Finally … diesel powered solar energy! Who says subsidies aren’t working?

Posted on April 14, 2010 by morgan

How cool is this?

In early March, Bishop Hill was tipped that a German aristocrat “has figured out that the price he will be paid for the output of a solar panel is so high compared with the price he will pay for his input of normal electricity, that he is thinking of rigging up powerful arc lamps to shine on solar panels on his extensive roof.”

… well, you know what’s next …

“several solar power plants were generating current and feeding it into the net at night. To simulate a larger installation capacity, the operators connected diesel generators.”

Norman Leahy over at Tertium Quids asks, “What’s next; coal fired wind turbines?”

Hmmm … if I could just get a federal grant, that rug and balloon thing I’ve been working on might just pay off after all.

Posted in green lunacy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Industrial wind: “enough to run 70,000 clothes dryers”

Posted on April 14, 2010 by morgan

Our regular visitors know that the popular IESO Wind Tracker is “stuck” in first post position.  The IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) of Ontario states that “Ontario is on the forefront of wind in Canada with almost 1,100 MW of installed capacity on the transmission grid,” and the “tracker” provides a nice, hour by hour report of the actual production of Ontario’s “wind farms” against the installed capacity.

Another thing the IESO folks do is write a footnote with each reading to give a sense of what all that MW stuff means.  For example, the title for this post (enough to run 70,000 clothes dryers) is part of a larger footnote published on the Ontario IESO Wind Tracker which, when expanded reads:  “359 MW or enough to run 70,000 clothes dryers 3 am to 4 am March 4, 2010.”  I could have easily chosen from any of these examples from the “tracker” library:

  • 412 MW or enough to run 6.6 million ceiling fans 11 am to 12 pm February 25, 2010
  • 45 MW or enough to meet the needs of Innisfil 6am to 7am March 2, 2010
  • 525 MW or enough to run a million refrigerators 4 pm to 5 pm March 19, 2010
  • 84 MW or enough to meet the needs of Welland 5 am to 6 am March 6, 2010
  • 840 MW or enough to run a million vacuum cleaners 10 am to 11 am February 26, 2010

With all the push for wind as an energy source and the billions of tax dollars being pumped into the wind business by governments across the world, I though it might be worthwhile to put this all into terms I could relate to, and perhaps understand in terms of the cost and benefit to my simple little world.  Maybe some of you will find this interesting.

First – the 70,000 clothes dryers:

The figure, 359 MW or enough to run 70,000 clothes dryers 3 am to 4 am March 4, 2010, sounds pretty impressive.  But once you realize that if the dryers were actually running at the same time, Ontario’s 1,100 MW of total installed wind capacity would leave nothing to run your toaster, or electric blanket, or a light to read by.  And this measurement, from 3 am to 4 am, represents wind’s actual output v wind’s installed capacity at 32.6% of installed capacity, significantly higher than 27.6% average actual output v installed capacity for the 30 days surrounding it.

Think of it this way.

According to the Ontario Ministry of Finance, the 2006 Census counted 4,555,025 private households in Ontario in 2006.

This suggests that if 70,000 lucky Ontario dryer owners flip on the appliance between 3 am and 4 am on March 4, 2010, the remaining 4,485,025 households in Ontario won’t be able to run a clothes dryer even if they own one, or any other electrical gadget, at least courtesy of the wind.

So how might this translate to us folks in the US?  Let’s use some admittedly rough numbers to place US performance in the same context:

Now that sounds like a lot too, until:

According to the US Census Bureau, there were 105,480,101 households in the US in 2000.

This suggests that  if 2,100,000 lucky US dryer owners flip on the appliance at a time when wind is generating at 32.6% of rated nameplate capacity (higher than average), the remaining 103,380,101 households in the US won’t be able to run a clothes dryer even if they own one, or any other electrical gadget, at least courtesy of the wind.

Not very impressive, is it?  Well, it gets worse.  If you look at Ontario’s reports over time, the severe hourly and daily fluctuation of the wind means there will be times that you can run as many as 15% of the total dryers – and nothing else; and times you’ll be able to run less than 1% – and nothing else … at least courtesy of the wind.

And the big problem with all this?  The wind will set the schedule for your dryer, not you!

Of course, backing up the unreliable and expensive wind energy will be the coal, nuclear, natural gas and hydro power plants that provide the backbone of today’s “on-demand” and reliable power structure, which does so consuming remarkably less land and air space than wind.  But that’s a whole other story, as they say!

To be fair, recognizing these measurements are a snapshot in time, I selected a 30 day period from February 19 to March 20, 2010, because of the “in like a lion and out like a lamb” nature of March and the possibility that the winds would be more favorable to output.  You can certainly choose own time frame, if you wish.

Unlike here in the US, the history of Ontario’s energy output is all here for your convenience:  Hourly Generator Output & Capability.  And believe me, I’m not picking on the IESO.  At least they provide a convenient, user friendly way to show their electricity consumers what is happening across their grid and what their money produces.  Try this little exercise down here in the United States of Transparency.

Using IESO’s hourly data I put together a few charts to help visualize the numbers over these 30 days.  They’re admittedly not the best charts, but then, I’m not the best chart maker by a long shot.

In the first chart I conveniently named Item 1, what you will see by scrolling down the chart from hour 720 (March 20) to hour 0 (February 19) is the hourly fluctuation of actual output v availability capability (1,100).  At the end of the visual chart, I left the source data for you to check for accuracy.

Item 1:  Hourly chart of 30 days of actual v capability (720 hours) Source IESO

  • Date Range Feb 19 (hour 1) thru Mar 20,(hour 720)
  • Scroll down to view hourly impact of variability.
  • Input data follows chart.

The next chart – Item 2 – is for you folks who wish to see the daily detail charted.  My attempt here is to show the hourly fluctuation of wind’s output over a 24 hour period for each day in the period I selected.  The data is from the same source, which is linked at the top of each chart.

Item 2:  Daily Report (hour by hour) Charted:

So, what to make of the all this 70,000 clothes dryer thing?  Here are a few of my thoughts:

  • wind chooses when the electricity is available to run the clothes dryers, not the owners of the clothes dryers.
  • if there were actually 70,000 clothes dryers in Ontario or 2,100,000 clothes dryers in the US running, the wind would be powering nothing else … NOTHING!
  • if Ontario or the US were to substantially depend on the wind, all other energy sources must still remain available to ramp up or down almost minute by minute to compensate for the poor and variable performance of these wind turbines.
  • if wind’s installed capacity were to be increased to a level simply to run all the clothes dryers in the US, and nothing else, how many square miles of land and air would have to be consumed by tremendous numbers of massive turbines?
  • since every spot is not a good spot to plop a “wind farm,” will the cumulative impact caused by consumption of prime land overwhelm the environment?
  • what about the little problem of having wind turbines situated far from the consumer and the whole transmission line and power drop issues?
  • and finally, industrial wind should not be considered a bonus.  It is an extremely high cost, heavily subsidized, under-performing, erratic, unreliable antiquated technology which produces, at best, meager energy to the grid on a uncontrollable schedule.

But don’t take my word for all this.  Review the detailed performance of wind provided by your US suppliers, NREL, Department of Energy, American Wind Energy Association and your friendly local wind developer.

Having a little trouble finding the convenient, user friendly information these folks provide to their electricity consumers?  Well, why don’t you contact your state and federal legislators.  They must have the detail at the ready since they are so willing to throw your hard earned tax dollars at industrial wind.

On the other hand, if they don’t know the answers and continue to waste your money … throw them out of office.  It is your money, after all.

Allegheny Treasures note:  We make every effort to be accurate.  Should you find an error, omission or broken link, please contact us via the comment section.  And please, PLEASE write if you agree or disagree.  The intent for posts is to create a dialogue.

Posted in industrial wind poor performance, Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

BREAKING: Wind powered pig flies non-stop from Garrett County, MD to the University of Delaware!

Posted on April 13, 2010 by morgan

A little while back, Jon Boone wrote a letter to the Cumberland (Maryland) Times-News which we happily posted here under the title, Industrial windplants in Western Maryland? Jon Boone says Garrett Countians “deserve far better.”

Seems Mr. Boone, and an increasing number of citizens, question the actions of politicians at all levels in enabling a wind “farm” comprised of 28 747 size bird and bat chopping turbines to be placed near Eagle Rock, in Western Maryland.  The irony is obvious to any with concerns for the habitat of our feathered friends:

Some probably thought Mr. Boone was being a little sarcastic when he wrote, “Their (politicians’) trollish support for this daffy, environmentally treacherous technology is a shameful commentary about how poorly led this beautiful county is. Both their pretentious words and harmful actions join with the Obama Administration as it attempts to make people believe, across many issues, that pigs can fly.”

Well, at least as far as the promotion of industrial wind as a viable energy source is concerned, making pigs fly seems the order of the day.  Take, for example, the report linked in the New York Times Science Fiction section titled:  “A Grid of Wind Turbines to Pick Up the Slack.”  Mr. Henry Fountain points out the intermittent nature of wind as an introduction to a report titled, “Electric power from offshore wind via synoptic-scale interconnection” by Willett Kempton, Felipe M. Pimenta, Dana E. Veron, and Brian A. Colle.  The study was conducted over a 5 year period, measuring wind along “the Eastern Seaboard of the United States, a span of nearly 2,500 km in northeast–southwest direction.”

As Mr. Fountain suggests, industrial wind’s unreliability is not much of an issue at present, since it represents such a small fraction of the energy equation.  Seems there are plenty of reliable, on-demand sources available to “pick up the slack when wind output falls.”  I always like the way the wind industry advocates put that … “conventional power sources will pick up the slack for wind,” as though wind is the driving force.  Actually, a more accurate portrayal might be a 4 x 100 swimming relay in which one team has a duck as a member.  “What are the chances your team will win, Coach?  Well, it all depends on how well the three men support our duck.”

Mr. Fountain then suggests that, should the level of wind reach 20%, “it would become increasingly difficult to handle the fluctuations in output.”  He suggests that “one proposed solution to the intermittency problem is to tie many wind farms together with a transmission line — making an electric grid, as it were, consisting of wind turbines.”  I guess there is some agreement that, unlike a true power generator, regardless of where you place industrial wind plants, they don’t perform very well on their own.

Enter Dr. Willett Kempton.  Seems he and his “colleagues have shown how this “all-for-one” approach (mentioned by Mr. Fountain above) might work with offshore wind farms along the Eastern Seaboard.”

Their report states that “The world’s wind resource for electric power is larger than the total energy need of humanity. For surface winds over land globally, Archer and Jacobson (1) estimate the wind resource at 72 terawatt (TW), nearly five times the 13 TW world’s demand for all energy. In a more detailed regional estimate, Kempton et al. (2) calculated that two-thirds of the offshore wind power off the U.S. Northeast is sufficient to provide all electricity, all lightvehicle transportation fuel, and all building heat for the adjacent states from Massachusetts to North Carolina.”

Well, there you have it!  It’s all there waiting for the 2,500 kilometer flotilla of whirlybirds to simply gather it up and send it to your house.  And, the best part – the wind is free … sorta!

So, how much will it cost … really?  From the report (with table references removed for ease of reading):  “As an approximate cost comparison, a total of 2,500MWof offshore wind generation has been approved or requested by states from Delaware to Massachusetts…  Connecting them by a 3 gigawatt (GW)HVDC submarine cable would require 350 miles of cable.  At early European offshore wind capital costs of $4,200/kWand submarine cable capital costs of $4,000,000/mile, the installed costs of planned offshore wind generation would be approximately $10.5 billion; the connecting transmission would add $1.4 billion. They are matched in capacity, each approximately 3 GW, yet the transmission adds less than 15% to the capital cost of generation. This is in line with the market cost of leveling wind via existing generation, currently estimated to add about 10% to the cost of energy (10% cost adder for wind penetrations up to 20%, then a higher percentage cost added at higher penetration of wind).”

Wow!  And what do we get for all that extra money?  “In the study region, using our meteorologically designed scale and orientation, we find that transmission affects output by reducing variance, slowing the rate of change, and, during the study period, eliminating hours of zero production. The result is that electric power from wind would become easier to manage, higher in market value, and capable of becoming a higher fraction of electric generation (thus more CO2 displacement).”

Well, I’m not so sure I’d be putting any of my money in this little adventure.  Of course, there’s little I can do about the Washington crowd tossing my money at this misadventure if they continue to be duped by wind’s fairy tale promise of happily ever after.

Oh, yeah … there’s one more thing.  “Today, generation of electricity is primarily a state matter, decided by state public utility commissions, whereas the Independent System Operators (ISOs) manage wholesale power markets and plan transmission. An ISO is the type of organization that might plan and operate the electric system we envision, probably with a mix of owners—private firms, existing electric utilities, and/or public power authorities. Because of the unique characteristics of building and operating offshore, and because our proposed Atlantic Transmission Grid would exist primarily in federal waters and bridge many jurisdictions on land, it may make sense to create a unique ISO, here dubbed the “Atlantic Independent System Operator.” Like existing ISOs, the Atlantic ISO would be responsible for managing and regulating the bulk power market along the offshore transmission cable, but with jurisdiction matched to the synoptic scale of the resource.”

Yep!  The perfect solution.  We’ll turn it over to the same inept crew who can’t seem to get mail to your house on Saturday.

All in all, my argument is not with the technical portion of the report.  I’m just an average citizen with concerns that my tax money be spent on things that actually return a benefit.  So far, industrial wind hasn’t made it to my list.  It instead continues to eat away at my tax dollars in trade for higher utility rates, huge tax subsidies and no significant, measurable contribution to emission reduction or the the grid.

And while I’m not an engineer or technical expert, a number of folks routinely stopping by Allegheny Treasures are very knowledgeable.  Perhaps they will run through the charts and graphs in this very comprehensive report and tell me I’ll all wet and this is the perfect solution for an imperfect energy source.

Maybe then pigs will fly, a mallard will be on the Gold Medal podium at the next Olympics quacking the Star Spangled banner along with Michael Phelps and I’ll be eating crow – the one’s whacked by the turbine blades, of course.

Here’s the full report for your convenience:

We make every effort to be accurate.  Please report any errors, omissions or broken links in the comment section and we’ll take the necessary action.

Posted in Jon Boone, offshore industrial wind, Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , , , , | 6 Comments

Wayne Wegner: “Is the jury still out on the issue of eagles versus 180mph, spinning turbine blades?” Will the odds improve at Eagle Rock, Maryland?

Posted on April 12, 2010 by morgan

With the ridiculous plan to site 28 industrial wind turbines at a site in Garrett County Maryland near Eagle Rock, it is worth hearing from an expert in the field.

Recently posted at the Simcoe (Canada) Reformer:  Bald Eagles vs Industrial Wind Turbines

By Wayne Wegner

Is the jury still out on the issue of eagles versus 180mph, spinning turbine blades? Hardly. Evidence from Norway, Australia, Spain, Germany, Japan, USA and Sweden clearly shows that where Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs) are introduced, local nesting eagles come off second best. DDT wiped out the eagles of the lower Great Lakes in the fifties and sixties and IWTs will almost certainly be next. As Dr. Shawn Smallwood, an experienced raptor biologist from California discovered at Altamont Pass, many of the hawks, owls and eagles that are hit by turbine blades die well away from the scene of the crime(s). Those bloody carcasses are quickly recycled by scavengers, leaving no trace of their deaths. 400-foot-high Industrial Wind Turbines with chopping blades are not “green” to vulnerable wildlife like raptors or bats — not to mention migrating monarch butterflies, dragonflies, ladybugs and other economically important aerial travelers.

Mr. Wegner’s post concludes!

Allegheny Treasures note: Mr. Wegner is an Environmental Scientist with an Honours Graduate degree and has spent many years as a wildlife photographer, traveling from one coast of Canada to the other, and north to south as well.  He also mentioned he has no wind projects anywhere near him.

We were privileged to post Mr. Wegner’s extensive work on the migration of the great birds at 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!”

His very important presentation, Location, Location, Location … Migration, Migration, Migration follows:

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

I got this great idea … we’ll stick 186,000 wind turbines the size of 747’s along the whole Appalachian Trail. Won’t it be cool?

Posted on April 12, 2010 by morgan

Further scary thoughts on the cumulative impact of industrial wind from George Will: “The amount of electricity that would be produced by wind turbines extending the entire 2,178 miles of the Appalachian Trail can be produced by four reactors occupying four square miles of land.”

You heard it right!  “To produce 20 percent of America’s power by wind, which the Obama administration dreamily proposes, would require 186,000 tall turbines—40 stories tall, their flashing lights can be seen for 20 miles—covering an area the size of West Virginia.”

And if that doesn’t short your circuit, maybe this will … “Meanwhile, America, which pioneered nuclear power, is squandering money on wind power, which provides 1.3 percent of the nation’s electricity: it is slurping up $30 billion of tax breaks and other subsidies amounting to $18.82 per megawatt-hour, 25 times as much per megawatt-hour as the combined subsidies for all other forms of electricity production.”

It’s all in Mr. Will’s latest Newsweek article, This Nuclear Option Is Nuclear – The costs of fads and superstition.

Of course, once you consider that the actual output of these silly contraptions is 30% or less of the rated nameplate capacity, you’ll figure out that the number of turbines and the land and air consumed will increase dramatically.  Check out this earlier piece from Robert Bryce.

High cost and low service – now that’s the ticket!

Maybe you should send the article with a little note to your political representative.  If you decide to do so, here are the direct Federal Links – US Senate – House of Representatives.

This is a pretty good link to find the contact information for your state and local representatives.

Heck!  Might as well send one off to President Obama using this user friendly form.  I understand he’s working on an energy plan right now, so I know he’d love to hear from you.

Or, you can just sit back and watch the environment, as you know it, disappear along with your tax dollars.  All for the sake of meeting some half-baked politically established renewable energy goal which requires use of the under-performing and heavily subsidized antique of energy known as industrial wind.

Oh, and about the emission reductions and the jobs, jobs and more jobs the wind folks keep promising?  Well, they’re not coming.  Don’t believe me?  Ask the wind folks to produce concrete statistics, not their model calculations based on their own input.  You know they have the numbers, don’t you?

While you’re at it … ask for real time performance reports for the thousands of installed turbines.  They should be happy to brag about actual performance, don’t you think?

Want to have some real fun?  Ask your politician about actual performance, jobs and emission reductions.

Ask your Federal, State or Local politician about the cumulative impact of industrial wind required to meet the goals they established and watch closely for the “deer in the headlights” gaze that immediately follows your question.

Ask them how much electricity it takes to run a wind plant.  That should be worth a chuckle.

The list of questions your political representatives cannot answer, or will answer incorrectly using the wind industry’s boilerplate hype will probably stagger you.

The reality is, to have a real impact on the nonsense that is industrial wind you must assess your representative’s stewardship of your money and resources and act on it the next time you go to the voting booth.

Use the many links provided here at Allegheny Treasures to inform yourself.  You might be surprised by what you’re not being told.

Posted in Appalachian Mountains | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Department of the Interior formally petitioned to place “eastern small-footed” and “northern long-eared” bats on endangered species list.

Posted on April 12, 2010 by morgan

Mollie Matteson of the Center for Biological Diversity formally petitioned Kenneth Salazar, Secretary of the Interior to list the eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii and northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis as Threatened or Endangered species and to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing.

The petition sets in motion a specific process, placing definite response requirements on the Secretary and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) by delegation.

The full text of the petition is here, for your convenience:

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

Hey … how about if we plop 28 giant wind turbines up near Eagle Rock! What could possibly go wrong?

Posted on April 11, 2010 by morgan

No, I didn’t say Fraggle Rock … although industrial wind as a legitimate energy source is on a level with a Muppet fantasy.  But no, Eagle Rock is another target in the continuing assault on the Allegheny Mountains.  Constellation Energy of Baltimore has now acquired the rights to place 28 industrial wind turbines along Backbone Mountain in Western Maryland.

Constellation indicated it will seek an incidental take permit from the US Fish and Wildlife service, but they didn’t indicate if the application process will occur before of after the first eagles are sliced and diced by the propellers of the Boeing 747 size rotating tinker toys.  According to the following article, “the (incidental take) permit application requires developers to create a habitat conservation plan for mitigating the effects of an incidental killing of wildlife. USFWS can also require that applicants conduct biological surveys of the project area.”  Maybe someone can explain how installing a long line of ineffective tax shelters in the direct flight path of eagles, hawks and bats along Backbone will lead to the “incidental killing of wildlife.”

Trust me folks … once the long line of turbines enabled by our Federal, State and Local legislators is finally connected, and the cumulative impact takes its full measure of wildlife, the resulting loss won’t seem incidental.  Unfortunately, these elected officials and their appointed agencies are not considering the individual applications for “wind farms” in their totality.

Of course, many will no longer be in office when the final tally of destruction is revealed.  Many will be living well in retirement as a result of the many years of power and influence they purchased with the generous funding of the wind industry lobbyists.  The very same wind industry which is funded in large part with your tax dollars, doled out by the very same politicians.  Seem a little incestuous, perhaps?

By the way, the only thing incidental in this whole scenario is the actual contribution of these monstrous turbines to the nation’s energy needs.

Read Times-News reporter Megan Miller’s column here:  Cumberland Times-News

April 10, 2010

Garrett County wind project deal finalized

Megan Miller
Cumberland Times-News

— DEER PARK — Baltimore company Constellation Energy has finalized its acquisition of a Garrett County wind project, closing a deal for the $140 million, 70-megawatt Criterion wind farm with California-based Clipper Windpower Inc.

The project, now under construction, is scheduled to go online by the end of 2010.

The deal was first announced in November and closed Wednesday. As part of the agreement, Constellation will also purchase 28 of Clipper’s Liberty wind turbines, which will be installed along the top of Backbone Mountain near Eagle Rock. The turbines will be built at Clipper’s manufacturing plant in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

The agreement also calls for Clipper employees based in Garrett County to operate and maintain the wind power facility once it’s up and running.

The Criterion project has a 20-year power purchase agreement with Old Dominion Electric Cooperative for both its electricity and renewable energy credits.

Constellation spokesman Larry McDonnell said the developer plans to voluntarily seek an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The company has not yet given a timeframe for filing its application.

The permit effectively protects developers from violating the federal Endangered Species Act by creating a plan in advance to deal with the possibility that endangered wildlife could be harmed by a project. In this region, much of that attention has been focused on the Indiana bat.

“Even though the risk of a negative impact to an Indiana bat is very remote, Constellation Energy will voluntarily seek the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s approval for any incidental impacts,” McDonnell said. “We will commit to developing Indiana bat habitat improvement projects that will result in far greater benefits to the species than any remote risk posed by the project.”

The permit application requires developers to create a habitat conservation plan for mitigating the effects of an incidental killing of wildlife. USFWS can also require that applicants conduct biological surveys of the project area.

The length of time needed for USFWS to review a permit application can range from less than three months to one year, depending on the scope and complexity of the conservation plan, according to USFWS permit instructions. The timeframe can also be affected by other factors, such as public controversy.

Contact Megan Miller at mmiller@times-news.com.

Posted in Allegheny Highlands Eagles, Bat/Bird Kills, Eagles | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Montcoal (West Virginia) Mining Disaster Fund Established

Posted on April 10, 2010 by morgan

According to the Cumberland (Maryland) Times-News, the West Virginia Council of Churches has established a fund to assist the families of miners lost in the recent explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia.

Those wishing to assist can call 304-344-3141 or log on to the West Virginia Council of Churches web site – http://wvcc.org/

Gifts and other items are being accepted at the Appalachian Bible College -http://www.abc.edu/

Posted in Appalachian Mountains | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Maryland industrial wind logic: “They had their privacy for years, and that’s being disturbed and interrupted. But the county has done what it had to do.”

Posted on April 2, 2010 by morgan

I always liked folks who, when finding they screwed up, take the hit.  No qualifiers, no excuses!

So, we’ve got one of this country’s largest utility in the process of constructing a $140 Million wind project which will plop more than two dozen 400-foot-tall turbines along an eight-mile stretch of beautiful Backbone Mountain in Western Maryland.

Well, all of a sudden reality checks in when the bulldozers and heavy equipment start ripping and tearing.  After being notified by neighbors, environmental regulators discovered mud washing from the remote Garrett County mountaintop site into a tributary of one of the state’s wild and scenic rivers.

According to the Baltimore Sun, “We see some markers and the next day they’re in here ripping five trees out at a time,” she (Melisa Carrico) said. “They had 18-wheelers coming down this road [where] we have kids walking all the time.”

Shortly after, she and neighbor Eric Robison saw muddy water flowing from the site. Robison said he contacted the Maryland Department of the Environment, which halted the work early last week.

“The water was unbelievable,” said Robison, 49, a homebuilder. The ridge drains into a tributary of the Youghiogheny River.

So up steps Larry McDonnell, spokesman for owner Constellation Energy.

McDonnell called the episode “unfortunate.” Heavy rain worsened the problem, but “it should not have happened.” No, Mr. McDonnell, it wasn’t unfortunate, is was an error in planning and execution.  Don’t try to mask the inept with qualifiers – “heavy rain worsened the problem.”

McDonnell said in an e-mail that he’s sorry Carrico is upset and noted that Constellation is acquiring the project from the California company that planned it, Clipper Windpower. Again, he’s sorry BUT they bought it from someone else.  Well, Mr. Newbie to the wind power game, that’s how the vast majority of these wind scams are pieced together.  An LLC slides into town, woos the inept local politicians and the fawning press, hires their own consultants to develop submissions for review by unqualified state officials who approve with little concern/understanding of environmental impact or whether there will actually be electricity produced by these unreliable Edsels of energy, all for the sake of meeting and an unscientific goal established by politicians at the instruction of the wind lobby, who fill their campaign coffers.

Citizens be damned!

McDonnell wrote in his email, “Obviously, when you’re building a renewable energy facility of this kind there is a necessary construction phase and we’re prepared to do all we can during this phase to minimize the inconvenience for residents.”  Well, Mr. McDonnell, I don’t know if your message got through to Melisa Carrico, who has lived with her family for a decade on Eagle Rock Road.

Ms. Carrico said “We see some markers and the next day they’re in here ripping five trees out at a time.  They had 18-wheelers coming down this road [where] we have kids walking all the time.”  The article noted that Ms. Carrico, who always considered herself an environmentalist and favored wind as a clean, renewable energy now faces heavy trucks plying their dead-end road and she’s fearful of letting her 13-year-old son walk down the road or her 1 1/2 -year-old grandson play in the yard.

If a supporter of wind is this concerned Mr. McDonnell, you can imagine how those who recognize the wind energy scam for what it is, a non-producing tax shelter, feel when we see the mountains ravaged by organizations such as yours.

Oh, by the way … don’t count on the local authorities to jump to your aid.  Simply read the Baltimore Sun article from which we gathered the comments to see their position on the issues from a local perspective.  Here’s the money quote from the article:  As for Carrico’s complaints about the substation being so near her house, (County administrator Monty Python) Pagenhardt said, “That’s property rights. … It’s in the middle of nowhere. They had their privacy for years, and that’s being disturbed and interrupted. But the county has done what it had to do.” Yes, I suppose there is a time limit on privacy, Monty.  For the sake of the folks in Garrett County, I just hope there’s one on your job, as well!

Better yet … take a look at the letter to the Cumberland (Maryland) Times-News editor written by John Bambacus for his assessment of Garrett County’s finest and the wind shenanigans.  Absolute must reading.

Then, you have to jump over to Garrett County resident Jon Boone’s excellent web site, Stop Ill Wind, for a comprehensive and informative review of the industrial wind business.  Well worth your trip.

Posted in Allegheny Mountains, Industrial Wind and Local Governments, industrial wind poor performance, John Bambacus, Jon Boone | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Is it not reasonable to ask, “When will the commissioners provide compelling evidence showing how a massive industrial wind presence in Garrett County will do anything other than junk up our electricity supply in the process raising costs for rate and taxpayers?”

Posted on April 1, 2010 by morgan

Former Maryland State Senator John Bambacus writes at the Cumberland Times-News

March 31, 2010

Why place mountains at risk?

To the Editor:
Cumberland Times-News

— In the case of the recent devastation and destruction of the Eagle Rock community on Backbone Mountain, the Garrett County Commissioners did what they always do when confronted by citizens who seek their protection from limited liability industrial wind turbine developers: Nothing.

They said there was nothing they could do to protect the safety and well-being of their citizens — the same nothing broken record they’ve been playing for more than eight years.

Garrett County Commissioners Gregg, Glotfelty, and Holliday would not accept any degree of responsibility for the gravity of their acts. Gregg’s response to a question from an affected citizen was dismissive, bureaucratic, and self-exculpatory.

His statement, and the usual and expected silence of Holliday and Glotfelty, was a violation of the public trust the residents of Backbone Mountain placed in them.

Saying there was nothing he could do after years of doing everything in his power to create this situation is sanctimonious and disingenuous nonsense.

Our forests and mountains in many ways define our quality of place — they’re part of who we are.  Did the commissioners ensure that clear cutting Eagle Rock would be done in a manner that would do no harm?

Why did the Maryland Department of the Environment shut the project down? Did they visit the destruction as requested by area residents?

Does Constellation Energy have an obligation to inform residents of their plans to wreak havoc on our endangered species, ground water, landscape, property values, recreation and tourism industry, and, indeed, our way of life?

Questions. More questions. And no answers.

Eagle Rock homeowner Melisa Carrico put it best when she said to the commissioners, “I feel as though I’ve lost all faith in government to protect me.” The commissioners have participated in…“an act of destroying my safety, my environment, my property, and my community.”

Rather than hiding under their desks and denying any responsibility for their complicity with the Clipper / Criterion / Florida Power & Light/ Constellation Energy crowd, the Maryland Public Service Commission and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the commissioners need to step up to the plate, stop their defensiveness and institutional self-protection, and for once explain to the people of Garrett County why our forests and mountain ridges should be placed at risk by massive industrial wind facilities and not to be valued as a legacy for our children and grandchildren as the county’s own Heritage Plan maintains.

Is it not reasonable to ask, “When will the commissioners provide compelling evidence showing how a massive industrial wind presence in Garrett County will do anything other than junk up our electricity supply in the process raising costs for rate and taxpayers?”

Perhaps their silence is evidence that they don’t even know what they don’t know.

While many Garrett Countians oppose the industrialization of our ridges, it seems few are willing to get out of their comfort zones and actually do something to protect the way of life all of us cherish. Yes, astoundingly, many of our citizens seem not to take note or even care.

Even as I write this, after eight long years, it just may be too late. But all should be reminded that the responsibility for this devastation rests squarely with Garrett’s commissioners and their key staff.

Good people should not abandon their neighbors on Backbone Mountain who are fighting to preserve their way of life.

John Bambacus

Frostburg

Bambacus is a former state senator representing Garrett and Allegany counties.


Posted in Allegheny Mountains, John Bambacus | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment