Wind Power Talk

Revenue from Mt Storm Wind Turbines supporting jailing of judges?

2010-04-26T08:11:00.000-07:00

As previously noted - the South American Banking cartel that lent $180M to the Mt Storm project includes Venezuela as one member.

So what do people in West Virginia feel about the fact that such loan repayments are in part tacitly support Hugo Chavez actions?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/24/AR2010042401791.html

Wind farm projects in USA - who gets the money?

2010-03-04T06:28:00.000-08:00

As we have seen with the Mt Storm project - the money spent on turbines and then the revenues from the electricity often follows unexpected paths. And the use of LLC company shells for all these projects prevents any recourse.

Once again Gamesan is cited in this Washington Post article - and the four Senators would do well to study existing projects when drafting regulations to ensure that stimulus dollars are not ultimately being syphoned off to overseas concerns. Percentage construction quotas need to be wary of "assembled in USA" labels where in fact the components are manufactored elsewhere and the actual amount of "assembling" amounts to just unpacking shipping crates and repackaging for final delivery as has happened in the car industry.

In the Mt Storm case revenues from the project are going to pay the loan underwritten by Venezuela and a South American banking consortium. Again this is very easy scenario to see reoccurring once a project secures stimulus funding and can then secure immediate loan credits with kick backs to the parent company.

In West Virginia's case we see that the opportunity to create local manufacturing jobs is lost to neighboring States, and then even the electricity revenue is going elsewhere! Truly a lose-lose scenario for the priviledge of having your landscape dotted with other peoples wind turbines!

US DOE colludes with Wind Turbine Project developers on house price impacts

2010-02-15T12:45:00.000-08:00

The US Department of Energy needs to refund the $500,000 it spent on its study on the impact of wind turbine farms on property prices.

When it blantantly manipulates information to distort the message it portrays it is no longer operating in the best interests of citizens by providing objective data that can inform decision makers.

Instead it is intentionally attempting to deceive citizens about the actual reality and promote special interests positions.

It is one thing if the DOE clearly states - study funded in part by industry groups - but quite another to spend tax payers money and not reveal the biase.

Unfortunately this is a trend across the US government and hence in future citizens will not be able to believe anything their government publishes as a study - except for knowing that such studies are flawed - and the trick is to discover who influenced or caused the study to be made in the first place.

Here with have a classic example of this in action.

================

EXPERT: FLAWED METHODOLOGIES USED IN U.S. DOE STUDY ON PROPERTY VALUES AND WIND POWER PROJECTS

Serious questions raised concerning the credibility of the results

NEW HAMPSHIRE (February 15, 2010) -- Real estate appraisal experts are challenging the scientific credibility and accuracy of a recent US Department of Energy ('DOE') report on the effect of wind power projects on property values. A new paper[1] asserts that well known flaws in the methodology used in the study raise serious questions concerning the credibility of the results, and the DOE report's authors failed to follow well-developed and tested standards for performing regression analyses on property sales.

The Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report[2] titled "The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi- Site Hedonic Analysis" released December 2009 generated media headlines[3] claiming "Wind farms have no effect on property value." The report asserts that an analysis of residential home sales across the United States found no evidence that home prices surrounding wind facilities were "consistently, measurably, and significantly affected by either the view of wind facilities or the distance of the home to those facilities". While the authors acknowledge that individual homes in proximity to the towers may be negatively affected, such impact was declared "either too small and/or too infrequent to result in any widespread, statistically observable impact".

The authors relied on a methodology known as Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis.

The DOE study caught the attention of Mr. Albert Wilson[4], a valuer of environmental impacts on business and real estate with more than 25 years experience who has specifically studied hedonic analyses of real estate for more than a decade, and has taught and written extensively on these impacts and methods.

"I have no opinion concerning the effect of wind power projects on residential property values," Wilson told Windaction.org. "However, I was compelled to respond professionally when it became apparent that the latest report by the Department of Energy was predicated on flawed methods - flaws that are well known in the literature but apparently ignored or missed by the report's authors."

In his paper, "Wind Farms, Residential Property Values, And Rubber Rulers"[1] Wilson writes that the underlying methods used in the development of the DOE study raise serious questions concerning the credibility of the results. In particular, the authors failed to follow any of the well-developed and tested standards for performing regression analyses on property sales.

"There are literally thousands of possible real estate regression models. Absent published and recognized standards on the validation of data, model development and testing, and calibration of the model against the real world market, a regression may be nothing more than a rubber ruler that can be stretched to provide a desired result," he wrote.

And since any hedonic analysis depends entirely on the accuracy and reliability of the regression used, if the underlying regression does not conform to recognized standards, Wilson argues there can be no independent assurance of that accuracy or reliability.

Offering specifics on the study's flaws, Wilson is highly critical of DOE's nationwide approach whereby thousands of real estate transactions were examined in communities surrounding wind power facilities spread across the United States. The authors consolidated all of these markets and treated them as the same with little consideration of basic differences. For example, sales prices in areas of declining population and therefore decreasing demand-a majority of the areas examined-are not directly comparable to sales prices in areas of increasing population and therefore increasing demand. Even within the ten communities identified in the DOE report, such aggregation of markets is questionable. In Washington State, which was used as the base for comparison to all other areas in the study, the authors aggregated the urban market of Kennewick with the rural market of Milton-Freewater -- two very different areas some 42 miles apart!

Wilson was clear when he wrote, "The failure to recognize and account for the need for homogeneity of markets is a common failing of hedonics."

The DOE study completely ignores this point by creating an average sales price representing houses from nine states and at least 20 different markets -- a gross oversimplification that Wilson asserts cannot provide for the specificity required to answer a micro-question such as an influence on sales price from a highly localized condition i.e. distance to or view of a wind energy project.

This problem becomes even more significant when, as Wilson points out, less than 10% of the sales transactions used in the Report had any view of turbines, and only 2.1% had a view rated greater than minor. In fact, the study is dominated by transactions where no influence is reasonably likely. While the author's of the DOE study claim their analysis is "data-rich", in fact, their claim is an overstatement of the situation because of this issue.

The DOE study was three years in the making and cost taxpayers at least $500,000. It is difficult to see how the public was served by an exercise that failed to follow even the most basic requirements for regression analysis which is the foundation on which hedonic methods are based.

About Windaction.org: Industrial Wind Action Group seeks to promote knowledge and raise awareness of the risks and damaging environmental impacts of industrial wind energy development. Information and analysis on the subject is available through its website http://www.windaction.org/. To subscribe to the Windaction.org weekly newsletter, visit http://www.windaction.org/subscribe

CONTACT:

Lisa Linowes

603-838-6588 603-838-6588

llinowes@windaction.org

###

[1] http://www.arwilson.com/pdf/newpdfs/WindFarmsResidentialPropertyValuesandRubberRulers.pdf

[2] http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/lbnl-2829e.pdf

[3] http://www.windaction.org/news/24397

Federal lawsuit filed against Beech Ridge Energy stops 40% of turbine construction

2009-10-10T17:37:00.000-07:00

The Federal lawsuit filed against Beech Ridge Energy and its parent corporation by Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy and others will culminate with an evidentiary trial starting October 21^st in Greenbelt, Maryland. MCRE’s attorneys, of the nationally recognized public interest law firm Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, charge that the Beech Ridge industrial wind energy facility will very likely kill and injure endangered Indiana Bats – a patent violation of the Endangered Species Act. The only way in which a party can cure such a violation is to obtain an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before any deaths or injuries occur, which Beech Ridge Energy has failed to secure from the Service at this time.

To our knowledge, this is the first wind energy project to be challenged for violating the Endangered Species Act, and it puts Greenbrier County in the national spotlight on these important wildlife issues. Previous studies have shown that industrial wind turbines on forested ridges in the east kill thousands of bats annually. In fact, Beech Ridge Energy concedes that approximately 135,000 bats could be killed during the twenty-year operation of the project. Despite this staggering figure, Beech Ridge Energy’s staff have testified previously that Indiana bats were not likely to be killed by the project because pre-construction surveys did not establish presence of the species on the project site.

However, the discovery process leading up to this October trial has exposed evidence to the contrary. Ultrasound survey techniques that identify bat species by their unique call sequences were conducted in 2005 by Beech Ridge Energy’s subcontractor, but the existence and results of these surveys were never disclosed to the federal or state wildlife agencies, nor the West Virginia Public Service Commission. Two of the nation’s leading bat biologists, Drs. Lynn Robbins and Michael Gannon, have recently analyzed that previously unreleased data and confirmed the presence of Indiana bats at the Beech Ridge project site.

Turbines had been slated to go up in August, but because of the efforts of MCRE and others, 40% of phase one turbine erection and 100% of phase two turbine erection is on hold until the issue has been fully litigated and decided in the US District Court.

Because this effort has not come without a price, MCRE appreciates any and all contributions that have been made to sustain this effort to protect our community and our natural environment. Your continued financial support for MCRE can be mailed to: MCRE, P.O. Box 1, Williamsburg, WV 24991 and info is available online at: www.wvmcre.org

Shell Marked Guilty

2009-05-09T18:46:00.000-07:00

Ever wondered why oil companies want handouts to put up wind turbines? To offset their less than perfect record in environmental care is definately a major factor - hoping that people view them with a favorable aspect and continue to therefore buy their oil products.

Seems like Shell Oil is being highlighted by a major campaign to point out their true record.

http://www.shellguilty.com/

Gathering storm of over 1,000 turbines threaten WV

2008-11-13T20:23:00.000-08:00

The Friends of Beautiful Pendleton County, WV are compiling an inventory of the industrial wind projects being considered for the Allegheny mountains area in WV.

There are two documents - the area map with projects marked:
http://www.uswindpower.info/WV/Proposed%20Project%20Map%204.pdf

and then the details of each project:
http://www.uswindpower.info/WV/Map%20Waypoint%20Legend%203.pdf

These documents show the extent of the damage planned. None of this would be occurring of course without the government tax subsidies that make the unviable energy logic possible.

Given the dismal track record of the wind power industry elsewhere in WV it would obviously be a travesty if any of these further projects were anything but summarily dismissed.

Model Wind Project - Martinsburg, WV - Burch v Nedpower - Circuit Court hearing 10th November, 2008

2008-11-11T12:02:00.001-08:00

Today in court the lawyer for Nedpower stated that the Mt Storm project was a model wind power project that would be used as a yard stick over the next 50 years for how to run a successful wind turbine project that contributes to energy independence. He also stated that the project was now worth $500M (up from the originally projected $180M costs).

Oddly enough he also stated that Nedpower has no employees and no cash reserves or assets except the certificate of approval from the West Virginia PSC. In essence Nedpower is a shell company, but somehow it manages to pay the lawyer and his firm to represent them, and run the entire Mt Storm Industrial Wind operation. Magic?!?

So enquiring minds wonder just what a Model Wind Turbine project is, and how the three companies involved - Nedpower, Shell WindEnergy, and Dominion Power could make such a claim? Especially as they have not yet published any figures on the electricity that may have generated to date, nor any revenue they may have received, nor annual power generation estimates based on established wind pattern data from the telemetry on each of their installed turbines. Originally the project was stated to provide electricity for 70,000 homes annually. At the cost of $500M sounds like a bargain!?!

So considering what Nedpower, Shell WindEnergy and Dominion Power have actually done to date it would appear that the following are what makes up a Model Wind Turbine project based on their actions.

Model Wind Project with 50 year operational plan

Setup Corporate shell company with no funds, run by proxy by lawyers to head project.
Only asset is a certificate of approval for project from PSC and leases gained from local land owners with pay offs; all so the shell company cannot be sued.
Take $300M in tax payer electricity generation credits and avoid having to post any public liability bonds. Avoid being labelled as a public utility company.
Take $158M in foreign investment and debit burden of $9M annually with a South American banking cartel.
Purchase turbines from a partner company in Spain and ship them across the Atlantic
Use out of State cheap contract labor for most of construction. Avoid union labor.
Wreck local access roads and do not fully reimburse State DOT for necessary rebuilding of the road.
Sneak project past local regulations and restrictions by avoiding undue public notices or assess during planning permission process. Hire fake expert witnesses to testify on minimal wildlife impacts and huge wind generation capacity.
Promise major benefits to local county in tax and jobs. Buy off local schools and community leaders with paltry donations.
Locate turbines whereever you please in complete disregard to sensibilities of local residents, view shed and overall public nuisance.

There we have it Top 10 ways to run a model wind turbine project, set by NedPower, Shell Wind Energy and Dominion Power.

Seeing the project is such a model of success, perhaps the citizens of Grant County should consider leveeing a substantial new tax on the project to offset the lost revenues from home building and other scenic tourism revenues that they are now losing because of the success of the wind turbine project?

Related links:

Continued road damage and construction: http://windpower.fotopic.net/
Environmental impacts: http://www.windaction.org/?module=uploads&func=download&fileId=1723

Financing details revealed by Nedpower / Shell WindEnergy

2008-07-19T19:46:00.000-07:00

Over $185 million senior secured financing that will support construction and operation of NedPower Mount Storm LLC was arranged in November 2007. Dominion Power and Shell WindEnergy have joint 50/50 ownership of the project. Interestingly the original cost was estimated at $300M alone, but some of that missing funding is coming from the US government subsidies via the rate subsidies and tax incentives. However with the weakened dollar to the Euro and the purchase of Spanish turbines from Ganesa along with the jump in diesel prices effecting construction costs and transportation something would appear to not be all adding up. Public disclosure of the current project budget has not happened.

