People like to remind themselves of death. Eating black food is like consuming death. Like saying: "Death, I'm eating you."
November 7, 2004
End-of-empire decadence
Today's New York Times was full of evidence that we are in the end times (as if George Bush wasn't proof enough already), from the buffoon of a market researcher with his ridiculous mansion and fleet of ugly expensive cars and dopey suits through the entire special "Living" magazine, with its parade of photos of dead animals, their hacked-up body parts presented as "appetizing." The thing today (expanding from September's popularity of Nobu's black cod with miso) is black food. One is reminded of the words of the chef in Peter Greenaway's movie The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover:
Inoffensive, ineffective
Eileen McNamara hits the nail on the head in her column in today's Boston Globe. Some excerpts:
Instead of drawing a distinction between the parties, Democrats insist on blurring the differences in a wrongheaded search for some squishy center. A concerted effort to offend no one ends up inspiring no one, either.
Democrats lose because they are unwilling to embrace the principles of their own party. Poverty is a moral issue, too. So is the right to basic medical care, a job, decent housing, safe streets, and a clean environment. If Kerry had projected half the passion about those issues that Bush did about abortion and homosexuality, this race might have been about big ideas, instead of a protracted series of skirmishes in a culture war that Democrats cannot win.
...
Kerry kept telling voters that the Bush tax cuts went to the wealthiest Americans. Why didn't he talk about the fundamental economic reality of the last two decades, the growing gap between the haves and have nots? Why no outrage about the fact that the top 1 percent earns more than the bottom 40 percent in the United States, the widest income gap since 1929? A stump speech reference to the ''two Americas" does not constitute a campaign against economic injustice.
Republicans have been winning big by changing the subject from the economic challenges facing Americans to the emotional issues that exploit their fear that the nation has lost its moral compass.
Instead of framing the fight to end joblessness at home or to engage in diplomacy abroad as the moral imperatives that they are, Kerry attempted a pale imitation of the president's personal piety.
November 6, 2004
What's the Matter with Kansas?
Here's a good letter from the November 3rd Wichita Eagle:
Thomas Frank's book "What's the Matter With Kansas?" describes the neocolonial-style situation in Garden City, where huge, out-of-state agribusinesses have exploited the land and cheap labor to create meatpacking and food-processing combines that have simultaneously despoiled the natural environment and created a mess of poverty and ruined infrastructure. That part of Kansas becomes a warren of trailer parks and tacky apartment buildings, while the profits drain to capitalist enterprises far away.
Now The Eagle editorial board thinks Kansas is "losing out" on wind farming in the beautiful, irreplaceable Flint Hills ("Wind: Kansas is losing out," Oct. 11 Opinion). For a relatively small amount of cash paid to some local communities, and a windfall for a few local landowners, the editorial board seems hopeful that the Flint Hills can be colonized by an out-of-state energy company that will despoil the hills -- our spiritual treasure -- and pipe the massive profits to outsiders. Perhaps the editorial board would also like to reconsider the pig farm colonization of north-central Kansas.
What's the matter with Kansas? For one thing, The Wichita Eagle.
Gaylord Dold
Wichita
November 5, 2004
Response to "Wind Power Seen As Win For All"
To the Editor, Plattsburgh Press-Republican:
Charles Hinckley [managing director of Noble Environmental Power] responded (Oct. 31) to Calvin Luther Martin and Nina Pierpont's Oct. 18 editorial about some of the negative aspects of industrial wind towers by simply ignoring their evidence. He says wind power is good because the state is aggressively supporting it. On the same day that Hinckley's piece appeared in the Press-Republican, an article in the New York Times described MTBE contamination of the state's water, an earlier "aggressive" effort to clean up the air that turned out to be horribly short sighted.
Wind-power projects do not even slightly clean up the air or reduce the use of fossil fuels. Their contribution of electricity is intermittent and unpredictable, requiring the continued (inefficient) use of conventional generation to cover for it. Most pollution and fuel use is due to heating and transport.
Hinckley dismisses the ever-growing testimony from neighbors of wind farms around the world about the noise. He presents instead the sales material from his industry's lobbyist. Five days before his piece appeared, an Enxco manager defending plans for a 120-turbine facility in Kittitas County, Washington, said that noise would not be a problem 78% of the time. That is, by his own admission, noise would be a problem 22% of the time -- an average 5-1/4 hours of each day. In their unquestioning enthusiasm for wind, Oregon rewrote their regulations to allow facilities to add what was previously considered too much noise in rural locations. Concerning Vermont's Searsburg facility (whose towers are less than two thirds the size of modern ones), another Enxco manager has written about the special situation in winter: "When there is heavy rime ice buildup on the blades and the machines are running you instinctually want to stay away. ... They roar and sound scary." (That ice eventually gets flung off in massive thick sheets.)
In Kewaunee County, Wisconsin, a farmer who leased his land for wind towers had to buy his neighbors' properties because of the problems (not just noise but also flicker and the lights at night). Wisconsin Public Service, operator of another 14 turbines in Kewaunee County, offered to buy six neighboring properties because of complaints; two neighbors sued instead.
To pretend that this does not affect property values, Hinckley considers only the property on which the wind towers are erected, dismissing the effect of a giant power plant on neighboring properties. It does not enhance the rural landscape. It drastically industrializes it. That may be seen as an improvement by those profiting from it, but it most certainly diminishes any special value the region had before.
Hinckley also says it is "inconceivable" that giant turbines, each of its blades well over 100 feet long and weighing more than 10 tons, their tips chopping through the air at over 100 mph, send vibrations down the tower and into the ground. Again, neighbors in England say they feel it in their homes. A 160-year-old playing field started to sink soon after large wind turbines were erected nearby.
Finally, he scoffs at the notion that wind companies could go bankrupt. Altamont Pass in California is filled with hundreds of rusting wind towers whose owners can't be found. The federal incentive of accelerated depreciation encourages fast profit taking and abandonment.
Charles Hinckley [managing director of Noble Environmental Power] responded (Oct. 31) to Calvin Luther Martin and Nina Pierpont's Oct. 18 editorial about some of the negative aspects of industrial wind towers by simply ignoring their evidence. He says wind power is good because the state is aggressively supporting it. On the same day that Hinckley's piece appeared in the Press-Republican, an article in the New York Times described MTBE contamination of the state's water, an earlier "aggressive" effort to clean up the air that turned out to be horribly short sighted.
Wind-power projects do not even slightly clean up the air or reduce the use of fossil fuels. Their contribution of electricity is intermittent and unpredictable, requiring the continued (inefficient) use of conventional generation to cover for it. Most pollution and fuel use is due to heating and transport.
Hinckley dismisses the ever-growing testimony from neighbors of wind farms around the world about the noise. He presents instead the sales material from his industry's lobbyist. Five days before his piece appeared, an Enxco manager defending plans for a 120-turbine facility in Kittitas County, Washington, said that noise would not be a problem 78% of the time. That is, by his own admission, noise would be a problem 22% of the time -- an average 5-1/4 hours of each day. In their unquestioning enthusiasm for wind, Oregon rewrote their regulations to allow facilities to add what was previously considered too much noise in rural locations. Concerning Vermont's Searsburg facility (whose towers are less than two thirds the size of modern ones), another Enxco manager has written about the special situation in winter: "When there is heavy rime ice buildup on the blades and the machines are running you instinctually want to stay away. ... They roar and sound scary." (That ice eventually gets flung off in massive thick sheets.)
In Kewaunee County, Wisconsin, a farmer who leased his land for wind towers had to buy his neighbors' properties because of the problems (not just noise but also flicker and the lights at night). Wisconsin Public Service, operator of another 14 turbines in Kewaunee County, offered to buy six neighboring properties because of complaints; two neighbors sued instead.
To pretend that this does not affect property values, Hinckley considers only the property on which the wind towers are erected, dismissing the effect of a giant power plant on neighboring properties. It does not enhance the rural landscape. It drastically industrializes it. That may be seen as an improvement by those profiting from it, but it most certainly diminishes any special value the region had before.
Hinckley also says it is "inconceivable" that giant turbines, each of its blades well over 100 feet long and weighing more than 10 tons, their tips chopping through the air at over 100 mph, send vibrations down the tower and into the ground. Again, neighbors in England say they feel it in their homes. A 160-year-old playing field started to sink soon after large wind turbines were erected nearby.
Finally, he scoffs at the notion that wind companies could go bankrupt. Altamont Pass in California is filled with hundreds of rusting wind towers whose owners can't be found. The federal incentive of accelerated depreciation encourages fast profit taking and abandonment.
November 3, 2004
Slouching towards Armageddon
The Second Coming
by William Butler Yeats
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
by William Butler Yeats
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
November 1, 2004
Ralph Nader for President
Michael Colby has written a good piece about Nader at his Broadsides blog:
... If he wanted an ego rush this late in his life, he would have imitated the mainstream eco-ninnies in D.C. during these elections and got in line for the accolades, the award ceremonies, and the “opportunity” to rub elbows with the nation’s power elite. But Ralph knew what kind of bullshit all of that amounts to and, thankfully, steered clear of it. Instead, he’s decided to run for the presidency and put a spotlight on the issues that have not been broached by the other candidates.
And he’s taken a beating. He knew he was going to take a beating. Worse, he knew he was going to get knocked around by his so-called friends – the people who supported him in the past but would turn their back on him now. But Ralph’s deep belief in democracy and the importance of addressing issues trumped his fear of getting the collective knives in the back from his “friends.”
So it’s nothing short of hilarious to hear people say that any of this is about Ralph stroking his ego. He’s too smart for that. And he’s knows just the opposite is happening: his ego and his reputation are being trashed by folks who should know better.
Nader believes in something. He’s not afraid to stand up for what he believes. And he’s not a quitter. But those qualities have become so alien to the mainstream political world that when someone like Ralph steps onto the national scene with them, he’s condemned and called egomaniacal. The cesspool seems to enjoy its own filth. If idealism, passion, truth, and commitment are allowed into the game, how could the chicanery of the two-party game not be exposed?
The next time someone wants to engage me about Nader, here are the rules: We only talk about the issues. We talk about where we stand on the issues compared to where Ralph (and the other candidates) stand on the issues. And then maybe we can agree that a candidate who has an enthusiastic love of democracy and is running for the presidency to end the war, protect the environment, cut the defense department, curtail corporate crimes and transgressions against our democracy is rational and hopeful rather than egomaniacal.
If Kerry took just one position that was similar to Nader’s, the Nader bashers would have one small point. But he hasn’t –- and they don’t.
Enough already. Vote your dreams.
October 31, 2004
A quote for the conscientious
But I don't answer to inevitabilities, and neither do you. I don't answer to the economy. I don't answer to tradition and I don't answer to Everyone. For me, it comes down to a question of whether I am a man or just a consumer. Whether to reason or just to rationalize. Whether to heed my conscience or my every craving, to assert my free will or just my will. Whether to side with the powerful and comfortable or with the weak, afflicted, and forgotten.
--Matthew Scully, Dominion
October 30, 2004
Aren't wind turbines wonderful!
The claim by Enxco's David Steeb (see previous post) that a 5,000-acre power plant of 120 330-ft-high spinning turbines is necessary to preserving the rural character of Kittitas County in Washington reminds me just how magically wonderful this technology is. In fact, we in the U.S. probably need to start recognizing its crucial role in providing affordable health care and prescription drugs as well as improving our schools (by bribes to municipal councils in the latter case, by the desire to transform "unproductive" wilderness into a source of tax revenue in the former).
First of all, the turbines will reverse global warming, potentially displacing a tiny fraction of fossil-fuel-generated electricity even as that generation and consumption become cleaner and more efficient and energy use for heating and transport continues to rise.
They will end war and poverty, too, as we move so dramatically move away from fossil fuels to "free" wind power as just described.
They will increase tourism to wilderness areas, because people who try to escape the industrial world for a weekend will be glad to be reminded that they can't.
They create jobs, as long as they keep getting built. Former trail guides and country innkeepers will be pleased with new careers in road building, foundation digging, and cement hauling -- moving into the future instead of sitting stuck in a fantasy of the past. One of them may get to rent their house to a maintenance engineer.
They are phenomenally beautiful, bringing tears to the eyes of many sensitive souls, such as American writer Annie Dillard. They manifest the presence of the wind in a way swaying trees and fluttering leaves never could. They bring high (300-440 feet high!) culture to the rural masses. They are awe-inspiring symbols of our imperial might, our ability and right to dominate nature. They are like prehistoric stone circles, sleek new henges rising as testament to our self-love.
They save farmers and ranchers from having to break up and sell their land, and if their neighbors got into the game as well they would have a little money to help them move instead of just complaining about being left holding a bag of shite.
They are profitable, because governments around the world make sure they are. What better use of public money than to make things appear better?
They make us feel so good and proud and right, because so many of the problems in the world are solved by the fantastic schemes that make them possible.
The people love them, which is why local input must be minimized: The central government has read the company materials and already knows you want them.
They don't kill birds -- that's a total lie! Anyway, not many, a few dozen per turbine each year. A skyscraper out in those fields or on that mountain top would kill a lot more! And who really cares about all those bats? And global warming and acid rain and all that is killing even more!, which is exactly what building these massive wind towers is meant to stop (see first point, above).
They're very quiet, only making noise when the wind blows.
Above all, the market, with government's help and the visionary collaboration of global environmental groups, says they work. The dot-com bubble is gone, so industrial wind power is the new cool investment.
Bottom line: Are you so uncool that you would "protect" rural and wilderness areas during this rare convergence of forces that makes it possible to turn them into real money makers? Play or bray!
Had I the concordant wiseheads of Messrs Gregory and Lyons alongside of Dr Tarpey's and I dorsay the reverend Mr Mac Dougall's, but I, poor ass, am but as their fourpart tinckler's dunkey. -- Finnegans Wake
First of all, the turbines will reverse global warming, potentially displacing a tiny fraction of fossil-fuel-generated electricity even as that generation and consumption become cleaner and more efficient and energy use for heating and transport continues to rise.
They will end war and poverty, too, as we move so dramatically move away from fossil fuels to "free" wind power as just described.
They will increase tourism to wilderness areas, because people who try to escape the industrial world for a weekend will be glad to be reminded that they can't.
They create jobs, as long as they keep getting built. Former trail guides and country innkeepers will be pleased with new careers in road building, foundation digging, and cement hauling -- moving into the future instead of sitting stuck in a fantasy of the past. One of them may get to rent their house to a maintenance engineer.
They are phenomenally beautiful, bringing tears to the eyes of many sensitive souls, such as American writer Annie Dillard. They manifest the presence of the wind in a way swaying trees and fluttering leaves never could. They bring high (300-440 feet high!) culture to the rural masses. They are awe-inspiring symbols of our imperial might, our ability and right to dominate nature. They are like prehistoric stone circles, sleek new henges rising as testament to our self-love.
They save farmers and ranchers from having to break up and sell their land, and if their neighbors got into the game as well they would have a little money to help them move instead of just complaining about being left holding a bag of shite.
They are profitable, because governments around the world make sure they are. What better use of public money than to make things appear better?
They make us feel so good and proud and right, because so many of the problems in the world are solved by the fantastic schemes that make them possible.
The people love them, which is why local input must be minimized: The central government has read the company materials and already knows you want them.
They don't kill birds -- that's a total lie! Anyway, not many, a few dozen per turbine each year. A skyscraper out in those fields or on that mountain top would kill a lot more! And who really cares about all those bats? And global warming and acid rain and all that is killing even more!, which is exactly what building these massive wind towers is meant to stop (see first point, above).
They're very quiet, only making noise when the wind blows.
Above all, the market, with government's help and the visionary collaboration of global environmental groups, says they work. The dot-com bubble is gone, so industrial wind power is the new cool investment.
Bottom line: Are you so uncool that you would "protect" rural and wilderness areas during this rare convergence of forces that makes it possible to turn them into real money makers? Play or bray!
Had I the concordant wiseheads of Messrs Gregory and Lyons alongside of Dr Tarpey's and I dorsay the reverend Mr Mac Dougall's, but I, poor ass, am but as their fourpart tinckler's dunkey. -- Finnegans Wake
October 28, 2004
Enxco says wind turbine noise a problem 22% of time
David Steeb, of the 120-turbine, 5,237-acre Desert Claim wind power project proposed in Kittitas County, Washington, said at a public hearing Tuesday that noise would indeed be a problem 22% of the time (avge. 5-1/4 hours a day).
One wonders where he got that figure, which is suspiciously similar to the expected actual output of the facility.
He said that when the wind blows enough to make the turbine blades turn it also makes other noise to mask the machine's. Wind promoters claim, however, in answer to the charge that a site isn't really that windy to rely on it as a source of electricity, that up at the top of the tower it's a lot windier. So a lot of the time when the turbines are doing their thing, the wind isn't whipping things up around your house. Result (as if rustling leaves (or bare twigs in the winter) could mask the whumping of 120 turbines): turbine noise.
Steeb also pleaded that his massive power plant was essential to preserving the county's rural character. The planning commission unanimously rejected the proposal. Congratulations, citizens of Kittitas County!
One wonders where he got that figure, which is suspiciously similar to the expected actual output of the facility.
He said that when the wind blows enough to make the turbine blades turn it also makes other noise to mask the machine's. Wind promoters claim, however, in answer to the charge that a site isn't really that windy to rely on it as a source of electricity, that up at the top of the tower it's a lot windier. So a lot of the time when the turbines are doing their thing, the wind isn't whipping things up around your house. Result (as if rustling leaves (or bare twigs in the winter) could mask the whumping of 120 turbines): turbine noise.
Steeb also pleaded that his massive power plant was essential to preserving the county's rural character. The planning commission unanimously rejected the proposal. Congratulations, citizens of Kittitas County!
October 25, 2004
Phasing out nuclear power in Germany
Late last year, Germany announced the closing of their Stade nuclear reactor, the first of its total of 19 reactors that it plans to permanently shut down as they come to the end of their operating life.
Nuclear power provides over 30% of Germany's electricity and does not officially contribute to global warming (its huge emission of water vapor isn't counted, only the absence of carbon dioxide and the other officially recognized greenhouse gases), so replacing that energy source is a major challenge. Germany is aggressively pushing conservation and efficiency as well as renewable-energy sources such as wind, solar, and biomass.
Although no news article or official statement says anything like it, advocates of utility-scale wind point to Germany's huge installed capacity (one third of the world's total) as the reason Stade was able to be shut down.
Ignoring the more significant changes in Germany's energy use patterns, let us suppose the claim was indeed so. The 672-MW Stade plant represented just over 3% of Germany's total nuclear-powered capacity (less than 1% of their total electricity use). When it was closed down, Germany had about 14,000 MW of wind-power capacity installed. To close down the rest, they would need 430,000 MW more!
Dangerous as nuclear power is, replacing 19 such facilities with several hundred thousand 300-400-foot-high wind towers is not an attractive alternative.
Nuclear power provides over 30% of Germany's electricity and does not officially contribute to global warming (its huge emission of water vapor isn't counted, only the absence of carbon dioxide and the other officially recognized greenhouse gases), so replacing that energy source is a major challenge. Germany is aggressively pushing conservation and efficiency as well as renewable-energy sources such as wind, solar, and biomass.
Although no news article or official statement says anything like it, advocates of utility-scale wind point to Germany's huge installed capacity (one third of the world's total) as the reason Stade was able to be shut down.
Ignoring the more significant changes in Germany's energy use patterns, let us suppose the claim was indeed so. The 672-MW Stade plant represented just over 3% of Germany's total nuclear-powered capacity (less than 1% of their total electricity use). When it was closed down, Germany had about 14,000 MW of wind-power capacity installed. To close down the rest, they would need 430,000 MW more!
Dangerous as nuclear power is, replacing 19 such facilities with several hundred thousand 300-400-foot-high wind towers is not an attractive alternative.
