Wind Turbines Could Become a Reality for the Outer Banks

[Doc Com]

Ugly - there's a word not often associated with energy.

I don't think I have ever seen a pretty hydroelectric power station, a nuclear facility, a coal fired electrical plant, oil rig...

I will take an unsightly renewable energy sources any day over drill, baby, drill.

[stock_post]

Nebular : Main problem is Nuclear waste?
Where and how to keep it safe!

[Raider]

Ugly - there's a word not often associated with energy.

I don't think I have ever seen a pretty hydroelectric power station, a nuclear facility, a coal fired electrical plant, oil rig...

Spreading hundreds of miles, I cant say I've seen that either.

Part 1


A Problem With Wind Power

Wind power promises a clean and free source of electricity. It will reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels and reduce the output of greenhouse gases and other pollution. Many governments are therefore promoting the construction of vast wind "farms," encouraging private companies with generous subsidies and regulatory support, requiring utilities to buy from them, and setting up markets for the trade of "green credits" in addition to actual energy. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) aims to see 5% of our electricity produced by wind turbine in 2010. Energy companies are eagerly investing in wind power, finding the arrangement quite profitable.

A little research, however, reveals that wind power does not in fact live up to the claims made by its advocates [see part I], that its impact on the environment and people's lives is far from benign [see part II], and that with such a poor record and prospect the money spent on it could be much more effectively directed [see part III]. Links to aid the reader's own research are provided throughout this paper as well as at the end [see Links; off-site links will open to a new window]. Click here for an abbreviated version of this paper. Click here for an even briefer version (a handy model for letters). This paper is also available as a 7-page typeset PDF file (156 KB) -- click here.

In 1998, Norway commissioned a study of wind power in Denmark and concluded that it has "serious environmental effects, insufficient production, and high production costs."

Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (the primary "greenhouse" gas). So when the wind is blowing just right for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the turbines are simply shut off.

A writer in The Utilities Journal (David J. White, "Danish Wind: Too Good To Be True?," July 2004) found that 84% of western Denmark's wind-generated electricity was exported (at a revenue loss) in 2003, i.e., Denmark's glut of wind towers provided only 3.3% of the nation's electricity. According to The Wall Street Journal Europe, the Copenhagen newspaper Politiken reported that wind actually met only 1.7% of Denmark's total demand in 1999. (Besides the amount exported, this low figure may also reflect the actual net contribution. The large amount of electricity used by the turbines themselves is typically not accounted for in the usually cited output figures. Click here for information about electricity use in wind turbines.) In Weekendavisen (Nov. 4, 2005), Frede Vestergaard reported that Denmark as a whole exported 70.3% of its wind production in 2004.

Denmark is just dependent enough on wind power that when the wind is not blowing right they must import electricity. In 2000 they imported more electricity than they exported. And added to the Danish electric bill are the subsidies that support the private companies building the wind towers. Danish electricity costs for the consumer are the highest in Europe. [Click here for a detailed and well referenced examination by Vic Mason and the Danish Society of Windmill Neighbors, and here for a follow-up paper by Mason.]

The head of Xcel Energy in the U.S., Wayne Brunetti, has said, "We're a big supporter of wind, but at the time when customers have the greatest needs, it's typically not available." Throughout Europe, wind turbines produced on average less than 20% of their theoretical (or rated) capacity. Yet both the British and the American Wind Energy Associations (BWEA and AWEA) plan for 30%. The figure in Denmark was 16.8% in 2002 and 19% in 2003 (in February 2003, the output of the more than 6,000 turbines in Denmark was 0!). On-shore turbines in the U.K. produced at 24.1% of their capacity in 2003. The average in Germany for 1998-2003 was 14.7%. In the U.S., usable output (representing wind power's contribution to consumption, according to the Energy Information Agency) in 2002 was 12.7% of capacity (using the average between the AWEA's figures for installed capacity at the end of 2001 and 2002). In California, the average is 20%. The Searsburg plant in Vermont averages 21%, declining every year. This percentage is called the load factor or capacity factor. The rated generating capacity only occurs during 100% ideal conditions, typically a sustained wind speed over 30 mph. As the wind slows, electricity output falls off exponentially. [Click here for more about the technicalities of wind as a power source, as well as energy consumption data. Click here for conversions between and explanations of energy units.]

In high winds, ironically, the turbines must be stopped because they are easily damaged. Build-up of dead bugs has been shown to halve the maximum power generated by a wind turbine, reducing the average power generated by 25% and more. Build-up of salt on off-shore turbine blades similarly has been shown to reduce the power generated by 20%-30%.

Eon Netz, the grid manager for about a third of Germany, discusses the technical problems of connecting large numbers of wind turbines [click here]: Electricity generation from wind fluctuates greatly, requiring additional reserves of "conventional" capacity to compensate; high-demand periods of cold and heat correspond to periods of low wind; only limited forecasting is possible for wind power; wind power needs a corresponding expansion of the high-voltage and extra-high-voltage grid infrastructure; and expansion of wind power makes the grid more unstable. [Click here for a good explanation of why wind-generated power can not usefully contribute to the grid and only causes greater problems, including the use of more "conventional" fuel.]

Despite their being cited as the shining example of what can be accomplished with wind power, the Danish government has cancelled plans for three offshore wind farms planned for 2008 and has scheduled the withdrawal of subsidies from existing sites. Development of onshore wind plants in Denmark has effectively stopped. Because Danish companies dominate the wind industry, however, the government is under pressure to continue their support. Spain began withdrawing subsidies in 2002. Germany reduced the tax breaks to wind power, and domestic construction drastically slowed in 2004. Switzerland also is cutting subsidies as too expensive for the lack of significant benefit. The Netherlands decommissioned 90 turbines in 2004. Many Japanese utilities severely limit the amount of wind-generated power they buy, because of the instability they cause. For the same reason, Ireland in December 2003 halted all new wind-power connections to the national grid. In early 2005, they were considering ending state support. In 2005, Spanish utilities began refusing new wind power connections. In 2006, the Spanish government ended -- by emergency decree -- its subsidies and price supports for big wind. In 2004, Australia reduced the level of renewable energy that utilities are required to buy, dramatically slowing wind-project applications. On August 31, 2004, Bloomberg News reported that "the unstable flow of wind power in their networks" has forced German utilities to buy more expensive energy, requiring them to raise prices for the consumer.

A German Energy Agency study released in February 2005 after some delay [click here] stated that increasing the amount of wind power would increase consumer costs 3.7 times more than otherwise and that the theoretical reduction of greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved much more cheaply by simply installing filters on existing fossil-fuel plants. A similar conclusion was made by the Irish grid manager in a study released in February 2004 [click here for 172-KB PDF]: "The cost of CO2 abatement arising from using large levels of wind energy penetration appears high relative to other alternatives."

In Germany, utilities are forced to buy renewable energy at sometimes more than 10 times the cost of conventional power, in France 3 times. In the U.K., the Telegraph has reported that rather than providing cheaper energy, wind power costs the electric companies £50 per megawatt-hour, compared to £15 for conventional power. [Click here to read how wind power generators in the U.K. get paid over 3 times what they actually sell their electricity for. (dead link)] The wind industry is worried that the U.K., too, is starting to see that it is only subsidies and requirements on utilities to buy a certain amount of "green" power that prop up the wind towers and that it is a colossal waste of resources. The BWEA has even resorted to threatening prominent opponents as more projects are successfully blocked. Interestingly, long-term plans for energy use and emissions reduction by both the U.K. and the U.S. governments do not mention wind [click here for more about this (the article is in Spanish)]. Flemming Nissen, head of development at the Danish utility Elsam, told a meeting in Copenhagen, May 27, 2004, "Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish CO2 emissions."

Installation of wind towers cannot hope to keep up with the continuing increase of energy use. Denmark's annual production from wind turbines increased 28 petajoules (PJ, 1 PJ ≈ 278,000 MW-h) from 1990 to 1998, but total energy consumption increased 115 PJ. The International Energy Agency reports that from 1990 to 2002, Denmark's annual production from wind turbines rose 3,689 GW-h, but total electricity production rose 12,730 GW-h. The Danish government's National Environmental Research Institute reported that in 2003 greenhouse gas emissions increased 7.3% over 2002 levels [click here].

In the U.K. (population 60 million), 1,010 wind turbines produced 0.1% of their electricity in 2002, according to the Department of Trade and Industry. The government hopes to increase the use of renewables to 10.4% by 2010 and 20.4% by 2020, requiring many tens of thousands more towers. As demand will have grown, however, even more turbines will be required. In California (population 35 million), according to the state energy commission, 14,000 turbines (about 1,800 MW capacity) produced half of one percent of their electricity in 2000. Extrapolating this record to the U.S. as a whole, and without accounting for an increase in energy demand, well over 100,000 1.5-MW wind towers (costing $150-300 billion) would be necessary to meet the DOE's goal of a mere 5% of the country's electricity from wind by 2010.

The DOE says there are 18,000 square miles of good wind sites in the U.S., which with current technology could produce 20% of the country's electricity. This rosy plan, based on the wind industry's sales brochures, as well as on a claim of electricity use that is only three-quarters of the actual use in 2002, would require "only" 142,060 1.5-MW towers. They also explain, "If the wind resource is well matched to peak loads, wind energy can effectively contribute to system capacity." That's a big if -- counting on the wind to blow exactly when demand rises -- especially if you expect the wind to cover 20% (or even 5%) of that demand. As in Denmark and Germany, you would quickly learn that the prudent thing to do is to look elsewhere first in meeting the load demand. And we'd be stuck with a lot of generally unhelpful hardware covering every windy spot in the U.S., while the developers would be looking to put up yet more to make up for and deny their failings. Click here to see what has already happened in California and Germany and would happen everywhere.

As in Denmark and Germany, the electricity from those towers -- no matter how many -- would be too variable to provide the predictable supply that the grid demands. They would have no effect on established electricity generation, energy use, or continuing pollution. Christopher Dutton, the CEO of Green Mountain Power, a partner in the Searsburg wind farm in Vermont and an advocate of alternative energy sources, has said (in an interview with Montpelier's The Bridge) that there is no way that wind power can replace more traditional sources, that its value is only as a supplemental source that has no impact on the base load supply. "By its very nature, it's unreliable," says Jay Morrison, senior regulatory counsel for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. [Click here for a report on the Searsburg plant's poor record.] [Click here to read about wind power's minuscule impact on CO2 emissions.] [Click here for a look at a U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Technical Paper that similarly shows wind power's miniscule part in the mitigation of CO2 release.]

As Country Guardian, a U.K. conservation group, puts it, wind farms constitute an increase in energy supply, not a replacement. They do not reduce the costs -- environmental, economic, and political -- of other means of energy production. If wind towers do not reduce conventional power use, then their manufacture, transport, and construction only increases the use of dirty energy. The presence of "free and green" wind power may even give people license to use more energy.

Size

Pictures from the energy companies show slim towers rising cleanly from the landscape or hovering faintly in the distant haze, their presence modulated by soft clouds behind them. But a 200- to 300-foot tower supporting a turbine housing the size of a bus and three 100- to 150-foot rotor blades sweeping over an acre of air at more than 100 mph requires, for a start, a large and solid foundation. On a GE 1.5-MW tower, the turbine housing, or nacelle, weighs over 56 tons, the blade assembly weighs over 36 tons, and the whole tower assembly totals over 163 tons. [Click here for a perspective on their size. Click here for the specs of popular models.]

As FPL (Florida Power & Light) Energy says, "a typical turbine site takes about a 42×42-foot-square graveled area." Each tower (and a site needs at least 15-20 towers to make investment worthwhile) requires a huge hole filled with steel rebar–reinforced concrete (e.g., 1,250 tons in each foundation at the facility in Lamar, Colo.). According to Country Guardian, the hole is large enough to fit three double-decker buses. At the 89-turbine Top of Iowa facility, the foundation of each 323-foot assembly is a 7-feet-deep 42-feet-diameter octagon filled with 25,713 pounds of reinforced steel and 181 cubic yards of concrete. The foundations at the Wild Horse project in Washington are 30 feet deep. At Buffalo Mountain in Tennessee, too, each foundation is at least 30 feet deep and may contain more than 3,500 cubic yards of concrete (production of which is a major source of CO2). On Cefn Croes in Wales the developer built a complete concrete factory on the site, which is not unusual, as well as opened quarries to provide rock for new roads -- neither of which activities were part of the original planning application [click here for photos of the abhorrent destruction on Cefn Croes].

On many such mountain ridges as well as other locations, it would be necessary to blast into the bedrock, as Enxco's New England representative, John Zimmerman, has confirmed, possibly disrupting the water sources for wells downhill. At the Waymart plant in Pennsylvania, the foundations extend 30-40 feet into the bedrock. At Romney Marsh in southern England, foundation pillars will be sunk 110 feet. For each 6-feet-deep foundation at the Crescent Ridge facility in Illinois, another 24 feet was dug out and filled with sand. Construction at a site on the Slieve Aughty range in Ireland in October 2003 caused a 2.5-mile-long bog slide.

(Building on peat bogs is recognized as a serious disruption of an important carbon sink; the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds opposes wind development on the Scottish island of Lewis because the turbines would take 25 years to theoretically save the amount of carbon that their construction will release from the peat (not to mention the threat to birds -- see below). Clearing forests for facilities on mountain ridges is an analogous situation. Such mountaintop clearing has serious runoff implications as well as documented at the Meyersdale plant in Pennsylvania.)

FPL Energy also says, "although construction is temporary [a few months], it will require heavy equipment, including bulldozers, graders, trenching machines, concrete trucks, flatbed trucks, and large cranes." [Click here for pictures of towers being installed.] Getting all the equipment, as well as the huge tower sections and rotor blades, into an undeveloped area requires the construction of wide straight strong roads. Many existing roads, particularly in hilly areas, are inadequate. For the Buffalo Mountain project, curves were widened, switchbacks were eliminated, and portions were repaved. The weight of the material has damaged existing roads. Many an ancient hedgerow in England has been sacrificed for access to project sites.

The destructive impact that such construction would have, for example, on a wild mountain top, is obvious. Erosion, disruption of water flow, and destruction of wild habitat and plant life would continue with the presence of access roads, power lines, transformers, and the tower sites themselves. For better wind efficiency, each tower requires trees to be cleared. Vegetation would be kept down with herbicides, further poisoning the soil and water. Each tower should be at least 5-10 times the rotor diameter from neighboring towers and trees for optimal performance. For a tower with 35-meter rotors, that is 1,200-2,400 feet, a quarter to a half of a mile. A site on a forested ridge would require clearing 45-90 acres per tower to operate optimally (although only 4-6 acres of clearance per tower, the towers spaced every 500-1,000 feet, is typical, making them almost useless when the wind is not a perfect crosswind). The Danish grid operator Eltra has found that a turbine can decrease the production of another turbine 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) away. The proposed 45-square-mile facility on the Scottish island of Lewis represents 50 acres for each megawatt of rated capacity. FPL Energy says it requires 40 acres per installed megawatt, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says 60 acres is likely. Facilities worldwide generally use 30-70 acres per megawatt, i.e., about 120-280 acres for every megawatt of likely average output (25% capacity factor). [Click here for a list of the areas of some facilities.]

GE boasts that the span of their rotor blades is larger than the wingspan of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet. The typical 1.5-MW assembly is two stories higher than the Statue of Liberty, including its base and pedestal. The editor of Windpower Monthly wrote in September 1998, "Too often the public has felt duped into envisioning fairy tale 'parks' in the countryside. The reality has been an abrupt awakening. Wind power stations are no parks." They are industrial and commercial installations. They do not belong in wilderness areas. As the U.K. Countryside Agency has said, it makes no sense to tackle one environmental problem by instead creating another.

In Vermont, billboards are banned from the highways, and development -- especially at sites above 2,500 feet -- is subject to strong environmental laws, yet many who call themselves environmentalists absurdly support the installation of wind farms on our mountain ridge lines as a desirable trade-off, ignoring wind's dismal record as described in part I.

Even if one thinks that jumbo-jet-sized wind towers dominating every ridge line in sight like a giant barbed-wire fence is a beautiful thing, many people are drawn to wild places to avoid such reminders of human industrial might. Many communities depend on such tourists, who will now seek some other -- as yet unspoiled -- retreat.

Birds, Bats, and Other Wildlife

The spinning blades kill and maim birds and bats. The Danish Wind Industry Association, for example, admits as much by pointing out that so do power lines and automobiles. (The argument follows the aesthetic one that the landscape is already blighted in many ways, so why not blight it some more?) The industry claims that moving from lattice-work towers, which provided roosting and nesting platforms, to solid towers, as well as larger lower-rpm blades, solved the problem, and that studies find very few dead birds around wind turbines. They ignore the facts that the larger blades are in fact slicing the air faster (over 100 mph at their tips, that scavengers will have removed most injured and dead birds before researchers arrive for their periodic surveys, and that many areas where dead and injured birds (and bats -- see below) might fall are inaccessible.

Especially vulnerable are large birds of prey that like to fly in the same sorts of places that developers like to construct wind towers. Fog -- a common situation on mountain ridges -- aggravates the problem for all birds. Guidelines from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) state that wind towers should not be near wetlands or other known bird or bat concentration areas or in areas with a high incidence of fog or low cloud ceilings, especially during spring and fall migrations. It is illegal in the U.S. to kill migratory birds. The FWS has prevented any expansion of the several Altamont Pass wind plants in California, rejecting as well the claim that new solid towers would mitigate the problem. [Click here to read the Fish and Wildlife Service recommendations.]

A 2002 study in Spain estimated that 11,200 birds of prey (many of them already endangered), 350,000 bats, and 3,000,000 small birds are killed each year by wind turbines and their power lines. Another analysis [click here -- the article is in Spanish] found that it is officially recognized (and obscured, generally by implying monthly figures as annual) that on average a single turbine tower kills 20-40 birds each year. The U.S. FWS noted that European wind power may kill up to 37 birds per turbine each year. The wind industry, in contrast, cites the absurdly low results of a single very spotty study at one site as gospel.