"Fortis and BBVA will structure, underwrite and syndicate the construction facility, which will be converted into a 15-year senior secured term loan at the onset of commercial operations scheduled to begin in the first quarter of 2008. The facilities launched in November 2007".

Nedpower have been trying to claim the Phase 1 of construction is now complete - however recent pictures from the site show that this is not the case. Clearly also commissioning and testing with the Mt Storm power plant to facilitate power switching has not yet started. They have also yet to comply with FAA regulations on hazard warning systems for the 390' high structures. No filing has been announced by the FAA and the current hazard lighting consists of only two small red lights, one at either end of the line of turbines.

As a partner Dominion Power seem to have a struck a sweet deal with the financing including "The project has entered into two identical power swaps, fixing the electricity price for five years". This means that as the price of electricity goes up the project will be getting the same fixed price that is less than market value for power being generated and Dominion will pocket the difference. This will further erode the viability of the project. On the other hand it is harder to sell wind power generated electricity on the regular daily spot market for the grid because of the uncertainty of generation. So having a guaranteed buyer is probably the attraction for Nedpower.

But then project viability and energy generation don't appear to be considered as priorities by those sponsors of the project. The intent appears to be farming out as much profit for themselves and their partners and minimizing the costs - as can be seen by their willingness to wreak a public road with their heavy construction vehicles and then dodge having to pay to replace the road (the PSC left it open for the project to negotiate "arrangements" with the WV DOT but these have not been made public).

So who exactly is funding the Mt Storm project? "BBVA is one of the top four banks in the Eurozone in terms of market capitalization and is one of the main international banking groups in Latin America with leading subsidiaries in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Puerto Rico and Venezuela. The bank is also present in the world's main financial centers through its New York, London, Frankfurt and Tokyo branches and representative offices.
Fortis Merchant and Private Banking is a division of Fortis, a global financial services firm".

As with the purchase of original Spanish turbines we see US tax dollars and revenues being syphoned off overseas - now also to offshore banking groups in interest payments and revenue agreements. Interest alone on the $185M loan is likely to be in the range of $9M+ annually.

Would someone please mind explaining how this is all helping the people of Grant County and West Virginia?

New Wind Power book - story in pictures

2008-07-13T14:59:00.000-07:00

People facing the challenge of deciding about wind power in their own community need to see first hand what it means to those already coming to grips with living with an industrial wind project in the mountains of West Virginia.

This book by David Webber paints the details in pictures that show directly what impacts locals can expect in a mountain region of the eastern United States.

The book illustrates a project being underwritten by Shell WindEnergy and showcases how a high end multi-national corporation is being represented by its project on the ground.

Coming soon to a mailbox near you

2008-07-08T18:39:00.000-07:00

As you walk up your driveway to the mailbox you are aware of a 390’ high structure in your eye view. Whereas before you had a clear field of view over relaxing fields and trees, now your vision is distracted. As you approach your mailbox a large moving shadow rapidly flicks over you, followed by another and then another and then another. The huge moving blades in the suns light provide a constant effect that is both distracting and annoying. Your senses simply hone into this constant movement and there is no way to shut it out of your minds eye. A little voice inside your self-response alerting systems keeps chirping “Watch Out!” and you cannot switch that off.

Well now you have gotten over the shock value of living next to an industrial wind turbine, maybe you are ready for more technology in your life? How about microwave towers for cell phone communications or emergency response teams or high definition TV and radio? Why not? Your once rural area is now an industrial park anyway, so what does a few more poles and towers matter now?

And remember your driveway and small country road? Well it’s now been widened and graded and 50’ wide access roads carved away from it to provide clearways for giant tractor trailers. And the deer you used to enjoy so close to your home? Gone, gunned down by hunters who before could not penetrate the area but now have free and easy access with open lanes to shoot hapless wildlife from. Now deer start up and move off immediately from any human nearing them (deer and road).

That small country road also is no longer the simple drive it once was. Now it’s more like an army vehicle testing course. With the heavy equipment vehicles on it literally tearing up the surface on inclines and slopes large sections are now barely passable. So you have to weave from one side of the road to the other to find even tarmac. And what about towing in your boat or camper? The uneven camber makes low slung loads bottom out in many places, so now you have to have someone ahead of you to hold up traffic while you are negotiating around the worst sections.

Why not complain to the DOT? Sure go ahead. We did that last year and they spot patched and re-surfaced areas, but now whole new areas have been damaged instead. Seems like the turbine company controls that whole process anyway, and they are not rushing to pay for repairs each time they damage the road. The DOT even seems to let them re-route the road as they please. They were adjudged to have turbines too close to the road so that literally the spinning blades pass directly above the edge of the road. So what is their solution? Relocate the sites of the turbines perhaps? Of course not, simply dig up the original road and in its place put a detoured temporary gravel section instead.

But doesn’t all this create local jobs for people who need them? That seems to be the clarion call around these parts. In fact the turbine company uses it often to gloss over the fact that they want to do pretty much as they please around here. Come to find out that the federal government is paying millions of tax dollars to support this whole Nedpower/Shell WindEnergy venture. So what else in your community is not getting done because the money is spent already? Is this project really cost effective or is this just a boondoggle and public relations exercise for a large mega-corporation, subsidized by the tax payers?

Turns out that the numbers game may actually have worked against the mega-corporation as the exchange rate of the US dollar to the Euro has almost halved since the wind turbine project was conceived and approved and the funding calculated. The turbines and parts are being purchased from Spain and the Ganesa company and shipped to West Virginia. Every cost has escalated, right down to the cost of diesel to haul the parts from Baltimore by rail and road to the construction site. But most importantly the turbines which once cost $1.25M each are now effectively costing twice that when the price is fixed in Euros rather than dollars.

Nedpower optimistically said the entire system would be operational by the fall of 2007. Well here we are in 2008 and it is obvious that not all the turbines are even installed yet. Not to mention completed their equipment testing and integration with the power plants own switching station so that electricity can actually be generated in a controlled way and feed into the grid.

Looking at the current state of installation one could estimate that it will be well into 2009 before they are ready.

Another concern is safety to both aviation and migrating birds. The turbines across the mountain top currently only have two working red hazard warning lights visible at night. This despite the fact that even during the day turbines disappear into the low cloud and mist and being a gross violation of FAA regulations on high structures and hazard light requirements.

The biggest concern is that this whole project simply becomes uneconomic. The pay back period was previously somewhere around 10 years. But now they must have a better idea of actual wind conditions on the mountain and the likely yield. Wind conditions are really only ideal in the fall and otherwise are intermittent and inconsistent for the rest of the year. An annual yield of somewhere in the region of 20% would be typical for this mountain location. So yes – over $300M of tax subsidy is being spent overseas for systems that only work 20% of the time. Your car would not be much of a purchase if it did that.

Now if you double the unit costs through the exchange rate hike, your cost recovery time goes out to twenty years which is past the lifetime of the equipment. Suddenly investors will be jumping ship as there is no way they can recover their money. This leaves just mega-corporations left who can write off to tax against profit and do creative accounting to shift moneys between Spain and the USA. Does this all sound like its going to create sustainable jobs in WV? There are clearly much better things to spend a $300M subsidy on if that is your goal.

And whose brainchild is all this anyway? One Mr. Hieronymous Niessen who I’m sure is right now pouring over maps of rural mountain areas looking for the next one to pass his brilliant schemes off on. Fortunately though the internet now allows people to find out first hand exactly what these projects entail and educate themselves on the choices they face (http://www.windaction.org/faqs/16715).

So what was your life once like back in those tranquil old days before your property area became an industrial wind energy site?

Beautiful Pendleton County - Comments to USFS

2008-01-26T18:18:00.000-08:00

In their open letter to the US Forestry Service the Friends of Beautiful Pendleton County call out numerous issues with mountain top wind turbines that are simply not considered by typical wind industry expert studies when reckoning the costs and impacts of these devices. In looking to establish the true costs and determining if any net good comes from these devices in mountain top settings the FBPC conclusion is that they do not.

You can read the full letter here.

Pendleton County Mobilizes - December 7th meeting

2007-11-25T13:45:00.000-08:00

A visit to neighboring Grant County will show how serious a threat wind projects are becoming for Pendleton. Last weekend I stood on the observation tower at Spruce Knob and saw 22 wind turbines on the Mt. Storm project, turbines are also visible from the Germany Valley overlook. If you are concerned about this or have other concerns, plan to attend the meeting Friday December 7 at 7 pm at the Library.

WHEN: Friday December 7 at 7 pm
WHERE: Pendelton County Public Library Lower Level

Do your realize that had the PSC Commissioners not used wisdom in their June 22, 2007 decision to refuse to permit Liberty Gap's application the project would most likely be near completion. Up to 50 huge turbines more than 400 feet tall would now sit atop Jack Mountain from the WV-VA state line northward to Moatstown.  The construction would have taken place during the driest summer local residents can recall.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: what would be the affect of the removal of up to 20,000 gallons of water a day from our streams for about 4 to 6 months as indicated in Liberty Gap's application. How would our county and downstream farms, residences, fisherman, wild life and others tolerate the removal of such a quantity of precious stream water?

While wind project claim to be "green" they continue to dismiss their own environmental impacts as
justifiable to save the planet from global warming.
You simply cannot have it both ways.  If you care about the planet that much then you will also be sensitive enough to ensure that your industrial projects minimize their own footprints. The lesson of the past hundred years of abusive mining projects show that fragile mountain wilderness areas while they may be windy compared to others locations, are by definition the worst places to locate industrial projects of any kind.

Delmarva Power rejects Wind Power as too expensive

2007-11-11T10:39:00.000-08:00

Not just West Virginia but now Delaware has woken up to the true costs of wind projects and the unsurmountable problem of 30% availability and need for 70% of the time buying electricity on the spot market to offset.

Notice the only country with major offshore windpower - Denmark - has two giant neighbors in Norway and Sweden who sell them hydro-generated electricity. In other words for Denmark - who would otherwise be buying all their electricity from partner countries - offshore wind is offsetting their trade balance costs - because their own traditional in-country generation capacity is minimal.

Everywhere else in the world - there is no offset - so the result is in effect paying for electricity TWICE! Traditional generation and then wind as well.

Fortunately everyone is waking up to this craziness and the impact on their electricity bills.

Delmarva Power is calling for studies on alternatives. Just like for West Virginia biomass is one mentioned option to achieve sustainable 20% generation capacity. Unlike West Virginia, Delmarva power is actively calling for review of these other sources.

See news article here.

West Virginia is no longer wind industry dumping ground

2007-11-09T05:00:00.000-08:00

West Virginia has woken up to the real facts behind the wind industry and its rosy claims.

Congressman Mollohan has sent a hard hitting letter commenting on the State Energy plan on industrial wind to DOE Herholdt.

In the letter Mollohan gives facts and figures that show that wind turbines simply do not contribute significantly to any real sustained energy production nor reduce carbon emissions enough for the investment and their own impact on West Virginia environment.

Furthermore they are incompatible with the State's heritage and
open spaces image, towering hundreds of feet over the landscape and cutting gapping habitat fragmenting lines with access roads.

Clearly West Virginia now has to look seriously at alternates that really do leverage resources that provide sustained alternative energy with real job creation and low carbon emissions. That alternative is everywhere in the State - wood.

The US is lagging woefully behind Europe in developing high efficiency sustainable wood energy systems. See this UK success award for just one example. There is simply nothing in the West Virginia energy plan that even seriously considers these opportunities.

Now is the time for investment in developing a real plan for West Virginia with funding to the University of West Virginia to do the research and studies on sustainable wood energy systems.

The full text of Mollohans letter is here.

Shell WindEnergy / NedPower flagrantly ignore WV PSC contract terms

2007-08-14T19:43:00.000-07:00

Dominion and Shell WindEnergy Inc (owners of the company, NedPower Mount Storm LLC) have announced the first phase of their project - 82 turbines producing 164 megawatts, or enough electricity for 41,000 homes - is under construction at a site near Dominion's Mount Storm Power Station. It is scheduled to begin operation in the fourth quarter of 2007 (see - http://www.dom.com/news/elec2007/pr0731.jsp).

Notice this a "nameplate" capacity rating - and typically wind turbines produce only 25% of rating - so that means 10,000 homes in reality - at a cost of 82 turbines @ $2M each = $164M, which is $16,400 per home.

These new 2 MW Gamesa G8x turbines have been built in Spain and shipped 5,000 miles to Mt Storm.

Unfortunately they never had approval for this. Instead the PSC approved use of 1.8 MW turbines.

Of course NedPower is so convinced that the PSC is in love with their project - they never even bothered to notify the PSC on this change of equipment, nor seek their permission, nor consider that these bigger turbines may not meet PSC approval because of the greater impacts they will have environmentally. No doubt Nedpower feel that these new 2 MW units are a valid substitution that does not require authorization or notification to the PSC.

