Better Plan, Wisconsin

ICE PLAGUES NORTHERN WIND FARM: ONLY 11 OF 33 TURBINES OPERATING

By Matthew Bingley

via CBC News, www.cbc.ca

January 12, 2012 

When the fog cools, it creates an icy build-up which make the turbines unusable...

Workers are currently trying to find a way to melt some of the ice. They will use helicopters to spray the blades with hot water in an attempt to break up some of the ice...

Cold weather continues to plague a northern New Brunswick wind farm with technical issues.

The intense cold over the past week has caused ice to build up on turbine blades at the Caribou Wind Park near Bathurst.

Only 11 out of 33 turbines are currently running, officials with GDF Suez Energy North America, the company that owns the wind park, confirmed.

Company spokesperson Julie Vitek said the problems continue to occur due to the location’s tendency to attract fog.

When the fog cools, it creates an icy build-up which make the turbines unusable, she said.

“Obviously cold and dry tends to be more healthy for a wind farm” said Vitek.

Workers are currently trying to find a way to melt some of the ice. They will use helicopters to spray the blades with hot water in an attempt to break up some of the ice, she said.

The workers will have to contend with more bad weather on the way, but Vitek expects the issue will be resolved some time next week.

This is not the first time there has been issues with the wind farm. Operations had to be halted multiple times due to ice over the past two years.

Last year, all 33 of the turbines had to be shut-down for over a month.

When the Caribou Wind Park is at peak capacity, it generates enough electricity to power about 30,000 homes.

Opinion

WISCONSIN TOWN COUNCIL PLACES PRIOR RESTRAINT ON POLITICAL SPEECH

Via The New American

By Joe Wolverton II

January 9, 2012

According to the latest census, there are fewer than 2,000 people living in Morrison, Wisconsin. There are at least 10 times that many cows.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: What was the real reason Invenergy backed out of the project?

There is was no 'regulatory uncertainty' for Invenergy when it came to this project because it was over 100 megawatts.

When a project is that big it's the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) not local government that has approval. The PSC has never yet met a wind project it didn't like and has said yes to all who have applied.

Word has it that the real reason Invenergy pulled out was because they were unable to to find a utility that would agree to purchase the power or the project.

By Laura Carpenter

Via  The Newport Daily Express, newportvermontdailyexpress.com

January  11, 2012 

“Mitigation, metaphorically, is a bit like a surgeon cutting off your right arm but assuring you that he or she will see to it your left arm remains protected for the rest of your life. Your right arm, meanwhile, is still gone. Yes, GMP has secured conservation easements from a few area landowners by paying them a ton of money and arranging creative land swaps. The moose, deer, bear, bobcat, grouse, fisher, et al, were apparently not consulted. Such action does not assure existing habitat connectivity or cushion the overall effects of fragmentation of what was an intact montane ecosystem. The right arm is still missing, lost in the clear-cutting and blasting,”

LOWELL, VT – Work on Green Mountain Power’s (GMP) controversial Lowell Mountain wind turbine project will continue through the winter, although some of the activity will subside and pick up again in the spring. The lack of snowfall has allowed for some of the construction work to continue further than expected.

Road building, blasting and excavation continue along the ridgeline, according to Dorothy (Dotty) Schnure with GMP. Concrete foundation work began this week on the collector substation, which is located halfway up the access road on Lowell Mountain. Construction of the collector substation on the mountain will continue. In addition crews are preparing to set poles for the overhead collector line, which will carry power from the underground electric lines on the ridge to the substation.

The project involves the construction of 21 industrial size turbines and upgrades to the Vermont Electric Cooperative transmission system between Jay and Lowell.

GMP has all necessary pre-construction permits and has met all required pre-construction conditions placed on it by state regulators.

One of the requirements set by the Public Service Board (PSB) was to obtain easements of “adequate size and location” to address fragmentation of habitat caused by the project. The wind project impacts 159 acres on the Lowell Mountains. In late December, the PSB approved GMP’s proposal to conserve approximately 1,600 acres of wildlife habitat in Eden.