Windpower Monthly reported in October 2003 that the shocking number of bats being killed by wind towers in the U.K. is causing trouble for developers. The president of Bat Conservation International, Merlin Tuttle, has said, "We're finding kills even in the most remote turbines out in the middle of prairies, where bats don't feed." At least 2,000 bats were killed on Backbone Mountain in West Virginia in just 2 months during their 2003 fall migration. Continuing research has found that rate to be typical all year, or even low, for wind turbines on forested ridges [click here].

Wildlife on the ground is displaced as well. Prairie birds are especially affected by disturbance of their habitat, and construction on mountain ridges diminishes important forest interior far beyond the extent of the clearing itself. A visitor to the Backbone Mountain facility wrote [click here or here], "I looked around me, to a place where months before had been prime country for deer, wild turkey, and yes, black bear, to see positively no sign of any of the animals about at all. This alarmed me, so I scouted in the woods that afternoon. All afternoon, I found no sign, sight, or peek of any animal about."

Noise

The same West Virginia writer found the noise from the turbines on Backbone Mountain to be "incredible. It surprised me. It sounded like airplanes or helicopters. And it traveled. Sometimes, you could not hear the sound standing right under one, but you heard it 3,000 yards down the hill." Yet the industry insists such noise is a thing of the past. Indeed, new turbines may have quieter bearings and gears, but the huge magnetized generators can not avoid producing a low-frequency hum, and the problem of 100-foot rotor blades chopping through the air at over 100 mph also is insurmountable (a 35-meter [115-foot] blade turning at 15 rpm is travelling 123 mph at the tip, at 20 rpm 164 mph). Every time each rotor passes the tower, the compression of air produces a deep resonating thump. Only a gravelly "swishing" may be heard directly beneath the turbine, but farther away the resulting sound of several towers together has been described to be as loud as a motorcycle, like aircraft continually passing overhead, a "brick wrapped in a towel turning in a tumble drier," "as if someone was mixing cement in the sky," "like a train that never arrives." It is a relentless rumble like unceasing thunder from an approaching storm. Enxco's John Zimmerman admitted at a meeting in Lowell, Vt., "Wind turbines don't make good neighbors." [Click here for one story from Fenner, N.Y., where many other noises have been described, including an eerie screeching as the blade and nacelle assembly turns to catch the wind.]

The penetrating low-frequency aspect to the noise, a thudding vibration, much like the throbbing bass of a neighboring disco, travels much farther than the usually measured "audible" noise. It may be why horses who are completely calm around traffic and heavy construction are known to become very upset when they approach wind turbines [click here]. Many people have complained that it causes anxiety and nausea. The only way to reduce it is to reduce the efficiency of the electricity production, i.e., reduce the illusion of profitability. It can't be done.

Advocates, when not denying the noise outright, suggest that the wind itself masks any noise the turbine assembly makes. Rustling leaves, however, are a very different sound than the thumping of a wind facility. And in developers' output projections, they point out that the wind is very much more steady and stronger up at the top of the towers, so even that rustling down on the ground is not always there when the turbines are turning. This is often the case at night and always the case in winter. In Oregon, wind developers complained they could not comply with regulations limiting the increase of noise in rural and wild areas. In May 2004, the state weakened the noise regulations so installation of wind facilities could go ahead.

The European Union (E.U.) published the results of a 5-year investigation into wind power, finding noise complaints to be valid and that noise levels could not be predicted before developing a site. The AWEA acknowledges that a turbine is quite audible 800 feet away. The National (U.S.) Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) states, "wind turbines are highly visible structures that often are located in conspicuous settings ... they also generate noise that can be disturbing to nearby residents." The NWCC recommends that wind turbines be installed no closer than half a mile from any dwelling. German marketer Retexo-RISP specifies that turbines not be placed within 2 kilometers (1.25 miles) of any dwelling.

Communities in Germany, Wales, and Ireland claim that even 3,000 feet away the noise is significant. Individuals around the world say they have to close their windows and turn on the air conditioner when the wind turbines are active. The noise of a wind plant in Ireland was measured in 2002 at 60 dB 1 km (3,280 ft) upwind. The subaural low-frequency noise was above 70 dB (which is 10 times as loud on the logarithmic decibel scale). A German study in 2003 found significant noise levels 1 mile away from a 2-year-old wind farm of 17 1.8-MW turbines, especially at night. In mountainous areas the sound echos over larger distances. A neighbor of the 20-turbine Meyersdale facility in southwest Pennsylvania found the noise level at his house, about a half mile away, to average 75 dB(A) over a 48-hour period, well above the level that the EPA says prevents sleep. In Vermont, the director of Energy Efficiency for the Department of Public Service, Rob Ide, has said that the noise from the 11 550-KW Searsburg turbines is significant a mile away. Residents 1.5 and even 3 miles downwind in otherwise quiet rural areas suffer significant noise pollution. A criminal suit has been allowed to go forward in Ireland against the owner and operator of a wind plant for noise violations of their environmental law. Also in Ireland, a developer has been forced to compensate a homeowner for loss of property value, and many people have had their tax valuation reduced. In the Lake District of northwest England, a group has sued the owner and operator of the Askam wind plant, claiming it is ruining their lives.

[Raider]

Part 2

In January 2004, a couple was awarded 20% of the value of their home from the previous owners who did not tell them the Askam wind plant was about to be constructed 1,800 feet away: "because of damage to visual amenity, noise pollution, and the irritating flickering caused by the sun going down behind the moving blades." The towers of this plant are only 40 meters (130 feet) high, with the rotors extending a further 24 meters (75 feet). Steve Molloy of West Coast Energy responded that loss of value of a property, although unfortunate, was not a material planning consideration and did not undermine the industry's argument that the benefits of sustainable energy outweighed the objections. [Click here for the news story.]

Don Peterson, senior director of Madison Gas & Electric, which operates 31 wind towers in Kewaunee County, Wisconsin, similarly dismisses complaints, saying that most people, but not all, will get used to the sound of the machines. "Like any noise, if you don't like it, your brain is going to focus on it," he comfortingly told the Beloit Daily News. Especially in relatively undeveloped areas, there can be no question that the unnatural noise from a wind facility will be prominent. Just a 10-dB increase over existing levels (a typical limit for such projects) represents the subjective perception of a doubling of noise level.

It has been reported that one of the farmers who leases land for the wind towers had to buy the neighbors' property because of the problems (not just noise but also flicker and lights at night). Wisconsin Public Service, operator of another 14 turbines in Kewaunee County, in 2001 offered to buy six neighboring properties; two owners accepted, but two others filed a lawsuit in January 2004. [Click here for a report of a study by Lincoln Township of the many ill effects of the Kewaunee County turbines.] On January 6, 2004, the Western Morning News of Devon published three articles about noise problems, particularly the health effects of low-frequency noise, from wind turbines. Another interesting report, which notes that the Nazis used low-frequency noise for torture, was published in the January 25 Telegraph [click here (registration required)].

Jobs, Taxes, and Property Values

Despite the energy industry's claim that wind farms create jobs ("revitalize struggling rural communities," says Enxco), the fact is that, after the few months of construction -- much of it handled by imported labor from the turbine company -- a typical large wind facility requires just one maintenance worker. Of the 200 workers involved in construction of the 89-turbine Top of Iowa facility, only 20 were local; seven permanent jobs were created. The average nationwide is 1-2 jobs per 20 MW installed capacity.

The energy companies also claim that they increase the local tax base. But that is more than offset by the loss of open land, the loss of tourism, the stagnation or decrease in property values throughout a much wider area, the tax credits such developments typically enjoy, and the taxes and fees consumers must pay to subsidize the industry. Even surveys by wind promoters show that a quarter to a third of visitors would no longer come if wind turbines were installed. That is a huge loss in areas that depend on tourism. The wind developers say that the turbines themselves are an attraction, but visitor centers at wind farms in Britain are already closing for lack of business. A few people get more money from leasing their land for the towers (until the developer starts withholding it for some small-print reason, or even disappears after the tax advantages slow down -- Altamont Pass in California is littered with broken-down wind towers owned by companies long gone), but that's the opposite of an argument for the general good.

Wind advocates insist that property values are not affected by nearby industrial turbines, because there will always be a buyer as it's just a question of taste. That is small comfort to those who already own homes near potential wind-plant sites but whose taste militates against rattling windows and humming walls, flickering lights, 100-foot blades spinning overhead, and giant metal towers and supply roads where once were trees and moose trails.

Other Problems

The industry recognizes that the flicker of reflected light on one side and shadow on the other drives people and animals crazy. And at night, the towers must be lighted, which the AWEA describes as a serious nuisance, destroying the dark skies that many people in rural areas cherish (and that the state of Vermont is on the verge of specifically protecting). Red lights are thought to attract night-migrating birds.

