This is of a piece with the industry they support. (Click on the title of this post.)
Also see:
Pro-wind violence on Skye
Industrial exploitation in Mexico and China
Forest dwellers of India losing their land to wind energy development (like the Zapotecas in Oaxaca, the Maori in New Zealand, the Aborigines in Australia, and rural communities everywhere)
This is a predatory effort of industrial possession of the last peaceful places, all under a "green" cloak, the engines of the juggernaut fanned by hysterical "environmentalists" clamoring for the symbolic triumph of giant erections waving from every hilltop while ignoring their impotence and the real destruction below.
It is a senselessly violent gesture in the name of -- and very much against -- the environment and people.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, Vermont, anarchism, ecoanarchism
June 29, 2007
June 26, 2007
Cape Wind insignificant player in energy future
To the Editor, New Yorks Times Book Review:
The subtitle of Wendy Williams and Robert Whitcomb's book about Cape Wind claims that it is a "battle for our energy future." But wind will never be a significant -- let alone major -- player, for the simple fact that the wind is inconstant and can't be called up on demand.
In his June 17 review of their book, Robert Sullivan repeats the misleading impression that Cape Wind's 468 megawatts of capacity would also be its contribution. In fact, its average production would be only a fifth to a third of that, much of the time when it is not needed (at night) and often idle when demand is at its peak, as on hot summer days.
In other words, the grid would still have to depend on the same sources as it did before, with very little impact on conventional fuel use. In fact, the company behind Cape Wind is also trying to build a new quick-response diesel-fired plant, which would be sorely needed to balance the variable and intermittent production of its wind turbines. An offshore wind energy facility proposed in Delaware would be tied to a new natural gas plant for similar reasons. Thus wind drives a need for more fossil fuel use, not less.
Citing wind's rare peaks, as Sullivan does, only underscores its inconstancy. Wind development in Denmark has virtually halted since 2004, because even there its benefits appear to be elusive.
Yet the impacts are substantial and increasingly documented. Cape Wind would fill 24 square miles of shoal -- an important ecosystem -- with 440-feet-high moving machines. Each set of "slowly" rotating blades (made of petroleum-based composites) would be sweeping a vertical air space of 2.4 acres at tip speeds up to 200 mph. There is no question that such a machine would creates noise and vibration (despite the hundreds of gallons of oil in each housing). Inevitable impacts are obvious -- not just aesthetically, but especially on bird and sea life.
Sullivan says that criticism "has been mitigated by increasingly efficient turbines and more bird-sensitive placement." That is industry spin. Wind turbines have simply got bigger, not more efficient. Their space requirements and blade area per megawatt remain essentially constant. Last month, the first-year report of bird and bat deaths at the sprawling "Maple Ridge" facility on the Tug Hill plateau in Lewis County, N.Y., was released. Even that company-backed study estimated that 2,200 to 4,094 birds and bats were killed in 5 months by 120 turbines. That would extrapolate to 8,580 to 15,967 birds and bats killed by the currently operating 195 turbines over a whole year. Efficient indeed.
The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound regrettably opens itself to the NIMBY charge by trying to promote other locations. But many of its members and others fighting Cape Wind recognize that the substantial negative impacts of wind energy facilities anywhere cannot be justified by the very small benefit they may provide.
NIMBY more typically describes the developers and facilitators of these facilities. They are not the ones whose peace and quiet is destroyed. They are not the ones who can no longer sleep in their own homes or enjoy their back yards, who develop migraines, dizziness, and worse from the strobing shadows and noise. A team in Portugal is currently studying evidence of vibroacoustic disease in people who live near wind turbines.
Cape Wind is unique in threatening an enclave of the rich rather than the usual rural poor or otherwise disenfranchised (such as indigenous peoples of Mexico, New Zealand, Australia, India). But the reasons for opposing it are the same. This battle is being fought in thousands of communities around the world, for very good reasons. Giant wind turbines are a symptom of our energy problems, not a solution.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, vegetarianism
The subtitle of Wendy Williams and Robert Whitcomb's book about Cape Wind claims that it is a "battle for our energy future." But wind will never be a significant -- let alone major -- player, for the simple fact that the wind is inconstant and can't be called up on demand.
In his June 17 review of their book, Robert Sullivan repeats the misleading impression that Cape Wind's 468 megawatts of capacity would also be its contribution. In fact, its average production would be only a fifth to a third of that, much of the time when it is not needed (at night) and often idle when demand is at its peak, as on hot summer days.
