Only We the People Can Change Our Fate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gpnVH8o8kUw

http://2041.com/launch-of-e-base-india/

The other day (pre-election day) my good friend, Peter Lewis, Founder of Apple Ridge Farm called me while I was attending an annual conference of chapters of FRIENDS of the Blue Ridge Parkway. His call was extremely fortuitous.
As many know, I have long been an environmental conservationist opposed to the massive destruction of our natural environment along the Blue Ridge Mountains threatened by the installation of massive industrial scale wind turbines. BIG MONEY  has effectively convinced a large segment of a gullible public that once again, "Bigger is Better," and renewable energy on an industrial scale is a "silver bullet" solution to our climate change concerns.
I have argued that exaggerated productivity claims, transmission and distribution losses over the "Grid", and the promotion of apathy among consumers for personal responsible energy use, does nothing more than line the pockets of BIG MONEY interests with more public gold.

The call from Peter was an enthusiastic request that I serve as a consultant to Apple Ridge Farm as they pursue the development of E-base #3 in the world. E-base #1 is in Antarctica. E-base #2 is in Pench, India. E-base is an educational concept developed by explorer and environmentalist Robert Swan focused upon establishing local classrooms powered solely by locally obtainable renewable energy resources. These classrooms would then spread their learning throughout the world utilizing the benefits only from home grown energy! I have enthusiastically accepted Peter's request.

Recently, I signed on to an open letter to Obama to expunge BIG MONEY interest from politics. Now I would like to encourage everyone to stand behind an appeal to expel BIG MONEY control over our energy consumption.

Carroll County (VA) Supervisors poised to say NO to Industrial Scale Wind Turbines

Carroll will develop windmill ordinance for review
Reposted with permission by Allen Worrell
Editor Carroll News (Va)

Following a motion by David Hutchins, the Carroll County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted Monday for County Attorney Jim Cornwell to develop a draft ordinance for review by January to protect the county’s ridgetops.

Windmills became a hot topic in Carroll County during an April 9 meeting when supervisor Bob Martin said a company from Texas was proposing to place windmills on Stoots Mountain. Multiple landowners have been approached by representatives of EDP Renewables/Horizon Wind Energy about a potential wind energy project, sparking much debate in Carroll County.

Since that time, the county held a public hearing in August regarding windmills and formed a committee to study them. After listening to a recommendation from the Windmill Committee and hearing comments from three citizens, Sulphur Springs District Supervisor David Hutchins made the motion for the board develop a draft ordinance for review by its January 2013 meeting.

With Stoots Mountain being in his district, Hutchins said he spoke to several people from that area at the Carroll County Agricultural Fair in August. None of them were interested in windmills. Hutchins said he thought the board needed to develop an ordinance that would stand up to scrutiny and be defensible, and also that would treat everyone fair.

He then made a motion for the county attorney to develop a draft ordinance for review by the board’s January meeting to protect the county’s ridgetops. Hutchins added that possibly Cornwell could have an ordinance draft ready by December for the board to sink its teeth into and digest before moving forward. Martin seconded the motion.

Cornwell said he would like a feeling from the board of whether they would like him to draft a regulatory ordinance or a prohibitory ordinance.

“I want to prohibit them,” Martin said of windmills.

When no other supervisor chimed in, Cornwell said it sounded like he had a consensus. The board then voted unanimously to approve Hutchins’ motion.

Citizen Rodger Jennings noted from the crowd that Cornwell has already written a similar type of ordinance for Floyd County. If it wouldn’t be a conflict of interest, Jennings suggested that Cornwell may already have something that addresses structures that affect communities.

“Actually it is to your economic benefit,” Cornwell said. “The only thing I see is we don’t have landuse controls, but we do have a statute. I’ll work it as best as I can.”

Following a meeting of the Windmill Committee on Thursday, Supervisor Joshua Hendrick delivered the board of supervisors the committee’s recommendation Monday night that led up to Hutchins’ motion.

“From all forms of public input received, more people have spoken out in opposition of a utility-scale windmill project in Carroll County than those who are in support,” Hendrick said. “Reasons for opposition to a utility-scale windmill project ranged from environmental impacts, landscape preservation, to potential health risks.”

Hendrick said information gathered has led the Windmill Committee to believe the largest benefit for the general public of Carroll County for hosting a utility-scale windmill project would be the monies collected through machine and tool taxes. Estimates of such monies have not been verified, however, Hendrick sad.

“The Windmill Committee is of the opinion that a utility-scale windmill project will not be overly beneficial to the general public of Carroll County; that a decision as to how to proceed be determined in a timely manner; and that the decision to be made contains elements that warrants complete involvement by the Board of Supervisors,” Hendrick said. “Therefore it is the recommendation of the Windmill Committee to the Board of Supervisors that the discussion of the future of utility-scale windmill projects be entertained and handled within a timely manner.”

Jennings, who presented the board with an 82-page packet of information on wind turbines, told the board he is even more strongly opposed to windmills than he was a month ago after doing research.

“My personal opinion is that wind energy development on Appalachian ridges carries great risk of environmental harm and very little potential for benefits,” Jennings sad. “Impact on birds and bats will be substantial. One bat would eat thousands of mosquitoes.”

Jennings said noise levels and the harm to real estate values are other reasons to think about prohibiting windmills.

“Loss of peaceful use of your land-studies have also shown livestock impacted by the turbines. There is lack of marketability of homes in the footprint of the turbines,” Jennings said. “Value losses up to two miles from the project range from 25 to 40 percent.”

Jennings said he is not fond of zoning or regulations. He feels that a person should be able to do whatever they wish on their own property with the exception of a quote he read from the Carroll County Comprehensive Plan.

“Zoning is intended to avoid disruptive land use patterns by preventing activities on one property from generating external effects that are detrimental to other properties.”

After hearing from citizens G.L. Quesenberry and Andy Jones, Dickson said he wanted to emphasize that the board wanted to have sufficient time to study windmills before making any decision. Martin said he is convinced there are not any good reasons to have windmills in Carroll County.

“The only reason it is feasible is because of government subsidies to put them in. I am just not in favor of it,” Martin said. “They won’t compete with Virginia Coal, they won’t compete even with oil. I just don’t see where it will do a whole lot nor is it practical.”

Neither Candidate is qualified to Decide our Energy Future

Romney prefers to stick his head in the sand and declare there is no such thing as global warming, leaving us with the assumption that our gluttonous energy consumption is just good business.

Obama on the other hand chose to ignore advice from his former chief of staff, Larry Summers, who explained that wind developers really had "no skin in the game." The wind developers are focusing upon reaping profits from grants and subsidies.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION IS NOT AN ISSUE TO BE DECIDED BY SELF-SERVING POLITICIANS who seek only the power bestowed by capturing your vote and the financial resources of those who game the system that allow them to do so.

Energy consumption is OUR problem and must be addressed by those who consume it. If every person on Earth consumed as much energy as US Citizens, it would require FIVE planets equivalent to Earth to support our gluttony.

We do have answers to help us conserve. We must insist on site-based programs like PACE (property assessed clean energy). Such programs do not rob from posterity like traditional grant programs, but provide funding by relying upon increased values of property improvements repaid over extended amortization schedules that make such improvements financially feasible for everyone.

With such initiatives we do not lose generated energy by transmitting it over the inefficient transmission grid and distribution network. In fact, we reduce our demand upon the "GRID."

Can you imagine how many jobs would be created by opening the flood gates of such massive financial resources as our individual personal property values? Installing systems for on site generation across our entire nation.

PLEASE THINK ABOUT IT!

Has the Wind Industry become a Hi-Tech Welfare Program?

As reported by:
http://www.windaction.org/opinions/35947

High-skilled, high-tech welfare

 We cannot evaluate the efficacy of federal spending programs by asking the recipients of federal largess whether they are happy with the money. Of course they are happy! The real issue is whether American taxpayers and electricity ratepayers should be happy.

September 4, 2012 by Bruce M. Everett in Cape Cod Times

In an Aug. 23 front-page column, Sean Gonsalves claims Cape Cod Community College's recent decision to install solar panels and wind turbines validates both the stimulus bill and the green energy jobs program. He is wrong on both counts.

Renewable energy is expensive. Onshore wind power costs at least three times as much as electricity produced from natural gas. Offshore wind costs six times more, and solar 10 times more. Renewables are forced into the marketplace by a complex web of federal and state subsidies that hide their true cost. The federal tax credits mentioned in the article are one subsidy; others include renewable energy standards, net metering, federal loans to manufacturers, production tax credits and local property tax relief, all of which disguise the true cost of renewable energy.

Cape Cod Community College has every right to seek federal and state support for its budget, but remember that the college is a public institution. The question is not whether the college saves money on solar energy but whether the public saves money. The renewable energy savings claimed by the college are an illusion. If we took $1 from every Cape Cod resident, we could buy the college a couple of S-class Mercedes cars. The college, the Mercedes factory in Alabama and the local car dealer might be thrilled with this arrangement, but the rest of us should object - and strongly.

We all understand that renewable energy subsidies provide jobs for people like Mr. Giles and his employees at Turning Mill Energy in Sandwich. We must remember, however, that the high costs of solar and wind energy are paid by someone else, and those lost dollars would have created jobs somewhere else in the economy.

We cannot evaluate the efficacy of federal spending programs by asking the recipients of federal largess whether they are happy with the money. Of course they are happy! The real issue is whether American taxpayers and electricity ratepayers should be happy. When the federal government is running deficits north of $1 trillion a year, Turning Mill Energy's federal tax credit has to be borrowed from China and paid back with interest by future generations.

I am happy for Mr. Giles and his colleagues, but they are enjoying a kind of high-skilled, high-tech welfare at our children's expense.

In its current form, renewable energy is simply too costly to make a meaningful contribution to our energy balance. After all the federal dollars and all the hype over the past four decades, wind energy accounts for 1 percent of U.S. energy use today, and the Department of Energy projects growth to only 2 percent by 2035. Solar accounts for 0.1 percent of our energy today and is expected to meet less than 0.5 percent in 2035. Research may yet produce technological breakthroughs, but subsidizing the current generation of technology impedes rather than facilitates progress. Why spend research dollars on improved technology, when you can sell the current inferior stuff at a profit?

The U.S. economy cannot grow by forcing high-cost energy into the marketplace. Those who produce this high-cost energy will gain, and the public will lose.

We have recently discovered in the U.S. vast new reserves of natural gas - a cheap, clean and efficient option. Massachusetts needs to tap into this low-cost, environmentally friendly option and forget about wind turbines, solar and - oh yeah - that monstrous dirty fuel oil power plant on the canal. If we do, we'll get lower taxes, lower electricity bills and more jobs.

Mr. Everett of Chatham teaches graduate-level energy economics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.

Web link: http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...

The Windbagger's March along the Blue Ridge Plateau Reaches Carroll County

A Scale rendition of 36 Industrial Scale Wind Turbines along the ridges of Stoots Mountain and Poplar Camp Mountain.

On April 13, 2009, the Carroll County Board of Supervisors were introduced to the topic of Wind Energy by two representative of the Virginia Wind Energy Center based at James Madison University in Harrisonburg. As the Director and and employee of the University it is there responsibility to promote and encourage the utilization of all Virginia resources to support the development of electricity generation from the wind. The funding supporting the VWEC comes from the Commonwealth of Virginia, the federal Department of Education and the federal Department of Energy. It is there mandate to promote wind energy, not to evaluate the viability of its applications.

The following notes are from the meeting's minutes:

            Dr. Jon Miles told that the Wind Energy topic is getting more and more attention and told that wind has been underutilized in Virginia.  He told that siting is important for a steady smooth wind flow and the challenge is the capital cost.  He told that the cost of electricity from wind is cheaper than other means and told that wind turbines are reliable. He told that there is a modest wind resource in Carroll County. 

            Dr. Maria Papadakis told to think of it in 3 sizes - home, community which is 1-5 turbines and utility which is a wind farm.  She told that Carroll County has some interesting packets of wind and discussed that Carroll has a lot of Class 3.  She told that you have to look at the advantages verses the disadvantages which are site impact, noise and safety.

Dr. Miles appears to have made a number of erroneous assumptions in his broad statement "...the cost of electricity from wind is cheaper than other means...". Indeed, if that were true, then funding for 30% of the cost, 30% loan guarantees, and production tax credits 2000% greater than for any other fuel source from the federal government would be totally unnecessary.

In fact Dr. Papadakis neglected to reveal that while "...Carroll has a lot of Class 3 (wind areas)...", that is generally far below adequate to support significant electricity generation at an acceptable cost without "back door" subsidies.

On April 3, 2012 WSLS TV10 reported:

"Supervisors say Horizon Wind Energy wants to put between 30 and 40 wind turbines on Stoots Mountain."

An installation of that many turbines along the ridge of Stoots Mountain would have to include the ridge all the way to Poplar Camp.

On August 18, 2012, the Carroll News reported:

"The company, EDP Renewables/Horizon Wind Energy, LLC has plans to place wind turbines on Stoots Mountain in Carroll County."

Acoustical Impacts

The most difficult issue to understand relative to the installation of multiple turbines of this scale is that of acoustical impacts on neighboring property owners and communities.

Today, the Department of Environmental Quality is receiving final comments from a select group of industry representatives, lobbyists, and government employees on a draft of a "model" local wind ordinance for adoption of localities throughout Virginia. One member of this large group, Robert Meyers, of the Eastern Shore of Virginia responded as one of the very, very few private citizens who has dedicated over a year of personal time and resources to serve on the group responded to the latest draft of the model ordinance with the following email message:

Carol,
Considering that on 7Aug draft att.,Page 1 you have: [1][1] Public Health, Safety, and Welfare.    This model ordinance addresses localgovernments’ traditional areas of responsibility – public health, safety, and welfare – as they relate to wind energy projects.  and regardless of the earlier input from those supporting IWT's in Virginia who don't believe Infrasound needs to be addressed, don't you think it may be just a bit of a disservice at the least, or at the worst, negligent, to every county and citizen in the Commonwealth not to address, up front, Low Frequency Noise from IWT's considering the almost 30 pages of documentation I submitted at the March 29th Piedmont Office meeting and the information below?   There have been major changes in recognizing and studying Low frequency Noise since the LOG started working on the model ordinance.  I do not see any evidence of those changes being communicated to the Group nor any open acknowledgement or discussion as more information has become available.  The evidence of health degradation caused by Infrasound is no longer considered anecdotal by responsible people and has reached consideration by the courts in several countries.  The most recent is from the German Donau Courier paper on August 17th below.
The German text is available through the link.
Please note that THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA has held that the natural rights of individuals are not inferior to the rights of industry.In The Pittston Company, supra, a nuisance case involving a coal preparation plant in Russell County, this Court said:     “It is generally held that the location of an industry in an industrial area and its importance to the wealth and prosperity of the community do not give to it rights superior to the primary or natural rights of those who live nearby. Locality and surroundings are to be taken into consideration only in determining whether the business or industry is so conducted as to constitute a nuisance as a matter of fact. . . .It is of no consequence that an industry or a business is a useful or necessary one, or that it promotes the development of the community.   

Regarding land use and valuation around IWT's,  in  Akersv. Mathieson Alkali Works, the Virginia court said, “The law requires that every person so use his own property as not to injure the property of another.”

I would urge that the LOG as a group reconsider their position on this problem and address it forthrightly in the draft .
Sincerely,
Bob Meyers
ESVA

ENERCON E-82: Pulsed Noise

Dienstag,den 28. August 2012 um 15:14 Uhr

Administrator

Zugriffe:332

·         

·         

·        Enercon, Europe's largest wind turbine manufacturer, has a problem: The decision of the Bavarian Higher Regional Court in Munich about the wind turbine in Kienberg points out that in the E 82 turbine emits pulsed noise. Therefore to any actually measured sound level three decibels would have to be added.

This supplement seriously could question any wind turbine site close to dwellings. As previously reported, the 27th Civil Division of the Bavarian Higher Regional Court now affirmed the pulsed noise and granted a lawsuit by opponents of the wind turbine in Kienberg, Marktgemeinde Rennertshofen.

" To us this verdict is completely incomprehensible", says Felix Rehwald,spokesman for the largest European wind turbine manufacturer Enercon. The market leader, headquartered in Aurich, Lower Saxony, Germany, sells its wind turbines with the grade "no pulsed noise". Experts instructed by Enercon have not confirmed pulsed noise so far said company spokesman Rehwald. Now the sentence of the Bavarian court bothers the Enercon-lawyers. They will consider further steps. Unofficially its almost clear that the company will apply for appeal at the Federal Supreme Court. In that case the judgements of the Court of the District of Augsburg and the Bavarian Higher Regional Court in Munich would be checked for legal and procedural errors. The acceptance of the case at the Federal Supreme Court in Karlsruhe shall be deemed as a not insignificant hurdle.

In 2011 in Germany 895 wind turbines were established of which Enercon has delivered 550.The new E 101 3 MW WT has a hub height up to 149 metres. The windmill (sorry,they always call these machines "windmill" - Marco) type E 82, as it stands in Kienberg, Enercon has sold over 3000 units - all without any status of pulsed noise. That means a strong increase and quick decrease of clear audible noise.

In the meantime the Kienberger "wind miller" Herbert Kugler has experienced his 14th trial in terms of the wind turbine (WT). His lawyers are very surprised that the wind turbine on the Kienberg is questioned by Civil Courts now after all proceedings going as far as to the Administrative Court had been confirmed the legality of the wind turbine and its operation.

From the District Office of Neuburg-Schrobenhausen you can hardly hear anything in that matter. The supervisory authority had approved the plant with a (turbine) hub height of 140 metres (in operation since October 2009) after a comprehensive emission protection legislation proceeding.

The complainants of the Community of Burgmannhofen in the district Donau-Riesagainhave complained in their letters to authorities, ministries and MPs about the intolerable situation caused by the sound (noise emission) of the Kienberger Rotor. Meanwhile operator Herbert Kugler too calls the continuous struggle against his authorized wind turbine "unbearable".

Original German article: http://www.donaukurier.de/lokales/neuburg/Neuburg-Jetzt-zum-Bundesgerichtshof;art1763,2644361

Germany’snew “renewable” energy policy

Posted on August 28,2012by Anthony Watts

Wind and solar power + soaring electricity prices = outsourcedjobs + more coal burning

Meanwhile, eco activists demand “sustainablelifestyles” – for other people

Guest post by Kelvin Kemm

It is amazing how biased the international media is when it comes to reporting on energy generation, specifically electricity.

In mid-August, Germany opened a new 2200MW coal-fired power station near Cologne, and virtually not a word has been said about it. This dearth of reporting is even more surprising when one considers that Germany has said building new coal plants is necessary because electricity produced by wind and solar has turned out to be unaffordably expensive and unreliable.

In a deteriorating economic situation, Germany’s new environment minister, Peter Altmaier, who is as politically close to Chancellor Angela Merkel as it gets, has underlined time and again the importance of not further harming Europe’s – and Germany’s – economy by increasing the cost of electricity.

He is also worried that his country could become dependent on foreign imports of electricity, the mainstay of its industrial sector. To avoid that risk, Altmaier has given the green light to build twenty-three new coal-fired plants, which are currently under construction.

Yes, you read that correctly, twenty three-new coal-fired power plants are under construction in Germany, because Germany is worried about the increasing cost of electricity, and because they can’t afford to be in the strategic position of importing too much electricity.

Just recently, German figures were released on the actualproductivity of the country’s wind power over the last ten years. The figure is 16.3 percent!

Due to the inherent intermittent nature of wind, their wind power system was designed for an assumed 30% load factor in the first place.That means that they hoped to get a mere 30% of the installed capacity –versus some 85-90% for coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydroelectric facilities.That means that, when they build 3,000MW of wind power, they expect to actually get merely 900MW, because the wind does not always blow at the required speeds.But in reality, after ten years, they have discovered that they are actually getting only half of what they had optimistically, and irrationally, hoped for:a measly 16.3 percent.

Even worse, after spending billions of Euros on subsidies,Germany’s total combined solar facilities have contributed a miserly,imperceptible 0.084% of Germany’s electricity over the last 22 years.That is not even one-tenth of one percent.

Moreover, the actual cost of Germany’s wind and solar electricity is far and away higher than its cost of coal and nuclear power. So much for “free” solar and wind. So much for all the German jobs that depend on reliable access to plentiful and affordable electricity.

As to natural gas produced via hydraulic fracturing, that too is prohibited, even if it is required to back up undependable wind and solar facilities. No wonder Germany’s natural gas and electricity prices are practically unaffordable.

Meantime the extreme greens continue to preach about the wonders of life based on solar and wind power. They also talk constantly about“sustainable living,” a “sustainable future,” and an otherwise hydrocarbon-free and “decarbonized” tomorrow. Be warned!What these vacuous exhortations mean is that people must not enjoy the lifestyles and living standards of a modern world.

They mean the First World must cut back significantly on its living standards, and the developing world must give up its aspirations for achieving the lifestyle of the First World.

Believe me, African small-scale farmers all dream of becoming like the large commercial-scale farmers they see next door. They do not wish to plough their fields with oxen, when their neighbours have tractors and automated grain handling machines. The same is true of small-scale commercial and industrial operations in which an affordable and reliable supply of electricity is essential. It is likewise true of virtually every office, shop,hospital, school and family on the entire African continent.

On 08/07/12, Carol Wamplerwampler.renewable.energy@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Local Government Outreach Group:

(cc: Interested Parties)

Greetings from DEQ's Renewable Energy Program!  I hope you are enjoying a pleasant summer. 

The draft Community-Scale Model Wind Ordinance is now ready for your review (Attachment 1).  Please email me your comments by Friday, September 7.

FYI:  Residential and Utility Wind Ordinances are also attached.  The Residential (Attachment 2) reflects your email comments from June/July.  Thanks!

Solar Update:  Drafts of model solar ordinances are currently being reviewed by a Solar Technical Group, whose recommendations will be incorporated and passed on to the LOG.  The model solar ordinances should be ready for your review and email comments in September.

Thanks for your continued input and support.  A number of local governments have contacted us about using the model ordinances you've recommended, and your work is making a difference.  We hope you will be willing to get together sometime this fall to finalize your recommendations on the two solar model ordinances (residential/commercial & utility) and the two wind model ordinances (residential & community), so that they can be posted on DEQ's website with the current utility-scale wind ordinance.  More on this later.