Ice is another problem. It builds up when the blades are still and gets flung off -- as far as 1,500 feet -- when they start spinning. Accumulated ice on the nacelle and tower also falls off. John Zimmerman, the developer of Vermont's Searsburg facility, wrote the following to an AWEA discussion list in 2000. "When there is heavy rime ice build up on the blades and the machines are running you instinctually want to stay away. ... They roar and sound scarey. One time we found a piece near the base of the turbines that was pretty impressive. Three adults jumping on it couldn't break. It looked to be 5 or 6 inches thick, 3 feet wide and about 5 feet long. Probably weighed several hundred pounds. We couldn't lift it. There were a couple of other pieces nearby but we wondered where the rest of the pieces went." Access to Searsburg is restricted when icing is likely. (Even in good weather, they shut the turbines down when giving tours.)

Issues of icing, noise, and structural damage and failure, particularly as they determine setback requirements, have been extensively documented by John Mollica in response to the proposed expansion of a wind facility on Wachusetts Mountain in Massachusetts (between Princeton and Fitchburg). [Click here for the web page from which a PDF file of his report may be downloaded.]

The planners of giant wind installations in Valencia, Spain, mention the dripping and flinging off of motor oil (almost 200 gallons of which may be present in a single 1.5-MW turbine) and cooling and cleaning fluids. The transformer at the base of each turbine contains up to 500 more gallons of oil. The substation transformers where a group of turbines connects to the grid contain over 10,000 gallons of oil each.

The International Association of Engineering Insurers warns of fire: "Damage by fire in wind turbines is usually caused by overheated bearings, a strike of lightning, or sparks thrown out when the turbine is slowing down. ... Even the smallest spark can easily develop into a large fire before discovery is made or fire-fighting can begin."

A 1995 study in Germany estimated that 80% of insurance claims paid for wind turbine damage were caused by lightning. Lightning destroys many towers by causing the blade coatings to peel off, rendering them useless. If the blades keep spinning, the imbalance can bring down the whole tower. The towers are subject to metal fatigue, and the resin blades are easily damaged even by wind. In Wales, Spain, Germany, France (Dec. 22, 2004; click here), Denmark (Jan. 20, 2005), Japan (Feb. 24, 2005), New Zealand (Mar. 10, 2005), and Scotland (Apr. 7, 2005; click here), parts and whole blades have torn off because of high winds, malfunction, and fire, flying as far as 8 kilometers and through the window of a home in one case. Whole towers have collapsed in Germany (as recently as 2002) and the U.S. (e.g., in Oklahoma, May 6, 2005) [Click here for an extensive compilation of accidents.] [Click here for another overview of industrial wind power's environmental problems.]

Conclusion

All of these negative aspects will only become worse if even a small part of the industry's plans for hundreds of thousands of towers becomes reality. At every level, however, the negative impacts must of course be weighed against the benefits. As described in part I, these are neglible.

It is wise to diversify the sources of our energy. But the money and legislative effort invested in large-scale wind generation could be spent much more effectively to achieve the goal of reducing our use of fossil and nuclear fuels.

As an example, Country Guardian calculates that for the U.K. government subsidy towards the construction of one wind turbine, they could insulate the roofs of almost 500 houses that need it and save in two years the amount of energy the wind turbine might produce over its lifetime.

Country Guardian also calculates that if every light bulb in the U.K. were switched to a more efficient one, the country could shut down an entire power plant -- something even Denmark, with wind producing as much as 20% of their electricity, is not able to do. According to solar energy consultant and retailer Real Goods, if every household in the U.S. replaced one incandescent bulb with a compact fluorescent bulb, one nuclear power plant could be closed. John Etherington claims that switching the most-used bulb in every house of the U.K. would save as much as the entire output of all existing and proposed on-shore wind plants in that country.

The BWEA itself says that the cost of saving energy is less than half the cost of producing it. According to the California Power Authority (ignoring the subsidies that lower the market price of wind-generated electricity) conservation costs exactly the same per KW-h as wind power. John Zimmerman admitted at a February 2003 meeting in Kirby, Vermont, that we "could do much more for our energy balance by just tightening our belts a little."

As described in part I, wind farms do not bring about any reduction in the use of conventional power plants. Requiring the upgrading of power plants to be more efficient and cleaner would actually do something rather than simply support the image of "green" power that energy companies profit from while in fact doing nothing to reduce pollution or fuel imports. An April 2000 E.U. report found that, using existing technology, increased efficiency could decrease energy consumption by more than 18% by 2020. The U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that simple voluntary energy-efficiency improvements in buildings will reduce world energy use 10%-15% by 2020. They state that, with technology already in use, efficiency improvements in buildings, manufacturing, and transport can reduce world carbon emissions more than 50% by 2020.

In the U.S., 61.5% of the energy used is "lost," i.e., only 38.5% of the energy consumed is actually extracted [click here]. In transmission alone, 7.34% of the electricity generated is lost. There is obviously much that can be improved in what we already have and will continue to live with for quite some time..

Electricity represents only 39% of energy use in the U.S. (in Vermont, 20%; and only 1% of Vermont's greenhouse gas emissions is from electricity generation). Pollution from fossil fuels also comes from transportation (cars, trucks, aircraft, and ships) and heating. Despite the manic installation of wind facilities in the U.K., their CO2 emissions rose in 2002 and 2003. At a May 27, 2004, conference in Copenhagen, the head of development from the Danish energy company Elsam stated, "Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish CO2 emissions." Demanding better gas mileage in cars, including pickup trucks and SUVs, promoting rail for both freight and travel, and supporting the use of biodiesel (for example, from hemp) would make a huge impact on pollution and dependence on foreign oil, whereas wind power makes none. Some hybrid gas-electric cars (the ones that don't just add the electric motor just for a "green" acceleration boost) already use 60% less gasoline than average conventional new cars in the U.S.

Wind-power advocates often propose that wind turbines can be used to manufacture hydrogen for fuel cells. This may be an admirable plan (although Windpower Monthly dismisses it for several reasons in a May 2003 article) but is so far in the future that it only serves to underscore the fact that there is no good reason for current construction. And it must be remembered that as wind turbines are unable to produce significant amounts of electricity they would likewise be unable to produce significant amounts of hydrogen. On top of that, a 2004 study by the Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment determined that hydrogen returns only 47% of the energy put into it, compared with pumped hydro returning 75% and lithium ion batteries up to 85%.

On a small scale, where a turbine directly supplies the users and the fluctuating production can be stored, wind can contribute to a home, school, factory, office building, or even small village's electricity. But this simply does not work on a large scale to supply the grid. Even the small benefits claimed by their promoters are far outstripped by the huge negative impacts.

We are reminded that there are trade-offs necessary to living in a technologically advanced industrial society, that fossil fuels will run out, that global warming must be slowed, and that the procurement and transport of fossil and nuclear fuels is environmentally, politically, and socially destructive. Sooner or later the realities of this modern life will have to reach into our own back yards, the commons must be developed for our economic survival, and it would be elitist in the extreme to believe we deserve better. So wilderness areas are sacrificed, rural communities are bribed into becoming live-in (but ineffective) power plants, our governments boast that they are looking beyond fossil fuels (while doing nothing to actually reduce their use), and our electric bills go up to support "investment in a greener future." And at the other end of this trade-off, multinational energy companies reap greater profits and fossil and nuclear fuel use continues to grow.

Many alternative sources of energy, as well as dramatic improvements in the use of current sources, are in development. But wind turbines exist, so they are presented by their manufacturers and managers as the solution. Every effort is made to maintain the illusion that they are in fact a solution when a few simple questions reveal they are not.

Part 3

Output figures from wind developers are typically annual averages expressed in the vague figure of "number of homes provided for." Homes, however, account for only a third of all electricity use, and electricity represents only a third of all energy consumption (only a fifth in Vermont). Further, home use of electricity varies widely through the day, week, and year, but wind plants generate electricity by the whims of the wind rather than the actual needs of the grid.

As averages, the figures ignore the fact that hour to hour, day to day, season to season, even the most windy sites experience periods of calm when the turbines are producing no electricity at all and cycles of slower wind when they are producing far less than their maximum capacity. When the wind is too fast, the turbines must shut down to avoid damage.

This variability, they say, is balanced by wiring up a multitude of sites, one of which at any time must surely be producing significant power. Instead of a "free and clean" source of energy, then, the necessary proposal is an expensive network of redundant installations that must fill most of our land and seascapes to make any meaningful contribution.

Despite local variabilities, however, the overall rise and fall of the wind is generally the same over the larger region. The grid must plan for the likely low point, i.e., the least power it may see from all of the attached wind plants. Large power plants cannot respond quickly to the hourly variations of the wind, so they must be already going when the power from the wind plants drops off.

There are solutions to this on a small scale, but for most grid systems, any power produced by wind plants is therefore in practice superfluous. The backup generation is already providing it.

On top of this uselessness, the turbines use a great deal of electricity themselves. Most of them cannot even run without input from the grid. Although they produce electricity intermittently, they consume it continuously. In every report I've seen, input from the grid is not accounted for in the figures of net output. Specifications from turbine manufacturers do not include the amount of electricity they require.

It may be that large wind turbines use as much electricity as they produce. Whether the wind is blowing in the desired range or not, they need power to keep the generator magnetized, to keep the blade and generator assembly (92 tons on a 1.5-MW GE) facing the wind, to periodically spin that assembly to unwind the cables in the tower, to heat the blades in icy conditions, to start the blades turning when the wind is just getting fast enough to keep them going, to keep the blades pitched to spin at a regular rate, and to run the lights and internal control and communication systems.

