Subscribe to our feeds!
NC Senate to Ban All Wind Turbines in Mountains?
Submitted by musicman25 on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 11:36am
The NC Senate Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and Natural Resources is set to vote on revised version of Senate Bill 1068, Permitting Wind Energy Facilities in NC, on Tuesday July 7th that will ban all wind energy projects in the NC mountains, driving away jobs, economic benefits, and clean electricity from the region.
The original text of this bill was to clarify that wind turbines 100 kW or below were excluded in the North Carolina Mountain Ridge Protection Act. Wind turbines above 100 kW were excluded from the North Carolina Mountain Ridge Protection Act to the extent allowed by a local county or government. This allowed local governments to decide how to use local resources.
However, the new revised text of this bill states that " "Tall buildings or structures" include wind turbines for the generation of electricity and wind energy facilities as defined in G.S. 113A-103. "Tall buildings or structures" do not include:
a. Water, radio, telephone or television towers or any equipment for the transmission of electricity or communications or both.
b. Structures of a relatively slender nature and minor vertical projections of a parent building, including chimneys, flagpoles, flues, spires, steeples, belfries, cupolas, antennas, poles, wires, or windmills.windmills when the windmill is a solitary structure and is not used to generate electricity for the public for compensation."
This will essentially eliminate all wind energy projects in the NC Mountains. Keeping hundreds of new jobs, millions of local economic development dollars, and renewable electricity out of our state.
It is unclear to me how the NC senate can expect our utilities to meet their REPS requirements if they are banning the most cost effective resource?
And its not as if the bill doesn't protect the environment, viewshed, and ecological habitats that are sensitive in the NC mountains. In fact, in the original bill a permit would not be issued by the state for wind energy projects that "significantly impacted" viewsheds, avian species, and ecological habitats from the following areas, Blue Ridge Parkway, Appalachian Trail, State Parks, National Parks, Spruce Fir Habitats, Important Bird Areas, and Natural Heritage Areas.
The original bill protected high recreational areas from wind energy projects by providing state oversight (a permit would be required from the state before any facility could be constructed), while allowing local government to decide how they wanted to utilize local wind resources. In fact, counties such as Ashe and Watagua had already established local guidelines to wind turbines that included requirements for different sizes, and in Ashe County, a height restriction. Other mountain counties are moving forward with wind projects, but I don't suppose our legislators have bothered to pay attention to what is happening in their own districts.
Come Monday morning, I will personally be contacting committee members, as I am shocked as to how Raleigh has no idea about the feasibility of wind energy in the mountains, and the economic benefits to the communities, residents, and governments that wind energy brings to the places that need it most.
While I strongly supported the original S1068 bill, I stand strongly opposed to the revised version.
Most Senators are unaware of the language in the bill.
I left messages respectfully stating our concerns on the Chairman and 2 Vice Chairman's voice mails. I also talked on the phone to another Vice Chairman- Don Davis and he promised to bring up the issue when they meet on Tuesday at 11:00. You can also listen to live audio on the NC General Assembly home page. He also said their meeting is open to the public at the Raleigh General Assembly Room 44, If someone can make it to bring up our concerns, that would make a huge impact.
Thanks for this
Damn, it's like a never-ending game of whack a mole. Much appreciated.
I definitely want to know
who pushed for this revision, because I'm going to send them a barrel of coal ash and a jug of Mercury-tainted river water to wash it down with. ;(
Who?
The Coal Companies are a good bet.
Coal Companies or Senators?
I wonder if any of the sponsoring senators know this bill was changed from a pro-wind permitting stance to a anti-wind in the state bill?
That's what I want to know
I'm sure that some industry is behind the change, I just want to know which Senator(s) were the conduit for that influence.
Here's my guess as to who changed this:
I couldn't find any specific references to wind turbines here, but this is an extract from Joe Sam Queen's SB 968 Mountain Resources Planning Act, which uses a lot of the same terminology the Mountain Ridge Protection Act did:
One word that's actually four words: NIMBY
Not In My Backyard.
That about sums up the opposition to this.
If NC had a desert, they'd be all in support of putting wind turbines there, but they'll probably never support it in the mountains or on the coast.
-------
"Take the time to read the Declaration of Independence. It says so much more than 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'"
Not NIMBY, how about HAYBY!
How about your backyard....what are you willing to do?
Good!
They're ugly, inefficient and yet another environmental boondoggle.
***************************************************************************************
Government crises are usually manufactured to pick your pocket.
Got a message from Sen. Charlie Albertson
I got this in an email from Sen. Charlie Albertson"
"Please be advised that this bill has been changed by the senators from western NC. Senators Snow, Queen & Nesbitt requested the language that removes the western portion of our state. I would recommend that you contact those gentlemen to express your concerns if you wish to have western NC included in the bill, just as I had originally written.
Thank you for your interest. Sen. Charlie Albertson"
Thanks, Marcie
I got one out of three, anyway. Since the mountains and the coast have (by far) the best wind conditions for turbines, making the mountains off-limits cuts the entire state's available resources in half. This affects more than just mountain districts, it affects us all.
Not sure why you feel the mountains should carry 1/2?
I am not sure why you feel that the mountains should carry 1/2 of the resources. There was a huge opportunity for research by ASU to find other wind projects that would meet the requirements of the Mountain Ridge Protection Act. But IMO they have focused on taking over the ridges. They ignored the voices of the people. They angered the people. The people took the time to hear what they had to say and attended many meetings. The people were willing to negotiate. They had a wonderful opportunity and they blew it, and now their political activity is very questionable.
The people that say "ALL WIND is banned in the NC mountains" are wrong. Look at how that comes across..."We did not get the ridges so we got nothing." I hope to have a residential turbine one day and I will sell what I do not use back to the grid or I may sell all that I generate. I have the perfect location. Each home here has to have heavy duty shingles on our homes due to the wind. There are 6 other homes, and we are all interested. EVERY SINGLE FAMILY! This summer my son designed a wonderful solar heater for our small pool. It is amazing as he is only 15. But we are still labeled as "irrational anti-wind" people. When ASU and AIRE and Goss and others realize that the protected ridges are non-negotiable, then we will make progress. And the company that comes up with a reasonably priced residential turbine....WOW....they will be on top of the game.
Wind Turbines can
eliminate FOG in the mountains !! Just disguse them as trees and run off of stored solar power. In the medians between roads, you could install "trees" have the solar power switch on and blow out the air at the top thus moving up the cloud cover, thus restoring a little visibility !!!
If you seek the truth you will find TROUBLE.
There is such a deception between ASU and a group called Appalachian Institute of Renewable Energies (AIRE). They have Senator Goss brainwashed. See this is all about ASU making their goal of being "world leader" in sustainable energy. This is all about ASU and money people. OPEN your eyes. ASU sends their profs to meet with folks in the mountains and they listen, they take down our names and EMAIL addresses. BUT THEY ARE DEAF. They do not care. If one mountain person says they are interested in a small residential turbine, but they do not want to see the larger turbines on the ridges, AIRE says we are "irrational" "anti-wind" and then they email people saying please send money to fight these people that are rearing their heads, again. It is the protected ridges or nothing and they do not negotiate. They put out lies. They are gaslighting. It will not ban all wind! READ IT! WIth a small residential turbine you can sell back to the energy company what you do not use. Or, you can sell them all that you generate. Their small wind interest is a joke (they don't want you to know about the small turbines). AIRE has stated they are a 501c3, yet they lobby for one specific bill. I think AIRE formed to lobby for GOSS. That is against IRS rules. Did you donate money to them? Well, they have no license to do that, no license to solicit! No paper work on file. Look at it this way. AIRE is irresponsible and ignores the state and federal regulations. ASU has state employees soliciting money. ASU professors work with these deceptive groups, they are on advisory boards, etc. Would you want people like this responsible for those big turbines? It would spell disaster as they would ignore the goveernment regulations and continue to be irresponsible. Read this! http://www.smokymountainnews.com/issues/07_09/07_22_09/out_naturalist.html
But what is Senator Goss' take in all of this?
THE POLITICAL BULL IS JUST ABOUT TO HIT THE WIND TURBINE!
I think small wind is fantastic, but
there's no way it could ever have any substantial impact on offsetting/replacing more than a tiny fraction of the megawattage generated by coal-burning steam plants. In the larger picture, renewable energy efforts that don't help to reduce carbon and toxin emissions are not a viable alternative to efforts that will. In conjunction with, maybe, but not as a substitute.
And in case you weren't aware, the guy that wrote the article you linked to is in the tourism industry, and charges 85 bucks per head to take people on nature walks. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, tossing out innuendo about the motives and legality of a non-profit, while not informing his readers of his own business interests that quite possibly are in conflict with said group, is wrong, at least in my book.
Small wind will be great!
I hear what you are saying about the author, but according to the pro commercial wind people, tourists will FLOCK to the mountains to see the turbines and the wind plants. So there could be another side to your argument.
I hope that ASU will now research how they and their professors failed and perhaps educate others on what they did wrong. We each have to help with the 12.5% renewable energy resources for this state, but at the same time we have to respect and work within the framwork of some state laws/acts and listen to what people are passionate about.
As I mentioned in another post, all in my neighborhood are interested in a residential turbine. Every home. But we have chosen NOT to work with ASU. We hope to set a precedent in working to achieve this goal. It is very exciting to us and I am passionate about this effort to show how we are NOT anti-wind. Sadly, no one trusts ASU. I would love it if Blue Ridge Electric took the initiative and developed an affordable residential turbine and used our group of homes as a starting point. Would that not be exciting??? Then we could power the school just below us for FREE. How cool is that????
That would be exciting,
and it would be very cool. :)
And if a project like that does happen, please let me know. I will gladly make the trip up there to bother some people and take some pictures, then blog about it when I get back.
Mariah Power Windspire and NCSU
We hope to work with NCSU and we are looking at the Mariah Power Windspire turbine. It is made in the USA and is 40 to 60 feet tall. We would each meet the small wind tax credit as I read it and the renewable energy 35% refund up to $10,500 refund for each residential turbine. After all credits and refunds, I THINK we are each looking at about $3600.00 per turbine, and that includes installation. Our average windspeed as calculated by a daily chart (with anemometer) by me, is 16 mph. . All local ordinances would be met. Again these are the first baby steps with our plan that has an ultimate goal of providing free electricity for the school.
Again we have done this on our own, as ASU showed no interest in our idea or our wind calculations.
As I said,
I think a community developing its own small wind project would be very cool, and with the tax credits and government-subsidized loans available you folks could probably do this without killing yourselves financially.
That being said, we're still talking about apples and oranges here. According to the company's own literature, each of these Windspires will only generate 25% of the power an average home uses. So you would actually need four per house to cover all the power needs and possibly produce some surplus.
Now, when you contrast that with the TVA Buffalo Mountain wind farm, where only 18 turbines generate enough power for 3,780 homes, you might begin to understand why we're upset about this bill. That's 210 homes covered by one turbine, as opposed to 1/4 of one home covered by one Windspire. Or, looking at it another way, it would take 840 Windspires to cover as many homes as one turbine does.
As I said, apples and oranges.
Research small wind PROTECT THE RIDGES! WIND IS NOT BANNED!
Even if we covered the mountains and the coast of NC with HUGE turbines, it would only offset consumption by 7%. That is why we protect the ridges and work on small wind, solar, geo-thermal and conservation. Residential turbines are merely a start but it is better than nothing. I also say more research on small wind, keeping the state law in place to protect the ridges. There are other ways to harness the wind.
Our research shows two windspires per home. But as I said earlier, the person or company that invents a GOOD residential turbine that is under 100 FEET in height will be on to something. I really do not think what we want is out there, yet. BUT WE ARE JUST BEGINNING OUR RESEARCH, so please do not put down our humble first steps.
I see people wanting BIG WIND IN MY BACKYARD, but what are you willing to give up in your backyard? If the ridges are protected, what do you suggest?
Dirty wind, green power, making cars into lemonade
A fascinating look at the potential for innovation. This is what the green economy is all about. Cool stuff.
RIDGES SAFE: WIND IS NOT BANNED! RESIDENTIAL TURBINE IS OK!
Musicman,
When this bill was filed by Albertson it read line 20 through 23,
20 windmills.windmills, including wind turbines for the generation of
21 electricity having less than 100 kilowatts rated capacity,
22 cumulatively with any other turbines within one-half mile, and wind
23 turbines of 100 kilowatts capacity and above, cumulatively with any
The original language as filed by Albertson was as above, allowing turbines with <100KW and also >100 KW.
BUT NOW AS IT is stands, only wind turbines up to 100 feet tall will be allowed as long as they are with a residence. Written: "Tall buildings or structures" do not include:
a. Water, radio, telephone or television towers or any equipment for the transmission of electricity or communications or both.
b. Structures of a relatively slender nature and minor vertical projections of a parent building, including chimneys, flagpoles, flues, spires, steeples, belfries, cupolas, antennas, poles, wires, or windmills.windmills, if the windmill is associated with a residence, the primary purpose of the windmill is to generate electricity for use within the residence, and the windmill is no more than 100 feet from the base to the turbine hub. Goss threw in his amendment as the last minute on the 15th, but it will not fly.
Your post contains misinformation. Wind energy is NOT BANNED. It is limited to residential use and this protects the ridges. Your post sounds similar to how the ASU professors from the wind energy Dept and AIRE attempt to distort the truth so that they can keep pushing for commercial wind plants on our ridges. Do not fall for their false information! Please read about my residential plan(above). We will work with NCSU due to our concern over the AIRE/ASU activity posted under TROUBLE by me. Goss will be voted out in 2010 as ASHE will not tolerate his attempt to "sell" our ridges to meet ASU's plan to be the "world leader in sustainability."
BUT PLEASE GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT. A commercial wind plant (like the one we defeated in Ashe county) requires ONE employee after it is in place. It does not create jobs in the long run.
I guess I'd rather see a few large scale wind plants
than a few million residential wind turbines.
but
I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise
:)
SB-1068 does not ban all wind! The NC senate did not do that.
James I enjoyed your reference to the green economy and the site. I am for a combination of small wind, solar, conservation, and geo-thermal. Not all homes can site small residential turbines. What are you willing to give from your back yard?
50 x 100' residential windmills...
...versus a large wind farm...seems like a difference without a distinction.
20 miles east of the rock slide.
And the answer is....Mountain Ridges Protected!!!!
The difference is that the mountain ridges would be protected.....big wind plants have to go on the mountain ridges, that I am passionate about protecting. There are other ways to harness the wind, and still protect the ridges. HAYBY? How about your backyard, what are you willing to do.
My back yard...
...is Haywood County. But thanks for asking.
20 miles east of the rock slide.
I give you my roof top for solar and a wind turbine
in Chapel Hill
... and ocean as far as the eye can see from my condo at Emerald Isle
... and twenty thousand dollars recently invested for new insulated doors and windows in both.
You are passionate about your view!
I understand completely, and will gladly give up my backyard to keep the mountain ridges protected. You love your view from your home at Emerald Isle. How far away from the coastline would the turbines have to be to not be seen (and I know it will require longer underwater transmission lines)? If I were standing on the beach, looking at that many turbines in a line, I would have an immediate seizure. And the thought of the sun going down behind those blades.....the flicker would be miserable. Are there action groups forming at the coast?
Even though we are passionate about protecting our ridges, it has been tough to get ASU and others to accept a little less wind at a lower elevation. The silver medal is not good enough.....it is always about the gold.
GO NAVY! I have a son that will be trying to get an appointment very soon!
I appreciate your thoughts.