Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project: “The USFWS is fully aware of the need to address the cumulative environmental impacts of wind energy development in the central Appalachian region.”

Mr. Rick Webb of VA Wind, submitted the following comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Invenergy Beech Ridge Wind Project:

AT Note:  Rick Webb is a Senior Scientist with the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, where his primary research focus is on the effects of air pollution on streams associated with forested mountain watersheds in the central Appalachian Mountain region.  Previously he worked with conservation organizations concerned with the direct environmental effects of coal extraction.  He recently co-authored a Landscape Classification System for Wind Project Siting in Virginia and he presently co-maintains the Virginia Wind Website (www.VaWind.org) , which addresses the need for environmental assessment prior to wind energy development.  He recently served on a National Research Council committee investigating “Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy.”

Posted in Bat/Bird Kills, Beech Ridge | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

President Putin in 2012? Bet your legacy on it!

Readers might recall a post from a couple of days ago when we quoted Vladimir Putin saying, “Nuclear energy only alternative to oil, gas.” Rejects other alternative energy approaches as “claptrap.”

Well, he told the Valdai International Discussion Club that “nuclear energy is the only alternative to traditional energy sources.”  He noted that “You couldn’t transfer large electric power stations to wind energy, however much you wanted to. In the next few decades, it will be impossible.“  He said nuclear energy is the only “real and powerful alternative” to oil and gas.  He rejects other alternative energy approaches as “claptrap.”

Well, guess who’s running for President in 2012?  Better yet, with changes made under his place holder Medvedev, the Constitution now permits six year terms, “meaning that, if elected in 2012, Putin is likely to rule Russia until 2024.”  If elected???  Anyone doubt that, if Putin runs – Putin wins?

So, while the Unites States continues its slide into renewable energy oblivion, Russia will be building nuclear facilities for themselves, and for their “client” states.  China, in the meantime, will continue its misdirection ploy to battle Europe and the misguided US to take over the industrial wind market while simultaneously constructing any and all forms of meaningful energy production necessary to blow past the US as the worlds largest economy.

The US needs to assist its own move toward nuclear power by immediately upgrading current fossil fuel production methods and increasing natural gas usage.  The focus of taxpayer investments must be directed toward research efforts on truly advanced energy sources.  The resources now being wasted on ineffective and unreliable wind and solar technologies must be stopped, and we must get back into the business of producing power which is available as needed.

If not, the youngsters you’ve “protected” with the illusion of wind as the savior of their universe will perhaps take a break from mopping up your energy mess long enough to visit your tiny plot and wonder how such a silly creature managed to survive on its own for as long as you did.  As they learn of the profiteering you permitted and how you squandered their financial future on these ridiculous technologies, your legacy will be forever tarnished, and justifiably so.

Posted in industrial wind failure, Nuclear Energy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Breaking Wind – Quick hits from the industry for September 21, 2010

Items of interest:

1-John Droz, Jr. is a must read!

Fifteen Bad Things with Windpower–and Three Reasons Why – MasterResource

2-Rare Earth – China has it, and it’s used in everything from military hardware to cel phones to computer hard drives to wind turbines and Toyota’s Prius hybrid car.  Wind turbines???  (oh, by the way, the band was good too!)

Boeing launches search for crucial rare earth elements – MSNBC

AT Note: Readers might remember this earlier post: Industrial wind + rare earth = Environmental Hazards

3-Oh, I don’t know … 238,855 miles sounds about right.

9/20/10 Tuned into the problem: Wind Siting Council Vice Chair Doug Zweizig discusses concerns regarding the new wind siting rules with WPR’s Joy Cardin – Better Plan, Wisconsin  (Thanks to Frank O’Hara)

4-Sometimes, the headline is all you need!

Medical marijuana, wind turbines fall under new regulations approved by Kalamazoo City Commission – MLive

5-Proving that, at least at the University of Maryland, Political Science is actually two courses, the Chancellor obligates students to 20 years of payments for the ever elusive “wind energy.”

Power purchase will let Pinnacle move forward – Cumberland (Maryland) Times-News

6-Laura Israel’s film of industrial wind and small communities is making its mark.  (Thanks to Jon Boone)

Windfall in New York – Stanley Fish, New York Times

Trailer for the film is here: http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/09/10/movie-trailer-windfall-presents-the-business-of-new-energy-sources-as-rural-horror/

Posted in Breaking Wind | Tagged | Leave a comment

Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project: “denial of the incidental take permit resulting in the full termination of project construction must be considered a viable option.”

Letter to the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project

September 19, 2010

Ms. Laura Hill, Assistant Field Supervisor

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

West Virginia Field Office

694 Beverly Pike

Elkins, WV 26241

(Via email to fw5es_wvfo@fws.gov and original via USPS)

Subject:  Environmental Impact Statement for Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit and Associated Habitat Conservation Plan for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, WV

Dear Ms. Hill,

With the somewhat disjointed structure of government oversight for matters as complicated as industrial wind, the FWS may initially feel the comments I offer do not weigh heavily on the effort to construct the Environmental Impact Statement for Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit and Associated Habitat Conservation Plan for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, WV.

The FWS will hopefully hear from learned individuals, far better prepared than I, speaking in detail to the severe negative and cumulative impact of industrial wind on the mountain ranges in our region.  I feel certain the FWS will give their statements full attention as the matter before it is considered.

The purpose my writing is to express concern that the FWS may too narrowly view its scope of authority when considering the developer’s site plan and the means offered to mitigate impacts on wildlife resulting from installation and operation.  I would suggest that, contained within the list of “mitigation” options related to the Beech Ridge, denial of the incidental take permit resulting in the full termination of project construction must be considered a viable option.

If I understand correctly, the FWS is charged to examine and evaluate plans submitted by the industrial wind developer intended to fully protect the environment they are requesting permission to enter.  It is my understanding that, in order to secure an incidental take permit where danger exists, it is the responsibility of the developer to provide, in their plan offered for FWS approval, a mitigation to the danger that will satisfy the FWS.

From the FWS web site: Incidental take permits are required when non-Federal activities will result in take of threatened or endangered species. A habitat conservation plan or “HCP” must accompany an application for an incidental take permit. The habitat conservation plan associated with the permit ensures that the effects of the authorized incidental take are adequately minimized and mitigated.

The statement that, “The habitat conversation plan … ensures that the effects of the authorized (by the FWS, I presume) incidental take are adequately minimized and mitigated,” must be seen as authority within the FWS to insist that the very core environmental benefit claimed by the developer to result from the planned installation – emission reduction – is proven beyond all doubt.  Lacking the ability to concretely prove its claim, the developer’s plan to mitigate damage to wildlife habitat would not be complete lacking the option to cancel construction of the project in the event that the core purpose for such construction cannot be achieved and proven to the FWS.  After all, how can the “taking” of an animal be classified as “incidental” if the “taking” does not result in the benefit for which the permit seeker justifies the killing in the first place?

Considering the fact that, as researchers find ways to circumvent the barriers to transparency established by other government agencies effectively shielding industrial wind developers, the emission reduction claims made by the wind lobby are severely challenged.

It would seem prudent, before the FWS can issue an incidental take permit, that the developer seeking this variance to law be required to prove, beyond forecasting and computer modeling, that they will, in fact, provide the benefit for which they are seeking FWS approval to kill protected species?  Historical records, rather than selective commentary, must certainly be available to substantiate their claim.

Allow me to provide a concrete example of the ongoing dispute on which I base my concern.  A recent study by Bentek Energy LLC ( http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/BENTEK-How-Less-Became-More.pdf ) contests the notion put forth by the American Wind Energy Association that industrial wind significantly reduces carbon emissions.  The AWEA, of course challenged the study’s findings which prompted this definitive commentary on the debate:  https://alleghenytreasures.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/jon-boone-eviscerates-%e2%80%9cawea%e2%80%99s-evidentiary-offerings-on-behalf-of-wind%e2%80%99s-carbon-savingfossil-fuel-slaying-potential-%e2%80%9d/

If the FWS examines the documentation detail it will become apparent that the claims made by the wind lobby regarding emission reduction, the core tenet of the wind developer’s request to kill endangered species is, at best, questionable.  Certainly, it would behoove the FWS to seek the testimony of experts in this field prior to granting any waiver which so greatly impacts not only the flyways of the Appalachians, but also the international treaties created to protect this wildlife.

Far too often we are informed that the various agencies assessing a project cannot consider information “outside” their domain.  This is frankly unacceptable.  The fragmented authority created by this thinking only allows the protection of our environment, secured over many years, to fall victim to cracks in the regulatory “system,” resulting in an incomplete assessment of factors and unwarranted danger to wildlife.

Finally, time is not of the essence.  In reality, whether construction begins now, two years from now or never should not concern the FWS or any government agency in carrying out its charge to protect our wildlife.  The contribution of industrial wind to our national power supply is insignificant to our demand and, lacking any environmental benefit such as significant reduction of emissions directly attributable to the installation of industrial wind projects, such as Beech Ridge, industrial wind is, effectively, of no value.

I would ask that, as the FWS considers moving forward on the Beech Ridge project, the FWS not ignore the fact that an excellent means of mitigating damage to wildlife is to halt construction of a facility which generates no real benefit to the general public.  As such, I feel strongly that the granting of an incidental take permit is not warranted.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration of my comments.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael C. Morgan

Keyser, WV 26726

Posted in Appalachian Mountains, Bat/Bird Kills, Beech Ridge | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Breaking Wind – Quick hits from the industry for September 20, 2010

Items of interest:

1-“What’s not to like about windmills?”

Winds shift on turbines – Don Surber, Charleston (WV) Daily Mail

2-This is gonna leave a mark! – “And that is what grid scale wind in Maine is about – profit. Not elimination of coal-fired plants, since the intermittent nature of wind requires a constant backup source of power. Not reducing the cost of energy, since wind is the most expensive source of energy, as well as the most highly subsidized source. Not about producing a product that will make us independent of foreign energy sources, since the production level of wind turbines is marginal. Industrial wind farms are an attack on the rural communities of Maine. Yet, we seem willing to sacrifice people, homes, community cohesion, ridge lines and mountain tops on the altar of a technology that ensures nothing for the people of this state, but substantial profit for the profiteers of the industrial wind industry.

Lynne Williams – Green Independent for Maine State Senate

3-“Our mandate is to educate people as to the true impacts of industrial wind power and other forms of renewable energy on health, the environment, the economy, scenic landscapes, electricity prices and people’s quality of life,”

Meaford residents band together to fight wind turbine proposals – The Cambridge Citizen

4-Having received “millions of pounds in government grants”, now burning through cash and its US market green energy subsidy now in question, what else is there for Clipper Wind to do but sell out.

Clipper Windpower runs out of puff and is set for takeover – London Evening Standard

5-“A wind-power deal once expected to cost the city little to nothing has cost City Water, Light and Power customers more than $3 million in the last six months.”  Utility company then pats them on the head, blames economy and says it’ll be Okey Dokey!

Wind energy costing CWLP customers – The State Journal Register

Posted in Breaking Wind | Tagged | 1 Comment

Heck, might as well shut the wind turbine down anyway, “It’s a time when we are not generating a whole lot of electricity to begin with!”

A recent National Geographic article, “Hope for Stemming Wind Energy’s Toll on Bats” subtitled “The Great Energy Challenge,” begins with this, “Windmills—clean, quiet, simple and endlessly renewable—may be the ultimate icons of green energy. But after sundown, their whirling blades have an unintended consequence that researchers are just beginning to understand: They kill bats by the thousands.

We’ll save the debate about a wind farm’s clean, quiet and simple characteristics as a great many folks living among them have an entirely different assessment than the NG article portrays.  The endlessly renewable characteristic, presumably meaning overall performance, is discussed rather fully in other posts at this site, so we’ll just focus on what the article discusses regarding bat kills.

NG states, “Their (wind turbines) greatest impact may be on the few species of bats that migrate. Bat experts say that the problem, which peaks during migration season from July to late September, may be worse than we know …”  Claiming guarded optimism, the article notes that deterrents could include speakers that “blast ultrasound to drive bats away” and selectively “shutting off windmills when bats are most active.

First, the “sound blast” solution:

The article notes that operators would install “speaker systems on windmills to confuse and irritate bats with ultrasound noise, a frequency too high for human hearing.”  “It jams them, basically,” bat expert Ed Arnett says. “We’re flooding them with white noise, which makes it uncomfortable and disorienting airspace to be in.”

And?  The article states that, “So far, experimental speaker systems have reduced the number of bat fatalities 20 to 53 percent.

But there are at least two problems with ultrasound systems:

  • First, modern windmill blades cover an area the length of a football field, too far to effectively project sound at that frequency.
  • Second, “the long-term consequences to bats and other wildlife of constant ultrasound are unclear.”  (Would that include mating, foraging or other life sustaining activities?)

Note these comments from experts:

No one’s ever been able to actively track these bats. Before they started showing up under wind turbines, they were very infrequently observed,” says Paul Cryan, a bat expert working for the U.S. Geological Survey in Fort Collins, Colorado. “The logistics of following animals at night without knowing where they’re going and where they’re going to land is tremendously difficult.”

That uncertainty makes it difficult to tell what kind of impact windmills are having on the overall population—and how effective efforts to reduce the number of bat kills are. “We don’t know if we’ve mitigated the effect of the kills, or if we’re just delaying a population crash for 10 or 15 years,says Ed Arnett, director of programs at Bat Conservation International in Austin, Texas. “But if you start adding it up over time, there’s just no way the animals can sustain this.

But then we have the “Turn off the windmills when bats are most active” solution.

(Mr.) “Arnett has been working with Iberdrola Renewables, a large Spanish-owned wind energy provider, to selectively “feather,” or shut down, wind turbine at a wind farm in Garrett, Pennsylvania (map), when wind speeds are low. “It’s a time when we are not generating a whole lot of electricity to begin with,” says Iberdrola spokeswoman Jan Johnson.

Wait a minute … “we are not generating a whole lot of electricity to begin with” when?  The article began by saying that the peak bat migration season is from July to late September.  And aren’t these the months when electricity demand is extreme?  Did Iberdrola Renewables just confirm that, during the peak months of need, you can’t rely on wind units to generate “a whole lot of electricity to begin with?”  I do know where I live, on the hottest days of summer, you couldn’t buy a breeze … but I didn’t think I’d ever hear …

And then, bats fly at night!  Isn’t that “prime time” for wind production?  Won’t limiting unit production by feathering or stopping them all together at night really cut into the already meager performance output of industrial wind?

Maybe it’s just me, but the more I read about these wind contraptions the more it seems to confirm that the only thing generated is the cash for developer’s bank accounts.

But, back to the article which notes that bats are already suffering massive kills due to a fungus spreading in the caves they inhabit.  Add to that the kills from the wind turbines and the threat is tremendous.  As the experts will tell you, “the cumulative impacts of mortality by wind turbines, combined with the mortality by White-Nose Syndrome causes concern that entire species may become extinct…”

As the NG article states, “Indeed, the many new wind projects across the United States—enough new windmills to power 2.4 million homes were installed last year—couldn’t have come at a worse time for bats.”

Of course, ignoring that these pitiful producers of electricity serve no real value to our energy needs and do not appear, as claimed, to reduce carbon emissions, the article ends on a positive note:  “In a forthcoming study in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (e-View), a journal of the Ecological Society of America, Arnett reports that during peak migration season, turning off windmills on the warm, late-summer nights bats like best—nights that don’t have that much wind to harness for energy, anyway—reduced annual bat fatalities by between 44 and 93 percent.

But we’d like to mention the other obvious option … don’t construct the ridiculous, poor performing monstrosities in the first place?

Because, you see, one thing seems always left out of the discussion in these articles when noise and other “uncomfortable and disorienting” methods are recommended as solutions – the cumulative impact of the hundreds of thousands of turbines that will be required to meet the politically generated goals for renewable energy.  When the bats are diverted from one location, and the next and the next and the next … where exactly will they call home?

The same failed logic is true of statements regarding installations in the migratory flyways of our great bird populations.  It seems simple to claim the birds will just “go around” the turbines, however with the hundreds of thousands of turbines required to line the Appalachian Mountains to achieve the absurd and misguided policies put forth for industrial wind, there will be few areas of safe passage.

It’s time to stop these installations.  Their existence cannot be justified, by any measure.

Posted in Appalachian Mountains, Bat/Bird Kills, Environment, green lunacy | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Breaking Wind – Quick hits from the industry for September 19, 2010

Items of interest:

1-Let’s see, “Twelve public officials who sat on county and town boards in Lewis County stand to make a combined $7.5 million from the region’s largest wind-turbine project” and “numerous other officials in Herkimer County stand to profit as well from new projects there, although not to the same extent, records show.”  So what could possible be wrong with that?  (thanks to Jon Boone)

Records show area officials profit from leases with turbine firms – Utica Observer-Dispatch

2-Video – “Respected Canadian surgeon Dr Robert McMurtry explains why industrial wind turbines have a significant effect on your health.”

No Safe Place: McMurtry on industrial wind – National Wind Watch

3-Interesting thoughts about leasing your property to wind developers.  Be sure to also read the comments following the post.

The Question of Liability – Wind Concerns Ontario

4-More misconceptions about the Poor Mountain, Virginia wind project – “project would generate up to 45 megawatts, enough to power as many as 10,000 homes”

Change in Virginia law eases rules for wind farms – Pilot Online

Well folks, before you buy into those figures, you might want to read this post from area resident, Hollister Hartman, PhD

Posted in Breaking Wind | Tagged | Leave a comment

Breaking Wind – Quick hits from the industry for September 18, 2010 (Updates throughout the day.)

Items of interest:
1-“The less you know about “green” energy, the more it was meant for you.”

Vander Doelen: Windmills pretty, useless – Windsor Star

2-The Renewable Electricity Standard – Why you should contact your Senators and tell them NO!

Urge your senators to reject a national RES -National Wind Watch

3-Industrial wind real estate logic:  How can you say the wind farm is driving home prices down.  You haven’t even been able to sell one since the turbines went up!

Wind turbines hurt homes’ resale value – Wind Concerns Ontario

Posted in Breaking Wind | Tagged | 1 Comment

Breaking Wind – Quick hits from the industry for September 17, 2010 (Updates throughout the day.)

Items of interest:

1-So what you’re really saying is, you put up 217 massive wind turbines so you could get the actual production of maybe 72 massive wind turbines?  When the wind blows?  And if we happen to be awake when it does?  C’mon!  Your are pulling my leg, right?

PGE’s largest renewable project, with a total installed capacity of 450 megawatts. Given the variability of wind power, the plant is expected to produce an average of around 150 MW” – autobloggreen

2-More on Luca Brasi Wind LLC.

Mafia ‘Hits’ EU Wind Subsidies – Energy Tribune

3-Wait a minute!!! You want taxpayers to cough up $66,000,000 to tear the wind turbines down?  What happened to our friendly wind LLC?

Foes: Teardown cost of $2B Cape Wind adds ‘insult to injury’ – Boston Herald

4-Based on results just in from the 2009 world-wide wind industry study – the industry determines it doesn’t have a clue if, when or where it will blow in the future.  (Thanks to the AFA)

Winds Blew Weakly in 2009 – renewablesbiz

5-So, based on Item 4 above, you’re going to spend how many millions of our hard earned tax dollars to find wind?  For real?