It is clear that industrial wind generation is not able to contribute anything against the problems of global warming, pollution, nuclear waste, or dependence on imports. In Denmark, with the most per-capita wind turbines in the world, the output from wind facilities equals 15%-20% of their electricity consumption. The Copenhagen newspaper Politiken reported, however, that wind provided only 1.7% of the electricity actually used in 1999. The grid manager for western Denmark reported that in 2002 84% of their wind-generated electricity had to be exported, i.e., dumped at extreme discount. The turbines are often shut down, because it is so rare that good wind coincides with peaking demand. A director of the western Denmark utility has stated that wind turbines do not reduce CO2 emissions, the primary marker of fossil fuel use.

But industrial wind facilities are not just useless. They destroy the land, birds and bats, and the lives of their neighbors. Off shore, they endanger ships and boats and their low-frequency noise is likely harmful to sea mammals. They require subsidies and regulatory favors to make investment viable. They do not move us towards more sustainable energy sources and stand instead as monuments of delusion.

Energy consumption in wind facilities

Large wind turbines require a large amount of energy to operate. Other electricity plants generally use their own electricity, and the difference between the amount they generate and the amount delivered to the grid is readily determined. Wind plants, however, use electricity from the grid, which does not appear to be accounted for in their output figures. At the facility in Searsburg, Vermont, for example, it is apparently not even metered and is completely unknown [click here].* The manufacturers of large turbines -- for example, Vestas, GE, and NEG Micon -- do not include electricity consumption in the specifications they provide.

Among the wind turbine functions that use electricity are the following:†s
yaw mechanism (to keep the blade assembly perpendicular to the wind; also to untwist the electrical cables in the tower when necessary) -- the nacelle (turbine housing) and blades together weigh 92 tons on a GE 1.5-MW turbine


blade-pitch control (to keep the rotors spinning at a regular rate)


lights, controllers, communication, sensors, metering, data collection, etc.


heating the blades -- this may require 10%-20% of the turbine's nominal (rated) power


heating and dehumidifying the nacelle -- according to Danish manufacturer Vestas, "power consumption for heating and dehumidification of the nacelle must be expected during periods with increased humidity, low temperatures and low wind speeds"


oil heater, pump, cooler, and filtering system in gearbox


hydraulic brake (to lock the blades in very high wind)


thyristors (to graduate the connection and disconnection between generator and grid) -- 1%-2% of the energy passing through is lost


magnetizing the stator -- the induction generators used in most large grid-connected turbines require a "large" amount of continuous electricity from the grid to actively power the magnetic coils around the asynchronous "cage rotor" that encloses the generator shaft; at the rated wind speeds, it helps keep the rotor speed constant, and as the wind starts blowing it helps start the rotor turning (see next item); in the rated wind speeds, the stator may use power equal to 10% of the turbine's rated capacity, in slower winds possibly much more


using the generator as a motor (to help the blades start to turn when the wind speed is low or, as many suspect, to maintain the illusion that the facility is producing electricity when it is not,‡ particularly during important site tours) -- it seems possible that the grid-magnetized stator must work to help keep the 40-ton blade assembly spinning, along with the gears that increase the blade rpm some 50 times for the generator, not just at cut-in (or for show in even less wind) but at least some of the way up towards the full rated wind speed; it may also be spinning the blades and rotor shaft to prevent warping when there is no wind§


It may be that each turbine consumes more than 50% of its rated capacity in its own operation. If so, the plant as a whole -- which may produce only 25% of its rated capacity annually -- would be using (for free!) twice as much electricity as it produces and sells. An unlikely situation perhaps, but the industry doesn't publicize any data that proves otherwise; incoming power is apparently not normally recorded.

Is there some vast conspiracy spanning the worldwide industry from manufacturers and developers to utilities and operators? There doesn't have to be, if engineers all share an assumption that wind turbines don't use a significant amount of power compared to their output and thus it is not worth noting, much less metering. Such an assumption could be based on the experience decades ago with small DC-generating turbines, simply carried over to AC generators that continue to metastasize. However errant such an assumption might now be, it stands as long as no one questions it. No conspiracy is necessary -- self-serving laziness is enough.

Whatever the actual amount of consumption, it could seriously diminish any claim of providing a significant amount of energy. Instead, it looks like industrial wind power could turn out to be a laundering scheme: "Dirty" energy goes in, "clean" energy comes out. That would explain why developers demand legislation to create a market for "green credits" -- tokens of "clean" energy like the indulgences sold by the medieval church. Ego te absolvo.

[Doc Com]

Grateful for all the information AGAINST wind power.

Really gives an insight to the other side.

Perhaps you could send this to the Governor of NC for her consideration. After all, it was an open forum and meeting.

I think it would also be appropriate to send information AGAINST the benefits of water desalination plants, hydrogen fuel cells, electric and air powered vehicles, hydroelectric power, and other alternatives.

Be sure to send attachments demonstrating the benefits of offshore exploration and drilling for oil, natural gas, coal burning plants, and the drill, baby, drill mantra.

[Raider]

Perhaps you could send this to the Governor of NC for her consideration.

Since he's your Governor and not mine, it would appropriate if you can send it. You can also send this to him;


"Big money" discovers the huge tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy while taxpayers and electric customers pick up the tab

Introduction

Recent events confirm that "big money" interests in the US and Europe have discovered the enormously generous tax breaks and subsidies that are now available in the US for producing electricity with wind turbines. These organizations are moving aggressively to build "wind farms" and to seek more subsidies.

Meanwhile, as more wind turbines are proposed in the US and other countries, ordinary citizens have learned that "wind farms" are not environmentally benign. Instead, wind energy has high economic, environmental, ecological, scenic and property value costs. Wind turbines produce only small amounts of electricity and that electricity is unreliable and low in value.

Quite likely, many members of Congress, state legislators, governors, regulators and local officials don't yet realize that they have been misled about the true benefits and costs of wind energy -- or the extent of their combined generosity to the wind industry.

In the US, "wind farms" are now being built primarily for tax avoidance purposes, not because of their environmental, energy or economic benefits. The tax breaks and subsidies have more value to "wind farm" owners than the revenue from the sale of electricity they produce.

These generous tax breaks and subsidies are at the expense of ordinary taxpayers and electric customers and are hidden in their tax bills and monthly electric bills. Government officials seem unaware or uncaring about either the large transfer of wealth to "wind farm" owners from ordinary citizens -- or the fact that large amounts of capital are being spent on projects that produce only small amounts of unreliable, low value electricity.

As detailed below:

At least 10 large US and foreign companies are now working to build more "wind farms" in the US to take advantage of the exceedingly generous tax breaks and subsidies.


Facts demonstrate that advocates have consistently overstated the environmental benefits and understated the environmental, ecological and economic costs of wind energy.


The tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy already in place are providing huge benefits for a few companies but the wind industry is lobbying for even more.

Despite the facts, it's far from clear that legislators, local government officials and regulators will temper their enthusiasm for wind energy since so many have accepted as fact the false and misleading information distributed during the past decade by wind energy advocates. Also, they are well aware of wind industry lobbying power and campaign contributions.


Recent evidence of big money interest in wind energy tax breaks and subsidies

As indicated above, a number of large US and foreign companies (apparently with income to shelter from taxation), as well as law firms and lobbyists, have become aware of the enormously generous federal, state and local tax breaks and subsidies available for wind energy in the US.

Presumably these firms are well aware that the government largess they are pursuing is at the expense of ordinary taxpayers and electric customers, but there is no reason to expect that they would work to protect the interests of either of these broad groups. Instead, their interests are in taking advantage of government measures to reduce their taxes and to increase their profits.

Most of the "Big Money" organizations are in the energy and financial industries, including one firm that recently paid a large fine relating to its work with Enron. Notably, Enron also took advantage of unwise government policies at the expense of taxpayers and consumers. Now, other big firms are taking advantage of a government-created "wind energy money machine."

The following examples illustrate the enormity of the tax breaks and subsidies and/or the extent to which big money organizations are pursuing those generous tax breaks and subsidies.

1. FPL Group apparently paid NO federal income taxes in 2002 or 2003 while reporting net income of more than $2 billion.1 Those are the years FPL Group's subsidiary, FPL Energy (currently the largest owner of wind generating capacity in the US and sister of Florida Power & Light Co.), invested heavily in wind generation ("wind farms"). Apparently FPL Energy took more than $1.2 billion in depreciation deductions in those years.2

2. General Electric bought Enron Wind's wind turbine manufacturing business3 in May 2002, with the intention of capturing a large share of the artificial market for wind turbines created by the tax breaks and subsidies in the US and other countries.

3. Gamesa, a Spanish manufacturer of wind turbines and developer of "wind farms" in several countries, in September 2002 acquired 75% of the stock of Navitas, a Minneapolis-based developer of "wind farms." Gamesa companies apparently are proposing "wind farms" in Wisconsin, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and states in the Southwest. In early 2005, Gamesa announced plans to begin manufacturing wind turbine blades in Pennsylvania.

