The Industrial Wind Action Group challenges a wind salesman – Uh Oh!

An editorial from the Industrial Wind Action Group:

“Wind speak” from a wind salesman

(Posted March 25, 2010)

Alexandra Weit has followed the wind energy industry in the San Gorgonio Pass, California since its beginnings. In 2008, she obtained nine years of production records directly from Southern California Edison that showed both the amount of energy generated by the site’s wind turbines and the period in the day when it was produced. Based on the numbers, yearly wind capacity factors ranged between 14% and 19%.

Using this data and other research, Ms. Weit authored an essay titled “OK…, but what happens when the wind doesn’t blow?” and submitted it to the Desert Sun newspaper, where it was promptly rejected. The editor wrote “I found that your premise is just too flawed,” and shared with her the basis of his claim — feedback he received from the CEO of a California-based wind energy provider whose e-mail is posted below.

____________________________________

Ms. Weit misstates the facts, I am sure it is unintentional. With regard to her points, the correct information follows:

Wind is not backed up by conventional generators, the utility does not pay twice. Southern California is served by dozens of generating resources, boulder dam, nuclear energy, gas fuel plants, wind, solar and others. Except for boulder dam they are ALL intermittent. Conventional power plants often trip off unexpectedly. The spinning reserve exists to deal with the shortfall from the loss of any of these sources. In fact wind energy is scheduled based on weather forecasts and during the time it delivers it is a most dependable source because with wind it is not all or nothing as it is in a nuclear plant, a few windmills may fail to produce in the forecasted windy time but the vast majority will produce. There is no spinning reserve dedicated to wind power.

2. In our area wind production matches on-peak and mid peak demand 60 percent of the time, when energy is most needed.

3. I am unaware of any $23 per megawatt subsidy for wind unless she means the production tax credit which expired years ago for most of the windmills here. Compare the federal subsidy for Nuclear energy which is $90 per megawatt just in the reprocessing and loan guarantee costs the government assumes.

4. To understand output you must distinguish between “Megawatts of Capacity”, i.e. the total size of the generators installed by the wind energy industry, and” Kilowatt hours” which is the measure of energy produced. Ms. Weit’s statistics are far off the mark here. Her source is a leading anti-wind energy web site which we have been told is funded in part by the coal industry. It is wildly inaccurate. The San Gorgonio Pass windmills have a total Capacity of 685 Megawatts. Last year they produced one Billion Eight Hundred Million (1,800,000,000) kilowatt hours of energy, enough to meet the needs of 180,000 households. This energy is scheduled and accepted by the utility and the system operator, both of which are actively seeking to purchase more of this clean energy.

5. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Ms. Weit doesn’t like the look of windmills, many do. They are a significant tourist attraction here in the valley. Our surveys find that the majority of people like the look and appreciate the clean energy.

6. A word on birds. All independent biological surveys done here confirm our empirical experience, windmills don’t kill birds here. This is because, unlike some areas, the game they feed on is not found on the floor of the valley, the raptors just don’t hunt near windfarms. And, the studies predicting wholesale slaughter of birds in Northern California have been debunked because they were based in large part on altered data.

If you need any clarification please advise.

____________________________________

Yes, Mr. CEO, we would appreciate some clarification on a few points you raise:

A) Nuclear power is a baseload resource in every region of the country. How can it now be defined as intermittent given its operational availability of 92-95%? Your contention that nuclear power is on par with low-value wind generation and less reliable than hydro is simply wrong.

B) You argue that wind is more dependable than conventional generating resources, including nuclear, based on a concept that enough turbines erected will assure at least some energy will flow — this, of course, provided the wind is blowing. But how much, and will that energy flow when we need it? Can you assure us there will be sufficient power to run an economy, or even a small hospital?

C) The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports $23 per megawatt hour subsidy for wind. We encourage you to look at Table ES5 of this recent report. [See editor’s note below]

D) Ms. Weit’s figures came directly from Southern California Edison. Do you have different, real numbers we might compare? Since the production figures you quoted (1,800,000,000 kilowatt hours from 685 megawatts installed capacity) represent a flat 30% average annual capacity factor, we’re assuming you opted for an off-the-cuff industry number just to make a point.

E) Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but few people who see these images (photo1 and photo2) would share your perspective.

F) And finally, regarding your “word on birds” we would be interested in any details substantiating your claim that “studies predicting wholesale slaughter of birds in Northern California have been debunked.” The wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA) have caused annual fatalities of thousands of raptors and other birds. And, despite an Avian Protection Program requiring mitigation measures and eventual repowering to modern wind turbines APWRA-wide fatality rates increased significantly for multiple bird species, including 85% for all raptors and 51% for all birds.

Windaction.org is well aware from talks we’ve given around the country that Wind Speak as highlighted above is very common. And it doesn’t surprise us when a newspaper editor falls prey to it. But there is NO excuse for Mr. CEO’s blatant misrepresentations. If his product were as effective as he believes, wouldn’t the truth suffice?

Editor’s note: The link to the EIA report included in our weekly Wind Alert! was incorrect. It has been corrected here. Our apologies for any inconvenience.

Posted in industrial wind poor performance, Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Further details on Maryland AG opinion regarding protection of endangered species.

From the Cumberland (Maryland) Times-News

March 24, 2010

Protection of endangered species DNR’s responsibility

AG: Agency has final say during wind project permitting process

Kevin Spradlin
Cumberland Times-News

— CUMBERLAND — A Maryland attorney general’s opinion that lays the protection of endangered species that could be affected by wind energy projects at the feet of the state Department of Natural Resources comes in response to a District 1 legislative delegation’s inquiry.

Robert N. McDonald, chief counsel for opinions and advice within the Maryland Office of the Attorney General, issued an advisory opinion Tuesday that said even the Public Service Commission, which is the final granting authority for permits under the streamlined process for industrial wind energy projects under 70 megawatts, must adhere to any position taken by DNR on the safety of endangered species.

Frostburg resident and former state senator John Bambacus requested the local legislators to seek the state AG’s opinion, which is nonbinding. Bambacus made the request after a federal judge halted a Greenbrier County, W.Va., project concluding the project would kill and injure Indiana bats, a federally protected species. The case was the first in the nation to prevent, at least temporarily, an industrial wind energy project on environmental grounds.

“The developer of the project had not obtained a permit allowing the incidental taking of an endangered species,” McDonald said.

McDonald opined that the state’s endangered species law is similar, but not identical, to the federal law.

“It looks like the AG has determined that the state (law) takes precedence over the PSC’s decision,” Bambacus said in a prepared statement, “in which case, if there are any endangered species on proposed industrial wind turbine sites, they can be challenged.”

“It also seems to say that a lawsuit brought against a Maryland project would probably have the same result as in West Virginia,” Bambacus said.

Bambacus has chastised DNR Secretary John Griffin in multiple letters for what Bambacus perceives as a lack of effort to protect wildlife and residents. He said Griffin has been begging off “the endangered species issue” but the federal court decision in December put the agency “in a box.”

“The PSC is to obtain the views of DNR as to the suitability of energy projects,” McDonald said, “including wind projects that satisfy certain criteria, when it decides whether to issue a CPCN (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity) for such a project.”

Frank Maisano, energy and environmental media relations specialist and spokesman for the wind energy industry, said the advisory opinion likely won’t impact two existing projects in Garrett County “because we’ve already gone through the process (and) have our permits.”

However, it “certainly is going to put a damper on anybody who is interested in moving forward with a project, should that opinion be the opinion of the state.”

There could be same debate about that. Maisano said the direction of the majority of state legislators and Gov. Martin O’Malley clearly support the development of renewable energy sources.

Kevin Spradlin can be reached at kspradlin@times-news.com.

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

US WindForce asks MD PSC to include specific performance measurements in Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Just kidding!

C’mon, did you really think the wind developer’s idea for Renewable Energy Standards meant a request that the Maryland PSC, or any local, state or federal agency should require transparent reporting of the actual output from their wind turbines to the grid in a user friendly and easily accessible format, so the public could evaluate their worth?  The kind of thing IESO does?

Well then, you might as well add to that fantasy the transparent reporting of actual CO2 emission reductions at each of the wind installations due to the closing of fossil fuel plants.  No, not the theoretical – “Gee! The things are spinning, something must be happening” nonsense.  I mean empirical data that can be measured, validated and peer reviewed for authenticity.

Heck, we should just shoot the moon and ask them to list the fossil plants that have been shut down as a direct result of industrial wind installations.

Nope, not in my lifetime.  In fact, if I recall

It’s more than likely the standards they will be asking for will be for state commitments to further their prosperity, not yours.  You know, setting standards of how much leeway they need to have, the percentage of participation in the energy mix.  If you want to know what the AWEA thinks are good Renewable Energy Standards, go the their site.  It’s the playbook for a great many LLC/wind developers and some you’re likely to hear repeated over and over.

Anyway, here’s a letter from US WindForce to the Maryland Public Service Commission, Dated March 24, 2010 in the matter of the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard – Case # 9019.  Hey … who knows!  Maybe I’ll be wrong and this time they will actually ask the PSC to set performance standards.

Posted in Politicians and Wind Energy, Renewable energy debate, US WindForce | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Maryland Attorney General requires regulators to consider endangered species when permitting wind projects. Full text of opinion here.

From the Cumberland Times:  Attorney general: Endangered species a factor in wind power

— ANNAPOLIS (AP) — An opinion from the Maryland Attorney General’s Office says state utility regulators have to consider Maryland’s endangered species when deciding on wind power proposals.

Garrett and Allegany County state legislators sought the opinion following a federal judge’s ruling that stopped work on a West Virginia wind power project. The judge ruled a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was needed because the project was likely to kill endangered bats. The judge also banned operation of existing turbines during migration.

The opinion by Robert N. McDonald, the attorney general’s chief counsel for opinions and advice, said the state’s endangered species act was patterned after the federal act and state courts are likely to apply standards developed under the federal act.

Article ends!

AT note:  The full text of the opinion letter is included here for your convenience:

Posted in Bat/Bird Kills, US Fish &Wildlife | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Read Doctor Nissenbaum’s testimony stating there is a risk to health from wind turbines. Hey! Then maybe you can help me understand why the Maine Board of Environmental Protection sided with ex-Gov wind developer instead.

The Mainebiz news staff matter of factly said the appeal of a 22 turbine wind farm near Roxbury was tossed out.

In their obvious haste to get the facts out it seems the name of the citizen’s group was omitted.  Everyone associated with the wind side of the argument made the short article, it appears.

I’m guessing the citizen’s group might be the Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury.  If so, they even have a web site!  I’ll link it here for your convenience:  http://www.saveroxbury.org/

You can search out the ex-Gov wind developer and cast of merry millionaires for yourself.  Or call the Mainebiz folks.  They might just have some phone numbers on the speed dial.

Anyway, it seems the Maine Board of Environmental Protection decided the concerns of a citizen’s group shouldn’t stand in the way of former Governor/current wind developer’s project.

Well, here’s the testimony of Dr.Michael A. Nissenbaum, M.D.  He seems pretty convinced there is an issue.  Interesting commentary about the ex-Governor included.  Well worth your time.

Posted in Friends and Citizens Groups, Industrial Wind Health Issues, wind turbine noise | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Bat mortality at wind turbines … an increasingly urgent study.

With the current and planned growth of industrial wind turbines destined to invade the environment once friendly to bats, understanding bat kills is an increasingly important issue to resolve.  Bats are a vital element in the cycle of life on this plant yet they, as other creatures are finding their habitat turned into a danger zone by the intrusion of these “747” size rotating devices.

Thanks to John Terry for pointing us to Wisconsin Public Television, which has an excellent video to help better understand the issue.

Follow this link – http://wpt2.org/media.cfm?category=iw

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

In another case of environmental suicide, approval given for wind farms in Ohio.

In a remarkable example of delegated ineptitude, regulators, enforcing the artificial goals established by Ohio legislators, approved industrial wind “farms” in two counties.

Legislators earlier established goals for the amount of industrial wind participation required in the energy mix.  The percentage selected was in no way based in science, yet drives regulators and administrators toward these “yank out of your ear” levels, in spite of evidence that industrial wind is a worthless participant in our energy’s future.

One wonders first how these folks find there way to work each day and then … why!

From the Columbus Dispatch:

Regulators have approved the first large-scale wind farms in Ohio.

The Ohio Power Siting Board approved plans yesterday by Hardin Wind Energy LLC to construct up to 200 wind turbines in Hardin County, about 50 miles northwest of Columbus.

Board Chairman Alan Schriber said the wind farm will play an integral role in assuring that Ohio meets new alternative energy standards. Construction is scheduled to begin this summer.

The board also approved plans by Buckeye Wind LLC to build up to 54 wind turbines in Champaign County, and it authorized JW Great Lakes Wind LLC to construct up to 27 wind turbines in Hardin County.

Under Ohio’s alternative-energy plan, 25 percent of electricity sold in the state must be generated from alternative energy sources by 2025.

Posted in Industrial Wind and Local Governments, Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Friends of the Highland Mountains: “If you like the view of a dark, starry night, the kind rarely found in many parts of New England, you’d better visit soon.”

(Image Courtesy of Windtoons)

From National Wind Watch:

The wind development industry is on the offensive — pressing its campaign to make rural Maine the power plant for New England. Its escalated efforts are, no doubt, due to the rising tide of citizen awareness and unfolding truth. The industry is getting some unwanted attention, the effect of which has been to spur industry representatives to supplement their deny, discredit and dismiss posture.

In Somerset County, Highland Plantation is targeted for one of these developments. In fact, in a few months, if granted a permit by the Land Use Regulation Commission, Highland Wind LLC will begin construction of a 48-turbine facility, the largest grid-scale wind development ever built in Maine. The unpleasant details of this project are rarely mentioned by the developers.

One of them, in a recent column, cited the size of a wind turbine foundation, about 80 cubic yards in his example, as evidence of the project’s low impact. What he didn’t mention was the other 1,611,020 cubic yards of mountain that would be blasted and excavated, according to his permit application, to flatten the mountain sufficiently for the construction of 25 miles of roads and the other 47 foundations.

This same developer’s Web site claims that if mountaintop wind turbines don’t work out, they “can be removed without leaving a trace.” The idea that 1.6 million yards of excavated mountain can be put neatly back in place is, I presume, part of the magic of wind. The statement’s dishonesty is exceeded only by its absurdity.

The project’s proximity to several of Maine’s finest scenic resources largely goes unmentioned. The Bigelow Preserve, the Appalachian Trail and Flagstaff Lake would be next door to this massive development. Outdoor enthusiasts, if they bothered to come anymore, would look out on 8 miles of formerly scenic mountain ridgeline covered with 400-foot-tall turbines, twice as tall as the tallest building in Maine.

If you like the view of a dark, starry night, the kind rarely found in many parts of New England, you’d better visit soon. Up to 35 new flashing red lights, visible from more than 30 miles away, would dominate our new night sky.

The industry doesn’t talk about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s concerns as revealed by the service’s statement: “As more facilities are built, the cumulative effects of this rapidly growing industry may initiate or contribute to the decline of some wildlife populations.” Declining wildlife populations — how does that benefit Maine, a state with a long-standing outdoors tradition inextricably interwoven with its wildlife? How many sportsmen will Maine attract with diminishing game and wind turbines littering our rural mountaintops? Can fisheries flourish in the fallout of sprawling ridgeline roads built on hundreds of miles of mountains?

The efficacy of land-based wind turbines is dubious. Estimates of their contribution to reduced carbon emissions are theoretical and based on elementary mathematics. In fact, Maine has no plans to check that these machines genuinely produce the emissions reductions that are claimed. In European countries, where large numbers of turbines are installed, emissions continue to rise, and a heavy dependence on imported oil and natural gas persists.

The governor wants to accelerate the taxpayer subsidy-driven development of Maine’s mountains over the next decade and signed emergency legislation two years ago to make sure that it happens. He severely restricted state regulatory agencies’ historic protection of our scenic resources. He and the wind industry want you to believe that the permanent destruction of many of our mountains is a reasonable trade-off for a 10-year jobs program.

An economy based on landscape and resource liquidation has a short life expectancy. An economy based on intact resources can be sustained indefinitely. Once built, these facilities leave little behind in the way of jobs — five or six for the Highland proposal — but the damage will remain for all future generations to witness.

Tremendous effort has been expended to protect and market Maine’s scenic character. Maintaining our “quality of place” was the priority once seen to be critical to our long-term economic well-being. It would set us apart from so many other places. With little thought or public discussion, that long-term strategy was abandoned by our state government to pursue the fast dollar, selling off Maine’s mountain ridgelines. This treatment of our state’s resources should be not only controversial, it should be unthinkable. It should have, years ago, landed on the scrap heap of bad ideas, right where it belongs.

To learn more of the facts about mountaintop wind turbines and to view eyewitness photos of what happens to a mountain in the construction of an industrial wind complex, visit highlandmts.org.

Alan Michka is a member of Friends Of The Highland Mountains.

Original article by Alan Michka, Bangor Daily News, www.bangordailynews.com 23 March 2010

Posted in Environment, Friends and Citizens Groups, Windtoons | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Newsweek: “Beware politicians promising to put millions to work in a new ‘green economy.’ They can’t deliver.”

Interesting article from the upcoming magazine article dated Mar 29, 2010, Growing Green Jobs, Rana Foroohar writes that world leaders are “pinning their hopes for future growth and new jobs on creating clean-technology industries, like wind and solar power, or recycling saw grass as fuel. It all sounds like the ultimate win-win deal: beat the worst recession in decades and save the planet from global warming, all in one spending plan. So who cares how much it costs? And since the financial crisis and recession began, governments, environmental nonprofits, and even labor unions have been busy spinning out reports on just how many new jobs might be created from these new industries—estimates that range from the tens of thousands to the millions.”

Unfortunately, “The problem is that history doesn’t bear out the optimism.

Full article here: Growing Green Jobs

Posted in Industrial wind jobs, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

What a shock! Study confirms wind farms consume treasured landscape and produce very little in return.

From the Times Online:  Feeble wind farms fail to hit full power

THE first detailed study of Britain’s onshore wind farms suggests some treasured landscapes may have been blighted for only small gains in green energy.

The analysis reveals that more than 20 wind farms produce less than a fifth of their potential maximum power output.

One site, at Blyth Harbour in Northumberland, is thought to be the worst in Britain, operating at just 7.9% of its maximum capacity. Another at Chelker reservoir in North Yorkshire operates at only 8.7% of capacity.

Both are relatively small and old, but larger and newer sites fared badly, too, according to analyses of data released by Ofgem, the energy regulator, for 2008.

Siddick wind farm in Cumbria, now operated by Eon, achieved only 15.8% of capacity, the figures suggest. The two turbines at High Volts 2, Co Durham, the largest and most powerful wind farm in Britain when it was commissioned in 2004, achieved 18.7%.

Turbine efficiency is calculated by comparing theoretical maximum output with what the farms actually generate. The best achieve about 50% efficiency and the norm is 25%-30%.

Experts say the figures for individual wind farms have to be treated with caution as output can vary sharply because of factors such as breakdowns.

The revelation that so many wind farms are performing well below par, however, will reinforce the view of objectors who believe many turbines generate too little power to justify their visual impact.

Britain has 245 onshore wind farms. Although wind power is expensive, the industry has boomed because of the “renewable obligation” subsidy system, under which consumers pay roughly double the normal price for energy from wind.

Michael Jefferson, professor of international business and sustainability at London Metropolitan Business School, who is also a former lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has cited the efficiency figures in peer-reviewed papers. He says the subsidy encourages the construction of wind farms.

“Too many developments are underperforming,” he said. “It’s because developers grossly exaggerate the potential. The subsidies make it viable for developers to put turbines on sites they would not touch if the money was not available.”

Nick Medic of Renewable UK, which represents the wind industry, said Britain’s ambitious targets for clean power meant the country needed “every bit of green energy it could generate”.

Allegheny Treasure Note:  As predicted by Jon Boone’s presentation:  The Charter of Palermo – To protect Europe’s “essential cultural landscape heritage” from the “leprosy of wind.”

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