Clearly this is in complete violation of their existing contract and further illustrates that NedPower is a project out of control. A complaint was filed today to the PSC on the damaged caused to 5 miles of public road by NedPower, and further complaints are expected.

So called environmentalists re-write laws to permit industrial wind farms in ecologically fragile areas

2007-07-30T13:54:00.000-07:00

In a classic case of Orwellian 1984 thinking and double speak - the Maryland Assembly has been hoodwinked into accepting the arguments of an industrial wind developer.

http://www.windaction.org/news/10891

There's only one thing to say to the good senators in Maryland. Please go and look at the photographs of what Nedpower is doing in West Virginia and understand what you have unleashed on the mountains in Maryland. Sadly this is not what you think it is http://windpower.fotopic.net nor are the benefits touted for projects worth the money being spent on them. Community based projects to save energy in homes and farms and change peoples consumption habits is proven to be far more effective $ for $.

Jack Mountain project from Liberty Gap Wind Force turned down by PSC

2007-07-23T13:40:00.000-07:00

Liberty Gap Wind Force has decided not to ask the state Public Service Commission to reconsider its decision to deny a siting application for a wind turbine facility on Jack Mountain.

Liberty Gap attorney Anthony P. Tokarz informed PSC Executive Secretary Sandra Squire on Thursday that the company would not file a petition for reconsideration. Tokarz did not make any other comment.

According to Frank Maisano, spokesman for a coalition of wind developers in West Virginia, said Liberty Gap still has two alternatives: to appeal to the state Supreme Court within 30 days or to refile the application. "That is still an option," Maisano said of the second choice.

Friends' attorney Justin St. Clair said he "was thrilled to death" for Pendleton County and "took his hat off to everyone who worked so hard" in opposing the wind farm. "The PSC did the right thing," he said. "This case is a good example that citizens can have an impact in Charleston."

Gamesa Turbines found to have misled public with claims

2007-07-23T13:34:00.000-07:00

Gamesa, makers of the same Spanish turbines installed on the Mt Storm project have come under fire for their claims in the UK. The Advertising Standards Agency has upheld the complaint against the company intending to install a wind farm on land above Shap, just outside the Lake District National Park. The ASA felt the claims made by Gamesa Energy UK about the amount of electricity that would be generated were misleading and the complaint was upheld.

The compliant upheld reflected the statement by the local committee opposing the project: "Gamesa have misled residents on at least two vital issues: They have implied that our local council will benefit financially from their plans, and they have incorrectly cited as fact figures relating to carbon emission savings and electricity production. The figures are almost irrelevant; the message here is that we cannot believe what we are told by a company seeking to profit at the expense of our landscape and our economy".

Sadly this is a familiar story; promise much, deliver little.

Mt Storm - Nedpower - World's Worst Run Wind Farm Project?!

2007-07-07T18:37:00.000-07:00

Nedpower's continuing blundering puts them in strong contention as the World's Worst Wind Power Project. If it was not so sad it would be funny. Their grasp of a what a carbon neutral foot print is would make Al Gore cringe.

Here's the easy "How to run a wind farm project like Nedpower" 20 point check list:

1) First find a remote mountain location next to a national heritage sanctuary site (Canaan Valley)

2) Impress the local authorities with talk of massive tax revenues and construction contracts

3) Skirt and skimp local regulations by using what waivers you feel expedient

4) Sign-up local landowners to dubious contracts with promises of large monthly rental revenues

5) Deflect local nature group concerns by staging cursory impact assessments using a university professor who you put on the mountain side for a couple of days.

6) Avoid any open public debate by posting notices in obscure papers and places and busing in your own supporters and employees to pack any mandated public hearings.

7) Once project is approved - beginning construction in the fall when few local residents are left around and construction labor is cheaper.

8) Completely wreck local state access roads using them to bring in your heavy equipment. Don't risk having to build your own temporary roads or contractors equipment on your roads.

9) Ensure you locate turbines as close to facilities, roads and existing residences as possible. Maximize the human impact profile so local people know they are contributing to solving global warming by their own sacrifices for the planet. Ignore Federal siting regulations were necessary.

10) Buy all your equipment and turbines from as far away as possible. Preferably 5,000 miles or more!

11) Ship everything through a port that is at least 250 miles from your construction site - that way every part incurs a 500 truck mile minimum delivery over mountain roads that really punish trucks and gas mileage.

12) Cut 10 miles of extra wide access roads to make sure you strip the maximum number of acres of existing trees and habitat to really disrupt wild life and boost your carbon foot print.

13) Select a site that is on the annual migration routes for birds to ensure the maximum hazard factors apply to rare and at risk species.

14) Select a site that has significant bat populations because bats are known to be at high risk from large turbine blades.

15) Endanger the financial viability of the project by purchasing equipment that is 30% more expensive than local alternatives.

16) Alienate local politicians by buying everything from a foreign country thus making it impossible for them to back you.

17) Furlough your construction teams for weeks at a time (see #10 buying parts from 5,000 miles away) so you incur huge equipment rental costs on cranes and other heavy equipment and make the work teams feel insecure so you can hire them for the least money.

18) Bring in a high profile partner like Shell Oil so the Nedpower executives can make big windfall payments and local authorities can be all placated.

19) Make sure that you compromise your position in any law suits brought against you by following items 1 through 18.

20) Continue to make glowing executive pronouncements about the project and how green it is even as it hits more installation delays, environmental issues and cost overruns.

The executives at Shell Oil can hardly be pleased at having a partner like Nedpower show case their environmentally green credentials with wind power projects as badly executed as this one.

Nedpower Mt Storm Project Illegal Turbine sitings diagrams

2007-07-06T14:14:00.000-07:00

The Nedpower project seems to be managed with complete distain for people's rights and for federal regulations.

The latest findings are that three turbines located at the intersection of the Grass Ridge road and the local access road shown above are almost certainly within 800 ft of at least one residence. As shown in the map diagram above.

The map shows the sitings involved and the photograph below shows the construction occurring of the upper two turbines.

The impact of turbines this close to peoples homes is likely to be devastating on their living conditions - see report and real peoples experiences here.

Once again Nedpower's claim to be a "Good Neighbor in Grant County" that misled the WV PSC in their original decision is looking completely transparent. When given an entire mountain top on which to site turbines - they immediately choose locations that are cheapest for them - namely directly next to existing roads and properties. Instead of trying to minimize the impact on residents, that is the last thought on their engineers minds. In fact given the blatant siting of these turbines - the engineers have clearly been given carte blanche to disregard any aspects relating to impacts either human or environmental.

Notice all these turbines are within a few hundred feet or less of the roads themselves.

Nedpower were obviously also counting on the nuisance law suit against them to be dismissed. Instead the case is back in court and Nedpower now have to answer not only nuisance charges but also illegal siting charges.

View of the turbines located adjacent to Grassridge Road, looking down the hill from the corner of the access road:

Where have all the deer gone? Turbine construction impacts.

2007-07-06T13:11:00.000-07:00

This year the Nedpower wind project at Mt Storm has began construction of access roads along some 10 miles of the total 14 mile length of the project.

The effect on the deer population has been devastating. Residents report only 10% of the deer that should normally be active on the mountain top.

Whole meadow areas that usually support feeding herds of 30 or more deer every evening are empty. Social groups of 5 to 10 deer that move around cabins and property areas are gone. Occasional single females with one of last years young can be seen - but no fawns from this year.

Speculation is that the huge wide access roads (photo'd above) have been a disaster for the deer. Exposing them to predation from coyotes and just preventing them from moving to traditional feeding grounds.

If this is the impact that construction clearing and road building is having on the deer population, then the impacts on more vulnerable species is hard to imagine. Habitat fragmentation is a major threat that is well known and documented.

Two reports available here - cover these aspects of habit change impacts.

http://www.friendsofanimals.org/actionline/Summer-2007/wind_farms.php

and

http://www.friendsofanimals.org/actionline/fall-2005/wind-farms.php

Nedpower / Shell Oil buy Spanish Turbines for Mt Storm

2007-07-06T12:21:00.001-07:00

Nedpower / Shell Oil contracted with Gamesa to supply the turbines for the Mt Storm Wind Power project.

This led to speculation that the turbines would come from the new factory in Pennsylvania.

Instead Gamesa are supply the turbines direct from Spain - see photos of Spanish turbines on Mt Storm. This is obviously good for Gamesa and their partner Shell Oil (Shell WindEnergy).

However - this is obviously a very bad deal for the American taxpayer - with $280M therefore being spent in Spain rather than West Virginia or Pennsylvania.

One could speculate that the Bush adminstration would be happy with Coalition Partner - Spain - landing a windfall for their previous support in Iraq. However that does little to nothing for employment in West Virginia. They could have purchased generator and supporting electrical parts and also the steel towers in West Virginia - but as is clear from the photographs - all the equipment is being shipped in from Spain - not just the turbines.

It also raises the question about how many turbines Shell Oil now intends to install? Each turbine is being paid for in Euros - and with the US dollar now at 1.35 to the Euro - this represents $100M of cost esculation since the project started. And of course there is the expense of bringing the turbines from Spain as well.

Then in addition - the original PSC approval assumed that $300M was being spent in West Virginia. Now that it is clear that most of the money is going overseas - I'm sure that the PSC decision is going to be seen as a political disaster. Once again West Virginia resources have been sold out to big corporations with little compensation actually occurring in State, but all the impact, fallout and knock-on of course is being picked up in State.

Clearly Nedpower have felt no restrictions in destroying five miles of State roads during the initial construction - as reported here.

Nedpower Destroys 5 Miles of State Road

2007-07-06T09:28:00.000-07:00

Nedpower and its contractor - Mortenson Construction have wilfully driven heavy vehicles and tracked construction equipment on five miles of the state GrassRidge road - leading to its destruction.

Huge lengths of the road are now just bare dirt and gravel, with the remaining surface showing severe cracking and crumbling which with further ice and freeze this winter will simply remove that as well.

These 50 photographs show the extent of the damage. They are taken at roughly 100yd to 200yd intervals along the whole road - for its entire length - so there simply is not a section of the road that has not been damaged. Safety is also a major factor. The road is not marked as hazardous, but many sections are now only passable at 5mph. Also many people are driving on the only remaining tarmac thus restricting the width to just one-lane. Gravel chips are a significant hazard for people checking their mailboxes and for car windshields.

Nedpower boasted to the WV PSC that - "we will be a good neighbor in Grant County", and Mortenson construction boasts "Integrity" in their corporate catch-phrase. Clearly these are just empty terms and their modus operadi shows their true corporate culture - profits ahead of everything.

The state transportation and road department needs to immediately issue an injunction against Nedpower and Mortenson to prevent their further use of the road. Also - the State needs to take court action to recover the costs of replacing the road.

Is Nedpower's Mt Storm Project in Financial Jeopardy?

2007-07-05T21:02:00.000-07:00

In electing to purchase turbines from Gamesa in Spain for the Mt Storm project has Nedpower sown its own seeds of demise for the ill-fated mountain top project?

The US dollar is now 1.35 to the Euro. This means that the $280M originally planned for turbine purchase now requires another $100M! Will Shell Oil (Shell WindEnergy) pay the $380M knowning they will never recover those costs? Seems highly unlikely Shell Oil executives will do that.

Next - what happens if they install fewer turbines than planned? Will the US government still pay the full $300M subsidy, or will that be prorated or cancelled?

Similarly - now it is revealed that Gamesa is supplying the turbines direct from Spain - the whole argument of providing US jobs in West Virginia is gone! Will the Republicans risk election fall-out in 2008 from continuing to fund the project? Seems this would be a surefire vote loser - sending $280M of taxpayer money to Spain.

To make matters worse, the law suit against Nedpower is now headed back to court, and their prospects look grim. Illegal turbine sitings, massive damage to miles of State roads and emerging evidence of environmental impacts are all set to make the court case a huge pitfall with significant costs and major delays. Not to mention those Spanish turbines are going to make it very tough go keep local support.

Nedpower and Shell Oil are clearly hesitating. Unfinished turbines litter the mountain top. Construction teams have been furloughed for two weeks, with no firm word when work will resume. Expensive construction cranes sit idle, further adding to project costs. The long term parts and maintenance from Spain to the remote harsh mountain environment looks tenuous and expensive. The extreme conditions in winter are bound to cause continuous equipment failures.

The state of West Virginia needs to step in and demand answers from Nedpower. First, their destruction of five miles of state road needs to be paid for. Next clarification of the Spanish turbine purchase, how many turbines are they now planning to install? And then last but not least, the illegally sited turbines that are in breach of federal siting requirements - when will they be removed or relocated?

Shell Oil executives should rightly be very nervous, and the state executives should be monitoring the situation to ensure the State is not left with a massive clean-up operation if Shell Oil pulls out aburptly.

Review of California Wind Turbines - 4,000 in San Gorgonio Pass

2007-07-01T08:08:00.000-07:00

The experience in California appears to be a harbinger of what West Virginia is now experiencing. The costs of repairing the Grassy Ridge Road in Mt Storm destroyed by Nedpower could well top $1M. This value assessment below is from Californian experience of "wind power".

Wind Power has about 4,000 windmills in the San Gorgonio Pass, which amounts to approximately 375 MW of installed capacity. For 25 years we've been told what a significant contribution wind energy could and is making to our energy supply. Since most people have little knowledge of how the electrical system works, they are being misled as to the benefits, merits and capabilities of wind power, unfortunately, most have believed what they have been told.

As a homeowner in the Pass for 30 years, and familiar with the wind patterns, I had reservations as to all the amounts of power that the wind developers claimed that they could generate and that this was even considered a 'good' wind area. I began my research some years ago, as I became suspicious of all the claims made by this industry, by collecting data from many knowledgeable and reliable sources, as well as the California Energy Commission, which at one time published their actual production records. The Wind Industries actual production records were so dismal and at variance with what they projected, they lobbied the CEC into not having to reveal their production records anymore. Nevertheless, I still obtained 15 years of their production records and time of generation from 1998 until 2006. This data confirmed what I observed visually.

As I can see them from my house, when they work and mostly don't. Every time the wind developers went to get another permit to put up more windmills, the developers always stated how many MW they were installing and how many homes they could provide energy for. What they would do is add all their generation as if it was generated 24/7 and divide it by the average household. This is very misleading and deceptive, as the records indicate: Only 5-6 % of their generation is at peak need time, 33% mid peak and the balance of 60% is generated when we need it the least and this off peak generation is deemed as of lesser value, but we must keep in mind that they can only generate about 25% of the time, intermittently. And another big draw back is that it is not constant. One minute it may be blowing and the next couple of weeks or months there may be none. Even with the volatility of wind, windmills really don't generate that much power. I became curious as to exactly how much power they were contributing to Edison. These are the results:

Wind Power has about 4,000 windmills in the San Gorgonio Pass, which amounts to approximately 375 MW of installed capacity.

Because the wind is only good enough to generate power 25% of the time, their generation amounts to an average of 93.5 MW per year, that they sell to Edison [Edison is mandated to purchase all that they generate].

Edison uses on average about 13,000 MW per year in their service area.

The astounding fact that has never been revealed is, this amounts to about only about 7 tenths of 1% of what Edison uses. This is all, after 25 years of exaggerated promises. But, it even gets worse.

If you take their average annual production of about 93.5 MW and subtract the 60% off peak generation, this leaves a miniscule amount of about 2.8 tenths of 1% that is meaningful, if you can call it that, that is generated when we really need it, after billions and billions of ratepayer and tax payer dollars in subsidization and even today they still get a portion from our monthly electric bills. I don't think the people got much bang for their bucks!

I also learned that when this "off peak" generation can't be sold [because demand is low and it can't be stored] the Utility gives it away for 0 cents, but pay the WE their contract price and charge this cost back to the ratepayers... legal double dipping? This off peak generation is deemed as of "lessor" value. How often this happens is another unknown.

Another finding is that wind is useless as capacity. Because of winds volatile nature, the utilities need a constant, reliable source of power to prevent power disruptions, including in their "spinning reserve" which is power on stand by to accommodate any instantaneous demand.

In order to accommodate wind into the grid, the California ISO turns down hydro and gas turbines [both fairly clean], because they are the easiest to manipulate the inconsistencies of wind power, the unreliability, constant on and off and the volatility nature of wind. Also, you can see how small the amount of wind energy really is to the amount that Edison uses. Edison does not use oil. At best, there is some natural gas savings. In Public Hearings, they always refer to our reliance on Middle East oil and how Wind Energy will help alleviate that need. Their statement is simply not true.

Another drawback is that wind power cannot be stored and cannot be called upon at will.. when we need it, it does not match the "time of need profile". So, then exactly what good is it? Except to feel good!?

The bottom line is that wind energy is a DUPLICATION of capacity that the utilities already MUST have to provide a steady flow of power, without interruptions and blackouts. Because of winds intermittent nature...wind won't work, it is really inconsequential.

In Tehachipi, for many years there was a curtailment program, where the windmills were overbuilt for the grid and was to small to handle the surge. Edison made an agreement with the wind industry to just shut the machines down and paid them over $12 million which was also charged back to the ratepayers.

I am very concerned that this big push by government officials for more wind power when I really don't think they really understand how it works. They can cover the entire country with wind mills and they would do nothing for our capacity.. if you stop and think about this... when the wind stops... then what? Edison will have to come on line with the same amount of power that they always need to cover the instantaneous demand, we can't be waiting for the wind to start blowing again.

But, most alarming is the misleading claims and out right misrepresentations made by the wind industry itself, with no one verifying what they say.

Because of the wind industry, our power bills have skyrocketed and will continue to do so with each new windmill, while Edison can provide the same power for 2 cents per kWh.

Unfortunately, the powers that be chose to believe the developers, without ever checking out their veracity or production records. Because of this hysteria for "green", it appears that they would rather put our power supply at risk and have the ratepayers pay double and triple than what is necessary for an illusion. While they have scraped miles and miles of desert, obliterated our views, rendered adjacent property valueless and impacted us with noise and dust for this miniscule amount of useless energy is beyond belief... and have so far gotten away with it. The only transmission has been the $'s from our pockets to theirs.

Alexandra Weit

Whitewater, CA 92282

Pendleton County Wind Project Stopped!

2007-06-29T15:37:00.000-07:00

The PSC (Public Service Commission) of West ruled against Liberty Gap Windforce in their session of 22'nd day of June, 2007 in their Pendleton county project.

They determined that the application was deficient including the 5-mile Map is inadequate; there was no cultural impact of the project addressed; and the viewshed impact evidence was inadequate.

Issues for which evidence is lacking or otherwise troubling where noted as:
(a) Lack of Sufficient Evidence on Cultural Issues
(b) Insufficient and Conflicting Noise Evidence
(c) Government Concerns with Endangered Bat Species
(d) Failure to Satisfy its Evidentiary Burden Regarding View From Public Places .

The full PSC findings report is here and contains much expert testimony of interest.

Europe questions viability of wind power

2007-06-19T19:15:00.000-07:00

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Wales Public Official Comments on Wind Power

June 19, 2007 - An open letter sent to the Huntington New states - "We in Wales UK are planning a national ANTI Wind Turbine demonstration on July 8th. This horrendous industry will never ever halt global climate change it will only enrich its developers via the obscene level of subsidies being paid in Europe. Are there such massive subsidies your side of the Atlantic? "

The letter continues giving details on viability of wind power generation compared to actual use patterns and needs.

"Also remember that electricity generation only accounts for one third of our carbon emissions – ONE THOUSAND GIANT WIND TURBINES only save 0.09% of our Carbon emissions and pollution is a global issue. The bulk of Carbon emissions come from vehicle exhausts; aircraft; domestic heating; factory and basic industrial processes."

Public realization of what is being squandered, along with tax payers money in the name of clean power is growing on both sides of the Atlantic. Wales has geography and economy aspects in common with West Virginia; coal mining, mountains and tourism. Clearly they are also realizing that sacrificing mountain locations to wind turbines is not benefiting their local economy and high subsidies to wind industry could be spent instead on local schools and other infrastructure benefits.

WV ruling sends turbine nuisance case back to court

2007-06-12T10:41:00.000-07:00

Residents of the Mount Storm area seeking an injunction against the NedPower wind turbine project adjacent to the Dominion Power Plant will have their day in court according to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals decision on Friday.

The high court responded to an appeal by the residents during its LAW Day program in Hampshire County in late April when attorney Richard Neely of Charleston argued on behalf of the residents and Samuel Brock of Charleston argued on behalf of NedPower. Supreme Court Justices Robin Davis, Elliott Maynard, Larry Starcher and Joseph Albright disagreed with Jordan, saying in the opinion, written by Maynard, that the residents were entitled to their day in court on the nuisance complaint and that the original PSC’s ruling only jurisdiction was in siting the project.

Two reports give more details :

Cumberland Times article

Weirton Daily Times article

Residents will now get a chance to show the huge nuisance created in the area by the impact of the project and its construction that has already modified roads, tore up landscape and modified watershed, views and access during the pre-construction work currently underway.

Coal v Wind - Virginia learning that wind energy is just "feel good" power, not real solution

2007-05-23T06:28:00.000-07:00

University of Virginia Alumni magazine has an article by Rick Webb - a VA alumni with a long history of researching the impacts of the coal industry on the environment and health. Webb points out that, much as he would love to believe it, wind energy turbines are not the solution to reducing coal consumption and that indeed wind turbines pose their own threats too.

You can read the UVA article here. The pro-wind advocate Alden Hathaway is also cited in the article as saying - "that the electricity generation of a single wind turbine can obviate the need to mine 40 to 50 acres via the Mountain-Top Removal (MTR) method in WV".

A simple study of the arithmetic involved shows that Hathaway's numbers are wishful thinking.

Given that the 1.5-MW wind turbines which are currently operating in WV have a rated lifespan of only 20 years, it would take only 4 acres of a MTR operation to supply the quantity of coal needed by a powerplant to generate the equivalent number of kilowatt-hours of electricity as produced by one of these wind turbines over its entire rated lifetime. For perspective, the amount of forest habitat that was leveled to build the Mountaineer windplant in WV - which is comprised of 44 large wind turbines - cumulatively totaled about 5 acres per turbine.

So at best a single turbine may offset 4 acres of clearing, but the turbine itself needs 5 acres in cleared mountain top space, fencing and access roads!

But stopping MTR is not going to come from erecting turbines that is obvious too. With 2% annual increase in electricity demand nationally the need to prevent growing demand in the first place is paramount.

Once again we see that helping people conserve energy in their daily lives is vastly more effective than erecting expensive turbines on far off mountains. Such projects are little more than "feel-good" posturing that enriches a few specific companies that hold prime stakes in the turbine industry and good connections to the decision makers in Congress funding them.

Meanwhile the Audubon support for wind energy is also mentioned - but is not qualified. When you look at the actual Audobon position it comes with strong caveates. From Audubon President Flicker for example - "Flicker emphasized the importance of prudent siting and the need for his organization and its chapters to work with the wind energy industry. "Modern wind turbines are much safer for birds than their predecessors, but if they are located in the wrong places, they can still be hazardous and can fragment critical habitat," said Flicker. This view is further expanded on by the American Bird Conservancy in their recent testimony to the House.

Unfortunately in its rush to the money, the wind industry is not listening and does not conduct rigorous impact analysis in its siting requests, instead seeks to sidestep them, as the Audubon position also mentions. Giving the wind industry more funding opportunities will certainly not change that aspect of their behaviour unfortunately either.

"Windpower" all about feel-good - nothing about climate change

2007-05-16T08:05:00.000-07:00

Must read article on the truth about wind energy published by the Charleston Gazette in their opinions column by Arthur Hooton.

This article by Hooton is concise and exact in making its points. Hooton references Al Gore and makes the point that wind by all of Gore's metrics is not the answer to global warming.

Hooton states - "Al Gore’s recent documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” has added to the concern that doing nothing to curb greenhouse gases is leading us to global disaster. But there is another inconvenient truth that needs to be acknowledged: industrial wind development will do little, if anything, to reduce greenhouse gases. In fact it may actually contribute to the problem rather than alleviate it."

Some more notable quotes - "First, it is really a misnomer to call it wind “power.” In grid parlance, “power” means available energy on demand. Given the random nature of wind, wind technology does not produce dependable power. It only adds “fluctuating energy” to the grid that must then be accommodated and balanced by an inefficient use of dependable, dispatchable power provided by sources other than wind".

And pointing to the real solution - "Opponents of these industrial wind projects have no quarrel with wind power where it makes sense — at the homeowner level of application. Small-scale, home-based units, using net metering and requiring no additional transmission lines or other infrastructure, not only save electricity but usually transform homeowners into conservation apostles, doing anything they can to slow the turning dials of the electricity meter."

Followed by - "Advocates of industrial wind seem to fall into two camps: the dreamers and the schemers".

Notice those same government funds for the "schemers" are NOT being offered to home owners to buy simple cheap local systems.

For the full article see the Gazette here.

Nedpower attempts to dismiss Rep. Mollohan comments to WV PSC

2007-02-18T14:44:00.000-08:00

Rep. Alan Mollohan says he wants the state Public Service Commission to look more carefully into the potential environmental impact of windmills proposed by companies like NedPower Mount Storm and Shell WindEnergy Inc - the Sunday Charleston Gazette reports.

In response NedPower is attempting to brush aside Mollohan and dismisses his comments as not relevant to their case in the Mt Storm project.

Quite rightly Mollohan is taking NedPower to task for their high-handed attitude. West Virginia clearly deserves much better than the "service" it is receiving from NedPower now that the inadequacies of their research are being exposed.

How much will West Virginia benefit from this project? Of the $300M allocated only 8% will be spent in West Virginia! The huge bulk of the money is being spent in Pennsylvania and Spain to purchase the turbines and technology for the wind farm. And of course Shell WindEnergy has a part stake in the Spanish company that is developing the Pennsylvania production facilities.

Rep. Mollohan is exactly right here in questioning the whole premise and approach. Those $300M in funding could be much better purposed to develop alternative energy sources that are 100% built, produced and supported in West Virginia.

