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

Posted on December 5, 2009 by morgan

(courtesy of windtoons)

Sometimes it’s worth a trip to the recent past to put industrial wind, as a viable energy source replacing fossil fuels, in perspective.  The following article was published at the Wall Street Journal online on March 4, 4009.

From Robert Bryce

Let’s Get Real About Renewable Energy

March 4, 2009
Wall Street Journal
During his address to Congress last week, President Barack Obama declared, “We will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years.”

While that statement — along with his pledge to impose a “cap on carbon pollution” — drew applause, let’s slow down for a moment and get realistic about this country’s energy future. Consider two factors that are too-often overlooked: George W. Bush’s record on renewables, and the problem of scale.

By promising to double our supply of renewables, Mr. Obama is only trying to keep pace with his predecessor. Yes, that’s right: From 2005 to 2007, the former Texas oil man oversaw a near-doubling of the electrical output from solar and wind power. And between 2007 and 2008, output from those sources grew by another 30%.

Mr. Bush’s record aside, the key problem facing Mr. Obama, and anyone else advocating a rapid transition away from the hydrocarbons that have dominated the world’s energy mix since the dawn of the Industrial Age, is the same issue that dogs every alternative energy idea: scale.

Let’s start by deciphering exactly what Mr. Obama includes in his definition of “renewable” energy. If he’s including hydropower, which now provides about 2.4% of America’s total primary energy needs, then the president clearly has no concept of what he is promising. Hydro now provides more than 16 times as much energy as wind and solar power combined. Yet more dams are being dismantled than built. Since 1999, more than 200 dams in the U.S. have been removed.

If Mr. Obama is only counting wind power and solar power as renewables, then his promise is clearly doable. But the unfortunate truth is that even if he matches Mr. Bush’s effort by doubling wind and solar output by 2012, the contribution of those two sources to America’s overall energy needs will still be almost inconsequential.

Here’s why. The latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that total solar and wind output for 2008 will likely be about 45,493,000 megawatt-hours. That sounds significant until you consider this number: 4,118,198,000 megawatt-hours. That’s the total amount of electricity generated during the rolling 12-month period that ended last November. Solar and wind, in other words, produce about 1.1% of America’s total electricity consumption.

Of course, you might respond that renewables need to start somewhere. True enough — and to be clear, I’m not opposed to renewables. I have solar panels on the roof of my house here in Texas that generate 3,200 watts. And those panels (which were heavily subsidized by Austin Energy, the city-owned utility) provide about one-third of the electricity my family of five consumes. Better still, solar panel producers like First Solar Inc. are lowering the cost of solar cells. On the day of Mr. Obama’s speech, the company announced that it is now producing solar cells for $0.98 per watt, thereby breaking the important $1-per-watt price barrier.

And yet, while price reductions are important, the wind is intermittent, and so are sunny days. That means they cannot provide the baseload power, i.e., the amount of electricity required to meet minimum demand, that Americans want.

That issue aside, the scale problem persists. For the sake of convenience, let’s convert the energy produced by U.S. wind and solar installations into oil equivalents.

The conversion of electricity into oil terms is straightforward: one barrel of oil contains the energy equivalent of 1.64 megawatt-hours of electricity. Thus, 45,493,000 megawatt-hours divided by 1.64 megawatt-hours per barrel of oil equals 27.7 million barrels of oil equivalent from solar and wind for all of 2008.

Now divide that 27.7 million barrels by 365 days and you find that solar and wind sources are providing the equivalent of 76,000 barrels of oil per day. America’s total primary energy use is about 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day.

Of that 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent, oil itself has the biggest share — we consume about 19 million barrels per day. Natural gas is the second-biggest contributor, supplying the equivalent of 11.9 million barrels of oil, while coal provides the equivalent of 11.5 million barrels of oil per day. The balance comes from nuclear power (about 3.8 million barrels per day), and hydropower (about 1.1 million barrels), with smaller contributions coming from wind, solar, geothermal, wood waste, and other sources.

Here’s another way to consider the 76,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day that come from solar and wind: It’s approximately equal to the raw energy output of one average-sized coal mine.

During his address to Congress, Mr. Obama did not mention coal — the fuel that provides nearly a quarter of total primary energy and about half of America’s electricity — except to say that the U.S. should develop “clean coal.” He didn’t mention nuclear power, only “nuclear proliferation,” even though nuclear power is likely the best long-term solution to policy makers’ desire to cut U.S. carbon emissions. He didn’t mention natural gas, even though it provides about 25% of America’s total primary energy needs. Furthermore, the U.S. has huge quantities of gas, and it’s the only fuel source that can provide the stand-by generation capacity needed for wind and solar installations. Finally, he didn’t mention oil, the backbone fuel of the world transportation sector, except to say that the U.S. imports too much of it.

Perhaps the president’s omissions are understandable. America has an intense love-hate relationship with hydrocarbons in general, and with coal and oil in particular. And with increasing political pressure to cut carbon-dioxide emissions, that love-hate relationship has only gotten more complicated.

But the problem of scale means that these hydrocarbons just won’t go away. Sure, Mr. Obama can double the output from solar and wind. And then double it again. And again. And again. But getting from 76,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day to something close to the 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day needed to keep the U.S. economy running is going to take a long, long time. It would be refreshing if the president or perhaps a few of the Democrats on Capitol Hill would admit that fact.

Original text available here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123621221496034823.html

AT Note:  And just how many wind turbines will it take until this country realizes the folly?

Posted in Wind v Coal | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Letter to Virginia DHR Director – Please don’t forget your friends in West Virginia!

Posted on December 5, 2009 by morgan

From Brightside Acres:  “Letter to DHR Director”

December 4, 2009

Kathleen Kilpatrick, Director
Virginia Department of Historic Resources
2801 Kensington Avenue
Richmond, VA 23221

RE: Highland New Wind Development, LLC
SCC Case No. PUE-2005-00101

Dear Ms. Kilpatrick:

Thank you for officially stating in your November 17, 2009 letter to Highland New Wind Development that the company’s proposed wind turbines will have an adverse effect on Camp Allegheny Battlefield. It was gratifying to read the Department of Historic Resources’ concerns about safeguarding the integrity of this special place and preserving the experience of where, why and how the battle took place.

Regarding your recommendation that DHR, HNWD and affected stakeholders develop mitigation strategies to address the wind utility’s impact on this historic resource, I would like to make two comments.

