[From a National Wind Watch flyer of the same name; click here for part 2]
Industrial wind promoters claim their machines produce on average 30-40% of their rated capacity. For example, a 400-ft-high 2-megawatt (2,000-kilowatt) turbine assembly would produce an average of 600-800 kilowatts over a year.
The actual experience of industrial wind power in the U.S., however, as reported to the federal Energy Information Agency, is that it produces only about 25% of its capacity, or 500 kilowatts.
It will produce at or above that average rate only a third of the time. It will generate nothing at all (yet draw power from the grid) another third of the time.
Because the output is highly variable and rarely correlates with demand, other sources of energy cannot be taken off line. With the extra burden of balancing the wind energy, those sources may even use more fuel (just as cars use more gas in stop-and-go city driving than in more steady highway driving).
The industry is unable to show any evidence that wind power on the grid reduces the use of other fuels.
Denmark, despite claims that wind turbines produce 20% of its electricity, has not reduced its use of other fuels because of them.
Large-scale wind power does not reduce our dependence on other fuels, does not stabilize prices, does not reduce emissions or pollution, and does not mitigate global warming.
Instead, each turbine assembly requires dozens of acres of clearance and dominates the typically rural or wild landscape where it is sited. Its extreme height, turning rotor blades, unavoidable noise and vibration, and strobe lighting night and day ensure an intrusiveness far out of proportion to its elusive contribution.
Each facility requires new transmission infrastructure and new or upgraded (strengthened, widened, and straightened) roads, further degrading the environment and fragmenting habitats.
wind power, wind energy
November 22, 2006
November 21, 2006
Save the salmon, so we can kill them!
This comment is really about wind energy, but the admirable call from environmentalists (click the title of this post for the news story) to remove four dams from the Lower Snake River in Idaho on behalf of the salmon becomes quite a bit less noble when it is justified by the economic and recreational boons of killing their restored numbers.
Now about the groups' desire to replace that 3,000 MW of hydropower with wind. Just in nameplate capacity, that would require giant wind turbines covering at least 150,000 acres. Since they would generally go up in otherwise undeveloped areas, that "solution" is simply trading one major ecological impact with another.
Like large-scale hydropower, big wind is green in theory but far from it in practice. Unlike hydro, however, wind isn't able to provide reliable energy that can replace other sources. Hydropower varies seasonally, but the wind varies from minute to minute, with huge fluctuations through the day.
So you're trading one negative impact for another to get less in return. Brilliant.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
Now about the groups' desire to replace that 3,000 MW of hydropower with wind. Just in nameplate capacity, that would require giant wind turbines covering at least 150,000 acres. Since they would generally go up in otherwise undeveloped areas, that "solution" is simply trading one major ecological impact with another.
Like large-scale hydropower, big wind is green in theory but far from it in practice. Unlike hydro, however, wind isn't able to provide reliable energy that can replace other sources. Hydropower varies seasonally, but the wind varies from minute to minute, with huge fluctuations through the day.
So you're trading one negative impact for another to get less in return. Brilliant.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
Eighth richest Indian
According to Forbes, The eighth richest person in India is Tulsi Tanti, "worth" $5.9 billion. His business? Wind energy. He's the founder of turbine manufacturer Suzlon.
wind power, wind energy, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
wind power, wind energy, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
November 19, 2006
Class war
But you can't call it class war, because they think they've won. They think it is a war of the "lower" classes -- on whose shoulders the "upper" classes stand -- against their privilege, which it is. But beyond that, it is a war against class. Remember the idea of equality? Justice?
From 1990 to 2004, the average income for 90% of American households increased just 2% (adjusted for inflation). For the top 1%, however, it went up 57%. It went up 85% among the top 0.1% and 112% among the top 0.01%.
In 2004, the average income for the "lower" 90% of households was $28,355. It was $940,441 for the top 1% and $4,506,291 for the top 0.1%.
This information was provided in today's New York Times under the headline "A New Class War: The Haves Vs. The Have Mores," about most of the top 1% feeling left behind by that 0.1%. A serious issue indeed. Just consider: if you take the top 0.1% out of the calculation, the average income of the rest of the top 1% will be well below that $940,000!
At least they -- and their newspapers -- don't have to worry about the 90% of households who are too busy struggling to keep bodies and soul together, the car running, the house heated to rise up from their knees. And just in case, if any of them did actually dare to stand up to such obvious economic injustice they would obviously be terrorists, a threat to national security. Get back to work, you!
anarchism, anarchosyndicalism
From 1990 to 2004, the average income for 90% of American households increased just 2% (adjusted for inflation). For the top 1%, however, it went up 57%. It went up 85% among the top 0.1% and 112% among the top 0.01%.
In 2004, the average income for the "lower" 90% of households was $28,355. It was $940,441 for the top 1% and $4,506,291 for the top 0.1%.
This information was provided in today's New York Times under the headline "A New Class War: The Haves Vs. The Have Mores," about most of the top 1% feeling left behind by that 0.1%. A serious issue indeed. Just consider: if you take the top 0.1% out of the calculation, the average income of the rest of the top 1% will be well below that $940,000!
At least they -- and their newspapers -- don't have to worry about the 90% of households who are too busy struggling to keep bodies and soul together, the car running, the house heated to rise up from their knees. And just in case, if any of them did actually dare to stand up to such obvious economic injustice they would obviously be terrorists, a threat to national security. Get back to work, you!
anarchism, anarchosyndicalism
November 17, 2006
Milton Friedman's economic fascism, i.e., the world we live in
On Counterpunch (click the title of this post), Greg Grandin has an excellent history of Milton Friedman's (and other patriotic Americans') efforts to help Augusto Pinochet shape his country. The essay ends:
Today, Pinochet is under house arrest for his brand of "shock therapy," and Friedman is dead. But the world they helped usher in survives, in increasingly grotesque form. What was considered extreme in Chile in 1975 has now become the norm in the US today: a society where the market defines the totality of human fulfillment, and a government that tortures in the name of freedom.anarchism, anarchosyndicalism
November 15, 2006
Reply to letter from UPC Vermont Wind
To the Editor:
Around Halloween, Leila LaRosa, the local face for UPC Vermont Wind, sent a letter to Sheffield and Sutton residents. UPC wants to erect 16 420-feet-high wind turbines, their blades each sweeping a vertical area of 1.9 acres, on ridges between Sutton and Sheffield and overlooking Crystal Lake in Barton. The letter was an attempt to refute worries about such industrialization of otherwise protected ridges and to assert that the project's value is worth the sacrifice.
"They ... ARE effective and they DO reduce our dependence on oil, gas and fossil fuels."
Effective? The only measure of success the industry presents is that they are built. They have never been able to show that wind energy on the grid actually reduces the use of other fuels. This is not surprising, because the variable, intermittent, and unpredictable wind energy only makes the rest of the grid work harder to balance it.
The letter insists that UPC will not limit access to the project area. They need to publicize the leases if anyone is to believe them. All the leases I've seen are indeed restrictive and make the landowner a caretaker to the wind company's control of the land.
The letter takes issue with the charge that miles of new roads will have to be built by saying that, yes, miles, of new roads will have to be built: 5.5 miles of them. These won't be logging tracks but heavy-duty roads that can bear 50- or 60-ton loads and accomodate 160-ft trailers. What will be the effect on the watershed? Flooding and erosion are likely. "Revegetation" is far from restoration, and in fact the roads would have to be kept usable for delivering new rotor blades and gearboxes, which fail quite frequently.
On taxpayer subsidies, The letter cites (very incorrectly) only one subsidy, the 1.9-cent per kWh production tax credit. There are also 5-year double declining accelerated depreciation and the ratepayer-supported market for renewable energy credits. In all, federal subsidies generally cover two-thirds of the developer's cost, and state subsidies may cover another 10%. Crucially, the subsidies do not require evidence of a reduction of other fuels, that is, an actual benefit to justify moving so much public money into private bank accounts.
As for the humble UPC company, who are its investors? What is their connection to the UPC Group of Italy?
On problems from low-frequency noise generated by giant wind turbines, the letter is exactly backwards. It is the denial of problems that is being challenged by the scientific community. The U.K. Noise Association and the French Academy of Medicine recommend that large wind turbines be no closer than one mile from any residence.
In addition, the audible noise will be at an unacceptable level for a rural environment. And the noise won't stop at night, when it will be carried farther.
At the same time that the letter tries to deny such negative impacts, it tries to divert attention to worse problems with other sources of energy, such as coal and nuclear. Nobody denies those serious problems. But it is a wind facility being proposed for Sheffield and Sutton. And wind energy does not reduce the use of other sources. It is not a choice between wind and something worse. Wind's negatives simply add to the negatives we already live with, and none are reduced.
UPC admonishes the people protecting their communities from a massive building project of doubtful value and obvious costs for "spreading misinformation." Again, they have it backwards. Misinformation is UPC's game.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
November 13, 2006
Questions about wind energy
National Audubon Society President John Flicker supports carefully sited wind power facilities, because
When you look at a wind turbine, you can find the bird carcasses and count them. With a coal-fired power plant, you can't count the carcasses, but it's going to kill a lot more birds. (Wind Energy Weekly, Nov. 10, 2006)The question is not which is less evil -- that is a straw man argument. The question is whether one obviates the other. That is, if your concern is the negative effect of coal burning on the lives of birds, does the erection of wind turbines reduce that negative effect enough to justify the negative effects of their own giant blades and roads and clearcutting?
And is the negative effect on birds from wind energy really less? Would 2,000 2-megawatt wind turbines covering 150 square miles kill fewer birds than one equivalent-output 1,000-megawatt coal plant, particularly if that plant has scrubbers to clean up its emissions? I don't defend the use of coal here, because mining and waste are also serious problems, but presumably it is primarily emissions, and their effect on climate and the environment, that concern the Audubon Society.
Even recognizing the problems of mining and waste, the question remains whether wind energy has a significant effect on the use of coal or any other fuel. In other words, does it reduce the problem? Or does it only add its own problems without reducing any other?
All claims that wind industry reduces emissions by reducing fossil fuel use are based on a false assumption that every time the wind is up, other plants can shut down. But most can't. They have to be ready for the wind's dying at any moment, so they simply turn down their electricity production but keep burning fuel.
The plants that can instantaneously switch on and off will more likely be used more not less. Normally, they are used only during a few peak periods in each day, while slower-starting plants vary with the broad curve of each day's use and large inflexible coal and nuclear plants maintain the base supply that is always needed. So when the wind rises and falls during non-peak times, only the quick-responding generators can balance it, so they must replace some of the intermediate supply. Not only must the peak generators be used all day and night instead of just an hour or two, the intermediate generators must operate more often at levels that are not efficient, with the result of increasing their emissions.
In short, large coal and nuclear plants are unaffected, and the rest of the grid has to work harder -- which means burning more fuel less efficiently -- to balance the fluctuations of wind energy production that have so little correspondence with customer demand.
That is why actual reduction of other fuels or emissions because of giant wind turbines on the grid has not been shown.
That is why industrial wind does not represent a "lesser" evil but only an additional evil. It's business as usual for big energy.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, Vermont, animal rights
November 11, 2006
Canada's elusive woodland caribou threatened by development
From The Toronto Star:
The woodland [caribou] -- which generally grow to no more than 200 kilograms for males, 115 for females, and lives a dozen or so years -- is thinly spread throughout the boreal forest, which stretches from Yukon to Newfoundland and Labrador, and it's under pressure everywhere.
Its main survival strategy, particularly for females in the calving season, is to disperse. The difficulty in locating these widely scattered animals keeps the main predator, wolves, in check.
But clear cuts and roads open territories to deer and moose, which attract wolves that then go after caribou in larger numbers.
The deeply imbedded desire for solitude means caribou simply don't like disturbance of any kind. Create a clear cut, for example, and they'll shy away at least 10 kilometres.
Each female occupies a home range that's about 6 1/2 times the size of Toronto, Schaeffer says. Individuals' territories overlap, so a herd of 500 requires 21 "Torontos," or about 13,000 square kilometres.
Because their lichens take 50 to 150 years to establish, caribou can only live in forests at least half a century old. The dependence on large, mature forests is what puts them at risk.
About 125 years ago in Ontario, caribou ranged as far south as Georgian Bay and the Ottawa Valley. Over the years, the boundary of their range has retreated northward — at about 34 kilometres each decade — as highways, settlements, logging, mines, hydro corridors and other intrusions destroyed much of the forest and chopped what remained into small bits. Now, with 60 per cent of their original base gone, they're found only north of Lake Superior. ...
The province is also considering a $4 billion plan for a hydro corridor across the top of the province that would carry what its proponents call green power — from hydroelectric projects in Manitoba and, possibly, Northern Ontario, and from wind turbines that could be built along the breezy west coast of Hudson Bay.
The line of towers and high-voltage wires is viewed as a potential alternative to nuclear generating stations. Native leaders say it might create jobs and provide cleaner, more reliable power than their communities now get from diesel generators.
Environmentalists, though, suggest the benefits are being oversold and technical problems downplayed.
On top of that, all the projects would also bring permanent roads into the far north, further fragmenting the wilderness.
[Bill Thornton, assistant deputy for forestry in the Ministry of Natural Resources,] suggests the animals' demise might be inevitable.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, ecoanarchism, animal rights, vegetarianism
The woodland [caribou] -- which generally grow to no more than 200 kilograms for males, 115 for females, and lives a dozen or so years -- is thinly spread throughout the boreal forest, which stretches from Yukon to Newfoundland and Labrador, and it's under pressure everywhere.
Its main survival strategy, particularly for females in the calving season, is to disperse. The difficulty in locating these widely scattered animals keeps the main predator, wolves, in check.
But clear cuts and roads open territories to deer and moose, which attract wolves that then go after caribou in larger numbers.
The deeply imbedded desire for solitude means caribou simply don't like disturbance of any kind. Create a clear cut, for example, and they'll shy away at least 10 kilometres.
Each female occupies a home range that's about 6 1/2 times the size of Toronto, Schaeffer says. Individuals' territories overlap, so a herd of 500 requires 21 "Torontos," or about 13,000 square kilometres.
Because their lichens take 50 to 150 years to establish, caribou can only live in forests at least half a century old. The dependence on large, mature forests is what puts them at risk.
About 125 years ago in Ontario, caribou ranged as far south as Georgian Bay and the Ottawa Valley. Over the years, the boundary of their range has retreated northward — at about 34 kilometres each decade — as highways, settlements, logging, mines, hydro corridors and other intrusions destroyed much of the forest and chopped what remained into small bits. Now, with 60 per cent of their original base gone, they're found only north of Lake Superior. ...
The province is also considering a $4 billion plan for a hydro corridor across the top of the province that would carry what its proponents call green power — from hydroelectric projects in Manitoba and, possibly, Northern Ontario, and from wind turbines that could be built along the breezy west coast of Hudson Bay.
The line of towers and high-voltage wires is viewed as a potential alternative to nuclear generating stations. Native leaders say it might create jobs and provide cleaner, more reliable power than their communities now get from diesel generators.
Environmentalists, though, suggest the benefits are being oversold and technical problems downplayed.
On top of that, all the projects would also bring permanent roads into the far north, further fragmenting the wilderness.
[Bill Thornton, assistant deputy for forestry in the Ministry of Natural Resources,] suggests the animals' demise might be inevitable.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, ecoanarchism, animal rights, vegetarianism
November 6, 2006
Wind energy videos on line
National Wind Watch has converted two popular DVDs about industrial wind power for viewing on line with Windows Media and Quicktime: the 21-minute "Voices of Tug Hill" (Lewis County, N.Y.) and the 26-minute "Life Under a Windplant" (Meyersdale, Pa.).
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines
Vermont endorsements -- II
Governor: Jim Hogue, Vermont Green and Second Vermont Republic
2nd choice: Ben Clarke, Vermont Localist
Lt. Governor: Mary Alice Herbert, Liberty Union and Socialist Party USA
2nd choice: Marvin Malek, Vermont Progressive
U.S. Senator: Peter Diamondstone, Liberty Union and Socialist Party USA
2nd choice: Peter Moss
Vermont
2nd choice: Ben Clarke, Vermont Localist
Lt. Governor: Mary Alice Herbert, Liberty Union and Socialist Party USA
2nd choice: Marvin Malek, Vermont Progressive
U.S. Senator: Peter Diamondstone, Liberty Union and Socialist Party USA
2nd choice: Peter Moss
Vermont
November 4, 2006
The 'green' energy credits that aren't
Bill Virgin wrote in the October 5 Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
Wells Fargo & Co. announced this week that it is buying renewable energy certificates for 550 million kilowatt-hours of wind energy a year for three years. ...
But the buyers of those credits aren't actually reducing their electrical consumption from the local utilities who serve their offices, power that could come from coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydro, or even wind -- not through these transactions, anyway.
So what exactly do these transactions contribute -- beyond burnishing a company's environmental reputation?
The answer, not surprisingly, is that they provide a nice subsidy.
"What renewable energy credits do is provide a second revenue stream for wind developers," a Wells Fargo spokeswoman says. "It encourages development of more wind power" since it "becomes more profitable for them to do so. It pushes the market." ...
But what about the supposed environmental benefits to the energy-credit program? Wells Fargo says its purchase of wind credits will offset 40 percent of its electrical consumption and prevent the emission of 380,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year.
But if Wells Fargo isn't actually cutting its consumption of power, and the credits represent power that someone else has already bought (and would have whether or not someone acquired the credits), it's an incredible stretch to argue that the purchase of credits represents a reduction in emissions. Not one less lump of coal or cubic foot of gas will be burned because of this. The only heat generated is the warm-and-fuzzy feeling the buyer of credits hopes everyone gets from the publicity. [emphasis added]
wind power, wind energy, green tags, environment, environmentalism
Wells Fargo & Co. announced this week that it is buying renewable energy certificates for 550 million kilowatt-hours of wind energy a year for three years. ...
But the buyers of those credits aren't actually reducing their electrical consumption from the local utilities who serve their offices, power that could come from coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydro, or even wind -- not through these transactions, anyway.
So what exactly do these transactions contribute -- beyond burnishing a company's environmental reputation?
The answer, not surprisingly, is that they provide a nice subsidy.
"What renewable energy credits do is provide a second revenue stream for wind developers," a Wells Fargo spokeswoman says. "It encourages development of more wind power" since it "becomes more profitable for them to do so. It pushes the market." ...
But what about the supposed environmental benefits to the energy-credit program? Wells Fargo says its purchase of wind credits will offset 40 percent of its electrical consumption and prevent the emission of 380,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year.
But if Wells Fargo isn't actually cutting its consumption of power, and the credits represent power that someone else has already bought (and would have whether or not someone acquired the credits), it's an incredible stretch to argue that the purchase of credits represents a reduction in emissions. Not one less lump of coal or cubic foot of gas will be burned because of this. The only heat generated is the warm-and-fuzzy feeling the buyer of credits hopes everyone gets from the publicity. [emphasis added]
wind power, wind energy, green tags, environment, environmentalism
November 3, 2006
Leave the fish alone!
As the BBC reports the recent report in Science, 'There will be virtually nothing left to fish from the seas by the middle of the century if current trends continue, according to a major scientific study. ... Steve Palumbi, from Stanford University in California, one of the other scientists on the project, added: "Unless we fundamentally change the way we manage all the ocean species together, as working ecosystems, then this century is the last century of wild seafood."'
Manage? How about leave alone? A lot of people don't have a problem here. They are vegetarian. It's a simple solution, scientist Steve.
animal rights, vegetarianism
Manage? How about leave alone? A lot of people don't have a problem here. They are vegetarian. It's a simple solution, scientist Steve.
animal rights, vegetarianism
November 2, 2006
On the wind plant proposed off Long Island
A couple of good reports from Newsday:
Oppose wind power? You must support breast cancer
Pay (much) more for (much) less
wind power, wind energy, wind farms
Oppose wind power? You must support breast cancer
Pay (much) more for (much) less
wind power, wind energy, wind farms
Heating up
Peter Kurth ("Crank Call") writes in this week's Seven Days:
"I’m sure you, like all of us, are doing everything in your power, in your little bitty way, to prevent the looming calamity of climate change, such as switching your light bulbs and walking to work. But let’s face it: Until the whole screeching, screaming, over-producing, mass-consuming culture of predatory capitalism comes crashing down around us, this planet’s going to keep on heating up."
environment, environmentalism, Vermont
"I’m sure you, like all of us, are doing everything in your power, in your little bitty way, to prevent the looming calamity of climate change, such as switching your light bulbs and walking to work. But let’s face it: Until the whole screeching, screaming, over-producing, mass-consuming culture of predatory capitalism comes crashing down around us, this planet’s going to keep on heating up."
environment, environmentalism, Vermont
The military is not sacred
Sam Smith (Progressive Review) wrote an excellent piece yesterday about the worship of the military by Americans. It closes:
The responsibility is not Bush's team's alone. The president cannot wage war without the approval of Congress, which has never hesitated to keep the money flowing and to buy into the legalization of torture, extrajudicial detention, and unwarranted spying. Responsible, too, are all of the nation's governors, not one of whom refused the deputization of their National Guard forces for an illegal war.
As Smith suggests, perhaps the peace "activists" are mostly interested in showing how good they are. They don't ask why a man abandons his family to be with his friends in Iraq, as if it's just a weekend hunting trip -- no, they thank him if he survives and mourn him as a victim if he is killed. When such an avatar of militaristic evil as John Negroponte comes to town, they cower, "sensitive" to the feelings of their neighbors. Not only is every soldier responsible for choosing to participate in Bush's madness, but so many pacifists and leftists also validate the fetishization of force.
It is like honoring George Bush for not being as much of a drunk as he once was. So he can drive the getaway car more safely. Slavery is wrong, no matter how "good" the slaveowner. There is no noble war, and there are no noble warriors.
Vermont, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism
I sometimes fantasize that war will be the slavery of the 21st century, which is to say a concept once widely accepted is turned into the pariah practice it should always have been. For this to happen abolitionism will have to replace pacifism; it is not the good of the resister that is important but rather the evil of the practitioner. We need to demystify the military, pointing out not just its moral weaknesses but its logical fallacies. We should sensibly regard people who walk around with pins on their chests celebrating their life as, at best, somewhat unstable. And we need to remind the media that it can not call itself objective and repeatedly rebuff the voices of peace. [emphasis added]A letter from a local progressive activist a while ago decried the Iraq escapade but also expressed pride in thanking returning soldiers for doing their best. But military service is voluntary, and this far into the occupation any soldier involved is a willing actor in the crime, a willing servant of the psychopaths in Washington.
The responsibility is not Bush's team's alone. The president cannot wage war without the approval of Congress, which has never hesitated to keep the money flowing and to buy into the legalization of torture, extrajudicial detention, and unwarranted spying. Responsible, too, are all of the nation's governors, not one of whom refused the deputization of their National Guard forces for an illegal war.
As Smith suggests, perhaps the peace "activists" are mostly interested in showing how good they are. They don't ask why a man abandons his family to be with his friends in Iraq, as if it's just a weekend hunting trip -- no, they thank him if he survives and mourn him as a victim if he is killed. When such an avatar of militaristic evil as John Negroponte comes to town, they cower, "sensitive" to the feelings of their neighbors. Not only is every soldier responsible for choosing to participate in Bush's madness, but so many pacifists and leftists also validate the fetishization of force.
It is like honoring George Bush for not being as much of a drunk as he once was. So he can drive the getaway car more safely. Slavery is wrong, no matter how "good" the slaveowner. There is no noble war, and there are no noble warriors.
Vermont, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism
November 1, 2006
Endorsements
Jim Hogue (Green Party and supporter of Second Vermont Republic) for Governor.
Pete Diamondstone (Liberty Union and Socialist Party USA) for U.S. Senate.
Vermont
Pete Diamondstone (Liberty Union and Socialist Party USA) for U.S. Senate.
Vermont
Stretching and ignoring the facts about wind power
Glenn Schleede has written a new paper about industrial wind energy, mostly looking at the economics: "Stretching or Ignoring Facts and Making Unwarranted Assumptions When Attempting to Justify Wind Energy." It can be downloaded from the National Wind Watch Resource Library. Here is the outline of section D, which concisely lists the issues to be weighed.
wind power, wind energy
| D. | Facts about wind energy that are often ignored by federal, state and local officials when considering wind energy policies or facilities | ||||
| 1. | Electricity produced by wind turbines is lower in quality and value than electricity produced from reliable generating units. | ||||
| 2. | Building wind turbines will not replace the need for building reliable, dispatchable generating capacity. | ||||
| 3. | Published information on the cost of electricity from wind per kWh generally is not valid or reliable. | ||||
| 4. | True costs of electricity from wind are much higher than often admitted because important elements of cost are ignored. | ||||
| a. | Federal and state tax breaks for wind energy are part of the true cost of electricity from wind. | ||||
| 1) | Two very generous tax breaks are available from the federal government. | ||||
| • | The wind production tax credit (PTC) of $0.019 per kWh for electricity produced during the first ten years of a wind facility's operation. | ||||
| • | The ability to deduct the entire capital cost of a "wind farm" from taxable using 5-year double declining balance accelerated depreciation. | ||||
| 2) | "Wind farms" enjoy other tax breaks from the state. | ||||
| 3) | Other subsidies are also a part of the true cost but are hidden in either tax or monthly electric bills. | ||||
| b. | The intermittent, volatile and unreliability of electricity from wind turbines also adds to the true cost of that electricity. | ||||
| c. | Adding transmission capacity to serve "wind farms" adds to customer costs. | ||||
| 5. | Local economic benefits of "wind farms" are generally exaggerated. | ||||
| 6. | Environmental benefits of wind energy are typically overstated. | ||||
| 7. | Wind energy advocates try to ignore adverse environmental, ecological, scenic and property value impacts of "wind farms." | ||||
wind power, wind energy
Whole Fools
Whole Foods has now extended their own folly of buying "wind energy credits" by offering them to their customers. To see the absurdity of the scheme, apply it to the food shelf cards that are similarlyly available at many grocery store checkouts.
Buying a $5 food card means that the grocer will give away $5 of food on your behalf. But if it worked like a wind power card, that $5 food shelf card would represent $6.25 of the wholesale price difference between a "gourmet" food item and its mundane counterpart which may cost the grocer, say, $13. The supplier will still sell the gourmet item to grocers for $19.25 but now will get an extra $5.00 because of your generosity (minus the cut for the broker who set this thing up).
It's nice to thus help your preferred suppliers stay in business, but you can not claim to have offset any part of your own good fortune to be able to buy food or -- alternatively -- to have replaced any conventional items on the shelves with the premium product. In fact, nothing is changed except the amount of money the producer makes.
And so it is with wind energy credits, a cynical invention of Enron that "green" hucksters have made their own.
Enron convinced California that the extra cost of wind energy could be sold separately as its "environmental attributes." Then they made sure that the state required the purchase of a certain percentage of renewable energy, to be represented by certificates for those environmental attributes -- green tags. That system is now the norm across the nation. A wind facility still sells its production to utilities at a premium price. In addition, it sells the certificates on a completely separate market. It can sell the electricity twice!
Whole Foods and other companies do not change their or anyone else's energy use by buying wind energy certificates, nor do their customers in buying wind power cards or stickers. They are simply donating a little money to wind companies (such as Electricité de France, Scottish Power, Iberdrola, Florida Power & Light, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc.) and mostly enriching the green tag brokers, the heirs of Enron.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism
Buying a $5 food card means that the grocer will give away $5 of food on your behalf. But if it worked like a wind power card, that $5 food shelf card would represent $6.25 of the wholesale price difference between a "gourmet" food item and its mundane counterpart which may cost the grocer, say, $13. The supplier will still sell the gourmet item to grocers for $19.25 but now will get an extra $5.00 because of your generosity (minus the cut for the broker who set this thing up).
It's nice to thus help your preferred suppliers stay in business, but you can not claim to have offset any part of your own good fortune to be able to buy food or -- alternatively -- to have replaced any conventional items on the shelves with the premium product. In fact, nothing is changed except the amount of money the producer makes.
And so it is with wind energy credits, a cynical invention of Enron that "green" hucksters have made their own.
Enron convinced California that the extra cost of wind energy could be sold separately as its "environmental attributes." Then they made sure that the state required the purchase of a certain percentage of renewable energy, to be represented by certificates for those environmental attributes -- green tags. That system is now the norm across the nation. A wind facility still sells its production to utilities at a premium price. In addition, it sells the certificates on a completely separate market. It can sell the electricity twice!
Whole Foods and other companies do not change their or anyone else's energy use by buying wind energy certificates, nor do their customers in buying wind power cards or stickers. They are simply donating a little money to wind companies (such as Electricité de France, Scottish Power, Iberdrola, Florida Power & Light, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc.) and mostly enriching the green tag brokers, the heirs of Enron.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism
October 30, 2006
Exploitation and destruction: some things to know about industrial wind power
by Eric Rosenbloom
First, by industrial wind, I mean facilities of large wind turbines meant to supply the grid, the "pool" of electricity that must constantly balance supply and demand. "Large" is the first thing that demands attention. The machines proposed for Sheffield and Sutton, for example, are now to be 418 feet high: a 256' tower plus a 162' blade radius (with a vertical sweep area of 1.9 acres!). Several of them have to be lit by strobes day and night for airplane safety. The strobing effect of the lights is increased by reflections off the turning blades.
Not only are the height, turning blades, and lights visually intrusive and incongruous with rural and wild landscapes, the blades, generator gears, motors (that turn the machine into the wind and pitch the blades to maintain a constant rpm), and electrical transformers all make noise. From a ridgeline and especially at night, that noise can travel quite far. The French Academy of Medicine and the U.K. Noise Association both say that large wind turbines should not be closer than a mile from any residence.
Along with the readily audible (and artificial) noise that is many times louder than normal rural noise levels, there is a low-frequency aspect that has driven people from their homes. It doesn't affect everyone, but many people complain of headaches, insomnia, and nausea -- enough that several researchers have noted the resemblance to vibroacoustic disease and are documenting the phenomenon as "wind turbine syndrome."
Even as the wind companies deny that these and other impacts exist, their leases and "forbearance" easements with neighbors forbid the signers from complaining about them (or even telling anyone about the terms of the agreements).
The destruction of wild places and rural quality of life includes the wide strong straight roads necessary to transport the massive parts, the tons of steel and concrete in each platform, the clearcutting of several acres around each machine, and new transmission infrastructure (substations and power lines). It follows an all-too-familiar pattern of heedless exploitation. The only "green" the developers are interested in is that of the easy money.
UPC, the "Massachusetts" company targeting Sheffield and Sutton, is in fact backed by the Italian UPC Group. Enxco, which is still fishing for landowners in New England, is part of the consortium Electricité de France. PPM Energy, which bought Enxco's interests in the Hoosac Mountains of Vermont and Massachusetts, is owned by Scottish Power. Horizon Wind and Noble Environmental Power, both active in New York, are owned, respectively, by Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. Noble has just teamed up with Enxco's former agent to target sites in Vermont as well. Community Energy, currently targeting Lempster, New Hampshire, is owned by energy giant Iberdrola of Spain. Vermont's own Catamount Energy is an international operation owned by Marubeni Power of Japan and Diamond Castle Holdings, a group of investors whose experience includes Enron's glory days.
The major U.S. manufacturer of industrial wind turbines is GE, who bought the business from Enron. Another war profiteer and nuclear power pusher getting into wind is Halliburton, whose Kellogg Brown & Root division boasts of being a leader in offshore wind construction. One should be not a little dubious about "alternatives" or "solutions" offered by the same people who created the mess in the first place. What excites these companies is not so much the window dressing that hides their main activities, though that is indeed important: Think BP's "beyond petroleum" and GE's "ecomagination." Enron, along with their friend George Bush, set up a web of subsidies, market support, and tax schemes that created and almost completely pays for today's wind industry -- moving ever larger amounts of public money into private bank accounts. Enron even invented "green tags" to sell the electricity twice!
These developers creep into a poor community, make deals with landowners, woo the town board with gifts and promises of cash, flattering them as forward thinkers, and only then make their plans public. Unfortunately for them, the internet has made it possible for the neighbors to quickly learn the facts about industrial wind and -- when they see what a destructive boondoggle it really is -- mount a grass-roots opposition campaign. But even if the developer is driven off, a divided and bankrupted community is left. Damage is done in any case.
Rural America is no different to these companies than indigenous communities or "third-world" countries. Enrich a few of the natives, persuade others of your "progressive" intentions, pay for a school or firetruck, pit the rest against each other, and take what you want. In Australia, the Point Pierce Aboriginal community lost 40,000 years of Dreaming (which is, like Vermont's ridgelines, otherwise protected) to the construction of an industrial wind facility. In Mexico, wind companies -- led by Spain's Iberdrola -- have divided the Zapotecos on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, which is the most important bird flyway on this side of the world (I haven't even mentioned the decimation of birds and bats by these machines, with blades moving 150-200 mph at the tips exactly where they fly). Some of the Zapotecos wrote about the wind companies to a Scottish bird protector who lives in Spain, describing "the imposition of neoliberal megacorporations destroying nature and our cultures." That is what is happening right in our own back yard.
Minuscule benefits
The appalling thing is that industrial wind turbines on the grid bring no benefits that can justify this destruction. They generate an average of only a sixth to a third of their rated capacity. They generate at or above that average rate only a third of the time. The output is highly variable, so other sources on the grid must work harder (burning more fuel less cleanly) to balance it. In most places, the times of high wind do not correspond to times of high electricity demand, so much of the already small production is wasted. The evils of coal and nuclear power are undeniable. Unfortunately, wind will never threaten the steady base supply they provide -- no matter how many giant turbines and interconnected high-voltage transmission lines we fill the landscape with. Nor has a single peak supply plant ever been shut down because of wind on the grid.
The people of Denmark have not allowed a new turbine to be erected in years. Construction has also dramatically slowed in Germany. Spain and The Netherlands recently halted subsidies to big wind. Australia is starting to balk at continuing support. Because opposition only grows in their own countries as the useless and wasteful destruction becomes ever more clear, overseas companies have moved into the U.S. market -- they know we'll ignore Europe's mistakes just as much as we ignore their successes.
But even in the industry's own promotional material, wind remains a marginal source. Conservation and efficiency easily surpass it in actually reducing fuel use, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions -- and they don't require industrializing our remaining rural and wild places to enrich a few multinational companies and investors and impoverish (not just financially) the rest of us.
More information is available on the web: my own site at www.aweo.org, the coalition of Vermont groups at www.rosenlake.net/vwv, and the coalition of groups throughout the U.S. and the world at www.wind-watch.org.
In closing, a quick word about NIMBYism: that is, supporting a project in principle but not in your own neighborhood. That defines the developers. Most of their opponents are fighting to protect not only their own back yards but those of their brothers and sisters everywhere.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism, animal rights
First, by industrial wind, I mean facilities of large wind turbines meant to supply the grid, the "pool" of electricity that must constantly balance supply and demand. "Large" is the first thing that demands attention. The machines proposed for Sheffield and Sutton, for example, are now to be 418 feet high: a 256' tower plus a 162' blade radius (with a vertical sweep area of 1.9 acres!). Several of them have to be lit by strobes day and night for airplane safety. The strobing effect of the lights is increased by reflections off the turning blades.
Not only are the height, turning blades, and lights visually intrusive and incongruous with rural and wild landscapes, the blades, generator gears, motors (that turn the machine into the wind and pitch the blades to maintain a constant rpm), and electrical transformers all make noise. From a ridgeline and especially at night, that noise can travel quite far. The French Academy of Medicine and the U.K. Noise Association both say that large wind turbines should not be closer than a mile from any residence.
Along with the readily audible (and artificial) noise that is many times louder than normal rural noise levels, there is a low-frequency aspect that has driven people from their homes. It doesn't affect everyone, but many people complain of headaches, insomnia, and nausea -- enough that several researchers have noted the resemblance to vibroacoustic disease and are documenting the phenomenon as "wind turbine syndrome."
Even as the wind companies deny that these and other impacts exist, their leases and "forbearance" easements with neighbors forbid the signers from complaining about them (or even telling anyone about the terms of the agreements).
The destruction of wild places and rural quality of life includes the wide strong straight roads necessary to transport the massive parts, the tons of steel and concrete in each platform, the clearcutting of several acres around each machine, and new transmission infrastructure (substations and power lines). It follows an all-too-familiar pattern of heedless exploitation. The only "green" the developers are interested in is that of the easy money.
UPC, the "Massachusetts" company targeting Sheffield and Sutton, is in fact backed by the Italian UPC Group. Enxco, which is still fishing for landowners in New England, is part of the consortium Electricité de France. PPM Energy, which bought Enxco's interests in the Hoosac Mountains of Vermont and Massachusetts, is owned by Scottish Power. Horizon Wind and Noble Environmental Power, both active in New York, are owned, respectively, by Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. Noble has just teamed up with Enxco's former agent to target sites in Vermont as well. Community Energy, currently targeting Lempster, New Hampshire, is owned by energy giant Iberdrola of Spain. Vermont's own Catamount Energy is an international operation owned by Marubeni Power of Japan and Diamond Castle Holdings, a group of investors whose experience includes Enron's glory days.
The major U.S. manufacturer of industrial wind turbines is GE, who bought the business from Enron. Another war profiteer and nuclear power pusher getting into wind is Halliburton, whose Kellogg Brown & Root division boasts of being a leader in offshore wind construction. One should be not a little dubious about "alternatives" or "solutions" offered by the same people who created the mess in the first place. What excites these companies is not so much the window dressing that hides their main activities, though that is indeed important: Think BP's "beyond petroleum" and GE's "ecomagination." Enron, along with their friend George Bush, set up a web of subsidies, market support, and tax schemes that created and almost completely pays for today's wind industry -- moving ever larger amounts of public money into private bank accounts. Enron even invented "green tags" to sell the electricity twice!
These developers creep into a poor community, make deals with landowners, woo the town board with gifts and promises of cash, flattering them as forward thinkers, and only then make their plans public. Unfortunately for them, the internet has made it possible for the neighbors to quickly learn the facts about industrial wind and -- when they see what a destructive boondoggle it really is -- mount a grass-roots opposition campaign. But even if the developer is driven off, a divided and bankrupted community is left. Damage is done in any case.
Rural America is no different to these companies than indigenous communities or "third-world" countries. Enrich a few of the natives, persuade others of your "progressive" intentions, pay for a school or firetruck, pit the rest against each other, and take what you want. In Australia, the Point Pierce Aboriginal community lost 40,000 years of Dreaming (which is, like Vermont's ridgelines, otherwise protected) to the construction of an industrial wind facility. In Mexico, wind companies -- led by Spain's Iberdrola -- have divided the Zapotecos on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, which is the most important bird flyway on this side of the world (I haven't even mentioned the decimation of birds and bats by these machines, with blades moving 150-200 mph at the tips exactly where they fly). Some of the Zapotecos wrote about the wind companies to a Scottish bird protector who lives in Spain, describing "the imposition of neoliberal megacorporations destroying nature and our cultures." That is what is happening right in our own back yard.
Minuscule benefits
The appalling thing is that industrial wind turbines on the grid bring no benefits that can justify this destruction. They generate an average of only a sixth to a third of their rated capacity. They generate at or above that average rate only a third of the time. The output is highly variable, so other sources on the grid must work harder (burning more fuel less cleanly) to balance it. In most places, the times of high wind do not correspond to times of high electricity demand, so much of the already small production is wasted. The evils of coal and nuclear power are undeniable. Unfortunately, wind will never threaten the steady base supply they provide -- no matter how many giant turbines and interconnected high-voltage transmission lines we fill the landscape with. Nor has a single peak supply plant ever been shut down because of wind on the grid.
The people of Denmark have not allowed a new turbine to be erected in years. Construction has also dramatically slowed in Germany. Spain and The Netherlands recently halted subsidies to big wind. Australia is starting to balk at continuing support. Because opposition only grows in their own countries as the useless and wasteful destruction becomes ever more clear, overseas companies have moved into the U.S. market -- they know we'll ignore Europe's mistakes just as much as we ignore their successes.
But even in the industry's own promotional material, wind remains a marginal source. Conservation and efficiency easily surpass it in actually reducing fuel use, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions -- and they don't require industrializing our remaining rural and wild places to enrich a few multinational companies and investors and impoverish (not just financially) the rest of us.
More information is available on the web: my own site at www.aweo.org, the coalition of Vermont groups at www.rosenlake.net/vwv, and the coalition of groups throughout the U.S. and the world at www.wind-watch.org.
In closing, a quick word about NIMBYism: that is, supporting a project in principle but not in your own neighborhood. That defines the developers. Most of their opponents are fighting to protect not only their own back yards but those of their brothers and sisters everywhere.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism, animal rights
October 29, 2006
National Wind Watch
Also see the videos "Voices of Tug Hill" (from Lewis County, N.Y., site of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm) and "Life Under a Windplant" (from Meyersdale, Pa.).
wind power, wind energy, wind farms
October 28, 2006
County ordinances establishing setbacks and noise limits for industrial wind turbines
Here a a couple of good regulations for large wind turbines, excerpted from the noted county ordinances.
Shawano County (Wisc.) Wind Energy Conversion System Ordinance
5.5.4. Noise Standard: The noise due to WECU [wind energy conversion unit] operations shall not be greater than 5 dBA above the established background noise level for more than five 5 minutes out of any one hour time period as measured per Appendix A.
5.5.5. Low Frequency Noise or Infrasound Noise: No low frequency noise or infrasound noise from wind turbine operations shall be created which causes the noise level both within the project boundary and a one-mile radius beyond the project boundary to exceed the following limits ...
5.5.6. Pure Tone Penalty: In the event audible noise due to wind turbine operations contains a steady pure tone, such as a whine, screech, or hum, the standards for Audible Noise shall be reduced by five (5) dB(A). ...
5.5.9. Operations -- Low Frequency Noise: A WECU that emits impulsive sound below 20 Hz that adversely affects the habitability or use of any existing dwelling unit, hospital, school, library, nursing home, or other sensitive noise receptor shall be deemed unsafe and must be shut down immediately.
Otsego County (Mich.) Zoning Ordinance Concerning Wind Turbine Generators and Anemometer Towers
18.5.3. Setbacks. Each proposed wind turbine generator or anemometer tower shall meet the following applicable setback requirements:
Shawano County (Wisc.) Wind Energy Conversion System Ordinance
5.5.4. Noise Standard: The noise due to WECU [wind energy conversion unit] operations shall not be greater than 5 dBA above the established background noise level for more than five 5 minutes out of any one hour time period as measured per Appendix A.
5.5.5. Low Frequency Noise or Infrasound Noise: No low frequency noise or infrasound noise from wind turbine operations shall be created which causes the noise level both within the project boundary and a one-mile radius beyond the project boundary to exceed the following limits ...
5.5.6. Pure Tone Penalty: In the event audible noise due to wind turbine operations contains a steady pure tone, such as a whine, screech, or hum, the standards for Audible Noise shall be reduced by five (5) dB(A). ...
5.5.9. Operations -- Low Frequency Noise: A WECU that emits impulsive sound below 20 Hz that adversely affects the habitability or use of any existing dwelling unit, hospital, school, library, nursing home, or other sensitive noise receptor shall be deemed unsafe and must be shut down immediately.
Otsego County (Mich.) Zoning Ordinance Concerning Wind Turbine Generators and Anemometer Towers
18.5.3. Setbacks. Each proposed wind turbine generator or anemometer tower shall meet the following applicable setback requirements:
18.5.3.1. Each wind turbine generator shall be set back from any adjoining lot line a distance equal to 2,600 feet. The Planning Commission may reduce this setback to no less than 2,100 feet. The amount of setback relief approved by the Planning Commission will be based on data provided by the applicant and prepared and certified by a registered Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Michigan, who is practicing in his or her area of competency. Such data shall be subject to review by the County's independent, recognized expert.18.5.4. Maximum Height. Then maximum wind turbine generator or anemometer tower height from the base to the tip of the blade at its highest point shall not exceed 200 feet. The Planning Commission may approve an increased height for a wind turbine generator tower, not to exceed 260 feet from the base to the tip of the blade, if all of the following conditions are met:
18.5.3.2. In addition to the above, a wind turbine generator shall, in all cases, be setback from a public or private road right-of-way or easement a minimum distance equal to six times the height of the wind turbine generator tower as defined in this Ordinance.
18.5.3.3. For any newly proposed wind turbine generator or anemometer tower, a "wind access buffer" equal to a minimum of five (5) rotor diameters shall be observed from any existing off-site wind turbine generator tower.
18.5.19.1. Sensitive environmental areas shall have a setback of between 2 to 5 miles and shall be determined by the Otsego County Planning Commission and the Department of Natural Resources.
18.5.19.2. Scenic areas, including parks, highways, recreational areas, and others as determined by the County and Townships, shall have a setback of not less than 1 mile.
