DOCSLIB.ORG

Arkwright Summit Wind Farm Chautauqua County, New York

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arkwright Summit Wind Farm Chautauqua County, New York Second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS2) Arkwright Summit Wind Farm Chautauqua County, New York Prepared for: Arkwright Summit Wind Farm LLC 808 Travis Street, Suite 700 Houston, Texas 77002 Contact: Jeffrey Nemeth P: 309.531.0440 Prepared by: Environmental Design & Research, Landscape Architecture, Engineering & Environmental Services, D.P.C. 217 Montgomery Street, Suite 1000 Syracuse, New York 13202 Contact: Patrick Heaton P: 315.471.0688 October 2015 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS2) FOR THE Arkwright Summit Wind Project Chautauqua County, New York Prepared For: Arkwright Summit Wind Farm LLC 808 Travis Street, Suite 700 Houston, Texas 77002 Contact: Jeffrey Nemeth Phone: (309) 531-0440 Prepared By: Environmental Design & Research, Landscape Architecture, Engineering & Environmental Services, D.P.C. 217 Montgomery Street, Suite 1000 Syracuse, New York 13202 Contact: Patrick Heaton Phone: (315) 471-0688 Date of Submittal: October 2, 2015 Date of Acceptance: October 12, 2015 Public Comment Period: October 12 – November 11, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................... xi FIRMS/ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE DEIS ......................................................... xii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... ii 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1.1 Summary of Project Changes in the SEIS2 Relative to the SEIS and DEIS ............................................. 3 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................................................................. 6 1.2.1 Project Participation .................................................................................................................................. 6 1.3 PROJECT FACILITY OWNER/DEVELOPER/OPERATOR .......................................................................... 6 1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFIT .............................................................................................. 7 1.4.1 Project Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.4.2 Public Need and Benefits to Be Derived From Project .............................................................................. 8 1.5 PROJECT FACILITY LAYOUT AND COMPONENTS ................................................................................ 14 1.5.1 Facility Layout Criteria .............................................................................................................................. 14 1.5.2 Roads and Civil Construction Work ........................................................................................................... 14 1.5.3 Turbine Tower Foundations....................................................................................................................... 14 1.5.4 Wind Turbine Generators and Central Control System ............................................................................... 14 1.5.5 Electrical Collection System Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 16 1.5.6 Generator Lead ........................................................................................................................................ 16 1.5.7 Interconnect Substation ............................................................................................................................ 16 1.5.8 Meteorological Monitoring Station Towers ................................................................................................. 16 1.5.9 Operations and Maintenance Facility ........................................................................................................ 17 1.6 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 17 1.7 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................................... 19 1.8 DECOMMISSIONING ................................................................................................................................. 20 1.9 PROJECT COST AND FUNDING ............................................................................................................... 21 1.10 PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED ................................................................................................. 22 1.11 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................................... 22 1.12 SEQRA PROCESS ..................................................................................................................................... 22 1.12.1 Agency and Public Review ................................................................................................................... 24 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................................... 25 2.1 GEOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND SOILS ............................................................................................. 25 Second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS2) ii Arkwright Summit Wind 2.1.1 Geology and Topography ........................................................................................................................ 25 2.1.1.1 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 25 2.1.1.2 Anticipated Impacts......................................................................................................................... 27 2.1.1.3 Proposed Mitigation ........................................................................................................................ 28 2.1.2 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................ 31 2.1.2.1 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 31 2.1.2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Soils ............................................................................................................ 31 2.1.2.3 Proposed Mitigation ........................................................................................................................ 37 2.2 WATER RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................ 38 2.2.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................................. 38 2.2.1.1 Surface Waters ............................................................................................................................... 38 2.2.1.2 Wetlands ......................................................................................................................................... 40 2.2.1.3 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................... 49 2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts ................................................................................................................................. 49 2.2.2.1 Construction .................................................................................................................................... 49 2.2.2.2 Operation ........................................................................................................................................ 57 2.2.3 Proposed Mitigation ................................................................................................................................ 58 2.3 BIOLOGICAL, TERRESTRIAL, AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY ....................................................................... 59 2.3.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................................. 59 2.3.1.1 Vegetation and Ecological Communities ........................................................................................ 59 2.3.1.2 Significant Ecological Communities and Rare Plant Species. ........................................................ 59 2.3.1.3 Wildlife and Terrestrial Habitat ........................................................................................................ 60 2.3.1.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................................ 66 2.3.1.5 Other Sensitive Wildlife Resources ................................................................................................. 71 2.3.2 Anticipated Impacts ................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wind Energy in NY State
    2010 New York State Wind Energy Study Final Report Source: Milian, Chris; www.photosfromonhigh.com Submitted by: Christina Hoerig Kimballe Campbell Daniel Grew Nicole Gumbs Happiness Munedzimwe Sandeep George Jun Wan Timothy Komsa Karl Smolenski Tyler Coatney Cornell University II Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................................II List of Figures .................................................................................................................... VI List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... VII 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................. VIII 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................10 3 New York State Present Energy Supply/Demand ....................................................14 3.1 New York Energy Background ............................................................................14 3.2 Current NYS Wind Power ...................................................................................16 3.3 Near Term Growth of New York State Wind Power .............................................17 3.4 Progress of Other Renewables in New York State ..............................................19 3.5 Power Demand in Tompkins County ...................................................................19
    [Show full text]
  • Landowners' Guide to Wind Energy in Alberta
    Landowners’ Guide to Wind Energy in Alberta Tim Weis $ Alex Doukas $ Kristi Anderson (Micro-generation appendix by Gordon Howell) September 2010 ORDER FORM Landowners’ Guide to Landowners’ Wind Energy in Alberta Guide to Wind Energy Format in Alberta :,20= B E * :0<10.> -9?8/ A4>3 ,::08/4.0= :<48> 19<7,> Tim Weis U Alex Doukas U Kristi Anderson Pricing (Appendix by Gordon Howell) -i«ÌiLiÀ 2010 Non-profit organizations and individuals ' '( Corporations :0< .9:C ' '( ,66 19< .9<:9<,>0 /4=.9?8>= 98 -?65 9</0<= %07-48, !8=>4>?>0 # &( Ordering information #,70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ $<2,84D,>498 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ //<0== ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 4>C +++++++++++++++++++++++ %<[email protected] +++++++++++ %9=>,6 9/0 ++++++++++++++++++++++ %3980 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ,B ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 7,46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Method of Payment 30;?0 7,/0 :,C,-60 >9 >30 %07-48, !8=>4>?>0 )!' ",=>0<,</ ,</ #?7-0< ++++++++++++++++++++++++ B:4<C ,>0 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ #,70 91 ,</396/0< ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ '428,>?<0 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ",46 :3980 1,B 9< 07,46 >9 >30 ,//<0== -069A (30 %07-48, !8=>4>?>0 9B <,C>98 ),660C
    [Show full text]
  • I Am a 33-Year Re
    March 1, 2016 Villenova Town Board 1094 Butcher Road South Dayton, New York 14138 To the Villenova Town Board: I am a 33-year resident and the 6th generation of my family to live in the Town of Villenova, I am asking you as respected elected officials and as the SEQRA lead agency to take a conscientious review and question the mitigation of environmental and community impacts by the proposed Ball Hill Wind Turbine Project. I believe our community’s greatest asset and most valuable resource is our picturesque landscape. It helps define the self-image of our residents who chose to inhabit it and gives them a sense of place. Though the changing seasons it is the dynamic backdrop to people’s lives. I hope many of our residents, tourists and hunters value the aesthetic, unadulterated nature of our open, scenic, rolling hills with some views as far as Lake Erie. The decision on whether or not to have an industrial wind facility sited in a community resides within the locality, as New York is a home rule state. Building this industrial project would exploit and ruin our landscape, an irreplaceable asset. RES Americas, the BOP company in charge of constructing this project will request amendment of Villenova and Hanover’s wind laws 420 feet limitation on maximum turbine height increased to 498 feet. The year-round visual impact would be significant and cannot be mitigated due to the introduction of 36 500-foot turbines, the height of a 50 story building, the large area of our town involved with the project, the on- going movement of 108 massive rotor blades and the project’s total 7.5-mile view shed.
