Ralph Nader and the Democrats

As the editorial in yesterday's Caledonian-Record asked, if Democrats think Ralph Nader is so awful, why are they so scared of him? Is John Kerry really so unappealing in comparison? Of course, it might have something to do with actual issues in the campaign, which Kerry avoids addressing in their very real seriousness and which Nader describes and offers clear solutions that aren't an insult to our intelligence, or worse a bait-and-switch confidence game. If Kerry is the clear choice for Progressives, as David Jones of thenaderfactor.com stated last night on PBS's The News Hour, they should include Nader (along with Green candidate David Cobb (if he wants to) and Libertarian Michael Badnarik) in the debates so they can prove it. Or if they are really worried about "splitting" the vote, or that "the stakes are too high," they should withdraw their candidate and endorse the real opponent to Bush's corporatist thugs, Ralph Nader.

Kittitas Valley Audubon Society rejects wind

The Kittitas Audubon Society board of directors on September 2 voted 10-3 to oppose three wind facilities proposed in the Kittitas valley of central Washington state.

"Kittitas Audubon believes that lacking a national, state, and local commitment within the framework of a national energy policy to promote conservation, the [perception of -- KM] additional energy supplied by the wind farms will only help continue and actually increase the current wasteful level of energy use. National, state, county, and city governments must develop energy conservation strategies to offset the demand for more energy. Wind farm development in this county is at a stage similar to that of hydropower 50 years ago and of nuclear power 25 or more years ago. Planners for those projects likely thought they had planned things well. However, here we are in 2004 with drastically impacted fish stocks, searching for ways to restore them that include removal of dams. We are still trying to find places to store nuclear waste, and attempting to clean up the leaking sites at Hanford before contamination reaches the Columbia River. Now we have an overnight overwhelming rush to build numerous industrial wind farms in this part of the Kittitas valley that occupy thousands of acres -- 7,000 acres for the KVWPP [one of the projects] alone. Since we cannot predict with reasonable accuracy the long-term environmental impacts of these projects, it is imperative that caution be taken. Policies and guidelines must be in place to protect the natural environment with special consideration for birds and bats. Wind power developers are guests of Kittitas County. Citizens of the county are the ones whose lands and environment will be affected by the wind farms. Kittitas Audubon Society is a voice for the birds of this valley and those that pass through. Our comments and recommendations are made from a perspective that the air space must be kept safe for birds and bats.

"KAS Board of Directors voted not to approve applications for any of the three wind farms because of the lack of adequate study of environmental factors affecting birds, bats, and habitat. Also, the cumulative effects of the three wind farms in relationship to other existing and future wind farms have not been studies or considered. Conservation of energy should be promoted as an alternative."

((((((((((

Here's an appropriate quote from another story. "They creep closer and closer to the marsh with larger and larger turbines," said Nick Jacobs [of Advocates for the Suisun Marsh (near San Francisco, California, and the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America)].

((((((((((

And to help you think about the size of industrial windmills, the 35-meter blades of a 1.5-MW GE assembly sweeps an acre of air, at a speed of up to 165 mph at the tips.

Industry lies

"[T]he usual 30% capacity use was actually more like 50% in gusty 2003." So says the British Wind Energy Association in the BBC article linked to in this post's title. The U.K. Department of Trade and Industry, however, has reported that the output of on-shore wind turbines in 2003 was only 24.1%.

The developers hire whole teams who work full time keeping the misinformation going, while their opponents have to counter it in their spare time. Still, we have the advantage: There's a lot more of us, and we're not liars.

Spoiler

To the editor:

If Cheryl Rivers believes there should be only one popular candidate opposing Brian Dubie for Lieutenant Governor ("Progressives fight against 'spoiler' label," Burlington Free Press, Sept. 18), then the obvious solution is for her to drop out and endorse Steve Hingtgen.

[The article also pointed out that: "Hingtgen ... wants to be cautious about wind power development. Rivers is all for it." Hingtgen for Lieutenant Governor!]

Confused

'Gunther, a supporter of wind turbine energy, said a problem with wind energy is when wind speeds are low over a long period and make energy production difficult.

'"The problem with wind power today is that we can't count on the wind when we need it the most -- in the summer," Gunther said. "We need a good, renewable source to back up wind."

'The good, renewable, backup source could be hydrogen fuel cells, which would make wind energy a more popular choice, Gunther said. The fuel cells, however, in the commercial market may be years away.

Though he is the Assistant Majority Leader in the Minnesota House of Representatives, Bob Gunther is confused here. Hydrogen fuel cells are not a source of energy, but only a means of storing energy. By definition, they do not replace any energy source.

Two great powers

"Every little increase in human freedom has been fought over ferociously between those who want us to know more and be wiser and stronger, and those who want us to obey and be humble and submit."

-- Philip Pullman, The Subtle Knife, Book II of His Dark Materials

Freedom Tower to throw ice all over New York

The link in the title is to a story at Wired about the proposed "Freedom Tower" for the World Trade Center site. It is to be very tall and will provide as much office space as the twin towers did. It will also have a bunch of wind turbines in the latticework between the top floor and the antenna base. These it is hoped will provide 20% of the building's electricity.

The figure, of course is in kilowatt-hours: 2.6 million! That is in fact the theoretical output of only a 1-megawatt wind turbine. And this building will sport a whole series of turbines, so they're obviously going to be rather small. The picture in the article shows bigger ones in the center, flanked by smaller ones on the outside. (Their proximity to each other will probably cause interference, so the actual output would likely be very much less than the projected claim; and they would have to be shut down when ice is a possibility, or else risk throwing it all over lower Manhattan, which doesn't need more of that, thank you very much.)

So what, you say? Small rooftop turbines sound like an ideal choice in the city. They aren't expensive, they generate power right where it's used, and they can reduce some of the building's need from the grid. True enough, and this project is being hyped as a showcase of such urban use of renewable electricity generation (the building will also have solar panels).

But those tiny propellors 1200 feet up at the top of a massive building surrounded by other massive buildings amidst the dense urban roar will be used to promote jumbo-jet-sized turbines thump-thumping around on giant poles in rural areas, including unspoiled prairies and mountains.