Feds move to lease wind power rights off Delaware coast

[kristopher]

The federal government has taken the first step toward officially assigning a portion of Delaware’s offshore waters to companies interested in building wind farms, including NRG Bluewater Wind. NRG wants to build an offshore wind farm, and already has a contract with Delmarva Power to buy the electricity.

Now the Department of the Interior has issued the nation’s first Request for Interest for renewable energy development, asking all developers whether they have interest in the waters off of Delaware’s southern coast. So far, Bluewater is the only company to make their plans publicly known, but that is no guarantee.

The request for interest is part of a process toward establishing a wind farm that follows a framework for Outer Continental Shelf renewable energy development established last April by Interior Secretary Salazar. It includes a program to grant leases, easements, and rights-of-way for orderly, safe, and environmentally responsible development of renewable energy...

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100421/NEWS/100421031/Feds-move-to-lease-wind-power-rights-off-Del.

The Bluewater project won the contract after going head to head against a new CoalCCS plant and a natural gas plant in a bidding war for new generation that was mandated by the state legislature. What is interesting is that NRG was bidding the coal plant, and after they lost and then bought the rights to the wind project from Babcock and Brown, they ALSO announced that they are closing one of the dirtiest coal plants in the country which is located at the place where the wind farm will tie into the grid.

So it looks like the wind farm and the probability for future wind has avoided one large coal plant AND closed down another existing coal plant.

[Nederland]

1. Have they expanded it?

This article describes it as a "150-turbine wind farm"--which is not nearly large enough to displace even one small coal power plant, yet alone two large ones.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062302217.html

[Statistical]

2. Nope. Kris just thinks that correlation is causation.

The same people who are planning on building a windfarm also shutdown a coal plant THEREFORE the windfarm CAUSED the shutdown of the coal plant. There is no possible reason like age, poor performance, expensive retrofit, end of license, rising cost of coal, etc.

The windfarm causes the coal plant to shutdown.

Just like in the morning I take a dump and the sun rises THEREFORE my taking a dump CAUSES the sun to rise.

It is very advanced science.

[kristopher]

4. Personal attacks are all you have left...

That certainly proves how clever you are...

[FBaggins]

6. The coal plant isn't being shut down... it's being REFURBISHED!

:rofl:

[kristopher]

10. Again, no source for what is a false claim of fact.

3 of 4 boilers are being shut down - all but the latest, most modern one. They may well be going to do some upgrades on the pollution systems, but 3 of the 4 units ARE shutting down due to the competition from wind.

[FBaggins]

11. Whoosh!

That went right over your head... didn't it? :rofl:

[kristopher]

3. Think of it as the speartip.

There are 5 or so proposed offshore projects like Bluewater's in the area right now and room for far more. This 600MW nameplate capacity facility won the bid against a new coal plant and that plant isn't being built.

The older plant has been grandfathered against all the modern pollution requirements and it was a cash cow. NRG and all previous owners have steadfastly refused to substantially improve it or to close it as late as last summer. When the trajectory for developing offshore resources became clear as a result of finalization of MMS's new policy regime, it became clear that a very large pool of new carbon free generation is inevitable. That is the only new variable in the life of the old plant that they decided this winter to close.

[FBaggins]

7. Obfuscate much?

NRG has been under a consent decree for years now to close Indian River coal plants. They had already agreed to close three of the four units at the facility... and it's a laugh to claim either that it wouldn't have been closed (as one of the oldest coal plants in the nation) were it not for new wind power or that the new Bluewater project "replaces" the plant.

But I can't say that I'm surprised that you tried.

[kristopher]

9. And of course you give no sources for your false statements.

They most certainly had NOT agreed to close the three units, that is what was announced this winter; nor were they under ANY regulatory or legal obligation to take the action. They have steadfastly REFUSED to even consider taking those units offline until wind reared it head. Until then, they had the state over a barrel with claims that closing or cleaning up the plant would result in huge rate increases and routine power outages for the region. That made it politically impossible for the right leaning state legislature to take action to force the operators to improve conditions. This had gone on for more than 25 years.

Wind power changed the formula completely.

[FBaggins]

12. Wrong (yet again).

They have been under a consent decree to close two of the three since 2007.

http://www.awm.delaware.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/DNREC%20Portal/NRG%20Consent%20Decree.pdf

So much for your BS "refused to even consider"

[kristopher]

18. Do you know what happened in 2007 and what a "consent decree" is?

A consent decree is a court sanctioned voluntary agreement between two parties.

Legislation authorizing new generation was enacted in 4/2006
http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS143.NSF/vwLegislation/HB+6?Opendocument

Bluewater filed their bid at the end of 2006 and they won in May 2007.

[FBaggins]

23. Yes to both. You forget that YOU are the one who just learned.

You might remember that I sent you the link?

A consent decree is a court sanctioned voluntary agreement between two parties.

"Voluntary" when it is entered in to... not afterward.

Did you think that I would miss that you've dodged the fact that you were just proven wrong (again)?

Think again.

[kristopher]

26. Are you insane?

Really, have you completely lost touch with reality?

[FBaggins]

28. Who exactly do you think you're fooling?

I told you in post #7 that they were under a consent decree. You claimed that this was false and that they had NOT agreed to close any of the plants until they were forced to this winter. Now you're trying to pretend that you knew this all along and I didn't understand what a consent decree was.

I know it's awfully inconvenient for you that DU won't let you "revise" your prior comments to match what you're currently trying to pitch... but come on... how gullible do you expect readers here to be?

[kristopher]

31. I'm not trying to fool anyone so the answer is "No one."

You wrote, "They had already agreed to close three of the four units at the facility... and it's a laugh to claim either that it wouldn't have been closed (as one of the oldest coal plants in the nation) were it not for new wind power or that the new Bluewater project "replaces" the plant."

I replied, "They most certainly had NOT agreed to close the three units, that is what was announced this winter; nor were they under ANY regulatory or legal obligation to take the action. They have steadfastly REFUSED to even consider taking those units offline until wind reared it head. Until then, they had the state over a barrel with claims that closing or cleaning up the plant would result in huge rate increases and routine power outages for the region. That made it politically impossible for the right leaning state legislature to take action to force the operators to improve conditions. This had gone on for more than 25 years. Wind power changed the formula completely."

You write, "Wrong (yet again). They have been under a consent decree to close two of the three since 2007. So much for your BS "refused to even consider"


I wrote, "Do you know what happened in 2007 and what a "consent decree" is? A consent decree is a court sanctioned voluntary agreement between two parties. Legislation authorizing new generation was enacted in 4/2006. Bluewater filed their bid at the end of 2006 and they won in May 2007."


You wittily responded, "Yes to both. You forget that YOU are the one who just learned. You might remember that I sent you the link? A consent decree is a court sanctioned voluntary agreement between two parties. "Voluntary" when it is entered in to... not afterward. Did you think that I would miss that you've dodged the fact that you were just proven wrong (again)?
Think again.

That prompted me to speculate on your sanity, to which you responded, "Who exactly do you think you're fooling? I told you in post #7 that they were under a consent decree. You claimed that this was false and that they had NOT agreed to close any of the plants until they were forced to this winter. Now you're trying to pretend that you knew this all along and I didn't understand what a consent decree was.
I know it's awfully inconvenient for you that DU won't let you "revise" your prior comments to match what you're currently trying to pitch... but come on... how gullible do you expect readers here to be?"


No revising needed, but lets note that in another remark to Stats I gave more detail: "Indian River (IR) is the backbone of the power system in this area. Without it, you have a huge draw with virtually nothing from Virginia to Dover DE that can provide power. ...

The state has been pushing for shutting down the plant for a long time, but as I said the owners have had no inclination to go along. The leverage wielded by the owners of IR prevented regulatory approaches that would force the owners to upgrade. They ALWAYS threatened to shut down the plant if they were required to bring the old boilers into compliance with current standards, and it wasn't until AFTER and because the legislature directed the Public Utility Commission to direct new generation in the area that they lost that leverage. It was a wind farm that won the bid against coal and natural gas.

That means wind is shutting down those old generators and preventing a new coal plant from being built.

[FBaggins]

33. Repeating your errors and then claiming they aren't errors makes your "insane" comment even funnier.

You claim that they had not agreed to close any plants and were not under a legal obligation to do so. Both statement are flat wrong. You were probably confused when you googled "consent decree" and misunderstood "voluntary" to mean that they aren't under a legal obligation to comply. That's simply wrong.

but lets note that in another remark to Stats I gave more detail: "Indian River (IR) is the backbone of the power system in this area. Without it, you have a huge draw with virtually nothing from Virginia to Dover DE that can provide power. ...

So? Did you also note that the remaining unit has about a third more capacity than the other three combined? It isn't as if Indian River is going away. It's also a ridiculously false statement. There's loads of excess capacity in the area.

The state has been pushing for shutting down the plant for a long time, but as I said the owners have had no inclination to go along.

Nice of you to repeat your error... except that it seems you don't even realize you're doing that.

[kristopher]

35. "There's loads of excess capacity in the area"?

Then why did the state legislature direct new generation be built?


Even after the consent decree there was concern that the operators of the plant would refuse to comply with the agreement. Here is a sample from our local citizen's organization:

Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:31 PM

> FIVE (5) TIMES GREATER RISK OF DISEASE AND PREMATURE MORTALITY IF YOU LIVE WITHIH 30 MILES OF OLD COAL PLANTS (Harvard Health Study 2000)
> URGENT: Please attend this hearing as it relates to particulate matter and our health
If you feel that you or loved ones have health problems related to exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) from the Indian River coal plant, please come to the DNREC hearing to request that DNREC install particulate monitors around the power plant region. The towns which show abnormally high cancer, heart disease and asthma rates are Millsboro, Ocean View, Dagsboro, Lewes, and Rehoboth.

Coal plant emits tiny particles (PM2.5) that transport carcinogens into your lungs and cause breathing, heart, neurological problems, and cancers.

The hearing is Tuesday March 4 in Dover at 6:00 pm. The address is the Priscilla Building on the northwest corner of Lockerman and State Streets. The address is 156 South State St. in the conference room on the second floor.

Without the citizens raising the roof on March 4, and demanding monitors to measure the actual impacts, DNREC and the Legislature will do nothing. They will blame it on the tight budget year.

We don't believe DNREC will insist on money for monitors until they see and hear from the people who are sick and suffering. And the people who have lost loved ones.

Without monitors, there will be no baseline data available to determine if NRG is complying with new requirements to reduce PM2.5 levels.
Without monitors, there will be no data available to determine if the Indian River coal plant is responsible for the "cancer cluster" and other problems in the area (elevated rates of asthma, heart attack, premature infant mortality, lung cancer, heart disease, stroke)
Without monitors, NRG will get a free pass to continue poisoning the air at your expense. We need your help.

And here is what I got in my email the day the consent decree was filed:

DNREC and NRG have filed their consent order setting out the terms of the settlement announced in August. No, it's not perfect. NRG can seek extensions for problems which are not their fault. Mercury cutbacks occur gradually, not all at once in 2009. Test results confirming 2008 compliance are not required for a full 12 months thereafter - ugh. Here's the consent order:

http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/NR/rdonlyres/52A89761-F84D-4BEE-90DF-0346E4CA1BA7/0/NRGConsentDecree.pdf

At this point, citizen groups are powerless to contest the consent order.

An e-list member rightly says, "My only concern is that when NRG shuts down stacks 1 and 2 in 2010, that they don't dump on us at high levels with the remaining units until the cleanup order really takes over in 2012." His point underscores the importance of citizen diligence over NRG and DNREC at all stages of the compliance schedule.

Conectiv and DNREC are still headed to court on Conectiv's appeal. Here's the position statement from Citizens for Clean Power on the NRG settlement filing, issued today:

"The NRG Indian River Power Plant is the biggest polluter in the state of Delaware. Citizens for Clean Power is pleased that NRG and DNREC have filed their settlement order. As we stated several weeks ago, while emissions will go down by 2012, our citizens will bear millions in increased health costs and mortality benefits due to the agreed-upon delay in installing emissions controls. People will become ill and die prematurely. We call on DNREC to install several PM2.5 monitors downwind of the NRG Indian River plant by 2008. These are needed to verify that National Ambient Air Quality Standards are being met in those areas around the region where elevated cancer rates have been found.
Unfortunately Conectiv continues to press its appeal, even though it admitted months ago that it could meet the Multipollutant Regulations. We encourage DNREC Secretary Hughes and Attorney General Biden to aggressively pursue compliance by Conectiv."

Believe what you want, I've been part of the entire process.

[Statistical]

37. "My only concern is that when NRG shuts down stacks 1 and 2 in 2010"

NRG was forced to shutdown boilers #1 & #2 regardless of any new generation in the area.

They had no choice but to comply. Even your "proof" indicates that.

Yet you still keep claiming that the govt was powerless to do anything until magic wind (which wont be built until 2012 or later) saved the day. The reality is the govt was able to force closure of half the plant years before the wind-farm will come online.

So when boilers shut down in 2010 and windfarm doesn't come online till 2012 where does the electricity come from during the gap? Maybe the EXCESS SPARE CAPACITY IN THE AREA that you claim doesn't exist.

Even when built the wind farm will supply 200 MW peak @ 40% capacity factor = 80 MW avg. The 3 shut down boilers are 570 MW combined. At 50% to 70% capacity factor is 285MW to 350MW of power.

Wind: +80MW avg
Coal: -350MW avg

substantial deficit in power. Without excess capacity the town would be going dark. It won't because there is plenty of excess capacity. You simply invented this "no excess capacity crisis" to make a strawman for wind to defeat.

Once again you are just making up nonsense not that I expect any more from you. As more and more reactors are announced you seem to get more and more detached from reality.

[FBaggins]

38. Because time doesn't end next year.

Even after the consent decree there was concern that the operators of the plant would refuse to comply with the agreement.

Oh... "concern" was there?

They didn't have an option of "refusing". You might try reading the decree... focus on the penalties section.

Then you follow up with a copy/paste job that doesn't demonstrate what you claim it does. Where's the "refuse to comply" concern?



And here is what I got in my email the day the consent decree was filed:

Still looking. You know... something that makes your claim that they never agreed to close any of those plants until this winter more than BS?

[kristopher]

40. I said they hadn't agreed to close the *three* units.

[FBaggins]

41. Poor Kris. Do you lobby to extend the "edit" period on DU?

You also said "They have steadfastly REFUSED to even consider taking those units offline"

Strange that they would agree to close two plants that they refused to even consider closing, eh? They HAD agreed to close two of them and had been in negotiations to close the third (extending the time to clean up the 4th in exchange) for some time.

You also claimed that "NRG has been under a consent decree for years now to close Indian River coal plants" was a false statement. When, in fact, it was 100% correct.

[kristopher]

43. And so they did, until they lost the decision by the Public Service Commission

Once Bluewater won the decision by the PSC, they entered into the agreement. Look up the timeline, in early June of 07 the PSC selected wind as the source of new generation and in that latter part of August they entered into the consent decree after the appeal against wind was shot down.

You are once again making a straw man so here is the dialog in context. You will note I did not say what your straw man says:

You wrote, "They had already agreed to close three of the four units at the facility... and it's a laugh to claim either that it wouldn't have been closed (as one of the oldest coal plants in the nation) were it not for new wind power or that the new Bluewater project "replaces" the plant."

I replied, "They most certainly had NOT agreed to close the three units, that is what was announced this winter; nor were they under ANY regulatory or legal obligation to take the action. They have steadfastly REFUSED to even consider taking those units offline until wind reared it head. Until then, they had the state over a barrel with claims that closing or cleaning up the plant would result in huge rate increases and routine power outages for the region. That made it politically impossible for the right leaning state legislature to take action to force the operators to improve conditions. This had gone on for more than 25 years. Wind power changed the formula completely."

You write, "Wrong (yet again). They have been under a consent decree to close two of the three since 2007. So much for your BS "refused to even consider"


I wrote, "Do you know what happened in 2007 and what a "consent decree" is? A consent decree is a court sanctioned voluntary agreement between two parties. Legislation authorizing new generation was enacted in 4/2006. Bluewater filed their bid at the end of 2006 and they won in May 2007."


You wittily responded, "Yes to both. You forget that YOU are the one who just learned. You might remember that I sent you the link? A consent decree is a court sanctioned voluntary agreement between two parties. "Voluntary" when it is entered in to... not afterward. Did you think that I would miss that you've dodged the fact that you were just proven wrong (again)?
Think again.

That prompted me to speculate on your sanity, to which you responded, "Who exactly do you think you're fooling? I told you in post #7 that they were under a consent decree. You claimed that this was false and that they had NOT agreed to close any of the plants until they were forced to this winter. Now you're trying to pretend that you knew this all along and I didn't understand what a consent decree was.
I know it's awfully inconvenient for you that DU won't let you "revise" your prior comments to match what you're currently trying to pitch... but come on... how gullible do you expect readers here to be?"

No revising needed, but lets note that in another remark to Stats I gave more detail: "Indian River (IR) is the backbone of the power system in this area. Without it, you have a huge draw with virtually nothing from Virginia to Dover DE that can provide power. ...

The state has been pushing for shutting down the plant for a long time, but as I said the owners have had no inclination to go along. The leverage wielded by the owners of IR prevented regulatory approaches that would force the owners to upgrade. They ALWAYS threatened to shut down the plant if they were required to bring the old boilers into compliance with current standards, and it wasn't until AFTER and because the legislature directed the Public Utility Commission to direct new generation in the area that they lost that leverage. It was a wind farm that won the bid against coal and natural gas.

That means wind is shutting down those old generators and preventing a new coal plant from being built.

[FBaggins]

44. " so here is the dialog in context"

Amazing how your "context" appears to intentionally remove some of the actual context.

Ok... not so amazing. Par for your course really.

You said "The older plant has been grandfathered against all the modern pollution requirements and it was a cash cow" (strangely missing from your "context") when in reality it was covered by the 2007 agreement.

You said that the statement "NRG has been under a consent decree for years now to close Indian River coal plants." was false (strangely missing from your "context") when in reality it is correct and you later pretend to know about the consent decree.

You said that "NRG and all previous owners have steadfastly refused to substantially improve it or to close it as late as last summer." (strangely missing from your "context") when in reality the consent decree specifically calls for substantial improvments.

You claimed that the only new variable was this "very large pool" of new power when regulatory bodies were actively working to close them down.

You try to spin that you were talking about THREE units (and this TWO units doesnt' disprove that) except that the CONTEXT was "They have steadfastly REFUSED to even consider taking those units (plural) offline"

[kristopher]

45. Nothing is missing except your straw man; it isn't there because it is a strawman.

[FBaggins]

46. And that's just fine...

...as long as you expect that nobody will actually read your posts.


And, given your track record for wasting readers' time, that may be a statistically valid position to hold. :rofl:

have a good evening.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Statistical]

15. I updated the post. What is even more funny is that grid is deregulated.

The idea they could hold the state hostage in a deregulated (cheapest power is bought) market is oh so funny.