    [Show full text]
  • Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
    Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 4.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 4.1.1 Project Purpose, Need, and Benefit Written Comment 4L: If, as CCCC strongly urges, the Board concludes that the benefits of this project are in reality limited to financial payments to the Town, and financial payments to a handful of private landowners, but there will be a few other benefits, then the Board look that much more closely at the environmental burdens and the risk of a decline in property values in and around the project area, burdening many more town residents and threatening financial benefits to the Town by eroding the town’s property tax base. If in other words, the benefits clearly fail to outweigh the burdens, the Board should exercise its discretion under SEQRA to deny approval. Response to Written Comment 4L: Comment noted. The benefits described in the DEIS and FEIS are not just financial. As discussed elsewhere in the DEIS and this FEIS, no negative property value impacts are anticipated. No New York Town hosting a wind farm has lost tax base value. Prior to making any decision the Board will balance the social, economic, and environmental impacts and benefits. The following comments are all related to general concerns regarding Project benefits, and the balance between potential impacts and benefits. Written Comment 4G: The remainder of the comments below address whether the DEIS demonstrates that the benefits of the project outweigh the project’s environmental and other burdens. The balance of burdens and benefits is a crucial requirement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and its implementing regulations (SEQRA), and SEQRA gives the Town Board considerable discretion in determining whether the balance ultimately justifies approval of the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix K: Real Estate Consulting Report of Influence of Wind Farms on Residential Real Estate Values, Proposed Ball Hill Wind Energy Project
    Appendix K: Real Estate Consulting Report of Influence of Wind Farms on Residential Real Estate Values, Proposed Ball Hill Wind Energy Project REAL ESTATE CONSULTING REPORT Of Influence of Wind Farms On Residential Real Estate Values Proposed Ball Hill Wind Energy Project Towns of Hanover and Villenova Chautauqua County, New York For Brian Evans, President RES America Developments, Inc. 11101 West 120th Avenue, Suite 400 Broomfield, Colorado Effective Date of Valuation July 22, 2016 Prepared by: Darrel R. Lloyd, Jr. IREM SOLUTIONS 586 North French Road, Suite 1 Amherst, NY 14228 File: 16-396 July 28, 2016 Brian Evans, President RES America Developments, Inc. 11101 West 120th Avenue, Suite 400 Broomfield, Colorado 80021 Re: Real Estate Consulting Report Influence of Wind Farm on Residential Real Estate Value Proposed Ball Hill Wind Energy Project Towns of Hanover and Villenova, Chautauqua County, New York Dear Mr. Evans: The purpose of the assignment is to update a previous report prepared by Darrel R. Lloyd Jr. dated June 3 2008. The scope of that report was to determine if wind farm development impacts residential real estate values in the surrounding market area. The June 3, 2008 report concluded there is no conclusive evidence which would indicate any impact or potential impact on residential real estate values in the market area analyzed due to being in close proximity or in the view shed of an operational wind farm. Four studies were performed on comparable operational wind farms within New York State. Two of the wind farms are located in Madison County, New York and two are located in Wyoming County, New York.
    [Show full text]
  • QUALIFICATIONS and EXPERIENCE of CLEAN LINE ENERGY PARTNERS' MANAGEMENT TEAM Michael Skelly – President and CEO Michael
    QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF CLEAN LINE ENERGY PARTNERS’ MANAGEMENT TEAM Michael Skelly – President and CEO Michael Skelly has been in the energy business for over 20 years. He led the development of Horizon Wind Energy (“Horizon”) from a two-man company to one of the largest renewable energy companies in the country. Under his leadership, Horizon built and developed over 2,600 MW of electric projects, including: Blue Canyon V Wind Farm and Gen Tie, Pine Tree Wind Farm and Gen Tie, Rail Splitter Wind Farm and Gen Tie, Rattlesnake Road Wind Farm, Twin Groves II Wind Farm and Gen Tie, Meridian Way I & II Wind Farm and Gen Tie, Lone Star II Wind Farm, Pioneer Prairie I & II Wind Farm, Prairie Star Wind Farm and Gen Tie, Twin Groves I Wind Farm and Gen Tie, Lone Star I Wind Farm, Elkhorn Wind Farm, Maple Ridge I & II Wind Farm and Gen Tie, Wild Horse Wind Farm and Gen Tie, Blue Canyon I & II Wind Farm and Gen Tie, Mill Run Wind Farm, Somerset Wind Farm, Top of Iowa Wind Farm, Madison Wind Farm, Tierras Morenas Wind Farm. While at Horizon, Mr. Skelly participated in construction supervision, onsite inspections, review of quality assurance/quality control procedures, implementation of safety strategies, and resolving logistical issues of wind farms and generation tie lines. He was also responsible for purchasing equipment from wind turbine manufacturers and for negotiating EPC contracts for both equipment and construction, hiring construction supervision teams, negotiating balance of plant contracts for the turbine equipment, and performing development activities, including land acquisition, permitting, and turbine siting.
