In the first half of 2008, prices were below zero nearly 20 percent of the time. During March, when negative prices were most frequent, prices were below zero about 33 percent of the time. After mostly taking the summer off, negative power prices were back to near 10 percent in October.

This seems a little crazy. During these negative price periods, suppliers are paying ERCOT to take their power. Consumers (at least at the wholesale level) are getting paid for using power, and the more power consumers use the more they get paid. These prices are a big anti-conservation incentive. You could, as a correspondent put it to me, build a giant toaster in West Texas and be paid by generators to operate it.

In fact most of the regional power markets that are integrated into systems operations (so-called RTOs and ISOs in the U.S.) will produce a negative power price now and then. On the margin, a power supplier should offer power into the market at approximately the net marginal cost of supply, at least in a competitive market. These offers are typically at positive prices and the market will produce a positive price.

Infrequently, a power plant might choose to bid below the short term marginal price in order to stay in the market and avoid shutting down. It can be economically rational for operators of less responsive generation units to offer negative prices in order for it to avoid the costs of shutting down for just a few hours and then start up again when load increases — think coal-fueled or natural gas steam turbine. When energy load is very low, near zero or negative prices can result.

This isn’t the cast in West Texas. Instead, the negative prices appear to be the result of the large installed capacity of wind generation. Wind generators face very small costs of shutting down and starting back up, but they do face another cost when shutting down: loss of the Production Tax Credit and state Renewable Energy Credit revenue which depend upon generator output. It is economically rational for wind power producers to operate as long as the subsidy exceeds their operating costs plus the negative price they have to pay the market. Even if the market value of the power is zero or negative, the subsidies encourage wind power producers to keep churning the megawatts out.

Evidence from market data suggests that wind power producers will accept prices down to about negative $35 MWh before they shut down, since marginal operating costs are very low for wind power we can conclude that the subsidies are worth about $35-$40 for each MWh of wind output.

Subsidies do this sort of thing — distort the market and lead to waste — and of course to some degree distorting the market is just what is intended when policymakers offer a subsidy. Only usually it isn’t so easy to see the evidence of the waste created by the subsidies. Wind turbines that operate more hours require more maintenance, so these hours spent producing negative-value electric power do consume real resources. At the same time, the conventionally-fueled generation that is forced offline temporarily will also face additional “wear-and-tear” and require additional maintenance because of the effects of shutting down and then restarting the machines. This extra wear-and-tear and extra maintenance also represents wasteful use of resources due to PTC- and REC-subsidized power production.

The subsidy for renewable power may be defended as compensation for avoiding the environmental costs associated with power produced by conventional means, but in this case the link between the payments and the possible reduced emissions effect is tenuous. In Texas the PTC is probably offsetting natural gas generation most of the time, perhaps a relatively efficient combined-cycle gas unit, but maybe an inefficient old steam generator. Sometimes the PTC will displace coal-fired generation. The environmental benefits will vary dramatically depending upon just which kind of unit is displaced by the subsidy, but the cost of the policy is the same. Surely there are more targeted and effective ways of achieving environmental goals.

A second possible defense for the renewable power PTC is that it will spur enough growth in the industry to allow progress in research and development and economies of scale to reduce costs in the future. I think these learning and economies of scale arguments are much abused in renewable policy discussions — treated as if they are somehow automatic if we only spend enough resources now. If learning by doing and economies of scale were automatic, the U.S. auto industry would now be a paragon of efficiency. (A paper on “Learning Curves For Energy Technology and Policy Analysis”, by Tooraj Jamasb and Jonathan K?hler is on my “to read” list, but I haven’t read it yet.) In the wind energy case, the industry is led by huge international corporations like General Electric, Siemens, and Gamesa. These companies and many others have been in the business for years, and in some cases decades. This is hardly a case of an “infant industry” that needs a handout to grow to maturity.

Maybe there is a public good argument buried in this line of thinking, but like the externality argument my sense here is that some alternative approach would more effectively achieve the desired public policy goals.

I don’t see any easy approaches for Texas. The federal PTC is the main subsidy, and localized evidence of waste due to the PTC in part of Texas in unlikely to derail U.S. Congressional support. Even if more detailed examples of widespread waste could be produced, I’m not sure it would overcome the coming Congress’s warm fuzzy feelings for renewable power. Possibly Texas could take-away the Renewable Energy Credit for wind power generated at negative prices, and that would slightly reduce the waste. But the boom in wind power construction in Texas has already greatly reduced the value associated with a REC in Texas, so taking it away altogether wouldn’t do much. And really, the negative prices in ERCOT’s energy markets are only an especially visible indicator of the waste created by PTC-based distortions, any excessive investment in renewable power or production from existing wind power units at below-cost prices is wasteful.

To be clear, I’m not arguing that wind power or other renewable power projects are inherently wasteful. The policy design is at fault, not the technology. It is the policy that needs repair. Also, I don’t have an estimate of how significant this problem is. Maybe the waste is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, but could be higher or lower. There may be more significant problems to work on. But the PTC is a key element of renewable power policy, and it is troubling that it causes waste.

Economics provides some guides for fixing the policy: if an externality is the problem, then tax the externality and compensate the harmed parties; if the goal is additional learning, don’t tie the payment to per unit output, tie the payment to progress toward the learning goal.

Renewable power industries are pushing for further expansion of the PTC. Before Congress agrees, it ought to try to find less wasteful ways to achieve intended public policy goals.

I was one of the attendees at NYSERDA’s Environmental Groups meeting in Albany on 11/10/08. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you, and all the involved NYSERDA representatives, for the very informative meeting on the many energy issues we are facing today. I am looking forward to receiving the links to the Power Point presentations that were presented that day, and as were promised.

I also wanted to thank you very much for providing us a venue where NYS citizens can voice their concerns regarding intelligent energy choices for our state. I look forward to the meeting specific to the industrial wind issue that was discussed again this year. …

My background as a NYS certified professional Health Educator, life-long organic gardener, Cornell-certified Master Gardener, Silver Lake Association Water Quality Chair serving as representative to Wyoming County Soil & Water & Silver Lake Watershed Commission, long-time National Wildlife Federation member/NWF-designated “Backyard Wildlife Habitat”, and mother who raised her twenty-something-year-old children in cloth diapers, is evidence of my life-long commitment to the environment.

My concerns, as I voiced at the meeting that day, are in regard to the headlong rush to spend millions and millions of dollars on industrial wind — an unreliable, non-dispatchable, supposedly “green” technology. Unbelievably, Mr. St. Croix declared in his replies to our queries about wind, “You can’t judge something because it has a couple bad months to start. We’ll see how it does in 15-20 years.” In my humble opinion, this is not the kind of rationalization that should be the basis of determining intelligent energy choices in New York State. [And the fact is, we have seen how it's done in the past 15-20 years --Ed.]

Mr. St. Croix’s willingness to give this kind of blind support to wind seems to be lacking the common sense that NYSERDA’s mission statement directs. NYSERDA’s mission, as stated on your website, is as a “public benefit corporation … who strives to improve the state’s environmental well-being … placing a premium on independent, objective analysis.”

Currently however, much of the information on wind provided on NYSERDA’s website is nothing more than an AWEA promotion piece, repeating word for word many typical wind company claims. This is the furthest thing from independent objective scientific analysis I’ve ever seen. This needs to be immediately corrected. I would think that NYSERDA representatives who are still lead by principles of what’s right and wrong, rather than by preference of what’s the most profitable, would be appalled by this.

There was a gentleman representing NYSERDA who was sitting behind you near the door taking notes, who asked those with specific suggestions on improving NYSERDA’s Toolkit and website to send them to him. Unfortunately, he did not give out his contact information. If you could let us know who he was, and his contact information, we would be glad to oblige his request for suggestions.

At the end of the discussion specific to wind energy on Nov. 10, I was further dismayed as you noted what you had been previously hearing regarding the wind issue was that it was a “bird and bat issue”, and now you are hearing that it is “more of an aesthetics issue”.

Apparently, we have not been doing a good job of getting our message across clearly. While these are certainly important secondary issues, the main problem with wind is that it is simply not a scientifically, economically, nor environmentally sound energy policy.

What we are seeing in the case of wind energy is the very businessmen and investors who stand to make obscene profits at NYS taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ expense proposing wind as a solution to reduce CO2 emissions and thereby reduce global warming. To date, we have seen no independently reviewed scientific studies verifying their financially motivated claims. With some 60,000 industrial wind turbines in the world today, this should be very easy to do.

It seems there is fear among many that genuinely challenging this “green” energy movement — which is backed by the same investment banks, big corporations, and politicians that backed the housing fiasco that took us all to the cleaners, means risking the loss of political funding. It is very unfortunate if this is, in fact, how our energy decisions are being determined today.

While many may be well intentioned in this mad rush for all things “green”, sadly, most are completely misinformed about the realities of the goings-on of Big Wind in rural NYS. As I, and many others, cited the day of the 11/10/08 meeting, the blatant corruption and division in our communities that we are witnessing as a result of Big Wind LLC’s running amok is unbelievable! (Example: The former supervisor of my small town ushered wind in the back door before anyone knew what was going on, got an accommodating zoning law on the books before she left office, and then started her new position as Horizon Wind Energy’s Project Manager only 8 months after leaving office.) The job of good government is to foresee and prevent this kind of divisiveness, not promote it.

So, PLEASE — we are looking to you folks, those we are trusting to responsibly serve their mission as a “public benefit corporation … placing a premium on objective analysis” — please give careful attention to our concerns and questions as you work to best serve the taxpayers and ratepayers of New York State.

These are the questions I had at last year’s meeting, and am still waiting for answers to:

1.) What independent, transparent measurement has been done anywhere in the world demonstrating that wind projects have actually offset significant levels of CO2 throughout an electricity grid system?

2.) Considering the relatively small amount of highly variable energy actually produced per square mile of permanently disfigured landscapes, how many industrial wind turbines, scattered over how large an area, would it take to collectively deliver a capacity value equivalent to any conventional generating system — defining capacity value as the ability to produce specified amounts of energy at a specified rate at any time?

3.) How can wind’s variable “flutter”, which provides virtually no effective capacity, replace any generation that does provide effective capacity or be used to shore up an aging power plant infrastructure in the face of increased demand?

4.) NYSERDA’s reliance on a 20% capacity credit for wind (which assumes adequate forecasting techniques) would have significant implications for increasing the use of “spot market generation” if that 20% figure proved far too optimistic. This cost would most assuredly be passed on to the NYS ratepayers. How would NY electricity consumers know about the way NYISO would handle such a situation?

5.) Since NYS already gets nearly 50% of its electricity from the emissions-free sources of hydro @ 19%, and nuclear @ 29%, and since emissions-free is the goal — is it not ?!? — why waste millions of taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ dollars on the unreliable, non-dispatchable, inimical source of wind?

Thank you for your time, and attention to our concerns in your work to facilitate intelligent energy choices in New York State.

Sincerely,

Mary Kay Barton, life-long NYS resident
P.O. Box 69
Silver Lake, NY 14549
585-813-8173

I have also included a small sampling of information and videos I have collected on industrial wind over the past couple of years that if you aren’t aware of, you definitely should be. Setbacks as close as 500′ from the foundations of peoples’ homes are being pushed through in communities that are being exploited by Big Wind LLCs.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), our government’s source for energy statistics, in 2007 total nationwide electric generation from oil was only 1.2%, and most of that usage came from a tarry residual oil, or coal-like petroleum coke — both otherwise almost useless byproducts of refining.

According to the EIA’s 2007 Annual Energy Outlook Report, wind provided 4/10 of 1% total nation-wide generation in 2005, and due to “considerable uncertainties”, “might provide 9/10 of 1% total nationwide generation by 2030″. We could devastate every inch of our beautiful New York countryside with industrial wind turbines, and it’s not going to do a thing to alleviate foreign oil dependence.

