Mountain Ridge Protection Act is safe! Ridges are protected. Small wind is OK! WIND IS NOT BANNED!

THe senators were not able to reach an agreement. Our ridges are still protected! Small wind is OK. There will be no irresponsible environmentalists on the protected ridges!

Maybe the ASU dept of wind energy will take a hint, and finally get down to some small wind projects and leave the highest ridges alone. OR MAYBE SOME FACULTY CUTS ON THE WAY?

Nothing scheduled for this week.....

There are lots of other places to harness wind in NC, they need to listen to the people and get down to it!


Listen to the people, indeed

I was in Mitchell County on business a couple of weeks ago, talking to several folks and the mountain windmill ban came up. It seems that "the people" of Mitchell County were questioning why "the people" of Mitchell County couldn't decide for themselves within a state-wide regulatory framework whether large-scale wind generation would be appropriate in their back yards.

It makes one wonder exactly which "people" the legislators were listening to. In any event, this mountain windmill ban will come back to bite folks like Joe Sam Queen in 2010.


The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

No dog in this fight

but this blogger doth protest too much, methinks.


But we all have a dog in this fight. "Small wind" does nothing to alter the basic energy equation, which means the NIMBY forces in the mountains and on the coast are basically subverting our collective ability to cut carbon in any meaningful way.

Irresponsible environmentalists?

You know, we can have an intelligent and maybe productive conversation about the merits of small vs big wind, but if you start slinging around right-wing talking points that conversation will deteriorate quickly.

Then what do you call non-profits that solicit and do not follow

state and federal guidelines. What do you call them? The groups listed under NCWWG at the ASU site, out of the non-profit "environmental" groups listed, there are 5 that are not in compliance. Only 2 non-profits on that site meet state and federal guidelines. You can check it out on line! As of this morning at 8am, only 2 of 7 had the right paperwork filed. Surely you can not tell me that they are being responsible?

So, which of these groups:

The Group includes the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Appalachian Voices, North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, Canary Coalition, Environmental Defense, North Carolina Solar Center, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, ASU Energy Center, and the State Energy Office.

hasn't filed their paperwork right?

And where/how did you determine they were in error?

Non-Profits without csl license

I will write more tomorrow. Let me try go the the Office of the NC Secretary of State online. It is public record.

Canary Coalition
SearchType: Starting With Search Criteria: Canary Coalition
Search Date: 7/28/2009 3:01:47 AM

Clickon the entity name below to view the business profile
Entity Name Type Status Formed Online Annual Reports
Canary Coalition, Inc. NP Current-Active 1/12/2001 N/A
This shows they are a non profit and it is current so they can be listed as a 501c3.

Next you look to see if they have a csl license as it is required if they are asking for donations online and they do ask for donations at their web site.

CSL Search Results

SearchType: Starting With Search Criteria: Canary Coalition
Search Date: 7/28/2009 3:08:17 AM
No Records Found. Search Again

Another one: North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association or NCSEA ( I am just going to search for their csl license as they also ask for donations online.
CSL Search Results

SearchType: Starting With Search Criteria: North Carolina Sustainable Energy
Search Date: 7/28/2009 3:20:12 AM

Clickon the entity name below to view the CSL profile
Entity Name Type Status License #
North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association Charitable Organization Expired SL001074

SOUTHERN ALLIANCE for CLEAN ENERGY ( this is more they were given an extension, and then it expired 7/15/2009Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
117 South Gay St
Knoxville, TN 37902

Contact Contact Title Phone Fax
Cameron J. Potter CFO (865) 637-6055

Status License# Expiration Extension End Date
Expired SL004041 5/15/2009 7/15/2009

501C Type CSL Exemption Type
501(c)(3) Charitable Organization Not CSL Exempt

Again you can do all of this online and it you click on their name, you get more detailed infor, and
Will check back in later. Hope you see what I mean. Thanks.

Continuing Irresponsibility

Even Though SACE has a main office in TN, they have an office in NC. If sny non-profit solicits money in NC from NC, they have to have a csl license.

Another big one is the North Carolina Conservation Network. I was surprised to see them out of compliance. They solicit donations online, and although they were given an extension, it has expired.
Charitable Organization

North Carolina Conservation Network
112 S Blount St
Raleigh, NC 27601

Contact Contact Title Phone Fax
Brian Buzby Executive Director/CFO (919) 857-4699

Status License# Expiration Extension End Date
Expired SL002254 5/15/2009 7/15/2009

501C Type CSL Exemption Type
501(c)(3) Charitable Organization Not CSL Exempt

The groups that do it right!

I found Appalachian Voices to be in compliance and they are a wonderful group.

The North Carolina Solar group through NCSU is also in compliance and is a very good group.

So you have your two winners!


I was not trying to insult anyone. I was pointing out facts that can be proven. Again, sorry.

The original bill...

The original bill was a responsible effort to implement state-wide regulation of wind generation, with appropriate provisions to protect scenic vistas and wilderness areas. The amended bill basically prohibits any such generation anywhere in the mountains.


The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

Big Wind vs Little Wind

I pointed out on another thread what I thought to be an honest question:

What is the difference between a wind farm of, say, 40 or 50 windmills along the Balsams of Haywood/Jackson counties, and 40 or 50 residential windmills at the upscale Balsam Mountain Preserve development?


The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

If you're asking

about the difference in (power) production between big and small wind, here's an estimate:

50 large-scale turbines = power for 10,000 homes

50 residential windmills = power for 25 homes

Thought he meant all the same size. Your answer is wrong.

Sorry, I thought he meant on top of the mountain verses just below. You must be back to windspire. It would depend on your KWH useage....but there should be a residential turbine on the market that can meet the power of each home, so that 50 residential would power 50 homes plus a school?

There is a big difference in big and small wind, but it depends on what people want, or are you going to force large scale?

But on the days there is no wind....what is your back up power source?


1) I'm pretty sure there is a residential unit that could produce 100% of a home's demand, but if you really want to know, you might want to go talk to the ASU folks who apparently do care about small wind, enough to set up a site to demonstrate different brands and types. It doesn't look like they have a Windspire (now), but they have others that probably generate more energy per.

2) I don't want to force anything. I'd like to see commercial wind farms on the lower ridgelines that you can't see unless you go look for them, and I believe there are several locations that would fit that. But that won't happen if state law says you can't do that anywhere in the mountains. That is forcing, frankly.

3) That power would come from the same place it comes from now, the grid. Look, here's the thing: Duke and Progress have smaller, older and more dirty coal-fired steam power plants that they fire up during peak energy demand times. With a sizable commercial wind production, firing up additional coal plants won't be necessary as often. And (hopefully) building new coal plants won't be necessary, either.


But I was really trying to get a grasp on the visual and environmental impact.


The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

Never let ASU and NCWWG get involved. Trouble with a capital T

That is what Ashe county did and it upset the folks at ASU and NCWWG (North Carolina Wind Working Group). Believe me, the professors from ASU were drooling over the mountain ridges that are close to the TN/VA line in Ashe, but they would not listen, those ridges were not an option. But ASU could not let it go. Ashe county gave them lots of places to place turbines, up to 199 feet tall, BUT NOT ALONG THE HIGHEST RIDGES. OUR COUNTY WAS AGAINST COMMERCIAL WIND ALONG THE HIGHEST RIDGES. The mountains allowed still have lots of wind but these control freaks will not stop until they have the highest peaks. Ashe county let local government work and they listened to the people. Again, per Ashe county, turbines of 199 feet would have been allowed, but not on the highest ridges.

Look at what happened after Ashe made their individual wind ordinance. This group forms, NCWWG, mostly ASU people, and they make up their own model for a wind ordinance. They take the ordinance around the state. DOES THAT NOT TELL YOU SOMETHING???? Don't you think that a group that is persuing wind projects, then pushes legislature, and makes up their own model to give to everyone....are they not just looking after their own interests? I agree with you, but Mitchell waited too late. I would have hoped that they would have honored the ridges, (I am not sure of the elevation of their proposed plant...what is it?) but I agree they should have followed the ASHE county lead. Ashe did not want commercial wind, but if Mitchell does, let them have it. Then ASU would have been really freaking out.....less faculty, less federal and state money, etc.

Now ASU and their affiliates, and NCWWG have really screwed up. I am against this bill, in its present form and its original form. Look at ASHE, they are now restricted to 100 foot turbines. This bill needs to DIE, period. Then maybe we could go back and let Mitchell do their own thing. They would research it, just like ASHE. The people would participate. The local government will listen a whole lot more than the crazy ASU profs and all their questionable relationships with the irresponsible environmental groups. The NCWWG states they "actively persue wind power options."

I could blog for an hour more about the agenda they are pushing. BUT THINK ABOUT IT. Do you think that if this bill totally dies, do you think Mitchell could then make their own wind ordinance, free of having their hand held by ASU? What scares me is all the jargon about jobs, as ASHE county did not find that to be true. Look who ASU lines up with......ALL OUT OF STATE COMPANIES. CHECK THEIR WEB SITE!

So Ashe County speaks for the entire mountain region

If Ashe County doesn't want commercial wind power, so be it.

But don't kill it for every place west of I-77, which is in effect what has happened.


The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR


Wow you missed what I said. How in the heck could ASHE kill it for everybody else...that makes no sense, as we did what was right for our county. Every county would have had the same chance if they had just stayed away from the "model" and ASU and NCWWG. Think about it.


The original bill applied regulation statewide.

The amended legislation basically kills any potential commercial wind generation anywhere above 3000 feet.

Here in Waynesvile, in the valley, we are at 2,700 feet.


The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

Not sure that you are reading SB-1068 right

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think it means any RIDGES at elevations over 3000 feet. I do not feel that it means any ground that is over 3000 feet in elevation, just RIDGES that are over 3000 feet.

But the original has a great stupid statement. "turbines less than 100 feet and turbines over 100 feet. DUH I take that to read ALL TURBINES. No wonder it is so hard to read these bills. I say throw it out and start over!

The original SB-1068 was designed to meet the needs of ASU!

Think about it.....why did the NCWWG design their own model? It was not about being responsible stewards of the land, it was about their personal agenda. Again, if you are "actively seeking power options" and then you put your model out there and only your model is the right thing to do? If they were responsible, they would all be non-profits that meet state and federal guidelines. They are not. DO you think they will follow the state guidelines they are selling? ROFLMAO! Think about the example they set!

The difference....answer to your question.

I will respond to your question, but I am not familiar with that area of the state. If it is like ASHE, you are still going to get very good output, but not as much as the ridges. What does that county say about that location, has it ever been discussed?

Haywood County...

West of Asheville, home of the Balsam range (including the excellent and currently popular bluegrass band by the name of Balsam Range). We have several peaks above 6000 feet, including Cold Mountain (base of the excellent Charles Frazier novel and the pitiful movie that followed).

About 1/3 or so of our land mass is in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and another large chunk is in the Pisgah National Forest (including Shining Rock and Middle Prong wilderness areas).

I don't think commercial wind has ever been discussed here, but it seems to me there are ranges in our county that would be excellent prospects for such projects.

But thanks to you, it looks like we won't get the chance.


The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

See that "reply" button under each comment?

That's the easiest way for someone to know whom your talking to.


PS You might consider coming out of the anonymity closet. Whenever someone shows up with a frenzy of posts on a particular topic, it tends to raise suspicions about motives and agenda. You're free to handle that however you want ... I'm just letting you know that it's probably not going to get you very far.

Good job!


Passion goes around...

I too am passionate about alternative energy, and look for every opportunity to improve our environment.

I'm also passionate about allowing local residents to have a major say in some of these issues.

We do need to protect the ridgetops from the Sugar Mountain developers. But we also need to protect the ridgetops from acid rain and particulates that kill our streams and eliminate the views.

I fish and I hike, and I generally enjoy the outdoors -- even right across the border from Ashe County in the Mount Rogers area. I was out just this Saturday for a few hours casting a dry fly in the cool waters of the West Fork of the Pigeon near the Sunburst area of Haywood County (with a little success, I might add).

It seems to me the original legislation allowed for appropriate regulation of commercial wind, including provisions for environmental and viewshed protection. And I support having a local veto over individual projects, and wrote my representatives in Raleigh (Ray Rapp of Madison County and my friend Joe Sam Queen here in Waynesville) to that effect.


The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

wind bill background

I'm not sure where the author is going with this. Ok - you're opposed to wind in Ashe County. But as others have said, let each local body decide for themselves how to regulate wind. There's easily least 800 mw of potential wind energy in western NC and that would replace a big coal fired power plant (like Cliffside) that is obscuring the views of our mountains. These environmental groups DON'T support bad wind projects and you'd find them fighting against poorly planned ones. They aren't the enemy here - and no one is going to support wind turbines in the very places they've been fighting to protect for decades.

Some background on insight on Senate Bill 1068 and House Bill 809, Permitting Wind Energy Facilities in North Carolina:

The original permitting bills also do not preclude local government requirements for wind energy projects, instead the state permit would be "in addition to" local permitting requirements.

In order to obtain a permit, the following actions are required:

a public meeting upon permit application
narrative description of project
map of project location
capacity of proposed energy generation
copy of deed or lease agreement
certificate of adjacent property owner notification
a study of noise impacts
a study of bird and bat impacts
a study of shadow flicker
a study of viewshed impacts
In order obtain a permit a project cannot have significant impacts on:

cultural sites
ecological systems
endangered species
historical sites
recreational sites
wildlife refuges, preserves and management areas
viewsheds (views from any State or national park, wilderness area, significant natural heritage area, or other designated public lands or dedicated private conservation lands with high recreational values)

Thanks for the info

I honestly can't think of anything that was overlooked in those permitting requirements.

Flight diverted due to WIND TURBINE clutter on radar!

This actually happened. Consultations with the Radar Operations Center, FAA, Military, local medical flight teams, should be obtained. Again, this goes back to the "one size fits all" mentality that I do not like. Along the NC mountain range there are 3 nexrad locations. Along the NC coast, there are 2 or 3. Will these be impacted in any way? I think it is important to provide information from the groups above as to would that wind farm be seen on radar (the air movement) (radar line of sight). I actually heard someone ask if a Nexrad radar could be moved! Yes to the tune of 1.5 to 4 million dollars and a new one costs 10M. It also costs big bucks to re-route a plane and the fuel costs! In one location they may demand that the turbines be turned off during severe weather, so that they can issue the appropriate weather warnings.

I have never seen a study about nexrad locations and turbines in the NC mountains. I wonder if there is less chance of clutter if the turbines are not on the mountain ridges?

People need to read between the lines.

You need to read the Ashe County Wind ordinance

It is online, and I guess you feel that because Ashe allows small wind and not commercial wind farms on protected ridges that we are against wind? Sounds like ASU mentality to me.....if you are not for their big wind projects, you are anti wind, even though Ashe county allows wind turbines and small wind.

The FAA and ROC and the military should always be consulted in every county, for every project. Depending on the size of the wind project, they show up sometimes as clutter on the radar. Flights diverted due to clutter on radar from wind farms cost money and burn fuel.

I think local is good, AS LONG AS you consult with wind groups that are unbiased, and do not have a financial and personal agenda. There was and is a lot of unethical behavior going on around the development and lobbying for this bill and that needs to be investigated and will be.
I would refer you to the ASHE county wind ordinance. Map of Nexrad locations shows 3 that would be affected by wind projects in the mountains, but to what degree? Moving a nexrad in not an option as that cost 1.5 million dollars.

Was a study done on turbine noise and fish?

I wonder how animals are impacted by the noise, as their ears are much more sensitive. The Radar Operations Center should weigh in as I wonder if there would be less "clutter" if they are just below the ridge line. There are 3 Nexrad sites near the mountains, and 4 flight teams. Also the military should check in. Ashe county is beautiful, and we do not have women show up in high heels like they did at Cold Mountain, after the movie.

I will not support the original legislation. I say throw it out and start over. When you think about it, this should be very individualized, and it concerns me that they leave out the federal government re: Military/radar/FAA Life flights/medical flights need very specific radar information, and although the Nexrad locations are out a ways, ROC should be consulted. You can not ignore the radar and assume....oh that is just the wind farm at x location. In one area they are considering requiring that the turbines be turned off during severe weather, because of the need to be accurate with warnings, etc.

You know, I seem to remember

someone who posted passionately here against wind because of bats and/or birds sometime in the past. Did I dream that?

The bats and birds debate

comes up often. As I remember, it's hard to find conclusive evidence about it. Nor have I seen comparisons of small wind and big wind impacts. An interesting question, but not interesting enough to spend the next hour digging through.


No, you didn't dream it

Turbines do cause bird and bat deaths, and proper siting should require data about nesting and migratory patterns. They didn't pay enough attention to that at Altamont, and there was a horrifically high number of birdkills, including some raptors that were already nearing endangered status.

And bats present a totally different problem, because they are drawn (via their sonar) to movement in the air, and when turbine blades are turning at a medium speed (rpm), they sometimes find them irresistible.

Properly sited, the birdkills can be kept at something like 3 out of every thousand or so. As I've mentioned before (a long time ago), the damage to our bird friends from heavy metals and other particulates, the acid rain from sulfur dioxide, the respiratory issues from ozone, and (last but not least) the loss of nesting habitats from climate change, all as a result of burning coal, by (very) far surpass the threat to birds from spinning turbine blades.

Thanks and good point about pollution

from burning coal. Of course it goes without saying all those things related to coal that are a threat to birds are also to humans. It's called body burden and I wish right-to-lifers would pick this issue to get excited over instead of bothering abortion clinics.

In a study spearheaded by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) in collaboration with Commonweal, researchers at two major laboratories found an average of 200 industrial chemicals and pollutants in umbilical cord blood from 10 babies born in August and September of 2004 in U.S. hospitals. Tests revealed a total of 287 chemicals in the group. The umbilical cord blood of these 10 children, collected by Red Cross after the cord was cut, harbored pesticides, consumer product ingredients, and wastes from burning coal, gasoline, and garbage.