Denmark’s State Owned Electric Company gives up Land based Wind Turbines!
Mass protests mean the energy firm will look offshore
State-owned energy firm Dong Energy has given up building more wind farms on Danish land, following protests from residents complaining about the noise the turbines make.
It had been Dong and the government’s plan that 500 large turbines be built on land over the coming 10 years, as part of a large-scale national energy plan. This plan has hit a serious stumbling block, though, due to many protests, and the firm has now given up building any more wind farms on land.
Anders Eldrup, the CEO of Dong Energy, told TV2 News: ‘It is very difficult to get the public’s acceptance if the turbines are built close to residential buildings, and therefore we are now looking at maritime options.'
The move has met resistance from parliament, where amongst others Anne Grete Holmgaard, the chairperson of the Parliamentary Environmental Committee, said, ‘It is rather unacceptable that Dong - which is our large, state-owned energy firm - says goodbye to an investment in wind on land, and that they are doing so after we have cleared the way for a test centre where new types of turbines can be tested.’
SaveOurSeaShore’s Response to the National Parks Conservation Association’s Letter
National Parks Conservation Association Letter of Support!!!
We are overjoyed to receive the support of the National Parks Conservation Association the leading voice in protecting and enhancing America's National Parks with more than 340,000 members. We are humbled by their words of encouragement and support in our effort to protect Cape Cod National Seashore from industrial wind turbines.
Five myths about green energy
Americans are being inundated with claims about renewable and alternative energy. Advocates for these technologies say that if we jettison fossil fuels, we'll breathe easier, stop global warming and revolutionize our economy. Yes, "green" energy has great emotional and political appeal. But before we wrap all our hopes -- and subsidies -- in it, let's take a hard look at some common misconceptions about what "green" means.
The Washington Post By Robert Bryce Sunday, April 25, 2010
1. Solar and wind power are the greenest of them all.
Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats. Even an aging natural gas well producing 60,000 cubic feet per day generates more than 20 times the watts per square meter of a wind turbine. A nuclear power plant cranks out about 56 watts per square meter, eight times as much as is derived from solar photovoltaic installations. The real estate that wind and solar energy demand led the Nature Conservancy to issue a report last year critical of "energy sprawl," including tens of thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines needed to carry electricity from wind and solar installations to distant cities.
Nor does wind energy substantially reduce CO2 emissions. Since the wind doesn't always blow, utilities must use gas- or coal-fired generators to offset wind's unreliability. The result is minimal -- or no -- carbon dioxide reduction.
Denmark, the poster child for wind energy boosters, more than doubled its production of wind energy between 1999 and 2007. Yet data fromEnerginet.dk, the operator of Denmark's natural gas and electricity grids, show that carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation in 2007 were at about the same level as they were back in 1990, before the country began its frenzied construction of turbines. Denmark has done a good job of keeping its overall carbon dioxide emissions flat, but that is in large part because of near-zero population growth and exorbitant energy taxes, not wind energy. And through 2017, the Danes foresee no decrease in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation.
2. Going green will reduce our dependence on imports from unsavory regimes.
In the new green economy, batteries are not included. Neither are many of the "rare earth" elements that are essential ingredients in most alternative energy technologies. Instead of relying on the diversity of the global oil market -- about 20 countries each produce at least 1 million barrels of crude per day -- the United States will be increasingly reliant on just one supplier, China, for elements known as lanthanides. Lanthanum, neodymium, dysprosium and other rare earth elements are used in products from high-capacity batteries and hybrid-electric vehicles to wind turbines and oil refinery catalysts.
China controls between 95 and 100 percent of the global market in these elements. And the Chinese government is reducing its exports of lanthanides to ensure an adequate supply for its domestic manufacturers. Politicians love to demonize oil-exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, but adopting the technologies needed to drastically cut U.S. oil consumption will dramatically increase America's dependence on China.
3. A green American economy will create green American jobs.
In a global market, American wind turbine manufacturers face the same problem as American shoe manufacturers: high domestic labor costs. If U.S. companies want to make turbines, they will have to compete with China, which not only controls the market for neodymium, a critical ingredient in turbine magnets, but has access to very cheap employees.
The Chinese have also signaled their willingness to lose money on solar panels in order to gain market share. China's share of the world's solar module business has grown from about 7 percent in 2005 to about 25 percent in 2009.
Meanwhile, the very concept of a green job is not well defined. Is a job still green if it's created not by the market, but by subsidy or mandate? Consider the claims being made by the subsidy-dependent corn ethanol industry. Growth Energy, an industry lobby group, says increasing the percentage of ethanol blended into the U.S. gasoline supply would create 136,000 jobs. But an analysis by the Environmental Working Group found that no more than 27,000 jobs would be created, and each one could cost taxpayers as much as $446,000 per year. Sure, the government can create more green jobs. But at what cost?
4. Electric cars will substantially reduce demand for oil.
Nissan and Tesla are just two of the manufacturers that are increasing production of all-electric cars. But in the electric car's century-long history, failure tailgates failure. In 1911, the New York Times declared that the electric car "has long been recognized as the ideal" because it "is cleaner and quieter" and "much more economical" than its gasoline-fueled cousins. But the same unreliability of electric car batteries that flummoxed Thomas Edison persists today.
Those who believe that Detroit unplugged the electric car are mistaken. Electric cars haven't been sidelined by a cabal to sell internal combustion engines or a lack of political will, but by physics and math. Gasoline contains about 80 times as much energy, by weight, as the best lithium-ion battery. Sure, the electric motor is more efficient than the internal combustion engine, but can we depend on batteries that are notoriously finicky, short-lived and take hours to recharge? Speaking of recharging, last June, the Government Accountability Office reported that about 40 percent of consumers do not have access to an outlet near their vehicle at home. The electric car is the next big thing -- and it always will be.
5. The United States lags behind other rich countries in going green.
Over the past three decades, the United States has improved its energy efficiency as much as or more than other developed countries. According to data from the Energy Information Administration, average per capita energy consumption in the United States fell by 2.5 percent from 1980 through 2006. That reduction was greater than in any other developed country except Switzerland and Denmark, and the United States achieved it without participating in the Kyoto Protocol or creating an emissions trading system like the one employed in Europe. EIA data also show that the United States has been among the best at reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per $1 of GDP and the amount of energy consumed per $1 of GDP.
America's move toward a more service-based economy that is less dependent on heavy industry and manufacturing is driving this improvement. In addition, the proliferation of computer chips in everything from automobiles to programmable thermostats is wringing more useful work out of each unit of energy consumed. The United States will continue going green by simply allowing engineers and entrepreneurs to do what they do best: make products that are faster, cheaper and more efficient than the ones they made the year before.
Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His fourth book, "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future," will be out Tuesday, April 27.
This Nuclear Option Is Nuclear; The costs of fads and superstition
Meanwhile, America, which pioneered nuclear power, is squandering money on wind power, which provides 1.3 percent of the nation's electricity: it is slurping up $30 billion of tax breaks and other subsidies amounting to $18.82 per megawatt-hour, 25 times as much per megawatt-hour as the combined subsidies for all other forms of electricity production. Wind power involves gargantuan "energy sprawl."
April 19, 2010 by George Will in Newsweek
The 29 people killed last week in the West Virginia coal-mine explosion will soon be as forgotten by the nation as are the 362 miners who were killed in a 1907 explosion in that state, the worst mining disaster in American history. The costs of producing the coal that generates approximately half of America's electricity also include the hundreds of other miners who have suffered violent death in that dangerous profession, not to mention those who have suffered debilitating illnesses and premature death from ailments acquired toiling underground.
Which makes particularly pertinent the fact that the number of Americans killed by accidents in 55 years of generating electricity by nuclear power is: 0. That is the same number of Navy submariners and surface sailors injured during six decades of living in very close proximity to reactors.
America's 250-year supply of coal will be an important source of energy. But even people not much worried about the supposed climate damage done by carbon emissions should see the wisdom-cheaper electricity, less dependence on foreign sources of energy-of Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander's campaign to commit the country to building 100 more nuclear power plants in 20 years.
Today, 20 percent of America's electricity, and 69 percent of its carbon-free generation of electricity, is from nuclear plants. But it has been 30 years since America began construction on a new nuclear reactor.
France gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power; China is starting construction of a new reactor every three months. Meanwhile, America, which pioneered nuclear power, is squandering money on wind power, which provides 1.3 percent of the nation's electricity: it is slurping up $30 billion of tax breaks and other subsidies amounting to $18.82 per megawatt-hour, 25 times as much per megawatt-hour as the combined subsidies for all other forms of electricity production.
Wind power involves gargantuan "energy sprawl." To produce 20 percent of America's power by wind, which the Obama administration dreamily proposes, would require 186,000 tall turbines-40 stories tall, their flashing lights can be seen for 20 miles-covering an area the size of West Virginia. The amount of electricity that would be produced by wind turbines extending the entire 2,178 miles of the Appalachian Trail can be produced by four reactors occupying four square miles of land. And birds beware: the American Bird Conservancy estimates that the existing 25,000 turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds a year. Imagine the toll that 186,000 turbines would take.
Solar power? It produces less than a tenth of a percent of our electricity. And panels and mirrors mean more sprawl. Biomass? It is not so green when you factor in trucks to haul the stuff to the plants that burn it. Meanwhile, demand for electricity soars. Five percent of America's electricity powers gadgets no one had 30 years ago-computers.
America's nuclear industry was a casualty of the 1979 meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania, which was and is referred to as a "catastrophe" even though there were no measurable health effects. Chernobyl was a disaster because Russians built the reactor in a way no one builds today-without a containment vessel.
Since the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Alexander's state has played a special role in U.S. energy policy. The last commercial reactor opened in America is Watts Bar, Unit 1 in Tennessee. And, in a sense, all uses of nuclear power began in that state.
In September 1942, the federal government purchased 59,000 acres of wilderness in eastern Tennessee and built an instant city-streets, housing, schools, shops, and the world's most sophisticated scientific facilities. This was-is-Oak Ridge. Just 34 months later, a blinding flash illuminating the New Mexico desert announced the dawn of the atomic age. That is what Americans can do when motivated.
Today, a mini-Manhattan Project could find ways to recycle used nuclear fuel in a way that reduces its mass 97 percent and radioactive lifetime 98 percent. Today, Alexander says, 10 percent of America's lightbulbs are lit with electricity generated by nuclear material recycled from old Soviet weapons stocks. This is, as Alexander says, "one of the greatest swords-into-plowshares efforts in world history, although few people seem to know about it." It is a travesty that the nation that first harnessed nuclear energy has neglected it so long because of fads about supposed "green energy" and superstitions about nuclear power's dangers.
Cape Wind rejection recommended
WASHINGTON - A federal agency on historic preservation has recommended that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar reject a proposed massive wind energy project in Nantucket Sound - an area that is sacred to the Wampanoag nations and qualifies for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
On April 2, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation issued a seven-page report of its findings and recommendation to deny permits to Cape Wind Associates to construct a wind energy plant consisting of 130 wind turbine generators that would tower 440 feet above water level in a 24-square-mile area on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound, which lies between Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. The proposal includes plans for a 66.5-mile buried submarine transmission cable system, a centrally located electric service platform and two 115-kilovolt lines totaling 25 miles connecting to the mainland power grid.
"The historical properties affected by the project are significant and closely interrelated," ACHP wrote. "The project will adversely affect 34 historic properties, including 16 historic districts and 12 individually significant historic properties on Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Island, and six properties of religious and cultural significance to tribes, including Nantucket Sound itself. These districts and standing structures reflect the broad array of properties that represent the rich and unique architectural, social and cultural history of Cape Cod and the island."
The project would also destroy, damage and alter part of the seabed of Nantucket Sound, potentially destroying archeological resources.
"The ACHP recommends that the secretary not approve the project," the report says.
The report stressed that the development of renewable energy projects "is not inherently incompatible with protection of historic resources so long as full consideration is given to historic properties early in the identification of potential locations." It suggests that the Cape Wind project could be relocated to an alternative site "in the vicinity of the current project area."
Salazar had turned the Cape Wind proposal over to ACHP for comments March 1 after the developer failed to convince the Aquinnah and Mashpee Wampanoag nations, on Martha's Vineyard and Cape Cod, respectively, to abandon their opposition to the project. The nations rejected a $1 million incentive offer from Cape Wind to give up their opposition.
Nantucket Sound is a sacred area to the Wampanoag nations - the People of the First Light. The wind energy plant would obscure their view of the rising sun in ceremony, and the Sound, which was once dry land, is where their ancestors lived and were buried.
The Wampanoag leaders welcomed the ACHP recommendation.
"We're extremely gratified that the council has heard our voice and agrees that Nantucket Sound is an inappropriate location for Cape Wind. We hope that Secretary Salazar will make the right decision and deny the project in its present location. As we've said all along, we're not opposed to wind energy or the specific project, but to the location, and we stand ready to work with all of the agencies on determining an appropriate site for Cape Wind," Aquinnah Chairwoman Cheryl Andrews-Maltais said.
"With today's recommendation by the ACHP, every historic preservation agency at both the state and federal level has come to the same conclusion - that Nantucket Sound is a place of deep historical, spiritual and cultural significance," said Mashpee Chairman Cedric Cromwell. "We are gratified that the ACHP has validated our concerns related to the proposed Cape Wind project, and we hope that Secretary Salazar will agree with their conclusion that Nantucket Sound is an inappropriate site for the project."
The council is the last agency to be consulted on the project before Salazar renders his decision in mid-April.
It joins the Massachusetts' Office of the State Historical Preservation Officer, who determined that the proposed Cape Wind site is a traditional cultural property that should be preserved, and the National Park Service, which said in January that Nantucket Sound is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as a significant traditional, cultural, historic and archaeological property. A designation on the National Register would place Nantucket Sound under a number of federal laws providing protection and preservation of historical and sacred sites.
The ACHP report also recommended that improvements be made in the process for evaluating offshore energy projects.
"The ACHP's review of this project has highlighted the need for broader coordination among federal agencies, states, Indian tribes, industry, consulting parties and the public to address these challenges," the council wrote.
Preserve and protect our Seashore
Although there were many reasons to believe the Wellfleet wind turbine project was a terribly ill-conceived idea, it is gratifying to know that, at the end of the day, the town of Wellfleet — the developer of the project — just couldn't bring itself to sacrifice the incomparable natural beauty of the landscape or the pristine upland pine woods in the heart of the National Seashore.
The voters of Wellfleet, and the board of selectmen by unanimous vote, ultimately rejected a project from which they stood to profit, in order "to preserve the character of the Seashore." We applaud their decision.
We hope the management of the National Seashore will take heart from Wellfleet's example and reassess the paramount importance of its primary mission — to preserve the park in its natural, unimpaired condition for all future generations — relative to the other competing interests to which Superintendent George Price has repeatedly and steadfastly insisted that it must be "sensitive," including the interests of the abutting towns and the perceived interests of other organs of the federal government.
All national parks have a very clear mandate from Congress that intentionally includes categorical prohibitions against any encroachment on their core conservation mission: "no commercial or industrial use is permitted within the park." This mandate is fortified by hundreds of pages of detailed director's orders and almost 100 years of tradition.
In addition, with respect to land-based industrial wind turbines, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, responding to an order from the secretary of the Interior and in cooperation with a federal advisory committee especially appointed for that purpose, has spent over two years developing detailed policy prescriptions for "responsible development" of land-based industrial wind energy resources. It is abundantly clear from reading these guidelines that the fundamental concept underlying the recommendations of the wind turbine advisory committee is the urgency of avoiding inappropriate sites for wind energy development — such as fragile habitats, conservation areas and, by extension, national parks.
We hope Price can now finally appreciate that in his mission to safeguard the integrity of the National Seashore and to reject any form of intrusion compromising the core conservation mission of the park, he has the full backing of Congress; the Department of the Interior; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Wind Turbine Guidelines Federal Advisory Committee — whose members are drawn from the ranks of both prominent wind energy developers as well as every leading conservation group in the country; the board of selectmen and voters of Wellfleet; and, doubtless, the majority of both the local residents and the citizens of the United States.
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100407/OPINION/4070344
In other words, in considering any projects — including wind turbines — that are incompatible with the fulfillment of the park's mission and threaten the fundamental integrity of the park, the only sense of "balance" that must be applied is to reject them out of hand. The superintendent has Congress, the law, 100 years of tradition, the entire apparatus of the Department of the Interior and popular sentiment on his side. What authority does he lack?
As they consider any other current or future proposals to introduce industrial wind turbines within the National Seashore, we urge the superintendent and the advisory commission to use these tools, without apology, for the continued preservation of the park, and on behalf of all of the park users who place their faith in them and rely upon them to do their duty for the sake of "all future generations."
Eric Bibler of Weston, Conn., a longtime regular visitor to Wellfleet, is president of Save Our Seashore.
Will Lessons be Learned about National Parks and Wind Turbines? OP-ED SaveOurSeaShore
March 31, 2010
Dear Mr. Price, and Members of the CCNS Advisory Commission,
Although there were many reasons to believe that the Wellfleet Wind Turbine Project was a terribly ill-conceived idea, it is gratifying to know that, at the end of the day, the Town of Wellfleet – the developer of the project – just couldn’t bring itself to sacrifice the incomparable natural beauty of the landscape or the pristine upland pine woods in the heart of the National Seashore. The voters of Wellfleet, and the Board of Selectmen by unanimous vote, ultimately rejected a project from which they stood to profit in order “to preserve the character of the Seashore.” We applaud their decision.
We hope that the management of the National Seashore will take heart from Wellfleet’s example and reassess the paramount importance of its primary mission – to preserve the park in its natural, unimpaired condition for all future generations – relative to the other competing interests to which Superintendent Price has repeatedly and steadfastly insisted that it must be “sensitive,” including the interests of the abutting towns and the perceived interests of other organs of the federal government.
All national parks have a very clear mandate from Congress that intentionally includes categorical prohibitions against any encroachment on their core conservation mission: “no commercial or industrial use is permitted within the park.” This mandate is fortified by hundreds of pages of detailed Director’s Orders and almost one hundred years of tradition.
In addition, with respect to land based industrial wind turbines, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, responding to an Order from the Secretary of the Interior and in cooperation with a Federal Advisory Committee specially appointed for that purpose, has spent over two years developing detailed policy prescriptions for “responsible development” of land-based industrial wind energy resources. I think that you will agree, when you read these Guidelines, that the fundamental concept underlying the final recommendations of the Federal Advisory Committee is the urgency of avoiding inappropriate sites for wind energy development – such as fragile habitats, conservation areas and, by extension, national parks.
It is our hope that the Superintendent will appreciate that he now has the full backing of Congress; the Department of the Interior; the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; the Federal Advisory Committee – whose members are drawn from the ranks of both prominent wind energy developers as well as every leading conservation group in the country; the Board of Selectmen and the voters of Wellfleet; and, doubtless, the majority of both the local residents and the citizens of the United States; to safeguard the integrity of the National Seashore and to reject any form of intrusion which compromises the core conservation mission of the park.
In other words, the only sense of “balance” that must be applied to the consideration of any projects – including wind turbines -- which are incompatible with the fulfillment of the park’s mission, and which threaten the fundamental integrity of the park, is to reject them out of hand. You have Congress, the law, one hundred years of tradition, the entire apparatus of the Department of the Interior and popular sentiment on your side. What authority do you lack?
We urge the Superintendent and the Advisory Commission to use these tools, without apology, for the benefit and preservation of the National Seashore and on behalf of all of the park users who place their faith in you, and who rely upon you to do your duty.
Sincerely,
Eric Bibler
President
Save Our Seashore
WE STOPPED THE WIND TURBINES IN WELLFLEET, MA
WE STOPPED THE WIND TURBINE!!!! March 30, 2010
The Wellfleet Board of Selectmen wisely voted 5-0 to spend no more money to develop a wind farm.
Thanks to everyone that helped out!
Once you take the time to understand the issues, no other honest judgement could be made!
Wind Turbines Cause More Pollution!
Wind energy is seen as a vital piece of the renewable-energy movement.
But it may be contributing to the pollution problem along the Front Range, according to a draft report sponsored by members of Colorado’s natural gas industry.
The report says that the greatly increased use of wind energy in the past few years may have raised pollution levels from coal and natural gas-fueled power plants owned by Xcel Energy Inc. That’s because the frequent change in output asked of power plants, in response to the availability of wind and solar power, adds to pollution, the report says.
If the report’s conclusions are true, then that challenges beliefs about the connection between renewable wind power and improved air quality.
But representatives of environmental groups and Xcel say they have doubts about its methods and are skeptical about its conclusions. The final report is expected to be completed within weeks.
“We have some questions,” said Roy Palmer, Xcel’s director of state government affairs.
“We think this study has some very serious flaws and doesn’t consider the overall air pollution and public health benefits on an annual or seasonal basis,” said Vickie Patton, the Boulder-based deputy general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund who works on clean-air programs for the advocacy group.
Conventional wisdom says the use of renewable resources, such as wind or solar, to generate electricity cuts pollution levels and improves air quality because they don’t use coal or natural gas to generate power. Fossil fuels have pollutants, such as mercury, sulphur dioxide (SOx), nitrogen oxide (NOx) and carbon dioxide (C02), that are released when the coal or natural gas is burned for heat, which generates the steam needed to turn a turbine and make electricity.
At the end of 2009, Colorado’s wind farms were capable of generating as much as 1,241 megawatts of renewable energy, up nearly 3,800 percent since 2000, according to Interwest Energy Alliance, a Conifer-based trade group for wind power companies in the Rocky Mountains.
But when there’s no wind or sun, conventional power plants that use coal or natural gas supply the energy grid.
In Colorado, the wind typically blows the best — for power-generating purposes — at night, when demand for power is low and has traditionally been met by coal-fired power plants. Through the years, the state has added much more wind power, made necessary due to state laws mandating Xcel get 20 percent of its power supply from renewable resources by 2020. Gov. Bill Ritter is scheduled to sign a bill March 22 that raises that goal to 30 percent by 2020.
But the new report concludes that emissions levels at some coal and natural-gas power plants have increased because they’re throttled up and down to accommodate the fickle nature of renewable energy — particularly the wind, according to the Independent Petroleum Association of the Mountain States (IPAMS), which paid for the report, and Evergreen’s Bentek Energy Inc., which prepared it.
The study found that power output by coal-fired power plants fluctuated as much as 20 percent hour to hour, said Porter Bennett, Bentek president.
The impact on emissions, according to the study, are higher levels ranging between 2 million or 3 million pounds of SOx and NOx, to as much as 10 million pounds of increased emissions, when a power plant is throttled up, Bennett said.
“It’s like running your car in fifth gear, and then slowing to five miles per hour and then trying to speed back up again,” said Marc Smith, executive director of IPAMS. “Coal plants are meant to run only in fifth gear.”
Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz said via email that the utility’s first choice is to throttle back natural gas-fueled power plants, which are better designed to handle quick changes in operations, when the wind picks up. But the utility sometimes is “forced” to cut back coal plants’ output also in response to wind energy — and when it does, Xcel tries to minimize the impact on the plant’s operations and emissions, he said.
The increased emissions stem from two main factors, according to IPAMS and Bentek:
• Inefficiencies occur as power plants are ramped up and down.
• Rapidly increasing plants’ power output — particularly big, coal-fired ones — throws off the operation of air-quality control equipment meant to capture emissions, Bennett said.
It’s like a sudden blast of air tearing a hole in a net. The net still works in some areas, but more emissions get through until the hole is repaired, he said.
It can take up to 20 hours to recalibrate the control equipment, Smith said.
A recent presentation about the draft report was attended by representatives of Xcel; Western Resource Advocates (WRA), a Boulder-based environmental advocacy group that focuses on power issues; and the Environmental Defense Fund, a national advocacy group based in New York City. All three said they plan to study the final report when it’s complete.
“Analyzing system operations is very complex and isolating one specific activity, such as the impact of high wind events on coal operations, in comparison to the operation of the entire generation fleet in Colorado, is even more complex,” Stutz said.
Xcel’s emissions of NOx, and all emissions from Xcel’s fossil-fuel power plants, have dropped nearly 9,000 tons, or about 25 percent, since 2007 due to equipment upgrades that capture more emissions before they leave the plant, Stutz said.
Bennett agreed, but said the upgrades and overall drop in emissions mask increases at some of Xcel’s power plants.
John Nielsen, director of WRA’s energy program, said he thought there were two “serious flaws” in the draft study:
• The analysis didn’t include operations and emissions at power plants that supply power to Xcel, and its customers, in Colorado, but which aren’t owned by Xcel.
• Power plants might be ramped up and down due to a number of issues — such as maintenance at the individual plant or another plant, congestion on transmission lines or other reasons. Also, extrapolating the impact of a few windy days across an entire year could throw off conclusions, he said.
Information in the report came from utilities’ filings with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency about the hourly emissions and operations of individual power plants.
Does the Wellfleet, MA Wind Turbines Risk the SECURITY of America?
Wind Turbines interfere with nearby radars...this is documented in many places. Various organizations have been attempting to mitigate the problems, but there are still problems. When Wellfleet applied to the FAA for a permit to erect Wind Turbines...it was granted but with the following statement:
Wellfleet's wind turbines would be located approximately 7.8 Miles from the North Truro Long Range Radar which is used by the FAA and shared with the military. By the above statement it appears we are sacrificing our safety to build Wind Turbines. Our civil government the FAA is DIRECTLY IGNORING AN AIR FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS with regards to the security of our country. This has to be investigated! Please ask your representative and news organization to investigate why FAA is ignore the country's safety!
This is the full FAA permit:
U.S. General Victor E. Renuart testifies on radar interference from wind turbines
March 18, 2010 by General Victor E. Renuart, Jr. USAF Commander
Film examines drawbacks of wind turbines
Wind energy farms may sound environmentally friendly. Nettie Pena's documentary film "They're Not Green" aims to show that they're anything but. The one-hour film was shown last Saturday night at the Yucca Valley Community Center in an event hosted by the Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy and the Homestead Valley Community Council.
March 23, 2010 by Kris Reilly in The Leader
YUCCA VALLEY • Wind energy farms may sound environmentally friendly. Nettie Pena's documentary film "They're Not Green" aims to show that they're anything but.
The one-hour film was shown last Saturday night at the Yucca Valley Community Center in an event hosted by the Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy and the Homestead Valley Community Council.
The issue is relevant to Lucerne Valley, as 28 wind turbines are planned for the mountains northwest of town.
The film shows interviews with people who live near wind farms, and they say their negative consequences go far beyond the effects on views and property values.
One man who lived near a turbine that caught fire said that firefighters can do little or nothing when the turbines burn because they are so tall. He said he inhaled so much toxic smoke from the burning fiberglass that his coughing resulted in hernia surgery. He also said the company that owned the turbines refused to pay his medical bills.
Other residents spoke of the strobe effect that the windmills create inside their houses as they intermittently block sunlight during the day as well as the flashing red lights that go off during the night.
A scientist interviewed in the film said thousands of birds are killed each year by windmills, and many other problems were examined. Furthermore, the film asserts that the amount of energy provided by these turbines is relatively minuscule.
Pena, who has worked as an assistant film editor at NBC News and Paramount Studios, has been making documentary films since attending UCLA as a graduate student. The destruction of the 1992 Los Angeles riots inspired here to try to improve society, and she became an inner-city math teacher.
Pena said she moved from Los Angeles to Palm Springs three years ago and the windmills "were right in my face." She took her camera to a city council meeting where citizens protested new wind farm developments, and thus "They're Not Green" was born.
Pena spoke after the screening, as did Jim Harvey of the Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy. Both of them are supportive of rooftop solar energy, which does not destroy desert environments and can help people lower their energy costs.
Harvey spoke about AB 811, a state law that makes it easier for homeowners to get low-interest loans for rooftop solar installation. The funding for this program comes from municipal bonds sold by local governments, Harvey said. He's hopeful San Bernardino County will enact an AB 811 program.
Pena said she would like to eventually show "They're Not Green" in Lucerne Valley. Visit web.me.com/thrnotgreen to view portions of the film.
http://www.lucernevalleyleader.com/node/396
RECORD ACTIVITY FOR SAVEOURSEASHORE.ORG
Yesterday March 22, 2010 broke the record for the most active day for our website SAVEOURSEASHORE.ORG We recorded 192 hits which considering the modest Wellfleet population, IS HUGE! The previous most active day was set five months ago just after our startup. I want to thank the many people getting involved in saving Cape Cod National Seashore. Let's keep getting the word out to protect our National Parks.
If the town is successful in developing this commercial industrial wind farm in our National Park; will the National Park Service see this as a opportunity to develop all the NATIONAL PARKS? No one debates whether this land is in the park boundaries. There is no doubt this is industrial equipment and the commercial purpose is to make money. Once Pandora's box is open then will any park be protected? Mr Price the CCNS Superintendent currently believes this is part of a National mission. Let's not give them that green light!
DID YOU KNOW?
72% of visitors say that one of the most important reasons for preserving national parks is to provide opportunities to experience natural peace and the sounds of nature.
Why does the National Park Service management follow it own finding when it comes to wind energy development in Cape Cod National Seashore.
See what the National Park Service writes about the importance of sound will they protect Cape Cod?
http://www.nature.nps.gov/naturalsounds/
Contact George_Price@nps.gov to make your feelings know!
The increasing energy development is resulting in greater noise impacts on park acoustical environments (soundscapes). Noise-related impacts on park acoustical environments may affect visitor experience, wildlife habitat, migration routes, and reproduction.
NATIONAL SEASHORE MUST BE PRESERVED
GUEST COMMENTARY – CAPE CODDER – FRIDAY, MARCH 19
NATIONAL SEASHORE MUST BE PRESERVED
There have been several statements recently relating to the Town of Wellfleet’s proposal to install a huge industrial wind turbine within the National Seashore shich are worthy of correction or comment. Here are two:
1. Town of Wellfleet to NPS: None of Your Business.
At a recent meeting of theWellfleet Forum, both Mr. Dale Donovan, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen, and Mr. Karlson referenced – and even quoted – a legal opinion provided by Wellfleet’s Town Counsel asserting that the Town of Wellfleet can do whatever it pleases on Town land within the Seashore – anything – because the Town was there before the Seashore. According to these gentlemen, even if the NPS opposed Wellfleet’s ambitions, they would be wasting their time because “they have no legal standing.”
Clearly, this assertion takes direct aim at the bedrock provision contained in the enabling legislation for the National Seashore – and for ALL national parks – prohibiting “commercial or industrial use” of land within the park. This categorical prohibition against such use, which is embedded within the Act of Congress that created the Seashore, applies to all land within the boundaries of the park and not merely to “government property”:or to “property owned by the national park.
Mr. George Price, Superintendent of the National Seashore, who was in the audience then came forward at the end of the meeting to flatly contradict this assertion and even cited the Blasch case as proof that the NPS does indeed have legal standing to defend its rights.
So who is right? Since this is a matter of fundamental importance, it would be extremely helpful to all interested parties – including park users and the Town of Wellfleet -- if the National Park Service would issue a response to the Town of Wellfleet elaborating on whether or not Congress intended the park service to have control over the use of land within the Seashore and if park users can expect any relief or assistance from the NPS or from Superintendent Price in resisting such a desecration of this beloved national park.
2. “Preservation of the Natural and Cultural Landscape in Its Original Condition”
Recently, Ms. Helen Miranda Wilson repeated a statement that she had made to the CCNS Advisory Commission to the effect that she believes that colossal industrial wind turbines are beautiful objects which would grace the landscape of the park. As many know, the Seashore has conducted an exercise they call “view shed analysis” in the company of a handful of wind turbine proponents (primarily members of the respective Energy Committees of the towns that abut the Seashore) in an attempt to determine the least objectionable sites to install the massive structures. Some members of CCNS management have asserted that the perceived effect of industrial wind turbines upon the visual landscape is “inherently subjective.”
Mr. Karlson has duly picked up on this theme, insisting that any opinion of the appropriateness – or inappropriateness – of installing wind turbines within the National Seashore is a matter of “mere personal preference.” In fact, at the Wellfleet Forum, Mr. Karlson displayed a pronounced proclivity for dismissing almost any concern about the numerous adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines as “matters of personal preference,” with the obvious intention of de-legitimizing any such criticism.
In fact, those who have decried the intrusion of one or more massive 410 foot industrial structures into the scenic landscape are NOT objecting as a “matter of personal preference” but are insisting upon adherence to the Congressional mandate that created the Seashore, which specifically provides that “in order that the seashore shall be permanently preserved in its present state, no development ….shall be undertaken therein which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing.”
This as an objective, rather than a subjective, criterion and any discussion of “personal preference” or “aesthetic beauty” completely misses the point. The Seashore is a national park – not a sculpture garden – and it was created expressly for the purpose of preserving the landscape “in its original condition for the enjoyment of future generations”, despite the personal preferences of Mr. Karlson, Ms. Wilson or anyone else.
Eric S. Bibler
Save Our Seashore
Wellfleet, MA
Utility Rates Rocket to Pay for Wind Power
Alliant Energy's Iowa customers will be seeing higher bills this month to pay for the utility's investments in green energy.
The utility plans to ask state regulators for a 13.8 percent, $163 million annual rate increase today to pay for a new $468 million wind farm, and to improve its ability to transmit energy from renewable sources.
The 200-megawatt Whispering Willow Wind Farm in Franklin County is the first owned by Alliant's Interstate Power & Light utility.
It began operating in December, and has enough capacity to serve about 150,000 homes at full output.
Improving the transmission grid to enable transmission of power from new wind farms is a major part of Alliant's request for an additional $228 million to improve its reliability.
The third-largest item is a $188 million investment in new controls to reduce emissions of mercury and nitrogen oxides by 90 percent at a coal-burning power plant in Lansing.
The average residential customer would see rates go up by about $10.62 per month or 11.7 percent to $101.36 when the interim increase takes effect March 20, and an extra 2 percent to 8 percent when the final rates take effect later this year.
"We fully support the move towards green power, but there's a cost," Alliant spokesman Ryan Stensland said.
Interstate Power & Light received final approval on a 7 percent rate increase in January, mainly to pay for costs of recovering from record floods in June 2008 and ice storms in recent winters.
IPL President Tom Aller told The Gazette Editorial Board on Tuesday that the utility isn't thrilled to be asking for back-to-back rate increases.
"We're very sensitive to the economic circumstances our customers are facing," Aller said. He said Alliant decided not to carry over several requests it was denied in its last rate case.
The utility plans to offer consumer groups an incentive to settle before it goes to a full Iowa Utilities Board hearing. The proposed "cost management plan" would lower the rate increase to a total of 6 percent overall for the first three years, then increase it to 13.8 percent.
The increase would be temporarily reduced mainly by tapping regulatory reserve accounts from the sale of the Duane Arnold Energy Center to the company that's now NextEra Energy, and the sale of the company's transmission assets to ITC Midwest.
Transmission costs have jumped since Alliant sold the transmission system.
The utility is asking state regulators in the case for a transmission "rider" clause on bills that would pass along ITC's rate changes to customers in the same way that changing fuel costs are quickly tacked onto bills.
The rate increase could be considerably higher than 13.8 percent for some general service and residential Alliant customers. That's because Alliant is proposing to make the final implementation date the roll-in date for the fifth and final phase of a process to equalize rates between different Alliant service territories.
http://gazetteonline.com/breaking-news/2010/03/09/alliant-seeks-13-8-percent-rate-increase
The Brewing Tempest Over Wind Power
People living near turbines increasingly report sleep deprivation, headaches and vertigo. The wind lobby says there's no proof.
Imagine this scenario: The oil and gas industry launches an aggressive global drilling program with a new type of well. Thousands of these new wells, once operational, emit a noxious odor so offensive that many of the people living within a mile of them are kept awake at night. Some are even forced to move out of their homes. It's easy to predict the reaction: denunciations of the industry, countless lawsuits, and congressional investigations.
Now substitute wind for oil and gas and consider the noise complaints being lodged against wind projects around the world.
The Obama administration has made the increased use of wind power to generate electricity a top priority. In 2009 alone, U.S. wind generation capacity increased by 39%. But more wind power means more giant turbines closer to more people. And if current trends continue, that spells trouble.
In 2007, a phalanx of wind turbines were built around Charlie Porter's property in rural northern Missouri. Soon, Mr. Porter began to have trouble sleeping. So did his wife and daughter. The noise, he told me, made sleeping almost impossible. "We tried everything—earplugs, leaving the TV station on all night." Nothing worked. Late last year he moved his family off their 20-acre farm.
Mr. Porter's story is no isolated event. Rural residents in Texas, Maine, Pennsylvania, Oregon, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, France and England have been complaining about the noise from wind turbines, particularly about sleep deprivation. Dozens of news stories—most of them published in rural newspapers—have documented the problem.
I've spoken to nine other people in New York, Wisconsin, Ontario, New Zealand, Nova Scotia and England who live, or lived, near wind turbines. All complained of the noise, with sleep deprivation being the most common complaint. For example, Janet Warren, who raises sheep near Makara, New Zealand, told me via email that the turbines near her home emit "continuous noise and vibration," which disturb her sleep and are causing "loss of concentration, irritability, and short-term memory effects."
Complaints about sleep disruption—as well as the deleterious health effects caused by the pulsing, low-frequency noise emitted by the giant turbines—are a central element of an emerging citizen backlash against the booming global wind industry.
Lawsuits that focus on noise pollution are now pending in Maine, Pennsylvania and New Zealand. In New Zealand, more than 750 complaints have been lodged against a large wind project near Makara since it began operating last April. The European Platform Against Windfarms lists 388 groups in 20 European countries. Canada has more than two dozen antiwind groups. In the U.S. there are about 100 such groups, and state legislators in Vermont recently introduced a bill that will require wind turbines be located no closer than 1.25 miles from any residence.
In theory, big wind projects should only be built in desolate areas. But the reality is that many turbines are being installed close to homes. Wind developers put a turbine within 550 meters of Mr. Porter's house. Hal Graham, a retired office manager in Cohocton, N.Y., complains about the noise pollution caused by a turbine 300 meters from his home. Tony Moyer, a plumbing superintendent in Eden, Wis., grumbles about the noise generated by three turbines built within 425 meters of his house.
Doctors and acoustics experts from the U.S. to Australia report a raft of symptoms that they blame on wind turbine noise, including sleep disturbance, headaches and vertigo. Dr. Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician in Malone, N.Y., has studied 36 people affected by wind turbine noise since 2004 at her own expense. The people she interviewed were widely dispersed; they lived in the U.S., Canada, England, Ireland and Italy. She found that the collection of symptoms she calls "wind turbine syndrome" disappeared as soon as people moved out of their noise-affected homes and into new locations at least five miles from any turbines.
Across the border, Ontario-based orthopedic surgeon Dr. Robert McMurtry has been researching wind turbine noise for the past 18 months. Dr. McMurtry, a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, counts more than 100 people in Ontario he believes are experiencing adverse effects from turbine noise. "It has compromised their health," he says.
The wind lobby has publicly rejected these claims. In December, the American Wind Energy Association in conjunction with the Canadian Wind Energy Association, issued a report titled "Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Review Panel." It declared: "There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects." It also suggested that some of the symptoms being attributed to wind turbine noise were likely psychosomatic and asserted that the vibrations from the turbines are "too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans."
Yet the report also noted that in "the area of wind turbine health effects, no case-control or cohort studies have been conducted as of this date." True enough—but it means there are no studies to prove or disprove the case. It also says that "a small number of sensitive people" may be "stressed" by wind turbine noise and suffer sleep deprivation. But who gets to define "sensitive" and "small number"? And if turbine noise and sleep disturbance aren't problems, then why are people in so many different locations complaining in almost identical ways? Such questions are only going to be pressed with more urgency in the future.
By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to produce 20% of its electricity from wind. According to the Department of Energy, meeting that goal will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, an eightfold increase over current levels. Installing tens of thousands of new turbines inevitably means they'll be located closer to populated areas.
The health effects of low-frequency noise on humans are not well understood. The noise in question often occurs at, or below, decibel levels that are commonly considered a public nuisance. And detecting low-frequency noise requires sophisticated acoustic gear. For all of these reasons, this issue should be investigated. If policy makers are serious about considering all of the impacts of "green" energy, then an impartial, international study of the effects of wind turbine noise should be undertaken without delay.
What’s Wrong With the National Parks?
New York Times September 27, 2009, 7:00 PM
On Sunday, the first episode of Ken Burns’s 12-hour history, “The National Parks: America’s Best Idea,” aired on public television. Last week, the independent National Parks Second Century Commission, led by former senators Howard H. Baker, Jr. and J. Bennett Johnston, Jr., released an extensive report on the state of the parks and a vision for the next century.
The national parks have been well loved since their beginnings in the 1870s; sometimes nearly loved to death. Since their creation, there has been tension between two goals: wilderness preservation and making these sublime landscapes open to more people.
What’s the best way to protect the national parks, and what’s the best use of resources for that purpose?
- Lynn Scarlett, former deputy secretary of the Interior
- Peter H. Gleick, Pacific Institute
- William Perry Pendley, Mountain States Legal Foundation
- Richard Knight, wildlife biologist
- Richard Moe, National Trust for Historic Preservation
- Sara Fain, National Parks Conservation Association
- Susan Clark and David Cherney, Yale School of Forestry and University of Colorado, Boulder
- Holly Fretwell, author of “Who is Minding the Federal Estate?”