Build more: Use more

How do we persuade people to drive less—an environmental necessity—while also encouraging them to revive our staggering economy by buying new cars? The popular answer—switch to hybrids—leaves the fundamental problem unaddressed. Increasing the fuel efficiency of a car is mathematically indistinguishable from lowering the price of its fuel; it’s just fiddling with the other side of the equation. If doubling the cost of gas gives drivers an environmentally valuable incentive to drive less—the recent oil-price spike pushed down consumption and vehicle miles travelled, stimulated investment in renewable energy, increased public transit ridership, and killed the Hummer—then doubling the efficiency of cars makes that incentive disappear. Getting more miles to the gallon is of no benefit to the environment if it leads to an increase in driving—and the response of drivers to decreases in the cost of driving is to drive more. Increases in fuel efficiency could be bad for the environment unless they’re accompanied by powerful disincentives that force drivers to find alternatives to hundred-mile commutes. And a national carbon policy, if it’s to have a real impact, will almost certainly need to bring American fuel prices back to at least where they were at their peak in the summer of 2008. Electric cars are not the panacea they are sometimes claimed to be, not only because the electricity they run on has to be generated somewhere but also because making driving less expensive does nothing to discourage people from sprawling across the face of the planet, promoting forms of development that are inherently and catastrophically wasteful.

--David Owen, "Economy vs. environment", The New Yorker, Mar 30, 2009

So the more electricity that is produced without burning those fossil fuels, the less fossil fuel will be burned, putting less greenhouse-creating goop in the air and therefore easing (or at least not exacerbating) global warming. Right?

No. Wrong.

Or at least doubtful.

Unless the expansion of wind, solar, and other renewable power sources is accompanied by some mechanism to reduce the demand for - and therefore the production of - electricity from coal and oil.

The reason, according to many experts (and not refuted by any) is that the human demand - or at least the American human demand - for electricity is effectively infinite. The more that is produced, the more that will be consumed, as our technological and innovative (and somewhat hedonistic) society creates more electronic gadgets. ...

There is, of course, another way to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases produced by power generation: use less power. That does not require slower economic growth, as demonstrated in one state - this one.

--Jon Margolis, "The wind and the warmth", Vermont New Guy, Apr 2, 2009

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont

Statement from Protect the Flint Hills, Kansas

From Protect the Flint Hills:

PPM Energy [a subsidiary of Scottish Power] has fragmented and damaged 8,000 acres of the endangered Flint Hills Tallgrass Prairie ecosystem with the Elk River industrial wind complex.

They pay no state or local taxes, but will donate $150,000 per year to Butler County in hopes that we will overlook the fact that foreign and out-of-state investors transformed pristine virgin prairie into a "government subsidy farm."

It's time for the public to recognize that wind energy developers are not as concerned about the environment as they are about making large amounts of money. If developers really cared about the environment, they would not target ecologically sensitive areas. They would pursue wind leases in locations that are suitable for industrial development.

This problem is not unique to the Kansas Flint Hills. Throughout the world wind developers are attempting to build facilities in unspoiled natural places. Rather than focus on finding appropriate locations for wind turbines and protecting the environment, they focus on the corporate bottom line.

For more information on inappropriate wind turbine siting, go to the Protect the Flint Hills web site at protecttheflinthills.org

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, animal rights

Scudder Parker running for wind turbine salesman

Scudder Parker for Governor:
My Vision for Vermont's Energy Future
[excerpts]
Just as healthcare is a right, not a privilege, I believe that all Vermonters have shared, basic rights concerning energy.

Vermont Energy Empowerment Principles

• Reliability: All Vermonters should have access to secure and reliable heat, electricity and transportation, even in the face of external problems such as market changes, supply disruptions or political instability abroad.


• Security: All Vermonters (individuals, communities and businesses) should be able to stay warm, keep the lights on, and get from one place to another without having to sacrifice other basic needs.


• Responsibility: Vermonters have the right to an energy supply that reflects concern for economic strength, the environment and their communities.


• Leadership ...

Energy problems facing Vermont have been left unaddressed:

• Rising energy costs and price volatility.


• Higher demand, fewer traditional resources, looming threat of Peak Oil.


• End of contracts with Hydro-Québec and Vermont Yankee.


• Negative effects of global warming theaten Vermont's economy (i.e.: ski industry, maple trees, agriculture).


• Unreliable and strained electric grid.

... [T]he Douglas administration has proposed wind-siting regulations that are the most sweeping and complex of any regulations in the history of the state.

... In my first year in office, I will help businesses stabilize energy costs and create jobs by implementing the following: ... A plan to promote -- not discourage -- renewable energy, including wind, thus creating more jobs and protecting our environment.

Most of what Parker says and proposes is spot on (about health care, too). But his "leadership" on wind power has obviously been hijacked by the industry. Tom Gray of the American Wind Energy Association, after all, is a county chairman of the Vermont Democratic Party. The comments below pertain only to electricity and the push for big wind (Parker doesn't even mention home generation).

Reliability: Wind turbines generate only two-thirds of the time. They generate at or above their annual average (which is 21% of capacity at Searsburg) only one-third of the time. They respond to the minute-to-minute fluctuations of the wind, not to user demand.

Security: Not only will industrial wind facilities not "keep the lights on" (see Reliability, above), their erection requires many Vermonters to "sacrifice other basic needs," such as health, wildness, and rural tranquility.

Responsibility: Two-thirds or more of the cost of erecting industrial wind facilities is paid for by tax- and ratepayers to ensure handsome returns for private investors. Yet they do not add reliability or security to the electrical supply.

Rising and volatile prices: As they have discovered in Judith Gap, Montana, wind power on the grid has added substantial variability to the system which must be balanced by increased purchase of energy on the spot market.

Fewer resources: Vermont uses almost no fossil fuel for electricity. Even if we did, wind's intermittency and variability ensure that the use of other fuels is not reduced. Germany, with about a third of the world's installed wind capacity, is planning new coal plants as much as ever.

End of contract and license: The contract with Hydro-Québec will have to be renewed. How hard is that? And though it ought to be shut down, there's no sign that Vermont Yankee is going to be.

Global warming: In Vermont, our greenhouse gas emissions have almost nothing to do with electricity. They're from transport and heating, which Parker does address. In the realm of electricity, however, this issue requires a national and global effort to reduce consumption and clean up generation. New more sustainable sources of energy will be a part of that, but industrial wind power is a symbolic but ultimately meaningless and destructive sideshow.

Strained grid: See Reliability, above. Giant wind turbines will strain it even more, with huge surges and dips that are largely unpredictable.

Regulations: Vermont's environmental law, Act 250, effectively prevents development of the upper elevations and ridgelines of our mountains. Many towns have zoning laws further protecting such areas. But those are precisely the locations targeted by wind developers. In the Section 248 guidelines for public utilities, there was no mention of the special circumstances of large-scale wind plant siting. The state Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) determined that industrial wind was incompatible with its mission to preserve state lands for the benefit of all Vermonters. They also emphasize the unique ecosystems of higher elevations and the importance of keeping them undeveloped. As for the public service board, the "sweeping and complex" changes essentially require better public notification and allow a greater area for intervenors, since the sites would be prominent and the machines are so large (and, day and night, move and are lit), and specify that the ANR is an automatic intervenor.

Naturally, the industry does not want a fair process. They want one that they control, like they apparently control Scudder Parker's thinking about big wind. They want us to swallow their pablum about energy costs, jobs, and the environment and not have to show any evidence to back up their claims. They want to industrialize Vermont's mountaintops and don't want any one questioning the usefulness, much less the wisdom, of it.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont, animal rights

Statement on Wind Power Generation in the Adirondack Park

By John Davis, Adirondack land conservationist:

The development of alternatives to traditional forms of electric generation is important to help minimize any future damage that the Adirondack Park may suffer from acid rain and climate change. However, there remain many concerns about negative impacts from some of those alternatives. In the case of wind generation, those concerns include both ecological effects and visual intrusion, particularly in a park setting. Energy conservation and efficiency, and reuse and recycling, are the surest ways to abate pollution problems.

The increased demand for wind energy development in New York State and within the Adirondack Park has been spurred, in part, by federal tax credits along with former Governor Pataki’s call for a retail renewable resource portfolio standard (RPS). The RPS calls for 24 percent of the State’s power to come from renewable sources by 2013.

We are adamantly opposed to the development of any towers on the Forest Preserve, including wind power turbines. Any proposal for towers on the Forest Preserve would be a violation of Article XIV of the State Constitution, the “Forever Wild” clause. We are also concerned with visual impacts of projects proposed on private lands that can be seen from Forest Preserve lands.

Although there are locations throughout the North Country where wind is sufficient to accommodate wind power generation, commercial wind facilities are also inappropriate on private lands within the Adirondack Park. Given the land use policies in the Adirondack Park Agency Act, the Adirondack Park Agency’s Policy on Agency Review of Proposals for New Telecommunications Towers and other Tall Structures in the Adirondack Park (APA’s Towers Policy), Adirondack Park Agency Rules and Regulations, the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan, the purposes for which the Park was created, and the Park’s critical importance to regional wildlife habitat integrity and connectivity, commercial wind tower facilities should not be permitted within the Blue Line.

We have learned from working on the re-licensing of hydro-electric facilities throughout the Park, that energy projects have significant adverse impacts on the environment. Ostensibly clean power, in the form of hydro-electric dams, has drastically altered the ecosystems of many of the Park’s main waterways and surrounding lands. Water bypasses, dams, turbines, and fluctuating impoundments have all harmed fish, amphibians, waterfowl and riverine habitat. An Act of Congress in the early 1990’s recognized the negative effects hydro-facilities have on the environment by requiring that natural resource and recreational impacts be considered and mitigated as much as possible when hydro-facilities are re-licensed. While some improvements have been made, once these facilities are in place, it is difficult to remove them.

Vistas and the Park’s other aesthetic resources should remain open and free from development and visual intrusion. This is essential to maintaining the wild character of the Park that generations of visitors and residents alike have cherished. Where development does occur, the visual impacts should be minimized and mitigated so as to make the development blend in with the surrounding landscape. Commercial wind towers, which can rise to over 400 feet and are equipped with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) required blinking red lights, would have negative visual impacts and would not be easily integrated into their surroundings. It is unlikely that commercial wind facilities will be able to fulfill the mandate to be “substantially invisible” found in the APA’s Towers Policy.

We are even more concerned about the effect wind towers could have on wildlife, particularly resident and neotropical migratory bird species and bat species. The Adirondack Park contains the largest remaining habitat for some state and federally listed bird species, and many high altitude areas designated as Bird Conservation Areas could be optimal for wind generation. Construction of wind turbines in these areas would significantly and adversely affect bird habitat. Additional damage to the habitat and biota may also result from the construction of the infrastructure associated with wind towers, including roads and power lines and necessary clearing of the footprint to assemble the structures on site. Each tower needs at least one acre cleared for turbine and blade assembly. In addition, 300 tons or more of concrete are needed to build each foundation.

We are also concerned about the possible ringing of the Park by wind power facilities. Scores of giant wind turbines already pierce the sky above the eastern Tughill Plateau, and hundreds more are proposed for the St. Lawrence Valley just north of the Park. Thorough ecological studies and strict siting criteria must precede new development. Siting criteria should include those appended below.

We expect that individuals will pursue residential wind power generation in the Adirondack Park. These projects will be on a much smaller scale than a commercial wind tower. Thus, they will generally have less dramatic and intrusive impacts on the Park’s ecological, scenic and aesthetic resources. We anticipate fewer problems associated with these mini-tower projects, as long as they are kept out of ecologically critical or sensitive sites and meet the “substantial invisibility” criteria of the APA’s Towers Policy.

The Adirondack Park has already sacrificed some of its natural resources for clean power, through the many hydro-electric dams that impede its rivers. The Park’s natural hydrology has been vastly altered by these facilities. The Park has been producing renewable energy for generations. Instead of once again disrupting the Park’s environment for the installation of “new” energy sources, commercial wind power generation should be pursued in areas that can sustain its development without harming fragile ecosystems or the long-protected wild character of the Adirondack Park. While we would not advocate for any particular location, we recognize that the agricultural lands of New York’s great valleys have been identified as candidates for such development.

Inappropriate areas for commercial wind facilities:
• Designated Parks
• Roadless areas
• Original ecosystems, such as old-growth forests
• Wetlands
• Lands or waters with sensitive or imperiled species
• Wildlife corridors

wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, animal rights

"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

USDA advocates, then denounces, vegetarian diet

As Mark Bittman reports in the New York Times, an internal newsletter at the USDA (“Greening Headquarters Update”, July 23, 2012) promoted not only “meatless Mondays” but even vegetarianism:

One simple way to reduce your environmental impact while dining at our cafeterias is to participate in the “Meatless Monday” initiative http://www.meatlessmonday.com/. This international effort, as the name implies, encourages people not to eat meat on Mondays. Meatless Monday is an initiative of The Monday Campaign Inc. in association with the John Hopkins School of Public Health.

How will going meatless one day of the week help the environment? The production of meat, especially beef (and dairy as well), has a large environmental impact. According to the U.N., animal agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gases and climate change. It also wastes resources. It takes 7,000 kg of grain to make 1,000 kg of beef. In addition, beef production requires a lot of water, fertilizer, fossil fuels, and pesticides. In addition there are many health concerns related to the excessive consumption of meat. While a vegetarian diet could have a beneficial impact on a person’s health and the environment, many people are not ready to make that commitment. Because Meatless Monday involves only one day a week, it is a small change that could produce big results.

Cowed by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the USDA has renounced those facts and suppressed the newsletter. The NCBA complained that the USDA “does not understand the efforts being made in rural America to produce food and fiber for a growing global population in a very sustainable way”. Bittman notes

that meat is not fiber, that its industrial-style production is not sustainable by any normal definition, and that “agriculture” produces the food “Meatless Monday” advocates eat, too.

The only possible good that might come of the USDA's brief airing of the truth, if not their subsequent caving to corporatist pressure, is that reactionaries like Senator Charles Grassley and Representative Steve King, both of Iowa, have promised to hasten their own demises by doubling down on their corpse consumption every Monday.

environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, vegetarianism, anarchism, ecoanarchism

Low Benefit — Huge Negative Impact

Industrial wind promoters claim their machines produce on average 30–40% of their rated capacity. For example, a 400-ft-high 2-megawatt (2,000-kilowatt) turbine assembly would produce an average of 600–800 kilowatts over a year.

The actual experience of industrial wind power in the U.S., however, as reported to the federal Energy Information Agency, is that it produces at only about 25% of its capacity, or 500 kilowatts.

It will produce at or above that average rate only two-fifths (40%) of the time. It will generate nothing at all (yet draw power from the grid) a third of the time.

Because the output is highly variable and rarely correlates with demand, other sources of energy cannot be taken off line. With the extra burden of balancing the wind energy, those sources may even use more fuel (just as cars use more gas in stop-and-go city driving than in more steady highway driving).

The industry is unable to show any evidence that wind power on the grid reduces the use of other fuels.

Denmark, despite claims that wind turbines produce 20% of its electricity, has not reduced its use of other fuels because of them.

Large-scale wind power does not reduce our dependence on other fuels, does not stabilize prices, does not reduce emissions or pollution, and does not mitigate global warming.

Instead, each turbine assembly requires dozens of acres of clearance and dominates the typically rural or wild landscape where it is sited. Its extreme height, turning rotor blades, unavoidable noise and vibration, and strobe lighting night and day ensure an intrusiveness far out of proportion to its elusive contribution.

Each facility requires new transmission infrastructure and new or upgraded (strengthened, widened, and straightened) roads, further degrading the environment and fragmenting habitats.

Why do utilities support them?

Given a choice, most utilities choose to avoid such an unreliable nondispatchable source. In many states, they are required to get a certain percentage of their energy from renewable sources. In other states, they anticipate being required to do so in the near future. These requirements do not require utilities to show any benefit (e.g., in terms of emissions) from using renewables—they just need to have them on line.

In Japan, many utilities limit the amount of wind power that they will accept. In Germany, the grid managers frequently shut down the wind turbines to keep the system stable. In Denmark, most of the energy from wind turbines has to be shunted to pumped hydro facilities in Norway and Sweden.

Yet wind energy is profitable. Taxpayers cover two-thirds to three-fourths of the cost of erecting giant wind turbines. Governments require utilities to buy the energy, even though it does not effectively displace other sources.

In addition, wind companies can sell “renewable energy credits,” or “green tags,” an invention of Enron. They are thus able to sell the same energy twice.

The companies generally cut the local utilities in on some of the easy profits.

Why do communities support them?

Developers typically target poor commu­nities and make deals with individual landowners and the town boards (which are very often the same people) long before anything is made public.

With the prospect of adding substantially to the tax rolls and/or hundreds of thousands of dollars in payoffs each year, it is understandable that a lot of people are reluctant to consider the negative impacts. They are willing to ignore the effects of such large machines on themselves and their neighbors. Excited by the financial promises of the wind companies, they forget that their giant machines will destroy precisely what makes their community livable.

As people find out more, support for this harmful boondoggle evaporates.

—from “SAY NO! to destroying the environment and our communities”, brochure by National Wind Watch

wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, Vermont

NO industrial wind turbines in Vermont's Northeast Kingdom

Make sure the organizations listed below understand that they need to stand against industrial wind energy development in the Northeast Kingdom to protect the beauty and character of the area.

From "Vermont's Northeast Kingdom", National Geographic Geotourism Map Guide:

Also see travelthekingdom.com/geotourism.

Geotourism Travelers' Tips:

1. What is geotourism?

The formal definition is, "Tourism that sustains or enhances the geographical character of the place being visited -- its environment, culture, aesthetics, heritage, and the well-being of its residents." In other words, travel for people who like distinctive places and care about protecting them.

2. Who are geotravelers?

... they support local businesses and travel organizations that care about conservation, preservation, beautification, and benefits to local people.

3. How can I be a good geotraveler in the Northeast Kingdom?

The Kingdom got its name from its natural beauty. Residents are determined to retain that beauty. ...

