Posts
Wind Energy Could Be Criminal in USA
Chairman Nick Rahall, a democrat representing West Virginia's third district, and the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources gave an opening statement on the “Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act of 2007" on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at Room 1324 Longworth House Office Building. There he outlined HR 2337, containing amendments to seven of eight-four sections of the act under the committee's jurisdiction.
The American Wind Energy Association stated in their press release of the same day that provision, Subtitle D of HR 2337, would:
This bill is also being greeted with a hysterical reaction from the wind industry. Again, let me be perfectly clear. I am not against wind energy.
Nick Rahall (D-WV), Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources
The American Wind Energy Association stated in their press release of the same day that provision, Subtitle D of HR 2337, would:
- Stall all new wind projects until Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) rules are issued and require FWS certification of every turbine
- Require all existing turbines, even small residential units, to cease operating 6 months after issuance of new FWS rules until they are “certified,” an unwieldy bureaucratic process applying to many thousands of turbines that, again, will take years
- Make it a crime, punishable by a $50,000 fine or a year in jail, to construct or generate electricity from an unapproved turbine, even for home use
- Undermine state and federal efforts to promote renewable electricity generation and subvert the growing movement to reduce global warming pollution
- Create an unworkable bureaucracy that will delay clean, emissions-free wind energy projects throughout the U.S.
The provision is being offered as a solution to protecting wildlife. However evidence from varying sources refute claims that wind turbines pose significant danger to wildlife. A report from the National Academy of Sciences states bird deaths caused by wind turbines are less than 0.003% of human caused bird mortality, and in the United States, turbines kill 70,000 birds per year, compared to 57 million killed by cars and 97.5 million killed by collisions with plate glass.
The National Association of Manufacturers believes that a comprehensive approach toward energy leads to the logical conclusion that the United States must diversify its sources of energy. Wind energy should be part of this mix. The new certification requirements of this section of H.R. 2337, however, would bring wind energy development across the United States to a halt, this despite the fact that the National Academy of Sciences has concluded wind turbines cause less than 0.003 percent of human-caused bird mortality. Furthermore, the broad mandate directing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to review every existing and planned wind project is far beyond the agency’s resources and capabilities.
John Engler, President, National Association of Manufacturers
In the UK, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds concluded that "The available evidence suggests that appropriately positioned wind farms do not pose a significant hazard for birds." It notes that climate change poses a much more significant threat to wildlife, and therefore supports wind farms and other forms of renewable energy.
So what can you do to ensure that wind energy can continue to flourish and provide clean sustainable energy for America?
- Take action on the issue at the Legislative Web Page
- Contact your House Representative, you can find them here
- Sign the epetition against provision, Subtitle D of HR 2337
This provision will result in restrictions on one of the cleanest forms of energy available, adding red-tape and bureaucracy to an industry which process high standards of wildlife protection and continues to implement steps to address new environmental concerns. These restrictions will have a resulting factor on the uptake of wind power as a renewable energy source and threaten those jobs in the industry in the USA. The impact will negatively affect the economy as a whole.
Just my thoughts please leave yours.
Wind energy requires no mining or drilling for fuel, no fuel transportation, no hazardous waste disposal, and no water use; and wind energy generates electricity without toxic pollutants like mercury, without greenhouse pollution, and of course without the conventional pollutants that cause smog and acid rain. Is this really an energy sector Congress should close down, for environmental reasons?
Gregory Wetstone, AWEA Senior Director of Government and Public Affairs (View Testimony *PDF)
3 comments:
Thanks for your help. Readers can also take action through our legislative Web page on this issue.
Regards,
Thomas O. Gray
American Wind Energy Association
www.awea.org
risingwind.blogspot.com
Not erecting wind energy facilities requires no mining or drilling for fuel, no fuel transportation, no hazardous waste disposal, and no water use; not erecting wind energy facilities does not add toxic pollutants like mercury, greenhouse gas pollution, and of course the conventional pollutants that cause smog and acid rain.
The point is, industrial wind's minuscule potential benefit (even Tom Gray can only muster its saving a fraction of the increase in carbon emissions) is not worth the destruction of so much wildlife habitat (60 acres per installed megawatt, again according to Tom Gray) and the killing of birds and bats.
Arguing that wind's crimes are lesser only underscores that it is a symptom of our energy problems, not a solution.
One thing Rahall's bill has made clear is that the wind industry is a manufacturing concern much more than an environmental one.
Imagine if they had to prove that wind actually reduces carbon emissions!
Wind power as a renewable energy source, is also a clean energy source. In the production of electricity it generates no emissions. In comparison fossil fuel plants emit carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury, particulates, or any other type of air pollution.
In 2000, the Harvard School of Public Health looked at the human health effects from two fossil-fuel-fired power plants in Massachusetts. It estimates that the air pollution from the plants causes per annum:
* 159 premature deaths
* 1,710 emergency room visits
* 43,300 asthma attacks
Some argue that wind turbines generate a large amount of emissions through construction, whilst this is true, similarly other types of energy plants would also emit emissions through construction. One study has concluded that the net energy gain (energy return on investment or EROI) to be from 17 to 39 times the energy invested through manufacture, installation, operation and decommissioning for a wind turbine. A similar Danish study suggested the payback ratio could be as high as 80 times, resulting in a wind turbine paying off its energy debt within 3 months. In comparison coal power plants, and nuclear power plants offer energy payback ratios of 11 and 16 times respectively.
Each kWh produced in the UK produces on average 0.53kg of Co2 (DEFRA), by implementing wind energy as a substitute to conventional methods this will overall reduce the emissions from fossil fuels.
When making the comment "60 acres per installed megawatt", you seem to have left off the rest of the statement ...
"In open, flat terrain, a utility-scale wind plant will require about 60 acres per megawatt of installed capacity. However, only 5% (3 acres) or less of this area is actually occupied by turbines, access roads, and other equipment--95% remains free for other compatible uses such as farming or ranching. In California, Minnesota, Texas, and elsewhere, wind energy provides rural landowners and farmers with a supplementary source of income through leasing and royalty arrangements with wind power developers.
A wind plant located on a ridgeline in hilly terrain will require much less space, as little as two acres per megawatt."
As regards to the danger posed to wildlife, charitable organisations which are there to protect bird, such as the Royal Society for Protection of Birds made a statement supporting Wind Power "The available evidence suggests that appropriately positioned wind farms do not pose a significant hazard for birds." It notes that climate change poses a much more significant threat to wildlife, and therefore supports wind farms and other forms of renewable energy.
Rahall's opening statment cited two sources which have detailed the wildlife implecations, GAO concluded that consultation with the industry was all that was required.
"To encourage potential wildlife impacts to be considered when wind power
facilities are permitted, we are making a recommendation to FWS to reach
out to state and local regulatory agencies with information on the potential wildlife impacts due to wind power and on the resources available to help make decisions about the siting of wind power facilities.
We received written comments on a draft of this report. The Department of the Interior stated that they generally agree with our findings and our recommendation in the report."
The report also stated that whilst it was not a requirement to create an environmental assessment, the majority of companies installing turbines do consult with environmental agencies and organisations to ensure the impact of turbines is reduced.
Rahall has cited reports and gone against the conclusion of those reports.
Post a Comment