4. Midamerican Energy, 80.5% owned by Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway,4 has also found the huge tax breaks and subsidies available for "wind farms." Last year, Midamerican completed roughly half of its originally planned 310.5 megawatt (MW), $323 million wind energy project in Iowa, which is being expanded to some 360 MW and $386 million. The Omaha World Herald has reported that Midamerican will reap roughly $300 million in tax benefits over 20 years from the project due to the federal Production Tax Credit, ($175 to $195 million) and forgiveness of Iowa property tax ($130 million).5

Under the federal accelerated depreciation rules applicable to wind energy, Mid-American should be able to deduct its entire $386 million capital investment from otherwise taxable income during the 2004-2010 tax years, thus reducing its federal tax liability by about $135 million during those years.6 Those depreciation deductions from income can carry through and reduce Iowa corporate income tax by about $46 million during the same years.7

5. American Bar Association, in mid-2004, established a "Renewable Energy Resources Committee."8 During a December 15, 2004, teleconference, Ed Feo of Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy, LLP pointed out that 2/3 of the economic value of wind projects come from tax breaks.9

6. AES Corporation, on January 11, 2005, announced acquisition of SeaWest Holdings, Inc., parent company to, among others, SeaWest WindPower, Inc. which has "nearly 500MW of wind facilities throughout California, Wyoming and Oregon" and "has site control of 1,800 MW of development sites in ten of the western United States.10 In 2004, AES invested in US Wind Force, LLC, which is developing "wind farms" in certain mid-Atlantic states. On April 5, 2005, AES announced that it had entered into a joint venture with EHN to develop wind energy facilities in the State of New York.11 EHN (Corporación Energía Hidroeléctrica de Navarra, S.A.) was acquired in January 2005 by Acciona, a conglomerate with headquarters in Madrid, Spain and a variety of operations in many countries. EHN is described by the company as one of ,the largest wind energy developers in the world. The company owns "wind farms" in Spain, Germany, France and the US.

7. PPM Energy, US subsidiary of Scottish Power, on January 4, 2005, announced its purchase of Atlantic Renewables and its wind development portfolio. Atlantic Renewables, an aggressive "wind farm" developer, previously, had sold off its "wind farm" projects to large organizations such as FPL Energy/FPL Group (which, as shown in 1, above, has profits that could be sheltered with federal and state tax breaks). PPM currently has 830 MW of wind generation in operation in 7 states and "has a goal of bringing 2,300 MW of new wind power to market by 2010."12

8. J. P. Morgan has surfaced as the organization financing Noble Environmental Power LLC, an organization with an office in Connecticut that is seeking to build "wind farms" in New York, Connecticut and Michigan. Noble Environmental Power, LLC ("Noble") has wind projects comprising more than 1,000 MWs in active development. Noble intends to retain ownership of the wind projects it develops. Noble is seeking to bring on line one or more wind generation facilities before the end of 2005.13

9. Goldman Sachs announced on March 21, 2005, that it is acquiring Zilkha Renewable Energy of Houston Texas.14 Zilkha is an "independent wind energy development company, with a portfolio of nearly 4,000 megawatts in various stages of development in a dozen states. Goldman Sachs will acquire 100% of Zilkha's interests in the 200-megawatt Flat Rock Wind Power Project in Lewis County, New York, as well as 100% of Zilkha's interest in the 150-megawatt Blue Canyon Phase II Project in Oklahoma, both of which are expected to be completed by the end of 2005. [Zilkha is now known as Horizon. -- Ed.]

10. Enxco is an affiliate of EDF Energies Nouvelles, a member of the EDF (Electricité de France) Group. Enxco develops, constructs, operates and manages wind energy projects and proposes to build "wind farms" in several US states, including Washington, Idaho, West Virginia and Massachusetts.15

11. Numerous smaller companies have undertaken the "on the ground activities" to force "wind farm" projects through state and local government zoning and permitting process. Often, they sell their projects off to larger organizations with profits to shelter from taxation.

12. "Renewable" energy advocates, including wind advocates, have created a variety of profitoriented and nonprofit organizations16 and signed up various Washington DC–based "law" firms and lobbyists (including former White House and CIA officials) to press for continuation and expansion of lucrative tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy, including the insidious "Renewable Portfolio Standards." Additional lobbying power has come from a variety of organizations that plan to make money on trading of Renewable Energy Certificates (sometimes called "Green Tags") that have been created by several states that have established "Renewable Portfolio Standards" and renewable energy credit schemes.


Facts about wind energy are just beginning to catch up with the false and misleading information that has led to faulty government policies, tax breaks and subsidies

While government officials lavish tax breaks and subsidies on the wind industry, ordinary citizens around the world where "wind farms" have been built or are proposed are learning that the public, media and government officials have been badly misled about the costs and benefits of wind energy. As the facts are becoming known, opposition to "wind farms" is growing rapidly in US and other countries, including the UK, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Italy, France, Australia and New Zealand. Some 300 citizen-led opposition groups have emerged.

These groups face an uphill fight in getting government officials to understand, accept and act on the facts about wind energy because the wind industry and other wind advocates have, for more than a decade, distributed false or misleading information to the public, media and government officials. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its National Renewable Energy "Laboratory" (NREL) participate in distributing such information -- at taxpayer expense.

There are at least 10 major reasons why "wind farms" have become controversial. These points are explained in other papers17 and web sites and will only be described here briefly.

1. Tax avoidance -- not environmental and energy benefits -- has become the prime motivation for building "wind farms." The most important and lucrative tax breaks and subsidies are listed later. Briefly, the tax breaks include federal and state accelerated depreciation, production tax credits, and reduced or forgiven property and sales taxes.

2. Huge windmills -- often taller than the US Capitol -- produce very little electricity. Some 15,000 windmills are now scattered across thousands of acres of land in 30 states In the US, with total generating capacity of 6,740 megawatts (MW) as of January 5, 2004.18 If those thousands of windmills average a generous 27% capacity factor, the total amount of electricity they would produce annually would be 15,941,448,000 kilowatt-hours.19 That sounds like a lot of electricity, but it is equal to 41/100 of 1% of the electricity produced in the US during 2003.

3. Electricity from wind turbines has less real value than electricity from reliable generating units, and they detract from electric system reliability. Wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within the right speed range. Today's models may begin producing some electricity at wind speeds of about 8 miles per hour (MPH), reach rated capacity around 33 MPH, and cut out around 56 MPH. Because their output is intermittent, volatile and largely unpredictable, the electricity they produce has less value than electricity from reliable ("dispatchable") generating units.

Electricity grids must be kept in balance (supply & demand, voltage, frequency), so some reliable, dispatchable generating unit(s) must be immediately available at all times -- and operating at less than peak efficiency and capacity -- to "back up" the unreliable wind generation. The reliable, backup unit(s) must ramp up and down to balance the output from the wind turbines. Wind turbines detract from grid reliability and would be of no value in restoring an electric grid when there is a blackout. Further, when electricity demand increases, reliable units must be added to meet growing electricity demand even if wind capacity has been built. Wind turbines have virtually no "capacity value." Thus, electric customers pay twice; once for the wind energy and again for reliable capacity.

4. The true cost of electricity from wind is much higher than wind advocates admit. Wind energy advocates ignore key elements of the true cost of electricity from wind, including:

The cost of tax breaks and subsidies which shift tax burden and costs from "wind farm" owners to ordinary taxpayers and electric customers.
The cost of providing backup power to balance the intermittent and volatile output from wind turbines.
The full, true cost of transmitting electricity from "wind farms" to electric customers and the extra burden on grid management.
5. Claims of environmental benefits of wind energy are exaggerated. The wind industry typically overstates claims of potential emission reductions that might result from displacing electricity generated by fossil-fueled generating units. They tend to ignore the fact that backup generating units must be immediately available and running at less than their peak efficiency or in spinning reserve mode, and that backup units continue to emit while in these modes. Also, the generation that may be offset may not be powered by fossil fuels. Further, under "cap and trade" programs, credits for sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides emissions that are displaced by wind could be sold to other emitters, with NO reduction in those emissions.

6. "Wind farms" have significant adverse impacts on environmental, ecological, scenic and property values. Citizens in various states (and other countries) where "wind farms" have been constructed have become painfully aware that -- in addition to the high true cost of the electricity -- "wind farms" impair environmental, ecological, scenic and property values. Among the adverse impacts are noise, bird kills, interference with bird migration paths and animal habitat, destruction of scenic vistas and ecological rarities (such as the Flint Hills and Tallgrass Prairie in Kansas), distracting blade "flicker" and aircraft warning lights, and lowering the value of properties located near the huge structures.

7. "Wind farms" produce few local economic benefits and such benefits are overwhelmed by the higher costs imposed on electric customers through their monthly bills. DOE, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the wind industry have falsely claimed that "wind farms" provide significant economic benefits in the areas and states where they are constructed.20 They often claim benefits from the capital investment, jobs, tax revenues, lease payments to landowners, and "other" economic activities. Sometimes they claim increased tourist traffic.

In fact, as explained in detail elsewhere,21 there are few economic benefits and these are overwhelmed by the higher true cost to electric customers and taxpayers of the electricity produced by the "wind farms."

