can't we ever do anything without killing species?

This is the ugly, dirty secret of the powerful prop-turbine wind industry. It’s the sorry story that you won’t see on the ‘feel-good’ TV commercials or read about in industry-sponsored ads and skewed ‘research’ papers.

The employees at wind farms have been instructed to not talk about the staggering numbers of dismembered bodies accumulating at the bases of these turbines.

There is big money invested here, and big profits. When people have large investments they do what they need to in order to justify and protect that investment.

Even if it’s wrong.

“The towers in these images are Prop Turbines and when the wind is blowing, their blade tips spin at over 200 miles per hour,” explains Jim Wiegand, graduate Berkley University in California, where wind farms are being built with terrifying speed. “If you were an Eagle or an Owl hunting for a meal or any bird trying to fly over the hill, imagine having to navigate these spinning blades every day. This is just one of hundreds of Wind farms planned for America. It has been running for over 25 years. During that time over 30,000 birds of prey have died trying to fly through this gauntlet of spinning blades. Some estimate the mortality higher at 40,000. Over 1000 of these fatalities have been Golden Eagles“

Bear in mind that wildlife is not killed only by the spinning blades. High tension power lines, new access roads, habitat destroyed by construction of the farms and increased human presence all combine to transform what is touted as an ‘ecologically friendly’ new energy technology into the biggest deception ever perpetrated upon the public.

As is the case so often with powerful political/business lobbies (think tobacco industry), they have the money and influence to buy allies to perpetuate their party line.

The list of slaughtered species includes eagles, kites, hawks, cranes, bats, ducks, swifts, swans, geese, gulls, bustards, vultures, owls, grouse and more. Bear in mind reported losses don’t include carcasses claimed by scavenging animals before being recorded, nor bodies either too small or too mangled to be recognizable or even to leave enough remains to be found at all.

Don’t think for a moment that this is a problem restricted to the United States. There is a rising international outcry against these ugly, noisy eyesores that are spreading like cancers across fragile habitats and scenic open spaces around the globe. They’re not just endangering wildlife; they’re also destroying tourism, lowering property values and the quality of life for nearby residents.

I implore readers to click on and actually read the links I’ve provided. The statistics are truly alarming.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3836&linkbox=true

More of the same, people who most count in bc left out

Another great article by the Tyee and Wilf McMartin.

Just goes to show are bc politicians are bad negotiators and do not know the value of natural resources.

Sell everything off like a dope addict looking for a fix for him and his friends.

When are you gonna sell icbc??

You stole the contingency fund gordo. Sell it, maybe we can get some better competitive insurance like ontario and rest of the free world.

People of BC when you do not vote you get the gov you deserve.

Wake up or you will be more broken by 2013 than you care to think about.

Once its gone its all gone.

Great Article

Thanks again, Will. Hey, wasn't GE Capital teamed up with George Soros at some point in a venture called Global Power Investments, to invest in emerging private power markets? This was way back in the 1990's... I wonder if Soros is still involved.

Finivera and GE

This author compares revenues with capital investment and concludes its a gold mine. He would fail economics 101. From revenues you have to deduct operating and maintenance costs, fees, taxes, debt service, etc to get an idea of payout or return on investment. If these are such gold mines, why do so many IPPs of all types fail in development? This long litany about Finavera's trials is meaningless - it is typical of new developers of many things including real estate and inventions.

Power Purchase Agreements

Reading over the wording of these lucrative PPA's I am left wondering if there is anything that can be done about them by future Governments?

Is it possible that BC Hydro goes to a purchase scale of market price, instead of the overly inflated current price Gordo's paid supporters are now negotiating at the expense of ratepayers?

Could the IPP contracts be torn up in 2014?

Raif, couple questions you may be able to answer.

Could the IPP contracts be torn up in 2014?

Of course! But the government that tears them up will have to have the "intestinal fortitude" to stave off the inevitable legal assaults.

An Idiotic Waste of Money

So we have here over $800M (before cost overruns), for four Windfarms that will provide total 800 GWh annually. That's an average output of 91 MW. And typically these power estimates are on the high side, and ignore Wind Turbine maintenance downtime.

So that's at least $8800 per kw. With access roads, expensive long distance transmission lines, land entitlements and the ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY backup power paid for by the BC Taxpayer. Transmission lines alone will likely push that up over $10k per kw.

When Wind is low, as it usually is, expensive Hydro resources will have to be used to replace the lost Wind Power. These resources could otherwise supply high priced peak power. A major cost to the taxpayer. And in Spring when Wind & Hydro is highest, the surplus Wind Energy will result in Hydro Power thrown away, down the spillway, making the Wind Energy essentially worthless at those times. Add all these costs together and you are certainly going to be paying well over $12k per kw of delivered power.

At $100 million for 800 GWh annually, that's an additional cost of 12.5 cents per kwh, for BC Taxpayers. Plus the cost of backup Hydro and long distance Transmission lines & maintenance of all the above paid by BC taxpayers.

With low environmental impact Nuclear coming in at $1k to $5k per kw. Factory produced Nuclear, certainly under $2k per kw. With power costs of 2 to 5 cents per kwh. This Wind Energy is a stupid waste of money. And a tragic, worthless blight on the beautiful BC wilderness.

Seabreeze Power Corp

Check their website out. They also received a contract from B.C. Hydro for their Knob Hill windfarm on Vancouver Island. This is supossedly a Canadian company but the whole board of directors live in California! Sea Breeze has the windfarm on the northern end of the island and on the southern end, they, and another American company, Boundless Energy are building the Juan de Fuca Cable Project. This is the 550 megawatt line from Victoria to Port Angeles, Washington. If you look at all the comments from the governors, senators,and politicians in the U.S. all this power is strictly for their market. I have always read that Vancouver Island was short of power. Seabreeze is basically another company being used to import power from B.C. to the U.S.

The General Electric superfraud: Why the Hudson River will never

Check this report about General Electric. It appears they don't care about the environment, just money

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/12/0082753

Opps, it's closed

Opps, it's closed unless you subscribe. Here are the closing paragraphs.
PCBs have been a grave concern at Allendale for years due to positive test results in the gym and the schoolyard. The EPA repeatedly pledged that Hill 78 was a priority for cleanup, but when they settled on a remedy in 2000, it was clear the agency’s negotiations with GE had taken a turn. Hill 78’s toxic hoard wouldn’t be exhumed; it would be expanded.
“We were sick to our stomachs,” Gray recalled. “The risk assessments say kids growing up along the river have a much greater chance of getting cancer and non-cancer affects, and we’re gonna haul all the PCBs out of the river and we’re gonna put ’em on top of Hill 78? Excuse me? Fifty feet from Allendale?” The EPA sought to placate critics by announcing that the really problematic stuff would be housed in a brand-new toxic-waste repository, which also abutted Allendale Elementary.
“There’s a state law that says you can’t build a solid-waste dump within 1,000 feet of a school,” said Gray, still incredulous. “But you can build a toxic dump there? To us it was the biggest thing EPA gave up at the table. Why are they letting GE get away with this?”

The process by which a perfectly valid question is reduced to a rhetorical one has played out across the country in forgotten places still paying the toll levied by progress, towns that persist as emblems of industry’s missteps and noxious byproducts. The Hudson cleanup is itself furthering the creation of another such place in Andrews County, Texas, where the river’s dried sediments are being shipped by rail to a landfill that already houses nuclear waste. Environmentalists worry that the dump is dangerously near the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the world’s largest, which stretches all the way to South Dakota and supplies 30 percent of the groundwater used for irrigation in this country. GE and the EPA dismiss those concerns. The local Sierra Club’s objections to the plan are duly noted. But the county residents are, by all accounts, grateful for the employment opportunities and tax revenue the landfill provides.
In Pittsfield the grassroots forces pushed hard, demanding that regulators act to protect the public and the environment. For want of political will, the EPA allowed GE not only to leave its poisonous legacy intact but to build a monument to it at Allendale Elementary. Thirty miles to the west, well-placed interests called for a cleanup of the Hudson and fared little better, embracing a solution unworthy of the name that gives false comfort to the public while ignoring the mother lode of Pyranol still oozing out of the bedrock.
The river that once stood for a New World and a fledgling republic founded on freedom’s premise stands for us still. Although we’ve changed, the Hudson’s capacity to reflect our likeness remains, and in this mirror our corruption, greed, and ignorance are plainly visible."

Fumes

This stinks! Something is definitely rotten in the state of British Columbia and it somes from the Premier's office.

Big Renewables or Big Fossil?

Despite the headline and hyperbole in this story, GE is actually a very tiny player in BC's gigantic private power industry.

80% of the total energy produced in BC is fossil fuels extracted by dirty IPPs. We are talking Big Oil, Big Gas and Big Coal. There is definitely a "BC Private Power Gold Rush" -- black gold.

Conversely, ONLY 1% of BC total power production is private renewables. GE is definitely a growing player in this weenie 1% of BC's power production industry.

The article is correct that GE is usually listed in the top 10 corporations in the world. What it leaves out is that most of the rest of the top 10 are Big Fossil.

Here are the Forbes top 7 by PROFIT:

1: ExxonMobil
2: Gazprom
3: Royal Dutch Shell
4: Chevron
5: BP
6: PetroChina
7: GE

Hmmm, which am I more freaked out about:

-- Big Fossil that totally dominates BC power landscape and who's products are driving the planet's ecosystems into collapse from climate shocks?

OR

-- Big Renewable that make up a tiny part of BC power landscape and who's products can be used to fuel switch our dirty petro-society to?

Can we take a short break from relentless attacks on Big Renewables and have finally have a few Tyee articles about the real threat to BC society and ecosystems -- Big Fossil? How much longer is the Tyee going to try to pretend the Fossil Elephant isn't the dangerous beast in the room?

"Big Renewables"

That phrase sounds kinda nice, unfortunately rivers are not "renewable". You clear the forest, build your dams and voila, the fish are wiped out as is anything relying on their existence.

Sometimes, stonebreaker, you sound like a Run-of-River shill.

Yes, Big Oil is the problem

Frank, you make my point very nicely. Big Oil use is not declining fast enough in BC to meet our legal and moral requirement to cut all fossil fuel emissions by 90% per person.

Clearly the carbon tax isn't enough. What now?

Big Oil is by far the largest source of energy that BC society runs on. We import more Big Oil energy than all the clean energy that BC Hydro produces. How does BC break that dirty, dangerous and expensive habit in time to save our rivers?

I think we need some more non-fossil energy to switch some of our petro-society over too. We have over 100,000GWh of BigOil energy we need to walk away from soon.

As I said, if I have to choose between "Big Renewables" and "Big Oil", I'll happily choose renewable energy like public hydro projects...or even private hydro projects.

Perhaps you would like to explain how you think BC gets off Big Oil and Big Fossil without big new renewable projects?

Or maybe you want to just avoid the issue and keep calling me names of one kind or another. How about a discussion of the actual issue of how BC society gets off Big Fossil in time?

Sonebreaker

Big oil use is not declining fast enough? Is it declining at all? I heard our use of it grew. Is that right? The carbon tax is therefore a failure and has done nothing but increase taxation on lower incomes.

And unlike you if I had to choose between what you call "Big Renewables" (destroying rivers and habitat) or "Big Oil", I'll stay with Big Oil thank you. Oil hurts the environment less than loss of rivers.

You're the only person that thinks pouring cement into a river is better than burning gasoline.

Personally I think we'd be better off if we shut down the IPPs, kept our rivers in great shape and instead burned fossil fuels.

And with all that money we'd save by not subsidizing IPPs we could get rid of the carbon tax and other gas taxes and help the little guy in this province.

Big Oil and Big Renewables are partners

Stonebreaker, do you seriously believe Renewables will significantly effect our dependence on fossil fuels. Big Oil have been EXTRAVAGANT promoters of Renewable Energy, as part of their VERY SUCCESSFUL Bait-And-Switch campaign. They know damn well that money spent on Renewables is just precious capital thrown down the sewer and won't do zip to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

See the graph of the Renewable Energy Champion of the World, Germany's primary energy consumption:

http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DETPES.pdf

See the tiny little red line on top - that's Germany’s Solar & Wind, with ½ the World’s Solar PV installed, with Feed-in-tariffs of 60 cents per kwh for Solar and 20 cents per kwh for Wind, plus Power Transmission paid by the Public plus up to $300 million for 15 yrs of credit per project. Note that almost all electric power generation comes from the zero effort Nuclear, or GHG belching sources. So where is the big drop in Fossil Fuel Energy caused by a Rich Western Nation on a money-no-object Renewable Energy Binge? How are developing nations, where most fossil fuel growth is, going to do >10X better than Germany has done, as must be done?

See the graph of France's total primary energy consumption.

http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/FRTPES.pdf

See that big fat yellow line - that's green Nuclear Power. The result of France's mediocre effort on Nuclear. Note almost all Electricity from Nuclear, also Hydro, almost all Green Sources.

Result:

Germany's Carbon intensity = 601 gm CO2 per kwh

France's Carbon intensity = 83 gm CO2 per kwh

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/cI/page_335.shtml

James Lovelock, the world’s foremost environmentalist: "...Windfarms won't cut it at all," he said. "It's better than doing nothing, but i''s absurd, just gestures. Time is of the essence..."

http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/lovelock-wind-power.html

Peter Lang shows that the CO2 AVOIDANCE COSTS OF WIND, including necessary backup are $830 to $1149 per tonne CO2 avoided, vs Nuclear at $22 per tonne CO2 avoided, compared with a standard Black Coal Power plant:

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/lang-wind-power-co2-emissions.pdf

#1 Wind Energy country, Denmark has the highest power rates in Europe and produces the highest CO2 emissions of 881 gm CO2 per kwh of electricity, #2 Wind Power Germany produces 601 gm CO2 per kwh, while Nuclear France produces 83 gm CO2 per kwh.

Denmark is going to have to start PAYING other countries to take it's Wind Energy:

http://www.nordpoolspot.com/Market_Information/Exchange-information/No162009-Nord-Pool-Spot-implements-negative-price-floor-in-Elspot-from-October-2009-/

nuclear?

ok China is building nuclear plants for just over 2$ per Kwh. Site C is something like 10$ per Kwh? someone correct me on that. I am not worries about the dangers of nuclear power plants since the technology has vastly increased since the junk of the cold war. Had most countries not been scared of them the technology would have advanced further. The Cando reactors can even burn the spent fuel (waste) of the normal heavy water technology reactors. Nuclear really is the answer if we want to get off the Carbon diet in a serious way. Only problem is we have no idea what to do with the waste! We have no plan. The USA had a plan then scrapped it. I would be happy to go nuclear if we had a decent solution. Until then though I am not willing to build a nuclear infrastructure and leave the solution up to my kids. We've got enough short term thinking around with debt financing passing on the tax we are too scared to pay now onto our kids to add on " oh by the way not only do you have to pay the taxes I didn't want to pay (plus interest), you have to find a solution for what to do with the toxic waste from the energy I used. oh and I'll leave my pension vastly under funded so you can top up my pension when I'm retired."

Its all on the table for me folks I think we need to look at everything but we have to think things through long term! Energy isn't free each type has a different cost (capital, operational, environmental) Do we eat the costs of carbon? Do we eat the capital and environmental costs of hydro or do we pass on the toxic dilemma to our kids?

I am just nervous not knowing what to do with toxic waste. How much with that end up costing to store for hundreds of years? Maybe that ends up being more than our other options but without even having a plan we cant even guess the final costs and thus cannot do a proper cost analysis of nuclear.