    [Show full text]
  • Renewable Energy Financing Case Studies: Lessons to Be Learned from Successful Initiatives
    Renewable Energy Financing Case Studies: Lessons to be Learned from Successful Initiatives A report for the Commission for Environmental Cooperation Montreal, QC, Canada Prepared by: 310 East Esplanade North Vancouver, B.C. V7L 1A4 Tel: (604) 986-0233 Martin Tampier, M.Eng. Jean-Philippe Beaulieu, B.Eng. 21 March 2006 Renewable Energy Financing Case Studies Article 10(6) Working Group Table of Contents 1 Background....................................................................................................................... 3 2 Financing Renewable Energy.......................................................................................... 4 3 An Introduction to the Types of Financial Support Policies for Renewable Energy.. 5 4 Successful Programs by Technology 4.1 Solar PV................................................................................................................... 10 4.2 Solar Hot Water Systems ........................................................................................ 13 4.3 Solar Space Heating)............................................................................................... 16 4.4 Wind Turbines.......................................................................................................... 18 4.5 Hydropower ............................................................................................................. 22 4.6 Heat Pumps............................................................................................................. 24 4.7 Biomass Systems...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Simulation and Optimization of High-Penetration Wind and Solar Energy for the Canadian High Arctic Research Station
    Simulation and Optimization of High-Penetration Wind and Solar Energy for the Canadian High Arctic Research Station by Michael David Brown A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Applied Science in Sustainable Energy Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario ©2018 Michael David Brown Abstract This thesis explores the potential for renewable wind and solar energy to meet the electrical demand of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station, the Government of Canada’s new flagship Arctic research facility located in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut. Time-series simulation models based on measured weather data and simulated energy demand were constructed in TRNSYS. The models were coupled to GenOpt in order to optimize system configuration with respect to net present cost, using the particle swarm optimization technique. The results suggest that renewable energy can meet a portion of the demand more cost- effectively than diesel generation alone. A major challenge is the ability of the local grid to absorb surplus renewable power. Increasing the renewable penetration rate at the station beyond about 65% is not economically feasible with the generating and storage technologies considered in this thesis. Policy approaches to implementing renewable energy in Nunavut are also discussed. ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Cynthia Cruickshank. I wouldn’t have finished this work if it weren’t for her guidance, patience, and support during this lengthy endeavour. To the people of Cambridge Bay, who were so very welcoming during my stays in the community, I am deeply appreciative.
    [Show full text]
  • NEW YORK: Madison Madison Wind Farm Is Located in Madison County, Just East of Syracuse, North of Binghamton, and Northwest of Albany
    NEW YORK: Madison Madison Wind Farm is located in Madison County, just east of Syracuse, north of Binghamton, and northwest of Albany. Madison Wind Farm complements the surrounding agricultural land and was the first commercial wind farm constructed in New York. 11.55 MW ONLINE SINCE 2000 Madison Wind Farm produces enough electricity to power more than 4,000 New York homes.1 Economic Benefits Madison represents Approximately $1 million More than $600,000 a capital investment in cumulative payments to paid to local landowners of approximately $25 million.2 local governments through 2019.3 through 2019. Created 17 full-time equivalent $4.4 million spent within jobs during construction and New York Power Authority 50 miles of the wind farm 9 permanent jobs during receives energy from Madison.6 the life of the project.4 through 2019.5 Turbine Technology Madison Wind Farm saves more than 20 million gallons of water each year.7 Madison Wind Farm consists of 7 Vestas V66 1.65 MW wind turbines. About Us EDP Renewables North America LLC (EDPR NA) and Madison Wind Farm its subsidiaries develop, construct, own, and operate is compatible with other wind farms and solar parks throughout North America. land uses. Headquartered in Houston, Texas, with 52 wind farms, eight solar parks, and seven regional offices across North America, EDPR NA has developed more than 7,300 megawatts (MW) and operates more than 7,000 MW of renewable energy projects. With more than 700 employees, EDPR NA’s highly qualified team has a proven capacity to execute projects across the continent.
