In North America, wind turbines have a record of killing workers that much exceeds that of nuclear power stations, especially on a per-unit-energy basis.

Natural land that is designated either state or national forest is designated as so, so that act of forestry may happen. Forestry is managing the woods so that someday the trees may be harvested.
It is a shame that the above point was not more emphasized. Being that land is state forest the hills are already designated and probable do have dirt roads cut in them from lumber removal. The hills willed be scalped sometime in the future when the trees are harvested. So it is a moot point to argue that the wind mills will destroy the scenery.
What will happen with out the wind mills will be that the cost of electricity will continue to get more expense in Maryland and Marylanders will turn to alternative energy sources. One of these alternative forms that has gain some momentum lately is wood pellet stoves. Which fueled with wood harvested on forest lands.
As for destroying the looks of the hill tops, man has already done that with power lines, pipe lines, housing, ski slopes, microwave towers, radio towers, and cell phone towers.
So in the end I vote to put the next coal fired power plant out in western Maryland, to support the growth out in western Maryland. There will be another coal fired power plant built to support Maryland's growth. It may be just over the line in West Virginia.

The question you ask is an unfairly loaded one. Fighting global warming is certainly not the only issue when it comes to the new nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs. What about: the enormity of the costs, the consequent uncertaintly of the impact on rates, the untested nature of the new nuclear design, the utter lack of resolution to the multiple nuclear waste issues, etc. A combination of efficiency, renewables, transmission capability, and more innovative and thoughtful generation capacity is the complicated answer to what is a much more complicated question than the one you ask.

To be honest, you're making it sound like it was an outright rejection of turbines -- it wasn't. It was a rejection of the notion that we should allow state environmental land to be clearcut for placement of the turbines.

I can't believe the wind developers really thought state citizens would casually stand by while our protected land was violated in this way. You don't need to be an environmentalist to be offended by this approach to renewable energy development.

Which would do more to fight global warming, hundreds of 40-story wind turbines? Or a single nuclear reactor?

You would need 3,000 megawatts of wind turbines to provide the same amount of power as a 1,000 MW nuclear plant. This is because nuclear plants generate electricity about 90% of the time whereas wind farms generate electricity 30% of the time. The proposed Calvert Cliffs unit will be 1,600 MW of capacity.

The land requirements for 3,000 MW of wind would be about 230 square miles whereas one nuclear plant would only take up one square mile. The largest wind farm built to date (Horse Hollow in Texas) is only about 800 MW.

Wind can provide some benefits in certain areas of the country, but it can't provide baseload, reliable power like a nuclear plant can.

It doesn't take much research to find hundreds of watchdog groups keeping their eye on the wind industry. Most people don't understand that this is a evasive, destructive and ultimately unrelyable form of energy generation. Trading one environmental problem for another is not the answer to Maryland's energy problems. The wind industry will tell you it is a clean form of energy which has no impact on the environment which could not be further from the truth and that truth was exposed by one of their own. The March 8, 2008 edition of the Cumberland Times News, contained a story about the MT Storm, WV wind farm being behind schedule. In the article, the builder (who was from out of the area and apparently unaware of the rageing battle over this issue) decribes the absolute destruction involved in building each turbine He states "the foundations for the turbines include several hundred cubic yards of concrete...they are 8 feet deep and 58 feet across with 100 tons of rebar in each" The builder stated the company has installed 18 miles of roadway."The roads are 35 feet wide of limestone" " It's almost like a superhighway" ..."There is a swamp up there, in some places we had to put boulders to keep the road stable...there is substantial fill." What do you think....no impact on the environment??? Would you like to live next to one, much less hundreds of these turbines? The wind industries says there will have to be some people who will have to sacrifice their quaility of life to provide this type of energy generation. Who should have to make that sacrifice? The mountains of West Virginia are some of the most beautiful in the United States and maybe in the world. It is a crime what West Virginia has allowed the wind industry to do to their ridgelines. Is this what we want for Maryland? More specifically is this what we want for Garrett County? Garrett county is the only proposed sites for wind turbines. A reasonable individiual must be able to see that even if we put a wind turbine on every ridge in Garrett County, it wouldn't make any meaningful difference in Maryland's energy problems and forever change our great state. I have heard Maryland many times decribed as "America in miniature". When they have filled all the ridgetops in Garrett County then where next?? Our beautiful Cheaspeake Bay?
I don't have a suggestion for a quick fix to Maryland's or our great country's energy problems but I can tell you that conservation needs to but a the top of the list. We are a nation of glutons and we need to change our energy uses or will we never be able to build enough energy generation of any kind to keep up.
It's funny, the whole mess with Allegheny Power and the light bulb issue is a crying shame, they had the right idea, they just went about it wrong.

Please educate yourself about wind power. www.windaction.org is a good place to start. The site posted news articles relating to these issues on a daily basis.

Thank you for the opportunity to post my comments.

Anyone stop to ask France how they like their nukes? They aren't dependent on oil and coal anymore and have not had a single accident that I am aware of. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

You stated that safety is not a reason that Garrett County is opposed to industrial wind development. But this is not true. In fact public safety is a primary reason for opposing placement of wind turbines on private lands, as well as on public lands.
Many safety issues have been raised, from falling ice, sound pollution that causes minor irritation to seizures, and flickering lights that do the same to the potential for accidents such as turbines literally exploding due to brake failure, catching fire due to poor maintenance, etc.
The set backs are not enough to ensure public health and safety, nor will they ever be in the so called ideal wind locations. All of the proposed wind development is too close to civilization. And if we are to act civilized about this, we wouldn't locate wind turbines on ridge tops in Garrett County -or Allegany County, or anywhere.

Catonsville-based consumer advocate Chris Bush offers this feedback:

Pelton's blog completely ignores the fact that the Calvert Cliffs Expansion would be substantially more expensive than an equivalent amount of wind turbines: in the EC (Electricity Crisis, an email newsletter written by Bush) of April 11, 2008, the estimate for nuclear expansion at Calvert Cliffs was 18% MORE than an equivalent amount of wind turbines

- and, Pelton says little about the many problems of nuclear- including safety and security considerations, transportation of nuclear waste- such waste which will pass via rail and semi THROUGH Garrett County on the way to Yucca Mountain.

Here is my response to Chris Bush:

You might be right about the cost question -- but what about reliability? You suggested that electricity from nuclear power nuclear might cost 18 percent more per megawatt than electricity from wind power. My rough calculation is that nuclear power could cost 25 percent more. But that doesn't take into account that wind turbines need another generation source to back them up when the wind slows down. What about that cost? Nuclear power doesn't need backup -- it can run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That also has financial value that should be added to the equasion.

Tom,

The scale, costs and reality of building both wind and nuclear cannot be compared. It is an apples/oranges comparison. The reality is a fruit basket needs all -- and in this energy case we will need all as well.

As for the claims of opponents about the significance of this decision, they are overstated. Our priority remains the private land projects that are in advanced stages of development. It is also important to remember that the sliver of public land (.03%) that was potentially suitable for a wind project was already being timbered by private companies.

I will gladly put a bet down on which one is built first though: The wind turbines are a lock.

Frank Maisano

Nuke plants are great. A 1GWe plant is so overwhelmingly more powerful than the capacity of so many wind turbines combined.

I like winds. Somehow I think once one get the turbines built, the energy is basically free. Even a tiny fraction of solar energy in the form of winds is harvested, it would still be a great deal. It's calculated that just one minute of solar energy incidence on earth is equivalent to energy needs of the entire world for a year.

