Last year, Rhode Island's Governor Carcieri entered his State into the race, wanting to become the first to see industrial scale wind turbines spinning off its coastline. His administration's initial step was to select Deepwater Wind as the preferred developer of two offshore projects. The first, a small pilot wind farm of 5-8 turbines to be sited in State waters within three miles of Block Island and the second, a 100+ turbine facility planned for fifteen miles off state shores in federal waters. 

Deepwater wasted no time. In January, the company submitted a request to the New Shoreham Town Council on Block Island for a Special Temporary Permit to locate a mobile radar unit by the Southeast Lighthouse to study bird patterns. The request received little attention and was unanimously approved.

The following month, Deepwater submitted a second request for a Special Temporary Permit. This time, the company was seeking permission to erect a 180-foot tall meteorological tower necessary for assessing the wind resource in the area. The enormous tower proposed near the entrance of the Great Salt Pond on the island's west side would be the first significant physical sign of the company's plan to install turbines near the island. As can be expected, the residents of Block Island took notice.

On February 27, 2009, Attorney Mark J. Hagopian submitted a letter to the Council on behalf of several property owners in Town. His letter raised serious legal questions about the Council's use of Special Temporary Permits in approving Deepwater's requests. Such special permits, according to Town zoning (section 112), are reserved for "circumstances of emergency or other urgent necessity for the public health and safety" and may only be granted for a use or purpose that cannot be accomplished through the normal planning process.

Windaction.org fully concurs with Attorney Hagopian's assertion that "Deepwater's proposal is a run-of-the-mill request for the commercial use of property in a residential zone and is profit motivated". He correctly argues that there is no apparent reason for Deepwater to bypass the normal process and, in fact, the Council's willingness to act on Deepwater's request is not only unwise, it "violates fundamental notions of due process".

Despite Hagopian's letter, and the very vocal public objections voiced at the March 2 Council meeting, the vote was unanimous to grant Deepwater its second Special Temporary Permit.

A quick read of the meeting minutes reveals a level of ignorance about land use law and wind energy on the part of the Council that will almost certainly prove harmful to the residents of Block Island if left unaddressed.

Minutes of the March 2 meeting show that First Warden Kimberly Gaffett claimed to have conferred with the Town's Land Use attorney, Donald Packer, on the question of Special Temporary Permits and was informed they were lawful in this case. There is no record in the minutes that Parker provided his opinion in writing. 

But the more disturbing comments came from Council member Dr. Peter Baute who reacted to whether Deepwater's request represented an urgent, public health necessity. The minutes state:

"Dr. Baute said the application was clearly an urgent necessity critical to the well-being of the town. Merchants and hotel owners, their employees, their families and customers, were critically impacted by the second highest electric rates in the country. The Island has a short season in competition with Newport, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket and many other seaside resorts, and the electric bills put businesses at an enormous economic disadvantage. The spiking power bills and disappearing profit margins create stress, a medically unhealthy condition. The application for the met tower is one of the first steps to accessing reliable, price-stable power, which can relieve one cause of the Island's stress, and the Council should approve the tower application."

Dr. Baute's comments are more ranting than reasoned. How could a tower erected to gather yearly wind data for the benefit of a for-profit, private entity be deemed a public health emergency? In fact, Deepwater did not install the tower until August. And his claim that high electricity costs and shrinking profit margins  were creating stress, and thus a medical emergency for the town is laughable. We note that no economic analysis of Deepwater's proposal was available to him at the time the vote was taken.

In fact, the true cost-benefit to island ratepayers is still under review. Case in point: Rhode Island's legislature voted this year to require island electricity customers to shoulder more of the wind farm's $20-million underwater cable cost because, according to members of the General Assembly, the island would be the primary beneficiary.

More information about Block Island's wind farm will be made available in the coming year. Windaction.org encourages the residents of Block Island to get the facts on the project and watch the Town Council's actions closely. Wishful thinking and fantasy on the part of the Council are no excuse for corrupting the plain reading of town laws or for substituting blind faith for facts.