9. What should I do, and not do, if I want to buy property or build a home in the Kingdom?

The Geotourism Alliance is committed to preserving sense of place in the Kingdom. If you decide to purchase a home or move to the area, please consider local values and the effect you and your house have on the landscape, culture, environment, and communities. ...

[Who makes up the Geotourism Alliance?]

National Geographic
Northeast Kingdom Travel and Tourism Association
Nulhegan Gateway Association
University of Vermont Tourism Data Center
Cabot Creamery
Connecticut River Byway
Fairbanks Museum and Planetarium
Kingdom Trails Association
Northeastern Vermont Development Association
Northeast Kingdom Collaborative
Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont
The Northern Forest Canoe Trail
NorthWoods Stewardship Center
Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge
USDA Rural Development
Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife
Vermont Department of Tourism and Marketing
Vermont Fresh Network
Vermont Maple Foundation
Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund
Vermont WoodNet

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights, Vermont

It's not destruction if it's "green"?

Robert Redford writes at Huffington Post ("Utah Lands Win a Reprieve at the Dawn of a Cleaner, Greener Future") that "a federal court acted last weekend to protect more than 110,000 acres of stunning Utah wilderness that otherwise would have been sold by the outgoing Bush administration to the dirty fuels industry."

He says that "What inspired me most was when Judge Urbina wrote that the 'development of domestic energy resources ... is far outweighed by the public interest in avoiding irreparable damage to public lands and the environment.' Finally, the greater good has prevailed over the profit of the few."

Then it starts to fall apart:

Destroying our natural heritage will do nothing to solve our energy challenges for the long-term, which to me, is even more reason to act. I will continue to keep a vigilant watch over these lands, while working to build a cleaner, greener energy foundation for America. With endless untapped reserves of efficiency, solar, and wind power, we do not need to choose between affordable electricity and one-of-a-kind landscapes. We can have both.

Because meanwhile, the Bureau of Land Management plans to establish coordination offices to expedite the permitting of renewable energy projects and associated transmission facilities on BLM-managed lands. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for the development of 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy projects on public lands by 2015.

How did Mr. Redford think those reserves of wind and solar would be tapped to a degree that would do something that might appear "to solve our energy challenges for the long-term"? How much of our natural heritage is he ready to see destroyed for large-scale solar and wind power development?

(10,000 MW of installed wind capacity requires at least 500,000 acres, or almost 800 square miles, plus heavy-duty roads (opening the land to more development and its flora and fauna to more abuse) and transmission infrastructure). 10,000 MW of actual production -- on average (wind turbines actually produce at or above their average rate, which is 20-30% of their installed capacity, only 40% of the time) -- would require 4 times that amount of land, to produce nominally only about 2% of the country's electricity, which 40,000 MW of wind would be nullified by 1 year of average growth in demand. Obviously, big wind is a dead end that could easily be obviated by the less photographically iconic options of efficiency and conservation.)

"The development of domestic energy resources ... is far outweighed by the public interest in avoiding irreparable damage to public lands and the environment."

wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights

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

Wind turbines and noise

From abstracts of papers presented at the Wind Turbine Noise 2007 conference, Sept. 20-21, Lyon, France:

"In wind turbines the drive train, especially the gear box, is a significant source of noise. Significant contributions come from the gear mesh and from resonances of the structure like the main frame or the torque arm. The structure-borne noise from these sources is transferred either to the rotor or to the tower and radiated to the environment. The contributions to the noise spectrum from these sources are single tones in the frequency range from about 100 Hz to about 600 Hz."

--paper describing passive and active vibration absorbers manufactured by the German company ESM

"The larger proportion of the general population who live far from them think wind turbines are great -- while the smaller proportion representing people with homes near where wind turbines were subsequently erected have concerns, particularly about noise. On a popular vote basis, as seen by elected officials, the choice is clear, but on a justice basis, who looks out for the impacted few? ...

"The results for one wind farm, the Kingsbridge wind farm near Goderich Ontario, which has the closest distance between the wind turbines and the Environment Canada weather office monitoring station, show that about 31% of the hours of the year show an unmasked noise output above the Ontario Standard, and for nearly 10% of the hours of the year, the noise is significantly above the provincial standard (over 3 dBA), in many cases about 10 dBA above the background level produced by the wind at the receptor. In the 6 months from October 2006 to March 2007, on 64% of the days, there were hours of unmasked noise. This demonstrated the problem to be chronic and significant in nature. For another Ontario wind farm, the results in the summer period between May 1st and August 31st, 2006 showed 59% of the days demonstrated the problem, with it occurring 48% of the nights, and 33% of the nights showing the condition sustained for 3 or more hours. ...

