Vestas bringing 1,350 jobs to Brighton
By David Milstead, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published August 15, 2008 at 7:48 a.m.
Updated August 15, 2008 at 3:55 p.m.
Vestas is buying 112 acres (solid green parcel) from Brighton and 64 acres from the Regional Transportation District to construct plants that make blades, nacelles and towers.
Photo by Barry Gutierrez © The Rocky
New employees wait for a shuttle to take them back to another building after the grand opening of the Vestas Blades America Inc. production facility in Windsor in March.
Vestas Wind Systems will spend $290 million to open two new plants in Brighton that will employ 1,350.
Combined with the company’s existing Windsor operations and another plant to build towers for its wind systems, Vestas will spend $680 million and employ 2,450 in Colorado by about 2010.
Today’sannouncement by Gov. Bill Ritter confirms news reports in late July by The Daily Post in Brighton, the Rocky and other news outlets that the Danish company had a major local expansion in the works.
Vestas’ announcement “puts an exclamation point on our efforts” to focus Colorado’s economic development on alternative energy industries, Ritter said.
In a statement, Vestas officials cited Brighton’s central location, easy access to rail and roads, access to a “large, qualified work force” and proximity to its blade-building plant in Windsor.
For its wind systems, Vestas must make the blades, the turbine units called nacelles and the towers the systems sit on.
One Brighton plant will make blades, just as the Windsor plant does. The second plant will make the nacelles and employ 700. It will be Vestas’ biggest nacelle-assembly plant to date, the company said.
Vestas will open a technology and production engineering office in Brighton to support the factories.
Vestas is buying a total of 178 acres in unincorporated Weld County — 112 from the city of Brighton and 66 from the Regional Transportation District, which had assembled its parcels as part of negotiations with Union Pacific Railroad.
Brighton will annex the land, although the site will remain in Weld County.
Brighton is providing development assistance with water, sewer and road improvements, as well as tax deferrals, Mayor Jan Pawlowski said.
Colorado Economic Development Director Don Elliman estimated the state’s incentive package at $1 million to $1.5 million, depending on the deal for the yet-to-be-located tower plant.
Ritter said Colorado was competing with Ohio and perhaps Texas, “states that can put huge cash on the table. Colorado is restricted, and this is why this is such a huge victory.”
Colorado did not claim all the Vestas prizes: Chicago will get a purchasing office that will be “close to the extensive northeast network of suppliers.”
Vestas invested
A look at Vestas’ planned Colorado operations, currently slated to cost $680 million and bring a total of 2,450 jobs:
* Windsor blade manufacturing: $150 million investment, 650 jobs, 1,800 blades a year
* Brighton blade manufacturing: $180 million investment, 650 jobs, 1,800 blades a year
* Brighton nacelle manufacturing: $110 million investment, 700 jobs, 1,400 nacelles a year
* Tower manufacturing (Colorado site to be announced): $240 million investment, 450 jobs, 900 towers a year
Source: Office of Gov. Bill Ritter
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
August 15, 2008
8:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Keith43 writes:
With our trade deficits and the U.S. jobs that have gone to foriegn entities, this is good news!
August 15, 2008
8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
kirbysfriend22 writes:
Agreed, Grunt.
This is exactly why we need to continue to invest in renewable energies. Renewable energies are the future and there's lots of jobs and money to be made.
August 15, 2008
8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
I hope it comes to pass! The state could use the jobs. It is important to note the last sentence - "the deal is not final". Let's hope they can get it sorted out.
August 15, 2008
9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
LingLingfor_prez writes:
Keep taxes relatively low and the businesses will be here. Good news.
August 15, 2008
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
furbysarecute writes:
Unfortunately, even though job creation is good for the economy, the production of wind power is the most expensive form of energy per kwh compared to fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro, etc. Europe has found this out the hard way and is steering away from wind energy.
This equates to higher electric bills in the end and ultimately the consumer is the one who pays.
August 15, 2008
9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bonji writes:
furbysarecute, perhaps you are thinking of initial cost to construct wind farms as compared to building a coal fired plant, but the ongoing cost is no where near as expensive. You don't have to buy the wind to keep these going where as you do have to buy the coal for coal fired plants. Additionally, there are external costs to coal plants not counted in the cost calculations we see (pollution, greenhouse effects, etc).
Wind generation is the future and I'm glad to see Colorado as a leader in it. These are great manufacturing jobs for the State.
August 15, 2008
9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
dwander501 writes:
Even if the real cost is DOUBLE that of a coal or other fossil fuel power plant (which it isn't)... IT IS WORTH IT!!!
I would pay higher utility costs (we all will regardless) for renewable energy power plants.
I do NOT support any more dirty power, belching tons of toxins into the environment, just so we can frivolously use cheap electricity.
August 15, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
tao41 writes:
furbysarecute, There is a principle of economics called economy of scale that will apply once enough of these machines are put to use. To only consider the very short term higher costs involved is to remain the captive of "fossil fuel" profiteers. Visit the sites that show the Netherlands, the Danes, and others who have already moved to wind power and you will see that this IS the way to go economically and ecologically. Or don't.