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments
    Wind Modeling in Resource Adequacy Assessments EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Relatively little wind generation is actually in operation on the NPCC system this year (2008). NPCC members and its neighboring Region have different ways of accounting for this generation in their resource adequacy assessments. From a historical perspective, there is relatively little operational experience regarding NPCC specific wind generation in terms of capacity forecasting and utilization factor. The CP-8 Working Group has concluded that it is not possible to dictate a ‘one size fits all’ intermittent (wind) resource adequacy model due to the diversity of the types and configurations (wind farms/individual turbines), locations (specific regional wind speed characteristics) and varying system conditions (summer/winter peaking) across NPCC and its neighboring Region. The NPCC CP-8 Working Group has reviewed the detailed studies addressing modeling intermittent (wind) resources through the various stakeholder processes currently underway, and recommends modeling these intermittent (wind) resources in NPCC resource adequacy assessments consistent with the modeling and assumptions determined by those respective studies. The CP-8 Working Group recommends unifying NPCC reporting and modeling methods for intermittent (wind) resources after reviewing the operational experience gained from the actual operation of the projects anticipated to be in-service in the next few years. The CP-8 Working Group also recommends the need to study the intermittent nature of resources other than wind (for example, resulting from the so-called ‘response fatigue’ 1 that may be associated with the anticipated amounts of future demand response programs, or generation restrictions resulting from existing/future environmental regulations imposed in response to air quality concerns on high electric demand days 2 ) in order to properly assess their resource adequacy impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
    The Wildlife Society Impacts of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Technical Review 07–2 September 2007 The Wildlife Society Impacts of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Technical Review 07-2 September 2007 The Wildlife Society Technical Review Committee on Wind Energy Facilities and Wildlife Edward B. Arnett, Ph.D. (Chair) Albert M. Manville, Ph.D. Bat Conservation International U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P. O. Box 162603 Division of Migratory Bird Management Austin, TX 78716-2603 4401 N. Fairfax Drive – MBSP-4107 Arlington, VA 22203 Douglas B. Inkley, Ph.D. National Wildlife Federation Russ Mason, Ph.D. 11100 Wildlife Center Drive Nevada Department of Wildlife Reston, VA 20190-5362 1100 Valley Rd. Reno, NV 89512 Douglas H. Johnson, Ph.D. U.S. Geological Survey Michael Morrison, Ph.D. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Department of Wildlife and Fisheries University of Minnesota Sciences 1980 Folwell Ave. Texas A&M University St. Paul, MN 55108 College Station, TX 77843-2258 Ronald P. Larkin, Ph.D. M. Dale Strickland, Ph.D. Illinois Natural History Survey Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. 607 E. Peabody Drive 2003 Central Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 Cheyenne, WY 82001 Stephanie Manes Robert Thresher, Ph.D. North American Grouse Partnership National Renewable Energy Laboratory 222 S. Houston #A 1617 Cole Blvd. Tulsa, OK 74127 Golden, CO 80401 The Wildlife Society 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 200 Bethesda, MD 20814 COVER: Wind turbines at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in Lowville, New York (center): Ed Arnett, Bat Conservation International; Silver-haired bat (left): Merlin D. Tuttle, Bat Conservation International; Bluetit in spring (upper right); Greater prairie chicken (lower right): U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Can Renewable Energy Development Revitalize Upstate New Yorkâ•Žs
    Buffalo Environmental Law Journal Volume 26 Number 1 Article 3 8-1-2019 New York’s Clean Energy Standard: Can Renewable Energy Development Revitalize Upstate New York’s Dying Economy? Kelsey L. Hanson Harris Beach PLLC Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/belj Part of the Energy and Utilities Law Commons, and the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation Kelsey L. Hanson, New York’s Clean Energy Standard: Can Renewable Energy Development Revitalize Upstate New York’s Dying Economy?, 26 Buff. Envtl. L.J. 55 (2019). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/belj/vol26/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Environmental Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NEW YORK’S CLEAN ENERGY STANDARD: CAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT REVITALIZE UPSTATE NEW YORK’S ECONOMY? Kelsey L. Hanson† I. INTRODUCTION Across the globe, countries have become increasingly aware of the effects of climate change and have enacted numerous plans to minimize the usage of fossil fuels for energy. This has become particularly true in the United States, which is one of the world’s leading emitters of greenhouse gases.1 Accordingly, the federal government and numerous states have invested significant time and resources into plans to develop renewable energy resources. Specifically, renewable or interchangeably referred to as “green” energy comes from sources such as sunlight and wind, which are naturally replenished, unlike fossil fuels.2 Because green energy does not generate carbon dioxide, governments have increased their reliance on green energy in an effort to reduce the man-made carbon emissions typically associated with global warming.3 However, it is increasingly apparent that green energy is not the cheapest form of fuel.
    [Show full text]