Environmental groups back wind farm
A coalition of environmental groups opposed to Dominion Resources Inc.'s coal-fired power plant in Wise County said they support the utility company's proposal for a wind farm in the county.
Richmond-based Dominion and BP Wind Energy are considering building wind energy projects in Wise and Tazewell counties in Southwest Virginia.
"We're often criticized as being opposed to everything," said Glen Besa with the Sierra Club's Virginia Chapter, "and we wanted to make it clear that we are in favor of clean energy projects."
Appalachian Voices, Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, the Sierra Club, the Southern Environmental Law Center and The Clinch Coalition joined in backing the Mill Creek wind project in Wise.
Four of the groups -- Appalachian Voices, Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network and the Sierra Club-- are opposing Dominion's Virginia City coal plant in court.
Although the coal power plant is under construction, a challenge to the facility's air permit is set for trial in July.
"We appreciate the support we're receiving for our proposed wind-energy project in Wise County," said Dominion spokesman Ryan Frazier.
"The support has been broad, coming from the environmental community, the coal industry, and county citizens and elected officials," Frazier said. "BP Wind Energy and Dominion believe Mill Creek would be a great asset to the county and the region."
The environmental groups did not take a position on the Tazewell proposal. "We haven't had a chance to review it in as much detail," Besa said, noting that each such project is unique in its impacts.
Though Dominion has said the size of the projects has not been determined, the environmental coalition said the proposed Wise County wind plant could generate as much as 150 megawatts of electricity.
Contact Peter Bacqué at (804) 649-6813 or
.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Dave,
Saying let’s not use what we have now because we don’t have a backup plan is lunacy. We have enough oil and coal to carry America almost to 2100. Both parties know this is true. We could also go further north and get even more. The answer to nuclear waste is to bury it. From the Earth it came and to the Earth it should return. Remember, we are mining radioactive substances from the Earth. These are naturally radioactive! They are radiating whether we mine them or not. It is no different than using the wind or a river. The energy is there for our taking, we should take it. So, I don’t follow the logic of let’s leave it in the Earth because we don’t want to return it to the Earth. When we return it to the Earth, it is “spent”. It is in the same form it was naturally progressing toward. It takes Uranium a long, long time to get to Lead. We have the knowledge to harness this energy. Compared to almost every other kind of energy, it is clean. The freaking Socialists in Europe have more nuclear power than we do in the USA. They couldn’t care less what anyone thinks about it. We need to go nuclear more than ever and we have so much ignorance in this country that it is an absolute shame…and a President who is happy that the populace is ignorant about it.
And while you’re at it, Dave, leave your pointless partisan comments out of the discussion ... speaking of incapable of thinking for oneself .....
Dave: The nuclear materials were buried in the earth for billions of years before we came along and figured out how to make the energy do something useful. Would you rather that the countless tons of nuclear waste we *already* have remain on the surface where that can’t be perfectly safeguarded against accidents or terrorists? We already *have* a perfectly good site for burying the waste, if the phobic environmentalists would let us. For now we have to keep it scattered at thousands of sites - power plants, universities, laboratories, and hospitals - that are harder to secure. If the words “nuclear” or radioactive frighten you, you might want to know that the carbon and potassium in food are naturally radioactive, so you’d best stop eating.
The comments on here really baffle me. Wind farms destroy the landscape of SW VA? What about the mountain-top removal that coal has done??? I guess that is picturesque???? I will take wind turbines any day. Proponents of nuclear…if it is so clean, please tell me what you propose doing with all of the nuclear waste? Don’t say bury it - that’s not a good answer. And to the person who says that coal may be bad, but “it keeps me warm in the winter, cool in the summer, etc.“ That’s great. And what’s going to keep you warm in the winter and cool in the summer when coal runs out! And what about your kids and their kids? Typical Republican viewpoint - just think about today and have no plan for the future. You say we should have let the banks fail, I guess then we should let you freeze when you have nothing to heat your house because you didn’t have a backup plan. I’m glad at least Obama has a brain since you have demonstrated that some people in the US are incapable of thinking for themselves.
Do anyone know much more precious land has to be disturbed to build wind power farms then it does to build one simple coal fired plant?
If the Sierra Club was an environmental organization like they claim (they are really a political action group under the guise of caring for the planet) they would be the first to oppose the destruction of the vast acreage necessary to produce this form of inefficient energy.
I’m an environmental scientist, and an avid outdoorsman. I can assure you that I’m as much of a good steward of the land as you can find. That said, these wind farms are extremely inefficient, and impractical.
I would hate to see windmills sprouting from the landscape in South West Virginia, where the unspoiled landscapes and majestic views are their greatest assets.
The commmon sense approach would be to go nuclear!!!!!!
The experience in the EU for wind farms is that average output is 25-30% of capacity due to vagaries of the weather and to maintenance issues. A 150 MW capacity translated to 35-45 MW average output. Also wind is erratic, so there must be provisions for storing peak output for delivery at times of diminished output. Coal, gas, and oil plants are far more reliable and steady. If CO2 scares you, go nuclear.
Wind energy is fine as supplemental energy, but useless as a long term solution. Build the coal plant and propose a freaking nuclear plant. It isn’t rocket science. Nuclear is the cleanest energy source we can have.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement