Conservation

June 3, 2011
Time to address a huge myth in this country--energy dependence.  There IS NO ENERGY DEPENDENCE EXCEPT THAT WHICH THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND STATE GOVERNMENTS DICTATE WE WILL HAVE.  Energy dependence is 100% government imposed.  The United States has sufficient reserves of oil, coal, natural gas, etc. to power this country.  We also have the technology to use it and the ability to build power plants.  However, THE GOVERNMENT FORBIDS US TO DO THIS.  Say again--the government forbids us to be energy independent.  No matter how many wind turbines we build, solar panels, etc. we will NEVER achieve energy independence unless the US government permits us to do so.  This is not "paranoid conspiracy" thinking--it is a fact.  All energy decisions are made by the government.  They, and they alone, determine how cold you will be in the winter, how much you can afford to drive, etc.  There is absolutely no free market in energy.  The government fully controls every aspect of your driving, heating, etc.  We don't need new technology to be energy independent--we need a government that will allow it.

Check out my webpage (http://www.theaccidentalconservationist.com/) for my January 2010 letter to the editor and for my information primer "Wind Power, Friend or Foe?" explaining wind energy and the problems that are associated with it.  Please feel free to email with questions or comments.

May 2011 (Published May 22) Letter to the editor:

With the propaganda fest in Rawlins on wind (May 21, 2011 Rawlins was having a “celebrate the wind” day—I don’t have a report on how it went), it's time to take a look at some of the realities that often are overlooked with wind.
The proposed turbines south of Rawlins are being put in by a Colorado billionaire, who will be eligible to receive up to two thirds of the cost through subsidies, tax breaks, and accelerated depreciation. Interesting that Obama has not been outraged that billionaires and oil companies get these tax subsidies/breaks for wind, but is outraged the oil companies and the rich receive too many tax breaks. Maybe it's just that using tax breaks for oil and the wealthy is so much more obvious than giving the money to these groups via a more hidden route, like wind subsidies.
The power will go to California via a transmission line (probably also subsidized). California fulfills its renewable energy mandate and keeps its scenic vistas. Wyoming gets the mess. Generally that is referred to as NIMBY behavior.
Wyoming senators backed the gift of your tax money to billionaire corporations because it's “good for Wyoming”. It appears if Wyoming is lucky, they might get 1% of the money invested by taxpayers in this project. The remaining 99% goes to corporations and other states. With that kind of math, no wonder there is a deficit.
The new 21st century environmentalism is also interesting—more mining (clearing rainforests to do so), more refining including rare earth metals that often contain radioactive materials, more land clearing, more toxic chemicals used building turbine blades, more roads, more transmission lines (guess they were mistaken about EMFs when they fought transmission lines before), destruction of habitat, dead raptors, all to save the planet. Who would have thought that environmentalists would come to love industrialization??

I’m not seeing a reason to celebrate.



April 2011 Letter to the editor:
As you send in those tax payments or stare at the tiny refund, consider:
$5 billion dollars of tax money was spent last year for "renewables", which produce less than 3% of the electricity in this country. Some states like Washington and Oregon are having the turbines damp back because there's too much electricity made in high winds--so $5 billion to cut back on windy days. Generally, that’s not considered a good investment if you have to damp back due to the very thing you invested in…..

Senator Barrasso has said Wyoming has world class wind resources and we should develop those. Yes--and California had world class gold deposits, as did Alaska. We're still cleaning up those messes. Kansas had world class prairies for growing wheat and other crops. The government encouraged people to move there. Then the drought hit and the dust. Years of dust. Washington ignored the plight of those trapped in the Dust Bowl until the black cloud made it to Washington DC. Having world class resources of something does not mean we have the sense or technology to use it well, at least according to past experience. Turbines have never been subjected to rigorous scientific testing. The turbines were just planted.

Five billion dollars and China is a mess from rare earth refining to flood the markets with magnets, the dust at turbines near Glenrock is certainly world-class (surprise, grass doesn't grow back as fast as one would think and high wind moves dirt), and forests and mountains are being destroyed across the nation in pursuit of a "free energy source". Wind turbines were brought to you by your government and environmentalists. The same people who brought you wolves.

Have a happy tax day!

January 2011 Letter to the Editor:
After reading Cheryl Riley's column, I looked up the Wyoming Power Producers Coalition. The annual dues are $10,000 for full membership. One can't charge dues of that amount if they can't produce money for members by bringing in wind power plants. I’m sure she wants many, many turbines.


Ms. Riley states in her article "hundreds of good jobs from wind" would be an outcome of increased wind power plants. I have found predictions all over the internet concerning how many jobs wind creates. I could not find an actual number for existing jobs in wind in Wyoming. When the Glenrock wind power plants were constructed, only half the license plates I saw were from in state. I am sure the motels and restaurants benefited, but only for the six or so months of construction. Actual employment after construction is a manager and a few maintenance personnel, so far as I can find.

Wind provides less than 2% of our energy yet requires huge subsidies from the federal government. Lower state taxation might bring in more wind, but more wind turbines would require more federal subsidies. The stimulus package gave $550 million dollars to wind energy last year. It seems unlikely the government can keep putting these costs on its credit card. More tax money will be needed. Somewhere the cost/benefit ratio has to be addressed before more money is appropriated for these projects. Who is actually benefitting?

Ms. Riley says the companies know they need to pay their own way, yet checking statistics, every time subsidies are cut, turbine installation drops off. This is a worldwide phenomenon. It appears that a huge infusion of tax money is needed everywhere wind is installed. That is not "paying their own way".

I have noticed that ranchers that receive free money taken in part from the taxpayers, wind companies getting millions in subsidies and companies that lobby for wind are the biggest supporters of wind. Human behavior being what it is, I suppose it's natural that those who get "free" money would indeed support whatever source it came from. However, American energy policy should not be based on what group can grab the most tax money. Not unless you want to end up sitting in the cold and dark.

Economic lesson explaining wind energy: Taxpayers give the wind developer a $1 million tax credit/subsidy. The wind developer puts in $2 million and erects a turbine. Commerce occurs. The government needs more millions for more turbines and raises taxes to cover the cost. Taxpayer pays for at least one third of the cost of the turbine, the developer gets a 33% discount and then demands tax breaks at a state level. I’m sure that looks good to the developer. Not so good for the rest of the participants.


August 22, 2010 My latest letter to the Editor:
Supporting wind turbines with the nation trillions of dollars in debt, with their minimal or nonexistent contributions to global warming and virtually no useful power generation, enormous cost and the "feel good" reason for their existence is like supporting an unemployed person, $50,000 dollars in debt, taking his unemployment check and buying a hot tub. The hot tub makes him feel better. And it keeps the hot tub manufacturers in business, which means less unemployment. Can you imagine a politician arguing that the unemployed should be buying hot tubs to feel better and save jobs? That's what politicians who support wind turbines do--endorse having a nation trillions of dollars in debt buy a product that has no practical value but "creates jobs". Plus, the whole thing makes the politicians feel good about themselves because they are doing something good for the environment. Like the unemployed guy using the hot tub to feel good about himself and improve his environment (makes the house more user friendly). No wonder our economy is a mess. Think about this when looking at who you want to represent you in government.


August 17, 2010
Pathfinder will not be getting back to me, it seems. The idea behind the corporation is to "blend the turbines in" and not destroy open spaces. How do you hide 100 towers 400 feet tall? How do you define land with 100 turbines as "open space"? And the fact remains that the minute you put up an electric power generation site (or a Wind Energy Electical Development Site), the historical ranch is destroyed. No other way to put it. At least Pathfinder admits their goal is to make money. They are in business. I find that honesty refreshing.

July 1, 2010
I am now waiting for Pathfinder, A Community of Wind, to get back to me with a scientific explanation of how wind works.  This is a "progressive" company that will preserve values and the old west while getting huge sums of money from the government to build shrines to the God Gore.  When I was little, I was taught that you can't have your cake and eat it too.  With the advent of double-think, that is now possible.  Wind developers can both save and destroy the environment while making huge bucks doing it.  I'll get back to this blog with Pathfinder's answer or lack thereof.

June 2, 2010
The Natrona County Commissioners have just stamped "We're uninformed and greedy, and proud of it" on their forheads.  Or maybe they forgot to mention they all worship at the Church of Gore.  There will be a "Wind Day" for the county to celebrate Wyoming wind contributions.  We contribute wind all right....

I do not understand being proud to support something that does not work, costs $23/mwh versus the 10 cents per kwh you pay for nonrenewable energy, and throws away billions in tax money for nothing.  Wind does not work, yet apparently most of this county worships the God Gore and will believe anything they are told.  It does not reduce carbon emmissions either.  It's just a black hole for money.

It will be interesting when emminent domain is fully instituted to take the millions of acres of land that will be required to power this county.  Of course, no one will mind losing the farm they had for 10 generations because they are saving the planet, right?  You would gladly let the Church of Gore use your land to save the earth.  Too bad "saving" is not what really is happening.  The good news is, your children and grandchildren will be dealing with this far more you.  Nice gift to pass on to them.  Maybe they won't care, except that there is no way the current way of life with IPods, laptops, etc can be maintained with Gore's plans.  We will have to cut at least half our energy use, like they did in Denmark (the glowing comments on Denmark don't mention that, do they?).  The kids might a bit testy....

It's really very sad people will willing destroy landscapes, drive out their neighbors, and bleed the government dry to "save the planet", all while doing nothing to help with a realistic future energy plan.

A bankrupt federal government may be the country's only hope.....

Also, I asked Rocky Mountain Power to explain turbines and how they work.  They did not reply--I know the email arrived, because they answered part of it.  Ask yourself why the power company does not proudly show you how the Gore Shrines work.  We're having a day for the turbines--why won't RMP explain how the turbines work? 

May 18, 2010
I have a link to an excellent article on why wind won't work in "layman's terms":
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/14/comparing-apples-and-orangutan

I continue to send information out on why wind turbines are actually anti-environment and why we should put our efforts into something that works.  Even if some people find asking for facts offensive.  This is too important not to educate people on.

Some good news for Wyoming--California wants the turbines in their state, not ours.  While I still oppose the whole turbine idea, at least they will be putting the generators close to where they are to be "used" (in quotes because they really have no use)  eliminating the need for billions of dollars of transmission lines.  It's a small thing, but I'll take it.



May 6, 2010
I was told by the Office of Sustainability that I am ignorant and should shut up if I oppose wind power.  Rudeness taken to the highest level.  Apparently, civility is not a part of what the Office of Sustainability does.  Never mind the individual was incapable of defending his position.  It's best to insult people rather than show your own lack of knowledge--which was shown in a few short sentences in the insult.  No facts, no figures, and several statements about conspiracies and so forth.  It is also interesting to note that these persons are hostile to science and to cutting subsidies.  So let's save the planet with myths and "Gore-isms" and forget that waste of time called science.  Yeah, that's brilliant.

Have any of you noticed that the "Green People" are always the rudist individuals when it comes to defending their position, especially if you ask for facts and figures?  Why do people who possess the knowledge to save the planet need to insult people rather than explain?  Oh wait, they don't know how to save the planet.

If conservation is to actually help the planet, individuals such as these are going to have to be shown for what they are---people out to make money and a name for themselves while destroying whatever gets in their way.  At this point, I truly believe that organizations such as these will do tremendous damage to the planet they claimed to want to save.  How to stop them I don't know.  Maybe a change in government would help.  Cut off the free money and then we will find environmental ideas that actually work.  I suspect most of these individuals would be without work if we cut the subsidies. 

Keep introducing the facts and keep repeating myself.  Eventually people will hopefully get it.

April 16, 2010
The controversy over wind power and transmission lines continues.  The latest twist is a group asking why if Wyoming is providing power for several states, only the Rocky Mountain Power is reaping the benefits, along with the wind power guys.  The only answer was the standard "You just don't understand" and "You're really not paying for this".  No one ever puts up a clear answer to any of these questions.

April 7, 2010
Today I have been researching biodiversity. You remember, that quaint concept that environmentalists (I refer here to the political breed of enviros, not the individuals who try to study the options and make rational decisions) invoked to stop any building they didn't want. The snail darter...Turns out this was just like so many other lies. It is okay to kill species, as long as the environmentalists are the ones doing the killing. This is because their cause is so important (saving the planet) that they have the right to kill and maim whatever it takes to reach that goal. If we have to cause the extinction of 20 species to build enough wind turbines and solar panals to keep Al Gore happy, then so be it. If we do nothing, or doubt King Al, the planet will be lost. Yet, this was never about saving the planet--this was "king of hill" and the king no longer has to follow the rules because he is king. I have no idea how any human could save the planet or destroy it--probably things will work like they always have. Environmentalists will kill several dozen species, build a bunch of turbines, alienate large numbers of people who don't like living in an giant electrical generation country, giving up half their income to support the mess and then the environmentalists lose their majority. Fossil fuels will come back and the environmentalists will go back to trying to impose biodiversity to get their power back. Fossil fuels people will fight back to keep their power. This whole "stomp on your opponent to win the "king of the hill" game is just a cycle we cannot seem to break. Fortunately, nature can recover from the crap we throw at it. Species go extinct and others emerge. The down side is the changes can really be hard on humans, but since they refuse to deal with reality, the consequences are unavoidable. Destroying biodiversity to rule the world is probably one of the things that has such consequences.......

March 29, 2010
The wind is very strong here today, which is a bad thing for Wyoming's future.  It encourages people to look at Wyoming as a giant power plant and not care about the environment or scenery (unless, of course, they start putting turbines in Yellowstone, which they should if global warming really is going to kill us.  What good is tourism if the planet overheats.  Let's get those turbines going--anywhere there is wind.  Share the joy). 

I have learned two things about turbines recently.  One is that getting a straight answer on how they save the environment is nearly impossible.  Since electricity is invisible and not really measurable by any conventional method, no one really knows what is sent over transmission lines.  For example, there is a brewery in Colorado that says it gets its power from a wind industrial site in Medicine Bow.  Technically, they do not.  There is no direct line.  The power goes into the grid with all the other power.  The brewery pays the power company for as much electricity as is metered going into the line from Medicine Bow and pays the renewables price.  There is no real connection in the same sense as a road connects two places.  Electricity is measured and treated as an accounting system.  So much goes into the grid, each customer meters out so much.  So you would think it would be easy to find out if wind turbines actually do any good or if they are simply duplicating power from the power plant.  That's where things muddy quickly.  A simple arithematic equation can explain everything, but try and get one.  Power generated, power used.  Simple math.  If anyone ever actually can obtain such numbers, please let me know.  Otherwise, I am going with the belief that turbines do not really help.  Why would the power company not proudly show off the numbers if they were good?  I think we know the answer to that one.

Wind turbines are extremely popular not only because of the "green" movement and the black hole of government money (ie your taxes) available, but also because these are the only power plants that can be built with virtually no regulations.  This is probably why they are called "wind farms".  Imagine the furor if someone build a nuclear power plant on their ranch.  You can't do that.  But you can put a hundred 300-400 foot tall electricity generating towers and no problem.  More land and more materials are used than in a standard power plant.  No problem.  You can actually build them where you can't cut trees, can't build houses, etc.  Turbines are a speed pass around regulations. 

Ranchers say they help save ranches, but you cannot in any way call an electrial power generation area a ranch.  It stops being a ranch the minute the turbines go up, just like it would stop being a ranch if we build a WalMart on it.  Twisting words are how turbines got a foothold.  Truth would have certainly slowed, if not stopped, the turbines, as would an actual measure of what they do.  People all over the world recognize this, but politics and power trump common sense everytime.  And as a result, we are destroying the very thing that was supposed to be protected. 

Mid-March
Conservation and going green are popular ideas today. Sadly, not all green ideas are green--some damage the environment and give nothing in return. Industrial wind turbines are one such item. They cost millions of dollars, destroy windlife habitat and give no reduction in greenhouse gases. They do not reduce the cost of electricity.

Why do they not reduce greenhouse gases? Because no coal fired power plants are ever replaces by turbines. Turbines can only make electricity on a sporadic basis--and people don't want their lights on and TV to work only in wind, especially if the wind only blows at night. The lights are great, but who want's to stay up till 2 AM to watch their favorite program or to do laundry or read their email? So the coal fired power plants can't close. Plus, the amount of CO2 generated from the installation of the turbines would, if we believed Al Gore, push global warming ahead 5 or 10 years on each installation.

Wyoming is beginning to be invaded by this destructive practice. With the turbine comes loss of open spaces, wildlife habitat destruction, and a complete change in the nature of Wyoming. Installing hundreds of industrial electrical generation sites (which is what wind turbines are) turns Wyoming into an electrical factory, instead of a conservation friendly state with scenic vistas and abundant wildlife.

It's noble to try and save the planet, but when we end up destroying it instead because someone's bad idea got subsidies and was sold as a good idea when it's not, it's wrong and it needs to be stopped.

 

I'm adding a couple of photos from north of Medicine Bow, Wyoming, where more turbines are going in.  This where there are a lot of sage grouse, though I don't believe it's in what they call a "core area".  These turbines and power lines do nothing to help reduce greenhouse gases and they clearly destroy open space.

I realize that to people living in urban areas, this still looks like open space.  However consider that there were thousands of acres with no roads, trees or people which are now covered with roads (between turbines) and turbines and people doing contruction and then maintenance.  It's the equivalent of you living on say four city lots, and the city decides it will use three of those lots for a ten story empty building.  You still one lot and many people live that way--would you stay or would you try to find a bigger lot and different house? Can wildlife find a new house?  Do you care you lost three lots to an empty building?