8. Various other subsidies shift large amounts of cost from "wind farm" owners to ordinary taxpayers and electric customers. The wind industry benefits from subsidies in addition to the tax breaks mentioned above and described below. Among the other subsidies is DOE funding for wind energy R&D22 and payments to "wind farm" developers provided by state governments (such as Massachusetts, New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota and California) using funds collected from electric customers via so-called "public benefit charges."

Other subsidies are in the form of artificially created, high price "markets" for windgenerated electricity. These include guaranteed markets for electricity result from (a) insidious "renewable portfolio standards" mandated by several states that require electricity suppliers to obtain some share of their electricity from "renewable" sources, (b) additional markets due to mandated purchases of "green electricity" by federal and state government agencies, and (c) state programs requiring or encouraging electric utilities to offer "green" electricity at premium prices. Electric customers can elect to pay premium prices but these programs generally do not attract enough "volunteers" to pay the utilities' costs of buying the "green" electricity and administering the program. The cost not recovered from customers paying premium prices is then spread across all of the utility's customers and hidden in monthly electric bills.

9. The big "winners" are "wind farm" owners and a few landowners who lease their land. Electric customers and taxpayers are the big "losers." First, as explained in more detail below, "wind farm" owners benefit enormously from the generous tax breaks and other subsidies that shift tax burden to ordinary taxpayers. "Wind farm" owners also benefit from the revenue from the sale of electricity while shifting costs (e.g., backup generation and transmission costs) to electric customers.

Secondly, a few landowners who lease their land may be "winners" but their neighbors are the "losers." For example, landowners who lease land at the rate of $5,000 per MW of wind turbine capacity would derive income of $500,000 per year. However, if that "wind farm" achieved a 30% capacity factor and the electricity cost consumers only an extra $0.015 per kWh, the extra cost to electric customers would $3,942,000 per year23 or nearly 8 times the income received by the few landowners. Thus, it would be cheaper for the electric customers to pay the landowners to NOT allow wind turbines to be built on their land!

10. The wind industry falsely claims that they deserve tax breaks and other subsidies because other energy sources have received even larger government-imposed benefits. Ideally, subsidies for all energy sources would be reduced significantly, but the wind argument is fundamentally flawed because it does not take into account either the existing or potential contribution of wind energy in supplying US energy requirements. When the expected contribution of wind energy toward supplying US energy requirements is taken into account, wind energy is among the most heavily subsidized of all energy sources. EIA expects wind to provide less than 1/2 of 1% of US energy requirements by 2025.

[H2FC]

Pages and pages of wasted misinformation is to be expected from a man-made globalwarming naysaying skeptic....especially one who supports the fossil fuel industry and the Bush/Cheney misinformers who lied and withheld important co2 climate change information from the american public.

I don't even bother reading the garbage she posts because I know the truth and I know without any doubt alternative power in the form of solar and wind is what will provide our future energy. Hydrogen produced by alternative renewable energy is the holy grail of our future energy needs.

Its true the initial cost of green energy is higher than what we're paying today for fossil fuel energy but every new technology is always higher until its becomes main stream. Thats why the gov subsidies are necessary. As green energy becomes main stream (which it will in spite of the naysayers) not only will our total energy cost be cheaper, our globalwarming climate change problems will be fewer and many of our serious world problems will be eliminated.

I'm all for green energy....the sooner the better.

[elivate]

One of the other alternatives being researched right now is an underwater turbine. the Bay of Fundy has the highest tides in the world, they are apparently going to attempt to place a turbine on the ocean floor...

"We would envision 200 to 300 units like this strategically placed around the Bay of Fundy, extracting energy from the tides," he said.

http://www.canadaeast.com/news/article/801029

of course there are environmental concerns, but obviously we need to investigate alternatives or else we will be slaves to fossil fuels forever...

[Doc Com]

It is a she, not a he. The governor, that is.

Again, you have trumped yourself.

Seriously, I did not expect you to know who the gov. of NC is. That was not your goal. Your goal as the predictable Hanging Eva was to enter a thread and politicize it.

If I agree with something, you disagree. Therefore, you are correct and I am wrong. I accept that.

What did Ted Kennedy's yacht dumping diesel bilge water have to do with a proposal to consider wind power on an inlet in NC? Why, nothing of course.

In keeping to your true self, you are predictable and so transparent.

As usual, you did not read a thing let alone comprehend what was being discussed, the articles posted, let alone the videos. You saw this as an opportunity to come into a discussion to NOT give your side but in another veiled attempt to disrupt a discussion by making this about you vs. me. Time spent trying to scurry about to find an article that you could post could have been time spent on educating yourself. Personally, I would love to know how to reduce my electrical bills. I would like to know more about a personal wind powered generator seeing that I own 6.5 acres, have a 3700 sq foot historical house, some of my land is on a slope, I have a detached masonry garage/living quarters of 1200 sq. ft, plus my wife and I are considering building a dog training facility on our property that will be enclosed with an arena for training as well as outside training/tracking facility. Should I consider solar panels? Wind turbine? How to heat and cool these buildings? I have already converted the house to propane heat/cooling and took out the old nasty oil fired furnace and oil storage tank. But propane is too unpredictable and costly in the fall.

With you, it was never about solar power, wind power, alternative energy with you.

It was about you and seizing the opportunity to bash the idea, the topic, the discussion.

It was about you taking a chance to do some more doc bashing and so on.

It was about you labeling everything and anything as liberals, whining, etc.

I am genuinely glad that NC is exploring this as an alternative. There are also other alternatives being explored here in NC such as wave power.

I would love to go on illustrating point of how you, Raider, have made a complete ass of yourself. But I have dogs to feed and a webcast to prepare for coming up at 2pm est.

Let's keep it real.

Enjoy your trip.

One of the other alternatives being researched right now is an underwater turbine. the Bay of Fundy has the highest tides in the world, they are apparently going to attempt to place a turbine on the ocean floor...


http://www.canadaeast.com/news/article/801029

of course there are environmental concerns, but obviously we need to investigate alternatives or else we will be slaves to fossil fuels forever...

I am familiar with that area and am dying to go back. Yes, tides as high as 70 feet plus have been recorded.

A study being done in many places are how to harness wave power.

[think]

Since he's your Governor and not mine, it would appropriate if you can send it. You can also send this to him;


"Big money" discovers the huge tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy while taxpayers and electric customers pick up the tab

While you are are informing people you might want to add that your author Glen Schleede, was a former senior vice president of the National Coal Association back in the 1980's. He has been attacking alternative energy resources for many many years:

Schleede is forthcoming about his previous work for the coal industry. Yet, it is hard not to detect a special concern for his old employer in some of his work against wind power.

In his report on wind in West Virginia, Schleede includes a table of potential job losses in the coal industry if some coal use were displaced by wind power. If all three current and planned wind farms in West Virginia began operating at predicted capacity, Schleede estimates that up to 11 coal-mining jobs could disappear, with total lost wages up to $388,000 per year.

Of course, there would be new jobs in wind power. But the real issue is that 11 coal-mining jobs is microscopic - less than one-tenth of one percent - of the total statewide coal-mining employment of 16,000 with a payroll of $2 billion in 2004.

"Sure, I included a comment in my West Virginia paper on potential coal industry employment impacts because coal is such an important industry in West Virginia and because the wind industry makes such strong claims about displacing electricity produced from fossil energy sources (coal, oil, natural gas). Those claims, however, have turned out be be grossly exaggerated - for reasons explained in my papers," Schleede says.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/18290

[zurc.net]

lol, LOL and LOL

What did Ted Kennedy's yacht dumping diesel bilge water have to do with a proposal to consider wind power on an inlet in NC? Why, nothing of course.

I have to admit, I "Lol'd WTF" when I read that too and just stopped reading realizing exactly where she was trying to take this debate...

[money-raker]

Seen a few of the "arms" on low loaders near my work and must say it's the biggest piece of equipment i've ever seen, and i've been in a site where 12 of the biggest cranes in scotland (lifting 90 ft x 8 ft steel ducts) were and nothing looks as big as these arms when they were flat down on a low loader.


Never been up close to 1 yet though.

and there was something on the news a few months back about 1 of the arms snapping/shattering and debris flying over 400 mtrs away. wouldnt like to live near 1.

watch this and see what you think about them

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&h...&v=c3FZtmlHwcA

[Raider]

lol, LOL and LOL

I have to admit, I "Lol'd WTF" when I read that too and just stopped reading realizing exactly where she was trying to take this debate...

For those of you who suffer from ignorance on this subject and have to the question "What does Ted Kennedy have to do with Wind Energy?", I'll try my best to school you;


Why Liberals Are Turning on Ted Kennedy

By Froma Harrop

Once upon a time, Ted Kennedy could count on his daily dose of veneration. The right wing hated the Massachusetts Democrat, but progressives honored him as a defender of old-school liberalism.

In a remarkable turnaround, liberals are now heaping scorn on the 73-year-old senator. Young audiences boo at his name, and the leftish "Daily Show" on Comedy Central makes fun of him.

The source of unhappiness is Kennedy's efforts to kill an offshore wind farm on Nantucket Sound. Cape Wind was to be the first such project in the United States and a source of pride to environmentally minded New Englanders. Polls show 84 percent of Massachusetts residents in favor. But now it appears that America's first offshore wind farm will be near Galveston, Texas.

Proposed the month before Sept. 11, 2001, Cape Wind remains in limbo. It's been frustrated at every turn by a handful of yachtsmen, Kennedy included, who don't want to see windmills from their verandas. Many millions have been spent spreading disinformation and smearing the wind farm's supporters.

The towers would be at least five miles out and barely visible from shore on the clearest day, but the summer plutocrats resent any intrusion on their waterfront vistas -- and, equally, any challenge to the notion that they control everything.

"But don't you realize -- that's where I sail!" may stand as Kennedy's most self-incriminating quote.

The sordid affair is documented in a funny and depressing book titled "Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Class, Politics and the Battle for Our Energy Future on Nantucket Sound." In it, authors Wendy Williams and Robert Whitcomb (full disclosure: Whitcomb is my editor at The Providence Journal) describe the bipartisan endeavor to betray America's environmental and energy interests -- and ignore the welfare of the year-round locals.

Kennedy did much of the dirty work in Washington, but he had considerable help. In 2004, Sen. John Warner, the Virginia Republican, added a last-minute rider to an urgent Iraq War funding bill that forbade the Army Corps of Engineers to spend money permitting offshore wind projects.

"Warner was dragging American troops into the Cape Wind war," Williams and Whitcomb noted. The outcry forced him to back down.

Why did Warner care so deeply about a wind-energy project in Massachusetts? Some of his fabulously wealthy relatives own choice waterfront property on Cape Cod. That's why.

Anchorage is 4,600 miles from Boston. And so what was this project to Rep. Don Young, the Alaska Republican? It was apparently an opportunity to exercise an old grudge against Theodore Roosevelt IV, the 26th president's great-grandson and a wind-farm supporter.

Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander also took an unusual interest in a venture far from his home state of Tennessee. Complaining that wind farms threaten "the wholesale destruction of the American landscape," Alexander introduced legislation that would have banned virtually all offshore wind projects in America. It turns out that Alexander owns a fancy piece of real estate on Nantucket Island.

Kennedy, however, remains the central focus of ire. Greenpeace has just launched an anti-Kennedy, pro-Cape Wind television ad campaign.

John Bullard, the former mayor of New Bedford and a Democratic stalwart, is loudly condemning the senator. His working-class city is downwind from one of the nation's dirtiest power plants. Cape Wind could help replace it.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers built a wind turbine along an expressway going into Boston and, next to it, a billboard promoting Cape Wind. The project would mean jobs for the Boston local, which runs a training center for wind technology.

After 45 years in the Senate, Kennedy should be polishing his liberal legacy. But his manipulative attacks on this wind farm have so sickened supporters that his long career may be headed for a sorry end.

It is a she, not a he. The governor, that is.

Again, you have trumped yourself.

Forgive the typo.. "She" as in Bev Perdue, Been hanging around this jock strap forum for way too long.

It was about you and seizing the opportunity to bash the idea, the topic, the discussion.

Like you dont do it in my threads?...LMAO.

[Doc Com]

All about Eva.

And what in the hell is the "my threads" bullshit.

Which of "your threads" do not start out political in nature?

Again, what the **** does Ted Kennedy, liberals, or you have to do with a thread regarding a proposal, PROPOSAL, to study the potential for wind tubines on the NC coast?

It is not about MY THREAD. It is about YOU taking the opportunity to take a THREAD, pick any ****ing thread on the forum, and turn it into an opportunity to lace it with your ****ing liberal suckers bullshit that you spew.

See - it is all about eva.

Because Eva wants to come into this thread and destroy it to put forth, yet once again, her bullshit. You don't even know how to keep it real, keep it fresh, keep it right...you just want to make it personal. Your own little touch added to the place to freshen it up.

Get a ****ing life and get a grip on reality. You and the rest of the Starship crew are about to sail off the edge of reality.

And keep the predictable eva bullshit to your self

public forum
you have that right
I have no say...

again, predictable and transparent as a damn condom with spent jizz inside.

[DomainsInc]

I don't see having an opinion on green energy or wind turbines as being political. My thoughts behind them have zero to do with politics. Every issue does not have to turn into a convserative/liberal fight.

[Doc Com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&h...&v=c3FZtmlHwcA

Damnnation! Whoa.

The way it twisted in the debris, perhaps something was keeping the head of the three blades from turning?

Who knows. Very bizarre. That is why being around helicopters scare the hell our of me when the rotors are going. You only get one chance to make a careless mistake.

I don't see having an opinion on green energy or wind turbines as being political. My thoughts behind them have zero to do with politics. Every issue does not have to turn into a convserative/liberal fight.

Ditto. I don't see what the bold text about Ted Kennedy's yacht dumping bilge water into Nantucket Sound had anything to do with my elation that there may be green energy and jobs in NC.

[zurc.net]

Seen a few of the "arms" on low loaders near my work and must say it's the biggest piece of equipment i've ever seen, and i've been in a site where 12 of the biggest cranes in scotland (lifting 90 ft x 8 ft steel ducts) were and nothing looks as big as these arms when they were flat down on a low loader.


Never been up close to 1 yet though.

and there was something on the news a few months back about 1 of the arms snapping/shattering and debris flying over 400 mtrs away. wouldnt like to live near 1.

watch this and see what you think about them

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&h...&v=c3FZtmlHwcA

I saw something about this on the discovery channel when they were doing testing. Supposebly these were earlier production models that weren't made to sustain storm-strength-winds... I think in the video you can see it looks to be made of fiber-glass and now I believe they are going to try and make them in stronger aluminum/titanium material. Don't know this for a fact, but I am sure you can find it on discovery.com

-Mike C.

[Raider]

Again, what the **** does Ted Kennedy, liberals, or you have to do with a thread regarding a proposal, PROPOSAL, to study the potential for wind tubines on the NC coast?

Do I detect a level of anger from you Doc? that's too bad... Your trying to figure what these two have in common? hmmm, It was a very small part of a LONG article that you chose to turn into a issue, so you tell me OK?

And you know what? I'm trying to figure out something too, for example; What does Bush's 43 appointees and resignation scorecard have anything to do with the 59% of Americans who are growing angry with Obama?... I cant imagine.

[Seraphim]

I don't see having an opinion on green energy or wind turbines as being political. My thoughts behind them have zero to do with politics. Every issue does not have to turn into a convserative/liberal fight.

I agree... especially when people are most likely to be reading through this thread for facts and information on the subject.

[Doc Com]

Boo hoo.

See how predictable you are?

See how pathetic you look?

How childish you are?

Boo Hoo Hoo.

Eva wants to know how a days old thread she started and went on to post Obama appointees as lobbyists...

She wants to know how that post has to do with my posting of Bush appointees as lobbyists...

she wants to know what one has to do with the other.

Do we need to go back and revisit that thread? So you can see how the two compare?

Or would it be easier for you to come over into this thread and make an ass of yourself.

Is posting of Obama lobbyists vs Bush's Lobbyists too much for you to comprehend that you had to rush over and ask for clarification here? and now?

See, you are predictable. Nothing in that thread has to do with this thread. Nothing you posted beyond your dislike of how you do not like the looks of a wind turbine has anything to do with this issue/thread.

What, you want me to read all that dribble you posted about a "liberal" lawmaker, senator, person? Why? Does every one who is into research, development, exploration into cleaner energy, autos, technology automatically labeled a liberal to you?

Nutty environmentalists...that is what you called someone. A nutty environmentalist. Do you seperate your trash for recycling? Why? because someone makes you? Do you take a piss in your dishwater before doing the dishes? Why not? It might make you and others sick?

Feinstein and you personal story of Kennedy added so much to this thread.

"nutty environmentalists..." that is how you start out one of your threads and follow that up with Liberalism and two of your favorite people.

You are an obsessed sick little girl in need of some serious professional help. These obsessions are not healthy. Your obsession and time you spend trying to discredit me is not healthy.

These threads are not about you, for you, or have to do with you. Yes, feel free to participate. But, again, what in the **** does a proposed study for Wind turbines have to do with Kennedy in Nantucket? I am considering going to a Wake Forest Football game this weekend. Any liberal attacks your feeble mind want to jump on that? Should there be feinsteinisms and kennedyisms I should be on the lookout for or that you would like to get out of your system now? Would you like a list of the board of trustees and Medical School faculty to berate and belittle to beat me down with?

You are a very pathetic unhappy human being. And it shows over and over and over again.

Pathetic.

I agree... especially when people are most likely to be reading through this thread for facts and information on the subject.

Jeez. That is all my intent was. To my knowledge, there is nothing like this in NC.

Not only did it sound intriquing, the piece I posted also shows how someone can use it on a smaller scale.

I did not say I was in favor of this. I am in favor of exploring the possibility of energy alternatives. The seacoast is almost a natural to consider a constant wind source. But with that comes risks. For anyone who has ever been to Cape Hatteras or the Outer Banks knows how fragile this spit of land is and how sensitive marine life is. This is one of my most favorite places in all the world. I am not sure there is anything else in the US like it.

That is why it is called Cape Hatteras National Seashore.