Back to top

There are several news stories we've been following that we thought important to highlight this week given the similarities to other cases our readers are involved with.

IDAHO

In August, 2008, the Bingham County Idaho Board of Commissioners unanimously approved a special permit allowing the construction of a 150-turbine wind "farm" on nearly 20,000 acres along Wolverine Canyon. At the time, Commissioner Wayne Brower told news outlets that it was a "tough decision", but the "need for renewable energy won out".  The area where the wind facility is proposed is locally designated as a Natural Resource/ Agriculture district which, by definition, does not permit industrial, energy-producing, structures.

County residents appealed the decision claiming conflict of interest involving two of the County Board members. They also argued that an industrial wind plant was not an agricultural use under County zoning, thus should not be permitted.

This week Bingham County Judge Richard St. Clair ruled in favor of the residents. According to his 38-page ruling, the Judge found that several errors were made by the County Board which rendered the proceedings unlawful under Idaho law. The developer, Ridgeline Energy, must now reapply for a special permit.

In the meantime, the Bingham Planning and Zoning board drafted a new wind ordinance that establishes setback requirements. We hope that after two years of controversy surrounding this wind proposal the County will take the time to listen to those residents who will be negatively impacted by the development and find a way to address their concerns through the county ordinance.

ILLINOIS

Earlier this summer we reported on a story from Libertyville, IL involving a 120-foot tall, 50 kilowatt Entegrity wind turbine erected within 250-feet of residential properties. Despite assurances from the owner, Aldridge Electric, and Libertyville officials, that the turbine would be quiet and blade/shadow flicker would not be a problem, the noise and other nuisances proved unbearable to the neighbors. A civil suit was filed and in July Lake County Judge Mitchell Hoffman issued his final compromise ruling confirming the turbine was causing harm to nearby residents and ordered turbine operation restricted to weekdays between the hours of 9am to 3pm.

The transcript of the Judge's decision includes important information on nuisance law in Illinois. Since this decision, Libertyville officials voted to impose a six-month moratorium; Village Trustees asked the village's plan commission to consider possible changes to the rules governing electric power-generating facilities.

RHODE ISLAND

The State of Rhode Island, in its aggressive pursuit of wind energy development, announced the selection of Deepwater Wind to develop a privately financed project off Rhode Island's coast. Deepwater is currently moving forward with a pilot project to be sited within 2 miles of Block Island.

Public reaction to industrial-scale wind turbines is largely untested in Rhode Island, but the State is well aware of the powerful opposition that delayed the Cape Wind proposal in nearby Massachusetts. To gauge public acceptance of the turbines, surveys were sent to 1,484 voters on Block Island. Of the 547 surveys completed and returned, an overwhelming number supported the siting of the project either onshore or offshore, with one important condition - that the facility would be far enough away to be "impossible to hear".

RI residents need to be aware of reported noise problems at similar projects. Windaction.org is in close contact with residents of Cape Vincent, New York which is situated 2-3 miles from Wolfe Island off the coast of Ontario. Eighty-six turbines were erected and commissioned on the island this spring.

One Cape Vincent resident wrote this:

"From the Village of Cape Vincent the turbines on Wolfe Island can easily be heard. The sound is like a jet flying over at altitude and it is very distinct. It also resembles the sounds emanating from outside a large, busy city. If you are in a calm spot protected from the wind the sound is really clear."

This week, our contact reported that "atmospheric conditions were just right last night. At 6 to 7 miles away the turbines could be heard. Loudest so far."

Back to top

The trend at all levels of governance is clear: Deployment of wind energy facilities will be expedited and no location deemed to be suitable by the industry will be denied.

Laws are being written and adopted that legally ban public participation from the decision process. In the remaining venues where communities can intervene, the enormous financial burden of "fighting city hall" is often prohibitive. Even when objections are recognized and validated by the decision makers, projects still get approved.

Memo to the public: "Just shut up"

This list of recent public actions represents only a small fraction of what Windaction.org is tracking daily.

United Kingdom: In March, Britain's Climate Change Minister Ed Miliband asserted that opposing wind farms should be as "socially unacceptable" as not wearing seat belts or failing to stop at a crosswalk.

In the State of Maine, psychiatrist Richard Jennings used a similar manipulative analogy when he advocated wind power before the State's Wind Power Task Force.

Memo to the public: "Just shut up"

Canada: This week, Ontario Energy and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman reminded the public that the newly adopted Green Energy Act outlaws any resistance to the siting of wind energy facilities by municipalities regardless their concerns. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's edict that "NIMBYism will no longer prevail" sparked fears that all expressed concerns will be viewed as illegitimate or inconsequential.

Memo to the public: "Just shut up"

Illinois: Following a March 21 hearing which lasted a grueling 19 hours, DeKalb County hearing officer David Dockus recommended the County Planning and Zoning Committee deny a permit for NextEra Energy Resources' (formerly FPL Energy) proposed 151-turbine wind energy plant. NextEra submitted supplemental information to address some of the concerns, prompting a second hearing.

NextEra offered no witnesses for cross-examination at the second hearing. Dockus reversed his position and recommended the permit be approved.

The citizen group ‘Citizens for Open Government' filed a Motion to Dismiss detailing how NextEra's Application failed to meet the criteria for a permit and would require existing laws be ignored. Instead, the motion was ignored by Dockus and the County.

Memo to the public: "Just shut up"

New Hampshire: In March, Counsel for the Public Peter Roth eloquently delivered closing comments before the State's Site Evaluation Committee considering Noble Environmental's proposal to construct a 99 megawatt wind energy facility in Coos County. The project, located on some of the region's most sensitive mountain habitat, will negatively impact at least three State endangered or threatened species.

Having objectively weighed the evidence on behalf of the public, Mr. Roth concluded at the hearings "...based on what I've seen of the evidence, I don't think the Applicant has met its burden ...I honestly believe that this Project creates more impact than the power it will do [generate] is worth."

Shortly thereafter, State Attorney General Kelly Ayotte under political pressure, reversed Mr. Roth calling his statements "a misunderstanding". In the final memo to the Committee, Roth changed his position and delivered a letter of support with conditions - most of which were entirely ignored by the Committee.

Memo to the public: "Just shut up"

Massachusetts: The governor and legislature are moving quickly to pass a bill to promote industrial wind development in every community within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The legislation removes all local zoning control and veto power over onshore wind power plants at least 2 megawatts (MW) and shifts permitting authority to the state Energy Facilities Siting Board.

The Siting Board has never turned down a power plant application, according to records in its online database.

The proposed legislation also aims to reverse constitutional protections of public lands (including state forests, reservations, and parks) for industrial wind development, without public say. Similar legislation is pending in Wisconsin and New York.

Memo to the public: "Just shut up"

Back to top

Windaction.org has been tracking a number of controversial wind energy stories that we will be commenting on in future Wind Alert! newsletters.

These include:

a) Legislation proposed in Ontario Canada, Montana, and Wisconsin aimed at fast-tracking wind energy development and silencing the voices of those concerned about massive towers spanning the landscape.

b) Active and substantial public participation in Nevada, Maine, Illinois, and Canada by those seeking to have their concerns addressed before green-lighting of wind energy projects. Over 350 people tried to attend one hearing in Illinois before it was postponed due to overcrowding conditions.

c) A "wind farmer" in Cohocton, New York who broke his silence and spoke out about the unbearable wind turbine noise he is living with. He joins a chorus of others cited in our opinions section who took the time to tell their stories. 

d) The most oft reported story this week, the push to build an expansive transmission network to deliver renewable energy US-wide. Lisa Linowes of Windaction.org will be speaking on this topic next week at the 12th Annual Midwest Energy Conference in Chicago. Watch for her presentation, "Transmission to Everywhere", that focuses on the flaws and high costs of this effort.

Back to top

It is fundamental that the benefits of any proposed wind energy facility outweigh its impacts. Since there are no intrinsic environmental benefits to erecting wind turbines on ridge lines, prairie lands or coastal areas, the benefits of wind-powered electricity are expected to accrue through the displacement of fossil fuel generation, and the offsetting of associated CO2 emissions and other pollutants.

In September, the ISO-NE, which holds responsibility for managing the electric grid system for the New England area, released its 2006 New England Marginal Emission Rate Analysis where it analyzed the annual marginal emission rates of the New England Generation System. The 2006 marginal emission rate values were calculated using actual 2006 hourly generation. 

Table 5.9 of the report states the average CO2 emissions for the entire six-state region was 993 lbs per megawatt hour (lbs/MWh) generated. Put another way 993 lbs/MWh of CO2 could be offset should electricity from wind-generation or other renewable energy sources displace the electricity which otherwise would be produced on the grid from power plants operating on the "margin". The ISO defines “marginal units” for energy and emissions purposes as largely oil and gas units that are needed in the event of higher load on the system.

Given that New England power plants emitted nearly 52-million tons of CO2 in 2006, according to the ISO, it would require nearly 10,000 MW of installed wind energy capacity -- more than 4,500 massive towers -- to offset or displace just 25% of New England's annual power plant emissions of CO2 for 2006.

However, the overriding issue is whether wind turbines will significantly REDUCE the CO2 emissions in New England.

Under New England's cap and trade program (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative - RGGI), owners of wind energy facilities could displace any CO2 emissions produced from another power source, and the generator may sell and/or transfer his unused emissions credits to another source. Thus CO2 emissions which are regulated under the RGGI cap and trade program may be transferred  but are never avoided.

Wind proponents are quick to proclaim the effect of wind generation on greenhouse gas emissions but Windaction.org warns these benefits are less apparent in the New England region for two important reasons:

1) New England relies heavily on clean natural gas for its marginal fuel source, which produces far less CO2 emissions than coal, for example. Any displacement of CO2 due to wind energy generation in the region would be far less than in other parts of the U.S.  which are more dependent on coal. Yet the negative environment, economic, and social impacts of a wind facility can be enormous.

2) Under the region’s cap and trade scheme, emissions are displaced but will never be avoided.

Back to top

Last June, Windaction.org commented on the US Department of Energy's report "20% Wind Power by 2030" touting wind power could supply 20% of the US electricity needs by 2030. Buried in the document was a remarkable admission - that wind power cannot replace the need for many "capacity resources", i.e. those generators that supply electricity during periods when we need it. In other words, while utilities are obligated to provide electricity, instantaneously, when customers demand it, wind does not, nor can it ever, do that.

We liken wind energy to the wayward child. It's unavailable when needed, shows up when unexpected, and when it does arrive it often behaves erratically. Thus, the wind cannot be relied on as a primary fuel source.

As installed wind capacity increases on the grid, up to ninety-percent of this amount may be required in the form of redundant, backup generation from more reliable sources (coal, gas) to ensure supply when the winds die out. Without such redundant power plants, utilities will not be able to meet peak demand, and grid reliability will be compromised.

Today, wind proponents are advocating we populate our rural open spaces, ridge tops, and coastal areas with thousands of massive turbines and added infrastructure (transmission). The impacts of this development on the natural environment and on those living near the towers are far from understood. The need for independent, unbiased study is crucial.

Yet, if the public knew what the DOE already knows -- that no number of towers erected would result in the decommissioning of an existing power plant, nor will they negate the need to build new, reliable generation - would they tolerate the potential harm these turbines cause? We highly doubt it.

Back to top

Pressure is mounting in the United States to construct new and extensive transmission lines necessary to transport wind energy from remote areas where it's generated to markets where it will be consumed. Power lines hundreds of miles long are proposed to criss-cross the country costing billions of dollars. While wind generators are willing to commit to building projects (heavily subsidized by federal tax credits), the cost of new transmission is expected to be borne by ratepayers and taxpayers in the different regions.

Last week, Texas regulators approved $4.93 billion in public dollars to be spent on a web of transmission lines slated to carry west Texas wind to east Texas. The plan is expected to cost residential electricity customers $4 extra per month to cover the cost. While Texas races to claim the moniker of "wind capital", little has been established as to the economic, environmental, and social impacts of this decision.

Contrast this with the debate occurring within the New England regional power pool. Last spring, several proposals were submitted to the ISO-New England to study whether costs for new transmission to remote areas can be regionalized. A key question before the ISO and the region as a whole is "Who is or should be responsible for paying for transmission system projects that are not focused on maintaining power system reliability, or reducing congestion, but instead are entirely or largely driven by the interconnection of new generation resources?" This is one of several questions posed by Paul Hibbard, Chairman of the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, to the ISO-NE. In most cases, the new generating resources referenced by Chairman Hibbard are wind projects proposed for the far northern reaches of Maine and New Hampshire.

In his follow-up comments to the Economic Studies Working Group, Hibbard further notes "the [wind] industry is no longer one that needs to be pampered - wind resource development is now being driven not by local interests or wind wildcatters, but by institutions with extremely deep pockets and sophisticated development strategies" including FPL, T. Boone Pickens, Iberdrola, and Energias de Portugal (EDP).

It is well known that energy prices will be governed at least over the next few decades by the marginal price of the dominant fossil fuel(s) for a region -- which for New England is natural gas and some oil. If the ratepayers in New England and Texas are further asked to bear the mounting costs to construct transmission to remote, windy areas, the much touted "free fuel" starts to look very expensive in real dollars and in environmental costs. (Note: several reports in this week's newsletter focus on the impacts and opposition to new transmission lines).

In addition to socializing the huge costs, building new transmission inevitably involves arm-twisting and outright taking of private property. Texans are known to be at least as protective of their property rights as New Englanders, so where's the outrage?

Back to top

The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC), a quasi-public agency tasked with encouraging renewable energy technologies in the State, is funded through a monthly systems benefit surcharge to all electricity users statewide. MTC has spent millions speculating on wind proposals, including $250k on the out-of-state Redington, Maine project which was denied a permit.

Windaction.org has watched MTC continuously speculate and pressure small towns into adopting community wind energy regardless of need and with no apparent understanding of competing community interests and land use restrictions.

Ratepayer money was gambled and spent before any final approvals for erection of wind turbines in the Town of Orleans. In 2005, MTC contracted to purchase two new Vestes V82 – 1.65 megawatt wind turbines for $5.28 million. They took delivery of the turbines nine months later on Sep 20, 2006 and warehoused them in Houston, TX at storage fees as high as $3,000 a month.

As it turns out, issues with sensitive watershed areas compromised the plan. Then the agency aggressively worked to get the turbines placed in Mattapoisett, MA and neighboring Fairhaven, MA, but public opposition to the giant structures too close to residential areas stymied that effort. Last month, Fairhaven residents filed a civil suit to keep the turbines out.

MTC is now looking to cut its losses and unload the turbines at the original purchase price, less the service warranty which has expired.

Perhaps it’s time for MTC to reevaluate its tactics and how best to implement its mission. Building green communities involves more than moving town to town and leaving a trail of turbines behind. The ratepayers of Massachusetts deserve more accountability from their quasi-public agencies.

Back to top

Giant utility, Florida Power and Light (FPL) is proposing a six-turbine wind energy facility for Hutchinson Island, a barrier island off the east coast of Florida. The project site is home to about 180 species of birds and animals including 36 species that are endangered or threatened. The proposal has been met with considerable opposition by area residents and environmental groups .

In a May 19 letter to St. Lucie County (FL) Board of County Commissioners, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) expressed its apparent support for the FPL wind project. An article about the letter in Scripps Treasure Coast Newspaper was originally headlined "Turbine plan gains support from National Resources Defense Council".

Members of the Save St. Lucie Alliance, a local citizen organization, responded to the letter and press coverage by contacting the letter's author, Nathanael Greene, director of renewable energy policy for NRDC. Mr. Greene disclosed that FPL had asked him to write the letter, and admitted he had no knowledge of the project site nor did he understand the potential environmental impacts should the turbines get built. He stated his intent was to express NRDC's support for wind energy in general, not this project specifically.

Mr. Greene phoned the reporter to correct the record and a correction has since been published in the paper. The updated article with new headline, "National Resources Defense Council urges fair hearing for FPL wind turbine plan", includes a sidebar stating "This article has been modified from its original version... The council has not taken a position on the [wind project]".

WindAction.org applauds local citizens, like the Save St. Lucie Alliance, willing to investigate suspicious press reports and take action to correct the record where necessary.

Back to top

Property owners in Oswego County, NY were notified last week that Babcock & Brown, an Australia wind developer with twenty wind farms in the U.S., could execute eminent domain to secure a 150-foot wide swath across private land needed to erect transmission lines to a proposed wind project on Galloo Island.

This is not the first time international wind concerns have threatened property owners with eminent domain. Early last year, Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tonbridge Power Inc. of Toronto, Ontario, advertised its right of eminent domain to secure land to build a 203-mile "merchant" transmission line across cropland. Three wind energy developers have reserved MATL's transmission capacity and plan wind parks all along the MATL line beginning in 2008.

Three years ago, the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) granted Scottish Power, a Scottish-owned corporation, the power of eminent domain for the purpose of building transmission lines from their Elk River wind energy facility. The KCC granted the authority with no public hearing. With the exception of notices sent to other utilities, the entire process was quietly accomplished in less than three weeks.

Back to top

The USDA's Forest Service proposes to make sweeping changes to its internal directives governing wildlife monitoring and special use authorizations. These proposed changes will greatly facilitate the siting of industrial wind turbines within our National Forests. The new language contained in the Forest Service Manual section now lists the Forest Service's #1 goal as: "Authorize wind energy facilities on National Forest System lands to help meet the nation's energy needs." The Service has declared these proposed revisions as "non-significant", thus exempting this policy action from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, i.e. no Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) needed to evaluate the cumulative impacts of these extensive policy revisions. Please write to insist that the Forest Service not finalize these proposed revisions until they complete an EIS - as should be required pursuant to the letter and intent of NEPA.

The deadline for comments is Jan 23. Please contact us at info@windaction.org with questions or to sign on to a joint letter.

Back to top

Wind energy developers are increasingly benefiting from local town officers who have a conflict of interest in seeing developments built on their own lands. News of such conflicts emerged during the past year from communities in New York, Ohio, Wisconsin, and elsewhere.

In the town of Burke NY, two town board members voting on a proposed Wind Energy Facilities Law were exposed as clearly having "direct pecuniary interest in the placement of wind towers", according to a letter filed by an attorney representing citizens of Burke. The letter asserts "Town Board member Arnold Lobdell is a party to an Option and Lease Agreement with Jericho Rise Wind Farm, LLC.," and "Town Board member David Vincent has entered into an Easement Agreement with Noble Chateaugay Windpark LLC." (see agreements)

Such conflict is destructive to the democratic process and should not be tolerated anywhere in the United States of America. In the case of Burke NY, WindAction.org and others recommends swift action be taken by the Town Board to disavow the draft wind energy facilities law, and re-initiate the effort from scratch with the conflicted members removed from the process.

Back to top

According to California ISO's Integration of Renewable Resources draft report (http://www.windaction.org/documents/12510) wind generation on a typical summer day peaks during periods of low demand and is at its lowest production levels when electricity demand is high.

This graph (http://www.windaction.org/pictures/12515) shows the variation of average hourly wind generation and actual wind generation (red dots) at the time of the daily system peak demand for the month of July 2006.

The report further states that while the daily summer pattern of high demand and low wind is predictable, the actual hourly wind generation output can vary significantly from one day to the next. As more wind is added to a grid region, the impact of this variability becomes more pronounced. Even with advanced wind forecasting in place and available five minutes ahead, wind could vary by hundreds of megawatts in the time it takes to respond to the forecast.

Back to top

An analysis of grid interconnection requests within U.S. portions of North America reveals that proposed wind energy development as of October 2007 totals up to 164,900 MW. This information, based on data compiled within the last two months, is regionally distributed as follows (rounded to the nearest 100 MW):

New England (NE ISO): 2,100 MW
New York (NY ISO): 6,800 MW
Mid-Atlantic region (PJM): 24,500 MW (includes northern IN and IL)
Mid-West region (MISO): 65,500 MW
Texas (ERCOT): 35,500 MW (most of TX)
Southcentral region (SPP): 19,300 MW (mostly comprised of KS and OK, but also TX panhandle)
Western region (WECC): 11,200 MW (entire western US)

Back to top

By the end of 2005, Germany's installed capacity of wind energy connected to the grid represented 18,300MW. The control area for transmission operator E.ON Netz GmbH included close to 7,600MW or 41% of the total installed. According to E.ON Netz's report entitled Data and Facts Relating to Wind Power in Germany (see: http://www.windaction.org/documents/11871), wind availability for 2005 was below average. This helps explain why the average wind power feed-in within E.ON's control area for that year was only 1327 MW, or 18%. The lowest feed-in for 2005 was 8MW (0.1% capacity) and occurred just after noon on May 5, 2005.

In its 2005 Wind Report (see: http://www.windaction.org/documents/461) E.ON Netz stated that as wind power capacity increased, the corresponding contribution of wind power to guaranteed capacity on the grid will fall continuously to around 4% by the year 2020. Said another way, if Germany achieves its forecast of 48,000 MW of wind by 2020, a mere 2000MW of traditional generation (coal, gas, nuclear) will be replaced by wind turbines. Given wind's fickle, unpredictable nature and the lack of viable large-scale energy storage technology, wind power will not negate the need to build more reliable power generation.

Back to top

The Green-e Renewable Energy Program's seal of approval is provided to all wind and other renewable energy projects which adhere to a set of national standards and pay a fee. According to the Green-e website ( http://www.green-e.org/ ), "The Green-e logo is the most trusted symbol in America for high quality renewable energy. The logo is backed by the Green-e program, the nation's leading independent certification and verification program from the Center for Resource Solutions."

However, the only "environmental" criteria used to determine whether a renewable energy project qualifies for "green-e" certification is if it generates electricity from fuel sources other than fossil fuels, nuclear and hydropower greater than 5 MW (see: http://www.windaction.org/documents/12207). If a wind project slaughters thousands of bats and birds annually, destroys hundreds of acres of forest or important wildlife habitat, is built on public land, or impacts a scenic viewshed or "dark sky" reserve, the facility, nonetheless, would be awarded the coveted "Green-e" marketing stamp-of-approval without questions or reservations.

Back to top

The windaction.org database contains over 21,000 items selectively culled from sources all over the world.

When a News event spurs multiple articles, we do not simply post every write-up. Each article is reviewed and usually the best single article for that News is selected.

Opinion pieces and letters that are posted meet strict editorial guidelines. Only those that are well written by informed and experienced authors are selected.

Documents, images, and other entries in our resource library are carefully reviewed for accuracy and credibility, and as much as possible, bring something new to the debate.

It is important that our visitors have confidence that content from windaction.org stands up under scrutiny.

If you have any questions regarding an item on the site, or if you are having difficulty locating a particular resource, please e-mail us at info@windaction.org.

Back to top