Proposed Wind Energy System

Bill Cox lives in Bellingham and has been married to a former public school teacher for 43 years. They have two grown children. Bill was the founder and for 30 years the president of a real estate investment bank in California. In that capacity he worked with many real estate companies in devising and executing their financial strategies. He implemented these financing plans with the institutional investment community of pension fund advisors, life insurance companies, banks and private real estate investment companies. He has a graduate degree in business and was formerly licensed as a CPA, real estate broker and a securities salesman.

A December 11, 2011, article in The Bellingham Herald about proposed wind turbines for our area led me to some disturbing insights. I found the information advanced by the developer, his paid consultants, and other interested parties to be misleading. They all have a direct or indirect financial interest in promoting this project. Cascade Community Wind Company is the company applying for the conditional use permit required by the county for this project.

As a result of neighborhood interest and concern, I became the chairman of The Committee to Protect Galbraith Mountain. By way of full disclosure I have no financial interest in this wind farm. Our main argument against this project is that Galbraith Mountain is not the appropriate place for such an industrial facility. Our sole purpose is to oppose this project from scarring our community.

It is important to look at the many issues that this project poses because the promoters are in some way trying to minimize or ignore these problems.

Visual

The current application before county staff is for one 2.5 MW turbine on the ridgeline of Galbraith Mountain in the Lake Whatcom watershed. Per the developer this would be the first of an indeterminate number of future turbines. This project would loom over the community of Sudden Valley and would be visible to most of Bellingham as well as northern Skagit County.

The turbine selected by the developer is the German-made Kenersys K100 2.5 MW. They are 492 feet tall and the vertical above ground structure weighs about 600,000 pounds of steel, copper, rare earth metals, resins and fiberglass. The height of the K100 2.5 MW turbine is three times as tall as the downtown Bellingham Towers, currently our tallest building in Bellingham. The turbine is as tall as the observation deck of the Seattle Space Needle. These are among the largest turbines made for North America.

Per Lincoln Electric, which installed a shorter K100 2.5 MW in Cleveland, Ohio, the underground foundation of each turbine is comprised of approximately 2.5 million pounds of steel and concrete deposited into an approximate 80-foot-wide excavated hole at least 12 feet below grade, which would be carved into the Galbraith ridgeline.

From a visual standpoint, this project is a blight on one of the most beautiful ridgelines that we have in Whatcom County, one that lies along most of the entire southern shore of Lake Whatcom. It damages our scenic resources and our rural character. It is out of scale with our community and our environment. Such a project doesn’t belong in a populated area like Bellingham.

Turbine Noise

The next area of concern is noise. Of all the complaints about wind farms, noise is the one that is most frequently expressed per Wind-Watch.org. The turbine manufacturer represents in their datasheet specifications that this turbine has a noise power level of 106 decibels. This is based on IEC directive 61400-11, which specifies how noise measurements for wind turbines are to be made. The datasheet does not specify at what wind speed or distance from the turbine this noise level occurs. This is equivalent to a jet taking off at 305 meters from the listener. It approximates the human pain threshold. It is similar to the noise level from a rock band.

There are 710 homes within a two-mile radius of this project per First American Title. But this isn’t like a jet taking off--as long as the wind is blowing, this project has the potential for noise 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. And since the future locations of additional turbines are unknown and not disclosed by the promoters, future turbines could be closer to homes in Sudden Valley or other areas. The only way to stop this threat is to stop this project before it gets started.

Environmental Effects

The next major problem with this project is environmental. This is a misplaced industrial facility atop the ridge between the Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish watersheds. The project is contrary to the Whatcom County comprehensive plan. The county is supposed to be working with property owners to reduce density in the watershed, not increase it--let alone introduce completely new industrial uses into the watershed. Converting forest land into an industrial use is by definition increasing density or the intensiveness of land use.

Oil leaks, which are frequent during operation, based upon a site visit to the Wild Horse Wind Facility in eastern Washington state; huge ground disruption from construction staging and the actual construction; new underground transmission lines whose routes are not now known; and the building of a new, 300-foot access road are all major issues in the watershed. Does it make sense to further threaten our water quality with such a facility? Oil leaks blown by the wind from 328 feet in the air and massive ground disruption could cause additional pollutants to enter Lake Whatcom, which is Bellingham’s drinking water source. This project does not belong in the Lake Whatcom watershed or even near it.

It is well documented that wind turbines kill millions of raptors and other birds. The Wall Street Journal, September 7, 2009, indicates that the American Bird Conservancy estimates that wind turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds per year. This is based upon data prior to 2009, so the number of bird kills is expected to increase each year as more wind turbines are built. The Wall Street Journal, March 8, 2012, also reports that 77 organizations – led by the American Bird Conservancy, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Endangered Species Coalition and numerous chapters of the Audubon Society – are petitioning the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to toughen the rules for the siting, permitting and operation of large-scale wind projects.

Also, western Whatcom County, which includes Galbraith Mountain, is one of the main corridors for the Pacific Flyway. This is the major west coast migratory corridor for approximately 350 bird species, including raptors, on their north and south annual migrations. One of those species is the bald eagle, which have been tracked using satellite tracking devices while flying over Galbraith Mountain in their annual migration to and from the Skagit Valley. Based upon this threat to our wildlife alone, the proposed site of this project is wrong.

Wind energy advocates attempt to minimize the extent of wind farm bird kills. The approach often used by the wind energy advocates is to use their own consultants, or consultants largely retained by the wind industry, to estimate bird kills and compare those kills to other sources of bird fatalities, such as the number of birds killed by cars. The truth is that these estimates are largely speculative and drafted from the wind advocates’ perspective.

Financial

The next problem that we have with this project is that it is mainly paid for by the taxpayers. Based upon current tax laws, it is estimated that at least 80 percent of this project will be paid for by government tax subsidies and additional charges added to our electricity bills. This 80 percent is made up of federal production tax credits, double declining balance depreciation, premium payments by Puget Sound Energy for the electricity, Washington state production tax credits and the sale of renewable energy credits. A discussion of these wind energy tax benefits and other wind energy subsidies can be found in two articles by Glenn Schleede: “True Cost of Electricity from Wind Is Always Underestimated and Its Value Is Always Overestimated,”1 and “Facing up to the True Costs and Benefits of Wind Energy.”2

Additionally, this project may be eligible for tax free government grants, low interest government loans, government guaranteed loans and numerous other smaller Washington state and federal subsidies. According to the Washington State Department of Revenue, this project is exempt from sales tax, use tax and pays no real estate tax. The promoters of this project are and will be vigorously pursuing this taxpayer and ratepayer support.

This project is not commercially viable on a standalone basis. Without massive government support, it is a financial loser. All the profit in the project comes from government money and mandates. Is this the way to run a business?

Climate Impacts

What about the positive climate impact of this project? There is no positive climate impact because the electricity produced by this project offsets hydropower, which is already emission-free. Approximately 70 percent of Washington’s electrical power comes from hydropower. Puget Sound Energy (PSE) says that it integrates wind power into their grid system by offsetting hydropower.

Wind energy promoters will claim that wind generation can allow PSE to retain water for later hydropower generation, but this is a straw man argument. We have no water shortage in Washington; furthermore, wind strength is stronger in western Washington during the winter months when we frequently have excess water. Note that the Bonneville Power Agency again had to halt or slow down fossil and wind production electricity generation in May of this year because of an excess of water in the dams. Why do we need to compound this problem with an unneeded wind turbine in Whatcom County?

Wind promoters also claim that wind energy reduces the need to purchase coal-based electricity. In our area, wind energy does not reduce the use of coal; in our area, coal is used for base load generation. That means that it covers the base or constant demand load which always exists. For example, the electricity demands in the middle of the night and that same demand base which continues throughout the day is the base load. Nuclear and hydropower also cover base load in other areas, and in our area, respectively.

The variable load occurs in the morning and evening hours when people most frequently use electricity. This variable load is handled by hydropower, natural gas, and renewables like wind. Coal plants run at a constant 80 percent or more utilization because they cannot efficiently be ramped up and down sufficiently fast to follow wind variations. The coal base load generation nationally is gradually being reduced due to regulatory restrictions and the cheaper alternative of natural gas.

Intuitively it might seem that wind energy could replace coal or natural gas generated energy in our area. However, coal and some natural gas fueled generators (combined cycle turbines) cannot be powered up and down efficiently enough to properly integrate the constantly variable energy produced by wind.

Other natural gas fueled generators (combustion turbines) cycle well with wind but they use more fuel and are 30 percent more costly to run than combined cycle turbines, per Bentex Energy.

Cycling of fossil-fueled plants causes the burning of more fuel increasing emissions, less effective burning of fuel increasing emissions, less effective operation of pollution control equipment increasing emissions and increased wear and tear on the fossil-fuel plant itself. The cumulative effect of cycling plus other factors has the effect of largely or completely offsetting the benefits of wind.

In some areas of the country where there is no hydropower to balance variable wind energy, cycling only with a large coal base and with natural gas, the impact of wind can actually cause overall emissions to increase beyond what those emissions would otherwise be with no wind at all. An analogy may make this clearer: your car on the freeway runs more efficiently, from a fuel and an emission standpoint, at a constant speed as opposed to frequently accelerating and decelerating. So it is with fossil-fueled energy generators.

A Dutch study by C. (Kees) le Pair called “Electricity in The Netherlands. Wind turbines increase fossil fuel consumption & CO2 emission” (3) discusses cycling as well as seven other types of problems created by the integration of wind into the grid. Their study concluded that the cumulative impact of these eight factors increased overall net fossil-fuel use and emissions.

Wind advocates, including the developer of the Galbraith project in his promotional literature and in the project application, claim that this project will increase our energy security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. In fact, oil is not used for electricity in Washington state and, nationally, represents only one percent of electricity production, per The Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2012.

You can also make the argument that this Galbraith project is a net polluter. There is pollution generated from obtaining the raw materials to build a turbine, the manufacturing process of the turbine, transportation of the turbine to the construction site, and turbine construction. There is no emission benefit from operating the turbine in our area because it will be completely offset by reducing hydropower for any wind electricity generated. Where is the emission benefit? There is none, and there is no other conclusion than that building this project would be a net polluter, because of the pollution generated in the turbine development.

Wind Power is Unnecessary

What about the need for this project in our state? It is not needed. We are already blessed here in Washington with an abundance of electrical generating potential with our hydropower and other conventional power facilities. PSE states that there is electrical generating overcapacity in the Northwest and that overcapacity is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. This project is not needed and provides no public benefit. In fact, it will most likely have a negative public impact.

When a wind turbine farm moves into a neighborhood there is almost always a decline in property values. Several pages listing appraisals at wind farm locations can be found at northnet.org. demonstrating this decline. Wind farm advocates, however, deny this property decline and they base their claims on studies sponsored by other wind energy advocates using flawed methodology done by people who are frequently not even qualified as appraisers. Use your common sense--who wants to buy a house from which you can see or hear a wind farm?

Electricity Rates and Inefficiencies

What about our electricity rates? This project increases our electricity rates because, even though it is an inefficient source of energy, Puget Sound Energy is required by the U. S. Department of Energy to buy this power at premium rates simply because the DoE considers it renewable.

In fact, to show how inefficient wind projects can be, consider the following: wind is variable and random, and an area may not get adequate wind to operate a turbine for several days at a time. Note that wind turbines don’t start producing electricity until around wind speeds of five miles per hour, increase to full capacity around 25 miles per hour and shut off when the wind gets around 50 miles an hour, yet electricity must be supplied at all times to the grid. This results in the requirement for existing power sources to remain in operation.

Grid dispatchers can’t turn power plants on and off like you can turn on and off your car. It can take hours to ramp up and down fossil-fueled plants. Therefore, they remain in operation still burning fuel but not generating any or much electricity. This concept in the power business is called spinning reserve. Again, we use hydropower to offset wind-generated electricity, so this concept is more applicable to other areas of the country.

No conventional facilities can be retired by this project. Building future conventional power sources cannot be avoided. Existing conventional sources of energy which include nuclear can’t be eliminated because of the uncertainty and randomness of wind generation. There would have to be built an indeterminate number of wind turbine farms, sufficiently diversified geographically in windy areas, to have any impact on the number of conventional facilities.

