It’s not good news, but it represents an all-too-human failing, one we call NIMBYism (not-in-my-backyard). Even if a project is beneficial, offering jobs and clean energy, some people don’t want it becoming part of the view out their windows.

A step up from that is those individuals and groups who oppose projects on other grounds, chief among them that the project will hamper, alter or even destroy some landmark, life form or entire ecosystem.

This latter is true of the Calico solar thermal power plant project, but to an even greater extent. There, the problem approaches desecration, as an entire Native American tribe attempts to protect ancestral ground.

The result: Stirling Energy and Tessera Solar have abandoned the Calico project, with the former company facing executive decampment, the latter staff layoffs, and both feeling the impact of Southern California Edison canceling the power purchase agreement.

The whole Calico-down-the-tubes thing was likely precipitated by a judge’s ruling in favor of the 3,500-member Quechan tribe, which insists that the U.S. Department of the Interior (Bureau of Land Management) did not conduct an appropriate review of the project’s potential for destroying cultural artifacts. No one has mentioned grave sites, but I suppose it’s impossible to rule that out.

Rumor suggests that First Solar or NRG might step in to rescue the situation by changing solar thermal to solar photovoltaic, perhaps, but we at CalFinder liker to think we know a jinx when we see one.

It isn’t even about solar thermal hitting some downside, as witness BrightSource’s progress at Ivanpah. More like, we can move desert tortoises, fringe-toed lizards – we can even move foxtail cacti and human beings – but perhaps we shouldn’t try to move chindi (which are, in Navajo tradition, the ghosts left behind when we bury our loved ones).

Some things really are sacred.

Related posts:

• Controversial Solar Plant Finds New Owner, But Will It Find New Life?
• Native Americans Turn to the Sun (Solar Energy, That Is)
• California Tosses Out Solar Power Plant Lawsuit
• New Boiler Turns Prunings Into Power
• Sacred Power: Growing Jobs and Nurturing Communities

In Colorado, hedge fund billionaire Louis Moore Bacon is fighting a new transmission line proposed by two utilities: shareholder-owned Xcel Energy, and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, a wholesale electricity supplier.

Bacon, the founder of Moore Capital Management LLC and owner of the 171,400-acre Trinchera ranch in south central Colorado, across which the power line will march, is apparently one of the great NIMBYists, standing head and shoulders alongside the likes of now-deceased former Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, who did more than his part to block the Cape Wind farm because it blocked his view from the Kennedy Compound along Nantucket Sound.

Bacon calls his ranch a “state and national treasure,” but in fact it is his treasure, containing Colorado’s third highest mountain peak (Mount Blanca) and enough wilderness to house a herd of buffalo.

Xcel and Tri-State reportedly want the 140-mile transmission line because it enables delivery of renewables (like solar and wind) to far-flung portions of the state. Both utilities, and some of the ranchers and farmers in San Luis Valley, see the project as ensuring the reliability of the Valley’s electricity supply. County commissioners, in Alamosa, Saguache and Rio Grande counties, see an additional benefit: the project will nudge the area’s economic development.

Robert Kennedy Jr. – this one former President JFK’s nephew and an environmentalist in his own right – is apparently in Bacon’s camp when it comes to fighting the power line. Bacon himself is fighting it by demanding a more stringent environmental impact review, or EIR. He is supported by “Solar Working Group,” which wants lawmakers to explore alternative power line routes, and Bacon’s own $100,000 investment (to Denver PR firm, GBSM) is likely to insure that happens.

Still, the question remains, can Bacon win? Or should he? Most don’t, against powerhouse utilities like Xcel. But then again, Xcel has never gone up against someone as rich or clever as Bacon. And if the line really will support clean, renewable solar energy delivery from the Valley (reportedly the best place in Colorado for solar), why shouldn’t it run where it’s most needed?

Let us know what you think.

Related posts:

• Harvesting the Wind
• Solyndra Aside, Solar Power in California Ramps Up
• Sometimes it Takes a Community to Harness the Sun’s Power
• What’s Denver Doing on the EV Ready List?
• Small Hydropower Dams on Rise As Concerns Grow About Big Projects

With all the hoopla going around for and against wind farms going up all over the US, including here on the Great Lakes and off of Nantucket Sound, I feel it is important to weigh in with a little fact checking on “not-in-my-backyard” (NIMBY) claims. After reading all the comments that are inevitably posted to every article involving the wind industry, I feel it is important to quash all the falsehoods associated with wind power.

I’ll start by saying that I am first and foremost pro-environment before anything else. If “evidence” is ever found during an environmental impact study that a wind farm will harm the local ecosystem, I will be the first in line to oppose it’s construction. Now let’s see some comments from these related links.

First let’s start with the argument that “wind turbines do not produce enough electricity to be a viable investment.” If this was true, then even with government subsidies, wind farm developers would go bankrupt soon. Instead wind farms are a 30 year success story in the US alone. My favorite success story is of farmers in Minnesota and their community owned wind crop.

“Wind turbines kill a lot of birds.” This is also not true. With new asynchronous turbine generator technology, wind turbines spin at about 12 rotations per minute. Birds have better eyesight than humans and we can see them just fine. A friend of mine who works on a wind farm in Oregon says he sees more birds fly into the window at the visitors center than he does into wind turbine blades. Other technologies are also being implemented to ensure the safety of birds such as radar devices that detect incoming bird flocks that shut down the turbines if they are on a collision course.

“Offshore wind turbines are an eyesore and will drive away tourism.” Why is it that a sailboat on the horizon is beautiful, but a wind turbine is not? Every time I drive by a wind farm with someone, both of us are breaking our necks to look at them, including people that are opponents to wind turbines. I think this is one of those things that will die off as the turbines go up. There is evidence in Europe that suggests wind turbines help with tourism and actually drive more revenue due to boat tours and other related tours. It was the same for the Transamerica Pyramid building in San Francisco and the Sears Tower in Chicago. People said it would be an eyesore and now they are landmarks of innovation in their respective cities. Change is something that is slow and difficult to embrace.

“Offshore wind farms will disrupt the underwater ecosystem.” A recent article in Field and Stream magazine mentioned that universities and coral reef restoration organizations agree that the best way to regrow coral reef is on concrete structures. Moreover, there are studies being done in fresh water lakes to see if there is any impact to the fishing industry or underwater ecosystems. So far no evidence.

“We need to stop letting foreign countries invest in our communities.” This one is simple, American investment firms… here is your wake up call. Start investing in our community owned wind projects and this issue is solved.

“Wind turbines are loud.” I live about 200 yards from a freeway and it is two times louder that an entire wind farm. Go visit a wind farm then tell me they are loud.

“Wind turbines will never replace fossil fuels.” No one actually believes we will replace fossil fuels with wind turbines in the foreseeable future. The addition of more wind turbines may prevent the need for additional fossil fuel power plants. Every kilowatt hour of clean electricity produced is CO2 that is not dumped into the air we breath. Each wind turbine is considered carbon neutral after approximately seven months of operation, offsetting its own carbon emissions from manufacturing, shipping, and construction. However, there have been studies (admittedly inconclusive by the researcher at MIT) that wind turbines may affect the climate by slowing down the wind and through the friction caused by the wind hitting the blades.

“Shadow flicker from turbine blades is known to cause headaches and other related illness.” This is occasionally raised as an issue by close neighbors of wind farm projects. A wind turbine’s moving blades can cast a moving shadow on a nearby residence, depending on the time of the year (which determines how low the sun is in the sky) and time of day. It is possible to calculate very precisely whether a flickering shadow will in fact fall on a given location near a wind farm, and how many hours in a year it will do so. Therefore, it should be easy to determine whether this is a potential problem.

