Tag: wind

Mountaintop Mining (Part Two)

  • Gary Anderson in Front of Coal River Mountain (Photo by Sandra Sleight-Brennan)

Mountaintop removal coal mining blows off the tops of mountains to get to a thin layer of coal. Environmentalists say there’s a better way to extract energy from mountain tops. They want to put up wind turbines. Sandra Sleight-Brennan reports they believe it will mean more energy in the long term and less environmental destruction:

Transcript

Mountaintop removal coal mining blows off the tops of mountains to get to a thin layer of coal. Environmentalists say there’s a better way to extract energy from mountain tops. They want to put up wind turbines. Sandra Sleight-Brennan reports they believe it will mean more energy in the long term and less environmental destruction:

Coal River Mountain is one of the last in Raleigh County West Virginia, and it’s next in line for mountaintop removal mining. A local group, the Coal River Wind Project, wants to build a wind farm along the mountain’s ridges.

Lorelei Scarbro has lived most of her life in the West Virginia coal fields. She’s the daughter, granddaughter and widow of coal miners. She knows her opposition to coal mining is seen by her neighbors as a direct threat to their jobs.

“It has been difficult. But people begin to understand that we’re not trying to take something away from them. You’re trying to add something to the area.”

She says mountaintop removal coal mining is short-term gain with long-term damage.

“The pace we’re going; it will be nothing left. I have a five-year-old granddaughter, and I can’t imagine what the air and water will be like when she is at childbearing age if we continue at this pace, because they’re covering headwaters streams, they’re starving off the water supply, they are destroying the air.”

And the next mountain in Scarbro’s home area to be mined is likely Coal River Mountain.

That’s why Coal River Wind Project commissioned a study to see if wind turbines would work. It turns out, the mountain has industrial strength wind. Enough to power 164 turbines. The project would create 200 local jobs during construction, and 40 permanent jobs. Rory McIlmoir is the project coordinator.

“The wind farm would generate an average of $1.74 million a year for the first 20 years. In year one it would generate over three million dollars. That’s the property tax. Blowing up the mountain for coal, on the other hand, would only bring $36,000 back to the county.”

That’s just the property taxes. The wind farm would make about $1.75 million dollars a year in revenue according to the study.

But the wind project has hit a stumbling block. A recent Bush administration rule change allows mining waste to be dumped into streams. That’s cleared the way for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection to approve a permit for Massey Energy to do mountaintop removal mining here. If the mining occurs, the mountains would be lowered by several hundred feet. That would scrap the wind turbine project.

Activist Lorelei Scarbro thinks the wind project is the one thing that can stop the destruction of Coal River Mountain and others targeted for mountain top removal coal mining.

“It will save the mountains, it will save the wildlife and the hardwood forests and the vegetation and the water. It’s something that is desperately needed. Of course, our biggest obstacle is the fact that that the land is leased to the coal company.”

But the people who own the land say, if coal mining were stopped by the government, they’d consider the wind farm. The wind farm project coordinator, Rory McIlmoir, says they’d benefit for a lot longer if they did.

“Because, if they can make a few million each year from royalties then they’re interested in that. But, the choice right now is easily coal.”

The Coal River Wind Project has presented the study to West Virginia’s Governor. And 10,000 people signed a petition asking the state to think beyond coal and think about the future of energy, the economy, the mountains and the people.

For The Environment Report, I’m Sandra Sleight-Brennan.

Related Links

Not Much Green From Eco Jobs

  • A manufacturing job in a wind or solar plant sometimes pays as little as $11 an hour - much lower than the national average for workers making other durable goods (Source: Man-ucommons at Wikimedia Commons)

One of the big plans for kick-starting the nation’s economy is to invest in green jobs: solar and wind energy projects, mass transit, and energy efficiency. But a new report finds some of those jobs might not pay as well as some people expect. Julie Grant has the story:

Transcript

One of the big plans for kick-starting the nation’s economy is
to invest in green jobs: solar and wind energy projects, mass
transit, and energy efficiency. But a new report finds some
those jobs might not be pay as well as some people expect.
Julie Grant has the story:

A manufacturing job in a wind or solar plant sometimes pays
as little as $11 an hour – much lower than the national
average for workers making other durable goods.

Kate Gordon is with the Apollo Alliance, a group that
advocates jobs in renewable energy. She helped to write
the report on green jobs.

“Just because something’s a green job does not necessarily
mean it’s a good job. There are a lot of jobs emerging in
renewable energy and energy efficiency companies where
the workers are being paid minimum wage or slightly more
or don’t have benefits.”

At the same time, the report finds that some U.S. wind and
solar companies are already outsourcing jobs to China and
Mexico.

But Gordon says the government can change this direction
with its investments – by requiring local job creation, labor
standards, and domestic content.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Will Green Collar Jobs Pay Off?

  • Obama delivering the American Recovery and Reinvestment speech on Thursday, January 8, 2009 (Photo courtesy of the Obama Transition Team)

Some top business leaders
expect there will be only one growth
sector during this recession: energy
efficiency. Some call it the dawning
of the ‘green economy.’ Lester Graham
reports many are calling on the
government to invest heavily to get
the economy going again. But some are
worried that billions will go to ‘make
work’ projects with no long-term gains:

Transcript

Some top business leaders
expect there will be only one growth
sector during this recession: energy
efficiency. Some call it the dawning
of the ‘green economy.’ Lester Graham
reports many are calling on the
government to invest heavily to get
the economy going again. But some are
worried that billions will go to ‘make
work’ projects with no long-term gains:

Just as computers and the information age defined the economy many business leaders believe alternative fuels and energy conservation will define the green economy.

During a recent speech at George Mason University, President-elect Barack Obama indicated he wants to encourage that growth in green collar jobs.

“Jobs building solar panels and wind turbines, constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more jobs, more savings and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.”

There’s no doubt that much of President-elect Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is green.

The AFL-CIO has its own Green Jobs for America Program. The union wants 100-billion dollars of government money to be invested in the kind of jobs Mr. Obama talked about.

Pat Devlin is with the AFL-CIO’s Michigan Building Trades Council. He says he hopes Congress moves on the Obama plan soon.

“We’re hoping ASAP. Were looking to get something kicked off in the next six months. And like I said, we’ve got the projects. We just need the infusion of the investment behind it and we’re ready to go. We got to be smart when we do get the dollars, too. That they’re spent in the right place to get people back to work, get our economy headed in the right direction.”

The AFL-CIO has been talking to the Obama administration… and the union likes what it’s hearing.

President-elect Obama says making buildings and homes more energy efficient will mean jobs now and save billions in natural gas and oil in the future making us less dependent on foreign fossil fuels… and reducing greenhouse gas emissions causing global warming.

But the government has a nasty habit of screwing these things up. Members of Congress want the money for their states even if they don’t have the kind of shovel-ready plans that will mean those kind of long-term benefits and that could sabotage the effort.

“You just can’t throw money at the problems and somehow magically it’s going to work.”

Eric Orts directs the Initiative for Global Environmental Leadership, part of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. He says the investments should go to projects that mean more energy and economic efficiencies in the future have long-term benefits that will benefit the economy. Otherwise it’s wasting an opportunity.

“You might create short-term jobs for some time, but that’s not going to lead to the long-term foundation growth that I’m talking about. That’s going to require some intelligent allocation of the funds so you get the payoffs.”

The Obama administration will have to be picky the jobs, very cautious about how the taxpayer money is invested if we’re going to see those payoffs.

For The Environment Report. I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

The Candidates on Renewable Energy

  • Barack Obama and John McCain give their views on renewable energy (Photo courtesy of the Commission on Presidential Debates)

Both major party candidates for
president say the nation’s economy and
national security are closely tied with
its energy policy. But they each have
a different plan to build the market for
alternatives to foreign oil and other
fossil fuels. In the next part of our
series about shifting the nation’s energy
policy, Julie Grant takes a look at the
candidates’ views on renewable power, like
wind and solar:

Thanks to the Public Radio Exchange for providing the audio for this piece.

Transcript

Both major party candidates for
president say the nation’s economy and
national security are closely tied with
its energy policy. But they each have
a different plan to build the market for
alternatives to foreign oil and other
fossil fuels. In the next part of our
series about shifting the nation’s energy
policy, Julie Grant takes a look at the
candidates’ views on renewable power, like
wind and solar:

John McCain and Barack Obama both talk a lot about new
sources of energy on the campaign trail. They see
alternative energy as a way to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil, to stem climate change, and even to boost the
economy.

McCain: “It’s wind, tide, solar, nuclear, offshore drilling.”

Obama: “That’s why I’ve focused on putting resources into
solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal.”

Every president since Richard Nixon has promised to reduce
America’s dependence on foreign oil – but our imports have
only increased since the 1970s.

So what are each of this season’s contenders proposing?

Obama has been talking about huge investments in clean
technologies and energy efficiency.

“My energy plan will invest 150-billion dollars over the next
ten years to establish a green energy sector that will create
up to five million jobs over the next two decades. Five
million jobs.” (applause)

Obama wants to retrain steel and auto industry workers for
jobs building wind turbines and solar panels.

Wind energy is already contributing energy to the nation’s
electricity supply. Solar isn’t quite there yet. It needs more
research.

Edward McBride is energy and environment correspondent
for The Economist magazine. He says Obama plans direct
government investments in wind, solar, hybrid electric cars,
and making homes and businesses more energy efficient.

“He imagines a situation where the government is much
more heavily involved, not just in providing incentives but
actually in spending money. And therefore presumably the
government is in a position to pick and choose more which
technologies move forward.”

Unlike Obama, Senator McCain doesn’t plan direct
government investment in clean technologies. Instead,
McBride says the McCain is proposing tax credits for those
who do invest in them.

“He wants more broad-based incentives. Rather than
different incentives for solar and wind and so on. He wants
one unifying tax incentive.”

But McCain plans some direct government subsidies – for
nuclear and clean coal.

And although McCain talks about building a green economy
on the campaign trail, he doesn’t always seem convinced
that clean energy will provide the power America needs.

Here’s McCain speaking in New Hampshire last December.

“Most every expert that I know says that if you maximize that
in every possible way the contribution that that would make
given the present state of technology, is very small. It’s not
a large contribution. Even if we gave it the absolute
maximum, wind, solar and tide, etc. The truly clean
technologies don’t work.”

McCain is counting on the investment markets to decide
winners and losers in the renewable energy business.

But the markets don’t usually look long term, at things like
climate change. So both presidential candidates are
planning to put a price on burning fossil fuels, such as oil
and coal, that add to the problems of climate change.

That alone could provide another incentive for clean
competitors.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Turbines and Bats: A Deadly Combo

  • Many bats are being killed by wind turbines (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

The wind turbine industry has made
changes to reduce the number of birds killed
by the spinning blades. But scientists are
finding that more bats are being killed.
Rebecca Williams reports one research team
thinks it now knows why:

Transcript

The wind turbine industry has made
changes to reduce the number of birds killed
by the spinning blades. But scientists are
finding that more bats are being killed.
Rebecca Williams reports one research team
thinks it now knows why:

It’s been a mystery why bats are getting killed by wind turbines. They’re
usually great at avoiding collisions because they sense moving objects
even better than still ones.

A team from the University of Calgary looked at dead bats near
turbines. They found that 90% of the bats had internal bleeding.

Erin Baerwald is the lead author of the study. She says there’s a sudden
drop in pressure near the tips of the turbine blades. And when bats fly
close enough, the pressure drop makes their lungs over-expand and
burst. She thinks the bats are attracted to the turbines.

“Maybe they see these tall turbines as trees.”

That’s because most of the bats that are getting killed are tree roosting
bats.

Baerwald says researchers are looking at ways to change turbines to
avoid killing bats.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Interview: Wind Power on the Water

  • Some people find wind turbines unsightly, and would prefer them off-shore (Photo courtesy of the EPA)

There’s a lot of wind along coastal
areas… perfect for wind turbines. But a lot
of people don’t like the idea of windmills
ruining the view. So, why not put them out
in the water, just out of view from the beach?
Projects have been planned or proposed or just
rumored off the coast of places such as southern
Georgia, Delaware, Cape Cod, and Michigan out
in Lake Michigan. There are already some off-
shore wind turbines operating in Europe. Thijs
Westerbeek is the sustainable
development expert with Radio Netherlands. He
says off the coast turbines are more popular
than wind mills on the land:

Transcript

There’s a lot of wind along coastal
areas… perfect for wind turbines. But a lot
of people don’t like the idea of windmills
ruining the view. So, why not put them out
in the water, just out of view from the beach?
Projects have been planned or proposed or just
rumored off the coast of places such as southern
Georgia, Delaware, Cape Cod, and Michigan out
in Lake Michigan. There are already some off-
shore wind turbines operating in Europe. Thijs
Westerbeek is the sustainable
development expert with Radio Netherlands. He
says off the coast turbines are more popular
than wind mills on the land:

Thijs Westerbeek: “Actually, the public reaction is excellent, because the whole
‘nimby effect’ doesn’t occur. The thing where you like wind energy, as a
principle. You like this big mill turning around and producing clean electricity.
But you just don’t want it in your backyard. You don’t want the noise, you don’t
want the flickering effect of the sun shining through, you don’t want birds to fly
into this, and you certainly don’t want to see it. Now, if the wind turbines are off-
shore, and far enough off-shore, that problem just doesn’t exist.”

Lester Graham: “One of the concerns is that the windmills will be an eyesore.
Can you see them from shore, and does it disrupt the seascape for either folks
on the beach or boaters?”

Westerbeek: “Well, that just depends. The two small-ish windparks, they are in
front of the coast of the Netherlands, are pretty far-off. You can just see the tips
of the blades. So that isn’t really much of a disturbance. The two gigantic
windparks, off the coast of Denmark, are actually a tourist attraction. People go
to see them.”

Graham: “What kind of problems are they for marine animals and sea birds
when they’re off-shore?”

Westerbeek: “This has been tested by scientists in Denmark. And they counted
1.2 million birds passing through, and not one was hit. The birds just see the
turbines. That’s just not a problem.”

Graham: “What kind of problem do they pose for ship navigation?”

Westerbeek: “Until now, and I’ve checked this with the Maron Research Institute
– that’s the maritime research institute here in the Netherlands – there haven’t
been any accidents yet. And that’s mainly because windparks are typically built
on sandbanks where there can’t be any traffic. However, if they would be built in
sea-going routes, and a ship would bang into it, you have a possible disaster on
hand, because the turbine will collapse – hopefully not onto the ship – but if it
does fall onto the ship, that could be possibly disastrous. So the suggestion of
this scientist at Maron that I called was ‘don’t build any windmills in, for instance,
the North Sea, which is just too busy’.”

Graham: “How do they get the power from the windmills off-shore to shore? You
have to have some kind of cable, I assume.”

Westerbeek: “And that’s a problem. Because the further windparks are off-
shore, the more expensive it’s going to be to get that power on-shore. And with
rising prices for copper, that really is a problem. The cable could ultimately be
more expensive than the park itself. Off-shore windparks are definitely much,
much more expensive than on-shore windparks. That is a fact. But they are a
political solution. People who don’t want on-shore parks for the reasons I named
– unsightly things, noisy things – that is just solved, that problem, if you have an
off-shore park. So, yes, they are costly, and maybe too costly, but it’s a political
choice to have them built.”

Related Links

Wind Tax Credit Blowing Away?

  • Wind companies want taxpayer help (Photo courtesy of the Department of Energy)

The wind power industry has been growing.
But to keep growing, wind companies want more
taxpayer help. Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

The wind power industry has been growing.
But to keep growing, wind companies want more
taxpayer help. Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Some of the recent growth in wind generation is being fueled by a national
production tax credit. It’s due to expire at the end of this year.

The American Wind Energy Association is asking the public to encourage Congress to renew the
credit.

Association spokesman Jeff Anthony says, without the tax break, there’d be a slow down in new
wind projects and a potential loss of jobs.

“The longer it takes, the more in danger we’re putting the jobs in the wind industry at risk from a
drop-off in activity, both in project installations and in new manufacturing installations in this
country. So we need the PTC extended as soon as possible.”

Anthony acknowledges there’s a dispute in Congress over how to pay for the credit. Some
critics call the production tax credit ‘corporate welfare’.

For The Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

The Answer Is Blowin’ in the Wind

  • The Tehachapi Wind Farm in California. The turbines produce enough electricity to meet the needs of 350,000 people each year (Photo courtesy of the Department Energy)

Large wind turbines are popping up all over
the United States. But some homeowners are beginning
to put up their own backyard wind turbines. Lester
Graham reports:

Transcript

Large wind turbines are popping up all over
the United States. But some homeowners are beginning
to put up their own backyard wind turbines. Lester
Graham reports:

Dozens of companies are popping up, making these smaller wind generators.
Southwest Windpower is one of the older manufacturers.

Andy Kruse is a Vice President there.

He says these smaller wind turbines can supply power for houses on the grid; maybe
even enough to sell some electricity back to the power company. But some states
haven’t passed the laws necessary to require power companies to allow the turbines to
be hooked up to the grid.

“States that have yet to do that, you know, they have to question it. I mean, some of
them have never even heard something like this either for solar or for wind, so it’s a
learning curve for them.”

Kruse says home-grown wind power is starting to catch on, with thousands of people
asking about getting their own small wind turbine put up in their backyard.

For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Better Mileage for Big Rigs

  • Front view of a semi-truck (Photo courtesy of the Federal Highway Administration)

With diesel prices above four dollars a
gallon, truck drivers are looking for ways to reduce
fuel consumption. Lester Graham reports some new
technology might help:

Transcript

With diesel prices above four dollars a
gallon, truck drivers are looking for ways to reduce
fuel consumption. Lester Graham reports some new
technology might help:

Manufacturers have been making trucks more aerodynamic. But, the trailers they haul
are not. In Holland they’ve found a way to reduce the drag caused by turbulence under
and around the trailers.

