Sweden shuts down all wind turbines within 25 miles of ten military airports.

Posted on June 16, 2010 by morgan

Previously we posted about the two US Senators from Oregon holding defense department appointments hostage until the White House interceded with the Pentagon to expedite approvals.  Needless to say, they got their way!

Now, the Industrial Wind Action Group has this:  Last week, the Swedish Armed Forces quietly made a “principal decision” that all planned and permitted, and even already built, wind turbines will be stopped in a radius of 40 kilometers [about 25 miles] of ten military airfields where jet fighters of type JAS 39 Gripen land and take off. [JAS 39 Gripen is a multi-mission supersonic aircraft, made by Saab, and is the main fighter and attack aircraft in the Swedish air force.]

Exactly what does Sweden know the US Government does not?

Full article here:  Wind turbines around air bases halted

(Thanks to Frank O’Hara for pointing us to the IWAG article.)

Posted in Wind Tower Safety | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Wind passes gas!

Posted on June 14, 2010 by morgan

By now, you would think folks at the NY Times would know that the installed capacity (nameplate rating) of a power unit is not the same as the actual production output generated by a power unit.  But time and again we see the terms used interchangeably, mostly to the benefit of the extremely inefficient and heavily subsidized erector sets known as industrial wind turbines.  After a while, you begin to wonder if the portrayal is intentional.  After all, you have to think the reporters writing these articles are fairly intelligent people and should know the difference.

Take as example, the article in today’s New York Times Environment section – Green Blog which claims that “the amount of power generated by new wind turbines in the European Union this year will be about the same as the amount from new gas plants, according to the European Wind Energy Association, an industry group.”  Note the use of  “power generated” to imply that gas and wind are producing at equivalent levels.

But that’s not exactly what was said.  Actually, when author James Kanter quotes a wind industry executive it comes out this way, “It is too early to say whether, for a third year running, there will be more wind energy capacity installed than any other electricity generating technology, but it is clear that wind energy will be competing for the top spot with new gas power plants.”  Note that the wind exec used the term “wind energy capacity installed” instead of “power generated” as Mr. Kanter initially suggested.  Yes, maybe I’m picky … but it is very important to know the difference and very misleading to readers when not used properly.

The article also mentions how four years ago “nearly 20 gigawatts of new gas capacity compared with 9 gigawatts of wind,” but last year wind overtook new gas installations by a measure of 10 gigawatts to 7 gigawatts of installed capacity.  Again, “capacity!”

Then there’s this:  “Gas still is in the lead in the E.U. in terms of overall generating capacity. Gas plants produced 119 gigawatts in 2007, according to the latest figures available from Eurelectric, an industry group representing European utility companies. That figure was up from 112 gigawatts in 2006.”  You might note how easily you’re led from the concept of “overall generating capacity” to “gas plants produced” in the same paragraph as it relates to gas performance.  What is sorely missing is the same set of figures for wind’s “overall generating capacity” and “wind plants produced.”

So, to bring a little reality to the discussion, let’s take a look at electricity generation v nameplate (rated) capacity.  The wind groups themselves suggest that we should expect turbines to produce at a 30% level of their nameplate capacity.  Historically, many would argue that even this low estimate is much too high.  Then there’s the issue that when wind does arrive at the blades of the turbine, it does so on its own schedule and at its own speed.

Some time back I asked Jon Boone of Stop Ill Wind for his thoughts on the topic of industrial wind as it relates to the Appalachian Mountain range, which is in the cross-hairs of US wind developers.  What he said then is well worth mentioning here:  “Let’s say there were 3000, 2.5MW wind turbines providing a combined installed capacity of 7000MW. Because their performance would be a function of the cube of the wind speed, they would be continuously skittering between zero and, extremely rarely, their installed capacity. Together, their likely capacity factor would be 25%, meaning that their actual output would produce an annual average of around 1800MW to a grid that generates over 140,000MW at peak demand times. Sixty percent of the time, the aggregate wind projects would produce less than 1800MW; around 20 percent of the time, they would produce 700MW or less. Around 10 percent of the time, they would produce nothing, particularly at peak demand times. Always they would be changing their production from one minute to the next, unpredictably. Occasionally, they would produce wide swings of energy, increasing in one hour, say, from producing 50MW, to, in the next hour, 5000MW–and vice versa. All this would threaten grid security by commandeering the grid’s marginal reserves.

Coal and natural gas generators would have to be entangled with the wind generation and these would actually provide around 75 percent of the wind projects’ installed capacity. Since they would be operating inefficiently to follow and balance the continuous wind flux–remember, supply and demand must be balanced at all times–the harsh truth is that the wind projects would induce more net CO2 emissions than would be the case without any wind at all. And the need for more coal and natural gas consumption.

In terms of the expectations of those who support the idea, wind technology wholly subverts their goals. It really is the dumbest modern energy idea imaginable. And this dysfunctional production would require 600 miles of terrain and would likely clearcut 60,000 acres. To coin a phrase, “What hath God wrought” with this kind of pretension?”

We are pleased to provide the full text of Mr. Boone’s excellent paper – Why Wind Won’t Work – for your convenience.  Perhaps even reporters will find it helpful.

Posted in industrial wind poor performance, industrial wind v fossil fuel, Jon Boone | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

John Droz Jr. at MasterResource: Scientists versus Lobbyists: Looking for a Winning Strategy Against Big Wind

Posted on June 14, 2010 by morgan

John Droz Jr. discusses citizen group strategy to counter big wind at MasterResource.

Please proceed to the first installment of his excellent presentation via this link:  Scientists versus Lobbyists: Looking for a Winning Strategy Against Big Wind

Related link:  Rethinking wind power – John Droz, Jr. | Cleantech Group

Posted in Friends and Citizens Groups, Industrial wind lobby, John Droz | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

China wind power equipment maker scraps plans to raise as much as $1.2bn in Hong Kong IPO.

Posted on June 14, 2010 by morgan

According to the Financial Times, Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology’s decision is due to “the deterioration in market conditions and recent unexpected and excessive market volatility.”

Posted in China Wind | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

“it should be socially unacceptable to be against wind turbines in your area – like not wearing your seatbelt.”

Posted on June 13, 2010 by morgan

The seatbelt silliness comes from Ed Millibrand, former energy and climate change secretary, now Labour leadership contender.

And then there’s this gem from the same UK Telegraph article which suggests that, to accommodate industrial wind’s shortcomings, you only need to “build far more wind turbines, in far more places, than you theoretically need” and, oh yes … “build more conventional, carbon-emitting power stations.”

All this and more is found in Andrew Gilligan’s excellent article titled “Does money grow in wind farms?”  Mr. Gilligan answers his own question with this lead, “Wind turbines are a poor way to harness energy – but a very good way to generate public subsidies.”

Noting industrial wind’s dismal performance, Prof David MacKay (chief scientific adviser at the Department of Energy and Climate Change), is the gentleman who suggests that “to cope with what’s called “intermittency”, you must do two things:”

First, you have to build far more wind turbines, in far more places, than you theoretically need.  “We need to be imagining industrialising really large tranches of the countryside.”  Every view, from every summit in Britain – apart, perhaps, from a handful of specially preserved recreational mountains – will be like the view from Plynlimon.

The second thing you have to do is build more conventional, carbon-emitting power stations. Unlike wind farms, these can provide electricity predictably and more or less on demand.

Amazing, isn’t it?  Build three times the number of wind turbines that should be necessary and then provide additional back up generation from fossil fueled power plants.  Hmmm … where have I heard that before?

But, as Mr. Gilligan provides in his piece, Campbell Dunford, director of the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), says that Germany – which has the largest number of wind turbines in Europe – “is building five new coal power stations, which it does not otherwise need, purely to provide covering power for the fluctuations from their wind farms. I am not sure [wind] has been a great success for them.” Mr Dunford claims that Germany’s CO2 emissions have actually risen since it increased its use of wind power. Though the wind itself might, in RUK’s words, be “free,” the cost of backup capacity is likely to be astronomical.

