Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Wind vs. Coal: False Choices in the Battle to Resolve Our Energy Crisis

By Tara Lohan, AlterNet. Posted February 15, 2007.


If you want to know what we can do to resolve our energy crisis, look no further than West Virginia. Understanding a recent battle over wind development in coal country could help us all.
021507story
021507story
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

When you cross the border into West Virginia along I-64 the welcome sign that used to say, "West Virginia: Wild and Wonderful," now says, "West Virginia: Open for Business."

It is a sign of the times.

According to a few area residents, the sign change coincidently occurred this fall around the same time that the state decided to approve an application for development of the largest wind farm east of the Mississippi.

West Virginia, long known to be an energy sacrifice zone for its sizable contribution to our nation's coal supply at the expense of Appalachians, is now beginning to diversify. But not everyone is excited about the prospect.

In the more pastoral eastern side of the state, which has thus far been spared, thanks to its lack of coal, the proposed 124-tower industrial scale Beech Ridge Energy Wind Farm would be built along ridgetops on the eastern front of the Alleghenies in scenic Greenbrier County.

A group of residents have formed a well-organized action group, Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy (MCRE), in opposition. To them, the project is just another big out-of-state business (this time Invenergy from Chicago), coming into the area to exploit a rural community who stands to reap little benefit.

However, to MCRE's neighbors on the western side of the state, a group known as Coal River Mountain Watch, who are battling mountaintop removal coal mining, any action to block the advances of renewable energy is insulting, to say the least.

As the country begins to awaken to the realities of global warming, West Virginia has emerged as the perfect stage to witness our nation's energy drama play out. Over the last year the two organizations and their supporting camps have clashed in bitter public debates, and the media has captured the story as a simplified struggle of dirty versus clean power.

But West Virginia's civil war is indicative of a nationwide energy crisis that will affect communities across the country and the solution will require more than building wind turbines: It will take real dialogue about the true costs of energy and what a more sustainable system might look like.

The endangered hillbilly

West Virginia is ground zero when it comes to energy in this country. As environmental writer and thinker Bill McKibben said, the state "stands as the perfect example of the bankruptcy of our energy model."

The history of coal companies in Appalachia is a tragic one full of stolen land, broken promises, and lost lives -- not unlike the story of how this country was settled and its destiny manifested.

The result has been an impoverished people, forced to work for coal companies, and as a result, "to poison their children in order to feed them," in the words of activist Judy Bonds of Coal River Mountain Watch.

She is like the Erin Brockovich of Appalachia, only she would need someone punchier than Julia Roberts to play her in a movie. Bonds is short, gray haired and always on message. She grew up in the Coal River Valley in West Virginia, a tenth generation mountaineer whose grandfather, father, cousins, ex-husband and brother worked in the mines.

Bonds has unabashedly said that the wind debate in her state is a class issue.

The eastern half of Greenbrier County, where these turbines would sit, is decidedly wealthier in comparison to Bonds' turf in the southwestern part of the state, where the coal industry has been entrenched for 150 years.

"The more coal we mine, the poorer we get. We don't have good roads, good infrastructure, water and sewage -- we have nothing," said Bonds. "They treat us like a third-world country, and the rest of America turns their faces away. There is no prosperity here."

It is hard to argue with her. The town of Whitesville, where her organization is headquartered, is a sad stretch of dilapidated brick buildings puckered by empty lots with tufts of grass attempting to reclaim the concrete.

In between empty storefronts is a gas station and a market/café that advertises a special on chewing tobacco and the steak 'n gravy dinner, and there are signs that say, "Support our Troops," and even one proclaiming, "Yes to Clean Energy."

If you drive east from the town, in the direction of Greenbrier County, steep hills rise on either side of a small highway with tiny homes built so close to the road that the lips of their porches seem to touch the pavement.

These forested foothills hide what is behind them -- acres upon acres of what looks like moonscape but used to be one of the world's most diverse hardwood forests. As coal has gotten harder and harder to reach, the coal industry in West Virginia has resorted to mountaintop removal mining, blowing from 600-1,000 feet off the tops of mountains with 3 millions pounds of explosives per day. The process results in a tremendous amount of excess debris, technically about 15 feet of "overburden" for every one foot of coal, Bonds said, which is then dumped into valleys, burying streams and covering habitat.

Coal River Mountain Watch reports that 400,000 acres of Appalachia's mountains have been leveled and 1,400 streams buried by the process.

While many valleys are being filled with mountain debris, others are being converted into sludge dams (called "slurry impoundments" by the industry), giant holding tanks filled with billions of gallons of wastewater leftover from cleaning coal at preparation plants.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, coal, wind, west virginia

Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
NIMBY Syndrome
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 15, 2007 12:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until the people in this country start acting like a nation instead of this parochial localized me first bullsh*t, we are not going to get anywhere. Almost everything mentioned here is a descendant of such thinking. It may not be the primary cause, but is the enabler for all the rest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great read
Posted by: tclaverdure on Feb 15, 2007 1:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a great read. Too bad most people will not read the whole piece as it is long. Hillbilly power all the way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great read Posted by: willymack
Individualistic Pablum
Posted by: Windwhistler on Feb 15, 2007 3:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Americans are fed individualistic pablum from cradle to the grave. As a result of this brain washing the trip to the grave has already been accelerated for many. Certainly many many more are on a path to an early end. But its not really individualism we are taught or believe. Its more like "Show your individualism buy Coke".

Americans need the truth to be saved and help save the world but where will we get it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Individualistic=Brainwashing? Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Individualistic Pablum Posted by: jmp3954
Great Story
Posted by: Willie on Feb 15, 2007 4:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This story was really fantastic. I have been writing articles on climate change and energy security policies for the last year and a half, and sometimes, when I am trawling through parliamentary reports and government policy papers, I forget about all of us here on the ground level. We can all make changes. I think Ms Bond and the Burhmans have a great opportunity here, but they need to stop seeing each other as the enemy, and work together to fight for their state. I agree that we need anything that can get us all (the world, that is, not just the US) away from fossil fuel dependence. The trouble with CCT (Clean Coal Technology) is that, while it's a nice excuse to keep coal coming out of the ground, in reality it is at least 25-30 years away from even being introduced. We need solutions now or we all face dire consequences for our greed.

