Download “Claimed and realistic carbon dioxide emissions savings and electricity generation”

Given the possible scenarios, system-wide carbon emissions offsets are likely to be miniscule throughout most of the nation’s grids. The Electric Power Research Institute in California affirmed this circumstance, agreeing that it is technically incorrect to assume that wind energy will displace fossil generated power and decrease CO2 emissions on a kWh for kWh basis. Its report concludes that in a real operating situation, because large- scale storage of electricity is not possible, any CO2 saving will be small.

Consider an analogy between the internal combustion automobile and a hypothetical windmobile. The auto has a Capacity Factor of about 25%, limited by a combination of operator choice (people generally don’t drive them 24 hours a day each day of the year) and by the need for ongoing maintenance and continual refueling. However, when it is asked to work, it will do so with a high rate of reliability—99.9% of the time. This is its Capacity Value.

Contrast this with the windmobile, which one can never be sure if it will start or not. If that wouldn’t be annoying enough, most of the time its speed lurches between extremes, often stopping without warning. And if the windmobile became popular (due to substantial federal and state financial incentives), there would soon be an array of traffic accommodations created to enable it, such as requiring a host of new traffic controls and patterns, not to mention the borrowed cars, buses, taxis, and late appointments involved in going hither and yon. This activity corresponds to the way the grid is increasingly called upon to provide special means to integrate wind’s unreliable volatility.

A 1600MW coal plant produces a reliable, steady stream of 1600MW day and night throughout the year. It is also contained within a relatively small area and can be equipped with scrubbers to eliminate most noxious emissions, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and mercury. Contrast this with a wind plant consisting of 2650 turbines, each rated at 2.0MW stretched out for hundreds of miles, delivering a skittering annual average of 1600MW based upon a 30% Capacity Factor—but producing no Capacity Value.

Although the annual energy contribution of the two facilities would be equivalent on paper, the wind plant could never replace the coal plant in terms of its capacity. In fact, one should ask how many such wind facilities must be built to equal the Effective Capacity of that single coal plant. Or any conventional generating plant. And then one should ask about the thermal implications, as well as the environmental consequences, of such a vast enterprise.

The essence of “green” technology is that it strives to leave no trace. Wind is not a “leave no trace” technology. The premise behind the idea of whether we should have wind installations instead of conventional generation is badly skewed. Better to ask whether we should have phlogiston instead of oxygen in the air we breathe. Wind is a supernumerary producer of electricity enabled because the slap and tickle of wind propaganda flatters the gullible, exploits the well intentioned, and nurtures the craven. It is made possible because there’s no penalty for lying in the energy marketplace.

Download “Why Wind Won’t Work”

3.9 The unpredictability of wind generation means that the system operator cannot be confident of the output of wind farms more than an hour so into the future. Because it takes longer than one hour to bring one of the large steam turbines at Huntly coal-fired power station from “hot standby” (that is stopped but warmed up and ready to start) to full load, then very often, the system operator will be forced to keep thermal and hydro plant connected to the system and running at less than full load because of the need to have generating capacity available in case the wind drops or the expected wind does not eventuate. This is inefficient and expensive. The costs fall on the consumers. …

4.0 Meeting the Demand for electrical energy

4.1 When determining the need for new generation, sufficient electrical energy must be available to meet the forecast power demand for electricity over the critical autumn-winter period in a dry hydro year when hydro-inflows are 15-20% lower than average and the power demand is at its maximum. The autumn and winters of 1998, 2001, 2006 and 2008 are typical examples. If insufficient energy is available, the lake levels will fall, prices will rise dramatically and an electricity savings campaign may be needed to minimise or avoid the risk of power cuts.

4.2 Wind farms generate electrical energy whenever the wind is blowing. If the energy is not needed at the time that it is generated, it can often be stored in hydro storage lakes. But there are important caveats to this because, as I show below, on average, the output from the wind farms in New Zealand is about 9% below annual average output during the March to August period when lake levels are most likely to be low and there is a risk of a serious shortage. The output of the wind farms is at its highest level during the spring time. This is when the snow melts and supplies additional water into the hydro lakes. As a result of the snow melt and spring rains, the prices are often very low in the late spring and early summer thus demonstrating that any extra electricity generated during this period is of less value to our power system. …

5.12 The above and Exhibit 2 demonstrate that the System Operator’s policy of assuming that there will be no output from wind farms when scheduling generation for the day, is realistic and prudent.

5.13 I am confident that, even with widely distributed windpower, it would be risky to assume that as much as 20% of the capacity would be available during system peak demand times. Assuming that 10% would be available would be less risky because it would happen less often and, if the system operator was wrong, the chances are that there would be sufficient capacity available on the system to substitute for the missing 10%. …

Download “Likely cost of electricity from Project Hayes”

‘The results indicate that the frequent claims, electrical grids could be predominantly wind-supplied, are unrealistic. The simple reason is the discrepancy between the grid load and the variations of the spatial wind field; the grid load could only be modified by measures seriously affecting industrial activities (such as the temporary power cuts in the Californian energy crisis), while the wind field follows meteorological and aerodynamic laws and cannot be altered at all. By including wind power generation in the grid control, unpredictable power surges and high infeed to a lightly loaded grid could be mitigated, but this is not in the interest of the wind farm operators.

‘These effects might be reduced by spreading the “control energy” for wind over larger areas, which would require the legal obligations in Germany (EEG) for accepting this energy at high cost to be extended to other countries. It is unlikely that a European consensus can be reached, where countries with large hydro and pumped storage facilities would provide the needed control energy because they too may have to import thermally produced energy in dry years; there is already concern in the Scandinavian system regarding the fluctuations caused by the heavy windpower infeed and the local combinedheat- and-power plants in Denmark which require much control energy and might necessitate strengthening the high voltage grid; there are intervals when the grid operator is giving away surplus energy or paying dearly to cover power deficits. Europe-wide balancing of wind power from 25 000 MW offshore generation would definitely call for expanding the high voltage system, and transmission losses would also have to be taken into account.’

Electra, No. 204, October 2002

“Balancing Fluctuating Wind Energy with Fossil-Fuel Power Stations”

11 The most important consideration for the future electricity supply has to be security of that supply. …

12 Security of supply implies firm generation capacity with a margin above the peak (winter) demand. The firm generation is supplied by baseload power stations (such as nuclear) and despatchable (controlled by the grid) power (such as coal, gas and certain renewables such as hydro-electric — including pumped-storage schemes such as Dinorwig). Neither on-shore nor off-shore wind power stations contribute significantly to the security of supply because the electricity is intermittent, unpredictable and embedded on the grid (not despatchable). Invariably peak winter demand occurs during extreme cold weather when a high pressure system settles across northern Europe and drags in cold continental air with little wind. Even with wind turbines distributed widely across the UK, under these low wind conditions, little electricity would be generated by wind turbines. …

15 In answer to your second issue, the barriers to greater deployment of wind power stations are suitable on-shore sites, supply of wind turbine components and shortage of equipment needed for off-shore construction. In addition, serious planning issues confront on-shore wind power stations. These include the visual (landscape) and other environmental impacts, military objections (radar interference) and more recently the effect from the current large wind turbines (heights in excess of 100m) of noise and its consequential health impact. …

17 I now turn in greater detail to the technological concerns with wind turbines. As a physicist, it offends my learning, experience and intelligence to attempt to produce electricity on a large scale from wind power. This is for four reasons. Firstly, because of the very low energy density of wind (the energy per volume of moving air): For comparison and in round terms, the energy density of moving water is about 1,000 times as great, that of fossil fuels (coal, oil, liquefied gas) is about 1 billion times as great and that of nuclear is about 1 million billion times as great. Thus wind turbines have to be enormous to capture a useful amount of energy. [emphasis added] Secondly, because the power of the wind is a function of the cube of the wind speed, the electrical output is very sensitive to the wind speed. Thirdly, because of the variability of the wind, wind turbines only produce electricity at about 25% to 30% of their rated output (capacity or load factor). Fourthly, because of the intermittency and unpredictability of wind, the electricity production bears no relation to the demand for electricity. In summary, wind turbines are enormous, produce a pathetically small amount of electricity, intermittently, unpredictably and not when it is most required. [emphasis added]

18 The CO2 emissions saved by wind turbines have been calculated based on the CO2 emissions from displaced plant (coal and gas-fired power stations). A consensus figure of 430 kg/MWh is currently used. However, this figure is only part of the equation needed to calculate the CO2 emissions saved. Also to be included in the equation are the CO2 emissions resulting from the manufacture and construction of the turbine (estimated by various people at the equivalent of between several months to many years of operation — the payback period); the electricity losses down the low voltage distribution line to the consumers (estimated at between 5% and 15% of the electricity generated, due to the long distance as the result of the remoteness of many turbines); and the CO2 emissions produced by conventional power stations operating very inefficiently on standby (and burning fuel) ready as backup to meet the electricity demand when the wind drops. Evidence from Denmark and Germany suggests that CO2 emissions savings from the use of wind turbines are at best small and at worst, they may actually lead to an increase in CO2 emissions. [emphasis added]

19 Although the wind is a renewable source of energy, wind turbines can only operate on the grid in conjunction with backup generation to ensure demand is met when the wind fails. For this reason, it has been claimed that wind-generated electricity cannot be classed as renewable.

20 Because of the intermittency and unpredictability of the wind and thus of the electricity generated by wind turbines, wind turbines cannot replace a significant number of conventional power stations. Thus wind turbines are being constructed as a secondary source of electricity. In essence, the consumer is paying for two sets of electricity generation; the conventional despatchable power stations, necessary to meet demand at all times and wind turbines which operate only when the wind blows and which then displace despatchable power stations.

21 Wind turbines are usually connected to the low voltage distribution grid, rather than the high voltage transmission grid to which conventional power stations are connected. Wind-generated [power] is embedded on the grid as it is not despatchable and cannot be controlled. The national Grid was designed so that electricity flows from the power stations on the efficient high voltage transmission lines and is transformed (stepped) down progressively on the distribution grid to consumers. Thus electricity flows one way and by the most efficient route. However, embedded electricity can flow the wrong way if there is not sufficient downstream demand. This can cause grid problems.

22 Electricity cannot be stored on the grid and grid voltage and frequency are maintained in tight margins to protect sensitive equipment. This is not normally a problem, the grid having operated successfully for over 60 years. This is because demand is accurately predictable and despatchable power sources of various response times are available to match the grid. However, with increasing amounts of intermittent and unpredictable embedded generation on the grid, control becomes increasingly more difficult. This can lead to grid failure and collapse as has happened recently across a large part of Europe and in Texas.

23 In answer to your sixth issue, because of the low energy density of wind and the large separation distance required between individual turbines, the area of land affected by wind power stations is proportionally greater than that of traditional power stations. For example 100m tall wind turbines of 2MW rated power need to be spaced several hundred metres apart and not close to dwellings and roads. Thus except in remote areas, about four wind turbines can be accommodated per square kilometre of land. This is not dissimilar to the figure for nuclear power stations or gas-fired power stations. For comparison purposes, and taking into account capacity (or load factors), the land area covered by a wind power station of the same energy output as a nuclear power station would be about 2000 times as great (or an area of land 20km by 25km would be covered by wind turbines to produce the same electrical output as one nuclear power station occupying an area of land 500m square). Furthermore, the wind turbines are of greater height and rotate so that their visual impact is amplified. A considerable infrastructure in terms of possibly improved roads and access tracks is required for wind turbines. In addition, the wind turbines provide few if any jobs in the district, and possibly destroy employment due to the loss of tourism-related business. …

These external costs in terms of environmental and other impacts should be compared in terms of benefits and disbenefits for each technology on a like-for-like basis … The like-for-like basis must be in terms of energy output (i.e. MWh, GWh or TWh of electricity generated per year) rather than installed capacity (MW). Thus, for example the benefits and disbenefits of a nuclear power station of 1600MW rating with a capacity factor of 90% producing 12.6TWh of electricity per year should be compared with a wind power station consisting of 2880 2MW turbines with a capacity factor of 25% also producing 12.6TWh of electricity per year. …

Dr P A W Bratby
15th May 2008

Download “Evidence to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee inquiry into ‘The Economics of Renewable Energy’”

The attached brochure is provided as a counterpoint to the Virginia State Wind Symposium at James Madison University on June 18th and 19th [2008].

This symposium is sponsored by the Virginia Wind Energy Collaborative (VWEC), a state and federally funded organization that purports to promote balanced development of wind generated electricity in Virginia. The symposium, however, is remarkably unbalanced.

Although concerns have been widely raised about the overstated benefits and understated costs of industrial-scale wind development on our region’s mountain ridges, it is apparent that these concerns will not be fairly addressed at the VWEC symposium.

Those sessions of the symposium that might provide an opportunity for a balanced treatment of the issues are dominated by ardent wind energy advocates, entrepreneurs, and lobbyists. The agenda includes no one to present a countering viewpoint.

Six of the speakers and session moderators are on record supporting the controversial Highland New Wind Project either before the State Corporation Commission or in the media. These include Jonathan Miles, Deborah Jacobsen, Don Giecek, Mitch King, John Flora, and Frank Maisano.

Remarkably, the only speaker addressing the wildlife impacts of wind energy development is John Flora, the attorney and spokesman for the proposed Highland project. Mr. Flora has been dismissive of wildlife impacts – despite concerns expressed by state agency biologists that the project presents unacceptable risks to wildlife and may result in the highest mortality of birds and bats among wind projects in the eastern United States.

It seems that the purpose of the symposium is to discount legitimate concerns about wind development on Virginia’s mountain ridges, to promote unrealistic expectations for wind energy, and to foster a political climate that will favor additional mandates and incentives for the wind industry – while reducing environmental review requirements.

It is disappointing that state government and a state university have chosen to support and participate in this biased treatment of an increasingly important issue.

VaWind.org

Contacts: Rick Webb (540) 468-2881, rwebb@vawind.org – Dan Boone (301) 464-5199, dboone@vawind.org

Industrial Wind Power in the Mountains of Virginia: Overstated Benefits and Understated Costs

Extracted text:

Wind Project Siting Issues
• Need high quality wind resources
• Large footprint, small power output
• Wind power — Green but high cost alternative
• Tall Structures — Highly Visible
• Impact on local property values
• No air/water emissions but may pose other environmental health & safety challenges
• Wind generation environmental/economic benefits

Wind Project Development Issues
• Large footprint, small power output
– Industry rule of thumb has been that a conventional 1.5 MW
turbine design needs turbine spacing of roughly 40 acres of cleared
land/turbine to avoid wind turbulence interference. AWEA
believes 75 acres/turbine required for larger new turbine designs.
To displace energy from New England’s smallest coal unit
(Somerset) would require 167 turbines covering 22 miles of
mountain ridge line.
– As turbines have gotten larger (up to 3.6 MW offered), minimum
spacing requirements have also increased. Need spacing of roughly
8-10 blade lengths (4-5 rotor diameters) between turbines. Newer
larger model designs may require spacing equivalent to 75-100
acres/turbine.
• Wind power — Green but high cost power alternative
– High capital cost
– Low capacity utilization
– Little capacity credit towards reserve margin requirements
– Heavily dependent upon large ratepayer & taxpayer subsidies and mandates to compete against conventional electrical power generation sources

Wind — A High Cost Alternative
• High Capital Cost
– Project capital costs have been rapidly escalating due to high turbine demand, weak dollar and rapid increases in labor, materials and supplies
– Capital costs have escalated to $2,100-2,400/kW
• Poor Capacity Utilization
– 29% in 2005 average for 83 reporting projects
• Low Assigned Capacity Value towards reserve margin requirements
– 5,000 MW of new wind project capacity required to offset need for one 500 MW fossil fired powerplant in New England

Wind Production Cost Before Federal/State Incentives

Production Costs are highly sensitive to projected project output performance
Capital Cost $2,100/kW
Fixed O&M $35/kw-yr
Cost of Capital 13.3%
@30% CF — $120/MWh

Renewable Energy Subsidies
Federal
• Federal Production Tax Credit — $20/MWh for 2007 (10 years — must be online by 12/31/07).
• Accelerated 5 year depreciation (Federal)
State
• Renewable Portfolio Standards — Renewable energy credit market developed to implement standard. In one project analysis, these credits may exceed more than 25% of the project capital cost.
• State tax incentives
• Green power purchase programs
• Public Benefit funding for qualifying projects

Wind Project Issues
• Tall Structures — Highly Visible
– Wind turbines can range from 320-510 high
– Taller than Statue of Liberty (305 feet high — 112 feet without base)
– Turbine towers can range from 200-350 feet high
– Turbine rotor can range from 250-340 feet in diameter
– Night lights on structures for safety reasons

Wind Project Development Issues
• Small contribution to county property taxes
– In some states, energy producing equipment exempt from property taxes, taxable items may be limited to foundation and tower structure
– Some developers also apply for additional local tax relief.
• Impact on local property values
– 7 Studies: Wind farms may have adverse property value impacts
– 4 Studies: No adverse property value impacts

Effects on Local Property Values — Few studies exist, some methodology flaws

– Several factors drive local property values– interest rates, local economic activity, supply/demand for area properties, recreational activities, etc. It is difficult to isolate market impact from wind turbines without conducting a large, long term assessment.

– Does it affect property demand?

Studies Concluding Wind Turbines Devalue Local Property Values
• 2001-02 Lincoln Township WI study comparing property sales prices to assessed values before and after wind farm construction. Assessor reported that property sales (vs. 2001 assessed values) declined by 26% within 1 mile and by 18% >1 mile of its wind farm project.
– However, study includes related party transactions. Moratorium Committee survey of County residents reported 74% of respondents would not build/buy within 1/4 mile, 61% within 1/2 mile and 59% within 2 miles of wind farm.
• May 2000 Country Guardian article Case Against Windfarms — Observations of English surveyors concluding wind turbines significantly decrease property values by as much as 30%.
– Simple survey, no transaction data provided.
• 1996 Danish report Social Assessment of Wind Power — Visual Effect and Noise from Windmills — Quantifying and Valuation contained survey of 342 people living close to wind mills. Survey found 13% of people surveyed considered wind mills a nuisance and would be willing to pay 982 DKK per year to have them leave. Survey of house sale prices showed 16,200 DKK lower price near single windmills and 94,000 DKK lower price near wind farms versus similar houses located in other areas.
• Assessed values declined significantly for property adjoining Mackinaw City WTG after it started operation.
• Impact of wind farms on the value of residential property and agricultural land: An RICS survey (November 2004) Khatri, 2004 Survey by Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors found 60% of respondents thought a wind farm would decrease value of residential properties within its view. Only 28% of the respondents thought a wind farm would decrease the value of surrounding agricultural land while 9% thought there would be a positive agricultural land value impact. Provided no analysis of value change or supporting transaction data.
• Economic Analysis of a Wind Farm in Nantucket Sound (May 2004) Haughton, Survey of land owners from 6 towns on Cape Cod. On average, home owners believe that the windmill project will reduce property values by 4.0%. Households with waterfront property believe that it will lose 10.9% of its value. Applying these survey results, the study estimated the total loss in property values resulting from the construction of an offshore wind farm to be over $1.3 billion, a sum that is substantially larger than the approximately $800 million cost of the wind farm itself. Provided no supporting transaction data
• Appraisal Consulting Report — Forward Wind Project — Dodge County WI (May 2005) Zarem Appraisal report examining paired sales of electric transmission line in Wisconsin concluded that a wind farm would cause an estimated 17-20% lot value loss within view shed.

Studies Concluding Wind Turbines Do Not Devalue Local Property Values
• Economic Impacts of Wind Power in Kittitas County (2002) ECONorthwest– Telephone survey of tax assessors views of 2 proposed Washington projects. Concluded no adverse property impacts. No supporting transaction data provided.
• Effect of Wind Development on Local Property Values (May 2003) Renewable Energy Policy Report examines property values in areas within 5 miles of surrounding 9 large wind farms. Concludes “presence of commercial scale wind turbines does not appear to harm property values.” Did not attempt to look at property values from within 1 mile due to limited data. Could not compare “like” properties. Roughly 70% of data was related party transactions and 72% of the data did not have actual views of the turbines.
• A Real Estate Study of the Proposed Forward Wind Energy Center Dodge & Fond du Lac Counties WI (May 2005) Poletti & Associates, Examined property sales records in Kewanee County Wisconsin and Lee County Illinois, had discussions with two town assessors, reviewed the two prior wind property studies above and reviewed property value impact studies of sanitary landfills. Concludes that the “Forward Wind Energy Center is so located as to minimize the effect on the value of the surrounding property.”
• Impacts of Windmill Visibility on Property Values in Madison County New York (April 2006) Hoen reviewed 280 homes sales within 5 miles of an operating wind farm and concluded that view of wind turbines in this county did not affect real estate values. Hoen cautions about applying conclusions to other non-similar settings.

Wind Project Development Issues
• No air emissions but may pose other environmental
health & safety challenges
– Wildlife: Has caused bird and bat deaths if poorly located. Concerns raised when endangered species are in area
– Shadow Flicker: Strobe like effect caused by shadows of moving blades
– Noise: Noise at turbine hub can range from 100-105 dBA. Can be noticeable for long distances in more remote areas with existing low ambient levels (Humans can differentiate sounds up to 3 dBA above background levels)
– Aviation hazard: May cause radar interference. FAA can deny permits if turbine heights pose airport safety risk. Illinois Agricultural Aviation Association has adopted a resolution not to serve areas inside or immediately adjacent to wind turbine groupings
– Ice Throw: Turbines can throw ice accumulating on blades. Risk increases with decreasing distance.

Wind Siting Issues — Environmental Health & Safety

• Local ordinances for wind power development needed to protect public health
& safety, minimize adverse environmental impacts and achieve land use plan
Setback provisions
– Noise
– Visibility — Address through limiting allowable sites and setting minimum
project setbacks and height restrictions.
– Shadow Flicker — Address though minimum setbacks and/or WTG location
– Safety (blade throw, ice throw, structural failure, ground clearance) — Use Setback & minimum clearance requirements.
– Setbacks can reach up to 2500 ft; Boone County: 2,000 feet setback provision; Bureau County: 750 minimum setback from any residence, Lee County: 1,400 feet from residences, 500 feet from roads; Pike County: minimum 3 times turbine+tower height from home
– 9-10 Rotors recommended
– Height restrictions
– Exclude areas from development
• Local ordinances for wind power development needed to protect public health & safety, minimize adverse environmental impacts and achieve land use plan
– Unsafe & inoperable wind energy facilities — Require bond to cover cost of removal & site restoration.
– Interference with navigational systems — Location away from airport flight paths & locking mechanisms to limit airport radar interference
– Non-compliance penalties — Must remove facility if out-of-compliance

Claimed Wind Project Benefits
• No air emissions
– SO2/NOx emissions may be displaced but are not avoided. Displaced generation cancel/transfer their emission credit to other stations/units. As environmental limitations continue to tighten, the amount of displaced emissions will continue to decrease.
– Projects will displace emissions of CO2 emissions from generation sources on margin (usually natural gas fired power facilities). However, if region has cap & trade program emissions may be displaced and not avoided.
• Reduced dependence on fossil fuel
– Wind/renewable projects displace generating units on the margin — in New England mostly gas-fired generation
– Since wind power has no capacity value, power companies must still build new fossil fuel capacity to meet increase power demand
• Lease payments to local property owners (>$1,000/turbine/year)
– Property owners often lose ability to develop their property during lease period (up to 30 years). In some cases, WTGs have devalued local surrounding property values and Commissions have ordered developers to pay adjoining landowners.
• Jobs
– Some temporary construction jobs created to erect wind turbines (0.7-2.6 jobs per turbine depending upon construction period).
– Few maintenance jobs (usually <10 for large wind farms).
-- Some economic activity and jobs may be lost if higher power costs imposed onto local ratepayers through renewable portfolio standards.

Avoided Emission Claims -- Fact of Fiction?
• SO2 and NOx powerplant emissions are subject to cap and trade programs. Owner of any displaced emissions can sell surplus/unused credits to another emitting source allowing it to emit at levels above their initial allocation. Therefore, pollutants subject to cap & trade programs may be displaced but not avoided.
• In 2009, CO2 emissions from the power sector in 10 RGGI states will become subject to a cap & trade program. Two states have authorized CO2 cap & trade programs. Ten more states committed to starting one
• For any individual power project, avoided emissions should be a comparison of total power sector emissions with and without the stated project. Since most wind projects are being built to meet a state RPS requirement, the "without the project case", would likely be another renewable energy project that would be built to meet the special set-aside RPS demand. Therefore, the correct comparison for a given individual project would be a comparison of emissions from the proposed wind project vs. another qualifying renewable project.

Download “Wind Power Siting Issues — Overview”

‘Reading the sections about projected CO₂ emission savings, the report appears to be a rehashing of prior work, with little (if any) new information or data provided. It is further diminished by technical errors, conflicting information, and a frequent lack of citations to independent sources supporting the aggressive recommendations, etc. This is likely due to the fact that the only non-governmental partners in this project are AWEA (American Wind Energy Association), and consultants Black & Vaetch (who proudly proclaim on their website, “We helped launch the modern wind power industry in 1975”). … The end result is a slick AWEA promotion piece. …’

Download “How DOE + AWEA = DOA”

Download “Some Facts About Energy & Wind Power”

Will Rogers once said, “Even if you are on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there.” That is what I feel will happen to all of us if we don’t pay attention to what is going to happen here with the wind industry.

I want to thank you for inviting me here today. This tells me you are interested in being informed and listening to both sides of the story. My friends have counseled me to not get emotional. “Sue, just give them the facts.” That is good advice, so I am not going to get emotional, but I will be somewhat passionate today. Because I know that with the invasion of the wind industry into western Oklahoma is going to alter this beautiful country completely and not for the best.

The destruction of our beautiful prairie will have many negative and far-reaching effects that we can only begin to imagine. As Jon Boone, a gentleman who has intensively studied the wind industry, has said, “The people who founded this nation believed democracy could survive only if citizens worked hard to stay informed.” That is why I have gone to great lengths and expense to inform the public about the downside of the wind farms. To quote Will Rogers again, “I only know what I read in the newspapers.” And for the general public that is true. There has been plenty of information handed out by the wind industry to promote themselves, and they have done a superb job. We have only heard what they want us to hear. We have not heard the other side of this story. So, I am going out on a limb to get that information to the people about loss of hunting, loss of the public hunting areas, loss of wildlife habitat, loss of tourism, loss of property values, and the technological weaknesses of the wind industry.

I am most passionate about a proposal allowing OG&E to lease a significant portion of the Cooper WMA. I was dismayed that they would make such a proposal, until I read a Forbes magazine article in which Scott Greene with Oklahoma Wind Power Initiative was quoted as saying, “Concerns raised in other states about the aesthetics of the giant wind turbines or the environmental impact on the migratory birds are minimal in western Oklahoma where communities with vast expanses of land are desperate for economic development.” I was offended by this statement but at the same time it became clear to me that this is the mindset of those who don’t appreciate western Oklahoma. They don’t realize the importance of the Cooper to our local economy and to hunters from Oklahoma and across the nation. Alarming enough, I was also informed that there have been inquiries by other wind developers into the use of Packsaddle and Sandy Sander WMAs for wind farms. As a result of these proposals, the ODWC has formed a subcommittee to decide where they stand on wind development. My stance on this topic is:

1. Placing wind turbines on the Cooper will fragment and destroy a large quantity of habitat. This is 16,000 contiguous acres of prime public land paid for by thousands of hunters and taxpayers. There is only 2% public land available in Oklahoma, with precious little in NW Oklahoma, and we can ill afford to lose any.
2. By leasing or selling public land for wind development, we are opening the door for further industrial development of all our public lands.
3. Also, other landowners considering donating or selling their property to the ODWC may reconsider if they think their land might be industrialized.
4. By leasing to wind developers, the ODWC is saying to the nation that it is OK to put turbines on sensitive wildlife habitat areas. In this case it is Lesser Prairie Chicken habitat.

Commissioner David Riggs, the chairman of the subcommittee, stated that there would be several meetings over the next months with wildlife specialists to help determine their position on the matter. Commissioner Riggs reassured the concerned citizens who attended the monthly meeting that we had nothing to be concerned about at this time. After the ODWC open meeting, OG&E representatives met with the subcommittee in a closed session. It has come to light that OG&E wants to speed the process along because of the growing opposition. If OG&E does allow hunting, I think ODWC would soon realize there would be huge liability issues involved with high-powered rifles and two-million-dollar turbines. I would like to encourage you to email, write, or call the Wildlife Department and ask them to not lease the Cooper to OG&E.

A second area of concern is the habitat loss of the Lesser Prairie Chicken [LPC]. As you recall, Don Wolfe from the Sutton Avian Center recently spoke to you about the LPC. The chicken is in serious trouble due to a number of reasons which I am sure Dr. Wolfe discussed with you. There are plans for hundreds of turbines in LPC territory, and this will be the death knell for the LPC in Oklahoma.

Wind developers have been placing and are looking at future placement of wind turbines near LPC booming grounds. The turbines, roads, traffic, and power lines cause fragmentation of the LPC habitat. Fragmentation leads to isolation of population. This loss of connectivity can lead to genetic bottlenecks, and ultimately local extinctions. To prevent the LPC from being added to the endangered species list, landowners including myself have been working with USFW for over ten years to improve LPC habitat. Sadly, all the efforts of the USFW and the Sutton Center have not been sufficient to stem the tide of the LPC’s decline. Therefore, the USFW is taking steps to declare the LPC endangered. As a result of this, mitigation will be required of the wind industry. One of the possibilities will be payment to landowners to preserve and maintain lesser prairie chicken habitat. Unfortunately, payment would not be made to landowners with a wind lease.

Another species that brings in tourism and educational experiences is the Mexican Free-Tailed bat. There are 13 Mexican Free-Tailed Bat maternity colonies and three of those in northwest Oklahoma are in close proximity to wind turbines. The female bats migrate from Mexico to these caves to give birth and raise a single pup. Ed Arnett, a biologist with Bat Conservation International, released a study of two FPL wind plants in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. His research reaffirmed earlier studies showing major bat mortality. Backed with the news that its wind turbines were killing thousands of bats, FPL reacted quickly. They barred scientists from pursuing follow-up work, removed its $75,000 contribution from the research cooperative studying bat mortality, and ended the doctoral work of a graduate student. This is alarming since three maternity colonies are located near turbines north of Woodward. The loss of the Mexican Free-Tailed Bat will have an adverse effect on further educational studies and tourism revenue.

Tourism in northwest Oklahoma is growing. I have been a member of two tourism steering committees: the Oklahoma Wildlife Trail Map committee and the agritourism committee initiated by the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture. Many people have been working for a long time to develop and promote tourism and have made great strides. Tourism can be very profitable and a “green” business. I assure you that tourists are not coming here to see thousands of turbines and miles of transmission lines. They are coming here to experience pristine prairies, unique wildlife, wide open spaces, beautiful sunsets, peace and quiet, and western lifestyles. Tourism can be a very important source of income to northwest Oklahoma if it is allowed to develop.

Another source of income to northwest Oklahoma is hunting. We are in the midst of hunting season, and you have seen all the hunters in town at motels, restaurants, stores, and quick-stops. The hunting business brings in millions of dollars to our economy and will be here for the long run if it is not jeopardized by wind farms. We are in the process of losing thousands of hunting acres to wind farms. To emphasize my point, I would like to convey an experience I had at my breakfast table this morning. I have two very nice quail hunters here from Ohio. They drove a long way, as most of my hunters do, to hunt wild Bobwhite Quail. They expressed their love of northwest Oklahoma. They think it is beautiful here. They love the wide open spaces, wild bird hunting, and the scenery. They are very dismayed at the thought of all that being ruined by the wind industry. Mr. Fee said, “I came here for the ambience, the quiet wide open spaces. I love to hunt wild quail and there are very few places east of the Mississippi to hunt wild birds.” I hear this sentiment echoed often by my hunters. Hunting is a profitable business for our communities which I don’t think gets enough credit.

Not only are we losing hunting acreage and income, but we could be devaluing our property and our neighbors’ property by long-term leases that may not pan out. Most of the leases that I have heard about run from 50 to 150 years. Land that would have sold for a great deal of money to be used for hunting, recreation, and a country experience will not be considered valuable by those prospective buyers. Even though a study on property values and wind farms has not been conducted, I think property, especially the neighbor’s property, loses its value. One farmer I read about regrets ever leasing to wind developers. He regrets having been the “lure” to draw in other unsuspecting landowners. He regrets that he has allowed fields to be subdivided and road base to be spread on land once picked bare of rocks. He regrets that he’s no longer the person who controls his own land and is told where to go by security guards. He regrets the divide he has created between friends, between neighbors, and between family members.

The wind developers love to discuss wildlife habitat, bird and bat kills, and property values with you because all of that takes away from the real issue — which is their technological weaknesses. A few of their weaknesses are:

1. They’re inefficient and unreliable. When wind is not blowing, the wind farms are not producing. Wind farms average less than 25% of their capacity a third of the time. They produce above that average rate another third of the time and nothing at all (yet draw power from the grid) the other third of the time.
2. Another weakness is wind-generated electricity cannot be stored, so it has to have plants powered by natural gas or coal operating at the same time to fill in the gaps. Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority in Edmond said they had to build a 14-million-dollar plant to fill in the gaps.
3. A third weakness is that wind energy will not significantly reduce CO₂ emissions; therefore they are not the “green” solution that we have been led to believe.

One last point I would like to make is the wind industry is not regulated by anyone. No other multimillion dollar project is allowed without regulations to make such drastic changes to an area’s environment and way of life. I would encourage you to write, call, or email northwest Oklahoma’s legislators and ask them for some legislation to protect our wildlife, tourism, hunting business, and a rural way of life.

Jon Boone sums it up like this, “I’ve concluded that industrial wind energy in the United States exemplifies American business at its worst, promising to save the environment while wreaking havoc on it. Spawned, then supported, by government welfare measures at considerable public expense, it produces no meaningful product or service yet provides enormous profit to a few wealthy investors, primarily multinational energy companies in search of increased bottom lines. It’s an environmental plunderer, using a few truths, many half-truths, and the politics of wishful thinking to frame a house of lies. It’s all a bill of goods.”

Right now, according to the Southwest Power Pool’s data, there are over 1,300 wind turbines planned for our area of the state. After witnessing the large numbers of wind companies attending the Arnett meeting, that staggering number, in all probability, is just the tip of the iceberg. I am not willing to stand by silently and watch our special area of the world be industrialized by such a weak technology.

Finally, believe me, I realize it’s not “politically correct” to question wind energy. But I had to come to you and make a challenge — as leaders and citizens of northwest Oklahoma, you have an obligation to continue investigating and seeking the truth about the wind energy industry, and you must do this before it is too late.