As we continue to retire aging dirty coal plant after aging dirty coal plant nationwide (we just hit 112 coal plants secured to retire), we are also pushing hard to replace them with clean energy, and as little natural as possible. That's why we were excited this week to see two very large clean energy announcements from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
First, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced the completion of the final environmental impact statement for a massive Wyoming wind farm. The Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project would be composed of up to 1,000 wind turbines across private and federal land in southeastern Wyoming, and generate up to 2,500 megawatts of clean energy.
This is a great move for a state where coal mining is devastating a beautiful and critical area -- the Powder River Basin. More wind power in Wyoming could mean less coal mining and fewer coal trains and coal plants in the west. It is also a smart move for a state that sees itself as an energy powerhouse, and wants to keep this role in a future that will have little to no coal in it.
For example, these 2,500 megawatts of wind power could replace the two filthy coal plants in Nevada, including the one that got highlighted this week as a major polluter next to the Paiute Indian reservation outside of Las Vegas.
It's also approximately the same amount of power coming from one of the dirtiest coal plants in the west -- the Colstrip plant in Montana. Colstrip's pollution dirties the region's air -- including the beautiful vistas of Yellowstone National Park. The kicker is that this plant is co-owned by Puget Sound Energy, the power company that provides electricity to Western Washington State, including progressive companies like REI and Microsoft. (Full disclosure: we have an ongoing campaign to get Puget Sound Energy out of the dirty coal business and put its customers' money into clean energy that does not contribute to global warming).
We look forward to reviewing the final environmental impact statement for these two large wind projects in Wyoming, and working with BLM to ensure that there are adequate conservation measures for two struggling bird species, the Golden Eagle and the Greater Sage Grouse.
The second great piece of new was Secretary Salazar's announcement that the Interior Department finalized the environmental review for wind projects offshore from Rhode Island and Massachusetts:
The environmental assessment for the Rhode Island/Massachusetts Wind Energy Area will be used by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to inform future leasing decisions as part of the Administration's "Smart from the Start" offshore wind energy initiative. The Wind Energy Area (WEA) comprises approximately 164,750 acres within the area of mutual interest identified by the two states.
Offshore wind in this area has the potential to create jobs and provide clean energy for Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York, as projects in this area could tie into all of those states.
We are pushing hard to ensure offshore wind projects move forward and that they are sited and designed in a way to protect endangered species, such as the extremely rare North Atlantic Right Whale. The release of this environmental review is an important next step by the Obama administration to help retire the remaining coal plants in New England and Mid-Atlantic regions, end the practice of mountaintop removal coal mining, and power the region with clean energy for decades to come.
The next step to realize the many benefits of offshore wind and catch up with the European and Asian countries that are already installing offshore wind projects, is for New York Governor Cuomo and Connecticut Governor Malloy to support contracts for offshore wind projects as their colleagues in Rhode Island and Massachusetts have done.
As the Eastern Seaboard settles in for another weekend of record-breaking temperatures, with hundreds of thousands of homes without power from last week's epic storm, it is increasingly clear that we need to accelerate the transition from energy sources that cause global warming to energy sources that don't sacrifice our future. This change won't happen anytime soon in Congress. It will happen, and is happening, state by state and city by city. Please join us in this struggle for our future.
-- Co-written by Mary Anne Hitt, Director of the Beyond Coal Campaign, and Bruce Nilles, Senior Director of the Beyond Coal Campaign.
Follow Mary Anne Hitt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/maryannehitt
John Farrell: No, Natural Gas Is Not America's Future
The Fossil Fuel Industry Continues Attacks on Wind Energy; The Wind Industry Pushes Back With Facts | CleanTechnica
Windfarms do not cause long-term damage to bird populations, study finds | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Here is an example of the lengths taken to disparage wind power .; Koch-Fueled Americans For Prosperity Plans Protest Against 'Extremist' Kids Flying Kites In Support Of Wind | ThinkProgress
Fish Thriving Around Wind Farms
Wind farms take up less than 1% of the land on which they are erected. They emit no pollution at all in operation. They are a net benefit for aquifers and ground water. They do not emit particulate matter that causes asthma and emphysema with inordinate human health costs as coal and to a less extent natural gas does. They do not emit sulphur dioxide with its implications for acid rain and health-damaging smog as coal does. They pay back their full-lifecycle energy and materials much faster than any other form of generation. If wind farms replaced all fossil fuel generation, about 14 MILLION FEWER BIRDS WOULD DIE annually. Oh, and their full-lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are 1% of coal and 2% of natural gas, for those that actually paid attention to the recent US Court of Appeals ruling that said that the science of anthropogenic global warming is settled, we are causing global warming and it is a clear and present danger.
http://www.quora.com/Wind-Power/Do-wind-turbines-have-an-impact-on-aquifers/answer/Mike-Barnard
http://www.quora.com/Wind-Power/How-significant-is-bird-and-bat-mortality-due-to-wind-turbines/answer/Mike-Barnard
http://www.quora.com/Clean-Energy/Renewable-Energy-What-are-the-ways-beyond-government-subsidies-that-can-help-in-making-renewable-energy-technologies-more-competitive/answer/Mike-Barnard
The new but not green technologies, like solar and wind, are only green when used on already dead planet surfaces, like rooftops, shopping malls, parking lots, buildings. The climate, the atmosphere, fresh water, the biosphere and life itself is governed only by wild and natural ecosystems and the plant and animal biodiversity that create the one, whole organism, an ecosystem, the living, physical body of Earth.
To-date, modern man has slaughtered 43 to 50 percent of the life giving Earth for "corn fields and parking lots". Why does anyone think entombing the Earth with biodiversity butchering wind is good for anything or any living thing?
Are these new projects subsidized by any government?
Many scientists are far more concerned with land-use changes and ecological death than any issue. Climate regulation and moderation are listed as a natural, free, ecological service or man's only, "life-supporting services". Ecosystems and their plant and animal biodiversity generate every reason our species breathes, and these eco-illiterate fools think planet butchering wind is going to solve problems.
In California, they butchered an ecosystem with windmills that supported the largest population of golden eagles in this nation, and the windmills have slaughtered thousands. The golden eagle is biodiversity. Science screams, when man kills ecosystems for any reason, he is "suicidal" and when he pushes extinct biodiversity, he is about as safe as he is in thermonuclear war.
We are the only specie on the planet stupid enough to kill our only home and the breath of life. Actually wind devours huge tracts of the Earth for a lower energy yield. It is a deadly poison.
And, ecosystems also purify the air and water while releasing oxygen...
Imagine in your mind, replacing the image of a cute little wind turbine with the image of a 500 foot industrial machine....1000 industrial machines destroying the countryside.....because that's what they are. And along with them being INDUSTRIAL MACHINES, they are made of Bisphenol A and other toxic and hazardous materials. According to Vestas wind manufacturer, one TON of hazardous and toxic waste is created with every single turbine blade produced. ONE TON. Multiply THAT by a 1,000 and you have 1000 TONS of hazardous and toxic waste for just that one wind installation.
Not to mention the mega-ton concrete base that is needed for each one, which is so large, that at the end of the 20 year life span of the average turbine, the base is way too costly to remove so it is simply covered over and left to leach into the soil for the next several centuries.
Tax dollars would be far better spent on a truly clean and green energy source. The sooner the general public understands just how devastating to the environment wind turbines are, the sooner we can find get on with using truly green energy sources.