HIGH NOON IN TEXAS: WIND WON’T BACK DOWN

Here is why there aren’t wind and solar installations all across the U.S. unburdening the nation from its dependence on dirty, destructive energy: Because no good deed goes unchallenged.

Case in point: South Texas wind.

Developers can’t wait to bring Texas’ abundant wind assets onto the most greenhouse gas-prolific grid in the U.S. - and entrenched interests don’t want that to happen. How can entrenched interests stop such a good thing from going forward in such urgent times?

Simple. By asking the right questions and refusing to be satisfied by the right answers.

South Texas journalist Fanny Chirinos did some terrific reporting on a story NewEnergyNews has also been watching. (See …THE CHALLENGES OF SUCCESS and RANGE WAR OVER TEXAS WIND HEATS UP and TEXAS WIND COWBOYS FACE TEXAS JUSTICE)

New Energy developers Babcock and Brown and PPM Energy are building almost 500 megawatts of wind power along the Gulf Coast on the Kenedy Ranch. The surrounding King Ranch, rich in oil and cattle wealth, objects. Speculation is rampant as to why.

Environmentalists largely funded by the King Ranch are fighting the installations every way they can, especially with the best environmental impact studies they can buy.

The developers have worked with a variety of public and nonprofit agencies on equally authoritative environmental impact studies of their own.

Extensive academic and neutral agency studies were reinterpreted by opponents of the installations, turning pro-wind findings into something else. (click to enlarge)

The Manichean impulse to identify “good guys” and “bad guys” is nowhere stronger than in Texas yet Chirinos does an admirable job of summarizing “just the facts” and leaving the reader with no better way to describe the arguments than as pro-wind and anti-wind.

Here is a “logline” version of Chirinos’ superb digging:

1. Tax Breaks: The King Ranch and its allies contend the bulk of the funding for the wind installations is government subsidies. The energy producers reply that the only subsidies available to wind, production tax credits, come only when the installations go online and begin producing.

Chirinos: “A recent report from the federal Government Accountability Office concluded that fossil-fuel and nuclear generation receive the lion’s share of federal tax incentives, research and development funding and other forms of support while wind power receives relatively little. “

2. Birds: Texas public agency and university environmental studies, commissioned by the energy companies, show millions of birds can be expected to pass near the turbines but are inconclusive about the harm the anti-wind environmentalists claim they show. The energy companies, much more familiar with the studies they paid for than their opponents, made changes to the wind farms where the studies indicated changes were necessary and find in the studies' conclusions justification for proceeding with the projects.

Chirinos: “The authors of the PPM report stated that they knew of no mass bird kill event at any modern wind farm in North America.”

3. Fallout: Opponents say there is no way to stop the turbines under threatening conditions while the builders explain there are shutdown controls both at the sites and in central offices.

4. Water/Land: Claims of harm to the wetlands are countered by explanations that all development was planned and executed to prevent any damage to wetlands.

Chirinos: “No road was cut through a wetland area…”

5. Turbines, Removal of turbines: Complaints that turbine installation will permanently ruin the grounds are countered by the energy companies with acknowledgement there must and will be construction on small sections of the huge empty regions. If/when - after their 40-years of expected service - the turbines must be removed, all damage to the ground will be completely reversed and the area will be restored.

Chirinos: “...restoration includes removing all turbines, foundations and equipment, and restoring the land to original condition.”

6. Aesthetics: Turbine noise can be harmful if people live or work for long periods of time too near them but the placement of these wind farms is not near people.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but the turbines are placed to be nearly imperceptible to and unnoticed by the general public.

Chirinos: “Many people see turbines as beautiful and represent a better future… No one on public land will be able to hear these turbines.

NewEnergyNews: A poll on the relative aesthetic appeal of coal mines and wind installations would not be a close contest.

7. Permanent jobs and taxes: Opponents contend the installations will not create many permanent jobs or increase the local tax base significantly. The PPM project is expected to create 200 construction jobs, 10 permanent jobs (that didn’t exist before) and millions in tax revenues where there presently are virtually none. The Brown and Babcock project will create 15 to 20 new permanent jobs in a region with a population of 400. It will also generate millions in property and other taxes.

Who’s telling the truth?

In the early days of the oil industry, the wildcatters didn’t have the science to be sure if a drilling site would produce a gusher or a dry hole. They used to say the only one who knew for sure was Dr. Drill; in this case, it’s Professor Turbine.

Considering the nation’s urgent need for New Energy and all the effort the wind producers here have put in to prove their case, isn’t it about time to find out what the Professor has to say?

Corpus Christi Caller-Times editorial: “… remember that Texas is the heaviest polluter of any of the states…Wind power offers a way to move power generation away from fuels that have the potential to alter the climate, degrade human health and harm the environment. The United States ought to be exploring alternate sources of power generation, wind, yes, but also thermal, solar, wave power and tidal flows. The present sources, such as oil, coal and natural gas, we now know have a heavy price on the earth.”

Through the looking glass: Texas oil interests are accusing wind interests of environmental violations. (click to enlarge)

Low emissions, but critics claim other environmental concerns
Fanny S. Chirinos, April 20, 2008 (Corpus Christi Caller-Times)
and
South Texas wind farms are worth exploring
Editorial, March 30, 2008 (Corpus Christi Caller-Times)
and
Are we turning away from wind power?
John M. Crisp, April 10, 2008 (Corpus Christi Caller-Times)

WHO
- Developers: American Shoreline and Eviva Spinnaker, Brown & Babcock, PPM Energy
- Pro-wind in the showdown: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute at Texas A&M University-Kingsville, John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation, John G. Kenedy Jr. Charitable Trust
- Anti-wind: Coastal Habitat Alliance (Jim Blackburn, environmental lawyer/founder), including National Wind Watch, Inc. (Eric Rosenbloom, president), American Bird Conservancy, the Coastal Bend Audubon Society, the Lower Laguna Madre Foundation and the King Ranch (Jack Hunt, CEO)

WHAT
Texas Gulf Coast wind energy installations

The wind industry has set up a separate, neutral institute to do the right thing by the environment. (click to enlarge)

WHEN
- 2004: Planning and site studies began on the Gulf Wind Farm (Babcock and Brown)
- 2004: Planning and site studies began on the Penascal Wind Farm (PPM Energy)
- 2008: Hebbronville project in planning.

WHERE
- Gulf Wind Farm (Babcock and Brown): 300 surface acres of John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation King Ranch property
- Penascal Wind Farm (PPM Energy): 200 surface acres of John G. Kenedy Jr. Charitable Trust King Ranch property
- Proposed Hebbronville installation: 35,000 acres in Jim Hogg, Webb and Zapata counties east of Laredo.

(Copyright Corpus Christi Caller-Times. Used with permission. Click to enlarge)

WHY
- Gulf Wind Farm (Babcock and Brown): $700 million cost, 118 turbines, 283.2 megawatts.
- Penascal Wind Farm (PPM Energy): $440 cost, 84 turbines, 201.6 megawatts.
- Proposed Hebbronville installations: 2 wind farms, estimated $2 billion dollar cost, 400 turbines, 800 megawatts

Siting is crucial to the wind industry. If these companies say they are playing by the rules, it is likely they are. (click to enlarge)

QUOTES
- Corpus Christi Caller-Times editorial: “Their objections are many -- they have filed and lost several lawsuits -- but their focus is mainly environmental…Their most persuasive argument is that wind farms do not face the kind of permitting process that other generating plants do, the sort that would assure the public that the environment and communities would be protected…That is true, but that is an argument to make to the Legislature or to Congress, not one to stop these two projects that have met the requirements as they stand now…”
- Crisp: “Why do wind farms generate such spirited opposition? Some people complain that the turbines are an ugly blight on the landscape…this is a peculiar objection in light of the highly visible energy infrastructure that already surrounds us in the form of power poles and wires, electrical substations and, in places like Texas, the massive industrial structures of oil and gas platforms and refineries…Compared to a drilling rig or oil pump, a gently revolving wind turbine is a thing of beauty…”
- Crisp: “The history of civilization is the story of our subjugation of the natural world and its energy sources. We're used to taking what we want and using it as we choose...The wind, however, blows on its own terms…the exploitation of wind power also implies the end of the era of thoughtless consumption of seemingly infinite energy supplies…using the natural world on its terms may be harder than subjugating it.”