"The presentation will go through the results in detail. They will show that the current Ontario interpretation by the Ministry of the Environment is not adequate to protect the public from excessive annoyance."

--William K. G. Palmer, Canada

"Previous studies have shown that wind turbine noise could be annoying at sound pressure levels lower than those known to be annoying for other community noise sources, such as road traffic. This could be due to the special characteristics of wind turbine noise (amplitude modulation) that make the sound easily perceptible. It could furthermore be due to atmospheric situations influencing large modern wind turbines more than older ones, leading to higher sound exposure than accounted for in the planning process."

--Eja Pedersen, Sweden, and Jelte Bouma, Roel Bakker, and Frits van den Berg, the Netherlands

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, human rights, animal rights

Gubernatorial misconceptions regarding wind

On July 27, the Burlington Free Press printed replies on Vermont's energy future from the five Democratic (primary) and one Republican candidate for governor. Here are their statements regarding wind, with commentary following in italics. Dunne and Bartlett did not mention wind.

Dubie: Last November, Bolton Valley became the nation's second ski area, and Vermont's first, to install its own wind turbine -- a 121-foot-tall Northwind 100, manufactured by Vermonters at Northern Power in Barre. It will produce 300,000 kw annually.

As of 10:11 a.m., August 23, 2010, the Bolton Valley wind turbine had produced 125,809 kWh since October 2009. So, apart from confusing kilowatts (rate of production) with kilowatt-hours (energy produced), Dubie is basing his claim on a projection that almost one year later can be shown to be wrong. In its first year of operation, the Bolton Valley wind turbine is likely to produce less than half of the energy predicted (yet still claimed).

Racine: There are locations throughout the northeast that make sense for solar, wind, biomass, and hydro, and if we take a regional approach, we can site these power sources with the least impact possible.

This assumes that these projects must be built. As for wind, its poor production of almost no value to the grid does not justify its erection anywhere. The least impact possible is to forget about it.

Markowitz: I am a strong supporter of community wind projects, hydropower, solar, biomass and geothermal energy production. As governor, I will review our regulatory process to ensure that renewable energy projects get a fair hearing and fast results.

Since energy projects are developed by well capitalized corporations and inordinately affect host communities and environments, the concern should be that those who are adversely affected or who advocate for the environment are able to get a fair hearing.

Shumlin: To meet our electricity needs we will need power delivered from small community-based solar projects to utility scale wind farms and everything in between. As outlined in a Vision for Vermont, I will work with the Treasurer's office to leverage the state's ability to borrow money at affordable rates and issue a series of Vermont renewable energy bonds so that every Vermonter who wants to can literally invest in our energy future. The revenue generated through these projects, guaranteed through electricity sales to the utilities, will help pay the bonds off.

The "everything is needed" approach as presented by Shumlin lacks any sign of rational evaluation of costs and benefits. The only people who would benefit from this circular funding model are the manufacturers and installers — it is a job creation program, but without regard to its effect on the environment and hosting communities, or to its actual contributions to a reliable electricity supply.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, human rights, Vermont

Wind industry fears real scrutiny

To the Editor, Valley News:

What is the real threat of Vermont Senate Bill 30 (Dori Wolfe: “Don't Reject Wind Energy in Vermont,” letter, March 17)? Now stripped of the 3-year moratorium provision, it only requires the Section 248 permitting process to abide by rather than merely consider Act 250 criteria.

It is ironic that business people like Wolfe, while in one breath urging us to save the environment by buying their products and services, in the next express alarm that environmental scrutiny “would severely damage the wind industry.”

But on the latter point she is right: These projects, especially on otherwise fiercely protected ridgelines, are not green. The environmental (not to mention financial) costs far outweigh the necessarily minuscule benefit from a diffuse, intermittent, and highly variable source.

To avoid that conclusion, Wolfe raises the specter of oil and gasoline, which fuel our cars, heat our homes, and power our factories but provide almost none of our electricity. In fact, more wind requires building more natural gas– and even diesel-powered plants just for backup. She notes that housecats kill more birds, as if that absolves the additional deaths caused by wind turbines, and disregards wind energy’s unique toll on raptors (eagles, owls, and the like) and bats, the latter already decimated by white nose syndrome.

Wolfe also touts the latest poll showing continuing support for industrial wind energy (ignoring the broad dissatisfaction everywhere they are actually erected or even proposed). If industrial wind is as popular as the polls indicate, then the greater local involvement enabled by Act 250 would be a boon, not a threat.

But S.30 would make it harder for developers to divide communities and to pit town against town, because Act 250 puts the region’s interests before those of industry lobbyists in Montpelier.

If industrial-scale wind (and solar) are indeed beneficial to the environment and communities, locally as well as globally, then its marketers have nothing to fear from a more democratic and environmentally rigorous permitting process. If they do indeed have reason to fear, that’s precisely why we need to say yes to S.30.

Eric Rosenbloom
Hartland

[Note:  The letter as reproduced here reflects minor editing by the author.]

[Click here to read about Jeff Wolfe's threats regarding S.30.]

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, human rights, Vermont

What Can Wind Do About Global Warming?

Tom Gray of the trade group American Wind Energy Association writes:

The following information is from a fact sheet we will be releasing soon.

How much can wind really do to fight global warming?

On average, every additional megawatt-hour produced by wind energy means 1,220 pounds of CO₂ are not emitted into our environment.

# A recent study from the National Academies of Science (NAS) reports that adding another 60 gigawatts (GW) of wind energy by 2020, in addition to the 11 GW that we have today, could avoid approximately 130 million tons of CO₂ in 2020. This is nearly 30% of expected emission increases by 2020 in the electric sector.

# A National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) of 20% renewable generation by 2020 could avoid almost 100% of expected emission increases in the electric sector with 180 GW of renewable energy, including 130 GW of wind.

According to data compiled in the International Atomic Energy Association's Energy and Environment Data Reference Bank, The U.S. CO₂ emissions from energy = c. 6,000 Mt = c. 6,600 million tons, of which 130 million tons is less than 2%. That's less than 2% of today's emissions, but emissions could be 20% higher by 2020 (according to projections by the Energy Information Agency of the U.S. Department of Energy). The "savings" from wind would then be close to only 1.6% -- accomplished with the sprawling and destructive construction of 71,000 megawatts of giant wind turbines, along with their supporting roads and clearance and transmission lines. And at a cost, three-quarters of which is paid by public subsidies, of 142 billion dollars.

That's simply pathetic. Doubling the amount of wind turbines, as in the second example, only underscores the very small benefit that wind can provide even in theory.

Tom Gray pads the numbers by presenting them as the proportion of new emissions, and even for that lame figure he uses a very low estimate of emissions increase. But global warming is caused by existing emissions -- emissions not only from electricity generation and other energy consumption (e.g., for transport and heat and manufacturing), but also from animal farms and deforestation (responsible for 18% and 25%, respectively, of the human contribution to global warming worldwide). Wind's hope of saving 1.6% becomes even smaller.

Even that slim hope remains theoretical. There is no evidence that wind reduces the use of other fuels on the grid to any degree close to that corresponding to the electricity it generates. Wind is an add-on. The rest of the grid still has to provide power to people when they need it, with the extra burden of balancing the unpredictable and highly variable feed from the wind.

Industrial-scale wind has proved only to be a successful tax-avoidance division for big energy companies and a lucrative means of moving massive amounts of public monies into private bank accounts. Through the selling of fragments of its green mantle (i.e., "renewable energy credits"), it lets other companies and individuals join the self-serving charade. Not surprisingly, however, it has not been shown to reduce carbon emissions. In the fight against global warming, it is a boondoggle, distracting us from real solutions while destroying landscapes, communities, wildlife habitat, and people's lives -- for nothing.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism

Missing the point about wind energy development

Bradford Plumer writes in The New Republic's environment and energy blog about the action in North Carolina to ban structures taller than 100 feet from the state's mountaintops, which would effectively ban industrial wind energy turbines. His analysis consists only of showing a picture of mountaintop-removal coal mining and asking whether in comparison wind turbines can still be called "unsightly".

If mountaintop-removal is the issue, then the blog should ask why it is allowed.

If coal in general is the issue, then the blog should ask just how much coal would be saved by adding wind turbines to the grid. (The answer is: none.)

Having learned that wind energy does not reduce coal use, then the blog should ask if industrial wind's own adverse environmental impacts, including not just aesthetic but also on birds, bats, hydrology, and wildlife habitat, can be justified by other benefits. (The answer is: hardly. Wind is a highly variable, intermittent, and diffuse resource that only adds to the grid's burden of supplying steady energy in response to demand.)

Instead, the false and unexamined premise that wind turbines on the grid provide substantial useful energy, leading to the next false and unexamined premise that nondispatchable, unpredictable, and variable wind energy displaces coal -- generally a baseload supplier (wind preferentially displaces first hydro, second open-cycle natural gas [at a loss of efficiency]), leads to Plumer simply ignoring the actual debate about industrial wind energy development on the wild mountains of North Carolina.