I am Australian, I live in Japan. Australia, per capita, pumps out more CO2 than the US!! Japan, on the other hand, is the most energy efficient developed nation in the world, but relies far too heavily on nuclear power (and isn't global warming nice an dconvenient for the nuclear industry?!). But still I can't see the sky in Tokyo. People in both countries are obsessed with having more, more, more stuff. All that stuff needs energy to be produced. All that stuff comes from somwhere. And guess what? The companies and your governments don't care as long as economic liberalism is the main agenda.

We need answers today, but we also need to keep in mind that we need a bigger vision for the world's economy. We need to base our policies on sustainable, socially-directed ideals, not gradually taking governmental powers away from the people and putting them in the hands of the WTO. While economics is based on the Washington concensus, cheap electricity will be vital for upholding manufacturing sectors (Australia is the classic case - not only do we rely on exporting all of our natural resources, such as coal, but we have signed an alternative agreement to the Kyoto Protocol - with the US - that has a premise of keeping the economies based on fossil fuels!!!! A switch to more expensive forms of electricity generation means that other corporations will not come to Australia to build their businesses, which also takes away from the economy, so on and so forth...). We need to think differently, and we need to do it fast.

Thanks for your story!

Willie
(http://www.smokinmirrors.blogspot.com)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great Story, Sad Ending Posted by: gazooks
» RE: Great Story Posted by: annemimi
Best coal is the one that stays in the ground
Posted by: godsouza on Feb 15, 2007 5:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.climatecooperation.org/
index.php?title=Contraction_and_Convergence

where both lines are one link
and watch the video for a real solution

We need to cutback on fossil fuels according to the IPCC

Leave coal in the ground and where we absolutely cannot say for base load suppliers we should require scrubbers and sequestration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hy-ways
Posted by: Krain61 on Feb 15, 2007 5:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These wind turbinds need to be put down the center of our hy-ways where they won't take up anymore land than what has already been taken by for the use of the public.
I'm told they can be every 1000 feet apart and how many millions of devided hy-ways do we have.Personally I'm not sure but I do know it's alot and close to grids.
And people can see where there electricity is coming from. And will be keeping our senic areas and using what's been taken.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hy-ways Posted by: Benjaminsjw
» RE: Hy-ways Posted by: mwildfire
Just Watchin the Mountains Sail Over My Head
Posted by: edith on Feb 15, 2007 5:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what I find incredible about WVa, a state I've often visited, is that as one passes by the "moonscape' areas of strip mining and blasted mountaintops, the thought occurs: who gave permission for the coal companies to begin with? The fact is that even in ruined W Va, permits issued by counties and the state are necessary to mine, strip and blast. People in WVA complain rightly about black lung, indifferent out of state coal owners, etc, but then reelect scumbags like Robert Bag of Wind Byrd who vote again and again for coal as the prime element of national power policy. Moreover, the steam long has left the union movement in WVa and most mines now are non-union. That would shock John L Lewis and generations of union miners who died for a unionized industry.

The fact is that WVa is a mess because corporate bullies seized the land and yes the people, but the people, religious, and socially conservtive people, let it happen. That after all these misery filled years coal mines are not either publically owned or at least subject to a Code of Ethics that prohibits mountaintop mining is amazing. The colorful folk who inhabit sw WestVa. make good copy, but it's those folk, not the relative newcomers in Eastern West Va who sold their souls and bodies to Master Coal.

WVa has reaped what it would sow. Indeed, except for tourism, the state is dying, and putting the wind towers across the ridges in the East part of the state won't help tourism.

Fewer people are needed to mine with automation and mountain removal mining, yet the people of W. Va do not push the Wva legislature to just say no to mountain removal and strip mining that depletes the forests and ruins the water resources of the state. For most W.Virginians, the coal industry is an employer or benefactor of yesterday, but they still sit supinely by and watch the blasting caps go off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dutch windmills 500 years old
Posted by: richholland on Feb 15, 2007 6:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Goldenage of Holland had no coal no gasoline but energie came from windmills.
Even now some mills are in power for hundreds of years but it takes 10 years before a modern mill is even on energie used.

However the problem is the cost of charcoal; if the american people would have the same rewards for workingwe have in Europe (minimum wages Holland about $ 12.) your society would be different.

If a private person becomes a billionaire there is something wrong in your society, since we all have to support the country and the poor.
If you put aperson in jail for 20 years because he burns down a SUV, your justice is sick.

The problem is your believe in big money.
The hysterical behaviour;
WAR on pedofiles
WAR on terrorists
WAR on energy
WAR on everything
Peace man
Donot believe your rulers and capitalists

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Dutch Treat? Posted by: edith
» RE: Dutch Treat? Posted by: Benjaminsjw
» RE: Dutch Treat? Posted by: DaBear
Sir Francis
Posted by: sirfr on Feb 15, 2007 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
VERY good essay. Bottom line I'd say is there is no one thing or change that's going to fix this. (It does seem to me "Apollo" is too understated; Manhattan Project -- with world-wide participation -- is more like it.)

I read something recently I can't locate at the moment which said essentially that if we don't reduce greenhouse emissions by ca. 90% over the next ten years we (the world) needn't bother. I don't know if this is feasible or realistic but somehow I'd like to believe that, as a species, we can come up with a better default option than burning up what should have been our great-great-great-grandchildren's homeworld. I literally pray we do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sir Francis Posted by: Krain61
Let's find a synthesis
Posted by: BeeGee on Feb 15, 2007 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a native of WV and still own a farm with other family members who live there, although I work in Denver to pay the mortgage. Some years ago, there was a brilliant idea to put a giant airport down in the stripped out "moonscape" portion of the state since it was unfit for tourism and its people and coal had already been removed. Only trouble is, people from the tri-state area it was supposed to serve would have to drive longer to get there than their plane flight would take once they took off. Thank goodness, someone had the sense to vote no and it didn't happen.