Even more fun is that power in 2009 hit a record low! Kinda looks like the state was holding all the cards. Sounds more like they had NRG over a barrel. Maybe Kris just mixed up the two sides.

There really wasn't a single word in his post that was correct. One would think that just by pure luck a couple facts would line up with reality but nope. He was 0 for 5.

[FBaggins]

16. You've got to give a guy points for effort though!

There really wasn't a single word in his post that was correct

Perhaps... but the words were all his own and largely spelled correctly. We should priase progress when we see it!

[Statistical]

17. A for effort, F ... err Gentleman's C for results.

Then again a Gentleman's C was enough to take Shrub to the Presidency.

[kristopher]

20. See post #19.

[FBaggins]

24. Ok... did you think that there was something responsive in there?

You must have deleted it by mistake. :)

[kristopher]

19. You prove yet again your time "working in the wholesale power market" didn't teach you anything

Those numbers are a result of the age of the plant AND THE ONGOING OPERATION OF THE PLANT. They say absolutely nothing about what would happen if the plant were taken offline.

Delaware is mostly on a peninsula and their is a lot of trouble transmitting power south from the main sources of generation. Without a strong source of generation in the southern part of the state the grid simply wouldn't be able to serve the region because transmission is not balanced from all directions - virtually all power is from the north.

Now, if you have the experience you imply (I doubt it based on the gross ignorance you routinely display) you'll know how significant those factors are. However we really don't even need that test to know that you have no knowledge of power systems, since you just asserted that annual wholesale prices tells us what role the power supplied by that plant plays in the region's grid stability. That is truly a remark based on a total lack of understanding of what you are talking about.

[Statistical]

22. You really think the PJM interchange can't handle the load of a single small coal plant.

The elimination of that single plant wouldn't contribute materially to the power already flowing from the North of course that assumes THERE WAS NO OTHER SPARE CAPACITY IN THE DISTRIBUTION AREA.

Obviously the State of Delaware didn't see a concern with shutting down the plant from either a cost or stability standpoint. They even stated so. Were they lying?

Think about it for a second. This plant has a relatively low capacity factor which means it routinely goes offline. Where do you think the electricity comes from when the plant goes offline? Magic? Unicorns? Dump Trucks?

The peak capacity of the plant was only 760MW. 2 of the boilers were already going offline no matter what which leaves only 380MW peak remaining. Of those DE wanted to shut one down and retrofit the other so that means at most one would be operating at one time. A mere 190MW at peak.

You really think 190MW can't be handled by the interchange.
You really think there wasn't a combination of spare production and/or available transmission capacity to handle this relatively small plant going offline?

I mean our grid needs upgrades but it isn't that bad.

Really? That is your rebuttal? :rofl: Lame. Even for you.

Of course nice attempt to deflect from the fact that every single thing you claimed was a lie.

[kristopher]

25. We've now established you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to power.

I don't think, I know. Indian River (IR) is the backbone of the power system in this area. Without it, you have a huge draw with virtually nothing from Virginia to Dover DE that can provide power. If you knew ANYTHING about the way a grid is balanced you'd NEVER make the absurd claims you are insisting on.

The state has been pushing for shutting down the plant for a long time, but as I said the owners have had no inclination to go along. The leverage wielded by the owners of IR prevented regulatory approaches that would force the owners to upgrade. They ALWAYS threatened to shut down the plant if the were required to bring the old boilers into compliance with current standards, and it wasn't until AFTER and because the legislature directed the Public Utility Commission to direct new generation in the area that they lost that leverage. It was a wind farm that won the bid against coal and natural gas.

That means wind is shutting down those old generators and preventing a new coal plant from being built.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FBaggins]

30. "Events happened as I described them"

You've GOT to be kidding?

This Bizarro world of yours just gets too difficult to follow. You claim that up is down and day is night and then after correction have the ba11s to say "I was proven right" ?

