"All the eco-news that's fit to sell ads"

Andrew Leonard wrote yesterday in his "How the World Works" column for Salon about a special "green business" section in the New York Times, filled with smarmy ads from the likes of Wal-Mart, GM, Shell, and ADM. He remarks on the greenwashing it promotes and the obvious fact that it is an advertising supplement pretending to be objective editorial content (there's even an article about "eco-ads"!), and he is remarkably perceptive about the fact that this business is part of, not an alternative to, the whole model of economic growth that threatens the environment so egregiously.

There's also a more fundamental snake-eating-its-own-tail problem. The general tone of the section is hopeful, packed with tales of environmentalists and business executives working together, full of heartwarming news about advances in energy efficiency, renewable technologies and corporate commitments to social responsibility. But it would have been nice to have just one essay exploring the question of whether environmental destruction is built into the deep structure of the current global economy. Nowhere is the possibility raised that even as some slivers of society in the developed world are beginning to understand the importance of sustainable development, rampaging economic growth in countries such as China and India threatens to utterly overwhelm what little, incremental progress is being made in, say, Northern California or Sweden. ... [A]ny discussion of "the business of green" ought to tackle directly the fundamental problem: Economic growth, historically speaking, is an eco-killer.

environment, environmentalism, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism

Hull wind facts

The following is from the Hull wind website:

Hull Wind 2, a Vestas V80 - 1.8 Megawatt turbine has been installed in Hull!
The new turbine will produce 5 million kWhs every year.

And right below it are data from Hull Wind 1 that call into question that claim:

May 8, 2006
6,853,738 kWhs
Capacity Factor: 27.1%
Days Commissioned: 1594
Total Hours Generating: 25403

After more than 4 years (1,594 ÷ 365), Hull 1 has generated electricity only 66% of the time (25,403 hours ÷ [1,594 days × 24 hours]) and its capacity factor is 27% (6,853,738 kWh ÷ [1,594 days × 24 hours × 660 kW]), yet in complete denial of that fact, a capacity factor of 31.5% is projected for Hull 2 (5 million kWh ÷ [1,800 kW × 365 days × 24 hours]).

The 15% exaggeration may not seem like much, but with such a marginal power source it is indeed significant. In fact, 27% is the average capacity factor voluntarily reported by wind facilities in the U.S. to the Energy Information Agency, and since those reports apparently allow discounting turbines that are temporarily broken down the actual capacity factors are lower. Yet promoters continue to claim that new facilities will have capacity factors of 30-40%. Then when the turbines are up and running, it's on to the next project and if the actual output actually becomes known, why, new technology will have a much higher capacity factor, yes, don't dwell on the past, let's move on.

And let us return to the other aspect of that output that is problematic on the grid (where large-scale storage is impractical): the fact that one third of the time wind turbines are idle (from either too little or too much wind). Related to this is the fact that from the "cut-in" wind speed up to the "rated" wind speed -- at which the generator's output reaches its full capacity, typically around 30 mph -- the output is cubically related to the wind speed. That is, if the wind speed doubles the power output increases by 8. The result is that in addition to being idle a third of the time, another third of the time wind turbines produce power below their already low average rate.

In other words, whatever the capacity factor is (from historical experience it would be expected to be 20-30%), that level of output is seen only one third of the time.

wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism

Cape Wind: shoveling public money into private pockets

A new Beacon Hill Institute report on Cape Wind cash flow over the projected 25-year life of the facility found that 77% of the construction costs will be paid for by subsidies and tax credits, i.e., by the public, or 48% of its operating revenues. Only 20% of that public money will be returned to the public (in tax payments). Meanwhile, the analysis found, Cape Wind's investors will enjoy a 25% return on their equity.

Only 54% of the facility's revenue will be from electricity sales. Thirty-one percent will be from the sale of Massachusetts green credits, 11% from the federal 10-year production tax credit, and 4% from federal accelerated depreciation.

The press release is available here, and a 200-KB PDF of the report is available here.

Note to investors: Don't count on that 25% return. This analysis apparently uses projected production figures from the Cape Wind company itself, which are grossly inflated. They're lying to you, too.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism

Pointless poll on wind energy

WCAX-TV of Burlington, Vt., focused their telephone poll this week on wind energy, with all of one very leading and one almost meaningless question.

QUESTION: Do you favor or oppose wind turbines as a way to offset the rising costs of fuel prices and electricity rates?

Who wrote these questions?! The evidence is if rates change at all they only go up. And it is our taxes that already pay for two-thirds of the cost of erecting wind energy facilities. The developers and their investors win. You lose.

QUESTION: Would you favor or oppose wind turbines if they can be seen from your property? (Note: Question only asked of those who responded "favor" in previous question.)

Once again, there is no effort to find out the respondent's knowledge level or even if they are anywhere near a proposed project. The question should be, "Knowing that they are 330-420 feet tall, are constantly moving, create noise and vibration day and night, cause light and shadow flicker, must be sited on prominent ridge lines (where their blades, with a tip speed of up to 180 mph, endanger birds and bats and the the noise disturbs other wildlife), require clearance of several acres and a deep foundation of thousands of tons of cement and steel for each tower, and that wide strong roads have to be cut through already dwindling and fragmented habitat -- all for an intermittent and variable power source that averages only a fourth of its rated capacity but reaches that average level only a third of the time, meaning its effect on other sources is minimal and perhaps even causes an increase of harmful emissions -- do you favor or oppose the erection of industrial wind turbines in Vermont?"

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, Vermont, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, ecoanarchism, animal rights

Delahunt: Cape Wind averse to rules

Democratic Congressman William Delahunt of Massachusetts writes in today's Boston Herald:

Recently, some have suggested that Congress is trying to change the rules of the game for the developers of the wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound. ...

When Jim Gordon and Cape Wind applied [in 2001] for a permit with the Army Corps of Engineers, ... he possessed no clear legal right to build a wind farm in federal waters. Congress only authorized the development of such facilities in federal waters last August. ...

The emergence of the Cape Wind project and others prompted Congress last year to authorize creation of a policy for offshore wind farms. The rules are now being written by the Minerals Management Service and will most likely call for wind farm sites to be chosen based on a consultation process with states. The rules will no doubt require wind projects to avoid marine sanctuaries, participate in a transparent competitive bidding process and
ensure that the rights to use federal waters produce tax revenues. ...

Tucked away in the energy bill that was signed into law last year was a cleverly written, innocuous provision that would exempt Cape Wind from many rules now being written to regulate emerging wind farms -- specifically, federal competitive bidding requirements. ...

Cape Wind has morphed into a no-bid deal, engineered in secret and financed with $1 billion in taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies [annually]. ...

The so-called "exhaustive process" that Cape Wind claims it has participated in has been extensively criticized by the U.S. Oceans Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Interior.

Cape Wind's draft Environmental Impact Statement ... earned EPA's lowest grade. Interior's criticisms are over 50 pages long. ...

With respect to the substance of the Coast Guard provisions, Congress has already established a precedent by giving our governors and the Coast Guard the authority to veto and regulate offshore LNG projects. Nobody is suggesting that was a mistake.

Let's not forget that 30 years ago it was the people of the Cape and Islands who convinced Massachusetts to designate all of Nantucket Sound an ocean sanctuary. It was the state that designated much of this area off-limits to development, and nominated it for national sanctuary protection.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism

Canada taking low-frequency noise from wind turbines seriously

A Canadian Press article yesterday described the issue of low-frequency sound from wind turbine facilities. The problem has been raised by the case of the D'Entremonts, formerly of Lower West Pubnico, Nova Scotia, who started feeling ill as soon as the neighboring facility began operation.

"The noise is unbearable," [Daniel d'Entremont] says from Abrams River, the nearby community he recently relocated to with his wife and four of his six children.

"It's like a surround sound -- you can't avoid it, you can't ignore it. It just comes right into your head." ...

He says his family couldn't sleep, his children were constantly tired and suffering headaches, and nobody in the house could concentrate.

The d'Entremont family's complaints touch on a little-known -- and little-studied -- debate over whether inaudible sounds from wind farms can cause health problems for residents living nearby.

While the operator of the wind farm brushes off the family's claims, experts say vibrations from the turbines embedded deep into the ground have the potential to affect the health of some.

And new sound testing commissioned by the federal government hopes to offer more insight into what, if anything, is happening at d'Entremont's home. ...

"Around wind turbines, it appears there are always some people who are very disturbed by them," Dr. Nina Pierpont says from her office in Malone, N.Y.

"It's not everybody, so it creates a lot of controversy."

"When the exposure is inside a house, occurring 24 hours a day, even if the sound intensity is less, there is potential to produce serious pathology."

Charles Demond, president of the Pubnico wind company, insists the facility conforms to existing laws, but that's exactly the point: The laws do not consider the inaudible frequencies generated by the giant machines. Even the noise regulations for audible noise are inadequate for the rural areas in which wind plants are usually erected, especially as the turbines are more active and the noise more intrusive at night.

Michael Sharpe, another Dalhousie University audiologist, says even if someone isn't affected directly by low-frequency noise, the constant swoosh of the blades, even at allowable levels, can have psychological effects.

"If the sound is audible and it annoys you, then it can seem louder," says Sharpe, who compares it to a dripping tap that can keep someone awake at night.

"As your stress level increases, your awareness of the annoying sound increases as well. As we know, elevated stress levels for a prolonged period of time can have a negative health effect."

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines

"Cape Wind, oil, gasoline and outrage"

The economics of electricity are complex, but two things about it are obvious yet unmentioned in Charles Kleekamp's flaccid commentary in today's Barnstable (Mass.) Register (he's vice president of Clean Power Now). First, if wind power is cheap to the grid (which it has to be, since it is so variable and intermittent that it is almost worthless), it is because we have already paid for two-thirds of it with our taxes (while the developer and his investors pocket all of the profits, particularly those not from energy but from renewable energy certificates). Second, when was the last time your electric rate went down -- it is an unlikely event.

The other thrust of Kleekamp's piece is explaining how wind power in New England will make us less dependent on foreign oil. But he notes that what is used to generate electricity is residual fuel oil, that is, the sludge left over from refining gasoline and diesel. Even if wind power could reduce the use of other sources (a debatable point), it would not reduce the demand for gasoline and diesel and therefore would not affect our use of foreign oil.

Kleekamp also mentions that fear helps drive up the price of oil. The instability and antagonism towards the U.S. in so many oil-rich countries (not to mention the continuing growth of domestic demand) are direct results of the policies (and outright invasions) promoted by the oilmen who run (or is that "ruin") our country. Armageddon is obviously very good for business. It gives knuckleheads like Kleekamp something to do, too.

wind power, wind energy, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism