I know I’m a little slow out of the chute, but would someone please explain how all this leads to more US manufacturing jobs?
General Electric to build offshore wind manufacturing plant in UK – US conglomerate says its £100m investment in UK wind industry will create up to 2,000 clean energy jobs
and then:
Am I missing something?
Thoughts on industrial wind in the classroom from Mr. Jon Boone:
WINDSPEAK Q & A
In early March, the Portland-Press Herald began publishing a series of letters from students at the Wayneflete School in Portland, Maine, strongly endorsing a local wind project. Wayneflete is a private high school academy requiring substantial annual tuition. These letters emanated from Jonah Rosenfield’s science class. Here are a few quotes from those letters:
If we are to end our dependence on fossil fuels, we must look to long-term, not short-term solutions to power our world with alternative energy sources; these windmills will certainly serve that purpose.
Maine has the opportunity to be a leader in clean energy efficiency and stewardship of the Earth, and this is why we should build the wind farm.
On an economic level, this endeavor will be very productive. Independence Wind, the corporation heading this project, is a Maine business and will stimulate the state’s economy with the hiring of local employees for this project. The wind energy generated by this farm would be enough to power the entire city of Portland.
This wind farm would supply 129 megawatts of renewable, zero emissions power. That is enough electricity to power the city of Portland, while 55 percent of Maine’s electricity is generated using oil and gas, resources that must be imported.
Relying on fossil fuels requires the destruction of whole mountains and habitats, whereas the turbines merely disturb the view and a smaller area of nature.
In the interests of effectively parsing such rhetoric and injecting epistemological rigor, here are a few questions that the faculty might consider asking, the answers to which should complement the entire curricular experience as it engages students at the intersection of history, civics, science, mathematics, engineering, and economics.
Although it is possible that such inquiry may, perhaps, spoil the happily-ever-after quality that evidently permeates the curriculum at institutions like Wayneflete, students would be required to actually use the knowledge and skills one hopes they were taught in their individual academic subjects.
* Why did the Dutch stop using their windmills to grind their grain and pump water to reclaim their 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 and dirigibles 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 in the production of electricity, nationally and in New England?
* 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 (that is, a wind turbine doesn’t begin to work until the wind speeds hits 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.
* If constructed on a forested mountain 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.
* Why has steady, controllable, precision power been the basis of modern life?
* Examine four New York wind projects, asking how many permanent jobs were produced, the amount of local taxes and revenues received, and what the promises of such were beforehand?
Jon Boone
Oakland, MD
March 31, 2010
AT Note: Mr. Boone is a former University Administrator, Environmentalist, Artist, Author, Documentary Producer, and Formal Intervenor in Wind Installation Hearings. Visit Mr. Boone’s informative web site for an extensive library of his writings at stopillwind
The creativity of some folks never ceases to amaze me. While some are trying to come up with things like fuel cells, mini-nukes and who knows what to lead the pack on new sources of renewable energy, some Californians just reach back to find their future in the past.
An article in the Modesto Bee today says “a plant that would turn orchard wood into electricity won initial support Tuesday from the Modesto Irrigation District board.” And here’s the neat part – “The plant, which could be running by 2012, would help the MID meet a state mandate to get 33 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020.”
Now don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of burning stuff to produce energy, at least until a real substitute comes along. It seems logical to produce energy that’s reliable, controllable and available when you call for it. You know, flip a switch and the light comes on! I agree with the article that the wood burning plant makes sense because “it could run at any time, unlike wind turbines, which are subject to the breezes, said Greg Salyer, manager of resource planning and development for the MID.” Exactly! Who wants to wait for a breeze to make toast?
And the best thing about this wood burning plant is you can count on it when the chips are down (sorry, couldn’t resist) – “The plant would get an average of about 50 truckloads of chips a day, Ellery said. The volume would vary by season, increasing as trees are pruned in winter.” Of course, you have the mandatory: “how much diesel fuel would be burned to chip and haul the wood.” (I certainly hope they’ve considered how much CO2 would be released by the dogs chasing the trucks?)
Of course, the logical next step in California’s backward quest is a fuel source with even more energy potential when burned, pound for pound, than these orchard clippings which are available in abundance only at pruning time. I happen to know where they have some very, very, very old wood … so old it looks like charcoal.
Better yet, I hear there are facilities that actually drive massive generators using tiny particles of matter to make steam. How cool is that!!!
Unfortunately, it seems today’s measure of energy success is more about the renewable credits accumulated than actually providing the energy necessary for a productive economy and comfortable citizenry. The 25% by 2025 and 30% by 2015 batch of arbitrary political goals seems only to line the pockets of the green energy tycoons and their enablers while providing few jobs and little tangible environmental benefit. At least that’s what hits me when I see commentary such as found at the solve climate blog: “California utilities can now purchase some of the benefits of renewable energy without actually purchasing the energy itself. That’s the gist of a move yesterday by the California Public Utilities Commission to allow utilities to use tradable renewable energy credits (TRECs) to meet the state’s ambitious renewable portfolio standard. The state’s utilities had previously been allowed to use renewable energy credits (RECs), but those RECs had to be bundled with renewable energy generation. Tradable RECs, on the other hand, can be unbundled from renewable energy generation.“
So, as the politicians continue to stuff our tax money into the pockets of the renewable scam agents in an attempt to meet their self-imposed goals, we can only hope that a very creative individual comes along with real innovation based in sound science to meet our energy needs. I just hope it happens before we’re bankrupt.
Bankrupt … hmmm! That reminds me, “Los Angeles Electricity Rates Skyrocket Due to Renewables“
From Reuters Environment Forum: Why subsidize the surfeit of wind turbines?
With an oversupply of wind turbines, why are governments subsidizing new manufacturing plants?
In recent years, China has ramped up its efforts to become a world leader in manufacturing and installation of wind turbines.
But the other side of the story is that China has also idled 40 percent of its industrial wind turbine manufacturing capacity as a result of oversupply and plummeting prices.
In Europe, the world’s largest turbine manufacturer, Vestas, announced a bond issue of 600 million euros ($807 million). This is the first bond issue in the company’s history and it was due to slow growth.
Even with an oversupply of manufacturing capacity, and falling prices for wind turbines, taxpayer-funded investment in wind turbine manufacturing by foreign companies in North America has been moving ahead with great fanfare.
In Canada, Ontario signed a $7 billion dollar deal with South Korea’s Samsung to manufacture industrial wind turbines and develop wind energy projects in the province — creating 4,000 jobs.
A Chinese and American business consortium announced plans to develop 1,000 jobs with the support of $450 million in taxpayer stimulus funds as part of recovery spending.
Vestas took the unusual step of announcing that it would consider building a manufacturing facility to build turbines for Ontario Trillium Power – a wind farm proponent without the necessary approvals to install turbines, or sell power into the grid.
Last year Vestas cited an oversupply of industrial wind turbines as justification for laying off 1,900 European wind turbine-manufacturing workers.
China idling 40 percent of their wind turbine manufacturing capacity demonstrates the oversupply is severely impacting even the most competitive manufacturing market in the world.
Under normal circumstances, China’s competitive advantage should allow Chinese-manufactured turbines to meet the demands of the global market at the expense of less competitive jurisdictions.
But these procurement decisions are based on politics, not economics.
North American jurisdictions seeking “green” manufacturing jobs are selling the idea to voters as a means of developing a green manufacturing sector as part of an economic recovery.
The reality, as evidenced around the world, is that these jobs aren’t permanent and could not exist without extensive ongoing government subsidization and therefore involvement in the business decisions of this industry.
Until the industry addresses the oversupply and governments address ever growing subsidization rates, real turbine prices will continue to fall, oversupply will continue to grow and subsidization rates will move this industry even further from market principles other sectors follow.
The impact will be felt by jurisdictions that have embraced and financially supported the technology.
They will surely feel the pressure higher electricity prices place on traditional manufacturing sectors, and the eventual loss of these temporary jobs when the wind turbine manufacturer pulls out.
Roger Pielke Sr’s Climate Science blog offers an excellent guest post by Dr. C. (Kees) Le Pair.
The wind industry cannot be pleased with this analysis.
Read the full post here: Guest Post On Wind Energy By Dr. C. (Kees) Le Pair
Jon Boone, former University Administrator, Environmentalist, Artist, Author, Documentary Producer, and Formal Intervenor in Wind Installation Hearings, provides an advance review of the much anticipated new book by author Robert Bryce, which is due for release April 27, 2010. Advance orders are available at this Amazon.com link.
Nutrition Action for Energy Appetites: Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future—by Robert Bryce
With Power Hungry, energy journalist and Austin apiarist Robert Bryce marshals lots of accurate numbers in context to make plain how modern culture exacts power from energy to save time, increase wealth, and raise standards of living. He also dispenses common sense to citizens and policy makers for an improved environment, a better, more productive economy, and more enlightened civil society. Inspired by the environmental economics of Rockefeller University’s Jesse Ausubel and the University of Manitoba’s prolific Vaclav Smil, he makes the case for continuing down the path of de-carbonizing our machine fuels—a process begun two hundred years ago when we turned from wood to fossil fuels and huge reservoirs of impounded water. As the world’s population continues to urbanize, people will inevitably demand cleaner, healthier, environmentally sensitive energy choices.
Today, the world uses hydrocarbons for 90 percent of its energy, getting a lot of bang for its buck. Bryce offers convincing evidence that, over the next several generations, particularly since broad energy transformations require much time and financial investment, relatively cleaner burning natural gas will provide a bridge to pervasive use of nuclear power—“ the only always-on, no-carbon source than can replace significant amounts of coal in our electricity generation portfolio.” And if nuclear ultimately becomes the centerpiece for the electricity sector, which constitutes about 40 percent of our total energy use, this development would accelerate the de-carbonization of the transportation and heating sectors as well.
His narrative transcends the current climate change debate. He thinks the evidence on either side is equivocal, at best provisional, and, even if it could be proven conclusively that humans were responsible for precipitously warming the earth by producing a surfeit of carbon dioxide, there is little that could be done about the situation now that would be consequential or practical, except embrace imaginative adaptation approaches.
Bryce organizes his ideas around four interrelated “Imperatives” that serve as a prime motif for human history and explain much contemporary circumstance: power density, energy density, scale and cost. He shows that, although energy is the ability to do work, what people really crave is the ability to control the rate at which work gets done—power. Performing work faster means more time to do something else. This begets an appetitive feedback loop, where more power unleashes more time to produce more power. As the scale of this process increases, costs are reduced, making what power creates more affordable.
In terms of economic efficiency and improved ecosystems, producing the most power in the smallest space at a scale affordable by all is what present and future enterprise should ensure.
The power density of fossil fuels, expressed in watts, BTUs, or horsepower, has been the lynchpin of our modernity, although they will eventually become depleted, perhaps over a few centuries or much sooner, as various peak oil and coal scenarios suggest. (Bryce shows that worldwide oil’s marketshare has fallen over the last 35 years and the rate of decline will likely continue.) And they do have negative environmental consequences. Particularly coal, with such environmentally treacherous extraction techniques as strip mining/mountaintop removal, and toxic emissions. But their overall benefits at present outweigh the negatives in a comprehensive cost benefit analysis. Which is why they’re so popular.
Hydrocarbons lift people out of poverty, literally empowering them to better health, wealth, and productivity. “The key attribute of hydrocarbons is their reliability,” a precondition for coordinated economic and social convergence, which is the very hallmark of modern life. Planning to replace their capacity successfully will demand great ingenuity and the most advanced technology—not hyped-up premodern gadgetry like industrial wind technology.
Over the first seven chapters of his book, Bryce lays out the gargantuan scale of our energy consumption, bound on the one side by the existence of nearly seven billion people and the thirst for increasingly denser power supplies on the other. He shows why, if oil didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it. Deploying helpful charts and graphs throughout, he demonstrates that we will not, indeed cannot, quit using hydrocarbons any time soon, since our daily consumption is equivalent to 226 million barrels of oil, equal to the total daily output of twenty-seven Saudi Arabias.
The world consumes nearly 7 billion horsepower a day, albeit unevenly, since Americans consume energy at 18 times the rate of people in Pakistan and India. America leads the world in reliable horsepower and produces about 74 percent of the primary energy it consumes. Moreover, it has more hydrocarbon reserves than any other nation. Yet, despite all this power, the United States leads the world in energy efficiency and per capital carbon emission reductions over the last fifteen years.
So why are so many willing to trade the high power density of coal, natural gas, and oil for such unreliable, low-power-density sources as wind and solar? Part II, The Myths of Green Energy, attempts to answer this question. Bryce looks closely at the claims for wind especially and debunks them all as mainly the result of snake oil, a too-gullible public suffused in scientific illiteracy, “happy talk” from media (viz, Thomas Friedman), and self serving bombast from industry pundits like T. Boone Pickens. Thinking that wind technology, for example, could put a dent in the use of fossil fuels as an “alternate” energy source is just plain goofy, akin to believing that a book of matches could melt a glacier. Believing that corn and cellulosic ethanol are friends of the environment and consumers is downright Orwellian. In truth, they reduce efficiency and performance while damaging machine engines, and raise the cost of food by shrinking food supply while depleting millions of acres of soil and siphoning off a sea of water. For shame.
Bryce reinforces the theme of his previous book, Gusher of Lies. The energy business is so vast and intricately global that it dooms any nation’s quest for energy independence. Those who think more hybrid cars, wind machines, and solar cells will free the United States from its dependence on imports will be shocked to discover that those technologies hinge on rare earth elements obtainable almost exclusively in China. Which fact largely explains why the Chinese are rapidly becoming a dominant manufacturer and exporter of “green” technologies.
Bryce relishes challenging flimflam. Power Hungry demolishes the notion that oil is dirty; that carbon capture/sequestration schemes can be globally effective; that cap-and-trade/taxation/renewable energy credit ideas for reducing carbon dioxide emissions can do anything but worsen the situation, at the expense of tax and ratepayers; that plug-in electric cars will soon revolutionize the transportation sector; and that efficiency, desirable as it is as a means of conservation, can change the world.
Bryce’s conclusions about better policy follow the logic of Sherlock Holmes: “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” By eliminating the imposters and exposing the disingenuous, he is then able to engage in rational discourse about the genuinely probable technologies that will in future slake our ginormous craving for power.
He states the problem in a way that suggests solutions. If society seeks cleaner air and water, if consumers seek cheaper energy, if environmentalists seek open vistas and large swaths of untrammeled nature, if politicians seek a significant reduction of greenhouse gasses while maintaining, even expanding, the power requirements of modernity—then the future of energy conversion for electricity must hinge on increased use of natural gas in the near term while the world prepares for nuclear power over the long haul. Given the magnitude of the situation, anything else is hope. And prayer.
Recounting the sorry recent history of natural gas supply, Bryce explains how pandering politics and the coal industry combined to reduce its availability, making the public think the resource had been exhausted, However, new discoveries of extensive shale deposits in the United States, along with improvements in extraction technologies, now make natural gas much more available. That it burns 50 percent cleaner than coal, emits no toxic particulates, and is so versatile, make it the ideal transitional fossil fuel for the next generation or so. As more supplies become available, costs will continue to drop, making natural gas more appealing to consumers. To protect against damaging the ground water and pollutant leakage through gas lines, the industry would have to be carefully regulated, particularly in remote areas during the extraction process.
Still, as good as they are, carbon-based fuels, even those as beneficial as oil and natural gas, continue to put us at odds with our potential for informed stewardship of the planet. Our best scientists tell us we must do better in achieving goals of sustainable biodiversity and healthier ecosystems. To do so, we should sooner than later move beyond sloganeering and heavy reliance on fossil fuels.
As Bryce says, “nuclear goes beyond green.” It provides two million times the power density of fossil fuels and can be contained in a small area, preserving the countryside. Concerns about its safety because of exaggerated news accounts of the damage inflicted by the Three Mile Island/Chernobyl accidents, along with the dramaturgy wrought by Hollywood, have allowed fear mongering to prevail over sound science. Despite not building a single nuclear plant in thirty years, the US still has more nuclear facilities than any nation in the world. US nuclear plants have a capacity factor of 92 percent, significantly better than any other generating system. Even though nuclear has only 11percent of the nation’s installed capacity, it nonetheless satisfies 20 percent of demand. The nation’s largest grid, the PJM, uses nuclear for 35 percent of its generation, and has done so safely for over twenty years.
For the last thirty years, France has employed nuclear for 80 percent of its electricity consumption. The French reprocess most of the spent fuel, capturing the uranium and other materials so that they can be sent through the reactors again, reducing “the volume of waste by a factor of two or three.” Moreover, Bryce highlights the prospects for a fusion-fission transmutation system in the near future that would create additional fuel for electricity and medical applications. It would also substantially reduce radioactive half-life time—while preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The potential for newer, smaller, safer nuclear power plants is enormous, and Power Hungry explores a range of what is probable. Today, the capital costs of large nuclear plants are very high, but they can run continuously without interruption day and night year after year. Their long-term maintenance costs are relatively low. Compared with building a large hydro dam, however, which has enormous negative environmental consequences for entire watersheds, construction costs for nuclear are a bargain. Contrasted with the incredibly high capital costs of wind projects, which provide only sporadic energy and no modern power performance, nuclear is incomparable, for there is no apples-to-apples comparison to be made with wind. How can one compare the best performing car ever made with a clunker that never works as desired?
Bryce brings his narrative sweep to a conclusion by calling for rethinking what the notion of green should mean. In particular, he urges that environmentalism return to the days when those commanding the movement revered hard facts, treasured good science, and understood that culture was part of nature, not mystically outside of it. They knew the “hard truth” that “energy production is not pretty, cheap, or easy.” Although they may have been initially seduced by the allure of “renewable energy,” they would have finally understood that the whole concept of renewables is problematic, since nothing is continually renewable; they only appear that way from the short perspective of human time. As many have discovered about the only widely effective renewable, impounded hydro, simply because a source of power is clean-burning does not make it “green.” Informed environmentalists should know that the current push for wind technology is based on the mistaken belief that wind is greener than hydrocarbons such as oil and natural gas.
Power Hungry also urges renewed support for the International Atomic Energy Agency; putting the skids on the ethanol boondoggle by short-circuiting Iowa’s stranglehold on presidential primaries; pushing for greater scientific/engineering literacy and less political grandstanding in public policy; banning mountaintop removal coal extraction techniques; and imposing coordinated reality on national energy policy. The policy goal should be to promote “cheap abundant energy” consistent with the protection of sensitive habitat, vulnerable species of flora and fauna, and a more diverse and empowered planet.
The book covers so much ground across so many topics that it is unfair to quibble about details that are not fully accounted for. Bryce gets the important ideas right. He spends much time trimming the sails of the industrial wind fandango, in part because he knows it is inconsequential as an energy source but also because public dollars invested in it represent dollars not spent on effective power. He couldn’t find a shred of empirical evidence that wind has been responsible for offsetting greenhouse gas emissions in the production of electricity—or that it has contributed to any reductions in fossil fuel use. Even in the wind poster nation of Denmark. Instead, he found only “projections” offered up by industry trade organizations or government agencies beholden to wind success that were uncontaminated by reality—much like college football polls.
Most importantly, he tells why wind can’t offset meaningful CO2 emissions or replace fossil fuels. To do this, he introduces the work of engineers like Australian Peter Lang, Canadian Kent Hawkins, and Britain’s Jim Oswald, who demonstrate how wind’s existential volatility and unreliability must make everyone and everything involved with wind integration work much harder just to stand still, in the process greatly increasing both cost and thermal activity. Wind is a fuel supplement that requires a lot of supplementation, since no one can be sure how much of its capacity will be available for any future time. A wind plant’s output unpredictably bounces around between zero and its maximum possible yield.