All this would be funny if it wasn’t so destructive to the environment and  costly to taxpayers and ratepayers.  You can and should read Mr. Gilligan’s full article here.  Take note of the comments.

Posted in industrial wind poor performance, industrial wind v fossil fuel | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Certified Real Estate Appraiser testifies regarding industrial wind impact.

Posted on June 13, 2010 by morgan

Thanks to Jon Boone for pointing us to this article published by the Industrial Wind Action Group:

Testimony of Michael McCann on property value impacts in Adams County IL

June  8, 2010 by Michael S. McCann CRA

Summary:

Certified appraiser Michael S. McCann submitted this testimony to the Adams County Board, Adams County Illinois in reference the impact of industrial scale wind energy development on residential property. Mr. McCann’s testimony provides a detailed explanation of the impacts he has found and his recommendations to avoid harm to adjacent property when siting projects. An excerpt of his testimony is provided below. The full testimony can be accessed via the link at the bottom of this page.

SUMMARY OF OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Opinions

1. Residential property values are adversely and measurably impacted by close proximity of industrial-scale wind energy turbine projects to the residential properties, with value losses measured up to 2-miles from the nearest turbine(s), in some instances.

2. Impacts are most pronounced within “footprint” of such projects, and many ground-zero homes have been completely unmarketable, thus depriving many homeowners of reasonable market-based liquidity or pre-existing home equity.

3. Noise and sleep disturbance issues are mostly affecting people within 2-miles of the nearest turbines and 1-mile distances are commonplace, with many variables and fluctuating range of results occurring on a household by household basis.

4. Real estate sale data typically reveals a range of 25% to approximately 40% of value loss, with some instances of total loss as measured by abandonment and demolition of homes, some bought out by wind energy developers and others exhibiting nearly complete loss of marketability.

5. Serious impact to the “use & enjoyment” of many homes is an on-going
occurrence, and many people are on record as confirming they have rented other dwellings, either individual families or as a homeowner group-funded mitigation response for use on nights when noise levels are increased well above ambient background noise and render their existing homes untenable.

6. Reports often cited by industry in support of claims that there is no property value, noise or health impacts are often mischaracterized, misquoted and/or are unreliable. The two most recent reports touted by wind developers and completed in December 2009 contain executive summaries that are so thoroughly cross-contingent that they are better described as “disclaimers” of the studies rather than solid, scientifically supported conclusions. Both reports ignore or fail to study very relevant and observable issues and trends.

7. If Adams County approves a setback of 1,000 feet, 1,500 feet, or any distance less than 2-miles, these types of property use and property value impacts are likely to occur to the detriment of Adams County residences and citizens for which the nearest turbines are proposed to be located.

8. The approval of wind energy projects within close proximity to occupied homes is tantamount to an inverse condemnation, or regulatory taking of private property rights, as the noise and impacts are in some respects a physical invasion, an easement in gross over neighboring properties, and the direct impacts reduce property values and the rights of nearby neighbors.

9. A market value reduction of $6.5 million is projected for the residential property located in the footprint and within 2-miles of the pending Prairie Mills project located in east Adams County.

Recommendations

Therefore, if the County Board should choose to adopt the industry requested minimal setbacks, or some other setback of less than 2-miles from residential uses or occupied dwellings or structures such as schools, churches and nursing homes, I have developed a series of recommendations that would at least partially mitigate the widely experienced impacts prevalent with industrial scale wind turbines developments, as follows:

1. A Property Value Guarantee (PVG) should be required of the developer(s), significantly similar to the PVG attached hereto as Appendix A. A County-controlled fund or developer bond should be required to guarantee no undue delay in PVG payment(s) to legitimately affected homeowners, and/or to buy out homeowners located within 2-miles of any turbines if they elect to relocate away from the turbine project(s) and cannot sell for the pre-project market value of their properties. Such a guarantee is nominal in cost, relative to total project costs, and are used to condition high impact land use approvals such as landfills and even limestone quarries, as well as other wind energy developments (i.e. DeKalb County, Illinois, etc.)

2. An alternative to the bonding element of Recommendation # 1 would be to require that the developer(s) obtain a specialized insurance policy from a high risk insurance carrier or legitimate insurer, such as Lloyds of London, if they will even insure against such impacts. If Lloyds was unwilling to provide such insurance, however, that should be compelling to the County that professional risk-management actuaries find such projects too risky for even them to insure. Under those possible circumstances the burden of risk is fairly placed with the developer, rather than the residential occupants who are being surrounded or otherwise directly impacted by close proximity of the projects.

3. If Adams County decides to permit projects, the limited evidence of impacts beyond a 2-mile setback would mitigate against the need for a PVG as cited in recommendation # 1.

4. If Adams County decides to permit projects, I recommend that the County require developer funding and a plan to constantly monitor not only sound levels in McCann Appraisal, LLC decibels, but also in low frequency noise emissions from the turbines utilizing the best available technology, or at least homeowner reports and logs. There is significant evidence and personal accounts confirming that low frequency sound/noise is “felt” by nearby occupants, and, as I understand it, cannot be measured by decibels as audible noise is typically measured. Disclosure of the owner’s actual experience to prospective buyers is necessary from both an ethical perspective and, I believe potentially under the Illinois Real Property
Disclosure Act, as a “known” defect or detrimental condition. Thus, documentation should be created at the cost of the developer(s), to insure that appropriate disclosures can be made to any prospective buyer(s) of homes within the 2-mile zone.

5. Appropriate devices should be installed at the developers expense at all occupied dwellings and property lines within a 2-mile distance of any turbines, and the County should retain the ability to immediately enforce the shut-down of any turbines exceeding a level of 10 decibels or more above ambient background noise levels from any property/home experiencing that exceeded noise level. The proximity of constant or frequent noise sources is an adverse impact to the use and enjoyment of a residential property, and indicates a basis for loss of property value.

6. An alternative to recommendation # 5 would be to place a limit on hours of operation, requiring turbines within 2 miles of any occupied (non-participating) dwelling be shut off during normal sleeping hours (i.e. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.).

7. If the County finds that the wind energy projects are desirable from a economic development goal or perspective, or for the “public good”, I recommend that “footprint” and 2-mile distant neighboring homeowners (measured to lot line from the furthest span of turbine blades) be afforded the opportunity to sell to either the developer or the County, with possible use of eminent domain powers employed by the County, on behalf of and at the expense of the developer(s).

8. The financial assurance for decommissioning and reclamation of wind turbine pad sites, i.e., a bonding requirement, is also recommended as a County condition. To demonstrate solvency companies should pay the bond requirements before starting construction. It’s basically insurance in case the company goes bankrupt or otherwise abandons the wind project without taking down the turbines and reclaiming the land. Coal mines, quarries, landfills and drilling companies have similar bond or financial assurance requirements.

9. An aesthetic landscaping requirement for wind project developers to plant mature trees or groves to shield the view between residential properties and turbines. Evergreens planted along property lines and/or other types of trees strategically planted between residential windows and turbines would partially alleviate aesthetic impacts from turbines.

10. The County should consider a moratorium on wind energy project development(s) in Adams County, until such time as:

* A thorough and complete Wind Energy Ordinance is developed and adopted by the County, which incorporates all the protection and authority of zoning, building and health codes.

* Appropriate Conditional or Special Use standards are developed and adopted, to insure wind developers carry the burden of their for-profit projects rather than the hosting jurisdiction(s) and/or neighboring property owners.

* The actual experiences of numerous existing turbine neighbors is documented thoroughly by an impartial group of professionals with appropriate qualifications in the various relevant fields of expertise, i.e., acoustic engineers, medical sciences, valuation professionals, etc.

The preceding recommendations are not intended to be all inclusive or to address all wind energy project issues and impacts. They are intended to address issues that affect the public health, safety and welfare of area residents, as well as their property values.

Mr. McCann’s full testimony follows:

Posted in industrial wind vs. property value | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

“With the prime wind sites gone – or disappearing quickly – where does the wind industry go from here?”

Posted on June 3, 2010 by morgan

From a recent Renewable Energy World article comes this comment – “The wind sector is suffering from its own success.”

The writer’s reasoning however, is a bit different than we suggested here a short while back in our post – And your thoughts on industrial wind? “I say North America must REVOLT big time and put a stop to this madness!”

Our thought was that, “The greatest threat to the wind industry’s growth is, in fact, the wind industry’s growth.”  We suggested that, as more and more evidence surfaces about the dismal performance of these over-sized tax shelters and their terrible impact on the environment, the taxpayers and ratepayers expected to support these massive energy boondoggles will soon be fed up.  The tide will turn against politicians who continue to support industrial wind in spite of the mounting evidence against it and they will be replaced.  With their departure the subsidies will dry up and the wind developer will be off to the next big scheme.

Elisa Wood, author of the Renewable piece wonders about industrial wind, “Are All the Best Spots Taken?”  It is a very telling article and I highly recommend reading the full text to see how wind developers are now “jockeying” for the shrinking prime spots.  For anyone having witnessed the development of Columbia, Maryland by the Rouse company some 40 years ago, you’ll enjoy the “landowners have become increasingly savvy about the value of their property” scenario.

But, also tucked away in the article is this little gem, “… developers in some mature markets are scaling down on the size of projects, fitting them onto land parcels they may have previously ignored. ‘Projects are also getting smaller, especially in places like New England, where they are smaller to begin with. There are just not the large plots of land there that would allow 100 to 200 turbine sites’, said Bruce Hamilton, a director in Navigant Consulting’s Energy Practice.

Hamilton sees growing use of ‘infill’ development at existing wind farms – the installation of turbines in land left open when the project was initially developed. In some cases, the developer is unable to initially negotiate rights to a parcel in the midst of the wind farm. Then after building a phase or two of the project, the landowner relents. Iberdrola offers a good example of infilling with its Klondike Wind Power Projects on the US West Coast, he said. The 400 MW project was built in multiple stages on private farmland that spans thousands of acres in central Oregon.”

Isn’t this simply a squeeze play strategy to surround the “hold outs” with these 747 size obtrusions and wait until the poor souls can no longer tolerate the noise, flicker, depreciating real estate values and health issues associated with the operation of wind turbines?  Oh, my!  Would the “friendly neighbor” wind developers stoop to such an tactic?

My guess is yes!  And I suspect we’ll see more of this from the “plethora” of wind developers as these LLCs become more and more desperate to get their piece of the subsidy pie.  After all, once the scam is realized by the citizens, it won’t be only the “prime spots” that will be drying up … so will the government hand-outs.

Posted in Renewable energy debate, Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

More loaves and fishes from the wind energy folks?

Posted on May 28, 2010 by morgan

If you could burn calories spinning job numbers, there wouldn’t be an ounce of fat in the US government.  Well, we all know that’s not the case … suet is a featured item in the Congressional feeding trough.

But what about the wind industry?  Are they using a little poetic license when they tout the number of jobs associated with their industry.  I know the LLCs developing the projects are more than happy to allow perception to inflate reality if unchallenged.  I see that in my hometown.  One statement is 150 jobs, another 300, for 9 months, for a year or any combination within the range you can imagine.  Yet the construction schedule they publish makes it clear they will not have all those folks at the construction site for the full period of time.  I keep asking about labor hour concentration, but that falls on deaf ears.  But they’re happy to have the local politicians and leaders think that’s the case so they can tout how much they’re doing for the community – vote for me!

But in a recent article at Bloomberg/Business Week titled, Vestas, Siemens Wind Bets at Risk on Cheap Gas, Subsidy Loss, a number comes flying out that deserves closer scrutiny.  I’m frankly surprised Bloomberg didn’t ask.

Here’s the statement that caught my eye:  “At stake are investments in factories that produce steel towers, fiberglass blades and turbines spread throughout the U.S. and employing more than 85,000 workers in the world’s largest market for wind energy.”  85,000 folks employed in US factories that make the steel towers, fiberglass blades and turbines?  Doesn’t that strike you as a lot of folks?

General Electric, in case you haven’t seen their ads, make everything from medical equipment to aviation equipment to, yes, wind stuff.  Here’s this from GE’s own fact sheet:  “GE is a diversified infrastructure, finance and media company taking on the world’s toughest challenges. From aircraft engines and power generation to financial services, medical imaging, and television programming, GE operates in more than 100 countries and employs about 300,000 people worldwide.”

So, based on the numbers quoted in the article, we’re to believe the US factories dedicated to production of towers, fiberglass blades and turbines, employ the equivalent of  28% of all of GE’s 160 operations worldwide?  I don’t know about you, but I don’t buy it!

If someone were to tell me that tucked away in the supply chain of US industrial wind 85,000 people, for one brief moment at one time or another planned, designed, sold, manufactured (components, piece parts or raw materials), transported, installed, serviced, maintained or otherwise touched a wind turbine for pay, maybe.  But the article is horribly misleading.  And again, all of GE employs 300,000 … worldwide!

Let’s look at an industry that builds things that are actually useful:

The US Commercial Shipyard Industry:

Employees

  • The U.S. commercial shipyard industry employees more than 50,000 workers building and maintaining non-Navy vessels
  • Commercial shipyard employees pay more than $200 million annually in state and local taxes

Economic Impact

  • New Construction and repair of vessels generates more than $500 million in annual payrolls for shipyard employees
  • More than 2,000 vessels are built each year
  • American commercial shipyards purchase more than $2 billion annually in materials to maintain the U.S. merchant fleet contributing significantly to the ability of U.S. marine equipment manufacturers to employ more than 30,000 employees in their factories
  • U.S. shipyards receive no government subsidies

Also worth noting:

  • American commercial shipyards provide the industrial base needed during time of national emergency at no cost to the government
  • There are over 200 small and mid-tier shipyards located throughout the inland river and coastal waterway system of the United States.
  • They operate in 33 states, from Maine to Alaska and Florida to California; most are located on the Gulf Coast, Mississippi or Ohio River systems, and in the Pacific Northwest.
  • Individual yards range in size from small family-owned yards with a few dozen employees to state-of-the-art facilities with hundreds and even thousands of workers.
  • These yards build and repair the nation’s fleet of 6,200 towboats and tugboats, 32,000 barges of all kinds, and ferries, as well as ocean going vessels
  • Over 50,000 Americans in 33 states are directly employed in the building, repair and maintenance of Jones Act vessels
  • No government construction subsidies are paid to Jones Act builders or repairers
  • New construction, repair and maintenance of Jones Act vessels generate over $1 billion in annual payrolls for shipyard employees
  • Shipyard employees building or repairing Jones Act vessels contribute approximately $250,000,000 annually in federal and state taxes
  • The Jones Act fleet is comprised of 44,000 plus vessels representing a capital investment by American companies of approximately $26 billion
  • The size and average 30-year life of the Jones Act fleet dictates that about 2,000 replacement vessels will be required each year just to maintain the fleet at current capacity
  • Building an average of 2,000 replacement vessels annually will create and sustain 20,000 shipyard jobs. New construction of an “average” Jones Act vessel creates 10 shipyard jobs
  • Shipyards purchase approximately $1.9 billion in materials annually to build and repair Jones Act vessels
  • Purchases generated through the building and repair of Jones Act vessels contribute significantly to the ability of U.S. marine equipment manufacturers to employ approximately 30,000 direct employees in their factories.