First, I respectfully request that concerned citizens of both Highland and Pocahontas Counties be included as affected stakeholders in discussions of mitigation strategies and in the development of a Memorandum of Agreement. Citizens devoted to the preservation of Camp Allegheny deserve a place at the table just as certainly as professional preservationists. Indeed, I believe that the best possible outcome is more likely assured through citizen involvement.

Second, I ask that you not consider monetary compensation by the developer as an effective mitigation strategy.

West Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer, Susan Pierce, recently entered into an MOA with Pinnacle Wind Force whereby Pinnacle will compensate for adverse impact to 18 historic sites in Mineral County, WV, by providing $10,000 to a historic foundation to be established by the wind developer. Such compensation does absolutely nothing, as a practical matter, to mitigate the adverse impact of 40-story structures on 18 historic sites. By the same token, there is no amount of money that can restore or replace the loss of integrity to Camp Allegheny’s setting and feeling should HNWD’s wind turbines be erected as proposed.

Thank you for your consideration. I very much appreciate your continued efforts in this matter. If there is any way I may be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Dawn Baldwin Barrett

cc: Joel Peck, Clerk, State Corporation Commission
Martin Saffer, President, Pocahontas County Commission
Jim Zoia, Committee on Natural Resources, US House of Representatives

Brightside Acres needs your support in the ongoing efforts to protect historic Camp Allegheny.  You can reach them here.

Posted in Camp Allegheny, Friends and Citizens Groups | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

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

Posted on December 4, 2009 by morgan

Replying to my thanks for introducing me to Wayne Wegner, Jon Boone said simply, “Glad you enjoy this colloquy of good people.”  What an incredible understatement.

Both are highly respected, knowledgeable and multi-talented environmentalists.  They are separated by the the US/Canada border and bound by their fervent desire to protect nature.  And each, with nothing personal to gain, give of their time to educate any who will pause to learn, or, as Mr. Boone aptly described my first conversation with Mr. Wegner, “nourished by new information from wonderful minds.”

Mr. Boone contributes greatly to Allegheny Treasures and does so again, by recommending Mr. Wegner’s excellent presentation, “Location, Location, Location … Migration, Migration, Migration.”  Mr. Wegner’s presentation comes to us courtesy of the excellent and comprehensive web site – Wind Concerns Ontario, which is not only “Bringing Sanity to Wind Development in Ontario” but, with quality productions such as this effort, to all of North America.

When you view the extensive content of this work, granted to us with Wind Concerns Ontario’s simple instruction, “What I want is for the message to get out there far and wide.  With Wayne’s blessing, please use the piece to help educate people however you can,” you will begin to understand Mr. Boone’s comment about “colloquy of good people.”  We thank them for allowing us to post.

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

Hmmm…not one of the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) crowd, Mr. Wegner?  “I view the whole country as my backyard but have a special place in my heart for Canada’s Deep South, especially Lake Erie’s north shore.”

So, what drives him?  “I currently live in Alberta but was raised in Essex County, Ontario at the end of the migratory funnel that sweeps through the province.  I am appalled that the thought of plonking anything industrial into the Great Lakes — let alone 400-foot-high turbines — comes as easily to developers as asking someone to pass the salt at the dinner table.  Are people in government all asleep at the wheel?  The landscape onshore has been altered by man for hundreds of years, but the Great Lakes are, in appearance at least, almost pristine.  Disrupting them with industrialization is akin to slashing the face of the Mona Lisa. Am I the only one that feels that way? I don’t believe so!”

There are many of us here in the States that agree with you and we appreciate that you permit us to publish your work to share your experience and knowledge.  “Anything we can do to help you folks out in the Allegheny Highlands is almost a mandatory action. We’re all in this mess together.”

“And, something I didn’t touch on in that rant is the huge concern around the Mexican coastline where the hawks and other migrants concentrate in absolutely staggering numbers.  If you look at Thelander’s Magnitude Map I have on page 3, you’ll see where the real trouble spot and bottleneck is. And guess what?  Yup, “IWTs” are planned for there, too!”

“This is truly an international problem, one that so many developers and local/state/provincial governments pooh-pooh as a NIMBY issue in order to slide the deals through.  This problem runs from the arctic to the tip of South America — and that is one helluva big backyard!”

Enjoy the work of Mr. Wayne Wegner!

Any final comment?  “Wind is not the answer to the energy consumption problems we face in the developed world.”

Thank you, Mr. Wegner!

Thanks again to Mr. Jon Boone – Environmentalist, Artist, Author, Documentary Producer, and Formal Intervenor in Wind Installation Hearings, and dedicated to educating citizens about the impact of industrial wind.

Posted in Allegheny Mountains, Eagles, Wind Concerns Ontario | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Beech Ridge industrial wind project will bring around 487 million new jobs to West Virginia!

Posted on December 4, 2009 by morgan

A recent study has shown that, should the Beech Ridge wind project be allowed to proceed, approximately 487 million West Virginians will find employment, directly or indirectly, as a result.

Well, 487 million is only approximate … and, truth be told, I did it on my dart board at home, but hey! … isn’t that what today’s “journalism” is all about?  At least I told you where the estimate came from!

Take a look at this article from Public News Service (“News in the Public Interest”) : “Windfarm Bringing Jobs to West Virginia”

The journalist’s words are in bold, mine are not:  “West Virginia is known for its coal industry, but as the country changes to new kinds of electrical generation, some state residents are getting work in the new, green-power industry. A researcher at Johns Hopkins estimates that the Beech Ridge Wind Project, near the border of Greenbrier and Nicolas counties, could ultimately generate as many as 1,000 jobs, directly and indirectly.”  So, where is the link to the study?  What is the name of the researcher?  What modeling software was used?  What input provided the output?  What kind of jobs?  How many are temporary?  How many are permanent?  How can it be determined that any or all of these jobs will include “some state residents?”  Do industrial wind projects really deliver on the job promise?

The article continues:  Johnny Burns is a heavy equipment operator and a member of Operating Engineers, Local 132. Burns has been one of the 200-member construction crew. He says he’s glad to have a job where he doesn’t have to leave the area.

“Lots of times you have to go away to do it. This one is one of the closest jobs I’ve had to home in a long time. Made me happy, made my wife happy .”  Excellent!  Interviewing people impacted is a good thing.