The challenge is how to reconcile the square peg of firm reliability with the round hole of wind’s fluttering caprice. Since it must match supply perfectly with demand at all times, no grid can allow wind volatility to be loosed by itself: It must be entangled with proactive, highly dynamic conventional generation to make its capacity whole. More than 70 percent of any wind project’s maximum capability must come from reliable, flexible conventional generation, typically natural gas units working inefficiently to do so. These inefficiencies accumulate quickly, eventually consuming more fuel in the same way that an automobile does in stop-and-go traffic.
As Lang shows, even the best possible thermal entanglement with wind, comprised of several types of natural gas systems, can save only 15 percent more CO2 than can be achieved with the natural gas systems alone, without any wind. Inefficient use of natural gas systems with wind, such as responsive open cycle units normally used only at peak demand, would save no net carbon dioxide emissions. As Hawkins shows, using a combination of coal and natural gas for wind balancing results in more carbon emissions than would be the case without any wind. Any fossil fuel saved when it is sporadically displaced by wind is often consumed in even greater volume as it is called upon to compensate for wind’s relentless skittering.
More than 2500 skyscraper-sized wind turbines, spread over 500 miles of terrain, and a passel of natural gas units at 90 percent of wind’s maximum output—and hundreds of miles of new transmission lines/voltage regulation—would be required to provide parity with the capacity of a 1500MW nuclear facility.
Bruce makes vividly clear that wind is neither clean nor green—and is in the hunt solely because of massive government support, which is 23 times the per kilowatt-hour subsidy given for fossil-fired plants that produce copious reliable capacity. It provides only sporadic energy—not modern power performance. Wind is not only inimical to all the primary goals of modern electricity production—reliability, affordability, security; it also actively subverts them. It is not cutting edge, effective, and progressive; rather, it is antediluvian, dysfunctional, and uncivil.
In many ways, wind resembles the character Major Major Major Major, made so indelible by Joseph Heller in his immortal Catch-22. Like wind, even when the Major was in, he was out. Even more apropos is the connection with Major Major’s father, a Calvinist alfalfa farmer who received a public subsidy for every acre of crop he did not grow, using the money to buy more land on which not to grow alfalfa. He thought such practice was divinely ordained, proclaiming, “You reap what you sow,” while maintaining that federal aid to anyone but farmers was “creeping socialism.” With only a few word changes, this is the line trumpeted by the American Wind Energy Association on behalf of its limited liability companies.
Spawned, then supported, by government welfare measures at considerable public expense, wind produces no meaningful product or service yet provides enormous profit to a few wealthy investors, primarily multinational energy companies in search of increased bottom lines through tax avoidance. Wind does reap what it sows, masquerading as a power source to hide its real identity as an Enronesque tax shelter generator.
Power Hungry sets the stage for an inquiry about why wind has become so politically attractive. Gullibility and dimwittery are surely part of the explanation, as Bryce suggests. But the real causes may have more to do with the nefarious acquiescence of our regulatory and government agencies—combined with how the power industry itself has embraced wind. Why aren’t utilities in general, and regulatory agencies and grid controllers in particular, being held accountable for what they’re doing to ratepayers by supporting generation that must destabilize the electricity supply/transmission system? To what extent are corporations that are heavily involved with coal, natural gas, and oil also involved with wind? The bipartisan dive to the bottom now enabling the wind scam is worthy of another book.
As it is, Power Hungry provides a grand tour of our energy landscape in the best journalistic tradition of serving the public good, exposing the cant of received wisdom and using the authority and weight of good numbers to put ideas into proper perspective. Bryce’s numbers provide giant shoulders upon which to stand, allowing us to see farther and better, increasing our knowledge and improving the odds for institutional wisdom. There are few things more important to the world’s life, liberty, and happiness than an enhanced ability to convert abundant energy into high power at affordable cost. Robert Bryce, with buoyant bonhomie, marks the way.
Jon Boone
March 28, 2010
Eric Bibler, President of the Citizen’s Group Save Our Seashore, provided the following remarks to the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission:
March 22, 2010
Good afternoon.
Thank-you to Chairman Delaney, to Mr. Price, and to all of the Members of the Advisory Commission for this opportunity to address you.
My purpose in coming here today is to attempt to impress upon you the depth of the opposition that exists – and is rapidly growing — to various proposals that have been floated to install industrial wind turbines within, or abutting, the National Seashore.
In addition, I would like to address – and rebut – a series of justifications that have been offered in defense of these proposals to install industrial wind energy facilities within the National Seashore – a course of action which will result in the permanent impairment of the integrity of this beloved national park.
The question before us is not whether we should be “for” or “against” initiatives to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, reduce greenhouse gases or encourage the development of practical new sources of renewable energy as an alternative. As we look toward the future and admit the challenges we collectively face, we are all environmentalists today.
Wind energy is a very complex topic which is mistakenly thought by many to be a simple one. Everyone is “for” wind energy initially – you, me, everyone – because most of us share many popular misconceptions about the technology and its efficacy as a solution to our problems. Chief among these mistaken preconceptions are the following:
o Wind energy is benign, with virtually no adverse consequences
o Wind energy is practical, reliable and efficient
o Wind energy is wonderfully beneficial in terms of reducing green house gases, our dependence upon foreign oil and our “carbon footprint”
o Wind energy is profitable, a way to convert a plentiful and “free” resource – wind – into electricity while offering an opportunity for producers (like the Town of Wellfleet) to benefit financially
Who wouldn’t support such a wonderful alternative to burning fossil fuel – if only it were true? But, in fact, not only is virtually every one of these claims open to challenge, they are all easily refuted.
I’m not going to argue most of these points today.
My purpose in mentioning them is to let you know that I understand the point of departure for most people – that there is really nothing to talk about regarding the miraculous benefits of wind energy because, as far as they understand, these questions have been settled. I think that the near universal acceptance of this web of misconceptions goes a long way towards explaining how we ever could have arrived at the point that a Superintendent of a National Park – a man whose statutory purpose is “to preserve the landscape in its original condition for all future generations” – could frame the debate, without a hint of defensiveness or qualification, as “not a question of ‘if’” we should install industrial wind turbines within our national parks, “but a question of ‘where to put them’”! What could be more shocking?
As the Commission Members know, we have written many letters to you discussing in detail why this specific proposal, the Wellfleet Wind Turbine project, should never be allowed to threaten the integrity of the National Seashore and why, in our opinion, it is the duty of the National Park Service to resist the plan and to ensure, for the sake of park users everywhere, that it is never built.
My purpose today, sadly, is to address a series of specific justifications for this project – erroneously framed as competing and equally important objectives of the park – which have been offered over the past several months and years in various private and public meetings and in official correspondence from Mr. Price.
None of these rationalizations stand up to scrutiny. I believe that the sooner that we dispose of them – once and for all – and begin thinking more clearly about the core objectives of the National Seashore, the better we will all be for it.
In the end, there is simply one fundamental fact that we must all keep in mind in considering what debts and obligations the National Seashore owes – and does not owe – to various competing interests: the park was established to preserve a uniquely valuable tract of land, in its original, natural condition, for the enjoyment and use of the citizens of the United States, for all time.
I will be happy to take any questions, at your discretion, at the conclusion of my remarks.
Once the rhetoric dies down and a detailed investigation begins, no one disagrees that there will be numerous and significant adverse consequences to any wind energy project, including this one. Eventually, the argument is always about just how bad these consequences will be. Here are a few:
–Jolting visual impact from a 410 foot, mammoth steel machine with a blinking FAA beacon, towering over a landscape of 20 foot trees
–Disturbing and unnatural noise – 105 decibels near the hub, equivalent to a jet or a helicopter (and NPS has a group devoted to minimizing jet flyovers!)
–Chronic noise – significant disruption to habitat, hunting and breeding (see NPS studies, Royal Society for Protection of Birds / northern harrier). Drives wildlife off.
–Intense flicker – twice a day, each day, when the sun is out (also much more intense, and lasts longer, for park users near the wind turbine).
–Mortality to birds and bats, especially raptors and migratory birds. Not “if” they will be killed, but “how many?”
–Wind turbine syndrome – a fancy name for the symptoms that occur from prolonged exposure due to the physiology of our ears, our extreme sensitivity to sound waves both audible and inaudible and disruption to our finely balanced bodily mechanism.
–Compromises health and safety – the manufacturer’s recommended safety perimeter against “ice throw” and mechanical failure is 1300 feet in all directions for the Vestas V90. Wellfleet proposes to place the wind turbine a bit more than 415 feet from the boundary of the Seashore.
The bottom line: this proposal results in significant degradation of quality of the experience for the park user and profound disruption of the habitat in a conservation area – over a mile in all directions.
The obvious question, then, is this: what benefits accrue to the National Seashore, or to park users, from the Wellfleet Wind Turbine proposal?
Sadly, there are none.
Absent the misguided notion that any presumed reduction in green house gases justifies destroying a swath of fragile habitat, there are no benefits. Not one.
So here’s the deal: Wellfleet gets all the money. The park gets all of the fallout.
This is one of the primary justifications for the Wellfleet wind turbine offered by Superintendent Price – our collective responsibility to do something about global warming and Mr. Price’s personal responsibility, as a public servant, to “other government agencies” and to the town of Wellfleet in this regard.
No one disputes the urgency of the problem. But this is not the answer.
The best way I know to make this argument is to note that an average conventional power plant produces 500MW of power. The windmill will produce, at best, 500KW – about 1 /1000 or 1/10th of 1% of this amount – and that is being generous.
If we’re going to subordinate the core interests of the national park – conservation and preservation – to this “urgent national imperative,” then logically we should replicate this policy, right? If it makes sense to do it here, it should make sense to do it everywhere.
But are we ready and willing to ruin 1000 unfragmented habitats in 1000 conservation areas – or to sacrifice 1000 national parks – all for the sake of replacing ONE medium sized conventional power plant? Is that a rational energy policy?
Wellfleet is going to spend a total of $8 million on this project — $5.5 million (at least) for installation and $2.5 million in contributed land. Is that an efficient use of our financial resources — $8 million per windmill? That would be equivalent to $8 billion to replace a conventional plant – all of it paid for by tax subsidies and surcharges!
Wellfleet’s financial pro forma financials – which are wildly optimistic, by the way – only appear to make sense because of legislation that – for the time being – provides them with a subsidized payment that is four times the wholesale price of electricity.
The bottom line: Wellfleet proposes to devote $8 million in resources – a huge outlay – in order to produce a miniscule amount of energy so that they can reap the benefit of a lavish (and probably temporary) financial subsidy that pays them four times the going rate for electricity.
Is that a sound foundation for a national energy policy? To sacrifice fragile habitat and dedicated conservation areas and to move money, via taxes and surcharges, from one pocket to another, in order to build a series of ridiculously uneconomic projects run by inexperienced operators?
If that is my part of “doing my part” – count me out!
Wind energy is terribly inefficient and, worse, not reliable. It only produces energy when the wind blows, and not on demand. Because of this, its capacity to reduce green house gases is almost always grossly overstated.
The problem is that because consumers expect access to power on demand, the power plants keep running in the background – just in case the wind doesn’t blow. It isn’t possible to fine tune the output from conventional plants – to start and stop them quickly – so they just keep humming, just in case they are needed.
Many European countries that pioneered wind energy – notably Denmark and Germany – have been extremely disappointed by their experience and are moving away from this technology — and ending, or curtailing, their subsidies to promote it.
The “footprint” – the amount of dedicated land that is required — is huge; the cost is high; the intrusion on the landscape is profound; the health and safety risks are disturbing; and it doesn’t work! In addition, the output of electricity has been a mere fraction of the anticipated yield. To my knowledge, not one conventional power plant has ever been retired or replaced because of substitution from wind energy.
In a recent “Status Update” provided by the Wellfleet Energy Committee to the Board of Selectmen, the WEC assumed a 100% substitution effect – i.e. that wind energy replaced conventional energy (probably 100% coal) on a 1:1 basis and therefore reduced green house gases by an amount equivalent to the fossil fuels that were conserved. This is typically – and fundamentally false.
It should also noted that only 1% of all the electricity that we use is produced by burning oil and that wind energy does nothing – absolutely nothing – to “reduce our dependence on foreign oil” as many (including the Wellfleet Energy Committee) assert. That is categorically false.
All conservation groups AND the Wind Turbine Guidelines Federal Advisory Committee – appointed by the Secretary of the Interior and serving under the sponsorship of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – categorically OPPOSE invasion of conservation areas for development of wind energy. Excerpts from the Wind Turbine Guidelines are included in the accompanying background books which I am distributing. A cursory glance at these Guidelines will confirm that the parent agency of the National Seashore opposes, on principle, wind energy projects such as the one proposed by Wellfleet and, inexplicably, unopposed by the Cape Cod National Seashore.
CCNS management is explicitly charged with the duty and the obligation to manage a national park, with fixed boundaries, in the furtherance of its core objective — preservation of the landscape, the soundscape, the flora, the fauna and the quality of the park experience for all future generations. Period. No more, no less. They should be leading the charge AGAINST industrialization in the park – of any kind – and not making exceptions for a specific type of industrialization; or worse, ushering it in.
