Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI): “INDUSTRIAL WIND AND THE WALL STREET CAP AND TRADE FRAUD”

Posted on April 23, 2010 by morgan

James Hall, in his recent report at the Science & Public Policy Institute opened with this:  “Financial scandals are not new. Schemes to leverage risk and cheat the public are mainstays of the mad “Cap and Trade” stratagem, in the ongoing war, against genuine free enterprise. The latest ploy is the industrial wind swindle.”

Featured prominently in the must read report is Jon Boone, mentor to Allegheny Treasures and prolific author of many works we’ve been honored to publish.  Mr. Boone’s quotes in the piece come from several of his works including Why Wind Won’t Work, Less For More: The Rube Goldberg Nature of Industrial Wind Development and A Conversation with Jon Boone – Toward a Better Understanding of Industrial Wind Technology.

Mr. Boone’s excellent web site – Stop Ill Wind – is an internationally recognized resource dedicated to the understanding of industrial wind’s impact on our world.

Also featured is Mr. Glenn Schleede, a friend to Allegheny Treasures we’ve also had the great pleasure to publish.  Mr. Schleede’s excellent work, “THE TRUE COST OF ELECTRICITY FROM WIND IS ALWAYS UNDERESTIMATED AND ITS VALUE IS ALWAYS OVERESTIMATED” is referenced by Mr. Hall to discuss industrial wind’s impact on consumers.

We highly recommend Mr. Hall’s report, “INDUSTRIAL WIND AND THE WALL STREET CAP AND TRADE FRAUD,” as well as the many excellent works of Mr. Boone and Mr. Schleede.

Posted in Glenn Schleede, Jon Boone | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Senator Lamar Alexander: “‘National Windmill Policy’ Equivalent of ‘Going to War in Sailboats’”

Posted on April 23, 2010 by morgan

Press release from Lamar Alexander’s Senate Web Page:

April 20 2010

U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), in advance of the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, this Thursday, April 22, delivered an address today on the floor of the U.S. Senate in which he introduced Going to War in Sailboats: Why Nuclear Power Beats Windmills for America’s Green Energy Future, a book compilation of five major addresses he delivered recently on various aspects of nuclear power as the solution to America’s green energy future. (The book, whose cover image is above, can be downloaded from and/or viewed here.)

The following remarks are as-prepared:

“During 2009, America’s national energy policy looked more like a national windmill policy—the equivalent of going to war in sailboats. If we were going to war, the United States would not think of putting its nuclear navy in mothballs. Yet, we did mothball our nuclear plant construction program—our best weapon against climate change, high electricity prices, polluted air and energy insecurity. Although 107 reactors were completed between 1970 and 1990 producing 20 per­cent of our electricity today—which is 69 percent of our carbon free electricity—the United States has not started a new nuclear reactor in thirty years.

“Instead of using our own nuclear power invention to catch up with the rest of the world, President Obama in his Inaugural Address set out on a different path: America would rely upon ‘the sun, the winds and the soil’ for energy. There was no mention of nuclear. Windmills would produce 20 percent of our electricity. To achieve this goal, the federal government would commit another $30 billion in subsidies and tax breaks.  To date, almost all the subsidies for renewable energy have gone to windmill developers – many of whom are large banks, corporations and wealthy individuals. According to the Energy Information Administration, Big Wind receives an $18.82 subsidy per megawatt hour, twenty-five times as much per megawatt hour as subsidies for all other forms of electricity production combined! Last year’s stimulus bill alone contained $2 billion in windmill subsidies.  Unfortunately, most of the jobs are being created in Spain and China.  According to an American University study, nearly 80 percent of that $2 billion went to overseas manufacturers. And despite the billions in subsidies, not much energy is being produced. Wind accounts for just 1.3 percent of America’s electricity, available only when the wind blows since wind power can’t be stored except in small amounts.

“Conservation groups have begun to worry about ‘renewable energy sprawl.’ For example, producing 20 percent of U.S. electricity from wind would cover an area the size of West Virginia with 186,000 turbines and require 19,000 new miles of transmission lines. These are not your grandmother’s windmills. Turbines are fifty stories high. Their flashing lights can be seen for twenty miles. An unbroken line of giant turbines along the 2,178-mile Appalachian Trail (except for coastlines, ridge tops are about the only place turbines work well in much of the East) would produce no more electricity than four nuclear reactors on four square miles of land—and, of course, you’d still need the reactors for when the wind doesn’t blow.

“There are other ways a national windmill policy also risks destroying the environment in the name of saving the environment. The Ameri­can Bird Conservancy estimates that the 25,000 U.S. wind turbines kill 75,000 to 275,000 birds per year. Imagine what 186,000 turbines would do. One wind farm near Oakland, California, estimates that its turbines kill eighty golden eagles a year. To be sure, similar concerns about sprawl exist for other forms of renewable energy. For example, it would take continuously foresting an area one-and-a-half times the size of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park to produce enough electricity from biomass to equal the electricity produced by one nuclear reactor. And a new solar thermal plant planned for California’s Mojave Desert was to cover an area three miles by three miles, until environmental objections stopped it.

“At least for the next couple of decades, relying on wind to provide our nation’s clean electricity needs would be like wandering off track from your house in Virginia through San Francisco on the way to the corner grocery store. This unnecessary journey offends the common sense theory of parsimony, defined by scientist Spencer Wells as ‘don’t overcomplicate… if a simpler possibility exists.’ The simpler possibility that exists for producing lots of low-cost, reliable green electricity is to build 100 new nuclear plants, doubling U.S. nuclear power production. In other words, instead of traveling through San Francisco on your way to the corner grocery store, do again what our country did between 1970 and 1990. Build 100 reac­tors on 100 square miles of space (several would be built on existing reactor sites) —compared with the 126,848 new square miles needed to produce that much electricity from biomass or the 26,170 square miles needed for wind.

“Unlike wind turbines, 100 new reactors would require few new trans­mission lines through suburban backyards and pristine open spaces. They would also require much less taxpayer support. At current rates of subsidy, taxpayers would shell out $170 billion to subsidize the 186,000 wind turbines necessary to equal the power of 100 reactors. While federal government loan guarantees are probably necessary to jump-start the first few reactors, once we’ve proved that reactors can be built without delays or huge cost overruns, no more loan guarantees will be needed.  In fact, the Tennessee Valley Authority just finished rebuilding the $1.8 billion Browns Ferry reactor on time and on budget, proving it can be done.  Yet even if all $54 billion in loan guarantees defaulted – which isn’t going to happen – it would still be less than one-third of what we’re putting into wind.

“My concern about the unrealistic direction of our ‘national wind­mill policy’ led me to give five addresses on clean energy over the last two years. The first, delivered at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 2008, called for a New Manhattan Project, like the one we had in World War II, but this time for clean energy independence. Then, a year ago at Oak Ridge, I proposed building 100 new nuclear plants, a goal that all forty Senate Republicans adopted along with three other goals: electrifying half our cars and trucks, expanding offshore exploration for natural gas and oil, and doubling clean energy research and development.

“My concern during 2009 deepened as members of the Obama ad­ministration, with the conspicuous exception of Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, seemed to develop a stomachache whenever nuclear power was mentioned. The President himself seemed unable to mention the subject. Last year, at a climate change summit in New York City, President Obama chided world leaders for not doing more to address climate change, but did not mention the words ‘nuclear power’ during his entire speech—ironic because many of the coun­tries he was lecturing were making plans to build nuclear plants to produce carbon-free electricity, and we were not. Climate change was the inconvenient problem, but nuclear power seemed to be the inconvenient solution.

“Fortunately, with the arrival of 2010 has come a more welcoming environment for nuclear power. In his State of the Union address, President Obama called for ‘a new generation of safe, clean nuclear reactors.’ His 2011 budget request recommends tripling loan guaran­tees for the first reactors, and in February his administration announced the awarding of the first two loan guarantees for nuclear power. He has selected distinguished members, both for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and for a new Blue Ribbon Commission to figure out the best way to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. Democratic senators— several of whom, in fairness, have long been supporters of nuclear energy—have joined the forty Republicans to create bipartisan sup­port. Last December, Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, a former Navy secretary, and I introduced legislation to double nuclear power production and to accelerate support for alternative forms of clean energy.

“There seems to be a growing public understanding that nuclear reac­tors are as safe as other forms of energy production. A nuclear plant is not a bomb; it can’t blow up. Our sailors have lived literally on top of reactors for sixty years without a nuclear incident. And most scientists agree that it is safe to store used nuclear fuel on site for sixty to eighty years while they figure out how to recycle used fuel in a way that reduces its mass by 97 percent, reduces its radioactive lifetime by 99 percent, and does not allow the isolation of plutonium—which could be dangerous in the wrong hands. In addition, there is a growing realization by those who worry about climate change that if Americans want to keep consuming one-fourth of the world’s electric­ity, and we want large amounts of it to be low-cost and carbon-free, nuclear power is the only answer for now.

“It has also helped, and been a little embarrassing as well, that the rest of the world has been teaching Americans the lesson that we first taught them. China is starting a new nuclear reactor every three months. France is 80 percent nuclear and has electricity rates and carbon emis­sions that are among the lowest in Europe. Japan gets 35 percent of its electricity from nuclear and plans ten more reactors by 2018. There are fifty-five new reactors under construction in fourteen countries around the world—none of them in the United States.

“I believe we must address human causes of climate change as well as air pollution that is caused by sulfur, nitrogen and mercury emissions from coal plants. But I also believe in the common-sense theory of parsimony: don’t overcomplicate things if a simpler possibility exists. My formula for the simplest way to reach the necessary carbon goals for climate change without damaging the environment and without running jobs overseas in search of cheap energy is this:

  • Build 100 new nuclear power plants in twenty years;
  • electrify half our cars and trucks in twenty years (if  we plug vehicles in at night, we probably have enough electricity to do this without building one extra power plant);
  • explore for more low-carbon natural gas and the oil we still need;
  • launch ‘mini Manhattan Projects’ to invent the low cost five hundred mile battery for electric cars and a fifty percent efficient solar panel for rooftops that is cost-competitive with other forms of electricity, as well as better ways to recycle used nuclear fuel, to create advanced biofuels, and to recapture carbon from coal plants.

“These four steps should produce the largest amount of energy with the smallest amount of pollution at the lowest possible cost, thereby avoiding the pain and suffering that comes when high energy costs push jobs overseas and make it hard for many low-income Americans to afford heating and cooling bills.

“One day, solar and other renewable energy forms will be cheap and efficient enough to provide an important supplement to our energy needs and can do so in a way that minimizes damage to treasured landscapes. Today, nuclear power beats windmills for America’s green energy future.”

Alexander is a member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), and is also the Ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

Posted in Environment, industrial wind cost, industrial wind poor performance, Nuclear Energy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Classic wind developer logic: actual output of 28 MW from 97 MW installed capacity is 97% excellent!

Posted on April 22, 2010 by morgan

I know … drives me nuts too!  These wind folks have taken the Three Card Monte to incredibly new heights.

Here’s the latest from Oregon.

Suzlon has a press release which included this:  “We are proud to be marking the one-year anniversary of our Oregon projects as they’ve surpassed an average 97 percent availability throughout the first year,” said Andris Cukurs, CEO of Suzlon Wind Energy Corp.

So you might think that 97% is pretty incredible output for wind farms … right up there with fossil and nuclear.  Heck, the 400 MW of Suzlon’s installed capacity in the great state of Oregon would be pumping out 388 MW.  But I thought it odd they didn’t brag about that level of production, since they’re constantly being hammered for the incredibly poor performance of their huge erector sets.

Sure enough, when you look at the statement, there’s that key word – 97% availability.  Gee, where have I seen that before?  So maybe the Suzlon units are in the 25% range, no better than the rest.

Off we go to Horizon Wind Energy, one of the folks running the Suzlon units, where I find the 97 MW Wheat Field Wind Farm.  If there operating at 97% as Suzlon would like you to believe, the output would be around 94 MW.

On Horizon’s web site the list the customer for the electricity from Wheat Field as Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1.  The Snohomish County PUD web site lists Wheat Field as one of it’s wind assets and states this, “This 97 megawatt project is located near the City of Arlington, in north central Oregon. The project has 46 turbines and an estimated annual output of 28 average megawatts.”

Sorry to report that even the Snohomish County PUD number is high.  According to the EIA, the Wheat Field Wind Farm actual 2009 output was, on average, 19.8 MW, a meager 20.4%

I’ll just accept that Mr. Cukurs was trying to find a silver lining in the wind energy cloud.  He really meant that the turbines were ready to turn 97% of the time … if a breeze happened to come by …  with enough ummphh to actually turn the blades … hopefully when someone needed it … and the grid had a space for it.

I don’t think I’ll waste any more time on this.  I should have known better than to believe the wind hype anyway.

If you want, you can dig through the EIA XL spreadsheet to confirm my numbers.  It’s here.

Yes, I know it’s not as easy to read as the IESO wind tracker.  I don’t know why the US wind business makes it so difficult, unless they don’t want you to know.

I’m sure they don’t want my Oregon friends at the Blue Mountain Alliance, the Friends of Grand Ronde Valley and the folks from Stop Wind Farms Here to have ready access to this information either.

Misinformation is the wind developer’s friend.

Posted in Friends and Citizens Groups, industrial wind poor performance, Oregon wind farms | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Wind opponent asks questions. Wind Rep does scene from “Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.”

Posted on April 22, 2010 by morgan

In an opinion piece at the Cumberland (Maryland) Times-News titled, “It’s time to tackle climate change through wind energy,” wind representative Frank Maisano challenged a letter to the editor in which the writer asked specific questions about industrial wind.

Typical of one with no answers, Mr. Maisano reaches into the wind developer’s bag of propaganda tricks and yanks out Numbers 1, 2, 5, 7, 13, and 14 to suggest the submitter of specific “what if” questions has no credibility or, as my favorite local reporter (aka wind shill) likes to portray folks who question – “standing in the way of progress and the common good.”

So, is it remotely possible these wind folks will ever answer a serious question directly?  This enjoyable clip might give a clue to their tactic:

Mr. Maisano didn’t clarify the letter he was addressing, but perhaps he meant this list from Jon Boone’s letter of April 21 titled “Some questions about wind power are well worth asking.”

• Why did the Dutch stop using windmills to grind grain and pump water to reclaim land from the sea — as soon as the steam engine was invented?

• Why are sailing vessels used almost entirely for recreation today, rather than for commercial purposes?

• Why aren’t gliders providing a substantial percentage of commercial air transport?

• What is the difference between energy and power? What would be the likely consequence if all our gas pumps were wind “powered?”

• What is the percentage of oil used for electricity, nationally and in the MidAtlantic region?

• Why must electricity supply be matched to demand at all times?

• What are the implications for wind technology given that any power generated is a function of the cube of the wind speed along a narrow range of wind velocities (a wind turbine doesn’t begin work until wind speeds hit 9-mph and maxes out when the wind speeds hit around 34-mph)? Explain how a fluctuating source of energy could, by itself, “power” any city.

• Why has steady, controllable, precision power been the basis of modern life?

• If constructed on a forested ridge, how many acres of woods must be cut to support a 100MW wind project, consisting of 40-2.5MW turbines, each 460-feet tall? Account for the requirement to accommodate the “free flow of the wind” for each turbine, staging areas for construction, access roads, substations, and transmission lines. Also account for the number of miles the wind project would extend downrange, assuming five turbines per mile. Finally, account for the amount of concrete necessary to provide a sturdy base for each turbine.

• Examine four wind projects in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, asking how many permanent jobs were produced, the amount of local taxes and revenues received, and what the promises of such were beforehand ?

These seem fairly reasonable, so I don’t know why Mr. Maisano has to answer with this nonsense:  “We already know from our experience in other states in the Mid-Atlantic, just to the north, south and west of Garrett and Allegany counties: wind projects have successfully generated clean energy, jobs, tax revenue, economic opportunities and yes, tourism.”

Well, sir … we actually don’t “already know” all this, but perhaps you could share the specifics from which you drew your estimates.  I’ll help you out with a couple of facts:

  • Mountaineer Wind Energy in Thomas WV – rated capacity  66 MW, produced 18.6 MW average in 2009= 28.2%
  • Mt. Storm in Grant County, WV – rated capacity 264 MW, produced 66.1 MW average in 2009 = 25.0%

Now I don’t know about you, but for all the land, air and tax subsidies these clunkers consume, I don’t consider this particularly successful.

Oh, and about the animal kills … think you can convince your buddies to open the gates to allow the bat/bird kill trackers back on sites?  I’m sure you recall that, when too many were found, the research teams were tossed off the property.  Mighty neighborly of you folks.

We’re waiting for your answers … and waiting … and waiting … and …

Posted in Uncategorized, Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Celebrate Earth Day! Take a wind turbine to the dumpster!

Posted on April 22, 2010 by morgan

(Courtesy of Windtoons)

Posted in Environment, Windtoons | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Ontario Wind Energy Policy Ignores Reality

Posted on April 22, 2010 by morgan

What went wrong with Ontario’s energy policy? – Comparing spin & reality

Compiled for CENTRAL BRUCE-GREY WIND CONCERNS ONTARIO By Keith Stelling, MA, (McMaster) MNIMH, Dip. Phyt., MCPP (England)

10 April, 2010

Courtesy of of our friends – Wind Concerns Ontario (Thanks to Jon Boone for pointing us to the report.)

Posted in Wind Concerns Ontario | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Jon Boone: “I note the Ontario wind output is now at 0.4 % of it’s installed capacity. A little lower and it will meet the needs of Fantasyland.”

Posted on April 20, 2010 by morgan

So cynical!

I’m happy to report that since Mr. Boone’s comment, output from Ontario’s 1,100 MW of installed capacity has more than doubled.

Current Ontario Wind Output = 11 MW, or enough to meet the needs of Espanola – 11am – 12pm April 20, 2010.

That’s actually 1%, Sir!

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

Think wind energy is not political? How about two US Senators holding up White House Defense Department nominees because a wind farm developer is pouting?

Posted on April 17, 2010 by morgan

Amazing stuff when you think about.  A useless form of energy which markets itself as a force for national security whines to two United States Senators that testing for a conflict between wind towers and military radar systems will cause them to miss their groundbreaking ceremony.

Here’s the full article from Oregonlive:

Pentagon calls for more study of radar conflicts from Shepherds Flat wind farm

By Scott Learn, The Oregonian

April 16, 2010, 5:24PM

The Department of Defense said today it has asked radar experts at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory to evaluate whether the huge  Shepherds Flat wind farm in north-central Oregon would interfere with signals from a radar station in Fossil if built.

The study will take up to 60 days and extend past the long-planned May 1 groundbreaking date for the Shepherds Flat project, which at 338 turbines and 845 megawatts of capacity would be the largest wind farm in the nation and perhaps the world.

Delays would likely increase if the laboratory, a specialist in national security research, confirms significant conflicts with military radar.

“It is a delay that we and the project cannot tolerate,” said Les Gelber, a partner with Caithness Energy, the wind farm’s developer.

Dorothy Robyn, deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment, said this afternoon that the laboratory will analyze whether the towers pose a security threat and, if so, what can be done to mitigate that threat.

Potential options including upgrading or replacing the Fossil station, adding radar that is less sensitive to the turbines and adding “gap-filler” radar to offset problems caused by the turbines.

The laboratory’s experts will work “as fast as they can,” Robyn said. “It will provide an independent assessment of how much of a risk this poses to radar operations and an important look at mitigation options.”

Robyn agreed that  Federal Aviation Administration and military review of wind projects is flawed, coming well after wind farms have already received other regulatory approvals. “It is by definition an 11th-hour process,” she said, “and that is not satisfactory.”

The FAA, with Air Force backing, issued a “notice of presumed hazard” to the project in March, effectively barring wind turbine construction after the company had already signed a deal with General Electric for the new turbines and lined up investors.

The Shepherds Flat turbines — combined with about 1,800 other turbines built or proposed within the Fossil station’s range — would “seriously impair the ability of the (Department of Defense) to detect, monitor and safely conduct air operations in this region,” the notice said.

There is no overlapping radar coverage in the area, the notice said, and the station “already experiences significant clutter and target tracking issues in this general area.”

Gelber said the Lincoln Laboratory study should have started three years ago, when the company first talked with the Air Force about the project.

The company also tried to get the military to pursue solutions after the FAA issued its notice in March, with no success and no elaboration of the conflicts between the farm and the radar system, he said.

Caithness is working with Oregon Sens.  Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley as well as White House officials to try to push for a quicker solution. On Friday, Wyden and Merkley placed holds on three Obama Administration defense nominees to protest the military’s position and try to speed resolution of the dispute.

Shepherds Flat will provide 706 construction jobs, Caithness says, and millions in royalty payments for farmers and ranchers in Gilliam and Morrow counties.

— Scott Learn

Posted in Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Allegheny Treasures reply to Mr. Austin Hall’s comments. Updated with correction!

Posted on April 17, 2010 by morgan

Correction:  The commenter was incorrectly identified as Austin Hill.  My apologies to Mr. Hall as I remedy my error.

I elected to reply to Mr. Austin Hall’s recent comments in the form of a post.  The points raised by Mr. Hall and replied to here represent a serious debate among folks interested in the future of the Appalachian Mountain environment.  I would encourage you to view the complete comments provided by Mr. Hall as well as those of “mountainprotector” at the link – BREAKING: Wind powered pig flies non-stop from Garrett County, MD to the University of Delaware!

My reply begins:

Mr. Austin Hall,

Thank your for your comment.

