Ouest-France / Pays de la Loire / Angers / Cantenay-Épinard / Archives du samedi 29-01-2011

La commune met en place une aide aux énergies renouvelables – Cantenay-Épinard

samedi 29 janvier 2011

Aide aux énergies renouvelables

Lors de la dernière séance du conseil municipal, les élus de la commune, considérant qu’il est opportun de développer les installations, ont accepté le principe d’un subventionnement pour les particuliers qui s’équipent de matériel utilisant les énergies renouvelables. Le conseil s’engage à subventionner certains équipements en fonction de critères spécifiques, à hauteur de 1 % du montant des impôts communaux.

Subventions Le conseil donne son accord pour solliciter des subventions auprès du SIEMEL, le syndicat d’électricité, pour l’étude et les travaux concernant les économies d’énergie sur le patrimoine bâti de la commune.

Eolien : Record d’inefficacité
Suite à un retour d’un régime météorologique normal le parc éolien français a battu un record d’inefficacité absolue le 10 janvier à 13h.
Avec une puissance de production de 479 MW, chiffres officiels publiés par le Réseau de Transport de l’ Electricité, le parc de 6700 MW, composé de plus de 4000 éoliennes géantes a produit 0,6 % de notre consommation électrique ce qui a obligé les centrales thermiques fortement émettrices de gaz à effet de serre à fournir au réseau 4819 MW pour pallier à l’effondrement de la production éolienne.
La Fédération Environnement Durable rappelle une évidence : Sans vent il n’y a pas d’électricité éolienne. Si la France se dote de 15.000 de ces machines ce sont des dizaines centrales thermiques en construction qui pallieront à leur intermittence. Ce double investissement pénalisant économiquement est aussi destructeur de l’environnement puisqu’il contribue au réchauffement de la planète.C’est la seule parade de la non fiabilité des éoliennes. La sécurité des citoyens ne peut pas être mise en danger par un blackout électrique brutal qui entrainerait en chaîne l’arrêt de toute l’activité de notre pays.

Cartographie des zones à risque selon « le Monde »

Noise regulations: Denmark accused of applying double standards to windfarm neighbours
Opposition to wind farms has been growing in Denmark. Because of this, the Danish energy company DONG had taken the decision to no longer erect wind turbines in the countryside, and to put them offshore instead. But wind farms at sea cost twice as much to build and to maintain, and the price of electricity for households is already, in Denmark, 100% more expensive than in most of Europe. So the new government elected in September wants to build more wind farms onshore, in spite of their adverse impacts on the health of neighbours.
To help placate angry country dwellers, noise limits are being reviewed by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and a public consultation is underway. But there is much controversy. Dr Mauri Johansson, a Danish physician specialised in community health and occupational medicine (now retired), accuses the EPA of manipulations to the detriment of the health of neighbours. He is not alone: a team of researchers from Aalborg University led by Professor Henrik Moeller, an internationally-renowned acoustics specialist, are also putting in doubt the work of the Danish government. They are themselves supported by Kerstin Persson Waye, professor of occupational and environmental medicine at Gothenburg University, Sweden. (1)
In a nutshell, under the proposed EPA regulations, for 33% of neighbours it will feel “as if a truck is idling just outside their homes”. Dr Johansson and Professor Moeller are at odds with their government, which claims against all evidence that “Denmark is leading the fight against low frequency noise from wind turbines.”
Canadian physician Dr Robert McMurtry, formerly Dean of Medicine & Dentistry at the University of Western Ontario, and formerly Assistant Deputy Minister of Population & Public Health, at Health Canada, wrote a letter supporting Professor Moeller:
“Truth has become a casualty. Sadly there are many ill-consequences to the policies for the installation of industrial wind turbines (IWT), not the least of which are adverse effects on human health. I have met more than 40 people whose lives have been devastated when IWT became their bad neighbor. It is also clear that this is a global phenomenon and yet the denial by many of those in authority continues.” (2)
Support for the Danish and Swedish academic opposition to the new, lax legislation on wind turbine noise being concocted in Copenhagen has been coming from a number of noise engineers, acousticians, doctors, psychologists and nurses in the UK, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. who have expressed in conferences and in the media their concern about the failure of governments to address properly the wind farm health problem. To name a few: Dr Nina Pierpont, USA, author of “The Wind Farm Syndrome”; Dr Sarah Laurie, Australia, Medical Director of the Waubra Foundation; Dr Bob Thorne, Australia, Psychoacoustician; and Dr Carl Phillips, a Harvard-trained epidemiologist specializing in public health policy, formerly tenured professor in the School of Public Health, University of Alberta, who wrote about governments denying the health problem: “The attempts to deny the evidence cannot be seen as honest scientific disagreement and represent either gross incompetence or intentional bias.” (3)
Per Clausen, chair of the Unity Lists Energy Committee in the Danish Parliament, is concerned by the preferential (lax) treatment being applied to noise from wind farms. He understands that his government wants to speed up the deployment of wind turbines,
but is opposed to applying double standards in favour of any industry, to the detriment of its neighbours’ health. (1)
European and North American wind farm health victims, represented by EPAW and NA-PAW, are concerned that the improperly-conducted, double-standard studies of the Danish EPA will be used as a model by governments world-wide. They remind the health authorities that the Australian Senate, after hearing evidence in a special public enquiry on wind farms, recommended that infrasound & low frequency noise issues be properly investigated. The above shows that this is not being done. A parallel may be drawn with the bogus tobacco studies conducted years back, which resulted in class action lawsuits.
Contacts:
Mark Duchamp +34 693 643 736 (Spain) Skype: mark.duchamp
CEO, EPAW www.epaw.org
save.the.eagles@gmail.com
Sherri Lange +1 416 567 5115 (Canada)
CEO, NA-PAW www.na-paw.org
kodaisl@rogers.com
References:
(1) – Source: article published in Politiken, a Danish daily, 14.11.2011. http://politiken.dk/indland/ECE1449860/miljoestyrelsen-anklages-for-at-fifle-med- vindmoellestoej/
Translation available here: http://www.epaw.org/echoes.php?lang=en&article=n71
(2) – Dr Robert McMurtry: private email, available upon request.
(3) – Dr Carl Phillips: http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/303.short

