Brian's Morning Newsletter
Thursday, September 2nd 2010
Good Morning
This morning I will present Adam Caldwell's letter first, then comment afterward. First because this is fine writing better than I can do this early in the morning, also because I am proud of Adam, being able to articulate the opinions of our friends in Bernal whom we hold so dear.
———-
I agree, we need to use alternative energy, Industrial wind facilities should be part of that. But First.
1. Our work in San Miguel to create a cohesive ordinance covering industrial wind facilities really has nothing to do with NIMBY.
The Gulf is NOT in your back yard (or is it?) and yet you care about the devastation. This needs to be accurately addressed.
2. The accident in the gulf happened because of lack of regulations, sound protocols, and safety precautions.
That is exactly why a simple and effective wind ordinance to protect people and the environment MUST be drafted. Any industrial complex comes with pro's and con's. We need to weigh all our options, BIG mistakes are easily made when people turn to rhetoric and not fact.
3. The conversation about Wind Energy in San Miguel (specifiacally the Bernal Mesa) must be brought up with all facts included.
a. San Miguel currently has ONE antiquated transmission line (an out of date PNM line, not built for alternative energy needs). This line currently has 20 percent capacity available. MEANING… The first industrial wind energy company to tap this line freezes all future projects untill a sustainable solution is attained (quick buck, government subsidies… YOU KNOW the rest). Maps attached. Maps include the current transmission line and a 3 mile buffer zone around populated places (this may change when the county commission focuses more on watersheds).. As you may notice all the empty land is in the East of San Miguel county. Eastern San Miguel happens to be the place the good wind is at (look at the wind data map). Really a no brainer once we get the correct grid in place. All that is needed is the correct grid. Hmmmmm.
b. The State of New Mexico is currently set to redo their transmission lines in regard to using alternative energies. They have set up the 'The New Mexico Renewable Energy Transmission' http://nmreta.org/ Give it a look. THIS is what we need to be paying attention to.
c. Watersheds and communities SHOULD BE PROTECTED in the face of large scale industrial development, no matter what that development is. Be it Oil, Gas, Wind, Solar, or Nuclear — (making bleached paper by a river?). PLEASE get out of the mindset that "Alternative" means Non Industrial. It is NOT TRUE. Big alternative energy industrial projects can be VERY damaging to our air, water and quality of life if not done correctly. Read Up.
4. We here in The Bernal, Ribera and Villanueva area are NOT idiots, we support wind energy in the correct applications, and we have researched all possible pro's and con's. As someone eloquently said to to me. "Appropriate technologies in Appropriate places". This is NOT just a NIMBY conversation, it affects us ALL. Please support our work.
O and please don't use an excuse like, "we are running out of time" .. "just start using alternative energy, industrial is fine"… Come on. I am part of the a population that has been completely screwed by deregulation, so are you! Both in the banks, as well as in the energy sector.
Try something like this. "we are running out of time" .. "we should be using alternative energy, locally and industrially. But lets get it right."
It's us who will have to put all this back together. Let's stop, think and GET IT RIGHT.
Thanks.
Adam Caldwell.
–
"In the event that you may need a nap, take one."
-cat, late 1600's-

The above attached image is a piece of the NM wind survey map. Scott Hopkins so kindly sent us a link yesterday, so you can see the whole pictur, for what it is worth.
Re: Wind potential and the Grid:
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/images/windmaps/nm_50m_800.jpg
Has anyone from the area of Bernal Mesa installed anemometers with data logging? I would be curious what kind of wind is up there along the edge as well as in the proposed setback zone, because this is what wind farms are all about right, Got Wind?Anyway Kevin and I are going to be building a homemade data logging anemometer for our area. if any one is interested in what Bernal actually has to offer wind-wise, I'll continue to post info from this site https://sites.google.com/site/rpmmeter/
as well as at the Otherpower forums

In the above image I can only guess what you hope to present. In your text you suggest that there is only one major transmission line and it is antiquated.
