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

Download “Report on Remand of Alexander K. Skirpan, Jr., Hearing Examiner”

Of particular concern is the cumulative effect of continuing wind energy development. Based on existing studies and the proposal queue for the mid-Atlantic grid, they project annual bat fatilities of up to 111,000 by 2020.

Abstract:  At a time of growing concern over the rising costs and long-term environmental impacts of the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy, wind energy has become an increasingly important sector of the electrical power industry, largely because it has been promoted as being emission-free and is supported by government subsidies and tax credits. However, large numbers of bats are killed at utility-scale wind energy facilities, especially along forested ridgetops in the eastern United States. These fatalities raise important concerns about cumulative impacts of proposed wind energy development on bat populations. This paper summarizes evidence of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in the US, makes projections of cumulative fatalities of bats in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, identifies research needs, and proposes hypotheses to better inform researchers, developers, decision makers, and other stakeholders, and to help minimize adverse effects of wind energy development.

Download “Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats”

The author is from the Virginia Land Rights Coalition.

Download “Dollars and Sense”

Download “Keeler Obenshain Radar Study”

Download “A landscape classification system”

Download “Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Wind Energy Development in the Mountains of Virginia”

p. 8: “The principals of economic dispatch result in starting with the lowest cost units being dispatched first and proceeding to load units in order of their cost. Similarly, the higher cost units are the first units to be reduced as load requirements are decreased. The very high cost oil units would be the first units to be affected but they are presently being dispatched at very low levels. A major impact of additional wind generation would be to further reduce the operation of the gas fired plants (combustion turbines or combined cycle units) since they represent the bulk of the higher cost generation.”

p. 9: “There is very little contribution from wind generation during the critical summer peak season. Since generation as well as transmission and distribution facilities are limited in their capacity by thermal constraints, the summer peak loads are the most critical. Wind generation is generally at its lowest level during the warmest periods of the warmest days in the year.”

p. 10: “Loads are projected on a day ahead and on an hour ahead basis within the control area (PJM in this case) in order to schedule sufficient units in service to meet the expected load and to provide the necessary spinning reserve. The spinning reserve provides the margin for the units to respond to the minute-by-minute load changes as well as to absorb the impact of an unexpected loss of generation. The units respond to load changes within their pre-set bandwidth by sensing any deviations from 60 Hz frequency and automatically opening or closing control valves to maintain frequency. Bandwidths are altered by an automated system to maintain economic dispatch as loads change. The variation in wind generation would make it very difficult to incorporate any specific capacity from that source in the day ahead planning which is an essential part of maintaining a reliable system.”

p. 18: “The only way to even approximate the extent of any emission reduction would be to carry out a series of simulations using actual values with injection of various levels of wind generation to determine which units responded. You can make no rational judgment as to the extent of any emission reduction without knowing which units will be affected. The grouping of units as coal, gas or oil is far too simplistic to produce meaninghl results. The variation in heat rate between units and the variation over the load range on the same unit, the presence or absence of pollution controls and their effectiveness, the fuel characteristics and transmission constraints all will have an effect that can be determined only by knowing the units affected. As pointed out earlier, the largest plant in the AEP system was ignored in the RSG report. The 1300MW unit 3 at this plant will have scrubbers installed in 2007 with an expected 98% efficiency. The two remaining 800MW units will have scrubbers installed following completion of the 1300 MW unit. Improvements of this type are being made at many locations with huge impacts on emissions. These impacts, however, can only be considered with a unit by unit study and not by grouping by fuel type.”

Download “Direct Testimony of Charles Simmons for Highland Citizens”

p. 5-6: “For the reasons stated herein, the study submitted by the developer in support of the turbines is insufficient in some places and erroneous in others. Indeed, based upon my years of research in and around the subject property we know that the report’s conclusion, that the northern flying squirrel is not present, is wrong. Rather than trying to disprove something that we already know to be a fact, the focus of the study should have been on the potential impact of the construction and operation of the turbines on the northern flying squirrel. Potential issues that need to be studied are the destruction of critical habitat, the increased isolation of suitable habitat, and the attraction of predators to the site due to increased food supply (dead birds and bats).

“The area should not be viewed as already too perturbed, and instead it should be jealously protected and reforestation should be encouraged. At the very least we need additional study before further wasting what is known to be a very valuable resource. Unfortunately, the study submitted by the developer does not provide us with sufficient information to make an informed decision. My years of research have demonstrated the presence of the northern flying squirrel. We now need to study what impacts the construction and operation of the turbines would have on the northern flying squirrel. Obviously, industrial wind projects such as these can impact much more than just the northern flying squirrel, and as suggested earlier, we cannot have wholesale development of our ridgetops without an awareness of potential consequences. Certainly, wind energy is not green energy if it requires that we negatively impact special natural resources, including rare and endangered species and their habitats.”

Download “Direct Testimony of John Pagels for Highland Citizens”

Download “Errors and Excesses in the NREL’s JEDI-WIM Model”