Opponents of wind farms, including Beech Ridge, have pointed to reports that the windmills could kill birds and bats. The industry argues that the problem is avoided by putting the wind farms in the right places and using the right technology.  Which opponents of Beech Ridge?  I assume finding Mr. Burns was pretty easy, but those folks at Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy (MCRE), PO Box 1, Williamsburg, WV 24991 are nearly impossible to locate, even on their web site – “Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy.  “Heck, it took me nearly two mouse clicks to find this; “If you have Questions? email us dave@wvmcre.org or call (304) 645-7169”  They didn’t even return my initial email for almost two hours!  Oh! … the horror of it all!

Burns says the construction managers have tried to keep their impact down – for instance, by saving many of the removed trees.  “He instructed us to place the stumps root-system down, so they would sprout back.” Wonderful, that should take care of the bats and birds choosing to hang around waiting for the trees to spout.

Some local people have objected to what they say will be the impact on the scenery. Burns says not everyone feels that way.  “In my opinion, they’re beautiful to look at.” Spoken like a true Mountaineer!  I don’t think much of those boring old trees, mountain tops, lush valleys with streams, and the ridgelines filled with wildlife either.  They are so over-rated!  Give me a long row of mechanical tinker toys the size of a twirling 747 jet anytime.  Heck, if there’s nothing else to do, just grab a catcher’s mitt and a few of the kiddies and head up to the turbines to catch the bats and birds as they fall out of the sky.  Oh boy … talk about bonding with nature!

Burns says it looks like the wind turbines will start going on-line this spring. Even when construction is finished, the wind farm will employ a maintenance crew for decades, as long as it generates power.  Darn, why’d he have to throw that “as long as it generates power” into the mix.  That will probably ruin everything!

The point of this exercise is to point out how not providing resources to back your statements, or only presenting one side of an argument when the other side is very accessible, might portray your journalistic efforts as, at best  – weak or, at worst – biased.  That is not to say that the writer of the post at Public News Service is either, it’s just that his article leads me to conclude that my choices are limited.

So what’s the big deal, you might ask?  It’s only one little article in the thousands that fly about the internet on the topic of industrial wind.  The real issur here is that serious groups with serious issues deserve to be heard.  Groups like the Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy work very hard with few resources to get their message into the public debate.  One single article such as the one in Public News Service touting 1,000 jobs for West Virginians is easily swallowed by a public anxious for the condensation of complicated issues into one or two paragraphs.  Posts such as this tend to unfairly set back the educational efforts of the citizen’s groups and, frankly, The reporting should not be limited to one point of view.

The internet provides for a quick search of source material.  Unless the Johns Hopkins researcher contacted the writer directly, one would assume the writer found it somewhere.  With a little “googling,” I suspect a search of “Beech Ridge Wind” would have surfaced the same 26,000 links I found.  Included in that list are many references to groups with a view countering the industrial wind position.  Not making that effort to provide everything possible for the reader to consume or pursue appears to me to be Public News dis-Service.

So for any of our readers that choose to hear another side of the story of Beech Ridge and industrial wind in the region, here are just a few of the links you can view:

I’ll even give you the main site for the industrial wind groups – American Wind Energy Association.

Not only that, if you need any additional assistance, we’ll be happy to point you in the right direction if you leave your request in the comment section on this post.

We make every effort to be accurate.  Should you find any errors,  omissions or broken links please notify me at the comment section to this post.  We welcome all comments.

Posted in Allegheny Mountains, Beech Ridge, Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Constellation Energy’s venture into industrial wind in the Alleghenies – questionable power generation … guaranteed profit generation.

Posted on December 4, 2009 by morgan

Just in case you need more evidence of the real reason for the push to develop industrial wind – try to find anything in this article that speaks to benefits for the citizens who will pay for this folly.  Nope, it’s all about the money.  Further confirmation of Jon Boone’s “The Windpower Industry’s “top ten” false and misleading claims … Number 7 – Industrial wind developers are interested only in providing a public service.”

Article begins.

From the Baltimore Business Journal: “Constellation Energy warms to wind farm business model”

Constellation Energy Group Inc. had previously eyed a Western Maryland wind farm years ago, but it didn’t buy the project until this week because it wasn’t until now that government incentives and reduced technology costs made it a profitable venture.

That sale, along with movement of many other renewable energy facilities in the state, is showing that a long-idealized green power industry is maturing to a point where it’s worth it to investors and energy firms to develop large-scale projects in Maryland. They are some of the first real evidence that federal and state policies are achieving their goals of encouraging cleaner energy generation.

As credit markets continue to loosen and the cost of renewable generation falls, that could further accelerate. But the state still faces hurdles that make it more difficult to match what’s happening in other states.

Two projects were announced Nov. 30:

• Constellation plans to buy a $140 million, 70-megawatt wind farm in Garrett County on Backbone Mountain, the state’s highest peak. The project had previously been stalled but Constellation hopes to close the deal and start construction next year.

• Competitive Power Ventures Inc. of Silver Spring added a 10-megawatt solar field to its plans for a larger 640-megawatt natural gas plant in Charles County.

Constellation had looked at previous, larger versions of the Backbone Mountain wind farm several years ago, but never made a move simply because it wasn’t good investment, spokesman Lawrence McDonnell said. But technology improvements have lowered costs and government policies have increased the upside, whether through tax credits or potential penalties for failing to meet renewable energy generation standards.

“By and large with Maryland wind projects in the past, they were not economically viable,” McDonnell said. “The economics are workable and doable, and it’s a good fit for our portfolio now.”

Maryland law requires 4.51 percent of energy to come from renewable sources in 2009, and that goes up to 20 percent by 2022. There are a mix of federal and state tax credits available for different types of energy projects to help meet that goal, including wind and solar. That includes a federal Production Tax Credit for wind projects that the stimulus package extended for three years to 2012 as well as a 30 percent Solar Investment Tax Credit.

“They’re getting more viable all the time,” Kevin Porter, an analyst with energy consulting firm Exeter Associates in Columbia, said of renewable projects.

Several others have also moved forward recently:

• The Maryland Energy Administration is considering proposals for offshore wind farms on Maryland’s Atlantic coast. There and in Western Maryland are the state’s best winds for power generation.

• The Public Service Commission approved another 50-megawatt Backbone Mountain wind farm earlier this month, planned by Synergics Wind Energy LLC.

• The City of Annapolis recently awarded a contract for a renewable energy park that will include solar, biomass and other forms of renewable generation to also generate 50 megawatts.

But whether reliable power can come from renewable sources in Maryland is still questionable, at least when compared to other states, Porter said. Both solar and wind power are more favorable in other states with more sunshine and higher elevations.

Article ends.

Don’t you just love the last line – regardless of whether reliable power can be generated, it can be profitable.  Draw your own conclusions.

Related Links:  “Destruction of Backbone Mountain soon to begin, ironically because no one has one!” … “Boiling Frogs” … “Email to Governor Joe Manchin questioning the decision by the WV Division of Culture and History to allow wind installations to negatively impact historic sites.” … “A Conversation with Jon Boone – Industrial Wind and the Environment” … “I’d love to kick in a little more Congressman … but, as you know, I only get a 77% subsidy to build my wind farms.” … “Maryland to open new Bald Eagle meat processing facility in Garrett County.“

Posted in Wind Power subsidies, Wind tax rebates | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

More on Camp Allegheny’s ongoing battle with industrial wind.

Posted on December 3, 2009 by morgan

From the Recorder Online via the excellent resource – National Wind Watch:  “Battlefield bigger than you think”

RICHMOND — After months of back and forth with Virginia’s first wind energy facility owners, the Department of Historic Resources has concluded the project’s impacts to the Camp Allegheny Battlefield are significant enough to warrant mitigation.

The 400-foot towers to be constructed by Highland New Wind Development LLC of Harrisonburg, says DHR, will have an adverse impact on the Civil War site in Pocahontas County, W.Va., nearby.

DHR director Kathleen Kilpatrick, in a Nov. 17 letter to the company, said discussions on how to mitigate that impact must continue.

In granting HNWD a state permit for the 38-megawatt facility, the State Corporation Commission attached a number of conditions. One of those was that HNWD work with DHR to protect historic resources.

DHR spent two years waiting for HNWD to provide a visual impact study and archaeological survey so it could determine how the project might affect those resources, but HNWD consistently argued that such studies weren’t necessary, and were too expensive to provide.

Eventually, DHR complained to the SCC that the company was not meeting a condition attached to its permit, and the SCC promptly set a date for an evidentiary hearing on the matter. HNWD, however, twice tried to avoid the hearing by meeting with Kilpatrick and providing more information.

DHR then asked SCC to postpone the hearing indefinitely so it would have time to evaluate what HNWD provided.

Just before Thanksgiving, DHR issued its letter to HNWD concluding mitigation was necessary.

Wednesday, Kilpatrick said DHR remains very concerned about the battlefield as a historic resource. “It’s one of the most pristine battlefields in the nation,” she said. “We will continue to hope for a way to address impacts to it.”

In her letter to HNWD attorney John Flora, Kilpatrick said, “Our primary concern with the visual impact study (provided by HNWD) is that it does not take into account the full nature and extent of the impacted resource. The Camp Allegheny encampment and defensive fortifications, as evidenced by a complex of earthworks and hut and cabin foundations, are only a part of the more extensive Battle of Camp Allegheny/Allegheny Mountain Battlefield landscape.

“As documented by the National Park Service’s American Battlefield Preservation Program in their 2009 update to the 1993 Civil War Sites Advisory Commission’s study, the battlefield also includes the hallowed ground where active engagement took place, as well as avenues of access and egress to and from the field of battle,” she continued. “More specifically, the ABPP battlefield boundary includes not only the area of the Confederate camp, but also areas known through historical documents to be associated with the two Union attacks and the Confederate defense of the summit.”

Kilpatrick said it’s critical that HNWD consider and recognize the broader battlefield boundary. She quoted information from ABPP, which said the eastern part of the battlefield includes an area where Federal troops “first encountered pickets along the Staunton-Parkersburg Pike, where Federal regiments moved east off the turnpike toward the Varner Cemetery … where they deployed in line of battle at the east end of the broad ridge across the summit … and the open land over which the Confederates marched to meet the oncoming enemy and upon which heavy fighting occurred for more than two hours.”

Kilpatrick told The Recorder this week there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the battlefield is. “It’s not just the place called Camp Allegheny,” she said. “The battle that was fought takes its name from (Camp Allegheny)” but the entire battlefield is a much larger area than just the encampment. “It’s not just the specific place called Camp Allegheny,” she said. “We believe (HNWD) needs to acknowledge the entire battlefield boundaries are more than just the fortified area of Camp Allegheny.”

Kilpatrick explained to HNWD that this first battle engagement was field-verified through artifacts found on the site. “The geographical extent of the ABPP-defined battlefield was provided by DHR to HNWD in January of this year and again at our meeting in October, at which time we requested that you consider the entire resource,” she told Flora. “The photo-simulations and lines of sight analyses presented in the visual impact study focus only on the central portion of the battlefield, but should consider all components of the resources, especially its eastern portion closest to the project.”

She said that in order for HNWD to “meaningfully address” impacts to the battlefield, there needs to be a clear understanding not only of its components, but “also of its significance and integrity.”

HNWD’s visual study, she said, lacks “an appreciation of the (battlefield’s) integrity, specifically its integrity of location, setting, and feeling which are particularly relevant when considering battlefield landscapes.”

She gave Flora excerpts from the National Park Service’s bulletins on evaluating the integrity of historic resources for reference.

“The battlefield’s location and setting at the top of Allegheny is significant because of its strategic situation astride the Staunton- Parkersburg Turnpike at a critical pass through Buffalo Ridge,” she explained. “Integrity of feeling is a measure of a battlefield’s expression of a particular period of time. Our own visit to the battlefield confirmed a relative lack of modern intrusion on the historic landscape and its ability to convey to the visitor the sense of where, why, and how the battle took place. Integrity is a key aspect to the ABPP’s definition of a resource’s potential National Register boundary, and although only the portion of the battlefield that contains the obvious above-ground features is currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the ABPP recommends that nearly the entire battlefield is eligible for listing.”

DHR accepts the ABPP’s conclusion and, she said, “We agree with the ABPP that the battlefield retains a significant degree of integrity and continues to convey those aspects that make it significant.”

After considering all available information, Kilpatrick wrote, “It is our opinion that the HNWD project will have an adverse effect on the battlefield by diminishing the integrity of the battlefield’s setting and feeling. The introduction of nineteen 400-foot turbines on two prominent landforms visible from the battlefield will significantly impact the historic character of the cultural landscape … reduce its ability to convey a sense of the scene encountered by Union and Confederate troops on the morning of Dec. 13, 1861, and impair the visitor’s experience of the (place).”

DHR acknowledged HNWD’s efforts to minimize impacts to the battlefield but, Kilpatrick said, “the cited geophysical limitations of the site, project economics, and county-imposed constraints are arguably pre-existing conditions to this mitigation effort rather than purposeful efforts to address the impacts of the project on the battlefield.”

HNWD had argued that the 1,600-foot setback requirement, placed by Highland County as a condition on the local permit granted to HNWD, made moving the turbines impossible.

But Kilpatrick said, “We must note that if the county-imposed 1,600-foot setback was uniformly applied without exception, the three westernmost towers on Tamarack Ridge would not be included in this project, substantially reducing the project’s effect on the battlefield.”

DHR recommended “further discussions” between its officials, HNWD, and “affected stakeholders” on mitigation strategies.

“These efforts should be reasonable and proportionate to the scale of the project, significance of the affected resources, and severity of the impact, and should result in a direct benefit to the battlefield to offset the adverse impact,” she said. “Provided that all parties could agree to the terms of a mitigation package and execute a memorandum of agreement enabling the package, implementation of mitigation could be phased.”

As for details of an archaeological study HNWD provided the agency, Kilpatrick said DHR accepted it as a “minimal effort” to evaluate the potential impacts to archaeological resources.

“Information gained through our own on-site inspection of portions of the project area supports, in general, the conclusions reached by (HNWD’s) consultant,” she wrote. “Utilization of this information was critical due to the limited nature of the information provided in the report. However, based on our own knowledge of the area and the information provided by HNWD, it appears that impacts to intact, significant archaeological sites are unlikely. If changes are made to the placement of any ground-disturbing activity and the new location has not previously been surveyed, we recommend additional investigations to ensure the continued consideration of archaeological resources. Furthermore, if unanticipated archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all work in the immediate area should cease and our office contacted to provide guidance on the treatment of the discovery.”

Richard Laska, who lives near the battlefield, was encouraged by DHR’s conclusions.

“The Virginia Department of Historic Resources used technical terms, but its message is clear — building HNWD’s turbines next to Camp Allegheny will ruin ‘the setting and feeling’ of that historic site,” he said Wednesday, adding that DHR “says that HNWD does not understand the ’significance and integrity’ of Camp Allegheny — perhaps the nation’s best-preserved Civil War battlefield. The company has shown little respect for ‘hallowed ground’ where hundreds of Americans shed their blood. Why, then, do Highland County supervisors expect the company to respect mere verbal promises?

“Some counties in West Virginia, which had expected a lot of revenue from wind energy, have gotten little or nothing,” he said. “It’s time the Highland County Board of Supervisors got the message — the folks they’re dealing with on the wind project require close supervision. That is exactly what supervisors are elected to do. Winter’s construction halt offers a great opportunity to set things right. County supervisors should withdraw the construction permit and not reissue that permit until there is a clear agreement, in writing, on the minimum amount of money Highland will get from HNWD. Otherwise the wind company can refuse to pay any taxes at all — as has already happened with some other industrial wind projects. If Highland County has nothing in writing, that is exactly what the county could get. Nothing. Without a written contract, Highland County can expect only two things — higher electric bills and higher federal taxes. For example, next month electric bills in Pocahontas County will go up 15 percent, partly to subsidize industrial wind projects. Highland is next.

“In their first year of operation, in addition to the revenue they get from actually selling electricity, HNWD could collect about $26 million, tax free, out of federal coffers. They don’t deny this fact. Since when is it acceptable in the United States of America to subsidize the super-rich by increasing the burden on the middle class? Only people who have neither knowledge of, nor respect for, American history could support such imperial tyranny. The voters should require their elected representatives to represent the interests of all the people.”

Dawn Barrett, another nearby landowner on Allegheny Mountain, shared Laska’s concerns. “Absent the withdrawal of Highland County’s conditional use permit or the Virginia SCC’s certificate, HNWD does not have to do anything to mitigate visual impact on Camp Allegheny. DHR has no power to compel HNWD to act,” she said. Barrett noted SCC’s final order on HNWD’s permit requires the company to coordinate with DHR, but “only the SCC hearing examiner can require HNWD to do what DHR recommends,” she said. “If no hearing occurs, DHR’s recommendations are merely that.”

As for DHR’s suggestion that HNWD enter into an agreement that would directly benefit the battlefield to mitigate the project’s impacts, Barrett is opposed to that idea. “I am confident that this is a reference to the precedent-setting MOU recently entered into by the West Virginia Department of Culture and History and Pinnacle Wind Force, whereby Susan Pierce (agency director) agreed, over the vocal objections of the Mineral County historical society and local residents, to accept $10,000 as compensation for the wind company’s impact on 18 sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Such an MOU may well seem to be the ideal way for both HNWD and DHR to save face — throwing the public, or at least the media, a bone, so to speak, while at the same time avoiding a public hearing — a goal to which both DHR and HNWD seem equally devoted. I myself don’t think $10,000 is rational ‘compensation’ to Pocahontas County, or the nation, for the adverse impact of 19, 400-foot-tall wind turbines on Camp Allegheny. My personal belief is that no amount of money can compensate for the senseless destruction of a place recognized and revered not only for its historical meaning but for its scenic beauty and remote, pristine rarity.”

Wednesday, Kilpatrick explained the setback imposed by Highland was not applied only to property owned by the McBride family, holders of the HNWD company. An easement was granted by an adjoining landowner to allow three towers to be closer than 1,600 feet to the property line. Kilpatrick said DHR considered this a pre-existing condition.

DHR’s Roger Kirchen noted the agency did not do its own analysis of the distance from those towers to the battlefield boundaries; DHR is more interested in impact, not distance.

Kilpatrick stressed DHR has not speculated as to what kind of mitigation efforts might be suitable. “It was just an introduction of the concept,” she said.

As for who might be involved as a “stakeholder” in further discussions, Kilpatrick said DHR might make some recommendations but has not identified those at this point. She and Kirchen said stakeholders should include those with a genuine interest in the battlefield, like the U.S. Forest Service, the West Virginia Department of Culture and History, the American Battlefields Protection Program, and neighboring property owners.

DHR has not received a reply to its letter yet, but Kilpatrick said she would not be surprised if HNWD took about 30 days to respond. “I fully expect a continuing dialogue,” she said.

She did not know whether an SCC hearing would be rescheduled. “Our most recent request to the SCC did not set a date,” she said. “It’s important not to set an arbitrary time. We think we could be ready to respond

By Anne Adams
Staff Writer

The Recorder

www.therecorderonline.com

3 December 2009

Posted in Camp Allegheny, Friends and Citizens Groups, WVSHPO | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

To understand the impact of industrial wind on Camp Allegheny, simply look on the Brightside!

