Bill McKibben calls for more nuclear power

After an ad hominem dismissal of James Lovelock's opposition to industrial-scale wind power in an upcoming New York Review of Books, Bill McKibben then writes,

we will obviously need new energy sources, and the example of the French success with nuclear power (it generates three quarters of their electricity) means it has to be included in the mix of possibilities, as Jim Hansen recently argued in these pages.

The French, by the way, are getting desperate about the very dangerous radioactive waste that is piling up at all of their nuclear plants. Maybe McKibben, like Lovelock, will offer to have it buried in his back yard.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont

One government, one people, one führer

The National Park Service testified in Maine on the negative impacts that an industrial wind power facility on Redington Mountain would have on the Appalachian Trail.

But President Boosh issued a directive some years ago forbidding federal agencies to get in the way of "alternative energy" projects. The directive also requires that they act to clear the way for such projects, even if it conflicts with their mission, e.g., to protect wilderness and natural beauty.

Pam Underhill, the manager of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail testified: "There is little question that the proposed Redington Wind Farm would have a dramatic impact on the scenic character and recreation setting of this section [of the trail]. ... Spread out across several miles of terrain, these 29 structures -- each 40 stories tall, with constantly rotating 130-foot radius blades -- would become the dominant features of the landscape."

California Representative Darrell Issa wants the Interior Secretary to investigate.

Commenting on Issa's accusations, Underhill said: "The taxpayers pay me to protect the Appalachian Trail."

Issa chairs the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy and Resources and plans to hold hearings on local opposition to energy projects and to expose other "lower-level" officials acting against energy company plans.

Speaking of anti-democratic directives, Denmark's Environment Minister has threatened municipalities with one if they don't stop blocking efforts to replace their relatively small turbines with giant new ones. No new turbines have been erected in Denmark since 2004, and the industry is in a panic.

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, Vermont, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism, ecoanarchism

Accident: A failure in a wind turbine caused a forest fire in Muros

La Voz de Galicia, 29 September 2006:

A failure in one of the wind turbines owned by the Iberdrola company in the Pedregal Mountains, Esteiro (Muros), resulted in a forest fire that razed a hectare of the mountain. When the flames started, the machine was functioning and the movement of its blades helped scatter sparks about the area, which brought the focus of the fire to an area replanted with pine trees.

Two brigades of the Department of the Environment, forest rangers, and a helicopter extinquished the fire in little time. The wind turbine was left very damaged and it is likely that it will have to be replaced.

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

For a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of our energy: wind power!

At 20% "penetration," a typical goal (limited by the amount of excess capacity on the system that is free to balance the fluctuating wind load), wind energy would in theory replace only one forty-fifth of our energy.

Electricity accounts for roughly a third of all energy use, 20% wind would be a fifth of that third. (And that fifth requires four times the capacity of that actual output.) And the effective capacity (because of its variability) is yet a third of that output.

Even in theory, then, it is clearly an awfully destructive and expensive "alternative." In reality, it is even worse.

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism

Impact of industrial wind on rural economy

From "UK Energy Policy: The Small Business Perspective & the Impact on the Rural Economy," researched and written by Candida Whitmill for, and on behalf of, the Small Business Council, February 2006 (revised June 2006) [available at wind-watch.org]:

[p. 1, Foreword]  The Small Business Council is a non-departmental public body established in May 2000 to advise the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chief Executive of the Small Business Service on the needs of existing and potential small businesses in order to help them succeed and prosper. Working with Ministers and Senior Policy makers, the Council advises and reports on the effects on small businesses of current and potential policies.

[p. 2, Executive Summary]  This study focuses attention on one particular area of potential impact in the United Kingdom, the impact on tourism, an area dominated by small businesses and of pivotal importance to the rural economy as a whole. Twenty-five percent of all registered businesses are in rural areas.

The rural visitor economy is worth £14 billion in England alone and supports up to 800,000 jobs. Research shows that for an average 75% of visitors, the quality of the landscape and countryside is the most important factor in choosing a destination. Between 47% and 75% of visitors felt that wind turbines damage the landscape quality. In North Devon turbines would deter 11% of visitors, at a cost of £29 million and the loss of 800 jobs. Approximately 7% of visitors would not return to Cumbria, which would result in a loss of £70 million and 1,753 jobs. In the South West, just a 5% overall reduction in visitor numbers would lose the region £400 million and 15,000 jobs. Because of the multiplier effect, a reduction of visitors can have farreaching consequences for the overall regional economy, a fact richly illustrated during the Foot and Mouth crisis. The evidence shows that in some areas, 49% of all sectors of rural businesses experienced a negative impact. [Full analysis, pp. 10-18]

We argue that the current trend towards high levels of wind energy development onshore presents an unacceptable threat to rural businesses and runs counter to almost all other aspects of Government policy relating to the rural economy. This has important implications when assessing the overall cost-benefit equation of the current renewable energy policy.

[p. 20]  Sustainable development, as defined by the Rural Strategy, is characterised by "integrating and balancing environmental, social and economic considerations at every stage." 41 Recognising its potentially negative impact on the environment, UK tourism has long embraced the ethos of sustainability. Today UK tourism is striving to be a role model for sustainable practices. Businesses are investing in energy efficiency, recycling and local purchasing. Many are gaining international accreditation through sustainable programmes such as the Green Business Tourism Scheme. Local partnerships are operating visitor payback schemes that include visitors as stakeholders in reinvesting back into the conservation of the environment they enjoy. It is in the industry's interest to maintain and improve the environment and to contribute to the economic and social stability of local communities.

This symbiosis represents the greatest prospect of achieving the Rural Strategy 2004 goals and the Government's sustainability agenda. In contrast, the current onshore wind policy is at odds with the concept of sustainability. For the majority of onshore wind developments, the environmental costs are local and the benefits are invariably taken or delivered outside the region. In the most striking cases, a large-scale wind farm may be entirely financed by overseas investors, using imported equipment and a team of specialist contractors to oversee the installation. Once operating no one is employed on the site and the income and profits from the Renewables Obligation scheme are repatriated back to the investor country.

wind power, wind energy, wind farms

The End of the U.S. as a Civilized Nation

Ted Rall has put the new legalization of torture and elimination of habeas corpus for anyone the Führer deems his (sorry, "the people's") enemy into apt historical context (click the title of this post for the complete essay):

... Had there been the political will, Hitler and his goons could have been arrested and tried under German law. The German government was a lost cause, but the German nation still had a (slim) chance. Until 1935.

That's when Germany officially codified the Nazis' uncivilized anti-Semitism by passing the Nuremberg Laws. Jews were stripped of citizenship and banned from marrying or dating non-Jews. The laws were a form of legalized harassment, prohibiting Jews from displaying German flags or shopping in stores at certain times. ... the barbaric ipso facto policies of the Nazi government had corrupted Germany's lofty and admirable system of legal guarantees. ... Germany was no longer a civilized nation in the clutches of gangsters. It had become a gangster nation.

Similarly, the recently passed Military Commissions Act [MCA] removes the United States from the ranks of civilized nations. It codifies racial and political discrimination, legalizes kidnapping and torture of those the government deems its political enemies, and eliminates habeas corpus -- the ancient precept that prevents the police from arresting and holding you without cause -- a basic protection common to all (other) modern legal systems, and one that dates to the Magna Carta.

Between 2001 and 2006, George W. Bush worked tirelessly to eliminate freedoms and liberties Americans have long taken for granted. The Bush Administration's CIA, mercenary and military state terrorists kidnapped thousands of innocent people and held them at secret prisons around the world for months and years at a time. These people were never charged with a crime. (There was good reason for that. As the government itself admitted, fewer than ten had actually done anything wrong.) Yet hundreds, maybe even thousands, were tortured.

Under American law these despicable acts were illegal. They were, by definition, un-American. Although it didn't help the dozens of Bush torture victims who died from beatings and drowning, the pre-Bush American judicial system worked. The Republican-controlled U.S. Supreme Court handed down one decision after another ordering the White House to give its "detainees" trials or let them go. For a brief, shining moment, it looked like there was hope for the U.S. to find its way back to the light.

Now, thanks to a gullible passel of Republican senators and an unhinged leader who is banking that Americans are just as passive as the Germans of the mid-1930s, we have our own Nuremberg Laws.

Under the terrifying terms of the radical new Military Commissions Act, Bush can declare anyone -- including you -- an "unlawful enemy combatant," a term that doesn't exist in U.S. or international law. All he has to do is sign a piece of paper claiming that you "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." The law's language is brilliantly vague, allowing the president to imprison -- for the rest of his or her life -- anyone, including a U.S. citizen, from someone who makes a contribution to a group he disapproves of to a journalist who criticizes the government.

[Partner to the MCA is AETA, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, with vague enough language to brand as a terrorist (i.e., "unlawful enemy combatant") anyone handing out flyers in front of Kentucky Fried Chicken or publicizing the abuse of elephants in the circus or even advocating vegetarianism -- any activity that cuts into the profits from animal abuse and slaughter is a threat to the nation. The AETA bills are still in committee: check the status of H.R.4239 here and S.1926 here.]

McCourt for Governor of New York

From an interview with Malachy McCourt, Green Party candidate for governor of New York, by Clyde Haberman in the Oct. 10 New York Times:

“The inculcation of fear is the essence of American politics,” Mr. McCourt said. “Fear and the evil of your opponents – what awful, dreadful, less-than-human beings they are, until elected. Then they say, ‘We have to get behind them.’”