Conference on wind turbine impacts in Allegheny Highlands

2007-02-16T11:01:00.000-08:00

This conference in December 2006 featured presentations by wildlife and environmental experts from around the region. The details of raptor counts, migration paths, song birds and bat populations and potential impacts is frankly comprehensive.

One example is this report on raptor and song bird migration paths and impacts.

This level of research and analysis is being singularly ignored by the wind turbine industry who attempt to downplay its significance - or even dismiss it with "what are a few bird extinctions in the bigger scheme of things?". Unfortunately for the wind turbine industry - their track record on environmental issues reveals that their main concerns are profits and their "green" credentials are a thin veneer.

American Spectator - Tilting at Wind Energy

2007-02-16T08:03:00.000-08:00

The Specator February article seriously doubts the claims around wind energy - and concludes "At bottom, wind is still a medieval technology".

The summary states - "Perhaps the best that can be hoped for, then, is that wind can provide the spinning reserve required for all grids. It is not surprising to find countries like Denmark and Germany topping out at 20 percent. That is the point where spinning reserve ends and base-load responsibilities begin."

And even then - vaguries of wind patterns are at odds with demand - such as during peak hot summer days - when very little wind is available.

For more in-depth issues and analysis - including environmental concerns and impacts - see the article.

Considering the Rationale for Industry Wind Farms in 2007

2007-02-06T15:38:00.000-08:00

This report and discussion brings up to date the real reasons behind the subsidies to wind farm projects, and surprisingly it has nothing to do with the generation of clean electricity!

NedPower / Shell dismissive of WV Supreme Court case

2006-11-26T06:09:00.000-08:00

Not content with misleading the WV PSC in their original filings regarding their wind turbine project at Mt Storm, the developers are now also working hard creating a smoke screen of mis-information in the public press and media.

Perhaps some of their posturing and bragging may end up causing local residents to finally see the true nature of what is occurring.

In the Petersburg Gazette, Timothy O'Leary, Shell's external affairs manager notes "people like to look at them, there will be alot of rubbernecking". Unfortunately this includes the drivers on Rt 42 where O'Leary is building several of his 400ft high machines within a few hundred yards of the roadway. Is this likely to cause more traffic accidents on this narrow and twisting road?

Also no mention was made in the application to the PSC that further nuisance can be expected to local residents from sightseeing car drivers attempting to gain access to the actual turbines themselves by driving down the local access roads.

O'Leary continues - "We don't expect the court case to have any effect on the project".

Meanwhile Frank Maisano, spokesman for a coalition of wind developers explains to the State Journal "Renewable projects in West Virginia will provide economic opportunities and tax revenue for local communities, as well as clean renewable power for the environment".

The facts however do not support Mr Maisano's sweet claims.

First the wind developers have persuaded the federal government to remove the tax obligations for wind projects - therefore tax revenue is now completely discretionary and negiotiable!

Next those economic opportunities - seems those are mostly for Mr Maisano's employers who are garnering 92% of the $300M Mt Storm money and spending it in Pennsylvania and Spain - not Grant County!

As for renewable projects - wind power cannot be justified on cost grounds without huge government subsidies - hardly renewable - in fact short lived is a more accurate description. NedPower's own figures quote 60,000 homes supported by their power compared to the over 2,000,000 that the existing power station supports.

Even the 'environmentally clean power' label is looking tarnished when local environment groups oppose the project and point to the thousands of bird and bat deaths caused annually by huge wind turbines, along with environment impact from the 12 mile long project construction.

It is time that the wind industry stopped using West Virginia as an easy spin for hijacking hundreds of millions of $ dollars of federal money for their clients while leaving West Virginia with a few meagre thousands of dollars of goodwill payments to local schools and the burden of cleaning up behind their ill-advised and environmentally disruptive wind turbines.

Was NedPower misleading the WV PSC from 2001 to 2003?

2006-11-25T20:44:00.000-08:00

The original NedPower presentation to the PSC (click here to view PDF) - made some 20 or so assertions to substantiate the Mt Storm Project application, commencing in 2001 through to 2003.

On the basis of this information the PSC granted NedPowers application. However - if the PSC had known then what we know now - would they have been so receptive?

Let's analyze the claims made by NedPower and assess each one.

Claim #1 - Nedpower is 100% owed by US citizens and residents paying US taxes

Evidence from Nedpowers own website (strangely offline in 2004/2005) -
www.asianclassics.com/nedpower/

Franz Barillaro (London) - Franz Barillaro is an engineer and MBA with twenty years exposure to the power sector.
Athina Dessypri (Athens) - Athina Dessypri is another successful INSEAD graduate with a strong track record in business development and corporate finance. In Greece, she established the two leading stock broking firms and consequently has unrivalled access to the Greek private and public sector. She has now joined NEDPOWER where she is responsible for the company's activities in the Mediterranean.
Inga Brereton (London) - Inga is the London office manager with responsibility for administration, treasury and accounts. Prior to her joining NEDPOWER she acted as PA to the Managing Director of a mining finance company and to the Managing Director of the IOD in London.
Jerome Niessen (US) - Jerome Niessen co-founded NEDPOWER and brought to it extensive project finance experience.
Rembrandt Niessen (London) - Rembrandt Niessen originally founded NEDPOWER in 1995 and now has a recognised track record in the wind sector.

Claim #2 - $25 million in new business sales in WV during construction

What is happening to the bulk of the $350M project funding? Appears that most of this is now going to Pennsylvania to a Spanish owned company for turbine construction so it is headed offshore / out of state. Does not sound like a "local" project. Only about 8% of the money is actually being spent in WV!

Claim #3 - Produces enough energy for 60,000 households.

Do that many homes really receive replacement 24x7 power supply? Actually no! Because wind power is only available for about 25% of the time - you still need all the existing coal fired power stations to step in for the 75% of the time wind is not viable. So we're spending $350M to actually not change how those 60,000 homes get their power most of time. Yes - that is $5,833 per home - that's enough to pay each house for 12+ years of that same power delivery.

Claim #4 - Project widely supported in 2001 throughout local communities in Grant County.

In fact very few people knew about it at all - it was a stealth project! For example - no "build notices" were posted directly on the roads and land areas effected themselves. and "public meetings" were attended by a select few of local dignitaries who were hand invited to attend. In fact less than 1% of people in the County had even heard of the project back then. The Cumberland Gazette - largest paper in the area - did not carry the news or the announcements.

Claim #5 - NedPower has contacted stakeholders - with neighbors open house + environmental community buy-in.

The reverse is the case - knowning that their project would likely not have broad support - the local meeting were not advertized effectively / nor held during summer. And the environmental community has vigorously opposed the project since it was known about (after the initial PSC hearings) since day one.

Claim #6 - The project uses less than 200 acres - across 12 miles - of largely strip-mined and logged land - with little use - and within 1.5 miles of the existing power plant. Existing access roads and logging roads will be used.

Unfortunately this grossly mispresents the real picture as can be seen from todays project maps - in reality the construction is very directly adjacent to main public roads with large seasonal and daily through traffic use and many local homes. Substantial wooded areas and fauna are included. Development passes within half mile of the power plant and extends for 3 and 9 miles either side of it. Actual area wired-off and used extends for the whole 12 miles - not just "islands" around the turbines. Overall this results in thousands of acres actually being used. In fact federal guidelines recommend more than 60 acres per turbine not the 1 acre NedPower is assuming! NedPower carefully avoided making any maps publically available; preferring for the PSC itself to be required to publish them. NedPower is now extending and clearing large areas - including widening local roads by two lanes width to support huge equipment and extensive earth moving along old logging roads. This will adversely effect run-off and environment.

Claim #7 - Project will interconnection with the existing 500kV electicity distribution line used by the Mt Storm coal fired power plant.

The State of Oregan recently banned these types of connections for wind power.

No mention was made of the special expensive switching equipment needed and the issues with cut-over that caused the State of Oregan to ban such line taps. Essentially the power plant operators have to "guess" when the wind turbines are producing enough power - and can therefore shutdown or reduce production at the coal power plant itself.

Claim #8 - Clean - NedPower Mt Storm project reduces Air Emissions:

Unfortunately again this omits to mention some critical information! First the 200 turbines cost massive amounts of emissions to build and transport - concrete, steel, aluminium, copper, and more. In fact $350M worth of emission causing construction. Then reduction is assumed to be reduction in production for the coal power plant at Mt Storm - and that as we've seen may only occur about 25% of the time, and Mt Storm is now a low-emissions coal station due to improvements to its chimney stacks! It will takes years of operation to offset the emissions debit from the project construction.

Claim #9 - Minimal impact on wildlife

This is the reason why local conservation groups are vigorously opposed to the project! No effective study was performed during major migration. Substantial local bat populations are at risk from turbines. Run-off from new access roads and construction were not assessed. Fragile mountain fauna not able to recover from the construction.

Claim #10 - Will comply with the law on Endangered Species Act and Conservation regulations and NedPower in regular contact with USFWS (and WVDNR)

NedPower made this statement - but their actions do not appear to verify this.
There has been no "take permit" requested - despite the USFWS recommending one.
Bat and bird protection recommendations from the USFWS have been ignored.
NedPowers own plan included "Step 5 - contact USFWS" - no follow-up on USFWS guidelines for wind turbine projects has been done - nor assessment / compliance with those.

Claim #11 - Migrating birds typically fly in wide corridors and at high altitude (> 400 feet above ground) - so not effected by wind turbines.

Unfortunately radar studies in the Alleghany Mountains show otherwise.
When flying over mountains - where lack of air and high winds force them down to low levels, birds are mostly found at ground level and under 400 feet (particularly migrating song birds including endangered species). Figures from California indicate that we can expect thousands of birds will be killed each year by the turbines. The tips of the rotors are moving at speeds exceeding 200 mph.

Claim #12 - Turbines barely or not audible beyond 900 yards; existing Mt Storm power plant and local traffic much noisier.

Review of the project map reveals disturbing conflicting information. Many locations site turbines within 600 yds or less of houses! Including a ring of 6 turbines directly around a popular local camping ground and recreation area where noise will be heard from 6 turbines not just one! Turbines operate continuously so noise distrubance at night when traffic and power station noise is non-existent will be particularly disruptive.

Claim #13 - NedPower expects to have 1 small light on every third turbine, as required by the FAA

This will NOT work - the area is major fly zone for Air Force navigation training flights

Each turbine will require many lights (as required by the FAA) - plus visiblity can be incredably low with reduced cloud base. Potential hazard to aircraft is real and the extra strobe lights will add a very significant light noise distrubance to local residents.

Claim #14 - The project will provide substantial work opportunities and tax revenues.

Experience shows otherwise and particularly now with new federal laws exempting wind power projects from tax obligations expected tax revenues are significantly less! NedPower themselves noted - about 15 highly skilled maintenance jobs will be made long term. These do not even sound like local workers - probably contract staff on 3 month shifts from Pennsylvania or Spain.

If NedPower was applying for this project application now in 2006/7 it would completely fail to meet new PSC guidelines - nor even be able to live up to its many inflated claims. It appears that the PSC has every ground for calling into question their original ruling.

Wind Power is So Wonderful!

2006-11-22T18:35:00.000-08:00

In investigating the money trial involved with the NedPower project and parent Shell Wind (aka Royal Shell Oil) - I've become aware of the complete picture here that makes wind power so wonderfully attractive to Big Oil / Gas and Big Coal.

The picture unfolding is one of a technology that is just viable enough that it can hold attractions the public can buy into - but without actually being too good that it can displace the entrenched oil, gas and coal systems. Wind power generated is a ratio of the cube of the wind speed. Therefore much of the average power available to a wind turbines comes in short bursts instead of steady sustained power. Again this means a complimentary power source instead of a steady replacement one.

Further more it is a system that Big Oil in particular is well placed to essentially own a share of all aspects of its delivery chain - including manufacture of turbines, through delivery, construction and then maintenance of sites - so it can profit at all levels from the deployment of wind power systems.

A report commissioned by the Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP) explores how existing State level engineering infrastructure can be extended to support turbine construction.
(see - http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/binaries/WindLocator.pdf )

Clearly the power industry is seeing that conveniently the huge direct government construction subsidies can be used to not only fund the wind power generation projects but also provide the impetus for yet more money in direct State grants and tax incentives to establish a domestic turbine construction industry that is owned by a major stakeholding from Big Oil in particular.
Foreign investors and Big Oil companies such as Dutch Shell are not slow to see the potential in the US - http://www.ofii.org/newsroom/news/040924td.cfm

Put together this represents a huge "wind fall" for the power industry with almost no threat to their existing in-place energy systems.

Meanwhile the public is entraced by the apparent elegance of giant wind turbines and the clean image that is carefully projected through manipulation of the local levels of press news, articles and the deluge of "clean power" sites and slick media marketing messages.

One has to question that - if wind turbines could be made that were 5 times more efficient than those today - with an equivalent power storage system to also provide sustained power release - that truely could threaten to replace oil and coal power stations, then would we suddenly find that the support seen from the energy industry would quickly evaporate because all that oil, gas and coal purchasing would not be needed?