Look forward to receiving your comments on the community-scale wind ordinance.  Let me know if you have questions.  Thanks!

Sincerely,

Carol
--
CAROL C. WAMPLER
Renewable Energy Policy Manager
Department of Environmental Quality
629 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-698-4579
carol.wampler@deq.virginia.gov
carol.wampler.renewable.energy@gmail.com

An Environmental Threat to Floyd County




A potential installation of 18 - 443' tall wind turbines on Wills Ridge

 

A view from Wills Ridge Road

Intelligent Living

It has been almost four months since the last blog post here.
After years of wading through political banter of "hyperbole, innuendo and generalization" regarding defining a plan for the future of our chidren, I've most recently been struct by ponderance over a simple phrase:

Intelligent Living

I propose that you ponder this thought and join with me in trying to define it's meaning.

Until the next post, I wish you happiness.

Let's Have a Serious Discussion

I'd like to share and open further discussion that began as a sarcastic response to Dan Smith's blog post yesterday about overpopulation. Fellow architect Steve Sunderman responded with a thought provoking comment that inspired me to further modify Dan Smith's graphic that describes the issue:

Eldon L Karr-Architect shared a link via Dan Smith.

23 hours ago
So what's the solution? Cool Cities Coalition might help. The answer to come.

fromtheeditr: What the World Needs Now ... Is More People
www.fromtheeditr.blogspot.com

Comments:
Steve Sunderman: People do what people do. I would hope that we not adopt a one child policy like China has. I believe that we need to do all we can to conserve resources and find new & better ways of accommodating inevitable population growth, affluence and climate change. That is why I promote conservation, recycling and renewable energy sources.

Eldon L Karr-Architect:
‎Steve Sunderman,
I agree a one child policy is rather extreme, but our country does not yet have a population exceeding 1 billion. As population growth continues to accelerate, it may be unwise to accept it as inevitable and infinite. Mos...t are not willing to accept the idea of curbing our insatiable appetite for affluence. (I'm glad you included that observation.)

We are on the same page regarding conservation and recycling.

As I understand, all of our energy comes from the sun (99.999999999%). Our sun is on the wane and climate change is inevitable. Since the late 1960's & early 70's I have advocated and promoted seeking alternative forms of usable energy and energy storage. This has included capturing energy from the wind to be used as a point of use based supplement, not distributed under the guise of an unending commodity over the corporate controlled convenience of the transmission/distribution grid thus encouraging ever greater consumption and inefficiency.

I believe that nature itself takes care of renewing and storing resources better than we as human beings can ever hope to. I believe it is our charge, particularly as professional architects, to communicate the correct understanding of these matters to the general population. And even more importantly, to promote and advocate efficiency and conservation through point of use based generation systems. while unrelentingly pursuing cost based evaluation of built-environment design.
It is far short of being enough to just advocate "green" and "renewable" (both terms being sorely misunderstood)

and the conversation continues:
Steve Sunderman: Eldon, I agree with many of your points. I understand that their is an inefficiency factor with the industrial wind application and I know that the Tea Party folks are strongly against any financial incentives for renewable energy R&D, but I believe that renewable energy sources are far better than fossil fuel sources in many ways, but renewables cannot compete yet mostly because of lack of demand (costs & availability). It is my premise that subsidizing research & development of wind, solar & water power will encourage innovation, efficiency and mass production, which will drive down costs. Then support can be withdrawn as it will be able to stand on its own merits. I am hearing that electrical storage systems are close to reality and when & if that happens, there is a new ball game. I think that our future power systems may not even be apparent to us today as we cannot even imagine what the future holds, provided we continue to want and encourage such innovation.

Steve Sunderman: Infinite population growth cannot be sustained. When such growth becomes overwhelming it will self-correct, probably in not very nice ways. Think what our population would be today if there had never been any wars. When there is not enough water or food, people will fight for their survival. My hope is that we voluntarily manage growth and earth's resources. Our resources are finite. Did you know that if everyone on earth used resources of a typical American, it would take 5 planets of resource production to supply the demand?

Eldon L Karr-Architect: Steve, First let's remove political references from the discussion as I don't believe the answer to the question of our energy consumption lies within any political encampment. Personally, although in my earlier years I strongly identified with the Democrats and a liberal ideology, I have found difficulty in committing allegiance to any political party since the mid 1980's. Albeit, McClain, Christopolus and many others have attempted to pigeon-hole me with the TEA Party.

Of course, I am strongly in support of government sponsorship of research & development. As a nation, I believe we are making a huge mistake pulling out of our manned space program. I think solar, geo-thermal, hydro(tidal) and fusion are currently where our research and development should be focused. I think we should provide incentives to consumers to install site-based electrical generation through vehicles like the PACE program, thereby encouraging conservation.

Industrial scale generation with wind turbines imposes far too much environmental damage to promote further development with the existing technology. Further, the development incentives are far beyond reasonable expectation of return ($23+/- per Mwh compared to $1.50 per Mwh and less for all other sources of generation).

I appreciate your interest in entering into this discussion. Recently, I have started a new blog:
http://thearchitectsstudio.blogspot.com/
I'd like nothing better than to either move this conversation there or to:
http://bentmountain.blogspot.com/
I believe that a lot more people would benefit in those venues.
Best regards

Eldon L Karr-Architect: Wow! I was preparing my response prior to receiving your next comment.
No, I wasn't aware that Americans were THAT gluttonous. Let's keep this discussion going. Maybe invite a few more intelligent, conscientious architect who would like to make a difference.
We must, however, leave enough time for doing.

Steve Sunderman: Good points. I must admit that I am not nearly as well versed on the details as you are. My support for wind & solar energy is a general principle based on a bias toward renewable energy sources as a means to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I know that new concepts or technology is always met with a great deal of resistance and I just want to leave this place a little better for my children & grandchildren if at all possible. "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."

Eldon L Karr-Architect I do believe we can make a positive difference for our children, let's just not have so many of them for a while ;)

Why we Love Bent Mountain

This Appalachian Mountain community of people, nestled along the Blue Ridge, in the most northern tip of the great Blue Ridge Plateau, has treasured a unique lifestyle for generations as a result of the unique topography of the region.

A Work still in progress. Send thoughts to tell the stories of Our treasured community.

Here is an example:

On Facebook, Carl F Bagby wrote, "special place ...special people... to bad the county supervisors don't agree."


March 5 at 1:27pm · Bent Mountain, Virginia wrote:
We'll keep it special, regardless.
I like to believe this plateau served communities of people long before the European migration, because the natural surface drainage to a central fertile basin, (and a defensible perimeter). For those reasons, the communities' love for this "place" seems to have coalesced into a strong sense of spiritual strength within the people.


March 5 at 2:00pm

DON'T THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER

Here's a book that nails it. I believe this book fairly describes why I am disturbed, as an environmentally sensitive architect, by the programs of the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) and the LEED certification program. Todd Myers perspective also reveals why we all will lose if this war continues to be waged as a socio-political battle between extremists on the battlefield of conservatism and liberalism.

I have not read this book, but have read the intro on Amazon.com and other sites, while eagerly awaiting a hard copy:

Eco-Fads: How the Rise of Trendy Environmentalism Is Harming the Environment, by Todd Myers, will likely be the best psychology book you've ever read. For people with logical, analytical minds, green extremism can be quite exasperating. Myers helps those of us who value facts and reason understand what motivates environmental extremists.

Myers spent many years working as an environmentalist in state government. Along the way he kept his eyes and mind open to the conflicts between maintaining a healthy environment and how so many varied interests use the environment to further their own selfish interests. As a result, Myers understands these issues better than anyone I have encountered in a half-century of work on environmental battlefields.

Green Building Myths Exposed
In his introductory chapter, he takes on myths about green buildings. A prime goal of environmental activists is to force builders to incorporate green designs and maximize energy efficiency. The activists claim the upfront costs of building green more than pay for themselves in the long run. Myers, however, cuts through the fuzzy math to show how green buildings are almost always prohibitively costly and are often (and ironically) bad for the environment.

As an example, environmental activists claim green buildings provide more fresh air, which reduces the potential for "sick buildings" and cuts down on sick days and absenteeism. The reduction in lost worker time more than pays for the additional upfront construction costs, the activists say. Myers persuasively shows none of this is true.

Much Money, Few Benefits
Wasting money on efforts that produce no tangible environmental benefit should be condemned. Increasingly, however, the opposite is happening. Myers notes, "rather than judging policies based on their results, eco-fads grow in popularity based on their ability to confer a green image to those who embrace them."

True environmentalism, Myers says, should not be aimed at projecting a carefully crafted and appealing image that simply feels environmentally progressive. Yet green buildings, reusable grocery bags, bio fuels, and solar panels do little more than that. These eco-fads signal to our peers that we are not only thrifty and intelligent but also profoundly moral.

What adherence to these eco-fads really signals is that a great many people are ignorant of science and profoundly gullible.

Explaining the Lure of Eco-Fads

Eco-Fads explains why we fall for such schemes when we should know better. Who doesn't want to be green? That natural desire can cloud our better judgment.

It shouldn't be surprising that some companies see business opportunities in the growth of eco-fads. Products that claim to be greener not only offer differentiation from similar products made by competitors but also cater to consumers with greater disposable income.

The average person who wishes to be environmentally responsible is bombarded by conflicting messages encouraging him or her to embrace fads that offer solutions to environmental threats. Few people have the time, interest, or expertise to test the claims they hear. In the midst of a busy life there is little incentive to ask, "Do bio fuels really reduce carbon emissions? Are polar bears really threatened by global warming? Are hybrid poplars really a solution to intensive forestry and clear-cutting?"

This confusion is compounded by the natural desire of individuals to believe they are doing good without engaging in much sacrifice. Myers explains brilliantly how eco-fads are emotionally satisfying because they offer easy solutions that cut through confusion while allowing individuals to derive the emotional satisfaction of protecting the planet.

Power of Peer Pressure
Add the peer pressure to carry green shopping bags, install compact fluorescent bulbs, and drive hybrid vehicles, and we have what appears to be an almost irresistible force.

Environmental activists understand social pressure is a powerful force. They enlist movie actors to narrate ads, and fashion magazines make greenness a fashion statement.

The result of these influences is that eco-fads, once established, are difficult to dislodge. Who wants to admit their actions to save the planet do not actually promote the values they have publicly embraced?

Unintended Environmental Damage

This faddism is actually bad for the environment. Myers shows conclusively that with increasing frequency eco-fads are counterproductive, doing more damage to the environment than they prevent and drawing energy and resources away from real solutions. However, people mentally filter out information that may call into question the effectiveness of environmental policies or purchases; instead, they exaggerate the perceived benefits.

Recognizing these influences can help us be more alert to the potential flaws in green policies and causes. It also helps us understand the frustrating tendency of environmental discussions to become highly emotional and personal. Eco-fads endure because they appeal to some important human characteristics, such as the desire to feel good about the decisions we are making and our need for acceptance by our peers.

With what you will learn from this book, you will be better able to shake off the hypnotic spell of green mythology and return to sound environmental thinking. Buy this book for every reasonable person on your Christmas list. And if I have failed to convince you of this yet, I may try again in the next issue of Environment & Climate News.

Review by Jay Lehr, Ph.D
(jlehr@heartland.org) is science director of The Heartland Institute.

Green Homes of the Future?

Honestly, our community opposition to behemoth wind turbines towering above our homes is not cause to believe that we are backward looking, greedy, unconscionable fringe people. To prove my point, I'd like to share this link with you. We are eager to pursue sustainable, energy-conscious, efficient solutions for our future.

I like the ones with the Spanish tiled dormers.



http://pinktentacle.com/2008/08/styrofoam-dome-homes/

Wind Turbines are NOT Music in the Air

 Rob Rand

"Wind Turbine Sound: An Independant Investigation"

http://www.knowledgestream.org/kstream/item.asp?item_id=8971


 

Rob Rand is a skilled and dedicated technical professional with thirty years' experience in acoustics including industrial noise control, environmental sound, and architectural acoustics. He has been a member of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering since 1993.

Follow the link to view the 59 minute presentation.

"Dr. Rand explains the complex nature of environmental sound in terms that lay people can easily understand", says county leader.


May 2010 - The community was in the early stage of investigating the noise impact of behemoth wind turbines.



Rockingham County Virginia Meets the Windbaggers

Lumis/Solaya Poised to Reap Subsidies, Loan Guarantees and "in demand" benefits of producing "renewable " energy.

Solaya is developing a wind farm along a ridge on the Virginia/West Virginia border. Instead of a lease agreement, Solaya is joining with the land owners (who are merely capitalizing upon their positions of OWNERSHIP) to create a legal entity that shares profits according to an agreed upon share system. The question to be answered is: Are the potential benefits (to whom) so great so as to justify "permanent" disruption of the natural environment for "carbon-dioxide free" electricity? If the benefits outweigh the costs, the "Industrial Scale Wind Developers" must publicly demonstrate the proposed benefits prior to accepting any public financial support. For public support of the current magnitude, the current technology should MUST be deserving. Therefore, it should be totally acceptable to all interests to accept the challenge to PROVE IT.

In excess of 5 miles of cleared ridge North of Cow's Knob, WV

•Solaya has land leases for two separate areas of ridge line in Virginia and West Virginia, including 1000 acres of land at one location and 5 miles of ridge line at another location.

•The land can support approximately 62 turbines with a capacity of 167 MW of power.

•The land under control has a 500kV main transmission line running through the property and access to the National Forest, allowing great potential for additional development.

Probable Northernmost 14 +/= Wind turbines
(approximately 10% of environmental consumption for total project)