In other words, the grid would still have to depend on the same sources as it did before, with very little impact on conventional fuel use. In fact, the company behind Cape Wind is also trying to build a new quick-response diesel-fired plant, which would be sorely needed to balance the variable and intermittent production of its wind turbines. An offshore wind energy facility proposed in Delaware would be tied to a new natural gas plant for similar reasons. Thus wind drives a need for more fossil fuel use, not less.
Citing wind's rare peaks, as Sullivan does, only underscores its inconstancy. Wind development in Denmark has virtually halted since 2004, because even there its benefits appear to be elusive.
Yet the impacts are substantial and increasingly documented. Cape Wind would fill 24 square miles of shoal -- an important ecosystem -- with 440-feet-high moving machines. Each set of "slowly" rotating blades (made of petroleum-based composites) would be sweeping a vertical air space of 2.4 acres at tip speeds up to 200 mph. There is no question that such a machine would creates noise and vibration (despite the hundreds of gallons of oil in each housing). Inevitable impacts are obvious -- not just aesthetically, but especially on bird and sea life.
Sullivan says that criticism "has been mitigated by increasingly efficient turbines and more bird-sensitive placement." That is industry spin. Wind turbines have simply got bigger, not more efficient. Their space requirements and blade area per megawatt remain essentially constant. Last month, the first-year report of bird and bat deaths at the sprawling "Maple Ridge" facility on the Tug Hill plateau in Lewis County, N.Y., was released. Even that company-backed study estimated that 2,200 to 4,094 birds and bats were killed in 5 months by 120 turbines. That would extrapolate to 8,580 to 15,967 birds and bats killed by the currently operating 195 turbines over a whole year. Efficient indeed.
The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound regrettably opens itself to the NIMBY charge by trying to promote other locations. But many of its members and others fighting Cape Wind recognize that the substantial negative impacts of wind energy facilities anywhere cannot be justified by the very small benefit they may provide.
NIMBY more typically describes the developers and facilitators of these facilities. They are not the ones whose peace and quiet is destroyed. They are not the ones who can no longer sleep in their own homes or enjoy their back yards, who develop migraines, dizziness, and worse from the strobing shadows and noise. A team in Portugal is currently studying evidence of vibroacoustic disease in people who live near wind turbines.
Cape Wind is unique in threatening an enclave of the rich rather than the usual rural poor or otherwise disenfranchised (such as indigenous peoples of Mexico, New Zealand, Australia, India). But the reasons for opposing it are the same. This battle is being fought in thousands of communities around the world, for very good reasons. Giant wind turbines are a symptom of our energy problems, not a solution.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, vegetarianism
June 22, 2007
Destroy the environment in the name of saving it
The planning committee of the Carmarthenshire County Council (Wales) voted strongly in favor of a 16-turbine wind energy facility on Mynydd y Betws near Ammanford. According to their June 20 press release, "The scheme is for the erection of 16 wind turbine generators, an anemometer mast, electrical substation and control building, electrical connections, access roads, temporary construction compound and borrow pits. ... 16 turbines to be sited across Mynydd y Betws in a broadly double, east-west row, over a distance of four kilometres."
They approved the scheme even as they admitted it conflicted with Council planning policies concerning landscape, the environment, amenity, and open space.
Head of planning Eifion Bowen explained later: "Whilst recognising its significant impact on the landscape, the committee recognised its obligation to meet Welsh Assembly targets for renewable energy generation and the reduction in carbon emissions."
And if carbon emissions do not go down ... ? Who will restore what was destroyed?
Visit Betws Mountain Preservation Guide.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
They approved the scheme even as they admitted it conflicted with Council planning policies concerning landscape, the environment, amenity, and open space.
Head of planning Eifion Bowen explained later: "Whilst recognising its significant impact on the landscape, the committee recognised its obligation to meet Welsh Assembly targets for renewable energy generation and the reduction in carbon emissions."
And if carbon emissions do not go down ... ? Who will restore what was destroyed?
Visit Betws Mountain Preservation Guide.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
June 15, 2007
Wind industry lies about bird kills
"125 birds and 326 bats killed by 195 turbines in 2006" (Renewable Access News and AWEA spokesman Thomas O. Gray)
As if their true colors weren't already revealed in their opposition to federal review to protect wildlife, this shameless misreporting of the first-year study of bird and bat deaths at the "Maple Ridge" facility on Tug Hill in Lewis County, N.Y., shows them off brilliantly.
Pages 41 and 42 of the report clearly present the adjusted totals (accounting for scavenger removal, search efficiency, and proportion of towers searched) for 120 (not 195) turbines during the 5-month (not 12-month) study as 372 to 1,151 birds and 1,824 to 2,943 bats.
Ten tower sites were searched every day, 10 sites were searched every 3 days, and 30 sites were searched every 7 days. "Incidental" (unscheduled) finds were ignored.
Finally, the researchers (agents of Curry & Kerlinger, the industry's favorite bird surveyors) clearly used a methodology meant to provide the lowest plausible figures; the scientifically established Winkelman and Everaert formulas are not mentioned and would likely have revealed much higher numbers.
Even the Curry & Kerlinger numbers extrapolated to 195 turbines over an entire year mean that the Tug Hill facility is killing at least 1,451 to 4,489 birds and 7,114 to 11,478 bats annually.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, animal rights
As if their true colors weren't already revealed in their opposition to federal review to protect wildlife, this shameless misreporting of the first-year study of bird and bat deaths at the "Maple Ridge" facility on Tug Hill in Lewis County, N.Y., shows them off brilliantly.
Pages 41 and 42 of the report clearly present the adjusted totals (accounting for scavenger removal, search efficiency, and proportion of towers searched) for 120 (not 195) turbines during the 5-month (not 12-month) study as 372 to 1,151 birds and 1,824 to 2,943 bats.
Ten tower sites were searched every day, 10 sites were searched every 3 days, and 30 sites were searched every 7 days. "Incidental" (unscheduled) finds were ignored.
Finally, the researchers (agents of Curry & Kerlinger, the industry's favorite bird surveyors) clearly used a methodology meant to provide the lowest plausible figures; the scientifically established Winkelman and Everaert formulas are not mentioned and would likely have revealed much higher numbers.
Even the Curry & Kerlinger numbers extrapolated to 195 turbines over an entire year mean that the Tug Hill facility is killing at least 1,451 to 4,489 birds and 7,114 to 11,478 bats annually.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, animal rights
June 13, 2007
Working towards acceptance of wind
A concerned citizen writes:
The first thing you should consider is that only a small fraction of the electricity in the U.S. is generated by burning oil. And most of that is sludge left over from gasoline refining.
But such oil-burning plants would probably be used more if substantial wind energy were added to the grid, because they can respond quickly enough to balance the fluctuations of wind-generated electricity. In fact, the company behind Cape Wind is trying to build such a plant along with the wind turbines in Nantucket Sound.
The other fossil fuel whose use would grow with wind energy is natural gas, which plants also can respond quickly (and much more efficiently than oil-fired plants). In Delaware, the proposed off-shore wind energy facility would be tied with a new natural gas plant.
Of course, new plants apparently have to be built anyway as the population or the economy or consumer and industry demand continues to grow, and if wind can sometimes fill in for them, then that may reduce the use of them somewhat. But that is hardly a move away from fossil fuels. Even the American Wind Energy Association can say only that wind will slightly reduce the growth of new fossil-fuel-fired plants.
The above is only the beginning of a slew of problems with large-scale wind on the grid. Aesthetics may be the most immediate problem for most people (since wind requires wide open spaces or long undeveloped mountain ridges -- the very places that we need to fight to keep unindustrialized), but the list of adverse impacts is long.
Whereas the list of benefits is regrettably short.
Here is a challenge, before you dismiss these arguments. I myself once assumed wind energy was good, but I am a science editor and began to notice that there was no clear evidence of its reducing the use of other fuels. The "penetration" figure (percentage of total generation produced by wind) that is usually provided is meaningless, because there are so many other factors operating in the power balance of the grid (spinning standby, line loss, ramping inefficiencies, variation tolerance, and so on).
The crucial data are:
fuel consumption per demand after wind energy installation
vs.
fuel consumption per demand before
Try to find such data showing a real difference. In four years of involvement with this issue, I have yet to find even a hint of such evidence, particularly in a large grid -- not even from Denmark.
The fact is, the more people learn about wind energy (from sources other than the industry sales material), the less accepting they are.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
To be quick and to the point, harnessing free wind makes way more sense than buying oil, burning it and polluting the planet.The response:
What can someone do as an individual to help push wind power along? People resist it due to aesthetics I think but I want to know more and work towards acceptance of wind.
