Some errors concerning Danish energy

To the Editor, Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, Calif.):

Tapan Munroe is right that we have much to learn from Denmark about efficient energy use, but a couple of statements in his Sept. 25 piece are incorrect.

Where he writes, "Nearly 20 percent of the country's energy comes from wind power," it should be noted that wind turbines produce only electricity, which represents only 18.3% of Denmark's total energy use according to an energy flow chart for 2003 from the Danish Energy Authority. Twenty percent of the electricity therefore represents less than 4% of the total energy.

But because the turbines produce power in response to the wind rather than actual demand, much of it -- 84% of western Denmark's wind production in 2003, by one analysis -- has to be exported (i.e., dumped) because it is not needed. Despite a landscape already saturated with turbines, it appears therefore that they produce only about 3% of the electricity Denmark uses.

Munroe also implies that Denmark's economy is not fossil fuel based. In fact, they are more fossil fuel based than the U.S. According to the Danish energy flow chart, 93.6% of their energy supply is from oil, natural gas, and coal. Much of the oil and natural gas is exported, and all of the coal is imported. In balance, fossil fuels (primarily coal) supply 89.1% of the total energy Denmark uses and 88.3% of its electricity.

In comparison, an energy flow chart from the U.S. Department of Energy for 2002 shows that fossil fuels are the source of 88.0% of our total energy and 69.6% of our electricity.

The Danes use their energy much more wisely and don't have domestic nuclear power, but they are nonetheless very much reliant on fossil fuels, and large-scale wind power has hardly changed a thing other than ruining the countryside.

categories:  wind power, wind energy

Must. Stay. The. Course.

Phil Donahue recently made Bill O'Reilly flinch during his Fox show, The O'Reilly Factor, as transcribed at Counterpunch.

O'Reilly has admitted that the occupation of Iraq has not gone well. But he clings to the idea that it is necessary to "the war on terror." That is, since we turned Iraq into a terrorist free-for-all, we have to stay the course -- which will obviously have the effect of keeping it a terrorist free-for-all. This failure, this making things worse, in O'Reilly's mind, as in so many others, is the reason we can't just leave.

I am uncomfortable conflating the Bush's murderous wars with wind power developers (though Bush himself is tight with former wind pioneer Enron (making Texas a "showcase" for a while) and off-shore wind facility builder and war profiteer Halliburton), but both of them worry me (to put it mildly) and both of them are supported by a wide range of fellow citizens despite negative evidence.

I recently read in the comment section of an article at In These Times the same illogic for continuing wind development as Bill O'Reilly's for staying in Iraq. Namely, evidence that it has not worked is precisely the reason it must be expanded.

O'Reilly et al. chant "war on terror" to fend off reality, and the supporters of industrial wind chant "climate change." They understandably need to believe that we are doing something about a real problem. The need appears to be stronger than any desire to honestly assess the effects of what they support.

Few people easily switch from belief in an idea to realization of its sham (the rise and fall of celebrities provides a redirection of that need). So they more strongly assert the belief, as if to convince themselves, as if to make the doubt, and even the evidence, go away.

War on terror! Climate change! Must. Stay. The. Course.

Meanwhile, nothing changes except for the worse. The sham continues. (The "neocons" rationalize such policies of lies as "creative destruction"!)

By the way, Donahue brought up a chilling parallel, saying that two things related to Iraq have doubled in the past year: the number of Americans killed, and Halliburton's stock price.

categories:  wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism

"We have made enough mess there already"

"They told you Britain must invade Iraq because of its weapons of mass destruction. They were wrong. Now they say British troops must stay in Iraq because otherwise it will collapse into chaos. ... America left Vietnam and Lebanon to their fate. They survived. We left Aden and other colonies. Some, such as Malaya and Cyprus, saw bloodshed and partition. We said rightly that this was their business. So too is Iraq for the Iraqis. We have made enough mess there already."

--Simon Jenkins, The Guardian (U.K.), Sept. 21, 2005

Join a demonstration this Saturday, Sept. 24, to raise your voice in the U.S. (while it's still allowed) against continuing our ridiculous and deadly escapade in Iraq and for the impeachment and conviction of George W. Bush for crimes against humanity (or at least grave dishonesty and incompetence and destruction of our nation if not others).

Senators not worried about John Roberts

Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont has announced his support of John Roberts for the Supreme Court, saying, "I can only take him at his word that he does not have an ideological agenda."

Yet Roberts' whole career has involved crafting words for an extreme ideological agenda. He has found Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and William Rehnquist too soft in his efforts in the Reagan and Bush I administrations to prevent the implementation of civil rights laws. He is opposed to the most important role of the Court: protection of the equal rights of minorities.

See the article by William Taylor in the current New York Review of Books for a summary of what a monster John Roberts really is. Of course, the Senators can live with him on the Court. His actions don't affect them, so why not collaborate?

categories:  civil rights, supreme court

GAO calls for more oversight of wind facilities

As reported by the Associated Press, Congress's Government Accountability Office has determined that local and state regulators sometimes lack expertise in weighing the impact of wind power facilities on birds and bats and other wildlife, so that "no one is considering the impacts of wind power on a regional or 'ecosystem' scale -- a scale that often spans governmental jurisdictions."

The trade group American Wind Energy Association has responded, saying that "such problems remain limited to two project areas." This is a little like the deluded Mr Deasy in James Joyce's Ulysses boasting that Ireland has never persecuted the Jews -- "because she never let them in," he adds, trying to remain solemn as a phlegmy laugh nearly chokes him.

Just so, the wind companies don't allow independent researchers in, so they can claim whatever results they want. The two projects where they admit problems are precisely the two projects where independent observers have managed to work: Altamont Pass in California (raptor deaths) and Mountaineer facility on the Allegheny ridge in West Virginia (bat deaths). At the latter, research was cut off as the brutal facts became too hard to spin.

categories:  wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism

"Henry County will be home of up to 100 wind towers"

Dear Mr. Elliott, Rock Island (Ill.) Argus:

I read your Sept. 21 story, "Henry County will be home of up to 100 wind towers" on the web and thought I should point out the inaccurate title of the sidebar, "Wind energy facts."

It is a stretch to call the wind industry trade group's claims for 2020 "facts." The language itself betrays them: "wind energy is expected to ..." and "wind energy could provide ...."

These are self-serving sales projections, not facts.

categories:  wind power, wind energy

Signing it all away for crumbs from the table

A copy of a boilerplate easement agreement between a windfarm developer and a landowner has crossed my desk. Those who have already seen such contracts have remarked on the irony of landowners defending their right to do what they want with their own land against the considerations of their neighbors but signing away that very right to the wind company.

The main grant in the contract is an "exclusive easement" that includes the flow of air across the land. Besides the exclusive right to all wind energy on the property and to install and operate anmeometers, turbines, towers, and foundations, the developer is also free to install transmission facilities, utility lines, roads, bridges, culverts, staging areas, storage buildings, signs, fences, gates, etc. -- in fact, anything they want, anywhere they want, with access any time they want.

The contract also allows wind power facilities not only on the owner's property but also anywhere else to affect the property without limitation, including visual, audible, and any other effects.

Although the contract specifies that the developer will consult with the owner in placing the turbines and infrastructure, elsewhere it specifies that the owner will consent to the developer's decision of location, including on other properties.

It is further clarified that the owner waives all setback restrictions, whether legal or by private agreement, and has no right to complain about the consequences.

Similarly, it is specified that the developer may "enjoy" the property without any interference by the owner or anyone else, and that the owner must in fact actively "protect and defend" the developer's right to "enjoy" the owner's property.

The owner and anyone who might live on the property can of course enjoy it as well, as long as the developer doesn't think they're in the way or costing it anything. The developer can require the owner to take measures to keep people out.

The developer also retains the right to transfer this taking to anyone it wants.

The contract is for 2 years, and then 20 years once a turbine is installed, with the developer retaining the option to extend it another 30 years after that. Of course, the developer can terminate the deal at any time. The owner can't.

When it's over, the developer has to remove its mess only to a depth of 4 feet (the tower foundations are much deeper concrete and steel slabs) and simply cover it with dirt. There's no word about restoring the land to its former state. Nor is there any mention of removing material that the developer may not own itself, such as transmission facilities and utility lines.

It's boggling that anyone willingly signs these things, especially in the name of saving the family farm.

categories:  wind power, wind energy, wind farms