“It’s time to stop America’s addiction to oil!” scream the incessant ads.

“We are importing over 70% of our oil. Wind power is the best way out of this mess.” is the message in these blurbs, and on the PickensPlan.com website.

Is Mr. Pickens on to something? Has he reached new levels of altruism in paying for all this education of the public? Unfortunately no on both counts.

To answer whether there is substance to this claim lets look at the facts. To begin with, only about 1.5% of the electricity produced in the US comes from oil. Another way to look at this would be that if 100% of our electricity came from wind power, then we would reduce our oil imports by only a trivial 1.5%.

Still another perspective is that the US exports considerably more oil than is used for producing electricity here.

But what about the other major claim on his website — that switching to natural gas to power our vehicles will save lots of oil? And what’s that got to do with wind?

His sleight of hand connection is that he claims that wind power will free up more natural gas to be used for autos. Hmmm.

But in his praises for the benefits of natural gas (e.g. on his website) he goes to lengths to emphasize that one of the main attractions of natural gas is that we have significant supplies of it (e.g. “twice the reserves of petroleum” and growing). Hmmm.

The obvious question is that if we have such supplies, then why do we need to do something to free up some of it? Why can’t there be a natural gas powered vehicle change over without any convoluted connection to wind power? And if he’s so big on gas over oil, why isn’t he proposing replacing the 1.5% of oil generated electricity, with gas?

Ahhh, the crux of the matter.

In a recent interview, Mr. Pickens revealed his real motivation: he expects to make at least 25% profit from his Texas wind power venture! (From the limited information given out by secretive wind developers, this exceptional return seems to be rather typical.) 25%!

Oh, and while he is aggressively soliciting his wealthy neighbors to use their lands to erect thousands of wind turbine behemoths, he quite honestly admitted that there would be zero of these “ugly” beasts on his 68,000 acre spread. So much for personal sacrifices.

In still another interview he even acknowledged that “the nation would still need gas-fired generation to serve peaking load and to make up for wind’s intermittency.” Hmmm, so where’s the significant fossil fuel savings then?

The fact is that wind power does NOT consequently reduce our use of fossil fuels, OR materially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So says the National Academies of Science, as well as numerous other independent analysts.

Oh, and TB is the founder of “Clean Energy,” a company focused on using natural gas to power vehicles. So if we follow his second advisory, guess who stands to make BIG bucks?

Sigh. Once again, not surprisingly, it’s all about the money. Our money.

So when Mr. P warns us about the “greatest transfer of wealth,” he is really saying that he wants in on the action.

If Mr. Pickens genuinely wants to help us out of our energy mess, he should use his money and influence to advocate that we use scientific methodology to analyze the many choices facing us. The winner(s) would be those that are scientifically sound, financially viable on their own, and environmentally friendly. Unfortunately wind power fails on all three counts.

Until that time, all we have here is just another pied piper profiteer.

Download “Picking on Pickens” (includes source references)

The Migration Gamble

Some laws are designed to prevent bad projects. Others punish them once they’re built. Unfortunately, one of the laws that might impact the Kenedy County projects – the Migratory Bird Treaty Act – doesn’t have a clearly outlined permitting process. So, some developers choose to gamble. They build their projects and take their chances that (1) the project won’t violate the law and (2) the government won’t punish them if it does. Surely, enforcement is important. But addressing a predictable threat after the fact won’t prevent the damage.

Wetlands and the Clean Water Act

In addition to threatening wildlife, this project poses a threat to the sensitive wetlands of the Laguna Madre. The eastern portion of the proposed site is a matrix of freshwater ponded wetlands that gradate to brackish lagoons and mud flats and then to the Laguna Madre. This wetlands complex protects the Laguna Madre and nourishes the wildlife of the region. And makes up the world-class habitat we are dedicated to protecting.

Although filling of wetlands requires a prior federal permit, the developers have publicly represented that they intend to construct the industrial wind project in a manner that avoids any filling of wetlands. While this may be possible for individual pad sites, it seems hard to imagine how the various pads could be connected with construction and service roads without the discharge of fill into regulatory wetlands. Under the federal Clean Water Act, filling wetlands without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers is a civil and/or criminal violation of the federal Clean Water Act.

It is an old game to invest in a development and then argue that approval must be given to protect the prior investment. These wind energy developers should be required to obtain permits before they build. The last thing we need is a complex of illegal turbines that those on the coast are forced to address in an after-the-fact manner.

A Public Project Deserves a Public Review

Since our formation, CHA’s primary request had been for a scientific and public review of this proposed project. It should come as no surprise that the developers have argued that no such process is required. CHA should be allowed to intervene in the CCN process before the Texas Public Utility Commission on the 345 kV transmission line that is proposed to serve the wind energy facilities. Environmental impact issues exist from the transmission line itself, not to mention to the wind energy projects that are the secondary and cumulative impacts associated with the transmission line.

This issue will come to a head on Wednesday October 17 at the PUC where a hearing on our motion to intervene will be held at 9:30. We at CHA are hopeful that the Commissioners will let our coastal voice be heard and allow a full presentation of our ecological concerns via the hearing process. We have retained some of the best talent in the United States to evaluate the consequences of these wind energy projects and are evaluating other legal options. We will keep you advised of our progress.

If you would like your organization’s name added to our list of supporters, please let us know: info@coastalhabitatalliance.org

Watch for future e-news from CHA, or visit www.coastalhabitatalliance.org for more information.

Coastal Habitat Alliance Newsletter, Oct. 16, 2007

Perhaps the most alarming difference between wind factories and other types of power plants is the acreage consumed. A nuclear power plant requires a modest 500 acres while a wind factory needs 150,000 acres or more to generate the same amount of power. In the United States, the hottest days are the least windy and when the wind doesn’t blow no power is generated. As a result, wind turns out to be a good way to save fuel, but because wind energy cannot be saved it is not a good way to avoid building plants that burn fossil fuels. A wind machine is a bit like a bicycle that a commuter keeps in the garage for sunny days. It saves gasoline, but the commuter has to own a car anyway. [And it doesn't save gasoline if the commuter has someone drive along behind him in case he gets winded on his bike, which is what the grid has to do with wind turbines. --Ed.]

Wind power does not in fact live up to the claims made by its advocates. Its impact on the environment and people’s lives is far from benign. Research also reveals that there is a very cozy relationship between fossil fuel plant owners and wind factory owners. The reason is simple: the more you build wind factories the more you must build fossil fuel plants. Wind factories cannot operate without standby fossil fuel plants. What a scam! They lead people to believe they replace fossil fuel plants but the truth is they perpetuate them! How soon people forget Enron’s smoke and mirrors business plan.

Walt Kittelberger, Chairman
Lower Laguna Madre Foundation
PO Box 153
Port Mansfield, Texas 78598
956-944-2387
llmf@granderiver.net

2 — Does Lessor provide indemnification for individual land owners (Lessee) from claims of damages to neighboring property owners? If so, to what extent?

3 — Will Lessor include an iron-clad non-assignment clause in the lease agreement to provide assurance to the Lessee that they will be dealing with the same company throughout the term of the lease? If not, are there provisions to uphold the original terms of the lease?

4 — Exactly how much money is guaranteed to the Lessee per year and for how long? What are the renewal provisions on the lease?

5 ““ How many power lines/poles will be constructed on Lessee’s property to accommodate the turbines?

6 ““ How many acres will be needed for maintenance roads on Lessee’s property? Will Lessor construct and maintain roads that will not cause run-off or erosion?

7 ““ Will Lessor consider erosion issues when choosing tower sites? What assurances does the Lessee have the construction will not cause erosion on their property?

8 ““ Will the Lessor provide an ironclad and non-assignable contract to repair any towers, turbines or blades that become damaged?

9 — Will Lessor, or any other entity, provide an iron-clad and non-assignable contract to disassemble and remove the turbines when one becomes damaged beyond repair, obsolete, or simply non-profitable, regardless of when that occurs? If not, why not?

10 — Why does Lessor require the signing of confidentiality agreements if they are so sure that wind turbines industrial zones are a good thing for a community?

11 — Why does Lessor not hold any public hearings to inform the entire community of their intentions until individual leases are already signed with property owners?

12 — How much electricity does one wind turbine actually make in a year in an area with category 3 wind? How many homes will 100 wind turbines actually power based on actual usage numbers? Please provide charts showing wind power availability during peak usage hours for each month for areas with same wind category and temperatures.

13 — What are “Production Tax Credits” and how do they benefit the energy company?

14 — What other types of “incentives” are available to the energy company?

15 — Assuming that PTC’s, and other “incentives” are not available from the government, are wind farms a good financial investment? If so, how?

16 ““ Why would an energy company want to build an industrial wind farm in this area?