The first thing you should consider is that only a small fraction of the electricity in the U.S. is generated by burning oil. And most of that is sludge left over from gasoline refining.
But such oil-burning plants would probably be used more if substantial wind energy were added to the grid, because they can respond quickly enough to balance the fluctuations of wind-generated electricity. In fact, the company behind Cape Wind is trying to build such a plant along with the wind turbines in Nantucket Sound.
The other fossil fuel whose use would grow with wind energy is natural gas, which plants also can respond quickly (and much more efficiently than oil-fired plants). In Delaware, the proposed off-shore wind energy facility would be tied with a new natural gas plant.
Of course, new plants apparently have to be built anyway as the population or the economy or consumer and industry demand continues to grow, and if wind can sometimes fill in for them, then that may reduce the use of them somewhat. But that is hardly a move away from fossil fuels. Even the American Wind Energy Association can say only that wind will slightly reduce the growth of new fossil-fuel-fired plants.
The above is only the beginning of a slew of problems with large-scale wind on the grid. Aesthetics may be the most immediate problem for most people (since wind requires wide open spaces or long undeveloped mountain ridges -- the very places that we need to fight to keep unindustrialized), but the list of adverse impacts is long.
Whereas the list of benefits is regrettably short.
Here is a challenge, before you dismiss these arguments. I myself once assumed wind energy was good, but I am a science editor and began to notice that there was no clear evidence of its reducing the use of other fuels. The "penetration" figure (percentage of total generation produced by wind) that is usually provided is meaningless, because there are so many other factors operating in the power balance of the grid (spinning standby, line loss, ramping inefficiencies, variation tolerance, and so on).
The crucial data are:
vs.
fuel consumption per demand before
Try to find such data showing a real difference. In four years of involvement with this issue, I have yet to find even a hint of such evidence, particularly in a large grid -- not even from Denmark.
The fact is, the more people learn about wind energy (from sources other than the industry sales material), the less accepting they are.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
June 12, 2007
Renewable Portfolio Standard: good for the environment or just for industry?
The U.S. Senate, like many state legislatures, is considering a "renewable portfolio standard", or RPS, as part of new energy law.
What is the goal of the RPS?
Is it to encourage the development of renewable energy sources (at least for electricity)? It does that, of course.
Is it meant to lower carbon and other emissions from fossil fuels? That is what its proponents say.
Yet there is no requirement for such a result.
Although the purported goal is reduced emissions, an RPS dictates only new building. Some of the mandated new sources may indeed effect reduced emissions from other sources, but that is not at all guaranteed. For example, wind energy on the grid has never been shown to cause a significant reduction in fossil fuel use.
And since wind energy is the only current renewable source that can be built to substantial capacity, an RPS is essentially a directive for huge amounts of new wind energy, with an implied free pass from proper environmental and community review.
If a utility builds giant wind energy facilities whose output equals, say, 15% of its average load, but it still maintains and builds "conventional" facilities as much as otherwise -- and in fact burns as much fossil fuels as before -- then what has the RPS achieved?
It has only ensured a greater movement of the people's money into the accounts of big energy developers. They, and the politicians they support, can claim to be "green" as they laugh all the way to the bank.
But the RPS has not reduced carbon or other emissions.
If that public good is in fact the goal, then that should be what the law requires: a carbon reduction standard.
Let the realities of energy production and conservation determine how that standard is achieved, not the spiels of industry lobbyists.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
What is the goal of the RPS?
Is it to encourage the development of renewable energy sources (at least for electricity)? It does that, of course.
Is it meant to lower carbon and other emissions from fossil fuels? That is what its proponents say.
Yet there is no requirement for such a result.
Although the purported goal is reduced emissions, an RPS dictates only new building. Some of the mandated new sources may indeed effect reduced emissions from other sources, but that is not at all guaranteed. For example, wind energy on the grid has never been shown to cause a significant reduction in fossil fuel use.
And since wind energy is the only current renewable source that can be built to substantial capacity, an RPS is essentially a directive for huge amounts of new wind energy, with an implied free pass from proper environmental and community review.
If a utility builds giant wind energy facilities whose output equals, say, 15% of its average load, but it still maintains and builds "conventional" facilities as much as otherwise -- and in fact burns as much fossil fuels as before -- then what has the RPS achieved?
It has only ensured a greater movement of the people's money into the accounts of big energy developers. They, and the politicians they support, can claim to be "green" as they laugh all the way to the bank.
But the RPS has not reduced carbon or other emissions.
If that public good is in fact the goal, then that should be what the law requires: a carbon reduction standard.
Let the realities of energy production and conservation determine how that standard is achieved, not the spiels of industry lobbyists.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
June 10, 2007
"The Greenwashing Of America"
From an essay by Philip Mattera, published June 6 at Tompaine.com (click the title of this post):
Today the term “greenwash” is rarely uttered, and differences in positions between corporate giants and mainstream environmental groups are increasingly difficult to discern. Everywhere one looks, enviros and executives have locked arms and are marching together to save the planet. Is this a cause for celebration or dismay?
Answering this question begins with the recognition that companies do not all enter the environmental fold in the same way. Here are some of their different paths:
• Defeat. Some companies did not embrace green principles on their own—they were forced to do so after being successfully targeted by aggressive environmental campaigns. Home Depot abandoned the sale of lumber harvested in old-growth forests several years ago after being pummeled by groups such as Rainforest Action Network. Responding to similar campaign pressure, Boise Cascade also agreed to stop sourcing from endangered forests and J.P. Morgan Chase agreed to take environmental impacts into account in its international lending activities. Dell started taking computer recycling seriously only after it was pressed to do so by groups such as the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition.
• Diversion. It is apparent that Wal-Mart is using its newfound green consciousness as a means of diverting public attention away from its dismal record in other areas, especially the treatment of workers. In doing so, it hopes to peel environmentalists away from the broad anti-Wal-Mart movement. BP’s emphasis on the environment was no doubt made more urgent by the need to repair an image damaged by allegations that a 2005 refinery fire in Texas that killed 15 people was the fault of management. To varying degrees, many other companies that have jumped on the green bandwagon have sins they want to public to forget.
• Opportunism. There is so much hype these days about protecting the environment that many companies are going green simply to earn more green. There are some market moves, such as Toyota’s push on hybrids, that also appear to have some environmental legitimacy. Yet there are also instances of sheer opportunism, such as the effort by Nuclear Energy Institute to depict nukes as an environmentally desirable alternative to fossil fuels. Not to mention surreal cases such as the decision by Britain’s BAE Systems to develop environmentally friendly munitions, including low-toxin rockets and lead-free bullets.
environment, environmentalism
Today the term “greenwash” is rarely uttered, and differences in positions between corporate giants and mainstream environmental groups are increasingly difficult to discern. Everywhere one looks, enviros and executives have locked arms and are marching together to save the planet. Is this a cause for celebration or dismay?
Answering this question begins with the recognition that companies do not all enter the environmental fold in the same way. Here are some of their different paths:
• Defeat. Some companies did not embrace green principles on their own—they were forced to do so after being successfully targeted by aggressive environmental campaigns. Home Depot abandoned the sale of lumber harvested in old-growth forests several years ago after being pummeled by groups such as Rainforest Action Network. Responding to similar campaign pressure, Boise Cascade also agreed to stop sourcing from endangered forests and J.P. Morgan Chase agreed to take environmental impacts into account in its international lending activities. Dell started taking computer recycling seriously only after it was pressed to do so by groups such as the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition.
• Diversion. It is apparent that Wal-Mart is using its newfound green consciousness as a means of diverting public attention away from its dismal record in other areas, especially the treatment of workers. In doing so, it hopes to peel environmentalists away from the broad anti-Wal-Mart movement. BP’s emphasis on the environment was no doubt made more urgent by the need to repair an image damaged by allegations that a 2005 refinery fire in Texas that killed 15 people was the fault of management. To varying degrees, many other companies that have jumped on the green bandwagon have sins they want to public to forget.
• Opportunism. There is so much hype these days about protecting the environment that many companies are going green simply to earn more green. There are some market moves, such as Toyota’s push on hybrids, that also appear to have some environmental legitimacy. Yet there are also instances of sheer opportunism, such as the effort by Nuclear Energy Institute to depict nukes as an environmentally desirable alternative to fossil fuels. Not to mention surreal cases such as the decision by Britain’s BAE Systems to develop environmentally friendly munitions, including low-toxin rockets and lead-free bullets.
environment, environmentalism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)