I am not a transmission line engineer, although I am sure one will pop up. I can say, having worked around the power line marked in red on the above map that it isn't in any way antiquated. It is huge, and it does not stop where the map shows, that power line which runs across the Crestone and high over Ojitos Frios then, I guess along the freeway to Bernal and beyond, in the other direction it runs all the way up I-25 to as far as I can remember up past Raton and on into Colorado(probably straight to one of the state coal fired generators)
This information I have provided because I have tried to make this point before. Wind energy is unlike fossil fuel energy strictly because there isn't nearly enough of it. I am sorry it takes a gargantuan wind mill to make a percentage of the power generated by coal or god forbid nuclear energy. Perhaps we need one or more of our young computer savvy GIS mappers to overlay these three maps, so we can garner some sort of useful information from them, because what I am seeing is the limited power output from one small Mega-watt wind farm needs to be as close to the power line running up the freeway in order that a large part of the power is not lost due to voltage drop.
Voltage Drop Calculator
Environmental concerns with wind farms, seems a bit of a stretch to me. I hope you can look at this from a electricity generation standpoint. Yet I know it is very difficult to look at this issue my way unless you too have attempted to "make" your own electricity.

I don't know why for instance you posted this image. It shows existing and proposed wind farms and transmission lines in New Mexico. Power lines which we can assume are adequate for the gargantuan quantities of power currently in use today. Effectively wind turbines suck at making power, so the transmission line upgrades which the government is beginning to sponsor research into through grants has to do with smart grids and any possibility heretofore unrealized power moving schemes whereby little if any of the precious power from photovoltaics and wind farms is lost. I've reading the EERE newsletter for years, which is how I know what I know about power transmission and supposed "Smart Grids." http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/enn.cfm
If I could make a point, it would be that while wind farms need to be absurdly huge to create even a tenth the energy (arbitrary figure) we are used to using, at least energy production is being thrust into people's view, in increasingly populated areas in the form of renewable energy generation. I still feel it is "Right." Power to the people, man.
In response to the statement, "we are running out of time" .. "we should be using alternative energy, locally and industrially. But lets get it right."
Time is of the essence, go ahead get it whatever way you deem "Right," just don't let it take years, we need those generators soon.
Adam wrote" 2. The accident in the gulf happened because of lack of regulations, sound protocols, and safety precautions."
Not what I read at all. There were plenty of protocol and laws, in one of the rig manager's log file he wrote, …the warning sirens were shut down so the crew could get some sleep. My point is it is extremely my hazardous to the environment to drill for oil two miles beneath the sea in an area believed to be responsible for a mega methane bubble which may have ended the Jurassic era, than it is to blow some holes in the Mesa, there is no comparison.
Not that I supported the drilling for oil in Santa Fe, but I did make a lot of people angry when I said, "If you don't want oil wells in your backyard the sensible thing to do is, stop driving."
If I had a say in it, which I gather many people are glad I don't, I would suggest forgetting the setback, and let them build a few "test" wind turbines so you can see if the Mesa is deconstructed in the process.
Again I say, "It's all about scale."
Population growth is more radical over there by Bernal because of the proximity to jobs and cities. With this growth comes equal consumer power requirements.
Sure, we need to try and regulate the corporations, yet I can't help thinking about how the native Americans felt when more and more Europeans began to arrive in their lands.
I'm not disrespecting your concern for your local region, but I suggest you remember to give thanks to the gods that Shell hasn't decided to drill for oil in the Pecos Valley
Nigeria's agony dwarfs the Gulf oil spill. The US and Europe ignore it
The Deepwater Horizon disaster caused headlines around the world, yet the people who live in the Niger delta have had to live with environmental catastrophes for decades

We reached the edge of the oil spill near the Nigerian village of Otuegwe after a long hike through cassava plantations. Ahead of us lay swamp. We waded into the warm tropical water and began swimming, cameras and notebooks held above our heads. We could smell the oil long before we saw it – the stench of garage forecourts and rotting vegetation hanging thickly in the air.
The farther we travelled, the more nauseous it became. Soon we were swimming in pools of light Nigerian crude, the best-quality oil in the world. One of the many hundreds of 40-year-old pipelines that crisscross the Niger delta had corroded and spewed oil for several months.
Forest and farmland were now covered in a sheen of greasy oil. Drinking wells were polluted and people were distraught. No one knew how much oil had leaked. "We lost our nets, huts and fishing pots," said Chief Promise, village leader of Otuegwe and our guide. "This is where we fished and farmed. We have lost our forest. We told Shell of the spill within days, but they did nothing for six months."
That was the Niger delta a few years ago, where, according to Nigerian academics, writers and environment groups, oil companies have acted with such impunity and recklessness that much of the region has been devastated by leaks.
In fact, more oil is spilled from the delta's network of terminals, pipes, pumping stations and oil platforms every year than has been lost in the Gulf of Mexico, the site of a major ecological catastrophe caused by oil that has poured from a leak triggered by the explosion that wrecked BP's Deepwater Horizon rig last month.
That disaster, which claimed the lives of 11 rig workers, has made headlines round the world. By contrast, little information has emerged about the damage inflicted on the Niger delta. Yet the destruction there provides us with a far more accurate picture of the price we have to pay for drilling oil today.
On 1 May this year a ruptured ExxonMobil pipeline in the state of Akwa Ibom spilled more than a million gallons into the delta over seven days before the leak was stopped. Local people demonstrated against the company but say they were attacked by security guards. Community leaders are now demanding $1bn in compensation for the illness and loss of livelihood they suffered. Few expect they will succeed. In the meantime, thick balls of tar are being washed up along the coast.
Within days of the Ibeno spill, thousands of barrels of oil were spilled when the nearby Shell Trans Niger pipeline was attacked by rebels. A few days after that, a large oil slick was found floating on Lake Adibawa in Bayelsa state and another in Ogoniland. "We are faced with incessant oil spills from rusty pipes, some of which are 40 years old," said Bonny Otavie, a Bayelsa MP.
This point was backed by Williams Mkpa, a community leader in Ibeno: "Oil companies do not value our life; they want us to all die. In the past two years, we have experienced 10 oil spills and fishermen can no longer sustain their families. It is not tolerable."
With 606 oilfields, the Niger delta supplies 40% of all the crude the United States imports and is the world capital of oil pollution. Life expectancy in its rural communities, half of which have no access to clean water, has fallen to little more than 40 years over the past two generations. Locals blame the oil that pollutes their land and can scarcely believe the contrast with the steps taken by BP and the US government to try to stop the Gulf oil leak and to protect the Louisiana shoreline from pollution.
"If this Gulf accident had happened in Nigeria, neither the government nor the company would have paid much attention," said the writer Ben Ikari, a member of the Ogoni people. "This kind of spill happens all the time in the delta."
"The oil companies just ignore it. The lawmakers do not care and people must live with pollution daily. The situation is now worse than it was 30 years ago. Nothing is changing. When I see the efforts that are being made in the US I feel a great sense of sadness at the double standards. What they do in the US or in Europe is very different."
"We see frantic efforts being made to stop the spill in the US," said Nnimo Bassey, Nigerian head of Friends of the Earth International. "But in Nigeria, oil companies largely ignore their spills, cover them up and destroy people's livelihood and environments. The Gulf spill can be seen as a metaphor for what is happening daily in the oilfields of Nigeria and other parts of Africa.
"This has gone on for 50 years in Nigeria. People depend completely on the environment for their drinking water and farming and fishing. They are amazed that the president of the US can be making speeches daily, because in Nigeria people there would not hear a whimper," he said.
It is impossible to know how much oil is spilled in the Niger delta each year because the companies and the government keep that secret. However, two major independent investigations over the past four years suggest that as much is spilled at sea, in the swamps and on land every year as has been lost in the Gulf of Mexico so far.
One report, compiled by WWF UK, the World Conservation Union and representatives from the Nigerian federal government and the Nigerian Conservation Foundation, calculated in 2006 that up to 1.5m tons of oil – 50 times the pollution unleashed in the Exxon Valdez tanker disaster in Alaska – has been spilled in the delta over the past half century. Last year Amnesty calculated that the equivalent of at least 9m barrels of oil was spilled and accused the oil companies of a human rights outrage.
According to Nigerian federal government figures, there were more than 7,000 spills between 1970 and 2000, and there are 2,000 official major spillages sites, many going back decades, with thousands of smaller ones still waiting to be cleared up. More than 1,000 spill cases have been filed against Shell alone.
Last month Shell admitted to spilling 14,000 tonnes of oil in 2009. The majority, said the company, was lost through two incidents – one in which the company claims that thieves damaged a wellhead at its Odidi field and another where militants bombed the Trans Escravos pipeline.
Shell, which works in partnership with the Nigerian government in the delta, says that 98% of all its oil spills are caused by vandalism, theft or sabotage by militants and only a minimal amount by deteriorating infrastructure. "We had 132 spills last year, as against 175 on average. Safety valves were vandalised; one pipe had 300 illegal taps. We found five explosive devices on one. Sometimes communities do not give us access to clean up the pollution because they can make more money from compensation," said a spokesman.
"We have a full-time oil spill response team. Last year we replaced 197 miles of pipeline and are using every known way to clean up pollution, including microbes. We are committed to cleaning up any spill as fast as possible as soon as and for whatever reason they occur."
These claims are hotly disputed by communities and environmental watchdog groups. They mostly blame the companies' vast network of rusting pipes and storage tanks, corroding pipelines, semi-derelict pumping stations and old wellheads, as well as tankers and vessels cleaning out tanks.
The scale of the pollution is mind-boggling. The government's national oil spill detection and response agency (Nosdra) says that between 1976 and 1996 alone, more than 2.4m barrels contaminated the environment. "Oil spills and the dumping of oil into waterways has been extensive, often poisoning drinking water and destroying vegetation. These incidents have become common due to the lack of laws and enforcement measures within the existing political regime," said a spokesman for Nosdra.
The sense of outrage is widespread. "There are more than 300 spills, major and minor, a year," said Bassey. "It happens all the year round. The whole environment is devastated. The latest revelations highlight the massive difference in the response to oil spills. In Nigeria, both companies and government have come to treat an extraordinary level of oil spills as the norm."
A spokesman for the Stakeholder Democracy Network in Lagos, which works to empower those in communities affected by the oil companies' activities, said: "The response to the spill in the United States should serve as a stiff reminder as to how far spill management in Nigeria has drifted from standards across the world."
Other voices of protest point out that the world has overlooked the scale of the environmental impact. Activist Ben Amunwa, of the London-based oil watch group Platform, said: "Deepwater Horizon may have exceed Exxon Valdez, but within a few years in Nigeria offshore spills from four locations dwarfed the scale of the Exxon Valdez disaster many times over. Estimates put spill volumes in the Niger delta among the worst on the planet, but they do not include the crude oil from waste water and gas flares. Companies such as Shell continue to avoid independent monitoring and keep key data secret."
Worse may be to come. One industry insider, who asked not to be named, said: "Major spills are likely to increase in the coming years as the industry strives to extract oil from increasingly remote and difficult terrains. Future supplies will be offshore, deeper and harder to work. When things go wrong, it will be harder to respond."
Judith Kimerling, a professor of law and policy at the City University of New York and author of Amazon Crude, a book about oil development in Ecuador, said: "Spills, leaks and deliberate discharges are happening in oilfields all over the world and very few people seem to care."
There is an overwhelming sense that the big oil companies act as if they are beyond the law. Bassey said: "What we conclude from the Gulf of Mexico pollution incident is that the oil companies are out of control.
"It is clear that BP has been blocking progressive legislation, both in the US and here. In Nigeria, they have been living above the law. They are now clearly a danger to the planet. The dangers of this happening again and again are high. They must be taken to the international court of justice."
Beyond the Gulf Oil Spill: Five Ongoing Ecological Disasters With No End In Sight
by Jennifer Hattam, Istanbul, Turkey
on 07.17.10

A burning oil spill in the Niger Delta. Photo via City of Refuge Africa
Living some 6,000 miles away from the Gulf of Mexico, I'm a bit embarrassed to admit that the oil spill often seems like an abstraction to me. A big, big abstraction, but still. Pictures of oil-covered pelicans and other heart-tugging images occasionally appear in the Turkish press, but generally, people here — like people anywhere — are more concerned about domestic issues, of which we have plenty. And I know that when I was living in the United States, the Turkish mining disasters that so compel me now would have seemed equally remote.
That's why an article on "The World's Ongoing Ecological Disasters" — some of which make the BP spill pale in comparison — offered an especially striking reminder that there are ecosystems and people suffering outside the eye of the nightly news.
A Five-Decade Oil Spill in Nigeria
In his piece this week for Foreign Policy, author Joshua E. Keating highlights five global environmental catastrophes that appear to be even harder to solve that the BP spill. "The Deepwater Horizon incident may have been the worst oil spill in U.S. history, but it pales in comparison to the ongoing catastrophe that has afflicted Nigeria's Niger River Delta over the last five decades," he writes, noting that the African country suffers the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez spill every year. "Oil companies operating in the region blame thieves and sabotage for the majority of the spills, though local activists say aging equipment and lax safety are the cause of many of them," Keating writes, adding that the problem will likely worsen as oil companies seek black gold in places where it's harder to extractMore horror stories about oil
Niger Delta: In Nigeria, Oil Spills Are a Longtime Scourge (via @nytimes)
Flare, Port Harcourt Nigeria, 2001. Photo from Creative Commons by Danny MCL/flickr
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/world/africa/17nigeria.html
"…endured the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez spill every year for 50 years…"
By Joe Brock | May 19, 2010 4:51 PM EST
Africa's oil spills are far from US media glare
Brian Rodgers
Comments online at: http://outfitnm.com/category/brians-morning-newsletter If you wish to chance that I'll post it off my email hit "reply," but not really the preferred method
More From boss
boss Recommends
- Ten Habits of Internet Millionaires (longtailedkeyword)
- Raising Chickens (The Backyard Chicken Craze)
Related posts:
- BMN progress, minuscule, good good, better Brian's Morning Newsletter Wednesday, April 28th 2010 Fuelfarmer grows...
- BMN Isuzu Engine looks good Brian's Morning Newsletter Wednesday, September First 2010 Bobby brought a...
- BMN Wind, lot’s of wind Brian's Morning Newsletter Tuesday, April 6th 2010 Wind turbine...
- Fresh atrocities for the BMN? Nah, it’s all good Brian's Morning Newsletter Monday, May 3rd 2010 Nell isn't the...
- BMN 20% chance hit us a good one Brian's Morning Newsletter Thursday, May 27th 2010 Las...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Loading...
Perhaps the biggest question in this whole debate has been omitted, by me as well as others (mea culpa) and that question is simply this -
What data do we have to support the claim that supplementing our on-grid fossil fuel consumption with wind power will result in a net decrease in fossil fuel consumption?
We've just sort of assumed that, haven't we?
There is a difference between what Brian has done, i.e., converting his vehicles to biodiesel and his home to wind power, which is an altruistic and principled decision and a conscious and effective way to become independent of fossil fuels, and what we do when we simply add wind power or solar to the on-grid mix. The latter involves no conscious change on the part of the consumer and indeed Jevon's paradox may even end up increasing consumption.
I would say that the end effect is like using filler in your sausage – it doesn't make it better, it just means you have a bit more and will go longer before you run out. In terms of peak oil, the likely effect will be that the point where increasing fossil fuel demand intersects with diminishing fossil fuel supply will be nudged a bit to the right, buying us another year or five to continue with the unsustainable before the whole thing goes kersmash.
That's not an entirely bad thing, it buys us a little more time to get our shit together, but please, let us not MISTAKE it for getting our shit together. Supplementing fossil fuels with wind power will not keep us from pumping all the oil we can until we either run out of it or collapse as a civilization. We need to be working to create those structures and systems which will survive the collapse.
Posted for Lee
Hi, Brian -
Environmental issues with wind turbines are not a "stretch" by any means.
As with so many issues, it is a matter of scale.
Your turbine is appropriately scaled for the homestead. Small is beautiful.
But if you were to make your turbine 50 times as large, things would change. Speed at the blade tip would become fast enough, and the span of the blades wide enough, that you would have constructed a combination wind turbine, bird and bat blender, and you would need to think about whether that site with the great wind potential is also a migratory path for an endangered species.
The torque applied at the base of the turbine's tower would be enormous, and you would need a huge concrete footing in order to keep the thing from blowing over in high winds. There is a great deal of embedded energy in concrete, and a major carbon footprint. What does this do to net energy yield (since the real benefit would be gross energy output – voltage drop – energy invested in construction?) You would also need to consider that unlike your setup, this would be an on-grid energy source with no storage – you get the juice when the wind blows, and all other power sources on your section of grid, to be effective, need to be ramping up and down in fairly good tune with both consumer demand AND your fluctuations in power generation or somewhere along the line power generated will be surplus and since it cannot be stored will simply be diverted to ground.
I am a layman, but to me, small-scale, home and community based wind power make a helluva lot more sense than Big Wind.
Lee