“The conserved land provides for important habitat to offset the overall project effects and provides connectivity to other conserved lands. This level of mitigation is unprecedented in Vermont,” said Mary Powell, President and CEO of GMP in a written statement.

In addition to the two parcels just approved for conservation in Eden, GMP has also conserved approximately 1,070 acres on Lowell Mountain. Of these acres, 778 acres will be conserved in perpetuity (forever) and another 292 acres will be conserved for the life of project plus 25 years.

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources attorney Jon Groveman, in a letter filed with the PSB, said the conserved land on either side of East Hill Road helps maintain the ecological and landscape connectivity that currently exists between the Lowell Mountain Habitat block and the Green River Reservoir habitat block.

But not everyone agrees that the easements make up for the loss, including Steve Wright of Craftsbury, a former Vermont Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife.

“Mitigation, metaphorically, is a bit like a surgeon cutting off your right arm but assuring you that he or she will see to it your left arm remains protected for the rest of your life. Your right arm, meanwhile, is still gone. Yes, GMP has secured conservation easements from a few area landowners by paying them a ton of money and arranging creative land swaps. The moose, deer, bear, bobcat, grouse, fisher, et al, were apparently not consulted. Such action does not assure existing habitat connectivity or cushion the overall effects of fragmentation of what was an intact montane ecosystem. The right arm is still missing, lost in the clear-cutting and blasting,” Wright said.

Still under dispute is a section of land where the crane path for the wind project is built. Shirley and Don Nelson, adjacent property owners, say the land is really theirs. But Trip Wileman, the property owner leasing to GMP, says it is his. The issue is in court but has not been decided.

“It is unconscionable that Judge Maley continues to hold that case while GMP destroys what is likely to be ruled the Nelson property. Actually, I guess GMP has already destroyed it, so maybe it’s only an issue of determining a compensatory value,” Wright said.

WIND POWER: IS IT WORTH IT?

By Mark Morgan

Via West Virginia Highlands Voice, wvhighlands.org

January 10 2012

The heavily funded and admittedly effective US industrial wind lobby portrays its product as descending from old-world windmills. Close your eyes and you’ll surely imagine these magnificent machines gently turning in the breeze . each kilowatt arriving at your reading lamp courtesy of a rosy -cheeked Hummel child. Existing solely to save the planet by generating clean, affordable and environmentally friendly electricity, you can be sure that any addition to the plant owner’s bank account is purely accidental.

Hogwash! In reality, the US industrial wind business traces its roots to Ken Lay and Enron with profit as its core goal. As Gabriel Alonso, chief executive of Horizon Wind Energy LLC – one of America’s biggest wind developers, often reminds his employees . their goal isn’t to stage a renewable-energy revolution … “This is about making money!” (1)

I was not always this cynical. I wanted to believe that industrial wind would replace fossil fueled power plants and, until two years ago, defended its arrival here. Like many West Virginians, I wanted the destruction of our mountains by those who profit from the blue diamond stopped . NOW! I believed industrial wind offered the best opportunity to accomplish that goal and, even recognizing industrial wind also consumes our forest lands, it seemed an excellent alternative to the coal industry’s horribly destructive mountaintop removal mining process.

Sadly, once the layers of “woulds, coulds and shoulds” were peeled back, I found industrial wind failed to keep its environmental promises. Save the canned boilerplate responses to criticisms, the wind industry offered nothing conclusive to demonstrate it would significantly reduce emissions or close fossil fueled plants. There is no conclusive evidence that one coal plant has been closed as a direct result of the installation of tens of thousands of wind turbines. Not one! I’ve asked advocates to name one facility. Answer . zippo!

I fully expect advocates to point to many studies which validate their “woulds and shoulds.” But the studies they point to carry their own fair share of “woulds and shoulds” as well. We’re even asked to disregard the increased emissions generated by fossil fueled plants as they inefficiently try to compensate for wind’s constant variability and accept that, on their word alone, when the wind is blowing, a coal plant, somewhere, is not running. That’s equivalent to some self-appointed Giraffe Control Officer bragging that not one has been spotted in Charleston during his watch.

Consider this measure instead. US industrial wind capacity at the end of 2010 exceeded 40,000 MW (2). The US has some 490 coal power plants with an average size of 667 MW (3). A direct one to one trade would have closed some 60 coal plants. Again . name one!

Bringing this closer to home . Edison Mission Energy is heavily invested in Appalachian coal fired power plants even as it grows its Appalachian wind plants. Can we expect Edison to replace its fossil plants as it opens wind plants with equivalent MW capacity? Will any of the major players holding significant interest in both fossil fueled plants and wind plants make this commitment? I suggest they will not, as long as there is profit to be made from each.

The sad truth is that industrial wind does not replace fossil fueled electricity generators. It does not reduce emissions. It does not provide affordable, on demand electricity. The relatively miniscule amount of electricity generated typically arrives when it’s not needed and cannot effectively be stored. Industrial wind, true to Ken Lay’s intent, is a profit center founded on favorable legislation, mandated renewable energy goals and funded by taxpayer subsidies.

I did not come to the “dark side” willingly. At the suggestion of a friend, I attended a presentation on industrial wind at which the speaker systematically destroyed any notion that industrial wind has earned a seat at the US energy table. Expecting yet another NIMBY rant, the presenter instead based his case that industrial wind is a failed technology on science alone. There was little mention of view-shed, bat/bird kills, noise or health issues, all of which I’ve since learned are serious issues in their own right. The presenter focused primarily on the poor performance and high cost of industrial wind and the fact that they could never replace current generators, my main reason for initially supporting industrial wind.

Knowing that the two key representatives of our proposed wind plant were introduced as being in the audience, I could hardly wait for the question and answer session. This was going to be a knock down for the ages! Just wait until they set this clown straight!

Then, the presenter wrapped up and said the magic words I’d been waiting for . Any Questions? My gladiators stood up and walked out! Not a word! No defense! How could they let this brutal attack stand?

That was my turning point. Suspicion drove me to read any article I could find about industrial wind and the more I learned the more I disliked these monstrous contraptions which were scheduled to invade my Appalachian Mountains by the tens of thousands.

Before this event, I was willing, like many of my friends, to sacrifice a mountain view, some bats and birds and even the hard earned tax dollars these wind folks would pick from my pocket if it meant the greater good would be served. What I learned, however, lead me to the conclusion that there is no trade.

• Coal plants will continue to exist at pre-wind levels and the mines will remain open in order to supply them.
• Emissions will not be reduced as a result of industrial wind. When asked if wind power was reducing carbon emissions, Deb Malin, a Bonneville Power Authority Representative, answered, “No. They are, in fact, creating emissions.” (4)
• Not only will the surface destruction brought about by mountain top removal mining not be reduced as a result of wind plants, industrial wind will bring destruction well above the ground in areas not previously impacted by mountain top removal. (5)
• The cumulative impact of long stretches of deadly 450 foot tall whirlybirds along our fragile mountain ridges will set a deadly gauntlet for many migratory species with no real benefit to show for the sacrifice.
• The arguably unnecessary remote wind installations require long runs of forest fragmenting high power lines required to bring the occasional electricity generated to a point of use.
• My picked pocket only serves to benefit the wind developers.

I cannot abide the suggestion that we must sacrifice our environment in order to save it. This is an absurd argument enabling this energy imposter’s invasion of delicate habitat with little return. Sacrifice is, after all, a forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim. Environmentalists must consider the possibility that industrial wind, by its failure to perform to stated goals, does not then qualify for this sacred consideration.

My comments here are my own. I am a member of the Board of Directors for the Allegheny Highlands Alliance (6), but do not speak for the organization in this commentary. I serve as editor of the Allegheny Treasures blog (7), an amateur site intended not to answer questions, but instead to stimulate discussion of industrial wind among readers, as I hope to do in this piece.