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/16/us-dutch-wind-idUSTRE7AF1JM20111116

Dutch fall out of love with windmills

Green Business Analysis

Impasse could kill carbon offsets

The failure of U.N. climate talks to clarify the future of the Kyoto Protocol and its market-based mechanisms could dry up investment in the carbon offset market, possibly threatening prices that are already trading near record lows.  Full Article

• Short sellers still see green in battered solars
• Germany’s Greens: from unelectable to unavoidable
• Australia green drive could worry wind investors
• InsideClimate: A risk-free route to shale gas?

Follow Reuters

• Facebook
• Twitter
• RSS
• YouTube

Read

1. Actress Natalie Wood’s 1981 death to be reexamined
   17 Nov 2011
   1
2. Authorities foil NY protest bid to shut Wall Street |
   1:04am EST
   2
3. Ricky Gervais on Golden Globes Gig: I Wanted to Shut Up the F—ing Idiots
   17 Nov 2011
   3
4. « Breaking Dawn » to suck major blood from box offices |
   17 Nov 2011
   4
5. Muslim Brotherhood goes public with Libya summit
   17 Nov 2011
   5

Discussed

• 170

  More Americans than not want health law repeal: poll

• 127

  Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law

• 127

  Evicted Wall St protesters seek rebound with rally

Watched

• 
  U.S.-Mexico drug tunnel discovered Thu, Nov 17 2011
• 
  Buenos Aires Fashion week sizzles Mon, Aug 22 2011
• 
  Stallone stuntman dies on set Mon, Oct 31 2011

Dutch fall out of love with windmills

 

(Reuters) – When the Netherlands built its first sea-based wind turbines in 2006, they were seen as symbols of a greener future.

Towering over the waves of the North Sea like an army of giants, blades whipping through the wind, the turbines were the country’s best hope to curb carbon emissions and meet growing demand for electricity.

The 36 turbines — each one the height of a 30-storey building — produce enough electricity to meet the needs of more than 100,000 households each year.

But five years later the green future looks a long way off. Faced with the need to cut its budget deficit, the Dutch government says offshore wind power is too expensive and that it cannot afford to subsidize the entire cost of 18 cents per kilowatt hour — some 4.5 billion euros last year.

The government now plans to transfer the financial burden to households and industrial consumers in order to secure the funds for wind power and try to attract private sector investment.

It will start billing consumers and companies in January 2013 and simultaneously launch a system under which investors will be able to apply to participate in renewable energy projects.

But the new billing system will reap only a third of what was previously available to the industry in subsidies — the government forecasts 1.5 billion euros every year — while the pricing scale of the investment plan makes it more likely that interested parties will choose less expensive technologies than wind.

The outlook for Dutch wind projects seems bleak.

COUNTRY OF WINDMILLS

For centuries, the Netherlands has harnessed wind power, using windmills to drain water from low-lying marsh and turn it into arable land.