18.5.4.1. The increased height will result in the preservation of a substantial stand of trees, existing land forms or structures that would otherwise be removed to increase wind velocity.wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines
18.5.4.2. The increased height will not result in increased intensity on lighting of the tower due to FAA requirements.
Wind company trusts government will ignore environment and community and let them build
Putting the lie to their claim of being "green," Toronto wind power developer Skypower is ignoring the finding of the Quebec Environmental Public Hearing Board (BAPE, from the French) against their 114-tower project in northeastern Quebec near the St. Lawrence river.
According to the CBC, the BAPE "concluded Thursday that the turbines would ruin a picturesque view, threaten the region’s natural and wildlife heritage and threaten the agricultural economy."
Skypower's response was to shrug it off and remind people that the decision is only with the Quebec cabinet, which they are confident to sway with the $350,000,000 investment that the project represents.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, ecoanarchism
According to the CBC, the BAPE "concluded Thursday that the turbines would ruin a picturesque view, threaten the region’s natural and wildlife heritage and threaten the agricultural economy."
Skypower's response was to shrug it off and remind people that the decision is only with the Quebec cabinet, which they are confident to sway with the $350,000,000 investment that the project represents.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, ecoanarchism
October 26, 2006
Bill McKibben calls for more nuclear power
After an ad hominem dismissal of James Lovelock's opposition to industrial-scale wind power in an upcoming New York Review of Books, Bill McKibben then writes,
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
we will obviously need new energy sources, and the example of the French success with nuclear power (it generates three quarters of their electricity) means it has to be included in the mix of possibilities, as Jim Hansen recently argued in these pages.The French, by the way, are getting desperate about the very dangerous radioactive waste that is piling up at all of their nuclear plants. Maybe McKibben, like Lovelock, will offer to have it buried in his back yard.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
One government, one people, one führer
The National Park Service testified in Maine on the negative impacts that an industrial wind power facility on Redington Mountain would have on the Appalachian Trail.
But President Boosh issued a directive some years ago forbidding federal agencies to get in the way of "alternative energy" projects. The directive also requires that they act to clear the way for such projects, even if it conflicts with their mission, e.g., to protect wilderness and natural beauty.
Pam Underhill, the manager of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail testified: "There is little question that the proposed Redington Wind Farm would have a dramatic impact on the scenic character and recreation setting of this section [of the trail]. ... Spread out across several miles of terrain, these 29 structures -- each 40 stories tall, with constantly rotating 130-foot radius blades -- would become the dominant features of the landscape."
California Representative Darrell Issa wants the Interior Secretary to investigate.
Commenting on Issa's accusations, Underhill said: "The taxpayers pay me to protect the Appalachian Trail."
Issa chairs the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy and Resources and plans to hold hearings on local opposition to energy projects and to expose other "lower-level" officials acting against energy company plans.
Speaking of anti-democratic directives, Denmark's Environment Minister has threatened municipalities with one if they don't stop blocking efforts to replace their relatively small turbines with giant new ones. No new turbines have been erected in Denmark since 2004, and the industry is in a panic.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, Vermont, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
But President Boosh issued a directive some years ago forbidding federal agencies to get in the way of "alternative energy" projects. The directive also requires that they act to clear the way for such projects, even if it conflicts with their mission, e.g., to protect wilderness and natural beauty.
Pam Underhill, the manager of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail testified: "There is little question that the proposed Redington Wind Farm would have a dramatic impact on the scenic character and recreation setting of this section [of the trail]. ... Spread out across several miles of terrain, these 29 structures -- each 40 stories tall, with constantly rotating 130-foot radius blades -- would become the dominant features of the landscape."
California Representative Darrell Issa wants the Interior Secretary to investigate.
Commenting on Issa's accusations, Underhill said: "The taxpayers pay me to protect the Appalachian Trail."
Issa chairs the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy and Resources and plans to hold hearings on local opposition to energy projects and to expose other "lower-level" officials acting against energy company plans.
Speaking of anti-democratic directives, Denmark's Environment Minister has threatened municipalities with one if they don't stop blocking efforts to replace their relatively small turbines with giant new ones. No new turbines have been erected in Denmark since 2004, and the industry is in a panic.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, Vermont, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
October 17, 2006
Accident: A failure in a wind turbine caused a forest fire in Muros
La Voz de Galicia, 29 September 2006:
A failure in one of the wind turbines owned by the Iberdrola company in the Pedregal Mountains, Esteiro (Muros), resulted in a forest fire that razed a hectare of the mountain. When the flames started, the machine was functioning and the movement of its blades helped scatter sparks about the area, which brought the focus of the fire to an area replanted with pine trees.
Two brigades of the Department of the Environment, forest rangers, and a helicopter extinquished the fire in little time. The wind turbine was left very damaged and it is likely that it will have to be replaced.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
A failure in one of the wind turbines owned by the Iberdrola company in the Pedregal Mountains, Esteiro (Muros), resulted in a forest fire that razed a hectare of the mountain. When the flames started, the machine was functioning and the movement of its blades helped scatter sparks about the area, which brought the focus of the fire to an area replanted with pine trees.
Two brigades of the Department of the Environment, forest rangers, and a helicopter extinquished the fire in little time. The wind turbine was left very damaged and it is likely that it will have to be replaced.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
October 16, 2006
For a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of our energy: wind power!
At 20% "penetration," a typical goal (limited by the amount of excess capacity on the system that is free to balance the fluctuating wind load), wind energy would in theory replace only one forty-fifth of our energy.
Electricity accounts for roughly a third of all energy use, 20% wind would be a fifth of that third. (And that fifth requires four times the capacity of that actual output.) And the effective capacity (because of its variability) is yet a third of that output.
Even in theory, then, it is clearly an awfully destructive and expensive "alternative." In reality, it is even worse.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
Electricity accounts for roughly a third of all energy use, 20% wind would be a fifth of that third. (And that fifth requires four times the capacity of that actual output.) And the effective capacity (because of its variability) is yet a third of that output.
Even in theory, then, it is clearly an awfully destructive and expensive "alternative." In reality, it is even worse.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
October 15, 2006
Impact of industrial wind on rural economy
From "UK Energy Policy: The Small Business Perspective & the Impact on the Rural Economy," researched and written by Candida Whitmill for, and on behalf of, the Small Business Council, February 2006 (revised June 2006) [available at wind-watch.org]:
[p. 1, Foreword] The Small Business Council is a non-departmental public body established in May 2000 to advise the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chief Executive of the Small Business Service on the needs of existing and potential small businesses in order to help them succeed and prosper. Working with Ministers and Senior Policy makers, the Council advises and reports on the effects on small businesses of current and potential policies.
[p. 2, Executive Summary] This study focuses attention on one particular area of potential impact in the United Kingdom, the impact on tourism, an area dominated by small businesses and of pivotal importance to the rural economy as a whole. Twenty-five percent of all registered businesses are in rural areas.
The rural visitor economy is worth £14 billion in England alone and supports up to 800,000 jobs. Research shows that for an average 75% of visitors, the quality of the landscape and countryside is the most important factor in choosing a destination. Between 47% and 75% of visitors felt that wind turbines damage the landscape quality. In North Devon turbines would deter 11% of visitors, at a cost of £29 million and the loss of 800 jobs. Approximately 7% of visitors would not return to Cumbria, which would result in a loss of £70 million and 1,753 jobs. In the South West, just a 5% overall reduction in visitor numbers would lose the region £400 million and 15,000 jobs. Because of the multiplier effect, a reduction of visitors can have farreaching consequences for the overall regional economy, a fact richly illustrated during the Foot and Mouth crisis. The evidence shows that in some areas, 49% of all sectors of rural businesses experienced a negative impact. [Full analysis, pp. 10-18]
We argue that the current trend towards high levels of wind energy development onshore presents an unacceptable threat to rural businesses and runs counter to almost all other aspects of Government policy relating to the rural economy. This has important implications when assessing the overall cost-benefit equation of the current renewable energy policy.
[p. 20] Sustainable development, as defined by the Rural Strategy, is characterised by "integrating and balancing environmental, social and economic considerations at every stage." 41 Recognising its potentially negative impact on the environment, UK tourism has long embraced the ethos of sustainability. Today UK tourism is striving to be a role model for sustainable practices. Businesses are investing in energy efficiency, recycling and local purchasing. Many are gaining international accreditation through sustainable programmes such as the Green Business Tourism Scheme. Local partnerships are operating visitor payback schemes that include visitors as stakeholders in reinvesting back into the conservation of the environment they enjoy. It is in the industry's interest to maintain and improve the environment and to contribute to the economic and social stability of local communities.
This symbiosis represents the greatest prospect of achieving the Rural Strategy 2004 goals and the Government's sustainability agenda. In contrast, the current onshore wind policy is at odds with the concept of sustainability. For the majority of onshore wind developments, the environmental costs are local and the benefits are invariably taken or delivered outside the region. In the most striking cases, a large-scale wind farm may be entirely financed by overseas investors, using imported equipment and a team of specialist contractors to oversee the installation. Once operating no one is employed on the site and the income and profits from the Renewables Obligation scheme are repatriated back to the investor country.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms
[p. 1, Foreword] The Small Business Council is a non-departmental public body established in May 2000 to advise the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chief Executive of the Small Business Service on the needs of existing and potential small businesses in order to help them succeed and prosper. Working with Ministers and Senior Policy makers, the Council advises and reports on the effects on small businesses of current and potential policies.
[p. 2, Executive Summary] This study focuses attention on one particular area of potential impact in the United Kingdom, the impact on tourism, an area dominated by small businesses and of pivotal importance to the rural economy as a whole. Twenty-five percent of all registered businesses are in rural areas.
The rural visitor economy is worth £14 billion in England alone and supports up to 800,000 jobs. Research shows that for an average 75% of visitors, the quality of the landscape and countryside is the most important factor in choosing a destination. Between 47% and 75% of visitors felt that wind turbines damage the landscape quality. In North Devon turbines would deter 11% of visitors, at a cost of £29 million and the loss of 800 jobs. Approximately 7% of visitors would not return to Cumbria, which would result in a loss of £70 million and 1,753 jobs. In the South West, just a 5% overall reduction in visitor numbers would lose the region £400 million and 15,000 jobs. Because of the multiplier effect, a reduction of visitors can have farreaching consequences for the overall regional economy, a fact richly illustrated during the Foot and Mouth crisis. The evidence shows that in some areas, 49% of all sectors of rural businesses experienced a negative impact. [Full analysis, pp. 10-18]
We argue that the current trend towards high levels of wind energy development onshore presents an unacceptable threat to rural businesses and runs counter to almost all other aspects of Government policy relating to the rural economy. This has important implications when assessing the overall cost-benefit equation of the current renewable energy policy.
[p. 20] Sustainable development, as defined by the Rural Strategy, is characterised by "integrating and balancing environmental, social and economic considerations at every stage." 41 Recognising its potentially negative impact on the environment, UK tourism has long embraced the ethos of sustainability. Today UK tourism is striving to be a role model for sustainable practices. Businesses are investing in energy efficiency, recycling and local purchasing. Many are gaining international accreditation through sustainable programmes such as the Green Business Tourism Scheme. Local partnerships are operating visitor payback schemes that include visitors as stakeholders in reinvesting back into the conservation of the environment they enjoy. It is in the industry's interest to maintain and improve the environment and to contribute to the economic and social stability of local communities.