However, a lot of local progressives had an even better idea! Why not put giant windfarms on all this land that was unfit for growing crops because it no longer had topsoil? And, I say, WHY NOT?! Why not put windmills there, instead of in a wealthy tourist-rich area within an easy drive of DC? There's as much wind in the south as in Greenbriar Co. and that would be making use of waste land and not detracting from the value of scenic land? There are still solutions to be found, if we can just open our minds. And then there's industrial hemp -- the state has a perfect climate for growing it and it doesn't need good, level soil... Why not biodiesel plants? Hell, the coal companies could even build them... But that's another story for another time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Better yet... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» BINGO! Posted by: ClarkKent
and for this they killed off all the Indians
Posted by: dancingcloud on Feb 15, 2007 7:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You stopped me cold at "10th generation mountaineer." Hmmm, that means her great(to the 7th degree)-grampa killed off the Indians to get that tract of ancient land. Nothing I hate more than greedy corporate bastards, NOTHING, except when I look at nature in an ecological mess and remember that, "For this, this killed off all the Indians."
Karuk-Wintun-Hupa PhD

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wild and Wonderful
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Feb 15, 2007 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a West Virginia transplant from Pennsylvania. I've lived in Wood County for over 25 years. The first governor to remove "Wild and Wonderful" from our state welcome signs was Caperton. I was amazed that he would want to change the image of our state, but apparently, he (or his advisors) believed that, as a state, we were sending the wrong message. Subsequent governors put the message back, and I was glad to see it.

Now we have the idiot Manchin in office - a pseudo-Democrat if I ever saw one - and the "Wild and Wonderful" message has not only disappeared, but has been replaced with one that seems to be geared toward corporate America. Unbelievable!

I still think of my adopted state as wild and wonderful, and I sincerely hope that this condition will be restored, both figuratively and literally.

Here in West Virginia, virtually everyone can grow their own organic vegetables, insulate their homes against the elements, recycle, and use the sun for a portion of their energy. Stacked against large out-of-state corporations, rampant energy waste, and political manipulations, these efforts do seem pretty futile, and perhaps they are. But we have to start somewhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wild and Wonderful Posted by: blaine s
the winds of change are in the air
Posted by: MISSING on Feb 15, 2007 7:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hello, we have about five years left of 85 million barrells a day of oil production. After that it goes down 10 percent a year. We have to build wind farms, they use the least amount of energy to make and produce the most, if installed in a high wind area.

Becoming more efficient is important but were talking about a whole new paradigm here. NO MORE CHEAP ABUNDANT ENERGY. Even if we were able to get to germany's six percent of clean energy we would still have a drasticly different society. I say yes to wind energy in every area that has 12mph plus wind speed on average. We can't even begin to imagine the resource wars we are going to be fighting in the future if we don't put up wind energy and the like.

We have a chance to kill two birds with one stone, (peak oil and co), if we put up wind energy and the like. We also could make two problems worse if we just build more coal plants, to date we are just building more coal plants. China has a caol plant come on line every day and the U.S. is plannning to build 200 new coal plants. Not looking good so far, especially when the christians are more worried about gays and abortion than the enviroment. I pray the christians will stop helping usher in the rapture and start helping save us from peak oil and global warming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the winds of change are in the air Posted by: Raymond Emerson
the sun
Posted by: karyse on Feb 15, 2007 7:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll bet if everyone:
1. used solar power to dry their clothes (remember clothes lines?) instead of constructing and living in idiot developments where it's forbidden to do so -- too, too, unsightly drying clothes for free without damage of any kind to the environment, idiots --
a. stop insisting that wearing a pair of jeans or sweatshirt for a couple of hours means it's time to put them in a washing machine
b. got rid of all their clothes except what they could wear in a week, month, hell, even a year
c. got rid of all their shoes except for one pair for play, one pair for work, and one pair for "going to meeting"

2. stopped buying all that cheap plastic crap, packaged with even more cheap plastic, all of which uses tons of energy to produce

3. refused to buy anything major that didn't last a lifetime -- you know, chairs, tables, desks, beds, lamps

4. stopped buying disposable mops, dusters, pens, -- wash clothes instead of paper towels, sponge mops instead of paper, refillable pens instead of pens that stop working or leak after a couple of uses
a. stopped giving "gifts" that do nothing, are worth nothing, and only collect dust sitting on a shelf until they are tossed in the trash

Well, you get my drift, we are extrordinarily stupid and probably don't NEED a two-thirds of the energy we consume -- just how many sweaters does someone need to make it through the winter?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well, interesting idea... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: the sun Posted by: WitchyNy
» Yesterday in the subway... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: the sun Posted by: jmp3954
dick
Posted by: rtmyth on Feb 15, 2007 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Partial solutions worldwide: immediately ---conserve by reducing weight and horsepower of vehicles. no new technology required. begin gently, with real incentives, to reduce population growth especially in the USA. Intermediately--- begin building nuclear power plants now. Long range:---- tap deep geothermal earth-core energy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: dick Posted by: Benny
It's hard to feel sorry for the wind opponents
Posted by: sofun on Feb 15, 2007 8:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not that they have no compelling arguments in this case, but that it's hard to believe they'd object if they didn't have to look at them. That was the impetus for their opposition and they later found more ammunition to add to their cause. Arguments like "insulation is more effective" is just a rationalization - why not do both? And just because the power company isn't benevolent and doesn't plan to use the clean energy locally doesn't mean the whole project isn't worth undertaking.

The scale of our energy problems is so large that no one solution will be a panacea. Arguing that any contribution is just too small to be worth the trouble or costs is the salvation of the selfish.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Effects on birdlife... Posted by: mjabele
There is much we can do as individuals but we need leadership!
Posted by: Leadbyexample on Feb 15, 2007 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a very good article, AlterNet, thank you. I think more than anything what the article points out is the average person has no voice in local, state, country or global matters.
Someone other than us as individuals is making all of the decisions for us, we are not participants in the big picture. If we are to reduce our consumption of resources there must be a unified effort, everyone shares the sacrifice and the rewards. As Edith pointed out, if we want positive change we must quit electing slash and burn political candidates. Almost every blathering from elected officials includes the words, renewable, ethanol and switchgrass, what a joke. Ethanol from corn is not renewable, ethanol will be a renewable energy when the fuel truck stops delivering fossil fuel to the farm.

