Washington voters passed Initiative 937, also known as the Energy Independence Act, back in 2006.  According to this law, the state’s energy utilities must obtain 15 percent of their power from”appropriately sited” energy facilities by the year 2020.

The problem with Initiative 937, is the term “appropriately sited,” because it has not been clearly defined, so therefore, it has been grossly ignored.  Due to the poorly defined wording, the door has been opened to developers, planning on taking advantage of huge government subsidies.  Some developers, have NO regard for the voters, or the controversy that will arise, from placing industrial scale wind energy projects in very inappropriately  sited areas.

Indian petroglyphs in Columbia River Gorge near The Dalles Dam. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

At the heart of this controversy, is the Whistling Ridge Project, that has been proposed along the rim of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. This year, marks the 25th anniversary of the creation of this National Scenic area, which has been ranked by National Geographic Traveler, as sixth internationally, and second nationally among sustainable tourist destinations.

The area is one of the crown jewels of the entire Pacific Northwest, and brings in more than a million visitors yearly, from all over the world. The visitors expect to see these world class views, that are unique to our region.

The Whistling Ridge Project, would line the Columbia Gorge with 430 foot wind turbines, that would be visible for miles, taking away much of the scenic views, that people come to see and appreciate.  It would also harm wildlife, unique to the region, by removing hundreds of acres of forested habitat.  To top it off, the Whistling Ridge Project, would cost more money than it would even begin to benefit anyone who lives within the area. The projects average power capacity would only be 25 megawatts of power generated, as compared to 17,000 megawatts, already being generated by existing projects in Washington and Oregon,  and that are located in more wide open appropriate areas.

Here in the Pacific Northwest, we are not lacking in the area of wind energy production.  Infact, we currently produce so much wind energy here, that a vast majority of it is distributed to California.

In most instances, I am a supporter of renewable energy and laws and policies that support their development.  However, in this case here in Washington, we do not need this particular project.  It implies a high cost to the environment, the economy, and to tourism in the area, and it would greatly harm one of our regions greatest natural assets.

While all states have their own unique beauty and treasures, The Whistling Ridge Project, shows an inappropriate use of funds, resources and land. It should not be allowed to move forward, because it is a prime example of unintended misuse of current energy laws and policies that have gone horribly awry.

As of today, our Governor Christine Gregoire, has approved this wind farm project as a source for jobs in the area.  Currently, area citizens are planning an appeal. Your thoughts and comments on this topic are appreciated, as we work toward a better tomorrow.

Special Thanks to Nicole Whiteley, for this insightful post, on the use of wind energy in the workplace. I think you will find it interesting and thought provoking.

Wind energy in the workplace

Whole Foods uses it, New Belgium uses it, even Wal-Mart sees the value of wind energy. So, what is holding back the rest of the country?

Image via Wikipedia

Miguel Gonzalez, Graduate of the Master’s program, on Sustainable Architecture and Energy Efficiency at BES La Salle, Barcelona, Spain and LEED Green Associate Course with Everblue Training Institute, explained the obstacles of wind energy in the following way:

“Wind Power needs to be taken care of, it takes a lot of money and time to run a wind farm, but the government offers incentives to develop the technologies and improve our current technologies. In Europe the wind farms and technology development are usually funded by private companies that receive huge government incentives. Any green incentive requires three parts to be successful – people, to run the program, a strong care for the planet, and a way to be profitable. No one wants to invest in a project that they won’t see a profit even if the investors have a strong sense of environmental integrity.”

Wind energy is a passionate environmental cause

Read the rest of this entry »

Are we being logical about Global Warming ? Probably not, since we now call it climate change.  It might be a little ridiculous to think that man caused climate change to happen.  Sure, we are a contributing factor, but we all know that the earth undergoes sometimes drastic climate changes-naturally!  Mother Nature has never needed any help in that area.  Even if we would have heeded the warnings 30 plus years ago, after the “gas crisis,” -much of what is happening now, would still be happening.  We have no control over it.  But, we probably have contributed to our crisis by not practicing good conservation.

So, what makes us think that we can change our habits and replace our energy demands with alternative sources, in just ten years?  Today, here in the United States, only 7% of our energy comes from alternative sources.  Hydroelectric power  comprises 36% of our total alternative energy usage.  Another 5% comes from the use of wind energy.  These two sources cannot be tapped into much further, without studies of the damage it causes to already fragile ecosystems.  Fish and wildlife suffer as a paradox of our need for alternative energy sources.  It seems the only time we hear about these unfair tradeoffs, is when people protest (NIMBY) not in my back yard, when it is time to build dams and install wind turbines into already settled communities.

Today, over half of our alternative energy is in the form of biofuels.  Sources such as switchgrass (it needs an enzyme to break it down) and ethanol (corn based) are our hope for renewable energy.  Geothermal and solar power (through photovoltaic cells) offer another 6% of our current alternative energy usage.  While these sources are promising, they supply a very minor amount of our total annual energy needs.

Will we meet the goal in ten years?  Probably not, but we have to start somewhere.  It is estimated that it will cost upwards of $2.5 trillion to achieve approximately half of our home based energy needs through alternative energy sources.   Some feel that the environmental impact of biofuels is worse than that of petroleum souces.  Sure, more information is needed in these areas, but we can’t stop progress.  We must move forward.  We should make more use of resources that we already have here at home.  More use of nuclear energy, natural gas, and ways to safely make use of hydrogen should be looked at more closely.