October 23, 2004
Large wind projects in Vermont
Here is an outline of the current industrial-scale wind projects targeted for Vermont. Note the huge leap in size from the existing Searsburg facility that we are all urged to go see and love and love as well the new very much larger facilities being planned.
size data provided:
number of towers × rated capacity of each turbine = capacity of facility
height = hub height + blade length (r); area swept by blades of each turbine (πr2) = x acre(s)
Existing:
Searsburg (1996) -- Enxco & Green Mountain Power
Planned:
Searsburg expansion -- Enxco & Green Mountain Power
East Mountain (East Haven) -- Mathew Rubin
Glebe Mountain (Londonderry) -- Catamount Energy
Lowell Mountain -- Enxco & Vermont Public Power Supply Authority
Hardscrabble Mountain (Sheffield) -- UPC Wind Partners
Mt. Equinox (Manchester) -- Endless Energy
Nearby:
Hoosac Range (Florida & Monroe, Mass.) -- Enxco
Gardner Mountain (Lyman, N.H.) -- UPC Wind Partners
size data provided:
number of towers × rated capacity of each turbine = capacity of facility
height = hub height + blade length (r); area swept by blades of each turbine (πr2) = x acre(s)
Existing:
Searsburg (1996) -- Enxco & Green Mountain Power
- 11 × 555-KW = 6 MW
- 198' = 132' + 66'; 12,868 ft2 = 0.30 acre
Planned:
Searsburg expansion -- Enxco & Green Mountain Power
- 20-30 × 1.5-MW = 30-45 MW
- 340' = 213' + 127'; 50,273 ft2 = 1.16 acres
East Mountain (East Haven) -- Mathew Rubin
- 50 × 1.5-MW = 75 MW
(4 × 1.5-MW = 6 MW demonstration project currently in permitting process) - 335' = 220' + 115'; 41,548 ft2 = 0.96 acre
Glebe Mountain (Londonderry) -- Catamount Energy
- 27 × 1.5-MW = 48.6 MW
- 387' = 256' (78 m) + 131' (40 m); 5,027 m2 = 1.24 acres
Lowell Mountain -- Enxco & Vermont Public Power Supply Authority
- 12-26 × 1.5-MW = 18-39 MW
- 328' = 212' (64.7 m) + 116' (35.25 m); 3,904 m2 = 0.96 acre
Hardscrabble Mountain (Sheffield) -- UPC Wind Partners
- total 30 MW (per American Wind Energy Association)
- 3 × 131' (40 m) measurement towers approved by Public Service Board, 1 currrently erected
Mt. Equinox (Manchester) -- Endless Energy
- 5 × 1.5-MW = 7.5 MW
- 330' = 200' + 130'; 53,093 ft2 = 1.22 acres
Nearby:
Hoosac Range (Florida & Monroe, Mass.) -- Enxco
- 20 × 1.5-MW = 30 MW
- 340' = 213' + 127'; 50,273 ft2 = 1.16 acres
Gardner Mountain (Lyman, N.H.) -- UPC Wind Partners
- 20 turbines
- 158' measurement tower proposed
October 22, 2004
Is VPIRG lying?
"Section 248 includes the exact same criteria for reviewing a projects impact on the environment and aesthetics as Act 250. Only, unlike Act 250, Section 248 puts the onus on the developer to PROVE his or her project wont harm the environment, as opposed to forcing citizens to pursue a costly legal process as Act 250 now does."
-- Andrew Hudson
Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) field director
personal communication
In Vermont, Act 250 is the environmental review law, and Section 248 describes the review process for energy-generating facilities. Section 248 relies on a legalistic process before the public service board, who must determine if the project "will promote the general good of the state." That is, local concerns may be trumped by a perceived statewide need or the mere desire of a powerful entity. In contrast to Drew Hudson's claim, it is very difficult -- and costly -- for citizens to be involved in the Section 248 process. Only one public hearing is called for.
It is, again in opposition to Hudson's statement, Act 250 that requires the developer to prove that a project won't harm the environment, either natural or human. Section 248 relies on others to present information about negative impact. But even then, the public service board (Section 248) looks at the effect on the state as a whole, easily dismissing local concerns, whereas Act 250 requires regional environmental boards to examine precisely the local impact of a project. Act 250 facilitates heavy citizen involvement.
When asked if he might have inadvertently gotten the two processes backwards in his description, Hudson did not reply. Of course, the misleading statement makes sense as part of VPIRG's campaign against subjecting utility-scale wind power facilities to Act 250 review. How else can an "environmentalist" group argue against the state's environmental law, except by claiming that the utility-review law is actually better? How else can one-time environmentalists who are now active corporate lobbyists live with themselves, except by calling industrial development of wild mountaintops "environmental" and the state environmental law "anti-democratic"? In short, replace reality with a lie -- an all too common predilection these days.
(An earlier post describes VPIRG's desire to build power plants on state-protected land. And another describes VPIRG's proposal to double what even the developers plan for the state.
October 21, 2004
Environmentally friendly wind power lobbyists -- not!
The American Wind Energy Association's PAC has donated to the campaign of California representative Richard Pombo, who as one of Congress's most anti-environmentalist members is also supported by oil and gas companies, mining interests, factory farmers, paper companies, etc. Pombo's support for the wind industry is an effort to exempt them from federal environmental laws (see earlier posts here and here). The green mask of the AWEA has slipped off to reveal the ruthless industrialists they really represent.
Energy units
Here is a primer on the units one tends to encounter in researching energy issues.
The watt (W) is a measure of electrical power. (Power is the rate of doing work or producing or expending energy.) One watt is equal to 1 joule (J) per second.
The joule is a measure of energy, or the ability or capacity to do work. Other measures of energy are
The watt (W) is a measure of electrical power. (Power is the rate of doing work or producing or expending energy.) One watt is equal to 1 joule (J) per second.
The joule is a measure of energy, or the ability or capacity to do work. Other measures of energy are
- kilowatt-hour (KW-h), a thousand watts of power produced or used for one hour, equivalent to 3.6 MJ.
One PJ = 277.78 TW-h.
When a 1-MW [maximum rate of energy generation] wind turbine produces at 25% of that capacity as averaged over a year, its annual output is1 MW × 0.25 × 365 days × 24 hours = 2,190 MW-h. - British thermal unit (Btu), equivalent to 1,054.8 J or 0.293 W-h.
Quadrillion Btu = 1.055 PJ = 293 TW-h. - million tonne oil equivalent (mtoe), equivalent to 41,868 MJ or 11,630 KW-h.
K means kilo, a thousand, or 103
M means mega, a million, or 106
G means giga, a billion, or 109
T means tera, a trillion, or 1012
P means peta, a quadrillion, or 1015
E means exa, a thousand times more than peta, or 1018
Wind plays role
Garret Mott of Buel's Gore recommends, in a letter in today's Burlington Free Press,
2. The 8-year-old Searsburg turbine assemblies are less than 200 feet high. The towers are 132 feet, and each blade is 66 feet. They do not require lights, and the blades of each turbine sweep an area of air less than a third of an acre. There are 11 towers. This does not give a proper idea of the impact of new projects. The proposed expansion of Searsburg itself, for example, is typical, involving 20-30 340-foot-high assemblies, their 127-foot blades each chopping more than an acre of air. All of the new projects must be lit at night.
3. Every new wind-power facility will need new transmission lines, and in some cases a new substation, to connect it with the grid. Because once in a while the facility actually feeds electricity into the grid near its rated capacity, the power lines must be able to handle that rare occurrence. They must therefore be much bigger than would otherwise be necessary for the actual average feed of less than 25% of the facility's rating. The line from the substation might also need to be upgraded to handle that occasional surge, as well as the backbone lines should the developers be allowed to fulfill all of their plans.
4. Very little of Vermont's electricity comes from natural gas, almost none from oil, and none at all from coal. Even if wind-powered generating facilities were able to provide large amounts of our electricity (which they can't), they would not reduce atmospheric acidity one bit.
The play in which industrial-scale wind has a role ought to be farce but alas is likely to succeed as tragedy.
'a visit to Searsburg [Vermont's existing power facility of 11 550-KW wind turbines] for all those naysayers. The sight of the wind turbines slowly revolving along the ridgeline prompted a friend (who, before seeing them was prepared to hate them) to describe the turbines as "elegant." Would these doubters rather see the proliferation of power lines? Many people in towns along the proposed VELCO corridor don't seem to be in favor of new lines. Would the "environmentalists" that oppose wind power rather see the ground fog along the Long Trail become even more acid than the current "dill pickle" acidity?'1. The Searsburg blades, when they are working at all, rotate "slowly" at 29 rpm. The speed at the tips of the blades, however, is 137 mph, which, for starters, isn't at all bird or bat friendly.
2. The 8-year-old Searsburg turbine assemblies are less than 200 feet high. The towers are 132 feet, and each blade is 66 feet. They do not require lights, and the blades of each turbine sweep an area of air less than a third of an acre. There are 11 towers. This does not give a proper idea of the impact of new projects. The proposed expansion of Searsburg itself, for example, is typical, involving 20-30 340-foot-high assemblies, their 127-foot blades each chopping more than an acre of air. All of the new projects must be lit at night.
3. Every new wind-power facility will need new transmission lines, and in some cases a new substation, to connect it with the grid. Because once in a while the facility actually feeds electricity into the grid near its rated capacity, the power lines must be able to handle that rare occurrence. They must therefore be much bigger than would otherwise be necessary for the actual average feed of less than 25% of the facility's rating. The line from the substation might also need to be upgraded to handle that occasional surge, as well as the backbone lines should the developers be allowed to fulfill all of their plans.
4. Very little of Vermont's electricity comes from natural gas, almost none from oil, and none at all from coal. Even if wind-powered generating facilities were able to provide large amounts of our electricity (which they can't), they would not reduce atmospheric acidity one bit.
The play in which industrial-scale wind has a role ought to be farce but alas is likely to succeed as tragedy.
October 20, 2004
Oil in "clean green" wind turbines
Of course there has to be some oil for the blade control systems (pitch, yaw, and braking) and the turbine gears, but how much, before it's hard to keep calling it "clean and green"?
In the "Spillage Prevention and Control" section of the Kittitas Valley (Washington) Wind Power Project Application (available here), the expected maximum quantities are described for each of the 1.5-MW turbines planned:
Planners in Valencia, Spain, admit the likelihood of spills as well as the dripping and flinging off of these and other fluids (see here). Older transformers may also contain PCBs.
In the "Spillage Prevention and Control" section of the Kittitas Valley (Washington) Wind Power Project Application (available here), the expected maximum quantities are described for each of the 1.5-MW turbines planned:
- cooling fluid (glycol & water) for the generator, 50 gallons
- lubricating oil for the gears, 105 gallons
- hydraulic oil for the blade control systems, 85 gallons
- mineral oil to cool the transformer at the base of each turbine, 500 gallons
Planners in Valencia, Spain, admit the likelihood of spills as well as the dripping and flinging off of these and other fluids (see here). Older transformers may also contain PCBs.
Can you say NIMBY?
A story in today's Burlington Free Press ("Winds of controversy blow in Shelburne," by Matt Crawford) describes the wealthy Vermont community of Shelburne's opposition to a small wind turbine that Jon Fishman wants to put up at his home.
Residents around Glebe Mountain oppose the installation of the 387-foot-high turbines, each 131-foot blade chopping one and a quarter acres of air, along with the lights and noise, clearing of forest, new roads, concrete foundations, transformers, and power lines required. By the time the developers actually apply for a permit, they will possibly have upgraded their plan to even larger models. The opponents of thus industrializing our ridgelines are derided as NIMBYs, concerned only with keeping their views pristine. Their concern for the wild mountain habitat is mocked as shortsighted because global warming and acid rain do even more damage (though even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admits that wind power has little to contribute towards mitigating those problems). Supporters of the project even call the giant industrial assemblies beautiful and question the aesthetic development of its opponents (see, e.g., the earlier post "Wind turbines = Nazi flag"; also see earlier post about the NIMBY charge).
Now Bruce Lisman "is uncomfortable about what a wind turbine on the shores of Lake Champlain would look like" -- a single home-sized turbine with 11-foot blades. Like George Bush's argument that we have to send people to Iraq to be killed so we don't get killed here, Lisman's magical thinking seems to be that we need to build giant power plants on far-away (from him) ridges so he doesn't have to see even one puny turbine anywhere near his back yard.
Ha.
'At the heart of the Shelburne discussion is how a 116-foot-high wind tower that resident Jon Fishman wants to build on his secluded Quaker Smith Point property will fit in with the surrounding lakeshore scenery.One of the troubled citizens is Bruce Lisman, who is building a house about a mile away. Lisman is a director of Vermont's largest utility, Central Vermont Public Service, whose subsidiary Catamount Energy is involved in large wind projects throughout the U.S. and in Europe, including the 27-turbine 48,600-kilowatt project proposed for Glebe Mountain in Londonderry, Vermont.
'Fishman, the drummer of the defunct rock band Phish, wants to build a 10-kilowatt turbine to provide electricity to his home. He says one big reason he splurged on the 18-acre lot on the Lake Champlain shore is because it's perfectly suited for renewable energy like wind and solar power.
'Shelburne town officials and neighbors have raised flags of concern about Fishman's vision for a turbine.'
Residents around Glebe Mountain oppose the installation of the 387-foot-high turbines, each 131-foot blade chopping one and a quarter acres of air, along with the lights and noise, clearing of forest, new roads, concrete foundations, transformers, and power lines required. By the time the developers actually apply for a permit, they will possibly have upgraded their plan to even larger models. The opponents of thus industrializing our ridgelines are derided as NIMBYs, concerned only with keeping their views pristine. Their concern for the wild mountain habitat is mocked as shortsighted because global warming and acid rain do even more damage (though even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admits that wind power has little to contribute towards mitigating those problems). Supporters of the project even call the giant industrial assemblies beautiful and question the aesthetic development of its opponents (see, e.g., the earlier post "Wind turbines = Nazi flag"; also see earlier post about the NIMBY charge).
Now Bruce Lisman "is uncomfortable about what a wind turbine on the shores of Lake Champlain would look like" -- a single home-sized turbine with 11-foot blades. Like George Bush's argument that we have to send people to Iraq to be killed so we don't get killed here, Lisman's magical thinking seems to be that we need to build giant power plants on far-away (from him) ridges so he doesn't have to see even one puny turbine anywhere near his back yard.
Ha.
October 19, 2004
Coke versus Pepsi: It's all in the head
A new study shows there is no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties, only marketing. Studying brain activity scans, the choice between Coke and Pepsi was found to be primarily cultural. As Peter Diamondstone, Liberty Union candidate for Vermont governor, recently remarked on Vermont Public Radio's "Switchboard," the Democrats and Republicans are the good cop/bad cop faces of our single-party corporatist government, which one is which being the "choice" allowed each voter.
They don't like it, but there are other choices, Ralph Nader for one.
They don't like it, but there are other choices, Ralph Nader for one.
October 17, 2004
The myths of wind power
Promoters of industrial-scale wind power often provide lists of criticisms which they helpfully dispatch as "myths." In fact, the myth making is in their answers to these charges. Here, for example, is the "top 5" list at the Greenpeace-sponsored Yes2Wind web site, all of them well documented valid complaints.
1. Obviously they spoil the landscape. They are huge man-made erections. Even if you think they are beautiful kinetic sculptures, you don't have the right to fill natural landscapes with them.
2. They kill bats, too. And their noise and vibration drives away animals on the ground, not to mention people and animals in nearby homes and farms. Remember that a viable wind "farm" requires dozens of turbines, each requiring about 50 acres of space, its blades chopping over an acre of air at well over 100 mph. At night they must be lit.
3. Hate may be an extreme word, but tourists sure don't love them. Nobody who makes a long trip to enjoy some unspoiled nature is going to be thrilled to see a wind farm instead. Even if they think it's "cool," they are likely to seek a different vacation spot next time. Several visitor centers at wind plants in the U.K. have already closed for lack of business.
4. The state of Oregon changed their noise regulations because wind power facilities couldn't be built in rural areas. Now the rules say that if it's not a disturbing level of noise in the city then it isn't disturbing in the country, either. Except, of course, it still is.
5. As long as you make sure the sustained wind speed at the nearest wind plant is above 30 mph when you turn on your computer, it will indeed be a good source of energy. If it goes above 60, though, quick, turn it off, because the turbine has to shut down. If it dips below 30, better have the backup power going, because the power generated falls off exponentially.
1. Wind turbines spoil the landscapeComments:
2. Wind turbines kill lots of birds
3. Tourists hate wind farms
4. Wind turbines are noisy
5. Wind power isn't reliable
1. Obviously they spoil the landscape. They are huge man-made erections. Even if you think they are beautiful kinetic sculptures, you don't have the right to fill natural landscapes with them.
2. They kill bats, too. And their noise and vibration drives away animals on the ground, not to mention people and animals in nearby homes and farms. Remember that a viable wind "farm" requires dozens of turbines, each requiring about 50 acres of space, its blades chopping over an acre of air at well over 100 mph. At night they must be lit.
3. Hate may be an extreme word, but tourists sure don't love them. Nobody who makes a long trip to enjoy some unspoiled nature is going to be thrilled to see a wind farm instead. Even if they think it's "cool," they are likely to seek a different vacation spot next time. Several visitor centers at wind plants in the U.K. have already closed for lack of business.
4. The state of Oregon changed their noise regulations because wind power facilities couldn't be built in rural areas. Now the rules say that if it's not a disturbing level of noise in the city then it isn't disturbing in the country, either. Except, of course, it still is.
5. As long as you make sure the sustained wind speed at the nearest wind plant is above 30 mph when you turn on your computer, it will indeed be a good source of energy. If it goes above 60, though, quick, turn it off, because the turbine has to shut down. If it dips below 30, better have the backup power going, because the power generated falls off exponentially.
Cape Wind turbines will be over 400 feet high
Two articles in today's Boston Globe talk about the Cape Wind project proposed for 24 square miles between Cape Cod and Nantucket. They provide different figures for the size of the towers in question, however.
Beth Daley's article about the Army Corps of Engineering report currently being reviewed cites the "246-foot turbines." Eileen McNamara's commentary about the short-lived effort in the joint armed services committee to halt off-shore development until federal guidelines are in place describes "130 turbines, 147 feet tall."
246 feet is in fact only the likely hub height, and 147 feet is apparently a typographical error and should be 417 feet. Though none of this information is on their web site, the Cape Wind proposal involves 3.6-MW turbines from GE, whose rotors sweep a diameter of 341 feet (104 meters), an area of 2.1 acres. With a blade radius of 171 feet, the total height will therefore be 417 feet.
Beth Daley's article about the Army Corps of Engineering report currently being reviewed cites the "246-foot turbines." Eileen McNamara's commentary about the short-lived effort in the joint armed services committee to halt off-shore development until federal guidelines are in place describes "130 turbines, 147 feet tall."
246 feet is in fact only the likely hub height, and 147 feet is apparently a typographical error and should be 417 feet. Though none of this information is on their web site, the Cape Wind proposal involves 3.6-MW turbines from GE, whose rotors sweep a diameter of 341 feet (104 meters), an area of 2.1 acres. With a blade radius of 171 feet, the total height will therefore be 417 feet.
October 15, 2004
The Arithmetic of Renewable Energy
A recent paper has calculated how much new generating capacity would be required to convert the U.K.'s transport sector -- responsible for a third of the country's energy use -- to hydrogen manufactured from non-carbon fuel sources. Their conclusion is startling: 100,000 wind towers or 100 nuclear plants.
The wind towers if sited off shore would completely encircle the country in a 10-km-deep band. On shore, they would require a land area larger than that of Wales.
Their calculations assume the use of 3-MW turbines and a capacity factor of 50%. In fact, 30% is a generous figure for the capacity factor (it is what the British and American Wind Energy Associations use), and on-shore turbines are typically 1-1.5 MW in size, in rare cases approaching 2 MW. Larger turbines would be intolerable in most locations.
Further, they calculate from a density of 12 MW rated capacity per square kilometer, which is the figure from a pro-wind study prepared for Greenpeace. The giant installation proposed for the western Scottish island of Lewis has a density of 5 MW/km2, and the huge facility proposed between Cape Cod and Nantucket island in the U.S. has a density of 6.7 MW/km2.
So, roughly, we need to double these authors' conclusions to account for more realistic performance, double them again on shore for more typical turbine size, and double once more for actual installation density: over 800,000 towers, covering fully 80% of the land in the U.K., or 400,000 off-shore towers completely encircling the country in a band 36 km deep.
(The original paper, by Andrew Oswald, Professor of Economics, University of Warwick, and Jim Oswald, Energy Consultant, Coventry, is available as a 20-KB PDF by clicking the title of this post.)
The wind towers if sited off shore would completely encircle the country in a 10-km-deep band. On shore, they would require a land area larger than that of Wales.
Their calculations assume the use of 3-MW turbines and a capacity factor of 50%. In fact, 30% is a generous figure for the capacity factor (it is what the British and American Wind Energy Associations use), and on-shore turbines are typically 1-1.5 MW in size, in rare cases approaching 2 MW. Larger turbines would be intolerable in most locations.
