To the editor, Brattleboro (Vt.) Reformer:
The editorial of July 21 ("What's the fuss over wind?") asks, "What is more of a danger? A spinning turbine blade, or nuclear waste by the Connecticut River? What is more damaging to Vermont? A wind farm on a ridgeline, or the trees on that ridgeline dying off from acid rain and pollution generated by coal-fired power plants?"
At this stage in the debate, the irresponsibility of those questions is inexcusable.
Even the promoters of wind power on the grid can no longer get away with pretending it will displace energy from coal or nuclear power plants. (Vermont doesn't even use electricity from coal plants!) Those plants provide base load power. As a highly variable and intermittent source of energy, wind turbines would only provide occasional peak load power, occasionally when actually needed.
If we erected all 350 megawatts of giant turbines that have already been proposed in Vermont, or twice that amount, which many advocates would like to see (without, as classic NIMBYs, actually having to see or hear them near their own homes), we'd still suffer from the same amount of nuclear waste and acid rain.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
July 21, 2006
July 20, 2006
Violation of the mountains by wind erections
The Mountaineer wind power facility on Backbone Mountain, Tucker County, West Virginia, which kills thousands of bats every year (and owner Florida Power & Light has therefore halted access to researchers so they and other developers can get on with erecting hundreds more giant (and useless) turbines on this ridge that spans West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania).
"I looked around me, to a place where months before had been prime country for deer, wild turkey, and yes, black bear, to see positively no sign of any of the animals about at all. This alarmed me, so I scouted in the woods that afternoon. I am accustomed to these woods, and know them and the signs of animals well. All afternoon, I found no sign, sight, or peek of any animal about.wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, ecoanarchism, ecofeminism, animal rights
"I did notice, in the next few months, that the animals were more abundant down here in the valley, in the farmers' fields and such. Places that they had steered away from before, they now were in, and causing trouble for man, and, in turn, getting shot. I saw more bear and bobcats in the populated areas than I had ever seen. I went up to the windmills several times to check, and it seemed that the animals had moved away from that area. There were no sight of them, no prints, no sign."
July 19, 2006
Industrial wind destroying Flint Hills in Kansas
The Flint Hills in eastern Kansas were recently named by Yahoo as the fifth best travel destination in the U.S. As Yahoo's listing states:
More pictures are available from Protect the Flint Hills.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, Kansas
Mostly treeless and curving gently across the ... landscape, the Flint Hills are home to the largest remnant of native tallgrass prairie in the world. Newcomers driving through this sublime setting ... are stunned by their first glimpse of this gorgeous landscape.Yet this national treasure has already been desecrated by a massive industrial wind power facility and is targeted for yet more. Compare these pictures of the area before construction and the very unsublime result. And all those towers won't do a thing to change our energy use.
More pictures are available from Protect the Flint Hills.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, Kansas
The wind whistles through it
To the Editor, Barre-Montpelier (Vt.) Times Argus:
The editorial of July 19 ("For the birds") rightly recognizes the need to curb the use of fossil fuels. It therefore warns of the damage from drastic climate change compared with that caused by "a few wind projects."
That is an irresponsible statement.
Wind turbines generate electricity, which in Vermont already comes almost exclusively from non-fossil fuel sources. So big wind would not "curb the use of fossil fuels."
Even in places where the electricity does come from fossil fuels, wind turbines would not threaten in any way the steady base load provided by coal. And wind's intermittency and variability require other sources to stay on line. The greater load balancing burden may even cause those sources to burn more fuel not less. Wind promoters can not show a single example of other fuels being reduced because of wind turbines on the grid.
That's just concerning electricity. Most fossil fuel is burned for transport and heating.
So it is irrelevant to compare the potential damage from "a few wind projects" to that from climate change. No matter how many giant wind turbines we erect, it will have no effect on fossil fuel use. Giant wind turbines will only add damage of their own, without any mitigating benefit at all.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont, animal rights
The editorial of July 19 ("For the birds") rightly recognizes the need to curb the use of fossil fuels. It therefore warns of the damage from drastic climate change compared with that caused by "a few wind projects."
That is an irresponsible statement.
Wind turbines generate electricity, which in Vermont already comes almost exclusively from non-fossil fuel sources. So big wind would not "curb the use of fossil fuels."
Even in places where the electricity does come from fossil fuels, wind turbines would not threaten in any way the steady base load provided by coal. And wind's intermittency and variability require other sources to stay on line. The greater load balancing burden may even cause those sources to burn more fuel not less. Wind promoters can not show a single example of other fuels being reduced because of wind turbines on the grid.
That's just concerning electricity. Most fossil fuel is burned for transport and heating.
So it is irrelevant to compare the potential damage from "a few wind projects" to that from climate change. No matter how many giant wind turbines we erect, it will have no effect on fossil fuel use. Giant wind turbines will only add damage of their own, without any mitigating benefit at all.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont, animal rights
July 18, 2006
Searsburg wind facility vs. UPC's Sheffield/Sutton
UPC, the company proposing 26 behemoths over several ridges in Sheffield and Sutton in northern Vermont, have sponsored a bus tour to visit the eleven 9-year-old Searsburg turbines in southern Vermont. They might as well take people to see the toy turbines at Legoland.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, Vermont
July 17, 2006
East Haven Wind Farm denied permit
The Vermont Public Service Board announced today that it has denied the application for a "certificate of public good" by East Haven Wind Farm (Mathew Rubin and Dave Rapaport). Click the title of this post and scroll to July 17 for the final order, which includes the hearing officer's recommendation and subsequent comment.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, Vermont, animal rights
We have carefully reviewed the parties' comments ... and find in those comments no basis for changing the Hearing Officer's recommendations. Instead, for the reasons that the Hearing Officer has presented in the Proposal for Decision, we adopt his findings, conclusions, and recommendations ...This is the precedent everyone on both sides has been waiting for. Maybe VPIRG and the Conservation Law Foundation can now return to protecting people and the environment instead of insanely promoting industrial development (of highly doubtful merit anywhere) in threatened rural and wild areas.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Public Service Board of the State of Vermont that:
1. The findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Hearing Officer are hereby adopted, as modified above.
2. The proposed Project will not promote the public good of the State of Vermont, and a certificate of public good shall not be issued pursuant to 30 V.S.A. §248.
Dated at Montpelier, Vermont, this 17th day of July, 2006.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, Vermont, animal rights
New York wind energy portal
A web site that provides resources for and information about New York battles against industrial wind power development was recently created. It also hosts sites for local organizations.
Find it at www.livinginnewyork.org.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms,, wind turbines New York
Find it at www.livinginnewyork.org.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms,, wind turbines New York
Conservation Law Foundation embraces "wise use"
In flagrant contradiction to their mission of protecting New England's environment, the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) uses the tricks of industry public relations in -- hand in hand with industry -- promoting the erection of giant wind turbines in wild and rural areas.
Their recent fund-raising plea boasts that CLF is a "leading force ... for fair review of renewable energy projects."
The mission of the "wise use" movement is not the precautionary principle that has traditionally guided environmentalists but to show that in balance the harm could be worse, i.e., industry pretends to be "green," pays off a few organizations, and continues to do what it always did.
Part of this effort is to complain that regulations and environmental reviews and public input are unfair burdens, because there is a small chance that a project will be prevented. And the developers take great umbrage that they are not free to do whatever they want.
Thus when CLF calls for fair review of renewable energy projects, it implies that subjecting them to the same review required for any industrial-scale development -- particularly in rural and wild locations -- is unfair.
That is an opposite message from CLF's avowed mission. Those reviews are there to protect New England's environment. Calling a power plant "green" doesn't make its impacts on the land and its denizens any less.
wind power, wind energy,environment, environmentalism, Vermont, anarchism, ecoanarchism, animal rights
Their recent fund-raising plea boasts that CLF is a "leading force ... for fair review of renewable energy projects."
The mission of the "wise use" movement is not the precautionary principle that has traditionally guided environmentalists but to show that in balance the harm could be worse, i.e., industry pretends to be "green," pays off a few organizations, and continues to do what it always did.
Part of this effort is to complain that regulations and environmental reviews and public input are unfair burdens, because there is a small chance that a project will be prevented. And the developers take great umbrage that they are not free to do whatever they want.
Thus when CLF calls for fair review of renewable energy projects, it implies that subjecting them to the same review required for any industrial-scale development -- particularly in rural and wild locations -- is unfair.
That is an opposite message from CLF's avowed mission. Those reviews are there to protect New England's environment. Calling a power plant "green" doesn't make its impacts on the land and its denizens any less.
wind power, wind energy,environment, environmentalism, Vermont, anarchism, ecoanarchism, animal rights
July 13, 2006
New wind brochure from Vermonters with Vision
Vermonters with Vision and Ridge Protectors, which is currently fighting massive development on ridges in Sheffield and Sutton, have produced a nice trifold brochure. It is not specific to Vermont and could be used by groups elsewhere as well. Click on either of the images to download the repro-ready PDF (80 KB).
tags: wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, animal rights, Vermont
tags: wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, animal rights, Vermont
July 6, 2006
Cape Wind unveils plan for diesel backup
Diesel plant proposed for Chelsea
Critics see hypocrisy by Cape Wind firm
By Beth Daley, Boston Globe, July 3, 2006
The company fighting to build a landmark clean wind power project off Cape Cod is raising eyebrows among friends and foes alike with its latest energy idea: a diesel-burning power plant in Chelsea across the street from the city's elementary school complex that will emit soot and other pollutants.
Energy Management Inc., which is headed by Cape Cod wind developer Jim Gordon, has proposed a 240-megawatt power plant that would operate only on hot summer days and other times of peak energy demand to prevent blackouts across New England. At the company's request, the group that runs the region's power system has begun a study of the idea. ...
Chelsea has one of the worst air pollution problems in New England, in large part because of diesel exhaust from trucks rumbling through city streets and on nearby highways. Any diesel plant, no matter how clean the technology, will spew additional pollution into the air that can contribute to childhood asthma rates that are already among the state's highest, said [Roseann Bongiovanni, vice president of the Chelsea City Council].
