Two noise surveys from Europe are frequently cited by energy industry defenders as evidence that there are no ill health effects found in people living near industrial wind turbines. The applicability of these surveys to most proposed and recently built facilities, however, is very limited. And in fact, their findings of significant annoyance at low sound levels and small relatively turbines suggest reason for concern. Annoyance from noise, by the way, is an adverse health effect, according to the World Health Organization ("Guidelines for Community Noise", 1999), as is disturbed sleep, which can lead to many physical and psychological symptoms.
The survey from Sweden is: Pedersen and Persson Waye, 2007, "Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and wellbeing in different living environments", Occupational and Environmental Medicine 64 (7): 480-486. The survey from the Netherlands is: Van den Berg, Pedersen, Bouma, and Bakker, Project WINDFARMperception, 2008, "Visual and acoustic impact of wind turbine farms on residents", FP6-2005-Science-and-Society-20 project no. 044628. Nina Pierpont provides a medical critique of the latter study on pages 111-118 of her book Wind Turbine Syndrome. Note that none of the survey authors are physicians, and neither the design of nor the conclusions from the surveys are reliable medically.
Here, I will simply describe what these surveys found and why they are not very relevant to current debates about wind turbine siting near homes. The general aim is to minimize the increase of noise, especially at night inside people's bedrooms. The World Health Organization says that the noise level at night inside a bedroom should not exceed 30 dB(A) and that to ensure that level, the noise 1 meter away from the house should not exceed 45 dB(A). Ontario requires that the noise level 30 meters from the house should not exceed 40 dB(A).
In the Swedish survey (Pedersen and Persson Waye, 2007), the average sound level estimated at the respondents' homes was 33.4 ± 3.0 dBA. The average distance from the turbines was 780 ± 233 m (2,559 ± 764 ft), and facilities of turbines down to 500 kW in size were included.
In the Dutch survey (Van den Berg et al., 2008), only 26% of the turbines were 1.5 MW or above, and 66% of them were smaller than 1 MW. Only 9% of the respondents lived with an estimated noise level from the turbines of more than 45 dB.
With such little exposure to potentially disturbing noise, it would be surprising indeed to find much health effect. And just so are they quoted. For example, from Pedersen and Persson Waye: "A-weighted SPL [sound pressure level] was not correlated to any of the health factors or factors of wellbeing asked for in the questionnaire"; "In our study no adverse health effects other than annoyance could be directly connected to wind turbine noise".
But note that they did find a substantial level of annoyance, especially in rural areas and hilly terrain, and, as they note, "Annoyance is an adverse heath effect." And: "Annoyance was further associated with lowered sleep quality and negative emotions. This, together with reduced restoration possibilities may adversely affect health."
And from Van den Berg et al.: "There is no indication that the sound from wind turbines had an effect on respondents’ health ...".
The elided part of the sentence is: "except for the interruption of sleep".
Again, they found a substantial level of sleep disturbance and annoyance. They note: "From this study it cannot be concluded whether these health effects are caused by annoyance or vice versa or whether both are related to another factor" (such as low-frequency noise). In other words, the data are inadequate for making any statement regarding health effects (and remember, annoyance, along with interruption of sleep, is a health effect). "Annoyance with wind turbine noise was associated with psychological distress, stress, difficulties to fall asleep and sleep interruption." "From this and previous studies it appears that sound from wind turbines is relatively annoying: at the same sound level it causes more annoyance than sound from air or road traffic."
In conclusion, even in the low-impact situations surveyed in these studies (small turbines, setbacks large enough to ensure low A-weighted noise levels), health effects, particularly due to annoyance and sleep disturbance, were seen. With larger turbines and facilities and smaller setbacks from homes, adverse health effects would clearly be expected to affect more people and to a greater degree.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights
September 9, 2009
August 27, 2009
VPIRG calls for 1,000 megawatts of wind
In their new report, "Repowering Vermont", the Vermont Public Interest Research Group outlines how the power from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant can be replaced.
Mostly, they see us buying more from Hydro Quebec, New York, and the New England pool for about 10 years, while keeping demand growth down by stepped-up efficiency measures.
Then, depending on subsequent growth, VPIRG suggests that by 2032, 25-28% of our electricity can be generated by in-state wind turbines.
They dramatically misrepresent the physical reality of such a program, however.
One scenario calls for wind to provide 25% of 6,300 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in 2032, the other 28% of 8,400 GWh. VPIRG says these would require 496 megawatts (MW) and 766 MW, respectively, of installed wind capacity, using 24 and 39 miles, respectively, of mountain ridgelines. In each scenario, 66 MW of the installed capacity would be small residential and business turbines.
Their estimation of miles of ridgeline required is based on placing 6 turbines per mile. But that figure is based on 1.5-MW turbines, not the 3-MW models VPIRG assumes. Larger turbines require more space between them (Vermont Environmental Research Associates, whose work VPIRG cites, spaces the turbines by 5 rotor diameters: as the turbines get bigger, so does the space between them). A better figure for estimation is 10 MW capacity per mile. The results are 43 and 70 miles for the two scenarios.
Then their translation of energy production to capacity is based on a 35% capacity factor. That is, for every 1 MW of capacity, they project that the turbines would produce at an average annual rate of 0.35 MW, and over a year the energy produced would be 0.35 MW × 8,760 hours = 3,066 megawatt-hours (MWh).
But the average capacity factor for the U.S. is only 28%, and that of the Searsburg facility in Vermont is only 20%. It is typically less than 10% for small turbines. So it would be reasonable (and still overly hopeful, especially as this degree of building would require siting in less productive locations) to assume a 20% capacity factor. Thus, the two scenarios would actually require 835 and 1,316 MW of installed wind.
And that would require 75 and 123 miles of mountain ridgelines (plus 116 MW of small turbines not on ridgelines). Vermont is only 60 miles across through Montpelier and 160 miles long.
Finally, VPIRG completely ignores the impacts of new heavy-duty roads, transformers, transmission lines, and several acres' clearcutting of forest per turbine.
Let alone the noise and light pollution and the aesthetic (and moral) dissonance of 400-ft-high industrial machines with 150-ft-long turning blades (a sweep area of 1.5 acres) dominating formerly wild and rural landscapes.
All for a technology that is only an expensive add-on to the grid and actually replaces nothing.
Vermont Yankee ought to be shut down, but it is ridiculous to pretend that wind can or should fill any significant fraction of the resulting gap.
(Oh yeah: VPIRG's treasurer is Mathew Rubin, wind developer manqué, and one of the trustees is David Blittersdorf of Earth Turbines and anemometer maker NRG Systems -- both of which companies are advertised, without any conflict-of-interest note, on page 23 of VPIRG's report.)
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
Mostly, they see us buying more from Hydro Quebec, New York, and the New England pool for about 10 years, while keeping demand growth down by stepped-up efficiency measures.
Then, depending on subsequent growth, VPIRG suggests that by 2032, 25-28% of our electricity can be generated by in-state wind turbines.
They dramatically misrepresent the physical reality of such a program, however.
One scenario calls for wind to provide 25% of 6,300 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in 2032, the other 28% of 8,400 GWh. VPIRG says these would require 496 megawatts (MW) and 766 MW, respectively, of installed wind capacity, using 24 and 39 miles, respectively, of mountain ridgelines. In each scenario, 66 MW of the installed capacity would be small residential and business turbines.
Their estimation of miles of ridgeline required is based on placing 6 turbines per mile. But that figure is based on 1.5-MW turbines, not the 3-MW models VPIRG assumes. Larger turbines require more space between them (Vermont Environmental Research Associates, whose work VPIRG cites, spaces the turbines by 5 rotor diameters: as the turbines get bigger, so does the space between them). A better figure for estimation is 10 MW capacity per mile. The results are 43 and 70 miles for the two scenarios.
Then their translation of energy production to capacity is based on a 35% capacity factor. That is, for every 1 MW of capacity, they project that the turbines would produce at an average annual rate of 0.35 MW, and over a year the energy produced would be 0.35 MW × 8,760 hours = 3,066 megawatt-hours (MWh).
But the average capacity factor for the U.S. is only 28%, and that of the Searsburg facility in Vermont is only 20%. It is typically less than 10% for small turbines. So it would be reasonable (and still overly hopeful, especially as this degree of building would require siting in less productive locations) to assume a 20% capacity factor. Thus, the two scenarios would actually require 835 and 1,316 MW of installed wind.
And that would require 75 and 123 miles of mountain ridgelines (plus 116 MW of small turbines not on ridgelines). Vermont is only 60 miles across through Montpelier and 160 miles long.
Finally, VPIRG completely ignores the impacts of new heavy-duty roads, transformers, transmission lines, and several acres' clearcutting of forest per turbine.
Let alone the noise and light pollution and the aesthetic (and moral) dissonance of 400-ft-high industrial machines with 150-ft-long turning blades (a sweep area of 1.5 acres) dominating formerly wild and rural landscapes.
All for a technology that is only an expensive add-on to the grid and actually replaces nothing.
Vermont Yankee ought to be shut down, but it is ridiculous to pretend that wind can or should fill any significant fraction of the resulting gap.
(Oh yeah: VPIRG's treasurer is Mathew Rubin, wind developer manqué, and one of the trustees is David Blittersdorf of Earth Turbines and anemometer maker NRG Systems -- both of which companies are advertised, without any conflict-of-interest note, on page 23 of VPIRG's report.)
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
August 23, 2009
More absence of wind turbine noise and health complaints
Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO) reports that, "According to the land registry office in Orangeville, six homes in Dufferin County have been purchased by wind developers. ... Before these families could escape the nightmare of their unliveable homes, they had to agree to sign strict nondisclosure contracts -- in other words, gag orders -- to protect the wind companies. [Canadian Hydro Developers] has spent over $1.75 million dollars clandestinely buying out these people, yet they claim there were no complaints."
As WCO notes, "Their homes became unfit for human habitation. The purchases by the wind developer are an admission that wind turbines have created health issues that affect residents. Unfortunately, the wind industry and the McGuinty government have failed to publicly acknowledge or act on health issues and the pleas for help from the families affected."
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, human rights
| Family Name | Address | |
| Ashbee | Pt Lt 29, Con 7, Pt 1, 7R742, Amaranth | |
| Fraser | 58234 County Rd 17, Melancthon | |
| Benvenete | Pt Lts 284 & 285, Con 4, Melancthon | |
| Brownell | Pt Lt 29, Con 5, Pt 1, 7R787, Amaranth | |
| Williams | 58232 County Rd, RR 6, Melancthon | |
| Barlows | Pt Lt 1, Con 5, Melancthon |
As WCO notes, "Their homes became unfit for human habitation. The purchases by the wind developer are an admission that wind turbines have created health issues that affect residents. Unfortunately, the wind industry and the McGuinty government have failed to publicly acknowledge or act on health issues and the pleas for help from the families affected."
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, human rights
August 22, 2009
Nope. No complaints anywhere.
Nicole Geneau of Nextera, i.e., Florida Power & Light, is a liar.
John McPhee writes in the Aug. 11 Walkerton (Ontario) Herald-Times:
The d'Entremonts abandoned their home on Feb. 21, 2006. Evidently, to Nicole Geneau and her industry, that represents a solution, not a complaint.
The Brockton council has good reason to be concerned.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights
John McPhee writes in the Aug. 11 Walkerton (Ontario) Herald-Times:
... Nicole Geneau, project manager with NEXTera, along with two consultants, visited Brockton council to provide information on two six-turbine sites planned for lands near Formosa and Paisley. ...Nicole Geneau is a liar. According to Wind Concerns Ontario, two weeks earlier, on July 25, she was sitting at the kitchen table of Daniel d'Entremont's abandoned home in Pubnico, Nova Scotia -- abandoned because of ill health effects from nearby 1.8-megawatt Vestas V80 turbines, the closest one about 1,000 feet (305 meters) away. They began experiencing problems as soon as the first turbine began operating, which was 4,000 feet (1,219 meters) away.
While new regulations are still being studied by the province, they noted the minimum setback for each turbine will most likely remain at 550 metres and the setbacks for larger projects could be set up to 1,000 metres without noise barriers.
Bruce County planner David Smith, who was also present for the Thursday session, did point out that some developers are pressuring the province to go with site specific noise studies that could reduce the setback to 400 metres.
Coun. Dave Inglis argued the setbacks should be bigger for any project. ...
Local officials were more interested in the project near Formosa as part of Brockton is within the study area.
Geneau told them their concerns were unfounded. “The study area is bigger than what we need. We just want to see the potential and the impact, it’s not to say we’re going to put more turbines up there,” she said, adding they couldn’t just put turbines anywhere.
When Mayor Charlie Bagnato asked about the high number of those against wind farms at a recent public meeting in Port Elgin, Becker informed him of public meetings in Toronto where “the majority of people are in favour” of wind turbines. ...
Geneau told council her company is the largest owner and operator of wind turbines in North America with 8,200 operating in 65 different projects across 24 states and two provinces.
“I have not heard one single complaint,” Geneau said. “That tells us the process we’re using is working. We use the best science and follow regulations.” She added her company has even won environmental awards.
Geneau was asked to keep locals informed by updates at Bruce County council.
After the meeting [Coun. Dan] Gieruszak and Inglis were still not convinced. ...
“I am concerned that there will be a long-term reduction of quality of life in rural Ontario, for the benefit of urban populations,” Gieruszak said.
Inglis agreed. “I’ve always had concerns about the health issues and the setbacks, they’re not big enough.” ...
The d'Entremonts abandoned their home on Feb. 21, 2006. Evidently, to Nicole Geneau and her industry, that represents a solution, not a complaint.
The Brockton council has good reason to be concerned.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights
Wind goes up, wind goes down -- only one gets reported
A Bonneville Power Administration press release on August 14 announced that earlier in the month, 6:19 p.m. on Aug. 6, wind energy production reached a new high of 2,089 megawatts, 92% of the total installed wind capacity on BPA's grid.
Production levels for wind, the press release says, had been high for the preceding week and continued to be good through the following week.
As the chart below shows (click on it to enlarge), however, wind production (the blue line at the bottom of the chart) fluctuates quite a bit, and the rises and falls of its production rarely coincide with those of actual demand (the red line at the top of the chart).
Furthermore, from Aug. 15 to Aug. 20, wind production was virtually nil the whole time.
Not surprisingly, the latter "milestone" was not as widely touted.
We thank Gary and Kris Troyer at the KandG blog for watching these numbers and capturing the earlier production graphic from BPA.
wind power, wind energy
Production levels for wind, the press release says, had been high for the preceding week and continued to be good through the following week.
As the chart below shows (click on it to enlarge), however, wind production (the blue line at the bottom of the chart) fluctuates quite a bit, and the rises and falls of its production rarely coincide with those of actual demand (the red line at the top of the chart).
Furthermore, from Aug. 15 to Aug. 20, wind production was virtually nil the whole time.
Not surprisingly, the latter "milestone" was not as widely touted.
We thank Gary and Kris Troyer at the KandG blog for watching these numbers and capturing the earlier production graphic from BPA.
wind power, wind energy
August 13, 2009
Burning Forests for Electricity
Michael Donnelly writes in Counterpunch (click the title of this post for the complete article):
All technology should be assumed guilty until proven innocent. --David Brower
... On a daily basis of late, plans are unveiled for new biomass “renewable energy” electricity plants nationwide, complete with State and Federal “Renewable Energy Tax Credits.” Over 100 are already up and running or approved and under construction. Another 200 are in the approval process. Ten in Michigan; six in Arkansas; three in Massachusetts; two in Georgia; three in Maine; three in Florida; even one in swanky Vail, Colorado. If a state has trees, it has a burner(s) on the drawing board. Of all the proposals working their way through state governments, only those in Oregon have been (so far) thwarted. There, Governor Ted Kulongoski has vetoed legislation giving the renewable tax credit designation to existing Timber Industry wood-to-electricity and existing garbage burner electricity plants that sailed through Oregon’s Democrat-dominated Legislature with GOP support. On the other hand, Kulongoski and Oregon have given their renewable energy tax imprimatur to giant wind farms. For some 3,550 megawatts of peak production, Oregon is handing these private wind power producers a projected $144 million in tax subsidies this biennium alone. But, that's a different part of the story.
... Instead of the usual dirty coal, or the more expensive natural gas or oil firing the boilers, these new plants burn “Biomass” - forests. The already operating plan is to grind up small diameter trees, understory plants, dead standing trees (snags) and fallen woody debris (read: future soils) and then using the resulting “hog fuel” to run the boilers.
The first such facility not adjunct to a timber mill, but solely for electricity production, has been in operation for 25 years at Avista’s Kettle Falls Generating Station along the Columbia River in NE Washington. This one plant burns 70 tons (140,000 pounds or two semi-truck loads) per hour, generating 53 megawatts of electricity. Of course, it takes far longer than an hour for Nature to create 70 tons of wood fiber. And, then there are a host of other issues: from pollution to ecosystem degradation. ...
The rationales for providing electricity this way are: it gives off less pollution; the trees are going to waste anyway; the trees are a fire threat; and, the ever fungible, it’s sustainable/renewable.
Pollution
... As of 2002, 63% of sulfur dioxide emissions (read: acid rain); 22% of NOx, nitrogen oxide (smog); 39% of carbon (climate change); and, 33% of mercury (all sorts of health threats) were identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as resulting from electricity generation using coal-fired steam generators. Hydroelectricity has its own set of tragic eco-costs (dead salmon) as does wind power (carbon-intensive production materials and area-wide impacts - roads, noise, viewshed, wildlife) and solar (toxic ingredients). Wind, solar, tidal and other intermittent forms of electricity production also fail to provide the steady uninterrupted power the nation's power grid requires, unlike steam plants, which is a major motivator for biomass.
Biomass plants hardly diminish steam/electricity's sorry pollution record. In fact, NOx is a huge issue due to the high nitrogen content of biomass. Such fuels also emit far more carbon monoxide (CO) than the typical dirty coal plant.
Such burners also give off a lot of carbon dioxide (CO2) - the main greenhouse gas. CO2 emissions per BTU from a "green" wood biomass burner, as written into provisions of H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009 (Waxman/Markey) and endorsed by the Big Greens are greater than those from an old coal-fired power plant. In comparison, living forests sequester up to 30% of all CO2 emitted from all sources. The collection and transportation of biomass fuels adds considerably to the net pollution.
Human Health
The greatest threat to human health are the microscopic particulates - “nanoparticles” – which are resistant to current pollution control technologies and are rarely even measured, much less regulated. Yet, they are very present in the ash that biomass, garbage and coal burners currently create. Physicians for Social Responsibility has led the way on fighting the particulate menace.
Just recently, scientists have proven that nanoparticles of titanium dioxide (TiO2) can travel directly from the nose to the brain, causing cell damage. TiO2 is an ever present carcinogen that is abundant in power plant emissions. It’s also incredibly found in paint and a host of cosmetic products, notably sunscreen. It’s even added to food as a coloring or a way to keep colors from blending; found in cottage cheese, horseradish and numerous sauces, among other foodstuffs.
Waste? In Nature?
There is no such thing as "waste" in nature. Everything has its purpose. Heavy equipment and roads necessary for the collection and transportation of biomass fuels and the removal itself robs nutrients, fouls water, compacts soils and degrades habitat – some estimates are that over 30% of all bird species depend on dead trees. Past misguided efforts removing dead trees as “Fire Hazards” have already led to a short supply of nesting, foraging and roosting opportunities.
Fire
Studies have consistently shown that efforts to “fire-proof the forests” (now, there’s an oxymoron) by "fuel reduction projects" are counterproductive. It is questionable whether removing biomass has any ameliorative effect on reducing wildfires. In fact, like all biomass rationales, the opposite is true. Not only does removing the biomass release more carbon than a fire racing through the same "biomass" would, the biomass-stripped remaining forest has been shown to be less fire-resistant. Even if a forest burns, it releases less carbon to never "salvage" the remaining biomass. Just letting the forest recover naturally has been proven to return the forest to carbon sequestration far more quickly than any "salvage" and plant management.
A recent study published in the professional journal Ecological Applications notes that “fuel reduction treatments” (i.e., biomass removal) cripple the forest’s ability to sequester carbon “over the next 100 years.” This results in a major carbon output into the atmosphere that would otherwise be captured.
Another study has shown that if our forests were managed solely for carbon sequestration, they would double or triple the amount of carbon sequestered.
Ecologist George Weurthner, an expert on wildfire, recently wrote an essay debunking the entire rationale that the forests are "unhealthy" and need to be thinned for any reason; “A forest with a lot of dead trees is actually a sign of a healthy forest ecosystem. There are even some ecologists who believe we don’t have enough dead trees."
Sustainable? Of course not.
Number of years the United States could meet its energy needs by burning all its trees: 1 --Harper's Index for January 2006
Cui Bono?
This biomass scourge, indeed the entire "renewable" energy industry, is motivated by one thing only: money - tax money; ratepayers' money. All the other rationales are flimsy smokescreens, easily disproven disinformation. ...
Big Timber is becoming Big Hog Fuel on the taxpayers’ dime. It’s analogous to the late 19th Century when the timber industry leveled Michigan and Wisconsin forests and then morphed into utilities (one, a subsidized private company ludicrously named Consumers' Power) and built hydroelectric dams along the degraded Au Sable and other rivers that industry once commandeered as highways to transport logs. Those very same forests - now public-owned national forests, replanted by legions of kids and Kiwanis Clubs; finally recovering over a century later, are now targets of the Hog Fuel industry.
Though the Big Greens will gladly do it for them (and are), the Electric Utilities can Greenwash themselves and grab tax credits at an even greater rate than Big Timber. All they have to do is cry, "We thneed it" and the politicians take note. All that money Oregon is lavishing on Big Wind - foregoing all property and payroll taxes for 12 to 15 years - produces little in the way of local jobs and the power is mostly shipped to California.
Yet, the Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Council, a sub-set of the government-owned Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) just released a report noting that the Northwest can meet 85 percent of its new electricity needs over the next 20 years solely through conservation, and do so at half the cost of building power plants of any type. Every five years a review is made and the report is used to make plans for the BPA and the 147 consumer-owned utilities to which it sells power. Private utilities are livid as their plan is to always cry "thneed" and build more; charging the ratepayers for all new facilities.
And, last, but never least, there are the usual enablers: foundation-supported “Greens” and the “we’re not the corporate pawn GOP, but we’re close enough” industry-supported Democrats.
environment, environmentalism, ecoanarchism
All technology should be assumed guilty until proven innocent. --David Brower
... On a daily basis of late, plans are unveiled for new biomass “renewable energy” electricity plants nationwide, complete with State and Federal “Renewable Energy Tax Credits.” Over 100 are already up and running or approved and under construction. Another 200 are in the approval process. Ten in Michigan; six in Arkansas; three in Massachusetts; two in Georgia; three in Maine; three in Florida; even one in swanky Vail, Colorado. If a state has trees, it has a burner(s) on the drawing board. Of all the proposals working their way through state governments, only those in Oregon have been (so far) thwarted. There, Governor Ted Kulongoski has vetoed legislation giving the renewable tax credit designation to existing Timber Industry wood-to-electricity and existing garbage burner electricity plants that sailed through Oregon’s Democrat-dominated Legislature with GOP support. On the other hand, Kulongoski and Oregon have given their renewable energy tax imprimatur to giant wind farms. For some 3,550 megawatts of peak production, Oregon is handing these private wind power producers a projected $144 million in tax subsidies this biennium alone. But, that's a different part of the story.
... Instead of the usual dirty coal, or the more expensive natural gas or oil firing the boilers, these new plants burn “Biomass” - forests. The already operating plan is to grind up small diameter trees, understory plants, dead standing trees (snags) and fallen woody debris (read: future soils) and then using the resulting “hog fuel” to run the boilers.
The first such facility not adjunct to a timber mill, but solely for electricity production, has been in operation for 25 years at Avista’s Kettle Falls Generating Station along the Columbia River in NE Washington. This one plant burns 70 tons (140,000 pounds or two semi-truck loads) per hour, generating 53 megawatts of electricity. Of course, it takes far longer than an hour for Nature to create 70 tons of wood fiber. And, then there are a host of other issues: from pollution to ecosystem degradation. ...
The rationales for providing electricity this way are: it gives off less pollution; the trees are going to waste anyway; the trees are a fire threat; and, the ever fungible, it’s sustainable/renewable.
Pollution
... As of 2002, 63% of sulfur dioxide emissions (read: acid rain); 22% of NOx, nitrogen oxide (smog); 39% of carbon (climate change); and, 33% of mercury (all sorts of health threats) were identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as resulting from electricity generation using coal-fired steam generators. Hydroelectricity has its own set of tragic eco-costs (dead salmon) as does wind power (carbon-intensive production materials and area-wide impacts - roads, noise, viewshed, wildlife) and solar (toxic ingredients). Wind, solar, tidal and other intermittent forms of electricity production also fail to provide the steady uninterrupted power the nation's power grid requires, unlike steam plants, which is a major motivator for biomass.
Biomass plants hardly diminish steam/electricity's sorry pollution record. In fact, NOx is a huge issue due to the high nitrogen content of biomass. Such fuels also emit far more carbon monoxide (CO) than the typical dirty coal plant.
Such burners also give off a lot of carbon dioxide (CO2) - the main greenhouse gas. CO2 emissions per BTU from a "green" wood biomass burner, as written into provisions of H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009 (Waxman/Markey) and endorsed by the Big Greens are greater than those from an old coal-fired power plant. In comparison, living forests sequester up to 30% of all CO2 emitted from all sources. The collection and transportation of biomass fuels adds considerably to the net pollution.
Human Health
The greatest threat to human health are the microscopic particulates - “nanoparticles” – which are resistant to current pollution control technologies and are rarely even measured, much less regulated. Yet, they are very present in the ash that biomass, garbage and coal burners currently create. Physicians for Social Responsibility has led the way on fighting the particulate menace.
Just recently, scientists have proven that nanoparticles of titanium dioxide (TiO2) can travel directly from the nose to the brain, causing cell damage. TiO2 is an ever present carcinogen that is abundant in power plant emissions. It’s also incredibly found in paint and a host of cosmetic products, notably sunscreen. It’s even added to food as a coloring or a way to keep colors from blending; found in cottage cheese, horseradish and numerous sauces, among other foodstuffs.
Waste? In Nature?
There is no such thing as "waste" in nature. Everything has its purpose. Heavy equipment and roads necessary for the collection and transportation of biomass fuels and the removal itself robs nutrients, fouls water, compacts soils and degrades habitat – some estimates are that over 30% of all bird species depend on dead trees. Past misguided efforts removing dead trees as “Fire Hazards” have already led to a short supply of nesting, foraging and roosting opportunities.
Fire
Studies have consistently shown that efforts to “fire-proof the forests” (now, there’s an oxymoron) by "fuel reduction projects" are counterproductive. It is questionable whether removing biomass has any ameliorative effect on reducing wildfires. In fact, like all biomass rationales, the opposite is true. Not only does removing the biomass release more carbon than a fire racing through the same "biomass" would, the biomass-stripped remaining forest has been shown to be less fire-resistant. Even if a forest burns, it releases less carbon to never "salvage" the remaining biomass. Just letting the forest recover naturally has been proven to return the forest to carbon sequestration far more quickly than any "salvage" and plant management.
A recent study published in the professional journal Ecological Applications notes that “fuel reduction treatments” (i.e., biomass removal) cripple the forest’s ability to sequester carbon “over the next 100 years.” This results in a major carbon output into the atmosphere that would otherwise be captured.
Another study has shown that if our forests were managed solely for carbon sequestration, they would double or triple the amount of carbon sequestered.
Ecologist George Weurthner, an expert on wildfire, recently wrote an essay debunking the entire rationale that the forests are "unhealthy" and need to be thinned for any reason; “A forest with a lot of dead trees is actually a sign of a healthy forest ecosystem. There are even some ecologists who believe we don’t have enough dead trees."
Sustainable? Of course not.
Number of years the United States could meet its energy needs by burning all its trees: 1 --Harper's Index for January 2006
Cui Bono?
This biomass scourge, indeed the entire "renewable" energy industry, is motivated by one thing only: money - tax money; ratepayers' money. All the other rationales are flimsy smokescreens, easily disproven disinformation. ...
Big Timber is becoming Big Hog Fuel on the taxpayers’ dime. It’s analogous to the late 19th Century when the timber industry leveled Michigan and Wisconsin forests and then morphed into utilities (one, a subsidized private company ludicrously named Consumers' Power) and built hydroelectric dams along the degraded Au Sable and other rivers that industry once commandeered as highways to transport logs. Those very same forests - now public-owned national forests, replanted by legions of kids and Kiwanis Clubs; finally recovering over a century later, are now targets of the Hog Fuel industry.
Though the Big Greens will gladly do it for them (and are), the Electric Utilities can Greenwash themselves and grab tax credits at an even greater rate than Big Timber. All they have to do is cry, "We thneed it" and the politicians take note. All that money Oregon is lavishing on Big Wind - foregoing all property and payroll taxes for 12 to 15 years - produces little in the way of local jobs and the power is mostly shipped to California.
Yet, the Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Council, a sub-set of the government-owned Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) just released a report noting that the Northwest can meet 85 percent of its new electricity needs over the next 20 years solely through conservation, and do so at half the cost of building power plants of any type. Every five years a review is made and the report is used to make plans for the BPA and the 147 consumer-owned utilities to which it sells power. Private utilities are livid as their plan is to always cry "thneed" and build more; charging the ratepayers for all new facilities.
And, last, but never least, there are the usual enablers: foundation-supported “Greens” and the “we’re not the corporate pawn GOP, but we’re close enough” industry-supported Democrats.
environment, environmentalism, ecoanarchism
10 Questions to Ask at ObamaCare Town Hall Meetings
Dave Lindorff, at Counterpunch (click the title of this post):
1. If Canada's single-payer system is so god-awful, why have repeated Conservative governments at the provincial and national level in Canada never touched it? Canada is a democracy. If Canadians don't like their health care system, why haven't they gotten rid of it in 35 years? Since the system there is run by the separate provinces, many of which are very politically conservative, why has not one province ever tried to get rid of single-payer?
2. Why is rationing by income, as we do it here, better than rationing by need, as they do it in Canada?
3. Wouldn't single-payer mean that companies could no longer threaten working people with the loss of their health insurance? Why is this a bad idea?
4. The bigger the insurance pool, the better. So doesn't having a national pool, as with single-payer, make the most sense?
5. Why should we be allowing politicians who are taking money from the medical industry to write the new health care legislation?
6. How can the Congress be developing a health system reform scheme and not even invite experts from Canada down to explain their successful system?
7. If Medicare--a single-payer system here in America--is so popular with the elderly, how come it's no good for the rest of us?
8. Isn't it true that Medicare currently finances the most costly patient group--the elderly and infirm--so that extending it to the rest of the population--most of whom are young and healthy--would be much cheaper, per person?
9. The AMA, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and the Insurance Industry all bitterly opposed Medicare in 1964-5 when it was being debated in Congress and passed into law, with the right, led by Ronald Reagan, calling it creeping socialism. It became a life-saver for the elderly and didn't turn the US into a soviet republic. Why should we give a tinker's damn what those same three industry groups and the Republican right think of expanding single-payer now?
10. The executives of Canadian subsidiaries of US companies all support Canada's single-payer system, and even lobby collectively to have it expanded and better funded. Why does Congress listen to the executives of the parent companies here at home, and not invite those Canadian execs down to explain why they like single-payer?
human rights
1. If Canada's single-payer system is so god-awful, why have repeated Conservative governments at the provincial and national level in Canada never touched it? Canada is a democracy. If Canadians don't like their health care system, why haven't they gotten rid of it in 35 years? Since the system there is run by the separate provinces, many of which are very politically conservative, why has not one province ever tried to get rid of single-payer?
2. Why is rationing by income, as we do it here, better than rationing by need, as they do it in Canada?
3. Wouldn't single-payer mean that companies could no longer threaten working people with the loss of their health insurance? Why is this a bad idea?
4. The bigger the insurance pool, the better. So doesn't having a national pool, as with single-payer, make the most sense?
5. Why should we be allowing politicians who are taking money from the medical industry to write the new health care legislation?
6. How can the Congress be developing a health system reform scheme and not even invite experts from Canada down to explain their successful system?
7. If Medicare--a single-payer system here in America--is so popular with the elderly, how come it's no good for the rest of us?
8. Isn't it true that Medicare currently finances the most costly patient group--the elderly and infirm--so that extending it to the rest of the population--most of whom are young and healthy--would be much cheaper, per person?
9. The AMA, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and the Insurance Industry all bitterly opposed Medicare in 1964-5 when it was being debated in Congress and passed into law, with the right, led by Ronald Reagan, calling it creeping socialism. It became a life-saver for the elderly and didn't turn the US into a soviet republic. Why should we give a tinker's damn what those same three industry groups and the Republican right think of expanding single-payer now?
10. The executives of Canadian subsidiaries of US companies all support Canada's single-payer system, and even lobby collectively to have it expanded and better funded. Why does Congress listen to the executives of the parent companies here at home, and not invite those Canadian execs down to explain why they like single-payer?
human rights
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)