As for the issue of aesthetic and winds, I think the opposition is from rich residences. This is the same as oppositions to the Cape Wind project in MA. Thinking about this issue in term of black and white makes for a stiff resistance to winds. I offer an idea for compromise; perhaps let developers build wind turbines but have sunset provisions of 10, 20, or 25 years. After the time period has passed, the turbines must be disassembled and the issue would be up for debate again.

The other analysis one should make is regarding the differences between the two economies. Residences should decide whether nuclear power or winds bring them the greater or lesser employment opportunities.

Ultimately, I'm a bit ambivalent about the needs for electricity. It's such a waste to light up the planet at night just to make it look good to space aliens. There's got to be a way to structure life around the on/off/availability of intermittent power sources. How about designing computers that use less power or can hibernate more reliably? Or maybe use intermittent power to synthesize gasoline, or develop some efficient storage mechanism? How about smart hand held phones or Ipod like devices to replace computers?

Please also see my blog. I calculated that we need 500 plants to synthesize all domestic needs for gasoline.

PART 1:
Attempting to establish a parallelism for wind technology and nuclear power in the production of electricity is akin to comparing a skittering flea to a herd of elephants. It's a silly argument, which can exist only because of wishful thinking and a complete lack of intellectual rigor. Consider the present conventional fuel mix for the PJM grid, which generates up to 140,000 MW to satisfy demand:
nuclear accounts for 35% of the grid's power (coal--58%; natural gas--5%; hydro--1%; and oil--.3%) while wind provides less than .1%.
Over the last decade, nuclear has produced between 35% and 40% of the grid's generation. In doing so, it provides essential power, dedicated as it is to meeting ongoing basic demand needs. It may take a few days to ramp up to full power but once there it generates a steady, dependable, highly reliable stream of its rated power more than 90% of the time, night and day, throughout the year. Last year, the capacity factor for nuclear power was 92%. And it does so without producing carbon emissions. By any measure, nuclear is the safest power supplier in the world. Many more deaths have been directly and indirectly traced to each of the other power sources.

The only other conventional generation that produces no greenhouse gasses is perhaps the most effective electricity power source ever, hydro. But, although hydro is renewable, it is so environmentally damaging that many dams are now being decommissioned and no new large hydro dams are being built anywhere in the country.

Because of the random, volatile nature of its power source, wind technology is at best a sporadic fuel substitute. Because it is wholly unreliable, it produces no effective capacity--one can never be sure if it will be available, or even what level of energy it will provide if it is available, since that energy level is continuously changing. Consequently, wind energy always must be accompanied by reliable conventional generation, since the grid must (1) match supply with demand on a less than second-by-second basis and (2) electricity at bulk levels cannot be stored. It is not at all clear what conventional generators wind can replace or avoid--and what generators must be used to follow and balance wind volatility.
Consequently, it is also not clear what volume of greenhouse gasses wind technology might offset. There has been no documentation anywhere by independent, transparent means demonstrating that carbon emissions have actually been reduced by wind. Given that wind cannot displace slow ramping but essential generators such as nuclear and large coal plants, and given the increased thermal activity required on the grid to balance wind volatility, any system-wide offsets of greenhouse gasses on most grids would be miniscule. And because wind has no capacity value, it cannot be used to wholly replace any conventional generating units, or prevent the building of such reliable facilities, including coal, in order to meet new demand.

The premise behind the question whether we should have wind installations instead of nuclear is badly skewed. Better to ask whether we should have phlogiston instead of oxygen in the air we breathe.

PART 2:

More than two thousand 2.5MW wind turbines spread over hundreds of miles would be required mathematically to offset one percent of the PJM's peak generation--about 1400MW. A 1400MW nuclear plant, contained in discreet space within a relatively small area, would produce 1400MW day and night over 90% annually--and emit no greenhouse gasses in the process. Contrast this with those 2000 wind turbines, which would deliver a skittering average of 1400MW but would produce no effective capacity.

Although the annual energy contribution of the two facilities would be equivalent on paper, the vast array of wind installations could never replace the nuclear plant in terms of its reliability. In fact, one should ask how many such wind facilities must be built to equal stochastically the effective capacity of that single nuclear plant.
Or any conventional generating plant, especially coal. And then one should ask about the thermal implications of such a vast wind enterprise, given that wind's volatility must be followed and balanced by fossil-fired reliable conventional generators. And then one should ask for a measurement of the environmental consequences of placing massive wind structures among many miles of mostly sensitive habitat.

The essence of "green" technology is that it strives to leave no trace. Wind is not a “leave no trace” technology. It is a supernumerary producer of electricity enabled because the slap and tickle of wind propaganda flatters the gullible, exploits the well intentioned, and nurtures the craven. It is made possible because there's no penalty for lying in the energy marketplace.

Jon Boone
Oakland, MD

Chris Bush replies:

Spent Fuel Transportaton Problem for Garrett County NOT Addressed by Prominent Anti-Wind Activist Jon Boone

Boone, a Prominent Anti-Wind Activist in the County, Posted on Balt Sun's Eco Writer Tom Pelton's Blog the Benefits of Nuclear Power...

...BUT, Boone Does NOT Address Issues Around the Transportation of Spent Fuel Rods Through Garrett County/

Boone Also Repeats a Questionable Claim: that the Introduction of Wind Turbines Will Require Backup Generating Capacity, When the Federal Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Says Just the Opposite/

And, Boone Does NOT Discuss the Issue Where Nuclear Power Plants Will Cost as Much as 25% MORE to Construct than a Comparable Amount of Wind Turbines

Boone Disses Pro-Wind Advocate with 75 Cent Words:

"Wind is Not a 'Leave No Trace' Technology. It is a Supernumerary Producer of Electricity Enabled because the Slap and Tickle of Wind Propaganda Flatters the Gullible, Exploits the Well Intentioned, and Nurtures the Craven
- Jon Boone, Garrett County Citizen Activist Leader

Chris Bush asks: Is Boone Exhibiting a Touch of Elitism, Perhaps, with this Nasty, Professorial- and Wrong- Putdown?

Memo to Chris Bush: Boone is not just "professorial"....he's a professor...actually a retired history professor and dean at the University of Maryland, College Park.

It is difficult to discuss technical issues about electricity production and transmission with those who know little or nothing about them; it is rather like discussing the subtleties of music theory with someone who knows only a few popular songs or talking about the Higgs field in particle physics with those whose basic math skills don't go beyond arithmetic.

These days, a 200MW wind plant would cost around $400 million. But it would provide no effective capacity. That is, its generation could not be counted upon to produce on demand at any particular time. Effective capacity is the essence of how we get electricity so reliably, so securely, so affordably. Spending even $10 dollars on a power unit that provides no effective capacity is spending $10 too much.

On the other hand, a nuclear plant provides effective capacity 99.999% of the time. And it does so for over 90% of the 31, 557, 600 seconds in a year. Spending a billion dollars for a 400MW nuclear plant is a bargain.

Consider an analogy between the internal combustion automobile and a hypothetical windmobile. The car has a capacity factor of about 25%, limited by a combination of operator choice (people generally don't drive them 24 hours a day each day of the year) and by the need for ongoing maintenance and continual refueling. However, when it is asked to work, it will do so with a high rate of reliability 99.9% of the time. This is its effective capacity.

Contrast this with the windmobile, which one can never be sure if it will start or not. If that wouldn’t be annoying enough, most of the time its speed lurches between extremes, often stopping without warning. And if the windmobile became popular (due to substantial federal and state financial incentives), there would soon be an array of traffic accommodations created to enable it, such as requiring a host of new traffic controls and patterns, not to mention the borrowed cars, buses, taxis, and late appointments involved in going hither and yon. This activity corresponds to the way the grid is increasingly called upon to provide special means to integrate wind’s unreliable volatility.

Again, and to borrow from the wonderful movie, Bull Durham, discussing this issue in a blog with people who don't know the subject, is like talking with a fungo.... Good luck.

Chris Bush replies:

Garrett County's Prof. Boone Won't Answer Nuclear Waste Transport Issue- Again!

Is Boone Dodging the Question?

Wind Technology Has Been Developing Rapidly, and Such Results are a Stark Contrast to Theoretical Arguments to the Contrary

- see the weblogs.baltsun.com
- this is Sun Enviro-scribe Tom Pelton's blog
- there has been a running debate over the issues of wind turbines as an alternative electricity generator
- Jon Boone, a prominent activist from Western Maryland, continues not to answer the issue of nuclear waste transport
- see his comments today (this blog has been linked previously by the EC)
- nowhere does he discuss the issue of the transportation of nuclear waste- which will go through Garrett County
- moreover, fed regs as regards accidents from such transport will allow a very small release of radiation to occur
- such a "very small release" might likely concern a lot of folks along the tranportation corridors- including in Garrett County
- Boone was asked about this in a previous EC- which is posted on Pelton's blog for Boone to see
- instead of answering that question, Boone sidesteps it
- is Boone dodging the question?
- Prof. Boone talks down to his audience on the wind issue
- according to Boone, those members of the public who are "pro wind/ anti-habitat" just are ignorant and don't know any better (last comment, paragraphs 1, 6):

It is difficult to discuss technical issues about electricity production and transmission with those who know little or nothing about them; it is rather like discussing the subtleties of music theory with someone who knows only a few popular songs or talking about the Higgs field in particle physics with those whose basic math skills don't go beyond arithmetic.

Again, and to borrow from the wonderful movie, Bull Durham, discussing this issue in a blog with people who don't know the subject, is like talking with a fungo.... Good luck.

- wow! talk about mean!
- this writer has never seen "pro wind/ anti-habitat" folks compared to a "fungo" before- ouch!
- I guess Prof. Boone can't be entirely elitist if he watched the Bull Durham movie
- notice, again, though, how Boone won't comment on the nuclear transportation issue
- this is very unfortunate: nuclear waste disposal is an important issue with regard to the alternative of nuclear energy: this is all the more pertinent as the transportation corridor for that waste runs right through Garrett County
- wonder why Boone won't give us his opinion of this problem?
- finally, as regards the comments Boone did make, yes, wind has a capacity factor (CF) of 30% of its nameplate maximum; but, even during times when the wind is still, other power plants have excess capcity to maintain reliability and hence new power plants do NOT need to be built, according to the federal government's NREL
- moreover, it's important to note that Europe and a number of parts of the United States are erecting large amounts of wind turbines: I don't think those folks see such electricity as so uninspiring, and neither should we
- also, we have the advantage, now, of seeing actual application of wind technology; theoretical arguments against wind should be juxtaposed with actual practice
- based on this, wind looks like the winner- hands down

The governor is advocating the construction of wind farms on private land, but the state and counties apparently have no rules regarding the placement of those farms. I just found out that a wind farm is to be constructed within 500 to 700 feet of my future-retirement house in Garrett County and that appears to be nothing I can do about it. Why are the rights of that property owner more important than mine? It's one thing to argue against the "not in my backyard" crowd, but what happens when it's "in your bedroom"? When does a wind farm become "too close". Before the governor starts advocating things, he ought to have answers to these types of question and to consider the rights of all of the citizens, not just the ones who contributed to his election.

Nuclear is the best power production option that exists today. The only better option is a space based solar satellite a 1000 km square, something noone has the expertise to produce in an environmentally sound manner.

Having a nuclear waste repository is in my opinion a mistake. The nuclear waste should stay at the plant where it was produced. Nuclear done right actually reduces the amount of nuclear material.

If it is really necessary to take nuclear waste to a long term storage site, we should learn from past mistakes and establish at least 10 of them across the country. The further nuclear waste has to travel unprotected, the greater the risk to the public.