Further, they calculate from a density of 12 MW rated capacity per square kilometer, which is the figure from a pro-wind study prepared for Greenpeace. The giant installation proposed for the western Scottish island of Lewis has a density of 5 MW/km2, and the huge facility proposed between Cape Cod and Nantucket island in the U.S. has a density of 6.7 MW/km2.
So, roughly, we need to double these authors' conclusions to account for more realistic performance, double them again on shore for more typical turbine size, and double once more for actual installation density: over 800,000 towers, covering fully 80% of the land in the U.K., or 400,000 off-shore towers completely encircling the country in a band 36 km deep.
(The original paper, by Andrew Oswald, Professor of Economics, University of Warwick, and Jim Oswald, Energy Consultant, Coventry, is available as a 20-KB PDF by clicking the title of this post.)
October 13, 2004
Progressives as Pawns
Cannon Fodder for Kerry's War on Nader
By STEPHEN CONN
"The progressives and peace activists who are helping to stop Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo don't realize it but they are being used by people who represent the corporate interests, especially the military-industrial complex, of the two major parties," writes Conn.
The two-pronged attack -- to keep Nader off ballots and to attack him as a tool of the Republicans -- was planned during the Democratic convention. The Ballot Project's initial funding came from former Monsanto CEO and genetic-engineering proponent Robert Shapiro. It was started by Democratic insider lawyer William C. Oldaker, whose clients include the Bituminous Coal Association, Delta Air, Corning Glass, Equifax, and Neuralstem Biopharmaceuticals. The effort is being run in Ohio by Ken Starr's firm Kirkland and Ellis, defense attorneys for tobacco giant Brown and Williamson and General Motors. It is being run in Pennsylvania by Republican law firm Reed Smith, a favorite of the banking (29 of the 30 largest), drug (9 of the 10 largest), and advertising industries. They have battled Nader over advertising to children.
Conn points out that not only haven't journalists questioned the motives behind these and other firms committing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of pro bono work to this effort, they haven't noted the complete silence from civil liberties groups who would normally oppose such activity.
United Progressives for Victory was started by Oldaker to handle the second prong of attack. The organizations use the same office space in Washington, at public relations firm Robert Brandon and Associates. Robert Brandon is a generous supporter of Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, yet progressives unquestioningly sign on to his accusations that Nader is funded by Republicans to divide them. In fact, the Center for Responsive Politics has concluded that no more than 4% of Nader's monetary support comes from Republicans.
Another spokesman for both anti-Nader campaigns is former Monsanto official Toby Moffett, now lobbyist for the Cayman Islands, Turkey, Morocco, defense contractors Raytheon and Northup Grumman, and McDermott International, a Houston oil drilling firm interested in asbestos liability immunity. Moffett was instrumental in getting British company De La Rue the contract to print Iraqi money and passports.
"Anyone who reviews the published client lists (and glowing self-promotion) on the Livingston or The National Groups web sites will discover the anti-Nader crusade by The Ballot Project and United Progressives, designed and orchestrated by the Democrats, is also a very natural extension of both Oldaker's and Moffet's clients' desires to maintain and extend their corporate influence in either a new Kerry or a second Bush administration. ... Hatred of the progressive agenda and persistent public meddling by Ralph Nader in corporate matters also could be said to create a happy coincidence of self-interest between corporate clients with their attorneys' legal wars against Nader in the courts and in the press."
That progressives sit by silently or even sign on to these projects is despicable indeed.
By STEPHEN CONN
"The progressives and peace activists who are helping to stop Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo don't realize it but they are being used by people who represent the corporate interests, especially the military-industrial complex, of the two major parties," writes Conn.
The two-pronged attack -- to keep Nader off ballots and to attack him as a tool of the Republicans -- was planned during the Democratic convention. The Ballot Project's initial funding came from former Monsanto CEO and genetic-engineering proponent Robert Shapiro. It was started by Democratic insider lawyer William C. Oldaker, whose clients include the Bituminous Coal Association, Delta Air, Corning Glass, Equifax, and Neuralstem Biopharmaceuticals. The effort is being run in Ohio by Ken Starr's firm Kirkland and Ellis, defense attorneys for tobacco giant Brown and Williamson and General Motors. It is being run in Pennsylvania by Republican law firm Reed Smith, a favorite of the banking (29 of the 30 largest), drug (9 of the 10 largest), and advertising industries. They have battled Nader over advertising to children.
Conn points out that not only haven't journalists questioned the motives behind these and other firms committing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of pro bono work to this effort, they haven't noted the complete silence from civil liberties groups who would normally oppose such activity.
United Progressives for Victory was started by Oldaker to handle the second prong of attack. The organizations use the same office space in Washington, at public relations firm Robert Brandon and Associates. Robert Brandon is a generous supporter of Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, yet progressives unquestioningly sign on to his accusations that Nader is funded by Republicans to divide them. In fact, the Center for Responsive Politics has concluded that no more than 4% of Nader's monetary support comes from Republicans.
Another spokesman for both anti-Nader campaigns is former Monsanto official Toby Moffett, now lobbyist for the Cayman Islands, Turkey, Morocco, defense contractors Raytheon and Northup Grumman, and McDermott International, a Houston oil drilling firm interested in asbestos liability immunity. Moffett was instrumental in getting British company De La Rue the contract to print Iraqi money and passports.
"Anyone who reviews the published client lists (and glowing self-promotion) on the Livingston or The National Groups web sites will discover the anti-Nader crusade by The Ballot Project and United Progressives, designed and orchestrated by the Democrats, is also a very natural extension of both Oldaker's and Moffet's clients' desires to maintain and extend their corporate influence in either a new Kerry or a second Bush administration. ... Hatred of the progressive agenda and persistent public meddling by Ralph Nader in corporate matters also could be said to create a happy coincidence of self-interest between corporate clients with their attorneys' legal wars against Nader in the courts and in the press."
That progressives sit by silently or even sign on to these projects is despicable indeed.
October 12, 2004
Cherish the Squirrels
New York Times, October 10, 2004:
To the Editor,
If the residents of Ville Platte, La. ("If Town Clears Out, It Must Be Squirrel Season," front page, Oct. 3), stopped shooting squirrels long enough to observe them, they would see that squirrels are creatures with complex lives of their own.
We have squirrels at our house and have witnessed a mother squirrel raising her young. She teaches them to climb slippery trees and steep rooftops. If she senses danger, she will carry her young to safety.
She spends lots of time hunting and gathering food and soft things with which to feather their winter nest.
It is sad to read of cruel behavior toward these small and beautiful creatures, which are merely struggling to survive, as we all are.
To the Editor,
If the residents of Ville Platte, La. ("If Town Clears Out, It Must Be Squirrel Season," front page, Oct. 3), stopped shooting squirrels long enough to observe them, they would see that squirrels are creatures with complex lives of their own.
We have squirrels at our house and have witnessed a mother squirrel raising her young. She teaches them to climb slippery trees and steep rooftops. If she senses danger, she will carry her young to safety.
She spends lots of time hunting and gathering food and soft things with which to feather their winter nest.
It is sad to read of cruel behavior toward these small and beautiful creatures, which are merely struggling to survive, as we all are.
Burlington Electric Supports Wind
To the editor, Burlington Free Press:
Patty Richards [director of resource planning for the Burlington Electric Department] (My Turn, October 12) claims that wind produces electricity 80% of the time. This is contradicted by the record at Searsburg, which produces electricity barely 60% of the time, according to audits by the Electric Power Research Institute. In Germany, grid manager Eon Netz reports that two thirds of the time, wind facilities are generating less than their annual average annual output.
Average output in Vermont is likely to be no more than 25%. Only one third of the time will a wind facility be producing at that level or above. To suggest, as Richards does, that Searsburg's fitful generation of less than 0.2% of Vermont's electricity "has increased reliability" is simply ludicrous.
Richards describes how the grid responds to a customer's turning on a light switch. Unfortunately, the wind does not cooperate in this scheme. Output from wind facilities is dramatically erratic and rarely corresponds to actual demand for electricity. Denmark's wind installations generate electricity equivalent to 20% of their consumption, but most of it has to be exported because the extra power isn't generated when it's actually needed.
It is true that in balance wind doesn't produce pollution when making electricity. Much of the time, however, wind turbines are not making electricity, yet they continue to draw power from the more polluting sources that are still working. And because of the unstable output, more reliable and more polluting backup generation has to be dedicated to cover for it.
Because of wind's low output and almost useless contribution, it is misleading to say that wind towers on the mountain ridges will stop the acid rain and global warming that threatens them. Wind towers -- with their acres of clearance, huge foundations, transformers, roads, and power lines -- represent only another form of destruction. They do nothing to mitigate acid rain or global warming.
Only a tiny fraction of Vermont's electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, none from coal. Even if wind could make a significant contribution, Richards' insistence that it would stay in Vermont therefore contradicts her threat that without wind the mountains will die.
About 200 MW of capacity would be required to match the output of Burlington's McNeil plant, which provides less than 8% of Vermont's electricity from a visually discreet location. That is three times more than the wind resource recognized as available for development. Richards' description of "wind turbines spinning gracefully in a few spots along our hill tops" either underscores their negligible contribution or is a lie.
So it comes, as Richards admits, down to a question of aesthetics. Hurling empty threats about global warming and acid rain and fossil and nuclear fuel dependence, knowing that wind power does nothing to alleviate those problems, she accuses opponents of using fear tactics! She asserts that wind turbines are visually appealing and only someone ignorant of the poisons in our air would oppose them.
Considering that the installation of wind turbines on our "hill" tops brings its own environmental and quality-of-life problems and that they will do nothing about pollutants from other sources, the aesthetics of the 330-foot-high erections are obvious: They are expensive, intrusive, destructive of rare habitat, and useless.
Patty Richards [director of resource planning for the Burlington Electric Department] (My Turn, October 12) claims that wind produces electricity 80% of the time. This is contradicted by the record at Searsburg, which produces electricity barely 60% of the time, according to audits by the Electric Power Research Institute. In Germany, grid manager Eon Netz reports that two thirds of the time, wind facilities are generating less than their annual average annual output.
Average output in Vermont is likely to be no more than 25%. Only one third of the time will a wind facility be producing at that level or above. To suggest, as Richards does, that Searsburg's fitful generation of less than 0.2% of Vermont's electricity "has increased reliability" is simply ludicrous.
Richards describes how the grid responds to a customer's turning on a light switch. Unfortunately, the wind does not cooperate in this scheme. Output from wind facilities is dramatically erratic and rarely corresponds to actual demand for electricity. Denmark's wind installations generate electricity equivalent to 20% of their consumption, but most of it has to be exported because the extra power isn't generated when it's actually needed.
It is true that in balance wind doesn't produce pollution when making electricity. Much of the time, however, wind turbines are not making electricity, yet they continue to draw power from the more polluting sources that are still working. And because of the unstable output, more reliable and more polluting backup generation has to be dedicated to cover for it.
Because of wind's low output and almost useless contribution, it is misleading to say that wind towers on the mountain ridges will stop the acid rain and global warming that threatens them. Wind towers -- with their acres of clearance, huge foundations, transformers, roads, and power lines -- represent only another form of destruction. They do nothing to mitigate acid rain or global warming.
Only a tiny fraction of Vermont's electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, none from coal. Even if wind could make a significant contribution, Richards' insistence that it would stay in Vermont therefore contradicts her threat that without wind the mountains will die.
About 200 MW of capacity would be required to match the output of Burlington's McNeil plant, which provides less than 8% of Vermont's electricity from a visually discreet location. That is three times more than the wind resource recognized as available for development. Richards' description of "wind turbines spinning gracefully in a few spots along our hill tops" either underscores their negligible contribution or is a lie.
So it comes, as Richards admits, down to a question of aesthetics. Hurling empty threats about global warming and acid rain and fossil and nuclear fuel dependence, knowing that wind power does nothing to alleviate those problems, she accuses opponents of using fear tactics! She asserts that wind turbines are visually appealing and only someone ignorant of the poisons in our air would oppose them.
Considering that the installation of wind turbines on our "hill" tops brings its own environmental and quality-of-life problems and that they will do nothing about pollutants from other sources, the aesthetics of the 330-foot-high erections are obvious: They are expensive, intrusive, destructive of rare habitat, and useless.
October 10, 2004
A Poem
Deliver Me, O Wind
by Annie Dullard
I'm glad that I have lived to see
Wind towers more lovely than a tree
Arrayed by dozens in the sea --
The tears of joy run free.
What better use of tired land,
The postcard pictures getting bland,
Than turning weary trees to sand
And making money to beat the band?
by Annie Dullard
I'm glad that I have lived to see
Wind towers more lovely than a tree
Arrayed by dozens in the sea --
The tears of joy run free.
What better use of tired land,
The postcard pictures getting bland,
Than turning weary trees to sand
And making money to beat the band?
October 7, 2004
The wind in Texas
To the editor, The New Republic:
Martin Peretz ("Evil Lesser," October 11) cites George W. Bush's promotion of "one of the largest and most productive programs of wind farms in the country," which "actually diminishes our dependency on Middle Eastern oil."
The wind power projects in Texas are indeed large and heavily subsidized (Bush just renewed their major tax break), second in capacity to California. Yet the expanses of giant windmills generated only 0.85% of the state's total electricity in 2002, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. The amount actually used is much less, because wind speed (their fuel) rarely corresponds with consumer demand.
Almost all of Texas's electricity is generated from natural gas and coal. Oil generates only 0.4%. Wind power has therefore diminished their dependency on oil for electricity by about 3 one-thousandths of a percent. Electricity, of course, represents only a fraction of total energy use (for transport, heat, etc.), which wind power doesn't affect at all.
Martin Peretz ("Evil Lesser," October 11) cites George W. Bush's promotion of "one of the largest and most productive programs of wind farms in the country," which "actually diminishes our dependency on Middle Eastern oil."
The wind power projects in Texas are indeed large and heavily subsidized (Bush just renewed their major tax break), second in capacity to California. Yet the expanses of giant windmills generated only 0.85% of the state's total electricity in 2002, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. The amount actually used is much less, because wind speed (their fuel) rarely corresponds with consumer demand.
Almost all of Texas's electricity is generated from natural gas and coal. Oil generates only 0.4%. Wind power has therefore diminished their dependency on oil for electricity by about 3 one-thousandths of a percent. Electricity, of course, represents only a fraction of total energy use (for transport, heat, etc.), which wind power doesn't affect at all.
October 5, 2004
Wind power creates a job!
Here are some excerpts from the story linked to in the title, which is about "windsmiths" -- the people who maintain wind turbines.
More items of note from the article:
Roughly 100 windsmiths, mostly men, work at the various wind energy companies in Tehachapi.There are more than 4,600 turbines in the Tehachapi area. That's an average of 1 maintenance job per 46 turbines. CalWind's ratio is 1 per 35, and Oak Creek's 1 per 17. Typical wind "farms" are within this range, so they are unlikely to "create" more than 1 or 2 jobs each, despite the promises of the developers.
CalWind Resources has 10 windsmiths on staff to service its 350 turbines. Oak Creek Energy has six to maintain its 100 turbines.
More items of note from the article:
"Turbines break every day," ... [operations manager at CalWind Resources Ed] Bullard said. ...
Bullard agreed with [windsmith Clayton] Swan that the most challenging part of working in the field is dealing with the elements, especially in the winter, when huge ice formations build up on turbine blades.
If those chunks fall, Bullard said, some of them could kill you.
October 4, 2004
FPL Energy to leave Kansas Flint Hills alone
Florida Power & Light has wanted to turn the continent's last unspoiled expanse of tallgrass prairie into a power plant of 1,000 400-foot-high wind turbines. Faced with broad opposition, they have been forced to look elsewhere.
October 2, 2004
Global warming and wind power
The primary argument of most advocates of wind power is that it will reduce the emission of "greenhouse" gases (particularly carbon dioxide (CO2)) that cause global warming. A few opponents of the proposed giant wind-power facilities therefore deny or diminish the possibility of a human contribution to climate change. There still remain the undeniable pollution from burning fossil fuels and the environmental and social costs of drilling and mining and transport, but it is global warming that is the crisis driving most support for industrial wind power. Every ill effect of wind-turbine installations is countered that it would be much worse if we let global warming continue. It is assumed to be unarguably obvious that wind power reduces CO2 and other emissions. They mock the argument that conservation and efficiency are much more effective. And anyone who denies global warming or our role in it is referred to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Does the IPCC support wind power?
In the paper, "Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. A Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," they state, "Hundreds of technologies and practices for end-use energy efficiency in buildings, transport and manufacturing industries account for more than half of this potential [greenhouse gas emission reductions in the 2010 to 2020 timeframe]" (p. 5).
In Table SPM.1 (p. 7), energy supply and conversion represent only 7%-19% of potential emission reductions by 2020. That category includes fuel switching to natural gas and nuclear, CO2 capture and storage, and improved power station efficiencies as well as renewables. Efficiency improvements in building, transport, and industry account for 51%-92%.
Tables from the full report show wind's small contribution: potentially mitigating 2.0%-4.3% of projected carbon emissions from electricity generation by 2020, or about 0.7%-1.4% of carbon from all energy use. Its actual contribution is projected to be much less, i.e., theoretically reducing atmospheric CO2 by less than 5 1,000ths of a percent.
That projected amount of wind power represents up to more than a million megawatts of installed capacity, more than 20 times the amount already connected (and causing trouble) worldwide. It also requires the construction of an equal amount of dedicated backup generators to cover the fluctuations of wind-generated power and hundreds of miles of new high-voltage transmission lines, particularly as the preferred sites for wind facilities are far from areas of high demand.
That's a lot of environmental destruction for almost nothing. The push for wind power is a distraction from seriously addressing the problems of our energy use.
Does the IPCC support wind power?
In the paper, "Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. A Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," they state, "Hundreds of technologies and practices for end-use energy efficiency in buildings, transport and manufacturing industries account for more than half of this potential [greenhouse gas emission reductions in the 2010 to 2020 timeframe]" (p. 5).
In Table SPM.1 (p. 7), energy supply and conversion represent only 7%-19% of potential emission reductions by 2020. That category includes fuel switching to natural gas and nuclear, CO2 capture and storage, and improved power station efficiencies as well as renewables. Efficiency improvements in building, transport, and industry account for 51%-92%.
Tables from the full report show wind's small contribution: potentially mitigating 2.0%-4.3% of projected carbon emissions from electricity generation by 2020, or about 0.7%-1.4% of carbon from all energy use. Its actual contribution is projected to be much less, i.e., theoretically reducing atmospheric CO2 by less than 5 1,000ths of a percent.
That projected amount of wind power represents up to more than a million megawatts of installed capacity, more than 20 times the amount already connected (and causing trouble) worldwide. It also requires the construction of an equal amount of dedicated backup generators to cover the fluctuations of wind-generated power and hundreds of miles of new high-voltage transmission lines, particularly as the preferred sites for wind facilities are far from areas of high demand.
That's a lot of environmental destruction for almost nothing. The push for wind power is a distraction from seriously addressing the problems of our energy use.
September 30, 2004
Wind turbines do not reduce CO2 emissions
"Øget vindmøllendbygning reducerer ikke den danske CO2-udledning."
(Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish CO2 emissions.)
-- Flemming Nissen, head of development, Elsam (operates 404 MW of wind power in Denmark), at "Vind eller forsvind" conference, Copenhagen, May 27, 2004.
(Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish CO2 emissions.)
-- Flemming Nissen, head of development, Elsam (operates 404 MW of wind power in Denmark), at "Vind eller forsvind" conference, Copenhagen, May 27, 2004.
September 27, 2004
Some good essays I've read lately
"Karaoke Night in Bush's America," by Joe Bageant ("Another Visit to Burt's Tavern")
"Three Years and Counting?," by Michael Neumann ("How Time Flies")
"The death of intimacy," by Martin Jacques ("A selfish, market-driven society is eroding our very humanity")
"Vive La Résistance!," by Justin E. H. Smith ("The New Sparta")
"Three Years and Counting?," by Michael Neumann ("How Time Flies")
"The death of intimacy," by Martin Jacques ("A selfish, market-driven society is eroding our very humanity")
"Vive La Résistance!," by Justin E. H. Smith ("The New Sparta")
September 26, 2004
More wind power means more fossil fuel burning and more high-voltage power lines
For technical reasons, the intensive use of wind power in Germany is associated with significant operational challenges:-- Eon Netz Wind Report 2004 (Eon Netz manages the transmission grid in Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony, about a third of Germany, hosting 6,250 MW of Germany's 14,250 MW installed wind-generating capacity at the end of 2003. The total production in Eon's system was 8.5 TW-h, representing an average feed of 969 MW (15.5% of capacity). Germany's wind production as a whole was 14.8% of capacity and equal to less than 4% of demand. Click the title of this post for more of the report.)