I arrived at my opinions after all consideration to the argument presented by the AWEA and other industrial wind support groups. I’ll be the first to admit I could be wrong, as I was when I supported industrial wind just two years ago. If a persuasive argument can be made to sway me back, I assure you I’ll happily move. But I should warn you, the argument must begin with a list of coal plant closings and not easily manipulated speculative “data.” Empty promises will not justify consuming even one more square inch of Appalachian forest.

Oh, before I’m criticized on the property rights issue . I firmly believe that you should be allowed to do anything you wish with your property as long as it brings no harm to others. But whatever you choose, don’t ask me to underwrite your adventure with my tax money in the form of subsidies, grants, or any other considerations from which you profit.

I should note that I am not insulted at the NIMBY (Not in my back yard) moniker the wind advocates apply to me. I would take it one step further and suggest they call me a NOPE (Not on planet Earth)! I believe we are all responsible for our environment and must challenge every intrusion. We cannot accept, without question, the possibility that what has been portrayed a solution may, in fact, create additional ills, no matter how much we want to believe.

We should do all possible to move this country away from fossil fuels. Choosing an alternative with no proven track record in accomplishing this effort, especially one with industrial wind’s potential for serious environmental destruction, is simply not an acceptable choice.

Footnotes:

(1)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704629104576190812458488694.html

(2) http://www.nrel.gov/continuum/wind_power_innovation.cfm

(3) http://www.energyjustice.net/files/coal/igcc/factsheet.pdf

(4) http://www.masterresource.org/2010/07/northwestwindpower-problems/

(5) http://wvhighlands.org/wv_voice/?p=3841

(6) http://alleghenytreasures.com/allegheny-highlands-alliance/

(7) http://alleghenytreasures.com/

Editor’s note: Mr. Morgan lives in Keyser, WV. In his cover letter offering this commentary he says, “It is my hope the piece will stimulate further discussion on the very important and timely topic of industrial wind in the Appalachians.”

HEALTH DIVISION VALIDATES SOME CONCERNS ABOUT WIND FARM NOISE

By Tom Banse,

Via Oregon Public Broadcasting, news.opb.org 

January 10, 2012

In a draft report, Oregon’s Public Health Division acknowledges that noise from wind turbine blades may cause health problems among nearby homeowners. But the agency does not intend to take action against the burgeoning wind power industry.

In a draft report, Oregon’s Public Health Division acknowledges that noise from wind turbine blades may cause health problems among nearby homeowners. But the agency does not intend to take action against the burgeoning wind power industry.

Complaints from sleep-deprived neighbors and uncertainty among government officials prompted the re-examination of wind energy. A team of investigators from the Oregon Public Health Division reviewed case studies and held field hearings near some major wind farms. Principal investigator Jae Douglas says while the evidence isn’t exactly “rock solid,” the team found reason to take complaints about health impacts from turbine noise seriously.

“There could be a problem. At certain levels, certain equipment could be producing levels (of noise) that are troubling and difficult for people,” says Douglas.

Douglas says the investigators also assessed whether “shadow flicker” from spinning blades is a problem. They conclude that’s unlikely to have an adverse impact. The Oregon wind energy assessment has been published in draft form for public comment through the end of March. Before the draft came out, a pro-wind industry group issued a statement portraying wind turbines as “benign” to human health.

Oregon Division of Public Health draft study:

http://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironments/TrackingAssessment/HealthImpactAssessment/Pages/windenergy.aspx

Why do wind turbine setbacks need to be measured from the property line?

This graphic, adapted from one created by CWESt [down load it here] shows that when the 1250 foot setback is measured from a neighboring home, some of that neighbors land becomes a 'no-build' zone.

Once the turbine is up on your neighbor's land, you can't build on your own land if it is within 1250 of the turbine.

Under current PSC siting regulations, a 500 foot wind turbine on your neighbors property can be built as close as 1250’ from the foundation of your home.

Farmer A collects the contracted payments from a wind developer and farmers B,C,D,and E lose the right to build on their own land.

[The image above was adapted by Better Plan from this CWESt flyer.]