| |||||||||||
March 9, 2005
News Quiz
The latest quiz from Ironic Times:
Hull's "cash cow" wind turbine
E (The Environmental Magazine) has a "heart-warming" story on the 3-year anniversary of Hull, Mass., connecting their 660-KW wind turbine (click the title of the this post). I have read elsewhere that sales of the resulting renewable energy certificates (ROCs) has enabled Hull to reduce its electricity bill by 15%, and that's the story here as well.
Isn't something missing? There is no mention that other electricity use went down. If the wind turbine actually allowed them to reduce the use of other sources, that would undoubtedly be the main point of the story, i.e., the success of alternative energy in reducing need for conventional energy. Instead, the story is only how lucrative ROC sales are.
They're just selling the right to say you're buying "green" power even as your (and their) purchase of "dirty" power remains unchanged.
Isn't something missing? There is no mention that other electricity use went down. If the wind turbine actually allowed them to reduce the use of other sources, that would undoubtedly be the main point of the story, i.e., the success of alternative energy in reducing need for conventional energy. Instead, the story is only how lucrative ROC sales are.
They're just selling the right to say you're buying "green" power even as your (and their) purchase of "dirty" power remains unchanged.
March 7, 2005
Navy sonar and beached dolphins
"[M]ounting evidence indicates that mid- and low- frequency range sonar can cause [whales and dolphins] to beach, surface too quickly, or behave in other unusual ways."
Imagine what hundreds of giant wind turbines throbbing at low frequencies must sound like to our sea-borne kin.
categories: animal rights, wind farms
Imagine what hundreds of giant wind turbines throbbing at low frequencies must sound like to our sea-borne kin.
categories: animal rights, wind farms
R Crumb is man of the hour in the U.K.
Following are some excerpts from a nice interview in the Guardian at Crumb's manse in southern France.
'It's strange talking to Crumb - his words are depressive and lugubrious, and yet he appears mellow, laughing easily through his existential nausea.'
'He accepts, reluctantly, that his misanthropy may well be rooted in idealism.'
'"I see the worst aspects of everything. Aline used to roll her eyes because she thinks I ranted and raved about everything that is wrong, so she moved us over here and got us outta there." What did he think was wrong? He doesn't know where to start - corporatism, Coca-Cola, George W, intolerance, Christian fundamentalism, red tape, prices, logos, environmental destruction, property developers. "Oy!" he says.'
'Aline says meditation has made him far more balanced and has slightly eased his self-loathing.'
'It's strange talking to Crumb - his words are depressive and lugubrious, and yet he appears mellow, laughing easily through his existential nausea.'
'He accepts, reluctantly, that his misanthropy may well be rooted in idealism.'
'"I see the worst aspects of everything. Aline used to roll her eyes because she thinks I ranted and raved about everything that is wrong, so she moved us over here and got us outta there." What did he think was wrong? He doesn't know where to start - corporatism, Coca-Cola, George W, intolerance, Christian fundamentalism, red tape, prices, logos, environmental destruction, property developers. "Oy!" he says.'
'Aline says meditation has made him far more balanced and has slightly eased his self-loathing.'
March 6, 2005
The story so far
The news editor of Renewable Energy Access returned my query about the removal of comments (that has continued since that query) that referred readers to www.aweo.org. Here is the exchange so far.
-----------------------
From: Eric Rosenbloom
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 6:14 PM
It was brought to my attention yesterday that a comment on the article at renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=23068 was removed. Suspecting the reason to be a reference to www.aweo.org, that person put up a new similar comment and I added one as well. This morning both were gone.
I don't understand this, as other comments cite other web sites, both pro- and anti-wind. (And please remember that many opponents, including myself, to large-scale wind power are in fact very supportive of many other renewable energy sources.) Could you please explain what happened?
-----------------------
From: Jesse Broehl
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:54:47 -0500
Eric,
We welcome spirited, opposing, anti-RE comments in our news forum but we don't welcome comments that simply refer people off-site without actually contributing to a discussion or at least summarizing their arguments. That appeared to be the case with your comments regarding "aweo.org"
Just curious, if you're against commercial wind power, what are your suggestions to our increasing energy needs? More coal, oil, nuclear, etc? Now that would be a terrifc item to post in our comment forum!
Jesse Broehl, Editor,
RenewableEnergyAccess.com News
-----------------------
From: Eric Rosenbloom
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:57:19 -0500
Fair enough. Thanks for responding. My impression of the first instance, however, was that it was simply in response to the earlier referral to 4 pro-wind sites. I notice that references to aweo.org still stand in the comments at renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=22907, perhaps because the second one is just such a counter-referral as the instance I wrote to you about. Yet that second referral, recommending 2 pro-wind sites, contains no discussion or summary of their arguments.
To your curiosity, the thing that seems obvious to me about commercial wind power is that it can not contribute significantly to our existing energy needs, let alone any increase. That is, I reject the premise of your question. Your goading options ("coal, oil, nuclear, etc") also appear to equate rejection of big wind power with rejection of all alternative energy sources. My interest in alternative energy is precisely what led me to research wind and discover its many shortcomings, for which rural communities and wild habitats are being nonetheless sacrificed.
~~~
Eric
-----------------------
From: Jesse Broehl
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 17:51:27 -0500
Eric,
I always regret following up these conversations ........ but I don't follow your position that commercial wind power doesn't contribute significantly to existing energy needs. Every MW of wind power means that amount doesn't need to be generated somewhere else, through dirty means.