[Dennis Duffy, vice president of regulatory affairs,] said Energy Management originally wanted a 346-megawatt plant on the 6-acre plot on the Chelsea River, but has scaled back the plant to 240 megawatts, enough to provide electricity for about 240,000 homes when running. The plant would consist of two generators -- essentially giant jet engines -- that can start up quickly and inject power into the grid within 10 minutes. Diesel made the most sense, Duffy said, because fuel can be delivered on tankers that use Chelsea's industrial port. Duffy declined to say how often the plant would run, but city officials said the company wants permission to operate it 2,000 hours annually ...
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
Critics see hypocrisy by Cape Wind firm
By Beth Daley, Boston Globe, July 3, 2006
The company fighting to build a landmark clean wind power project off Cape Cod is raising eyebrows among friends and foes alike with its latest energy idea: a diesel-burning power plant in Chelsea across the street from the city's elementary school complex that will emit soot and other pollutants.
Energy Management Inc., which is headed by Cape Cod wind developer Jim Gordon, has proposed a 240-megawatt power plant that would operate only on hot summer days and other times of peak energy demand to prevent blackouts across New England. At the company's request, the group that runs the region's power system has begun a study of the idea. ...
Chelsea has one of the worst air pollution problems in New England, in large part because of diesel exhaust from trucks rumbling through city streets and on nearby highways. Any diesel plant, no matter how clean the technology, will spew additional pollution into the air that can contribute to childhood asthma rates that are already among the state's highest, said [Roseann Bongiovanni, vice president of the Chelsea City Council].
[Dennis Duffy, vice president of regulatory affairs,] said Energy Management originally wanted a 346-megawatt plant on the 6-acre plot on the Chelsea River, but has scaled back the plant to 240 megawatts, enough to provide electricity for about 240,000 homes when running. The plant would consist of two generators -- essentially giant jet engines -- that can start up quickly and inject power into the grid within 10 minutes. Diesel made the most sense, Duffy said, because fuel can be delivered on tankers that use Chelsea's industrial port. Duffy declined to say how often the plant would run, but city officials said the company wants permission to operate it 2,000 hours annually ...
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
July 5, 2006
Statement from Protect the Flint Hills, Kansas
From Protect the Flint Hills:
PPM Energy [a subsidiary of Scottish Power] has fragmented and damaged 8,000 acres of the endangered Flint Hills Tallgrass Prairie ecosystem with the Elk River industrial wind complex.
They pay no state or local taxes, but will donate $150,000 per year to Butler County in hopes that we will overlook the fact that foreign and out-of-state investors transformed pristine virgin prairie into a "government subsidy farm."
It's time for the public to recognize that wind energy developers are not as concerned about the environment as they are about making large amounts of money. If developers really cared about the environment, they would not target ecologically sensitive areas. They would pursue wind leases in locations that are suitable for industrial development.
This problem is not unique to the Kansas Flint Hills. Throughout the world wind developers are attempting to build facilities in unspoiled natural places. Rather than focus on finding appropriate locations for wind turbines and protecting the environment, they focus on the corporate bottom line.
For more information on inappropriate wind turbine siting, go to the Protect the Flint Hills web site at protecttheflinthills.org
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, animal rights
PPM Energy [a subsidiary of Scottish Power] has fragmented and damaged 8,000 acres of the endangered Flint Hills Tallgrass Prairie ecosystem with the Elk River industrial wind complex.
They pay no state or local taxes, but will donate $150,000 per year to Butler County in hopes that we will overlook the fact that foreign and out-of-state investors transformed pristine virgin prairie into a "government subsidy farm."
It's time for the public to recognize that wind energy developers are not as concerned about the environment as they are about making large amounts of money. If developers really cared about the environment, they would not target ecologically sensitive areas. They would pursue wind leases in locations that are suitable for industrial development.
This problem is not unique to the Kansas Flint Hills. Throughout the world wind developers are attempting to build facilities in unspoiled natural places. Rather than focus on finding appropriate locations for wind turbines and protecting the environment, they focus on the corporate bottom line.
For more information on inappropriate wind turbine siting, go to the Protect the Flint Hills web site at protecttheflinthills.org
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, animal rights
July 3, 2006
UPC Wind misinforms
UPC, the company proposing 26 400-foot-high wind energy machines in Sheffield and Sutton [Vt.], took out a full-page ad in the July 1 Caledonian-Record (page B4). This was in reponse to the 48 people that were not employees of UPC who testified at the June 26 Public Service Board hearing in Sutton -- all of them describing the project's many negative impacts and its lack of significant benefits. UPC's ad quotes Abraham Lincoln that a dog still has four legs even if you call the tail a leg. They then proceed to argue that the tail of their dog is indeed a leg. But, as Bill Clinton used to say, that dog don't hunt.
1. The Sheffield/Sutton wind energy facility will not help Vermont meet its energy needs. One third of the time, it will produce no energy at all. Another third of the time, it will produce at a rate well below its already low annual average of 20-30% of capacity. The largely unpredictable variability is in response to the wind rather than user demand. It is therefore mostly useless for meeting our energy needs.
2. Wind energy does not make the air cleaner. Because it is so variable, it does not displace the use of other fuels. Because it adds to the balancing burden on other sources, wind energy may even cause more pollution. No promoter has been able to show any evidence of reduced greenhouse gas emissions due to wind energy on the grid.
3. Property values and the tourist economy will obviously be affected. Twenty-six 400-ft-high machines -- turning, strobe-lit, and wump-wumping night and day -- are hard to ignore. A significant proportion of people with a choice will obviously buy or visit elsewhere. Every effort the industry has made to design surveys to show otherwise has been easily deflated.
4. Noisier than you think. Noise is the most common complaint from neighbors of giant wind turbines. It is an unnatural noise, compounded by a resonant aspect that can rattle windows and make some people ill. The noise is usually worse at night. While denying its significance, wind developers try to pay neighbors to sign "forbearance easements" to squelch complaints.
5. Green credits don't mean anything. The logic of renewable energy credits is sound for a more reliable source of energy. But wind does not displace other sources, so the companies are taking advantage of the extra revenue stream without having to show any actual benefit in return.
There is no "New England 'green credits' program" as the UPC ad claims. Several states have renewable portfolio standards, whose requirements are met by showing green credits, but UPC can sell green credits, or tags, to anyone, anywhere.
Vermont is, however, part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which is indeed a "cap and trade" system. If the Sheffield/Sutton facility would not be involved in it, as UPC and Washington Electric Co-op insist, that's because it would have no measurable effect on greenhouse gas emissions.
6. Who gets the big subsidies? UPC cites only one minor source of the many subsidies for industrial-scale wind energy. The industry's own seminars describe how taxpayers can pay for two-thirds to three-fourths of the cost of erecting giant wind turbines. That's potentially several million dollars per machine. It is true that other energy sources are also heavily subsidized. Other sources, however, unlike big wind, provide useful energy.
7. UPC Wind Partners is a subsidiary of UPC Group, which is based in Italy. UPC Group was established by New Englanders, but in Italy.
This dog of a project doesn't even bark convincingly. The Sheffield/Sutton project is, like all industrial wind facilities, a boondoggle whose only success will be the transfer of public money to private investors. The promoters cannot show any evidence to back up their claim of reducing greenhouse gases and pollution. That is the empty hat they are desperate to fill with full-page ads proclaiming "the truth." But their arguments are as puffs of air and don't have a leg to stand on.
[published in the Burlington (Vt.) Free Press, July 8, 2006]
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
July 2, 2006
July 1, 2006
Wind Farm Neighbor Easement Agreement
Here are extracts from a "Wind Farm Neighbor Easement Agreement" drawn up by Zilkha Renewable Energy, which is now owned by Goldman Sachs and called Horizon Wind Energy. Reportedly, current agreements from Horizon are identical.
Recitals
... Owner understands and accepts that operation of Generating Units may have some impact on the Wind Farm's neighbors, including the Owner's Property.
... Grantee wishes to obtain Effect, Sound and Shadow Easements from landowners who are neighbors of the Wind Farm for the benefit of the Wind Farm and as an opportunity to provide Owner with certain economic benefits to accrue from operation of the Wind Farm.
Agreement
Effects Easement. Owner grants to Grantee an easement, right and entitlement on, over, across and under Owner's Property for any audio, visual, view, light, vibration, air turbulence, wake, electromagnetic, ice or other weather created hazards or other effect of any kind whatsoever resulting directly or indirectly from (a) operations or activities of any Wind Farm or (b) the facilities of any Wind Farm now or hereafter locate on the Wind Farm Property. Owner agrees to consult with and obtain Grantee's prior written approval, in Grantee's sole discretion, as to the location of all new structures greater than sixty-five (65) feet in height proposed for Owner's Property.
Sound Easement. Owner grants Grantee an easement, right and entitlement on, over, across and under Owner's Property for any sound level (audible or otherwise) in excess of fifty (50) dB(A). As measured at the outer walls of any occupied residence sound shall not exceed the greater of: (i) a contribution from the Generating Units of fifty (50) dB(A), or (ii) a rise of sound level of six (6) dB(A) over ambient sound levels. ...
[note: that includes at night]
Shadow Easement. Owner grants Grantee an easement, right and entitlement on, over, across and under Owner's Property for any shadows cast by the Generating Units and Met Towers, wherever located, onto Owner's Property. ...
[note: those shadows move, i.e., flicker]
Term. The term of the Easements ... shall commence upon the Effective Date and shall end on the date that is thirty (30) years following the date on which the Wind Farm begins Commercial Operation. ...
Confidentiality. Owner shall not disclose to others ... the terms of this Easement Agreement.
Payment Schedule
[$250 on signing, $250 when constructionstarts, $1,000/year (increasing with Consumer Price Index) when facility starts operating.]
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, Grantee shall not be required to make any payments hereunder unless and until a wind turbine generator is constructed within twenty-five hundred (2,500) feet of any occupied residential structure on Owner's Property existing on the Effective Date, such distance as measured from the center of the wind turbine generator foundation to the nearest outer wall of such structure.
[note: the industry considers a zoning setback of 2,500 feet to be burdensome, yet here considers that the very distance within which it considers it necessary to pay off the neighbors to keep quiet about problems]
wind power, wind energy, wind farms
Recitals
... Owner understands and accepts that operation of Generating Units may have some impact on the Wind Farm's neighbors, including the Owner's Property.
... Grantee wishes to obtain Effect, Sound and Shadow Easements from landowners who are neighbors of the Wind Farm for the benefit of the Wind Farm and as an opportunity to provide Owner with certain economic benefits to accrue from operation of the Wind Farm.
Agreement
Effects Easement. Owner grants to Grantee an easement, right and entitlement on, over, across and under Owner's Property for any audio, visual, view, light, vibration, air turbulence, wake, electromagnetic, ice or other weather created hazards or other effect of any kind whatsoever resulting directly or indirectly from (a) operations or activities of any Wind Farm or (b) the facilities of any Wind Farm now or hereafter locate on the Wind Farm Property. Owner agrees to consult with and obtain Grantee's prior written approval, in Grantee's sole discretion, as to the location of all new structures greater than sixty-five (65) feet in height proposed for Owner's Property.
Sound Easement. Owner grants Grantee an easement, right and entitlement on, over, across and under Owner's Property for any sound level (audible or otherwise) in excess of fifty (50) dB(A). As measured at the outer walls of any occupied residence sound shall not exceed the greater of: (i) a contribution from the Generating Units of fifty (50) dB(A), or (ii) a rise of sound level of six (6) dB(A) over ambient sound levels. ...
[note: that includes at night]
Shadow Easement. Owner grants Grantee an easement, right and entitlement on, over, across and under Owner's Property for any shadows cast by the Generating Units and Met Towers, wherever located, onto Owner's Property. ...
[note: those shadows move, i.e., flicker]
Term. The term of the Easements ... shall commence upon the Effective Date and shall end on the date that is thirty (30) years following the date on which the Wind Farm begins Commercial Operation. ...
Confidentiality. Owner shall not disclose to others ... the terms of this Easement Agreement.
Payment Schedule
[$250 on signing, $250 when constructionstarts, $1,000/year (increasing with Consumer Price Index) when facility starts operating.]
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, Grantee shall not be required to make any payments hereunder unless and until a wind turbine generator is constructed within twenty-five hundred (2,500) feet of any occupied residential structure on Owner's Property existing on the Effective Date, such distance as measured from the center of the wind turbine generator foundation to the nearest outer wall of such structure.
[note: the industry considers a zoning setback of 2,500 feet to be burdensome, yet here considers that the very distance within which it considers it necessary to pay off the neighbors to keep quiet about problems]
wind power, wind energy, wind farms
Scudder Parker's wind turbine sales tour
WCAX-TV reported from Hinesburg (Vt.) on June 27:
That means that 384 (96 × 4) megawatts of wind power capacity would have to be installed to produce an average of 96 megawatts, or 15% of Vermont's electricity. That would require 256 330-ft-high machines like the four proposed in East Haven, or 192 400-ft-high machines like the 26 proposed in Sheffield and Sutton -- much more than "at least 100" which Parker promises.
They are obviously a lot taller and more intrusive than silos and church steeples (in fact, they're a lot taller than the Statue of Liberty, base and all), they are necessarily sited prominently, their jumbo-jet-sized rotors sweep vertical air spaces of 1-1.5 acres, and they are lit by strobes day and night.
For practical planning purposes, even more would be required. Because generation occurs only within a certain range of wind speeds and the rate of generation is cubically related to the wind speed between the "cut-in" and "rated" wind speeds (typically 8-30 mph), wind turbines generate power only two-thirds of the time and at or above their average rate only one-third of the time. And since the production responds only to the wind, it rarely correlates with user demand. Even with sufficient excess capacity from other sources on the grid to balance its intermittency and variability, the effective capacity of wind is therefore typically assumed to be a third of its expected output.
So 1,152 megawatts of wind -- 576 to 768 machines -- would be needed to reliably provide 15% of Vermont's electricity.
The absurdity goes beyond the outrageous scale for such little benefit, because if all of those turbines were actually producing power at once, most of them would have to be shut down, since base load plants can't rapidly ramp off and on.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
To talk power, Scudder Parker went to NRG Systems in Hinesburg, a company that manufactures wind measuring equipment used by wind power developers. ...Vermont uses over 5,600 gigawatt-hours of electricity in a year. That's an average load of about 640 megawatts (5,600,000 megawatt-hours divided by 8,760 hours in a year). Fifteen percent of that is 96 megawatts. The wind power salesmen say the turbines will generate more than 30% of their capacity in a year. The facility in Searsburg, however, generates only around 21% of its capacity each year. The national average output as reported to the federal Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency is 27%, but that apparently does not count out-of-commission turbines. Twenty-five percent (1/4) output is therefore a more realistic, though still generous, estimate.
Parker supports wind development and thinks the state can get 15% of its energy from wind, he says that would require at least 100 turbines on ridge lines all over Vermont.
"I don't see it as a question of aesthetics I see it as a question of people recognizing wind turbines as we recognize church steeples and silos in barns as a part of something that is making our economy healthy and giving us choices as a state."
That means that 384 (96 × 4) megawatts of wind power capacity would have to be installed to produce an average of 96 megawatts, or 15% of Vermont's electricity. That would require 256 330-ft-high machines like the four proposed in East Haven, or 192 400-ft-high machines like the 26 proposed in Sheffield and Sutton -- much more than "at least 100" which Parker promises.
They are obviously a lot taller and more intrusive than silos and church steeples (in fact, they're a lot taller than the Statue of Liberty, base and all), they are necessarily sited prominently, their jumbo-jet-sized rotors sweep vertical air spaces of 1-1.5 acres, and they are lit by strobes day and night.
For practical planning purposes, even more would be required. Because generation occurs only within a certain range of wind speeds and the rate of generation is cubically related to the wind speed between the "cut-in" and "rated" wind speeds (typically 8-30 mph), wind turbines generate power only two-thirds of the time and at or above their average rate only one-third of the time. And since the production responds only to the wind, it rarely correlates with user demand. Even with sufficient excess capacity from other sources on the grid to balance its intermittency and variability, the effective capacity of wind is therefore typically assumed to be a third of its expected output.
So 1,152 megawatts of wind -- 576 to 768 machines -- would be needed to reliably provide 15% of Vermont's electricity.
The absurdity goes beyond the outrageous scale for such little benefit, because if all of those turbines were actually producing power at once, most of them would have to be shut down, since base load plants can't rapidly ramp off and on.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
June 28, 2006
Scudder Parker running for wind turbine salesman
Most of what Parker says and proposes is spot on (about health care, too). But his "leadership" on wind power has obviously been hijacked by the industry. Tom Gray of the American Wind Energy Association, after all, is a county chairman of the Vermont Democratic Party. The comments below pertain only to electricity and the push for big wind (Parker doesn't even mention home generation).Scudder Parker for Governor:
My Vision for Vermont's Energy Future
[excerpts]
Just as healthcare is a right, not a privilege, I believe that all Vermonters have shared, basic rights concerning energy.Vermont Energy Empowerment Principles Energy problems facing Vermont have been left unaddressed:
- Reliability: All Vermonters should have access to secure and reliable heat, electricity and transportation, even in the face of external problems such as market changes, supply disruptions or political instability abroad.
- Security: All Vermonters (individuals, communities and businesses) should be able to stay warm, keep the lights on, and get from one place to another without having to sacrifice other basic needs.
- Responsibility: Vermonters have the right to an energy supply that reflects concern for economic strength, the environment and their communities.
- Leadership ...
... [T]he Douglas administration has proposed wind-siting regulations that are the most sweeping and complex of any regulations in the history of the state.
- Rising energy costs and price volatility.
- Higher demand, fewer traditional resources, looming threat of Peak Oil.
- End of contracts with Hydro-Québec and Vermont Yankee.
- Negative effects of global warming theaten Vermont's economy (i.e.: ski industry, maple trees, agriculture).
- Unreliable and strained electric grid.
... In my first year in office, I will help businesses stabilize energy costs and create jobs by implementing the following: ... A plan to promote -- not discourage -- renewable energy, including wind, thus creating more jobs and protecting our environment.
Reliability: Wind turbines generate only two-thirds of the time. They generate at or above their annual average (which is 21% of capacity at Searsburg) only one-third of the time. They respond to the minute-to-minute fluctuations of the wind, not to user demand.
Security: Not only will industrial wind facilities not "keep the lights on" (see Reliability, above), their erection requires many Vermonters to "sacrifice other basic needs," such as health, wildness, and rural tranquility.
Responsibility: Two-thirds or more of the cost of erecting industrial wind facilities is paid for by tax- and ratepayers to ensure handsome returns for private investors. Yet they do not add reliability or security to the electrical supply.
Rising and volatile prices: As they have discovered in Judith Gap, Montana, wind power on the grid has added substantial variability to the system which must be balanced by increased purchase of energy on the spot market.
Fewer resources: Vermont uses almost no fossil fuel for electricity. Even if we did, wind's intermittency and variability ensure that the use of other fuels is not reduced. Germany, with about a third of the world's installed wind capacity, is planning new coal plants as much as ever.
End of contract and license: The contract with Hydro-Québec will have to be renewed. How hard is that? And though it ought to be shut down, there's no sign that Vermont Yankee is going to be.
Global warming: In Vermont, our greenhouse gas emissions have almost nothing to do with electricity. They're from transport and heating, which Parker does address. In the realm of electricity, however, this issue requires a national and global effort to reduce consumption and clean up generation. New more sustainable sources of energy will be a part of that, but industrial wind power is a symbolic but ultimately meaningless and destructive sideshow.
Strained grid: See Reliability, above. Giant wind turbines will strain it even more, with huge surges and dips that are largely unpredictable.
Regulations: Vermont's environmental law, Act 250, effectively prevents development of the upper elevations and ridgelines of our mountains. Many towns have zoning laws further protecting such areas. But those are precisely the locations targeted by wind developers. In the Section 248 guidelines for public utilities, there was no mention of the special circumstances of large-scale wind plant siting. The state Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) determined that industrial wind was incompatible with its mission to preserve state lands for the benefit of all Vermonters. They also emphasize the unique ecosystems of higher elevations and the importance of keeping them undeveloped. As for the public service board, the "sweeping and complex" changes essentially require better public notification and allow a greater area for intervenors, since the sites would be prominent and the machines are so large (and, day and night, move and are lit), and specify that the ANR is an automatic intervenor.
Naturally, the industry does not want a fair process. They want one that they control, like they apparently control Scudder Parker's thinking about big wind. They want us to swallow their pablum about energy costs, jobs, and the environment and not have to show any evidence to back up their claims. They want to industrialize Vermont's mountaintops and don't want any one questioning the usefulness, much less the wisdom, of it.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont, animal rights
June 27, 2006
"Treehugger" protects wind industry from criticism
A correspondent has been valiantly challenging some of the many ill-founded assumptions about industrial wind power at "green lifestyle" site Treehugger. In their inability to imagine that a lot of people see the problems with big wind, she was even accused of being me! (Both of us using dial-up with the same Vermont ISP, our traffic is apparently routed through the same IP address in Connecticut.) When she did not properly defer to the authority of (or rather the evasive namecalling by) Thomas Gray of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), her further response was at first delayed -- then published when she reposted it half a day later. Further response to Gray's empty retort now appears to have been completely censored. She wrote to the editor of Treehugger but received no reply.
It seems the reputations of AWEA and Andrew Perchlik of Renewable Energy Vermont and now "Reimaginations" (with its fascist slogan, "the beauty of power") are fragile and must be protected. Their arguments are certainly fragile. She sent me her last reply to post here (links added).
() () ()
It is apparent that Tom Gray has a problem with misrepresentation, both of his product and his critics.
I noted only that the NYSERDA report's effective capacity value was fantasy.
The UWIG report, as I also noted, is a phantasmagoria. From that report:
"The addition of a wind plant to a power system increases the amount of variability and uncertainty of the net load. This may introduce measurable changes in the amount of operating reserves required for regulation, ramping and load-following. Operating reserves may consist of both spinning and non-spinning reserves."
They describe the cost of that extra burden as small, but they do not consider the effect on fuel use, i.e., more inefficiency causing more fuel burning and cancelling much of the theoretical benefit of wind power on the grid. Nor do they consider the cost (let alone the negative envronmental and social impacts) of adding the wind plant itself.
Gray points to GE's work on the UWIG report and on others. Yes, they know energy, but they are also the primary wind turbine manufacturer in the U.S., after buying the business from Enron. That could be perceived as a conflict of interest.
I already provided data showing the lack of change in Denmark's fuel use despite claiming that 20% of their electricity is produced by wind. And I already mentioned recent news stories about Germany's expansion of coal use.
For his part, if Tom Gray believes Denmark and Germany are success stories in replacing other fuels with wind, where are the data that substantiate that claim?
It seems the reputations of AWEA and Andrew Perchlik of Renewable Energy Vermont and now "Reimaginations" (with its fascist slogan, "the beauty of power") are fragile and must be protected. Their arguments are certainly fragile. She sent me her last reply to post here (links added).
It is apparent that Tom Gray has a problem with misrepresentation, both of his product and his critics.
I noted only that the NYSERDA report's effective capacity value was fantasy.
The UWIG report, as I also noted, is a phantasmagoria. From that report:
"The addition of a wind plant to a power system increases the amount of variability and uncertainty of the net load. This may introduce measurable changes in the amount of operating reserves required for regulation, ramping and load-following. Operating reserves may consist of both spinning and non-spinning reserves."
They describe the cost of that extra burden as small, but they do not consider the effect on fuel use, i.e., more inefficiency causing more fuel burning and cancelling much of the theoretical benefit of wind power on the grid. Nor do they consider the cost (let alone the negative envronmental and social impacts) of adding the wind plant itself.
Gray points to GE's work on the UWIG report and on others. Yes, they know energy, but they are also the primary wind turbine manufacturer in the U.S., after buying the business from Enron. That could be perceived as a conflict of interest.
I already provided data showing the lack of change in Denmark's fuel use despite claiming that 20% of their electricity is produced by wind. And I already mentioned recent news stories about Germany's expansion of coal use.
For his part, if Tom Gray believes Denmark and Germany are success stories in replacing other fuels with wind, where are the data that substantiate that claim?
-- Rosa
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont, anarchism, ecoanarchism
June 22, 2006
Wind power found wanting
ABS Energy Research of London has recently published its 3rd "Wind Power Report." It costs £830, but the description gives one an idea of the main issue, namely, that the claimed benefits from wind power are not actually seen.
wind power, wind energy
IntroductionYou can save yourself a lot of money and read "The Low Benefit of Industrial Wind," which appears to contain much of the same information, for free.
... Significant industry issues are emerging as operational data becomes available from the major wind power operators such as E.ON Netz, Eltra and ESB.
In 2003 the Irish government declared a moratorium on further wind power development. This opens many questions about the assumptions and claims made for wind power.
Key Findings
The wind power industry is reaching a highly controversial phase in its development as solid operational data becomes available about its performance, limitations and effects on the grid.
The ABS report concludes that governments, developers and operators should seriously consider their options regarding wind power.
Wind power reports have now been published by energy agencies and the network operators in USA, Germany, Spain, Denmark and Ireland, delineating critical problems. Deutsche EnergieAgentur (dena) has published a comprehensive report on German wind power on behalf of the Federal Government, together with the utility and wind and industries.
The dena report assessed the capacity credit of wind power in Germany in 2003 as 890-1,230 MW, i.e. 6% of installed wind capacity of 14,603 MW, rising to 1,820-2,300 MW for 36,000 MW installed in 2015, with a reserve capacity requirement of 7,000 MW.
The claimed savings in GHG emissions has been questioned.
Denmark exported over 80% of wind generated electricity to Norway in 2004, which has 98.5% carbon-free hydro generation, because wind delivered a surplus of 84%, according to the CEO of Eltra, almost nullifying any emissions savings.
Wind's intermittency places a large strain on system balance.
A new understanding is emerging about the relative efficiencies and emissions of base load operation of fossil fuel plant versus plant used in back up of a variable source.
Wind power has been promoted for politico/environmental reasons and wind developers have benefited from substantial subsidies, leading to exaggerated claims. A reality check is needed.
Reasons to Buy
With the first real evidence of performance from some of the most authoritative sources in the power industry, the claims for wind power are being called into question.
Anyone involved in this industry should have this information and be aware of these results.
Be wary when the wind industry describes a criticism of wind power as a "myth."
Industry figures like the CEOs of E.ON Netz and Eltra do not deal in myths and solutions, they have real experience and more data than anyone else. They record what has actually happened.
wind power, wind energy
Wind power = tons of concrete
According to the June 17 Dodge City Daily Globe, reporting on the "inauguration" of the Spearville Wind Energy Facility in Kansas (which is under construction),
And added to the height of the tower is the sweep of the blades that extend another 126 feet, for a total height of 388 feet, lit up and moving (and making noise) night and day.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, animal rights
It took 1,822 truckloads of concrete to build the 67 foundations for the wind towers, and each foundation required 272 cubic yards of concrete. The height of each tower will be 262 feet, compared to the tallest building in Kansas, the Epic Center in Wichita, which is 325 feet.That's 27 truckloads of concrete, at least 27 tons, for each turbine. Along with the roads and new high-voltage transmission structures that the article also mentions (to get the energy from western Kansas to where it's actually needed), that's a serious impact on the prairie ecology.
And added to the height of the tower is the sweep of the blades that extend another 126 feet, for a total height of 388 feet, lit up and moving (and making noise) night and day.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, animal rights
June 20, 2006
Tug Hill: A Cautionary Tale
The following is by Calvin Luther Martin of Malone, N.Y., dated June 19, 2006.
Sue Brander is an older woman. In her sixties, I would hazard to guess. She's a gardener, raises Morgan horses and, in years past, was a "major event" organizer. Sue's also a professional writer.
Sue lives in a little town in the Mohawk Valley, New York. Right about the center of the state (close to Herkimer, NY, if you know the geography). Hilly, lovely area. Lots of Amish around.
This past winter Sue showed up on my radar screen: I spotted an article she wrote in the Richfield Springs, NY, newspaper, on wind turbines coming to town. It was obvious this woman named Sue Brander was much concerned.
Last week Sue staged a modest "major event" in Stark, a village near her home. She put together a 3-hour conference on wind energy, featuring Gordon Yancey, owner of the Flatrock Inn, smack in the middle of the Tug Hill Plateau (Lewis County, NY). Gordon is worth inviting to a wind conference because his inn is surrounded by 135 (give or take) industrial turbines. The closest being 1000' away. The Tug Hill turbines went on-line this past January. Sue also had Nick Pressley, owner of an environmental engineering firm, speak about environmental impacts of wind plants. She had another expert address the finances of wind energy and Dr. Nina Pierpont speak (by teleconference) about health hazards of living close to turbines.
It was a powerful evening, I am told. ...
Three days later Sue sent out the e-mail about her (adult) daughter visiting the Tug Hill windplant a day after the conference.
If you live anywhere near New York State, do what the wind salesmen are always inviting people to do: "Go see for yourself." The usual invitation runs like this: "Go to Fenner and see for yourself."
But don't go to Fenner, NY, where there are 20 smallish turbines (which, we have reason to think, have their generators turned off much of the time, to cut the noise for this Poster Child Wind Farm). Go, instead, to Tug Hill, and experience those 135 goliath turbines. Go, experience what Gordon Yancey daily experiences. (I have seen Gordon weep in public over the industrial freak show and neurological nightmare he must now live with.)
Go to Tug Hill to see for yourself if you, too, "keep wanting to turn left, because the whole world is turning left." Or, maybe you're one of the lucky 80% of the population that doesn't suffer from inner ear sensitivity (motion sickness), producing the vertigo and nausea this man, Jeremy, describes. I suppose if you're one of that 80% you can drive away (in a straight line) from Tug Hill and announce, as wind salesmen routinely do, that it's fine to have wind turbines littering the residential landscape -- that you don't find them (literally) nauseating and (literally) vertiginous and, hence, everyone should experience them the way you do.
Yes, I have heard this said many times in public meetings in Clinton, Ellenburg, and Brandon, NY. The people who say this go to church on a Sunday morn' and they lay claim, in addition, to having a functioning brain and, hence, modicum of intelligence. A modicum of morality and intelligence, as it were.
But as I leave these meetings, I have my doubts. And I think the Leviathan named Almighty Dollar has swallowed them whole.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, animal rights
Sue Brander is an older woman. In her sixties, I would hazard to guess. She's a gardener, raises Morgan horses and, in years past, was a "major event" organizer. Sue's also a professional writer.
Sue lives in a little town in the Mohawk Valley, New York. Right about the center of the state (close to Herkimer, NY, if you know the geography). Hilly, lovely area. Lots of Amish around.
This past winter Sue showed up on my radar screen: I spotted an article she wrote in the Richfield Springs, NY, newspaper, on wind turbines coming to town. It was obvious this woman named Sue Brander was much concerned.
Last week Sue staged a modest "major event" in Stark, a village near her home. She put together a 3-hour conference on wind energy, featuring Gordon Yancey, owner of the Flatrock Inn, smack in the middle of the Tug Hill Plateau (Lewis County, NY). Gordon is worth inviting to a wind conference because his inn is surrounded by 135 (give or take) industrial turbines. The closest being 1000' away. The Tug Hill turbines went on-line this past January. Sue also had Nick Pressley, owner of an environmental engineering firm, speak about environmental impacts of wind plants. She had another expert address the finances of wind energy and Dr. Nina Pierpont speak (by teleconference) about health hazards of living close to turbines.
It was a powerful evening, I am told. ...
Three days later Sue sent out the e-mail about her (adult) daughter visiting the Tug Hill windplant a day after the conference.
If you live anywhere near New York State, do what the wind salesmen are always inviting people to do: "Go see for yourself." The usual invitation runs like this: "Go to Fenner and see for yourself."
But don't go to Fenner, NY, where there are 20 smallish turbines (which, we have reason to think, have their generators turned off much of the time, to cut the noise for this Poster Child Wind Farm). Go, instead, to Tug Hill, and experience those 135 goliath turbines. Go, experience what Gordon Yancey daily experiences. (I have seen Gordon weep in public over the industrial freak show and neurological nightmare he must now live with.)
Go to Tug Hill to see for yourself if you, too, "keep wanting to turn left, because the whole world is turning left." Or, maybe you're one of the lucky 80% of the population that doesn't suffer from inner ear sensitivity (motion sickness), producing the vertigo and nausea this man, Jeremy, describes. I suppose if you're one of that 80% you can drive away (in a straight line) from Tug Hill and announce, as wind salesmen routinely do, that it's fine to have wind turbines littering the residential landscape -- that you don't find them (literally) nauseating and (literally) vertiginous and, hence, everyone should experience them the way you do.
Yes, I have heard this said many times in public meetings in Clinton, Ellenburg, and Brandon, NY. The people who say this go to church on a Sunday morn' and they lay claim, in addition, to having a functioning brain and, hence, modicum of intelligence. A modicum of morality and intelligence, as it were.
But as I leave these meetings, I have my doubts. And I think the Leviathan named Almighty Dollar has swallowed them whole.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, animal rights
Eyes opened by Tug Hill wind turbines
The following is by a resident of Stark, N.Y., dated June 19, 2006.
She started in on me about Tug Hill Plateau. "We went for a drive last night," she said. "We went to Herkimer for dinner and Jeremy wanted to go for a ride. We drove up to Barneveldt and stopped for ice cream. Then we went on to Booneville and Lowville."
That's where the 195-turbine wind factory is.
"You have to go there! It's awful! Just awful! We can't let this happen here. I've never seen anything so awful." ...
She went on and on. There was some wind, but not much, on June 17. The turbines were just hissing. They arrived there shortly before dusk, and stayed for the turnover to darkness, to see the lights on the turbine towers. They were there for not more than an hour, perhaps less.
"You absolutely cannot compare Fenner and Madison to this," she said. "These are much taller than Fenner and Madison. And there are more of them. This is more like what ours will be, 80 turbines in neighborhoods. There is no comparison. We have to get our Town Board members to go up there. You look at the horizon and you see tips spinning, and you know there are more, just over the next hill. It never ends. It's like having turbines from here to Herkimer."
After I drove her home, her husband insisted that I come inside and see the video on his cell phone. "I almost drove off the road," he said. "I kept wanting to turn left, because the whole world was turning left. I got dizzy, and I was dizzy for ten minutes after we left the area." ...
He began calculating the area of the rotor sweep. "They were spinning at 16 revolutions per minute," he said. "I counted the revolutions. There are three blades. That's 48 blade sweeps per minute." "That's how many times you're going to get strobe flicker if you're in the shadow of these things," he said. "And they give you window blinds to stop it? That won't work. And you sure can't sit outside in the yard with a strobe flicker like that." ...
Many times over the past six months, we had quarreled over these turbines. She didn't want to believe that neighbors planning to put turbines on their property would be doing any harm to us. When she heard Gordon Yancey [owner of the Flatrock Inn on the Tug Hill Plateau] on Thursday evening, they could barely hear at the back of the standing room only crowd. But they heard enough to convince them to go up to Lowville and see for themselves.
... She now knows these turbines could sicken animals and people. The motion. The low frequency sound. The stray voltage. ... She was not dizzy and didn't get motion sickness when they went to Lowville. But she saw what happened to her husband. The effects of motion and sound vary in the population. When she saw what happened to him, suddenly everything she heard and read came into focus. ...
"We have to get every lease holder to go up there to Lowville," she said. It's only 2 hours one way. We left at 6:00, and we were home by midnight. We stopped for dinner on the way. Everybody has to make it their personal mission to get one landowner to go up there and see this."
"I had nightmares about the turbines all night last night," her husband said this Sunday afternoon.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, animal rights
She started in on me about Tug Hill Plateau. "We went for a drive last night," she said. "We went to Herkimer for dinner and Jeremy wanted to go for a ride. We drove up to Barneveldt and stopped for ice cream. Then we went on to Booneville and Lowville."
That's where the 195-turbine wind factory is.
"You have to go there! It's awful! Just awful! We can't let this happen here. I've never seen anything so awful." ...
She went on and on. There was some wind, but not much, on June 17. The turbines were just hissing. They arrived there shortly before dusk, and stayed for the turnover to darkness, to see the lights on the turbine towers. They were there for not more than an hour, perhaps less.
"You absolutely cannot compare Fenner and Madison to this," she said. "These are much taller than Fenner and Madison. And there are more of them. This is more like what ours will be, 80 turbines in neighborhoods. There is no comparison. We have to get our Town Board members to go up there. You look at the horizon and you see tips spinning, and you know there are more, just over the next hill. It never ends. It's like having turbines from here to Herkimer."
After I drove her home, her husband insisted that I come inside and see the video on his cell phone. "I almost drove off the road," he said. "I kept wanting to turn left, because the whole world was turning left. I got dizzy, and I was dizzy for ten minutes after we left the area." ...
He began calculating the area of the rotor sweep. "They were spinning at 16 revolutions per minute," he said. "I counted the revolutions. There are three blades. That's 48 blade sweeps per minute." "That's how many times you're going to get strobe flicker if you're in the shadow of these things," he said. "And they give you window blinds to stop it? That won't work. And you sure can't sit outside in the yard with a strobe flicker like that." ...
Many times over the past six months, we had quarreled over these turbines. She didn't want to believe that neighbors planning to put turbines on their property would be doing any harm to us. When she heard Gordon Yancey [owner of the Flatrock Inn on the Tug Hill Plateau] on Thursday evening, they could barely hear at the back of the standing room only crowd. But they heard enough to convince them to go up to Lowville and see for themselves.
... She now knows these turbines could sicken animals and people. The motion. The low frequency sound. The stray voltage. ... She was not dizzy and didn't get motion sickness when they went to Lowville. But she saw what happened to her husband. The effects of motion and sound vary in the population. When she saw what happened to him, suddenly everything she heard and read came into focus. ...
"We have to get every lease holder to go up there to Lowville," she said. It's only 2 hours one way. We left at 6:00, and we were home by midnight. We stopped for dinner on the way. Everybody has to make it their personal mission to get one landowner to go up there and see this."
"I had nightmares about the turbines all night last night," her husband said this Sunday afternoon.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, animal rights
June 17, 2006
A note about NIMBY
Promoters of industrial wind development in rural and wild areas generally dismiss the defenders of those rural and wild areas as NIMBY, i.e., supporting wind power but "not in my back yard."
But where are the promoters pushing these developments? Not in their back yards! It looks like they're the real NIMBYs.
Most opponents of industrial wind don't support it anywhere. They've looked into it and found it wanting.
And a note about aesthetics
Related to the dishonest NIMBY charge is that we are concerned only with aesthetics. Aesthetics are, of course, an important part of most people's rejection of industrial wind turbines: Anything that big that is lit up and moves and makes noise and dominates the skyline had better be worth it, and it doesn't take long to discover that they are not.
But the industry would rather avoid that debate, so they dismiss their critics as mere aesthetes, concerned only with their precious views, blind to the whole planet sinking into a hellhole. (And don't ask if lining the hills with giant wind turbines can have a significant effect against the pursuit of that quagmire, because that would obviously mean you don't think the problem is so grave that doing anything, even if it doesn't actually do anything, is better than doing nothing. That is, The world is hell-bent for destruction, and you're just being negative!)
So who sponsors an art exhibit to show how "aesthetic" the giant turbines are? Industry lobbyists Andrew Perchlik and the American Wind Energy Association! It looks like they're the ones trying to make it an aesthetic issue. Unfortunately, they have to resort to imagination.
The reality is too obvious. They are giant intrusive machines way out of place in rural and wild areas. There's new roads and transmission infrastructure involved, too.
And their potential energy contribution is puny. Their ability to replace other fuels, particularly base-load providers such as coal and nuclear, is nil.
That's what really makes them ugly.
It's the same old story. A lot of hucksters are getting rich by making other people's lives hell. "The beauty [sic] of power" indeed.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, Vermont, anarchism, ecoanarchism
But where are the promoters pushing these developments? Not in their back yards! It looks like they're the real NIMBYs.
Most opponents of industrial wind don't support it anywhere. They've looked into it and found it wanting.
And a note about aesthetics
Related to the dishonest NIMBY charge is that we are concerned only with aesthetics. Aesthetics are, of course, an important part of most people's rejection of industrial wind turbines: Anything that big that is lit up and moves and makes noise and dominates the skyline had better be worth it, and it doesn't take long to discover that they are not.
But the industry would rather avoid that debate, so they dismiss their critics as mere aesthetes, concerned only with their precious views, blind to the whole planet sinking into a hellhole. (And don't ask if lining the hills with giant wind turbines can have a significant effect against the pursuit of that quagmire, because that would obviously mean you don't think the problem is so grave that doing anything, even if it doesn't actually do anything, is better than doing nothing. That is, The world is hell-bent for destruction, and you're just being negative!)
So who sponsors an art exhibit to show how "aesthetic" the giant turbines are? Industry lobbyists Andrew Perchlik and the American Wind Energy Association! It looks like they're the ones trying to make it an aesthetic issue. Unfortunately, they have to resort to imagination.
The reality is too obvious. They are giant intrusive machines way out of place in rural and wild areas. There's new roads and transmission infrastructure involved, too.
And their potential energy contribution is puny. Their ability to replace other fuels, particularly base-load providers such as coal and nuclear, is nil.
That's what really makes them ugly.
It's the same old story. A lot of hucksters are getting rich by making other people's lives hell. "The beauty [sic] of power" indeed.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, Vermont, anarchism, ecoanarchism
June 16, 2006
Who wants wind power?
To the Editor, Brattleboro (Vt.) Reformer:
The Reformer asks, in its argument for industrial-scale wind power (editorial, June 13), if Governor Douglas would like to see a nuclear plant in Chittenden County, a coal plant near Montpelier, or a natural gas plant near Rutland. Since most of the wind plants in Vermont are proposed up here in the northeast, one might also ask if advocates would like to see giant wind machines on the Northfield and Worcester ranges around Montpelier or lining the shore of Lake Champlain.
How about replacing the Bennington Battle Monument with a few wind turbines that would be over a hundred feet higher, distract with their movement and flashing lights, and disturb with their noise?
Faced with the prospect of actually having to live with the things, many who currently advocate industrial-scale wind power would, like their fellows in the northeast and everywhere else a project is proposed, start looking more seriously at the technology and more honestly weigh the costs and benefits.
They will discover that it is not a delusional love of the status quo or a lack of creativity that turns them against big wind. It is the obvious fact that the benefits are negligible yet the negative impacts are substantial.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
The Reformer asks, in its argument for industrial-scale wind power (editorial, June 13), if Governor Douglas would like to see a nuclear plant in Chittenden County, a coal plant near Montpelier, or a natural gas plant near Rutland. Since most of the wind plants in Vermont are proposed up here in the northeast, one might also ask if advocates would like to see giant wind machines on the Northfield and Worcester ranges around Montpelier or lining the shore of Lake Champlain.
How about replacing the Bennington Battle Monument with a few wind turbines that would be over a hundred feet higher, distract with their movement and flashing lights, and disturb with their noise?
Faced with the prospect of actually having to live with the things, many who currently advocate industrial-scale wind power would, like their fellows in the northeast and everywhere else a project is proposed, start looking more seriously at the technology and more honestly weigh the costs and benefits.
They will discover that it is not a delusional love of the status quo or a lack of creativity that turns them against big wind. It is the obvious fact that the benefits are negligible yet the negative impacts are substantial.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
Less incentive needed for wind power boondoggle
To the Editor, New York Times:
Since Goldman Sachs and others are already investing so much in renewable energy projects ("Let Them Go Green," editorial, June 12), one wonders why the Times thinks they need more incentive to do so. For example, the purchase of wind developer Zilkha (now Horizon) Renewable Energy was hardly a risk. According to legal firm Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, federal subsidies can pay for two-thirds of the value of a wind project. State subsidies may cover another ten percent. The modern wind industry (home of Zilkha/Horizon) was developed in Texas by George Bush and Kenneth Lay, and it shows.
Public investment may help to establish new beneficial technologies, but industrial-scale wind power is not one of them.
Because its generation of electricity depends on the wind speed, it is highly variable and can not significantly reduce our use of other fuels. This has been the experience in Denmark. The benefits are neglible, but the negative environmental and social impacts are substantial. The machines are huge -- now commonly more than 400 feet high -- and necessarily numerous, requiring new roads and transmission infrastructure in typically wild and rural landscapes.
We need less incentive for such a boondoggle, not more.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
Since Goldman Sachs and others are already investing so much in renewable energy projects ("Let Them Go Green," editorial, June 12), one wonders why the Times thinks they need more incentive to do so. For example, the purchase of wind developer Zilkha (now Horizon) Renewable Energy was hardly a risk. According to legal firm Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, federal subsidies can pay for two-thirds of the value of a wind project. State subsidies may cover another ten percent. The modern wind industry (home of Zilkha/Horizon) was developed in Texas by George Bush and Kenneth Lay, and it shows.
Public investment may help to establish new beneficial technologies, but industrial-scale wind power is not one of them.
Because its generation of electricity depends on the wind speed, it is highly variable and can not significantly reduce our use of other fuels. This has been the experience in Denmark. The benefits are neglible, but the negative environmental and social impacts are substantial. The machines are huge -- now commonly more than 400 feet high -- and necessarily numerous, requiring new roads and transmission infrastructure in typically wild and rural landscapes.
We need less incentive for such a boondoggle, not more.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
June 15, 2006
Cape Wind to study birds
Lest anyone has believed the developer's song that the studies have already been done concerning birds in Nantucket Sound, this article from the June 5 Cape Cod Times serves as a reminder that they've barely begun.
... Before Cape Wind can build turbines on the sound, it first must prove to skeptics -- and the state -- that, among other things, the 417-foot-tall towers won't harm birds.wind power, wind energy, wind farms, animal rights, environment, environmentalism
A scientific team hired by the developer is completing a six-week, $400,000 radar study of the sound to characterize just how many birds fly through this offshore location -- and, critically, at what heights.
For the second time, the developer is using sophisticated radar during springtime on Horseshoe Shoal itself. It's a time when winter songbirds arrive from the warmth of South America and hundreds of thousands of ducks also pass through.
... While the [Massachusetts Audubon Society] has offered preliminary support for the project ... Jack Clarke, director of public policy and government relations for Massachusetts Audubon, says there are still some gaps in bird data on the sound.
In particular, they want to know more about the nighttime patterns of long-tailed ducks on the sound; the trends of endangered terns and threatened plovers; and just how many songbirds are flying through the area and where they are passing.
... Cape Wind has already conducted three radar studies to follow bird patterns.
But critics have complained that results from two of the studies were questionable since they were collected at remote, land-based sites.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for instance, has urged three years of radar study before a conclusion can be drawn. ...
June 12, 2006
Wind power is foolish choice
To the editor, Berkshire (Mass.) Eagle [published June 14]:
Philip Knowles says that no one is proposing lining our hills with industrial wind turbines (letter, June 12). But then he says that wind can supply 10-20 percent of our electricity. The larger figure would require more than 220,000 1.5-megawatt turbines and 26,000 square miles. As demand continues to grow, it would require yet more. But since wind turbines generate at or above their average rate only a third of the time, and their output varies from minute to minute, it would not enable the reduction of other sources. Large-scale wind is a foolish and destructive path to follow.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
Philip Knowles says that no one is proposing lining our hills with industrial wind turbines (letter, June 12). But then he says that wind can supply 10-20 percent of our electricity. The larger figure would require more than 220,000 1.5-megawatt turbines and 26,000 square miles. As demand continues to grow, it would require yet more. But since wind turbines generate at or above their average rate only a third of the time, and their output varies from minute to minute, it would not enable the reduction of other sources. Large-scale wind is a foolish and destructive path to follow.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
No benefits from wind power
To the editor, Village Soup Citizen (Waldo County, Me.):
The Citizen Editorial Board of Freedom is mistaken in describing wind power as inexpensive ("The power of Freedom," guest column, June 12). Taxpayers pay about two-thirds of the $1.5-2 million it costs per installed megawatt. Ratepayers pay for the additional transmission infrastructure necessary as well as the consequences of integrating such an intermittent and variable source.
They are also mistaken in touting the "environmental and energy security advantages." Each installed megawatt generates at an average of only 250-300 kilowatts, and it does so at or above that rate only a third of the time. Its minute-to-minute variability means that all other power sources must be kept going to balance the wind-generated power.
Thus there are no significant energy or environmental benefits.
With no real benefits to speak of, the substantial negative impacts of the giant machines are therefore inexcusable.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
The Citizen Editorial Board of Freedom is mistaken in describing wind power as inexpensive ("The power of Freedom," guest column, June 12). Taxpayers pay about two-thirds of the $1.5-2 million it costs per installed megawatt. Ratepayers pay for the additional transmission infrastructure necessary as well as the consequences of integrating such an intermittent and variable source.