So, what is it Windy?  Are there really 85,000 jobs manufacturing turbines, blades and towers here in US factories?  Or is it more likely that 85,000 people, at one time or another, received pay to touch or see a wind turbine part?  Unless the factories touted in the article are horribly inefficient (which would be understandable if government funded), your numbers are greatly exaggerated.

I think when you ask that legislation be put in place to require folks to give their hard earned tax money to support this high cost/low benefit industry, accuracy regarding the benefit of potential jobs is not a number to be spun.  So, how about sharing the details?  How did you arrive at 85,000?  We know that in order to reach a total you have to add parts.  How about sharing that information?

Oh, by the way … you’re not allowed to include the total employment of a manufacturing facility if it makes other than wind parts.  You know the rules … just use the labor hours dedicated to wind component manufacturing.  Any Manufacturing Engineer will help you get to the numbers easily.  It’s how they sex and control factory cost.  I’ve been there, done that … so I’ll be happy to help if you get stuck.

We’re paying for it, after all!  You are asking us to fund these foreign companies so a little transparency should not be out of the question.

Posted in Industrial wind jobs | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

“as a renewable-energy advocate with significant wind experience, I find his passion for utility-scale wind power in WNC sorely misplaced — and painfully ironic.”

Posted on May 26, 2010 by morgan

From the National Wind Watch:

Wind power or hot air? Don’t sacrifice WNC’s ridges to industrial greed

Credit:  by Dave Erb, Mountain Xpress, www.mountainx.com 26 May 2010

At a November forum on wind power at UNCA, a young staffer from a regional activist group puffed that he had dedicated his life to fighting mountaintop-removal coal mining, blustering that he wasn’t about to let “these NIMBYs” who oppose industrializing Western North Carolina’s ridge tops stand in his way. As a child of coal country, I share his anger over mountaintop-removal mining. But as a renewable-energy advocate with significant wind experience, I find his passion for utility-scale wind power in WNC sorely misplaced — and painfully ironic.

Let’s be clear about the term NIMBY (“not in my backyard”): It denotes someone trying to stop moneyed interests from imposing public “collateral damage” while pursuing private profits. Silk-suited spin doctors use it to imply that tough, brave heroes like mountaintop-removal foe Judy Bonds are really just spoiled, selfish airheads. It’s a badge of honor, not a slur.

Let’s also be clear about the lessons of history. Appalachia has long been treated as a resource colony, her people and places exploited to supply cheap commodities to cities in the flatlands. Frontiersmen came to the mountains pursuing the Jeffersonian ideal of small farms and trades, but the mining and timber barons quickly won the day.

Nowhere did the commoners lose more than in coal country, where petty tyrants perverted the legal systems of several states, virtually enslaving thousands. More than once, when the coal kings and their hired goons were in danger of losing control of their chattel, the full force of the U.S. Army was brandished to reassert their authority. If you’re interested in learning more, Harry Caudill’s Night Comes to the Cumberlands and Lon Savage’s Thunder in the Mountains are good entry points to some American history most schools fail to teach.

Mountaintop-removal mining didn’t arise in a vacuum. It’s the logical outgrowth of more than a century of “polite folks” rationalizing away their theft of the commons.

In 1983, over well-financed opposition, the N.C. Legislature passed the Mountain Ridge Protection Act, outlawing major construction on the ridge tops.

Deep grass-roots support provided the political cover lawmakers needed to protect the goose that lays WNC’s golden eggs. Last summer, N.C. Senate bill 1068 codified a permitting process to encourage industrial wind development. With language that reaffirmed the clear intent of the Mountain Ridge Protection Act, it passed 42-1. The only “no” came from Sen. Steve Goss. His district includes Appalachian State University, which receives federal grants to promote wind power. The other senators represented their constituents well, too, weighing competing environmental benefits (habitat integrity versus one of many possible green-energy options) and competing economic benefits (attracting tourism and retirees versus slightly cheaper electricity).

