Reaping the wind, sparking a fight
Few subjects ignite more intense reactions than wind power. Supporters of wind farms see them as pollution-free sources of electricity and symbols of our nation's willingness to tackle the moral crisis of global warming. Critics call them government-subsidized scams too unreliable to replace coal and gas power plants, but certainly large enough to permanently mangle a lot of beautiful landscape.
I published a story in today's paper about a Western Maryland farmer who wants a developer to raise three nearly 40-story turbines on his land. For 69-year-old John Roth, the wind farm would bring him enough money (perhaps $15,000 to $20,000 a year) to allow him to retire and stay on the more than century-old farm where he and his father were born. Without the cash, Roth worries he'd have to sell the farm, because he's getting older and can't physically tackle raising corn anymore. So he wants to reap the wind.
Many neighbors praise Roth, saying he's growing a clean energy plant and has the right to do what the hell he wants with his land. But the project, led by Annapolis-based Synergics and its director Wayne Rogers, a former chairman of the Maryland Democratic party, has some persistent critics, who worry about Maryland's tallest ridge being turned into an industrial landscape.
Shorly after my story was published this morning, I received this email from frequent wind critic Jon Boone of Oakland: "Yet another reprehensible story enhancing the industrial wind con, helping Wayne Rogers.... despoil and exploit the land and people of Western Maryland for his own very substantial profit. Rogers' wind project atop Roth Rock would contribute nothing to the region's energy store while clearcuttting, dynamiting, and fragmenting some of the most sensitive habitat in the state, jeopardizing several state-endangered species, and threatening the quality of life for virtually all surrounding neighbors. Those who endorse or profit from placing such industrial complexes near the homes of others evidently don’t have a clue about how to foster civil society. If Rogers succeeds with this project, it will be because the gullible are led by the pretentious, a process made easier because of a lack of accountability.... and the pervasive vacuity of our political and regulatory culture. And stories like this one, from reporters who couldn't hit water with an accurate accounting if they fell out of a boat."
Well, I think we can read between the lines there -- Jon isn't the world's biggest supporter of wind. I'm going to quibble with his last line, however. In fact, I frequently hit water with great accuracy while falling out of boats.
However, another reader, George Marsh, correctly pointed out that the story contained an error (for which we are running a correction.) My story said that the Maryland Public Service Commission last October approved the Roth Rock Wind Project. In fact, a hearing examiner for the commission issued a proposed order, approving a permit (called a "certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN)"). This might have been enough to allow the project to move ahead -- but it was appealed, and the full five member Public Service Commission hasn't yet voted on this appeal. Without this vote, it's not official. Thanks for setting the record straight on this matter, George.
But there's also a twist: a law passed last spring says that CPCN's aren't necessary for wind farms of this size. So the whole issue of approval or not approval of a CPCN may be moot.
(George also brought up the fact that the ridge owned by John Roth where the windmills are proposed are above his farm, and physically separate from it. I don't think this changes the fact that Roth hopes to make enough money to remain on his farm by allowing the developer to build the wind turbines on his land -- whether the turbines are "above" his farm (which is what I wrote) or right in the middle of his fields)
From another reader, I got this message in support of John Roth from Andrea Lake, an educator from Harford County: "Dear Mr. Pelton, My vote is to let Mr. Roth do what he wants with his land - we have lost so many of our rights - let's let this one stand. Our country needs to 'wake up'.
Another reader, Don Airey, from upstate New York, reports that fights over wind turbines in the Schoharie Valley have gotten so bitter that police had to escort someone out of a town hall meeting this week. "It's that emotional and passionate when people's homes are involved," Airey wrote.
Meanwhile, The New York Times and many other publications have been discussing the reliability of wind power.
A Nov. 23 story by The Times' Mark Landler says: "Wind energy is coming under sharper scrutiny, not just from hostile neighbors, who complain that the towers are a blot on the landscape, but from energy experts who question its reliability as a source of power."
"For starters, the wind does not blow all the time. When it does, it does not necessarily do so during periods of high demand for electricity. That makes wind a shaky replacement for more dependable, if polluting, energy sources like oil, coal and natural gas. Moreover, to capture the best breezes, wind farms are often built far from where the demand for electricity is highest. The power they generate must then be carried over long distances on high-voltage lines, which in Germany and other countries are strained and prone to breakdowns. In the United States, one of the areas most suited for wind turbines is the central part of the country, stretching from Texas through the northern Great Plains -- far from the coastal population centers that need the most electricity."
The Times piece also brings up the current lack of electrical storage capacity for wind power. So that lots of electrity is created on windy days, but there are few practical ways to store this excess until its needed on windless days.
Another perspective comes from writer Karl Stahlkopf, in the technical journal Spectrum Online. He suggests that power grids could be redesigned with equipment that could redistribute power, so that a lull in wind in one area could be compensated by turbines operating in another zone.
"Electronics devices can be combined with energy storage technologies that operate over a range of time scales to manage the shifts in wind power production," he writes. "....Continental supergrids eventually will help, too, by distributing wind-generated power across whole regions, balancing regions where the wind happens to be blowing with those that may be becalmed, while simultaneously spreading the burden of providing backup power."
Is this possible? I always thought that if wind is down in one region of the country it's likely also down in nearby areas from which transmission would be pratical. I don't know. But if there are any experts on electricity transmission out there, I would like to hear from them.
Comments
Wind energy is not perfect. But it can be part of the solution to our energy problems. Many of the arguments against it are just childish. The wind does not blow all the time argument in particular. No one is suggesting taking out current power systems because some one is putting in a few turbines.The same with what if there is too much wind. the power produced will not go to waste a few turbines will not produce more than whatever power plant is in the area.
Posted by: cheflovesbeer | November 30, 2007 12:24 AM
The Department of Energy with the American Wind Energy Association is about to release a study of a scenario in which wind power could provide 20 percent of the Nation's electric power annually by the year 2030.
The issue of wind energy integration, needed transmission and wind's variability has been studied extensively in the US and Europe. A summary of results can be found at the web site of the Utility Wind Integration Group, largely composed of utilities interested in more use of wind power. Annual amounts of up to 10 to 20 percent wind can easily be accommodated on most grids at modest costs. The benefits of wind are provided as a native, non-carbon electricity source.
Over 30 States have wind resources that might be developed for electric power use. Transmission is a key link between generation and use. There are time of day and geographic variations related to the wind resource that allow a system composed of several wind plants to be more reliable that the sum of single wind plants.
I recommend spending some time at the Utility Wind Integration Group Web site (www.uwig.org) or looking at the IEEE Power Engineering Society Power and Energy special Issue on Wind Integration (Volume 5, No. 6) for more information.
Jack Cadogan
Posted by: John B. (Jack) Cadogan | November 30, 2007 9:42 AM
Wind energy is not the end all solution, it is part of the solution. Research your facts. For every MW of wind energy we produce, we displace tons of pollutants and help our environment. This is an action that Mr. Boone should consider when he calls this socially irresponsible.
Posted by: Terry VanStean | November 30, 2007 12:09 PM
Theodore Eldridge wrote: "I think they should allow the wind farm to go ahead with the full blessings from everyone. It beats the damage of strip mining that occurs in my home state of Kentucky. So what if we have to see windmills on a ridgeline. Why don't we just plant some tulips at their base and think we are in Holland? Let's stop being so scared of positive change. Oil is a running out and the world will get more dangerous as time goes. We have to start looking for alternative resources that will allow our country to go forward independent of other nations. My hat is off to this farmer for being so progressive in his thoughts and actions."
Posted by: Theodore Eldridge | November 30, 2007 4:23 PM
Lindy of Severn, Md., wrote: "I am wondering if the 30 percent of local residents who are against this are people that have moved into Garrett County recently. You know, the ones that drove up the value of real estate looking for their 'escape.' I am betting that the majority that are supportive are the folks that have spent their lives in the area. It is so sad that others want to tell folks what they can, or can not, do with property that they own. I would understand if what he was being proposed was illegal, immoral or a health risk, but to say the are concerned with property values says to me that it is a materialistic reason."
Posted by: Lindy | November 30, 2007 4:25 PM
Wind power, while being a decent technology, will not and honestly can not provide the kind of power required to power us today, or even 20 years ago, much less 20 years from now. I find it telling that the most economic, greenhouse friendly emission power source isn't even mentioned in that article---as if it doesn't even exist. Nuclear power is the only large scale solution if you want to eliminate greenhouse emitting power sources. I gleefully wait for that unhappy realization to cross the face of many an anti-nuclear activist. They weave the nuclear rope they are going to hang themselves with thanks to every article scaring the public with the great Global Warming Scam of 2007.
If you think I've gone to far, you're wrong. I haven't gone far enough. In addition, we need to deploy breeder reactors to generate plutonium-241 so that we can squeeze every megawatt out of the uranium-238 we mine. In addition, research dollars need to be poured into Transuranic burner technology, to turn long-lived fission byproducts into short-lived isotopes that won't pose a threat to humanity thousands of years from now.
Yes...safety is a concern. Of course its a concern. Chernobyl style reactors should not (and should never) have been built. However, which is worse? The sea level rise guaranteed by the Global Warming activists displacing millions, perhaps billions, around the world, or the threat, however slight it may be, of a Chernobyl style reactor melt-down (of which in this country none of that magnitude has ever been seen, and only one in world history has ever occured)?
Thanks for reading. I'm putting my soapbox away (for the time being anyway).
Posted by: Anthony | December 4, 2007 12:19 PM
George Marsh wrote:
"Your story misled readers into believing that the Commission approved the CPCN application but that subsequently the legal actions by "activists" and the "restrictions imposed by DNR" succeeded in "stalling" the Synergics project. Sadly, your slant and info is inaccurate on 3 or 4 levels.
First, as I've indicated all along, the Commission has not approved the CPCN application for this project. Second, there has been no actions or filings taken by DNR subsequent to the "proposed order" of the hearing examiner. Third, the DNR lacks the legal authority to "impose"
restrictions in cases under review by the PSC - otherwise Rogers would have nothing to gain by the law change which now exempts projects like his from having to obtain a CPCN (although a resubmitted application for this project still would require "approval" by the PSC, the DNR will have no influence - as you've pointed out in your article last March). And fourth, if Synergics had not also appealed the hearing examiner's "proposed order", the Commission likely would have heard and not agreed with the points raised in the other administrative appeals regarding this case - and would have voted to accept the hearing examiner's order and issued a CPCN to Rogers (thus clearing the way for his project to proceed with construction).
Unfortunately, your story failed to mention that the "proposed order"
of the hearing examiner in this case would have allowed Synergics to proceed with construction on a large portion of its proposed project area - including the forested 24-acres owned by Mr. Roth. Synergics could have built at least 13 turbines in the area the hearing examiner authorized for construction. Instead, you uncritically accepted Rogers' assertion that the "DNR restrictions" prevented his project from going forward. However, there have been 2 wind energy projects built within PA during the same time period as this case, and each of these "wind farms" involved only 12 or 13 2-MW turbines.
I don't contest your right to do a "feature story" about the economic hardship of someone who is ensnarled in an environmental permit decision, but I do object to the grossly misleading way you portrayed the situation in this piece. It reveals something amiss in your perspective on the Environment that you don't see the relevence of informing your readers about facts such as Mr. Roth's 3 wind turbines were slated to be built on a totally forested parcel which is located over a mile away from his actual farm....."
Tom Pelton replied to George Marsh:
" In terms of the project being stalled by the restrictions imposed by
the DNR, I think this is accurate. The DNR recommended restrictions,
the PSC agreed with them -- and the developer said the project
couldn't move ahead with those restrictions, so he appealed them.
That was certainly a limit initiated by the DNR -- and it arguably
slowed the project down.
If the piece of John Roth's land that is proposed for the turbines is
on a ridge above and physically separate from the rest of his land
doesn't change the fact that it's all his land -- and he argues that
allowing the project to go ahead will give him enough cash to allow
him to stay on the farm."
George Marsh wrote: "I hope we can agree that the hearing examiner in the MD PSC case involving Synergics' wind energy project issued a "Proposed Order" at the end of October 2006 which recommended that a CPCN be granted - with conditions. However, you are mistaken to believe that his order became final."
Posted by: George Marsh | December 4, 2007 2:22 PM