As we near one of the most significant moments in Roanoke County's history, indeed..., in the history of the Blue Ridge mountains throughout Virginia, I must, with all of the credibility I can muster, make a stand regarding Invenergy's proposed wind turbine project on Poor Mountain in Roanoke County, Virginia.
In 2005~2006, a close neighbor confided in me that he was considering an appealing proposition from a wind developer through his long-time family attorney, Maryellen Goodlatte. At the time, I told my good neighbor (still is) that I didn't really understand the magnitude of the proposed turbines, but in my experience, I've always considered wind generated energy to be a very important effort in a "point of use" application as a conscientious supplement to growing energy consumption. So. I thought if it would help his family to continue to pay the property taxes and some of the family's raw maintenance cost for such large tracts of land, then certainly it sounded worth pursuing.
I dismissed the subject from my mind for greater concerns at the time, such, as the onslaught of the gypsy moths in 2006~2007, that defoliated over 7000 acres of our beloved mountain. Fortunately, our forests are now recovering, though scarred from clear-cutting during the heat of battle against the invasive moths.
Our close community on Bent Mountain also was trying to consider the best route over the Bent Mountain plateau and Poor Mountain for a new high-voltage transmission line. The only option we were given was: Which one of three predetermined right-of ways would the community prefer? We were assured by AEP spokesmen that the purpose of this transmission line was to allow them to "complete" a transmission loop around the Roanoke Valley, and definitely not to serve any new industry in the area.
In 2006, The Roanoke Times reported that Invenergy, LLC was withdrawing their interest in placing wind turbines in the Bent Mountain area, in part, because such a project would require a $1.6M electrical grid improvement project. This was the same year that partners, Diana Christoplus and Mark McClain decided to settle in the Roanoke Valley area and volunteer their lives to helping the Roanoke Valley make decisions about our future.
In 2009, while I was trying to promote, albeit clumsily, enthusiasm over "The Heart of Roanoke", an online urban design experiment oriented toward developing ways for large groups of people to actively participate in the process of planning communities; I heard of the Cool Cities organization. My initial assumption was that they were a green-oriented organization of local people interested in making cities more hospitable environments to live in -- ie, more green ways, more tree plantings,etc. So I called and met with Mr. McClain. Then I came to understand although they appreciated my efforts, their organization stood for much larger causes "region-wide".
In late 2009, rumors started emerging on Bent Mountain that the wind industry interest had returned. In February 2010, Don Giecek and Ms. Goodlatte introduced themselves to the community as representative of Invenergy, LLC of Chicago, IL. At that point, I decided that I needed to quickly start educating myself about wind farms, the technological advances in turbines, and the economic viability of such further disruption of our mountain.
By early June 2010, I started receiving rather ferocious attacks on my personal & professional credibility on line and by email because I was questioning the credibility of a small group of board members of the Cool Cities Coalition to be making such far reaching conclusions about what is best for all of us.
In this specific local issue on Poor Mountain, YES, I am a NIMBY.
My position unfortunately is NOT based upon what I personally have to gain for myself, my family, my community or posterity. My position is based upon what we all have to lose.
There are only two people, that I know of, in the Roanoke Valley who have mathematically evaluated the wind generated energy potential with over 210,000 entries of wind data representing over one year on a Class VI wind site as declared by Virginia Wind Data Charts near the proposed Poor Mountain site. This process is what must be accomplished to develop a thorough evaluation of the proposed land use.
Peer review??? YES, being one of the aforementioned two people, the other being an electrical engineer, we would be genuinely excited to engage in peer review, or as it is called in many scholarly communities "refereeing". In fact, the subject of review of technical data has been continually requested of Invenergy, specifically, and Roanoke Valley Cool Cities Coalition as early as June of 2010. Initially, Mr. McClain promised to provide the necessary data. Later, Invenergy, LLC announced that the data would not be released for consideration because it is proprietary, though funded by over 60% of public money.
Our own Roanoke County Administration, with a level of hyperbole repeatedly claims to have investigated this proposed land use relative to develop a Zoning Ordinance amendment for over two years (that is over 6 months prior to Invenergy's public re-entry into our valley). Yet, no evidence of a rationale for making any judgement regarding the worthiness of the proposed land use itself has been provided. If every member of Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission are unable to show to their constituency irrefutable evidence of justification for adopting and endorsing such a massive use of land in Roanoke County, then the ordinance amendment is dangerously premature for adoption.
Excellent post, Eldon. True as I know, also. For appx. fifty years I have investigate and designed my own forms of alternative energy, water rams, etc.. Self-sufficiency for living free. I have all copies of Mother Earth Mag. till mid 80s. I go to wild foods conventions. I too understand this. These people, signs and such are reps. in effect of the wind farm industry complex. They are destroying the very thing they claim to be saving. They have no hands on experiences as You and I. I worked on large alternator/generators for 41yrs.. These monster turbines will fail from lack of scheduled timely replacement/maintenance. As in all industry they fail, burn up/down/meltdown, etc. The authorities say, "Why"? They say, "Oh, It was an unforeseen accident", We do not know what happened". "Too Late", Mountains on fire burning hundreds of acres. When it happens, I pray the forestry department sues for millions and the fed makes them pay. "Too Late", The Mountains are now molten chard remains. Let see what the greenie weenies think of that. Let Us All pray out local money crazed government for once exercises wisdom and saves out beautiful mountain tops.