1. The wars must end, war is not green.
2. On global warming, everyone shares in the sacrifice and rewards.
3. Insist on clean energy and share the technologies worldwide.
4. Hold elected officials accountable, they must provide leadership.
5. Conservation of resources is what we can do today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mountain Mama
Posted by: redbrownandblueparty on Feb 15, 2007 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Didn't Ray Charles sing "West Virginia, Mountain Mama?" There are so many wonderful ideas but no central political force to implement them. We have a fragmented, hyper-individual, materialistic, post-modern, greedy, ignorant, unloving, rootless, short-sighted society as a whole. Sites like this are our hope but so small in the cultural wasteland. Yet, WE THE PEOPLE are a seed. I can't wait. I've started a government and political party based on Women and Children. Men as a consciousness is the enemy. My new government is called The Lover Government and my party is called the Red Brown and Blue Party. Love is the central idea that holds. Brown is the color of the earth and all human skin, and replaces white in the Amerikan flag. I intend to co-opt the corrupted red and blue republicrats. It's time for a revolution of ideas. Activist Love is the shake-spear that will spin the new language. "West Virginia, Mountain Mama, I'm coming home to you." God, I wish I could remember those lines. Ray, Baby, you're the man.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It was John Denver Posted by: harpy
» RE: It was John Denver Posted by: redbrownandblueparty
» Country Roads Posted by: lessbread
Let's clear a few things up here
Posted by: rustkings on Feb 15, 2007 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, I'm in MCRE, my Great Great grandfather was an early settler of WV, my Great Grandfather helped settle the Greenbrier Valley and my family have been loggers and miners from the get go. To even intimate that Greenbrier County doesn't know anything about "the coal industry" is extremely insulting. Mrs. Bonds acts like Greenbrier County is full of foreigners and rich people who don't have a clue. She is very wrong. My Mom's father and Uncles spent their lives mining coal, I've had friends die for it. My Grandfather is in the VA in Beckley right now because he has problems with his lungs, alot of it from mining. I grew up on the western end of Greenbrier county, it's been slowly dying for years. Everybody wants to rush to judgement on different issues, but the main thing that you have to remember is this, WE DO NOT NEED TO BE FURTHER EXPLOITED IN ANY WAY! Alot of the people in MCRE (not all) oppose this project for different reasons than just sight lines. There is the problem with the fact that ALL of the energy is going somewhere else (as usual), we will reap ABSOLUTELY NO BENEFITS from this project locally. Most of us try and succeed at living a little more lightly on the land, we know how to grow our own food, hang clothes on a line, use solar energy etc. However, if Invenergy would like to dump some of this power they're going to be generating into the local grid it might be a tad more palatable. Also, something else that always seems to get lost is this- there are many ways you can help the environment- set up your own windmill to help power your home, install some solar energy in your home- yeah I know it costs money, but the government has at least tried to help with the tax breaks, and really, that should be your responsibility. Individual atonement, make a change at home before acting righteous. I know the devastation that coal has caused on this state, but we just keep letting it happen, wind power set up by a big company will be the same. Westvaco? Please don't get me started. Try taking a drive on Cold Knob and see THEIR brand of devastation,not quite as severe as the mountaintop removal, but that's because trees grow ABOVE ground. It's time to take this state back from the outside corporations and start putting this massive revenue that our state produces back INTO THIS STATE! How about we get together on that instead of fighting with each other here?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For history of how the coal regions got that way...
Posted by: adempatriot on Feb 15, 2007 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
first post in months...
Regarding coal mining, I highly recommend, to anyone who is interested in the energy problems of West Virginia and similar areas that have been ecologically devastated by "Big Coal", the book NIGHT COMES TO THE CUMBERLANDS, by Harry M. Caudill.
( For quick bio see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_M._Caudill )
Although Mr. Caudill primarily wrote about the Cumberland Plateau region of eastern Kentucky, rather than W.Va., the history of exploitation of the uneducated mountain people, the crooked politics, the pheumoconiosis and mine explosions and accidents, the tailings spills, the pollution and silting up of streams, etc. etc., is very much the same as what happened to West Virginia.
Caudill's important book, which probably was read by many of you in college, was part of his lifelong efforts to work against the exploitation of the citizens in eastern Kentucky by Big Coal, and the book was seminal in sparking the 1960's interest in the problems of the people in the region dubbed Appalachia.
In Kentucky, the exploitation usually began with the visit of a timber cruiser to an out-of-the-way mountain farm. "You've got some fine timber there", the company man would say, and before long, the landowner sold off some or all of his timber rights. But- VERY importantly for that farmer's descendants- the logging contracts contained some fine print which gave the buyer of the timber not just the trees, but the mineral rights to whatever might be below grade- oil, ores, coal, or whatever.
If the landowner could read (many could not, back then) and if he carefully read the contract- and was hesitant to sign away the sub-surface mineral rights, he was comforted and assured that there would be almost no chance of mineral rights ever being used. So he needn't ever worry about it. It was just one of those contract formalities, so just sign here, please.
To make a long story short, the timber was stripped from many a mountain, and sooner or later, the company came back and said they were going to drill or mine. The mineral rights that might have been signed away two or three generations earlier but the companies had the law on their side as per the old contracts.
Until the invention of radio, the people who lived in the hollers of W.Va., Kentucky, and other states, were extremely isolated, ill-informed or uninformed, - (not stupid, not at all; but adapted to a very different- and very isolated- environment than the lowlands to the east of the mountains) and so they were easily defrauded of their land's resources. The great chestnut blight also wreaked havoc on the mountain economy by depriving free-roaming hogs, a staple of the mountaineer's diet, of their main source of food. Probably this also encouraged more and more independent mountaineer settlers to sell off their surface and subsurface rights many decades ago.
Mostly, I want to say that Caudill's book is a very accurate and vivid picture of the story of the settlers of the southern Appalachians, that will give the reader a truly emotional and compassionate sense of the continuing plight of the Americans who are still being adversely affected by the extraction of coal and the tremendous damage it does to the earth, despite the P.R. showpieces used to convince us that all the devastated land is reclaimed good as new.
The saddest thing is that it is all still going on, almost half a century since Harry Caudill published NIGHT COMES TO THE CUMBERLANDS, and these problems are still not solved. I was shocked to learn that the removal of mountaintops was still happening. I guess I got fooled by one of those pretty reclamation project pictures.
Anyway, it is truly a great book, and not dry or dull in the least, and is still very relevant to the West Virginia situaton described in the article, and so I just wanted to bring it up in this forum.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Should have been a picture of Mountain top removal...
Posted by: harpy on Feb 15, 2007 9:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
instead of the much prettier wind turbines at the top of this article. It would have hit the point much harder, although there are links to those pictures. It's sickening when you live here, to see those commercials for the coal companies that we here in Appalachia are being bombarded with - you know - the ones where the cute little kids are doing their schoolwork and they say "I learned in Science that we don't have to worry about energy - we have over 250 years of coal right here" or something to that effect. Anybody with any sense knows that they're getting ready to start comdemning property so that big companies can effectively steal the land. And then you have to think about the increased asthma, lung problems, contaminated water, and people not even related to coal mining being killed because of rocks being dislodged and rolling into their homes. Then you look at pictures like the ones at this site http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal that show what is happening to the oldest mountains in the US. It looks like a war zone, and if the rhetoric about "clean" coal technology keeps getting ramped up, before long the people of Appalachia will be treated like the Iraqis are now treated- all because somebody can make a huge profit off that resource in these mountains.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about the numbers?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 15, 2007 9:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A quick visit to the EIA government energy web site would reveal that in the past ten years coal generation has increased by an amount equivalent to the entire hydroelectric resource of the United States. In comparison, wind power has only grown by about 1/30th of that amount in the same time period.