- Only limited wind power is available. In order to cover electricity demands, traditional power station capacities must be maintained as so-called "shadow power stations" at a total level of more than 80% of the installed wind energy capacity, so that the electricity consumption is also covered during economically difficult periods.
- Only limited forecasting is possible for wind power infeed. If the wind power forecast differs from the actual infeed, the transmission system operator must cover the difference by utilising reserve capacity. This requires reserve capacities amounting to 50-60% of the installed wind power capacity.
- Wind power requires a corresponding grid infrastructure. The windy coastal regions of Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony are precisely the places where the grids have now reached their capacity limits through wind power. At present, just under 300 km of new high-voltage and extra-high voltage lines are being planned there in order to create the transmission capacities required for transporting the wind power.
September 22, 2004
Progressive Party write-in "success"
I just can't get over this (see earlier post)! In the party newsletter today, director Chris Pearson thrills to their success at "keeping a Progressive out of these races."
'In a small but satisfying victory, Progressives around Vermont successfully sent Peter Diamondstone and his gang packing. Four Liberty Union (LU) candidates had petitioned to be on the Progressive Party primary ballot. Since these seats were uncontested by the Party, the LU candidates were poised to win and therefore get around the state debating as the "Progressive" candidate.Winners! They're stepping aside to please one independent and two Democrats who shun them, they call the serious progressives from Liberty Union a "gang," and they congratulate themselves for staying out of the way. That'll get people to take them seriously!
'... "We felt it was ridiculous for Progressives to look like they were challenging Bernie Sanders or Peter Clavelle," said VPP Chair, Martha Abbott in a press announcement. ...
'Except for Sue Davis, the candidates will step down -- keeping a Progressive out of these races. This is a much more desirable outcome than having interlopers claiming to represent the Progressive point of view.
'Our congratulations goes [sic] out to all the winners.'
Just imagine the trees
Leaf peeping season is gearing up in Vermont. Here is a picture of a recent outing in Searsburg. The guide is trying to assuage the group's disappointment by describing as eloquently as he can the trees and their color that used to characterize the site. But as they say in "environmental" circles, they would'a died eventually anyway, so mowing them down prematurely actually saved them from that fate.
Actually, this article is interesting for a couple reasons. First:
Second, the senior vice president of Green Mountain Power (GMP), Stephen C. Terry, downplays the importance of wind's contribution to Vermont's electricity, saying it would be "remarkable" if 10% could come from wind. And John Zimmerman, Enxco's representative in New England, says a recent survey found good development sites for only 150 MW of wind-generating capacity, or about 35 MW of actual output, 3.5% of Vermont's need according to GMP's Stephen Terry. He looks hungrily at the Green Mountain National Forest for more power-plant sites.
Actually, this article is interesting for a couple reasons. First:
"Winds were so light Tuesday morning that the facility was not generating power during the visit, although the turbines' blades continued their counter-clockwise rotation."How is that possible? They appear to be using the turbine as a motor so the facility looks like the "kinetic sculpture" it's praised as. So not only are they not generating electricity, they're using it, lots of it.
Second, the senior vice president of Green Mountain Power (GMP), Stephen C. Terry, downplays the importance of wind's contribution to Vermont's electricity, saying it would be "remarkable" if 10% could come from wind. And John Zimmerman, Enxco's representative in New England, says a recent survey found good development sites for only 150 MW of wind-generating capacity, or about 35 MW of actual output, 3.5% of Vermont's need according to GMP's Stephen Terry. He looks hungrily at the Green Mountain National Forest for more power-plant sites.
Democracy
With all that energy and broad range of opinion out there (see earlier post), wouldn't it be nice to have a democracy in which everyone was actually represented? If 5% of the people support Liberty Union and 10% support the Progressive Party, then 5% of the legislature should be Liberty Union and 10% Progressive. That would be representative democracy. Instead, the Progressive Party is scared of "spoiling" the race for a few popular candidates, so they don't run candidates and aren't represented at all. Which is just as bad as voting for the candidate who doesn't win anyway, in which case your vote -- your opinion -- is effectively thrown out. Because of our winner-takes-all system (you don't even need a majority in most cases), more than half of the citizens of the U.S. are not represented in their government. It's no wonder so many don't bother to vote, much less care. Of course, that suits the corporatists just fine. They just have to hire a PR firm for a new sales drive every time "elections" come up again.
So speaking of spoilers: Revolutionaries always spoil corrupt regimes. That's on the back of a T-shirt you can buy to support the Nader/Camejo campaign. A picture of the Liberty Bell is on the front.
So speaking of spoilers: Revolutionaries always spoil corrupt regimes. That's on the back of a T-shirt you can buy to support the Nader/Camejo campaign. A picture of the Liberty Bell is on the front.
Progressive Party "clears the slate"
About half of the 794 people who voted in Vermont's Progressive Party primary wrote in the Progressive Party–recommended fake candidates (see earlier post) and successfully thwarted any progressives from appearing under their banner on the November ballot.
They wrote in "independent" Bernie Sanders for the U.S. House. He refuses to be listed as a Progressive. They wrote in Martha Abbott, the party's chairwoman, for governor. She will have her name removed as a favor to Democratic candidate Peter Clavelle. They wrote in Democrat Elizabeth Ready for auditor. She too refuses to be listed as a Progressive. And they wrote in Susan Davis for attorney general, who has decided to stay in the race (as a Progressive!).
Martha Abbott is quoted in a Sept. 21 Burlington Free Press article: "Having folks run under the Progressive Party label without being Progressives hurts our party's identity and ultimately is a disservice to voters." No, it's apparently better to support candidates that refuse to appear under your label or who promise to refuse the nomination. It's apparently better to mobilize against a slate of progressives who want to see actual candidates on the Progressive Party lines. It seems to me that if the nominee withdraws then the runner-up ought to take the place.
The Progressive Party acts as if Liberty Union (the people who stepped in with their candidates where the Progressives chose not to run) is their enemy. But the vote for the one candidate the Progressives actually ran -- Steve Hingtgen for lieutenant governor -- was nearly unanimous, more than the combined vote for Liberty Union candidates and Progressive-Party write-ins of any other race.
In other primary news, Republicans did not have candidates for secretary of state and treasurer, so Democrats wrote in their candidates, both of which won. So next time someone says the Dems and Repubs aren't just two faces of the same corporatist machine, just point to these races in Vermont, where the candidates will be listed as both Democrat and Republican! Aren't open primaries fun!
Meanwhile, the new Vermont Green Party held their convention. The steering committee had endorsed Ralph Nader instead of David Cobb for U.S. President, and the party as a whole chose not to pick either. Nader will be on the ballot anyway as an independent, and Cobb will not be there at all. There are Green-Party candidates for attorney general (James Marc Leas) and the U.S. Senate (Craig Hill) as well as several local races.
And the proudly socialist Liberty Union Party will still have its candidates on the ballot (but not as "Progressives"!): Peter Diamondstone for governor, Ben Mitchell (who ran in the Republican primary) for the U.S. Senate, Jane Newton for the U.S. House, Boots Wardinski for attorney general, and Peter Levy for auditor.
They wrote in "independent" Bernie Sanders for the U.S. House. He refuses to be listed as a Progressive. They wrote in Martha Abbott, the party's chairwoman, for governor. She will have her name removed as a favor to Democratic candidate Peter Clavelle. They wrote in Democrat Elizabeth Ready for auditor. She too refuses to be listed as a Progressive. And they wrote in Susan Davis for attorney general, who has decided to stay in the race (as a Progressive!).
Martha Abbott is quoted in a Sept. 21 Burlington Free Press article: "Having folks run under the Progressive Party label without being Progressives hurts our party's identity and ultimately is a disservice to voters." No, it's apparently better to support candidates that refuse to appear under your label or who promise to refuse the nomination. It's apparently better to mobilize against a slate of progressives who want to see actual candidates on the Progressive Party lines. It seems to me that if the nominee withdraws then the runner-up ought to take the place.
The Progressive Party acts as if Liberty Union (the people who stepped in with their candidates where the Progressives chose not to run) is their enemy. But the vote for the one candidate the Progressives actually ran -- Steve Hingtgen for lieutenant governor -- was nearly unanimous, more than the combined vote for Liberty Union candidates and Progressive-Party write-ins of any other race.
In other primary news, Republicans did not have candidates for secretary of state and treasurer, so Democrats wrote in their candidates, both of which won. So next time someone says the Dems and Repubs aren't just two faces of the same corporatist machine, just point to these races in Vermont, where the candidates will be listed as both Democrat and Republican! Aren't open primaries fun!
Meanwhile, the new Vermont Green Party held their convention. The steering committee had endorsed Ralph Nader instead of David Cobb for U.S. President, and the party as a whole chose not to pick either. Nader will be on the ballot anyway as an independent, and Cobb will not be there at all. There are Green-Party candidates for attorney general (James Marc Leas) and the U.S. Senate (Craig Hill) as well as several local races.
And the proudly socialist Liberty Union Party will still have its candidates on the ballot (but not as "Progressives"!): Peter Diamondstone for governor, Ben Mitchell (who ran in the Republican primary) for the U.S. Senate, Jane Newton for the U.S. House, Boots Wardinski for attorney general, and Peter Levy for auditor.
September 21, 2004
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."
"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.
September 19, 2004
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.
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.
September 18, 2004
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!]
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!]
September 17, 2004
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.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.
'"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.
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
September 15, 2004
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.
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.
September 9, 2004
Your vote's safe with me -- I'm not running!
I just got a strange note from the Progressive party. They urge me to participate in their primary (which is open in Vermont) to write in their slate of candidates. Why, you might ask, do they need to write in the candidates for their own primary?
This brave party decided to run in just one statewide race, for Lieutenant Governor, so there are not only no contested nominations but there aren't even any candidates. So the Liberty Union party (which is affiliated with the Socialist Party USA) petitioned the state to list their candidates in the otherwise empty Progressive spots on the ballot. Fair enough, one would think -- Liberty Union is progressive.
But the Progressive party doesn't want to oppose Bernie Sanders (Independent, formerly Progressive) for the U.S. House or Peter Clavelle (Democrat, formerly Progressive) for Governor. So they want people to get the Progressive primary ballot and write in a slate of statewide candidates who will then withdraw from their respective races as soon as (if) their name appears on the final ballot.
Isn't that clever?
Here's the Liberty Union slate that I urge everyone in Vermont to vote for in the Progressive party primary ballot.
This brave party decided to run in just one statewide race, for Lieutenant Governor, so there are not only no contested nominations but there aren't even any candidates. So the Liberty Union party (which is affiliated with the Socialist Party USA) petitioned the state to list their candidates in the otherwise empty Progressive spots on the ballot. Fair enough, one would think -- Liberty Union is progressive.
But the Progressive party doesn't want to oppose Bernie Sanders (Independent, formerly Progressive) for the U.S. House or Peter Clavelle (Democrat, formerly Progressive) for Governor. So they want people to get the Progressive primary ballot and write in a slate of statewide candidates who will then withdraw from their respective races as soon as (if) their name appears on the final ballot.
Isn't that clever?
Here's the Liberty Union slate that I urge everyone in Vermont to vote for in the Progressive party primary ballot.
Governor -- Peter DiamondstoneNote that the fledgling Vermont Green party also will be running a candidate for the U.S. Senate.
U.S. Senate -- Ben Mitchell (write in)
U.S. House -- Jane Newton
Secretary Of State -- Boots Wardinski
Auditor of Accounts -- Jerry Levy
September 7, 2004
Thousands of windmills
Emboldened no doubt by VPIRG's plan for 10-12 sites instead of "just" 5-6, more of the Fair Wind advocates are speaking up. This is from a note by Donald Lasell.
"Vermont has a very significant natural resource for generating commercial scale wind energy. I'm an advocate for admitting to the entire state that I like to imagine seeing extensive wind turbine development across the state before I die. Actually, I believe we will eventually extensively develop many of the ridge-lines of the Green Mountain National Forest. I'm not talking hundreds, I believe (longterm) we will be installing thousands."
September 6, 2004
High time to strike back
Windpower Monthly, in its September editorial, is alarmed at the public reaction in the "has-been island" of Britain against the government's aggressive pursuit of wind power.
It must be remembered that nuclear plants provide nonfluctuating base load, which wind power -- even by the claims of the sales brochures -- would never impact. And most greenhouse gas emissions are from burning fuel for needs other than electricity, which again wind power would have no effect on.
Eltra also says that for every 1000 MW of wind capacity added to the grid, 300-500 MW of back-up power has to be made available. That is, at a 25% capacity factor for wind, 1.2-2.0 times as much "conventional" power dedicated to making the "free and clean" wind power work. Such back-up power can not be the newer cleaner more efficient plants, because they are not able to respond quickly enough to the rapid fluctuations of wind-generated power. So wind power not only requires at least an equal amount of back-up, it also ensures the continuation of less efficient plants to provide that back-up.
"Anti-wind power sentiment boils down to four main concerns: [1] that wind turbines spoil attractive landscapes and wildlife habitat, [2] that when the wind stops blowing so does electricity supply, [3] that only vast arrays of turbines can provide enough power to make a difference, [4] that wind power is expensive.Note that the charge is not denied but is argued to be worth it. Unfortunately, there is no sign anywhere of wind power bringing about a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power, or blackouts. It is a false choice. With or without wind power, the same energy problems remain, so it is not at all necessary to despoil the few wild places left for humans and other animals.
"The concerns are easy to counter.
[1] "Environmental opposition crumbles in face of the alternatives: global warming, storing nuclear waste, unproven renewables, or living with power shortages. That is why mainstream environmental groups like Greenpeace back wind."
It must be remembered that nuclear plants provide nonfluctuating base load, which wind power -- even by the claims of the sales brochures -- would never impact. And most greenhouse gas emissions are from burning fuel for needs other than electricity, which again wind power would have no effect on.
[2] "The technical concerns have no foundation. More than 40,000 MW of wind power stations daily demonstrate that wind makes a significant contribution to electricity supplies and lower greenhouse gas emissions. The lights stay on without dedicated back-up power -- even in regions where for periods wind meets total demand ..."40,000 MW of installed wind capacity translates to an output of about 87,600 GWh/yr (assuming a capacity factor of 25%). World energy use in 1990, according to the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change, was 106,645,000,000 GWh. Wind's "significant" contribution represents eight 100,000ths of that.
[3] "[I]f a small land like Denmark can get 20% of its electricity from wind turbines without being overrun by them, so can other countries."Denmark is overrun, so much so that even the government has noticed and has stopped development of any more on-shore facilities. And Denmark does not get 20% of its electricity from the wind turbines. The turbines may produce that amount, but more often than not demand does not rise with the wind, so the extra electricity is exported to Norway and Sweden, where they can use it to pump hydro, and to Germany, which is large enough to absorb it. The western Denmark transmission company, Eltra, exports 87% of the wind energy in their grid, according to their 2003 annual report.
Eltra also says that for every 1000 MW of wind capacity added to the grid, 300-500 MW of back-up power has to be made available. That is, at a 25% capacity factor for wind, 1.2-2.0 times as much "conventional" power dedicated to making the "free and clean" wind power work. Such back-up power can not be the newer cleaner more efficient plants, because they are not able to respond quickly enough to the rapid fluctuations of wind-generated power. So wind power not only requires at least an equal amount of back-up, it also ensures the continuation of less efficient plants to provide that back-up.
[4] . . .The editorial skips the last charge about expense. Later, it admits the charge by urging developers to work on changing the subsidy and "renewables obligation" structures to try bringing down the cost.
September 2, 2004
Help the environment. Eat less meat.
In the September Ranger Rick magazine (from the National Wildlife Federation), a reader asks, "Is there anything I can do to help the environment?" The answer:
- Eat less meat. (Raising animals for food uses lots of energy and water and can cause awful pollution.)
- Eat more organic food. (Organic farmers don't use chemicals that harm the environment or people's health.)
- Drive small cars, live in an energy-saving house, and buy energy-saving appliances.
- Buy only things that you really need. (Almost everything factories make or people use harms nature in some way.)
September 1, 2004
VPIRG Issues Own Proposal for State Energy Plan
Vermont Public Interest Research Group proposes meeting 15% of Vermont's electricity needs with industrial wind plants. Of course, wind-generated power doesn't meet needs at all, unless those needs happen to coincide with a good sustained wind. Anyway, they estimate 272 1.5-MW wind towers, in 10-12 facilities, would produce that 15%. They fudge the impact, however, by saying wind could provide 15%-20%; the latter figure would push the number of towers to 362 (or 370, by my calculations).
Even the industry shills at Fair Wind Vermont are appalled. They've been trying to play down the impact of 5-6 "well sited" facilities, and here comes VPIRG giving away the game. [Well, not all of them: David Blittersdorf of anemometer maker NRG systems says we should go for 50%!]
The American Wind Energy Association estimates the wind resource in Vermont to be able to supply an average output of 537 MW, or 5000 GW-h/yr. The developer of East Haven Windfarm, Mathew Rubin, has said that only one eighth of that resource is not restricted from development. That would reduce the possible wind-generated output to an average of 67 MW, or 625 GW-h/yr, which is about 11% of Vermont's electricity consumption and would require 194 1.5-MW towers (assuming the 23% capacity factor of the existing Searsburg facility).
That is already an appalling possibility to most residents around those "available" sites. VPIRG, however, proposes defying their own environmentalist and public-interest values to not only ignore the wishes of the people affected by wind-turbine installations but also throw out existing protections of federal, state, and private land to build even more (along with the necessary roads, power lines, and PCB-containing transformers). And they call this a "green" solution!
Even the industry shills at Fair Wind Vermont are appalled. They've been trying to play down the impact of 5-6 "well sited" facilities, and here comes VPIRG giving away the game. [Well, not all of them: David Blittersdorf of anemometer maker NRG systems says we should go for 50%!]
The American Wind Energy Association estimates the wind resource in Vermont to be able to supply an average output of 537 MW, or 5000 GW-h/yr. The developer of East Haven Windfarm, Mathew Rubin, has said that only one eighth of that resource is not restricted from development. That would reduce the possible wind-generated output to an average of 67 MW, or 625 GW-h/yr, which is about 11% of Vermont's electricity consumption and would require 194 1.5-MW towers (assuming the 23% capacity factor of the existing Searsburg facility).
That is already an appalling possibility to most residents around those "available" sites. VPIRG, however, proposes defying their own environmentalist and public-interest values to not only ignore the wishes of the people affected by wind-turbine installations but also throw out existing protections of federal, state, and private land to build even more (along with the necessary roads, power lines, and PCB-containing transformers). And they call this a "green" solution!
August 29, 2004
Police riot
Twenty-six years ago today, police beat hundreds of protesters, bystanders, and the press to disrupt the Democratic Party convention in Chicago.
August 28, 2004
Anarchism and Violence
"The Jurassic, the Spanish, and the Italian federation and sections of the International Working Men's association, as also the French, the German and the American Anarchist groups, were for the next years the chief centres of Anarchist thought and propaganda. They refrained from any participation in parliamentary politics and always kept in close contact with the labour organizations. However, in the second half of the 1880s and the early 1890s, when the influence of the Anarchists began to be felt in strikes, in May-day demonstrations, where they promoted the idea of a general strike for an eight-hour day, and in the antimilitarist propaganda in the army, violent prosecutions were directed against them, especially in the Latin countries (including physical torture in the Barcelona castle and the United States (the execution of four Chicago Anarchists in 1887 [for being part of a protest meeting on May 4, 1886, in Haymarket Square against the murder of several workers, and wounding of many more, by police responding to a strike at the McCormick Harvester factory -- the meeting (already seen to be peaceful by the mayor) was ordered dispersed by the police chief and 180 of his armed officers, when a bomb was thrown, killing 6 policemen and wounding others]). Against these prosecutions the Anarchists retaliated by acts of violence which in their turn were followed by more executions from above and new acts of revenge from below. This created in the general public the impression that violence is the substance of Anarchism, a view repudiated by its supporters, who hold that in reality violence is resorted to by all parties in proportion as their open action is obstructed by repression, and exceptional laws render them outlaws."
-- Peter Kropotkin, from "Anarchism," Encyclopedia Britannica
This ought to be considered by the authorities in New York this week as they do all they can to intimidate and prevent lawful protest during the Republican Party convention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)