August 15, 2008
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
davis_x_machina writes:
Just once I'd like one of the reactionaries to provide some sort of evidence for their assertions, such as furby's that European countries are going the other way, of course it didn't say what the other way was, nor did it provide any kind of link to support such a statement, and I'm willing to bet it can't.Probably a throwaway statement on some wingnut naysayer site. Even if it were true it would appear that not everyone agrees with furby or furby's Europeans. Not too long ago I was watching a documentary about a Chinese archaeological/paleontological expedition to the Eastern part of their country and as that expedition drove on a roadway that looked comparable to our interstates the medians were full of wind turbines. According to my research the Europeans are examining even more exotic sorts of alternative renewable energy production such as wave motion and tidal generation.I'm afraid I'd need some serious proof that the Europeans are reducing their commitment to alternative energy.
August 15, 2008
10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bob299 writes:
Progress!
August 15, 2008
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
Comments from the Sasquatch gallery?
Formulating your typical negative spin?
Just go take a much needed bath and let progress take its course…
August 15, 2008
10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
Froward69 - you really think Obama had anything to do with this?
August 15, 2008
11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
EnlightenedOne writes:
NeilT writes:
"Comments from the Sasquatch gallery?"
Neil: Don't expect anything from Sasquatch today. Last I heard, some guys in Georgia are holding him in a freezer!
August 15, 2008
11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
fmikey writes:
Froward69 - I haven't decided who to vote for yet, so this is not an anti-Obama rant, but what evidence has Obama shown that he can get the alternative energy job done? Obama is long on talk, and short on experience and accomplishments. While he presents a positive, and I believe well-intentioned platform, I'd like to see a little more substance. To say that he can get the "needle" (nice analogy - I like it) of oil out of our arm is only a hope at this point.
ALL of these pretenders are beholden to someone, and the fact is that on our levels we never get the complete picture.
Maybe Obama will be the answer. He sounds good.....
August 15, 2008
11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
fmikey, it's not hard to see that obama is much better positioned to "get the alternative energy job done" than is mccain.
one only has to inform himself on the candidate's policy stances in this regard to understand that obama is by FAR the better prepared to move the country in this direction.
i'm not quite sure what kind of "experience" you believe the candidates need to implement sound policy.
August 15, 2008
11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
LOL!
I just saw that story on Yahoo News. You beat me to it.
No need for a bath now. The sub-freezing temps are much more efficient at killing the stench radiating from his disgusting body.
Your ice-age came after all, eh Squatch?
August 15, 2008
11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
pak writes:
Ritter must pray the wind tax breaks keep rolling in from Congress. Also, since wind turbines only work 33% of the time and have to be backed up by dispatchable gas plants, we will be paying a huge amount of $$ for natural gas. Wait till this winter when the folks start paying their huge gas bills caused by gas shortages when the wind turbines quit turning. Then there is the 20% of gas that we import as LNG from countries that hate us which is priced up to 50% higher on the spot market than domestic gas. Once the folks get educated about the true cost of wind, and it's unreliability, and suffer through some electricity blackouts, they will clammer for low cost, cheap reliable base load coal just like the folks are clammering for more oil drilling!!
August 15, 2008
12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Excuse me but...when we run out of coal how are we going to make more of it?
Seems to me that the wind will be blowing long after we run out of coal.
The other problem with coal is that it doesn't come to the power plant on its own. You need to dig it up, usually by drilling into rock or removing millions of tons of over-burden. That's expensive. Then there's the transportation cost. Oh yes, and it needs to be processed so that it can be loaded into the boiler. Oh, and did I forget to mention the leftover ash?
The Beijing Olympics are also a medical experiment. How will that coal smoke fog effect the athletes in the long term? Some coal has sulfur, which burns but produces poisonous sulfur dioxide. There's also mercury and other heavy metals along with a variety of noxious particulates.
Conservatives love coal. That is until you want to build the power plant in their backyard.
Mass production of wind generators will save huge amounts of money for the rate-payers.
August 15, 2008
1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Logical writes:
Pak, you will never win this argument - the "wind" crowd drank the Kool-Aid, and won't listen to the facts.
Fact - wind farms must have back-up power available equal to 90 percent of their output. Thus, we must still have coal or gas plants available to produce electricity when the wind isn't blowing. Why do you think T. Boone is advocating wind farms? He has incredible amounts of natural gas to sell to the supplemental powerplants.
RickyLee, if you would have looked closely at those Wyoming wind farms (which, by the way, you can see from over 30 miles away!), you would see that many of the turbines are not turning, even on windy days. The windmill in Wray that the Dems are using for "offset" credits hasn't run productively for 2 months. They still have issues with it.
To get the power of one coal plant, you will need incredible numbers of windmills. Okay, until the NIMBYs realize that their Colorado view is going to be dominated by windmills. I would rather have gas wells around me, since they only protrude 25 feet out of the ground (the pumps, that is), while windmills stand over 200 feet.
You can't transport electricity hundreds of miles without losing power. Powerlines are not efficient, so by looking at the big picture, neither are remote windmills. You won't be able to power cities with wind. And, if you try to put huge wind farms close to cities, you will get serious resistance. One you put windmills up, due to liability issues, no one can use the land for recreation.
American coal plants are much cleaner than China's, so don't even try to compare. And, we can use natural gas, which we will have to do, even with wind. HTT, if you own shares in any gas-related company, you want them to sell the gas outside of Colorado, as that is how money is made. We are not a closed market, just as our corn, potatos, sunflowers, and beef are not only sold in Colorado. Protectionism doesn't work.
RickyLee, don't condemn someone for a misspelling. Most of the posters on this site have errors of one type or another in their posting. Many have arguments that are worth considering, even if one doesn't agree with them. I think your assertions and ideas are very mis-guided, but I don't insult you. By the way, our finite coal and gas resources will last at least another 50 years, giving us plenty of time (I am not saying to sit on our hands) to develop viable alternatives. I, for one, don't think wind will prevail, as the amount of land windmills consume for the amount of power they generate is very inefficient. You folks pushed for ethanol, which is now being shown to be a fool's errand.
Yes, the economic aspect of a couple of new wind-related plants is good. But, don't think that wind is the best answer for our energy needs.
August 15, 2008
1:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
pak writes:
The 200+ years supply of coal in the USA are burned cleanly by using scrubbers to remove SOx, NOx, HG, etc. Because of new technologies and capital investment, since 1990, 3 times as much coal is being burned in the USA with only less than one third of total emissions. Since 1977 SMCRA all USA coal lands are reclaimed to at least the conditions that existed prior to mining. The delivered cost of coal is per million BTU's to the Utility and beats wind and solar anytime. All utilities budget for wind to be available less than 33% of the time and backup is with gas. China has built 150 new coal plants since 2005 and installed 186,000 mw of new coal fired power in 2006 and 2007 alone. They know the answer and our USA jobs are going to be chasing that low cost power. I feel sorry for the poor in this country who will have to choose between high cost renewable energy and food!!! Let the clamoring for low cost, reliable, base load, 24/7 coal power begin! Lets hope we get the folks educated about energy reality before it is too late!
August 15, 2008
1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
fmikey writes:
Jay - You comments are well crafted, and I don't necessarily disagree, however you talk about "stance"....which is nothing more than a candidate's idea of what he or she wants to do, or intends to do. My concern with Obama is that he has an undistinguished senate career, and actually a fairly undistinguished career altogether. I would feel much more confident of him if there was something in his background which showed determnation, resolve, and the ability to push something through inspite of obstacles. My review of his political career doesn't show this. If you or anyone else can enlighten me, I'd be glad to hear it.
Again, this is not as anti-Obama as it may sound. I like his postive approach, his inclusive attitude, and the idea that maybe, just maybe, he's what we need to change directions, and to get away from the entrenched "machines" of both parties, which no longer represent the people. If he is elected and he surrounds himself with competent and savvy people, much can be done. I see McCain as too much old school, not because of his age, but because he's been in the system too long. I envision that he would be a mostly caretaker president.
Guess we'll see....
August 15, 2008
2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
mcain6925 writes:
To those who credit the policies of either political party -- I suspect that the real reason is much simpler than that. Look at where large-scale wind farms are likeliest to be built: the Texas Panhandle, a 100-mile wide strip east of the mountains in Colorado and Wyoming, from north-central Nebraska up through the Dakotas. Now look for a metropolitan area big enough to provide the infrastructure and work force a manufacturer needs. Add in diesel over $4/gal for hauling products to those likely sites. Not a lot of serious choices.
August 15, 2008
3:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
dwander501; What are you waiting for you can already pay more for wind power from if you want, check with your power company.
August 15, 2008
4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"I would feel much more confident of him if there was something in his background which showed determnation, resolve, and the ability to push something through inspite of obstacles."
fmikey, i'm still wondering what kind of "experience" you believe the candidates need to implement sound policy.
considering how far obama has come on talent alone....i think you'd be hard pressed to make the case that he doesn't possess the necessary intelligence, determination, resolve and abilities to implement the policy stances with which the majority of americans agree.
August 15, 2008
5:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sensible writes:
Sounds to me like Vesta stands to make some "wind"fall profits.
TAX THE B-JEZUS OUT OF THEM.
What scum.
August 15, 2008
5:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
ParkHillPosse writes:
furbysarecute: I don't think you understand the economics of wind power or the mechanics of a power grid. You use nuclear or fossil fuels (gas-fired turbines, etc.) for baseload power, and renewables like wind and solar to cover daytime surges in demand, or by storing solar/wind power to provide nighttime redundancy and reduce demands on fossil fueled stations. Your comments on comparative costs are irrelevant, because nobody is going to build a power grid whose base capacity depends entirely on solar or wind.
August 15, 2008
5:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
timeandagain writes:
1350 Jobs, Sensible!! Do NOT tax the b-jezus out of them!
Froward - something you and I agree on! (Except for the fact that Ritter/Dems had anything to do with getting them here...) It is great to see though!
August 16, 2008
3:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
clyde writes:
Before you all get worked up about wind power, you might want to check some of the effects of the ELF sounds they give off. Seems they're making people that live near them sick.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&am...