“What is becoming increasingly apparent is that this Cap and Trade legislation no longer has much to do with reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  It’s a monstrous collection of payoffs to big business special interests ranging from Goldman Sachs to Duke Energy to General Electric.”  Myron Ebell, Competitive Enterprise Institute

On July 14 the front page of USA Today claimed that Obama’s attempt to use the Gulf Oil spill to  propel his energy agenda had failed. Has it really?   Senate Harry Reid and Obama met behind closed doors   to develop their plan to deliver comprehensive energy reform to the Senate floor by month’s end, and on  July 22, the Democratic Caucus met behind closed doors to discuss Reid’s latest proposal.   According to Senator Reid his proposal, using Senator Jeff  Bingaman’s renewable electricity standard (RES) legislation – The American Clean Energy and Security Act, will cap carbon from power plants by forcing them to produce a growing percentage of the electricity they produce from government approved renewable energy sources.  The  proposed bill is also said to contain provisions to phrase in other industries in later years and includes “modest” (by democrats’ standards)  tax increases on gasoline, diesel fuel and aviation fuel.   Reid’s proposal does not include the words “cap, tax, or greenhouse gases” since these words are now toxic in today’s politically charged environment.  THE NAME MAY  CHANGE BUT THE RESULT IS  STILL THE SAME.

Many Senators were sitting on the fence regarding Reid’s plan – with elections on the horizon and the majority of Americans against more taxation – they had decided it is in their own self-interest not to support Reid’s proposal.  Hitting a wall of opposition to taxing carbon emissions from utility companies, Reid has now unveiled a new narrow limited energy bill that doesn’t contain a cap and tax plan.  He has outlined a 4 point plan to increase the liability cap for damaged incurred from the BP spill and added new oil rig safety regulations;  to change the diesel fleet to natural gas;  plans to legislate the Home Star energy efficiency program;  and invest in the Land and Water Conservation Fund.   Claiming to have 60 votes for this new plan, he is preparing to bring it to the floor for a vote.   Senator Ben Nelson said he fully expects this “scaled back version” to pass.  But, Senator John Kerry  said – “Let me be crystal clear, this legislation he has proposed doesn’t replace climate change legislation.”    He also added that Obama had called him in before the  the Democratic Caucus meeting and promised to step up efforts to find support for a broader plan. 

If renewable energy souces were reliable and cost effective, companies would be adopting the technology on their own to stay   competitive.  But, the truth is – they are not cost effective.   Renewable energy sources are more expensive than traditional fuel, hence the need for government mandates.  They will significantly raise everyone’s energy costs.   Taking the full cost of wind and other renewables into account, the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has found that Reid’s first proposal based on Bingaman’s RES  legislation would have raised electricity prices by 36% for families and 60% for businesses; cut national income by $5.2 trillion between 2012 and 2035; cut national income for a family of four by $2,400; reduce employment by more than 1 million jobs and added  more than $10,000 to a family’s share of the national debt by 2035. 

With Obama still desperately trying to find support for a full comprehensive cap and trade bill, you have to ask yourself – why is Reid so willing to downsize his agenda and provide a seemlingly harmless bill that even Republicans can support!   Do I trust Harry Reid?  About as much as I would trust a rattle snake!  Progressives do not give up that easy.   They are up to something that I would wager is not going to be for the good of the country.   Is Reid  posturing for re-election by trying to  make himself look more in touch with the voters,  knowing that  this new proposed bill will not be voted on until after the November elections?  Has he and Obama struck some deal to attach the existing cap and trade legislation to some unrelated bill and pass it in the dead of night as is their custom?    If the democrats hold their majority the Reid plan will be replaced by a full blown cap and trade bill.  If they lose their majority, expect to see a version of the cap and trade bill passed in a lame duck session.   

In May, Todd Stern, Obama’s envoy for climate change admitted that cap and trade legislation is unlikely to pass the Senate this year but he assured the UN delegates from more than 40 countries that the US is ready to move forward on a comprehensive international climate change treaty without Congressional approval.  

With offshore drilling on hold as a result of the oil  spill, Governor McDonnell is backing another federal effort to promote energy production.  McDonnell and governors in nine other states have joined an effort organized by U.S.  Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar to promote, coordinate, and expedite development of offshore wind facilities  along the Outer Continential Shelf.  Virginia will also be home to a regional renewable energy office, although a site has not yet been selected.  McDonnell feels that “this is a tremendous opportunity for us to have – when you get the infrastructure paid – a no cost source of energy. . .I’m 100% behind quickly exploring the possibility of getting a wind farm off the coast of Virginia Beach.”  He later withdrew his support  for the Governor’s Wind Energy Coalition saying he supports “voluntary – not mandatory  renewable energy standards.” 

In 2007, Virginia’s first commercial wind farm was approved for installation with  as many as 20 wind turbines, each 400 foot tall, to be erected atop two Alleghany Mountains in Highland County, near the West Virginia Border.  The State Corporation Commission immediately imposed strict environment safeguards on the site.  Construction of the $80 million project started in 2009, and in  May of this year,  the County Board of Supervisors and the developer were threatened with a lawsuit by a group of concerned citizens and conservationists,  if construction continued. 

June  2010, the Roanoke Valley Cool Cities Coalition board of directors unanimously endorsed a plan to put 15 to 18 wind turbines, standing some 440 feet high, on the ridgeline on Poor Mountain  not far from a Bent Mountain community.

Dominion Resources and BP Wind Energy have also proposed building wind farms in Tazewell and Wise Counties.  Tazewell supervisors have substantially put an end to the proposed turbines by a vote of 3-2 to limit structures taller than 40 foot.  Wise County,  however, approved the farm plans for their area.

While I am not against progress, I am against progress at any cost.  When I think of wind turbines I picture Holland and wind mills.  Like most Americans,  I don’t particularly like cell phone towers but I know they are a necessary evil.  And I don’t think I could survive without wireless.  But wind farms!  After hours of  research,  I would like to share a few of the tidbits I found.                  

The cost to develop and build a wind energy facility  is approximately $1.3 million to $1.7 million per megawatt, compared to gas fired energy generation of $800,000 per mega watt.  On average, due to wide and unpredictable fluctuations of wind,  turbines will only produce on average about 30% of its nameplate power.  It takes over one thousand times the amount of land for wind power to produce roughly the  equivalent amount of energy as a nuclear plant.  It is not reliable or predictable and what’s worse, wind can’t be counted on to provide power on demand.  Most of the windiest sites and available lands are a long way from where electricity is needed, resulting in the need for thousands of miles of huge unsightly transmission towers and cable, at an enormous expense to the consumer.  A study done in 2007 by the U.S. National Academy of Science concluded that under the most optimistic conditions, co2 savings by 2020 will amount to only 1.8%.   And, according to The Heritage Foundation, the average family would pay $300.00 a month for wind powered electricity as opposed to $189.00 from coal.

Sorry, Governor McDonnell but I don’t get the “no cost” source of energy. 

Europe has been in the wind power business for quite a few years.  In 1998, Norway commissioned a study of wind power in Denmark and concluded that it had serious environmental effects, insufficient production and higher production costs. Denmark has over 6000 turbines that produce electricity equal to 19% of what the country actually used.  Yet, no conventional power plant was ever shut down.  Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must run at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity.  In 2004, Denmark’s glut of wind towers provided on 3.3% of their electricity.  The country is just dependent enough on wind power that when the wind is not blowing right they must import electricity and as a result they have the highest electrical consumer costs in Europe. 

The first detailed study of Britain’s onshore wind farms suggests some treasured landscape may have been blighted for only small gains in green energy.  Britain has 245 onshore wind farms.  Although wind power is expensive, the industry has boomed because of the renewable obligation subsidy program, under which consumers pay roughly double the normal price for energy from wind.  “Too many developments are underperforming because developers grossly exaggerate the potential.  the subsidies make it viable for developers to put turbines on sites they would not touch if the money was not available.”

Cost is not the only factor – lets consider safety.  Germany leads the world in installed wind energy with 18,865 turbines suppling  ONLY 5.7% of the nation’s electricity.  But, even among insurers in Germany, wind power is now considered a risky sector.  They have reported accidents such as fragments of a broken rotor blade striking a road shortly before rush hour traffic, a 230 foot tall wind turbine which folded in half next to a highway; two turbines on fire and firemen unable to put it  out because their ladders weren’t tall enough to reach the burning casings, rotor blades ripping off a 328 foot turbine with fragments landing in a field, etc.  

In a health study at Northern Maine Medical Center, the data which Dr. Nissenbaum characterized as alarming, suggests residents living within 3500 feet of wind turbines are experiencing serious health problems related to shadow flicker and noise emissions.  The World Health Organization has identified children and the elderly as being particularly susceptible. Dr.  Nina Pierpont, a NY Pediatrician says she is convinced that vibration and noise emitted by wind turbines can produce a range of symptoms she calls “Wind Turbine syndrome” (WTS).  She said that there are 12 different health problems associated with WTS ranging from tachycardia (abnormal heart beat) to panic attacks.

Turbulence produced by turbine rotors can have a strong impact on local ground temperatures and moisture content.  Turbulence creates stronger mixing of heat and moisture which causes the land surface to become warmer and drier.  Federal officials have warned of a potential threat to endangered birds from crashing into turbines or the transmission lines or from loss of habitat. Wind farms as far away as 25-30 miles are interfering with Doppler  radar.   Turbines can short out, be struck by lightening, or overheat causing wild fires.

Offshore wind farms are common in Europe.  In the U.S. they have been mainly confined to land but there are 3 installations planned off the coast of New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Delaware.  The Meteorological Institute in Oslo reports that extracting energy from wind changes regional air currents which in turn affect how the nearby ocean circulates, bringing nutrient rich water up from the depths.  Overtime you could see a lot more plankton blooming which is famous for causing toxic red tides and sucking oxygen out of the water.  Studies at the Oslo Institute were done at 98 foot depth.  Deeper farms have been proposed in Europe but they conclude that  maintenance costs skyrocket the further away from shore you go.   

The effect on co2 is negligible. They are expensive to build and maintain. Our  electric bills will double and it’s  a given our taxes will increase.  They cause health problems, can be dangerous to wildlife,  are a definite  blight on the landscape, and  an environmental hazard to our forests and oceans.  They only have a life of twenty plus years.  What happens when  it is no longer economically viable to repair or maintain them?  Has anyone actually thought about the long term effects these massive turbines will have on our environment?   Wouldn’t it be better to invest all this money in clean coal technology? How about just investing  the money in an industry that will actually produce jobs.

Call our Senators and tell them to vote “NO” to the cap and trade bill.

Senator Mark Warner – (202) 224-2023

Senator Jim Webb – (202) 224-4024