!A1

    This URL retrieves an Excel spreadsheet that is produced by USDOE’s Energy Information Administration.

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The idea that the cost of installing industrial wind turbines will decline as more are mass-produced is belied by reality.

    Although the wind industry trade organization (AWEA) still tries to get others to believe that it costs only $1 per watt to install a wind energy facility (i.e., $1-million per MW), the current installation cost for on-shore wind turbines is nearly twice that – up to $2-million per MW. Considering that wind turbines operate at an average capacity factor (CF) of only about 30% – compared to a nuclear powerplant’s 95% CF – you may appreciate why wind energy is so very costly – and would not be economic without huge federal and state taxpayer-supported subsidies.

    Factor in the high cost of upgrading transmission lines to accomodate an expansion of wind energy development; most of which will carry only a small fraction of their capacity most of the time due to the intermittency of wind. Ratepayers will pick up the tab for this hidden subsidy.

    Despite unprecedented growth in worldwide production of industrial wind turbines over the past few years, the cost per MW has risen significantly – see: http://www.windpower-monthly.com/jan06/abs.htm#leader .

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    In response to James Atticus Bowden, here is a weblink to a National Renewable Energy Lab report which gives the “numbers” concerning cost of installing offshore wind energy facilities:

    http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/36313.pdf .

  25. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Ray:

    You had me at “0 to 60 in about 4 seconds”.

    I don’t care if it uses lemon – lime Gatorade as fuel.

    Holy smokes that’s fast.

    Sign me up.

  26. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Anony – not even

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/

    is returning as a valid link…

    interesting… can anyone else get this link to work?

  27. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Ray – since you now buy the idea that hybrids “work”… consider a few things…

    * – hybrids charge at night and do not need new power plants

    * – hybrids don’t pollute at least at their tailpipe which means places like Washington may eventually have the EPA road-building cap removed.

    * – If gasoline goes to $3 a gallon and folks start buying hybrids that get 40mpg… then gas tax revenues really are going to plummet.

    * – Luckily for everyone, the loss of gasoline tax revenues will be replaced by congestion pricing revenues

    * – less gasoline tax revenues means less loss of NoVa revenues to RoVa.

    Ray – don’t you gotta love it when a plan comes together?

    🙂

  28. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Hey, I know hybrids work, I drive one, and Im an early adopter. It’s not a hybrid if it is all electric.

    Yep, but you can’t exactly stop and fill er up either. How long does it take to charge?

    EPA road building cap is the least of the reasons the urban aeas won’t get new roads. It is simply too expensive, and too crowded already. The only good part is that you might relieve some of the crowding if you tear down enough stuff to build new roads. Unfortunately they will tear down mostly homes and not offices, so that will only make the situation worse.

    Look, the money has to come from somewhere, if the gas revenues plummet then it is only a sign youy need to readjust the tax even higher. The whole point is to discourage people from driving, so I don’t see a problem.

    What you say about congestion pricing revenues is probably true, but I’m not sure it is lucky for everyone.

    Less loss of Urban Virginia revenues to ROVA means, guess what? ROVA will have to pay their own way.

    Fortunately, they will have money to burn from all the construction that will occur when Urban Virginia flees the congestion tax. One advantage of the gas tax is that it follows you everywhere.

    Then, what do you suppose will happen to the congestion tax when enough people leave that it is no longer congested?

    And, yep 0 to 60 in four seconds is smoking. Even my Prius is surprising that way because an electric motor provides max torque at zero RPM and keeps on the curve all the way to 6000 RPM,so less shifting is required. Also, I think the TESLA is capable of well over 200 MPH.

    Either there is some irony in the idea that an utterly useless vehicle which is so profligate in energy use should dhow us the way to energy efficiency, or else it is true as one blogger noted that energy efficiency leads to more energy use, not less.

    You are still gloating, saren’t you?

  29. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “all electric”

    no future in near term. Hybrids are a bridge technology… until battery technology advances.

    “The whole point is to discourage people from driving, so I don’t see a problem.”

    I know it sounds like this but this is not the point nor the goal.

    The goal is less congestion by putting in place a market-based environment where decisions are linked with consequences in terms of time and money.

    The goal is a better functioning transportation network that is more cost effective.

    re: people fleeing congestion taxed areas.

    never happen. This is like cable TV going up $20 a month. Lots of anger, lots of threats.. and in the end.. like it or lump it and lots of lumping.

    Gloating? No… but I have spent several months talking about plug-in hybrids and supplying the links for them.

    re: energy use.

    This is a crazy concept.

    People buy compact florescents, more efficient refridgerators, heat pumps, et al to REDUCE their energy bills.

    Ditto when gasoline goes up in price, people drive less, or buy more efficient cars that result in LESS energy useage.

    The only time energy use is prolifigate is when you charge a flat fee no matter how much is used.

    and at this point.. we’re only talking about the dollar costs of using more energy – not the environmental costs.

    Despite what most folks say or claim with respect to their “concerns” about the environment, they react a whole heck of a lot quicker to money impacts than environmental impacts.

    … not gloating… I think it is the duty of anyone engaged in dialogue to fess up when they realize they’re relying on a false premise.

    it’s how we reach collective understandings that, in turn, lead to shared ideas of how to move forward.

  30. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    How competitive is the cable TV market? It seems like you can only get it from one provider who has a monopoly by county. I know you can get satellite but, if you qualify, that’s still only two providers – not exactly a competitive hotbed.

    Verizon has a product called FiOS (I believe) in limited deployment. I hear that it’s a great product. I am guessing that the cable TV crowd will find things a lot more difficult once Verizon builds the network required to bring FiOS to a large part of the population.

  31. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Any serious congestion tax will have many unintended consequences. I agree that it will generally push development out to areas which don’t have the tax. The extent of this push will, of course, depend on the extent of the tax.

    However, many of the outlying areas (in Virginia at least) seem determined to avoid rapid development. Assuming Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria and eastern Loudoun would all fall within the congestion area – that leaves western Loudoun, Prince William, Faquier, etc. in Northern Virginia.

    When these counties “dig in their heels” against development – which, I believe, they will do – the development will move further away. Maybe it will stay in the state but probably not. There are plenty of places that would welcome economic development with open arms – most of North Carolina and Northern Florida for example. Even DC would love to see job growth within the city.

    If this happens people will look back on today’s transportation debate and ask, “How did we let this occur. Virginia was such a growth area at one time”.

  32. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I think the point is that when costs go down through efficiency then more people can afford them and usage goes up.

    Cars, for example are much more reliable and efficient. Even though the sticker price is higher the real cost in todays dollars is low compared to the 1970’s.

    In those days I drove my volkswagen less partly because it was often in pieces, being repaired. When you used up a car it was junk. Now they last much longer reliably and the trickle down effect comes into play. People who might not have owned a car once can now afford an older car that is still reliable.

    I’m not sure how this argument applies to electricity, but I think the germ is in there somewhere. When my wife was young our house had neither central heat nor electricity, probably because they were “too expensive”.

  33. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Fauquier has been anti-growth for decades. Now they are having a budget/tax problem and the county administrator admitted in a recent news article that part of the reason was the slowdown in housing.

    Imagine that.

    We previously noted that phenomenon here on the blog when the county budget went up even though there had been no re-assessment and the tax rate was the same. EMR asked how that could happen, and the answer was that it was because of the additional assessments from new housing.

    At the same time the county is coming under increasing pressure to do something about affordable housing, for which the county has allocated the whopping sum of $450,000 this year. And the budget for the community development office has been growing at twice the rate of the population.

    I think Groveton is right: something will eventually give, whether it is congestion, travel, housing, or the economy is up to us.

    As it stands now, the slowdown in housing is spreading to other industries, like furniture and carpets. Subprime lenders are pulling back in the face of mounting losses. The major banks are already starting to snap up those loans and businesses at very low costs, betting on a turn around.

    Since government has always used housing as the throttleman for the economy, it seems to be a good bet.

    In the larger world, Forbes produced their list of billionaires recently. I didn;t catch all the story, but I thought I heard them say that the greatest grwoth in millionaires was in Indonesia, India, and Russia, for whtever that is worth.

  34. Miles Avatar
    Miles

    Did anyone else laugh out loud at the phrase “extreme pro-wind development agenda”? Like CCAN is a lobbyist for wind? I can just picture Chris Farley playing the role of El Nino.

  35. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I know that many of my posts have been a bit hysterical about growth vs. no-growth, urban vs. rural and technology vs. non-technology.

    The crux of my philosophy is that the United States faces an unprecidented level of international competition. There are a lot of reasons for this including:

    1. The global realization that free enterprise is the only economic system that works. While there are certainly different approaches to free enterprise the days of countries like India vacillating between being in the Soviet – sphere and the American – sphere are over. Everybody – except the Cubans – are operating some kind of free enterprise economy. Unfortunately for the United States – this realization that we were right is creating new competitors to the economic dominanace of the Unites States.

    2. Legal and commercial process evolution in support of free enterprise. Many countries that historically had a poor record of respecting contracts, intellectual property, etc have realized that they have to change in order to get the advantages of a global workplace.

    3. Liquidity of global investments. The opening of global economies has vastly improved the ability of people with money to invest (whereever they live) to invest in those countries with the best risk / return profile. The days of countries arbitrarily nationalizing commercial assets are ending. If a government misbehaves the global investors will bail out and the country will struggle. Ask Indonesia what happened in the late 90s. Unfortunately for America, this used to be true in the US and few other developed countries. Global investments were safe in the US (or Japan or Germany) but not in India. Now that’s changed. The markets are liquid and money flows easily from one country to another. Fewer and fewer govenments can expropriate other people’s private assets. The US is less unique in this respect.

    4. Technology. The exponential price / performance curves of technology march inexorably on. In fact, one aspect of exponential curves like Moore’s Law is poorly understood. Consider this – if you fold a piece of paper in half 100 times, how thick will the paper be? Depending on the original thickness of the paper – about 26.8M light years. So, who cares? Well, the first few folds don’t add much raw height. In fact, it takes about 20 folds before you start adding a kilometer per fold. That’s what happening with technology. The first few decades of improvement added only a little raw improvement with each generation. However, we are now at the point where each new generation of new technology is adding tremendous new capacity. And this capacity is making it far more economical to equip people with technology and connect them via technology. Decent PCs are available in India for $300. The Internet has become LaborNet. This technology is facilitating the labor arbitrage that will continue to put pressure on American employment and the American standard of living.

    What does this have to do with Transportation in Virginia?

    1. The only antidote to global competition is to run faster and further (economically speaking) that the RoW. While the total standard of living around the world can go up the American differential in standard of living is getting harder and harder to maintain.

    2. Low growth / no growth policies are an abdication of our responsibility to run fast and far (economically speaking). Our own lifestyles may improve but the opportunities provided for our children will decrease. The good old days of the US as a unique economic, legal and intellectual property environemnt are over. The good old days of western markets being “reachable” only by western employees are over.

    People who espouse low growth / no growth are, in my personal opinion, doing more harm to America’s future and our children’s future than all of teh terrorists added together.

    No growth = economic stagnation / failure.

    3. Growth requires investment. The state government should be funding those things and those areas that have effective plans for growth. Subsidizing low and no growth philosophies is tantamount to “giving up” in the global economy.

    4. Transportation funding is an investment in the future. The money should be invested where there is a reasonable expectation of return. Municipalities which have decided to “drop out” of the global economy shouyld be bypassed when it comes to anything beyond subsistence funding. Communities who embrace economic development should receive disproportionately more funding.

    Virginia has this exactly reversed.

    Our children will pay the price.

    I wish the people on this blog could join me in my many travels to India, China and The Philipines. The people in these countries are aggressive, focused on education and dedicated to growth. They see our jobs as opportunities for their employment.

    They never spend time talking about how to preserve their rural lifestyle.

    They talk about managing congestion but it’s always discussed as a problem that must be solved in order to keep growing.

    The RoW has very clearly seen how the American economy works and they are effectively copying our economy. We have no monopoly on talent, drive, ambition, etc. Now, we have no monopoly on economic structure, legal rights or intellectual property protection.

    Everybody should keep America’s global competitive position in mind when they talk about economic developmnet and job growth as options rather than necessities.

    Everybody should consider the future we leave to our children as we discuss preserving lifestyles. Those lifestyles have been built around America’s prolonged economic advantage over the RoW.

    Lose the advantage and you lose the lifestyle.

  36. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “If this happens people will look back on today’s transportation debate and ask, “How did we let this occur. Virginia was such a growth area at one time”.

    are you kidding?

    Can you forsee the Feds moving from their “headquarters of headquarters” to podunk, Missisippi?

    NoVa has got jobs coming out the wazoo until the Dem’s cut the budget big time.. ha ha ha…

    re: “push out”

    I-95 south is scheduled to have HOT lanes half way to Richmond (Fredericksburg)…

    I’ll be similiar with I-66….

    so you can move “out” – push out – but you’re gonna pay a toll no matter what.

    If you want to ADD to your toll trip .. more miles of non-toll travel.. go for it… and.. if those roads get congested – guess how they will be “improved”?

    🙂

    no more taxing the guy behind the tree… only those guys that come out from behind their trees.. get in their car.. and whoosh by the EZ-Pass sensors…. much to the delight of the guy behind the tree who chooses NOT to commute….

  37. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Not so fast.

    Examiner dot com is running a poll on its web page for transit riders, asking transit riders what they think about the proposed prices for tolls on the hot lanes.

    66% think the proposed tolls are too high. Most of the comments come out against tolls entirely.

    One comment: It’s easy enough to pick up slugs, if you have three in the car you don’t pay. Nobody in thier right mind will pay.

    If that is even partially true, then where is the money going to come from to pay Fluor?

    ————————

    RE “Lose the advantage and lose the lifestyle.”

    I think this is another way of saying that conservation is expensive: only rich countries can afford it. If you want conservation then you also need enough development that you can stay rich enough to afford it.

    It is a real conundrum.

    The more beautiful your neighborhood is, the more people will want to move there and the sooner it will be wrecked – unless your neighborhood is wealthy enough to keep them “others” out.

  38. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Groveton, I agree whole-heartedly with your remarks of 12:43 p.m. Indeed, in the early years of Bacon’s Rebellion, those were the themes I spent the most time exploring. I would invite you to peruse some of my earlier columns (found here) to get a flavor of my writings on Virginia’s international competitiveness as something that absolutely can NOT be taken forgranted.

    My view is that Virginians must engage in an unrelenting struggle to upgrade/reform our human capital, our human settlement patterns, our government structures, our energy usage, our transportation system, and virtually every other institution in order to stay competitive.

    I would depart from your observations in one regard. This is not meant as a criticism of, but an amendment to, your comments. (Indeed, you may well agree with me.) To maintain international competitiveness, Virginia must organize its society around two principles: productivity and innovation. In a world with rising giants like India and China that possess vast reservoirs of human capital, where engineers and scientists are willing to work at a fraction of the wages/salary of Americans, the only way we can stay a step ahead is through higher productivity and through an ability to out-innovate our competitors.

    Productivity and innovation are the themes that I always come back to. Virginia does not have the luxury of complacency.

  39. Dan Boone Avatar
    Dan Boone

    In response to Miles, your attempt to defend the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) as not being a lobbyist for wind industry is as ridiculous as Chris Farley masquerading as El Nino.

    CCAN was the only 501c3 environmental organization to testify at the hearings last week in favor of a bill in the MD legislature which would exempt the wind industry from the long-established permit process for siting of power plants. CCAN’s testimony was countered by the MD Office of People’s Counsel, the MD Department of Natural Resources, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Maryland Conservation Council, the Sierra Club, and many other environmental groups – see: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-md.wind10mar10,0,1593796.story . Even the Baltimore Sun editoralized against this obvious attempt to block public participation in siting decisions involving gargantuan wind turbines – which currently have no state or federal regulations governing their siting, and wind energy projects can impact very large areas (see: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-ed.wind09mar09,0,857758.story?coll=bal-opinion-headlines ).

    The legislation which CCAN and the wind industry jointly testified in favor of would exempt windplants from the only permitting process which citizens, communities and organizations can meaningfully participate – and thereby help determine whether and where large-scale energy projects can be built.

    CCAN has long been regarded as a lobbyist for the wind industry, to claim otherwise is disingenuous.

  40. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Nobody in thier right mind will pay.”

    Ray – not everybody is going to ride in a slug car every day come hell or highwater.

    Some folks will NEVER ride in a slug car.

    Some folks will drive solo on the days when they MUST be at their son’s soccer game… or have a doctor’s appointment or whatever.

    Those that need to get to work everyday will “rediscover” carpooling, vanpooling, VRE, buses, etc, et al.

    AND more important.. when you want to drive – you’ll have a reliable travel time estimate so instead of having to allow 2-3 hours to get to Dulles for your airplane.. you allow one hour.. and you get here .. in one hour.

    what a concept!

  41. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    It only takes an hour to get to the airport, then 40 minutes to ride the shuttle bus, 40 minutes for security, you need to be there 40 minutes early, and then it takes forty minutes to load the plane, thirty minutes to push off and taxi. If you are going less than 5 or 6 hundred miles, you might as well drive.

    You are right. Some people will never slug. But even if you choose to drive, it only takes a couple of minutes to swing by the slug line. I used to just pull up to the local bus stop and hijack a few fares from metrobus. After a while I had regular riders. You’d be surprised what people will do for $25.

    Speaking of paying for conservation, I notice that one California County is buying up all the old clunkers that pollute the most…….

    Also {Ronald?] Utt was commenting on the building mortoriums now in vogue. He said the next logical step would be to give the counties the right to bulldoze away those communities that were causing the problem. He didn’t say that it was the office building communities that were causing the problem.

    In another story I read where some legislator has introduced a bill that requires counties to provide plans for additional housing whenever they accept new businesses. That makes at least two other people who see things as I do.

    Then there was the interview with the new traffic commisioner in New York. He related the story (I think JB told this one as well) about the east side highway collapse. He was a traffic engineer at the time and he was assigned to go into the neighborhoods and see where all the diverted traffic went.

    He couldn’t find it. Not measurable. People adapted and did something else.

    That’s what I think will happen with congestion tolling. Commercial interests in London are howlin bloody murder over the fact that the congestion zone is being expanded.

    Some people will adapt as you sugggest, but if enough people adapt some other way, who will be left to pay the tolls? Do you think private industry is going to bear the loss?

    Recently I read about that highway in California where they have the hot lanes. (Have you seen the photos that show all the cars sitting in the congestion it cured?) Apparently the lanes are separated by those red fluorescent cones, and the highway is chronically short of cones.

    Like I said, even the blog for Metro riders overwhelmingly expresses opinions against hot lanes. Apparently Metro riders also drive cars.

    You may be right, and this is the wave of the future. I’ve made my prognostication, and I’m content to wait 20 years till we see the results. Remember, there was a time when we depended on profit making railroads for travel. The result of that experiment was socialized highways.

  42. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    ” notice that one California County is buying up all the old clunkers that pollute the most”

    same thing may happen here is the air quality get’s worse…

    It’s part of their MPO plan to improve their air quality – paid for by .. quess who?

  43. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “He was a traffic engineer at the time and he was assigned to go into the neighborhoods and see where all the diverted traffic went.”

    this has happened more than once. Roads are removed… gridlock does not ensue.. and, in fact, the traffic counts go down.

    highway capacity and useage is “elastic”.

    The more you build – you more folks will use.. and it goes the other way also.

  44. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “but if enough people adapt some other way, who will be left to pay the tolls? Do you think private industry is going to bear the loss?”

    no Ray… it’s like the price of gasoline.. when it goes up.. people buy less of it.. when it goes down people buy more…

    but they never ever.. buy NONE…

    This is why it’s called “self balancing”.

    You adjust the price – to maximize traffic flow.

    If the price is too low.. too much traffic.

    If the price is too high.. not enough tolls…

    So you calibrate according to what people are willing to pay

    .. AND you do this in real-time.

    at 6 a.m. it will be a different price than at 8 a.m.

    so it’s not only self balancing – it’s DYNAMICALLY self-balancing.

  45. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “You may be right, and this is the wave of the future. I’ve made my prognostication, and I’m content to wait 20 years till we see the results.”

    Well.. HOT Lanes ARE going to happen in the NoVa area unless something drammatic cause a major course change – and I speculate that we will find out in fairly short order whether they “work” or not.

    The reports I see from California say that it is working spectacularily well in the areas where all the necessary infrastructure is in place and that there are rough edges where it is not yet complete.

  46. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Remember, there was a time when we depended on profit making railroads for travel. The result of that experiment was socialized highways.”

    I’m always amused by “cause and effect” combined with “history verses views of history”.

    If trains were private and they had to charge enough to make a profit and roads were built not having to make a profit… then it’s no contest.

    And this is exactly why we have congestion – because we do not collect enough money to provide enough capacity which in turn results in more demand than there would be than if we charged appropriately to start with.

    Without congestion pricing – demand is uncapped and unquenched.

    The more roads that are built – the more folks will use them.

    I could guarantee you that when/if a “free” ICC might be complete or new “free” lanes provided on I-95/I-66/I-395 that those lanes will quickly fill up as less people carpool, slug and ride transit/buses/VRE/Metro.

    ICC will not be “free”. It will charge a congestion price toll as will most new lanes on I-66/I-96/I-395 will.

    and it will reward folks who don’t drive SOLO and it will assign more appropriate costs to those that wish to drive SOLO.

    and this is not an either/or proposition.

    Some folks will pay to drive everyday and some will choose to not do that.. and others will do that on a per need basis.

    Slugging might become much more popular but never profitable – at least legally – because of the regs associated with carrying passenger for hire.

    I fully expect – 10-20 years from now.. people will say… “what the heck was all the arguing over about congestion in years past”.

  47. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    You say that people will make choices. I’ve heard that the tolls could be adjusted real time – as frequently as six minutes.

    How will you make a decision on an hour trip when you don’t know what the price will be? If some clown has a fender bender five miles in front of you and traffic backs up, do you suddenly pay more, for his mistake?

    Larry, I agree with you on congestion tolling. I just think the results will be different from what you think. Rather than be disadvantaged by having to pay the tolls people and businesses will eventually relocate, unless that central location is really important.

    This is what the economist quoted above suggests will happen, and it is what some people say is already happening. The congestion tax will only accelerate the process.

    When enough people relocate the toll collections will go down due to lack of congestion to charge for. This is the same argument you use against the gas tax. We will still have all the same roads to maintain.

    Where does the money come from? With a gas tax you can try to burn less, but wherever you burn it, you will pay.

    You are still using the induced travel theory which has been mostly, but not entirely debunked as to its effect. The early theorists on induced travel claimed that as much of 90% of the value of a new road was swallowed up by this effect to no avail. The latest research, based on careful studies suggest that it does exist, but it may be only from 10 to 30%. The rest is actually latent travel from previously unfilled demand. (Don’t ask e how they know the difference.)

    If we build schools and they fill up, no one suggests we stop building schools on the basis it will cause more demand. But there are places where we built schools and no longer have children (or population, even). Some suggest we redistribute ourselves to make better use of the unused schools.

    Yet, if you make the same argument regarding unused roads or unused office building spaces, then you are a sprawl advocate.

    Eventually a road will reach its maximum capacity, then you introduce congestion tolling. But eventually the tolls that are required to keep it from being congested are so high that it is simply not worth going there or conducting business there, except for the very best and most profit ridden businesses.

    Every one else is going to go someplace else, or do without. VOILA. Induced traffic(somewhere else), or hardship, take your choice.

    EMR is on to something when he talks about air rights at the Metro stations. Build a high rise office building there and use the Metro parking to serve the building. Shut the Metro down and use the money you saved to pay the rent on the building. Instead of subsidizing people to ride uselessly to some other location, when they are already here, use the money to subsidize the office building and be done with it.