At the Delft University of Technology, researcher Michel van Tooren says properly
designed side-skirts – those are panels down low on truck trailers – make them more
aerodynamic.

“Of course side-skirts are not something new in the transport world. They are available.
Even McDonald’s has used for a while, trucks with side-skirts. The thing is that this
specific device has an aerodynamic trick on the front that makes it much more efficient.
Yeah, it really seems to work.”

Van Tooren says it cuts fuel use by an average of 7.5%, but some drivers have reported
a 15% savings in fuel.

For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

New Push for ‘Green Collar’ Jobs

  • A solar panel installation training program run by Grid Alternatives. (Photo by Kristi Coale)

A new employment program is tying the need low-income people have for
good-paying work to the imperative of meeting the nation’s growing energy
demands. The “green jobs” movement trains out-of-work people and former
blue-collar workers to install solar, wind and other alternative energy
systems at homes and businesses. Kristi Coale reports what started as a
local program might soon be coming to the rest of the nation:

Transcript

A new employment program is tying the need low-income people have for
good-paying work to the imperative of meeting the nation’s growing energy
demands. The “green jobs” movement trains out-of-work people and former
blue-collar workers to install solar, wind and other alternative energy
systems at homes and businesses. Kristi Coale reports what started as a
local program might soon be coming to the rest of the nation:


It’s a sweltering, sunny day – one when people are encouraged to reduce
their energy use. And so it’s fitting that a small group of young adults is
busily installing solar panels on the roof of a house.


People honk their car horns as they drive past this house. Solar power is
supported here in California. The workers on the rooftop stop to cheer, clap,
and pump their fists in response. The atmosphere here is electric. And that’s
to be expected because these young trainees, like Andre Collins, are the
embodiment of a vision, one that takes low-income people, often people of
color, and trains them to work in the fast-growing alternative energy
industry.


“They’re green jobs, because they’re healthy and right for the people and the
environment and they’re green also because they’re taking the people who
would otherwise be poor and putting green in their pockets.”



Andre Collins is one of 15 people who are completing a 9-week training
program in solar panel installation. This program is run by Grid Alternatives,
a non-profit that installs solar in low-income communities. Grid uses
volunteers recruited by local youth employment and job training
organizations. This installation is a graduation of sorts and so these trainees
are thinking about the job market.


“I’m just proud to be a part of this, and I can’t wait to make money.”


Some non-profits are stepping up to make training programs like this
possible. So are cities. The city council in Oakland, California approved a
quarter of a million dollars for such a program, a sum that’s possible thanks
to a settlement between energy companies and the State of California. Six
years ago, when rolling blackouts hit California, companies such as Enron
raised their rates. While Enron and others didn’t admit to any wrongdoing,
they gave the state one billion dollars. Some of that money is being used to
train lower-income people in what’s come to be known as green jobs…
installing solar panels and tankless hot water heaters, converting vegetable
oil to fuel.


Renewable energy industries are worth big money, already 40 billion dollars
a year worldwide. These new industries hold the promise of putting tens of
thousands of people to work in the U.S. Van Jones is president of the Ella
Baker Center for Human Rights. He says support for green jobs is redefining
the environmental movement:


“…A social uplift environmentalism that is less about the Birkenstocks and
the tofu, though that stuff is all beautiful. It’s more about the hard hat, the
lunch bucket, more of a working class, we-can-do-it environmentalism I
think is the next step in the environmental revolution.”


Jones is leading that revolution in cities like his hometown of Oakland,
which has fallen on hard times. Jones says what’s missing in struggling blue-
collar cities like Oakland are good-paying, skilled labor jobs, jobs that used
to come through unions.


“And it’s time to really rebuild the labor movement with we think the new
face of working class America which is more Latino, more black, more
Asian and also with a new consciousness around doing things in a more
ecologically smart way.”



Oakland is the first city to declare a green jobs corps. But there could be
many more. Cities across the country might get a chance to start their own
programs, thanks to pending federal legislation:


“This bill will allow for three million workers here to be able to enjoy this
kind of training and advancement.”


That’s California Congresswoman Hilda Solis describing a bill she’s
authored in a YouTube video. The Green Jobs Act of 2007 proposes to
dedicate a half a billion dollars to train people to do green collar work. This
fall, the U.S. Senate will take up Solis’ bill. Many believe creating green jobs
will not only revitalize the economy and the environment, but also reinsert
something that has long been missing from these communities: hope.


For the Environment Report, I’m Kristi Coale.

Related Links