But even a 42-1 vote apparently wasn’t decisive enough for industrial wind’s cheerleaders. At the November forum, Rep. Phillip Frye announced his plans for a short-session amendment to compromise the ridges with a “demonstration” project. In fact, thousands of utility-scale windmills have already been installed in the U.S. in recent years: Demonstrations can be found as close as east Tennessee.

Wind enthusiasts always say they favor limiting development to “appropriate” sites. But utility-scale wind turbines are more than 260 feet tall at the hub, with blades that reach 130 feet above that. Compare those numbers with the Statue of Liberty (305 feet) or Asheville’s BB&T Building (220 feet). If four-story condos are too intrusive for WNC’s ridges, how could industrial wind machines possibly be appropriate here?

Climate change is a serious threat requiring immediate, concerted action. Mountaintop removal is just as serious, and far more imminent. But both of those travesties are rooted in lapses of governance, not lack of technology options. So here’s another inconvenient truth: The voice of the people is the best environmental protection we have, especially when the apologists for intrusive industries are calling people NIMBYs. Those who care about the future of the planet would do well to realize that they’re unlikely to protect the environment by weakening hard-won environmental protections.

[Born and raised in the Blue Ridge Mountains, Dave Erb teaches engineering at UNCA. For three decades, he has focused his career on energy, emissions and sustainability.]

Posted in Appalachian Mountains, industrial wind v fossil fuel, Wind v Coal | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Hooray … wind farms make tornadoes disappear! Well, they don’t really go away … Doppler just can’t see them!

Posted on May 24, 2010 by morgan

This is perfect – “when severe weather approaches or moves over a wind farm, meteorologists may not be able to pick out certain features; most specifically tornadoes.”  Oh, but not to worry – “this isn’t an issue when the weather is fair.”  What???

This little gem is from an article posted at our friends, National Wind Watch.

Here’s the full article.  It only takes a moment or two and you’ll be very interested.  Click here to watch the video:

LINCOLN — Last year a weak tornado touch-downed near Holder in eastern McLean county. That’s near the Twin Groves wind farm, one of the largest in the state.

Chris Miller, Warning Coordinating Meteorologist for the National Weather Service in Lincoln explains what happened next.

“When that storm enter the wind farm area, because the rotation was weak we lost that signature as it went through the wind farm.” Says Miller. “We had to rely strictly on storm spotter reports in the area.”

Here’s the concern: The Doppler Radar beam hits the blades on a wind farm tower, causing interference. That interference looks similar to a thunderstorm. Current Doppler Radar uses software to filter out objects that are stationary, but rotating wind tower blades are an issue.

“We don’t want to eliminate actual moving storms, but somehow the Radar would need to decide in what area the wind turbines are located and how fast they’re moving and then try to remove some of that.” Says Miller. “That’s a very difficult problem to try to do software related.”

This isn’t an issue when the weather is fair; but when severe weather approaches or moves over a wind farm, meteorologists may not be able to pick out certain features; most specifically tornadoes.

There are two wind farms that impact the Doppler Radar in Lincoln. Railsplitter in southern Tazewell and northern Logan counties is the closest and most commonly seen on Radar. A proposed wind farm may be built in western Logan county, which could also affect Radar images once completed.

So what’s next? National Weather Service officials are educating wind farm developers on their potential impact on Doppler Radar.

“There is open dialog for the wind farm developers, but if anything we just want to educate them on what some of the concerns are.” Says Miller. “Hopefully we have future discussions about what can be done to help mitigate the problem.”

Tom Vinson, Director of Federal Regulatory Affairs with the American Wind Energy Association says wind developers are in discussions with the National Weather Service on this matter. The Association hope that the Weather Service can develop software to take care of the problem.

“The preference on the industry side would be for a technical solution that would resolve the problem without having to necessarily give up energy production at certain times.” Says Vinson. “It’s certainly something that should be discussed but it’s not something that we have definite agreement on today.”

We contacted Horizon Wind Energy, the owner of the Railsplitter wind farm. They had no comment on our story. Oklahoma University scientists are conducting studies on the issue.

Posted in Wind Tower Safety | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment