February 21, 2006

"Bush's Mysterious 'New Programs'"

"The long war," as the Bush administration now calls its program, is straight out of George Orwell's 1984:
War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact.
Nat Perry writes (click the title of this post) in Consortium News about the war on Americans, not just residents and citizens who might be suspected of violent acts of terror but anyone who is perceived to be undermining, i.e., critical of, this administration's -- this government's -- programs, as well as the business of its supporters.
[T]he White House still asserts the right to detain U.S. citizens without charges as enemy combatants.

This claimed authority is based on the assertion that the United States is at war and the American homeland is part of the battlefield.

"In the war against terrorists of global reach, as the Nation learned all too well on Sept. 11, 2001, the territory of the United States is part of the battlefield," Bush's lawyers argued in briefs to the federal courts. (Washington Post, July 19, 2005)

Given Bush's now open assertions that he is using his "plenary" -- or unlimited -- powers as Commander in Chief for the duration of the indefinite War on Terror, Americans can no longer trust that their constitutional rights protect them from government actions.
tags:  , , ,

February 18, 2006

Noise and vibration from wind farms

From Hawke's Bay (Australia) Today (Feb. 18):

They call it the train that never arrives. It's a low, rumbling sound that goes on and on . . . and on.

Sometimes, in a stiff easterly, the rumbling develops into a roar, like a stormy ocean.
But worst of all is the beat. An insidious, low-frequency vibration that's more a sensation than a noise. It defeats double-glazing and ear plugs, coming up through the ground, or through the floors of houses, and manifesting itself as a ripple up the spine, a thump on the chest or a throbbing in the ears. Those who feel it say it's particularly bad at night. It wakes them up or stops them getting to sleep.

Wendy Brock says staff from Meridian Energy promised her the wind turbines at Te Apiti, 2.5km from her Ashhurst home in southern Hawke's Bay, would be no noisier than waves swishing on a seashore.

"They stood in my lounge and told me that."

But during a strong easterly, the noise emitted by the triffid-like structures waving their arms along the skyline and down the slopes behind the Brock family's lifestyle block is more like a thundering, stormy ocean. Sometimes it goes on for days. And when the air is still, there's the beat - rhythmic and relentless, "like the boom box in a teenager's car".
"It comes up through the floor of our house. You can't stop it."

Mrs Brock says she can feel it rippling along her spine when she's lying in bed at night. Blocking her ears makes no difference.

"It irritates you, night after night. Imagine you've done your day's work, then you go to bed, and there's this bass beat coming up through the floor and you can't go to sleep. You can't even put headphones on and get away from it.

"My older son sometimes gets woken up by the noise. He gets up and prowls around the house."

She tells of other Ashhurst residents who "feel" the sound hitting their chests in the Ashhurst Domain 3km from the turbines. She says one woman is so distressed by the sensation she has put her home on the market.

Not everyone in the village hears the infrasound -- Mrs Brock reels off the names of residents wondering what the fuss is all about -- but says those who do feel the sound are distressed by it and have nowhere to turn for redress.

There's little point complaining to the Tararua District Council because all it does is record each complaint and forward it to Meridian, and nothing ever happens.

"What are they (the council) going to do to Meridian -- fine them, or shut down the turbines?" asks Mrs Brock.

Meridian is dismissive of complaints about noise from Te Apiti.

"Infrasound is just not an issue with modern turbines," insists spokesman Alan Seay.
"We take it very seriously. We have looked into it seriously, but the advice we are getting from eminently qualified people is that it is just not an issue."

Many people claiming to be putting forward scientific argument about noise from turbines "are not qualified in this area of expertise. I have a problem with some of their statements", Mr Seay said. ...

Meridian is currently appealing noise restrictions placed on its proposed 70-turbine wind farm at Makara, near Wellington, where some houses will be about 1km away, and downwind of, the turbines.

John Napier lives on the Woodville side of the Te Apiti turbines, about 2km from the nearest one.

When they first began operating, he couldn't believe the roaring noise they made.
"We can hear it in our bedroom at night." ...

He doesn't hear the infrasound beat so much. It's mainly "a roar like a train going through a tunnel or over a bridge, but it never stops".

He complained to Meridian about the noise, and the company put a noise meter on his property for a couple of weeks, but wouldn't tell him the results.

"Wind farm companies say noise from turbines is not an issue, but it is an issue all right. I would be very concerned if I lived in Karori (near Makara, in Wellington)," Mr Napier said.

Harvey Jones, who lives in a valley 3km from Te Apiti, says there is an easterly wind blowing across the wind farm about 10 percent of the time. The wind goes across the top of the hill, but the noise from the turbines rolls down the valley. It sounds like a train constantly passing by, and the stronger the wind, the louder the noise. When there's a westerly blowing, he can even hear the turbines in Woodville, 6-7km away. ...

Low-frequency sound - sometimes called infrasound - is controversial.

Dr Geoff Leventhall, a noise vibration and acoustics expert from the UK who looked into infrasound at the request of Genesis Power, says "I can state quite categorically that there is no significant infrasound from current designs of wind turbines". ...

Engineer Ken Mosley, of Silverstream, has an entirely different view.

The foundations of modern turbines create vibrations in the ground when they are moving, and also sometimes when they are not moving, Dr Mosley says.

"This vibration is transmitted seismically through the ground in a similar manner to earthquake shocks and roughly at similar frequencies.

"Generally, the vibrations cannot be heard until they cause the structure of a house to vibrate in sympathy, and then only inside the house. The effects inside appear as noise and vibrations in certain parts of a room. Outside these areas, little is heard or felt.

"However, the low frequency components of the noise and vibration can cause very unpleasant effects which eventually cause the health of people to deteriorate to an extent where living in the property can become impossible."

Dr Mosley says that wherever wind farms are built close to houses, people complain about noise and vibration.

He quotes a scientist in South West Wales, David Manley, who has been researching noise and vibration phenomena associated with turbines since 1994.

An acoustician and engineer, Dr Manley writes "it is found that people living within 8.2km of a wind farm cluster can be affected and if they are sensitive to low frequencies they may be disturbed".

Two GPs in the UK have researched the health effects of noise and vibrations from turbines. Amanda Harry documented complaints of headaches, migraines, nausea, dizziness, palpitations, sleep disturbance, stress, anxiety and depression. People suffered flow-on effects of being irritable, unable to concentrate during the day, losing the ability to cope.

Bridget Osborne, of Moel Maelogan, a village in North Wales, where three turbines were erected in 2002, is reported as saying "there is a public perception that wind power is 'green' and has no detrimental effect on the environment, but these turbines make low-frequency noises that can be as damaging as high-frequency noises.

"When wind farm developers do surveys to assess the suitability of a site they measure the audible range of noise but never the infrasound measurement -- the low-frequency noise that causes vibrations that you can feel through your feet and chest.

"This frequency resonates with the human body, their effect being dependent on body shape. There are those on whom there is virtually no effect, but others for whom it is incredibly disturbing."

Dr Mosley says wind-power generators in New Zealand are aware of such literature on turbine noise and infrasound from all around the world.

February 16, 2006

Danziger condemns wind energy deaths

To the editor, Barre-Montpelier (Vt.) Times-Argus:

If Jeff Danziger ("An apology, sort of," Feb. 5) is concerned that coal miners die for our electricity (let's ignore for now the fact that Vermont doesn't get any electricity from coal, and that workers die on wind turbines, too), then he should look into the cause of those deaths a little more.

Soon after the deaths in West Virginia that inspired Danziger's cartoon, there was a similar event in Canada. But those trapped miners survived and were quickly rescued, because they had safety arrangements and emergency equipment that their U.S. counterparts can only dream of.

Danziger rightly condemns mountain top removal, yet that method of digging up coal is safer for the workers involved.

Obviously, Danziger would like to see less demand for coal however it's procured. But he himself writes, correctly, that "wind power won't alter our reliance on coal and nuclear electric generation."

Admirable as his concerns are, then, support for wind power development has nothing to do with them. No promoter of wind power can show a reduction of other fuel use due to giant wind turbines on the grid.

Wind power development has no benefit except for the developers and their bankers who are taking advantage of misguided policy to shovel public funds into their private accounts. So Danziger's real message seems to be that clearing and blasting our own mountains for wind turbines is necessary as symbolic atonement for our energy sins, not for actually changing our energy use.

He won't have to live with the giant machines, of course.

tags:  , , , , , , ,

February 15, 2006

El caso eólico

It's prison for Celso Perdomo and his fiancée Mónica Quintana in the Canary Islands, as reported yesterday by Madrid's Cadena Ser.

Perdomo was regional director-general of industry from 2003 to 2005. Quintana was a Gran Canaria council member. Perdomo is accused of embezzlement of public funds, taking bribes, and influence peddling. Quintana is accused of embezzlement and taking bribes.

"El caso eólico" began with the arrest of industrialist Alberto Santan for insider trading. So far, seven people -- from both industry and government -- have been arrested for secretly arranging the development of wind turbine facilities before public notice. The amount of the bribes is reported as 12 million euros.

Meanwhile, here in the U.S., today's New York Times describes the "gold rush" of big-money interest in wind power.

Most of the article is about General Electric's Energy Financial Services but also mentioned are Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase, who have purchased wind energy companies.

Not mentioned in the article is why such a marginal source of energy is such an attractive investment, namely, that most of the investment is actually made by us taxpayers. Out of the pockets of the many and into the pockets of the few. It's wind profiteering, not "ecomagination." It's business as usual, which should cause pro-wind "environmentalists" to wonder how anything will change. Of course, they benefit from all the jobs clearing the way for the big-wind juggernaut consulting for the charade of "sensitive siting," so resignation is the norm.

And to help things along even more, the U.S. Department of the Interior has essentially pre-approved the construction of wind turbines on federal land, where we already subsidize private ranching and mining and drilling. The attempt to end the protection of endangered species, led by California wind advocate Richard Pombo, will also help.

Remember, George Bush was a pioneer as governor of Texas in looting the public treasury and raping public lands to make Texas a "showcase" of large-scale wind power -- all for the financial benefit of his friends at Enron.

It should be amusing that the most "successful" capitalists always turn out to be the most on the dole. But it's no laughing matter when they so carelessly destroy lives and land.

tags:  , , , , ,

February 13, 2006

Letter to state rep about wind power

My state representative, Lucy Leriche, got back to me about my concern about her vote at the Northeast Kingdom Caucus meeting last week in favor of industrial development of our ridgelines. She clarified her position, which seems to be "trust the Public Service Board." I wrote back to her and clarified mine.

()()()()()()()

As for the deliberation process, you must be aware that there have indeed been efforts to subject wind power facilities (which uniquely target the most protected features of our landscape) to Act 250 review rather than Section 248 review, or at least to incorporate the Act 250 processes into the PSB process. As I have read it, Section 248 recommends consideration of much of what Act 250 requires, but it does not require it, and all input, from, for example, the Agency of Natural Resources and particularly the people who actually have to live with the intrusive machines, can be dismissed for the "greater good" of the state.

As for interfering, is that not our duty as citizens? Are you suggesting that the wind power lobby does not "interfere"? When I first heard about the interest in building wind turbines on Kirby Mountain (where we moved from last fall), I thought that would be great. I had seen the pretty pictures and read about how great wind energy was. On the other hand, I had also seen wind facilities in Spain, and only an insane person could call them attractive. As I lay on my hammock looking up towards the Kirby ridge, I comforted myself that the knoll our property was on would probably shield us from having the turbines dominate our back yard.

Nonetheless, I looked into them. It very quickly became clear that there was a lot of hype, a lot of promises of how much power wind turbines will provide, but there were no data at all showing any real benefit. And while dodging that obvious lack (by totting up theoretical tons of CO2 and other emissions avoided, though not showing actual data proving any such effect) there was an also obvious downplaying and outright dismissal of negative effects, such as habitat fragmentation and degradation, disruption and killing of birds and bats, erosion, noise, visual intrusion, etc.

I was ready to weigh the impacts against the benefits. I am a science editor and a writer. I can tell when language is being used to hide the truth or to misdirect. I can tell when there is no basis for a statement. Industrial wind power is not an argument over aesthetics. Wind turbines are machines that are supposed to make a tangible contribution to our electrical energy. Yet no promoter in the world is able to point to such a contribution.

At this point, I am usually asked, why, then, do so many utilities and politicians support it?

My perception is that it is a vicious circle. Politicians and utilities are under pressure to provide more energy and provide it cleanly. Environmentalists (some) endorse wind power as a solution. Big business sees an opportunity to reap subsidized profits and presents itself as green. Everybody is happy and so it goes on, because nobody is allowed to ask: Where is the evidence that wind power actually makes a significant contribution?

The result is the wanton destruction of the world's last rural and wild places. As long as they have wind, their value is only as an energy source. It is no different than mountain top removal for coal or the drive to extract oil from under the Arctic wilderness, except in this case a lot of so-called environmentalists are on board.

Even the promoters of wind acknowledge that it will not be a significant part of our energy mix. Even the most ambitious don't see wind power producing more than 10% of Vermont's electricity or 5% of the nation's. (And that's different from actually providing electricity, and different again from actually displacing the use of other fuels.) An associate of mine has asked if we are in such desperate straits that we are forced to develop Vermont's ridgelines. Ridgeline development should be the very last resort, when we have done everything else and are still desperate for the least intermittent trickle of electricity.

Wind power's theoretical contribution would be swiftly outpaced by growing demand or alternatively could be easily obviated by conservation and efficiency.

Forgive me for going on so long. You wrote that you have faith that if anti-wind concerns are substantiated the board will respond appropriately. Notice that the benefit of the doubt is already in favor of the wind developer, who is not held to such rigor concerning his claims of benefit (as he might under Act 250). To wash our hands of the matter as if the PSB were utterly impartial and independent of political pressure seems to me highly irresponsible. Unless, of course, one's faith is that they will indeed support the construction of wind power facilities on our ridgelines.

()()()()()()()

tags:  , , , ,

February 12, 2006

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:  ,

"terrorists with briefcases"

Usually smug capitalist cheerleader Ben Stein has written an impressive piece in today's New York Times. He describes the response to an earlier article about United Airlines "parent" UAL as it reorganized under bankruptcy court protection, firing tens of thousands of workers, cutting the pay of the remainder (by up to two-thirds) and terminating pensions. Meanwhile, it was spending $10,000,000 a month on lawyers, accountants, and investment brokers, as well as $18,000 a month to keep a hotel suite available for the new chairman whenever he happened to be in Chicago. After 37 months, UAL emerged from bankruptcy and provided hundreds of millions of dollars to reward its top executives. One of UAL's board members is chief executive of Delphi, which appears ready to embark on a similar program.

Stein writes about the 1950s president of General Motors, who was paid about 40 times the average wage of the line workers, 80 times with a bonus during his peak year. In most companies, Stein writes, 10 to 20 times was the norm. Today, the norm is hundreds,
"whether or not the company is doing well. The graph for the pay of C.E.O.'s is a vertical line in the last five years. The graph for workers' pay is a flat line -- in every sense. ... it isn't the free market at work. It's a kleptocracy at work."
Stein is quick to note that the management of most companies, even if they are ridiculously overpaid, are "still honest and hardworking" (working hundreds of times harder than the average wage employee in the company?).
For centuries, the idea has held that the stockholders own the company. They are the trustors. The trustors select directors who in turn hire a chief executive and other top officers and then keep an eye on them for the stockholders. They ... are all agents for the stockholders ....

But what has happened is that -- as in a corrupt, failed third-world state -- the trustees in too many cases are captives of the C.E.O. and his colleagues; they owe both their places on the board and their emoluments to the chief executive, and they exercise no meaningful restraint at all on managers. The directors are instead a sort of prætorian guard, protecting management from its real bosses, the stockholders, as management sucks the blood out of the company.

... Government, meanwhile, does nothing, or next to nothing. Courts, especially bankruptcy courts, do nothing. And the employees and stockholders and the whole society are looted. ... In the capitalist society, the most basic foundation is trust. But in today's world, trust is abused, mocked, drained of meaning.
And why doesn't government do anything to protect society, to protect individuals? It doesn't require much of a leap of insight to notice that the U.S. government is now modeled on the very kleptocracy Stein describes in business. Alas, Stein doesn't make the little leap, instead calling for President Bush (who?) to rally for
common decency for the workers and the savers and investors of this country, and an end to the hideous breaches of trust that build great mansions in the Hamptons and wreck a free society.
You might as well ask him to rally for animal rights, too. Two pages before Stein's article is an item about war profiteering. The value of stock in the six leading war contractors has increased 350% since (pre-Bush) March 2000. Elsewhere in the paper, an article described the intensive investigations triggered by the revelation of Bush's warrantless spying on his fellow citizens (for those of us who aren't "unitary executives" it's called voyeurism or stalking). But the investigations are not to find out the extent of the illegal program -- which most analysts suspect is a actually a massive data mining operation -- but rather to find out who told on them.

tags:  ,

Wind farms conk out in heat wave

The Adelaide (South Australia) Advertiser has a story today about the sorry performance of the state's 180 wind turbines during the January heat wave. Even if there were some wind, many of the turbines shut down because it was too hot. Then one of them caught fire. Although firefighters couldn't do anything about the turbine, at least they were there to put out the spot fires started by falling debris. Imagine such a fire amidst the brush of a remote ridgeline.
A $3 MILLION wind farm turbine caught fire while dozens shut down at the time South Australia most needed them -- when a heatwave left 63,000 South Australian homes without power last month.

Adding to the drama, firefighters could not extinguish the blaze because the tower was too high at 67m [220ft].

Lack of wind and automatic shutdowns triggered by hot temperatures were to blame for the state's 180 turbines producing just 10 per cent of their maximum power capacity during the January heat wave, according to experts.

The experience proved SA could not rely on wind power to provide electricity when demand was greatest, the Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council (ESIPC) said.

"You never know if the wind will be blowing when you need it to or if wind turbines will shut down," ESIPC spokesman Brad Cowain said.

Operators of the Lake Bonney wind farm, where the turbine fire occurred on Sunday, January 22, said all of its 46 turbines had automatically shut down during the heat wave when temperatures exceeded 40C [104F].

... [Wind farm operator Miles George of Babcock and Brown Wind Partners] said the turbine fire ... had been caused by an electrical fault while maintenance crews were working on it after it had shut down.

Around 3pm, 40 CFS firefighters and six trucks rushed to the wind farm to extinguish the blaze but fire hose water couldn't reach the steel generator at the top of the tower.

Instead, the firefighters watched as fire destroyed the $3 million turbine – which weighs 75 tonnes -- and extinguished spot fires ignited by ashes from the turbine blaze.

... [D]uring Saturday's peak power demand wind farm output plummeted to just 2 per cent of capacity, producing enough power for only 3500 homes, according to ESIPC. This compared with the maximum capacity of 318MW to power 175,000 homes. SA leads the nation in wind farm energy with five established sites -- Starfish Hill, Canunda, Wattle Point, Cathedral Rocks and Lake Bonney.

There are numerous other approved wind farm developments including an AGL plan for 43 turbines at Hallet in the state's Mid North.

But AGL also plans to more than double the capacity of its nearby gas-fired plant, from 180MW to 430MW, at a cost of more than $100 million to ensure peak demand during hot weather can be met.
tags:  ,

February 10, 2006

Groups raise concern over efforts by wind industry to revise USFWS' interim guidance outside federal law

[press release]

Rowe, MA (February 10, 2006). National Wind Watch, Inc., the Humane Society of the United States, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, and Juniata Valley Audubon, Chapter of National Audubon Society, called on Interior Secretary Gale Norton and other federal officials to confirm whether the Fish and Wildlife Service intends to comply with the basic openness and accountability of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) with regard to the "collaborative process" being pushed by wind energy proponents to revise the Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Interim Guidance on Avoiding and Minimizing Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines.

In a letter to Secretary Norton and others, the groups cited the critical importance of the FWS adhering to FACA requirements for public access and accountability given the "significant public controversy surrounding the impact of wind turbines on our nation's treasured wildlife -- in particular on bats and birds -- and considering the current rapid expansion of wind power throughout the country and the potentially devastating impact this expansion could have on wildlife if the turbines are not properly sited." In the letter, the groups stated "We are very concerned that if the FWS does not fulfill this FACA requirement, then the process will simply be an opportunity for the wind power industry to force its views on the agency, and will result in the agency revising its Interim Guidance in a manner that makes turbine siting and operation easier for the industry, but detrimental to wildlife."

The first meeting of the Policy Group for the collaborative was scheduled for February 9, 2006 in Washington, DC. The meeting was canceled when the Fish and Wildlife Service advised participants that it needed more time to evaluate the applicability of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to the collaborative process.

National Wind Watch spokesperson, Lisa Linowes, was pleased with the FWS response to the letter but expressed concerned that the collaborative effort was permitted to go as far as it did. "The groups represented by the letter have consistently raised legitimate and important conservation concerns about industrial wind power projects. It is essential that there be a fair representation of our views and expertise," she said. The letter was submitted to the Interior Department by Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, a public-interest law firm in Washington D.C..

tags:  , , , ,

February 9, 2006

market scams, dead bats, and big business

Here are a few abstracts from Windpower Monthly's February issue.

China changes tack on wind market structure and drops fixed purchase prices for competitive tenders:  Companies which a short time ago were rushing to develop wind projects in China are now having second thoughts after the government announced last month it would not be introducing a premium wind power tariff, as widely expected. Instead, the market structure will be a competitive bidding process controlled by government. "The zeal for wind development in China is likely to cool down," says Zhu Junsheng of China Renewable Energy Industries Association.

Plans for Scandinavian green certificates market hit icy patch:  Europe's first cross-border market for trade of green power certificates is looking unlikely to go ahead at the start of next year as planned. All eyes have otherwise been on Norway and Sweden to demonstrate that the environmental value of renewable energy is a commodity that can be sold separately from the physical electricity. Green certificate trade, increasingly common in America, allows a country with poor wind resources to buy cheaper wind power from a distant windy neighbour. [This echos the arrangement of powerful nations enriching themselves with the resources of weak nations. --KM] But Norway is still wrangling over the details, while a Swedish fear is that as long as Norway can produce wind power more efficiently than Sweden, Swedish subsidies to renewables will end up in Norwegian pockets. ... [W]ind industry views remain mixed on whether these are teething problems or a more fundamental flaw in the concept of green certificate trade.

GE Financial Services aiming to be world's biggest wind power investor:  With last year's purchase of seven small German wind farms and the commissioning of a 50 MW project in California, GE Energy Financial Services (EFS) has joined the list of institutional investors aiming to build substantial portfolios of wind plant assets. Right now wind is a "sweet spot" for new energy investment, says the company's Tim Howell. This year EFS is forming a dedicated team to focus exclusively on renewables, chasing deals in Europe and the US. We interview the men with the ambitions -- and the billions of dollars -- to make EFS the largest, most profitable owner of wind assets in the world.

Investigating mystery bat deaths in Canadian wind farm:  A leading Canadian power producer is launching two bat research programs after site monitoring at a southern Alberta wind farm revealed hundreds of bat mortalities. About 90% of the bodies were found during the fall migration in August and September. The mortalities were largely silver-haired and hoary bats, neither of which is a species at risk [small comfort if you or your mate is one of the individuals killed --KM]. The company is funding research to track bat behaviour and hopes the findings can be used to identify potential issues at other sites.

Merger of American power giants seen as benefit to wind industry:  A pending merger between US electricity majors FPL Group and Constellation Energy will create a giant among giants and has likely wide-reaching implications for the future of wind power development across the country. "Constellation has flirted with the wind industry and as a combination they'll be the leading players in the market," says Randy Swisher of the American Wind Energy Association. "It's very, very interesting." FPL assures that its intention to add up to 1500 MW of wind power to its portfolio remains unchanged. "A market with larger players and larger control areas is more attractive to the wind industry," adds Swisher. [This, along with the GE story above, underscores that industrial wind power is not an alternative to but increasingly a symptom of the same big-energy control that got us into the mess we're in. --KM]

tags:  , , , , ,

February 8, 2006

More gearbox failures in wind turbines

The Associated Press reported yesterday from Minot, North Dakota, that a couple of three-year-old wind turbines haven't been operating for the past couple of months because of gear box problems.

"It's sad to see mechanical failures and we've had our fair share," said Bruce Carlson, president of the Verendrye Electric company. And Ron Rebenitsch, a Basin Electric engineer from Bismarck, added, "With the gear teeth stripping out, the turbine could run wild and self-destruct. Those turbines are under a tremendous amount of stress, and there are many parameters for a turbine to operate safely. It's a complex mechanical device, subject to failure."

"Gear box problems are not uncommon," said Randy Bush, a resource coordinator for Basin Electric. "At Edgeley, where they have a lot more towers, they have the same issues to deal with that we have."

Also see the log of problems of one New Zealand turbine in an earlier post.

tags:  , ,

February 6, 2006

Anarchy

Ever reviled, accursed, ne'er understood,
Thou art the grisly terror of our age.
"Wreck of all order," cry the multitude,
"Art thou, & war & murder's endless rage."
O, let them cry. To them that ne'er have striven
The 'truth that lies behind a word to find,
To them the word's right meaning was not given.
They shall continue blind among the blind.
But thou, O word, so clear, so strong, so true,
Thou sayest all which I for goal have taken.
I give thee to the future! Thine secure
When each at least unto himself shall waken.
Comes it in sunshine? In the tempest's thrill?
I cannot tell -- but it the earth shall see!
I am an Anarchist! Wherefore I will
Not rule, & also ruled I will not be!

-- John Henry Mackay
(born Feb. 6, 1864)


tags:  , ,

Wind turbine noise -- a primer

A good overview of the wind turbine noise issue, written by physician Nina Pierpont, is available at www.aweo.org/Pierpont-noise-060204.pdf (40 KB). She explains the difference between A-weighted and C-weighted sound measurements and presents evidence that the C-weighted sound level from industrial wind turbines is much greater than the usually cited A-weighted level. The C-weighting includes more low-frequency sound, which can have a serious impact on quality of life and even health.

Pierpont also puts the sound levels of wind turbines and their impact into the context of current environmental and health guidelines.

tags:  , , , ,

February 5, 2006

$100,000 per minute

That's what the Department of Defense says the U.S. is spending on the occupation of Iraq: $4,500,000,000 per month.

That's $54,000,000,000 per year, but Bush just asked for $120,000,000,000 more from Congress for the rest of 2006, most of it for the Iraq operation. It is estimated that $250,000,000,000 has already been spent for Iraq since the invasion in March 2003, almost three years ago.

So it looks like the cost is more like twice what the DD says: $200,000 per minute, $300,000,000 per day, $9,000,000,000 per month.

If you're going to destroy a country, it obviously requires a hell of a lot of cash to do a thorough job of it. Sacrifice is demanded from all of us.

Republicans endorse instant runoff voting

The U.S. House Republicans used runoff voting to ensure that their leader represents the choice of a majority of those voting. The first vote they had, with four candidates, put Roy Blunt well ahead of everyone with 110 votes to John Boehner's 79. But there were also 40 votes for John Shadegg and 2 for Jim Ryun, denying Blunt a majority and forcing an immediate runoff between the two top-polling candidates. After that, Boehner won 122 to 109.

Rather than being spoilers in the simple-minded vote process of most elections in the U.S., Shadegg and Ryun's candidacies served to show the broader support for a candidate other than Blount. A runoff vote recognized that and allowed the majority to select the candidate better reflecting the majority's choice.

Instant runoff voting is a version in which voters mark their second and third choices as well as their first. When no candidate winds a majority in the first choices, then the votes for the lowest-polling candidate are removed and those voters' second-choice votes are counted instead. This is done again if a third round is needed to determine a majority choice.

While the House Republicans endorse runoff voting in their own tightknit club, both the Republican and the Democratic parties fight it for wider elections. As with their barring of other candidates from presidential debates, the two major parties are more interested in maintaining their shared monopoly on power than in engaing in the democratic process. Their worst nightmare is people being free to vote their conscience.

tags: 

February 4, 2006

Tons of conrete, blasting of bedrock for small wind turbine

From "Tons of concrete, massive bolts to secure windmill to earth" (East Bay (R.I.) Newspapers, Feb. 2), here is a description of the platform for a relatively small 660-KW Vestas V47 wind turbine. Its total height will be 241 feet (tower 164', blades 77'), 100-180 feet shorter than models currently being pushed for utility grids (and not singly, as in this case, but in groups of dozens, sometimes hundreds.

This is going into the grounds of the Portsmouth Abbey School, who think they are going to get half of their electricity from the turbine. They are looking at the projected average output, however, ignoring the fact that a wind turbine generates at or above its average rate only a third of the time. And much of that time is likely to be when there is low demand.

Of course, they will still be connected to the grid, and any mismatch of supply and demand will be handled there. The school may gain some savings from net metering, at the expense of other customers on the system.
... The ingredients for that base rolled into the school aboard caravans of trucks. Twenty mixer trucks full of cement and eighty 27-foot long by one-inch diameter steel rods all sunk through bedrock in a 30-foot deep hole should keep the turbine firmly tethered to earth.

... Halfway down they struck rock, "solid rock all the rest of the way down."

The school located a licensed blasting company which agreed to take on the job. ...

Next, a 15-foot diameter corrugated steel pipe, of the sort used in drainage systems, was lowered into the hole and an outer two-foot ring of cement (120 cubic yards worth) was poured between the pipe and the bedrock to form an outer shell.

A team of laborers, among them Brother Joseph, Paul Jestings, the school's director of operations, and Henry duPont, ("Our wind turbine expert from Block Island") climbed down into the hole and threaded the 80 heavy threaded rods into their templates. It is to these rods that the turbine tower will be bolted.

Another corrugated pipe, this one narrower at 13-feet, was lowered into the hole and filled to the top with dirt. Then the two-foot space between the two pipes was filled with 80 yards of concrete, effectively sandwiching the bolts in solid concrete. The whole thing was capped with reinforced concrete and, once cured, will provide an immovable foundation for the turbine to come. ...
It seems rather a lot to put up with for such an intermittent and variable source of power.

tags:  , , , ,

February 3, 2006

National Wind Watch cautions wind energy does not meet Bush's 2006 Agenda objectives

[press release]

Rowe, MA (February 3, 2006). National Wind Watch, Inc., an organization dedicated to providing the facts about wind energy, welcomed President Bush's call this week to become less reliant on foreign oil for America's energy needs. The organization agrees advances in technology are essential, but warns further appropriations for wind energy would be a distraction from Bush's defined energy objectives.

National Wind Watch president, David Roberson, stated, "Wind is not a reliable form of energy and, as such, cannot replace traditional modes of electricity generation. And industrial wind development will not meet the criteria outlined in Bush's 2006 Agenda," referring to the objectives of reducing fuel prices and US dependence on foreign oil. "The simple fact is wind can do little to eliminate our need for foreign oil, because less than 3% of our oil consumption is used in electricity generation," Mr. Roberson noted. He added that rural America is facing an onslaught of wind energy proposals that could result in thousands of industrial towers, many standing over 400-feet high, and thousands of miles of associated transmission lines. At best wind will deliver only small amounts of electricity at a high cost. "In the face of rising energy prices, our federal, state, and local governments are grasping at wind energy as the solution to energy independence, but wind only increases both our economic and environmental costs," Roberson said. "The mission of National Wind Watch is to help educate communities and decision makers on the realities of wind."

tags:  , , ,

Hush money from wind company

Here are excerpts from a "forbearance and non-disturbance agreement" being foisted on owners of property neighboring a large wind power facility.

... Company and Owner have determined that it is in their mutual best interest to enter into this forbearance and non-disturbance agreement. The Company is desirous of providing Owner with certain economic benefits to accrue from operation of the Wind Project ... Owner understands and accepts that operation of wind turbine generators may have some impacts on the Wind Project's neighbors, including the Owner's Property.

... Owners irrevocably grant to the Company, its successors and assigns, the right and privilege to operate the Wind Project, which activity may result in visual, television, noise and other impacts and disturbances at the Property. Owners agree, among other things, that during operation of the Wind Project the Company may occasionally generate and maintain audible noise levels in excess of fifty (50) db (A) on and above the Property at certain times of the day or night. Owners also agree to not engage in any activity on the Property that might cause interference with the operation of teh Wind Project. ...

Owners may sell, mortgage, assign or convey the Property without consent of Company, but any conveyance shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement.

... Owners understand and agree that the Easements and agreements granted herein shall run with the Property, and that any assignee or future buyer of the Property will take the Property subject to the obligations herein. The terms of the Easements and forbearance agreements granted hereunder shall commence upon the execution of this Agreement, and shall terminate forty years after ...

Owners agree to keep this Agreement confidential and shall not disclose to any third party any of the terms of this Agreement ...

The Company shall pay Owner an ... operations easement payment in the amount of $--- per year ...
Note that the 40-year "agreement" is so above board that the signer is required to keep it secret!

From a later letter to owners still holding out, a "one-time $1,500 payment as a partial offset to some of the visual impacts of [the transmission line]" is offered which the manager of the wind power company says he "may have neglected to mention ... before." He also proposes to keep feeding them money until they sign the "forbearance agreement."

tags:  , , ,

Reminder

A reminder from Ironic Times:

Fascism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

February 2, 2006

Capitalism or habitable planet -- can't have both

Robert Newman writes in today's Guardian (U.K.):
There is no meaningful response to climate change without massive social change. A cap on this and a quota on the other won't do it. Tinker at the edges as we may, we cannot sustain earth's life-support systems within the present economic system.

Capitalism is not sustainable by its very nature. It is predicated on infinitely expanding markets, faster consumption and bigger production in a finite planet. And yet this ideological model remains the central organising principle of our lives, and as long as it continues to be so it will automatically undo (with its invisible hand) every single green initiative anybody cares to come up with.

Much discussion of energy, with never a word about power, leads to the fallacy of a low-impact, green capitalism somehow put at the service of environmentalism. In reality, power concentrates around wealth. Private ownership of trade and industry means that the decisive political force in the world is private power. The corporation will outflank every puny law and regulation that seeks to constrain its profitability. It therefore stands in the way of the functioning democracy needed to tackle climate change. Only by breaking up corporate power and bringing it under social control will we be able to overcome the global environmental crisis.

... We have lived in an era of cheap, abundant energy. There never has and never will again be consumption like we have known. The petroleum interval, this one-off historical blip, this freakish bonanza, has led us to believe that the impossible is possible, that people in northern industrial cities can have suntans in winter and eat apples in summer. But much as the petroleum bubble has got us out of the habit of accepting the existence of zero-sum physical realities, it's wise to remember that they never went away. You can either have capitalism or a habitable planet. One or the other, not both.
tags:  , ,

January 30, 2006

Hi, neighbor!



What puny trees!

(Tug Hill Plateau, N.Y.)

Click here for another view.

tags:  , , , , ,

Enron -- father of modern windpower

On the occasion of the Enron trials beginning today, it seems apt to bring up the fact that Enron pioneered large-scale wind energy on the grid in the U.S. They bought Zond Wind Systems, which after Enron's fire sale was bought by General Electric. Key to Enron's success was deregulation of the electricity market, so that it could more easily be manipulated by developers and brokers such as Enron without having to worry about the whole expensive package of energy delivery, i.e., infrastructure maintenance.

They also transformed wind power from an experimental alternative in tune with the environment into an industry that mocks environmental concerns.

And it worked, as long as people believed in it. But when California was subject to rolling blackouts which turned out to be caused by Enron's efforts to jack up prices, the project became suspect.

The line of defense for the Enron team today is that they did not know everything was collapsing around them, that the lies they told investors and auditors were not lies, because they really believed everything was great (which it still was, I suppose, for them).

Their heirs in the wind power development business do them proud. The larger public -- and worse, major environmental groups -- still believe, without any evidence to back up the industry's claims and seemingly oblivious to the impact on land and life.

tags:  ,

January 29, 2006

Yes, folks, modern wind turbines kill birds

I just noticed that comments from Californa campaigner Darryl Mueller on Shea Gunther's supercilious blog have not been deleted. Anything I post to the lad's blog is instantly deleted, of course, since I insisted on seeing the records to back up his claim that "a kilowatt-hour of wind energy means one less kilowatt-hour of conventional fuel burned."

In the face of Herr Gunther's denial that wind turbines kill birds anywhere else than Altamont Pass, I nonetheless posted a reference to one of the recent stories in the U.K. about the very rare white-tailed eagles killed in Smola, Norway, as well as the disruption of their breeding: "Wind farms condemned as eagles fall prey to turbines," The Times, Jan. 28, 2006. (Also see the earlier post on this site, noting 8 more dead eagles found that weren't mentioned in the U.K. reports.)

In his other efforts to distinguish Altamont, he emphasizes how slow the blades turn on new turbines, ignoring the fact that the blades are so long that they're turning at about 170 mph on most models.

He also laughs at birds and bats who aren't "smart enough" to avoid flying into the giant spinning blades, confusing willful violence with natural selection. I suppose he laughs when children are hit by cars?

tags:  , , , , , ,

Whole Foods and the union

As Whole Foods, the 180-store natural foods grocer, now pretends to be using wind energy (and everyone seems to believe them), it is probably an appropriate time to bring up the fact that they hate unions, i.e., they hate that their workers might be able to look to another organization to defend their rights instead of simply submitting on the beneficent paternalism of the Whole Foods executives.

In 2002, the employees of the Whole Foods in Madison, Wis., successfully organized with United Food and Commercial Workers. The primary organizers were fired for sharing a botched latte instead of throwing it out. Founder and CEO John Mackey then toured the country to tell his employees how much they would lose if they unionize. He also threatened to pull advertising from magazines that ran ads for union drives.

A web site by the Madison workers keeps the union drive alive: www.wholeworkersunite.org.

Some interesting comments can be found in a discussion at Vegan Porn.

tags:  , , ,

Fight for a better world than this

Today's Progressive Review contains three stories about the pathetic thuggery of our government. The first comes from Georgia, where the ACLU released files showing extensive spying by the FBI, Homeland Security, and other agencies on citizens who express opinions that differ from the government's -- even in the matter of diet. Vegans picketing outside a ham store were watched by an undercover Homeland Security detective. One of the protesters noticed him, however, and came over and wrote down his license plate number (a wise precaution with such stalking). The detective demanded the paper, which was refused, and the protester was taken to jail.

The ACLU is also fighting the "ideological exclusion" provision in the Patriot Act that denies visas to foreign scholars that the government doesn't like (or fears).

And then there's the secret "no-fly list," which prevents journalists, activists, politicians, and many other people, even babies and toddlers, from boarding planes. It is said that there are 80,000 names on the list. There is no way to find out if you're on it until you try to board your flight. There's no way to find out why you're on the list and no way to get your name removed. Senator Ted Kennedy and Representative John Lewis found that they were listed and had to make several phone calls to get themselves off. Most of us, however, lack their connections.

A four-year-old was stopped, and the braindead processors held him until higher-ups from the transportation security administration cleared him. He had to go through the same process again on the return flight.

French journalist Bernard-Henri Lévy recently toured the country, calling himeself a new Alexis de Tocqueville. It was de Tocqueville (Democracy in America, 1835) who coined the term "tyranny of the majority," but Lévy was determined not to see it. Another useful idiot for this bitter, scared, thuggish America is, for example, "eco-entrepreneur" Shea Gunther, proud to be "100% American" as he calls for debate and then censors all of it. There is a better America, but it is the enemy of the one we have.

Go saoraid!

tags:  , , , ,

January 27, 2006

Turbines kill rare eagles

From today's Guardian:
Wind turbines have caused the death of four rare, white-tailed eagles on islands off the Norwegian coast, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said yesterday.

The failure of as many as 30 other white-tailed eagles to return to breeding areas has added to concerns about the impact of wind farms on wildlife.
The Norwegian Ornithological Society, which monitors the 68-turbine Smola wind facility in question, has also found eight dead white-tailed (also called sea) eagles under the facility's power lines. All of these discoveries are not the result of systematic surveys but are only come upon by chance.

tags:  , , , , ,

Authoritarian democracy

Juan Cole writes in today's Salon (in an essay about Hamas's electoral victory in Palestine):
Democracy depends not just on elections but on a rule of law, on stable institutions, on basic economic security for the population, and on checks and balances that forestall a tyranny of the majority. Elections in the absence of this key societal context can produce authoritarian regimes and abuses as easily as they can produce genuine people power. Bush is on the whole unwilling to invest sufficiently in these key institutions and practices abroad.
That's the case at home, too.

January 26, 2006

On censorship

In most cases of censorship, it is the censor who thus proves his "stupidity."

tags:  , , , , , ,

Signing away the farm

Here is a lovely part of the lease contract that Irish company Airtricity presents to landowners in New York.
9. Waived Right to Object. LANDOWNER acknowledges that certain aspects inherent to the operation of the Wind Energy Facility may result in some nuisance, such as visual impacts, possible increased noise levels, possible shadow flicker on residences, and other possible effects of electrical generation and transmission including without limitation potential interference with radio, television, telephone, mobile telephone and other electronic devices. LESSEE will attempt to minimize any impacts to LANDOWNER in part by taking every reasonable measure to meet or exceed standard U.S. wind industry practices in designing the Wind Energy Facility, and abiding by all regulations pertaining to the permitting and design of the Wind Energy Facility. LANDOWNER understands and has been informed by LESSEE that the Wind Energy Facility on the Leased Property may result in some nuisance, and hereby accepts such nuisance and waives their right to object to such nuisance provided that LESSEE complies with its obligations herein.
Also see "Signing it all away for crumbs from the table," about the contract presented to New York landowners by Singapore-based Noble Environmental.

tags:  , ,

January 24, 2006

The Wind Watchdog

Click the title of this post for the Jan. 23 issue of "The Wind Watchdog," a collection of recent news items, opinion pieces, and other documents from National Wind Watch .


categories:  , , ,

Dear eco-entrepreneur et al.

I'm sorry to bother you guys, but if the whole scheme is so simple, why circle the wagons like this and fire barbs at us just because someone asked to see the numbers?

It's a bit of an overreaction, to say the least.

No one is challenging your reasoning or logic -- much less your sanity, intelligence, or patriotism [as you and yours have done]. It is a simple request for the numbers that back up your statements.

[Of course, the lack of real-world evidence does call into question your reasoning (and threatens your profits, I dare say), so perhaps lashing out a like a trapped animal is indeed your only recourse. It certainly suggests that you have no other, i.e., showing proof of your claims, or even trying to explain why no numbers are available.]

[The above, minus the sections in brackets, was posted to the comments section of whip-snapping eco-entrepreneur Shea Gunther's blog. It was almost immediately removed. There is clearly a problem with dissent over there.]

categories:  , , , , , ,

January 23, 2006

Eco-terrorist feds

On Counterpunch, Michael Donnelly has some distressing but not surprising information not being generally reported about the feds' big cracking of what appears to be a rather small network of Earth and Animal Liberation Front activists. (Click the title of this post for his article.)

One of the conspirators, Arizona bookstore owner William Rodgers, died in custody, which, outside of anarchist circles, hasn't been reported at all except to echo the bland official -- apparently uninvestigated -- story of suicide. It appears that that may be the case, but suicides aren't supposed to be allowed to happen in custody, either.

The feds had infiltrated the network, and one of their agents admits that he is the one who set many of the fires. The first case of arson in the indictments is of a pickup truck at a forest ranger station. Graffiti were spray-painted on the building as well. Two days later, a rigged incendiary jug was suddenly found on the roof. Donnelly asks, why would they paint slogans on a building they were planning to burn to the ground?

An actual burning of a ranger station a few days later is just as, if not more, likely to have been done by loggers angry at the defense of the spotted owl's old-growth forest habitat. The research that justified Earth First's two-year blockade of logging at Warner Creek (Oregon) was lost in that ranger station fire.

It should also be noted that although the indictments were "unsealed" last Friday, most of the arrests were actually made on Dec. 7. It is clearly another case of the Mayberry Machiavellis saving announcements until their distraction is most useful, such as when the White House is trying to defend warrantless spying on fellow citizens.

Not just the logging companies and their duped workers, but industrialists too are grateful. "These folks appeared ready to stop at nothing in their zeal to prevent development and to stop any perceived environmental threats, from logging to larger vehicles," says the National Association of Manufacturers. "Their targets are not, fundamentally, a particular ski resort, logging company, meatpacking center or medical research project, but what these represent: human technology, human progress, human life," writes Onkar Ghate of the Ayn Rand Institute.

Adding this to reports that the FBI has been spying on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, it is clear that anyone who defends the plants and animals of our world, the natural world whose vitality our own lives is part of and depends on, anyone who considers the universe outside our human skins as worthy of our moral response -- we all have reason to fear the terrorist thugs of our own industry and government.

categories:  , , , ,

Eco-entrepreneur doesn't have numbers

Our correspondent tried again, as Shea Gunther's idea of controversy apparently means hosting only attacks on those who don't agree with him and censoring replies that ask for proof. The post lasted only a few minutes. Some debate they're having there.

They can't show numbers to back up their claims, so they excoriate anyone pointing that out as mentally unbalanced or worse. It's not a very convincing argument. In fact, it suggests the utter lack of one, which of course is what censorship is all about.

categories:  , , , , ,

January 22, 2006

The world has created Iran's need for nuclear defence

'I would sleep happier if there were no Iranian bomb but a swamp of hypocrisy separates me from overly protesting it. Iran is a proud country that sits between nuclear Pakistan and India to its east, a nuclear Russia to its north and a nuclear Israel to its west. Adjacent Afghanistan and Iraq are occupied at will by a nuclear America, which backed Saddam Hussein in his 1980 invasion of Iran. How can we say such a country has "no right" to nuclear defence?'

-- Simon Jenkins, The Guardian, Jan. 18, 2006

January 21, 2006

Eco-entrepreneur proud of censorship

Did I censor him? I sure as hell did. This is my blog and last I checked, I hold all the power here. I could waste my time trying to convince him that he’s wrong, but I have better things to do with my time.
Shea Gunther is upset because "Rucio" "just keeps asking for 'numbers'" which Gunther can't provide. So he calls us nuts and not completely "American."

After reproducing my complete earlier post (click title of this post), Gunther says, "I look forward to the anti-wind nutjobs reply." A correspondent of ours did in fact reply, asking if it was true, then, that Gunther was not able to answer Rucio's question. That reply has been removed. I guess it's the American way.

Update: Our correspondent tried again to post a comment, this time asking how Gunther squares "looking forward to replies" with deleting them if they question his dogma (good word!) and suggesting it is the deleting that he looks forward to. A few hours later, the comment was gone. Is that the only way Gunther can prove he's right?

categories:  , , , , , ,

The Wind Watchdog

Click the title of this post for the latest issue of "The Wind Watchdog," a collection of recent news items, opinion pieces, and other documents from National Wind Watch .


categories:  , , ,

Eco-entrepreneur -- or censor?

Shea Gunther, who is behind the sale of "wind power credits" to the Whole Foods grocery store chain (who will continue to use as much "nongreen" electricity as ever), has a fairly clear post on his blog about how the system works. Namely, the money from Whole Foods supports the development of wind power on the grid, not to mention the profitable trade in "credits" (that are sold in addition to energy). It's rather a roundabout way of doing it, especially since they aren't changing their own energy use or getting any different electricity than their neighbors are -- but that's show business, I guess.

One point that Gunther emphasizes is that every kilowatt-hour generated by wind turbines replaces a kilowatt-hour generated by other fuels. From this he asserts, falsely, that every kilowatt-hour not generated from, say, fossil fuels, means that much less fuel burned. (More likely, however, a rise in the wind simply causes a plant to switch from generation to standby, in which mode it still burns fuel so that it can readily switch back to generation when the wind drops back.)

In the comments, one "Rucio" asked for evidence that less fuel is burned because of wind power on the grid. Gunther could only ask him to "imagine" the scenario he already described and ignored the request for actual data. It was not long before Rucio's simple requests for real evidence that Gunther's claims are true rather than the wishful thinking of "eco-entrepreneurs" (that is my addition -- "Rucio" was much more diplomatic however persistent) started to be removed.

Most people have a problem with awkward truths. But when you're advocating industrializing hundreds of square miles of rural and wild areas for what appears to be a sham, denial is not an option.

categories:  , , , , ,

January 19, 2006

"Carbon offsets" trade based on bogus accounting

George Monbiot continues his dance around criticisms of industrial wind power in an essay in the Jan. 17 Guardian (click the title of this post) about the charade of "carbon offsets," an important driver of wind power development.
But perhaps the most destructive effect of the carbon offset trade is that it allows us to believe we can carry on polluting. The government can keep building roads and airports and we can keep flying to Thailand for our holidays, as long as we purchase absolution by giving a few quid to a tree planting company [or green credit broker]. How do you quantify complacency? How do you know that the behaviour the trade induces does not cancel out the carbon it sequesters?

In other words I think it is fair to say that a scam is being perpetrated ... We know that climate change will impoverish many people. We now know that it will make others very rich. But their money-making schemes will have precious little to do with saving the planet.
categories:  , , , ,

January 16, 2006

Black Law wind facility begins operation

The beautiful Black Law Wind Farm in Scotland (note how relatively tiny the tree is in the second photograph -- pathetic nature, mighty industry!):

    

categories:  , , , , ,

Correction

From Ironic Times:

We incorrectly reported that the EPA was working hard to reduce the flow of toxic waste released into communities surrounding power and chemical plants. In fact, the EPA is working hard to reduce the flow of information released about the toxic waste. We apologize for any confusion caused by our mistake.

January 14, 2006

Close door on wind power developers

To the editor, Rutland (Vt.) Herald:

On January 6 a letter stated that big wind could provide up to 20 percent of our power needs. If all of the current proposals (up to 312 MW) around the state were built, they would provide at most only 10 percent or our current (ignoring future growth) power needs. Each of the facilities would drasticallyhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif alter the character of the landscape for miles around with visual prominence, distracting motion, noise, and all-night strobe lights, degrade and fragment miles of wildlife habitat, and threaten endangered bats. They are all being actively opposed (see www.rosenlake.net/vwv).

Since it is unlikely that we will reach 10 percent wind, it is even more unlikely that we would allow building even more to get us to 20 percent.

Even if it works as advertised, big wind will never be a significant part of our power mix. It is common sense, not the governor alone, that is trying shut the door on such fruitless industrialization of our ridgelines.

A letter from Pennsylvania on January 7 claimed that big wind is working in that state. The writer called support of large-scale wind power a "no-brainer" because it replaces dirty energy sources. Those of us who still use our brains, however, would like to see the data showing what energy sources have actually been replaced.

After researching this issue for 3 years, I have yet to see any such evidence that wind power on the grid reduces the use of other fuels.

categories:  , , , ,

January 12, 2006

Whole Foods pays extra for same electricity

From the Jan. 10 AP story:
Natural-food grocer Whole Foods Market Inc. said Tuesday it will rely on wind energy for all of its electricity needs, making it the largest corporate user of renewable energy in the United States. ...

"It's a sales driver rather than a cost," [Whole Foods regional president Michael Besancon] said. "All of those things we do related to our core values: help drive sales, help convince a customer to drive past three or four other supermarkets on the way to Whole Foods."
Whole Foods will not be "relying" on wind energy any more than they were before. Their stores will be getting the same electricity as their neighbors, but Whole Foods will be paying more for it in the belief that they are supporting the construction of giant wind turbines.

That's fine, but, as The Stalwart, a pro-wind business blog, points out, isn't their good (however misinformed) intention cancelled out by the quoted calculation that people will drive farther for their groceries?

categories:  , , ,

Diminishing capacity credit of wind power

The more wind power capacity is in the grid, the lower the percentage of traditional generation it can replace

from "Wind Energy Report 2005," E.ON Netz


categories:  , , ,

January 9, 2006

The Wind Watchdog

National Wind Watch has begun to issue "The Wind Watchdog," a collection of recent news items, opinion pieces, and other documents. Click the title of this post for the inaugural issue.


categories:  , , ,

"Clouds gathering over wind farm plan"

From today's The Australian:
In Frank and Theresa Cicero's quiet, winding street in Foster North [in South Gippsland, Victoria], local opposition to the [Dollar] wind farm -- which will see a turbine built 800m from their bush retreat -- is easy to find.

Almost every property in their street, apart from those of the farmers on whose land the turbines are being built, is for sale.

"I've watched my husband work all his life to build this home," Mrs Cicero said. "We've never had loans, we've always worked and saved. And now we find everything that we've put in here, it's all worth nothing."

The Ciceros had their home valued at $410,000 before the wind farm was taken into account. Afterwards, the estimated value dropped to $270,000. They have not received one offer for their property in two years.
categories:  , , ,

January 5, 2006

"The Sham of Homeland Security"

"To a lucky few, the Bush administration and its corporate oligarchy among them, terror-war America has been the best of all possible worlds: Perpetual war for perpetual profits, with a war on regulation and oversight thrown in as a bonus. Today, West Virginia is ground zero in that war. Al-Qaeda is nowhere in sight. The victims are American. The perpetrators are American. The dots are all-American, and yet unconnected."

-- Pierre Tristam

January 4, 2006

Tea time

"Coffee is for winners, go-getters, tea-ignorers, lunch-cancellers, early risers, guilt-ridden strivers, money obsessives and status-driven spiritually empty lunatics. It is an enervating force. We should resist it and embrace tea, the ancient drink of poets, philosophers and meditators."

-- Tom Hodgkinson, How to Be Idle