Many of the common myths behind nimby arguments have been demystified above. While much of the information used was provided by wind technicians in the field, the American Wind Energy Association, and other renewable energy sites, those of you who may have updated information are encouraged to comment and add their reference.

photos: Jessica Hoffmann, alancleaver 2000

Related posts:

• Debunking Energy Myths, Part II
• Debunking Energy Myths
• Small Scale Wind Power: It’s Beautiful, But Not Everyone is Convinced
• London Skyscraper to Set Record with Built-In Wind Turbines
• Successful Cleantech Business Plans

This article by Susan Kraemer, appearing courtesy of Celsias, was originally posted on CleanTechnica.

An amazingly high percentage of people who live down the Mid-Atlantic Seaboard from New York to Virginia want wind turbines off their coast.

Even if they can be seen from the shoreline, 67 percent support off-shore wind power, according to a new  poll of coastal residents of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia .

If the turbines are out of sight, the level of support goes up to an astounding 82 percent.

A full 25 percent of the population of the US lives in the nine Atlantic states from Massachusetts to North Carolina. The potential is staggering.  So it is very fortunate that so many people in the middle of part of the region with such great potential for wind power feel this way.

Off-shore wind power off the Atlantic could take one third of the US population off the fossil grid.

The off-shore energy potential down all nine Atlantic states is a colossal 330 gigawatts. That is almost twice the total amount the nine states use: 185 gigawatts. The job would take over 160,000 5 MW turbines spaced about a mile apart down the coast. This would be an energy superhighway.

NIMBYism has been the impediment for development of off-shore wind power off the East Coast. This poll certainly had surprising findings, for the middle five of this nine-state wind powerhouse.

Most of the residents polled in the five middle states lived within a block or so of the ocean, three quarters of them are homeowners; about 15 percent with waterfront property. A third of the people are 60 or older.

Fully 90 percent of these coastal dwellers really get out and enjoy beach activities, swimming, walking, crabbing and clamming and they put a higher priority on protecting the coastal environment (76%) than improving the economy (69%), lowering taxes (65%), improving education (64%), or controlling growth (56%)

In March 2009, the governors of the five states in the middle of this wind energy goldmine had initiated an effort to develop an interstate agreement on ocean and coastal management for the Mid-Atlantic region. While NOAA funded a grant for the Urban Coast Institute and Polling Institute at Monmouth University to do the poll, coincidentally, the governors of the five states would need to know if there was any agreement on coastal development.

The Department of the Interior is developing a Comprehensive Energy Plan on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. There is a surprising level of agreement among coastal residents in the five states about what the government should do on a range of issues of interest to coastal dwellers.

While the poll questions covered many coastal issues, what jumped out at me was that these residents really agree on wind power off the Atlantic Seaboard.

[photo credit: Flickr]

Related posts:

• Offshore Wind Projects Moving Forward Along U.S. East Coast
• Offshore Wind Turbines Could Cost 30% Less
• U.S. Offshore Wind Could Provide 20 Percent of Electricity by 2030
• Google Catches the Breeze
• New Obama Administration Rule Paves Way for Offshore Wind Power

Imperial County, tucked away in the southeastern corner of California, has long suffered from perennial unemployment rates exceeding 20 percent.

Yet Imperial County is also home to the “crown jewel” of all geothermal steam resources in the U.S., making it a prime spot to showcase how renewable energy can help spur the new green economy so enthusiastically touted by the Obama Administration.

Late December, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved the construction of the $1.9 billion Sunrise PowerLink transmission line, which could send clean electricity from Imperial County to San Diego. However, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) petitioned the California Supreme Court last January to review this decision, citing San Diego Gas & Electric’s (SDG&E) refusal to guarantee that the transmission project would be reserved exclusively for renewable energy resources.