Posted on December 3, 2009 by morgan

Think the windtoon message sounds silly?  How about if the same government agency that told you 18 historic sites would be negatively impacted by the installation of an industrial wind complex decided that a check for $10,000 would solve the problems.  No physical modification required, no corrective action, no effort required to remove the negative impact, just send a check.

Now, $10,000 is a lot of money to me, and maybe to you.  But to the LLCs constructing a $131,000,000.00 wind plant financed largely with your money in the form of taxpayer subsidies, it’s pocket change, maybe even pocket lint.  For a government agency, formed for the sole purpose of protecting the heritage of its citizens, to sell out historic sites with the ease of a carnival barker, is beyond shameful.

Dawn Baldwin Barrett of Brightside Acres provides an excellent account of recent activities concerning Camp Allegheny in Pocahontas County, West Virginia.  Ms. Barrett expresses her concern for a similar outcome for this historic civil war site, and how the decision pending in the State of Virginia will certainly impact this national treasure, the State of West Virginia and the country as a whole.  This is an extremely important issue and we share her deep concerns.  Please visit Brightside Acres and support her efforts to protect our heritage.

With her permission , we provide the full text of her commentary here:

Virginia DHR Issues a Recommendation to HNWD

Wednesday December 2, 2009

After consulting with the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) of the National Park Service regarding the documented boundary of Camp Allegheny Battlefield, Kathleen Kilpatrick, Director of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR), drafted a letter to John Flora, attorney for Highland New Wind Development (HNWD), on November 17. This letter was forwarded to Brightside by West Virginia Representative Nick Rahall’s office yesterday.

Read the letter.

Location and Significance of Battlefield Verified

In her letter, Ms. Kilpatrick expresses the Department’s concern that the Visual Impact Study prepared for HNWD by the Antares Group “does not take into account the full nature and extent of the impacted resource.” As justification, she cites the ABPP’s 2009 update to the 1993 Civil War Sites Advisory Commission study, which defines Camp Allegheny Battlefield as including not only the area of the Confederate encampment, gun emplacements and trenches located at the western end of the property, but also the site of the early morning Union attack at the eastern end of the property, in the vicinity of the Varner Cemetery.

Line-of-sight analyses have shown that this area is between one and 1.5 miles from the three closest proposed wind turbines. The following explanation, provided to DHR by the ABPP, vindicates not just Brightside, but all of the historians, archaeologists, and citizens who have continued to insist, despite HNWD statements to the contrary, that this area is indeed an integral part of Camp Allegheny:

“The eastern portion of the Battlefield includes the area where Federal troops first encountered Confederate pickets along the Staunton-Parkersburg Pike, where Federal regiments moved east off the turnpike toward the Varner Cemetery…where they deployed in line of battle at the east end of the broad ridge across the summit (just south of the Varner Cemetery), and the open land over which the Confederates marched to meet the oncoming enemy and upon which heavy fighting occurred for more than two hours.”

The first paragraph on page two of Kilpatrick’s letter includes the revealing note that DHR actually provided the ABPP-defined geographical boundaries of the Battlefield to HNWD way back in January, 2009, and again in October, at which time DHR requested that HNWD consider the entire Battlefield in their visual impact study. Ms. Kilpatrick confirms that, despite this request, the study HNWD produced focuses only on the central and western portion of the Battlefield, and excludes the eastern portion, which is closest to the wind turbines.

We find the revelation that HNWD has been in possession, since January, of National Park Service information defining Camp Allegheny as including land in the vicinity of the Varner Cemetery very interesting. Despite this knowledge, the company’s representatives have stated repeatedly in op-eds, interviews, on-line forums, and even directly to the SCC Hearing Examiner on September 23, that Camp Allegheny is “more than two miles” from the closest wind turbine. A company willing to fudge the facts with the Hearing Examiner would appear to be a company quite comfortable fudging the facts with regular folks.

Ms. Kilpatrick further states that the Visual Impact Study provided by HNWD “does lack an appreciation of the resource’s integrity, specifically its integrity of location, setting, and feeling, which are particularly relevant when considering battlefield landscapes.” She goes on to say: “Our own visit to the Battlefield confirmed a relative lack of modern intrusion on the historic landscape and its ability to convey to the visitor the sense of where, why and how the battle took place.”

Adverse Effect of Wind Turbines Confirmed

Finally she concludes: “After consideration of all available information it is our opinion that the HNWD project will have an adverse effect on the Battlefield by diminishing the integrity of the Battlefield’s setting and feeling.”

At long last, DHR stepped-up and stated the obvious.

So, now what? If HNWD’s claim that this is an eighty-million-dollar project is accurate, then this is the eighty-million-dollar question.

The answer, once again, largely depends on us.

In her letter, Ms. Kilpatrick makes only one recommendation: “We recommend further discussions between DHR, HNWD, and affected stakeholders on mitigation strategies to address the project’s impact to historic resources.”

She states that these efforts should be reasonable and proportionate to the scale of the project, significance of the resource and severity of the impact and should “result in a direct benefit to the Battlefield to offset the adverse impact.”

Yet she establishes no timeline for such discussions, which only the SCC has legal authority to compel. There is no implication that she will seek a hearing if HNWD fails to agree to a “mitigation package.” She does not define “affected stakeholders” or the mechanism by which their concerns might be heard or incorporated into a Memorandum of Agreement.

She states: “Provided that all parties could agree to the terms of a mitigation package and execute a Memorandum of Agreement enabling the package, implementation of mitigation could be phased.”

Mitigation package? Phased? Other than not erecting the turbines, or erecting turbines a fifth as tall, there is no physical way to mitigate the visual impact of 19, 400-foot structures arrayed on two ridgetops. Its not as if HNWD can bring in 400-foot-tall trees or build a 400-foot-tall wall to block the view. So, what in the world is Ms. Kilpatrick talking about?

We have no proof. But we do have an educated guess. We believe that Ms. Kilpatrick is talking about money.

Does Money Equal Mitigation? And, if so, How Much is Enough?

The West Virginia Department of Culture and History, recognizing the “adverse impact” of Pinnacle Wind Force on 18 structures located in Mineral County, West Virginia, and listed on the National Register of Historic Places, recently entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the wind developer. Over the objections of the Mineral County Historical Society, the Mineral County Historical Foundation, and many concerned citizens, the West Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer, Susan Pierce, agreed to accept a $10,000 “historic preservation grant” as compensation for this adverse impact. The MOA states “the historic preservation grant will be made to and administered by an independent, local community foundation to be established by Pinnacle.”

Yep. You read that right. $10,000 from the wind developer for a foundation to be established by the wind developer. Fair and balanced compensation for 18 sites on the National Register?

We don’t think so.

Read the MOA.If Ms. Kilpatrick is entertaining thoughts of following her West Virginia colleague down this path, we at Brightside believe she needs to be compelled to think again.

Perhaps there exists an amount of money that could appropriately compensate the People of Pocahontas County, and the Nation, for the loss of this special place. We can’t imagine what that amount is, but we are confident that even in a poor county in a poor state, it’s much greater than $10,000.

If it’s monetary mitigation Ms. Kilpatrick seeks, then the People, all of us “affected stakeholders,” must be involved at arriving at the appropriate amount.

Absent a public hearing or any public forum within which the “affected stakeholders” can voice their opinions regarding “mitigation strategies,” all parties cannot, in point of fact, “agree to the terms of a mitigation package.”

This is why the People must demand a public forum where the terms of a mitigation package will be defined and agreed upon.

Please take a moment to email, call, or send a letter to Kathleen Kilpatrick. She works for you. Demand that she set a date for a public forum. If possible, copy your correspondence to Joel Peck, Clerk of the SCC. Please reference case PUE-2009-00092.

Kathleen Kilpatrick, Director
Virginia Department of Historic Resources
2801 Kensington Avenue
Richmond, VA 23221
804-367-2323
kathleen.kilpatrick@dhr.virginia.gov

Joel H. Peck
Clerk of the State Corporation Commission
Document Control Center
P.O. Box 2118
Richmond, VA 23218-2118

or email the Clerk at this address:
sallie.holmes@scc.virginia.gov

Thank You! Your Efforts Are Making a Difference.

Related posts:  “Email to Governor Joe Manchin questioning the decision by the WV Division of Culture and History to allow wind installations to negatively impact historic sites.” … “A question for the WV Division of Culture and History – What’s a Historic Civil War Site go for these days?” … “A Conversation with Jon Boone – Industrial Wind and the Environment” … “West Virginia: “It’s Wild” – “It’s Wonderful” and “It’s For Sale!” … CHEAP!”

Posted in Camp Allegheny, WVSHPO | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

UN halts China wind projects. Surprise … it’s all about money!

Posted on December 2, 2009 by morgan

Could have knocked me over with an eagle feather.  Not that the Chinese figured out how to take advantage of carbon trading, but that the UN would actually suspend industrial wind projects while it considers the situation.  CNN reports in United Nations has placed several Chinese wind projects on hold.

We talked about the China carbon trade strategy a month ago when we referenced this article at agmetalminer.com:  “Europe Pays for China’s Wind Farms”

But let’s take a look at CNN’s article:  “UN halts funds to China wind farms” and watch the three card Monte that is industrial wind play out one more time:

(FT) — The United Nations body in charge of managing carbon trading has suspended approvals for dozens of Chinese wind farms amid questions over the country’s use of industrial policy to obtain money under the scheme.

China has been by far the biggest beneficiary of the so-called Clean Development Mechanism, a carbon trading system designed to direct funds from wealthy countries to developing nations to cut greenhouse gases.

China has earned 153m carbon credits, worth more than $1bn and making up almost half of the total issued under the UN-run programme in the past five years, according to a Financial Times analysis. The credits are currently trading at about $10-$15 each.

Industrial countries can meet part of their commitments under the 1997 Kyoto protocol to battle global warming by financing projects that mitigate emissions in developing nations. Projects only qualify for credits if the applicants prove they would not have been built anyway, a condition known as “additionality”.

The controversy over Chinese wind farms and other CDM projects will intensify calls for the system to be overhauled at the UN’s Copenhagen conference, which opens on Monday.

China-based consultants said the CDM’s board in Bonn began refusing approval for Chinese wind power projects in the middle of 2009, over concerns Beijing had deliberately lowered subsidies to make them eligible for funding.

“The board now suddenly says the projects are not additional, whereas in the past they found no fault with additionality,” said Yang Zhiliang, general manager of Accord Global Environment Technology, one of China’s leading CDM consultants. “They are blaming the Chinese government and its decision to lower subsidies.”

Ms Yang said Beijing had other aims, such as limiting overcapacity in the wind turbine sector, in setting subsidies. “The Chinese government wouldn’t adjust subsidies just to bag CDM money,” she said.

Industry officials said the CDM board had refused approval for about 50 wind power projects. Doubts over whether CDM funding will be available in the future has also prompted power companies to stall new wind power investments.

Lex de Jonge, head of the UN board, confirmed that “a handful of [Chinese] projects” had been suspended but declined to give reasons. Michael Wara, of Stanford University, said there were considerable problems in China with the CDM’s rules.

With the emphasis that Beijing is now placing on both smaller hydro-electric projects and wind power, the government would have supported at least some of the projects receiving money under the CDM scheme anyway.

“It is hard to believe that there is additionality in many of the energy projects in China right now,” he said.

Chinese government officials quoted in the local media defended the CDM process as an effective mechanism for helping developed countries cut emissions and the only one that gave poorer nations a role.

Chen Hongbo, of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said although the system needed reform, it should be maintained. “I think that after 2012 [when Kyoto expires], the CDM cannot stop immediately,” he said.

© The Financial Times Limited 2009

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

Note to Western Michigan Sierra Club – wind turbines won’t replace coal fired plants … and, oh yeah! … about those two eagles.

Posted on December 2, 2009 by morgan

Seldom has a day gone by without an article about battle lines formed to debate the pros and cons of wind energy.

The argument against industrial wind is almost guaranteed to include view-shed, property value, health effects caused by low frequency sound waves, flicker (the shadows cast by the turbines), bat and bird kills and the fact that the LLCs receive massive taxpayer subsidies while generating little dependable power and, by the way, will not replace a single fossil fuel plant in order to reduce CO2 emissions.

The argument for industrial wind is almost guaranteed to include tax revenue to the community, jobs, clean and green energy from a renewable source and elimination of fossil fueled plants thus reducing CO2 emissions.

Here’s the latest, courtesy of WWMT, Battle continues over wind turbines:

(NEWSCHANNEL 3) – The fight continues over proposed wind turbines near Grand Haven.

The City of Grand Rapids wants to install two turbines to generate 80,000 megawatts to power the city’s water treatment plant. The city brought their plans to the residents of Grand Haven on Monday night, and they are not too happy about it.

The Lake Michigan shoreline has been described as beautiful and pristine, and for many people in Grand Haven, it’s also their backyard.

“I have concerns on the safety of these turbines and I have concerns about property values,” said Mary Sportel.

The turbines would be located on 79 acres at the water filtration plant which is used to pump 40 million gallons of water daily from Lake Michigan to Grand Rapids. 240 homes sit within a mile of where the turbines would be. The proposed turbines would stand 414 feet tall from the base of the tower to the tip of the blades. The township already has an ordinance in place that bans turbines taller than 150 feet.

The main concerns for residents are the effect that the turbines would have on tourism, property value, and health effects caused by low frequency sound waves, and the shadows cast by the turbines.

“There are all these questions out there, studies haven’t been done so people have big concerns and rightfully so, but a lot of people it’s like they don’t want it in their backyard,” said Jan O’Connell of the Michigan Sierra Club.

According to Grand Rapids, no existing houses are within 1,500 feet of where there turbines would be, but for some that’s not enough.

“We have a beautiful site there with a nature preserve and we have two bald eagles back there now,” said Sportel.

Representatives for Grand Rapids admit that many feasibility studies still have to be done, and say that Monday night’s meeting was just to get feedback. While most of the feedback on Monday night was overwhelmingly negative, those in favor of the turbines still have hope.

“No one was in support of coal-fired power plants,” said O’Connell, “but if we don’t make this change to wind turbines that’s exactly what we’ll have for the next 50 years.”

The comments from the Western Michigan Sierra Club are interesting.

  • “There are all these questions out there, studies haven’t been done so people have big concerns and rightfully so, but a lot of people it’s like they don’t want it in their backyard,” said Jan O’Connell of the Michigan Sierra Club.
  • “No one was in support of coal-fired power plants,” said O’Connell, “but if we don’t make this change to wind turbines that’s exactly what we’ll have for the next 50 years.”

I’m not sure if Jan O’Connell was speaking locally or nationally about the fact that “studies haven’t been done so people have big concerns and rightfully so,” but I think it applies to both.  I was amused that O’Connell couldn’t resist playing the cursed “NIMBY” card.

But, recognizing there are still open issues and concerns, the Sierra club says full speed ahead – “but if we don’t make this change to wind turbines that’s exactly what we’ll have for the next 50 years .”  In what wind promotion brochure did the Sierra Club find that little morsel?

It astounds me that organizations formed for the protection of the environment can justify support of industrial wind.  Wouldn’t you think, before hundreds of thousands of land and air acres are consumed by these machines, a representative from Sierra would ask for proof of effectiveness?  Maybe they have and I’ve just missed the listing of specific coal plant closings that have resulted from industrial wind installations?  I would think those “study” results would be plastered all over the wind proponent’s literature.

But my understanding is industrial wind cannot account for the closing of one coal fired power plant … in the WORLD.  Here’s the exact phrase: “With nearly 100,000 huge wind turbines now in operation throughout the world—35,000 in the USA—no coal plants have been closed anywhere because of wind technology. And there is no empirical evidence that there is less coal burned per unit of electricity produced as a specific consequence of wind.”

So, where is the disconnect?  The Western Michigan Sierra Club is taking a position so they must know something I don’t know and I wish they would share their knowledge.

See, the only real protection the environment can expect must come from the powerful lobbies of the environment groups sworn to protect it.  One can only hope these groups do not take their charge lightly, and are willing to study the facts and confront open issues.  It should not be part of their agenda to push flawed remedies simply because the political consensus cites the manufacturer’s literature.  Unfortunately some such groups have shown a willingness to sacrifice a “few” eagles in their support of an unreliable energy source that can achieve none of the stated goals.

Contrary to the suggestion that if we don’t make the change to wind turbines we’ll have coal fired plants for 50 years, wind plants will guarantee the existence of coal for another 50 years and beyond.  In fact, it could be argued that diverting the vast sums of taxpayer funding to the unreliable, inefficient and costly energy product known as industrial wind will surely slow development of future energy sources that might actually have a positive impact on the environment.  I would suggest those in the decision making process in Michigan, including the Sierra Club’s Jan O’Connell, read this article before choosing a 25 year commitment to alter their landscape and, perhaps lose two happy residents – Mr. and Mrs. Bald Eagle.  “A Conversation with Jon Boone – Toward a Better Understanding of Industrial Wind Technology

Posted in Wind Energy Shenanigans, Wind v Coal, Windpower Industry False Claims | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Destruction of Backbone Mountain soon to begin, ironically because no one has one!

Posted on December 1, 2009 by morgan

(Courtesy of Windtoons.com)

According to the Baltimore Sun, Constellation Energy will attempt it’s “first venture into generating electricity from wind, though spokesman Lawrence McDonnell said the company has been buying wind power produced in the Midwest. The company also has installed relatively small-scale photovoltaic solar arrays at spice-maker McCormick & Co. in Hunt Valley and at the Maryland Environmental Service headquarters in Millersville.”

Perfect!  Constellation bought some wind power so now they’ll be responsible to generate wind power.  Is that the equivalent of me driving a car so now I think I’ll build you one?

At what point will we find politicians with the courage, yes backbone to go against the tide and actually understand a process they push.  According to the article, “a 2008 state law passed at the urging of Gov. Martin O’Malley requires electricity suppliers such as Constellation to get 20 percent from renewable sources by 2022 or pay fees for failing to do so.”  Why 20% and not 30% or 12% or 7% or 100%?  The reason is they don’t have a clue.  There is no science in their calculation or their reasoning.  They are simply lemings following their political elders down a path to notoriety without any concern for understanding the impact of their ignorance.

Maryland has no corner on the ignorance market.  Neighboring West Virginia is selling its soul to the “green” gods in hopes that St. Washington will open the pearly flood gates of federal funds.

Of course, far from the hallowed halls of Annapolis and Charleston, the mountains they promote on their brochures will be horribly altered by their actions and they are clueless to understand.

Read the full Baltimore Sun article here:  “Garrett, Charles to get wind, solar power plants”

Related reads:  “Boiling Frogs” … “Maryland to open new Bald Eagle meat processing facility in Garrett County.“

Posted in Allegheny Mountains | Tagged , , | 2 Comments