How was this accomplished? When Bus was governor of Texas, he gutted the Clean Air Act to allow more polluting coal-fired plants to be built. Now that he's president, the national clean air laws and enforcement have been weakened or destroyed, and so more mercury, arsenic, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, and global warming-fueling carbon dioxide are being emitted than ever before... and I didn't see any estimate of how many birds and bats die due to coal pollution.

We are really going to have to put an end to the use of coal on a global basis, and the solar panels and wind turbines coupled to energy storage systems are the way to go. It's also better to use natural gas than coal, in terms of energy output - coal is the worst possible energy source.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Entrenched cheap-energy-ideology Posted by: eddie torres
Hemp and Wind can make better partners, stupid author !
Posted by: maxpayne on Feb 15, 2007 9:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If this is how the Left is going to put down real solutions such as hemp and wind, all the while ignoring the real culprits, in this case COAL, this country will stayed DUNGEONED AND DOOMED !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tourism is going to end.
Posted by: heid on Feb 15, 2007 10:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the things these fools who think that it's important to save tourism don't comprehend is that global warming will end nearly all tourism. They may as well face it now, while there's still the ability to save the earth's life, rather than later, when it's too late.

Besides, these people who think that their lovely views will survive global warming are nuts!

I live in a gorgeous area of Scotland and watch the same arguments against wind farming. Frankly, I'd be thrilled to look at a few - or a lot of - wind turbines. Where I've seen them, they haven't made the landscape ugly and they haven't damaged the land, unlike the coal mining.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We should not risk public dollars in energy adventurism.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Feb 15, 2007 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Bonds advocates for increased consumption from renewable energy, including more government funding for wind turbines, she is offering part of the solution.

We should let companies assume the risk, vet the winners from the losers, and adopt energy sources that meet our ever-changing energy needs. In order to do this most efficiently, we should not allow the government to hood-wink us into subsidizing pie-in-the-sky solutions such as an ethanol-driven resource model, or massive windfarms.

Fundamentally, however, the author is correct in her title:

Wind vs. Coal: False Choices in the Battle to Resolve
Our Energy Crisis


Anyone who construes the argument as coal v. wind is setting up a false dilemma, and should be called on it. Energy comes from strange, predictable places, and we should always give pause when one side or other sets up choices between their pet industries or causes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

False choice - not enough wind to replace coal in eastern US
Posted by: GeorgeMarsh on Feb 15, 2007 11:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The amount of electricity produced from burning a pound of coal is a kilowatt-hour; a ton of coal produces on average at least 2,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh's). The tonnage of coal exported from the US in 2005 was 50-million tons (mostly from Appalachian mines) - an energy equivalent of 100-billion kWh's.

This amount of electricity exceeds the cummulative annual output of 25,000 wind turbines like those already installed in WV or those approved for the WV Invenergy project (i.e., 1.5-MW). In 2005, over 150-million tons of coal were extracted from mines in WV, which would require 78,000 goliath wind turbines to produce an equivalent amount of electricity (i.e., 307-billion kWh's).

By contrast, the American Wind Energy Association estimates that development via construction of industrial wind turbines to harness WV's wind energy potential would yield only 5-billion kWh's annually - see source. Thus, the wind industry's own data indicates that wind turbines in WV could only theoretically offset about 1.5% of the coal that is mined annually - likely far less than the amount of WV coal which is sent overseas each year.

For perspective, nearly 400-million tons of coal were extracted from Appalachia during 2005 - of which more than 60% was removed from underground mines. Unfortunately, wind turbines cannot come close to making a dent in the huge demand for electricity, and for the coal which is used to generate the lion's-share of it - there simply is not enough wind energy potential available from uplands of the eastern US to offset the power coming from coal.

Consequently, and sadly, the demand for Appalachian coal cannot be significantly lessened even with full-scale deployment of wind turbines on ridges throughout the Appalachian region. Constructing industrial wind energy complexes atop Appalachian ridges are adding further injury to the assualt of impacts these sacred mountains have and are continuing to suffer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You sir, are not one of us Posted by: Leadbyexample
» Just say no to new coal plants Posted by: Leadbyexample
» Green... except... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Green... except... Posted by: mwildfire
» Hmm.. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
End all energy subsidies and install a carbon tax
Posted by: Leadbyexample on Feb 15, 2007 11:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If all subsidies for energy providers ceased to exist and a carbon tax was levied, the playing field would be level, also put an end to nuclear. The proceeds from the tax could be used for no or low interest loans for home and business owners to upgrade to energy efficient methods and repair public entities. Does ADM really deserve a near billion dollar subsidy (2006) from U.S taxpayers because of the 50 odd cent per gallon cash rebate for ethanol production?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wind turbines are unsightly?
Posted by: DaBear on Feb 15, 2007 11:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sheesh, not accounting for aesthetic taste, is there? Personally, there's nothing sweeter looking than a bunch of well-designed, ecologically site-planned turbines on a ridgetop. Now Invenergy may not be doing that but, that's usually a matter of activism forcing stoopid from bad designs in favor of good ones.

McKibben is right, this is really just about privileged people retaining their privilege while the rest of us do all the work. In a crisis, poor people just get things done. The rich whine and get subsidies. Same old, same old.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: wind turbines are unsightly? Posted by: ReallyBearish
Alternet-answer your own mail!!!Everyone else..GET A GOAT!
Posted by: WitchyNy on Feb 15, 2007 1:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet -you sent me a letter this morning to sign..which I did..about getting support from politicians about Global Warming and Alternative Energy...but when I tried to answer your letter...it was BLOCKED and returned to me. Bad manners. VERY annoying.

What I wanted to say to you was...Beware..some of these science groups are pro-Nuclear...and that is their REAL view of the solution.

Which relates to this article...we are in a cultural war. As some folks in this article said-We don't need ALTERNATIVE energy...as much as we need LESS energy. America needs to change the way she lives. We cannot just develop alternatives to oil and think that is going to change things.

If we want to be safe from people trying to bomb us...then we need to stop trying to steal their oil!

This entire corporate-industrial- capitalism -military-- structure needs to end-before we can have any real change.

Regarding windmills. The American government forced the farmers and rural people in the 20-30's to tear down their windmills -to hook them up to the new electric grid.

We don't need huge giant windmill turbine companies...we just need every family to have a nice wooden one of their own.

We don't need to develop a huge alternative whole foods
empire...with all the packaging and shipping and profit...we just need every family to grow their own organic garden. With a few chickens for bug eating and manure..and a few eggs...and a goat for milk and cheese...that is mostly all one family needs.

But this takes time and work ....and not a 40 hour+ weekly desk job working for big corporations in the city...but your own small home and farm in an organized village...but this is not considered 'glamorious'.

Americans are -spoiled -and lazy. And most only know how to live in modern cities. They are totally dependent on the current system. And so even the liberals look for 'alternative ways' to continue living within the very system that is destroying our earth..and our
once sane way of living.

Are you all aware that the military has their Forts set up to be totally self-sufficiant in case of disaster..they have stored food
weapons, stores full of everything, trained soldiers, hospitals, drugs, water systems....everything..and can just close their gates..as they DID during 911?

Are you aware that many of the rich..the ones who still live here...are stockpiling their MCMansions-with the same?

That the government has huge underground 'cities'...full of supplies? Look at what happened with Katrina...who do think is going to survive when the SHTF????

I think they WANT environmental disaster to happen..I think in their sick view of things...that will cleanse the earth of all the 'excess poor'..and solve the overpopulation problem...and God will save the Good Republicans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the is a little more than nimby here
Posted by: blaine s on Feb 15, 2007 1:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
one reason for the resistance to the turbines, is the dealings that the people in greenbrier county have already had with westvaco.
this seems to most people a scheme by which westvaco can further poison that ridge line. this of course through the purchase of the pollution credits that the wind farm could sell. westvaco has been hesitant to show the trees that they are supposed to plant after taking the timber. this is already a bad deal, pines for hardwoods, plus the decline of habitat for bloodroot, ginseng, etc. declining populations in many woodland species (coyotes excepted)
almost all members of my family were independant timbermen, all run out of work by westvaco,meadow river, etc.
when not one kilowatt hour of electricity will go to the local communities that will sit under them, one can hardly blame the feeling. it is already though that the positive impact it will have (i.e. # of jobs) has already been greatly overstated
the feeling seems to be: let the communities that will get the juice put up with the turbines

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How Ironic
Posted by: GeorgeMarsh on Feb 15, 2007 2:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is unfortunate that the article failed to expose the grossly hypocritical action by Invenergy and other wind energy developers in hiring lobbyist Frank Masaino to be their "spokesman" - see recent WV newspaper article.

The wind industry proclaims at nearly every opportunity that huge wind turbines are necessary to help alleviate threat of global warming. However, Maisano is quoted in a recent interview as saying:

"Look, the climate is clearly warming, all right? There's no doubt about that, because that's what the temperature record shows. How much humans have influence on it—I imagine that they do have some—is still in question. It really isn't discernible, I think, at this point."
See Jim Motavalli's Thank You for Emitting interview with Frank Maisano in the March/April 2006 issue of E-magazine

Plus, SourceWatch’s bio-blub about Maisano follows:

Frank Maisano - From SourceWatch
Frank Maisano worked for the Global Climate Coalition, an industry front group fighting against reforms to slow down and prevent industry pollution contributing to global climate change. He was a member of the Potomac Communications Group, whose other clients include Con Edison, the Edison Electric Institute, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In April, 2006, E magazine interviewed Maisano, reporting that he is now working with Bracewell and Giuliani.

In addition, here is a weblink to a short note on Bracewell & Guilliani's "Energy Legal Blog" website indicating that, in reaction to CO2 and climate change concerns, the electric utilities industry and coal industry are developing new powerplant technology which will lead to increasing use of more coal in the future. WV has put in a bid for getting a new generation of coal-fueled electricity generating facility that will strip-off the CO2 and store it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A hopeful Wish
Posted by: TWilliams on Feb 15, 2007 3:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They were going to build a wind farm on the coast of Mass. but the rich liberal boycotted it...it would ruin their view of the ocean.

I guess it is ok to do this...as long as it is not an eyesore...or it is an eyesore to poor people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Any way the wind blows
Posted by: Leadbyexample on Feb 15, 2007 3:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wind energy is real and viable regardless of what the big oil barkers say. If you are interested in a comprehensive wind study done in Minnesota, I will provide the link. The "Wind Integration Study" was undertaken to study the viabilty of 15%, 20%, and 25% wind generated electricity as a percentage of total MN retail electric sales by 2020. This is happening in the midwest as windpower in MN and IA is alive and well.
Follow this link.
www.commerce.state.mn.us/
click on energy info center
click on wind
click on wind integration study

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Any way the wind blows Posted by: rustkings
» RE: Any way the wind blows Posted by: GeorgeMarsh
» Symbolic Sacrifice Posted by: GeorgeMarsh
Big and small
Posted by: redbrownandblueparty on Feb 15, 2007 3:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with Really Bearish about wind mills being beautiful in comparison with all the ugly things around. Dutch mills are really big but people have come to see them as beautiful.

WitchyNy makes a really good point about smallness and sustainablity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

windmills as an attraction
Posted by: DeAnander on Feb 15, 2007 4:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the few times my company sent me to the big island of hawai'i on business, I went out of my way to visit the wind farm on south point as a tourist. the big turbines on their towers made an eerie, musical singing noise in the steady trade winds. I approached as closely as I could and spent some time walking around the perimeter fence enjoying the sound and the leisurely motion of the blades. it was great fun to stand next to a power generation facility that didn't automatically equal DANGER -- toxicity, heat, loud noises, dirty emissions, paranoid security with guns, etc.

I don't see why wind turbines should discourage tourism. as industrial structures go they are rather aesthetic, like suspension bridges.

but agree with others above that tourism is in its final chapter anyway as travel is about to become very expensive, and planning for tourism-based economies at this point is insane.

also want to point out that the Tar Sands project in Alberta is an open face stripmine similar to MTR, a huge scar on the land, with toxic runoff; it's also guzzling a LOT of fresh water diverted from farming/domestic users, and burning godknows how many BTUs of natural gas per diem. let's face it. mining is a fitlhy business and has been since before the romans worked slaves and felons to death in their copper, zinc, tin and sulfur mines. it only gets filthier the larger the scale on which we do it and the more marginal the return as rich veins are exhausted. the insane byproduct (slag) to coal ratio mentioned above is a dead giveaway that we are into the regimen of diminishing returns and -- were we not as culturally insane as the Easter Islanders -- we would abandon the whole activity and retool for a less toxic, wasteful and futile lifeway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Attractive alternative energy sources overlooked
Posted by: Rod from Canada on Feb 15, 2007 6:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many object to windpower because the turbines affect wildlife, and are unsightly. In fact, they needn't be designed to be as large and ugly as they are. Much smaller turbines could be constructed, on roofs or on smaller supports, of around 30 feet height, which would be large enough to supply the power needs of many households. And the rotating blades could be covered with a metal wire frame so as to prevent birds from hitting the blades.

I can't really understand why such wind development has not been promoted more. The potential for a much less environmentally harmful way of generating power is very significant; most homes and businesses would lend themselves to such small, but effective, applications.

And then there is the (virtually) untapped energy in the harnessing of tidal power. On a worldwide scale, the potential of such a source is just staggering. I think in some cases, the capture of alternative energy supplies may be limited only by the imagination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I can tell you why Rod- Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: I can tell you why Rod- Posted by: Rod from Canada
» RE: I can tell you why Rod- Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: I can tell you why Rod- Posted by: Rod from Canada
» Rod and Bachelor Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: od and Bachelor Posted by: Rod from Canada
» RE: 30 ft is not enough Posted by: MartianBachelor
» P.S. - link to info Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: P.S. - link to info Posted by: Rod from Canada
excellent piece
Posted by: mwildfire on Feb 15, 2007 7:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being an environmentalist and a West Virginian, I have gotten caught up in this little "war," too--it's hard not to get emotional about this if you've flown over MTR sites or gone with Larry Gibson to see one up close and horrifying. This summer I went to look at the wind farm in Tucker County to compare it--it was huge, but not ugly or noisy.
First, I want to say this was an excellent piece, worth the long read.
Second I want to say that when you take into account the impending reality of global warming and the likely approach of Peak Oil, you have to realize that windmills vs solar panels vs conservation really is a false choice--we will soon enough be forced to use all of these, and change our lifestyles (stop the mad consumption of junk, eat vegetarian, stop driving all over in cars, stop flying altogether) and cut our population.
But first, the reality I expect in WV is that we will have coal liquefaction plants forced on us to add to the heavy pollution we already suffer from coal for electricty.
On "clean coal" based on IGCC plants and sequestration, I'd point out that even if sequestration can safely be done, the likely reality will be that they'll build one or two to show that it can be done, to use in arguments, and then build the rest the old-fashioned way because IGCC and sequestration double the cost and the whole point of coal is that it's "cheap"--as long as you can get away with dumping 90% of the costs on the general public.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

3 to 5 acres cleared per wind turbine
Posted by: birdandbat on Feb 15, 2007 8:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To me, the greatest ecological impact of wind energy development is the forest clearing and especially the forest fragmentation that is being done to construct windplants. This clearing is done to make way for huge road system, powerline right-of-way, and for removing vegetation near each wind turbine. Bulldozing miles along ridgecrests to build 50 to 100 foot wide roads and clearing 3 to 5 acres per wind turbine (on average) is what I would call an ugly impact.

Evidence for this expanding and accelerating impact upon forest and particularly forest-interior habitat can be viewed from recent high-resolution aerial photographs of both the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center (the one "wind farm" currently operating in WV) as well as the just completed Mars Hill wind energy facility in ME.

From 3 to 5 acres is the average forest loss per wind turbine of the several wind energy projects that have so far been built along forested ridges in the Appalachians. However, when you consider the adverse impact of fragmenting the forest and creation of ecologically deleterious "edge habitat" - which likely penetrates into the remaining forest at least 100 meters from the newly created edge, these wind projects are resulting in a loss of from 15 to 20 acres of important "forest-interior" habitat per wind turbine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You've lost your point. Posted by: lessbread
» RE: Interesting but...... Posted by: CollD
No one expects a free lunch.
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 15, 2007 9:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But the people who are making the decisions are still not yet the people who are hurting from old technologies and/or bad decisions.

Since energy is already such a diverse problem, where are all the computer programs that can show us the options? Since the issue is the limits of finite resources, however, we ought to be able to see some cumulative numbers.

Is it just that it is only now, because of global warming, that serious thinking has only just begun? How much disaster will it take to begin to take some action?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the Burhams
Posted by: candara on Feb 16, 2007 11:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are so typical of a lot of the selfish, arrogant asses who go to small towns to be in nature, even though they don't really care about it. These are the same people who destroyed and polluted Arizona. As far as windfarms hurting tourism? Yeah, tell that to Palm Springs. Wind turbines are cool. I always look forward to seeing AND hearing them when I go to the Palm Desert/Springs area. So do a lot of other people. And the Burhams are lying about how much room they take up.
I propose that the Burhams go live with the hillbillies around the coalmines for a year or so. And be forced to work in a coal mine. It's the "me first and only" attitude of people like the Burhams that continues to screw this country and our chances of moving into new solutions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Readers Need More EducationPart 1
Posted by: skywatcher on Feb 17, 2007 2:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a member of MCRE and a 30 year resident of Greenbrier County, WV. I was dismayed by the superficial treatment of the cost, benefit, and impact of industrial wind turbine complexes upon Appalachia in the article by Tara Lohan. It's no wonder many of the comments reflect an incomplete understanding of the issues surrounding this subject. One of the objectives of MCRE is to educate the public about these projects which are being proposed for much of the mountain country of PA, MD,VA,and WV as well as in New England.

We feel it is bad energy policy for the government to promote and the taxpayer to subsidize industrial sized wind turbine generators (WTG) thereby diluting the leadership needed for strong conservation methods and diverting research dollars that could be used to promote more effective sources of renewable energy.

The dirty little secret about WTG's is that, due to the intermittent and volatile nature of the wind, not a single fossil fuel plant will be taken off line. Here's another fact that the wind developers don't like to mention--when electricity demand is at its peak (summertime), wind generating capacity is practically zero. And when the wind blows too hard (over ~40mph), they have to shut down or tear themselves to pieces.

In the 124 WTG project proposed (and approved) for our county, the developers themselves stated that 5 acres per turbine will need to be cleared and kept cleared. The project will cover 23 miles of ridgetop and this is just one project. Thousands of these things are proposed for the mountains of the Allegheny Front. It will be about as much of a tourist attraction as going to watch a traffic jam.

Along with the forest destruction and fragmentation, you have WTG's proposed along major raptor migratory flyways. And then there are the bats. When it was discovered by environmental researchers that the only operating wind turbine complex in WV (Tucker County) was responsible for killing 6,000 bats in a few months, they were denied further access to the site by the utility company owner. Bats are attracted to these things--no one knows why for sure.

MCRE believes that before we cover the Appalachian landscape with 40 story tall turbines that will meet only a tiny fraction of the country's energy needs, we should study their true impact on the environment and the communities surrounding them and carefully weigh the costs and benefits.

There's more but it will have to wait.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Batteries for wind
Posted by: Rael on Feb 18, 2007 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Redox (or redox flow) batteries are currently in use or are being installed for large scale wind energy storage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Live Your Beliefs
Posted by: electriclady281 on Feb 19, 2007 1:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't need any new organizations, departments, or laws to protect the environment from polluters from corporations down to our friends, relatives, and neighbors. Just practice sustainability and encourage others to do it; vote for everything from judges to presidents with that in mind; BE activist rather than just TALK it. Take back your power! Be involved in your life; ie, your community, state, country, world! We can no longer live independently of each other. The entire world is at stake and can only be saved by the effort of each one of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Barbara S. Reed, Ph.D.
Posted by: barbara reed on Feb 19, 2007 1:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You need to realize that several hundred wind turbines will not mean very much in terms of our energy needs. That was not addressed and should be, to contextualize this story. I was hoping the writer would really delve into the errors of our collective thinking about wind energy. But no, just more
about the politics of the NIMBY stripe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Barbara S. Reed, Ph.D.
Posted by: barbara reed on Feb 19, 2007 1:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You need to realize that several hundred wind turbines will not mean very much in terms of our energy needs. That was not addressed and should be, to contextualize this story. I was hoping the writer would really delve into the errors of our collective thinking about wind energy. But no, just more
about the politics of the NIMBY stripe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BiggerD
Posted by: BiggerD on Feb 21, 2007 10:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Sun is a source of clean energy. It produces more energy in one second than we humans could use in a million years. We need to move forward with solar energy farms ASAP. As for wind turbines, there are the spinning blade horizontal axis type like an airplane propeller and there are the vertical axis type with a helicopter like rotation. The "Blades" (or "Sails") are mounted standing up, and they rotate around the base. The sails adjust during the rotation, so they stay in optimum alignment (automatically) to the wind. If you remember the catamaran in the movie "Water World" you get this image. They are less dangerous to birds, bats and even low flying airplanes than horizontal axis wind turbines. They can be erected more closely packed together for a denser field of generators, thus making better use of the wind energy available. They also work in less wind and are less likely to be damaged in high winds (storms). We also need to switch to more energy efficient homes and electric cars so we don't need as much energy. If we had energy efficient homes we would reduce the need for more coal burning plants, reduce the need for more nuclear plants. If we had electric cars and plugged them into our solar panels we would not have to buy gasoline for 90% of of driving. High tech batteries are propelling automobiles ovr 300 miles on a charge, but are curently prohibitively expensive. But mid-tech batteries, like NiMH are feasible and would give 150 mile range. Plenty for one normal driving day for the average joe American. Those are the solutions. Check out www.isomax-az.com for superior energy efficient homes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Misplaced Priorities
Posted by: ron m on Feb 24, 2007 1:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Citizens of Ontario are closely watching the wind debate south of the border. Air pollution kills Americans and Ontarians alike. Coal produces 50% of America’s electricity and 15% of Ontario’s. Ontario’s coal plants alone caused 3850 premature deaths and health and environmental damages totaling $12.5 billion between 2000 and 2006. Had the Ontario government installed $1.8 billion in up-to-date emission controls on its coal units, the emission controls would have paid for themselves in NINE MONTHS. Instead the Ontario government has procured 400 MWs of wind generation costing $2.5 billion. Ontario’s long term plan is to build 5000 MWs wind generation for $10 billion and have consumers pay premium power rates.
Because wind is not reliable, the Germans, with about 15% of their installed generation being wind, give wind a 6% capacity value. A generous 10% capacity value, would allow wind to permanently retire about 500 MWs coal for $10 billion. That’s $20 million per MW or 10 times the cost of new high efficient coal or 8 times the cost of new nuclear-both being 85% plus efficient vs. wind’s 25%! Wind needs to be backed up for 75% of wind's rated energy because wind fluctuates. Building more wind only reduces the capacity value and it becomes a wasteful exercise. So really wind can’t replace coal without building new sources to back up wind. And if you are going to build new gas plants, why build wind in the first place. The dollars would be better spent on reducing the fossil fuels we burn for transportation, industry, commerce and residential use which account for most of the fossil fuel use anyway!? While gas is cleaner than coal, the gas fuel cycle still emits 50% of GHGs of coal. And if you are going to keep burning coal, install emission controls because wind can not significantly reduce conventional power generation with wind as the Germans are finding. The Germans are building new high efficiency coal plants. The French obtain 80% of their electricity from nuclear.
On August 1, 2006, Ontario set a new record for power consumption, smashing the previous year’s record by almost 1,000 megawatts. Our dollars would be better spent on conserving and reducing the amount of energy we use vs. inefficient wind farms, polluting gas plants and trading pollution credits as we kill people and destroy the planet.

Ron M
Owen Sound
Ontario, Canada

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]