Despite all of corporate wind’s propaganda claims, the basic facts regarding industrial wind remain the same — wind can’t dent a grape in the scheme of things. Plain and simple:

1.) While it’s true that all energy sources receive subsidies, wind is outrageously over-subsidized and can never be economically viable on its own. According to the EIA, on a dollar per MWh basis, wind receives $23.34 — compared to coal at $0.44; natural gas at $0.25; hydro at $0.67; and nuclear at $1.59. Together, coal, natural gas, hydro, and nuclear produce 95% of our nation’s electricity supply, and for each of these mainline conventional generators, we as ratepayers get extremely high reliability and performance — each with an effective capacity exceeding 99.99%.

2.) The subsidies for wind go for a power source that can not replace any conventional generation sources, because wind provides virtually no capacity value (can be relied on to be there when called upon) — which wind reps would have us believe is no big deal. Wind also requires constant “shadow capacity” — that is, conventional power sources to back up the inimical power offered by wind, highlighting the fact that wind can not replace our reliable, dispatchable power sources.

3.) Our taxes in the form of federal subsidies cover wind developments to the tune of 65%, while state incentives cover an additional 10%. No wonder wind garners the attention of the greedy!

4.) All conventional generation sources are controllable and dispatchable — wind is neither.

5.) The very reason for the existence of the industrial wind industry is their claim of CO2 savings. With some 60,000 industrial wind turbines encumbering the world today, NO coal plants have been shut down, many new ones continue to be built (one every four days in China), and NO proof of CO2 savings has been shown anywhere in the world.

6.) The thermal implications of trying to balance destabilizing “wind flutter” on the grid are enormous. Wind’s volatility forces conventional generators to have to work harder, thus, more inefficiently — increasing their CO2 emissions, in order to balance things out.

7.) The Production Tax Credit (PTC) extension for wind for just one year (2009) will cost American taxpayers $7 billion dollars — on top of the PTCs already being paid from previous years. Massachusetts Secretary of Energy Ian Bowles recently said, “Renewable plants have an enormous subsidy under the Renewable [Energy] Portfolio Standards law. If they still can’t compete, they probably shouldn’t be built.”

And what do we get, besides the above list, for continuing to foot the bill for this poster child of corporate welfare at American taxpayers’ expense?

• A resource typically built hundreds of miles away from load centers where the electricity is needed, which will require at least another trillion dollars of taxpayer money to build the additional transmission lines that will be needed through undeveloped, rich habitat;
• The requirement that up to 90% of the electricity from wind be matched with redundant generation to ensure reliability when the winds die down — ensuring taxpayers will have to pay twice as additional generation is needed.

As Robert Bryce states in his recent book Gusher of Lies, limited liability wind companies are “the electricity sector’s equivalent of ethanol”, which he documents as one of the worst energy “scams”. He continues, “The hype [for wind] has lost all connection with reality.”

Watch as a wind turbine explodes, which the Discovery Channel documented as hurling debris for at least a 1/2 mile, and then tell us you would want these industrial installations placed only 500-800′ from your house: www.wind-watch.org/video-turbinecollapses.php

Here’s a recent ABC news clip in which Charlie Gibson reported the truth about the intense sound associated with these immense machines. You should also note that this “little” wind farm is composed of only 4 turbines, far removed from people’s homes (a far cry from what’s going on in WNY): www.wind-watch.org/news/?p=18885

Here’s a news clip on the effects turbine noise has had on those living too close: watch.ctv.ca/news/clip99973#clip99973 (click here to download 7.6-MB MP4 file)

EVA completed an independent estimate of the salvage value of the Beech Ridge Wind turbines. The applicant’s consultant estimated that its salvage value credit would reach $12.64 million ($101,900/turbine) in their decommissioning fund study based upon application of general scrap factors and prices. This scrap value credit would more than offset their estimated demo costs ($8.68 million: $70,000/turbine).

EVA contacted the major regional scrap yards directly and got current scrap prices for steel, copper and transport. From these data, EVA developed a Beech Ridge project–specific salvage credit estimate of only $2.63 million, i.e., $10.01 million less than the original applicant study. We uncovered several major flaws in the applicant study methodology and pricing. They not only used old scrap prices but failed to take into account that they would have to transport the scrap to a yard. In addition, to obtain the posted scrap price, they would need to break down the tower into 3-4 ft long pieces or else the quoted price would be significantly less. In addition, the copper materials must also have their insulation stripped and/or copper pieces separated to obtain their posted copper price. If not, their scrap value would be far less than the common posted price. Given the large drop in scrap prices this year (>40%), scrap value can no longer cover decommissioning costs.

EVA also compared the estimated demolition costs to another decommissioning report for another wind project developer that had contained detailed cost breakdowns. The other study estimated demo costs of $97K/turbine vs. $70K/turbine by Beech Ridge. The bottom line is that using the demolition costs from the other wind turbine project decommissioning study would translate to a Beech Ridge demo cost of $12.03 million, i.e., $3.35 million more the applicant’s $8.68 million estimate. (Note: In another very recent project I have just reviewed, the decommissioning costs were again severely underestimated by more than 50% by not taking into account recent crane rental rates, extremely low earth moving costs, and assuming high productivity rates (6 turbines/wk).)

The bottom line is that even if the permitting agency allows the salvage credit, the total net cost of decommissioning this project today would be $10.4 million ($83,900/turbine). Our analysis quantified the large scrap price and demo cost escalation risk being assumed by the local community. To protect the community, the permitting agency should require a bond of a minimum $100/K per turbine ($12.4 million) to capture demolition cost escalation risk. If the wind developer can convince the bonding company of the high salvage value, then they should be able to negotiate a lower rate for the bond. If they were right, there would be very little price difference for a larger $12+ million bond. Shift the risk to the bonding company. Let the developer and bonding company assume the price risk — not the community.

Tom Hewson
Principal
Energy Ventures Analysis
Arlington , VA
Hewson@evainc.com

Small System (up to 25 kW, max. ht. 60 ft.) Attached to a house: None

Small System (up to 25 kW, max. ht. 75 feet) Not attached to a house: 1 foot for each foot of height from any property line and 1 foot for each foot of height from any vacant or occupied dwelling unit on the same property (but If the Planning Director or designee determines there will be no significant impact on abutting properties or those across a stream, lake, or other body of water, no such setback is required from the waterward property line for a turbine placed in a body of water or on a dock or pier)

Large System (more than 25 kW and less than 1,000 kW, max. ht. 199 feet): 1,300 feet

Utility-scale (max. ht. 550 feet): 6 feet for each foot of height

Such minimum setbacks for a wind energy facility shall be measured from its outermost extension (whether blade tip, nacelle/turbine housing, or tower/pole edge) that is nearest the subject property line, public or private r-o-w, and access easement. Wind Turbine Height: The distance measured from the lowest adjacent grade to the highest point of the structure, including any attachments, such as a lightening protection device or a turbine rotor or tip of the turbine blade when it reaches its highest elevation.

The Large System or Utility-scale Wind Energy Facility shall:

A. Be a non-obtrusive color (such as light blue, off-white or light gray) that blends with the sky, as determined by the Planning Director or designee.
B. Not be artificially lighted, except to the extent required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other applicable authority that regulates air safety.
C. Not contain any signs or other advertising (including flags, streamers or decorative items or any identification of the turbine manufacturer, facility owner and operator). This does not include any identification plaques that might be required by the electric utility or governmental agency.
D. Be maintained to minimize noise from the turbine, any engines or motors, and the blades or propellers.
E. Be sited and operated so as to not interfere with television, internet service, telephone (including cellular and digital), microwave, satellite (dish), navigational, or radio reception in neighboring areas. The applicant and/or operator of the facility shall be responsible for the full cost of any remediation necessary to provide equivalent alternate service or correct any problems; including relocation or removal of the facility caused or exacerbated by the operation of such equipment and any and all related transmission lines, transformers, and other components related thereto.
F. Have a leak containment system for oil, hydraulic fluids, and other non-solids that is certified by an expert (such as an engineer, turbine manufacturer, etc.) acceptable to the Planning Director or designee that all such fluids will be captured before they reach the ground. The applicant shall pay the cost of the expert.

The applicant shall provide a shadow flicker and blade glint report for each proposed wind energy facility. The report shall:

A. Evaluate the worst case scenarios of wind constancy, sunshine constancy, and wind directions and speeds.
B. Map and describe the zones where shadow flicker and blade glint will likely be present within the project boundary and a one-mile radius beyond the project boundary.
C. Identify existing residences and the locations of their windows, locations of other structures, wind speeds and directions, and existing vegetation and roadways.
D. Calculate the locations of shadow flicker caused by the proposed project and the expected durations of the flicker at these locations, including outdoor viewsheds.
E. Calculate the total number of hours per year of flicker at all locations, including the outdoor viewshed.
F. Identify problem zones within a one-mile radius where shadow flicker will interfere with existing or future residences and roadways and describe proposed measures to mitigate these problems.

Based upon the findings of the report, the wind energy facility shall be designed so that shadow flicker or blade glint will not fall on or in any roadway or occupied property.

A. Shadow flicker or blade glint that falls on a portion of an occupied property is acceptable only under the following circumstances:
1. The flicker or glint does not exceed 120 seconds per day for 7 consecutive days, with a 20-hour maximum per year and
2. The flicker or glint falls more than 100 feet from an existing residence or business property.

B. Shadow flicker or blade glint that falls on a roadway is acceptable only under the following circumstances:
1. The traffic volumes are less than 500 vehicles per day on the roadway and
2. The flicker or glint shall not fall onto an intersection of public roads.

No Large System or Utility-scale wind energy facility or any generators, equipment, or apparatus shall produce noise above 45 decibels for more than 5 consecutive minutes, as measured at any property line. … If noise levels exceed 80 decibels for more than 24 consecutive hours, as measured at any property line, the applicant and/or owner shall shut down the wind energy facility within 3 (three) business days of being informed to do so by the Planning Director or designee.

Download “Carteret County Tall Structure Ordinance”

Special Session on Bats and Wind Turbines, 38th North American Symposium on Bat Research, Scranton, Pa., October 24, 2008

Download “Environmental Costs and Benefits of Industrial Wind Energy Development”

Now that I live within sight (about 5 miles) of a Wind Turbine Industrial Zone, I would like to comment on some of Mr. Schleede’s points regarding the false economic benefit claims by the wind industry (click here for that paper).

“7. Ignoring the COSTS imposed by the development. In the case of wind energy, these would include but are not limited to (a) the environmental and ecological costs associated with the production of the equipment, (b) constructing and operating the “wind farm” (e.g., site and road clearing, habitat destruction, noise, bird and bat kills and migration interference), (c) scenic impairment, (d) neighboring property value impairment, and (e) local infrastructure costs.”

My personal observations speak first to statement 7.(b): Driving to work each morning over the past 8 years, living where I do, I have watched geese migrations each year numbering in the dozens among each skein. At this point of their migration they are traveling low and are easy to see and count. This year, the first after the construction of the Industrial Zone, I have seen only 2 skeins of migrating birds. One had a mere 7 geese, the other only 3. This is sickening to me. These birds have always migrated precisely over the Zone where the turbines were constructed.

As to 7.(c), there is no question that our once beautiful view has been obliterated by the monstrosities during the day and the red blinking lights at night. Most visitors to our vineyard and winery are disheartened by the view.

7.(d): Having spoken to fellow residents living closer to the turbines, I have heard, “now we can’t ever sell it (the property)”.

“9. Ignoring the ‘backup power’ costs; i.e., the added cost resulting from having to keep reliable generating units immediately available (often running at less than peak efficiency) to keep electric grids in balance when those grids have to accept intermittent, volatile and unreliable output from ‘wind farms’.”

Speaking to point 9, the electric grid operators cannot keep the balance. Since the turbines have been online, we are experiencing DAILY power outages, sometime 2 or 3 in one day. Although we have Uninteruptable Power Sources for each computer and a generator for long outages, this is, as any red-blooded American will say, “unacceptable!” Why should I have to provide my own off-the-grid balance in order to fatten the wallets of the landowners and corporations enriching themselves in the name of the common good?

I would also like to add that the low-frequency noise issue is not an unwarranted claim. A neighbor told me he was awakened last Sunday morning at 3:00 a.m. by the pressure he felt and that his windows were vibrating. My husband said he could hear them as well at that same hour.

I am an expert on Birds of Prey and most of my comments will be restricted to my knowledge and field experience that I have had with theses species. During the late 1970’s and early 1980’s I had a major influence on the recovery of the Peregrine Falcon on the west coast. The most successful private breeding facility on the west coast was started with 4 peregrine falcons. Three of them were my birds. Most of the offspring went to the University of California, at Santa Cruz and were released into the wild under the direction of Brian Walton. I lived in the area of the proposed Hatchet Ridge Wind Project for 16 years and spent a great deal of time in the outdoors studying the wildlife in region. I also have a degree in Wildlife Biology from the University of California, Berkeley.

Wind Power in its present form is not safe nor is it “Green”. Wind power is also not “environmentally friendly” as we have been made to believe. Each year wind turbines currently kill thousands and thousands of birds across America. This includes rare and endangered species. The kill numbers are staggering and there is an industry wide cover?up to this problem. The industry considers this loss of life as collateral damage and access to wind farms is very limited. Wind farms are now encroaching into critical habitats of the Peregrine Falcon, Bald Eagles, Golden Eagle, Spotted Owls, Ferruginous Hawks, Great Gray Owl and along primary migration routes of all bird species. The two and three blade prop wind turbine designs used by the wind power industry today are responsible for most of these deaths. The design has to be changed to a more compact design so birds will see them as an obstacle and want to fly around them. As Wind Farms spring up all over the world, bird species around the globe are facing a very grim future unless new designs are implemented. No large prop design wind turbines are safe unless there are no birds. I predict a major decline has occurred in all the local bird of prey populations in the vicinity of every wind turbine farm in North America.

Bird kills occur at wind turbine sites because birds think they can fly through to the air space they see behind the turbine blades. Some of the most vulnerable are the birds of prey. Eagles, Hawks, Falcons and Owls all hunt ridge lines. They use the same winds and updrafts that power the wind turbines. When hunting their concentration intensifies and they become even less aware of their surroundings. When focused on prey or a landscape that is seen behind blade rotation, birds become confused by the huge rotating blades traveling at speeds of over 200 miles per hour. If an Eagle flying by a turbine becomes confused for only a split second it is too late to escape the blades traveling over 300 feet per second. Imagine slashing blades rotating in a 312 foot wide circle and moving the length of a football field in less than a second. Only then can one can begin to understand the problems facing all birds of prey near wind turbines.

The bird kill problem related to in the Wind Power Industry is the “Silent Spring” of our generation. The “Green” image of wind farms that has been sold to America is nothing but a campaign of fraud and disinformation. With DDT, the Chemical Industry’s response to the claims of Rachael Carson’s was that she was “a simplistic nature worshiper intent on subverting the continuing progress of science that was central to the development of a nation”. There will be similar statements against my comments by those that are ignorant, those who are corrupt, and those seeking profits.

Undisclosed Negative Environmental Impacts

The first and foremost negative impact not discussed in the Hatchet Ridge Wind Project EIR is Blade TIP Speed. This is what kills. According to the specifications given, the blades on the proposed Turbine Towers will be 126 feet ,151 feet, and 156 feet long. They will rotate at approximately 20 rotations per minute. The diameter of each rotation is 252 feet, 302 feet and 312 feet. At 20 rotations per minute the tip speed of the blades is 264 ft/sec, 316 ft/sec, and 326 ft/sec. If this is converted to miles per hour it works out to 180 mph, 215 mph and 222 miles per hour. Some other wind turbine tip speeds are even higher. The speed and power of these blades is what amputates the wings off flying Eagles.

The Hatchet Ridge Project lies in the middle of the Pacific Flyway. The Pacific Flyway is a migration route taken by millions of migratory birds each fall and spring. There is also an east west migration in the fall and a west east migration in the spring. The EIR does not mention this or take into account the wide variety of bird species that fly through the area of the planned project. In reference to bird migration the EIR states “the data collected during the 1 year avian use study suggests that the project is not within a major migratory pathway for diurnal(day time) migrants”. This statement epitomizes the fraud of the Hatchet Ridge Wind Project. Since the EIR has such a poor analysis on birds of prey it should be assumed there are other migratory and resident Special Status Species of birds not listed in the EIR.

The list of birds of prey published in the EIR at risk from this project does include many Special Status Species. Below is a list of birds of prey I am familiar with in the Hatchet Ridge Region. They are not listed in the EIR as Special Status wildlife at risk.

1) Rough-Legged Hawk — Risk not disclosed. Each year hundreds of these hawks pass through or winter in the region. At risk during migration and hunting.

2) Swanson’s Hawk — Risk not disclosed. This rare Hawk is a migratory visitor to the inter- mountain region. It is listed on the California Threatened Species List. At risk during hunting and migration.

3) Gyrfalcon — Risk not disclosed. The largest of all falcons. It is a rare migratory winter visitor from the Arctic. At risk during migration and hunting.

4) Tundra Peregrine Falcon — Risk not disclosed. These falcons migrate from the Arctic through the inter-mountain region every fall and spring on their way to and from South America. The inter-mountain area is a resting and hunting stop during migration. At risk during migration and hunting.

5) Red-Shouldered Hawk — Risk not disclosed. This hawk breeds in the riparian habitat along the Pit River and creeks of the inter-mountain region. It migrates to lower elevations during the winter. Most at risk during dispersal and migration.

6) Burrowing Owl — Risk not disclosed. Small owl that lives nests in the ground. Prefers grassy areas. Uncommon in the region. At risk during hunting, dispersal, and migration

7) Great Gray Owl — Risk not disclosed. The Largest North American owl and very rare. Listed as Endangered in California. There could be as few as 100 of these owls living in California . I have only seen three in the inter-mountain area. This Owl may nest in the region because of the different times of the year the three were seen. At risk during hunting, dispersal, migration.

8) Great Horned Owl — Risk not disclosed. Another large Owl that nests and resides in the region. At risk during hunting, dispersal, and migration.

9) Pygmy Owl — Risk not disclosed. A very small seldom seen Owl. This owl is a resident in the region. At risk during dispersal and local migration.

10) Saw-Whet Owl — Risk not disclosed. Uncommon resident of the inter-mountain region. At risk during hunting dispersal and migration.

11) Screech Owl — Risk not disclosed. Common resident of the inter-mountain region. At risk during hunting dispersal, nesting and migration. 12) Barn Owl- Risk not Disclosed. Uncommon resident of the inter-mountain region. At risk during hunting, dispersal and migration.

Below is a list of birds of prey listed in the EIR as Special Status Wildlife that are poorly discussed:

1) Anatum [American] Peregrine Falcon — Poorly discussed. This falcon lives and hunts in the habitat of the project site. There is a historical nest site located in the Pit River Canyon that has been known to the Department of Fish and Game for over 30 years. I discussed this nest site with former DFG Non Game Supervisor Bob Mallette, in his Sacramento office in 1977. At the time it was only one of 5 nest sites known in California and 2 of them were experiencing reproductive failure due to DDT. The hunting territories for their nest sites extend for 100-300 square miles. Historical nest sites are used for hundreds of years. Being located on a ridge above the nest site, the Hatchet Ridge Wind Project will have a major impact on the local population of Peregrine Falcons. This nest site will be abandoned due to collisions with the Hatchet Ridge Turbines. Parents mate for life. The few local Anatum Peregrine falcons are at great risk during hunting dispersal, nesting, and local migration. The loss of one or both parents will impact offspring survival at nest site. Loss of this Historical nesting site is very likely. The EIR falsely states “low likelihood for potential occurrence”.

2) American Kestrel — Poorly discussed. This small falcon lives and breeds in the region and migrates to lower elevations in the winter returning in the spring. Contrary to what is written in the EIR it is not very common in the inter-mountain region and will not represent the most commonly killed raptor species at the project site.

3) Red-Tailed Hawk — Poorly Discussed. Common to the inter-mountain region. This raptor will not represent the majority of raptor fatalities at the Hatchet Ridge Wind Project site as suggested in the EIR.

4) Bald Eagle — Poorly discussed. There are many well documented Bald eagle nest sites in the inter-mountain area. Many additional Bald Eagles also migrate from the north each year to winter in the inter-mountain region. The Eagles also migrate east to west and west to east. All Bald Eagles in the region are at risk during dispersal and migration. Offspring from nests from 25-50 miles away will all be at risk. Bald Eagles will die every year at Hatchet Ridge. Expect population declines.

5) Prairie Falcon — Poorly discussed. This falcon lives east and west of Hatchet ridge in the dryer habitats. More commonly seen in the region than the Peregrine Falcon, it migrates from the north and to lower elevations. Also has east to west migration in the fall and west to east migration in the spring. Most at risk during hunting and migration

6) Spotted Owl — Poorly discussed. Hatchet Ridge Project EIR discusses the California Spotted Owl and the Northern Spotted Owl. The dividing line for the distinction of the two species is Highway 299. This is an absurd classification drawn up by moneyed interests. In reality they are both the same species and I know of no other case in the world where a species is delineated right through the middle of a population gene pool that interbreeds, disperses and hunts the same general territory. Either way, the Project site will put the Spotted Owl at great risk and it is a Federally Protected Species. California Spotted Owls and Northern Spotted Owls will die from both sides of Highway 299 at the Hatchet Ridge Wind Project. These owls also do not just inhabit the forest canopy as suggested in the EIR. Marginal habitat is used by immature non- nesting Spotted Owls ,just as it is with the off-spring all birds of prey. Critical habitat is the habitat needed for success at a given nest site. Adults defend these territories to insure the food source for their young. Sadly adult Spotted Owls will be killed, offspring will be killed during dispersal, and the loss of one or both parents in the spring will impact offspring survival at nest site.

7) Golden Eagle — Poorly discussed. It does nest and lives year round in the project area contrary to the statements in the EIR. Hunting territories are vast and like the Peregrine Falcon can encompass several hundred miles. Eagles mate for life and hunt in pairs. On many occasions I have watched pairs of Eagles hunt the ridge lines of the inter-mountain area. One flying several hundred feet high, the other flying below as they hunt the ridge lines as a team. Golden Eagles will be killed and populations will decline at the project site because of hunting, dispersal of young, and local migration.

8) Merlin — Poorly discussed. A small rare falcon that is a seasonal migrant from Washington and British Columbia. Washington State considering threatened status designation. Hunts pockets of open space near forest edges. At risk during hunting, and migration. Hatchet Ridge EIR States no known occurrences in the project area. I saw these falcons every year in the region.

9) Long-Eared Owl — Poorly discussed. A medium size owl that nests and lives in the region. At risk during hunting, dispersal and local migration. I knew of one nest that had 3 week old young blown to the ground from a violent wind storm. I climbed the yellow pine and put them back in their nest.

In terms of impact, the Hatchet Ridge Wind project will have the greatest impact on the species with the lowest populations. In my opinion the Peregrine Falcon, the Spotted Owl and the Great Gray Owl are the most at risk species from this project. The Great Gray Owl is of extreme importance because of their low overall population numbers. The Peregrine has one nest site and maybe two in all of Shasta County. If there is only on pair a of a rare species like the Peregrine Falcon living in a several hundred square mile hunting territory, then the loss of 1 or 2 has a very high impact. The Spotted Owl has a dozen or two active nest sites in the region, but this area represents one of its last strongholds known for this Federally Threatened Species.

Of the three species that will be critically impacted, more Spotted Owls will be killed at Hatchet Ridge. This is because there are higher numbers living in the immediate area of the project. The project site is surrounded by “critical habitat”. Young owls will disperse into the marginal habitat around project site and adults will hunt at or near the site on a regular basis.

In general, expect serious population declines over time for all birds of prey within a 25 miles radius of this site. For example the Golden Eagle has been very closely monitored in a several hundred square mile area northwest of Altamont pass on the slopes of Mt Diablo. I have been told that these areas no longer have ANY eagles. No Eagles have nested there for years. In the past when these nest sites were active some of the offspring from these Golden Eagles were tagged and were later found dead at the wind turbines of Altamont Pass. The habitat for the eagles is still there but they cannot survive the turbines. Expect the same in the region of Hatchet Ridge.

When it comes to bird mortality all species in the vicinity of this wind project are at risk and every known bird species that uses the inter-mountain region will be on the species kill list. There will be well over 100 different bird species that will be killed at this site. The numbers killed will vary from species to species depending on population numbers and frequency of use. Some species will have few kill numbers but their populations are so low that the loss of an individual would have a high impact.

The Altamont Pass Wind Turbines located in the Bay Area kill an estimated 880-1300 birds of prey each year. It has been going on for nearly 25 years. The location of Altamont Pass is not nearly as critical as the habitat surrounding Hatchet Ridge. Hatchet Ridge is located in some of the most richest and diverse wildlife habitat in America. In fact the Hatchet Ridge Wind Project has the potential to have the highest bird mortality rate of any site in the world.

Disinformation and Cover-Up

The Hatchet Ridge Wind project is full of carefully chosen words, meaningless graphs and pseudo science. Examples of carefully chosen words used in the environmental impact report are “likely”, “may”,”could”, “unlikely”, “may possibly”, “potential” and “probable”. These words do not accurately describe what is to come. It is very obvious to me that the backers of the Hatchet Ridge Wind Project hired staff to write an EIR that would pass the scrutiny of the public and skirt environmental law. In reality, this project is as dangerous to birds as a school crosswalk located on Interstate 5 would be to children. The outcome would be obvious.

I feel there are many in the California Department of Fish and Game, as well as wildlife biologists working for the United States Forest Service, and the US Fish & Wildlife Service that would agree the Hatchet Ridge EIR is a false document. The problem with all this is the fear of losing your job. This is the reality of the world we live in. Qualified people cannot speak up out of fear of repercussions. I know this from my experience with Northern California Deer Management. I had many people in government positions talk to me if I promised not to disclose their names, I never did.

The wind power industry learned a valuable lesson from the astounding number of bird kills at Altamont Pass. Instead of pursuing better wind turbine designs that would limit bird kills, they chose a path of cover-up and deception. Today most Wind Turbine Sites have very limited access on private land and workers will loose their jobs if they disclose the truth. Outside agencies, Universities and wildlife groups all deserve the truth should have unlimited access to every Wind Turbine Site in America.

Legal Issues

The Environmental Impact Document for Hatchet Ridge Wind Project is not in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and State guidelines. California Law clearly states that an Environmental Impact Report shall include identification of all significant effects, alternatives and potential mitigation measures. An EIR should be prepared and can be certified if it shows good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information and provides sufficient analysis to allow decision makers with the information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. Failure to comply with CEQA, to provide full disclosure of information during the CEQA process, which would result in relevant information not being presented to the public agency would constitute prejudicial abuse of discretion, leaving the project proponent open to possible lawsuit. The California Endangered Species Act emphasizes early consultation to avoid potential impacts to rare, endangered and threatened species and to develop mitigation planning to offset project losses of listed species.

The Hatchet Ridge Wind Project has NOT complied with California Environmental Law for three main reasons (1)Alternative safe wind turbine designs were never presented or discussed in the EIR, (2) the mortality impacts to all birds as well as birds of prey have not been fully disclosed or mitigated as required by CEQA and (3) The Hatchet Ridge Wind Project EIR does not show a good faith effort at full disclosure.

Summary

This problem will not change until the public is educated. Wind power is the future, but the killer designs of today are not. Promising new designs are already available and scholars and engineers will develop even better designs. Compounding the problem is a Government contaminated from the lobbying of wind power interests. Wind Power is a profit driven multibillion dollar industry. If people start saying, “No”, to this industry it will encourage the wind power industry to move in the right direction.

How many Wind Turbine sites have to go up before this madness stops? There needs to be a complete change in the wind power industry with Government regulations that limit the industry to wind power designs that are proven to be safe. All wind farms should be fully accessible to outside agencies, universities, and groups for the assurance of lawful compliance. It should also be a felony to discard unreported carcasses. Wind turbine operators also know that the longer the time between searches the better the chance scavengers like coyotes have to eat up the remains of the victims.

The people that stand to profit from the Hatchet Ridge Wind project live in mansions far away from the site. This project has tentacles that reach Wall Street, Washington, and all the way across the Atlantic. These profiteers will not be there to pick up the mangled bodies of the dead and wounded birds. They will not have to experience this horror. The citizens of Shasta County will.

“You have to pick your fights and pick them often. The reason I am repeatedly going to beat this drum is because I started doing this too late and all the contracts were already signed. Remember, the modus operandi of Big Wind is deception and coercion. … Pinpointing your fight against the tax farms based upon the truth alone is rather difficult when Big Wind makes the truth what they want it to be. Make your truth your willingness to take the stand for cause.”

Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures:

1. Organize a coalition of like-minded people.
2. Don’t quit when pressured by your sister’s cousin’s brother in-law.
3. Run your campaign like a political campaign.
4. Use whatever connection (wherever) you can, but keep it out of the place of worship and schools.
5. Use the local radio, press, regional radio, etc., as assets and mouthpieces.
6. Ally yourself with regional organizations from around the country doing the same thing as you.
7. Use signs, handbills, bumper stickers, whatever printed material you can find, as much as you can.
8. Use the truth to your advantage, but don’t try to educate the uninformed — they will never understand well enough.
9. Find a sympathetic lawyer. If you hear nothing but doubt, run Wind Power . . . It Blows!right out.
10. Always, always, be serious and never flippant when speaking to anyone who might quote you.
11. Learn the laws of the local municipality, county, and state. Use any violation of laws or impropriety to your advantage. Blow the whistle.
12. Make sure your job one task is to protect the environment, but use an iota of common sense.

Download “Wind Power . . . It Blows!”

The greatest impediment to wind’s large-scale contribution to our energy supply is its intermittent nature. The wind must blow in order for wind turbines to produce power. In Texas, however, wind blows the least during the summer months when we need power the most. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) relies on just 8.7 percent of wind power’s installed capacity when determining available power during peak summer hours.

Due to wind’s intermittency, wind turbines have much lower capacity factors — measures of generating units’ actual energy output divided by the energy output if the units operated at its rated power output 100 percent of the time — than conventional (thermal) power sources. As such, wind is not a baseload resource and cannot deliver a large portion of the demand for energy.

Second, electricity cannot currently be stored on a commercial scale. This lack of adequate large-scale electricity storage amplifies the effects of wind’s variability and lack of correlation with peak demand. Without adequate wind-power storage, wind-generating units must be backed up by units that generate electricity from conventional sources. In Texas’ case, that means natural gas, a fuel source with extreme price volatility. Thus, wind energy is an inherently less valuable resource than fuel sources requiring no backup.

Another major issue surrounding wind-energy development is electric transmission capacity. The infrastructure does not exist to move electricity from the areas of Texas most suitable for wind energy generation — West Texas and the Panhandle — to the state’s metropolitan centers, so new transmission capacity is needed. Texas’ electric customers should be particularly concerned, as they will foot the bill for new transmission lines.

The distinction between wind and wind energy is critical. The wind itself is free, but wind energy is anything but. Cost estimates for wind-energy generation typically include only turbine construction and maintenance. Left out are many of wind energy’s costs — transmission, grid connection and management, and backup generation — that ultimately will be borne by Texas’ electric ratepayers. Direct subsidies, tax breaks, and increased production and ancillary costs associated with wind energy could cost Texas more than $4 billion per year and at least $60 billion through 2025. …

Download “Texas Wind Energy: Past, Present, and Future”

Also see “The True Cost of [Texas] Wind Energy”, by Bill Peacock

You are a fine writer but your October 20, 2008, EnergyBiz Insider story, “Growing Green Jobs,” demonstrates that you need to refresh your discernment and investigative reporting skills.

Unfortunately, you apparently have “bought” exaggerated claims of economic and job benefit put forth by a variety of renewable energy advocates that are based on flawed analyses. I urge you to look more closely at the claims and the underlying analyses and “economic models” for unjustifiable assumptions and other flaws.

Among the flaws and faulty assumptions — leading to gross overstatements of job creation and other economic benefits — that I believe you will find are the following:

1. Ignoring the fact that much of the capital spending is for equipment purchased elsewhere, often imported from other countries. (This is a common error in the case of “wind farms”, where as much as 75% of the capital costs are often for turbines, towers and blades — much of which is imported.)

2. Assuming that employment during construction results in new jobs for local workers — when many of the construction jobs (particularly in the case of wind energy) are short terms (6 months or less) and filled by skilled workers who are brought in temporarily. Similarly, assuming that “permanent” jobs are all new jobs and filled by local workers — when they may be filled by people brought in for short periods for maintenance work.

3. Assuming that temporary workers who are brought in for short periods spend their pay checks and pay taxes locally. In many cases, these workers spend most of their money in the areas where they and their families have permanent residences and where the workers spend most of their weekends and pay taxes.

4. Assuming that the full purchase price of the goods and services purchased locally (which often are minimal anyway) has a local economic benefit. In fact, only the local value added may have a local economic benefit. This can be illustrated by the purchase of a gallon of gasoline — let’s say for $2.50. Only the wages of the service station employees, the dealer’s margin and the taxes paid locally or to the state will have a local or state economic benefit. The economic benefit of the share of the $2.50 that pays for the crude oil (much of it imported), refining, wholesaler, and transportation almost certainly will flow elsewhere.

5. Assuming that land rental payments in the case of “wind farms” all have local economic benefit. In fact, these payments will have little or no local economic benefit when the payments are to absentee landowners or if the money is spent or invested elsewhere or if it is used to pay taxes that flow to Washington DC or state capitals.

6. Using “input-output” models that spit out “indirect” job and other economic benefits but which are based on untested or flawed underlying data and assumptions and unproven “multiplier” effects.

7. Ignoring the COSTS imposed by the development. In the case of wind energy, these would include but not be limited to (a) the environmental and ecological costs associated with the production of the equipment, (b) constructing and operating the “wind farm” (e.g., site and road clearing, habitat destruction, noise, bird and bat kills and migration interference), (c) scenic impairment, (d) neighboring property value impairment, and (e) local infrastructure costs.

8. Ignoring the fact that the electricity produced from renewable sources such as wind, has less real value because it is intermittent, volatile and unreliable and most likely to be produced at night in colder months, not on hot weekday late afternoons in July and August when demand is high and the economic value of electricity is high.

9. Ignoring the “backup power” costs; i.e., the added cost resulting from having to keep reliable generating units immediately available (often running at less than peak efficiency) to keep electric grids in balance when those grids have to accept intermittent, volatile and unreliable output from “wind farms.

10. Ignoring the fact that electricity produced from renewable sources located in remote areas results in higher transmission costs, e.g., (a) sometime requiring construction of additional transmission capacity, the costs of which are passed on to electric customers and which imposes other environmental, scenic and property value costs, (b) involving “line loss” of electricity so that part of the electricity that is produced never reaches customers or serves a useful purpose, and (c) resulting in inefficient use of transmission capacity because the output is intermittent and generally unpredictable.

11. Ignoring the true higher cost of the electricity (or other energy form) resulting from the renewable energy source — and the associated fact that electric customers then have less money to spend on other needs (food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care — or hundreds of other things normally purchased in local stores) or even to save.

12. Perhaps most important, ignoring the very important fact that the investment dollars going to “renewable” energy sources would be available for investment for other purposes that will often produce greater economic benefits.

Ken, it is well past the time that you and other writers, reporters, and editors stop misleading your readers by relying on press releases and glib claims from individuals and organizations (including government agencies and contractors) that crank out excessive claims based on flawed analyses.

Respectfully,

Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958

Download the above adapted to a standalone essay: “False Renewable Energy Job & Economic Benefits Claims”