Free entertainment I suppose. At least there's never a dull moment (except when you're on auto-post).

[kristopher]

32. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=243112&mesg_id=243331

[FBaggins]

34. If you have no defense... it's better not to advertise that

By pretending that some other post is responsive.

(though it isn't as if others can't tell).

One wonders what compulsive impulse causes you to post in this fashion.

[kristopher]

36. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=243112&mesg_id=243331

[FBaggins]

39. I guess "invincible ignorance" isn't just a Catholic theology thingy, eh?

:rofl:

[kristopher]

42. .

You wrote, "They had already agreed to close three of the four units at the facility... and it's a laugh to claim either that it wouldn't have been closed (as one of the oldest coal plants in the nation) were it not for new wind power or that the new Bluewater project "replaces" the plant."

I replied, "They most certainly had NOT agreed to close the three units, that is what was announced this winter; nor were they under ANY regulatory or legal obligation to take the action. They have steadfastly REFUSED to even consider taking those units offline until wind reared it head. Until then, they had the state over a barrel with claims that closing or cleaning up the plant would result in huge rate increases and routine power outages for the region. That made it politically impossible for the right leaning state legislature to take action to force the operators to improve conditions. This had gone on for more than 25 years. Wind power changed the formula completely."

You write, "Wrong (yet again). They have been under a consent decree to close two of the three since 2007. So much for your BS "refused to even consider"


I wrote, "Do you know what happened in 2007 and what a "consent decree" is? A consent decree is a court sanctioned voluntary agreement between two parties. Legislation authorizing new generation was enacted in 4/2006. Bluewater filed their bid at the end of 2006 and they won in May 2007."


You wittily responded, "Yes to both. You forget that YOU are the one who just learned. You might remember that I sent you the link? A consent decree is a court sanctioned voluntary agreement between two parties. "Voluntary" when it is entered in to... not afterward. Did you think that I would miss that you've dodged the fact that you were just proven wrong (again)?
Think again.

That prompted me to speculate on your sanity, to which you responded, "Who exactly do you think you're fooling? I told you in post #7 that they were under a consent decree. You claimed that this was false and that they had NOT agreed to close any of the plants until they were forced to this winter. Now you're trying to pretend that you knew this all along and I didn't understand what a consent decree was.
I know it's awfully inconvenient for you that DU won't let you "revise" your prior comments to match what you're currently trying to pitch... but come on... how gullible do you expect readers here to be?"


No revising needed, but lets note that in another remark to Stats I gave more detail: "Indian River (IR) is the backbone of the power system in this area. Without it, you have a huge draw with virtually nothing from Virginia to Dover DE that can provide power. ...

The state has been pushing for shutting down the plant for a long time, but as I said the owners have had no inclination to go along. The leverage wielded by the owners of IR prevented regulatory approaches that would force the owners to upgrade. They ALWAYS threatened to shut down the plant if they were required to bring the old boilers into compliance with current standards, and it wasn't until AFTER and because the legislature directed the Public Utility Commission to direct new generation in the area that they lost that leverage. It was a wind farm that won the bid against coal and natural gas.

That means wind is shutting down those old generators and preventing a new coal plant from being built.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. This project has run into financial difficulties

With any luck, that will soon change.

But the article reports that Delmarva Energy will "buy as much as 200 megawatts of power from a wind farm". However, that's a capacity, not an amount of energy. If it's supposed to be 200 MWh, that's a piddling amount. And if they meant to say "one-third of the output", they should have done so.

--d!

[kristopher]

8. ROFLMAO

Do you have ANY idea of how petulant, petty and paltry your constant attempts to denigrate renewable energy sound?

[Dogmudgeon]

21. You're out of control

AND, you aren't even knowledgeable of the issue you claim to champion.

That's two forms of ignorance in a one-line post. But at least you know the value of brevity.

--d!