This is another oft repeated justification for the Wellfleet wind turbine by its proponents – that the park “must be sensitive” to the needs of the towns “because the towns were there first.”
Or, to put it more bluntly – as the Town of Wellfleet effectively did with the recent publication of a legal opinion from their Town Counsel: it’s none of NPS’s business what Wellfleet chooses to do with the land they own within the national park.
But this argument is also fallacious:
Furthermore, the founding legislation clearly stipulates that zoning regulations for land within the boundaries of the park – and this land is clearly within the boundaries – must be compatible with the achievement of the park’s core objectives – preservation and conservation. Wellfleet’s wind turbine zoning bylaw, and its subsequent proposal to industrialize land within the park, are in direct conflict with this core mission. At a recent public meeting and in official correspondence, Mr. Price has made it clear that the NPS takes issue with the recent opinion of the Wellfleet Town Counsel that the NPS has no rights in this regard.
So if the CCNS and its Advisory Commission feel so passionately about opposing the recent construction of the Blasch House – a two story structure – within the Seashore that they are willing to go to court to assert their legal rights in this regard, why are they so passive about protecting the park from the erection of a series of 400 foot industrial structures from one end of the National Seashore to the other? This is even more mystifying when one considers that the legal case against the Blasch House is indescribably weaker than the case that might be brought against the intrusion of 400 foot industrial machines within the park!
Why is CCNS so permissive – and so impotent – in the face of such an intrusion? In fact, even more shocking, why is CCNS actually leading the “view shed analysis” exercise to determine “appropriate” locations for such industrial structures within the boundaries of the park?
There is no requirement that the national park sacrifice its objectives when it comes into conflict with a town’s desire to develop, to industrialize and threaten the very reason for the park’s existence.
And, therefore, there is no justifiable reason for such acquiescence to the desires of other parties – including the abutting towns — to develop land within the park.
Wellfleet has access to energy – plenty of energy. If this proposal doesn’t make sense on environmental grounds – and it doesn’t – then stripped of this motive, it is nothing more than an irresponsible scheme to cash in on government subsidies and surcharges. In fact, this is Wellfleet’s primary selling point with voters – new revenue for the town – but at the expense of the park.
It is true that the management of the National Seashore should be sensitive to the needs of the abutting towns – within reason. But it is also true that the respective goals of the two parties – conservation for the Seashore and development for the towns – are inherently in conflict. And the management of the park is obligated to preserve the integrity of the park at all costs.
The Cape Cod Model notwithstanding, there is no stipulation anywhere that the Superintendent of the Park must be sensitive to any Town’s desire to exploit the resources of the park to reap a windfall profit from various state and federal subsidies.
Acquiescence by the park to such a scheme is unnecessary, unacceptable and unconscionable.
The NPS is not obligated to sacrifice its core mission for other U.S. agencies either – not even for the President of the United States.
It is not the prerogative of any entity in the Executive Branch – not even the President – to redefine the mission of the National Seashore or any national park. It is the law of the land. Only Congress can modify the original mandate and, indeed, it would take an Act of Congress to do so.
As evidence that individual agencies are permitted – indeed expected – to pursue their stated missions on behalf of the citizens they serve, we need look no further than the recent rejection by the FAA of the CCNS application for permission to build their OWN windmill. The FAA – whose mission is protecting public safety by ensuring, among other things, that airplane navigation is sound – advised CCNS that due to the proximity of the Highlands Center to an critical radar facility in Truro, the maximum height it could allow for a wind turbine at that location is “zero feet.”
CCNS might want to keep this example in mind as it ponders how best to ensure the safety of park users within the 1300 foot safety perimeter recommended by the manufacturer of Wellfleet’s wind turbine since so much of this “fall zone” – over 875 feet — falls on CCNS property.
Several versions of their recommendations have been produced in draft form and their final recommendation, with minor revisions, is expected imminently. The very foundation of the “tiered methodology” recommended by this FAC is simple – CHOOSE AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION for installation of wind energy facilities. Conservation areas, sensitive habitats, national parks – these are all, by definition, INAPPROPRIATE locations for giant, disruptive, industrial wind turbines.
According to these Guidelines, such areas should be abandoned by developers as soon as they are identified because:
i) Sacrificing habitat to combat global warming is senseless and counterproductive; and
ii) It is simply not worth it. The FAC advises developers that it’s better to save time, money and aggravation for all concerned by avoiding these sites because adverse effects in such areas are expensive to mitigate and because development in them is sure to be hotly contested.
Any notion that the Secretary of the Interior, or the President, has instructed us to develop wind energy within national parks is completely unfounded in the historical record and the applicable law.
No such directive exists and, even if it did, it would be the duty of the National Park Service to ignore, as illegitimate, any such misguided pronouncements about appropriate national policy within the parks.
The “best” sites were basically defined as areas that: a) provided the best wind; b) avoided the clustered development of the towns by invading the Seashore itself; and c) offered some hope of acceptance – despite their presence in the Seashore – by not directly obstructing water views.
Note that all of these parties were essentially the wind turbine developers themselves, with the exception of the Seashore management — which had already stated its conviction that the question was not “if” we should have industrial wind turbines in the park but “where” to put them.
CCNS has stated that any evaluation of the relative merits of windmills sprouting from the natural landscape it manages is “inherently subjective.”
Mr. Geoffrey Karlson, Chairman of the Wellfleet Energy Committee, has picked up on this theme with his mantra that any objection to the presence of 410 foot industrial machines within the Seashore is a matter of “mere personal preference.”
Some citizen artists – notably Mr. Peter Watts and Ms. Helen Miranda Wilson have even come forward to declare that wind turbines are “beautiful” and shining “symbols of our independence.”
In fact, all of these statements are irrelevant and completely miss the point.
National Parks – including the National Seashore – exist to preserve and the natural landscape, and the wildlife therein, in their original condition for all future generations. They are conservation areas – not sculpture gardens and not industrial parks.
“Preservation of the landscape in its original condition” is an OBJECTIVE criterion – not a subjective one. It is an objective prescribed by an Act of Congress – and decidedly NOT a matter of “pure personal preference.” It may be the “personal preference” of the Town of Wellfleet to turn their 220 acre parcel within the Seashore into an industrial park; but it is certainly not their prerogative to do so, unrestrained by the prohibitions against such activities that are inscribed in federal law.
So could we PLEASE get rid of the notion – for once and for all – forever – that the recent exercise in “View Shed Analysis” lends any sort of legitimacy to the proposed exploitation of the park?
Is there anyone out there whose primary loyalty is to the park user? Can we identify anyone whose primary goal is “to preserve, protect and enhance the quality of the experience within the park for all future generations” of park users?
Sadly, I am nothing more than a park user and I cannot identify an official champion of my cause.
The CCNS Advisory Commission may be sympathetic to the concerns of the park user – up to a point – but the representatives of this body are appointed by the towns that abut the Seashore, by the Governor of the State of Massachusetts and by the Secretary of the Interior – all of whom seem to have a burning desire to install industrial wind turbines on Cape Cod. No offense, but you are all accountable to someone else.
What about the Superintendent of the Seashore? Isn’t he the logical choice?
Sadly, once again, it is apparent that the Superintendent’s primary loyalty lies elsewhere than with the park user.
It is difficult, under the best of circumstances, to debate the relative merits of installing industrial wind turbines within a national park when the Superintendent frames the discussion by declaring:
“You all know how I feel: it’s not a question of ‘if’ we should have wind turbines, but ‘where’ to put them!”
I also now have numerous official letters on file from the Superintendent, to various people, which focus almost exclusively upon the need to “balance” the objectives of the park with the needs of “other federal agencies,” our “national mission to promote renewable energy,” the “Cape Cod Model,” the “needs of the surrounding towns” and the urgency to do something – anything, it appears, no matter how foolish and desperate – to combat global warming.
That makes for a pretty tall mountain to climb if you want to argue that such devices do NOT belong within national parks, or in areas abutting national parks where they compromise the core conservation objectives of the park.
Or if you want to argue that ruining a large swath of habitat for a token amount of energy is senseless in terms of accomplishing our great national objective.
Or if you want to complain that such structures have a profound adverse effect on the park experience – forever.
As Mr. Price tells the story, he’s got all of the Towns, the Secretary of the Interior and the President on his side. He is dealing with the Big Picture. We are the myopic ones who can’t see past our own parochial, NIMBY concerns.
These letters almost never – if ever – discuss the quality of the experience for the park user or the paramount objective of preserving that experience intact for future generations. In fact, these letters – and other pronouncements by CCNS management — regularly ignore, reject or minimize evidence of extensive degradation of that experience and to the very integrity of the park.
A case in point – just one, mind you — is a recent letter by Superintendent Price to Mr. Ed Doyle stating that because he didn’t believe that the strobe-like flicker from the proposed wind turbine would have much effect upon “transient park users,” he intended to ignore it. He advised Mr. Doyle to take this matter up with the Town of Wellfleet!
Commission members may recall that at their very last meeting, no less an expert than Mr. Jim Sexton of the Wellfleet Energy Committee said that “the flicker effect from the wind turbine can really be quite intense.” Black & Veatch, the engineering consultant hired by the Town of Wellfleet to do their feasibility study in 2008, singled out this effect as the area of their greatest concern.
It is important to keep in mind that Black & Veatch was speaking of the “flicker effect” upon nearby residences, up to a mile a way, and to know that this effect lasts longer, and is much more intense, the closer you are to the wind turbine.
Are those “transient park users” for whom Mr. Price evidences so little concern to be exposed to this effect twice a day – morning and evening – from distances of as little as 425 feet – every single day that they might wish to enjoy the peace and solitude of this wooded area within the Seashore?
In late January, I sent two letters to the management of the Seashore – Mr. Price and Ms. McKean, respectively – asking for answers to detailed questions on various aspects of the wind turbine proposal as they affect the park. But the fundamental question underlying all of these questions was the same: Who is the Park User’s advocate?
I don’t live in Wellfleet. I don’t own a house there. I am a mere “transient park user – no more, no less. My question to all of you then, and again to all of you today is this:
Who is standing up for me?
I am still waiting for an answer to that question.
Thank you for your time and attention. I appreciate having had this opportunity to speak to all of you and I implore you, on behalf of all park users, to consider wisely the future and integrity of the National Seashore as you consider the implications of all such proposals to industrialize the park.
Eric Bibler
President
Save our Seashore
According to an article at Business Week, Governor Mike Rounds, a Republican, says he already signed a bill that changes refunds for all categories of construction projects, and he believes that bill should apply to wind farms.
Further, Senate Republican Leader Dave Knudson said it makes sense to allow large wind projects the tax refunds because developers could easily choose to build in a neighboring state.
Of course, we at Allegheny Treasures take a third position in the debate. If you take into consideration that these tax guzzling contraptions contribute little benefit to the economy, environment or energy needs of the country, why build them at all.
We sure hope none of the tax credits and subsidies that support GE directly or indirectly enables this little adventure. Naah! That could never happen … could it? I know Jeff Immelt is good buddies with the President, but hey!
See, I thought when they said the wind industry would create jobs, they meant here … in the US … with US workers … using US materials. Geesh!
From the UK Times Online edition: General Electric to build wind turbines and create 2,000 jobs
March 26, 2010
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor
The Government plans to generate one third of Britain’s electricity from giant offshore wind parks by 2020
Up to 1,900 jobs could be created in the UK after General Electric revealed plans to build a factory to make offshore wind turbines.
It will invest €110 million (£99 million) over the next decade on the plant, which will employ about 500 people producing turbine blades, towers and other parts. Magued Eldaief, the managing director of GE Energy UK, said that an additional 450 jobs would be created at other sites in Britain, while the investment would support a further 950 positions at other UK companies involved in the supply of components.
The Government plans an estimated 8,000 wind turbines for giant offshore wind parks in the North Sea and the Irish Sea to help meet its target of cutting carbon emissions by 34 per cent by 2020.
Mr Eldaief said that a “handful” of manufacturing sites were being considered.
He said that the company’s investment was linked to measures announced in the Budget to provide £60 million of funding that would help develop British ports to support the offshore wind industry.
The plant will build 4 megawatt wind turbines — each of which are up to 140m (460ft) high and have a turbine blade diameter equivalent to two football pitches. Mr Eldaief said: “The Budget announcement on ports was a key part of the decision. We have to make sure these ports have the capacity to handle these turbines.”
Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, said that the announcement shows a “vote of confidence in UK low carbon manufacturing”.
Vestas, the Danish wind turbine company that supplies 20 per cent of the world’s wind turbine market, last year cut 425 jobs at its manufacturing and research plant at Newport on the Isle of Wight and at a factory in Southampton.
Tom Delay, the chief executive of the Carbon Trust, said that General Electric’s announcement was “proof that offshore wind presents a huge economic opportunity for the UK”.
Recession brings cleaner air
? Emissions of carbon dioxide in Britain fell by nearly a tenth last year — from 532.8 million tonnes in 2008 to 480.9 million — as demand for energy dropped on the back of a shrinking economy and as factories cut production or closed
? Industrial demand for electricity fell by 11 per cent, while demand for coal fell by 16 per cent
? Emissions from transport were also significantly lower as freight and cargo volumes fell
? The amount of electricity generated from renewables increased to 24.4 terrawatt hours after the completion of a string of wind parks. This still accounted for only a small fraction of the 344.6 terrawatt hour total of electricity produced from all sources, including coal, gas and nuclear energy
Source: Department of Energy and Climate Change
From the Industrial Wind Action Group
March 24, 2010 in The Republican(Garrett County Maryland)
Work began in earnest this past week in clearing forest land near Eagle Rock just south of Deer Park for the erection of over two dozen 400-plus-foot wind turbines, the first to be erected in Garrett County.
The project calls for the placement of 28 turbines along that section of Backbone Mountain, with an additional 17 in the Roth Rock area of the same mountain ridge, just south of Red House.
Startled residents in the Eagle Rock area, some located within just 15 or 20 feet of the project, used words such as “shocked” and “horrified” when they were awakened by the sound of chainsaws, trucks, dozers, and massive excavating machines felling thousands of trees adjacent to their properties. Several acres of forestland timber were leveled within a matter of a few days.
The project, however, came to an abrupt halt Tuesday after one of the residents – who happens to be a contractor -suggested that the work was being done in a manner that was not in compliance with state environmental law.
“I don’t think they counted on someone living up there who knows all about such things as excavation and building permits,” said Eric Robison, who recently constructed his own new home close to the site.
Evidently Robison’s concerns were legitimate, as the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) ordered Constellation Energy and the contractor, All Construction Inc., Mt. Storm, W.Va., to immediately cease any further grading or disturbance activities, take corrective action to eliminate the discharge of sediment-laden water, and submit to the Garrett Soil Conservation District a revised erosion and sediment control plan to address the current plan’s sediment control deficiencies.
More specifically, according to MDE information office spokesperson Jay Apperson, a super silt fence was not properly installed at least eight inches below the ground surface, and consequently sediment laden water was flowing under and around the fence.
In addition, he said, the volume of water flow on the site appears to be much greater than the controls required by the current erosion and sediment control plan can effectively handle to prevent significant sediment flow off site.
Melisa and Justin Carrico, who reside directly across the street from the site where a high-voltage substation is to be constructed for the wind farm, contacted the Garrett County commissioners, requesting that they come out to the site to observe what was taking place. The commissioners declined the invitation, but agreed to meet with the Carricos at the courthouse Tuesday morning.
Among those present besides the Carricos were Commissioners Ernie Gregg and Fred Holliday, county administrator Monty Pagenhardt, and Robison, a neighbor of the Carricos.
“I feel as though I have lost all faith in the government to protect me,” Melisa Carrico told the commissioners in a prepared statement. “To know that what happened to me will happen to many other families, neighborhoods, and environments in Garrett County is absolutely unacceptable.”
She criticized the commissioners, saying that what is happening to her and her neighbors is an “act of destroying my safety, my environment, my property, and my community.”
“Yet you act as though you had no idea, and that you are sorry for about being part of a county government that obviously doesn’t protect its citizens,” she said.
Robison estimated the value of his new house to be at least $400,000, but acknowledged that this figure is now greatly diminished because of the project.
“Numerous groups have suggested many times that safety precautions, as well as environmentally sound practices, be implemented,” Carrico continued. “It is evident that we, the citizens of this county, were not protected. On every occasion nothing was done. You had seven years to stand up and protect us. That is your job.”
Justin Carrico said that among the reasons they purchased their house, valued at nearly $200,000, where it is was because of its quiet, pristine location, and the beauty of the forests.
“It’s certainly not quiet anymore,” he said, “and the forest right across the road, where I enjoy turkey hunting, has been leveled.”
Concern was also expressed about the damage to Eagle Rock Road, with Robison saying that it is literally being destroyed by the heavy equipment.
“That road really does not have an adequate base under it anyway, and there’s not going to be much of it left,” he said.
Reportedly, Constellation Energy will be responsible for repair and/or replacement of the road, according to the commissioners.
Melisa Carrico repeatedly asked the commissioners what they were going to do to help her and her neighbors, but Gregg and Holliday did not respond initially. Finally, Commissioner Gregg said, “I don’t know, Melisa. I don’t know.”
After hearing about the alleged violations at the site, the commissioners did say they would immediately contact the various permitting agencies involved, as well as John Cook, enforcement officer for the MDE.
Cook later confirmed that the project had been shut down, at least temporarily, and referred the matter to Apperson at the information office.
When asked what the next step would be for the contractor to be able to resume work at the site, Apperson said that he would have to install the super silt fence properly, devise and implement corrective action to eliminate the discharge of sediment-laden water as soon as possible, and have an engineer submit a revised erosion and sediment control plan to address the current plan’s sediment control deficiencies to the Garrett Soil Conservation District for review and approval.
He said that if the revised plan is not approved by April 5, the contractor would have to stabilize the entire site and not disturb earth until a revised plan is approved and implemented.
In addition, he would be required to submit copies of self-inspections for the site.
“MDE is reviewing the situation at the site to determine if the stream of water discharging from Eagle Rock Road should be considered to be state waters,” Apperson said, “in which case a waterway construction permit with additional requirements will be needed.”
When asked if fines were impending for the alleged violations, Apperson said, “MDE’s Compliance Program plans to require corrective actions as outlined above, and penalties for the alleged violations (sediment pollution and failure to install the super silt fence properly).”
David Wagner, manager of the Commercial Analysis Group with Constellation Energy, acknowledged receipt of the MDE’s notice of violation and said that the company will “proactively address it until it is resolved.”
“We (Constellation) pride ourselves on following the letter of the law when it comes to our projects,” Wagner said in a telephone interview this morning. “The project will not be continued until the matter is resolved,” which he expects to occur “by the end of this week.”
In a related matter, three pieces of legislation that would regulate the wind industry in Garrett County/Maryland all received unfavorable reports this week in the Maryland House of Delegates’ Economic Matters Committee. Those were:
•House Bill 390 introduced by Delegate Wendell Beitzel to grant the county commissioners the authority to enact ordinances for setback and decommissioning wind turbines;
•House Bill 791, requiring the Public Service Commission and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources to develop jointly specified general performance standards for wind-powered electric generating turbines erected in the state, and requiring the commission to adopt specified standards by regulation; and
•House Bill 1013, requiring the Public Service Commission to establish a surcharge on wind-powered electric generating facilities in the state with a generating capacity that does not exceed 70 megawatts, requiring the comptroller to collect the revenue from the surcharge and deposit it into the Maryland Wind-Powered Electric Generating Facility Decommissioning and Restoration Fund, and authorizing a wind-powered electric generating facility to post a bond or other security acceptable to the commission in lieu of the surcharge.
Allegheny Treasures 