Then again, since we know that the theoretical analysis of turbine power generation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Betz) shows that current systems are already reaching or are at the maximum attainable energy output, there is even more to like about wind power as a diminished threat to in-place electricity generation.

Arguments about the costs and returns meanwhile are also less than conclusive (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/294/5544/1000).

Overall Wind Power is so wonderful from the perspective of the energy industry no wonder they are falling over themselves to receive government funding to construct industrial wind mines.

Citizens may however be left wondering if they are receiving any kind of meaningful returns on their investment or any lasting benefits to the environment when less than a few percentage points of total power generation is being delivered this way?

View Nedpower Project Map and Interactive GoogleEarth

2006-10-09T13:00:00.000-07:00

Details of the locations of all 82 turbines involved in the Nedpower Mt Storm project and now available online and you can also load the GoogleEarth interactive map and visit the location at ground level.

Cape Wind and other projects on GoogleEarth

2006-10-09T12:05:00.000-07:00

A selection of wind projects including the proposed Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound can now be reviewed via GoogleEarth.

Analysis of effectiveness of wind power during California blackouts

2006-10-06T18:50:00.000-07:00

The article provides a balanced analysis of the performance of wind power production in California during the summer of 2006 when the state experienced power blackouts.

"By most measures these numbers are disappointing. On the day of peak demand, August 24, 2006, wind power produced at 254.6 MW at the time of peak demand. 254.6 MW represents only 10.2% of wind’s rated capacity of 2,500MW. Another perspective on the data, over the preceding seven days, August 17 to 23, wind produced at 89.4 to 113.0 MW, averaging only 99.1 MW at the time of peak demand or just 4% of rated capacity".

The many and varied reader comments are very insightful.

"A widely used power source that has an average 4%-10% capacity factor during the very time when it is most needed is not just disappointing - it is darn near criminal. Taxpayers have provided huge quantities of cash to wind turbine operators, constructors and salesmen. It is time to recognize just what that cash has bought - a feel good, unreliable, unsightly waste of beautiful countryside".

In response there are comments from many professional engineers in both the wind and nuclear power industries.

WVa Supreme Court agrees to hear nuisance case against Nedpower

2006-10-06T18:26:00.000-07:00

By a vote of 5:0 the WVa Supreme Court agree to hear the case.

To guage a sense of what the case involves and the impact on the local community - there is a selection of maps available showing the locations of the 82 turbines for the project.

Also available there is a GoogleEarth interactive map - where you can fly-by the project and zoom down to ground level to see the exact detail of each turbine location (install of GoogleEarth software required).

Overall this gives a sense of the closeness (often within 500 yards) of existing houses and camp sites around the VEPCO lake and the scale of the construction involving 14 miles of clearing of the terrain to site the turbines.

Nedpower / Shell Wind USA ignore halt-work order in WVA

2006-09-29T10:41:00.000-07:00

Despite being under court sanction with a pending court case hearing Nedpower are proceeding anyway with construction on Grassy Ridge Road and adjacent areas.

Work that is in-progress includes clearing new roads and surfacing with gravel; road widening and straighting of existing public access roads; disposal of cleared brush wood; building of dirt walls and preparation of turbine sites and moving in of heavy equipment.

Obviously Nedpower are so fully convinced they are about to get the stay order against them removed that they are jumping the gun by a couple of weeks and getting on with construction.

Shame that they hold the courts in West Virginia in such low regard. But one can understand why. So far they have been able to trample pretty much unfettered and unhindered across West Virginia with both this project and new ones they now are undertaking. Skirting regulations and indulging in sharp practices that avoid the spirit of laws. Taking local officials into their pockets and using dozens of city lawyers to block any moves against them.

It's time to reel these people in and make them realize they do not have carte blanche to tear up the land in West Virginia with their speculative projects. All citizens - irrespective of their views on the issues - should be very alarmed at the cavalier attitude of these people behind Nedpower who are masterminding all this from the corporate offices outside Washington DC in N.Virginia.

Call to action - Dolls Sods under threat from Nedpower

2006-09-28T05:39:00.000-07:00

Not content with their shameful environmentally irresponsible project on Mt Storm, the speculators behind that project are back with their next get rich quick scheme - this time effecting the wilderness of Dolly Sods.

You can stop these 21st century high technology robber magnates by taking local action now.

WORK TO BE DONE TO KEEP DOLLY SODS WILD AND STOP NEDPOWER!

CHALLENGE Nedpower STORMWATER PERMIT:

Hearing on Oct. 19 at 8:30 am. Citizens must help on this case!!

NEDPOWER NUISANCE SUIT:

Attend Supreme Court presentation by Richard Neely Esq. on October 4th. Get there by 9:30 when courtroom on 3rd floor of east wing of Capitol opens, because industrial wind supporters will try to pack the room. Argument is at 10:45. Stay for strategic lunch at Blackwater Office. Park at Blackwater office 2 blocks from Capitol ... get off interstate 77/64 (toward Beckley) at Greenbrier exit go right, right again at bottom of hill next to Capitol, right again at next light (Elizabeth…go one block to Asbury Methodist church. park, ring bell at glass door in front (501 Elizabeth) to be let in to office.

NEDPOWER PSC CERTIFICATE

FOLKS CAN JOIN A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE NEDPOWER PROJECT. WE WILL SEND YOU A FORM***.
1. Help get expert testimony on bald eagles and other threatened birds and bats.
2. Contact Congressman Mollohan for help through John Vargo john.vargo@mail.house.gov or call 203-225-4172

FUNDRAISING
Do a direct mail fund appeal to raise money for the legal actions and other strategies. (Put together mailing lists) Help us get the word out to more people! Donate.

OUTREACH: Put new turbine map by Chad on CRWP website. Ads: run an ad in Grant County and Cumberland paper showing where turbines are to be located.

Contact:

Judith Holyoke
Schoyer Rodd
Director,
Friends of Blackwater
501 Elizabeth St., Room 3
Charleston, WV 25311

roddj@hotmail.com
Charleston Office Phone 304-345-7663
Charleston Office Fax 304-345-3240
Cell Phone 304-552-7602
Preston County (weekends) 304-265-0018
Northfork Watershed Office 304-463-4068

Creating sustainable and sensible energy alternatives

2006-06-01T06:37:00.000-07:00

Recently USA Today published an article that runs to the core of what makes America the power house it is today. The ability for individuals to go out there and create something new and compelling from the edge of what society is told is its only choices.

And exploiting the natural resources that America is so blessed with. While on the one hand big businesses are garnering huge government subsidies for invasive projects to erect land-based wind mines in ecologically sensitive mountain areas - other thinking people are seeing that small delivery at point of use makes total sense!

Right now this is somewhat of a cottage industry by fervent and creative individuals - but that is of course exactly how another recent phenominom - the internet - also got its start.

From the USA Today article - "Amid soaring electricity prices, the renewable energy industry is increasingly being driven by families such as the Doucettes who choose to be off the grid for environmental or political reasons and by a much faster-rising number of Americans adding solar and wind systems to grid-connected houses. Such equipment used to be bought almost exclusively by off-the-gridders in remote rural reaches who couldn't afford fees of $30,000 or more to tie in to electric lines.

Now, in 29 states, homeowners on the grid can get state rebates or tax breaks that subsidize up to 50% or more of the cost of clean energy systems. They then sell the electricity they generate, but don't use themselves, to utilities, offsetting the cost of the power they draw from the grid as they spin their meters backward and drive their electric bills toward zero".

There is much more substantive analysis and examples given that provide a rounded picture of this corner of America today. With several States announcing (e.g. Maryland) that electricity power prices will almost double this summer as regulations change for suppliers - consumers are suddenly going to find extra reasons to need to find alternative energy sources.

Alternatives to wind power - clean wood burning power stations

2006-04-19T09:27:00.000-07:00

People are continually seeking alternative energy sources that are both ecologically sound and economically viable. The promise of sustainable wood burning has already been widely recognized but authorities have been slow to realize the potential.

The new wood-burning facility at the Schiller Station power plant is nearly complete, and on Thursday Public Service of New Hampshire officials gave a first-hand look to one of the politicians they said made it possible. U.S. Rep Jeb Bradley, R-N.H., spent a rainy Thursday morning touring the facility, which he described as "one of the largest renewable energy efforts in the country."

For more links and information:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=8092

NPR News Story - Wind Farms Draw Mixed Response in Appalachia

2006-04-05T09:31:00.000-07:00

The Morning Edition - March 27th, 2006.

The National Public Radio has several news items on-line along with links to audio and radio broadcast materials.

Hear what an actual wind turbine sounds like from 400 ft away on an Appalachian hilltop and more!

You can listen to the radio broadcast report by Adam Hochberg and view the news page online.

What are the actual benefits of Wind Power?

2006-04-05T09:13:00.000-07:00

Will wind energy development make the US less dependent on foreign oil imports?

Two new analysis documents have recently been produced for the United States detailing the actual benefits of wind power compared to the total cost in $ dollar terms.

The first document gives extended analysis of the environmental and energy benefits from the creation of wind mines. It also discusses alternative uses for those funds and potential benefits.

The second is a chart that looks at specifically the options for the state of West Virginia and looks at the claimed generation capacity compared to the actual generation from field data for 2003 and 2004. This is compared to the actual figures for the domestic consumption of electricity by households.

Decoding the Presidents Oil-Speak

2006-02-01T08:54:00.000-08:00

Even the President is now getting in on the Green thought process. However, clearly there are ends of the spectrum here - from people like Bush - who want to do some peripheral pruning and trimming, to the other end where people want a complete paradigm shift in life style.

America of course has been constructed around the priniciple of cheap power sources. The notion of clean and environmentally sustainable and now new requirements that are being inserted into the equation.

People toss in the term "wind, solar, biofuel, technology" but again without due thought to the real capability and impact. In our case wind power can be just as disruptive and environmentally unfriendly as any other type of industrial development project. Getting the right balance is the key need.

RAN as ever continue to provide thought leadership on clean and truely friendly alternatives.

Call for Action to halt Wind companies illegal construction

2006-01-14T19:17:00.000-08:00

Following NedPowers' sale of the project rights at Mt Storm to Shell Wind - the contractors are rushing to erect the turbines during the winter months while many key stakeholders are away and ignoring the pending legal action which is against them from local residents.

NedPower has illegally divided its project into segments to avoid public scrutiny, and also NedPower has not fulfilled all the conditions of its certificate from the Public Service Commission, which further makes the application incomplete.

Residents are urged to contact the Department of Environmental Protection to say NO to the proposed stormwater construction permit for NedPower’s industrial wind project on the Allegheny Front.

NedPower plans to construct 200 mega turbines (400-feet tall) on a major migratory bird and bat route. The proposed project could kill 300,000 birds and bats each year according to NedPower’s own studies, and a nearby industrial wind project is raising human health issues, including sleep disorders resulting from high decibel noise.

The DEP has ordered a public comment period and hearing on Nedpower. The comment period ends on January 26, 2006, and there will be a public hearing January 26, 2006 at the Mount Storm Fire Station at the intersection of Route 50 and Route 42.

You can download a copy of a letter here to send to the DEP. Alternatively you can send a copy via the online site here.

For more information on the overall campaign to preserve the Dolly Sods area - see the action site here.

Mt Storm - Responsible Wind initial hearing

2005-12-18T12:17:00.000-08:00

The latest news and article can be found at the Responsible Wind website.

Report from the initial hearing:

Speaking for the conservation side were a selection of local people. The other side was out in force with slides and the whole works. A Mr. Cowart spoke regarding Cap & Trade and the economic benefit wind would throw into that mix. Sam Enfeld of Atlantic Renewable Energy talked about how great Mountaineer, Meyersdale and several other projects were, tried to glaze over the bat issue, human health issues didn't enter into his presentation. Ed Arnett from Bat Conservation International gave a good presentation. The individuals on the commission asked good questions but the outcome may well be too late for those local residents immediately effected.

Public comments were also made by a Mark Isner from Kerens, WV (union member)he stated he had received 6 months work from Mountaineer, allowed him to put food on the table for his family, get good benefit, etc. He stated he had visited Mountaineer with his wife after construction was complete and she said the sound reminder her of waves lapping on the beach. I quote him "we all pay a lot of money to go to the beach when we can have that sound in our back yard, I say forget about the bats and build the turbines". Noone mentioned that you can always leave the beach when you are tired of the noise, but not if its sat in your backyard now!

Also a rep. by the name of Steve White, Div. Affiliated Construction Trades, stated that all proposed project could be close to 1 Billion Dollars and in his math at least 100 million would come down and pay construction wages.

Noone talked about how much electricity needs to be generated to re-pay a $1B total cost and the decades that might take. So much for 'free' energy! And once that initial construction is done - there's preciously little benefit coming to offset the damage to the environment and tourism.

Another individual who was with WV Working Group who saw three issues, the Avian which could be quantified, the noise and view shed which couldn't be quantified, he likened the view shed issue to individuals' view of pornography. However, who wants a red-light district in their neighborhood?

In the end all boiled down, that no one clearly knows what's going to happen, what they need to do about it in the short term and that probably nothing is going to be done until it's too late.

Meanwhile the cutting of timber continued on the ridge all day Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. When we got home late Wed. night the timber was down and laying beside the road. They finally got timber down in the Segment One Area. This morning they had their equipment ready to move into the area of Pigeon Roast Tower...

Mt Storm Lake Residents file law suit

2005-12-11T17:00:00.000-08:00

Residents whose property is adjacent to the Nedpower / Shell Wind project lines have filed a law suit earlier in December to block construction in the project.

Once again we are seeing the realization that large scale wind projects in on-shore locations are just deeply flawed from all aspects.

1) They do not provide any significant measurable positive amount of net energy when offset against the actual construction costs, materials and maintenance and support - especially given costs of deploying to severe mountain top locations.

2) The impact on the fauna in sensitive fragile environments is clearly non-trivial and consequently the argued for environmental benefits have to be set against negative impacts on at risk populations.

3) It is hard to pretend that mountain top wind power is anything more than a fad, a cool toy, propped up by government subsidies and oil company political PR machinery. To replace one traditional power station would take 300 sq miles of current wind turbines. (300 sq miles of sustainable tree growth can power several medium sized traditional power stations).

4) Local communities do not garner significant benefits as wind project advocates would wish. Quite the reverse - the community has extended exposure and likely to be faced with clean-up of defunct behemoth wind turbines within twenty years.

The Friends of Blackwater Committee are accepting donations toward the legal costs of preventing the construction of these ill-conceived and ill-fated wind turbine farms in fragile mountain environments in West Virginia.

Contributions should be urgently mailed to:

Citizens for Responsible Wind Power
P.O. Box 4405
Star City,
WV 26504

Nedpower looks to sell out to Shell Wind USA

2005-11-23T18:09:00.000-08:00

The Nedpower project had clearly failed to gain any investment momentum due to Nedpower's lackluster ability to promote the project and investors realization that the plans costs and ROI projections are less than convincing. So it appears Nedpower are stepping away in favour of what they are hoping is a company big enough to push through their poorly-conceived venture.

However - key is the decisions of landowners on the mountain top who control access to the location and sites for power components and substation deployment.

Quite how landoweners will react to this news and how this effects any existing contractual agreements remains to be seen. Along with what new legal issues this may raise concerning the original decisions, and whether these will now be required to comply to the new West Virginia 2005 regulations for Wind energy Projects. If Shell Wind have to go back to the State to re-structure the project then they may well need to re-certify.

Clearly the Mt Storm project is now entering into another phase from which the outcomes are not at all clear. It remains to be seen if the citizens of West Virginia embrace Milton Hernandez of Shell Wind as a partner any more than Nedpower. Readers may find that his initial pronouncement lacks depth in showing that he has the required strong understanding of the region and the needs of its people combined with the prime financial metrics and success factors.

No details of the terms agreed between Nedpower and Shell Wind were available.

Kittitas County, WA - Judge rules on cancelled EnXco wind power project

2005-11-19T18:41:00.000-08:00

Judge Cooper’s 11-page ruling stated commissioners had good reason to deny the project because it conflicted with neighboring properties and how those lands are being used.

“There is ample evidence in the record to support the finding that the project does not bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety or welfare and is incompatible with uses in the area.”

Ed Garrett - local citizens advocacy group spokesman said - “Wind farm developers have proven themselves to be the kind of unethical developers that this county does not need.”

County commissioners on April 5 denied permits requested by EnXco USA Inc. for the French-based company’s planned 120-turbine wind farm eight miles north of Ellensburg. The company later filed an appeal in county Superior Court. A hearing on the appeal took place Oct. 6.

The full text can be viewed here.

Mt Storm Nedpower Project Map - Now Online!

2005-11-19T18:34:00.000-08:00

The exact project plan for the Phase 1 of the project sponsored by Nedpower is finally available for citizens to see. Over one year after the state board approved the project.

So why all the secrecy? Clearly when the extent of the project boundaries is overlapping on local landowners property - its obvious why Nedpower did not want this revealed. In the meantime it is unclear what property they have managed to buy access to in order to proceed even with this limited phase 1 plan. That will include the sub-station and power transfer hook-up to the gird via the VEPCO powerplant facility on the north end of the lake.

The full resolution map (1.5Mb) is available here.

In addition to the map turning up - Googles new ranking engine also threw up this link to Nedpower's original project outline. In addition to some pretty wild-eyed claims on the local revenues and employment benefits, the photographs presented are also sadly very misleading. Anyone knowing the area instantly can see that the views have been very selectively taken. Small wonder the State and County were hoodwinked by this rosy material. One is reminded of Colin Powells performance in front of the United Nations Security Council on Iraq.

Wind energy industry lacks regulation, new GAO Report say

2005-09-20T07:35:00.000-07:00

Appalachia's growing wind energy industry lacks comprehensive government regulations to protect birds and other wildlife, according to a new report from congressional investigators.

Scientists do not have enough information to fully understand the potential impacts, according to the review by the U.S. Governmental Accountability Office. No federal regulations exist to control the location of large windpower operations, the GAO said. Federal regulators do little to enforce the few rules that are on the books, the GAO found.

See the complete article for more details.

This is a welcome perspective, and should also include full lifecycle and infrastructure impacts in future to ensure that the complete environmental envelope, not just the wind turbine tower and blades, are considered. This is then in line with other projects involving the deployment of significant infrastructure, including roads, parking lots, buildings and support equipment into potential environmentally sensitive areas.

Energy Independence - How can I make a difference myself?

2005-08-17T07:58:00.000-07:00

The Americans for Energy Independence has this excellent resource page: http://www.ei2025.org/previous_editorial.asp?e=85

While obviously a significant step - home owners can certainly consider this - particularly using an equity loan. The equivalence is to purchasing a new car and what that costs - but for that you do not qualify for all the tax breaks!

It is clear that there are direct ways technology can work at the community level, and this highlights one such opportunity.

Viewpoint - Wind Farms are Green Stalinism

2005-07-31T09:35:00.000-07:00

"Electricity suppliers are being forced by law to buy power from wind farms. What this represents is a return to the planned economy in the name of environmentalism -a kind of Green Stalinism. The consequences are the familiar Soviet ones: centralised decision-making and localised devastation".

http://www.orwelltoday.com/windmillstalinism.shtml

With the passing of the Energy Bill 2005 here in the USA this is a stark view on what is occurring. And the same metrics apply - the energy bill is about producing more energy, not about correcting the problems with the current systems, the pollution such as mercury and the CO2 emissions. In fact wind farms do almost nothing to correct these problems. The money being spent clearly needs to be diverted to address the root causes of the problems, not distracting and diverting attention away from them.

Canaccord Investment Report and true cost of Wind Power projects

2005-07-21T20:42:00.000-07:00

Investing in wind power projects and the prospects of free energy does not actually measure up in practice this Canaccord report concludes.

Wind power is seen as costing from $67 to $105 a megawatt, including a return of capital, compared with all-in operating costs of $34 for coal, $47 for nuclear power and $53 for hydro, according to the report titled “All in, wind power is not cheap!”

Investment firms will surely now be re-evaluating wind power funding when it is clear that the payback period is extended and reliant not on solid economics but the whim of government subsidies over a 7 to 10 year timeframe.

This further spotlights the growing awareness that better alternative sustainable clean fuel solutions are needed, such as wood fuel generation programs that have shown promising results already in European field systems of up to 8MW generation capacity.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050718.wwindpower0718/BNStory/Business/

Understanding the Mid-Atlantic Power Marketplace (PJM)

2005-07-17T12:58:00.000-07:00

The Power Joint and Common Market (PJM) operates North America's largest centrally dispatched control area and manages the world's largest competitive wholesale electricity market with more than 51 million people directly affected by the system every second of every day. There are also smaller regional PJMs across the USA.

Growth has been dramatic since 1993, when the PJM Interconnection Association had 10 members, served 22 million people in five states and the District of Columbia and had 55,575 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity. Today, with Allegheny Energy joining PJM in 2002, Commonwealth Edison, American Electric Power and Dayton Power & Light in 2004 and Duquesne Light Co. and Dominion in 2005, PJM has more than 350 members, serves a 164,260-square-mile territory in 13 states and the District of Columbia and has about 163,806 MW of generating capacity.

You can view realtime power demand and generation information by using the online tools from the PJM website - http://www.pjm.com

This gives a direct view of power generation at work. It is impressive.

It also shows the scale and nature of this system, and what comparatively tiny impact wind power can have, even if potentially every open windy hill top in the mid-Atlantic has a wind turbine stuck on it! Remember - to generate the equivalent of a conventional fossil fuel station you need 300 square miles of wind turbines, and a solid windy day.

Clearly consumers need to look to other sustainable and alternative fuels, such as waste wood products and agricultural waste (such as chicken litter straw and droppings) from which West Virginia alone estimates it has available 3,500,000 tons of wood and sawdust annually that is currently just being discarded.

Consumers can make a difference, and by insisting on power from sustainable sources instead of white elephant wind mines with giant 450' high turbines disfiguring natural wildlife areas, that are in turn being polluted by run-off that could instead be used for high efficiency energy production.

Gale halts wind power in Idaho

2005-07-10T10:33:00.000-07:00

Testimony by John R. Gale Idaho Power Company's Vice President of Regulatory affairs - http://www.puc.idaho.gov/internet/cases/elec/IPC/IPCE0522/company/20050701JOHN%20GALE%20TESTIMONY%20FOR%20IPC.PDF

points up that grid power suppliers do not have the required ancillary equipment to mitigate fluctuations in wind power delivery. Consequently they cannot effectively use the power fed to them, and thus cannot recoup the costs they are being required to pay to wind energy suppliers.

In case people underestimate the impact of this problem - the experience in Denmark (one of the worlds leaders in wind power use) is sobering indeed: http://www.countryguardian.net/denmark.htm
and shows the potential scale of the issues on a countrywide basis.

The Denmark Eltra distribution agency even has this as an online realtime map with read outs on MWh: http://www.eltra.dk/OnlineData/OnlineDataViewer.aspx?lcid=1033
and have developed regulations and models for intergating wind turbine power: http://www.eltra.dk/composite-833.htm

Consequently Idaho Power is seeking to suspend their obligation, with support from the Bush Whitehouse in this matter too: http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A22558

The Idaho Public Utilities Commission will hear oral arguments July 22 on Idaho Power Company s petition to temporarily suspend the company s federal obligation to buy wind power from independent developers of qualifying small-scale wind projects. Avista Utilities, headquartered in Spokane, and serving customers in northern Idaho, filed comments in support of Idaho Power's petition and asked that the temporary suspension apply to it as well.

Summary with links-http://www.puc.idaho.gov/internet/cases/summary/IPCE0522.html

Press Release-http://www.puc.idaho.gov/internet/cases/elec/IPC/IPCE0522/staff/20050701PRESS%20RELEASE.PDF

World perspective on wind power projects limitations

2005-07-10T09:52:00.000-07:00

Preben Maegaard, President, World Wind Energy Association has this to say in the current issue of Wind-Tech magazine about developments worldwide:

http://www.windtech-international.com/content/view/59/77/

Clearly combined renewable energy source strategies - wood fuel, wind, wave, hydroelectric - tailoring each based on their strengths - and avoiding deployments where they are unsuited - is the right approach.

Seems like the industry itself is beginning to acknowledge its own limits and talk about alternatives - and especially more community level solutions and dispersed, distributed power generation through use of smaller devices.

See: http://www.windtech-international.com/content/view/190/77/

and discussion of hourly variablity of wind generation in Nordic countries:
http://www.windtech-international.com/content/view/193/62/

Cats, windows, buildings, airports and cars kill billions of birds annually

2005-07-09T19:22:00.000-07:00

I keep hearing this offered as why deploying giant wind turbine mines in environmentally sensitive areas is acceptable.

And also why wind turbines should not be burdened with nets and shields that can make them safer from wildlife impact strikes. Since concerned citizens should first be solving the aforementioned cat, window, car problems to save birds and bats, and then worrying about wind turbines after that.

Now in the case of the premium "high wind yield" deployment areas under seige from the wind industry, such as Nantucket Sound, or Allegheny Mountain ridges - you will notice that there are very few cats, windows, airports, or cars mowing down hapless bird and bat populations right today. Clearly introducing wind turbines will have a major impact on fragile communities of animals that have been surviving in these isolated areas *precisely* because they have not had to endure such human induced stress on them.

See article on bird strike deaths in California: http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031783693604&path=!nationworld&s=1037645509161

We need to keep it that way, by rejecting the wind industries insistence that these areas are the only practical locations for their wind energy mines. Fact is we do not need such high yield remote mines. What we need is more holistic micro-energy systems that can be deployed directly at the community level in urban marketplaces. Wind is everywhere, not just in these remote areas. By making devices that are adapted to urban wind patterns we can provide direct solutions that are culturally and environmentally sound.

Getting windpower done right - location, location, location

2005-07-09T19:03:00.000-07:00

The wind industry is blinding itself by this obsession with both replacing traditional power stations and focusing in on building wind energy "mines" in locations that they have identified as being "high yield" - to be able to compete with power stations.

