As a follow-up to the recent article on the use of hydropower on our local rivers, Phil Coleman, Chair of the Allegheny Group’s Mining Committee writes:

Dear Website:
I am in favor of hydro electric production. Compared to coal burning it is clearly friendlier to the environment. However, I think we might offer a couple of caveats.

First, pumped storage is extremely energy inefficient. It has been a long time since I looked at any facts and figures, but I seem to recall that the energy produced amounts to less than two thirds of the energy required to pump the water uphill to begin with. Pumped storage is used to supply peak hour electricity. Generally, the electricity used to pump the water uphill comes from the cheapest available sources at off peak hours, in other words – coal fired power plants.

Second, producing hydro power heats the water and in some circumstances affects aquatic habitat. Apparently, new designs reduce this problem, but I don’t know enough about this to be sure.

Third, dams block migration of fish species. In the short term, this creates problems for species like salmon that migrate in order to reproduce. In the long term, it affects species adaptation and evolution.

It seems to me that we should limit our enthusiasm for hydro power to implementation on existing dams and we should continue our concern about (if not opposition to) any new dam construction.

There is an advantage in small hydro power installations. They can take advantage of the efficiency of mass production of generation components. Large hydro power installations almost always use one of a kind construction of the equipment. And this is expensive and energy intensive. Properly constructed, power generators combined with existing locks and dams on the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio would seem to make sense.

See some photos of wind turbines.

From Sue Nunn, Edinboro PA. September 10, 2009
Wind turbines are not the solution to living more lightly on the earth. The wind industry says that they need 60 acres per megawatt. Have you ever been to a rural area with dozens of 400 ft turbines? They totally take over the landscape, turning the formerly peaceful, lovely hills and fields into an industrial zone. …. And all this to add a miniscule amount of wattage to the grid. The turbines have a large carbon footprint in terms of the energy needed to construct them, and land must be cleared and mountains leveled to put them up.

The Sierra Club should not be endorsing more ways to plunder nature to reap small bits of usable energy. The wind push is more about venture capitalists making money and less about saving the earth. Check out Windpower in Vermont: Corporate colonialism and a wrecked landscape.

This wind frenzy is one of the biggest environmental mistakes of our times. Instead, you need to be promoting conservation and off-grid solutions. Check out: “Why the Microgrid Could Be the Answer to Our Energy Crisis” by Anya Kamenetz.

Please challenge political correctness when it makes no sense. The wind turbine frenzy makes no sense! It is simply a development scheme with little to no environmental benefits and our earth has had way too many of those.

Don Gibbon, Chair, Environmental Education Committee, responds to the letter from Sue Nunn:

Dear Sue: Thanks for writing and expressing your thoughts on wind power. I wish you’d been able to be at the August meeting to hear Patty DeMarco’s presentation. I think an important thing to do is to weigh all the options. And the Club has come down solidly on the side of energy conservation as the very first and most important step we can take individually and as a nation. But the public reality is that there is a growing demand for electricity and we as a people are not willing to abate that growth. So if electricity is going to be generated, at least in the short term, we’re well advised to do it in the least harmful way possible. Doing it in a “distributed” way, that is, not with huge central power plants has many advantages … less need for huge powerlines, fewer transmission losses, greater efficiency. And in SW PA and West Virginia, we know so well the huge costs of all forms of coal mining. Our decision is, in spite of knowing about your objections, which are, we know, based on facts, to go with development of wind in as low an impact way as possible.

Altamont Pass, CA, 2007. Courtesy of Don Gibbon.

Here’s an extract from the Club’s wind siting policy:

Onshore and Offshore Wind

Wind power is widely available and the industry has matured rapidly in the last decade. While output from individual wind turbines varies based on daily and seasonal weather, at the regional scale wind power is a clean, consistent, reliable and safe energy resource. The Sierra Club strongly supports direct use of wind energy.

Wind energy systems may have noticeable visual impacts and can disturb sensitive or endangered plants and wildlife. Existing wind energy systems with significant impacts on avian and bat populations should be modified to mitigate those impacts; if modifications prove to be ineffective, turbines should be curtailed or dismantled. Locations with lesser impacts should be sought for new projects. Offshore sites may have access to a superior wind resource, but may disturb coastal and marine environments. In general, the environmental impacts of wind energy systems should be reduced through careful technology choice, siting, reliable pre-construction monitoring, and operations. The Sierra Club supports further research, both general and site-specific, and development of new technologies, to minimize and mitigate impacts of wind energy systems. (The Sierra Club’s Wind Siting Advisory contains further guidance.)

I encourage you to continue to learn about this issue and be involved.

From Don Gibbon, Chair of the Allegheny Group’s Environmental Education Program.
August 20, 2009

A roadside report on the need to repair wind turbine blades damaged in Texas by both birds AND bullets. This reported roadside encounter on I-79  followed our meeting a few days earlier, entitled “Wind Energy in our Backyard: Friend or Foe? ”

(more…)

From Don Gibbon, Chair of the Allegheny Group’s Environmental Education Program. Don lives in Point Breeze.
July 29, 2009

The author is commenting on the Sierra Club’s participation in the campaign to obtain a Community Benefit Agreement for the development of a hotel and amphitheater on the North Shore.

(more…)

From John Brannan of Upper St Clair.
July 29, 2009

The writer discusses the possible drawbacks of the Maglev fast-speed rail system, and suggests harnessing the power of our major three rivers.
(more…)

In his letter Don Gibbon comments on the Sierra Club’s participation in the campaign to obtain a Community Benefit Agreement for the development of a hotel and amphitheater on the North Shore.

By Herbert Skolnick Ph.D. Retired geologist for Gulf Oil Corporation
February 14, 2009

In this critique the writer questions the feasibility of storing CO2 underground, given its corrosive nature. He also questions how the underground storage program will be effectively managed.

(more…)

From George H. Schnakenberg, Jr., PhD, retired Bureau of Mines/NIOSH
February 14, 2009.

I finally got around to reading some of the recent newsletter emails and noticed one on nuclear power which requested a response.

(more…)

Two recent Letters to the Editor touch upon a growing issue for environmentalists: given the bad consequences of relying on “dirty coal” for electrical energy, should we turn to nuclear power? The first letter deals with the perils of geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants, and the second calls for use of safe nuclear power. Environmentalists have to make the case that there is enough renewable energy and conservation to reduce reliance on both nuclear AND coal.

Letters for the website may be submitted to Peter Wray at pjwray at verizon dot net.

From David McGuirk, CANTR (Citizens for Alternatives to New Toll Roads).
January 22, 2009.

On December 19, 2008 the Post Gazette reported that Allegheny County included a separate $4 billion line item related to the Mon/Fayette Expressway in its request for federal stimulus funds. The report also indicated that U.S. Senator Casey backed such potential spending.

Senator Casey was quoted in this article stating: “In Western Pennsylvania, some of this will be continuation of existing projects. We should take a hard look at whether we should use some of these resources to move forward with the Mon-Fayette Expressway, for example.”

(more…)

From Michael Pastorkovich, member of the Allegheny Group Exec. comm.
January 16, 2009.

(more…)

From Phil Coleman, Chair, Mining Committee, Allegheny Group.
November 20, 2008.

There are two potential problems with President-Elect Obama’s November 18 “talk.” (more…)