When wind turbines began dotting the skyline around Dale Rankin's horse ranch near Abilene, he teamed up with other property owners to sue the company in charge of the project, FPL Energy. Brandon Wade: For the Chronicle
Posted on 02/05/2007 1:56:56 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
When wind turbines began dotting the skyline around Dale Rankin's horse ranch near Abilene, he teamed up with other property owners to sue the company in charge of the project, FPL Energy. Brandon Wade: For the Chronicle
JACKSBORO — The wind rustling the oak trees on the Squaw Mountain Ranch soon may be its undoing as a starkly empty, unspoiled corner of North Texas.
Riding the boom that last year pushed Texas past California as the nation's leading wind energy producer, a wind power company wants to scatter 100 turbines across an area roughly nine miles long and two miles wide, with at least a dozen of the 250-foot towers on the ranch.
"I'm not interested in having blinking red lights causing the Milky Way not to be as bright or to hear them when now I hear nothing up here except the sounds of nature," said ranch manager Dan Stephenson, explaining why the ranch declined to lease land for the project and objects to its neighbors leasing as well.
"Wind farm, that's a spin term," Stephenson said as he took in a vista of tree-covered ridgelines. "I call them wind turbine industrial zones."
Though embraced by state political leaders as a clean, renewable electricity source and welcomed by many rural landowners as newfound income, wind farms are gathering fresh opposition from Texas ranchers who say they are an ugly, noisy blight on the wide-open landscape.
Opponents say the turbines, which extend up 400 feet to the tips of their blades, not only threaten birds and wildlife but devalue property in areas such as the distant outskirts of Dallas-Fort Worth, where ranchland is increasingly being used for recreation and second homes.
"We're in a 100-yard dash trying to fight these things and, they're already 50 yards ahead," said Stephenson.
Landowners' rights Because Texas does not regulate the siting of wind projects, power companies need only assemble a group of agreeable landowners to set up operations. Royalties paid to ranchers in the Abilene area average about $12,000 per turbine per year, according to testimony in a lawsuit there.
Without governmental oversight, wind farm opponents say, their only recourse has been to head for the courthouse.
In December, five Jack County landowners, including Squaw Mountain Ranch, sued in state court to enjoin several subunits of the Spanish wind giant Gamesa Corp. from erecting "monster wind turbines." It was the third such suit filed in the state, the other ones were in Taylor and Cooke counties.
Jack County Judge Mitchell Davenport characterized opposition to the wind project as "small but vocal" and said he expects most landowners will lease their land for the project if they have not already.
"I see it as very much a property rights issue," said Davenport. "If someone wants to lease for oil or wind or whatever, I think that is up to them."
The judge said economic growth in the county of 8,000 has been "very, very slow," making the wind proposals "one of our best new opportunities."
Stephen Wiley, director of Gamesa Development USA in Austin, said the company plans to invest more than $100 million in the first of three projects it has proposed in Jack County, the Barton Chapel Wind Project.
The company will install 60 turbines capable of producing 120 megawatts, enough to power about 85,000 houses, although the variability of wind cuts actual electrical production to about 30 percent of that capacity.
Development of the wind farm near the Squaw Mountain Ranch has been pushed back to 2009 because of a worldwide shortage of wind turbines, Wiley said.
The company, which is seeking property tax abatements, picked the county because it is near transmission lines and has "an abundance of wind," Wiley said. He said he would have preferred to locate the project in the Panhandle, which state studies rate as having the best potential for wind power. But the location lacks sufficient transmission lines to carry the electricity to more heavily populated areas for use.
State support Gamesa and larger producers in Texas like FPL Energy, which operates 11 wind farms in the state, have been encouraged to build by the Legislature, which in 1999 mandated renewable energy goals. In 2005, lawmakers called for an output of 5,880 megawatts by 2009 — about 3 percent of total demand — from sources such as wind, solar, landfill gas and flowing water.
Last year, wind turbines in Texas accounted for nearly a third of all those installed in the U.S., according to a report released last month by American Wind Energy Association. And the state now hosts the world's largest operating wind farm, the Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center in Nolan and Taylor counties.
"When they put 1,000 of those next to your property, you're not living out in the country anymore," said Dale Rankin, referring to the slim white towers arrayed on the bluffs around his property in Tuscola, about 20 miles south of Abilene.
Rankin, who raises horses on his ranch but makes his living in the chemical business, and eight other property owners sued in 2005 to stop FPL Energy's wind project.
In December, after a two-week trial, they learned just how difficult it will be to stop the wind industry in Texas.
A jury in Abilene found that the turbines were not a nuisance to neighboring landowners after the judge in the case narrowed the legal claims to one: noise pollution.
"We knew we had an uphill battle in a place that calls itself the wind energy capital of the world," said Steve Thompson, a Houston attorney representing the landowners. He plans to appeal the verdict.
Trey Cox, a Dallas attorney representing FPL Energy, said claims of ugliness have little legal support in Texas law. "Texas is very much a landowner's rights state," he said. "We don't want neighbors fussing over what things look like. ... As long as you're not doing anything illegal, if you want to have a broken-down barn or paint your house pink, you get to do it."
He said Texas ranches, including many of those of the plaintiffs, have hosted pump jacks and other energy industry equipment.
Jack Hunt, president of the legendary King Ranch in South Texas, scoffs at comparisons between wind turbines and power lines or pump jacks. "They're not 400 feet tall and moving," he said.
The King Ranch, owned by descendants of Capt. Richard King, has taken issue with a proposal to locate 267 turbines on a neighboring ranch near the coast in Kenedy County. County commissioners last spring denied the project a tax abatement, but it could go forward without one.
"The Kenedy and King ranches go back more than 150 years, and we're at each other's throats over this deal," Hunt said, referring to property owned by the John G. Kenedy Jr. Charitable Trust.
He said the proposed wind farm is likely to have a major impact on the so-called "River of Birds," the flyway from Canada to Mexico that funnels scores of migrating bird species through the area. "You're erecting a 10-mile wall," he said, echoing criticism from environmentalists and birders. "Nobody's looking at how the birds will react to it."
Two offshore wind farms that state officials are proposing to build in the Gulf will receive considerable federal scrutiny for their effect on the birds, marine life and other ecological impacts.
"Onshore, there is no oversight," Hunt said. "Once they start killing birds, and you happen to find out about it, then you can bring in the feds."
Hunt and other critics say the wind power hardly merits the major tax subsidies it receives. Because wind is so variable, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which controls most of the state's power grid, calculates it can rely on only 2.6 percent of wind power capacity being available during peak summer demand periods, council reports show.
"They've been on the cusp of becoming efficient and useful for a quarter-century now, and they never quite get there," Hunt said. "We're destroying so much scenery for so little power."
thomas.korosec@chron.com
What's always convinced me that nuclear plants are the way to go for power is the US Navy's safety record- been operating nuclear plants in the most hazardous locations ( Marine, submarine ) since the nineteen-fifties without a fatality.
Obviously, they can be run safely with the right personnel and controls.
Well without a reactor related fatality anyway. There was The Thresher incident.
But you are quite correct. Maybe they should let the Navy go into the electrical power generation business for profit. Their safety record is spotless. You know they won't cook the books.
And as a bonus the Navy could afford all the toys they wanted.
L
1) I hope Candians build wind farms: they sell most of their oil to the US!
2) As to bird kills: why not put a whistle on the blade tips? When I toot my horn at 'em, nearly all critters scurry away and birds fly away from the roadway.
3) If the wind farms are located in windy areas, why not plant trees? The wind rustling through the trees will mask the noise of the turbines, as well as hiding them from view.
In my locale, traffic noise is carried on the wind from a mile away. The rustle from my palm trees mask the sound.
Besides, what are the alternatives? Air pollution, NIMBY nuke plant objections, and enriching Middle East sheiks and/or Communist regimes?
NIMBY. Nobody wants energy generation, but everybody wants the lights to come on when you flip the switch. We should be building nuke plants, and be done with it.
Everyone might as well realize that no matter what is done to generate power, whether it be nuclear, or wind, or geothermal, or coal, etc,.
Some jackass is always going to have something to whine about.
Lurker wrote: Maybe they should let the Navy go into the electrical power generation business for profit.
Guys, go inside a Nuke and you'll see quite a few former swabbies and Dolpins, espescially in maintenance, and usually the entire operating staff in the control room.