One quick anecdotal example: The 420 MW proposed Cape Wind farm would displace, at full capacity, more than the entire electrical output of the fuel oil plant near buzzard's bay. You may recall that over a year ago, roughly 40,000 gallons of oil were spilled in Buzzard's Bay on their way to that power plant. I'm sure you'll pick holes in this example (the wind is intermittent, they're an "eyesore", etc) but that's a real example of wind power contributing a large amount of commercial energy in a clean fashion.
As I said, we welcome any type of comment as long as it attempts to keep people on our site and contributes in some way as either a basic comment or part of a discussion.
Have a good weekend,
Jesse Broehl, Editor,
RenewableEnergyAccess.com News
-----------------------
From: Eric Rosenbloom
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:03:51 -0500
Well, you brought up the example of Cape Wind, and the salient phrase is "at full capacity." You know that its average output will be at best a third of that, and that it will generate at or above that average level only about a third of the time. You also know that oil-fired plants are precisely the quick-response generators necessary to balance the fluctuations of wind plant on the system. Oil will still have to be shipped to Buzzard's Bay.
And as the Cape Wind proposal is still being reviewed, it is certainly not a "real example of wind power contributing a large amount of commercial energy in a clean fashion." I often note that wind advocates always talk about the future rather than what has already been achieved in Denmark, Germany, or Spain -- which is not very much.
~~Eric
categories: wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines
-----------------------
From: Eric Rosenbloom
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 6:14 PM
It was brought to my attention yesterday that a comment on the article at renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=23068 was removed. Suspecting the reason to be a reference to www.aweo.org, that person put up a new similar comment and I added one as well. This morning both were gone.
I don't understand this, as other comments cite other web sites, both pro- and anti-wind. (And please remember that many opponents, including myself, to large-scale wind power are in fact very supportive of many other renewable energy sources.) Could you please explain what happened?
-----------------------
From: Jesse Broehl
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:54:47 -0500
Eric,
We welcome spirited, opposing, anti-RE comments in our news forum but we don't welcome comments that simply refer people off-site without actually contributing to a discussion or at least summarizing their arguments. That appeared to be the case with your comments regarding "aweo.org"
Just curious, if you're against commercial wind power, what are your suggestions to our increasing energy needs? More coal, oil, nuclear, etc? Now that would be a terrifc item to post in our comment forum!
Jesse Broehl, Editor,
RenewableEnergyAccess.com News
-----------------------
From: Eric Rosenbloom
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:57:19 -0500
Fair enough. Thanks for responding. My impression of the first instance, however, was that it was simply in response to the earlier referral to 4 pro-wind sites. I notice that references to aweo.org still stand in the comments at renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=22907, perhaps because the second one is just such a counter-referral as the instance I wrote to you about. Yet that second referral, recommending 2 pro-wind sites, contains no discussion or summary of their arguments.
To your curiosity, the thing that seems obvious to me about commercial wind power is that it can not contribute significantly to our existing energy needs, let alone any increase. That is, I reject the premise of your question. Your goading options ("coal, oil, nuclear, etc") also appear to equate rejection of big wind power with rejection of all alternative energy sources. My interest in alternative energy is precisely what led me to research wind and discover its many shortcomings, for which rural communities and wild habitats are being nonetheless sacrificed.
~~~
Eric
-----------------------
From: Jesse Broehl
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 17:51:27 -0500
Eric,
I always regret following up these conversations ........ but I don't follow your position that commercial wind power doesn't contribute significantly to existing energy needs. Every MW of wind power means that amount doesn't need to be generated somewhere else, through dirty means.
One quick anecdotal example: The 420 MW proposed Cape Wind farm would displace, at full capacity, more than the entire electrical output of the fuel oil plant near buzzard's bay. You may recall that over a year ago, roughly 40,000 gallons of oil were spilled in Buzzard's Bay on their way to that power plant. I'm sure you'll pick holes in this example (the wind is intermittent, they're an "eyesore", etc) but that's a real example of wind power contributing a large amount of commercial energy in a clean fashion.
As I said, we welcome any type of comment as long as it attempts to keep people on our site and contributes in some way as either a basic comment or part of a discussion.
Have a good weekend,
Jesse Broehl, Editor,
RenewableEnergyAccess.com News
-----------------------
From: Eric Rosenbloom
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:03:51 -0500
Well, you brought up the example of Cape Wind, and the salient phrase is "at full capacity." You know that its average output will be at best a third of that, and that it will generate at or above that average level only about a third of the time. You also know that oil-fired plants are precisely the quick-response generators necessary to balance the fluctuations of wind plant on the system. Oil will still have to be shipped to Buzzard's Bay.
And as the Cape Wind proposal is still being reviewed, it is certainly not a "real example of wind power contributing a large amount of commercial energy in a clean fashion." I often note that wind advocates always talk about the future rather than what has already been achieved in Denmark, Germany, or Spain -- which is not very much.
~~Eric
categories: wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines
March 3, 2005
References to anti-wind site removed
Renewable Energy Access removed a comment to one of their news articles, apparently because it referred readers to www.aweo.org for a good presentation of the arguments against industrial wind power. It followed a comment that similarly cited four pro-industry sites. An earlier comment cited on-line articles aginst wind turbines' destruction of birds. The correspondent who noticed the removal and brought it to my attention added a new comment recommending aweo.org, and I added one as well. Both were gone the next morning. I wrote to the webmaster on Tuesday and to the news editor on Wednesday for an explanation but haven't received an answer yet. No doubt the American Wind Energy Association (awea.org) is peeved and too big an account to reject their cowardice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)