|
Most Recent Public Policy & Government
Photos in the News… |
In the Kittitas Valley, about 12 miles northwest of Ellensburg, Washington, a 65 turbine windfarm is in the final stages of approval. This windfarm will consume 6,000 acres, nearly ten square miles, and given each turbine is atop a 410 foot tower, it is reasonable to assume these are going to be very large generators, with a yield of 2.5 megawatts each. So this $150 million project will produce 165 megawatts of energy, or about 16 megawatt-years per square mile.
To put this in perspective, energy consumption in the USA in 2006 was just about 100 quadrillion BTUs, or about 25% of total worldwide energy consumption. Since 1 “quad” BTU equals 33.4 gigawatt-years of electricity, the total energy consumption of the USA, expressed in units of electric power equates to 3,340 gigawatt-years.
The reason all of this matters is because (1) we are moving to an energy economy that relies increasingly on electricity, and (2) Al Gore’s “pledge” requires the USA to reduce CO2 emissions by 50% within 20 years – which in practical terms means decommissioning fossil fuel plants and replacing them with things like wind generators.
So if our state-of-the-art wind generating towers can yield 16 megawatt-years of power per square mile, if we were to rely on wind power to accomplish Al Gore’s mandate, i.e., generate 50 quadrillion BTUs per year (1,670 gigawatt-years of electricity per year) using windmills, we would have to consume 104,000 square miles of land.
The question isn’t really whether or not there is enough land to do this – there probably is. The real question is why are environmentalists, who have fought every land development initiative in the USA for the last 30 years, behind wind power? These are the same people who have erected Berlin Walls around every city in the country, walls euphemistically called “urban service boundaries” in order to prevent “leapfrog growth,” and preserve “open space.”
Environmental lobbyists are more powerful than they’ve ever been, financed now not only with tax-deductible contributions from the public, and “reconveyance fees” assessed on every home sale (a growing phenomenon – watch out), but also today with “carbon offset” funds.
Returning to the Kittitas Valley in Washington state, these wealthy environmentalists, backed by wind energy corporations who are thrilled to milk the anti-CO2 hysteria for all it’s worth, are cramming this massive wind installation down the throats of the local residents. We received an email yesterday from a local homeowner in Kittitas Valley. Here is what they said:
“I live in Kittitas County in Washington state. Our county commissioners voted no on 2 sites that are located near homes. The 2 companies, Horizon and EnXco preempted local government and went to EFSEC, a committee appointed by the Governor and they said YES to the corporations. This is the first time in history local government has been overturned on land use issues.”
There is nothing wrong with building wind generators. But environmentalists are selective in what land use they approve and what land use they fight. They don’t want us to have land for homes unless we are in “smart growth” (translation ultra high-density) “pedestrian friendly” (translation, nobody goes there because you can’t park), “transit villages” (translation – light rail boondoggles) where people are forced to live at a population density comparable to Singapore. This is all to preserve sacred open space. In California this is the reason homes on 4,000 square foot lots cost $500K.
But when it comes to wind generators – environmentalists don’t care. The same land that is too sacred to allow housing will get covered with wind farms – and all of the financial muscle the environmentalists employed to fight against developments of homes is used to fight for developments of wind farms.
Biofuel, another pet project of Washington’s governor, along with pretty much every other politician and environmentalist on earth, is far worse. To generate 50% of the power consumed in 2006 in the USA using biofuel – at a yield of 2,500 barrels per square mile per year (one quad BTU equals 179 million barrels of oil) we would need to replace 3.6 million square miles of land with biofuel plantations. And that is exactly what we are doing – from the Central Valley of California to the rainforests of the Amazon. But we have no room for housing.
Environmentalists today are not just a threat to property rights, they are a threat to the environment – at least when it comes to biofuel. And in the case of windmills, which one can argue make sense environmentally and financially, the environmentalists are hypocrites – employing a standard when considering housing developments that is precisely opposite the standard they employ when considering windfarm developments.
Pingback by [TS] THE TV WATCH; Sounding the Global-Warming Alarm Without Upsetting the Fans | Become An Environmentalist
July 19, 2007 at 8:40 am - #
[...] The Double Standard In the Kittitas Valley, about 12 miles northwest of Ellensburg, Washington, a 65 turbine windfarm is in the final stages of approval. This windfarm will consume 6,000 acres, nearly ten square miles, and given each turbine is atop a 410 foot tower, it is reasonable to assume these are going to be very large generators, with […] [...]
Pingback by Sea levels may rise by 9 inches this century, scientists warn | Become An Environmentalist
July 21, 2007 at 8:39 am - #
[...] The Double Standard In the Kittitas Valley, about 12 miles northwest of Ellensburg, Washington, a 65 turbine windfarm is in the final stages of approval. This windfarm will consume 6,000 acres, nearly ten square miles, and given each turbine is atop a 410 foot tower, it is reasonable to assume these are going to be very large generators, with […] [...]
Pingback by Sustainable Harvest International - Trees With a Future | Become An Environmentalist
July 21, 2007 at 8:41 am - #
[...] The Double Standard In the Kittitas Valley, about 12 miles northwest of Ellensburg, Washington, a 65 turbine windfarm is in the final stages of approval. This windfarm will consume 6,000 acres, nearly ten square miles, and given each turbine is atop a 410 foot tower, it is reasonable to assume these are going to be very large generators, with […] [...]
Comment by Mike Robertson
July 23, 2007 at 11:46 am - #
The discussion is very interesting, but the REAL picture is far, far worse.
That 165 megawatts mentioned is really only 50 megawatts effective (≈30% of ‘nameplate capacity’ which is optimal wind, always blowing) due to the intermittent nature of wind power generation and requires ‘reserve backup’ (peaking power) at all times to meet load when the wind doesn’t blow. In Washington State that backup capacity is hydro-electric today, but by the end of the year, new capacity will have to be built – most likely expensive, CO2 emitting, natural gas fired generators.
Using the article’s figures, it is really only ≈5 mega-watt-years per square mile. If our state-of-the-art wind generating towers can only yield 5 megawatt-years of power per square mile and if we were to rely on wind power to accomplish Al Gore’s mandate, i.e., generate 50 quadrillion BTUs per year (1,670 gigawatt-years of electricity per year) using windmills, we would have to consume 334,000 square miles of land (4.7 “Washington States” – Washington State is 71,303 square miles in size). This number would actually be much higher if CO2 gas emission reduction is the goal because of the additional CO2 emitting backup capacity requirement.
Ridiculous.
Comment by Ed Ring
July 23, 2007 at 11:54 am - #
Mike – thank you for your comment. There isn’t much information available regarding the Kittitas proposal – I assumed if these wind generator towers are going to be 410 feet tall then they probably will have 5 megawatt “nameplate” output. So I assumed a yield of 50%, or 2.5 megawatts per tower. You could be right however – the yield may be 33% instead of 50%, and the actual maximum output of each generator may only be 3.0 megawatts each – a 3.0 megawatt wind turbine is still a huge unit. So rather than the Kittitas windfarm providing 165 megawatt-years of output per year we could be looking at as little as 65 megawatt-years of output (3.0 MW (max) x 33% (yield) x 65 turbines).
To me the larger question remains this: Why do environmentalists think there’s room for windfarms and biofuel plantations, when they oppose every new housing development that isn’t at a density of 10,000+ people per square mile? We have room for windfarms and biofuel plantations – the latter an extremely inefficient use of land and water – but we have no room for new homes with yards?
Comment by Mike Robertson
July 23, 2007 at 5:33 pm - #
Hi Ed,
The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Kittitas Valley Wind Power Project (http://www.efsec.wa.gov/kittitaswind/FEIS/kvfeis.shtml) states: “Sagebrush Power Partners LLC proposes to construct and operate up to 65 wind turbines that would generate approximately 97 to 195 megawatts (MW) of wind power in Kittitas County, Washington.”
The maximum turbine size would be 3 MW (name plate).
The other shocking aspect of this project is that it is being proposed in an area of shrub-steppe that is in a known raptor migratory flyway.
There is nothing good that can be said for this project except it will make a lot of money for a foreign owned company.
Comment by ed wheeler
August 10, 2007 at 7:34 pm - #
And don’t forget the NIMBY double standard. When the most notable “environmentalist” Robert Kennedy Jr. and his extended family use their royal political influence to prevent the construction of wind generators off Martha’s Vinyard (it might hurt their view of the ocean?), what’s a boy to think? Just read ecoworld archives on the need for nuclear power.
Comment by Ed
August 11, 2007 at 2:56 pm - #
Thank you for weighing in on this Dr. Wheeler! For our readers’ sake, here are some links:
Nuclear Power – by Dr. Edward Wheeler
http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=375
Nuclear Power in India – by Avilash Roul
http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=402
Refill The Aral Sea (something to do with nuclear power) – by Redwood Ring
http://www.ecoworld.com/Home/Articles2.cfm?TID=378