As quoted at National Wind Watch (click the title of this post), where the entire letter is available:
"We feel this project presents an unacceptable risk to wildlife. We are particularly concerned with potential significant adverse impacts upon bats and birds. ... This project, and the conditions imposed by the State Corporation Commission, will set a precedent for all future wind energy projects in Virginia. Wind farms cannot be viewed as independent with regard to impacts upon wide-ranging migratory animals. We currently lack sufficient knowledge to absolutely determine the maximum fatality rates that can be tolerated at a given site without unacceptably impacting local or regional populations of sensitive species; but we are certain that high fatality rates at multiple sites across the landscape would pose an unacceptable risk, as do unmitigated fatalities of Endangered or Threatened species. ... In the case of this project, where wildlife losses potentially could be very substantial and significant, we must take a conservative approach to assessing risk and designing appropriate mitigation. The data needs for pre- and post-construction evaluation, monitoring, and mitigation should not be dictated by project applicants or consultants .... High fatality rates at this site would particularly be devastating to bats because of their reproductive strategy, which is atypical of a small mammal. ... They have small litters (typically one or two young), only one litter per year, and life expectancy of 12-15 years. With this strategy, the impact of the loss of individuals is much greater, especially within small populations. ... In addition to bats, we are concerned over potential eagle fatalities at this site. ... We have recommended that the applicant consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning potential take of federal Endangered or Threatened species. We cannot authorize take of federally listed species. The applicant’s consultants have downplayed the potential for such take but, in our opinion, the evidence suggests a strong likelihood of take."
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, animal rights
September 24, 2006
September 22, 2006
Bluff and bluster of wind supporters
A recent post on the National Forum of Australia (click the title):
One of the things that stands out about wind is its apparent inability to replace other sources. That is a big shortcoming. At least other sources -- renewable and otherwise -- produce useful electricity for the grid, so there is something against which to weigh the costs. As for the growth of the wind energy business, religious fundamentalism is growing around the world, too. That in itself does not make it right or true. The fact of the issue at hand is that the industry has yet to show any evidence of actual benefit from wind power on the grid. Their massive erections seem more like the giant statues on Rapa Nui, a desperate but very wrongheaded effort to fend off environmental disaster.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, ecoanarchism
One of the things that stands out about wind is its apparent inability to replace other sources. That is a big shortcoming. At least other sources -- renewable and otherwise -- produce useful electricity for the grid, so there is something against which to weigh the costs. As for the growth of the wind energy business, religious fundamentalism is growing around the world, too. That in itself does not make it right or true. The fact of the issue at hand is that the industry has yet to show any evidence of actual benefit from wind power on the grid. Their massive erections seem more like the giant statues on Rapa Nui, a desperate but very wrongheaded effort to fend off environmental disaster.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, ecoanarchism
Irish wind energy planning guidelines
This is from section 5.6 of recent (June 2006) planning guidelines for wind energy from the Irish Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
In quieter places (ambient less than 30 dB), they suggest an upper limit of 35-40 dB rather than a relative limit of 5 dB above ambient.
Their recommendation of 43 dB at night obviously applies to the noisier places, being meant as a lower maximum to allow sleep.
They also suggest that noise will not be a problem at a distance farther than 500 m, or just over 1,500 feet. (Note, however, the U.K. Noise Association's recommendation of a minimum distance of one mile from residences and the French Academy of Medicine's similar recommendation of 1.5 km.)
The 500 m limit is considered later (section 5.12) to also apply for shadow flicker, but they also state that flicker may still be a problem at a distance of 10 times the rotor diameter.
And here's an odd directive for maintaining "visual amenity": "Rotors should be kept rotating ..." (section 6.13) As many people have suggested, the generator acts as a motor if more electricity comes in than goes out, and that turbines are often seen turning with only a slight breeze. It has been suggested that it looks better to have them turning ...
Also in the same section: "Nacelles and towers should be kept clear of leakage from internal fluids." That suggests, of course, that leaks are common.
More (section 6.15): "Decommissioning should involve the removal of all of the aboveground elements of the wind energy development and making good of the site, with the possible exception of roads and tracks where some further use can be found for them and this is approved by the planning authority. Foundation pads can be covered with local soil and left for natural re-vegetation, although they should be re-sodded in highly exposed locations." A reminder that "restoration" of the site means leaving several tons of cement and steel right below the surface. That is the usual provision in the U.S. as well.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism
In general, a lower fixed limit of 45dB(A)10 or a maximum increase of 5dB(A) above background noise at nearby noise sensitive locations is considered appropriate to provide protection to wind energy development neighbours. However, in very quiet areas, the use of a margin of 5dB(A) above background noise at nearby noise sensitive properties is not necessary to offer a reasonable degree of protection and may unduly restrict wind energy developments which should be recognised as having wider national and global benefits. Instead, in low noise environments where background noise is less than 30dB(A), it is recommended that the daytime level of the LA90, 10min of the wind energy development noise be limited to an absolute level within the range of 35-40dB(A).Note they distinguish quieter rural areas from more suburban (I guess) areas. The allowable range for the noisier areas is from 45 dB to 5 dB above ambient. Obviously, this presumes an ambient level of at least 40 dB.
Separate noise limits should apply for day-time and for night-time. During the night the protection of external amenity becomes less important and the emphasis should be on preventing sleep disturbance. A fixed limit of 43dB(A) will protect sleep inside properties during the night.
In general, noise is unlikely to be a significant problem where the distance from the nearest turbine to any noise sensitive property is more than 500 metres. Planning authorities may seek evidence that the type(s) of turbines proposed will use best current engineering practice in terms of noise creation and suppression.
In quieter places (ambient less than 30 dB), they suggest an upper limit of 35-40 dB rather than a relative limit of 5 dB above ambient.
Their recommendation of 43 dB at night obviously applies to the noisier places, being meant as a lower maximum to allow sleep.
They also suggest that noise will not be a problem at a distance farther than 500 m, or just over 1,500 feet. (Note, however, the U.K. Noise Association's recommendation of a minimum distance of one mile from residences and the French Academy of Medicine's similar recommendation of 1.5 km.)
The 500 m limit is considered later (section 5.12) to also apply for shadow flicker, but they also state that flicker may still be a problem at a distance of 10 times the rotor diameter.
And here's an odd directive for maintaining "visual amenity": "Rotors should be kept rotating ..." (section 6.13) As many people have suggested, the generator acts as a motor if more electricity comes in than goes out, and that turbines are often seen turning with only a slight breeze. It has been suggested that it looks better to have them turning ...
Also in the same section: "Nacelles and towers should be kept clear of leakage from internal fluids." That suggests, of course, that leaks are common.
More (section 6.15): "Decommissioning should involve the removal of all of the aboveground elements of the wind energy development and making good of the site, with the possible exception of roads and tracks where some further use can be found for them and this is approved by the planning authority. Foundation pads can be covered with local soil and left for natural re-vegetation, although they should be re-sodded in highly exposed locations." A reminder that "restoration" of the site means leaving several tons of cement and steel right below the surface. That is the usual provision in the U.S. as well.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism
September 20, 2006
Interview about organics disappointing
Guest editorial about Salon article (click title):
This guy is the classic American capitalist dolt. He thinks everything is going swimmingly, and if Americans don't have a "languid Mediterranean culture" and are always in a rush and everyone in the family has to work just to scrape by or to buy lots of stuff, and families don't eat together, and Starbucks' McDonald's-like sterility and sameness invades every street corner, that's fine by him. Hey, we are rushed Americans and so what? Ain't life grand in busy-land? He's a modern guy, who cares about those old finger-wagging fogies nattering on about homecooked meals of real food? We aren't time-wasting Europeans, after all! Because you can now routinely get mesclun and good coffee, he surmises that Americans eat better and society is improving. Why then is obesity and diabetes on the rise? Why is there more junk food around than ever before? Do average Americans really eat that much organic food, or even recognize many healthful foods like kale or mustard greens, for example? Just look at the terrible school lunches most American kids eat (even though they are supposedly being improved, they don't seem to have changed significantly) and the junk that they bring from home in their lunchboxes. It's not that their parents don't care; it's that they really don't seem to know what nutritious food is. And there are people in this country who go hungry for lack of food. Food pantries and soup kitchens are serving more people, not less. And why would Mr. Arugula continue to buy Jif peanut butter if he could choose organic peanut butter? Peanuts are one of the most heavily pesticided crops there are. People are free to eat what they like -- the problem is that these pesticides are poisoning the planet, which means all of us. There's no reason for an unnecessary product like Jif to even exist. Organics shouldn't be just a consumer choice, it's about the bigger picture. And why is it acceptable that it's actually abnormal to have a family that cooks its own real food everyday and eats it together? Families like that aren't busy enough!! If you have time to make meals from scratch and eat in a civilized manner by candlelight, you don't have enough to do or are just an old person out of touch with progress! Apparently Americans should have more important activities than routinely cooking real meals and then sitting down together to enjoy the food, the company and conversation.
We need to try to be more like those more "languid" cultures; not simply dismiss the idea that this society could ever change or that it is even a desirable thing to evolve. This country isn't doing too well right now, on many different levels, but apparently this "Arugula" guy hasn't noticed. People do die from overwork, from relentless stress, from eating tons of meat and crappy junk foods that pass as meals. The fracturing of family life has made this society more sterile, shallow, alienating and even more violent. Many kids seem to barely have any connection to their parents and many parents seem to avoid their kids. It isn't like this in most of the rest of the world, not to the extent it is here anyway. In most other societies, there is still a true relationship and respect between the generations and some of this is because those families eat together, and not in a big rush.
It's true that there is more produce and usually some tofu available in most American markets now. But there are plenty of people shopping at markets where it really isn't so different from stores in the 1960s, with little or no organic produce to speak of. Maybe there is now a bit of chard and kale, but it is always pesticided. And organics are definitely expensive, even if they are worth it, so many people can't afford to buy them regularly. But it is a whole sea change that needs to take place -- people cooking their own healthy meals, growing some of their own vegetables if possible, working less if possible, slowing down, educating themselves about pesticides, GMOs and the cruel folly of meat-eating. This will not happen easily. But it is tiresome to see someone glamorizing lethal American busyness and the endless crap that envelops this ugly nation. If we were really improving, there'd be lots of real cafes with distinct identities not owned by corporations serving good coffee, not just boring Starbucks selling overpriced treats. Starbucks is not progress. Maybe people could figure out that they could make their own superb coffee at home and carry it with them, resist advertising and stop automatically supporting every corporate giant that comes along.
This guy is the classic American capitalist dolt. He thinks everything is going swimmingly, and if Americans don't have a "languid Mediterranean culture" and are always in a rush and everyone in the family has to work just to scrape by or to buy lots of stuff, and families don't eat together, and Starbucks' McDonald's-like sterility and sameness invades every street corner, that's fine by him. Hey, we are rushed Americans and so what? Ain't life grand in busy-land? He's a modern guy, who cares about those old finger-wagging fogies nattering on about homecooked meals of real food? We aren't time-wasting Europeans, after all! Because you can now routinely get mesclun and good coffee, he surmises that Americans eat better and society is improving. Why then is obesity and diabetes on the rise? Why is there more junk food around than ever before? Do average Americans really eat that much organic food, or even recognize many healthful foods like kale or mustard greens, for example? Just look at the terrible school lunches most American kids eat (even though they are supposedly being improved, they don't seem to have changed significantly) and the junk that they bring from home in their lunchboxes. It's not that their parents don't care; it's that they really don't seem to know what nutritious food is. And there are people in this country who go hungry for lack of food. Food pantries and soup kitchens are serving more people, not less. And why would Mr. Arugula continue to buy Jif peanut butter if he could choose organic peanut butter? Peanuts are one of the most heavily pesticided crops there are. People are free to eat what they like -- the problem is that these pesticides are poisoning the planet, which means all of us. There's no reason for an unnecessary product like Jif to even exist. Organics shouldn't be just a consumer choice, it's about the bigger picture. And why is it acceptable that it's actually abnormal to have a family that cooks its own real food everyday and eats it together? Families like that aren't busy enough!! If you have time to make meals from scratch and eat in a civilized manner by candlelight, you don't have enough to do or are just an old person out of touch with progress! Apparently Americans should have more important activities than routinely cooking real meals and then sitting down together to enjoy the food, the company and conversation.
We need to try to be more like those more "languid" cultures; not simply dismiss the idea that this society could ever change or that it is even a desirable thing to evolve. This country isn't doing too well right now, on many different levels, but apparently this "Arugula" guy hasn't noticed. People do die from overwork, from relentless stress, from eating tons of meat and crappy junk foods that pass as meals. The fracturing of family life has made this society more sterile, shallow, alienating and even more violent. Many kids seem to barely have any connection to their parents and many parents seem to avoid their kids. It isn't like this in most of the rest of the world, not to the extent it is here anyway. In most other societies, there is still a true relationship and respect between the generations and some of this is because those families eat together, and not in a big rush.
It's true that there is more produce and usually some tofu available in most American markets now. But there are plenty of people shopping at markets where it really isn't so different from stores in the 1960s, with little or no organic produce to speak of. Maybe there is now a bit of chard and kale, but it is always pesticided. And organics are definitely expensive, even if they are worth it, so many people can't afford to buy them regularly. But it is a whole sea change that needs to take place -- people cooking their own healthy meals, growing some of their own vegetables if possible, working less if possible, slowing down, educating themselves about pesticides, GMOs and the cruel folly of meat-eating. This will not happen easily. But it is tiresome to see someone glamorizing lethal American busyness and the endless crap that envelops this ugly nation. If we were really improving, there'd be lots of real cafes with distinct identities not owned by corporations serving good coffee, not just boring Starbucks selling overpriced treats. Starbucks is not progress. Maybe people could figure out that they could make their own superb coffee at home and carry it with them, resist advertising and stop automatically supporting every corporate giant that comes along.
September 19, 2006
Wind facility refused in Kilbraney, Ireland
Proposed development: Construction of a windfarm consisting of 17 number wind turbines (hub height 80 metres, blade diameter 82 metres), electrical tail station and control building, construction of new, and extension of existing internal site tracks and associated works at Kilbraney in the townlands of Kilbraney, Coolboy, Kayle, Ballynamona, Ballyliamgow, Bryanstown, Tinnarath and Ballygarvan, County Wexford.
Decision
REFUSE permission for the above proposed development based on the reasons and considerations set out below.
1. Having regard to the location of the site in an area of mainly flat and undulating farmland characterised by a patchwork of fields delineated by hedgerows of varying size and with an extansive scattering of houses, it is considered that the proposed development, by reason the scale of the individual turbine units and the spatial extent and layout of the windfarm, would conflict with the Wind Energy Development Guidelines issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in June, 2006, would give rise to visual clutter in an attractive rural area and would be unduly prominent when seen from residential properties in the vicinity. The proposed development would be visually obtrusive, would seriously injure the amenities of property within and surrounding the windfarm and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. ...
Dated this 14th day of September 2006.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, Ireland
September 18, 2006
Letter made false claims about wind energy
To the editor, Barre-Montpelier (Vt.) Times-Argus:
The only thing "inexhaustible" about industrial wind power appears to be its advocates' insistence that it has any value at all to justify desecrating wild places and destroying rural communities.
The Sept. 17 letter from Tom Gray of the American Wind Energy Association attempts to claim that wind does in fact displace other sources of energy. He does so by citing a paper that says it will. Why doesn't he cite a paper that says it has, e.g., in Denmark, Spain, or Germany, where wind energy is well established? The fact is, there doesn't seem to be any such paper.
The industry continues to fantasize about future success, despite an ongoing record that shows no benefits from wind energy at all. "Errors of fact and omission" are their stock in trade.
It's no wonder, then, that opposition to this destructive boondoggle only grows. The "errors" of industrial-scale wind energy are increasingly hard to deny.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
The only thing "inexhaustible" about industrial wind power appears to be its advocates' insistence that it has any value at all to justify desecrating wild places and destroying rural communities.
The Sept. 17 letter from Tom Gray of the American Wind Energy Association attempts to claim that wind does in fact displace other sources of energy. He does so by citing a paper that says it will. Why doesn't he cite a paper that says it has, e.g., in Denmark, Spain, or Germany, where wind energy is well established? The fact is, there doesn't seem to be any such paper.
The industry continues to fantasize about future success, despite an ongoing record that shows no benefits from wind energy at all. "Errors of fact and omission" are their stock in trade.
It's no wonder, then, that opposition to this destructive boondoggle only grows. The "errors" of industrial-scale wind energy are increasingly hard to deny.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
September 17, 2006
"Why do you hate America?"
Mickey Z. writes in Counterpunch, "Why I Hate America; and Why I'm Not Leaving":
When pressed, I sometimes reply: "I don't hate America. In fact, think it's one of the best countries anyone ever stole." But, after the laughter dies down, I have a confession to make: If by "America" they mean the elected/appointed officials and the corporations that own them, well, I guess I do hate that America -- with justification.
Among many reasons, I hate America for the near-extermination and subsequent oppression of its indigenous population. I hate it for its role in the African slave trade and for dropping atomic bombs on civilians. I hate its control of institutions like the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organization. I hate it for propping up brutal dictators like Suharto, Pinochet, Duvalier, Hussein, Marcos, and the Shah of Iran. I hate America for its unconditional support for Israel. I hate its bogus two-party system, its one-size-fits-all culture, and its income gap. I could go on for pages but I'll sum up with this: I hate America for being a hypocritical white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.
After a paragraph like that, you know what comes next: If you hate America so much, why don't you leave? Leave America? That would potentially put me on the other end of U.S. foreign policy. No thanks.
I like how Paul Robeson answered that question before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1956: "My father was a slave and my people died to build this country, and I'm going to stay right here and have a part of it, just like you. And no fascist-minded people like you will drive me from it. Is that clear?"
Since none of my people died to build anything, I rely instead on William Blum, who declares, "I'm committed to fighting U.S. foreign policy, the greatest threat to peace and happiness in the world, and being in the United States is the best place for carrying out the battle. This is the belly of the beast, and I try to be an ulcer inside of it."
Needless to say, none of the above does a damn thing to placate the yellow ribbon crowd. It seems what offends flag-wavers most is when someone like me makes use of the freedom they claim to adore. According to their twisted logic, I am ungrateful for my liberty if I have the audacity to exercise it. If I make the choice to not salute the flag during the seventh inning stretch at Yankee Stadium, somehow I'm not worthy of having the freedom to make the choice to not salute the flag during the seventh inning stretch at Yankee Stadium. These so-called patriots not only claim to celebrate freedom while refusing my right to exploit it, they also ignore the social movements that fought for and won such freedoms.
There's plenty of tolerated public outcry against the Bush administration and the occupation of Iraq, but it's neither fashionable nor acceptable to go as far as saying, no, I do not support the troops and yes, I hate what America does. Fear of recrimination allows the status quo to control the terms of debate. Until we voice what is in our hearts and have the nerve to admit what we hate . . . we will never create something that can be loved.
When pressed, I sometimes reply: "I don't hate America. In fact, think it's one of the best countries anyone ever stole." But, after the laughter dies down, I have a confession to make: If by "America" they mean the elected/appointed officials and the corporations that own them, well, I guess I do hate that America -- with justification.
Among many reasons, I hate America for the near-extermination and subsequent oppression of its indigenous population. I hate it for its role in the African slave trade and for dropping atomic bombs on civilians. I hate its control of institutions like the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organization. I hate it for propping up brutal dictators like Suharto, Pinochet, Duvalier, Hussein, Marcos, and the Shah of Iran. I hate America for its unconditional support for Israel. I hate its bogus two-party system, its one-size-fits-all culture, and its income gap. I could go on for pages but I'll sum up with this: I hate America for being a hypocritical white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.
After a paragraph like that, you know what comes next: If you hate America so much, why don't you leave? Leave America? That would potentially put me on the other end of U.S. foreign policy. No thanks.
I like how Paul Robeson answered that question before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1956: "My father was a slave and my people died to build this country, and I'm going to stay right here and have a part of it, just like you. And no fascist-minded people like you will drive me from it. Is that clear?"
Since none of my people died to build anything, I rely instead on William Blum, who declares, "I'm committed to fighting U.S. foreign policy, the greatest threat to peace and happiness in the world, and being in the United States is the best place for carrying out the battle. This is the belly of the beast, and I try to be an ulcer inside of it."
Needless to say, none of the above does a damn thing to placate the yellow ribbon crowd. It seems what offends flag-wavers most is when someone like me makes use of the freedom they claim to adore. According to their twisted logic, I am ungrateful for my liberty if I have the audacity to exercise it. If I make the choice to not salute the flag during the seventh inning stretch at Yankee Stadium, somehow I'm not worthy of having the freedom to make the choice to not salute the flag during the seventh inning stretch at Yankee Stadium. These so-called patriots not only claim to celebrate freedom while refusing my right to exploit it, they also ignore the social movements that fought for and won such freedoms.
There's plenty of tolerated public outcry against the Bush administration and the occupation of Iraq, but it's neither fashionable nor acceptable to go as far as saying, no, I do not support the troops and yes, I hate what America does. Fear of recrimination allows the status quo to control the terms of debate. Until we voice what is in our hearts and have the nerve to admit what we hate . . . we will never create something that can be loved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)