I've done a little work inside over the past ten years, I've never been in the military. But I now speak the phonic alphabet, give the Orders of the Day and insist everyone follow the posted SOP on all jobs I lead.
On the other hand, I've seen civilian management types order questionable, but discreet, short cuts to get a reactor back online at the end of a refuel outage. There are always those who think revenue over procedure.
I'll never live downwind, inside the dead zone of a Nuke.
I never heard of that before. What does one do with recycled nuclear material from a power plant?
I read (or heard) somewhere about a conflict with the "greens" and the "animals-first" crowd, in that the propellers were supposedly killing endangered birds that flew into them.
I have to laugh. The PC-crowd will be their own undoing.
Good luck with that: which way IS "downwind"?
LOL! :>
Sheila Jackson-Lee could power all of Texas. Bobbie "Sheets" Byrd could cover the rest of the South. Boxer and Maxine Waters could handle the great West, and Hillary could easily cover the Midwest and the Northeast.
Good idea.
If the things generated very much power, I would agree, but they don't.
Build five nuke plants and have a better energy source. Wind farms are definitely "for the birds".
Let's see what I have handy...
There's a better way than burying it- other countries have, for decades, recycled the stuff:
US Nuclear Power Debate
... The Bush administration also wants to explore new technology to recycle nuclear
fuel, increasing its efficiency and possibly reducing its danger. ...
Other info:
Numatec - the Tri-Cities' 'French connection'
... Numatec other parent is Cogema, the owner and operator of facilities used to produce
and recycle nuclear fuel, including many designed and built by SGN. ...
Nuclear Electricity
... gas equivalent). • Uranium offers a long-term source of energy. Unlike
fossil fuels, we can recycle nuclear fuel. We can recover ...
[MMA Alumni] Helping out MMA Nuclear Employed Alumni
... Many MMA Grads are employed in the Nuclear Power industry, ever since President Carter
killed the national plans to recycle nuclear fuel as was always intended ...
[PDF] U. S. Nuclear Waste Policy: Reaching Critical Mass
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... An Aside: Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Overseas In addition to the United States,
only two other countries don't recycle nuclear fuel as a matter of national ...
Salon.com Technology | Nukes now!
... Other countries, such as Japan and France -- which gets about 80 percent of its
electricity from nuclear power -- recycle nuclear fuel, but President Ford ...
So I got that going for me.
L
The big question is what to do with SPENT FUEL. Spent fuel has lots of radioactive fission products.
Simple answer ... reprocess the stuff.
For a 1000 lb fuel bundle that was originally 6% enriched fuel, maybe 30 of the 60 lbs of U235 is gone, and some of the U238 was converted to Pu239. Pull out the Plutonium and Uranium, the fuel cladding (Zirconium) for re-use. Pull out the radioactive fission products (about 30 pounds.) Vitrify the fission products (mix with molten glass) then put them in stainless steel canisters and bury them.
(A typical power reactor might have about 180 fuel bundles, and 1/3 of the bundles are swapped out every 1 - 3 years, typical cycle is 18 months. Typically, power plants will discharge the fuel bundles and let them cool off in a spent fuel pool for about 10-15 years before removal from the spent fuel pool. This is when the starting the reprocessing should occur; at this point, decay heat is very small, and the radioactivity levels are somewhat diminished.)
Hint ... make the canisters recoverable. Fission products contain valuable rare-earth elements that, about 700 years later, the material will be fairly non-radioactive ... less than the original Uranium ore was ... and the rare-earth elements might be used in exotic magnets, superconductor technology, etc.
Much of this reprocesses/vitrification process is proven technology - already done by the French ... who get over 70% of their nation's electric power from nuclear power reactors, and some of them are breeder reactors. The French already do reprocessing of nuclear fuel for the Japanese, who also obtain significant amounts of electric power from nuclear power plants.
Mike
(former Navy Nuclear Engineer)
what about the economics of these things?
how much natural gas, is not burnt?
I could put up with them for $144,000 a year.
Build floating nukes in ships/barges that can be docked in harbors and rivers, and "plugged into" onshore substations.
I kind of enjoy the break in monotany the ones out in West Texas, off I-10, provide. You can see them for miles and there are very few people for them to bother.
They sell wind power kits for home use. They are much smaller than these mentioned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.