Phillips: Moving Mountains for Energy

10.18.2009
Stephanie Phillips, Associate Editor
Writing From: Portland, Oregon

The debut column of Stephanie Phillips’ “impacted community profile” series.

So we all know that the “environment” is a hot topic. Every day, there is growing energy in the media, in policy making and in debate devoted to the large-scale environmental problems of the world. We all know about climate change, the ozone hole and rainforest destruction and we all either love or hate the posed solutions of cap and trade and carbon taxes, nuclear power and “green jobs.”

Ultimately, however, the “environmental problem” is both more macro and more micro than these hot issues. I see these as only symptoms of a larger societal problem, tied to the basic ways that people relate to both energy and to capitalism. We are addicted to energy, and currently produce it in a way and on a scale that we know cannot be sustained – resources we rely on will run out and the “landfill” of the atmosphere will fill up.

Simultaneously, our economic structure so heavily discounts the future, making these problems incredibly difficult to solve politically. We have yet to find a way to effectively incorporate long-term environmental consequences into the cost of energy and carbon pollution, and thus the price of commodities and the freedom to pollute significantly deflates the price of energy.

Further, due to the economic efficiency of centralized production and distribution, power generation and its ugly consequences come in the form of huge generating facilities and resource extraction projects that are so far removed from urban and suburban centers, that the average person can easily claim ignorance as to the effects of our energy use. Thus, in a way, when we turn on the lights at night, it’s almost magic; it just comes through the walls and into our lives. We understand the consequences in theory, but in our day to day lives, we pay the low electric
bill once a month, and ta-da: we have access to an endless supply of electrons!

It isn’t endless though, and there are other destructive effects to our energy addiction and to this “efficient” method of power generation. Climate change is one we are all aware of, certainly, and yet at the same time it remains an elusive idea that is difficult to pinpoint and relate to the personal. There are other effects though, direct and harmful effects on local communities linked to the realities of power generation, both in the United States and abroad. These are happening now and their effects on people are very visible and tangible.

Therefore, I want to take the opport unity, in a monthly “impacted community profile” to describe in depth some of these more local environmental problems in the United States (that are linked to the same energy-use disease that has caused climate change), and how average Americans are affected by our energy dependence.

Impacted Region: Appalachia
Energy Type: Coal

Problem: Method of extraction – mountain-top removal

Coal combustion accounts for 22% of US energy needs and 51% of our electric needs. Coal is in domestic abundance and the United States exports it to other countries.

The affected region is Appalachia – which includes West Virginia, Eastern Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, etc. This is coal country, and it has been providing the nation with a significant power source for over a century. Traditionally it is extracted via dangerous underground mines, however beginning in the 1960s, many companies began using a far easier method of extraction

– rather than digging for coal in a mountain, they simply dynamite the top of the mountain off entirely, exposing the coal seams, and then scrape coal out directly. The method is called mountain top removal. Entire mountain tops are left barren and exposed in the process, and locals are forced to endure the increased risks of landslides, water and air toxicity, exploding rock, horrible noise, devastated environments and fewer and fewer jobs.

The local effects are horrific. First, a location on top of a mountain is clear-cut, and all vegetation is removed. Clear cutting is not only a horrible eye-sore for a region, but it destroys local ecosystems, and leaves loose soil, which is more conducive to landslides. This poses a direct threat to nearby property owners.

Second, dynamite is used to blast away the upper layers (up to 800 ft) of the mountain, exposing the coal. Large rock explosions can be dangerous to nearby homes.

Third, large machines are used to remove the loose earth. Dry land waste or “overburden” is pushed into valleys, destroying local ecosystems. Over 700 miles of headwater streams in the region have been buried by valley fill.

Fourth, the exposed coal is scooped up and hauled away to be used to in power generation. It must first be washed to remove excess soil and rock, which generates sludge – a liquid mixture of coal and earth that is collected and stored in sludge ponds trapped by dams at mine locations.

There are over 600 sludge impoundments in the southeast region, and spills pose a potential risk. This past December, a coal sludge holding pond at a power plant in Tennessee broke and over 500 million gallons of toxic sludge dumped into the local environment, damaging homes and devastating the area for miles. The spill entered the local water supply as well, posing potential long-term health effects to those in the region.
Once the process if finished, the land left behind is hideous – a barren exposed wasteland.

Mountain top removal poses huge risks to local communities, in terms of toxics exposure and landslides. Simultaneously, it provides very few jobs for the community, and does not bolster the economy in the way traditional coal mining does. The process is popular because it is cheap and easy – and can be performed primarily with machines.

There is no good reason to support mountain top mining of coal. It benefits coal companies only and keeps energy prices even more deflated. Coal is already the most environmentally damaging fossil fuel: it emits the most CO2 in combustion, while also emitting many other pollutants that cause acid rain and deteriorate human health. It dirties the air with particulate matter and increases asthma rates. It wastes the most energy in production, with efficiency rates in the 30% range (meaning it wastes up to 70% of potential energy). On top of all this, the existence of mountain top removal renders it even worse. It is amazing to me that this practice continues despite growing environmental awareness.

Activists have been fighting mountain top removal and coal-fired generation for decades. October 30th is an “end mountain top removal” day of action. I implore you to engage your political voice, join in the protest, and voice your support of stopping this terrible practice. Simultaneously, I implore you to remember where your energy comes from, and use as little as you can.

http://thepoliticizer.com/2009/10/18/phillips-moving-mountains-for-our-energy-needs/

EPA identifies 79 coal mine permits in 4 states for additional review

Comment: Do not get too excited about the EPA plan, they have done this before and then approve more permits. EPA, pay attention, all Mt. Top Removal ruins the water, well duh!

By: TIM HUBER
Associated Press

09/11/09 3:00 PM EDT CHARLESTON, W.VA. — The Obama administration on Friday stepped up its efforts to curb environmental damage from surface coal mining, announcing plans to give 79 permit applications in four states additional scrutiny.

The Environmental Protection Agency said it wants to make certain the proposed mines won't cause water pollution and violate the Clean Water Act. An initial review concluded all 79 probably would affect water quality and require additional study, the EPA said.

Forty-nine of the permits are for mines in Kentucky, the nation's No. 3 coal-producing state. The list also includes 23 mines in West Virginia, the nation's No. 2 producer behind Wyoming, six in Ohio and one in Tennessee.

The action targets a practice known as mountaintop removal mining. The highly efficient mining method involves blasting away mountaintops to expose multiple coal seams and, in most cases, filling nearby valleys with rock placed atop intermittent streams.

"Release of this preliminary list is the first step in a process to assure that the environmental concerns raised by the 79 permit applications are addressed," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a statement.

The coal industry said the decision could mean lost jobs.

But environmental groups cheered the administration, which they've been criticizing for not banning mountaintop mining altogether.

"We applaud this action by the Obama Administration to return the rule of law to the Appalachian coalfields," Sierra Club spokeswoman Mary Anne Hitt said in a statement. "The next step in the administration's review process should confirm that these permits cannot be issued."

The San Francisco-based Rainforest Action Network called the news a "moment of truth" for the administration.

"EPA has taken an important stand in support of the people and ecosystems of Appalachia," Executive Director Michael Brune said in a statement. "The agency seems to recognize that there is no environmentally safe way to demolish mountains."

U.S. Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., who is sponsoring legislation that would ban mountaintop mining, praised the action, but said it is not enough.

"The general practice of mountaintop removal mining and the associated valley fills continues to be a major problem and must end," Cardin said in a statement.

The coal industry blasted the decision, saying it jeopardizes tens of thousands of high-paying jobs.

"By deciding to hold up for still further review coal mining permits pending in West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee, the agency damages a weak economy struggling to recover in the worst recession in postwar history," National Mining Association President Hal Quinn said in a statement.

Mountaintop mines in the states where the practice is most common — West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee — produce about 130 million tons of coal each year, or about 14 percent of the coal used to produce electricity in the U.S., and employ about 14,000 people.

The EPA said it's going to review the permits in tandem with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under an agreement worked out in June. The corps actually issues the so-called valley fill permits, though the EPA has a say in the process and under Obama has been doing so more frequently.

Last week, EPA asked the corps to suspend, revoke or modify a permit issued for a West Virginia mine two years ago. U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., has asked the EPA to retract the request. Rockefeller said EPA's action creates uncertainty in the coalfields, among other things.

EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said the agency is sticking by its request.

"We take the senator's concerns seriously but believe that this mine raises unique and serious issues that deserve further consideration by the Army Corps of Engineers," she said in an e-mail.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/economy/ap/59042772.html

Demolishing Appalachia

By Debra McCown
Reporter / Bristol Herald Courier
Published: July 11, 2009

A Wise County, Va., woman is among the stars of a controversial film on mountaintop removal mining that premieres today in Charleston, W.Va.

The film, “Coal Country,” looks at the negative effects of surface coal mining on Appalachian residents and communities in four states. Kathy Selvage, a Wise County activist opposed to mining practices used in the region, is among those featured in the documentary.

“I believe our hope is it brings international exposure to that and also that it furthers a conversation about where we go in energy policy in this country,” Selvage said of the film. “I hope it opens people’s minds to the problems that are the side effects of mountaintop removal coal mining. I hope it opens people’s hearts to the suffering that goes on in communities where this mining occurs right where people live.”

After the premiere in Charleston, more screenings are planned at film festivals and in major cities such as New York and Los Angeles, said the film’s executive producer, Mari-Lynn Evans. The 90-minute movie also will be shown in thousands of smaller screenings around the country – including Bristol and Wise County, Va. – before it begins airing on public television.

Evans said she has worked to tell both sides of the story.

Barbara Altizer, executive director of the Eastern Coal Council, offered the same response she said she has given regarding other coal-related films in recent years: Viewer beware.

Evans, a West Virginia native, said she sought to put a face on those who are negatively affected by mining, but also on the coal industry.

“At the point we started working on this film four years ago, I had no idea it was going to come out in the most contentious, critical time in the history of the coalfields, but it has,” Evans said. “People need to realize what these coalfield residents are saying, and people also need to listen to these miners who say we
have three options: We work for coal; we work for a fast-food restaurant; or we leave the state. Because it’s a mono-economy, and that mono-economy has enslaved this culture of people.”

Altizer said that after looking at the film’s Web site she doesn’t think it really shows both sides of the story.

She said people need to look at the whole process of mining and reclamation – not just the way a site looks at a point in time – and consider that extensive state and federal regulations govern the process. She estimates that only 1 percent of the region’s population has been seriously affected in a negative way by surface mining.

“Anything you build you’ve got to mess up,” Altizer said, comparing a surface mine to a house under construction.

“It [mining] has provided areas for home sites, airports, shopping strips, golf courses … there’s lots of positive things out of it, and you just never ever get the opportunity to read about that. And when people see this movie, they’re going to be less informed about our industry.”

Altizer also said that in Southwest Virginia, where coal severance tax revenue has been used for two decades to diversify the economy, real development has taken place in industries other than coal, much of it on land flattened by mining.

“I hope you … will realize they’ve shown what it looks like at the beginning, and yes it’s not very attractive, but you can realize that after it’s been reclaimed there are a lot of beneficial uses and yes it can be attractive again,” Altizer said.

Evans said a divide has come to the mountains where coal is mined, between those who want more than anything to preserve their land and those who work for the coal industry to put food on the table.

“My brother is a coal miner. My sister is a rabid environmentalist,” Evans said. “This issue is so volatile, it really is brother against brother.”

She compares the situation to a 1921 march by West Virginia coal miners demanding better working and living conditions – a protest that turned deadly after law enforcement acted against the marchers.

“ ‘People that don’t understand the past are condemned to repeat it,’ is just a phrase that keeps coming through my mind,” she said.

“Why are these people [in the Appalachian region] the poorest in the United States of America when they are living on land that is the richest in the United States of America? It seems obvious from that alone that there is a problem. ... We’ve got to figure out how Appalachia is going to flourish in a future that does not involve coal.”

Like Evans, Selvage said she doesn’t have all the answers, but she’d like to see coal subsidies diverted to green energy projects and elected leaders in Richmond and Washington working on a solution that considers the region’s economic needs along with its environmental needs.

There is a need for technology-related jobs, she said, so the sons and daughters of the coalfields have a reason to return home after college, and so America can find the power it needs without destroying its mountains.

People here don’t need charity, Selvage said, they need empowerment and the means to earn a living while protecting the land they’ve cherished for generations.

dmccown@bristolnews.com (276) 791-0701


http://www.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/demolishing_appalachia/28620/

It's Gone, Baby, Gone for More Appalachian Mountains

Comment: Sad that Mt Top Removal will not be stop by 4th Circuit Court and they contribute to our sad Cheaspeake Bay D + grade water grade. Of course, the D + will be a F - when each headwaters of Virginia Rivers (all dumps into the bay) will have an uranium mining on them if the State of Virginia approves Uranium Mining & Milling!


Here we go again: Today the federal appeals court (4th Circuit) in Richmond rejected a request by public interest groups to reconsider its decision last month to overturn a lower court ruling that had curtailed mountaintop removal coal mining in West Virginia. With a 4-3 majority ruling against a rehearing, it looks like the Army Corps of Engineers can proceed with its plans to issue permits that will result in coal companies filling more valleys (and burying more headwater streams) with mining waste.

rperks's diary :: ::
Of the judges who favored a new review of the case, Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson hit the nail on the head by writing in his dissent:

"...West Virginia is witnessing in the Appalachian headwaters the long, sad decline that Virginia and Maryland have seen with the Chesapeake Bay. Once the ecologies of streams and rivers and bays and oceans turn, they cannot easily be reclaimed. Most often than not, the waterway is simply gone for good."

Sad to say, but with the U.S. Court of Appeals continuing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the prospect of stopping mountaintop removal once and for all in the courts appears to be a long shot

Since the legal system seems to provide little or no recourse these days, it's up to our elected officials to finally do the right thing. All the more reason to wonder (and worry over) why the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently opted to allow more than three dozen mountaintop removal permits in West Virginia to proceed.

The current situation is more than a bit muddled and I certainly don't presume to know what's going on at the moment. But let's step back and assess where we find ourselves in this fight right now...

First off, there is no doubt that the Obama administration is infinitely better than the Bush administration on this issue -- that's primarily because the previous administration was so horrible. Clearly, the new administration has taken a couple of positive steps forward. Carefully examining the environmental impact of proposed mountaintop removal operations, as EPA has done in some cases, is necessary. It is also heartening that the Interior Department has moved to rescind the Bush administration's weakening changes to the long-standing stream buffer zone rule. But these necessary and appropriate steps fall far short of what is sufficient.

The Obama administration seems to be assuming that some mountaintop removal mining -- perhaps even a lot of it -- is okay. But the people who live in Appalachia know better. Mountaintop removal, the world's worst strip mining, is unacceptable. Period. Objecting to some proposed mining permits, but green-lighting others, does not recognize this basic fact. Nor does reinstating the old, more stringent buffer zone rule without committing to enforce it, as prior administrations had unfortunately done.

To do right by the people of Appalachia, President Obama needs to end mountaintop removal. There are bi-partisan bills in Congress right now -- the Clean Water Protection Act in the House and the Appalachia Restoration Act in the Senate -- that target the practice, and the president can announce his intent to sign legislation that ends mountaintop removal once and for all.

Similarly, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers can immediately take steps to reverse the administrative regulation they adopted in 2002 that gave the Corps the authority to permit the dumping of waste in surface waters, which also would curtail mountaintop removal coal mining.

You'd think that halting the Appalachian Apocalypse would be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, the false perception still holds that coal is the economic engine of the region's downtrodden economy. This is a myth perpetuated by the politically powerful coal industry. Consider West Virginia as an example. Jobs from mining account for just 3.3% employment in the Mountain State -- we're talking less than 20,000 jobs total, compared to the halcyon days back in 1940 when there were more than 130,000 coal miners in the state.

It's important to note that back then practically all coal miners worked underground. Whereas an underground operation might employ hundreds of miners for several years, the typical mountaintop removal operation -- which is far more environmentally destructive -- is largely mechanized and therefore employs only a handful of miners for several months or a few years at most. Think about it this way: banning mountaintop removal would actually INCREASE jobs because more miners would be needed to go back inside the mountain to dig out the coal rather than blowing the top off the mountain with high explosives and filling the valleys and streams down below with toxic debris.

I encourage everyone to consider the compelling -- and common sense --economic case against mountaintop removal.

Simply put, if we're banking our country's energy future on the dirty energy of the past -- particularly that which is produced by sacrificing Appalachia's mountains, streams, forests, wildlife, and fellow Americans living in the coalfields -- then we risk undermining the Obama administration's investments in 21st Century clean energy solutions that will protect our planet, produce more jobs and preserve our natural resources.

http://www.wvablue.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4498

South Carolina Says “NO” To Mountaintop Removal Coal.

Comment: the next Governor of VA needs to stop mt top removal and No uranium mining too!

Monday, May 18th, 2009

Recently South Carolina legislators introduced the Appalachian Mountains Preservation Act. This legislation would prohibit the import of coal extracted using the super aggressive mining method, known as mountaintop removal.

The bill, H. 3955, was introduced by Rep. Carl Gullick, R-Lake Wylie, and has drawn a small but committed group of bi-partisan co-sponsors.

Mountain removal is a method of mining designed from the beginning to take the miner out of the equation. Coal companies use thousands of tons of explosives and enormous machinery to blast the tops off of mountains in order to harvest thins seams of coal. Opting to invest in machinery and explosives leads to a decrease in underground mining jobs.

South Carolina is among the nation’s top ten consumers of mountaintop removal coal, burning millions of tons of it annually.

Carl Shoupe and Rodney Adams both of Harlan County, Kentucky were present in Columbia for a press conference. They both live in direct proximity to active mountain top removal mines and can attest to the harmful effects this mining has on Appalachian communities.

Carl Shoupe a retired underground coal miner and Vietnam veteran spoke passionately about the inherent beauty of his home, and the destruction that mountaintop removal is causing not only to the mountains but also to coalfield communities.

Rodney Adams, also a veteran and retired underground miner, attested to the loss of mining jobs due the highly mechanized nature of strip mining. (so open pit mining does not employ large amount of miners, notice pro uranium people!!)

“We’re trying to put some pressure on,” he said. “So we can put the coal mining back underground where it’s supposed to be.”

South Carolina is the 4th state to introduce legislation that would ban the import of mountaintop removal coal to be used by their electric utilities. North Carolina, Georgia and Maryland have all introduced similar legislation.

For more information contact Austin Hall, Austin@appvoices.org

http://www.ilovemountains.org/all/519

CHAT WITH A FIRE TOWER

Comment: thought was a interesting article and here we 30 something years later still not changing energy needs, oil, nuke plants still leading the way with their greed, come on America, we need True Green Energy, Wind, Solar, Tide, Thermal - NO NUKE POWERS, NO URANIUM MINING!!!

Published on May 17, 2009 in environmental technologies.

The article below appeared in a 1973 issue of “Forest notes,” as well as the Waterville Valley “Wig Wag.” While a quarter century has passed, Hans’ story is as relevant ever. Why didn’t we listen then?…

Some people are given to day-dreaming. I am one of them. My latest daydream had to do with the fire tower on top of Mt. Osceola and a chat I had with that old lady (like ships and railroad engines, a fire tower is a “she”).

You look unhappy, I said to her.

I am, said she. People think I am useless. They don’t need me anymore. And yet I could be useful. Not by watching out for forest fires — airplanes do a better job of that nowadays. They have wings. Now, if I had wings…

Good heavens, I said, you don’t want wings to fly away with?

O no! not that kind of wings, but wings such as windmills have. I could be a WINDMILL.

A windmill? What for? Windmills went out of fashion fifty years ago.

Some fashions have a come-back, she said. 1 could be a modern windmill with big aerodynamic wings. I would drive a generator and produce hundreds of kilowatts of electricity. Clean, too: no fuel to foul up the air. And FREE, almost. No costs except for construction, amortization, and maintenance.

You talk like an engineer, or an economist, or both, I said.

Well, I have lots of time, so I keep busy solving problems: science, technology, ecology, and so on. Take ENERGY, for instance. What you people mainly use for energy is FOSSIL FUEL: oil, coal, natural gas. It’s all getting terribly expensive. Worse: there will be less and less of it as you need more and more, for more and more people. No end in sight.

And the POLLUTION! Strip-mining … oil spills … it’s a nightmare! You can’t keep this small planet of yours livable that way. Besides, fossil fuel is a “nonrenewable resource.” Once it’s gone, it’s gone for good. Using up fossiI fuel means living off your CAPITAL. Very bad practice, my dear. What has become of the famous Yankee thrift?

I know it’s a problem, I said, but do you have a solution?

I do indeed, It’s the WIND.

People consider wind outmoded as an energy source — it’s just good enough for recreation, for small sailing boats. That’s a mistake. Wind is the greatest natural energy source on earth, ready for use, if you will only put your minds to it. It’s INEXHAUSTIBLE, and it doesn’t pollute.

Remember: WIND drove your New England Clipper Ships across the oceans. They could make 18 knots — not bad even compared with modern oil-driven freighters. About the same time — around 1850 — there were thousands of windmills in the U. S., producing almost a billion and a half horsepowers a year. As recently as fifty years ago the windmills on your farms were still pumping water and driving electric generators, untill the· Rural Electrification Program (based mainly on fossil fuel) made them expendable.

Of course you’ll say: wind is unreliable it isn’t always blowing. What then?

Well, the answer is you STORE ENERGY. You store it while the wind blows, so you have it when it doesn’t. So far there have been mainly two ways to store energy: storage batteries like the ones in your car; or storage reservoirs: you pump water into a reservoir while the wind blows, and release the water to drive turbine generators when it stops. Both ways have drawbacks: batteries are not too efficient, water may be scarce, and reservoirs are expensive to build. But there is now another way: modern FLYWHEELS.

Read about Flywheels in the December, 1973, issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. It’s fabulous what ultra-modern flywheels can do. Traditional flywheels are clumsy and heavy. The modern ones are light they substitute whirling speed for weight. They can store energy several times as economically as batteries, and they can be made to run for weeks, even months, once they have been set whirling by wind of any other power. Unlike water reservoirs you can put them up anywhere, and they don’t take much space. One can make them so small and light one can install them in a compact electric automobile and make it run 200 miles at 60 m.p.h. on ONE charge.

Sounds incredible, doesn’t it?

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN is a trustworthy publication, and so is SMITHSONIAN magazine which carries a fascinating article on WIND POWER, in its

November, 1973, issue: a committee of experts from N. S. F. (National Science Foundation), and from N. A. S. A. (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) have figured out that with a major WIND POWER PROGRAM the U. S. could produce, within 25 years or so, the installations to generate 1.5 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year equal to the total consumed in the whole country in 1970. The people from N. S. F. and N. A. S. A. should know what they are talking about. After all, they are the ones that sent men to the moon.

They suggest huge wind-driven generators, arranged in widely extended GRIDS, so when some of those “super windmills” are becalmed, the others take up the slack. Such arrangement would take care of most of your nation’s energy needs, stretch your dwindling fossil fuel supplies many times over, protect you against blackmail from oil suppliers abroad, and help preserve your environment. Some of those grids could be built on platforms in the ocean, off the

Atlantic and Pacific coasts, with double advantage: sea winds blow strong most of the time, and you could use some of the energy to produce HYDROGEN from sea-water, by electrolsis. That would mean one more way to store energy: hydrogen can drive combustion engines such as automobile motors, and it is a clean fuel; when you burn it the result is WATER.

And one more word about that storage problem: you can avoid it altogether, in many cases, by feeding the electricity produced by windmills into an existing

power system. Remember the giant windmill on “Grandpa’s Knob,” near Rutland, Vermont, more than thirty years ago? It was the largest windmill ever built, 175 feet across. It could, and did, generate 1250 kilowatt of electric energy (enough to light a town) which was fed into the network of the Central Vermont Public Service Corporation: no storage problem, you see! It was an experimental machine which was dismantled after one blade broke off in March, 1945, and war-time shortages made replacement impossible, but it showed how one could use wind energy on a large scale.

To sum it up: what you need is a CRASH PROGRAM TO HARNESS WIND POWER. I’d be glad to help if I can.

It sounds convincing, I said, but I have three questions: 1) how about ATOMIC ENERGY; 2) in the daily papers one hardly ever reads about WIND as energy source: Why? 3) if wind power is all that promising, why doesn’t our government take the lead and start a CRASH PROGRAM?

The answers aren’t easy, she said, but I’ll try.

1) You already have quite a few nuclear power plants, and many more under construction, but there are serious problems: HEAT POLLUTION; RADIOACTIVE WASTES; URANIUM getting scarce; danger of sabotage. If a fanatic should succeed in blowing up an atomic plant, you’d have a home-made Hiroshima right in the U.S.

2) The silence about WIND POWER puzzles me too I can’t answer that. Perhaps YOU can do something about it: write a letter to your hometown newspaper, talk about it with your friends.

3) Here things get complicated. You have, as Mark Twain put it, “the best government money can buy,” but that isn’t good enough.

You see, there are billions and billions invested in the Oil, Coal, Gas and Atomic business.

It’s extremely profitable, and many corporations in this field are international. That’s important. In business profits come first. The nation’s interest is a poor second, especially with an international outfit.

You may not like this set-up but there it is. And it’s only human that those who reap enormous profit from this set-up will hold on to it with all their might, which is plenty. When they speak, the government listens.

But nobody owns the wind. There’s no money invested in it, so there is no “wind lobby,” and nobody speaks to the government for the wind. Nobody, that is, except scientists, and to them the government hardly listens. Yet the best of your scientists have people’s interest in mind rather than the profits of giant corporations. In· the present crisis you need scientific advice more than ever, but President Nixon has unfortunately abolished the “White House Office of Scientific Advisors.”

And note this: your government’s budget for 1974 foresees $618 mill ion for atomic research: 170 million for research in fossil fuel - mainly coal; 24 million for research in geothermal and solar energy; and aII of 1.25 million for WIND RESEARCH. To put man on the moon cost 25 billion ~ that’s two thousand times as much as the government plans to spend on wind research …

Speaking of MONEY, the oil-producing countries are wading in cash already. Within a few years they’ll have hundreds of billions of dollars to dispose of — more than they can ever use at home. So what will they do with those billions? You yourself showed them: invest in real estate and industry, not in their own countries but abroad. Right here in the United States, for instance. If you don’t watch out they could, before long, turn your proud independent country into one gigantic “Banana Republic.” How would you like that? How can you avoid it? Not by draining your own fossil fuel (and in the process destroying your environment)nor by building hundreds of nuclear reactors, accumulating unmanageable masses of deadly poisonous radio-active wastes - but by turning back to that old, tested, clean standby: the WIND.

I could go on and one, she said, but let me mention just one more point: not all nations ignore the “wind challenge.” The Germans, for instance, are constructing DYNA-SHIPS, as they call them. Big wind-driven freighters of 17,000 tons, with computer-controlled sails, designed to make 20 knots. They’ll have auxiliary motors, of course, but even so, they’ll use only 5% as much fuel as oil-driven freighters of that size. And now I’ll shut up.

She was as good as her word. Maybe she was a bit single-minded — wind is one way, but not the only one, to replace fossil fuels. Nevertheless, her facts and figures were true, and they set me thinking.

There was a fellow once, so they say, who fought against windmills, on horseback, with his lance. We still call a senseless undertaking “a fight against windmills.” It seems to me we’ll have to do the opposite: we’ll have to fight FOR WINDMILLS!

Sidebar notes from the original article:

H. A. Rey, who wrote this “Chat With A Fire Tower,” is an old·timer. Born in Hamburg, Germany, in 1898 and a veteran World War I, he lived for twelve years in Brazil and four years in France before coming to the U. S. in 1940. He is known to millions, here and abroad, as the author-illustrator of the books about a mischievous monkey named CURIOUS GEORGE and of two very popular books on astronomy.

Mr. Rey and his wife Margaret (an author in her own right) live in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the winter and spend their summers in Waterville Valley. From their front yard they can see an abandoned Fire Tower on the top of Mt. Osceola. In days gone by, before airplanes took over, a guard in the tower used to watch out for forest fires, during dry spells.

The Reys are life members of the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.

http://reycenter.org/?p=4126