DOE directs $3.4 million to detecting wind – CNET

Posted in Breaking Wind | Tagged | Leave a comment

Hollister Hartman, PhD: “The Weight of Evidence shows that Poor Mountain must be rejected as UNSUITABLE for siting the proposed wind project.”

Well, that should do it, don’t you think?  No sense plopping the 747 size turbines on Virginia’s Poor Mountain.  Heck, when conditions are “prime,” the turbines have a difficult time puffing out enough electricity to read by, especially if you want it available at a time when you actually want to read.  But this Poor Mountain area is UNSUITABLE for a wind project!

In the following study, provided to us courtesy of VA Wind, Hollister Hartman, PhD backs up the title statement with significant data, and a superlative resume as a siting expert.

Have a read and then, following, we’ll have a few comments, and concerns.  If you’d rather download the pdf link, here it is: (http://www.vawind.org/Assets/Docs/091510/Poor_Mountain_Siting_Analysis.pdf):

Interesting, isn’t it?  Makes you wonder why anyone, save the wind developer, would consider proceeding with this dud and risk the negative environmental issues that come with such projects.  Sure, environmental groups often justify the intrusion of industrial wind in pristine woodlands as a trade for the greater environmental good.  We happen to believe that industrial wind adds no value to our current or future energy needs, anywhere, but heck … there’s no need to even argue that point in this instance … is there?  After all, the Poor Mountain area is UNSUITABLE for a wind project!

But, as we often find when dealing with the wind crowd, logic takes a back seat to policy, and policy often ignores science.  Sometimes, you see, science doesn’t give you the answers you need to do business.

We would hope this is not the case with Poor Mountain.  Folks facing the arrival of industrial wind in their communities, which will forever alter their environment, finances … their very lives, rely heavily on experts for guidance.  It would be more than a shame if any organization would use strong arm tactics to suppress or limit discussion in an effort to force consensus.  Everyone knows that always comes back to haunt!

We hope all the information available on the Poor Mountain project is allowed to be presented and the very report prepared by Dr. Hartman we provide here is receiving the attention it deserves.  Folks faced with a critical decision deserve all viewpoints, and all the time necessary to air them.  Having all the facts on the table will lead folks to the best decision possible.

Should any organization, with opportunity to do so, shirk its responsibility to educate its public, it will surely face severe criticism; especially should the project they supported be deemed a failure.  This is especially true if the organization has, as its mission, the protection of the environment and, by extension, the very public it claims to serve.

It seems to us, if Poor Mountain is truly an UNSUITABLE area for a wind project as the good Dr. Hartman suggests, the potential risk for failure is considerable.  We hope everything is on the table.

AT Note:

Hollister Hartman received her BS Degree in Biology from Yale University and her PhD in Population Biology (Applied Mathematics) from the University of California, Riverside.  She also received certification in Multi-Attribute Decision Making from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dr. Hartman’s professional siting experience includes instituting integration of Geographic Information Systems; managing geophysical/biocultural modeling for compliance of EPA regulations and developing/implementing site selection methodologies for Hard Mobile Launcher, Small ICBM and Peacekeeper deployment.

Additionally, she identified pivotal geological & engineering criteria underlying intractable nuclear waste repository siting issues for the U.S Department of Energy Yucca Mountain Project, overseeing project performance against Federal, state and local regulations.

Dr. Hartman served in leadership positions with the National Research Council, the American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics (AIAA) and numerous consortium appointments.

She serves her community as Vice Chair of the Sierra Club/Roanoke, VA Group; Member of the Franklin County Planning Commission Technical Advisory Committee and Technical Analyst for defenders of Poor Mountain, VA.

Dr. Hartman is the author of several publications related to the fields of Civil Engineering and Natural Resource Management.

Posted in Appalachian Mountains, Virginia Wind | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment