Wind Power Finance and Investment Summit, Feb. 7, 2008, San Diego, Calif.
Session: Independent Wind Developers' Perspectives on Wind Financing and Development
Moderator:
Lee Goodwin, Partner and Co-Chair, Energy, Utility and Infrastructure, Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP
Panelists:
John Calaway, Chief Development Officer, Wind North America, Babcock & Brown
Doug Carter, Vice President of Development, Invenergy
Craig Mataczynski, President, Renewable Energy Systems
Jan Paulin, President and CEO, Padoma Wind Power, LLC/an NRG Energy, Inc. company
Niels Rydder, Chairman and CEO, Oak Creek Energy Systems, Inc.
Florian Zerhusen, Managing Director, Windkraft Nord USA, Inc.
The U.S. has 200,000 MWs of potential wind energy. Within ten years we will reach 100,000 MW of development "as long as there are adequate policies in place". The industry is consolidating at light speed. Major capital risk is being spread out over large portfolios. It is all about the economies of scale. The dominant players will be the bigger guys. Transition to utility ownership is just starting.
As the technology advances and taller turbines become available sites in Ohio and Indiana will become more desirable. No breakthroughs in technology are anticipated, just incremental advances.
Up until now the industry has done everything by tax incentives. How do we think long term? We copy the Spanish model and price in external costs of burning coal to make wind look better. We need both an RPS and a PTC.
One panelist said that they have established minimum setbacks; they want to be a long-term owner on good terms with their communities. They will not 'flip' their projects (like some he could mention). They advocate responsible development. He advises not to try to put too many turbines in a project at the expense of neighbors.
More states are developing guidelines for wildlife protection.
Is the FAA another hump to overcome? "One guy out of Pennsylvania is now in charge of all the work with turbines at the FAA. He is reasonable and easy to work with." The Department of Defense is another story.
An audience member asked whether turbines built in waterfowl flyways were causing fatalities. A panelist answered saying that, "it was not a problem in Iowa because waterfowl are daytime flyers and they don't get into trouble." "A few nocturnal migrants will get clipped." As towers get higher this could become a problem.
Another question from the audience was if the oil industry felt threatened by the wind industry. There was a murmur of laughter and apparently the answer was "no". A panelist said that real estate agents and well heeled neighbors were a bigger problem.
Another question, "was the uncertainty of the PTC affecting business?" The answer, "It affects my sleep more than the business, we need some other value driver or we will be looking for work. We will start loosing qualified people if we don't see some change soon. People will move to other industries."
A panelist said that the PTC was "getting old" and another questioned "the prudence of continuing with a one trick pony". Cap and trade, carbon tax, federal RPS, being able to trade across state lines were all mentioned as ways to get away from the PTC. The problem is "all or nothing".
On the financial side, new players are now bound by the bottom line of quarterly reports not the long-term view. The risk is now on the balance sheet. Equity must now sponsor the risk not turbine manufacturers. Turbines for 2011 must be ordered now with a capital outlay, while projects may not be firmly set.
Florian Zerhusen said that his company has determined it isn't feasible to propose projects east of the Mississippi River. In reference to all the talk about getting beyond the PTC, he said that the industry must put their costs on consumers; they must pay to make wind projects work. He pointed to the fact that in Italy wind receives 12 cents per KW. He said that state RPSs are driving the market at the moment.
The cost of raw materials (copper, steel, transformers etc.) for turbines has increased substantially.
Transportation is now 10% to 15% of the total cost of a project.
Oklahoma is building a turbine manufacturing facility. No one wants to invest in manufacturing because of the uncertainty of the industry.
"Wind will never become competitive unless it is recognized that coal has other costs -- it's not possible."
Turbine warranties have been cut because it is a sellers' market. "We can only hope that there will not be massive failures as in the past." Machines are new and have not been tested in the field. Will they perform for twenty years? Most warranties are for two to five years.
Manufacturers are walking off site sooner and sooner. No one knows how much maintenance will cost over twenty years. Consumers must assume these risks.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms
March 1, 2008
Lessons from Europe
Denmark produces 20% of its electric power from wind, but is able to use less than 20% of it, exporting most of it to larger neighbors that can absorb it. Plans to double that figure over the next few decades are already running into fierce opposition from potential host communities. Denmark hasn't added new wind capacity since 2004. Off-shore projects have proven to be prohibitively expensive and technically problematic.
In Germany, more than 22,000 MW of wind turbines cover the country, generating 5% of its electricity. Yet 26 new coal plants are still planned, and 8 are on a fast track. Emissions continue to grow, because the grid has to continue operating as if the wind turbines aren't there -- because more often than not, they aren't generating electricity when there is an actual need.
In Britain, the Dept. of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform reports that fossil fuel use for electricity increased -- not decreased -- 1.5 times more than the production from wind turbines from 2002 to 2006. (That's after accounting for reductions in nuclear, hydro, and imports during that period and for increased consumption.)
The modern wind industry was created by Enron in the 1990s, and it remains a harmful tax avoidance scheme, industrializing our few remaining open spaces and mountain forests and siphoning public funds away from real solutions.
[This was written in reply to Cape Wind propagandist Wendy Williams' article in the March 2 Parade magazine. See later post for references (click here).]
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, vegetarianism
In Germany, more than 22,000 MW of wind turbines cover the country, generating 5% of its electricity. Yet 26 new coal plants are still planned, and 8 are on a fast track. Emissions continue to grow, because the grid has to continue operating as if the wind turbines aren't there -- because more often than not, they aren't generating electricity when there is an actual need.
In Britain, the Dept. of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform reports that fossil fuel use for electricity increased -- not decreased -- 1.5 times more than the production from wind turbines from 2002 to 2006. (That's after accounting for reductions in nuclear, hydro, and imports during that period and for increased consumption.)
The modern wind industry was created by Enron in the 1990s, and it remains a harmful tax avoidance scheme, industrializing our few remaining open spaces and mountain forests and siphoning public funds away from real solutions.
[This was written in reply to Cape Wind propagandist Wendy Williams' article in the March 2 Parade magazine. See later post for references (click here).]
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, vegetarianism
February 23, 2008
U.K. fossil fuel use for electricity, 2002-2006
From 2002 to 2006, fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and oil) use for the generation of electricity in the U.K. increased 4.664 mtoe (million tonnes oil equivalent). But electricity generation increased only 0.73 mtoe. This is according to data provided in the 2007 Digest of U.K. Energy Statistics from the Dept. for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform [BERR (formerly DTI, Dept. of Trade and Industry)].
Part of the increase in fossil fuels was due to a decline in nuclear, hydro, and imported sources totaling 2.363 mtoe. That still leaves an increase of 2.301 mtoe in fossil fuel use for an increased electricity supply of only 0.73 mtoe.
That increase of fossil fuels of more than three times the increase of electricity is even more surprising because nonhydro renewables (primarily wind energy) increased 1.655 mtoe in the same period, and other fuels (e.g., burning trash) increased 0.468.
In other words, despite (or because of) building thousands of new wind turbines, the U.K. uses more fossil fuel to generate electricity.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
Part of the increase in fossil fuels was due to a decline in nuclear, hydro, and imported sources totaling 2.363 mtoe. That still leaves an increase of 2.301 mtoe in fossil fuel use for an increased electricity supply of only 0.73 mtoe.
That increase of fossil fuels of more than three times the increase of electricity is even more surprising because nonhydro renewables (primarily wind energy) increased 1.655 mtoe in the same period, and other fuels (e.g., burning trash) increased 0.468.
In other words, despite (or because of) building thousands of new wind turbines, the U.K. uses more fossil fuel to generate electricity.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
February 7, 2008
Let's Make Cape Wind History!
Click here (or the title of this post) to use an automatic form to write the Minerals Management Services. Change the content provided in that form to the text below (or something of your own).
I am writing to comment on the Cape Wind Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Project ID number: PLN-GOM-0003). Offshore wind promises but is unlikely to deliver an immediate, clean, safe and effective answer to either global warming or energy security. America’s first offshore wind farm, Cape Wind, will generate electricity equivalent to 75% of Cape Cod’s energy needs but without measurably affecting the fuel use of conventional generation plants -- because it is intermittent, highly variable, and to a significant degree unpredictable.
The environmental impacts caused by installing these turbines are undeniable, and they are particularly unjustified when considering the lack of real benefit. From local jobs to clean energy, this project is a harmful boondoggle.
I urge Minerals Management Services to avoid further delay and deny the Cape Wind project in a timely manner.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
I am writing to comment on the Cape Wind Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Project ID number: PLN-GOM-0003). Offshore wind promises but is unlikely to deliver an immediate, clean, safe and effective answer to either global warming or energy security. America’s first offshore wind farm, Cape Wind, will generate electricity equivalent to 75% of Cape Cod’s energy needs but without measurably affecting the fuel use of conventional generation plants -- because it is intermittent, highly variable, and to a significant degree unpredictable.
The environmental impacts caused by installing these turbines are undeniable, and they are particularly unjustified when considering the lack of real benefit. From local jobs to clean energy, this project is a harmful boondoggle.
I urge Minerals Management Services to avoid further delay and deny the Cape Wind project in a timely manner.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
Less than one-fourth of projected fuel savings from wind on Falklands
It is a simple concept that if wind energy is pushed into the electrical grid, then electricity from another source must be reduced. Wind industry promoters ignore the many factors that complicate the concept and claim that wind-generated electricity equals an equivalent reduction of the displaced source's fuel use.
They ignore the fuel used if a source is simply switched to standby, extra fuel used in ramping up and down in response to wind, and extra fuel burned when a plant operates at lower efficiency because of wind.
They also ignore the significant line loss in transporting wind energy from the remote locations where sprawling facilities are possible. And they ignore the likelihood that in large grid systems, the unpredictable and highly variable wind production is small enough to be simply ignored -- tolerated as a slight rise in line voltage -- especially in the remote areas where wind energy facilities are typically sited -- and allowed to dissipate as heat.
Skeptics point to these factors to try to explain the utter lack of data showing actual reductions of other fuels due to wind on the grid.
But at last -- with no help from wind promoters -- I have found some evidence of fuel savings in a closed island system, where the effect of wind would be most clearly seen.
According to the 2007 issue 4 of Wind Blatt, the Enercon magazine for wind energy, three Enercon E-33/330 kW wind turbines were installed at Sand Bay on East Falkland (Islas Malvinas), where they were expected to provide 20% of the electricity and thus projected to reduce fuel use at the island's diesel-fired plant by 20%. The diesel plant was burning about 4,000,000 liters per year, or about 11,000 liters per day. It provided a maximum load of 3.2 MW in winter and a minimum load of 1.1 MW in summer, with a total annual production of 15,000 MWh (average load 1.7 MW).
In other cases, that's usually the last one reads about fuel savings, but in this case there is a brief follow-up report with actual data.
According to the Falklands government, the wind turbines were officially opened June 29, 2007. On Sept. 20, 2007, they noted that the Sand Bay wind turbines were saving 800-1,000 liters of diesel fuel per day. Wind energy was providing 23% of the electricity at night and 13% during the day (an average of 18%).
But 900 liters is only 8.2% of the previous annual daily fuel use of 11,000 liters. And it is only 4.3% of the daily winter fuel use.
From this admittedly scant information, it appears that although these fast-responding diesel generators may generate 18% less electricity because of wind, they burn only 4-8% less fuel.
Using the winter estimates (the Falklands are in the southern hemisphere), that's a savings of less than one-fourth the amount projected.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
They ignore the fuel used if a source is simply switched to standby, extra fuel used in ramping up and down in response to wind, and extra fuel burned when a plant operates at lower efficiency because of wind.
They also ignore the significant line loss in transporting wind energy from the remote locations where sprawling facilities are possible. And they ignore the likelihood that in large grid systems, the unpredictable and highly variable wind production is small enough to be simply ignored -- tolerated as a slight rise in line voltage -- especially in the remote areas where wind energy facilities are typically sited -- and allowed to dissipate as heat.
Skeptics point to these factors to try to explain the utter lack of data showing actual reductions of other fuels due to wind on the grid.
But at last -- with no help from wind promoters -- I have found some evidence of fuel savings in a closed island system, where the effect of wind would be most clearly seen.
According to the 2007 issue 4 of Wind Blatt, the Enercon magazine for wind energy, three Enercon E-33/330 kW wind turbines were installed at Sand Bay on East Falkland (Islas Malvinas), where they were expected to provide 20% of the electricity and thus projected to reduce fuel use at the island's diesel-fired plant by 20%. The diesel plant was burning about 4,000,000 liters per year, or about 11,000 liters per day. It provided a maximum load of 3.2 MW in winter and a minimum load of 1.1 MW in summer, with a total annual production of 15,000 MWh (average load 1.7 MW).
In other cases, that's usually the last one reads about fuel savings, but in this case there is a brief follow-up report with actual data.
According to the Falklands government, the wind turbines were officially opened June 29, 2007. On Sept. 20, 2007, they noted that the Sand Bay wind turbines were saving 800-1,000 liters of diesel fuel per day. Wind energy was providing 23% of the electricity at night and 13% during the day (an average of 18%).
But 900 liters is only 8.2% of the previous annual daily fuel use of 11,000 liters. And it is only 4.3% of the daily winter fuel use.
From this admittedly scant information, it appears that although these fast-responding diesel generators may generate 18% less electricity because of wind, they burn only 4-8% less fuel.
Using the winter estimates (the Falklands are in the southern hemisphere), that's a savings of less than one-fourth the amount projected.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
January 28, 2008
Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler
Mark Bittman writes in the "Week in Review", New York Times, Sunday, Jan. 29 (click the title of this post for the complete article):
Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States. ...
If price spikes don’t change eating habits, perhaps the combination of deforestation, pollution, climate change, starvation, heart disease and animal cruelty will gradually encourage the simple daily act of eating more plants and fewer animals.
environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, vegetarianism
Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States. ...
If price spikes don’t change eating habits, perhaps the combination of deforestation, pollution, climate change, starvation, heart disease and animal cruelty will gradually encourage the simple daily act of eating more plants and fewer animals.
environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, vegetarianism
January 24, 2008
Tell Congress NOT to extend wind energy Production Tax Credit (PTC)
Click here (or the title of this post) to use an automatic form to write your members of Congress. Change the content provided in that form to the text below (or something of your own).
DO NOT Extend the renewable energy Production Tax Credit
Wind energy facilities currently benefit from having up to 75% of their capital value paid for by taxpayers through not only the 10-year Production Tax Credit, but also 5-year double-declining balance accelerated depreciation, a variety of grants and other incentives, and state and municipal tax breaks. In addition to selling electricity, they are able to sell "renewable energy credits" to further increase their profits.
These facilities are usually developed by developers funded by private investors, increasingly from other countries, who more than welcome such largesse with the public's money. In fact, they clamor for it, pretending it is necessary to their success and that their interests is purely beneficial to all.
Besides the obvious unfairness of this funding, wherever giant wind facilities are constructed, the public has complained of serious ill effects, from loss of natural views, environmental harm, and adverse effects on wildlife and even human health.
DO NOT Extend the renewable energy Production Tax Credit.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
DO NOT Extend the renewable energy Production Tax Credit
Wind energy facilities currently benefit from having up to 75% of their capital value paid for by taxpayers through not only the 10-year Production Tax Credit, but also 5-year double-declining balance accelerated depreciation, a variety of grants and other incentives, and state and municipal tax breaks. In addition to selling electricity, they are able to sell "renewable energy credits" to further increase their profits.
These facilities are usually developed by developers funded by private investors, increasingly from other countries, who more than welcome such largesse with the public's money. In fact, they clamor for it, pretending it is necessary to their success and that their interests is purely beneficial to all.
Besides the obvious unfairness of this funding, wherever giant wind facilities are constructed, the public has complained of serious ill effects, from loss of natural views, environmental harm, and adverse effects on wildlife and even human health.
DO NOT Extend the renewable energy Production Tax Credit.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
Billiary
[Hillary Clinton] is predicting that electing her Democratic rival, Barack Obama, will invite a terror attack because he has less experience than she has. If you wonder if you've heard that kind of argument before, you have. It has been a staple of hardball Republican politics for the past seven years: vote for the Democrats and the terrorists win.
But Clinton deftly purloined it for her own purposes, pivoting a classic Karl Rove tactic against one of her opponents ... Ever since the Clintons' near-death experience in the Iowa vote, their campaign has been playing a very Rovian game. The use of the politics of fear is just the start. In fact classic Rovian tactics are now at the heart of the Clinton campaign.
First, play to your base. Obama continues to appeal beyond core Democrats to independents and even a surprising number of disenchanted Republicans. Clinton decided, in response, to craft her appeal directly to core Democrats: public sector employees, the elderly, working women, the urban middle class. . .
Second, attack your opponent on his strong point ... Obama's biggest strength among Democrats is his early and clear opposition to the Iraq war. And so, following Rove's golden rule, Bill Clinton dismissed Obama's long opposition to the war as a "fairy tale". Because in 2004 Obama had refrained from criticising Kerry's pro-war vote, Clinton argued that Obama implicitly agreed with it. Because he had voted - like so many others - to continue funding the troops, Obama was no different than Hillary. It didn't work. But it was a classic Rove try.
Third, wedge issues. Rove's classic example was same-sex marriage; a way to pit one largely Democratic constituency - gays - against others, namely socially conservative white ethnics and blacks. Hillary Clinton's task in a Democratic primary is much trickier. But gender and race remain potent political tools for the unscrupulous. And she has used both.
But Clinton deftly purloined it for her own purposes, pivoting a classic Karl Rove tactic against one of her opponents ... Ever since the Clintons' near-death experience in the Iowa vote, their campaign has been playing a very Rovian game. The use of the politics of fear is just the start. In fact classic Rovian tactics are now at the heart of the Clinton campaign.
First, play to your base. Obama continues to appeal beyond core Democrats to independents and even a surprising number of disenchanted Republicans. Clinton decided, in response, to craft her appeal directly to core Democrats: public sector employees, the elderly, working women, the urban middle class. . .
Second, attack your opponent on his strong point ... Obama's biggest strength among Democrats is his early and clear opposition to the Iraq war. And so, following Rove's golden rule, Bill Clinton dismissed Obama's long opposition to the war as a "fairy tale". Because in 2004 Obama had refrained from criticising Kerry's pro-war vote, Clinton argued that Obama implicitly agreed with it. Because he had voted - like so many others - to continue funding the troops, Obama was no different than Hillary. It didn't work. But it was a classic Rove try.
Third, wedge issues. Rove's classic example was same-sex marriage; a way to pit one largely Democratic constituency - gays - against others, namely socially conservative white ethnics and blacks. Hillary Clinton's task in a Democratic primary is much trickier. But gender and race remain potent political tools for the unscrupulous. And she has used both.
Andrew Sullivan, Times, U.K.
January 17, 2008
Clarity from Greenpeace U.K.
From the Greenpeace e-bulletin, Jan. 17, 2008:
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
Electricity is not the same as energy. The majority of our energy demandLet us hope such a clear view about nuclear power as "practically irrelevant" in fighting global warming extends to industrial wind power, which is even more so.
is for heat and transport. While nuclear power currently accounts for
about a fifth of our electricity generation, that is less than 4% of our
total energy demand.
86% of our oil and gas consumption is used for purposes other than
electricity. Most of the gas we use is for heating and hot water, or for
industrial purposes. Virtually all oil is used for transport. In this
instance, new nuclear power - which can only generate electricity - is
practically irrelevant.
There are real solutions though.
The real solutions to the energy gap and climate change are available
now. Energy efficiency, cleaner use of fossil fuels, renewables and
state of the art decentralised power stations like they have in
Scandinavia.
We can also decrease our oil dependence by improving vehicle efficiency,
public transport systems and reducing the need to travel, especially for
business by using new technology like video conferencing.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
January 11, 2008
Exit polls in New Hampshire gave clear lead to Obama
According to Chris Matthews on Hardball, the exit polls (which the public is no longer allowed to see) Tuesday evening showed a clear win for Barack Obama in New Hampshire's Democratic primary. (See earlier post about the possibility of vote-counting fraud.)
From the streets of Cleveland, Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich has called for a recount. The mainstream media scoffs, but such a blatant discrepancy between the exit polls and the results ought to make a recount automatic in a democracy. It's precisely the situation that sparked the "orange revolution" in the Ukraine and new elections there.
Click the title of this post for much more coverage of this issue from Brad Friedman.
From the streets of Cleveland, Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich has called for a recount. The mainstream media scoffs, but such a blatant discrepancy between the exit polls and the results ought to make a recount automatic in a democracy. It's precisely the situation that sparked the "orange revolution" in the Ukraine and new elections there.
Click the title of this post for much more coverage of this issue from Brad Friedman.
Were the polls really wrong about Obama in New Hampshire?
In my experience, polls are disturbingly accurate. My first thought about the early call in New Hampshire for McCain and the lack of a similar call on the Democratic side was that the early results in the latter were in clear conflict with the exit poll information. And when that happens, fraud must be considered. Ben Moseley writes:
And anyone who notes that it's Republican operatives that control the Diebold machines need only remember that it is very much in the interest of the Republicans to have Clinton as the Democratic nominee. She is not only quite defeatable as a divisive candidate with a ton of baggage, she is also pretty much Republican anyway.
I ... put together a spreadsheet of the Democratic results of the NH primary for each town with almost all but a few towns reporting ...Complete data are available at www.checkthevotes.com. An analysis showing that the Diebold difference could in fact simply be an urban/rural difference is available at drunkardslamppost.wordpress.com (although that does not answer why the vote differed so from the polls.
What the informal statistics show is that Hillary Clinton received a 4.5% boost [from the poll numbers] in towns using Diebold counting machines compared with towns that didn't. Cnversely, Obama ... showed a 2.5% decrease [from the poll numbers] in the Diebold towns. ... [Boost and decrease from what?]
The possibility of election fraud is important to consider because of the predictions heading into NH primaries. All the polls were showing Obama with at least a 7 point lead over Clinton, with a few showing a double-digit lead, which is no surprise considering Obama's win in Iowa over Clinton, who placed third in the caucuses.
Update I: Some more statistics from the data show that Obama in non-Diebold towns garnered 38.7% of the vote to Clinton's 36.2%. The results in Diebold towns show the exact opposite: Clinton with 40.7% of the vote and Obama with 36.2%. Not only are the positions swapped but the informal statistics have the second place candidate holding 36.2% in both cases, which may or may not be purely coincidence. ...
Update II: Another thing to notice is that the Diebold machines returned a 7-point difference (+4.5 for Clinton, -2.5 for Obama) which is exactly what the polls had been predicting [except in favor of Obama].
And anyone who notes that it's Republican operatives that control the Diebold machines need only remember that it is very much in the interest of the Republicans to have Clinton as the Democratic nominee. She is not only quite defeatable as a divisive candidate with a ton of baggage, she is also pretty much Republican anyway.
January 6, 2008
Windbearings, by Jennifer Delony
According to one Cohocton, N.Y., innkeeper, "there has been contention" between residents in support of and opposed to [Italy-based] UPC Wind's Cohocton Wind project. She is quick to note, however, that she is not for or against the wind farm, and she recognizes that we need renewable energy and progress happens [as Deng Xiaoping proclaims from billboards throughout China, "Development is the only rationale"]. This reasoned [i.e, following the industry's self-serving reasoning] resident of Cohocton adds that members of Cohocton's construction crew are staying at her inn, and they are "very nice." [Why wouldn't they be -- the problem is what they're constructing. Apparently, the industry believes its own slurs against nonpermanent residents.]
In New York state, this innkeeper's generosity of spirit toward progress [since it means a surge in her business] is not thoroughly pervasive. Wind power projects in New York have well-funded opposition, says Carol Murphy, executive director of the [very well funded, with 65 industry members annually paying up to $25,000 each] Alliance for Clean Energy New York [ACENY]. Ultimately, though, Murphy believes that these groups have not gained traction at the local government level [although they are up against the industry's generosity with bribes and a full-time PR machine, many communities have faced the industry down] and many of their members are not permanent New York residents [how dare they have an opinion or concern for the place!].
"It's people who are second-home owners and who, in some cases, may live there parttime, and they are retired," explains Murphy. "They tend to be a lot more affluent and don't want to look at a wind turbine on their pristine upstate New York property." [This complaint is of course a clear admission that wind turbines are indeed a blight. And it is an attempt to change the subject from the many complaints -- not just the view, but also noise and flicker, water pollution, lights at night, impacts on wildlife, the unreliability and thus minuscule benefit of wind, and more -- to dismissing all opponents because a few of them are "outsiders", which is not only cowardly and dishonest but absurd since the wind companies themselves are the true outside exploiters of the local community.]
Despite the opposition, Murphy remains confident. For every opposition group, she says, there is a group in support of wind power [though most are shams created by the developers]. She adds that one of New York's "premier" wind power support groups, Friends of Renewable Energy in Fenner [actually based in Jordanville, and created by developer Community Energy (which is owned by Scottish Energy which is owned by Iberdrola of Spain)], N.Y., is so proud of the region's wind power that the group is developing new strategies for reaching out to the public. The 30 MW Fenner wind project, which has been fully operational since 2001, is one of the oldest utility-scale wind power facilities in New York.
"The group is raising money for a renewable energy education center, not just about wind farms, but also about other forms of renewable energy because Fenner has become a tourist destination," says Murphy. [Actually, it appears that Murphy's group, the very well funded ACENY, is behind the "Fenner Renewable Energy Education Center" (FREEC), working through their PR agency, Trieste Associates.] "And when other town supervisors, planning boards and citizens want to find out what the impacts of wind might be on their communities, they go and talk to the folks at Fenner." [The importance of highlighting the Fenner facility instead of the many other sites that have more recently gone up is that its 20 1.5-MW Enron machines are fewer and much smaller than those currently being proposed and built, which are 400 feet or more in height, with rotor diameters up to 100 yards.]
With a spring commissioning planned for Cohocton Wind, it is hard not to acknowledge the benefits the project is bringing to the community - from the innkeeper's lodging profits to millions of dollars in payments to the town. Some residents, however, consider the process of listing the project's benefits a distraction from other impacts they perceive as untenable [if there were benefits besides these crumbs from a massive transfer of public money to private companies, there would be something to debate; as it is, these "benefits" are just bribes and do not represent long-term or reliable economic development; there are many ways, in fact, that such payments adversely affect the economic security of communities (e.g., state payments may be correspondingly reduced), and the burden of the giant machines, transmission corridors, heavy-duty roads, and substations -- especially when the tax benefits expire, some in 5 years, others in 10, and the company no longer feels so generous -- may be greater than the crumbs from the company can cover; in addition, the damage to farm fields can be devastating, but leasing landowners are bound by their contracts to keep quiet -- see "What Have I Done?" for the story of one regretful farmer]. Next month, NAW will examine the role that open and transparent communication with stakeholders will have in helping wind power developers understand and accommodate public perception as they continue record-making progress in 2008.
--North American Windpower, January 2008
[Thanks to a concerned wind industry associate for sharing this editorial with us.]
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights
In New York state, this innkeeper's generosity of spirit toward progress [since it means a surge in her business] is not thoroughly pervasive. Wind power projects in New York have well-funded opposition, says Carol Murphy, executive director of the [very well funded, with 65 industry members annually paying up to $25,000 each] Alliance for Clean Energy New York [ACENY]. Ultimately, though, Murphy believes that these groups have not gained traction at the local government level [although they are up against the industry's generosity with bribes and a full-time PR machine, many communities have faced the industry down] and many of their members are not permanent New York residents [how dare they have an opinion or concern for the place!].
"It's people who are second-home owners and who, in some cases, may live there parttime, and they are retired," explains Murphy. "They tend to be a lot more affluent and don't want to look at a wind turbine on their pristine upstate New York property." [This complaint is of course a clear admission that wind turbines are indeed a blight. And it is an attempt to change the subject from the many complaints -- not just the view, but also noise and flicker, water pollution, lights at night, impacts on wildlife, the unreliability and thus minuscule benefit of wind, and more -- to dismissing all opponents because a few of them are "outsiders", which is not only cowardly and dishonest but absurd since the wind companies themselves are the true outside exploiters of the local community.]
Despite the opposition, Murphy remains confident. For every opposition group, she says, there is a group in support of wind power [though most are shams created by the developers]. She adds that one of New York's "premier" wind power support groups, Friends of Renewable Energy in Fenner [actually based in Jordanville, and created by developer Community Energy (which is owned by Scottish Energy which is owned by Iberdrola of Spain)], N.Y., is so proud of the region's wind power that the group is developing new strategies for reaching out to the public. The 30 MW Fenner wind project, which has been fully operational since 2001, is one of the oldest utility-scale wind power facilities in New York.
"The group is raising money for a renewable energy education center, not just about wind farms, but also about other forms of renewable energy because Fenner has become a tourist destination," says Murphy. [Actually, it appears that Murphy's group, the very well funded ACENY, is behind the "Fenner Renewable Energy Education Center" (FREEC), working through their PR agency, Trieste Associates.] "And when other town supervisors, planning boards and citizens want to find out what the impacts of wind might be on their communities, they go and talk to the folks at Fenner." [The importance of highlighting the Fenner facility instead of the many other sites that have more recently gone up is that its 20 1.5-MW Enron machines are fewer and much smaller than those currently being proposed and built, which are 400 feet or more in height, with rotor diameters up to 100 yards.]
With a spring commissioning planned for Cohocton Wind, it is hard not to acknowledge the benefits the project is bringing to the community - from the innkeeper's lodging profits to millions of dollars in payments to the town. Some residents, however, consider the process of listing the project's benefits a distraction from other impacts they perceive as untenable [if there were benefits besides these crumbs from a massive transfer of public money to private companies, there would be something to debate; as it is, these "benefits" are just bribes and do not represent long-term or reliable economic development; there are many ways, in fact, that such payments adversely affect the economic security of communities (e.g., state payments may be correspondingly reduced), and the burden of the giant machines, transmission corridors, heavy-duty roads, and substations -- especially when the tax benefits expire, some in 5 years, others in 10, and the company no longer feels so generous -- may be greater than the crumbs from the company can cover; in addition, the damage to farm fields can be devastating, but leasing landowners are bound by their contracts to keep quiet -- see "What Have I Done?" for the story of one regretful farmer]. Next month, NAW will examine the role that open and transparent communication with stakeholders will have in helping wind power developers understand and accommodate public perception as they continue record-making progress in 2008.
--North American Windpower, January 2008
[Thanks to a concerned wind industry associate for sharing this editorial with us.]
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights
December 30, 2007
Wind farm contaminates well
On July 4, 2007, a transformer in one of the substations at the 195-turbine "Maple Ridge" wind energy facility on Tug Hill in western New York exploded.* The wind company -- Iberdrola-owned Scottish Energy-owned PPM Atlantic -- reported the spill of 491 gallons of mineral oil to the N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and cleaned it up.
The DEC apparently never inspected the clean-up or even suggested to the company possible contamination they should look out for. They didn't even check, it seems, the amount of recovered oil.
In late November, a nearby resident noticed oil in his water and confirmed that there was oil in his well. Thus, 3 months after the event, the DEC finally got involved. At of Dec. 29, when it was reported in the Watertown Daily News, of "about 15" wells tested, only one was found to be contaminated. (Does that mean "within tolerable levels as defined by the law" or truly "no trace of oil"?)
One also wonders if this is the end of the story. Will the DEC continue testing the nearby wells as the oil continues to seep through the area? Will they examine the wind company's clean-up and try to determine exactly how much was spilled and unrecovered? Or will it all be brushed under the tarmac?
*This is a normal problem with transformers, because over time they generate combustible gases. Normal maintenance requires the oil to be periodically filtered to remove the combustible gases before they build up to dangerous levels. As with so many other things, the wind company seems to have thought this danger didn't apply to them. Now, they check and remedy all the substation transformers and the transformer at the base of each turbine on a regular schedule.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms environment, environmentalism
The DEC apparently never inspected the clean-up or even suggested to the company possible contamination they should look out for. They didn't even check, it seems, the amount of recovered oil.
In late November, a nearby resident noticed oil in his water and confirmed that there was oil in his well. Thus, 3 months after the event, the DEC finally got involved. At of Dec. 29, when it was reported in the Watertown Daily News, of "about 15" wells tested, only one was found to be contaminated. (Does that mean "within tolerable levels as defined by the law" or truly "no trace of oil"?)
One also wonders if this is the end of the story. Will the DEC continue testing the nearby wells as the oil continues to seep through the area? Will they examine the wind company's clean-up and try to determine exactly how much was spilled and unrecovered? Or will it all be brushed under the tarmac?
*This is a normal problem with transformers, because over time they generate combustible gases. Normal maintenance requires the oil to be periodically filtered to remove the combustible gases before they build up to dangerous levels. As with so many other things, the wind company seems to have thought this danger didn't apply to them. Now, they check and remedy all the substation transformers and the transformer at the base of each turbine on a regular schedule.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms environment, environmentalism
December 29, 2007
Happy, Healthy Animals Killed at Hollister Hill Farm
An article in the Dec. 20 Montpelier (Vt.) Bridge describes a source for "happy, healthy" meat in nearby Plainfield.
It's obvious that the concern is not so much for the animals but rather for the eaters of the animals,who want to feel happier and healthier about a problematic dietary choice. Since they are driven to gorge on animal flesh, it is indeed healthier if it is the remains of a grass-fed "beefalo" free of antibiotics and artificial hormones instead of a feedlot-fattened chemical-sustained cow. And they will be happier with the taste of a free-range naturally fed turkey compared with a "butterball" factory product.
And, during their cruelly shortened lives, the animals themselves are no doubt healthier and even "happy".
Thus, the people who raise them to be killed, their carcasses to be sold and eaten, and the people who buy and eat those pieces are able to feel less guilt and shame.
But the result for the "happy, healthy" animal is the same as for the industrial-raised animal: premature death at the hand of humans.
In times of famine, this might be justified for survival -- after all, cannibalism has been resorted to in such situations. But this "happy, healthy" meat market is a response to surfeit. It feeds the same desire for flesh that sustains the factory lots and drives the clearing of rainforests. Paying more for pieces of "happy, healthy", locally killed animals is an effort to separate one's appetite from that of the common horde.
But it remains, however, (literally, in our very long intestines -- quite unlike those of the carnivorous animals) quite as unhealthy, and the animals meet the same quite unhappy end.
animal rights, vegetarianism, Vermont
It's obvious that the concern is not so much for the animals but rather for the eaters of the animals,who want to feel happier and healthier about a problematic dietary choice. Since they are driven to gorge on animal flesh, it is indeed healthier if it is the remains of a grass-fed "beefalo" free of antibiotics and artificial hormones instead of a feedlot-fattened chemical-sustained cow. And they will be happier with the taste of a free-range naturally fed turkey compared with a "butterball" factory product.
And, during their cruelly shortened lives, the animals themselves are no doubt healthier and even "happy".
Thus, the people who raise them to be killed, their carcasses to be sold and eaten, and the people who buy and eat those pieces are able to feel less guilt and shame.
But the result for the "happy, healthy" animal is the same as for the industrial-raised animal: premature death at the hand of humans.
In times of famine, this might be justified for survival -- after all, cannibalism has been resorted to in such situations. But this "happy, healthy" meat market is a response to surfeit. It feeds the same desire for flesh that sustains the factory lots and drives the clearing of rainforests. Paying more for pieces of "happy, healthy", locally killed animals is an effort to separate one's appetite from that of the common horde.
But it remains, however, (literally, in our very long intestines -- quite unlike those of the carnivorous animals) quite as unhealthy, and the animals meet the same quite unhappy end.
animal rights, vegetarianism, Vermont
December 24, 2007
Pythagoras the Vegetarian
[Pythagoras] was the first to ban the serving of animal food at our tables, first to express himself in such words as these ...
'O my fellow-men, do not defile your bodies with sinful foods. We have corn, we have apples, bending down the branches with their weight, and grapes swelling on the vines. There are sweet-flavoured herbs, and vegetables which can be cooked and softened over the fire, nor are you denied milk, or thyme-scented honey. The earth affords a lavish supply of riches, of innocent foods, and offers you banquets that involve no bloodshed or slaughter; only beasts satisfy their hunger with flesh, and no even all of those, for horses, cattle, and sheep live on grass. ... Alas, what wickedness to swallow flesh into our own flesh, to fatten our greedy bodies by cramming in other bodies to have one living creature fed by te death of another! In the midst of such wealth as earth, the best of mothers, provides, nothing forsooth satisfies you, but to behave like the Cyclopes, inflicting sorry wounds with cruel teeth! You cannot appease the hungry cravings of your wicked gluttonous stomachs, except by destroying some other life!
'Not content with committing such crimes, men have enrolled the very gods as their partners in wickedness, and suppose that the divinities in heaven take pleasure in the slaying of patient bullocks! ...
'The heavens and everything that lies below them change their shape, as does the earth and all that it contains. We too, who are part of creation, since we are not merely bodies, but winded souls as well, can find a home in the forms of wild beasts, and be lodged in the beasts of cattle. Therefore, let us leave unmolested those bodies, which may contain the souls of our parents or of our brothers, or those of other relatives, or at least the souls of men. Let us not dishonour our kind, or cram our stomachs with feasts like that of Thyestes. What evil habits a man learns, how wickedly does he prepare himself to shed human blood, when he cuts open a calf's throat with his knife, and listens unmoved to its mournful lowing, which he himself has fed! How little short of full-fledged crimes are acts like these! And to what do they lead?
'Let the ox proceed with his ploughing, or blame his death on advancing years: let the sheep supply us with a defence against the biting North wind, and well-fed goats present their udders to be milked. Away with nets and snares, traps and cunning ruses. Cease to trick birds with limed twigs, to make a sport of hunting stags with feather-decked cords, or hiding barbed hooks beneath your treacherous bait. Destroy creatures that harm you, but even in their case, be content to destroy. Do not let their flesh pass your lips; live on some less barbarous diets.'
'O my fellow-men, do not defile your bodies with sinful foods. We have corn, we have apples, bending down the branches with their weight, and grapes swelling on the vines. There are sweet-flavoured herbs, and vegetables which can be cooked and softened over the fire, nor are you denied milk, or thyme-scented honey. The earth affords a lavish supply of riches, of innocent foods, and offers you banquets that involve no bloodshed or slaughter; only beasts satisfy their hunger with flesh, and no even all of those, for horses, cattle, and sheep live on grass. ... Alas, what wickedness to swallow flesh into our own flesh, to fatten our greedy bodies by cramming in other bodies to have one living creature fed by te death of another! In the midst of such wealth as earth, the best of mothers, provides, nothing forsooth satisfies you, but to behave like the Cyclopes, inflicting sorry wounds with cruel teeth! You cannot appease the hungry cravings of your wicked gluttonous stomachs, except by destroying some other life!
'Not content with committing such crimes, men have enrolled the very gods as their partners in wickedness, and suppose that the divinities in heaven take pleasure in the slaying of patient bullocks! ...
'The heavens and everything that lies below them change their shape, as does the earth and all that it contains. We too, who are part of creation, since we are not merely bodies, but winded souls as well, can find a home in the forms of wild beasts, and be lodged in the beasts of cattle. Therefore, let us leave unmolested those bodies, which may contain the souls of our parents or of our brothers, or those of other relatives, or at least the souls of men. Let us not dishonour our kind, or cram our stomachs with feasts like that of Thyestes. What evil habits a man learns, how wickedly does he prepare himself to shed human blood, when he cuts open a calf's throat with his knife, and listens unmoved to its mournful lowing, which he himself has fed! How little short of full-fledged crimes are acts like these! And to what do they lead?
'Let the ox proceed with his ploughing, or blame his death on advancing years: let the sheep supply us with a defence against the biting North wind, and well-fed goats present their udders to be milked. Away with nets and snares, traps and cunning ruses. Cease to trick birds with limed twigs, to make a sport of hunting stags with feather-decked cords, or hiding barbed hooks beneath your treacherous bait. Destroy creatures that harm you, but even in their case, be content to destroy. Do not let their flesh pass your lips; live on some less barbarous diets.'
--Ovid, Metamorphoses, translated by Mary Innes
environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, vegetarianism, anarchism, ecoanarchism
December 22, 2007
No puppets, no peace
To the editor, The Hardwick (Vt.) Gazette:
Bruce Shields (Letters, Dec. 12) reveals the official Israeli/U.S. disdain for peace by repeating the complaint that it's the Palestinians who don't want peace. And what is the evidence for that complaint? It is the Palestinian desire for an end to Israeli occupation, for an independent state, and for some small measure of justice for the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes and farms when Israel was established as an exclusively Jewish homeland -- outcomes Israel openly scorns.
Shields notes that other countries use the Palestinian refugees as pawns against Israel, but that does not erase the fact that Israel made them refugees in the first place and considers their return to be an impossibility. Their rage and frustration are not surprising, as the world -- especially Israel's sponsor, the U.S. -- has ignored their plight for 60 years.
Shields answers antisemitism and antizionism with an even more virulent antiarabism. The Israelis may want a solution to "the problem", but the Palestinians have learned that such plans do not mean freedom from Israeli control, let alone justice.
When Jordan ceded the West Bank for a future Palestinian state, Israel only expanded their occupation, rushing "settlers" in to establish outposts throughout, which require ever-expanding "security" buffers, taking more and more land -- olive trees, pastures, farm fields -- from the Palestinians. The roads to these outposts also need "protection" from the people through whose land they cut. Thus Israel has systematically divided and laid claim to much of the West Bank -- violating international law with de facto encouragement from the U.S.
As for Hamas, the Israeli government initially aided their rise to undermine Yasser Arafat -- because Arafat was becoming a credible "partner for peace". Similarly, Ariel Sharon sparked the latest intifada by an essentially military invasion of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and rode the ensuing wave of violence to power. It was an Israeli Jew who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin for making sincere moves toward peace with Syria. Arafat's associate Mahmoud Abbas long argued against the use of violence as counterproductive. Now that he is leader of the Palestinian Authority and has tried to control Hamas, Shields only emphasizes the worst aspects of another organization -- Hamas -- to dismiss an entire people.
Many Palestinians, along with their Arab neighbors, can indeed be blamed for perpetuating violence and sabotaging their own people's hopes. So can Israel.
The Jewish experience of persecution should make the Israeli government more sensitive to the abuses of power, but instead it seems the Palestinians have been made to pay for all history's violence against Jews.
In criticizing Peter Schumann for sharing his art with the besieged people of Ramallah and David Rodgers for reporting Schumann's account of his visit (which Shields did not attend), Shields relies on the same prejudiced intolerance he lays at the door of the "Arabs". It explains a lot of why peace is so elusive in that region.
human rights, Vermont
Bruce Shields (Letters, Dec. 12) reveals the official Israeli/U.S. disdain for peace by repeating the complaint that it's the Palestinians who don't want peace. And what is the evidence for that complaint? It is the Palestinian desire for an end to Israeli occupation, for an independent state, and for some small measure of justice for the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes and farms when Israel was established as an exclusively Jewish homeland -- outcomes Israel openly scorns.
Shields notes that other countries use the Palestinian refugees as pawns against Israel, but that does not erase the fact that Israel made them refugees in the first place and considers their return to be an impossibility. Their rage and frustration are not surprising, as the world -- especially Israel's sponsor, the U.S. -- has ignored their plight for 60 years.
Shields answers antisemitism and antizionism with an even more virulent antiarabism. The Israelis may want a solution to "the problem", but the Palestinians have learned that such plans do not mean freedom from Israeli control, let alone justice.
When Jordan ceded the West Bank for a future Palestinian state, Israel only expanded their occupation, rushing "settlers" in to establish outposts throughout, which require ever-expanding "security" buffers, taking more and more land -- olive trees, pastures, farm fields -- from the Palestinians. The roads to these outposts also need "protection" from the people through whose land they cut. Thus Israel has systematically divided and laid claim to much of the West Bank -- violating international law with de facto encouragement from the U.S.
As for Hamas, the Israeli government initially aided their rise to undermine Yasser Arafat -- because Arafat was becoming a credible "partner for peace". Similarly, Ariel Sharon sparked the latest intifada by an essentially military invasion of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and rode the ensuing wave of violence to power. It was an Israeli Jew who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin for making sincere moves toward peace with Syria. Arafat's associate Mahmoud Abbas long argued against the use of violence as counterproductive. Now that he is leader of the Palestinian Authority and has tried to control Hamas, Shields only emphasizes the worst aspects of another organization -- Hamas -- to dismiss an entire people.
Many Palestinians, along with their Arab neighbors, can indeed be blamed for perpetuating violence and sabotaging their own people's hopes. So can Israel.
The Jewish experience of persecution should make the Israeli government more sensitive to the abuses of power, but instead it seems the Palestinians have been made to pay for all history's violence against Jews.
In criticizing Peter Schumann for sharing his art with the besieged people of Ramallah and David Rodgers for reporting Schumann's account of his visit (which Shields did not attend), Shields relies on the same prejudiced intolerance he lays at the door of the "Arabs". It explains a lot of why peace is so elusive in that region.
human rights, Vermont
December 19, 2007
Ralph Nader -- the last American
Last night's Independent Lens on PBS showed An Unreasonable Man, a film about Ralph Nader. We were probably not the only ones who found it inspiring, for the same reasons we voted for him all three times he ran for President. But it may have reawakened in others the misplaced anger they felt toward Nader for daring to make Al Gore's tepid candidacy appear even worse by expecting more from the allegedly "liberal" party.
For those people who blame Nader instead of Gore or Bush for the outcome of the 2000 election, here is an analysis of the voting. It should help return them to reality. The most notable finding is that where Nader did well, so did Gore.
For those people who blame Nader instead of Gore or Bush for the outcome of the 2000 election, here is an analysis of the voting. It should help return them to reality. The most notable finding is that where Nader did well, so did Gore.
December 12, 2007
"Best Renewable Energy Project": Clipper wind turbines failed after couple months
PennWell announces 2007 Projects of the Year winners
11 December 2007 -- PennWell Corp's Power Engineering magazine announced the 2007 Projects of the Year Award winners at an awards gala held December 10, 2007 at the New Orleans Sheraton Hotel. Each year, the magazine recognizes some of the world's best power projects from four major categories: gas-fired projects, coal-fired projects, nuclear projects and renewables projects. Winners and honorable mention recipients in each category are selected by the Power Engineering editorial committee. ...
The 2007 Best Renewables Project of the Year Award Winner was the Steel Winds Wind Farm, co-owned by BQ energy and UPC Wind. The wind farm, a 20 MW facility consisting of eight Clipper WindPower 2.5 MW liberty series wind turbines, is located on the site of the old Bethlehem Steel Mill, located along the shores of Lake Erie in Lackawanna, N.Y. It is the first commercial deployment of Clipper WindPower's Liberty turbines.
[thanks to Cohocton Wind Watch]
Why are the Lackawanna windmills being taken apart?
(Lackawanna, NY, December 11, 2007) -- ... They all started turning for the first time in June, this Steelwinds Project was the first to use the newest clipper wind turbines touted as the new standard for reliable performance, but by late summer, engineers discovered damage inside one of the gear boxes, and then shut down 5 others, because the timing was off in those gear boxes too.
A Clipper Vice President tells [News 4's George Richert] the plan now is for a crane to arrive next week to take all of the gear boxes down send them back to the factory in Iowa, and then replace them one by one throughout the winter. The towers will still stand but the blades will have to come off of all eight wind mills. It could be March or April before the job is finished.
[thanks to National Wind Watch]
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines
11 December 2007 -- PennWell Corp's Power Engineering magazine announced the 2007 Projects of the Year Award winners at an awards gala held December 10, 2007 at the New Orleans Sheraton Hotel. Each year, the magazine recognizes some of the world's best power projects from four major categories: gas-fired projects, coal-fired projects, nuclear projects and renewables projects. Winners and honorable mention recipients in each category are selected by the Power Engineering editorial committee. ...
The 2007 Best Renewables Project of the Year Award Winner was the Steel Winds Wind Farm, co-owned by BQ energy and UPC Wind. The wind farm, a 20 MW facility consisting of eight Clipper WindPower 2.5 MW liberty series wind turbines, is located on the site of the old Bethlehem Steel Mill, located along the shores of Lake Erie in Lackawanna, N.Y. It is the first commercial deployment of Clipper WindPower's Liberty turbines.
[thanks to Cohocton Wind Watch]
Why are the Lackawanna windmills being taken apart?
(Lackawanna, NY, December 11, 2007) -- ... They all started turning for the first time in June, this Steelwinds Project was the first to use the newest clipper wind turbines touted as the new standard for reliable performance, but by late summer, engineers discovered damage inside one of the gear boxes, and then shut down 5 others, because the timing was off in those gear boxes too.
A Clipper Vice President tells [News 4's George Richert] the plan now is for a crane to arrive next week to take all of the gear boxes down send them back to the factory in Iowa, and then replace them one by one throughout the winter. The towers will still stand but the blades will have to come off of all eight wind mills. It could be March or April before the job is finished.
[thanks to National Wind Watch]
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines
December 10, 2007
Immoral Rearmament
That's the title of a review of The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy by Adam Tooze. The review was written by historian Richard Evans in the Dec. 20 New York Review of Books. Here's an interesting quote:
According to official U.S. government accounting, the U.S. similarly allocates over a fifth (21% in 2007) of its budget to "national defense". According to the War Resisters League, however, adding the military portions from departments other than Defense and the debt and obligations of past military actions and readiness brings the figure to over half: 51% in 2008. Even subtracting past obligations, the figure is 31%, almost one-third of the budget.
The only outcome of that kind of misspending is disaster. Its logic requires ever more build-up which only comes at the expense of a functioning society.
So extensive was Hitler's drive to rearm that it was absorbing over a fifth of German state expenditure by the eve of the war.That skewed priority ensured the destruction of Germany, leaving few resources to, for example feed, clothe, and shelter its people, let alone maintain a modern economy.
According to official U.S. government accounting, the U.S. similarly allocates over a fifth (21% in 2007) of its budget to "national defense". According to the War Resisters League, however, adding the military portions from departments other than Defense and the debt and obligations of past military actions and readiness brings the figure to over half: 51% in 2008. Even subtracting past obligations, the figure is 31%, almost one-third of the budget.
The only outcome of that kind of misspending is disaster. Its logic requires ever more build-up which only comes at the expense of a functioning society.
December 8, 2007
Reduce emissions by reducing energy use (duh!)
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) has released its study of the economic impact of a federal Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), which is being debated in the U.S. Congress as part of new energy legislation. The ACEEE found that the RES would lower electricity prices, primarily by reducing demand rather than by adding renewable energy plants.
The RES, which is allegedly meant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but instead simply calls for 15% of electricity sales by 2020 to be from renewable sources, allows 27% (why not all, as in Canada?) of the requirement to be met by efficiency improvement, i.e., actually reducing use. The ACEEE assumes the 4% efficiency will be used, and that's where the savings are -- in both prices and emissions.
The ACEEE underscores this by analyzing another scenario that would combine a 15% RES with a 15% efficiency requirement, finding very much greater savings.
That is not surprising. Requiring purchases of renewable energy does nothing towards the goal of reducing greenhouse gas and other emissions or of reducing the use of dwindling or sociopolitically problematic energy sources. It is like a diet regimen that says every time you eat a dish of ice cream you have to eat a carrot (or pay someone else to eat a carrot).
In Canada, Alberta requires a 12% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2014. A similar federal rule is expected to take effect in 2010.
The U.S., in contrast, only adds tax giveaways to the carrot industry to those for the ice cream companies. Cutting down is bad for business.
November 27, 2007
Colorado: 20% of electricity from wind and solar means 18% new nonrenewables, too
An analysis by the Colorado Energy Forum (CEF) notes that Colorado's Renewable Energy Standard (RES), requiring that 20% of the electricity from investor-owned utilities (and 10% from large municipal and rural cooperative utilities) be obtained from renewable sources, primarily wind, by 2020, will not represent a correspondingly expanded capacity to to reliably supply growing demand.
In addition, there is a need of new capacity because of adding a significant amount of wind to the system. The grid requires excess capacity to be able to cope not only with times of exceptional demand but also with outages (inadvertent as well as for maintenance) of some of its plants. The wind is largely unpredictable, especially for the precise needs of the electrical supply, so more excess capacity is required to deal with that extra burden.
Giant wind turbines are not symbols of "green energy"; they are window dressing for a huge expansion of the conventional grid.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
The CEF analysis estimated that more than 3,300 MW of wind generation and nearly 200 MW of solar generation must be deployed to meet Colorado's RES.In other words, all those wind turbines won't keep the lights on. You have to use other sources to guarantee capacity, because the wind doesn't always blow when you need it.
However, after taking into account the intermittent nature of many renewable energy resources, especially wind and solar, a gap in needed power supplies of between 3,700 and 4,500 megawatts will still exists.
"When taking into account the intermittent nature of wind and solar resources, we estimate that the reliable capacity credit for these renewable resources ranges between 330 MW and 1,122 MW," according to the study's authors. "This means that even after the requirements of Colorado's RES are met, significant amounts of new electric generating capacity still will be required to meet the state's needs. Based on the assumptions and data in this study, Colorado will need to address additional resource needs in the range of 3,700 MW to 4,500 MW by 2025." (press release, Nov. 9, 2007)
In addition, there is a need of new capacity because of adding a significant amount of wind to the system. The grid requires excess capacity to be able to cope not only with times of exceptional demand but also with outages (inadvertent as well as for maintenance) of some of its plants. The wind is largely unpredictable, especially for the precise needs of the electrical supply, so more excess capacity is required to deal with that extra burden.
Giant wind turbines are not symbols of "green energy"; they are window dressing for a huge expansion of the conventional grid.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
November 18, 2007
November 16, 2007
Green technology just a new name for old pattern of exploitation
Wendell Berry, letter to the editor, New York Review of Books, Sept. 27, 2007:
... As for rural poverty, Mr. Dyson's thinking ["Our Biotech Future", July 19] is all too familiar to any rural American: "What the world needs is a technology that directly attacks the problem of rural poverty by creating wealth and jobs in the villages." This is called "bringing in industry," a practice dear to state politicians. To bring in industry, the state offers "economic incentives" (or "corporate welfare") and cheap labor to presumed benefactors, who often leave very soon for greater incentives and cheaper labor elsewhere.
Industrial technology, as brought-in industry and as applied by agribusiness, has been the cleverest means so far of siphoning the wealth of the countryside -- not to the cities, as Mr. Dyson appears to think, for urban poverty is inextricably related to rural poverty -- but to the corporations. Industries that are "brought in" convey the local wealth out; otherwise they would not come. And what makes it likely that "green technology" would be an exception? How can Mr. Dyson suppose that the rural poor will control the power of biotechnology so as to use it for their own advantage? Has he not heard of the patenting of varieties and genes? Has he not heard of the infamous lawsuit of Monsanto against the Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser? I suppose that if, as Mr. Dyson predicts, biotechnology becomes available -- cheaply, I guess -- even to children, then it would be available to poor country people. But what would be the economic advantage of this? How, in short, would this work to relieve poverty? Mr. Dyson does not say.
His only example of a beneficent rural biotechnology is the cloning of Dolly the sheep. But he does not say how this feat has benefited sheep production, let alone the rural poor.
[These statements apply similarly to wind energy development. See also the comments by Garret Keizer (click here) specifically about wind energy and the rural poor.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, human rights, animal rights, , anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
... As for rural poverty, Mr. Dyson's thinking ["Our Biotech Future", July 19] is all too familiar to any rural American: "What the world needs is a technology that directly attacks the problem of rural poverty by creating wealth and jobs in the villages." This is called "bringing in industry," a practice dear to state politicians. To bring in industry, the state offers "economic incentives" (or "corporate welfare") and cheap labor to presumed benefactors, who often leave very soon for greater incentives and cheaper labor elsewhere.
Industrial technology, as brought-in industry and as applied by agribusiness, has been the cleverest means so far of siphoning the wealth of the countryside -- not to the cities, as Mr. Dyson appears to think, for urban poverty is inextricably related to rural poverty -- but to the corporations. Industries that are "brought in" convey the local wealth out; otherwise they would not come. And what makes it likely that "green technology" would be an exception? How can Mr. Dyson suppose that the rural poor will control the power of biotechnology so as to use it for their own advantage? Has he not heard of the patenting of varieties and genes? Has he not heard of the infamous lawsuit of Monsanto against the Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser? I suppose that if, as Mr. Dyson predicts, biotechnology becomes available -- cheaply, I guess -- even to children, then it would be available to poor country people. But what would be the economic advantage of this? How, in short, would this work to relieve poverty? Mr. Dyson does not say.
His only example of a beneficent rural biotechnology is the cloning of Dolly the sheep. But he does not say how this feat has benefited sheep production, let alone the rural poor.
[These statements apply similarly to wind energy development. See also the comments by Garret Keizer (click here) specifically about wind energy and the rural poor.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, human rights, animal rights, , anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism
November 14, 2007
Struggle for land rights in India and Mexico
National Wind Watch has posted recent detailed updates about the struggle of the Zapotecas in Oaxaca, Mexico, and the Adivasis in Gujarat, India, against abuses by giant wind companies (Spain's Iberdrola in Mexico and Suzlon in India), aided by the government and police, taking land for industrial wind energy facilities.
Grassroots Resistance: Contesting Wind Mill Construction in Oaxaca, by Sylvia Sanchez (originally published by Znet)
Unclean Intrigues Behind Clean Energy: Dhule Adivasis’ Glorious Struggle for Land Rights, by a fact-finding team led by Anand Teltumbde (originally published at struggle-for-land-rights.blogspot.com)
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights, anarchism, ecoanarchism
Grassroots Resistance: Contesting Wind Mill Construction in Oaxaca, by Sylvia Sanchez (originally published by Znet)
Unclean Intrigues Behind Clean Energy: Dhule Adivasis’ Glorious Struggle for Land Rights, by a fact-finding team led by Anand Teltumbde (originally published at struggle-for-land-rights.blogspot.com)
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights, anarchism, ecoanarchism
November 13, 2007
It's killing season!
To balance the current deer-season adulation of killing for "sport", click the title of this post for the Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting.
You can hunt all you want, but this group shows that most rationalizations of it are delusional and self-serving.
To start with, hunting isn't about keeping the deer (or moose or bear) population down. State Fish & Game agencies "manage" the population so there's plenty for the hunters, who then finance those agencies in a self-perpetuating circle.
And shouldn't we be recoiling in horror at pictures of children and "their" kills? What "tradition" are they being trained for, if not one of being comfortable with self-serving deadly violence? Is that healthy?
It is true that some land is kept from development owing to the interests of hunters. But that, too, is problematic, because the best forest for hunting is frequently logged, not left wild. And it's nothing but sad that the only way some people can enjoy (or justify) the outdoors is by killing something in it.
If you eat animal flesh, then you certainly might as well get out and kill it yourself, but it is rather a stretch to claim any honor or sport in it.
Most people mark the progress of human civilization by how much more we can do without having to kill, not by how much more sportingly or efficiently or rationally we can kill. So let's keep our shortcomings in perspective, not on a pedestal.
environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, vegetarianism, ecoanarchism
You can hunt all you want, but this group shows that most rationalizations of it are delusional and self-serving.
To start with, hunting isn't about keeping the deer (or moose or bear) population down. State Fish & Game agencies "manage" the population so there's plenty for the hunters, who then finance those agencies in a self-perpetuating circle.
And shouldn't we be recoiling in horror at pictures of children and "their" kills? What "tradition" are they being trained for, if not one of being comfortable with self-serving deadly violence? Is that healthy?
It is true that some land is kept from development owing to the interests of hunters. But that, too, is problematic, because the best forest for hunting is frequently logged, not left wild. And it's nothing but sad that the only way some people can enjoy (or justify) the outdoors is by killing something in it.
If you eat animal flesh, then you certainly might as well get out and kill it yourself, but it is rather a stretch to claim any honor or sport in it.
Most people mark the progress of human civilization by how much more we can do without having to kill, not by how much more sportingly or efficiently or rationally we can kill. So let's keep our shortcomings in perspective, not on a pedestal.
environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, vegetarianism, ecoanarchism
November 12, 2007
Reality to Welch: You voted for war
Nobody is blaming Vermont's U.S. Representative Peter Welch for not ending the military occupation of Iraq, as he seems to think (in a strange chimera of egomaniacal humility). But neither is anybody buying his line that he is "doing everything possible" to end it, as he again asserted in the Aldrich Public Library in Barre last night.
Welch voted to continue funding the occupation. That is the simple fact that has angered his constituents, who voted for him because of his firm stand against that occupation.
By pleading that he alone can't stop the occupation, by pretending that Vermonters are scapegoating him out of impotence, frustration, or (as he implied) amusement, he refuses to admit his small part in the war's perpetuation.
To argue political "reality" is bullshit in this case. If Bush is going to veto any anti-war bill, that is not a reason to give him the funding he needs to keep his (our) killing machine going in Iraq. It is instead a reason to refuse to be a part of the crime.
This situation demands being "bad" not a "good German", Congressman Welch. It demands standing up to Nancy Pelosi and her committee assignment bribes. It demands remembering the principles you ran on.
Does anyone now believe that Martha Rainville's votes would have been any different than Welch's?
Keep up with this issue at Michael Colby's "Broadsides" blog.
Vermont, anarchism
Welch voted to continue funding the occupation. That is the simple fact that has angered his constituents, who voted for him because of his firm stand against that occupation.
By pleading that he alone can't stop the occupation, by pretending that Vermonters are scapegoating him out of impotence, frustration, or (as he implied) amusement, he refuses to admit his small part in the war's perpetuation.
To argue political "reality" is bullshit in this case. If Bush is going to veto any anti-war bill, that is not a reason to give him the funding he needs to keep his (our) killing machine going in Iraq. It is instead a reason to refuse to be a part of the crime.
This situation demands being "bad" not a "good German", Congressman Welch. It demands standing up to Nancy Pelosi and her committee assignment bribes. It demands remembering the principles you ran on.
Does anyone now believe that Martha Rainville's votes would have been any different than Welch's?
Keep up with this issue at Michael Colby's "Broadsides" blog.
Vermont, anarchism
November 10, 2007
Wind in Texas only 8.7% reliable
Press release, March 29, 2007 -- ERCOT Response to U.S. Rep. Joe Barton:
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms
With regard to renewable energy, ERCOT is proud to have more wind generation in its region than any other state in the nation. Currently, almost 3,000 MW of new wind generation is either under construction or publicly announced, in addition to the 3,000 MW already existing in ERCOT. A significantly larger amount of future wind generation is also under study. Wind energy is good, clean energy and should be used to the fullest of its capability. At the same time, wind does not blow at a constant level, and in Texas is often at a low level at the time of the peak electrical demand during summer afternoons. ERCOT studies the availability of wind generation using its historical wind generation data. Using 2006 data, ERCOT has determined that 8.7% of the installed wind capability can be counted as dependable capacity during the peak demand period for the next year. Conventional generation must be available to provide the remaining capacity needed to meet forecast load and reserve requirements.(ERCOT [The Electric Reliability Council of Texas] manages the flow of electric power to approximately 20 million Texas customers.)
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms
November 9, 2007
France's president Sarkozy not impressed by wind turbines
Nikolas Sarkozy, President of France, at the concluding session of the "Grenelle de L'Environnement, Thursday, 25 October 2007 (click here for the full speech, in which he also announced that industrial wind turbine construction should be limited to existing brownfields):
Franchement, quand je survole certains pays européens cela ne donne pas envie.
Francamente, cuando sobrevuelo algunos paÃses europeos, no dan muchas ganas de instalarlos.
Ganz ehrlich, wenn ich über manche europäischen Länder fliege, dann vergeht mir die Lust.
Frankly, when I fly over a number of European countries what I see does not recommend wind energy.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights
Franchement, quand je survole certains pays européens cela ne donne pas envie.
Francamente, cuando sobrevuelo algunos paÃses europeos, no dan muchas ganas de instalarlos.
Ganz ehrlich, wenn ich über manche europäischen Länder fliege, dann vergeht mir die Lust.
Frankly, when I fly over a number of European countries what I see does not recommend wind energy.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights
Newsweek adds defamatory voice to wind development juggernaut
Not satisfied with the "NIMBY" pejorative, Roya Wolverson, writing in the Nov. 12, 2007, Newsweek, rolls out "citiot". Taking her cue from professional anti-environmentalist Frank Maisano, spokesman for a coalition of mid-Atlantic wind energy developers, she caricaturizes the battles over industrial wind turbine siting as between farmers and second-home owners ("citiots") -- as if installing an array 400′-high machines that generate noise and visual distraction night and day is no more offensive than spreading manure once or twice a year. Hosting giant wind turbines is no more farming than turning your fields into a NASCAR track.
The caricature, useful as it is to the developers and the landowners salivating for the developers' crumbs, ignores environmentalist opposition, turbines sited on mountain ridges, the fact that as taxpayers we are all paying for the boondoggle, and that, as one of the comments to the article notes, many leasers are absentee owners. As the saying goes, who's watching the farm? She also ignores the common subversion of local democracy, where the leasers are also the town officials that are supposed to listen to all of the people but instead act to self-servingly facilitate the developers.
Finally, she ignores the evidence that wind on the grid does not do what it is supposed to do, that is, reduce the use of other fuels. Small amounts of wind energy -- which is necessarily highly variable and intermittent -- require other sources to work harder to balance the extra fluctuation they add. Substantial wind capacity requires new "conventional" sources to be able to balance it and keep the grid stable. Since the only practical sites for large wind energy installations are far from people (though still impacting animals and plants), they also require new high-capacity transmission lines (not to mention heavy-duty roads) through those remote areas.
What is significant here, therefore, is that the developers (and their abettors) have apparently given up trying to argue that there are benefits from big wind that outweigh the negative impacts. Dare we say, they have lost that argument? They now have only their nasty contempt for opposition voices and appeals to shortsighted greed.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights
The caricature, useful as it is to the developers and the landowners salivating for the developers' crumbs, ignores environmentalist opposition, turbines sited on mountain ridges, the fact that as taxpayers we are all paying for the boondoggle, and that, as one of the comments to the article notes, many leasers are absentee owners. As the saying goes, who's watching the farm? She also ignores the common subversion of local democracy, where the leasers are also the town officials that are supposed to listen to all of the people but instead act to self-servingly facilitate the developers.
Finally, she ignores the evidence that wind on the grid does not do what it is supposed to do, that is, reduce the use of other fuels. Small amounts of wind energy -- which is necessarily highly variable and intermittent -- require other sources to work harder to balance the extra fluctuation they add. Substantial wind capacity requires new "conventional" sources to be able to balance it and keep the grid stable. Since the only practical sites for large wind energy installations are far from people (though still impacting animals and plants), they also require new high-capacity transmission lines (not to mention heavy-duty roads) through those remote areas.
What is significant here, therefore, is that the developers (and their abettors) have apparently given up trying to argue that there are benefits from big wind that outweigh the negative impacts. Dare we say, they have lost that argument? They now have only their nasty contempt for opposition voices and appeals to shortsighted greed.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights
NBC News drinks the Danish wind Koolaid
On Nov. 5, NBC Nightly News, 80% of which is owned by General Electric, the leading U.S. manufacturer of wind turbines, sang the praises of wind energy in Denmark, saying the Danes lead the way that we should follow.
This was part of the network's "green week", a fine idea but one that should not be seen as a license to abandon all veridicality.
The piece on wind included many errors of fact.
To start with, Denmark's wind turbines do not "supply 20% of Denmark's electricity needs".
Denmark's wind turbines produce electricity equivalent to 20% of what the country uses. But much (if not most) of that wind-generated energy is exported to larger grids that can absorb the fluctuations better.
Rather than leading the way to building even more wind turbines, Denmark has in fact essentially halted new onshore construction. Any development that is still talked about (to keep the market for Vestas turbines alive) is far off shore. But even that has stalled since 2004 because of the expense and technical challenges.
The island of Samso is presented as so successfully energy independent that it produces more than it needs. Actually, the island is able to "depend" on its highly variable and intermittent wind turbines precisely because it is still connected to the national grid and not independent at all. The island uses the national grid to balance its wind energy, just as Denmark as a whole uses the international grid.
While it is true that wind turbines emit "no pollution or carbon dioxide" (after their (and their infrastructure's) manufacture, transport, and construction, and not counting ongoing maintenance (including oil changes) or if they are built on and thus disturb peat or other important carbon sinks), the crucial fact is that neither do they reduce pollution or carbon dioxide emitted by other sources. There is no evidence that Denmark has reduced emissions or other fuel use because of wind on its grid.
That is the unfortunate fact that is getting harder every year to deny or ignore, even if one's only goal is to create a market for Vestas and GE.
wind power, wind energy,environment, environmentalism
This was part of the network's "green week", a fine idea but one that should not be seen as a license to abandon all veridicality.
The piece on wind included many errors of fact.
To start with, Denmark's wind turbines do not "supply 20% of Denmark's electricity needs".
Denmark's wind turbines produce electricity equivalent to 20% of what the country uses. But much (if not most) of that wind-generated energy is exported to larger grids that can absorb the fluctuations better.
Rather than leading the way to building even more wind turbines, Denmark has in fact essentially halted new onshore construction. Any development that is still talked about (to keep the market for Vestas turbines alive) is far off shore. But even that has stalled since 2004 because of the expense and technical challenges.
The island of Samso is presented as so successfully energy independent that it produces more than it needs. Actually, the island is able to "depend" on its highly variable and intermittent wind turbines precisely because it is still connected to the national grid and not independent at all. The island uses the national grid to balance its wind energy, just as Denmark as a whole uses the international grid.
While it is true that wind turbines emit "no pollution or carbon dioxide" (after their (and their infrastructure's) manufacture, transport, and construction, and not counting ongoing maintenance (including oil changes) or if they are built on and thus disturb peat or other important carbon sinks), the crucial fact is that neither do they reduce pollution or carbon dioxide emitted by other sources. There is no evidence that Denmark has reduced emissions or other fuel use because of wind on its grid.
That is the unfortunate fact that is getting harder every year to deny or ignore, even if one's only goal is to create a market for Vestas and GE.
wind power, wind energy,environment, environmentalism
Dreams of 20% penetration
Carl Levesque of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) writes in Renewable Energy Access (Nov. 7, 2007):
And since demand will also grow, all those wind turbines will have barely reached 10% "penetration" -- god save us from 20%! And, as well explained elsewhere, they will have done nothing to reduce the consumption of other fuels or their emissions.
Continuing this boondoggle is clearly madness. Enlarging it is sociopathic.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights,
AWEA Policy Director Rob Gramlich provided a glimpse of the 20% vision technical report that is due to come out soon. The vision, which Gramlich emphasized assumes "stable and long-term policy," calls for a ramp-up in deployment of wind power capacity form the current 3,000-4,000 megawatts (MW) annually to 16,000 MW per year at peak. Gramlich also showed the conceptual map developed by American Electric Power of a grid that can efficiently accommodate 20% wind (as well as benefit all of the electric industry). The map calls for up to 15,000 miles of new transmission lines.That's one new giant turbine every hour for the next 25 years (allowing 3 years to get up to that rate). In addition to the proposed 15,000 miles of new high-capacity transmission lines (mostly in rural and wild areas), 400,000 MW of new wind turbines would require 20,000,000 acres (31,250 square miles!) of newly industrialized land.
And since demand will also grow, all those wind turbines will have barely reached 10% "penetration" -- god save us from 20%! And, as well explained elsewhere, they will have done nothing to reduce the consumption of other fuels or their emissions.
Continuing this boondoggle is clearly madness. Enlarging it is sociopathic.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights,
November 6, 2007
Environmentalists starting to notice destructive wind energy development
The Collectif du 6 octobre notes that they are succeeding in turning environmentalists against industrial wind turbines in rural and wild areas, as evidenced by Nicolas Hulot writing in Le Figaro, October 20, 2007:
Recently, a collective of organizations met in Paris to demonstrate against wind turbines. They often have good reasons. The wind turbine lobby is often cloase to the nuclear lobby, working on mayors of small towns with proposals of new income. They have installed wind turbines in spite of good sense. Fields of wind turbines on industrial farms don't shock anyone. But when magnificent countrysides are sacrificed, I understand why there would be reactions.wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights
November 5, 2007
Exploding wind turbine transformer
In response to a Nov. 1 query from a concerned citizen for information concerning reports of an explosion in one of the transformers at the "Maple Ridge" wind energy facility on Tug Hill, N.Y., and a truck working in the middle of the night at the base of each turbine, steven_blow@dps.state.ny.us wrote on Nov. 2:
We've checked out the situation and there appears to be no truth to the report.But janasca@gw.dec.state.ny.us (Jack Nasca) wrote on Nov. 5:
We spoke to the operators at the Maple Ridge site and have learned:wind power, wind energy, wind turbines
On July 4, a single pad mounted grounding transformer located at the Rector Road substation exploded and was rendered inoperative. This was one of ten such transformers in the substation. No cause was determined, and the transformer has been sent back to the manufacturer for an analysis to identify the cause. Lightning was not a factor. None of the other nine grounding transformers at the substation had any problems, and there have been no incidents at turbine base transformers.
Unrelated to the above, a program of annual preventative maintenance of transformers at the base of the turbines was conducted over the summer. This included an analysis of the mineral oil used as a coolant. A gas analysis of the cooling oil was conducted, which indicated elevated levels of certain gases in about 30% of the transformers, one of which was hydrogen. A contractor specializing in purging gases from transformer cooling oil was hired to remove the gases identified in the analysis. Because the contractor was very busy (apparently this occurs with some regularity with transformers in any type of transmission facility), they worked 24/7 for a 2 ½ week period to complete the task. So at some point they were working at "midnight." The process involves withdrawal of the oil from the transformer, piping it to a truck with the purging equipment, capture and collection of the gas for disposal off-site, and returning the oil to the transformer. It was stated that there is no atmospheric release of gases from this process.
November 2, 2007
A Forsaken Garden
by Algernon Charles Swinburne
| In a coign of the cliff between lowland and highland, At the sea-down’s edge between windward and lee, Walled round with rocks as an inland island, The ghost of a garden fronts the sea. A girdle of brushwood and thorn encloses The steep square slope of the blossomless bed Where the weeds that grew green from the graves of its roses Now lie dead.
The fields fall southward, abrupt and broken, To the low last edge of the long lone land. If a step should sound or a word be spoken, Would a ghost not rise at the strange guest’s hand? So long have the gray bare walks lain guestless, Through branches and briers if a man make way, He shall find no life but the sea-wind’s, restless Night and day.
The dense hard passage is blind and stifled That crawls by a track none turn to climb To the strait waste place that the years have rifled Of all but the thorns that are touched not of time. The thorns he spares when the rose is taken; The rocks are left when he wastes the plain. The wind that wanders, the weeds wind-shaken, These remain.
Not a flower to be prest of the foot that falls not; As the heart of a dead man the seed-plots are dry; From the thicket of thorns whence the nightingale calls not, Could she call, there were never a rose to reply. Over the meadows that blossom and wither Rings but the note of a sea-bird’s song; Only the sun and the rain come hither All year long.
The sun burns sear, and the rain dishevels One gaunt bleak blossom of scentless breath. Only the wind here hovers and revels In a round where life seems barren as death. Here there was laughing of old, there was weeping, Haply, of lovers one never will know, Whose eyes went seaward a hundred sleeping Years ago.
Heart handfast in heart as they stood, “Look thither,” Did he whisper! “Look forth from the flowers to the sea; For the foam-flowers endure when the rose-blossoms wither, And men that love lightly may die — but we?” And the same wind sang, and the same waves whitened, And or ever the garden’s last petals were shed, In the lips that had whispered, the eyes that had lightened, Love was dead.
Or they loved their life through, and then went whither? And were one to the end — but what end who knows? Love deep as the sea as a rose must wither, As the rose-red seaweed that mocks the rose. Shall the dead take thought for the dead to love them? What love was ever as deep as a grave? They are loveless now as the grass above them Or the wave.
All are at one now, roses and lovers, Nor known of the cliffs and the fields and the sea. Not a breath of the time that has been hovers In the air now soft with a summer to be. Not a breath shall there sweeten the seasons hereafter Of the flowers or the lovers that laugh now or weep, When as they that are free now of weeping and laughter, We shall sleep.
Here death may deal not again for ever; Here change may not come till all change end. From the graves they have made they shall rise up never, Who have left nought living to ravage and rend. Earth, stones, and thorns of the wild ground growing, While the sun and the rain live, these shall be; Till a last wind’s breath upon all these blowing Roll the sea.
Till the slow sea rise, and the sheer cliff crumble, Till terrace and meadow the deep gulfs drink, Till the strength of the waves of the high tides humble The fields that lessen, the rocks that shrink, Here now in his triumph where all things falter, Stretched out on the spoils that his own hand spread, As a god self-slain on his own strange altar, Death lies dead. |
October 31, 2007
Capacity calculations for wind on the grid
Operators of the electrical grid have to know how much power capacity they can county on when they need it. This creates a problem for wind energy, because only the wind determines its production rate and time. It's largely chance that wind and demand might coincide in any dependable way. Therefore, wind is largely a sideshow, or even an added burden, to the real work of the grid.
Here is how different grid operators look at wind power's actual value in their planning, as compiled by the Utility Wind Integration Group ("Wind Power and Electricity Markets", information compiled through September 21, 2007). For "Capacity Calculation":
Here is how different grid operators look at wind power's actual value in their planning, as compiled by the Utility Wind Integration Group ("Wind Power and Electricity Markets", information compiled through September 21, 2007). For "Capacity Calculation":
- PJM (Mid-Atlantic plus northern IN and IL) initially assigns a value of 20% of the rated capacity and then uses the average output over the previous 3 years ot 4, 5, and 6 o'clock p.m. from June through August.
- NYISO uses the average capacity factor between 2 and 6 o'clock p.m. from June through August and between 4 and 8 o'clock p.m. from December through February.
- ISO-NE (New England) uses the overall capacity factor.
- Ontario IESO uses 10% of the rated capacity for long-term (e.g., seasonal) forecasting and 0% (zero) for 1 to 34 days ahead.
- MISO (Midwest) gives wind a 15% capacity value for transmission planning purposes.
- SPP (KS, OK, TX panhandle) uses the level of output equalled or exceeded for 85% of the top 10% load hours.
- ERCOT (TX) uses 8.7% of the rated capacity in capacity reserve margin calculations.
- CAISO uses the average monthly output over the previous 3 years between 12 and 6 o'clock p.m. from May through September.
- Alberta Electric System Operator assigns a 20% value.
October 29, 2007
October 27, 2007
Corrections re: wind turbine foes
A story late last month by Lydia DePillis from Greenwire stated that Lisa Linowes organized the meeting in May 2005 at which a national coalition (namely, National Wind Watch [NWW]) against industrial wind energy development was formed. Whether that statement was due to confusion on the reporter's part or misinformation provided by Lisa, the fact is that Lisa was but one of the dozens of invited guests at that meeting, which was conceived and organized by David Roberson.
A story early this month by Kristi Swartz in the Palm Beach (Fla.) Post stated that the Industrial Wind Action Group (IWAG) was founded in 2005. Again, whether that statement was due to the reporter's confusion or misinformation provided by Lisa, the fact is that National Wind Watch, not IWAG, was founded in 2005. Lisa Linowes left National Wind Watch (after a failed coup followed by stealing NWW's web site and domain) to work independently (as IWAG) in 2006.
The coincidence that two reporters at the same time made similar incorrect statements about Lisa Linowes and National Wind Watch strongly suggests that Lisa was indeed the source of these errors.
wind power, wind energy
A story early this month by Kristi Swartz in the Palm Beach (Fla.) Post stated that the Industrial Wind Action Group (IWAG) was founded in 2005. Again, whether that statement was due to the reporter's confusion or misinformation provided by Lisa, the fact is that National Wind Watch, not IWAG, was founded in 2005. Lisa Linowes left National Wind Watch (after a failed coup followed by stealing NWW's web site and domain) to work independently (as IWAG) in 2006.
The coincidence that two reporters at the same time made similar incorrect statements about Lisa Linowes and National Wind Watch strongly suggests that Lisa was indeed the source of these errors.
wind power, wind energy
October 19, 2007
October 18, 2007
Huge project takes huge parts
Report from the construction of the Smoky Hills Wind Farm in Kansas, on hills on both sides of state highway 14 south of Lincoln:
The crane standing atop a hill across the Ellsworth County line north of Interstate 70 soared 315 feet into the air.
Nearby stood two white tubes, one stacked on the other. These made up the bottom two sections of a four-section tower. When this and more than 50 other towers like it are operational, the Smoky Hills Wind Farm will go on-line ...
The wind farm is being developed by TradeWind Energy of Lenexa under the ownership of Enel North America, Inc., a subsidiary of Enel, SpA, the third largest utility in the world.
The components [that electricians, engineers, construction employees and others] are putting together to make the wind turbines are huge. For instance, each turbine will have three blades, each one 132 feet in length.
The towers, manufactured in Denmark, Canada and China, are shipped to the Gulf of Mexico, where they are loaded on rail cars and transported to Kanopolis, 10 miles to the south of the construction site.
Other information shared by [farmer, landowner (hosting 15 of the machines), and tour guide Richard Plinsky]:
• Ten special "low-boy trucks" were needed -- just to deliver the crane, which will hoist the tower components, including the nacelle or generation head, which holds the hub for the three blades.
• The turbines [are capable of producing] 1.8 megawatts of energy [sic -- megawatts are a measure of power], making them the largest producers in Kansas. The wind turbines at Spearville and Elk River, east of Wichita, are 1.5 megawatts.
• The cost of a finished turbine is between $3.5 and $4 million [$1.9-2.2 million per megawatt].
• Each base takes 500 cubic yards of concrete, which is poured 8 to 10 feet into the ground.
• Each tower has 77,000 pounds of reinforcement bar in the concrete. The towers stand 260 feet tall.
"It was such a large project that there was no way anybody local could handle it," Plinsky said.
• When construction started, about 140,000 gallons of water were needed daily to pour the concrete and build the roads. Plinsky said large amounts of water are still required to control the dust on the roads.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism
The crane standing atop a hill across the Ellsworth County line north of Interstate 70 soared 315 feet into the air.
Nearby stood two white tubes, one stacked on the other. These made up the bottom two sections of a four-section tower. When this and more than 50 other towers like it are operational, the Smoky Hills Wind Farm will go on-line ...
The wind farm is being developed by TradeWind Energy of Lenexa under the ownership of Enel North America, Inc., a subsidiary of Enel, SpA, the third largest utility in the world.
The components [that electricians, engineers, construction employees and others] are putting together to make the wind turbines are huge. For instance, each turbine will have three blades, each one 132 feet in length.
The towers, manufactured in Denmark, Canada and China, are shipped to the Gulf of Mexico, where they are loaded on rail cars and transported to Kanopolis, 10 miles to the south of the construction site.
Other information shared by [farmer, landowner (hosting 15 of the machines), and tour guide Richard Plinsky]:
• Ten special "low-boy trucks" were needed -- just to deliver the crane, which will hoist the tower components, including the nacelle or generation head, which holds the hub for the three blades.
• The turbines [are capable of producing] 1.8 megawatts of energy [sic -- megawatts are a measure of power], making them the largest producers in Kansas. The wind turbines at Spearville and Elk River, east of Wichita, are 1.5 megawatts.
• The cost of a finished turbine is between $3.5 and $4 million [$1.9-2.2 million per megawatt].
• Each base takes 500 cubic yards of concrete, which is poured 8 to 10 feet into the ground.
• Each tower has 77,000 pounds of reinforcement bar in the concrete. The towers stand 260 feet tall.
"It was such a large project that there was no way anybody local could handle it," Plinsky said.
• When construction started, about 140,000 gallons of water were needed daily to pour the concrete and build the roads. Plinsky said large amounts of water are still required to control the dust on the roads.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism
October 13, 2007
Searsburg wind output misstated by officials
To the Editor, Brattleoro (Vt.) Reformer [published Oct. 12, 2007]:
The article "Answers blowing in wind" (Oct. 11) states that the current annual output of the existing Searsburg wind turbines is 27 percent of their capacity. That is incorrect.
For the last four years for which data are available, 2002-2005, the annual output has ranged between 20.4 and 21.7 percent of capacity.
There is no reason to expect a new facility in the same area to perform any better. The new machines are just bigger; they do not rewrite the laws of physics.
Searsburg's output for 2007 is likely to be much lower, since one of the machines -- its blades destroyed by lightning some time ago -- has not been repaired.
Such abandonment after the tax benefits expire and manufacturers have moved on to bigger machines is typical. It should be noted that "decommissioning" is superficial: all such agreements leave the huge steel-reinforced concrete foundation behind, permanently altering the terrain.
The extensive destruction of otherwise protected habitat necessary to erect the giant new wind turbines would be done to produce an annual total of barely one percent of Vermont's needs. It would, however, be practically idle for a third of the time and produce at or above its average rate only another third of the time -- depending on the wind and not grid demand, making its actual value for providing power almost nil. (Its real product is tax avoidance and green tags.)
It's time to admit that wind energy on the grid is a failure, not to stubbornly expand the folly. The only result has been the destruction of rural and wild lands that we and the earth can ill afford.
Eric Rosenbloom
President, National Wind Watch
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, Vermont
The article "Answers blowing in wind" (Oct. 11) states that the current annual output of the existing Searsburg wind turbines is 27 percent of their capacity. That is incorrect.
For the last four years for which data are available, 2002-2005, the annual output has ranged between 20.4 and 21.7 percent of capacity.
There is no reason to expect a new facility in the same area to perform any better. The new machines are just bigger; they do not rewrite the laws of physics.
Searsburg's output for 2007 is likely to be much lower, since one of the machines -- its blades destroyed by lightning some time ago -- has not been repaired.
Such abandonment after the tax benefits expire and manufacturers have moved on to bigger machines is typical. It should be noted that "decommissioning" is superficial: all such agreements leave the huge steel-reinforced concrete foundation behind, permanently altering the terrain.
The extensive destruction of otherwise protected habitat necessary to erect the giant new wind turbines would be done to produce an annual total of barely one percent of Vermont's needs. It would, however, be practically idle for a third of the time and produce at or above its average rate only another third of the time -- depending on the wind and not grid demand, making its actual value for providing power almost nil. (Its real product is tax avoidance and green tags.)
It's time to admit that wind energy on the grid is a failure, not to stubbornly expand the folly. The only result has been the destruction of rural and wild lands that we and the earth can ill afford.
Eric Rosenbloom
President, National Wind Watch
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, Vermont
October 10, 2007
Facts and figures about Jiminy Peak wind turbine
The giant wind turbine on Jiminy Peak in the northern Berkshires has been on line for 2 months and has already broken down. At this rate, they won't even save their (our) investment, let alone the planet.
Type: General Electric 1.5-megawatt model SLE
Heights and weights
Base tower section: 72', 64.5 tons
Midsection: 85’, 47.5 tons
Top tower section: 97', 33.5 tons
Total tower: 253' (77 m), 144.5 tones
Nacelle: 12'2" high, 61.7 tons
Blade (x3): 122' long, 9'2" wide, 11.2 tons
Hub: 11' radius
Total blade assembly: 249' diam. (81 m), 134.6 tons, swept area 1.27 acres
Total: 386' (117.5 m), 236 tons
Foundation: 412 cubic yards of cement; 40' diameter; 8' deep in rock; 25 tons of reinforcing rod; 140 8’ anchor bolts
Likely output of this behemoth (when not broken down): about 325 kilowatts annually, reaching that rate or above only a third of the time, essentially idle another third of the time
See some pictures at National Wind Watch.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism
Type: General Electric 1.5-megawatt model SLE
Heights and weights
Base tower section: 72', 64.5 tons
Midsection: 85’, 47.5 tons
Top tower section: 97', 33.5 tons
Total tower: 253' (77 m), 144.5 tones
Nacelle: 12'2" high, 61.7 tons
Blade (x3): 122' long, 9'2" wide, 11.2 tons
Hub: 11' radius
Total blade assembly: 249' diam. (81 m), 134.6 tons, swept area 1.27 acres
Total: 386' (117.5 m), 236 tons
Foundation: 412 cubic yards of cement; 40' diameter; 8' deep in rock; 25 tons of reinforcing rod; 140 8’ anchor bolts
Likely output of this behemoth (when not broken down): about 325 kilowatts annually, reaching that rate or above only a third of the time, essentially idle another third of the time
See some pictures at National Wind Watch.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism
October 8, 2007
NO industrial wind turbines in Vermont's Northeast Kingdom
Make sure the organizations listed below understand that they need to stand against industrial wind energy development in the Northeast Kingdom to protect the beauty and character of the area.
From "Vermont's Northeast Kingdom", National Geographic Geotourism Map Guide:
Also see travelthekingdom.com/geotourism.
Geotourism Travelers' Tips:
1. What is geotourism?
The formal definition is, "Tourism that sustains or enhances the geographical character of the place being visited -- its environment, culture, aesthetics, heritage, and the well-being of its residents." In other words, travel for people who like distinctive places and care about protecting them.
2. Who are geotravelers?
... they support local businesses and travel organizations that care about conservation, preservation, beautification, and benefits to local people.
3. How can I be a good geotraveler in the Northeast Kingdom?
The Kingdom got its name from its natural beauty. Residents are determined to retain that beauty. ...
9. What should I do, and not do, if I want to buy property or build a home in the Kingdom?
The Geotourism Alliance is committed to preserving sense of place in the Kingdom. If you decide to purchase a home or move to the area, please consider local values and the effect you and your house have on the landscape, culture, environment, and communities. ...
[Who makes up the Geotourism Alliance?]
National Geographic
Northeast Kingdom Travel and Tourism Association
Nulhegan Gateway Association
University of Vermont Tourism Data Center
Cabot Creamery
Connecticut River Byway
Fairbanks Museum and Planetarium
Kingdom Trails Association
Northeastern Vermont Development Association
Northeast Kingdom Collaborative
Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont
The Northern Forest Canoe Trail
NorthWoods Stewardship Center
Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge
USDA Rural Development
Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife
Vermont Department of Tourism and Marketing
Vermont Fresh Network
Vermont Maple Foundation
Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund
Vermont WoodNet
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, Vermont
From "Vermont's Northeast Kingdom", National Geographic Geotourism Map Guide:
Also see travelthekingdom.com/geotourism.
Geotourism Travelers' Tips:
1. What is geotourism?
The formal definition is, "Tourism that sustains or enhances the geographical character of the place being visited -- its environment, culture, aesthetics, heritage, and the well-being of its residents." In other words, travel for people who like distinctive places and care about protecting them.
2. Who are geotravelers?
... they support local businesses and travel organizations that care about conservation, preservation, beautification, and benefits to local people.
3. How can I be a good geotraveler in the Northeast Kingdom?
The Kingdom got its name from its natural beauty. Residents are determined to retain that beauty. ...
9. What should I do, and not do, if I want to buy property or build a home in the Kingdom?
The Geotourism Alliance is committed to preserving sense of place in the Kingdom. If you decide to purchase a home or move to the area, please consider local values and the effect you and your house have on the landscape, culture, environment, and communities. ...
[Who makes up the Geotourism Alliance?]
National Geographic
Northeast Kingdom Travel and Tourism Association
Nulhegan Gateway Association
University of Vermont Tourism Data Center
Cabot Creamery
Connecticut River Byway
Fairbanks Museum and Planetarium
Kingdom Trails Association
Northeastern Vermont Development Association
Northeast Kingdom Collaborative
Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont
The Northern Forest Canoe Trail
NorthWoods Stewardship Center
Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge
USDA Rural Development
Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife
Vermont Department of Tourism and Marketing
Vermont Fresh Network
Vermont Maple Foundation
Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund
Vermont WoodNet
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, Vermont
NO industrial wind turbines in National Forest
Dear Bob Bayer, Project Coordinator, USDA Forest Service --
Please do not allow the construction of industrial wind turbines on National Forest lands in Readsboro, Vt., as proposed by PPM Energy.
Such construction would be a permanent loss of the land for any other purpose. It would require acres of clearing for each turbine, new heavy-duty roads, and excavation (including blasting) for steel-reinforced concrete bases that would remain in the ground forever.
The motion and consequent noise and vibration of the giant turbines are a threat to flying animals -- birds, bats, and insects -- and would disturb the lives of animals on and in the ground.
Their height and required safety lighting would adversely transform the character of a rare natural landscape.
These and other impacts far outweigh the potential benefit of the facility as a source of nonpolluting renewable energy.
As you know, wind energy is highly variable, intermittent, and nondispatchable. Thus, integrating it into the grid is problematic.
Other sources must be kept available to balance the infeed from wind. They may continue to burn fuel in standby mode, burn fuel at lower efficiency in a ramped down state, or burn extra fuel in more frequent starts.
The beneficial effect of wind as a clean source of energy is therefore substantially diminished as a supplier to the grid.
In many cases, the infeed from wind may simply be absorbed as a tolerable variation in line voltage, thus not displacing any other source at all.
In sum, forest land and habitat should not be sacrificed for such a negligible potential benefit that will not measurably alter our energy use.
Reject the proposal of siting wind turbines in the National Forest.
The forest is not renewable.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, Vermont
Please do not allow the construction of industrial wind turbines on National Forest lands in Readsboro, Vt., as proposed by PPM Energy.
Such construction would be a permanent loss of the land for any other purpose. It would require acres of clearing for each turbine, new heavy-duty roads, and excavation (including blasting) for steel-reinforced concrete bases that would remain in the ground forever.
The motion and consequent noise and vibration of the giant turbines are a threat to flying animals -- birds, bats, and insects -- and would disturb the lives of animals on and in the ground.
Their height and required safety lighting would adversely transform the character of a rare natural landscape.
These and other impacts far outweigh the potential benefit of the facility as a source of nonpolluting renewable energy.
As you know, wind energy is highly variable, intermittent, and nondispatchable. Thus, integrating it into the grid is problematic.
Other sources must be kept available to balance the infeed from wind. They may continue to burn fuel in standby mode, burn fuel at lower efficiency in a ramped down state, or burn extra fuel in more frequent starts.
The beneficial effect of wind as a clean source of energy is therefore substantially diminished as a supplier to the grid.
In many cases, the infeed from wind may simply be absorbed as a tolerable variation in line voltage, thus not displacing any other source at all.
In sum, forest land and habitat should not be sacrificed for such a negligible potential benefit that will not measurably alter our energy use.
Reject the proposal of siting wind turbines in the National Forest.
The forest is not renewable.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, Vermont
October 6, 2007
Protected wolves and hyenas disappearing in Indian district
From newindpress.com, via National Wind Watch:
Three years ago, Gajendragad [in Gadag district] was recognised as a safe haven for highly endangered species like the Indian grey wolf and striped hyenas, but then came wind farming and wind mills with huge noisy fans and human traffic to maintain these machines. It drove away these species from their habitat.
Dr H N Kumara, wildlife biologist, observed the changes during his visits to the place. ‘‘Some years ago, I could sight huge packs of animals during my visits. My week-long stay here had revealed that these places were an ideal den for the wolves. But after a couple of years, the habitats were destroyed and wolves disappeared,’’ he explained.
The hills were destroyed for the construction of roads and huge mills by a private firm, replacing the dry decidous place. The only beneficiary is cattle, for they can graze free and without fear. ‘‘There were a lot of wolves here. And the sight of grazing sheep was rare. Now the situation is the reverse. The wolves have gone,’’ said Goni Basappa Koralahalli, a shepherd.
[Poachers also take advantage of the new roads. --Ed.]
Prashant Rathod says he had sighted wolves several times, but it was more than a year ago. Now no one comes across wolves. The status of the Indian striped hyena, an endangered species, is no different. They have disappeared since the past three years.
‘‘This is a significant habitat for these hyenas and we had seen some near goshalas around Kalakaleshwar temple. But they are gone. It is possible that too much human interference might have driven them away,’’ he said.
Power generation is permitted on this government land and about five megawatts of power is generated. Officials from the forest department were not available for comment on the alarming migration of animals. The forest department had reported many incidents where bears made life miserable for people in Arasikere and parts of Hiryur recently.
The Indian grey wolf (Canis lupus) is found in the Deccan plateau and differs from its Himalyan cousin. Though considered secondary predators with significant roles in the food chain, the numbers of this nocturnal and diurnal species is dwindling rapidly due to poaching, loss of habitat and threat from feline species.
The species is protected under Wildlife Act Schedule 1.
The Indian striped hyena, a scavenger species was sighted in places like Gajendragad, Chitradurga, parts of Tumkur region, around Doroji, Sandur and Bidar.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism,, animal rights
Three years ago, Gajendragad [in Gadag district] was recognised as a safe haven for highly endangered species like the Indian grey wolf and striped hyenas, but then came wind farming and wind mills with huge noisy fans and human traffic to maintain these machines. It drove away these species from their habitat.
Dr H N Kumara, wildlife biologist, observed the changes during his visits to the place. ‘‘Some years ago, I could sight huge packs of animals during my visits. My week-long stay here had revealed that these places were an ideal den for the wolves. But after a couple of years, the habitats were destroyed and wolves disappeared,’’ he explained.
The hills were destroyed for the construction of roads and huge mills by a private firm, replacing the dry decidous place. The only beneficiary is cattle, for they can graze free and without fear. ‘‘There were a lot of wolves here. And the sight of grazing sheep was rare. Now the situation is the reverse. The wolves have gone,’’ said Goni Basappa Koralahalli, a shepherd.
[Poachers also take advantage of the new roads. --Ed.]
Prashant Rathod says he had sighted wolves several times, but it was more than a year ago. Now no one comes across wolves. The status of the Indian striped hyena, an endangered species, is no different. They have disappeared since the past three years.
‘‘This is a significant habitat for these hyenas and we had seen some near goshalas around Kalakaleshwar temple. But they are gone. It is possible that too much human interference might have driven them away,’’ he said.
Power generation is permitted on this government land and about five megawatts of power is generated. Officials from the forest department were not available for comment on the alarming migration of animals. The forest department had reported many incidents where bears made life miserable for people in Arasikere and parts of Hiryur recently.
The Indian grey wolf (Canis lupus) is found in the Deccan plateau and differs from its Himalyan cousin. Though considered secondary predators with significant roles in the food chain, the numbers of this nocturnal and diurnal species is dwindling rapidly due to poaching, loss of habitat and threat from feline species.
The species is protected under Wildlife Act Schedule 1.
The Indian striped hyena, a scavenger species was sighted in places like Gajendragad, Chitradurga, parts of Tumkur region, around Doroji, Sandur and Bidar.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism,, animal rights
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)