Be the Spark!

contribute now

Blowin' in the Wind

AIR DATE: Friday, August 8th 2008
POSTED BY: DAVID ABRAVANEL
Download the mp3 for this show.
Photo credit: slworking2 / Flickr / Creative Commons

What impact will the expansion of the wind energy industry have in Oregon?

According to a report by the American Wind Energy Association, the U.S. has recently surpassed Germany as the leading producer of wind energy worldwide this year. That same organization says that Oregon is the seventh-ranked state in the nation in terms of its installed wind capacity. And just last week, the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council approved plans for a new wind farm in Shepherd's Flat which, if completed, would more than double the state's current wind energy megawatt capacity.

While the Shepherd's Flat project would join numerous other wind farms along the Columbia River Basin*, the next frontier for wind power in Oregon may be the state's southeastern region. At least two major wind companies are looking into projects ranging from the Stinkingwater Mountains to the Pueblo Mountains.

Wind turbines' potential impact on the surrounding environment and bird, salmon and human populations have drawn some criticism of wind farm projects in the past. However, a relatively new focus of concern over wind power seems to be how the energy will be incorporated into the current power grid, which some say may not have the capacity or geographic spread to handle an influx of wind megawatts from southeastern Oregon. Proponents say that the importance of expanding wind power's reach outweighs this potential risk.

Is there a place for a major wind power presence in Oregon? How will wind farms in the Southeast integrate with the power sources already in place in our state? What hopes or concerns do you have about wind energy's impact on your community?

GUESTS:

Tagged as: alternative energy · energy · sustainable oregon · wind

Photo credit: slworking2 / Flickr / Creative Commons

Some more links:

I believe that Vestas makes most of the worlds large wind turbines and if I recall correctly Vestas is owned by GE.

http://www.vestas.com/en

The National Renewable Energy Lab:

http://www.nrel.gov/

Rocky Mountain Institute, which does leading edge research and promotion of new energy solutions:

http://www.rmi.org/

I highly recommend the article called "The Smart Garage":

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid520.php


Developing the ability to timeshift electricity from when it is generated to when it is needed is a key problem and Rocky Mountain Institute addresses it.
Tom D Ford —
Vestas Americas is not owned by GE. They are owned by Vestas Wind Systems based in Denmark.

Its important to note that they are not owned by another power company that has interests in non-wind energy sources.
Wendy Skyes —
Thanks for the clarification, I thought that GE bought the Vestas parent company in Denmark.

Your real name would be welcome here, unless you have something to hide.

You're right GE Wind Energy is a competitor to Vestas. I still have not found the name of the company that GE bought.

"GE Energy is known the world over for their many installations of land-based 1.5 MW wind turbines, inherited from Enron Wind through a 2002 acquisition of the company."

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=32133

Tom D Ford —
Yes, GE bought Enron's wind business. That's how they got into it. Enron Wind became GE Wind.
Rosa G —
The windmill photo on this page is of an old design of support structure, the new towers look a lot better in my opinion.

Also, in my opinion windmills are the Haute Couture Fashion of the renewable energy systems and ought to be marketed as such. Just look at those tall slim beauties and imagine them walking down the high fashion runways of Milan, NYC, or Paris. I suggest that if you can get the followers of Haute Couture to embrace and support windmills, the rest will follow enthusiastically.

I think that proper marketing campaigns will establish windmills as icons just like the wonderful old Dutch windmills, they will become beloved in the minds of most everyone.
Tom D Ford —
One of the main advantages I see of windmill farms is that they are widely distributed and so make any threat of an attack taking down a large part of the electrical system essentially moot, unlike coal, natural gas, or nuclear plants.
Tom D Ford —
"Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council"

Just for feedforward, that is not a working clickable html.
Tom D Ford —
Thanks for the heads-up. The link has been fixed.
Chelsea Davis —
On our eastern horizen our once open space rangeland view has now been forever changed by the recent completion of the Elkhorn Valley Wind Farm, near North Powder, Oregon. In the day these sanitary white pillars stand out in horrific contrast to the surronding grassland, and at night we are enlightened by the multiple blinking red lights. It used to be a beautiful moon rise to see, but no more. It seems somewhat curious that all of of these energy production facilities are in our rural landscape, and none near urban areas where the aesthetic value would be compromised, but the highest electrical usage occurs.

If it were not that this "Green Energy" is so politically correct and the huge tax incentives to the parent companies, there would be no logical or economical merit to the 1.3+ million dollar per tower cost. There is no way that this form of energy
will ever cost effective, and I am sure that our future electricity rates will bear this truth. If any other segment of the economy would have attempted this kind of footprint, Hell would have frozen before it would have been allowed. Bio-fuels generation, using the aftermath of much needed thinning in our surronding forests before we loose our watersheds to catostrophic fire, would be productive power generation and an economic stimulus for our rural communities by creating family wage employment.

Our ranch goes back seven generations, and we are stewards of our resources. We believe that one of these resources we protect is the "Open Space" that all humanity can enjoy. If these production facilities continue to expand, we all will loose forever the landscpe we cherish.

Curtis W. Martin, V P Ranch


vpranch —
to the producers: FYI, 3 national ornithological societies are holding concurrent scientific meetings at Portland Hilton this week, and Friday afternoon the program includes a symposium on "The impact of wind energy development on birds." I thought you might want to interview one of the speakers. I guess you could call the HIlton and ask how to get in touch with the meeting organizers.
dawnsong —
Presently, A prime reason all the turbines are being placed East of The Dalles and out to Morrow County and Klickitat Cty in Washington is because of the transmission lines and and power grid already in place from the dams; making it easy to deliver the power to market/consumers. The hydro system provides back-up power generation when the wind doesn't blow. But it seems that capacity has reached a point of overload, as reported by the Oregonian in a couple of articles earlier this summer. Transmission lines are another expense ultimately paid by the ratepayer.
For all the 'greenness' of wind turbines, the developers are well covered with tax credits/incentives wheather or not they actually produce any electricity. Conservation and energy efficiency are cleaner and easier to develop for the enduser, rather than continued reliance on big multi-national power corporations. Unfortunately, small locally owned wind turbine developers are closed out of the market due to economies of scale.
If you want to pay twice to three times the going rate for electricity then wind power is okay, as long as the wind blows all the time, but it doesn't.......
Philip S. —
There are several misconceptions in this post. There is no tax credit for projects that don't produce electricity-- the credit is on an energy production basis. The credit, while important, is not a large fraction (around 15%) of the cost of the wind projects.

Wind is not "backed up" with hydro. Power planners ensure there is sufficient generating capability to meet loads without wind, as they know that the wind does not always blow. When the wind does blow, other power plants reduce their generation to compensate.

I completely agree that conservation and enrgy efficiency are important. And if you want to do something locally with renewable energy, put a solar hot water system in-- very cost effective and saves fossil fuels. Contact the Energy Trust for more information-- anyone with an unshaded roof can make use of this. I've had one on my rooftop in rainy Portland for about ten years. See www.energytrust.org
Ken Dragoon —
Actually, wind developers can also take advantage of 5-year double-declining balance on their federal taxes. That's a very generous break that doesn't depend on actual production.
Rosa G —
While there are proposals for Wind farms in the Columbia River Gorge, the large-scale winds farms you are talking about are East of the Gorge in what is called the Columbia Basin. The Columbia River Gorge is the gorge that cuts through the Cascade Mtns. and runs from Troutdale to The Dalles. The issues of siting turbines where they would be visible from the Columbia River National Scenic Area are different than those involved in siting turbines on the wheat lands of the Columbia Basin. OPB and the Portland media could improve their reporting by better understanding the geography of the state.
Rick Davis —
If we are to achieve a full transition from fossil energy to renewable energy, wind power will have to play a significant role, especially in Oregon and the Northwest. All sources of energy, whether it is coal, hydro, wind or solar, require investment in infrastructure, including transmission lines. In Oregon, we will have to build some amount of new transmission to meet electrical demand. Currently wind power is one of the most economical and environmentally friendly options we have, especially in Oregon.

Regarding the proposed Shepherd's Flat Wind Farm, it is important to keep in mind that large, continuous developments of wind power are already in existence in Oregon. 500 MW of wind turbines are currently producing renewable energy near the town of Wasco, with more on the way over the next couple of years. It is not thought of a single wind farm because it has been built by multiple parties over several stages, but it will look like a single wind farm just as much as the Shepherd's Flat Wind Farm. There is a wind power development in Texas owned by several different companies that is 2500 MW and growing, so Shepherd's Flat would be the largest wind farm in the world in name only. It is also important to recognize that the wind turbines within these large wind farm developments are separated by large distances. The rows of wind turbines near Wasco, for example, are located in excess of a mile apart in most cases. Today's wind farms do not look like the old California wind farms that cloud our picture of wind energy.

I do think it is legitimate to ask "how much wind power do we want in Oregon and how much land will it require?" But we have to answer these questions in the context of all sources of power and our future energy needs.

Clint Johnson
clinter22 —
When Gorge winds surged in July, flooding the grid, utilities scrambled to manage the supply. It was a weekend and the wind farm managers were AWOL, leaving the rest of the supply sources to scramble to manage the load. With increasing capacity, this situation will only be repeated. My question is what regulations are in place to require 24 hour management participation by the private wind farms, and what are the costs for their failure to participate in managing the grid supply? Is it in their best interest to keep the turbines running and let others deal with the load consequences?
bshege —
Yeah, too much energy from free wind is a real problem that needs to be addressed.

But contrast that with fossil fuel causing global warming, dams killing fish, and the storage problems of nuclear plants, and I think wind-power is the right kind of problem to have.
Tom D Ford —
These systems shouldn't be managed by humans at all, they should be managed by computers. I'm surprised thats not how they run already.
vectorjohn —
There was a wind event on June 30 in which the wind energy on the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) went from near zero around 2 pm to near full output (more than the one remaining nuclear plant produces) about 5 hours later. Most of the power on BPA's system is actually "scheduled" through BPA to other off-takers of the power. However, the wind increase was not fully anticipated by the schedulers, and BPA found itself with more power than it was prepared to deal with for a few hours. There was a communication glitch when BPA operators tried to contact wind generators to limit their output and this was reported in various places, including the Oregonian. The glitch has been addressed. Wind projects are staffed 24 hours a day and do participate in grid management.

It is true however, that institutional changes would have improved the situation. For example, BPA technically could have increased the exports to the off-takers, or turned down other fossil units on the system, but these contractual arrangements do not yet exist. Much work is going on behind the scenes to remedy this, and make greater use of the wind at lower overall cost.
Ken Dragoon —
This wind energy that is currently threatening to overwhelm existing transmission lines is, with appropriate changes to existing contracts, almost perfect for transition. As wind (and solar) energy exceed the limits of the transmission lines, the state should be planning for the reduction of dam-sourced energy, little by little, until the dams can come down without having to run around for new energy, or pay higher prices to fill the gaps.
rkarten —
What about noise? Don't those great big ginormous things make noise as they turn in the wind? I've heard that turbines make a huge "fwoosh-fwoosh-fwoosh" noise as they turn that can be heard for miles. Are newer designs quieter?
ValAAnn —
I have heard the same thing-- maybe those were older wind turbine designs. I've been to three operating wind turbine sites and they weren't loud at all. The wind in my ears was louder than the blades for the most part. All I can say is go visit a site and see for yourself. They are an impressive sight-- whether you like them or not, they are quite striking and worth a visit.
Ken Dragoon —
Newer designs are not quieter. As the machines become larger, with larger blades, the technological impovements in areodynamic flow has not kept pace. The mechanical gears to rotate the blades and the nacelle make noise as well. As the machines age, expect even more noise than the newest models currently put out. The sound of a new car is much more pleasing than the sound of an oder model, but for how long?. Most of the noise problems are not in the flatlands such as eastern Oregon or Washington, but in the more mountainous regions. When you live in the wind shadow of a ridge and have little or no wind sound interferance in the background, the noise reportedly is much more significant. Simple sound amplification models indicate that amplification of sound can occur downwind of the turbines. When you couple that with complex topography that can funnel and bounce the sound around a serious noise pollution problem can occur. The noise can also be 24/7. The quietest time of the day, nighttime, can become the most problematic for people living nearby, and even not so nearby. Current research, that the wind industry trys to brush aside, indicates that the turbines should be placed a minimum of 1.25 miles from homes, and this is particularly true in mountainous regions. Please note that none of the investors of these projects actually live among the turbines..........day and night, day after day. If they did, they just might abandon their homes as some people have had to do. Just visiting and standing under for a few moments will not give a representative feel of what is happening in some communities. I love the story of bus tours where they drive people up in a bus, unload them under a turbines, pass around the wine and say, "See, they not noisy." None of us go to concert, stand hundreds of feet under a speaker or stage directed downwind and expect to hear much. Of course, that same speaker in a huge ampitheater would create a lot of noise, even when placed high overhead.
zinger55 —
I've been all around turbines, up close, hundreds of feet away, inside of them, on top of them-- just haven't heard what you report.
Ken Dragoon —
That comment reminds me of a time I lived next to a bunch of hoodlums who kept us up every night with their partying. I'd go over and ask them to be quiet, and they'd ask, incredulously, "Don't you like Zeppelin?"

Despite Ken Dragoon's self-serving inability to hear the nuisance, reports keep appearing of people forced to leave their homes or suffering from the stress and physical effects of the noise. See http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com
Rosa G —
I did find a news report about someone in Texas having trouble with wind turbine noise: http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/jstjames/stories/wfaa080728_lj_windturbines.fbc5e25.html

This was not a commercial scale wind project that make up the vast majority of the energy being generated, but a small scale turbine a neighbor put up in their yard. The story points out that the big commercial scale wind turbines don't make that noise. The noise from each is featured in the TV news clip. I can definitely understand how the whine from the small turbine would be annoying if you lived next to it. Again-- go visit one of these things and give them a listen for yourself.
Ken Dragoon —
Here's an ongoing diary of the noise from industrial wind turbines in Wisconsin, from people who actually live there, not occasional visitors: http://betterplan.squarespace.com/the-brownsville-diary-wind-tu/
Rosa G —
I lived In Steilacoom Washington for a while about a hundred yards away from the ferry docks with the two major north-south rail lines between the dock and my apartment and while the first train startled me I got used to them, even to their air horns which they had to blow when approaching the road crossing to the ferry.


I think the complaints about wind turbine noise is probably just misdirected anger about something else in those peoples lives that is out of their direct control.
Tom D Ford —
Did it go on all night in an unpredictable pattern? Would you choose to live there? Would you support adding such noise to a quiet rural area?
Rosa G —
Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

I'd sleep extra well knowing that Bush is not murdering people for their Oil.
Tom D Ford —
It appears that support of industrial wind turbines is the result of misdirected anger.

Oil has almost nothing to do with electricity.
Rosa G —
I would love to see more wind turbines in Oregon, but I don't think we have very generous incentives.
What are they and what can the average person do to get some wind farms up and running?
rbucci —
Oregon has the most generous tax breaks for alternative energy in the nation.
csheketoff —


It also might be well to consider reliability over time. Is a 900 MW wind farm often able to generate at or near that level? Hydropower, which has its own environmental consequences of course, is a very effective kinetic "battery" which does store potential energy and convert it to kinetic and then electrical energy on demand, given water availability and other possible constraints. Equating a 100 MW wind farm with a similar level (say Bonneville Dam) may not be valid. Northwest (Columbia-Snake Basin) generation capacity, by dam, is available at http://www.cbr.washington.edu/crisp/hydro/ .

Carl Schilt
Bigleaf Science Services
North Bonneville, WA
Schilt —
My Typo. Bonneville Dam is rated around 1,000 MW, not 100.

http://www.cbr.washington.edu/crisp/hydro/bon.html

Schilt
Schilt —
Bonneville Dam can, at times, produce somewhat more than 1,000 MW depending on the availability of water. It is true that wind and hydro are not easily equated. On average, most wind farms produce about one third their rated output. Bonneville Dam produces around 35% of its rated output on average-- so they really aren't that different in that respect. The big difference is that the water coming into Bonneville Dam is largely controlled, and the power generation is quite flexible-- meaning that operators can increase or decrease the generation at will (within ever-increasing limitations for fisheries protection).
Ken Dragoon —
As to birds, outdoor unleashed cats are the biggest killer of birds and ought to be addressed first.
Tom D Ford —
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Rosa G —
There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding customers "buying" wind power from their utility. My impression is that customers who pay a premium for green package like PAC's Blue Sky think their homes are powered by wind and will thus avoid the coming electrical rate hikes cause mostly by fossil fuel price spikes. Can someone explain in simple terms why all rate payers will see a rate increase, even when they participate in green programs?
pyranometer —
This has to do with the way in which the voluntary programs are structured. When you (as I do) pay extra on your bill for renewable energy, the utility goes out and purchases a certificate that renewable energy was generated by a renewable generator for which you get to claim credit. This helps build a market for renewable energy and has been effective in getting projects built.

However, the utilities do not actually take the generation from those projects to match your usage-- the power may be sold elsewhere. So although you do technically get to claim renewable energy, and there really is renewable energy generated in your name, it is not necessarily purchased by your utility to match your demand, nor does it offset the costs of meeting your usage.

There are pros and cons to the current structure, and it is a recurring them in talks with utilities about these programs. Taking power directly incurs additional costs (especially transportation), and risks.
Ken Dragoon —
Hello - so, are there places in the state where wind turbines should simply not be allowed, even if there is wind, for aesthetic or other land-use reasons? What process should be used to establish these? Do you think of off-shore turbines as a good location solution because it is less likely to be controversial in this regard?