This symbiosis represents the greatest prospect of achieving the Rural Strategy 2004 goals and the Government's sustainability agenda. In contrast, the current onshore wind policy is at odds with the concept of sustainability. For the majority of onshore wind developments, the environmental costs are local and the benefits are invariably taken or delivered outside the region. In the most striking cases, a large-scale wind farm may be entirely financed by overseas investors, using imported equipment and a team of specialist contractors to oversee the installation. Once operating no one is employed on the site and the income and profits from the Renewables Obligation scheme are repatriated back to the investor country.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms
October 13, 2006
The End of the U.S. as a Civilized Nation
Ted Rall has put the new legalization of torture and elimination of habeas corpus for anyone the Führer deems his (sorry, "the people's") enemy into apt historical context (click the title of this post for the complete essay):
... Had there been the political will, Hitler and his goons could have been arrested and tried under German law. The German government was a lost cause, but the German nation still had a (slim) chance. Until 1935.
That's when Germany officially codified the Nazis' uncivilized anti-Semitism by passing the Nuremberg Laws. Jews were stripped of citizenship and banned from marrying or dating non-Jews. The laws were a form of legalized harassment, prohibiting Jews from displaying German flags or shopping in stores at certain times. ... the barbaric ipso facto policies of the Nazi government had corrupted Germany's lofty and admirable system of legal guarantees. ... Germany was no longer a civilized nation in the clutches of gangsters. It had become a gangster nation.
Similarly, the recently passed Military Commissions Act [MCA] removes the United States from the ranks of civilized nations. It codifies racial and political discrimination, legalizes kidnapping and torture of those the government deems its political enemies, and eliminates habeas corpus -- the ancient precept that prevents the police from arresting and holding you without cause -- a basic protection common to all (other) modern legal systems, and one that dates to the Magna Carta.
Between 2001 and 2006, George W. Bush worked tirelessly to eliminate freedoms and liberties Americans have long taken for granted. The Bush Administration's CIA, mercenary and military state terrorists kidnapped thousands of innocent people and held them at secret prisons around the world for months and years at a time. These people were never charged with a crime. (There was good reason for that. As the government itself admitted, fewer than ten had actually done anything wrong.) Yet hundreds, maybe even thousands, were tortured.
Under American law these despicable acts were illegal. They were, by definition, un-American. Although it didn't help the dozens of Bush torture victims who died from beatings and drowning, the pre-Bush American judicial system worked. The Republican-controlled U.S. Supreme Court handed down one decision after another ordering the White House to give its "detainees" trials or let them go. For a brief, shining moment, it looked like there was hope for the U.S. to find its way back to the light.
Now, thanks to a gullible passel of Republican senators and an unhinged leader who is banking that Americans are just as passive as the Germans of the mid-1930s, we have our own Nuremberg Laws.
Under the terrifying terms of the radical new Military Commissions Act, Bush can declare anyone -- including you -- an "unlawful enemy combatant," a term that doesn't exist in U.S. or international law. All he has to do is sign a piece of paper claiming that you "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." The law's language is brilliantly vague, allowing the president to imprison -- for the rest of his or her life -- anyone, including a U.S. citizen, from someone who makes a contribution to a group he disapproves of to a journalist who criticizes the government.
[Partner to the MCA is AETA, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, with vague enough language to brand as a terrorist (i.e., "unlawful enemy combatant") anyone handing out flyers in front of Kentucky Fried Chicken or publicizing the abuse of elephants in the circus or even advocating vegetarianism -- any activity that cuts into the profits from animal abuse and slaughter is a threat to the nation. The AETA bills are still in committee: check the status of H.R.4239 here and S.1926 here.]
... Had there been the political will, Hitler and his goons could have been arrested and tried under German law. The German government was a lost cause, but the German nation still had a (slim) chance. Until 1935.
That's when Germany officially codified the Nazis' uncivilized anti-Semitism by passing the Nuremberg Laws. Jews were stripped of citizenship and banned from marrying or dating non-Jews. The laws were a form of legalized harassment, prohibiting Jews from displaying German flags or shopping in stores at certain times. ... the barbaric ipso facto policies of the Nazi government had corrupted Germany's lofty and admirable system of legal guarantees. ... Germany was no longer a civilized nation in the clutches of gangsters. It had become a gangster nation.
Similarly, the recently passed Military Commissions Act [MCA] removes the United States from the ranks of civilized nations. It codifies racial and political discrimination, legalizes kidnapping and torture of those the government deems its political enemies, and eliminates habeas corpus -- the ancient precept that prevents the police from arresting and holding you without cause -- a basic protection common to all (other) modern legal systems, and one that dates to the Magna Carta.
Between 2001 and 2006, George W. Bush worked tirelessly to eliminate freedoms and liberties Americans have long taken for granted. The Bush Administration's CIA, mercenary and military state terrorists kidnapped thousands of innocent people and held them at secret prisons around the world for months and years at a time. These people were never charged with a crime. (There was good reason for that. As the government itself admitted, fewer than ten had actually done anything wrong.) Yet hundreds, maybe even thousands, were tortured.
Under American law these despicable acts were illegal. They were, by definition, un-American. Although it didn't help the dozens of Bush torture victims who died from beatings and drowning, the pre-Bush American judicial system worked. The Republican-controlled U.S. Supreme Court handed down one decision after another ordering the White House to give its "detainees" trials or let them go. For a brief, shining moment, it looked like there was hope for the U.S. to find its way back to the light.
Now, thanks to a gullible passel of Republican senators and an unhinged leader who is banking that Americans are just as passive as the Germans of the mid-1930s, we have our own Nuremberg Laws.
Under the terrifying terms of the radical new Military Commissions Act, Bush can declare anyone -- including you -- an "unlawful enemy combatant," a term that doesn't exist in U.S. or international law. All he has to do is sign a piece of paper claiming that you "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." The law's language is brilliantly vague, allowing the president to imprison -- for the rest of his or her life -- anyone, including a U.S. citizen, from someone who makes a contribution to a group he disapproves of to a journalist who criticizes the government.
[Partner to the MCA is AETA, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, with vague enough language to brand as a terrorist (i.e., "unlawful enemy combatant") anyone handing out flyers in front of Kentucky Fried Chicken or publicizing the abuse of elephants in the circus or even advocating vegetarianism -- any activity that cuts into the profits from animal abuse and slaughter is a threat to the nation. The AETA bills are still in committee: check the status of H.R.4239 here and S.1926 here.]
October 12, 2006
McCourt for Governor of New York
From an interview with Malachy McCourt, Green Party candidate for governor of New York, by Clyde Haberman in the Oct. 10 New York Times:
“The inculcation of fear is the essence of American politics,” Mr. McCourt said. “Fear and the evil of your opponents – what awful, dreadful, less-than-human beings they are, until elected. Then they say, ‘We have to get behind them.’”
October 11, 2006
A vote against voting
Last month, Noel Ignatiev wrote an excellent essay for Counterpunch on the stupidity of "progressives" voting for the lesser evil that Democrats represent. Click the title of this post to read it.
[O]ne difference between Republican and Democratic voters is that the former hope their candidates mean what they say while the latter hope their candidates do not mean what they say.
October 4, 2006
Hull benefits from REC sales not wind energy
To the editor, Boston Globe:
Although the wind turbines in Hull may generate electricity equivalent to 12% of the town's total electricity consumption (editorial, Oct. 1), that is unlikely to be the amount actually used.
Because the turbines' level of generation is in response to the wind rather than consumer demand, it would more often than not be well out of sync with the town's needs. Consequently, Hull's municipal utility -- without large-scale storage of the wind-generated energy -- must still have to buy just about as much power from the regional grid as before.
The money they are "saving" appears to be in fact income from the sale of renewable energy credits to Harvard, who thereby also pretend to be using the same wind power.
wind power, wind energy
Although the wind turbines in Hull may generate electricity equivalent to 12% of the town's total electricity consumption (editorial, Oct. 1), that is unlikely to be the amount actually used.
Because the turbines' level of generation is in response to the wind rather than consumer demand, it would more often than not be well out of sync with the town's needs. Consequently, Hull's municipal utility -- without large-scale storage of the wind-generated energy -- must still have to buy just about as much power from the regional grid as before.
The money they are "saving" appears to be in fact income from the sale of renewable energy credits to Harvard, who thereby also pretend to be using the same wind power.
wind power, wind energy
The twilight of industrial wind
Comment by Lyn Harrison, editor, Windpower Monthly, October 2006:
... witness the chaos in Spain caused by the sudden removal of the basis for wind power pricing, the overnight stop to the thriving wind market in the Netherlands, the fast approaching cliff-edge in Australia, Denmark's decline from role model to full-stop, and the perennial on-off market support in the US.
wind power, wind energy
... witness the chaos in Spain caused by the sudden removal of the basis for wind power pricing, the overnight stop to the thriving wind market in the Netherlands, the fast approaching cliff-edge in Australia, Denmark's decline from role model to full-stop, and the perennial on-off market support in the US.
wind power, wind energy
September 28, 2006
E. coli in spinach comes from factory farms
A commentary in the New York Times last week explained that factory-farmed cows, whether for meat or for milk, are the source of the E. coli strain that is so dangerous to humans. The strain thrives in an acidic environment (thus it is not killed in our stomachs), which has been created in the cow digestive tract by the industrial feed they are given. Their manure is therefore teeming with this dangerous strain of E. coli, and the manure pollutes the water table, streams, and rivers. The water used to rinse vegetable greens is polluted by the unnatural shit from industrial animal "farms."
[Update: Grass-fed cows become colonized with E. coli O157:H7 at same rates as grain-fed cattle.]
environment, environmentalism, animal rights, vegetarianism
[Update: Grass-fed cows become colonized with E. coli O157:H7 at same rates as grain-fed cattle.]
environment, environmentalism, animal rights, vegetarianism
September 27, 2006
Muir Trust warns of destruction of Scottish wild areas by wind power industry
The John Muir Trust believes
- Wild land should be conserved for nature and people for the benefit of present and future generations;
- Developments on core wild land, such as industrial-scale wind developments, are a major threat to our rapidly diminishing wild land;
- The best renewable energy options around wild land are small-scale, sensitively sited and adjacent to the communities directly benefiting from them, where the landscape impact is minimal;
- Large wind turbines, often 120 metres high (taller than the Forth Rail Bridge) grouped in clusters of up to 100, are totally unsuitable for Scotland’s finest landscapes;
- The intrusion is not just the turbines and pylons, but includes the access roads, concrete bases, and underground cables;
- Producing energy near to where it is consumed reduces the need for giant pylons through wild and scenic areas e.g. the proposed Beauly – Denny transmission upgrade;
- A recent study suggests far more eagles are at risk from wind developments than was previously thought so their habitat must be protected;
- It would be a tragedy to sacrifice wild land to major industrial developments.
September 24, 2006
Va. Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries lays out wildlife case against wind power facility
As quoted at National Wind Watch (click the title of this post), where the entire letter is available:
"We feel this project presents an unacceptable risk to wildlife. We are particularly concerned with potential significant adverse impacts upon bats and birds. ... This project, and the conditions imposed by the State Corporation Commission, will set a precedent for all future wind energy projects in Virginia. Wind farms cannot be viewed as independent with regard to impacts upon wide-ranging migratory animals. We currently lack sufficient knowledge to absolutely determine the maximum fatality rates that can be tolerated at a given site without unacceptably impacting local or regional populations of sensitive species; but we are certain that high fatality rates at multiple sites across the landscape would pose an unacceptable risk, as do unmitigated fatalities of Endangered or Threatened species. ... In the case of this project, where wildlife losses potentially could be very substantial and significant, we must take a conservative approach to assessing risk and designing appropriate mitigation. The data needs for pre- and post-construction evaluation, monitoring, and mitigation should not be dictated by project applicants or consultants .... High fatality rates at this site would particularly be devastating to bats because of their reproductive strategy, which is atypical of a small mammal. ... They have small litters (typically one or two young), only one litter per year, and life expectancy of 12-15 years. With this strategy, the impact of the loss of individuals is much greater, especially within small populations. ... In addition to bats, we are concerned over potential eagle fatalities at this site. ... We have recommended that the applicant consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning potential take of federal Endangered or Threatened species. We cannot authorize take of federally listed species. The applicant’s consultants have downplayed the potential for such take but, in our opinion, the evidence suggests a strong likelihood of take."