This is not the right long term answer. Most high wind areas are the worst possible places to locate wind energy devices. Here's a list of reasons:

1) They tend to be environmentally very fragile places - mountain top ridges, offshore ocean settings - where the impact on local and migratory wildlife is potentially devastating. And human asthetic and cultural issues make acceptance problematic.

2) These locations are remote and distant from actual major consumers and marketplaces.

3) The cost of erecting these wind mines on such a scale is massive, and thus creates an energy deficit that has to be recouped, making the project viability questionable.

4) Better alternatives exist for using the same real estate space that are more holistic, more predictable and work better with the environment, e.g. wood fuel programs for mountains; tidal energy systems for offshore systems.

5) Location, location, location - the problem is not with power stations persay, but rather with consumers habits and practices. Enpowering a switch to local micro-power devices will make consumers much more energy aware, and therefore effect a cultural change that will massively reduce the dependency on central power systems. Small scale high efficiency, low maintenance, wind turbine devices can make that transition a reality.

6) Certain industrial applications will always require high yield power stations. A proper mix of hydroelectric, and modern high efficiency fossil fuel and nuclear power systems can fulfil those needs, while still allowing the removal and rapid decommissioning of old problem power stations.

The money being invested in high profile large scale contentious wind energy mines needs to be re-directed at the real locations and points of use that can effect long term cultural changes - namely community level and industrial park facilities.

What the wind industry does not want you to know about

2005-07-09T10:31:00.000-07:00

The old style Dutch and Danish upright wind turbine, up to 450ft high begs the question "Why?!"

Of course racks of smaller turbines is an alternative. Basically if you look at the mass of air moving across an open field, or block of water, how do you capture the most energy from out of it safely?

Clearly today the approach is akin to trying to hold water in a sieve. A very tall and expensive sieve, at about $1.5M each.

So why would anyone want to replace those with cheap small turbines that cost just a tiny fraction of $1.5M each? Of course they don't want to do that; what are you thinking?!? Then everyone would realize what albatrosses these 450ft high turbine towers really are! Better to wait till those are erected, then we can get more money to tear them down and dispose of them.

Not to mention if you can build a $10k solution instead of a $1.5M solution, where are all those windfall tax avoidance profits going to come from?

Check out this website for details on small is beautiful:
http://www.speakerfactory.net/wind_old.htm

Coupled with this is the need to deploy windpower at point of use on a scale that makes sense. What if a company like Carrier was a major distributor of windpower solutions, like they install and service airconditioners today?

And windpower itself is not a single magic bullet, it needs to be integrated into a holistic approach to save energy, create better more efficient systems, and to leverage cultural and environmentally suited alternatives.

This is the message also supported by no less a figure than James Lovelock (of Gaia theory fame), see:

http://www.warmwell.com/windfarms.html

Top Ten Myths About Wind Turbine Projects

2005-07-07T07:09:00.000-07:00

This site has much to commend it - but this particular link has an excellent analysis of hazards and issues with wind mining.

These all particularly apply to the Nedpower wind mining project at Mount Storm. This is a clear cut of 14 miles long and half a mile wide across the top of the mountain chain, and erecting 200 turbines in groups of three along the backbone of the Allegheny Front. Each turbine is over 350ft tall.

I just returned from spending July 4th weekend at Mt Storm. Reading Jon Boone's notes on the bird and bat hazards I made the horrific realization that due to the prevailing weather conditions on Mount Storm these huge turbines will often be shrouded in low cloud making them even more dangerous to wildlife that simply will not be able to see them at all.

What species will be effected? Well these past two years on Mount Storm I personally have seen a breeding pair of osprey, then eagles, hawks, ravens, blue birds, long-eared and short-eared bats all within 500 yards of where turbines are to be located.

For sure the wind mining project will kill these animals in significant numbers. The study by the University of Maryland at Frostburg on the existing Parsons,WV wind mine turbines has already shown that to be a fact.

Learn more on the ten myths from this link:
http://www.stopillwind.org/lowerlevel.php?content=topten_intro

Wood fuel to cut emissions by 96% - new report

2005-06-29T08:23:00.000-07:00

In a report published today, the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) in Scotland demonstrate that wood-fuel heating could make a significant contribution to cutting carbon emissions – while providing much needed new rural jobs, and reducing fuel poverty. The report, ‘Wood Fuel for Warmth’, examines the issues surrounding wood fuel for heat in Scotland.

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/news/index.php?page=get_article&article_id=DHGQGNW-HJ81GEB-Y6565NJ-U8KYEBF

This shows the options compared to just building wind turbines, that can have dramatically deeper impacts on the environment, without questionable side effects. The big issue with wind power is its viability. Clearly an organic policy with a mixed approach to energy sources can be tailored to community needs; rather than questionable deep impact large scale projects that benefit the builders of the project, but provide little else tangible beyond that.

Buying better power sources?

2005-05-30T21:28:00.000-07:00

It's hard to differentiate on the power we purchase in our homes. Once it gets into the gird - it all looks the same.

However at least we are starting to get choices in how we pay for that. While the deregulation of the electrical utility industry has stalled and taken some back alleyways - the overall idea of giving consumers spending choices to be able to control this more - is a sound one.

http://www.citizenscampaign.org/wind_energy.htm

provides links and resources for people want to select alternate energy sources for their homes.

New site regulations required for WVa Utility EWG projects

2005-05-30T13:06:00.000-07:00

Order 255.1 has been revised and whole new requirements on siting, noise, environmental impacts to species and more added.

http://drrw.net/backup/Order%20File%20go2551cg.htm

I could not find this online yet on WVa gov site - but its only been out a few weeks, so expect for them post it in due course.

Good to see the need to have minimum requirements being seen, and a first start made on this. I'm sure there will be much more to follow as experience is gained here.

Bat Death Research in Allegheny Ridge Top sites

2005-05-29T19:03:00.000-07:00

“It was at least as high and it occurred at two locations and they are both forested ridgetops. We don’t know any forested ridgetops with turbines in North America where we don’t have a problem.” These findings suggest that any wind farm built on a forested ridgetop, such as two Grant County, WVa projects already approved by the state Public Service Commission, would be likely to kill large numbers of bats".

“If I were an investor and wanted to keep my green image intact, I would be deeply concerned about building turbines on forested ridgetops,” Tuttle said.

Wildlife and industry people have learned only recently about the problems wind turbines pose to bats.“It was definitely a surprise to us,” said Tom Gray, deputy director of the American Wind Energy Association, the industry’s main trade group. “It was upsetting.”

For full articles see:
http://www.saveblackwater.org/turbine_tragedy.htm
and
http://johnrsweet.com/Personal/Wind/PDF/BatsKilledByTurbines20041003.pdf

UK forum on windpower provides excellent insights

2005-05-26T08:24:00.000-07:00

Check out the discussion forum and postings from the field.

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/forum/wind.html

Hopefully many of these questions will be addressed in future updates of the main report. They ask challenging questions, and also suggest alternative opportunities.

Comprehensive UK Commission report of Wind Farms onshore

2005-05-26T08:03:00.000-07:00

This site and comprehensive reports just published from the UK on wind power provide the best information I have found yet.

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/281105.html

It addresses areas I have not seen called out in detail on noise, and visual impact and telecommunications, along with case studies and how problems have been remediated - and it has been authoritatively peer-reviewed.

The one area of concern for us in the US is that of bat impacts - and this is highly specific to the mountain habitat in the USA where the planned Allegheny sites are.

The report offers little in the way of direct solutions for bats, but does talk about bat impacts and factors that are important in considering locations in regard to bat habitat.

Overall the report provides excellent data that can be used to ensure a whole range of other factors are required for projects here in the USA - that currently are not meeting these minimums.

Most telling from all this is the statement in the report that highlights that successful wind farm projects are those that involve the local community throughout the decision and planning process. That has been sadly lacking here in the USA in West Virginiaa to date.

The main report is here:
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/230505.html

Who makes wind turbines anyway? All shapes and sizes!

2005-05-25T05:13:00.000-07:00

Found this enthusiasts website - great details on prices, types, equipment and more. New, used, refurbished, large and small. The one on the gantry type tower is interesting. This type is mentioned in the Swedish research as a possible better type to avoid bat strikes.

http://www.windturbinewarehouse.com/

Anyway - the site gives lots of ideas for wind power for schools, homes and more.

They also have a great resource document on calculating power performance and types of sails.

I would like to see more on designs and specifications however - to include noise emissions, types of bearings, electromagnetic flux emissions, etc.

And if you want to build your own wind turbine - then this site from Peru has instructions in English and Spanish:

http://www.eolica.asdfhost.com/Transfer.htm

GreenPeace sponsored site on wind energy

2005-05-24T19:27:00.000-07:00

GreenPeace and others have created an information site.

http://www.yes2wind.com/debunk.html

I find this rather too simplistic. We need more empirical data - rather than bland statements. Clearly the types of wind turbines can vary dramatically. Cheaper older designs are less capable.

What is clear in the case of the Allegheny projects is that the developers are being completely silent on where their devices meet the latest technical specifications and are state-of-the-art.

Lacking such a statement, and given the experience of people in PA and their wind farm, one has to question the approach to date in the USA.

Why the US needs ecologically sound energy sources

2005-05-24T19:15:00.000-07:00

The combination of better energy sources and more efficient consumers is key here.

Just throwing up wind turbines, and ruining another piece of the environment, without effecting a systematic policy of change to reverse the ever upward spiralling energy use, is clearly not the answer.

However - it is sobering to view the scale of the problem and how addicted to cheap energy the USA has become.

This analysis is for a college campus in State of PA :

http://www.swarthmore.edu/natsci/sciproject/windpowertalk.html

Two thirds of worlds resources 'used up'

2005-05-23T14:56:00.000-07:00

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1447863,00.html

A growing proportion of the world lives in cities, exploiting advanced technology. But nature, the scientists warn, is not something to be enjoyed at the weekend. Conservation of natural spaces is not just a luxury.

"These are dangerous illusions that ignore the vast benefits of nature to the lives of 6 billion people on the planet. We may have distanced ourselves from nature, but we rely completely on the services it delivers."

Social impact experience from Germany

2005-05-23T07:29:00.000-07:00

http://mitglied.lycos.de/WilfriedHeck/resol.htm

gives insights into practical social and political effects of large wind farm projects.

Information about Wind turbine power

2005-05-23T07:24:00.000-07:00

http://encyclopedia.lockergnome.com/s/b/Wind_power

Wind power. Everything you wanted to know about wind power but had no clue how to find it..

Ecological footprint

a.. The construction of a large facility is also far from ecologically benign in previously undeveloped locations. It requires wide straight flat roads, a large hole filled with tons of steel and concrete to secure each giant assembly, clearing of trees in wooded areas, a transformer for each turbine, and power lines. The clearing of trees is necessary since obstructions within a distance ten times the height of the turbine reduceyield dramatically. A distance of twenty times is preferred.

a.. A wind farm that produces the energy equivalent of a conventional power plant would have to cover an area of approximately 300 square miles.
[2](http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html?pg=2&topic=nuclear&topic_set

a.. Siting them offshore can address these objections in some cases, while raising other issues, such as dangers to navigation and the possible adverseeffect of low-frequency vibration on aquatic mammals.

a.. Another important complaint is that windmills kill too many birds, especially birds of prey, and bats. Siting generally takes into account bird flight patterns, but most paths of bird migration, particularly for birds that fly by night, are unknown. A survey at Altamont Pass, California conducted by a California Energy Commission in 2004 showed that turbines killed 4,700 birds annually (1,300 of which are birds of prey). The numbers of bats killed by existing facilities has surprised even industry personnel.

Bat deaths and Wind turbines - Swedish research, 2004 report

2005-05-23T07:20:00.000-07:00

http://www.nvb.slu.se/personlhemsida/ingemara_publ/08WindBatFinalReport.pdf

This is an excellent paper with many good references and work.

I particularly appreciate their focus on understanding why the turbine blades "smear-zone" is so deadly to bats; and why bats are attracted to fly close to the turbine blades hunting for food.

We definately need more work on this to discover what changes can be made to turbine structures so they do not function as insect and bat magnets, particularly when located on land on the tops of ridges.

FOAF - Friends of Allegheny Front - Windpower study

2005-05-21T10:01:00.000-07:00

http://www.potomacstewards.org/windmills

Summary of current status of projects in Alleghany highlands area of West Virginia and impact on ecology and environment of building 450+ft high windmills.

Resource site on wind power and renewable energy

2005-05-21T09:57:00.000-07:00

http://www.guardian.co.uk/renewable/

Excellent resource center for European efforts on alternate energy sources and use of renewable energy.

The Ugly Face of Ecology?

2005-05-20T12:56:00.000-07:00

http://www.guardian.co.uk/renewable/Story/0,2763,1470428,00.html

We need to be honest. Wind farms are a necessary evil, but they will not overcome the crisis of climate change.

Excellent article on the need for a complete policy not a short Mr. Fix-it approach to paper over the cracks.

Taking a balanced approach to wind energy

2005-05-20T11:09:00.000-07:00

The link here provides a great set of points that need to be
considered when balancing the short term and the long term
environmental needs in deploying wind power

http://www.vcnva.org/white_papers/2005/wind_energy.php

Good to see such thinking being articulated.