ReplyDeleteActually, Eldon, as the county attorney has pointed out, the existing ordinance allows wind energy generation by special use permit. The proposed ordinance is more restrictive than that already on the books. I'm sorry you never got the data you wanted from Invenergy, but I don't believe I promised it to you because I never had it. Of course you realize that the BOS does not have to show "irrefutable evidence of justification" to constituents when they make a decision. They consider the recommendation from staff, the law, and the public input they receive. I think you're starting to realize that many of their constituents favor wind energy for Roanoke County, even those in Bent Mountain.
ReplyDeleteEldon, would it really matter to you if somebody did the calculations and showed that the Poor Mountain wind farm would generate all that is claimed? Be honest. You and a small group of fanatics are dead-set against this project and no facts will get in your way. When somebody debunks one of your ludicrous anti-wind claims, you just invent another one. Wind turbine syndrome, property values, lack of payback for the investors...the list goes on and on. One of my favorites was last year when an opponent stated in a letter to the editor that wind turbines actually consume electricity, or some such nonsense. Bent Mountain is a lovely community, many people living there want these turbines but are afraid to speak up, and it will still be a lovely community with very, very little impact when the turbines are there. You won't be able to see them or hear them from most parts of Bent Mountain. On those occasions when you do see them, you'll realize they're actually far more attractive than the many cell towers from which they distract your attention.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous... I feel that perhaps your sentiments toward showing Eldon proof could be redirected at yourself. Now perhaps it is time for you to be honest. I enclose three links about your "nonsense" of wind turbines consuming energy. They do produce energy but consume it as well. It is not in the literature produced by the wind energy companies nor in their PR campaigns which play upon those who want to take care of their environment...but it is there in other independent literature. Wind turbines seem to be one of those issues that appeals to our desire to "do right" for our environment. When you investigate material other that provided by the companies, and you investigate those places (Denmark, California, etc.) who have had wind energy the longest, you see a great deal of impact not a "very, very little".
ReplyDeletehttp://arikjohnson.posterous.com/do-wind-turbines-consume-more-power-than-they
http://www.aweo.org/windconsumption.html
http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/news/columns/biofuels-economics/new-energy-economics-how-much-energy-do-wind-towers-use/
While true that the proposed zoning ordinance is more restrictive than the existing one, either can be disregarded through a special use permit. Why even bother with a new ordinance if the guidelines set forth can be exceeded by a special use permit? This is one area where the language of the proposed ordinance needs to be changed to disallow exception via special use permits.
ReplyDeleteWhile the BOS may not legally have to show “irrefutable evidence of justification” to constituents, they do have an ethical responsibility to do so when property rights may be infringed on and where there is possibility of health hazards.
I would also ask why Invenergy has not released the technical data. Shouldn’t that be a consideration for the BOS in making a decision?
ROFLMAO Linda, you are helping your opponents to make their points when you cite sources which can be summarized as, "A bunch of guys who don't want wind turbines built near them wrote a bunch of stuff on the internet, and I believe it."
ReplyDeleteWell anonymous....I guess without facts ridicule works for you. Thanks for helping us make that point. It seems to be a common tactic but doesn't work real well for most. Could you please send links to independent sites that show they don't use any energy? I haven't found any other than the owners/builders of the wind farms and they don't say it, they just leave out that part of it.
ReplyDeleteGee, now I'm part of a "small group of fanatics." How many comprise "small"? Five? Twenty? Five hundred twenty? If you're so big on facts, Mr. Anonymous, lay some numbers on us.
ReplyDeleteIdeology shouldn't drive public policy. The BOS needs hard data from independent sources before making a decision with such far-reaching implications. A lot of well-meaning people want wind turbines to be the answer, but good intentions don't add up to conclusive evidence. Using data from Invenergy to vet this project is akin to using a Bible verse to prove the veracity of...the Bible.
Linda, I'll be posting anonymously, but I'm not the same anonymous who posted earleir. I just. Can't help pointing out that by your logic, we shouldn't build any coal-fired or nuclear power plants because when you subtract out the massive amounts of electricity required to keep the lights on, to run the A/C in the offices, and the refrigerator, they really don't produce much net electricity. Heck, you can't even find out from the power company how much electricity they consume, so that just shows they're hiding something for sure.
ReplyDeleteTo all,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. Please use the anonymous option judiciously when posting. Unfortunately, too many of use anonymity to hide behind in order to make unfounded and or derogatory statements.
I certainly respect the right of and the desire for privacy, but morally, I abhor "shills" soley interested solely in protecting their personal benefits of working for an industry that refuses to justify their proposed destruction of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia.
I understand the fear that these people must face. After all, if it were not for Federal and state grants, would we have a Department of Green Engineering at Virginia Tech, a Virginia Wind Energy enter at JMU, a wind turbine maintenance training program in the Virginia Community College System? How many jobs at the Virginia DEQ and MME be lost if we stopped pursuing big industrial scale wind energy systems, never mind if they are not viable.
Sorry to get off topic, my point is USE anonymity fairly in such discussion.
Thank you.