Friends and Members of the Chautauqua County Citizens for Responsible
As you probably are aware, there is another proposal for an
industrial wind power project in the towns of Westfield and Ripley.
With your help the CCCRWP was able to oppose successfully the
previously proposed project. Now, again, the CCCRWP needs your
help to protect the community from the environmental degredation
and erosion of our quality of life posed by another proposed
wind power project.
The project includes up to 82 wind turbine generators 400 feet tall or
taller extending from the ridge overlooking Lake Erie south to the
Town of Sherman. Learn more about the dangers of the proposed
project by reviewing the draft environmental impact statement on
line (at www.ripleywestfieldwind.com) or at the Ripley or Westfield
Library. Plan also to attend the public hearings (Eason Hall,
April 13, 1:00 p.m and Meeder’s Restaurant, May 4, 7:00 p.m.)
and voice your concerns about the loss of quality of life
threatened by this project.
The CCCRWP also needs financial support to effectively work to
protect our communities. Please consider either writing a check to
the CCCRWP or sending a pledge of funding to support the
CCCRWP’s work, which might include taking the towns of Ripley
and Westfield to court if they approve permits for the project.
Legal assistance doesn’t come cheaply.
Send your check or pledge of support to Janet Nass, CCCRWP
Treasurer, 8539 Hardscrabble Road, Westfield, NY 14787.
Thank you for your support.
The Chautauqua County Citizens for Responsible Wind Power
The lies almost seem tame compared to what were spewing out of John Boehner's mouth during his epic (Fail) rant (and comments about that here and here) just before the Health Care Reform Bill of 2009 was voted on, but there are still weasels, innuendo, partial-truths galore embedded in our local Anti-(turbine) people's email, like this classic:
"Now, again, the CCCRWP needs your help to protect theClassic Karl Rove disinformation, using the strength of what is the "opposition" and trying to morph it into The Main Weakness. In this case, the strength of the pro-wind energy argument (wind turbines/affordable pollution-free renewable electricity), which is production of electricity combined with the avoidance of environmental degradation via coal and Ngas burning, coal and Ngas extraction and/or use nukes, is used as the centerpiece of the argument against wind turbines (that they cause environmental degradation). The debating trick is to create a phony controversy and re-frame things via term "industrial" wind turbines, where "industrial" is a code for "bad". This is somewhat ironic, as the wealth of this country came from and comes from industry, or at least what is left of it, although it is true that some of that wealth came at a cost.
community from the environmental degredation and
erosion of our quality of life posed by another
proposed wind power project."
But things like an electric grid don't just happen by random movements of electrons; investments of trillions of dollars were made in this country, creating tens of millions of jobs, and making possible a very high standard of living for most of us. As has been found through bitter experience, you can't cram billions of people on a planet (at least 200% more than is "sustainable" from just a food standpoint without the use of "industrial" fertilizer to make protein (ammonia puts the "amino" in amino acids) for a significant fraction of humanity in this day and age) and still pretend to be eco-balanced hunter-gatherers or psuedo-eco-balanced subsistence farmers. The last attempt to do this was by China in the early 1960's ("The Great Leap Forward") and more than 30 million people starved to death from that bit of ignorance - and ammonia (or the lack of it) played a key role (see Vaclav Smil's book "Enriching the Earth").. And, we have also discovered that the products or waste products of our drive to "live large" (the U.S. way of life is very energy intensive) can alter the atmosphere to the point where it threatens the ability of most to live - the Ozone Layer depletion via CFC's and HCFC's and the Greenhouse Gas pollution of our atmosphere via (mostly) CO2 dumped as a result of fossil fuel combustion are classic examples. Well, it's now the 21st century, and we have to consume energy sensibly, and make it responsibly, and that means no more Chernobyl like incidents, and in the very near future, less CO2 dumped into the air than is absorbed by the ocean so that the atmospheric CO2 content goes back down to more sensible levels. It was around 280 ppm in 1750 - about the time of the invention of the coal fired steam engine - and now it is north of 390 ppm and going up by 2 to 3 ppm/yr. Such stupidity is surely not the sign of an intelligent species.
So how is the "less CO2 pollution" scenario to be rapidly achieved? Well, one is to let civilization as we know collapse and devolve back to an agrarian one - probably based on peasant farming and new forms of feudalism. But, the transition to that kind of future will likely be ugly and then some, involving a tremendous loss of life/loss in quality of life, and most of whatever knowledge that has been developed to date (no electricity, no computers, no databases, no internet, after all). Or, there could be the widespread use of affordable renewable energy to make electricity, and a much more efficient usage of renewable electricity and renewable sourced fuels (liquid, solid and gaseous fuels are very compact and useful forms of stored energy - just trying plowing 1000 acres of farmland without liquid fuels....).
So why the denigration of the term "industrial", and it's use only as an image of evil, a term of insult? Like it or not, "industrial" makes life possible for essentially all of us in this country, and if it is currently a messy affair, clean it up. And/or quit reproducing so much....after all, with half that population, in theory only half of the energy currently being made is needed. But, that is too simple a way to view it. As I just heard on NPR, the key descriptor is "an extraordinary escalation in rhetoric".
Meanwhile, these "Hellbound Trains" continue on down the tracks, taking our locality, state, nation and world for a ride, aided by Ms. Koenig & fellow passengers:
Thanks to The Great Recession, the price of "CO2 allowances" dropped by over 40%, to near $2/ton of CO2, from last year's $3.50/ton; so much for RGGI providing a consistent price signal to those emanating mass quantities of CO2 pollutant as the cost of making electricity:
Note the global temperature graph from January on this very nerdy site (just below world oil production rate graphical data):
And the coup de grace: Citigroup dumping all over new nukes (and that effectively kills off new nukes) as being money losing pits of doom (The English Version:
https://www.citigroupgeo.com/pdf/SEU27102.pdf ($US 1.50 per Euro at this date)). Using LOW estimates of construction costs, a guaranteed price of ~ 10 c/kw-hr is needed to break even.
The money quote from the Citigroup Analysis:
"The UK government today launched a fast-track planning process for a new generation of nuclear power plants in the UK. The government has selected 10 sites that will be taken forward by the new Infrastructure Planning Commission for approval. Planning inquiries will still be required but will deal with local issues only. The UK government has presented this today as effectively “green lighting” the build of new nuclear stations. However, this is in fact far from the case.
The Five Risks
There are five substantial areas of risk faced by developers of new nuclear power stations. Three of those risk areas are so big and significant that if they go wrong, the developer (even the biggest utilities) could be financially damaged beyond repair. These risks can be classed as Corporate Killers. The government today announced measures to limit Planning risk, which while important in encouraging developers to bring forward projects, is actually the least significant risk financially. The government is still asking the utility companies to take on the three major risks — Construction, Power Price, and Operational. Indeed, at no time, anywhere in the world, has a utility built a new nuclear power station and taken the full Construction, Power Price, and Operational Risk."
The prices quoted in this report are 50% of those that Ontario Hydro received last spring (2009) when they announced the results of 2 x 1 GW nuke RFP. Here is the North American lowdown on the bad finances associated with nukes: http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/09/protecting-taxpayers-from-a-financial-meltdown/
In order to make nukes as "viable" (same goes for coal and Ngas burners), the economic viability of wind turbines needs to be trashed. Groups like CCCRWP perform a valuable function to polluting energy project developers (defined as nukes, coal, Ngas) by raising doubts as to the viability of wind, raising the costs to get a permit, creating doubt as to the likelihood of getting that permit, and equating the sight of a wind turbine with the likes of the Dunkirk coal burner and a Chernobyl style disaster waiting to happen, for starts. Some of the people in CCCRWP probably believe the stuff that they are saying, and some are more than a bit like the recent tea-baggers protesting the milquetoast health care bill (Canadian style would be so much better, fairer, democratic and lower cost) passed this weekend in Washington DC. The disinformation spread by these true believers in the "evildom" of wind turbines serves the interests of some pretty powerful corporate types, but whether there is a funding connection or not has yet to be determined (and there may not be one - why pay for what you get for free?).
And then there is the irony of it all. Westfield has a Municipal Electric Utility (MEU), and gets NYPA power from Niagara Falls by accounting (delivered cost to the MEU of about 2.25 c/kw-hr), but if you were to track the electrons, they come from the Dunkirk coal burner. Some of the more polluting ones in the U.S. But, the standard of living of this rural Western New York (all, to be honest, all of Western NY) nowadays is propped up by money from NYC and surrounding wealthy sub-urbs, especially those on Long Island. And the 3.7 megatons/yr of CO2 pollutant made at Dunkirk is causing ocean levels to rise by melting down the Greenland icesheet (among others), which will lead to drowning out the "golden egg laying Goose" that is NYC/LI. Thus, that coal burning at Dunkirk, which could be avoided with sufficient wind turbines (maybe up to 0.4 megatons of CO2/yr from the proposed 82 commercial scale wind turbines - and every 0.4 megatons of CO2 pollutant avoided helps, after all) is actually killing off their money source, since it certainly is not coming from what remains of our industry and farming to the required extent, any more.
Not that the CCCRWP folks care. Myopia - it's a way of life. And all the rage, from teabaggers sparked off by the Faux media machine, to the anti-turbinites, triggered by a defense of a view that they don't even own, and sustained by Global Warming that they cannot see fit to see.
Oh well, so much for the morning vent...
BTW, April 26 is Chernobyl Day (it happened in 1986, and significantly contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union). Don't forget about it, and let it drop down the memory hole; after all, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it....