by jboullion | Jun 15, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an article by Steve Sharp in the Watertown Daily Times:
JEFFERSON – Area dignitaries turned out by the dozens Thursday afternoon to salute and support Jefferson business leader Steve Lewis as he embarks on his quest to generate clean, solar energy. Part of Lewis’ goal is to serve as an inspiration to others to undertake solar energy-capturing projects of their own.
Ninety-nine solar panels now sit atop the north roof of Lewis’ Jefferson Area Business Center (JABC) and provide emission-free, sustainable energy by converting sunlight into electricity. The photovoltaic, renewable energy system is the largest commercial project of its kind in the county.
Thursday’s reception at the JABC on Wisconsin Drive, just steps south of Highway 18, brought out a cross-section of community leaders, including Jefferson School District Superintendent Michael Swartz, Jefferson Mayor Gary Myers, city Administrator Tim Freitag, Jefferson County Board Chairwoman Sharon Schmeling and Watertown Daily Times Publisher Jim Clifford. Also in attendance were WPPI Energy President and CEO Roy Thilly, Emily Hickey from Focus on Energy and Al Dittmar of Carroll Electric.
“In making preparations for the project, my first analysis wasn’t how much the system would produce but how much I could cut my electrical consumption, because the best electron is the electron that is not used,” Lewis told the crowd. He added the unique project is another example of his propensity to undertake business projects using his heart as a guide.
by jboullion | Jun 15, 2009 | Uncategorized
Come relax with friends and make some new ones as we get together and discuss environmental issues that are important to YOU at Eau Claire’s first ever Green Drinks. Green Drinks is an opportunity for folks interested in “green” environmental issues to come together over drinks and conversations to find out what interesting things are going on in the Chippewa Valley. Green Drinks is unique because there is no agenda, there are no dues, there’s no board of directors – it’s just a social opportunity for people to come together and talk with other like-minded environmentalists about ideas, events, and issues going on around our community.
A common sentiment often heard in the local environmental community is that there is no clearinghouse of information regarding environmental issues. Green Drinks has already successfully served Wisconsin communities as a place to share ideas in La Crosse, Madison, and Green Bay – it’s time to add Eau Claire to that list!
Green Drinks Eau Claire
Every 3rd Wednesday of the Month
6:30-8:OOPM
Haymarket Grill
101 Graham Avenue
Eau Claire, WI 54701
If you have any questions or ideas please email Tom Stolp or call 715-835-4248. For directions or more information on the Haymarket Grill visit http://www.haymarketgrill.com
by jboullion | Jun 15, 2009 | Uncategorized
Scientists conclude that there is no evidence wind turbines have an adverse impact on human health.(1) Wind opponents have circulated deceptive videos and misleading photos in an attempt to scare legislators into inaction.
+ Wind energy is safe, secure, and reliable
+ Reject the fear campaign from wind opponents
+ SB 185/AB 256 would establish a responsible forum for reviewing scientific information regarding wind energy There are over 120 Gigawatts(2) of wind turbines installed worldwide, and since 2005, global wind generation capacity has more than doubled.
Currently, 76 countries are using commercial wind energy.(3) The U.S. military uses wind turbines to reduce fuel costs and the need for fuel shipments in dangerous areas.(4)
Wind turbines provide safe and reliable energy. At present there are well over 10,000utility-scale wind turbines installed and operating in North America, and tens of thousands of people who live and work in proximity to these wind turbines. Of these individuals, a very small number have claimed that their health has been adversely affected by wind turbines. Surveys of peer-reviewed scientific literature have consistently found no evidence linking wind turbines to human health concerns.
Wind power opponents frequently quote Nina Pierpont to frighten the public and convince decision makers that wind power is dangerous. Her view is not supported by scientists who specialize in acoustics, low frequency sound and related human health impacts. It is important to point out that Dr. Pierpont’s writings have not been published in peer-reviewed journals, a fact that raises questions as to the scientific validity of her research.
References
1 http://www.canwea.ca/media/release/release_e.php?newsId=37
2 1 Gigawatt = 1 billion watts.
3 http://www.wwindea.org/home/images/stories/worldwindenergyreport2008_s.pdf
4 http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0907/p01s04-usmi.html
The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) has compiled a list of articles and publications on the subject from reputable sources in Europe and North America. Below are summaries of these articles:
1. “Infrasound from Wind Turbines – Fact, Fiction or Deception?” by Geoff Leventhall in Vol. 34 No.2 (2006) of the peer-reviewed journal Canadian Acoustics. This paper looks at the question of whether or not wind turbines produce infrasound at levels that can impact humans. It directly addresses assertions frequently made by Dr. Nina Pierpont, author of a recent book entitled “Wind Turbine Syndrome”. “In the USA, a high profile objector (Nina Pierpont of Malone NY) placed an advertisement in a local paper, consisting entirely of selected quotations from a previously published technical paper by van den Berg (Van den Berg 2004). However the comment “[i.e. infrasonic]”, as shown in Fig 3, was added in the first line of the first quotation in a manner which might mislead naive readers into believing that it was part of the original. The van den Berg paper was based on A-weighted measurements and had no connection with infrasound. So, not only is the advertisement displaying the advertiser’s self deception, but this has also been propagated to others who have read it.
[…] The comment, [i.e. infrasonic], added into Fig 3 gives incorrect information. Claims of infrasound are irrelevant and possibly harmful, should they lead to unnecessary fears.”
www.wind.appstate.edu/reports/06-06Leventhall-Infras-WT-CanAcoustics2.pdf
2. “Wind Turbine Facilities Noise Issues” by Dr. Ramani Ramakrishnan for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. This study looked into the claims made in the doctoral thesis of G.P. van den Berg, a source frequently cited by Dr. Pierpont. It concluded that: “The research work undertaken by G. P. van den Berg didn’t provide scientific evidence to support the few major hypotheses postulated concerning the wind turbine noise characteristics.”
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/documents/2008/Noise%20Report.pdf
3. “Wind Turbine Acoustic Noise”, A White Paper by Dr. Anthony Rodgers at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. This paper looked into the issue of both sound and infrasound (low frequency sound) and concluded “There is no reliable evidence that infrasound below the perception threshold produces physiological or psychological effects.”
4. “Research into Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise”, University of Salford, UK, July 2007. This paper looked into claims that it was not infrasound, but “amplitude modulation” (AM) that presented problems. The paper concludes that “This shows that in terms of the number of people affected, wind farm noise is a small-scale problem compared with other types of noise; for example the number of complaints about industrial noise exceeds those about windfarms by around three orders of magnitude” and that “The low incidence of AM and the low numbers of people adversely affected make it difficult to justify further research funding in preference to other more widespread noise issues.” http://usir.salford.ac.uk/1554/1/Salford_Uni_Report_Turbine_Sound.pdf
5. “Electricity generation and health” in the peer-reviewed journal The Lancet. The paper concludes that “Forms of renewable energy generation are still in the early phases of their technological development, but most seem to be associated with few adverse effects on health” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17876910
6. “Health impact of wind turbines”, prepared by the Municipality of Chatham-Kent Health & Family Services Public Health Unit. This is a comprehensive review of available literature on the subject. This paper concludes and concurs with the original quote from Chatham-Kent’s Acting Medical Officer of Health, Dr. David olby: “In summary, as long as the Ministry of Environment Guidelines for location criteria of wind farms are followed, it is my opinion that there will be negligible adverse health impacts on Chatham-Kent citizens. Although opposition to wind farms on aesthetic grounds is a legitimate point of view, opposition to wind farms on the basis of potential adverse health consequences is not justified by the evidence.” http://www.chatham-kent.ca/NR/rdonlyres/CA6E8804-
D6FF-42A5-B93B-5229FA127875/7046/5a.pdf
7. Energy, sustainable development and health, World Health Organization, June 2004. The study finds that “Renewable sources, such as photovoltaic and wind energy, are associated with fewer health effects. […] The increased use of renewable energy, especially wind, solar and photovoltaic energy, will have positive health benefits, some of which have been estimated.” There is also a table on page 79 showing the relative health effects of nearly all sources of energy, which clearly shows wind as negligible. http://www.euro.who.int/document/eehc/ebakdoc08.pdf
by jboullion | Jun 15, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an article by Nick Paulson in the Stevens Point Journal:
A dealership in Stevens Point has become one of four in the state to sell a tailpipe emission free, electric scooter.
Laszewski & Sons began carrying the VX-1, made by Vectrix, this year after noticing an increased interest in electric vehicles because of rising gas prices and a growing interest in thinking green.
The VX-1 still leaves some carbon footprint when charging, but its 36 grams per kilometer emission is less than half of similar scooters, or about a quarter the emissions of a Toyota Prius, according to Vectrix’s Web site.
“We were looking at the market, and we think this is what the future holds,” said Vice President Scott Laszewski.
The scooter is completely electric. Just plug it into a standard wall outlet and it takes about two hours for an 80 percent charge, and three to five hours for a full charge.
Depending on driving conditions, a charge can get up to 60 miles. The scooter is approved for freeway use and can reach around 60 mph. A motorcycle license is required to drive one.
by jboullion | Jun 12, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an article on Farm Energy:
Today, June 11, USDA issued a Notice of Funds for Availability (NOFA) for the Collection, Harvest, Storage and Transportation (CHST) portion of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP). You can read the official notice here. Funding for the remaining components of BCAP (annual and establishment payments) will be announced in the final rule at a later date. . . .
Collection, Harvest Storage and Transportation Assistance
The CHST payments under BCAP provide biomass producers or owners with a $1 for $1 matching payment when they deliver biomass to a biomass conversion facility. For each dollar a biomass producer receives from the facility, the USDA will pay an additional dollar, up to $45 per dry ton, for up to 2 years. This payment is intended to help biomass producers with the costs of biomass collection, harvest, storage and transportation.
A biomass producer or owner can be the owner of the land where the biomass is produced or a person with the right to collect or harvest biomass off of the land, such as a renter or contractor.
A biomass conversion facility is any facility using biomass to produce heat, power, biobased products or next-generation biofuels like cellulosic ethanol or biomass pellets.
There is broad eligibility for the types of biomass eligible for payments. The only specific exclusions are biomass from state and federal lands, commodity grains and fibers, animal wastes and by-products, food and yard waste and algae. However, only 20% of funding made available for CHST payments (estimated to be $25 million for 2009 but may increase) can go to residues from Title I commodity crops.
by jboullion | Jun 12, 2009 | Uncategorized
From a story on WJFW-TV, Rhinelander:
NEWBOLD – With government tax incentives and rebates from Wisconsin Focus on Energy–installing renewable energy systems is becoming more affordable.
Marc DeBrock’s interest in renewable energy spiked after attending the Midwest Renewable Energy Association’s annual Energy Fair.
DeBrock tells Newswatch 12, “I saw what was going on there and what people were adapting into their lives and the renewable energy systems, so it’s always been in the back of my mind.”
That was 15 years ago. Now after years researching he finally installed his own renewable energy system–solar thermal panels.
“It’s used for both hot water and space heating”
Fluid inside theses panels are heated by the sun. The liquid then travels through a tube and heats water inside this 415-gallon holding tank. Where it’s then distributed for use in the bathroom and kitchen.
DeBrock says, “Depending on how warm the water is in the tank, it can go out anywhere from 90 to 100 degrees up to 150 degrees.”
The water also heats coils underneath the floor–heating the house.
He says, “Once enough hot water is produced, I can send the rest of the heat into the radient floor heat.”
But solar-thermal panels aren’t the only way that Marc’s using renewable energy for his home.
DeBrock adds, “Site location of the house, I think is one of the simplest ways to make your house more efficient.”
When Marc built his house four years ago, he took that into consideration–building his house to maximize the most natural energy.
by jboullion | Jun 12, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an editorial in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
The single biggest constraint on increasing wind generation of electricity in Wisconsin is the permitting process, according to Clean, Responsible Energy for Wisconsin’s Economy, a group working on implementing the recommendations of the Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming. And one of the biggest problems in the permitting process is local opposition to wind farms.
CREWE has said that over 600 megawatts of planned wind developments are stalled across Wisconsin “due to midstream changes in regulations and procedures.” The Journal Sentinel’s Thomas Content pointed out in an article on Monday that more than a dozen wind projects around the state have been slowed by local opposition.
That can’t continue. What’s needed, as CREWE officials argue, is regulatory reform and, specifically, uniform siting standards for all wind farms that would be built in the state. Such legislation has been introduced. It deserves adoption by the Legislature.
by jboullion | Jun 12, 2009 | Uncategorized
From an article on Farm Energy:
Today, June 11, USDA issued a Notice of Funds for Availability (NOFA) for the Collection, Harvest, Storage and Transportation (CHST) portion of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP). You can read the official notice here. Funding for the remaining components of BCAP (annual and establishment payments) will be announced in the final rule at a later date. . . .
Collection, Harvest Storage and Transportation Assistance
The CHST payments under BCAP provide biomass producers or owners with a $1 for $1 matching payment when they deliver biomass to a biomass conversion facility. For each dollar a biomass producer receives from the facility, the USDA will pay an additional dollar, up to $45 per dry ton, for up to 2 years. This payment is intended to help biomass producers with the costs of biomass collection, harvest, storage and transportation.
A biomass producer or owner can be the owner of the land where the biomass is produced or a person with the right to collect or harvest biomass off of the land, such as a renter or contractor.
A biomass conversion facility is any facility using biomass to produce heat, power, biobased products or next-generation biofuels like cellulosic ethanol or biomass pellets.
There is broad eligibility for the types of biomass eligible for payments. The only specific exclusions are biomass from state and federal lands, commodity grains and fibers, animal wastes and by-products, food and yard waste and algae. However, only 20% of funding made available for CHST payments (estimated to be $25 million for 2009 but may increase) can go to residues from Title I commodity crops.
by jboullion | Jun 12, 2009 | Uncategorized
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, June 12, 2009
The single biggest constraint on increasing wind generation of electricity in Wisconsin is the permitting process, according to Clean, Responsible Energy for Wisconsin’s Economy, a group working on implementing the recommendations of the Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming. And one of the biggest problems in the permitting process is local opposition to wind farms.
CREWE has said that over 600 megawatts of planned wind developments are stalled across Wisconsin “due to midstream changes in regulations and procedures.” The Journal Sentinel’s Thomas Content pointed out in an article on Monday that more than a dozen wind projects around the state have been slowed by local opposition.
That can’t continue. What’s needed, as CREWE officials argue, is regulatory reform and, specifically, uniform siting standards for all wind farms that would be built in the state. Such legislation has been introduced. It deserves adoption by the Legislature.
A report released Monday by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs said that cutting carbon dioxide emissions won’t be cheap, but delaying action on addressing global warming will be worse, both for the environment and the Midwest economy, according to another article by Content. The group is urging that the Midwest turn the challenge of energy and climate change into a competitive advantage and says enactment of greenhouse gas regulations is “essential to the Midwest’s future prosperity and competitiveness.”
A recent study has preliminarily concluded that winds may be slowing in parts of the country because of global warming. However, the findings are still speculative, and those changes appear to be less in states bordering the Great Lakes. Wind power, we’re confident, still can play a key part in a balanced energy mix and help to develop the green economy in Wisconsin and create new jobs.
Wisconsin has made significant progress on wind energy, but wind power still accounts for only about 5% of the power supply. That needs to be improved. Transportation difficulties, budget cuts and competition from other states are also obstacles to that improvement, and each needs to be dealt with.
But Wisconsin can improve its position, and the first step is approving uniform wind siting regulations for the state. Local officials and residents should still have a say, and not every project deserves approval. Some sites are clearly better than others. But the best way to deal with developing new sites is to have a uniform wind siting standard on which developers and energy companies can rely.
Wisconsin can do great things with wind and other alternative sources of energy. The time to start is now.
by jboullion | Jun 12, 2009 | Uncategorized
A commitment to wind energy development will serve as an economic catalyst for Wisconsin, creating jobs in manufacturing, construction, transportation, and operation & maintenance of wind turbines. SB 185/AB 256 make our state more manufacturing and other supply chain businesses that create jobs. By establishing statewide standards for siting small and medium sized wind farms legislators can provide an economic boost to Wisconsin’s economy.
• 1,000 MW of new wind development in Wisconsin would create over 3,000 new jobs and provide $1.1 billion in economic benefit.1 Currently, over 600 MW of planned wind development is stalled due to the lack of statewide permitting standards.
• Wisconsin ranks fourth among states in terms of potential for job gain, and fifth nationally for potential investment.2
• In 2007-08 Operating Engineers erected 88 turbines for WE Energies’ Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center. More than 400,000 labor hours were devoted to completing the project.
“We support SB 185/AB 256. Without this legislation we fear that good Wisconsin jobs will be lost to Iowa and Minnesota. A lot of our members, who are residents of Wisconsin, have traveled to those states in order to sustain a livable salary so that they can feed their families. Unless we have some uniform standards in the state we will not see the full potential for wind here in Wisconsin. Wind farm construction is good for our members. Wisconsin’s economy needs this generation and Local #139 needs these family supporting jobs here in Wisconsin.” (Joint public hearing May 12, 2009) -Terrance McGowan, Operating Engineers #139
“We think it’s important to encourage the development [of wind power] here in Wisconsin. There are good Wisconsin jobs at stake here. There are good Wisconsin companies that work in the design of these small wind farms, design the components that are used. There are good Wisconsin businesses that work in the maintenance of these wind farms. It is good work for Wisconsin workers.” (Joint public hearing May 12, 2009) -R.J. Pirlot, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce
References
1 U.S. Department of Energy. “Economic Benefits, Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reductions, and Water Conservation
Benefits from 1,000 MW of New Wind Power in Wisconsin” October 2008
2 Renewable Energy Policy Project. “Component Manufacturing: Wisconsin’s Future in the Renewable Energy
Industry.” January 2006.