You begin with:  While I applaud the rights for individuals to express opinions on various topics. I find that folks, who vehemently oppose wind energy, ultimately will use the least factual information. As a proponent of alternative energy sources, and an advocate to phase out coal fired generation and minimize the litany of problems associated with coal, I strive to provide factual information about alternative energy – especially wind power. I find that constructive dialog can only occur when the basis of discussion relies on facts. I want to highlight a few problems with this article.

Your applause is rewarding and I appreciate your offer to provide factual information about alternative energy – especially wind, and hope you do so, perhaps in a follow-up to the comments.  Facts lacking, what you provided in your comment was, unfortunately, “simply commentary” to what you feel was, in my own post, “simply commentary.”  I’m just not sure how far this style will take us in the debate about this “contentious” issue, so I’ll try to do better here.

Let me begin by addressing your suggestion that: “I find that folks, who vehemently oppose wind energy…”

A year ago, almost to the month, I was an advocate for industrial wind.  I live in the heart of coal country and found nothing objectionable to the placement of the wind towers on the high ridges of the Alleghenies.  Like many in my community I saw the need to close coal mines, improve our air and water quality and move forward to an energy source which will do so while providing desperately needed jobs and an increased tax base to support our small community.  And, much like the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club, I felt if a few birds are whacked in the process, it was the price to be paid for such wonderful benefit.  Plus, the turbines I saw operating in another community looked pretty cool, so the visual issue was not a problem for me.

That was before I was introduced to the “NIMBY” side of the argument.  And I must tell you that finding information other than the boilerplate produced by the wind industry, lobbyists and political enablers was a real eye opener for me.  It surprised me to find that the literature and discussions on the opposing side came from environmentalists, scientists, economists, people from both political parties and folks who believe in man-made global warming and those who do not.  This was not a group of wacko’s and Neanderthals holding back progress as suggested by the wind industry and even the local papers.

But, what struck me the most was the wind industry’s lack of transparency and unwillingness to engage on specific issues.  The local wind developers I initially supported attended two discussions at which their technology was savaged by scientists and they chose to remain silent.  I was struck by the unwillingness to engage on the issues.  Their insistence to remain inside the boilerplate was stunning and, I suspect to any inquisitive mind, a reason to look further.  I’m frankly surprised that still, to this day, when I write something critical there is no comment from any of the industry folks, and I have it on good authority that they read the material.  It is as if they feel so secure in their own hype that, with the aid of fawning advocates nurtured by the ignorance of the political environment, they can simply write opponents off as lacking credibility or accuse opposition of distorting the truth, much as you attempted by your comment, “ultimately will use the least factual information.”

So, with your permission, I’ll attempt to reply to your comments with reference to material which is found elsewhere in the Allegheny Treasures blog, should you choose to find the basis of my thinking.

Speaking of blogs, let me begin by stating what you perhaps already know.  Each post is topic or event specific and the purpose of the post is to draw attention to the issue and encourage the reader to perhaps look further into the blog or elsewhere for additional information.  If I were to repeat every fact associated with a comment for each new blog post they would be monstrously long, boring and frankly, unread.  The goal of this blog is that folks will find something of interest and read further.  Not being a professional writer, as is painfully obvious to the regular readers, I may not adequately link a particular blog post with content posted previously here or elsewhere which I use as the basis for my post, relying on their interest to do so.  I will, however attempt to do so in response to your request for factual information, to remedy what you seem to feel is my failure to find a “smart way to convey information.”

Your point 1:

“First I will address the video, which was shot in Croatia, (you subsequently corrected to Crete) a country that has a completely different wind energy-permitting regime than the US. Bird fatalities will occur at wind farms, but it is incredibly important to realize that the National Audubon Society endorses wind energy. Here is their statement “Audubon strongly supports properly-sited wind power as a clean alternative energy source that reduces the threat of global warming. Wind power facilities should be planned, sited and operated to minimize negative impacts on bird and wildlife populations”.

Although bird fatalities do occur at wind farms, if you compare those deaths at wind farms to other human caused fatalities. The numbers are quite compelling. Buildings, windows, high-tension lines, pesticides, vehicles and CATS, kill far more birds than wind farms. Proper siting is a critical component of minimizing bird fatalities.”

My response:

You and I seem to differ on whether the individual state Public Utility Commission members are prepared to analyze the opposing views of the wind developers and their paid consultants and the state Department of Natural Resources and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  It would be difficult to assess each state and each member of an authority; however my opinion, after reading testimony specific to area cases, is that some members are absolutely not prepared to make these judgments.  The wind industry, flying on the backs of pressure from politicos and promises, finds advantage in this weakness.

Unfortunately, the issue of competence  relative to successful siting cannot be factually proven or disproven until the bird and bat counts are made, which is a little too late for me.  I’m not sure if your mention that, since the video is shot in Croatia or Crete, US birds are somehow smarter, but I find the results from the Altamont Pass suggesting otherwise.  I don’t share your confidence in the wind industry’s willingness or ability to properly report of kills to the appropriate agencies and the public due to the kills landing away from the turbines, harvested by predators or any number of possible distortions, including the questionable ethics of some operators.  History has unfortunately suggested otherwise in my local area.

I will suggest to you that the concept of cumulative impact of industrial wind is lost on the PSC, our politicians and the majority of citizens.  The politically established goals for wind energy are arbitrary and do not take into account the horribly destructive impact to our mountains and the obstruction of flyways.  The wind industry experts suggest that even if towers are infringing on flyways, birds will find their way around.  That works well until the gaps are filled as well, as will be required to meet the demands of 20, 25 or 20% by 2015, 2020 or 2030 arbitrary political goals.

Regarding the position of the National Audubon Society, it seems you and I disagree.  As you offered, their statement is:  “Audubon strongly supports properly-sited wind power as a clean alternative energy source that reduces the threat of global warming. Wind power facilities should be planned, sited and operated to minimize negative impacts on bird and wildlife populations.”  You fall back onto the old saw about birds being killed by tall structures and cats, so what’s a few more.

I believe the National Audubon Society is absolutely wrong and failing to live to standards that support the very reason for their existence.  I believe that industrial wind is a scam.  It provides no economic or national security benefit, has miniscule impact on emissions, what little energy it produces it does so on its own schedule, and it bleeds the treasure of this country in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, landscape and environment.  I believe that industrial wind is an antiquated technology which stands in the way of truly innovative energy source development by taking vast sums of money and putting it into the pockets of Ken Lay’s offspring.  There is absolutely no place for industrial wind in the energy inventory for this or any other country, therefore, I do not believe the loss of one Golden Eagle is acceptable sacrifice.

Even though you indicate that “regardless of your personal opinions on global climate change,” it seems the Audubon society considers it significant enough to mention in its policy statement.  Should you choose to read Allegheny Treasures further, you’ll note that the Climate Change/AGW issue is not part of the discussion.  The reason is because industrial wind has no impact on the core issues in that debate, except for the additional emissions generated during manufacture and delivery of these silly tinker toys to the mountain tops.  Perhaps, other than the model projections and industry estimates, you would be kind enough to provide empirical evidence that industrial wind has been directly responsible for reductions in carbon emissions or the closing of fossil fueled plants.

Your point 2:

Bat fatalities are indeed a concern; it appears that bats echolocation attracts them to the tips of the turbine blades. They are not actually hit by the blades but enter into the low-pressure air system behind the blade, which causes fatal internal damage. The wind industry, unlike traditional energy companies has voluntarily taken unprecedented steps to address this problem. The Bats And Wind Energy Cooperative is an alliance of state and federal agencies, private industry, academic institutions, and non-governmental organizations that cooperates to develop solutions to minimize or, where possible, prevent mortality of bats at wind power turbines. Once again proper sitting is an incredibly important component to minimize bat fatalities

My response:

Your faith in the wind industry is far greater than my experience allows.  Note this excerpt from a very recent opinion piece from the Industrial Wind Action Group discussing events 9 miles from my home: (http://www.windaction.org/faqs/26609) Significant bat mortality at wind energy facilities first became widely known in the United States in 2003 when research scientists observed alarming numbers of bats killed at FPL Energy’s Mountaineer wind energy plant in West Virginia. The forty-four turbine site located along the forested Backbone mountaintop was found to be slaughtering bats at annual rates of over 50 bats per turbine with some estimates placing the count at close to 100 bats. High mortality was also observed that year at the Meyersdale wind farm in Pennsylvania, another FPL project.

Researchers from Texas-based Bat Conservation International (“BCI”) were invited to investigate the cause for the high mortality with the intent of trying to minimize and/or avoid the impact. FPL (now Next Era) initially agreed to cooperate, but in 2004 abruptly changed course and banned further visits by scientists to the sites. To our knowledge, bat kills are continuing unabated and Windaction.org has no independent information to suggest anyone is even monitoring the problem.

In 2007, renown bat expert Dr. Thomas H. Kunz and others published “Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses“, which detailed the significant risk that industrial-scale wind turbines posed for migratory and local bat populations in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The authors projected that by 2020, annual bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in this area alone could reach 111,000 bats.

The authors also made clear that their preliminary projections of cumulative bat fatalities were likely unrealistically low.

The internal lung burst (barotrauma) issue was posted here in September 2009 – Scientists provide yet another reason to delay the rapid deployment of wind turbine installations in areas where need is not proven. Siting and scheduling of run times to coincide with bat patterns were discussed as potential mitigating factors.  Has that become an industry standard?  If so, I’m not aware.  In fact, the wind industry lobby is successfully fighting against any legislation requiring standards of any kind.  Again, your trust level in the industry is much higher than mine, since, while the portrayal of concern is as you describe, the reality is it requires court action to hold the developers accountable to their word.  Beech Ridge might ring a bell.

Your point 3:

While I agree with the author that integrating wind into the current grid system will prove difficult as wind energy generation continues to grow, I disagree with the assessment that wind energy and it’s variability is sole the problem. It is quite the opposite. Wind energy is variable, but fairly predictable, years of research to the wind patterns, speed, and prevalence are analyzed before a wind farm is even proposed. The wind resource must be consistent, and fairly predictable before any company will invest. In fact power companies in the North West have included up to 20% of wind energy in their Integrated Resource Plan as “base load” generation. To be able to integrate this clean resource we will have to overhaul our 100-year-old inefficient and antiquated power grid. This grid was designed to ship massive amounts of electrons from one source to various need points. The exact system Edison devised at the turn of the century. Distributed renewable energy will need an updated digital system to intelligently integrate the resource, which does have a factor of variability as opposed to coal or nuclear or gas generation.

My response:

Perhaps you could assist my understanding of the “fairly predictable” and “consistent” trend of wind in this real time hourly reporting of actual production v rated nameplate capacity over a 30 day period in Ontario.  –Industrial wind: “enough to run 70,000 clothes dryers”

Can the grid handle the fluctuation?  Well, according to the post which you contested  – BREAKING: Wind powered pig flies non-stop from Garrett County, MD to the University of Delaware! – seems if enough money is thrown at the problem anything can be achieved, but at what real cost?

Industrial wind is an absurd concept.  It is certainly not “base load” in any respect.  Base load requires on demand, reliable and predictable energy such as that supplied by fossil and nuclear.  You did not link to the North West Integrate Resource Plan you reference making if difficult for me to discuss specifically, but for a region to include a “base load” of 20 percent wind energy would be beyond fool hardy.  Since the actual output v nameplate capacity ranges anywhere from the 9% as planned by the Texas grid to the 30% industry average estimated by the AWEA, to achieve 20% “generation” would require installing wind plants at a capacity level of 60% to more than 100% of the regions required electricity demands.  And since you spoke in terms of “generation” instead of installed capacity, I must question your facts.

If I take your suggestion at face value, then I would assume that there is commitment from this region to reduce by equivalent amount the purchase of any fossil related electricity, even if it means you don’t toast bread when the wind is not blowing.  To the contrary, they will continue to have available the fossil generated electricity to cover for the inadequacy of wind, ramping fossil plants up and down causing even more emissions, cost and inefficient use of coal.  Again, since the wind industry response is a bit nebulous, perhaps, as an advocate, you could clarify for them.

And, to your final point

“Regardless of your personal opinions on global climate change, there are significant concerns regarding the production of electricity using coal and nuclear fuel. At every single phase of the coal cycle there is a negative ecological, human and environmental cost. These costs are incalculable, as we are sacrificing clean air, clean water and public health for a cheap energy source that is rarely in our view shed. We must transition to cleaner, renewable energy systems. Wind will play a critical role in our clean energy future. I for one will choose wind energy and an overhauled grid over mountaintop removal coal mining and nuclear waste.”

If there is one thing on which we seem to agree, it is the immediate halt to mountain top removal for the sake of energy, when there are other methods to source the fuel.  I’m frankly surprised at your endorsement of wind, since it will require installation of the thousands of massive towers and thousands of miles of new power lines to be placed all along the Appalachian Mountains.

My personal choice is to look beyond the antiquated, inefficient and unreliable wind as an energy source.  You and I will perhaps disagree on the use of Nuclear, but I cannot imagine that we would disagree on the promotion of innovation which will very likely provide localized, private and community based energy sources could reduce our dependency on the “100-year-old inefficient and antiquated power grid.”  This is especially true as it relates to the “far from consumer” placement of industrial wind plants and the requirement of new transmission lines to connect them to the ancient grid.

But to imply that my opposition to wind energy is default to support for coal as the long term energy source for our future is beyond silly.  Industrial wind is a worthless contributor on all counts.  It is my position that the billions spent to fund industrial wind serve to restrict funding of real and exciting technology.  In a future that requires energy sources to serve our requirement for “on demand” energy while providing a better treatment of our environment, industrial wind does not make the cut.

The fast track policy for renewables world wide is driven by purely political interest.  It is creating an environment conducive for graft and corruption.  Politicians are pouring tax money into the pockets of scam artists with any promise of a quick fix and a campaign contribution.  And, the shame of it all is that, in the name of saving the environment, we continue to destroy the environment.

Your ending line is “I understand that wind energy is contentious, but factual information is generally a smart way to convey information.”  On this, you and I agree completely!

In your second comment you offered the following links:

Audobon [sic] Society. http://www.audubon.org/
BWEC http://www.batsandwind.org/
Wind as base load generation.http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/system_integration_basics.html
Grid Information:http://www.oe.energy.gov/smartgrid.htm

Similarly, I would like to offer these links from Allegheny Treasures to support my replies to your points:

Point 1:  Birds – Audubon Society:

http://www.masterresource.org/2010/04/the-sierra-club-how-support-for-industrial-wind-technology-subverts-its-history-betrays-its-mission-and-erodes-commitment-to-the-scientific-method-part-i/

A Conversation with Jon Boone – Industrial Wind and the Environment

California has a novel idea to protect birds and bats. Don’t build wind plants where they fly! UPDATE: VIDEO SHOWS WHY!

“Particularly disturbing is the extent to which the disaster has been downplayed by … the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in Britain and the Audubon Society in the US”

OPEN LETTER TO THE NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY Re: CAPE WIND

The Windpower Industry’s “top ten” false and misleading claims … Number 3 – Windplants are harmless to wildlife.

The Windpower Industry’s “top ten” False and Misleading Claims … Number 9 – “Those who are concerned about windpower are not true environmentalists”

The Allegheny Highlands – Where eagles dare!

The uncontrolled expansion of industrial wind and the resulting “cumulative impact” on birds.

Point 2:  Bats:

Environmental groups say turbines will kill bats. Wind power developer says yes, but not “that” bat.

Beech Ridge industrial wind Court Injunction and Summary documents

Settlement reached at Beech Ridge industrial wind installation.

Baltimore Sun: “WV wind farm bows to bats, as issue arises in MD” UPDATE: Commentary from Jon Boone

Point 3:  Grid

Jon Boone reviews “Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future” by Robert Bryce.

Kent Hawkins: Integrating Renewables: Have Policymakers Faced the Realities?

Investors Business Daily: “Subsidizing alternative energy fits the classic definition of insanity.”

Glenn Schleede: Key Electric Industry Terms Important in Understanding Limitations of Wind Energy

Jon Boone at the Baltimore Sun: “The fantasy of wind power for Maryland”

I know going from $15.3 to $42.1 Million seems like a lot in 1 year Commissioner, but this Smart Grid stuff is really confusing.

Of the industrial wind project’s 182 turbines, between 136 and 164 turbines, at any given time, effectively serve no purpose.

Industrial Wind Action Group Editorial: The economics of transmission in New England

”Ms. Industrial Wind get’s hitched to Mr. National Grid while Pastor Politics holds the shotgun“

”Uh Oh! Is another “shotgun wedding” in the offing for National Grid?”

”Cape Wind’s big secret – Power will cost millions extra

Your final point:  Future and environment:

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

Will industrial wind replace fossil fuel? Just do the math!

Just a little reminder – wind won’t replace coal. Sorry, but it’s just a fact!

Small town nukes and industrial wind – energy’s promising future and its ancient past.

“Wind power is unreliable, expensive and doesn’t result in lower C02 emmissions.”

Industrial wind – the perfect energy solution for 1810.

Just a little reminder – wind won’t replace coal. Sorry, but it’s just a fact!

Denmark’s massive 20 year industrial wind effort brings no reduction in CO2 emission

The dirty little secret – Denmark still generates most of its energy from coal.

Confucius say, “adding more polluting coal-fired power plants is unavoidable if you want to be green.”

Wind farms produced ‘practically no electricity’ during Britain’s cold snap“

Other related posts for your review:

Glenn Schleede: “The True Cost of Electricity from Wind is Always Underestimated and its Value is Always Overestimated”

Selling Industrial Wind: Government, the Media and Common Sense – UPDATE

“Industrial wind – just the facts, folks!“

How much electricity does it take to run an industrial wind plant? No, that’s not a trick question!

Glenn Schleede: “US and NY officials reward Iberdrola of Spain at the expense of US taxpayers, job seekers, and electric customers”

Glenn Schleede: “The True Cost of Electricity from Wind is Always Underestimated and its Value is Always Overestimated”

Industrial wind – just the facts, folks!

A Conversation with Jon Boone – Toward a Better Understanding of Industrial Wind Technology

WSJ: “Government subsidies are turning renewable energy into big business.”

Despite record growth in generating capacity, the (wind) industry is creating few employment opportunities overall

and, oh yes – Industrial wind calls it NIMBY. Perhaps! But “this problem runs from the arctic to the tip of South America — and that is one helluva big backyard!”

I do appreciate that you took the time to comment on my post and hope we can continue this dialogue.

Mike Morgan

Allegheny Treasures Blog

Bonus:  Mr. Jon Boone offers these comments

What most people, even those who understand the data, don’t properly ken is the difference in the production delivery between conventional power units and wind. The former provides its whole power (its rated capacity) at a steady rate, unless asked to change its rate by grid controllers. Wind provides energy in fits and starts, always staggering its way around the grid, never controllable–in the process always entangled with supportive prosthetics to make its production appear whole and steady.

This is the kind of phenomenon that should also be part of the performance record from the Energy Information Administration. But it’s not. Such a mask allows people to therefore assume that the energy yield from wind is the same as that from conventional sources. But this is nonsense. Glenn Schleede has always characterized wind energy as low in value. This drives the wind suits crazy, for they want people to think that a kWh from wind is the same as the kWh from coal or nuclear. Balderdash! Is the performance of a drunken ambulance driver the same value as that of a sober ambulance driver?

Finally, tell Mr. Hall I would be happy to meet him in debate on the issue. We would address wind’s volatility as it affects integration techniques. And we would answer the following questions:

* Why did the Dutch stop using windmills to grind grain and pump water to reclaim land from the sea–as soon as the steam engine was invented?

* Why are sailing vessels used almost entirely for recreation today, rather than for commercial purposes?

* Why aren’t gliders providing a substantial percentage of commercial air transport?

* What is the difference between energy and power? What would be the likely consequence if all our gas pumps were wind “powered?”

* What is the percentage of oil used for electricity, nationally and in the MidAtlantic region?

* Why must electricity supply be matched to demand at all times?

* What are the implications for wind technology given that any power generated is a function of the cube of the wind speed along a narrow range of wind velocities (a wind turbine doesn’t begin work until wind speeds hit 9-mph and maxes out when the wind speeds hit around 34-mph)? Explain how a fluctuating source of energy could, by itself, “power” any city.

* Why has steady, controllable, precision power been the basis of modern life?

* If constructed on a forested ridge, how many acres of woods must be cut to support a 100MW wind project, consisting of 40-2.5MW turbines, each 460-feet tall? Account for the requirement to accommodate the “free flow of the wind” for each turbine, staging areas for construction, access roads, substations, and transmission lines. Also account for the number of miles the wind project would extend downrange, assuming five turbines per mile. Finally, account for the amount of concrete necessary to provide a sturdy base for each turbine.

* Examine four wind projects in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, asking how many permanent jobs were produced, the amount of local taxes and revenues received, and what the promises of such were beforehand?

Posted in Appalachian Mountains, Bat/Bird Kills, industrial wind v fossil fuel | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

“Blunt force trauma!”

Posted on April 15, 2010 by morgan

That’s the cause of death reportedly determined by the autopsy conducted on a bald eagle killed at the Erie Shores Wind Farm in Canada.  Of course, it’s all a little hush-hush!

So, here’s a reminder that, in spite of what you hear, the fate shown in this video is not reserved for vultures.  Turn your sound up and listen for the thud when the turbine applies its “BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA,” and then tell me if this silly wind business is really worth it.

Oh, and as we post this, of the 1,100 MW of installed in Ontario’s wind system, they are producing 187 MW = an astonishing 17% or rated nameplate capacity.  An absolutely worthless contribution to the energy needs of the community.

Posted in Bat/Bird Kills | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments