at the Citizen Power Alliance 2010 Wind Conference
What if windpower had been ‘their’ idea?
Credit: By Mark Altieri, Plain Dealer guest columnist | www.cleveland.com |
This starts out as a fly-fishing story. Uncle Ted and I had cut a swath through the blue ribbon trout streams of the greater Yellowstone area. The Tedder is a renowned fisherman and hunter in Idaho, and so far the highlight of the trip for me was that I was staying even with him. Now I had a new challenge for Ted. I had intrigued him with a story I had written for a fly-fishing magazine on catching common carp on the fly. I also had been periodically sending him Plain Dealer articles by D’Arcy Egan highlighting me fly fishing for carp on the Rocky River and other area streams. Now the Tedder was ready to broaden his horizons as we headed for Blackfoot Reservoir, a high mountain lake holding large numbers of carp outside of beautiful Idaho Falls.
Anyone who has driven south from Ashton, Idaho, to Idaho Falls has been struck by the beauty of the western slope of the Teton Mountains. Before heading to Idaho, I had reread Osborne Russell’s classic, “Journal of a Trapper.” We had just driven by Pierre’s Hole, the famous scene of combat between Russell and other white trappers and their Crow Indian allies and the hated Blackfeet Indians. I was pumped. At last, we headed up the escarpment east of Idaho Falls toward the High Country.
I had never been to that area of the Rockies, and every mile became more beautiful as cattle gave way to mule deer and hawks became more prevalent in the sky. I mentioned to Ted that I thought this was one of the more gorgeous stretches of the Rockies I had ever seen, to which he replied, “Wait a few minutes.” As we went around a broad mountain bend, the things started appearing on the horizon. My first impression was that we were being attacked by a horde of the mechanized dinosaur war machines in the movie “The Empire Strikes Back.”
The entire aesthetics of mile after mile of High Country vista was destroyed. Ted, a retired Forest Service wildlife biologist, mentioned to me the depredation caused by the wind turbines to the hawks, owls and other raptors in the vicinity. He also mentioned that the “whoosh, whoosh, whoosh” noise of the blades was maddening to any wildlife, livestock or humans within sound of them. As concerning to the biologists was the disruption all of this had caused to the migration patterns of the elk and mule deer.
When I got home and spent just a few minutes on the Internet, I quickly verified the toll caused by wind turbines on the raptor and other bird populations. The best and an ironic example of this was the massive San Francisco Altamont Pass project. After porcupining beautiful Altamont Pass with thousands of wind turbines, legal action by the Audubon Society years later forced a multimillion-dollar replacement to more “bird-friendly” blades to address the high toll on the bird population. Anyone want to place a bet on that solving the problem?
Interspersed with the typical favorable mainstream media stories on wind power were other interesting articles noting a variety of other relevant issues, such as the fact that these wind farms would not have come into existence but for heavy federal, state and local tax subsidies. In other words, they have been too inefficient to justify their existence under such private-sector concepts as cost-benefit analysis. Other interesting facts: The damn things don’t work if the wind is too low or high, thus necessitating a traditional and charged backup power grid, the removal of which was the justification for these monstrosities coming into being in the first place. Google “Scotland castles and wind farms” and you will see a U.K. Daily Mail article titled, “The View? Gone with the Wind.” The pictures will make your jaw drop, and the first sentence says it all: “They are famous Scottish landmarks which have withstood wars, weather and centuries of change — but they could not escape the Scottish Government’s green agenda.” And lastly were the anti-aesthetic icing-on-the-cake notations that a growing number of wind farms are simply being abandoned in Europe and North America. All of this politically-correct foolishness for a truly minuscule enhancement in power.
But what if the wind industry had evolved differently? Let’s say the things were actually efficient, didn’t require traditional-power-grid backup and didn’t require massive taxpayer subsidies. Let’s also say that because of these efficiencies, wind farms were developed by private entities such as Exxon Mobil or, better yet, Halliburton. Is there any question that the mainstream media and the intellectual elite would have destroyed the industry by now, citing the bird depredation and destruction of the natural places where these farms are typically located?
W’hen I am driving into downtown Cleveland, the existence of isolated, individual wind turbines along the highway doesn’t overly bother me. When I force myself not to contemplate the taxpayer subsidies inherent in those structures, I think they are kind of cool, even though I know they provide no net enhancement to our domestic power supplies.
But as a general statement, I would beseech (even demand) that you wild-eyed Greenies, you crony capitalists and you vote-buying politicians keep your inefficient, counterproductive, aesthetic-destroying, taxpayer-subsidized, bird-killing hands off of our mountains, deserts and Great Lakes.
Mark Altieri is an accounting professor at Kent State University, where he teaches advanced tax courses, and special tax counsel to the law firm of Wickens, Herzer, Panza, Cook and Batista in Avon.
Read the article at: http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2012/09/09/what-if-windpower-had-been-their-idea/
The Energy Collective: More Realistic Costs for Wind Energy
|Report - The Energy Collective: More Realistic Costs for Wind Energy|
According to the American Tradition Institute, there are numerous hidden costs to wind power, including the cost of back-up power, the cost of extra transmission, and the cost of favorable tax benefits. And, the assumption of a 30-year life used in government calculations for wind power is optimistic, based on reports from European countries regarding the useful service lives of their wind turbines.
Including these hidden costs in calculating the cost of wind energy increases its cost by a factor of 1.5 or 2, depending on the power system that is used as back-up. The Institute calculates that ratepayers are paying an extra $8.5 to $10 billion a year for wind energy compared to natural gas-fired generation, and this will only increase as more capacity is added. Add to this the more than $12 billion that the American taxpayer is paying for the ‘one-year’ extension for the PTC, and one can see that the wind industry is a boondoggle at the expense of taxpayers and ratepayers, that is making the US economy less competitive.
Read the entire report at:
Beware Windpower's "Homes Served" Claims, by Glenn Schleede
Even though Glenn Schleede wrote his "Homes Served" paper back in 2009, at which time he optimistically predicted that, "The facts about wind energy are beginning to show up in the media" - sadly, the wind industry's "homes served" claims continue to be reported in many "news" outlets today (2013) - unquestioned.
Beware Windpower's "Homes Served" Claims, by Glenn Schleede
People who use the phrase “homes served” to describe the potential output from one or more wind turbines either do not understand the facts about wind turbines, believe false claims put forth by the wind industry, or are trying to mislead their reader or listener.
False statements about “homes served” by wind developers and their lobbyists are bad enough, but it is discouraging to hear politicians, reporters, and others adopt and regurgitate them.
The concept of “homes served”
The concept of “homes served” has long been used in the electric industry as a way of giving some idea of the amount of electricity that would be produced by a proposed generating plant without using such terms as megawatt- or kilowatt-hours, which mean little to most people. The concept is always misleading since residential users of electricity (i.e., “homes served”) account for only 37% of all U.S. electricity use. [i]
Claims about “homes served” by a proposed “wind farm” or other generating unit are usually based on a three-step calculation:
“Homes Served” can be useful when talking about reliable generating units
Although misleading, the concept of “homes served” has some validity when used to describe the output from a reliable, “dispatchable” electric generating unit, that is, one that can be called upon to produce electricity whenever it is needed. Such generating units are the ones that are counted on by the electric industry to provide a reliable supply of electricity for customers every day, at all hours of the day, year round.
“Homes served” is NOT a valid concept when referring to wind turbines and “wind farms”
Using “homes served” when talking about wind turbines and “wind farms” is both false and misleading for several reasons.
1. NO homes are really served by wind.
No homes are served by wind energy because wind turbines produce electricity only when wind speeds are in the right speed range (see below). Homes using electricity from wind must always have some reliable energy source immediately available to provide electricity when there is insufficient wind unless the residents are content to have electricity only when the wind is blowing in the right speed range – a condition that few in America are willing to tolerate.
2. Electricity from wind turbines is inherently intermittent, volatile, and unreliable.
Wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within the right speed range. Wind turbines typically start producing electricity at about 6 mph, reach rated capacity at about 32 mph, and cut out at about 56 mph. Unless a home owner has an expensive battery storage system, such volatile and unreliable output wouldn’t be suitable for lights, heating, computers, appliances, or many other purposes.
3. Electricity from “wind farms” is seldom available when most needed by home users.
Again, the output of wind turbines is dependent on wind conditions. Depending on the specific area, winds tend to be strongest at night in cold months. However, electricity demand in most areas of the United States is heavily concentrated during daytime and early evening hours. Even worse, wind turbines cannot be counted on to produce at the time of peak electricity demand, which often occurs in late afternoon on hot weekdays in July and August. At the time of peak electricity demand, wind turbine output may be in the range of 0% to 5% of rated capacity.
4. The electricity produced by wind turbines is low in value compared to electricity from reliable generating units.
That’s because it is inherently intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and not available when most needed—as described in points 2 and 3 above.
5. Not all the electricity produced by a wind turbine actually reaches customers or serves a useful purpose.
Some electricity is lost as it is moved over transmission and distribution lines that carry the electricity from generating units to homes, offices, stores, factories and other users. The amount of electricity that is lost depends on the distance and the condition of lines and transformers. These “line losses” are a significant issue for wind energy because huge, obtrusive wind turbines (often 40+ stories tall) and “wind farms” are not welcome near metropolitan areas that account for most electricity demand. Therefore, they are often located at some distance from the areas where their electricity is needed and so require expensive transmission-line capacity, which they use inefficiently. (Ironically, the lucrative federal tax credits provided to “wind farm” owners are based on electricity produced, not the lesser amount that actually reaches customers and serves a useful purpose.)
6. Claims of “homes served” by wind energy are additionally misleading because of the high true cost of electricity from wind turbines.
Claims that the cost of electricity from wind turbines is “competitive” with the cost of electricity from traditional sources are false. Such claims typically do not include the cost of (a) the huge federal and state tax breaks available to “wind farm” owners,[iv] or (b) the cost of providing the generating capacity and generation that must always be immediately available to “back up” intermittent, unreliable wind turbine output and keep electric grids reliable and in balance.
Claims of “homes served” should always be challenged
Any use of the “homes served” assertion in connection with a “wind farm” should be challenged, whether the assertion is from a wind industry lobbyist, other wind energy advocate, political leader, other government official, or reporter. They should be required to explain each of their assumptions and calculations, and admit that industrial scale wind turbines are useless unless reliable generating units are immediately available to supply electricity when wind is not strong enough to produce significant electricity. Almost certainly, their assertions will be false.
What valid claim could wind industry officials make?
As explained above, wind industry developers, promoters, and lobbyists – and politicians and reporters — should never use the false and misleading “homes served” metric. In theory, they could justify an assertion that the estimated amount of electricity produced by a “wind farm” – once discounted for line losses which are likely to be in the range of 5% to 10% — may be roughly equal to the amount of electricity used annually by X homes – after doing a calculation such as that outlined earlier. However, as indicated above, even this assertion would be misleading because it ignores the fact that the output from wind turbines is intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and unlikely to be available when electricity is most needed.
Other false and misleading claims about wind energy
As shown above, “homes served” is not the only or the most important false claim made about wind energy. Other false claims about wind energy include the following:
Such claims as these have been made often during the past decade and more by the wind industry and other wind advocates. Only during the past 3–4 years have these claims begun to be demonstrated as false and misleading. The facts about wind energy are beginning to show up in the media but, unfortunately, have yet to be understood by most political leaders and regulators.
See the entire article at:
"Wind Turbines are Climate Change Scarecrows"
"Wind Turbines are Climate Change Scarecrows" by Robert Bryce
For years, the wind-energy sector and renewable-energy advocates have repeatedly claimed that wind turbines are essential to the fight against carbon dioxide emissions and catastrophic climate change. Here’s the reality: Wind turbines are nothing more than climate-change scarecrows.
The proliferation of wind turbines over the past few years has not, and will not, result in statistically significant reductions in global carbon dioxide emissions. That point can easily be proven with a bit of simple math....
The hard truth is that renewable energy cannot even keep pace with soaring global energy demand, much less replace significant quantities of hydrocarbons. That’s not an opinion. It’s basic math.....
Over the past few years, the U.S. and other countries have been subsidizing the paving of vast areas of the countryside with 500-foot-high bird- and bat-killing whirligigs that are nothing more than climate talismans. Wind turbines are not going to stop changes in the earth’s climate. Instead, they are token gestures — giant steel scarecrows — that are deceiving the public into thinking that we as a society are doing something to avert the possibility of catastrophic climate change.
Read the entire article at:
MAIN REASONS PEOPLE OPPOSE INDUSTRIAL WIND
MAIN REASONS PEOPLE OPPOSE INDUSTRIAL WIND:
Special political favor at the local, state, and federal levels has created an artificial industry: industrial windpower. Industrial wind is "a political agenda" being pushed by 'green' lobbyists under the premise that it will reduce CO2 emissions, and thus, help abate Global Warming (aka: Climate Change). However, the reality is that with approximately 250,000 industrial wind turbines installed worldwide today (approximately 69,000 of those in the U.S.), and with multi-$Billions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars already thrown into the wind - ultimately “skyrocketing” our electricity rates, CO2 emissions have NOT been significantly reduced anywhere, nor has any conventional power generators been shuttered thanks to wind. In fact, rounded to the nearest whole number, worldwide electricity generation from wind is still ZERO. Our environment and our rural communities are being destroyed for NOTHING!
Industrial wind is NOT civilly, technically, economically,
nor environmentally sound energy policy.
1.) Civilly – and Most Importantly: Jesus commanded us to, “Love God with your whole heart, soul and mind,” and “Love your neighbor as yourself,” (aka: The ‘Golden Rule’ – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”)
The only thing that has ever been reliably generated by industrial wind is complete and utter civil discord. Neighbor is pitted against neighbor, and even family member against family member - totally dividing communities. It is the job of good government to foresee and prevent this degree of civil discord, not to promote it. Adhering to the ‘Golden Rule’ would have halted the wind issue in its tracks.
2.) Technically: Large 400 - 500 foot machines that depend on hundreds of gallons of oil and thousands of pounds of rare earth elements (mined in China) per MW, with their spinning 160-foot long, 22,000 pound (11 TONS) carbon-filament blades, on their CO2-emitting, 350+ ton concrete bases, have limited life-spans of only 10 - 13 years. These machines are notorious for frequent break-downs. Their blades often break even when they are new - endangering anyone TOO CLOSE (ie: Invenergy's GE 1.6 blade break in Orangeville – the 3rd one for GE in the past few weeks)
3.) Economically: Because wind provides NO Capacity Value, or firm capacity (specified amounts of power on demand), wind can NOT replace our reliable, dispatchable baseload generators. Thus, wind needs constant "shadow capacity" from our reliable, conventional generators – a redundancy which Big Wind CEO, Patrick Jenevein admitted “turns ratepayers and taxpayers into double-payers for the same product.”
ONE single 450 MW gas-fired combined cycle generating unit located at New York City (NYC) - where the power is needed in New York State (NYS) - operating at only 60% capacity factor, would provide MORE electricity than all of NYS’s wind factories combined, at about 1/4 of the capital costs – WITHOUT all the negative civil, economic, environmental, human health (www.WindTurbineSyndrome.com) and property value impacts caused by industrial wind factories and all their added transmission lines to NYC.
Wasting money on the wishful thinking of wind has contributed to NYS earning the dubious distinction of having the highest electricity rates in the continental United States – a whopping 53% above the national average. A NYS resident using 6,500 kWh of electricity annually will pay about $400 per year more per year for their electricity than if our electricity prices were at the national average - over $3.2 BILLION dollars that will not be spent in the rest of the economy.
The Institute for Energy Research tallied the numbers and found that each wind job costs $11.45 Million Dollars, and as a result, costs more than four (4) jobs lost elsewhere in the conomy.
4.) Environmentally: The sprawling footprints of industrial wind factories cause massive Habitat Fragmentation, and kills hundreds of thousands of eagles, whooping cranes, bats, and other endangered avian life every year, while failing to significantly lower CO2 emissions. The Presidents of the American Eagle Foundation and SaveTheEaglesInternational.org have both spoken out against this massive avian slaughter. A recent study has shown that as many as 900,000 bats were killed just last year! It has been predicted that when the bats become extinct, man is next.
William Tucker explained in his essay, Understanding E = mc2, that the standard candle for an electricity generating facility is 1000 MW. Since wind turbines operate only 30% of the time [Here in NY they averaged a pathetic 23% in 2012], trying to equal 1000 MW really means covering more than 375 square miles with wind turbines. Even after carpeting over 375 sq miles with industrial wind turbines in a futile attempt to equal just ONE reliable generating facility, those wind turbines still would not work at all much of the time - highlighting Big Wind's inability to successfully replace our reliable, dispatchable power generators.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the fact that industrializing 375 sq miles -- to try and equal what just ONE RELIABLE, conventional generating facility could provide (in a fraction of the space) – is NOT “sustainable”!
Learn more at: www.WiseEnergy.org, www.wind-watch.org, www.windaction.org, www.MasterResource.org
Mary Kay Barton, Friend and supporter of Clear Skies Over Orangeville
11/23/13 Warsaw Penny Saver, Page 7:
WAUBRA FOUNDATION: 11/22/13 WARNING NOTICE
Explicit Warning Notice from the Waubra Foundation
To Planning Authorities, Departments of Health, Environmental Protection Agencies, Federal, State and Local Governments, Wind Industry Developers and Acoustic Consultants
Our Explicit Cautionary Notice dated 29th June, 20111 warned of the emerging serious health problems with large industrial scale wind turbines, with adverse health impacts including repetitive sleep disturbance and physiological stress having been reported at that time out to 10km.
Over two years have passed since that caution, and none of the above addressees has taken any substantive action. The wind industry, its supporters, and its paid acoustic consultants remain in active denial.
In recent months, thorough and definitive acoustic field and laboratory studies performed by Dr Neil Kelley 2, 3, 4, 5 and others in the 1980s have been “rediscovered”. The studies identified a direct causal link between wind turbine infrasound and low frequency noise and neighbours’ health problems including sleep disturbance, collectively described as “annoyance”. The research was presented at the American Wind Energy Association conference in California in 1987. 6
The wind industry, specifically wind turbine manufacturers and wind developers, therefore knew about the direct causal relationship between these specific sound frequencies and health damaging “annoyance” symptoms, which included repetitive sleep disturbance.
Not only does this body of research clearly identify infrasound and low frequency noise (ILFN) as the direct causal agent,7, 8 at levels well BELOW the threshold of audible perception,9 but it also nominates evidence based maximum tolerable noise limits in the ILFN frequency range the researchers considered necessary to protect health, based on their field data. 10
The subsequent failure by the wind industry and government noise pollution authorities to ensure these health protective guidelines were incorporated into wind turbine noise pollution regulations, and then properly monitored and enforced, has directly resulted in the serious harm to the health of thousands of rural residents around the world. The harm is now predictably increasing, as the size of the wind turbines increases. 11
This is a global disgrace.
This has happened because wind turbine product manufacturers have failed to present the truth about the existence and cause of adverse health impacts known to them for nearly thirty years from Dr Kelley’s research. Wind industry excuses that the research “did not apply to modern upwind turbines” have been dismissed by Dr Kelley, 12 a view supported by the growing number of concerned senior acousticians such as Dr Paul Schomer, current Director of Acoustic Standards in the USA. 13, 14, Furthermore the acoustic field research findings of a growing number of independent acousticians working in Australia, and North America 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 are entirely consistent with Kelley’s work.
Who Needs to Consider Their Part in This Extraordinary Failure ?
Acoustic engineers working with the wind industry have failed to abide by their professional codes of conduct 22, 23, 24 to place the protection of the health of the community above commercial interests.
Acoustic engineers who advised or wrote the government wind turbine noise pollution guidelines subsequent to the Kelley research, ensured that the very sound frequencies below 200 Hz known in 1985 to cause adverse health effects and symptoms known as “annoyance” were not included, and were never measured.
Government bureaucracies including departments of health, planning and noise pollution have consistently failed to protect the health of residents, and failed to investigate and act when serious health problems including exhaustion, and home abandonment were reported by residents and their health practitioners. The first medical practitioner to report health problems to the authorities in Australia was Dr David Iser, in 2004. 25
Read the entire Warning Notice at: www.waubrafoundation.org.au
How Long Can You Live With This Kind of "Modern" Energy?
"According to the IEA, “modern energy access” is defined at 500 kWh/year for an urban household of five people. That’s only 100 kWh per person for an entire year. For rural households, the IEA threshold is half as much. Roger Pielke and Morgan Bazilian have a terrific essay in the National Academy of Sciences’ Issues in Science and Technology that points out how absurdly far these are from being meaningful targets.
To illustrate the disparity of consumption, we calculated how long it would take an average American to use up 100kWh. The answer: 66 hours."
Read the entire article at:
Sign Americans For Prosperity's Petition to END the PTC!
SCIENCE NEWS: Wind turbines blamed in death of estimated 600,000 bats in 2012
|Wind turbines blamed in death of estimated 600,000
bats in 2012|
Wind turbines killed at least 600,000 -- and possibly as many as 900,000 -- bats in the United States in 2012, researchers say.
Bats, which play an important role in the ecosystem as insect-eaters, are killed at wind turbines not only by collisions with moving turbine blades but also by the trauma resulting from sudden changes in air pressure that occur near a fast-moving blade, the study said.
Study author Mark Hayes of the University of Colorado notes that 600,000 is a conservative estimate -- the true number could be 50 percent higher than that -- and some areas of the country might experience much higher bat fatality rates at wind energy facilities than others.
Hayes said the Appalachian Mountains have the highest estimated fatality rates in his analysis.
With bats already under stress because of climate change and disease, in particular white-nose syndrome, the estimate of wind turbine deaths is worrisome, he said -- especially as bat populations grow only very slowly, with most species producing only one young per year.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2013/11/08/Wind-turbines-blamed-in-death-of-estimated-600000-bats-in-2012/UPI-64421383946549/#ixzz2kBSdGFsi
Over 100 Oragnization Coalition sends Letter to Congress demanding END to PTC
|Over 100 Oragnization Coalition sends Letter to Congress demanding END to PTC Wind Welfare -- #GoneWithTheWindPTC|
Citizen Speak campaign mailing to your own contact list