- Sam Lowry
samlowry —
We give utilities a hefty state tax subsidy for installing wind power, wind power has no "energy costs" once built, they are less capital intensive than thermal plants, yet PGE is allowed to charge customers more to purchase wind power. If you want people to vote with their dollars, it should be the same (or less) cost. What's in it for Oregonians to purchase wind power, when it's am already paying for it through a tax subsidy? It is sending a wrong message and is just wrong to charge more for the renewable energy of wind.
csheketoff —
The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act was adopted in 1986 for the purpose of porotecting the scenic resources of the Gorge. It stretches from teh Sandy River to the west and the Deschutes River to the east. The north/south boundary was mapped on a viewshed basis: That is, the boundaries of the Scenic Area were drawn based on the areas visible from key viewing points, such as Interstate 84 and Multnomah Falls. As a result, the boundary is generally on ridgelines that define the limit of the viewshed. Development within the boundary--development that would be visible from key viewing areas--is strictly regulated.

The potential for large-scale wind energy development was not contemplated when the Act was adopted. Development just outside the boundary is not regulated by the Act. As a result, the siting wind turbines adjacent to the National Scenic Area has the potential to frustrate the purposes of the Act and cause significant impacts to views that are otherwise protected in perpetuity.

State and county agencies must take these impacts into consideration when siting projects. Careful siting can avoid unnecessary impacts to our National Tresure while allowing projects to move forward.
Rick Till —
Regarding the most recent caller...if we keep burning fossil fuels, the environment will change drastically enough that the mass extinctions resulting will make the birds of eastern washington seem irrelevant.
fatmidwesternwhiteguy —
But the next caller noted that building wind doesn't reduce fossil fuel use.
Rosa G —
What provisoins are being made for the removal of these turbines 50-60 years in the future when the technology becomes obsolete? As part of a green movement this should be considered in the cost.
mvogel@wwarchitects.com —
I'm curious what technology would make wind obsolete, do you have knowledge about future tech that is not currently available to the public?
Tom D Ford —
Make that 10 years, when the tax credits run out and the companies stop maintaining them. Most ordinances now require an escrow account for decommissioning and site restoration. The huge concrete and steel platform underground remains, however.
Rosa G —
Typically, leases with landowners stipulate the complete removal and site restoration at the termination of the contract-- typically 20 years. Most power sales contracts are 15-20 years to ensure cost recovery and repayment of loans. The contracts often have severe penalties if the wind projects fail to perform.
Ken Dragoon —
It is hard for me to imagine not renewing those contracts and maintaining the wind turbines, even updating them.
Tom D Ford —
As to complaints about subsidies, Big Oil is the biggest recipient of corporate welfare of all, with Bush just spending 3 trillion US dollars to get control of the Iraq Oil.

Three trillion dollars could have made us energy self sufficient nationally with renewables and improved and computerized the grid to handle it.

Tom D Ford —
Question for Chris re: wildlife impacts -- I agree that in grand scheme of things the wind industry and technology has greatly improved and the number of direct bird mortalities caused by collisions is relatively low.. especially compared to house cats, glass buildings, etc BUT what about the larger issues of habitat fragmentation, species displacement etc. As I understand it these issues are much less understood. What is wind industry doing to research, monitor, and avoid such wildlife issues?
jjmohair —
Chris is on vacation, and that's not my area, but you can check out:
http://www.nationalwind.org/workgroups/wildlife/
Ken Dragoon —
I see massive analysis paralysis preventing us from making real progress on alternative fuels. We've got to get beyond this and start taking some pragmatic action now, and not worry about pleasing everyone all of the time. Every road project, rail project, office building, airport, and yes, farm or ranch drastically changes the environment and is going to make somebody take on a NIMBY attitude. It's about the greater good and not someone who is lucky enough to own vast amounts of land in a remote area and figures they have the right to control everything around them.
fatmidwesternwhiteguy —
As the development of industrial wind power projects rapidly expands in the Pacific Northwest, special care needs to be taken to avoid haphazard placement of wind towers in scenic landscapes and migratory bird flyways. Today, there are several projects that line the rim of the Gorge with proposed 400? foot towers placed on tall ridges just a few feet outside the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area boundary. Industrial size wind energy development should not be sited next to, or in close proximity to, the boundaries of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, a designated national scenic treasure.
kelleyb —
Wind energy is great, why put them in our neighborhoods...there is PLENTY of land to put these on that will not bother any humans and/or wildlife. Just because the wind is there does not mean you need to put a turbine up.
bshege —
Um, yeah it does? Wind energy comes from where the wind is. Nobody put wind turbines in anyone's neighborhood. They're going out in big fields, and on hills, neighborhoods don't have the best wind flow.
vectorjohn —
I am really surprised at how effective the fear-mongering campaigns from the fossil fuel owners is working; birds, views, noise, alleged ineffectiveness, etc.

Doesn't anybody do Critical Thinking anymore?
Tom D Ford —
That's precisely our question. Your invocation of fossil fuel puppets is the fear mongering here. While any critical examination of the wind industry's claims is greeted with mockery, scorn, and slander, as if GE/Enron, Xcel, PG&E, et al. are the true environmentalists looking out for all of us.
Rosa G —
Can anyone provide links to research showing impacts of wind turbines on birds and bats?
zeugirdor —
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/category/wildlife/
Rosa G —
The representatives from the wind energy really know how talk.....hot air. I would like to respond to misrepresentations.

One rep stated that mammals are not affected at all by the turbines. Bats are mammals and high numbers have been wiped out by poorly placed projects.

The situation with using Hydropower as backup for wind energy was grossly misrepresented as well. Most of the hydro power in the Pacific NW is called "run of the river" meaning that there is little storage capacity in the hydro system. Thus, the river water cannot be stored, it must be released downstream, whether it is used to turn a turbine or spilled. Excessive spill can harm fish. The Columbia River hydro system must be managed for salmon, transportation, irrigation, recreation, AND energy. If energy becomes the overriding priority, then salmon, as well as other beneficial uses will be negatively affected. Essentially wind energy as proposed today harms bats, birds, and fish. If you study the issue extensively.

The water for hydro on the Columbia River is not stored in any meaningful amounts. It cannot be. Do the research and do not fall for the retoric.
zinger55 —
I can't believe there is even any argument against wind energy. Maybe some people don't like the look of the turbines, maybe some bats and birds die (not as many as would die from global warming), whatever.

The fact is wind is a nearly perfectly clean form of energy widely available. If water can't be stored at dams like the guests said, energy can/will be stored in other forms, such as reduced coal/other power plant usage during peak wind times. Its hard to argue otherwise, why on earth would power companies burn fuel that their customers are not using? Simply, they wouldn't because they wouldn't get money for it.
vectorjohn —
And I cannot believe that there is even any argument today against Hydro. Maybe some people do not like the look of a concrete dam. It is renewable, non-CO2 emmitting, thus green, and available on a milliseconds notice AND would be storable with no environmental or social regulations hindering development. We should place a dam on every river and stream, maybe some fish will die (salmon too), but not as many as would die from global warming, whatever. Society would have a lot of energy to waste!
zinger55 —
There is about 20 million acre feet of reservoir storage in the Columbia River Basin, including reservoirs in British Columbia and on the Snake River in Idaho. This is about 20% of the average annual runoff on the Lower Columbia River (The Dalles Dam). Most power planners would consider this significant (some would definitely be envious), but it is small compared to some other basins such as the Colorado River. About 5 million acre feet are behind Grand Coulee Dam in Franklin Delano Roosevelt Lake, and can make a pleasant vacation destination.
Ken Dragoon —
Because of all the competing uses for water, including water for fish, you cannot take advantage of the previous bloggers number. It would have devastating consequences on the river/hydropower system already in a precarious balancing act. In the "good ol' days" of hydro, there were no environmental regulations. Today, the "good ol days" of wind turbines, there are limited environmental regulations (none meaningful) or regard for the environment or people. Society is supposed to learn the lessons of history, but yet, here we go again. And the twisted, humorous part is that everyone is being sold a bag of goods that somehow, we will ultimately save ourselves from ourselves by further degrading our environment in an overall meaningless attempt to slow the degradation.
zinger55 —
There are of course competing uses for storage. At the end of June when the wind came up and BPA found itself with more water than necessary, I called up to Grand Coulee to ask whether the reservoir was full (forcing them to release water downstream). They were keeping the reservoir four and a half feet down from full to keep nice beaches around the reservoir for the Fourth of July Weekend. The assertion that all the storage is consumed suggests that we have no ability to shape the power to meet current demand or send power on high value (daytime) hours to California. This is demonstrably untrue. There are costs associated with using storage, and certainly limits for environmental reasons, the notion that there is nothing left is simply incorrect.
Ken Dragoon —
Chris Taylor's description of the supposedly low impact of wind energy development on sage grouse was off-base - the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife's Sage Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon has concluded that wind development could have significant impacts on sage grouse -- ODFW concludes that wind farms should be placed five miles from sage grouse habitat, which may be possible in very few places in Harney County. Here's what ODFW's report says:

Future developments of wind energy might have significant impacts on local breeding populations. Disturbances associated with construction and maintenance of turbines and subsequent power lines may displace nesting females. Wind energy grids (wind farms) should be constructed 8 km (5 miles) from known/occupied habitat. However, the placement of such a facility will require careful planning in sage-grouse range to minimize the potential impacts (Manville 2004).

Equally disingenuous was the suggestion that wind farms will reduce pressure to subdivide land and preserve open space in Harney County - in a county with 7,600 people living in over 10,000 square miles, there is no such pressure.

He's also wrong about aesthetics -- Steens Mountain is a designated wilderness, and Harney County is replete with wilderness study areas and other open, unspoiled land that is suitable for wilderness designation. The federal agency that manages most of the land in Harney County - the Bureau of Land Management - manages most of the land for its aesthetics, based on the fact that it is some of the largest, contiguous, and unspoiled wilderness left in Oregon. The "urgency" for replacing fossil fuels Mr. Taylor cites is not sufficient justification for putting wind farms in places that require new transmission lines that, together, spoil the pristine character of a protected landscape.

Mr. Taylor should put his money where his company's mouth is and genuinely engage with other interested parties in seeking locations for new wind farms that truly balance the need for new, renewable energy development and the equally pressing need to preserve wilderness and unfragmented habitat for sage grouse and other species which depend on the high desert environment. To date, to my knowledge, Horizon Wind has not made any effort to begin a dialogue with any of the environmental stakeholders in the region (The Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, or the Oregon Natural Desert Association).

Dave Becker
Staff Attorney
Oregon Natural Desert Association
dhbecker —
"based on the fact that it is some of the largest, contiguous, and unspoiled wilderness left in Oregon."

That has me curious because after I moved to Bend in 1964 I talked with a very old timer who told me that around 1900 the land from Bend to Idaho was mostly grasslands with very little sagebrush. Then it was opened to settlers who overgrazed it and prevented range fires with the result that sagebrush took over and the junipers are invading. So I wonder what now is actually unspoiled wilderness from before homesteaders arrived, overgrazed, went broke and left the land to the invasive sagebrush and junipers?

Range fires would burn through the native grasses without killing their roots but fire would kill the sage and junipers, burning them down into their roots.

I agree about talking but I wonder what is left in Eastern Oregon that was once and is still "pristine".

I suspect that restoration is needed instead of protection.
Tom D Ford —
A similar situation in the Plains concerns the prairie chicken. See the story "Wind-power growth could put prairie chickens on endangered list" at http://www.wind-watch.org/news/?p=16048
Rosa G —
Columbia Gorge Commmunity College in The Dalles, OR has a program to train maintenance techs for servicing the wind turbines. Dr. Susan Wolf the Chief Academic Officer there would have a great interview to discuss new jobs being generated by the industry. I believe there was a spot on it on Oregon Field Guide several weeks ago
bendopbaddict —
About cost effectiveness of wind and the opposition from Big Coal:

"Wind Energy is the Most Economically Competitive Form of Renewable Energy

Vestas, as the largest wind turbine and system manufacturer in the world, is in position to take advantage of wind's competitive economics. Wind turbines have the lowest installation costs of any of the renewables, especially with large wind installations, which take advantage of economies of scale to reach lows of $800 per kilowatt installed[6]. Small wind farms and individual turbines can cost up to $3,500 per KW installed[7], which is a bit higher than the average geothermal plant, at $2500 per kilowatt installed[8], but still less expensive than the $8,000 per kilowatt installed[9] associated with photovoltaics. Wind farms also have the capacity to generate much more electricity than geothermal or solar installations. Wind rivals natural gas ($1200 - $1600 per kilowatt installed[10]) and is much less expensive than a coal plant that has all the emissions retrofittings ($2,200 - $3,700 per kilowatt installed[11]), though gas and coal plants generally take up much less land than wind farms with equivalent capacities."

And:

"Coal Stands in the Way of Vestas' Expansion

In August of 2007, Vestas announced the closure of its Australian branch. Australia, the largest coal exporter in the world, looks to the "other black gold" for 85% of its domestic energy production[14]. Because coal is easily accessible from any of Australia's populated regions and is one of the country's main exports, legislators are loathe to support the development of another source of energy, especially one financed abroad. Vestas could face similar troubles in the U.S., where oil companies are firmly entrenched in the nation's economic and political spheres. Furthermore, the U.S. is in the top three coal exporters AND coal consumers in the world (now vying for position two with China)[15]. With such strong vested interests in coal, the U.S. government will debate whether or not to switch to wind energy and other renewables, despite the looming threat of climate change and the environmental degradation coal has caused in the past."


http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Vestas_Wind_Systems_(VWSYF)
Tom D Ford —
As Ken Dragoon mentioned on the show, coal is not affected by wind. Coal (like nuclear) provides base load. Wind provides intermittent, variable, and unpredictable peak energy -- unfortunately, it does so whether demand is peaking or not. And if they do correlate, the grid has to fire up other peak providers anyway, because the wind is likely to drop again at any moment.

The point is, the concerns about coal are not addressed by building wind.
Rosa G —
I think it was Chris who said coal is relatively unaffected by wind generation and Eric Rosenbloom contended that wind had no effect at all on fossil generation. I may not have been very clear about it, but I was at PacifiCorp (Pacific Power in Oregon) when the wind in Wyoming caused the utility to reduce generation at its coal plants. The reason that coal is usually relatively unaffected by wind is because the fuel cost savings are low compared with natural gas fueled plants. This could change however, once a value is placed on carbon emissions. Coal plants emit about twice as much carbon dioxide per unit of energy as gas resources. If they are charged enough for their carbon emissions, utilities will reduce coal consumption due to the wind.
Ken Dragoon —
Or they will try to, but find that running the plants less efficiently (more frequent starts and stops, more frequent ramping, lower capacity than optimal) cuts into much of the savings.
Rosa G —
Today's "Think Out Loud" show included a very unbalanced guest list in favor of the wind industry, so I suggest to the producers that you offer a follow-up show, to include those guests with factual and logical reasons for opposing industrial wind power anywhere, and especially here in the Gorge which is a crossroads of major migratory flyways and includes unique high priority habitats for countless species.

Wind turbines should never be placed near human residences for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to noise & low frequency impulse emissions which is known to cause cancer, cardiac and pulmonary diseases, as well as neurological afflictions. This is well documented by doctors studying what is now known as Wind Turbine Syndrome. This syndrome is being trivialized and scoffed at by developers and those who stand to make huge profits from wind turbines, but it is a real phenomena...for more info visit: www.ninapierpont.com

There should be a minimum 1.5 mile setback of the turbines from any residences, and a 5 mile setback to any town and 10 miles from National Scenic Areas and key viewing areas. Strict guidelines need to be created and enforced. Presently there are no federal or state regulations or standards that apply specifically to industrial wind power, as there are applied to all other energy generation facilities, i.e. hydro, nuclear, coal or gas-fired plants.
Tsiggy —
My question is ?What does the wind do for us now?? I know the wind moves heat from one part of the planet to another. How important is this? When energy is extracted from the wind what happens? If the heat is not moved from A to B what happens?

Does the wind do anything else in the environment?

I know that the effect is small now but so was the effect of the first hydroelectric dams.
septemus —
That is a good question.
Tom D Ford —
Wind farms can be a good thing but they need to be carefully sited. A large complex (Cascade Wind) is planned for a few miles away from Hood River. It is within 1/4 mile of some homes, in the middle of a rural residential area and adjoining the Gorge Scenic Area. There is great wind here, at least part of the time.

The sound from these turbines can be heard up to a mile away. Drive out to Wasco and get out of your car and listen to them. They don't sound too bad unless the background noise is very low, like at night in a rural area. Try to imagine the swish-swish-swish for 24 hrs, days on end--next to your house.

Oregon is not really that great of a place to put wind farms. It is not even one of the top 20 states for potential wind resource---neither is California. But the good states like Montana and the Dakotas are too far from the energy users in California. What is driving wind farm construction in Oregon is it's location to the power lines to California, it is considered to be "politically correct" to be in favor of wind, the generous federal and state tax credits and many investment speculators looking for the next dot.com good times.

Let's try to protect the scenic values we have left. Several wind farms are proposed on the edge of the Gorge Scenic Area that would clearly impact the views along the highway and river from West of HR to The Dalles. This area needs to be protected. Don't many of us wish that 50 years ago The Dalles Dam had been sited upstream a few miles so Celilo Falls could have been saved?

Jim
JimOREGON —

Comments are now closed.

Thanks to our Sponsor:
become a sponsor
Web Analytics