Now however, one of the most densely populated countries in Europe — with 489 people per square kilometer (0.6 miles) compared to 356 in Belgium or 192 in Luxembourg — is falling out of love with its iconic technology.

Arguments over the high cost and maintenance of sea-based turbines, as well as complaints from residents about unsightly land-based models, have brought the Dutch to an impasse.

Offshore wind farms produce more electricity than onshore ones but it costs twice as much as onshore wind power due to the higher cost of materials, more expensive drilling methods, and more complex maintenance.

Wind turbines in the sea need to be more robust to withstand strong winds and salt water; their maintenance some miles away from the coast requires special equipment and transportation.

Drilling the seabed is more expensive as it requires a specialized workforce and equipment. Then there’s the additional cost of connecting the offshore farms to the grid.

Onshore, wind turbines face local resistance.

In 1994, a group of entrepreneurial farmers around the Dutch town of Urk got together and decided to build the country’s largest onshore wind farm with 86 wind turbines nearby. Maxime Verhagen, then minister for economy, innovation and agriculture, said this would be enough to supply 900,000 people.

The project has since been adapted to meet changes in legislation and 20 years after it was launched, construction may finally start this year and be completed in 2014. The only thing holding up the project now is a lawsuit filed by local residents. They say the 30-meter-high wind turbines will spoil their views.

« If we have wind turbines here this old picture will be destroyed, » said the mayor, Jaap Kroon. « We are also concerned about the safety and noise. »

Ironically Urk itself used to be an island until windmills were used to drain the surrounding land and connect it to the mainland. The Dutch Wind Energy Association says about half the country’s onshore wind projects such as the one in Urk are disputed.

« People don’t want big wind turbines in their backyards, » said Kasper Wallet, an energy consultant. « They think it will impact the value of their property. »

SHORT-TERM SAVINGS?

Renewable energy meets just four percent of the Netherlands’ total energy consumption. That makes the country’s target for its share to rise 14 percent by 2020 challenging enough.

« We have come to the conclusion that the most likely targets with the current policy to be reached will be in the range of 8 to 12 percent, » said Paul van den Oosterkamp, manager of the Energy Research Center of the Netherlands (ECN), an independent institute for renewable energy.

Under the government’s new system aimed at attracting private sector involvement, known as SDE+, investors will be able to apply in four phases to participate in renewable energy projects, with government subsidies set between 9 and 15 cents per kilowatt hour of produced electricity they produce.

A spokeswoman for the ministry of economic affairs, agriculture and innovation said this would not cover the current subsidy cost of offshore wind projects.

« Some technologies like offshore wind, tidal and wave energy and solar are on average more expensive than the SDE+ maximum cost price, » said Esther Benschop in an email to Reuters.

Dutch power firms say wind remains key to meeting green energy targets but is still too expensive for them to manage alone.

Dutch grid operator TenneT, which became a major player in German electricity transmission after it bought E.ON’s high-voltage grid, has complained about the cost of connecting offshore wind farms to the national grid because of the expensive materials, particularly cables, involved.

It currently has nine projects in Germany involving wind farms where it has run into financing difficulties and is seeking a stakeholder.

Nico Bolleman — managing director of Netherlands-based Blue Technologies, a company which develops platforms for offshore wind turbines — says fairer comparisons need to be made when calculating the cost of wind power.

« Even if you take everything into account, wind energy is not expensive. Take into account the hidden costs of fossil fuels. For example, transport of coal generates more carbon dioxide emissions and no-one calculates that into the electricity price. »

Others insist the negative impact will be short-term.

« The new subsidy scheme is not supportive, (but) offshore wind is a long-term game, » said Greven Hein, spokesman for Dutch utilities firm Eneco, recently given subsidies to build a 129 megawatt offshore wind farm.

« In a couple of years it will be back on the agenda. »

(Additional reporting by Christoph Steitz in Frankfurt; Editing by Sophie Walker)

Aujourd’hui, en parcourant la Californie par les routes ou par les airs, on constate à quel point le Golden State, fort de son soleil et de ses vents, s’investit à fond dans le nouvel « or vert »… Les panneaux solaires bleutés prospèrent sur les toits des maisons, des bâtiments publics et des usines, et les gigantesques turbines éoliennes blanches sont omniprésentes dans des étendues autrefois désertiques.

Sauf que, pour les oiseaux, les énergies alternatives ne sont pas forcément une bonne nouvelle. Certaines estimations citent jusqu’au chiffre de 440 000 volatiles tués chaque année par les turbines éoliennes aux Etats-Unis. En Californie, les aigles dorés – golden eagle, une espèce menacée doublement protégée par les autorités fédérales (grâce au Migratory Bird Treaty Act et au Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act) – comptent parmi les victimes des fermes éoliennes.

A une bonne centaine de kilomètres au nord-est de Los Angeles, en plein désert de Mojave, six aigles dorés ont été tués, en une année, par les 90 turbines du tout nouveau site de la Pine Tree Wind Farm, gérée par le Department of Water and Power (DWP) de la ville de Los Angeles. Ce taux de mortalité, supérieur à la moyenne des fermes éoliennes, a déclenché une enquête de l’organisme fédéral US Fish and Wildlife Service, annoncée le mardi 2 août. C’est une véritable première dans l’histoire des énergies alternatives et de leur impact éventuellement nocif… sur l’environnement qu’elles sont censées protéger ! Par ailleurs, un rapport des consultants de BioResource (Ojai) établit à 1 595 le nombre d’oiseaux morts à Pine Tree, essentiellement des oiseaux chanteurs migrateurs, des cailles et des alouettes (ce chiffre inclut les morts naturelles et les victimes de prédateurs).

Si l’enquête fédérale aboutit à une charge, le site éolien de Pine Tree, qui fournit la ville de Los Angeles en énergie renouvelable, serait la première industrie éolienne accusée d’atteinte à l’environnement.

Une action en justice représenterait une défaite pour les énergies alternatives en plein développement dans l’Etat de Californie, et compliquerait la stratégie verte de la mégapole, qui s’est fixé un seuil de 35 % d’énergies renouvelables à atteindre en 2020. Tout en posant une question fondamentale : l’énergie du vent est-elle forcément durable, et pour qui, exactement ?

C’est une fable moderne, les éoliennes ou les aigles, l’énergie « propre » du vent tuant les « rois du ciel », les oiseaux victimes des nouvelles énergies et le beau désert ocre de Californie transformé en zone industrielle. D’un côté, des turbines pesant 200 t, mesurant plus de 100 m de hauteur, avec des pales longues de 40 m qui tournent à la vitesse de 300 km/h. De l’autre, des aigles majestueux de 2 m d’envergure, pesant environ 5 kg, habitués à se poser au sommet des pylônes électriques pour repérer leurs proies puis foncer sur elles et à migrer à travers des écosystèmes autrefois accueillants mais où vrombissent désormais de bruyantes turbines.

Un dossier « vert contre vert » susceptible de créer un précédent juridique en révélant le « versant noir » de l’or vert. D’autant que d’autres sites éoliens sont l’objet d’une surveillance fédérale pour leur atteinte similaire aux écosystèmes. Près de San Francisco, l’Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area et ses 5 000 turbines causent la mort de 67 aigles dorés par an – moins, proportionnellement, que les 90 turbines de Pine Tree. De son côté, le groupe de lobby du secteur, American Wind Energy, répond qu’un nombre encore plus important de volatiles sont tués par des collisions contre des immeubles, des tours radio, des avions, des automobiles… et des rencontres avec les animaux domestiques.

Les oiseaux ne sont pas les seules victimes des éoliennes. Les résidents de ces zones peu habitées, venus apprécier la solitude, les cactus et le silence loin des villes, se plaignent du bruit particulièrement énervant des turbines, qui, nuit et jour, a remplacé le chant des grillons.

Et que dire de la pollution visuelle ? De plus, les chantiers solaires et éoliens s’avèrent particulièrement dangereux pour les ouvriers, mal formés à l’installation de ces nouvelles technologies dans un secteur encore peu régulé quoique en pleine croissance.

Les autorités répugneraient-elles à réagir aux infractions de l’industrie verte, dite « propre » ? « Il est temps de considérer ce problème avec le sérieux qu’il mérite, et les énergies alternatives, solaire et éolienne, doivent adapter leurs pratiques, soutient Travis Longcore, président de la société Audubon de Los Angeles, qui se consacre à la préservation des espèces animales et végétales, d’autant que ce n’est que le début d’une industrialisation verte intensive dans la région. » Et de citer le taux de mortalité élevé des oiseaux en Espagne, attribué au boom de l’industrie éolienne, pour poser la question : « Pour remédier au réchauffement climatique, devons-nous adopter des pratiques encore plus dangereuses et sacrifier des espèces animales qui vont disparaître de notre ciel ? »

C’est la question verte du jour en Californie : comment protéger à la fois la planète et tous ses oiseaux ?