For this impact to occur, these multiple wind farms would have to demonstrate some minimum constant level of electricity generation below which energy generation could not fall. This concept is called “capacity credit” in the power business and several studies discussing capacity credit can be found at wind-watch.org.

This building of an indeterminate number of wind farms sufficiently diversified geographically in different windy areas, however, is not a practical outcome based upon many of the factors discussed in this article. This failure to produce any meaningful capacity credit results in a huge duplication of facilities. Considering this duplication, the proposed project represents a waste of our precious raw materials.

This project also represents a waste of our land resources because, per the EPA, each megawatt of wind power requires the clearing of 60 acres of forestland. Next Era Energy, a large wind farm operator, reports that it requires 40 acres of clearing per installed megawatt. Discussion of these land use requirements can be found in Eric Rosenbloom’s “A Problem with Wind Power.”(4) It should be noted that the Galbraith developer claims to need only 2/3 of an acre of permanent forest clearance. This conflicts with industry statements as discussed above.

These industry land use statements indicate that more than 1,000 times the land usage per megawatt of energy produced is required for wind than from a natural gas plant. You can also make the case that, considering all the conventional energy sources that still need to be in place for when the wind is not blowing with sufficient speed and considering the energy needed to build this wind project, this proposed facility will consume more net energy than it will ever produce in its 20-year useful life.

Is it any wonder that per the U.S. Department of Energy wind represents only 1.5 percent of our 2010 (latest available information) national electricity production even after pouring billions of taxpayer dollars per year into the industry for the last 20 years? The Wall Street Journal, March 7, 2012, cites these statistics and also indicates that the DoE estimates that wind will account for a mere 3.9 percent of our electricity in 2035, but this is probably grossly overstated because it assumes that we will be pouring more billions of taxpayer dollars every year into the industry for the next 23 years, and also ignores the current boom in the natural gas industry. Wind-powered generators can never scale to any significance because they waste raw materials, land and the tax dollars used to enrich the economic opportunists who build them. Wind power simply is not a cost effective alternative.

Is This Local?

What about the local benefits of this project? This project is anything but local. These are German made and engineered turbines. They will be assembled by a highly trained work force imported from other areas of the country or world. What about the project developer? This is his first project in Bellingham; he started his business in 2009 and prior work had been done near Ellensburg and Thorp in Washington state. His companion company Convivium has worked in other areas of the country. The claim that the energy is local is ludicrous. Electrons don’t know where they came from in traveling about the electrical grid.

There are also unanswered security and safety issues with respect to this project. For example, how much will the public’s access to the mountain be limited by the presence of this wind turbine? This is currently to be determined at the county level. Ice throw from spinning rotors and thrown broken fiber glass rotor blades are problems at wind farms per accident data compiled by Caithness Windfarm Information Forum. (5) These objects have been documented to be thrown thousands of feet.

Legacy

The above are just some of the local issues which cause concern regarding this project. There are many others both local and on more of a national basis. Perhaps the one that should bother us the most is the legacy that we leave to our children and grandchildren. We can tell them how beautiful the mountains of Bellingham and Whatcom County used to be before the wind turbines degraded our scenic resources and aesthetic values. They may ask us why we let these corporate interests do that. The only answer that we can give them is that there were no good reasons. The project never had any public benefit and provided no environmental or energy benefit. It was built solely to exploit then existing tax subsidies to enrich the promoters. That is a very lame excuse. It becomes even feebler when we answer the next question our children or grandchildren ask us, which will be: what did we try to do about it at the time? Will we have to say that we let it happen because we passively sat on the sidelines and didn’t object? I hope that we don’t have to answer the question that way. Please don’t let a terribly conceived project like this get built. Speak up.

For more information or to sign a petition opposing this project contact Bill Cox (360) 778-1586 or at willjcox@comcast.net. Also contact county council members to voice your opposition to this project. The council members are Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Pete Kremen, Ken Mann and Carl Weimer. Their number is (360) 676-6690 and email is council@co.whatcom.wa.us.

References

1. www.wind-watch.org/documents/true-cost-of-electricity-from-wind

2. johnrsweet.com/personal/wind/.../Schleede-costbenefit20040624.pdf

3. www.wind-watch.org/documents/windmills-increase-fossil-fuel-consumption

4. http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html

5. http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/page4.htm