    Congestion tolling has the same problem that charging “those polluters” on the Chesapeake has. The sales pitch is fundamentally dishonest because it purports to charge someone else when we know perfectly well the bill is coming back to us. It is an off the books tax increase disguised as a fee.

  48. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “How will you make a decision on an hour trip when you don’t know what the price will be? If some clown has a fender bender five miles in front of you and traffic backs up, do you suddenly pay more, for his mistake?”

    I don’t know but flashing signs will show the tolls in real-time before you get on the ramp…and from what I hear the info will be broadcast on cell phones and computers also but all things being equal.. I suspect there is a lot less chance of a fender bender on a congestion priced lane anyhow.

    “people and businesses will eventually relocate, unless that central location is really important.”

    relocate to where?

    wouldn’t this be a good thing anyhow if it reduced congestion?

    How about new businesses wanted to locate WHERE there actually is LESS Congestion because of congestion pricing?

    “When enough people relocate the toll collections will go down due to lack of congestion to charge for.”

    (G) – Big GRIN – Ray! until the last person leaves and turns off the lights – there will always be PLENTY of cars willing to pay for less congestion.

    When the day comes that there is no longer congestion.. you just turn off the computers… and you don’t have road maintenance issues because the congestion has gone away – right?

    “Where does the money come from? “

    If you drive – you pay. simple.

    “…induced travel theory …actually latent travel from previously unfilled demand.”

    “demand” is the key word. Tolls don’t care where it came from.

    “If we build schools … demand..”

    Ray .. people don’t have kids every year so that they can take advantage of more and more “free” education.

    This does not compare. This is like saying people will get sick on purpose so they can get more Medicare benefits. it don’t work that way guy.

    “you are a sprawl advocate.”

    of course not – the TOLLs should apply to those that move “out” and, in fact, the further out you move – the more the toll will be.

    “Eventually a road will reach its maximum capacity, then you introduce congestion tolling. But eventually the tolls that are required to keep it from being congested are so high that it is simply not worth going there or conducting business there, except for the very best and most profit ridden businesses.”

    LONG, LONG before you reach this point, marginal uses will go away and leave capacity for non-marginal uses.

    ” Induced traffic(somewhere else)”

    nope – you TOLL there also…

    “hardship” – no more or no less than the “hardship” to buy gasoline, or bread or mail or movie theatre tickets etc…

    a commodity – and a price… and a choice. People who cannot afford a Mercedes or $100 bottle wine are usually not said to be suffering a “hardship” – only that they are not wealthy “enough”.

    Ray – many folks will spend more on 7-11 cokes and hot dogs/cigarettes than they will on TOlls.

    It’s called “discretionary”.

    “EMR is on to something”

    Maybe. I just don’t belive that people nor businesses should be forced to go where they don’t want to go.

    Charging each of them the fair and equitable costs associated with their choices – is not forcing people anymore than Dominion is “forcing” you not to heat the outdoors with your Heat Pump.

    “Congestion tolling has the same problem that charging “those polluters” on the Chesapeake has. The sales pitch is fundamentally dishonest because it purports to charge someone else when we know perfectly well the bill is coming back to us. It is an off the books tax increase disguised as a fee.”

    It’s a fair and equitable charge to the person who requires services and/or should pay for his portion of the clean-up costs for the pollution that he generated.

    It’s exactly like when you go buy tires .. and there on the invoice down below the per tire price is the per tire “disposal fee”.

    This is YOUR fair and equitable charge to dispose of YOUR old tire.

    That cost does not belong to anyone else.

    If you don’t pay that cost yourself – you are then actually forcing others to pay to dispose of your tires.

    Correct?

    Each of us should pay our fair share – would you not agree?

  49. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I think it is exactly compaable. As you say, people don’t have more kids just because school is free. But if they had to pay for their own kids educaion, they might have fewer kids.

    People don’t drive more just because the roads are free: the other costs are just too high. But as you point out, they may drive less when they are not free.

    Where is the difference?

Leave a Reply

Read More