What is gained and what is lost? Very little, if anything, is gained, and very much is lost. That is not to deny the horrors of mountaintop-removal mining or the pollution from coal burning. Those are irrelevant to the debate about wind. Adding industrial wind development will not reduce them in the least. Wind only adds a new insult to the environment.

So to Plumer's challenge, "There's nothing wrong with finding wind turbines unsightly, but the relevant question here is: Compared to what?"

Compared to a wild mountaintop teeming with flora and fauna -- without heavy-duty cut-and-filled roads, blasted-in turbine platforms, 400-ft-high machines grinding around day or night, flashing lights, acres of tree clearance, miles of new transmission lines, substations, etc. Duh.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, animal rights, human rights

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

Conservation Law Foundation embraces "wise use"

In flagrant contradiction to their mission of protecting New England's environment, the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) uses the tricks of industry public relations in -- hand in hand with industry -- promoting the erection of giant wind turbines in wild and rural areas.

Their recent fund-raising plea boasts that CLF is a "leading force ... for fair review of renewable energy projects."

The mission of the "wise use" movement is not the precautionary principle that has traditionally guided environmentalists but to show that in balance the harm could be worse, i.e., industry pretends to be "green," pays off a few organizations, and continues to do what it always did.

Part of this effort is to complain that regulations and environmental reviews and public input are unfair burdens, because there is a small chance that a project will be prevented. And the developers take great umbrage that they are not free to do whatever they want.

Thus when CLF calls for fair review of renewable energy projects, it implies that subjecting them to the same review required for any industrial-scale development -- particularly in rural and wild locations -- is unfair.

That is an opposite message from CLF's avowed mission. Those reviews are there to protect New England's environment. Calling a power plant "green" doesn't make its impacts on the land and its denizens any less.

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

Wind power saves nothing

To the editor, Kennebec (Me.) Journal (published June 18):

The June 12 editorial ("We need wind power to fight global warming") is unconvincing. To argue for allowing "the loss of a beautiful view, the potential damage to wildlife species and the industrialization of a largely untouched landscape," it says that not doing so would cause even greater destruction.

In other words, we must destroy the environment to save it.

Missing from that harsh logic, however, is any evidence that industrial wind power can indeed "stem global warming's progress." With 20% of its electricity supposedly coming from wind, Denmark's greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. That country has not reduced its use of other fuels despite a landscape saturated with wind turbines.

In other words, wind power destroys the environment. Period. It saves nothing.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism

Wind power development like logging and mining

According to an Associated Press story yesterday, the Synergics company in Maryland is threatening to sue the state because environmental protection of rare and endangered species may cause their plan to erect seventeen 420-ft-high turbines on Backbone Mountain (Maryland's highest ridge) to be rejected. Their reasoning: there is logging and mining in the area, although apparently outside the state's environmental jurisdiction.

Instead of proving their green credentials by modifying the project to fit the law, Synergics simply threatens the state with legal action. After all, they've spent a lot of investors' money to develop a 40-MW project, and any less could mean some embarrassing losses, threatening Synergics' ability to raise money for future projects. The environment? What's that?

Note that such belligerence which belies the "green" mask is not unusual for wind developers. It was one of their faults in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, which recently passed strict guidelines regulating wind turbine erections. One of the developers there, Emerging Energies, after trying to slip their permit request in the day before a year-long moratorium began last year, stood before the Planning and Parks Supervisors at the last meeting of the ordinance commission and renewed his threat to sue them if they passed the ordinance as it was shaping up. The county attorney was actually so worried that he was urging board members to reject it -- until WINDCOWS members found out and raised the issue at a meeting and got him to admit that it was indeed a defensible ordinance and the behavior of the developers hardly argued in their favor. Another of the developers, Navitas, is in court to get an extension to a conditional use permit they already hold but which expires in December. That county attorney wrote a letter to the judge claiming that the board is in favor of extension. He was forced to admit that he wrote the letter on his own and that the board knew nothing about it and had never even met to discuss the issue.

Shenanigans -- not an interest in the environment or the neighbors -- characterize industrial wind power development. They are indeed Enron's heirs.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, ecoanarchism

Alaska governor is insane

A story in today's Boston Globe says that Alaska Governor Frank Murkowsi

wants the state to hire a public relations firm to change the perception of Alaska and its people as greedy for federal dollars and all too willing to plunder the environment for profit.

But wait:

Ultimately, he wants to sway public opinion in favor of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

So it appears that the idea is not to show that Alaska is not "all too willing to plunder the environment for profit" but simply to persuade the rest of the U.S. to let them.

tags:  environment, environmentalism