Given that SDG&E is lagging far behind in meeting state mandates to boost renewable energy supplies, the utility’s reluctance to commit itself to renewables was puzzling. Critics fear that SDG&E and its parent Sempra might have perverse motives. Among them: importing dirty power from Baja California, where Sempra co-owns a Liquefied National Gas (LNG) terminal.

Are Enviros Part of the Problem?

When talking about the big picture, environmentalists have always been strong advocates for displacing fossil fuels with renewable energy options. But they often emerge as key adversaries when specific projects are proposed near their favorite parks or other preserved habitats. In this case, they contend the Sunrise transmission line would damage precious habitat and endangered species as it traverses the Cleveland National Forest.

Being a long time environmentalist myself, I can appreciate why many environmentalists might reflexively oppose new transmission lines, even if they connect to renewable energy facilities. But I am also concerned about global climate change and the current economic crisis.

CBD has proposed to invest the $1.9 billion in ratepayer funds to install new solar photovoltaic (PV) systems in San Diego itself, obviating the need to build the Sunrise transmission line at all. Since solar PV installations generate more jobs per dollars invested than any other renewable energy source, that might not seem like a bad idea. But solar PV is also the most expensive of all current supply choices, and PV systems only produce power for 5 to 7 hours per day.

It’s All Good – Geothermal and Solar Power

The result of volcanic activity that traps hot liquids below the earth’s surface, geothermal energy’s main advantage over solar PV is that it can provide round-the-clock electricity that can directly displace that from dirty coal or natural gas power plants. Since geothermal costs less than a third of the cost of solar PV, ratepayers would be getting a better deal with development of geothermal resources in Imperial County rather than with rooftop solar PV in San Diego. As many as 20,000 jobs in Imperial County alone hang in the balance.

The key to making a green economy work is diversity: diversity of renewable supply, diversity in the workforce, and diversity of regions tapped to deliver clean energy. A host of studies all project that California would rank No. 1 in the country in the creation of jobs under a federal program to respond to climate change by expanding reliance upon renewable energy.

But lately, bureaucratic complexity, foot-dragging utilities and the NIMBY syndrome have given California a black eye. Not only did we lose our national lead on wind power to Texas in 2006, but Iowa passed us last year.

Microgrids: The Ultimate Solution?

Ultimately, our power delivery system needs to shift to the local level. A key concept is the “microgrid,” mini-islands of power fueled by distributed solar, wind and Combined Heat & Power (CHP) plants. There are some who say that transmission lines should be our least priority, and in many ways, I side with that argument. I recently spoke with a former San Diego Gas & Electric renewables expert who jumped ship to a new firm focused on microgrids. He argues that microgrids, which can pool smaller distributed resources into a bundle that can be “islanded” during times of grid outages, is a hedging strategy to move forward with renewables while waiting and seeing if any of the proposed transmission lines on the drawing boards ever get built.

While I think the microgrid will be the wave of the future – since they allow us to rely on our own solar PV, small wind turbines, fuel cells and CHP units when the larger grid goes down – this model faces its own resistance from utilities. At present, there is no coherent strategy or program to foster this sort of innovation at the distribution level.

Pushing Forward On All Fronts

The challenges facing us on the energy front are so grave, I think we need to push forward with all options, since politics, economics and unforeseen circumstances tend to derail even the best intentions.

If transmission lines similar to the Sunrise PowerLink are not built soon, California will never meet its global climate change goals or deliver on the promise of green jobs. The CBD lawsuit could put Sunrise on hold for years to come. But it also serves as a reminder that the only way to get buy-in from environmentalists for new transmission lines is to guarantee that these ratepayer investments serve the green economy, and not the vested interests of utilities perhaps looking to line their own pockets.

[photo credit: Flickr]

Related posts:

• Transmission Upgrades in LA Take Five Years…
• How Many Jobs are Truly Created in a “Green Economy?”
• War Against Climate Change: There Will Be Some Collateral Damage
• Will U.S. Utilities Develop Microgrid Models for the Developing World?
• US-Canadian HVDC Transmission