NIMBYism and Glebe Mountain: The Failure of Wind Energy

http://www.vermonterswithvision.org/sizecomparison.html

Introduction

Wind power generation in the United States has been growing for years. Growing from 34,863 MW in 2009 and 25,410 MW in 2008 wind power is only expected to grow in years to come. As of December 31, 2010, 40,180 MW of wind power have been installed across the United States.[1] In the words of Monique la Chappa, chairwoman of the Campo Kumeyaay Nation, the choice for using wind power is simple. “The truth is that the benefits of wind energy are numerous - and we must take a big-picture approach to environmental issues.”[2] An American Indian reservation, the Campo Kumeyaay Nation sees their role in building wind farms as an extension of the nation’s commitment to be “caretakers of the Earth”, we “know we have a responsibility to help protect the environment and our sacred resources.”[3] Ms. La Chappa does not seem concerned by criticisms mounted against similar wind farm projects across the country. Commonly referred to as NIMBY (not in my back yard), many renewable energy projects, specifically wind farms, have come under intense scrutiny by NIMBYism in recent years. While NIMBYism raises some valid concerns and can be a voice for one of the many stakeholders in such projects, it is important to remember that NIMBYism is a minority and in many cases is representative of the ignorant, self-serving and hypocritical individual or group that is more often associated with the problem than the solution.

[4]

Pros and Cons

Pros

As Ms. La Chappa stated, there are numerous benefits for the use of wind power. Perhaps the most obvious is wind powers benefits for the environment. As Mr. Robert Letovsky describes “unlike fossil fuel burning energy plants, wind farms do not generate any air or water emissions. Unlike nuclear power plants, wind farms do not produce hazardous waste.

Finally, in contrast to hydroelectric plants, wind farms do not require major impacts on rivers.”[5] The use of wind turbines over more conventional forms of energy creation cuts back pollutants in the air and water, and contributes to lowering, among other gases, CO2 which has been linked to global warming and climate change. For example, a conservative estimate for “a one-megawatt wind turbine generating about 3.1 million KW hours of electricity would eliminate 1, 500 tons of CO2 emissions if the turbine replaced a natural gas fired turbine.”[6] Another notable benefit for wind power production is the fact that “since wind is free, the cost of WGE [wind generated electricity] is stable and predictable, once installation costs have been accounted for.”[7] The abundant and free nature of wind is a powerful argument for the economic benefit of wind power. Additionally, as Dr. Linn Draper, Chief Executive of the largest utility in the United States noted at the American

Wind Energy Association’s 2003 annual meeting:

Any renewables added to our generation mix reduces some of the volatility in the overall cost of fuel for our power plants…We’ve seen natural gas prices rise from about $3/thousand cubic feet in late 2001 to as much as $9/thousand cubic feet this year. We like the idea that the cost of fuel for a wind turbine is totally predictable.[8]

Wind power is also competitive as measured against power produced through the burning of fossil fuels. When you factor in “installation costs, operations and maintenance costs, and cost of fuel, one WGE firm estimates electricity costs of between $0.05 and $0.10 per KW hour for wind, versus $0.06 -$0.08 for natural gas fired engines.”[9] Finally, there are also local economy and individual gains for wind power generation across the country. For example in Texas “a landowner can earn about $3,200 per turbine installed each year, with turbines placed every 25 acres.”[10] There are also tax benefits for local communities, for example, “a proposed 200 turbine farm in Grant County, Virginia is expected to pay over $500,000 per year in local taxes, making it the fifth largest taxpayer in the county.”[11]

Cons

While there are a plethora of benefits for wind power generation, there are also some cons. The most notable hindrance for wind power is that the wind is not always consistent. “Simply put, the wind on any given day cannot be too weak, since it will not turn the turbines. However, winds that are too strong can force a shutdown of the turbines to prevent possible toppling.”[12]

Another criticism levied against WGE is cost. Critics claim that “while wind turbines cost between $1,000 and $1,500 per KW to install, natural gas powered plants of equivalent scale cost between $400 and $650 per KW.”[13]

There is also an environmental negative of wind power generation. In areas with high levels of bird migration, “the rotary turbines have caused thousands of bird deaths.”[14] While bird deaths are certainly a concern that should be taken into consideration when assessing new locations for wind farms, thousands of bird deaths from wind farms is more of an anomaly than it is the rule. Indeed, an industry-funded study conducted in 2001 found that the “number of birds killed annually in the U.S. by wind turbines (between 10,000 and 14,000) paled in comparison to the number killed in collisions with cars (60 million), building windows (98 million) and satellite/radio towers (4 million).”[15]

Without a doubt, the biggest criticism leveled against the proliferation of wind farms around much of the developed world relates to aesthetics. Besides the visual impacts which may be caused by “road building and site clearance needed for wind farms, the turbines themselves represent what one critic called “visual pollution.”[16] The phenomenon of residents of an area where a wind turbine project is being proposed objecting to its proximity to their homes while simultaneously supporting the notion of renewable energy has acquired a moniker in the press: NIMBY (“not in my backyard”).[17] The NIMBY phenomenon is perhaps best explained through the words of Mr. Chancellor, an English citizen who lives three miles from a proposed wind project site. In an article he wrote for the Guardian, Mr. Chancellor details that despite the benefits of wind power production and England’s commitment to reduce its pollutions and help fight climate change, that, “the drawbacks of wind turbines are well known and should, we are told, be tolerated for the sake of the greater good. And it particularly behooves those of us who live near potential wind-farm sites to forsake nimbyism and set an example of self-sacrifice. But at this point I must reveal an interest and confess that self-sacrifice is not an option I plan to adopt”[18] Mr. Chancellor describes the ‘drawbacks’ that would prevent him from endorsing wind power in his ‘backyard’. According to Mr. Chancellor, the principal reasons for not developing wind power projects is that turbines are “enormous”, their effect on birds and bat populations, the sound from turbines frightens horses and prevents people from sleeping.[19]

In a 2002 survey of tourists in the Argyll region of Scotland, “91% said the presence of wind farms there would have no impact on their decision to revisit the area.”[20] About “one fifth of the respondents had actually seen one of the three wind farms in the region, and whereas 55% of these people felt that the wind farms contributed to a "generally or completely positive" perception of the region, only 8% said the turbines created a "negative" impression of the Argyll area.”[21] Additionally, while noise may have, at one point, been a concern for residents living near a wind farm, today’s wind farms, including the new Campo wind farm will be in compliance with all applicable noise regulations. In addition, “numerous studies have found no evidence of adverse health effects from sound emitted by wind turbines.”[22]

Case Study: Catamount Energy and the Glebe Mountain Wind Farm

Catamount Energy Corporation (CEC), a renewable energy company headquartered in Rutland, Vermont, made international news in 2004 when the CEC was seeking regulatory approval for the development of a twenty-seven turbine wind farm atop Glebe Mountain, in south-central Vermont.[23] Providing cost-competitive electricity in the United States and Europe for over 15 years, CEC determined that the Glebe Mountain project would deliver a considerable amount of “clean” energy and economic growth to the area. A number of local residents, however, actively opposed the project, fearing that it would “harm the area’s scenic beauty as well as threaten the state’s lucrative tourist trade.”[24] If approved, the 27 turbine, Glebe Mountain project would, generate capacity of “50 MW, or just under 10% of total demand in the state.”[25] The project would span “3.5 miles of ridgeline, with each of the turbines spaced approximately 500 feet apart. The land for the proposed project is privately owned by two individuals, both of whom reside outside the state.”[26] Proposing to lease between 2,000 and 3,000 acres, though the turbines themselves would only occupy about 100 acres, CEC chose Glebe Mountain because it would be the “ideal range for mountaintop turbine siting.”[27] The “$58 million spent on the project would include almost $15 million disbursed in Vermont, resulting in some $10 million in direct and indirect wages for Vermonters. Though construction would only take about twelve months, CEC forecast that the total development period for the project would last between two and three years, and create some 260 jobs. Finally, the company forecast that over the estimated 20 year life of the Glebe Mountain project, some $650,000 would be added to Vermont’s economy each year.”[28] Despite these benefits the NIMBY opponents of the Glebe Mountain project and led by former state legislator and former chairman of the Vermont House Natural Resources Committee Sam Lloyd, based its opposition to the project “on the aesthetic impact of the project. These concerns focused on the height of the proposed turbines, the probable FAA mandate for lighting the towers, and the potential impact of the development on wildlife habitats along the ridgeline.”[29]

Conclusion

As time went on and the cry from the small but vocal NIMBY minority in Vermont grew, the process began to breakdown more and more.[30] By June 2006, Catamount announced it was pulling the plug on the Glebe Mountain Wind Project. According to a statement by Catamount CEO James Moore, "Even though we think that the Glebe project would be good for the state, a majority of the local community was opposed to the project and Vermont's governor has stated that he opposes utility-scale wind projects."[31] It seems that Mr. Chancellor and other misguided individuals active in the NIMBY debate echo the sentiment of Mr. Chancellor when he said that “self-sacrifice is not an option I plan to adopt.”[32] This selfish and hypocritical stance against progressive solutions for positive change around the world is beyond reproach. It is this mind-set, from an ever shrinking minority, that stands against those actively looking to find solutions to complex and global problems. Mr. Chancellor and other NIMBY supporters are part of the problem. Progress is made through compromise, not absolute and narrow-minded self-interest.

---

[1] http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp[2] http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/feb/13/clean-renewable-wind-energy-benefits-all/[3] Ibid.[4] http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp[5] Hamschmidt, Jost, ed. Case Studies in Sustainability Management and Strategy: The oikos collection. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 2007. Page 283.[6] Boucher, T. and Stoddard, T. (2003, October 12). Do you prefer wind or coal? The Burlington Free Press, p. A 12.[7] Hamschmidt, Jost, ed. Case Studies in Sustainability Management and Strategy: The oikos collection. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 2007. Page 284.[8] Regulators vow that change is in the wind (2003 July). Power Engineering 107(7).[9] Northern Power Systems (2003). On site power systems deliver cost savings and emission reductions. Waitsfield, VT: Author.[10] Thaddeus, op cit. Hamschmidt, Jost, ed. Case Studies in Sustainability Management and Strategy: The oikos collection. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 2007. Page 285.[11] Ibid.[12] Ibid.[13] Ferguson, op cit.Hamschmidt, Jost, ed. Case Studies in Sustainability Management and Strategy: The oikos collection. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 2007. Page 286.[14] Ibid, page 287.[15] Tempest, Rone (2003, December 22). . Bird lovers blast wind farms. The Detroit News, p. 7A.[16] Hamschmidt, Jost, ed. Case Studies in Sustainability Management and Strategy: The oikos collection. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 2007. Page 287.[17] Ibid, page 288.[18] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/04/wind-farms-nimbyism[19] Ibid.[20] American Wind energy Association (http://www.awea.org/faq/tutorial/wwt_environmental.html)[21] British Wind Energy Association (http://www.bwea.com/media/news/tourism.html)[22] http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/feb/13/clean-renewable-wind-energy-benefits-all/[23] Hamschmidt, Jost, ed. Case Studies in Sustainability Management and Strategy: The oikos collection. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 2007. Page 277.[24] Ibid, page 277.[25] Ibid, page 293.[26] Glebe Mountain Group (2004). Wind turbines are not magic. [on-line]. Available http://www.glebemountaingroup.org[27] Hamschmidt, Jost, ed. Case Studies in Sustainability Management and Strategy: The oikos collection. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 2007. Page 293.[28] Catamount Energy Corporation (2003). An open letter to the community. [on-line]. Available http://www.catenergy.com/glebe_mtn_documents.htm[29] Hamschmidt, Jost, ed. Case Studies in Sustainability Management and Strategy: The oikos collection. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 2007. Page 294.[30] See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-keane/polls-antiwind-nimbys-are_b_819905.html “The poll, conducted by telephone by research company GfK NOP, found 66 percent of residents in support of the project and just 12 percent against.”[31] http://www.projectnoproject.com/2010/12/glebe-mountain-wind-energy-project-vt/[32] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/04/wind-farms-nimbyism

Compressed Earth Blocks for Sustainability and The Mountain Institute

http://www.cbd.int/mountain/websites/

Introduction

Building with dirt is nothing new. Indeed, the use of earth in construction has been a staple of man’s time of the earth. While the creation of simple shelters may be the most prominent example of earth construction in many people’s minds, many of the worlds “great feats of construction involved the use of mud or dirt. The Great Wall of China (246-209 BC) was built of earth along most of its route. Hannibal's watchtowers, built with compressed earth in Europe in 300 BC, stood for more than 600 years.”[1] As man has evolved, so have the methods used to make structures with dirt. Many of today’s earth made structures are made with compressed earth block machines. These machines create higher quality bricks – as compared to manual compression – and produce bricks at a significantly faster rate. Armed with a new compressed earth block (CEB) machine, an international nonprofit organization looked into launching a for-profit entity to promote its new CEB machine. Was this a good idea?

Case Study: The Mountain Institute

Founded in 1972, The Mountain Institute (TMI) seeks to empower “communities in the world’s great mountain systems through education, conservation and sustainable development.”[2] In 2002, TMI received a U.S. patent for its new CEB machine. The machine was designed by TMI board member Jim Underwood.[3] TMI believed that because the new CEB machine was “price-competitive, allowed for low-cost construction and was environmentally friendly,”[4] it not only was ideal for people’s living in mountain regions around the world, it also fit TMI’s mission to ‘empowers communities…through education, conservation and sustainable development.’

A recent MBA graduate, TMI hired John Buffington to assist in continuing the prototype study it was conducing with its new CEB machine in Tibet as well as develop a business plan for further promotion and the possibility of marketing TMI’s new invention around the world. After spending ten months examining the long-term viability of the CEB machine for a global market, Mr. Buffington realized that “this project was not going to be as easy as he had originally anticipated”.[5] The prototype project in Tibet had been “slowed and offered limited guidance on possibilities in other markets… [and the] apparent value proposition of the machine had become tempered with the identification of a growing number of challenges facing wide-scale promotion and expansion in the developing world.”[6]

Challenges for TMI’s CEB Venture

Problem 1: Production

As part of the prototype phase in Tibet, the new machine seemed to be plagued with problems stemming from the CEB machine’s “slower than expected block production and overheating” concerns.[7] While the inventor of the new CEB machine insists that the issues that the machine faced in Tibet are “only small bugs expected with any start-up manufacturing operation,”[8] Mr. Underwood is not factoring in the additional difficulties and lag-time of fixing these ‘small bugs’ in Tibet or other developing countries. Underwood seems confident that an additional month in the planning stages should be sufficient to debug such issues in various host countries. While this may be sound business advice this does not sufficiently account for the cultural dimension associated with this longer debug time. Underwood himself seems to hint at this cultural problem when he acknowledges that TMI’s Tibetan partners are not self-empowering. This inability for self-empowerment “means that small solvable problems can take a long time to fix.”[9]

Problem 2: Promotion

Looking to gain insight on promotion of CEB and other relatively inexpensive products to developing countries, Buffington contacted Martin Fisher, cofounder of ApproTec. Buffington was interested to know why he does not operate as a for-profit company instead of a non-profit. Mr. Fisher’s response was that “the products he sells require far too much hands-on marketing and training for the relatively small profit per unit he achieves.”[10] Smaller than necessary margins are a serious concern for TMI and their potential CEB machine sales. Mr. Fisher goes on to state that his organization “can spend up to two to three times what they make in revenue on marketing for a given product.”[11]

Problem 3: Piracy

Perhaps TMI’s biggest problem, many at TMI have “worried that the simplicity of the design leaves it vulnerable to copying by would-be competitors, particularly in the developing-country regions where TMI intends to have the technology manufactured.”[12] This is perhaps a particular worry since the prototype for TMI’s machine was in China, a country notorious for its piracy and violations on intellectual property rights. As part of Mr. Underwood’s design for TMI’s CEB machine, the unit is to be,

Safer, lighter, more portable, ergonomic in use, less expensive, adaptable to local power sources, and capable of local manufacture and repair. In essence, this machine was specifically designed for use in developing countries, with an emphasis on simplicity and engagement of local populations.[13]

This simplicity of design, while an advantage in many ways, leaves the machine vulnerable to complete and total copy. Mr. Fisher does not view the piracy issue as a significant threat, he stated that “if the ultimate goal is market development, piracy and increased competition could serve as a measure of success for” his organization.[14] While providing greater access to such technologies is certainly part of the larger mission of TMI, TMI will ultimately have to decide if its mission in the short term is worth possibly sacrificing its mission in the long-term.

Problem 4: Licensing Agreement

As part of Buffington’s analysis there was an expectation that TMI’s “licensing arrangements could create an incentive for a local TMI-selected manufacturer or distributor to try to eliminate TMI from sales involvement after initial manufacturing hurdles have been cleared and demand was growing.”[15] While TMI has had past successes “leveraging participation from government agencies, which have a special interest in assuring that the projects they are involved with run smoothly so as not to lose face,”[16] such an approach is inherently risky and by no means a plan for operation success.

Problem 5: Managing from Afar

The final problem facing TMI’s CEB machine globally is the “lack of significant local presence.”[17] In many developing countries there is considerable importance placed on ‘relationships’. Setting up TMI’s new CEB machines will require significant discretion on the part of the local government, manufacturers, industry and mortgage loan providers, etc. Without an established ‘relationship’ with these players, it will not only be difficult to prevent piracy, it may be difficult to make sure that production stays on track, that corruption does not ensue, and that market development happens fast enough and with appropriate measures such that this industry grows. Because of this, Buffington thought to “initially focus on those geographies where TMI operations already exist. TMI currently has formal operations in India, Nepal, Peru and the United States and coordinates on efforts in a number of other countries.”[18]

Conclusion

Taking all of the considerations into account TMI has a decision before it. There may well be opportunities for growth and success both monetarily and for TMI’s mission if the CEB machine project is given the green light. That said, TMI needs to be aware that there is a strong likely hood that the project will not succeed. Possible reasons include cultural misalignment, insufficient market acceptance, smaller than expected revenue margins, etc. Additionally there are significant concerns related to theft and piracy. Given its design, it may be very easy for competitors, in several countries, to cheaply recreate TMI’s CEB machine and cut out the middle man. From a business point of view TMI’s CEB machine is clearly competitive, if not superior to other CEB machines on the market. This superiority does not seem enough to outweigh the potential obstacles to success that TMI will face. If TMI’s goal with its CEB machine is to simply fulfill its mission and provide a superior product that can be easily reproduced and copied around the world by almost anyone then there is little reason not to go ahead with the production and training of people’s around the world on new CEB technology. If TMI is hoping to add this to the repertoire of TMI products and services and make a surplus on this project then this is certainly not something that TMI should invest itself in.

---

[1] Hamschmidt, Jost, ed. Case Studies in Sustainability Management and Strategy: The oikos collection. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 2007. Page 164. [2] http://www.mountain.org/ [3] Hamschmidt, Jost, ed. Case Studies in Sustainability Management and Strategy: The oikos collection. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 2007. Page 166. [4] Ibid. Page 162. [5] Ibid, page 163. [6] Ibid, Page 163. [7] Ibid, Page 180. [8] Ibid, Page 180. [9] Ibid, Page 180. [10] Ibid, Page 180. [11] Ibid, Page 180. [12] Ibid, Page 180. [13] Ibid, Page 166. [14] Ibid, Page 181. [15] Ibid, Page 181. [16] Ibid, Page 181.[17] Ibid, Page 181. [18] Ibid, Page 181.