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, animal rights
"We feel this project presents an unacceptable risk to wildlife. We are particularly concerned with potential significant adverse impacts upon bats and birds. ... This project, and the conditions imposed by the State Corporation Commission, will set a precedent for all future wind energy projects in Virginia. Wind farms cannot be viewed as independent with regard to impacts upon wide-ranging migratory animals. We currently lack sufficient knowledge to absolutely determine the maximum fatality rates that can be tolerated at a given site without unacceptably impacting local or regional populations of sensitive species; but we are certain that high fatality rates at multiple sites across the landscape would pose an unacceptable risk, as do unmitigated fatalities of Endangered or Threatened species. ... In the case of this project, where wildlife losses potentially could be very substantial and significant, we must take a conservative approach to assessing risk and designing appropriate mitigation. The data needs for pre- and post-construction evaluation, monitoring, and mitigation should not be dictated by project applicants or consultants .... High fatality rates at this site would particularly be devastating to bats because of their reproductive strategy, which is atypical of a small mammal. ... They have small litters (typically one or two young), only one litter per year, and life expectancy of 12-15 years. With this strategy, the impact of the loss of individuals is much greater, especially within small populations. ... In addition to bats, we are concerned over potential eagle fatalities at this site. ... We have recommended that the applicant consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning potential take of federal Endangered or Threatened species. We cannot authorize take of federally listed species. The applicant’s consultants have downplayed the potential for such take but, in our opinion, the evidence suggests a strong likelihood of take."
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, animal rights
September 22, 2006
Bluff and bluster of wind supporters
A recent post on the National Forum of Australia (click the title):
One of the things that stands out about wind is its apparent inability to replace other sources. That is a big shortcoming. At least other sources -- renewable and otherwise -- produce useful electricity for the grid, so there is something against which to weigh the costs. As for the growth of the wind energy business, religious fundamentalism is growing around the world, too. That in itself does not make it right or true. The fact of the issue at hand is that the industry has yet to show any evidence of actual benefit from wind power on the grid. Their massive erections seem more like the giant statues on Rapa Nui, a desperate but very wrongheaded effort to fend off environmental disaster.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, ecoanarchism
One of the things that stands out about wind is its apparent inability to replace other sources. That is a big shortcoming. At least other sources -- renewable and otherwise -- produce useful electricity for the grid, so there is something against which to weigh the costs. As for the growth of the wind energy business, religious fundamentalism is growing around the world, too. That in itself does not make it right or true. The fact of the issue at hand is that the industry has yet to show any evidence of actual benefit from wind power on the grid. Their massive erections seem more like the giant statues on Rapa Nui, a desperate but very wrongheaded effort to fend off environmental disaster.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, ecoanarchism
Irish wind energy planning guidelines
This is from section 5.6 of recent (June 2006) planning guidelines for wind energy from the Irish Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
In quieter places (ambient less than 30 dB), they suggest an upper limit of 35-40 dB rather than a relative limit of 5 dB above ambient.
Their recommendation of 43 dB at night obviously applies to the noisier places, being meant as a lower maximum to allow sleep.
They also suggest that noise will not be a problem at a distance farther than 500 m, or just over 1,500 feet. (Note, however, the U.K. Noise Association's recommendation of a minimum distance of one mile from residences and the French Academy of Medicine's similar recommendation of 1.5 km.)
The 500 m limit is considered later (section 5.12) to also apply for shadow flicker, but they also state that flicker may still be a problem at a distance of 10 times the rotor diameter.
And here's an odd directive for maintaining "visual amenity": "Rotors should be kept rotating ..." (section 6.13) As many people have suggested, the generator acts as a motor if more electricity comes in than goes out, and that turbines are often seen turning with only a slight breeze. It has been suggested that it looks better to have them turning ...
Also in the same section: "Nacelles and towers should be kept clear of leakage from internal fluids." That suggests, of course, that leaks are common.
More (section 6.15): "Decommissioning should involve the removal of all of the aboveground elements of the wind energy development and making good of the site, with the possible exception of roads and tracks where some further use can be found for them and this is approved by the planning authority. Foundation pads can be covered with local soil and left for natural re-vegetation, although they should be re-sodded in highly exposed locations." A reminder that "restoration" of the site means leaving several tons of cement and steel right below the surface. That is the usual provision in the U.S. as well.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism
In general, a lower fixed limit of 45dB(A)10 or a maximum increase of 5dB(A) above background noise at nearby noise sensitive locations is considered appropriate to provide protection to wind energy development neighbours. However, in very quiet areas, the use of a margin of 5dB(A) above background noise at nearby noise sensitive properties is not necessary to offer a reasonable degree of protection and may unduly restrict wind energy developments which should be recognised as having wider national and global benefits. Instead, in low noise environments where background noise is less than 30dB(A), it is recommended that the daytime level of the LA90, 10min of the wind energy development noise be limited to an absolute level within the range of 35-40dB(A).Note they distinguish quieter rural areas from more suburban (I guess) areas. The allowable range for the noisier areas is from 45 dB to 5 dB above ambient. Obviously, this presumes an ambient level of at least 40 dB.
Separate noise limits should apply for day-time and for night-time. During the night the protection of external amenity becomes less important and the emphasis should be on preventing sleep disturbance. A fixed limit of 43dB(A) will protect sleep inside properties during the night.
In general, noise is unlikely to be a significant problem where the distance from the nearest turbine to any noise sensitive property is more than 500 metres. Planning authorities may seek evidence that the type(s) of turbines proposed will use best current engineering practice in terms of noise creation and suppression.
In quieter places (ambient less than 30 dB), they suggest an upper limit of 35-40 dB rather than a relative limit of 5 dB above ambient.
Their recommendation of 43 dB at night obviously applies to the noisier places, being meant as a lower maximum to allow sleep.
They also suggest that noise will not be a problem at a distance farther than 500 m, or just over 1,500 feet. (Note, however, the U.K. Noise Association's recommendation of a minimum distance of one mile from residences and the French Academy of Medicine's similar recommendation of 1.5 km.)
The 500 m limit is considered later (section 5.12) to also apply for shadow flicker, but they also state that flicker may still be a problem at a distance of 10 times the rotor diameter.
And here's an odd directive for maintaining "visual amenity": "Rotors should be kept rotating ..." (section 6.13) As many people have suggested, the generator acts as a motor if more electricity comes in than goes out, and that turbines are often seen turning with only a slight breeze. It has been suggested that it looks better to have them turning ...
Also in the same section: "Nacelles and towers should be kept clear of leakage from internal fluids." That suggests, of course, that leaks are common.
More (section 6.15): "Decommissioning should involve the removal of all of the aboveground elements of the wind energy development and making good of the site, with the possible exception of roads and tracks where some further use can be found for them and this is approved by the planning authority. Foundation pads can be covered with local soil and left for natural re-vegetation, although they should be re-sodded in highly exposed locations." A reminder that "restoration" of the site means leaving several tons of cement and steel right below the surface. That is the usual provision in the U.S. as well.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism
September 20, 2006
Interview about organics disappointing
Guest editorial about Salon article (click title):
This guy is the classic American capitalist dolt. He thinks everything is going swimmingly, and if Americans don't have a "languid Mediterranean culture" and are always in a rush and everyone in the family has to work just to scrape by or to buy lots of stuff, and families don't eat together, and Starbucks' McDonald's-like sterility and sameness invades every street corner, that's fine by him. Hey, we are rushed Americans and so what? Ain't life grand in busy-land? He's a modern guy, who cares about those old finger-wagging fogies nattering on about homecooked meals of real food? We aren't time-wasting Europeans, after all! Because you can now routinely get mesclun and good coffee, he surmises that Americans eat better and society is improving. Why then is obesity and diabetes on the rise? Why is there more junk food around than ever before? Do average Americans really eat that much organic food, or even recognize many healthful foods like kale or mustard greens, for example? Just look at the terrible school lunches most American kids eat (even though they are supposedly being improved, they don't seem to have changed significantly) and the junk that they bring from home in their lunchboxes. It's not that their parents don't care; it's that they really don't seem to know what nutritious food is. And there are people in this country who go hungry for lack of food. Food pantries and soup kitchens are serving more people, not less. And why would Mr. Arugula continue to buy Jif peanut butter if he could choose organic peanut butter? Peanuts are one of the most heavily pesticided crops there are. People are free to eat what they like -- the problem is that these pesticides are poisoning the planet, which means all of us. There's no reason for an unnecessary product like Jif to even exist. Organics shouldn't be just a consumer choice, it's about the bigger picture. And why is it acceptable that it's actually abnormal to have a family that cooks its own real food everyday and eats it together? Families like that aren't busy enough!! If you have time to make meals from scratch and eat in a civilized manner by candlelight, you don't have enough to do or are just an old person out of touch with progress! Apparently Americans should have more important activities than routinely cooking real meals and then sitting down together to enjoy the food, the company and conversation.
We need to try to be more like those more "languid" cultures; not simply dismiss the idea that this society could ever change or that it is even a desirable thing to evolve. This country isn't doing too well right now, on many different levels, but apparently this "Arugula" guy hasn't noticed. People do die from overwork, from relentless stress, from eating tons of meat and crappy junk foods that pass as meals. The fracturing of family life has made this society more sterile, shallow, alienating and even more violent. Many kids seem to barely have any connection to their parents and many parents seem to avoid their kids. It isn't like this in most of the rest of the world, not to the extent it is here anyway. In most other societies, there is still a true relationship and respect between the generations and some of this is because those families eat together, and not in a big rush.
It's true that there is more produce and usually some tofu available in most American markets now. But there are plenty of people shopping at markets where it really isn't so different from stores in the 1960s, with little or no organic produce to speak of. Maybe there is now a bit of chard and kale, but it is always pesticided. And organics are definitely expensive, even if they are worth it, so many people can't afford to buy them regularly. But it is a whole sea change that needs to take place -- people cooking their own healthy meals, growing some of their own vegetables if possible, working less if possible, slowing down, educating themselves about pesticides, GMOs and the cruel folly of meat-eating. This will not happen easily. But it is tiresome to see someone glamorizing lethal American busyness and the endless crap that envelops this ugly nation. If we were really improving, there'd be lots of real cafes with distinct identities not owned by corporations serving good coffee, not just boring Starbucks selling overpriced treats. Starbucks is not progress. Maybe people could figure out that they could make their own superb coffee at home and carry it with them, resist advertising and stop automatically supporting every corporate giant that comes along.
This guy is the classic American capitalist dolt. He thinks everything is going swimmingly, and if Americans don't have a "languid Mediterranean culture" and are always in a rush and everyone in the family has to work just to scrape by or to buy lots of stuff, and families don't eat together, and Starbucks' McDonald's-like sterility and sameness invades every street corner, that's fine by him. Hey, we are rushed Americans and so what? Ain't life grand in busy-land? He's a modern guy, who cares about those old finger-wagging fogies nattering on about homecooked meals of real food? We aren't time-wasting Europeans, after all! Because you can now routinely get mesclun and good coffee, he surmises that Americans eat better and society is improving. Why then is obesity and diabetes on the rise? Why is there more junk food around than ever before? Do average Americans really eat that much organic food, or even recognize many healthful foods like kale or mustard greens, for example? Just look at the terrible school lunches most American kids eat (even though they are supposedly being improved, they don't seem to have changed significantly) and the junk that they bring from home in their lunchboxes. It's not that their parents don't care; it's that they really don't seem to know what nutritious food is. And there are people in this country who go hungry for lack of food. Food pantries and soup kitchens are serving more people, not less. And why would Mr. Arugula continue to buy Jif peanut butter if he could choose organic peanut butter? Peanuts are one of the most heavily pesticided crops there are. People are free to eat what they like -- the problem is that these pesticides are poisoning the planet, which means all of us. There's no reason for an unnecessary product like Jif to even exist. Organics shouldn't be just a consumer choice, it's about the bigger picture. And why is it acceptable that it's actually abnormal to have a family that cooks its own real food everyday and eats it together? Families like that aren't busy enough!! If you have time to make meals from scratch and eat in a civilized manner by candlelight, you don't have enough to do or are just an old person out of touch with progress! Apparently Americans should have more important activities than routinely cooking real meals and then sitting down together to enjoy the food, the company and conversation.
We need to try to be more like those more "languid" cultures; not simply dismiss the idea that this society could ever change or that it is even a desirable thing to evolve. This country isn't doing too well right now, on many different levels, but apparently this "Arugula" guy hasn't noticed. People do die from overwork, from relentless stress, from eating tons of meat and crappy junk foods that pass as meals. The fracturing of family life has made this society more sterile, shallow, alienating and even more violent. Many kids seem to barely have any connection to their parents and many parents seem to avoid their kids. It isn't like this in most of the rest of the world, not to the extent it is here anyway. In most other societies, there is still a true relationship and respect between the generations and some of this is because those families eat together, and not in a big rush.
It's true that there is more produce and usually some tofu available in most American markets now. But there are plenty of people shopping at markets where it really isn't so different from stores in the 1960s, with little or no organic produce to speak of. Maybe there is now a bit of chard and kale, but it is always pesticided. And organics are definitely expensive, even if they are worth it, so many people can't afford to buy them regularly. But it is a whole sea change that needs to take place -- people cooking their own healthy meals, growing some of their own vegetables if possible, working less if possible, slowing down, educating themselves about pesticides, GMOs and the cruel folly of meat-eating. This will not happen easily. But it is tiresome to see someone glamorizing lethal American busyness and the endless crap that envelops this ugly nation. If we were really improving, there'd be lots of real cafes with distinct identities not owned by corporations serving good coffee, not just boring Starbucks selling overpriced treats. Starbucks is not progress. Maybe people could figure out that they could make their own superb coffee at home and carry it with them, resist advertising and stop automatically supporting every corporate giant that comes along.
September 19, 2006
Wind facility refused in Kilbraney, Ireland
Proposed development: Construction of a windfarm consisting of 17 number wind turbines (hub height 80 metres, blade diameter 82 metres), electrical tail station and control building, construction of new, and extension of existing internal site tracks and associated works at Kilbraney in the townlands of Kilbraney, Coolboy, Kayle, Ballynamona, Ballyliamgow, Bryanstown, Tinnarath and Ballygarvan, County Wexford.
Decision
REFUSE permission for the above proposed development based on the reasons and considerations set out below.
1. Having regard to the location of the site in an area of mainly flat and undulating farmland characterised by a patchwork of fields delineated by hedgerows of varying size and with an extansive scattering of houses, it is considered that the proposed development, by reason the scale of the individual turbine units and the spatial extent and layout of the windfarm, would conflict with the Wind Energy Development Guidelines issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in June, 2006, would give rise to visual clutter in an attractive rural area and would be unduly prominent when seen from residential properties in the vicinity. The proposed development would be visually obtrusive, would seriously injure the amenities of property within and surrounding the windfarm and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. ...
Dated this 14th day of September 2006.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, Ireland
September 18, 2006
Letter made false claims about wind energy
To the editor, Barre-Montpelier (Vt.) Times-Argus:
The only thing "inexhaustible" about industrial wind power appears to be its advocates' insistence that it has any value at all to justify desecrating wild places and destroying rural communities.
The Sept. 17 letter from Tom Gray of the American Wind Energy Association attempts to claim that wind does in fact displace other sources of energy. He does so by citing a paper that says it will. Why doesn't he cite a paper that says it has, e.g., in Denmark, Spain, or Germany, where wind energy is well established? The fact is, there doesn't seem to be any such paper.
The industry continues to fantasize about future success, despite an ongoing record that shows no benefits from wind energy at all. "Errors of fact and omission" are their stock in trade.
It's no wonder, then, that opposition to this destructive boondoggle only grows. The "errors" of industrial-scale wind energy are increasingly hard to deny.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
The only thing "inexhaustible" about industrial wind power appears to be its advocates' insistence that it has any value at all to justify desecrating wild places and destroying rural communities.
The Sept. 17 letter from Tom Gray of the American Wind Energy Association attempts to claim that wind does in fact displace other sources of energy. He does so by citing a paper that says it will. Why doesn't he cite a paper that says it has, e.g., in Denmark, Spain, or Germany, where wind energy is well established? The fact is, there doesn't seem to be any such paper.
The industry continues to fantasize about future success, despite an ongoing record that shows no benefits from wind energy at all. "Errors of fact and omission" are their stock in trade.
It's no wonder, then, that opposition to this destructive boondoggle only grows. The "errors" of industrial-scale wind energy are increasingly hard to deny.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
September 17, 2006
"Why do you hate America?"
Mickey Z. writes in Counterpunch, "Why I Hate America; and Why I'm Not Leaving":
When pressed, I sometimes reply: "I don't hate America. In fact, think it's one of the best countries anyone ever stole." But, after the laughter dies down, I have a confession to make: If by "America" they mean the elected/appointed officials and the corporations that own them, well, I guess I do hate that America -- with justification.
Among many reasons, I hate America for the near-extermination and subsequent oppression of its indigenous population. I hate it for its role in the African slave trade and for dropping atomic bombs on civilians. I hate its control of institutions like the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organization. I hate it for propping up brutal dictators like Suharto, Pinochet, Duvalier, Hussein, Marcos, and the Shah of Iran. I hate America for its unconditional support for Israel. I hate its bogus two-party system, its one-size-fits-all culture, and its income gap. I could go on for pages but I'll sum up with this: I hate America for being a hypocritical white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.
After a paragraph like that, you know what comes next: If you hate America so much, why don't you leave? Leave America? That would potentially put me on the other end of U.S. foreign policy. No thanks.
I like how Paul Robeson answered that question before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1956: "My father was a slave and my people died to build this country, and I'm going to stay right here and have a part of it, just like you. And no fascist-minded people like you will drive me from it. Is that clear?"
Since none of my people died to build anything, I rely instead on William Blum, who declares, "I'm committed to fighting U.S. foreign policy, the greatest threat to peace and happiness in the world, and being in the United States is the best place for carrying out the battle. This is the belly of the beast, and I try to be an ulcer inside of it."
Needless to say, none of the above does a damn thing to placate the yellow ribbon crowd. It seems what offends flag-wavers most is when someone like me makes use of the freedom they claim to adore. According to their twisted logic, I am ungrateful for my liberty if I have the audacity to exercise it. If I make the choice to not salute the flag during the seventh inning stretch at Yankee Stadium, somehow I'm not worthy of having the freedom to make the choice to not salute the flag during the seventh inning stretch at Yankee Stadium. These so-called patriots not only claim to celebrate freedom while refusing my right to exploit it, they also ignore the social movements that fought for and won such freedoms.
There's plenty of tolerated public outcry against the Bush administration and the occupation of Iraq, but it's neither fashionable nor acceptable to go as far as saying, no, I do not support the troops and yes, I hate what America does. Fear of recrimination allows the status quo to control the terms of debate. Until we voice what is in our hearts and have the nerve to admit what we hate . . . we will never create something that can be loved.
When pressed, I sometimes reply: "I don't hate America. In fact, think it's one of the best countries anyone ever stole." But, after the laughter dies down, I have a confession to make: If by "America" they mean the elected/appointed officials and the corporations that own them, well, I guess I do hate that America -- with justification.
Among many reasons, I hate America for the near-extermination and subsequent oppression of its indigenous population. I hate it for its role in the African slave trade and for dropping atomic bombs on civilians. I hate its control of institutions like the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organization. I hate it for propping up brutal dictators like Suharto, Pinochet, Duvalier, Hussein, Marcos, and the Shah of Iran. I hate America for its unconditional support for Israel. I hate its bogus two-party system, its one-size-fits-all culture, and its income gap. I could go on for pages but I'll sum up with this: I hate America for being a hypocritical white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.
After a paragraph like that, you know what comes next: If you hate America so much, why don't you leave? Leave America? That would potentially put me on the other end of U.S. foreign policy. No thanks.
I like how Paul Robeson answered that question before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1956: "My father was a slave and my people died to build this country, and I'm going to stay right here and have a part of it, just like you. And no fascist-minded people like you will drive me from it. Is that clear?"
Since none of my people died to build anything, I rely instead on William Blum, who declares, "I'm committed to fighting U.S. foreign policy, the greatest threat to peace and happiness in the world, and being in the United States is the best place for carrying out the battle. This is the belly of the beast, and I try to be an ulcer inside of it."
Needless to say, none of the above does a damn thing to placate the yellow ribbon crowd. It seems what offends flag-wavers most is when someone like me makes use of the freedom they claim to adore. According to their twisted logic, I am ungrateful for my liberty if I have the audacity to exercise it. If I make the choice to not salute the flag during the seventh inning stretch at Yankee Stadium, somehow I'm not worthy of having the freedom to make the choice to not salute the flag during the seventh inning stretch at Yankee Stadium. These so-called patriots not only claim to celebrate freedom while refusing my right to exploit it, they also ignore the social movements that fought for and won such freedoms.
There's plenty of tolerated public outcry against the Bush administration and the occupation of Iraq, but it's neither fashionable nor acceptable to go as far as saying, no, I do not support the troops and yes, I hate what America does. Fear of recrimination allows the status quo to control the terms of debate. Until we voice what is in our hearts and have the nerve to admit what we hate . . . we will never create something that can be loved.
September 15, 2006
The Persians
From The Persians, by Aeschylus (472 BC), translation by Seth G. Benardete:
| For these my son, exacting as requital Punishment (or so he thought) Called on himself so numerous A train of woes. --Queen They, invading Greece, felt no awe, They did not hesitate to plunder images Of gods, and put temples to the torch; Altars were no more, and statues, like trees, Were uprooted, torn from their bases In all confusion. Thus their wickedness Shall no less make them suffer: Other woes the future holds in store, And still the fount of evils is not quenched, It wells up, and overflows: so great will be The sacrificial cake of clotted gore Made at Plataea by Dorian spear. And corpses, piled up like sand, shall witness, Mute, even to the century to come, Before the eyes of men, that never, being Mortal, ought we cast our thoughts too high. Insolence, once blossoming, bears Its fruit, a tasseled field of doom, from which A weeping harvest's reaped, all tears. --Darius |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)