They are also mistaken in touting the "environmental and energy security advantages." Each installed megawatt generates at an average of only 250-300 kilowatts, and it does so at or above that rate only a third of the time. Its minute-to-minute variability means that all other power sources must be kept going to balance the wind-generated power.
Thus there are no significant energy or environmental benefits.
With no real benefits to speak of, the substantial negative impacts of the giant machines are therefore inexcusable.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
Wind power saves nothing
To the editor, Kennebec (Me.) Journal (published June 18):
The June 12 editorial ("We need wind power to fight global warming") is unconvincing. To argue for allowing "the loss of a beautiful view, the potential damage to wildlife species and the industrialization of a largely untouched landscape," it says that not doing so would cause even greater destruction.
In other words, we must destroy the environment to save it.
Missing from that harsh logic, however, is any evidence that industrial wind power can indeed "stem global warming's progress." With 20% of its electricity supposedly coming from wind, Denmark's greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. That country has not reduced its use of other fuels despite a landscape saturated with wind turbines.
In other words, wind power destroys the environment. Period. It saves nothing.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
The June 12 editorial ("We need wind power to fight global warming") is unconvincing. To argue for allowing "the loss of a beautiful view, the potential damage to wildlife species and the industrialization of a largely untouched landscape," it says that not doing so would cause even greater destruction.
In other words, we must destroy the environment to save it.
Missing from that harsh logic, however, is any evidence that industrial wind power can indeed "stem global warming's progress." With 20% of its electricity supposedly coming from wind, Denmark's greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. That country has not reduced its use of other fuels despite a landscape saturated with wind turbines.
In other words, wind power destroys the environment. Period. It saves nothing.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
June 10, 2006
Incomplete wind energy info at Vt. Guardian
To the editor, Vermont Guardian:
The sidebar accompanying the article "Wind developer pulls up stakes, state issues new regs" contains some inaccuracies and is incomplete in its list of proposals.
First, the current Searsburg facility generates only around 11,000 MWh per year, not the 14,000 claimed. This information is readily available in GMP's annual reports. The difference should also call into question the projections claimed for the many proposed projects around the state. [For more information, see "The Poor Record of the Searsburg, Vermont, Wind Plant."]
In February, Enxco (a subsidiary of Électricité de France) sold the development rights to expand the Searsburg facility into Readsboro to PPM Energy, a subsidiary of Scottish Power. This apparently includes the expansion within Searsburg.
The Glebe Mountain project from Catamount Energy (which is owned by Diamond Castle Holdings and Marubeni Energy International of Japan) was to entail not 27 turbines but 19, each of them with a rated capacity of 2.5 MW and a total height of 420 feet.
The proposal from UPC (a subsidiary of UPC Group, Italy) in Sheffield and Sutton would have a maximum capacity of not 45 but 52 MW, with 2-MW 399-ft machines.
Other projects not listed, besides the 6 MW starter facility in East Haven which was mentioned in the article, include further development (possibly around 50 MW) along the ridges from East Haven to Brighton (EMDC), around 50 MW on a ridge in Windham (UPC), and around 20 MW on Georgia Mountain in Milton (which Enxco may be behind). Through Vermont Environmental Research Associates, Enxco has been advertising for yet more "high-elevation woodland" on which to construct power plants. [For more details of regional projects, see "Large wind projects in Vermont and vicinity."]
The negative impact of these projects would be significant. The energy benefit, on the other hand, because of their variability and intermittency, would be nil.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
The sidebar accompanying the article "Wind developer pulls up stakes, state issues new regs" contains some inaccuracies and is incomplete in its list of proposals.
First, the current Searsburg facility generates only around 11,000 MWh per year, not the 14,000 claimed. This information is readily available in GMP's annual reports. The difference should also call into question the projections claimed for the many proposed projects around the state. [For more information, see "The Poor Record of the Searsburg, Vermont, Wind Plant."]
In February, Enxco (a subsidiary of Électricité de France) sold the development rights to expand the Searsburg facility into Readsboro to PPM Energy, a subsidiary of Scottish Power. This apparently includes the expansion within Searsburg.
The Glebe Mountain project from Catamount Energy (which is owned by Diamond Castle Holdings and Marubeni Energy International of Japan) was to entail not 27 turbines but 19, each of them with a rated capacity of 2.5 MW and a total height of 420 feet.
The proposal from UPC (a subsidiary of UPC Group, Italy) in Sheffield and Sutton would have a maximum capacity of not 45 but 52 MW, with 2-MW 399-ft machines.
Other projects not listed, besides the 6 MW starter facility in East Haven which was mentioned in the article, include further development (possibly around 50 MW) along the ridges from East Haven to Brighton (EMDC), around 50 MW on a ridge in Windham (UPC), and around 20 MW on Georgia Mountain in Milton (which Enxco may be behind). Through Vermont Environmental Research Associates, Enxco has been advertising for yet more "high-elevation woodland" on which to construct power plants. [For more details of regional projects, see "Large wind projects in Vermont and vicinity."]
The negative impact of these projects would be significant. The energy benefit, on the other hand, because of their variability and intermittency, would be nil.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
June 8, 2006
June 7, 2006
Model large wind energy ordinance
A model ordinance for small wind, from Malone, New York, has been previously presented. The Malone definition of small wind energy systems is more realistic than the one reproduced here. Malone limits small wind systems to 10 kW and to tower heights of 65 feet on parcels of 1-5 acres and 100 feet on parcels over 5 acres. The Malone ordinance also requires 1500-ft setbacks for large wind energy systems if they are forced through despite the ordinance's outright ban. (Manitowoc also produced an ordinance for small wind, but it is highly restrictive because of efforts by wind company representatives on the drafting committee to sabotage the whole law-making effort.)
The Manitowoc County ordinance, which became effect May 1, is notable for its strict limitation of noise to 5 dB(A) above the ambient level at any point on neighboring property. Here are excerpts.
Large Wind Energy System Ordinance
"Large wind system" means a wind tower and turbine that has a nameplate capacity of more than 100 kilowatts or a total height of more than 170 feet, or both.
24.06. Standards
(1) Location. (a) A large wind system may only be located in areas that are zoned A3-Agriculture or PA-Prime Agricultural. (b) A wind tower may not be located within one-quarter mile of any area that is zoned C1-Conservancy or NA-Natural Area or within one-quarter mile of any state or county forest, hunting area, lake access, natural area, or park.
(2) Set Backs. The wind tower in a large wind system and each wind tower in a wind farm system must be set back:
(a) at least 1.1 times the total height of the large wind system from the property line of a participating property.
(b) at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a nonparticipating property unless the owner of the nonparticipating property grants an easement for a lesser setback. The easement must be recorded with the Register of Deeds and may not provide for a setback that is less than 1.1 times the total height of the large wind system.
(c) at least 1.1 times the total height of the large wind system or 500 feet, whichever is greater, from any public road or power line right-of-way.
(10) Lighting. A wind tower and turbine may not be artificially lighted unless such lighting is required by the Federal Aviation Administration. If lighting is required, the lighting must comply with FAA minimum requirements and, whenever possible, be at the lowest intensity allowed, avoid the use of strobe or other intermittent white lights, and use steady red lights. If more than one lighting alternative is available, the alternative that causes the least visual disturbance must be used.
(12) Appearance, Color, and Finish. The exterior surface of any visible components of a wind energy system must be a nonreflective, neutral color. Wind towers and turbines in a wind farm system that are located within one mile of each other must be of uniform design, including tower type, color, number of blades, and direction of blade rotation.
(13) Signs. No wind turbine, tower, building, or other structure associated with a wind energy system may be used to advertise or promote any product or service. No word or graphic representation, other than appropriate warning signs and owner or landowner identification, may be placed on a wind turbine, tower, building, or other structure associated with a wind energy system so as to be visible from any public road.
(14) Noise. The noise generated by the operation of a large wind energy system may not exceed the ambient noise level by more than 5 dB(A) as measured at any point on property adjacent to the parcel on which the large wind energy system is located. The noise level generated by the operation of a large wind energy system will be determined during the investigation of a noise complaint by comparing the sound level measured when the wind generator blades are rotating to the sound level measured when the wind generator blades are stopped.
(15) Flicker or Shadow Flicker. The owner of a large wind system must take such reasonable steps as are necessary to prevent, mitigate, and eliminate shadow flicker on any occupied structure on a nonparticipating property.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, animal rights
The Manitowoc County ordinance, which became effect May 1, is notable for its strict limitation of noise to 5 dB(A) above the ambient level at any point on neighboring property. Here are excerpts.
"Large wind system" means a wind tower and turbine that has a nameplate capacity of more than 100 kilowatts or a total height of more than 170 feet, or both.
24.06. Standards
(1) Location. (a) A large wind system may only be located in areas that are zoned A3-Agriculture or PA-Prime Agricultural. (b) A wind tower may not be located within one-quarter mile of any area that is zoned C1-Conservancy or NA-Natural Area or within one-quarter mile of any state or county forest, hunting area, lake access, natural area, or park.
(2) Set Backs. The wind tower in a large wind system and each wind tower in a wind farm system must be set back:
(a) at least 1.1 times the total height of the large wind system from the property line of a participating property.
(b) at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a nonparticipating property unless the owner of the nonparticipating property grants an easement for a lesser setback. The easement must be recorded with the Register of Deeds and may not provide for a setback that is less than 1.1 times the total height of the large wind system.
(c) at least 1.1 times the total height of the large wind system or 500 feet, whichever is greater, from any public road or power line right-of-way.
(10) Lighting. A wind tower and turbine may not be artificially lighted unless such lighting is required by the Federal Aviation Administration. If lighting is required, the lighting must comply with FAA minimum requirements and, whenever possible, be at the lowest intensity allowed, avoid the use of strobe or other intermittent white lights, and use steady red lights. If more than one lighting alternative is available, the alternative that causes the least visual disturbance must be used.
(12) Appearance, Color, and Finish. The exterior surface of any visible components of a wind energy system must be a nonreflective, neutral color. Wind towers and turbines in a wind farm system that are located within one mile of each other must be of uniform design, including tower type, color, number of blades, and direction of blade rotation.
(13) Signs. No wind turbine, tower, building, or other structure associated with a wind energy system may be used to advertise or promote any product or service. No word or graphic representation, other than appropriate warning signs and owner or landowner identification, may be placed on a wind turbine, tower, building, or other structure associated with a wind energy system so as to be visible from any public road.
(14) Noise. The noise generated by the operation of a large wind energy system may not exceed the ambient noise level by more than 5 dB(A) as measured at any point on property adjacent to the parcel on which the large wind energy system is located. The noise level generated by the operation of a large wind energy system will be determined during the investigation of a noise complaint by comparing the sound level measured when the wind generator blades are rotating to the sound level measured when the wind generator blades are stopped.
(15) Flicker or Shadow Flicker. The owner of a large wind system must take such reasonable steps as are necessary to prevent, mitigate, and eliminate shadow flicker on any occupied structure on a nonparticipating property.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, animal rights
June 6, 2006
Negroponte comes to Vermont
Yesterday, Director of Total Information Awareness John Negroponte spoke at his son's high school graduation from the supposedly prestigious St. Johnsbury Academy in St. Johnsbury, Vermont. Needless to say, this offended many people, including many who protested at the ceremony (and several who were arrested) (though the local peace & justice center decided not to disturb anyone about it). Many remember the man as a central figure -- while "proconsul" to Honduras in the early 1980s -- to the U.S.'s illegal support of the "Contras" to fight a brutal war against the socialist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. The Academy's headcase, er, headmaster, said that it never occurred to him that the invitation would have political overtones: just another dad at his son's graduation. The best letter so far in the local (Negroponte-backing) rag has been the following.
Vermont, anarchism
In August of 1990, it was my great pleasure and privilege to drive a used 4-wheel-drive Toyota pickup truck to a farmer's co-op in San Juan de Limay, Nicaragua, the sister co-op of Hardwick's Buffalo Mountain Co-op and the Vermont Northern Growers Co-op in East Hardwick. We purchased the pick-up and packed it with seeds, clothes and tools that had been purchased after a year of fund-raising by our co-ops. The truck and supplies were a much-needed boost to our sister co-op, which had been suffering along with much of the rest of the Nicaraguan economy due to the illegal, covert and immoral war raged on the Nicaraguan people by our government.
This war was directed largely by John Negroponte, then-U.S. ambassador to Honduras. The small village of San Juan de Limay lies just south of the Honduran border, and was subject to multiple attacks from the United States-funded Contras. The farmer members of our sister co-op farmed about 350 acres of land -- raised a few cows, some chickens, beans and corn, barely eking out a living on rocky hillsides with either too much or too little rain, depending on the season.
One of the first people I was introduced to when I arrived, was the 7-year-old daughter of the co-op baseball team's former pitcher. He had been killed by Contras a year and a half earlier while serving on a community defense brigade in the nearby mountains. I'm sorry to say that I don't remember that little girl's name. I do remember her beautiful brown eyes and the sadness I saw in them every now and then, and I remember her father's name; Hector Orlando Gomez. The co-op members were doing the best they could to provide for her, her younger brother and sister and their mother, who helped with weeding and harvesting when she was able to. They lived in a small house with a dirt floor, clay walls and a tile on stick roof. In spite of that dirt floor, their clothes, which their mother washed in the river next to the village, were always immaculate.
I was told that the children's mother was struggling to keep her kids in school altho it was a hardship to buy the school books and paper and pay the small fee for tuition. Judging by the determination that I saw in her eyes, I imagine, I hope, that her daughter was able to complete her schooling and graduate along with the other kids in her class fortunate enough to still have a father. I do know that if she did, her father was not there to smile proudly and applaud loudly when she rose to receive her diploma -- he was not there to be able to give a speech about the lessons to be learned from his life as a hard-working and struggling farmer who still took the time to play baseball with his neighbors. He was not there to wipe away the tears from his wife's eyes of both pride in her daughter and sadness that he was not there to celebrate her success.
We are asked why we wish to interfere with or obstruct this Negroponte family moment between father and son -- his opportunity to bless the graduating class with his gathered truths. The truth I believe is that John Negroponte, and his fellows have been wantonly destroying families for decades -- in Nicaragua, in Iraq, they are responsible for some of the most dishonest and inhumane warfare against members of our human family in recent generations. His is a legacy of death, destruction, short-sighted corporate profiteering, and a burgeoning hatred for our American government. We cannot remain silent while his accomplishments are foolishly and obscenely lauded. It is our duty to bear witness to and denounce the crimes committed in our names. It is our duty to demand a foreign policy and world order with love, families and common decency at its core, not just for the privileged few, but for the many, the humble, the powerful all of us.
Hector Orlando Gomez, a loving father and husband, a good farmer and an even better pitcher -- Presente!
Robin Cappuccino
West Wheelock
Vermont, anarchism
No buyers for wind energy
People often ask, if wind power is so problematic and expensive (not to mention ecologically destructive in its own right), why do so many utilities support it? The simple fact is that they only support it where the law requires them to.
Australia has met a mandate of 2% of the electricity supply from renewable sources, and now, without an increase in the target, utilities are showing no interest in buying more wind energy.
The following is from "Wind farms shelved" in the May 31 Northern Argus.
Australia has met a mandate of 2% of the electricity supply from renewable sources, and now, without an increase in the target, utilities are showing no interest in buying more wind energy.
The following is from "Wind farms shelved" in the May 31 Northern Argus.
Millions of dollars worth of Mid North wind farm projects are being shelved because the Australian Government is holding off boosting renewable energy targets.wind power, wind energy, wind farms
Only one proposal is likely to break ground by the end of the year and that's because it has its own "built-in" consumer, having been optioned by Australian Gas and Light.
Other wind farms have not been so lucky and have suspended construction until Canberra's politicians extend the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target scheme.
The targets, set by the Federal Government, call for energy suppliers to source two percent of their power from renewable sources.
This target has, however, just about been met leaving wind farm companies with no inducement to continue with their projects as they cannot guarantee the sale of their energy.
An $180 million wind farm at Waterloo ... has been suspended. ...
A proposal by Wind Prospect for a 170MW wind farm of 85 turbines in the Barunga and Hummocks Ranges, west of Snowtown, ... has also stalled. ...
Of the four proposed projects in the Mid North, only the one at Hallett appears to be moving forward.
June 5, 2006
Wind is more big industry, not alternative
This ad for insurance and reinsurance company "XL Capital" appeared on the back page of the Wall Street Journal's front section on June 2.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism
June 4, 2006
Answers
The New York Times and the Boston Globe each contained an item that immediately suggested an obvious reply.
Times: '"I like George Bush because he is God fearing," said Delia Randall, 22, of Provo, Utah.' He has very good reason to be.
Globe: 'Killing of civilians in Iraq highlights stress on troops.' Not to mention the stress on Iraqi civilians.
Times: '"I like George Bush because he is God fearing," said Delia Randall, 22, of Provo, Utah.' He has very good reason to be.
Globe: 'Killing of civilians in Iraq highlights stress on troops.' Not to mention the stress on Iraqi civilians.
Wind farm requires purchase of extra energy
Surprise: Reality doesn't live up to the sales claims. From the Helena (Mont.) Independent Record, June 4, 2006:
New Judith Gap wind farm causing headaches on the gridwind power, wind energy, wind farms
The clean, green power from the Judith Gap Wind Farm that debuted last fall has been more intermittent than anticipated.
And that is causing problems for NorthWestern Energy, the utility that must balance supply and demand on its transmission lines. ...
In April, the Western Electricity Coordinating Council [WECC] in Salt Lake City sent a letter to NorthWestern saying that its transmission system may have fallen 3 percent short of its minimum control performance standards of 90 percent. ...
"This is unconfirmed and ordinarily this information isn't even made public," he said. ...
Joel Schroeder worked as project manager for Invenergy Wind LLC's Judith Gap project, the largest of the company's four wind farms. Reached at company headquarters in Chicago, Schroeder said wind is by nature intermittent.
"If you have a storm move in and the wind picks up, that will boost production, or if you have the opposite and the wind drops out, you'll lose power," Schroeder said. "It's completely dependent upon the wind."
Everyone knows wind power is variable and that other backup power from coal or hydro or natural gas is needed to fill in the calm times.
However, the hourly ups and downs are harder to manage than expected, [vice president of wholesale operations at NorthWestern Energy David] Gates said.
"The wind's blowing and in that hour, the output goes from 20 MW (megawatts) to 80 MW," he said. "The average is 50 MW, but as control operator we have to manage that move from 20 to 80 MW (on the transmission lines)." ...
You can store water behind a dam. But you cannot store electricity, and that fact creates lots of challenges for delivering power and pricing power.
Engineers may have more elegant explanations, but you can think of a power transmission line as a teeter-totter.
To keep the board level, the supply of power sitting on one side must balance the demand sitting on the other side.
When there is too much supply, the utility has to sell power right now. When demand outweighs supply, the utility must buy more power right now.
Long-range power contracts that run for years are relatively inexpensive. But, like shopping at a convenience store, buying power on the spot market costs more, often far more.
So variability at the Judith Gap project is costing NorthWestern's consumers more, they just don't know how much yet.
... On May 7, more than 30 energy developers, power company representatives and rural electric cooperative executives met in Helena with Gov. Brian Schweitzer's staff to discuss Montana's energy future.
One topic was how to build more wind farms, yet keep the transmission lines balanced.
Dave Wheelihan, chief executive of the Montana Electric Cooperatives Association, said the gist of that part of the conversation was that NorthWestern has had to buy more short-term power than expected to balance Judith Gap.
"You can go out and contract for it, but the pricing will be interesting," Wheelihan said.
He said the utility has purchased another 15 megawatts of incremental power from Avista Energy to balance the load. ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)