UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.

- CHKP

INDEX
INDEX.............................................................................................................................. ................1 Wave Energy Good – Market Potential..................................................................................... ........6 Wave Energy Good – Federal Studies Prove....................................................................................8 Wave Energy Good – A2: Too Expensive................................................................................ ..........9 Wave Energy Bad – Not Ready Yet.............................................................................................. ...10 Wave Energy Bad- Generators Fail................................................................................................11 Tidal Energy Good – Technology Best............................................................................... .............12 Tidal Energy Good – Market Potential............................................................................... .............13 Tidal Energy Good – A2: Biodiversity..................................................................................... ........14 Tidal Energy Good – A2: Intermittency..........................................................................................15 Tidal Energy Good – A2: Sedentary Run-off...................................................................................16 Tidal Energy Good – A2: Too Expensive.........................................................................................17 Tidal Energy Good – A2: Emissions............................................................................................ ....18 Tidal Energy Good – Now is the Key Time..................................................................................... .19 Tidal Energy Bad – Costly............................................................................................... ...............20 Tidal Energy Bad – Lack of Suitable Locations...............................................................................21 Tidal Energy Bad – Biodiversity............................................................................... ......................22 Tidal Energy Bad – Biodiversity Turns Case...................................................................................27 Tidal Energy Bad – Fishing ..................................................................................................... .......28 OTEC Good – Global Warming.......................................................................................................31 OTEC Good – Market Potential............................................................................................. ..........32 OTEC Good – A2: Biodiversity................................................................................................... .....33 OTEC Bad – Zooplankton – Food Chain.................................................................................. ........34 OTEC Bad – Zooplankton – Fish Stocks............................................................................... ...........35 OTEC Bad – Costly............................................................................................................. ............36 Offshore Wind Good – Empirical Solvency.....................................................................................37 Offshore Wind Good – Competitiveness........................................................................................38 Offshore Wind Good – A2: Fishing.................................................................................................39 Offshore Wind Good – A2: Sedentary Run-off................................................................................40

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP Offshore Wind Good – A2: Tourism................................................................................................41 Offshore Wind Good – A2: Biodiversity..........................................................................................42 Offshore Wind Good – A2: Cost.....................................................................................................44 Offshore Wind Good – A2: Intermittency.......................................................................................45 Offshore Wind Good – A2: Radars................................................................................................. .47 Offshore Wind Bad – Radars.......................................................................................... ................48 Offshore Wind Bad – Intermittency............................................................................................ ....49 Offshore Wind Bad – Cost.................................................................................................. ............50 Offshore Wind Bad – Biodiversity..................................................................................................51 Offshore Wind Bad – Empirical Evidence.......................................................................................52 Wind Power Good- A2 Health Turn..................................................................................... ............53 Wind Power Good- A2 Raptor Turn........................................................................................... ......54 Wind Power Good- A2 Raptor Turn........................................................................................... ......55 Wind Power Good- A2 Raptor Turn........................................................................................... ......57 Wind Power Good- A2 Pests Turn.................................................................................... ...............58 Wind Power Good- A2 Bat Turn.......................................................................................... ............59 Wind Power Good- A2 Biodiversity Turn.................................................................................... .....60 Wind Power Good- A2 Ice Turn..................................................................................................... ..61 Wind Power Good- Studies Prove.................................................................................................. .62 Wind Power Bad- States CP Solvency............................................................................................63 Wind Power Bad- Politics Links.............................................................................. ........................64 Wind Power Bad- Housing Market Turn..........................................................................................65 Wind Power Bad- Heart Turn................................................................................................. .........67 Wind Power Bad- Heart Turn- Health Extension.............................................................................68 Wind Power Bad- Raptors Turn......................................................................................................69 Wind Power Bad- Raptors Turn Extensions- India Proves...............................................................71 Wind Power Bad- Raptors Bioterrorism Turn..................................................................................72 Wind Power Bad- Raptors Bioterrorism Turn Extensions................................................................74 Wind Power Bad- Raptors Bioterrorism Turn Extensions................................................................76 Wind Power Bad- Raptors Bioterrorism Turn Extensions- A2 Redundancy.....................................77 Wind Power Bad- Raptors Bioterrorism Turn Extensions- Turbines.................................................78

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP Wind Power Bad- Bats Turn.......................................................................................................... ..80 Wind Power Bad- Biodiversity Turn............................................................................... .................81 Wind Power Bad- Biodiversity Turn Extensions..............................................................................82 Wind Power Bad- Ecosystems....................................................................................................... .84 Wind Power Bad- Ice Shedding........................................................................................... ...........85 Wind Power Bad- Environment................................................................................. .....................86 Wind Power Bad- General.................................................................................................... ..........88 Wind Power Bad- General.................................................................................................... ..........90 Wind Power Bad- General.................................................................................................... ..........92 Wind Power Bad- Competition........................................................................................ ...............94 Wind Power Bad- Offshore Turbines........................................................................................... ....96 Geothermal Energy Good- Environmentally Benign......................................................................97 Geothermal Energy Good- Economy.............................................................................................98 Geothermal Energy Good- A2 Thermal Pollution.........................................................................100 Geothermal Energy Good- A2 Heavy Metals...............................................................................101 Geothermal Energy Good- A2 Earthquakes.................................................................................102 Geothermal Energy Good- A2 Other Pollutants...........................................................................103 Geothermal Energy Bad- Transmission Lines Turn.......................................................................104 Geothermal Energy Bad- Transmission Lines Turn Extensions.....................................................105 Geothermal Energy Bad- Thermal Pollution Turn.........................................................................107 Geothermal Energy Bad- Thermal Pollution Turn Extensions.......................................................110 Geothermal Energy Bad- Heavy Metals Turn...............................................................................111 Geothermal Energy Bad- Earthquakes Turn.................................................................................112 Geothermal Energy Bad- Biodiversity......................................................................................... 113 SOLAR GOOD - GENERAL............................................................................................................ .114 SOLAR GOOD - AVAILABLE..........................................................................................................116 SOLAR GOOD: A2 INTERMITTENCY............................................................................. .................118 SOLAR GOOD – LAND USE................................................................................................. ..........119 SOLAR GOOD – HYBRIDIZATION GOOD.......................................................................................120 SOLAR GOOD – A2: EXPENSIVE...................................................................................................121 SOLAR GOOD - ECONOMY..................................................................................... ......................122

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP SOLAR GOOD - POPULAR............................................................................................................. 124 SOLAR GOOD - ZERO EMISSIONS................................................................................................125 SOLAR GOOD – COMPETITIVENESS.............................................................................................126 SOLAR GOOD – WATER CONSERVATION......................................................................................128 SOLAR GOOD – RAPID TRANSITION.............................................................................................129 SOLAR GOOD - INEVITABLE................................................................................. ........................131 SOLAR GOOD – A2: FOOD PRICES TURN.....................................................................................132 SOLAR GOOD – A2: FOOD PRICES TURN.....................................................................................133 SOLAR BAD – SILICON SHORTAGE...............................................................................................134 SOLAR BAD - INTERMITTENCY .............................................................................. ......................135 SOLAR BAD - A2: SOLAR INEVITABLE..........................................................................................136 SOLAR BAD - EXPENSIVE................................................................................................ .............138 SOLAR BAD - EXPENSIVE................................................................................................ .............139 SOLAR BAD - EXPENSIVE................................................................................................ .............140 SOLAR BAD - UNPOPULAR............................................................................................ ...............142 SOLAR BAD – LONG TIMEFRAME.......................................................................................... ........143 SOLAR BAD – LONG TIMEFRAME.......................................................................................... ........145 SOLAR BAD – EXPENSIVE ENERGY TURN.....................................................................................147 SOLAR BAD – INCENTIVES FAIL............................................................................................ ........149 SOLAR BAD – INCENTIVES FAIL............................................................................................ ........151 SOLAR BAD - INCONVENIENT......................................................................................................153 SOLAR BAD – NO FUNDING.........................................................................................................154 SOLAR BAD – NO FUNDING.........................................................................................................156 SOLAR BAD - DANGEROUS...................................................................................... ....................158 SOLAR BAD – NON-COMPETITIVE................................................................................................159 SOLAR BAD - INEFFICIENT..................................................................................... ......................162 SOLAR BAD – UNSTABLE MARKET...............................................................................................163 SOLAR BAD – UNSTABLE MARKET...............................................................................................165 SOLAR BAD – RAPID DEVELOPMENT BAD....................................................................................167 SOLAR BAD – FOOD PRICES TURN..................................................................................... .........171 SOLAR BAD - FOOD PRICES TURN CONT................................................................................. .....172

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP SOLAR BAD - FOOD PRICES TURN – A2: U O/W L.........................................................................174

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wave Energy Good – Market Potential
Projected energy estimates for wave energies are high but lack of incentives prevent expansion Meisen et al ‘5 [Peter, Global Energy Network Institute, Tom Hammons, University of Glasgow Scotland, Peter O’Donnell, Senior Energy Specialist, Omar Siddiqui, EPRIsolutions, Andrew Mill, Managing Director, Mirko Previsic, Electric Power Research Institute, Anthony T Jones, Senior Oceanographer; “Harnessing the untapped energy potentials of the ocean”; 9-15-2005; http://www.ewh.ieee.org/cmte/ips/2005GM/oceans_2.pdf]
The most promising sector over the 2004-2008 period and indeed into the long-term future is wave energy (Figure 2).
Shoreline devices are expected to grow in size, but the greater cost, lengthier set-up period, and shortage of viable sites (due more to market conditions than any shortage of natural locations) indicate that offshore wave energy will become more important, commercially and in terms of installed capacity, in the future [2]. The development process for wave energy can be looked at in three phases. First, smallscale prototype devices, typically with low capacity, will be deployed. Successful prototype devices will lead to larger-capacity prototypes. During the second stage, outside funding from government or private investors is possible for the most promising devices. The final stage, representing the culmination of development, is the production of full-scale, gridconnected devices that will in some cases deployable in farm style configurations. To date, hundreds of wave energy prototype devices have been designed, but only about 20 have progressed to the second stage. Of these, only a handful is close to entering the final stage and commercial deployment [2]. Although several wave energy devices are getting closer to fullscale deployments, the fact remains that real-world operational experience is limited. Large-scale demonstrations are required in order to test survivability and efficiency issues that have not yet been resolved. It is difficult to assess potential of a system until it is tested in its final state. However, some leaders in the wave (and tidal) industries have implemented programs that slowly--but publicly--will build up to commercial-scale deployments (Pelamis, Stingray, etc.). Realistically only a tiny proportion of wave energy concepts will move on to a commercial level. Limited resources, in many cases, hamper launch of technology as the sector is dominated by small and medium enterprises. These small companies are, in most cases, unwilling to collaborate because they wish to protect their investments. Needed collaboration and cohesion could be aided if regional and national organizations, such as the British Wind Energy Association, were to take a more active role [2].

Lack of funding is preventing wave technology from reaching full potential Meisen et al ‘5 [Peter, Global Energy Network Institute, Tom Hammons, University of Glasgow Scotland, Peter O’Donnell, Senior Energy Specialist, Omar Siddiqui, EPRIsolutions, Andrew Mill, Managing Director, Mirko Previsic, Electric Power Research Institute, Anthony T Jones, Senior Oceanographer; “Harnessing the untapped energy potentials of the ocean”; 9-15-2005; http://www.ewh.ieee.org/cmte/ips/2005GM/oceans_2.pdf]
The United States market shows encouraging levels of interest in wave technology; however, the market will be affected by the lack of positive government involvement [2]. Overall, wave energy will see a total expenditure of $111 million
over the five-year period to 2008. The United Kingdom's total expenditure is expected to be $72 million over the five-year period, more than all other countries combined. Spending is projected to peak in 2007 at a level of $37 million before slumping dramatically. This decline is attributable to a small number of currently identified projects. Although projected spending in 2008 is low, this represents a lack of announced projects rather than a collapse in the industry. Developers are hesitant to indicate future plans beyond the proving of existing devices. Toward the end of the decade, developers will negotiate and plan larger-scale projects based on proven technology, which are unlikely to see installation until 2008 or later. At that time, wave energy farms could begin to emerge. When devices reach this advanced stage, the prospect capacity will begin to rocket. Over time, the

initial high costs of development and research will level out, and individual technologies will become more cost effective. Once a device is established, serial production will result in much lower costs. At this stage, there are several devices that
have very promising electricity generation costs forecast that would further benefit their commercial success [2].

Massive estimates for energy output from wave energy – no intermittency issues Weekend Australian ‘6 [Keith Orchison, Weekend Australian Broadsheet Wrap Review Edition; “Converters test the ocean's might - POWER GENERATION”; 9-9-2006; LEXIS]
EPRI's research of wave power concepts being pursued in the US and elsewhere have led it to suggest that the generation of electricity from this source ''may be economically feasible in the near future''. The Palo Alto research
institute, which is funded by America's investor-owned utilities, says there are ''compelling'' reasons to pursue the technology -including it being ''one of the most environmentally benign ways to generate power''. EPRI adds that offshore wave energy offers a

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
way to minimise NIMBY issues that plague most energy infrastructure projects onshore, including renewable activities such as wind farming. ''Wave energy conversion devices have a very low profile and are located far enough away from shore that they generally not visible,'' it says. ''Moreover, wave energy is more predictable than solar and wind energy and the ocean's processes that concentrate wind and solar energy into waves make it easier and cheaper to harvest (than onshore solar systems and wind farms).'' Not the least, wave power has the potential to be big business. Research has revealed that wave energy is a suitable renewable resource, apart from the Australian and western Europe coastlines, in North America, the Pacific islands, Japan, China, South America and Africa. It is estimated that about 20,000km of ocean coastline globally are suitable for harnessing wave power. The International Energy Agency has estimated that it could supply between 10

and 50 per cent of the world's power needs later this century.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wave Energy Good – Federal Studies Prove
Wave energy flaws are fallacies – federal studies prove U.S. Department of the Interior 06
(“Technology White Paper on Wave Energy Potential on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf”; Minerals Management Service; Renewable Energy and Alternate Use Program; Pg 9; http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/documents/docs/OCS_EIS_WhitePaper_Wave.pdf)

A detailed site-specific environmental assessment has been conducted for a project to install and test multiple WEC [Wave Energy Converters] devices at the Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay Department of the Navy 2003). A
summary of this assessment is provided for illustrative reasons. The project involves installation and testing of up to six WEC devices of the point absorbers design. The WEC buoys are to be located in about 30 m of water approximately 1,200 m offshore, at two possible sites in Hawaii. The electrical power generated would be transmitted to shore via an underwater cable. Submerged equipment would be weighted and secured to the seafloor with rock bolts. The 10 potentially affected resources that were

identified for this project are shoreline physiography, oceanographic conditions, marine biological resources, terrestrial biological resources, land and marine resource use compatibility, cultural resources, infrastructure, recreation, public safety, and visual resources. None of these resources were found to be significantly impacted by the proposed installation and operational testing. Installation procedures would be designed to minimize impacts on living coral and benthic communities by avoiding areas of rich biological diversity and high coral coverage. Growth of benthic organisms, such as corals and sponges, on the new substrate provided by the undersea components of the system may end up benefiting the ecosystem. Organisms sensitive to electric or magnetic fields may be able to detect stray currents or corona effects when very close to the undersea cable; however, the effects would be minor and temporary. It was determined that there would be no significant impacts on recreation and public safety, although recreational activities in the immediate vicinity of the buoy array would be somewhat curtailed for safety reasons. Access to the area around the buoy area would not be restricted. Signage would be installed advising of the dangers associated with the equipment. Operation of the system is expected to produce a continuous acoustical output similar to low-grade noise associated with light to normal ship traffic. At the proposed distance from shore, visual impacts by the buoy mast assembly above the waterline would not be significant.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wave Energy Good – A2: Too Expensive
Wave energy provides the cheapest energy rate – solves cost problems U.S. Department of the Interior 06
(“Technology White Paper on Wave Energy Potential on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf”; Minerals Management Service; Renewable Energy and Alternate Use Program; Pg 9; http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/documents/docs/OCS_EIS_WhitePaper_Wave.pdf)

Cost estimates of energy produced by WECs are dependent on many physical factors,such as system design, wave energy power, water depth, distance from shore, and ocean floor characteristics. Economic factors, such as assumptions on discount rate,

cost reductions from a maturing technology, and tax incentives, are also critical. A detailed evaluation of potential wave energy development in the U.S. coastal areas has been conducted, taking into account variability in these factors (Bedard et al. 2005). The resulting cost estimate of electricity from the first commercial-scale facilities in the California, Hawaii, Oregon , and Massachusetts offshore regions with relatively high wave energy was in the range of $0.09 to $0.11/kWh, after tax incentives. These facilities are very capital intensive and these cost currently have a high degree of
uncertainty, For example, capital investment cost estimates for the supplications noted above range from $4,000 to $15,000/kW, suggesting that significant breakthroughs in capital cost would be needed to make this technology cost competitive.

New innovations in wave energy technology creates cheaper prices Indo-Asian News Service [IANS, newswire; “Anaconda to convert wave energy into cheap power”; Yahoo! India; 7-5-2008; http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20080705/982/tsc-anaconda-toconvert-wave-energy-into.html]
University of Southampton engineers are now embarking on a programme of larger-scale lab experiments and novel mathematical studies designed to do just that. Using tubes with diameters of 0.25 and 0.5 metres, the experiments will assess Anaconda's behaviour in regular, irregular and extreme waves. When built, the full-scale prototype would be 200 metres long and seven metres in diameter, and deployed in depths of between 40 and 100 metres. Initial assessments indicate that the Anaconda would be rated at a power output of 1 MW (power consumption of 2,000 houses) and might be able to generate power at a cost of 6 pence per kWh or less. 'The Anaconda could make a valuable contribution to environmental protection by encouraging the use of wave power,' says John Chaplin, who is leading the project.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wave Energy Bad – Not Ready Yet
Wave technology is premature and not ready to be utilized Renewable Energy Development ‘8 [RED, New projects in solar energy, wind power, geothermal energy, biomass, wave power and tidal energy; “Tidal Energy”; Last updated Spring 2008; http://renewableenergydev.com/red/tidal-energy/]
Wave power involves capturing the mechanical energy in waves and turning it into electricity. Wave systems come in a variety of configurations, some using the up and down motion of the wave, some the rocking motion, some the surging motion and some the variations in underwater pressure. There are several technologies in which research is being done for the conversion of wave energy into electricity, including: oscillating air columns that drive air turbines, tapered channels that focus waves into a reservoir on cliffs. Electricity is generated by running falling water through a hydro-electric turbine, floating vanes that oscillate in the waves, driving turbines directly, articulated devices that convert vertical and horizontal movements into electricity. Wave power is

yet to be widely used with many of the planned projects still in feasibility stages and projects consisting of demonstration facilities rather than viable commercial ventures. However, technological advances continue and, by checking out the projects listed above, capacity is on the rise with various ventures in progress around the world. Wave power can still be considered to be in the prototype stage and, as such, is too early to assess the full potential.

Wave energy is hard to harness due to expense and the frequency Scott Johnson 07 (“Exploring how today’s development affedts future generations around the globe:feature: wave nergy: “NewWave” interest in an old alternative resource”, American University/Sustainable Development Law and Policy, 7 Sustainable Dev. L and Pol’y 21; a JD candidate, at American University Washington College of Law) Wave energy is, in essence, concentrated solar energy. n4 Solar radiation creates temperature and air pressure differentials on land and over water, which result in wind. n5 These winds blow over ocean surfaces, causing ripples, then chop, then developed seas, and eventually, swells, which can travel thousands of miles in deep water until dissipating their energy when they break on shore. n6 Wave energy technologies extract the kinetic energy from surface waves, or from subsurface pressure fluctuations, n7 and convert that energy into electricity, or make it available directly for other purposes. n8 Compared to traditional generation resources, e.g., fossil fuel combustion and nuclear generation, wave energy, with appropriate site selection and careful design, is generally environmentally benign, does not directly generate emissions or waste, is generally low-profile (far offshore or close to or below the ocean's surface), generally is more predictable than solar and wind generation, and carries zero continuing fuel cost. n9 Research into wave energy extraction technologies began in earnest following the oil crises of the early 1970s. n10 However, available financing diminished with depressed oil prices in the 1980s and 1990s. n11 Wave energy technology garnered relatively little research or investment attention since that time, and therefore, still is considered an emerging technology.

Wave energy has limitations, many of which are economic or technical. n13 Extraction technology remains expensive, and is not cost-competitive with traditional generation. n14 For example, extraction potential for deep ocean wave energy can be many times greater than extraction potential at adjacent coastal sites, but long-distance undersea transmission is n15 prohibitively expensive. Technical considerations, such as the oscillating, low-frequency nature of wave energy, which would require it to be converted to standard frequency before addition to the U.S. n16 national grid, and which present a potential reliability problem, also must be addressed. Proving actual energy conversion potential and demonstrating marine survivability of wave energy extraction technologies also are among the challenges to be overcome if wave energy is to become a viable, largescale alternative resource.

n12

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wave Energy Bad- Generators Fail
Wave Generators Fail - Scotland Proves The Guardian 08 (“Harnessing the sea is the easy bit: The benefits of renewable energy form the North Sea is being talked up,
but will Scotland benefit?” ; Chris Harvie, Public; Pg.41, London, Lexis, Jan 3)

Next year, near Trump's mother's birthplace on Lewis, building will start on a four-megawatt wave-generator in a breakwater at Siadar on the Atlantic coast. When it comes on stream the possibility of harnessing the mighty Atlantic will loom as close as the North Sea oil boom. By 2020, the SNP energy minister, Jim Mather, expects Scots to get 50% of their power from renewables. Scotland is set to export power to the rest of Europe and - in reverse - convey CO2 by pipelines (some former oil arteries, some new) from elsewhere in Europe, to be pumped into the subterranean sponge left by the extraction of 250bn-odd tonnes of oil and gas since the 1970s. On cue, the spiralling oil price should enable the Scots to fix it for a new and illimitable power source. Even Gordon Brown is talking up the Holyrood government's ambitions. But the manufacturing regeneration that he promised in his book Where There's Greed in 1989 hasn't happened, so where is the expertise to come from which will transform innovation into production and profit? Much of the Scottish infrastructure is unfit for purpose: there aren't enough recruits in engineering, there's ignorance of foreign languages. Most of the works that served the oil boom have closed. In 1988 the Scott Lithgow shipyard at Port Glasgow built the Ocean Alliance, the world's most sophisticated drillship. In 1998 the Brownite New Deal cleared the site, which now hosts four call centres. This is the "transition to the knowledge economy. . ." The answer to this is Europe, but the playing field is even more uneven than it was in the 1970s. The Siadar plant - whose wave-chambers that compress air into turbines which convert it into

electricity - ought to be ready within two years. But will future manufacture come to Scotland? The main problems that remain are storage and transmission. The orthodoxy is that the network will balance out irregularities of power from the various renewable sources, but there are two glitches: networks lose much of the electricity in transmission, and immense pylons will be fought every inch of the way. The alternative is to use the electricity to separate hydrogen from water
by electrolysis, store it under pressure, and burn it in turbines.

Wave generators can’t sufficiently replace conventional energy sources Daily Mail 07 (“It’s time Ireland abandoned the PC orthodoxy and admitted that win and wave energy won’t be enough. Without
nuclear power we won’t be able to keep the lights on” Peter Cunningham’ IRE’ Pg.14, July 21, lexis)

The plain facts are that our almost total reliance on imported fossil fuels – oil, gas and coal – to produce electricity

cannot in any realistic sense be replaced in the foreseeable future by alternative energy sources, other than nuclear power. Wind energy is an erratic and unpredictable power source: at peak demand at the end of 2006, Irish wind energy could produce just a tiny fraction, less than one half of one per cent, of the power needed to keep the Irish power grid going. Wave energy, after decades of research, still lacks a coherent technology to convert waves into power. Hydroelectricity from rivers, which seventy years ago with the building of Ardnacrusha seemed the answer to our prayers, today can only produce around three per cent of peak demand. Solar energy too fails abysmally when it comes to sustaining energy to a
modern industrial economy. In the United States, it has been estimated that to replace coal with solar power would require covering the entire state of Nebraska with solar panels. NOTHING about nuclear energy sits prettily or easily in the world we might ideally wish for. But what we wish for and what we have to get on with are usually incompatible, and so it is with energy. Ireland's lack of natural resources means we cannot afford to stand back, magnificently isolated from reality, whilst countries such as the UK and France forge ahead with their nuclear programmes. Nuclear power today is a mature technology, producing more than one quarter of

Britain's electricity and nearly half of Scotland's. In France the figure is much higher: nearly 80 per cent of electricity comes from nuclear power. In Germany the percentage is 32 per cent, in the U.S. 20 per cent and in Canada 16 per cent. Over the last fifty years there has not been a single death in Britain from a radiation accident in nuclear power generation, waste management or reprocessing.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Tidal Energy Good – Technology Best
Tidal technology is uniquely better than other alternatives – multiple reasons Meisen et al ‘5 [Peter, Global Energy Network Institute, Tom Hammons, University of Glasgow Scotland, Peter O’Donnell, Senior Energy Specialist, Omar Siddiqui, EPRIsolutions, Andrew Mill, Managing Director, Mirko Previsic, Electric Power Research Institute, Anthony T Jones, Senior Oceanographer; “Harnessing the untapped energy potentials of the ocean”; 9-15-2005; http://www.ewh.ieee.org/cmte/ips/2005GM/oceans_2.pdf]
Except for barrage systems, all tidal power systems – Venturi pipes, fences, propeller towers, collared floating turbines -- have the following distinct advantages: 1) Sustainability: On average, a tidal resource generates some power for up to 17 hours/day, contributing to “peak” demand some 78% of the time on an annual average. 2) Low-cost: Tidal power may cost about U.S. two million dollars per Megawatt or about 5-cents/kWh, which makes it very competitive with renewable wind at 3- cents/kWh. While initial capital costs are higher than traditional power plants, there is no follow-on fuel purchase, no air pollution, and projects are engineered for a 50- year life. 3) High density: Water has a power density approximately 180 times greater than wind or air, thus allowing a 1MW tidal system to require approximately one-third the space of a comparable wind generation system. 4)

Environmentally benign: Tidal power systems produce no pollution or greenhouse gas emissions. The potential for fish kill may be greater during construction than during operation. Canadian river tests showed
no fish kill and no silt flow impediment. Large marine animals - harbor seals, dolphins, whales - instinctively shy away from the pull of underwater intakes and vibration. Salmon runs are projected to pass through the center of the Golden Gate channel. However, longterm monitoring of pilot sites is required. 5) Predictability: Cyclical tidal patterns allow power outputs to be predicted to within 2% far in advance, providing reliable base power for integration with electrical grids. 6) Modular design: Engineered underwater components of a tidal power project can be constructed off-site and brought to the site for installation. Projects can be expanded in a building block approach. Power production begins with the first unit installed; output increases incrementally as units are added. 7) Low maintenance: With no moving parts underwater, maintenance is minimized. However, the pilot project and extensions will be staffed at all times to monitor systems and watch for seaweed fowling, etc. Visual inspection and maintenance, if required, can be performed during four slack tide periods per day, and by remote underwater cameras. 8) Local control: Perhaps the next few decades will be a time in which we are able to build renewable electrical power options that make us no longer dependant on a centralized, fossil-fuel based grid. Sunny climates can harvest solar power; central plains states can harvest wind power; ocean, riverine and bay communities can harvest ocean wave and tidal current power. This will give our communities healthier choices, and long-term price stability and less dependency on oil imports, thus allowing communities to recycle their energy costs and boost their eco0nomies. Job creation, of course, is a factor with one metric suggesting that each Megawatt of renewable energy can generate 10

jobs.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Tidal Energy Good – Market Potential
Tidal energy has the potential to sustain U.S. energy market but lack of federal subsides prevent expansion Meisen et al ‘5 [Peter, Global Energy Network Institute, Tom Hammons, University of Glasgow Scotland, Peter O’Donnell, Senior Energy Specialist, Omar Siddiqui, EPRIsolutions, Andrew Mill, Managing Director, Mirko Previsic, Electric Power Research Institute, Anthony T Jones, Senior Oceanographer; “Harnessing the untapped energy potentials of the ocean”; 9-15-2005; http://www.ewh.ieee.org/cmte/ips/2005GM/oceans_2.pdf]
The oceans contain a vast amount of mechanical energy in form of ocean waves and tides. The high density of oscillating water results in high energy densities, making it a favorable form of hydropower. The total U.S. available incident wave energy flux is about 2,300 TWh/yr. The DOE Energy Information Energy (EIA) estimates
2003 hydroelectric generation to be about 270 TWh, which is a little more than a tenth of the offshore wave energy flux into the U.S. The fact that good wave and tidal energy resources can be found in close proximity to population centers and technologies being developed to harness the resource have a low visual profile, makes this an attractive source of energy. Recent advances in offshore oil exploration technology and remote management of

power generation systems have enabled significant progress in advancing technology development by simple technology transfer. A few systems have made it to full-scale prototype stage allowing experience to be
gained from operational aspects, which is a critical aspect to develop economic models. However, despite enormous progress over the past 5 years, current and wave power conversion technologies are at an immature stage of development. A lack of accepted standards, a wide range of technical approaches and large uncertainties on performance and cost of these systems show this. Further RD&D and the creation of early adopter markets

through government subsidies is required to move these technologies into a competitive market place.

Recent developments in tidal energy harvestation proves massive market potential – however, lack of funding prevents expansion Meisen et al ‘5 [Peter, Global Energy Network Institute, Tom Hammons, University of Glasgow Scotland, Peter O’Donnell, Senior Energy Specialist, Omar Siddiqui, EPRIsolutions, Andrew Mill, Managing Director, Mirko Previsic, Electric Power Research Institute, Anthony T Jones, Senior Oceanographer; “Harnessing the untapped energy potentials of the ocean”; 9-15-2005; http://www.ewh.ieee.org/cmte/ips/2005GM/oceans_2.pdf]
Historically, tidal projects have been large-scale barrage systems that block estuaries. Within the last few decades, developers have

shifted toward technologies that capture the tidally driven coastal currents or tidal stream. Very large amounts of energy are available in coastal waters. The challenge is, “to develop technology and innovate in a way that will allow this form of low density renewable energy to become practical and economic” [1]. At present, smaller units that can be deployed individually or in multiple units characterize tidal current stream technologies. Two groups of technologies are in operation or
planning; these are tidal current turbines and tidal stream generators. Tidal current turbines are basically underwater windmills. The tidal currents are used to rotate an underwater turbine. First proposed during the 1970’s oil crisis, the technology has only recently become a reality. One company, Marine Current Turbine (U.K.) installed the first full-scale prototype turbine (300 kW) off Lyn mouth in Devon, U.K. in 2003. Shortly thereafter, the Norwegian company Hammer fest Støm installed their first prototype device. There are a great number of sites suitable for tidal current turbines. As tidal currents are predictable and reliable, tidal turbines have advantages over offshore wind counterparts. The ideal sites are generally within 1 km of the shore in water depths of 20-30 m. Tidal stream generators use the tidal stream to generate power from, for example, the raising and lowering of a hydraulic arm. Several very promising devices are at the advanced stage of development. For example, the UK firm, The Engineering Business Ltd. has developed and tested a simple concept of placing hydrofoils in tidal stream to produce an oscillatory motion in the vertical or horizontal plane. The device, know as the Stingray Tidal Current Generator, “transforms the kinetic energy of the moving water into hydraulic power, which turns a generator by means of a hydraulic motor” [1].

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Tidal Energy Good – A2: Biodiversity
Tidal dams don’t harm fish – alternative navigation and screened intakes check Meisen et al ‘5 [Peter, Global Energy Network Institute, Tom Hammons, University of Glasgow Scotland, Peter O’Donnell, Senior Energy Specialist, Omar Siddiqui, EPRIsolutions, Andrew Mill, Managing Director, Mirko Previsic, Electric Power Research Institute, Anthony T Jones, Senior Oceanographer; “Harnessing the untapped energy potentials of the ocean”; 9-15-2005; http://www.ewh.ieee.org/cmte/ips/2005GM/oceans_2.pdf]
Marine creature impacts: Protection of winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon, an endangered species, is mandatory in California. Salmon may select to remain in the wider navigation channel and avoid a tidal power project. Intakes would be screened to protect larger species and avoid floating debris.

Tidal dams are not harmful towards marine organisms Meisen et al ‘5 [Peter, Global Energy Network Institute, Tom Hammons, University of Glasgow Scotland, Peter O’Donnell, Senior Energy Specialist, Omar Siddiqui, EPRIsolutions, Andrew Mill, Managing Director, Mirko Previsic, Electric Power Research Institute, Anthony T Jones, Senior Oceanographer; “Harnessing the untapped energy potentials of the ocean”; 9-15-2005; http://www.ewh.ieee.org/cmte/ips/2005GM/oceans_2.pdf]
According to Dr. Hassard, these impacts are expected to be negligible. In discussions with several marine monitoring agencies, it is assumed that most salmon will pass above the artificial reef of the cubes. Going upstream, they are driven to do their business; going downstream they are hungry and seeking open water and bait. Smaller salmon can go through the system with, we believe, not noticing the system (they momentarily speed up, but are forced away from the steel sides by the secondary circuit water entering the primary circuit where they are swimming.) Larger salmon cannot enter. Zooplankton and phytoplankton are assumed to be able to pass through the cubes safety. In the water column, these creatures tend to be near surface in the undisturbed top 16-meters above the Venturi cube. Porpoise and seals will be curious and certainly inspect the artificial reef. Whales, should they enter the Bay, can pass by and will be screened from passing through the system, as will anything larger than about 4-6 inches. Some creatures may enter the system and be accelerated out when the tide starts to run strong. Crabs, etc, may choose to live under the cubes. Construction will include underwater cameras in order to observe these phenomena. Scuba diver inspection is planned at slack tide, which happens four times per 24-hour cycle. HydroVenturi will ensure a failsafe system to avoid any chance of human injury.

Tidal energy offsets comparatively more environmentally damaging energy producing cycles Atwater ‘8 [Joel, B.A.Sc. The University of British Colombia; “Limitations on Tidal-In-Stream Power Generation in a Strait”; March 2008; https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/2429/635/1/ubc_2008_spring_joel_atwater.pdf]
Despite the above, if the environmental movement shifts to focus solely on greenhouse gas reduction rather than habitat preservation, there may be a resurgence in interest in tidal-barrage generation. Tidal-in-stream generation is a newer concept that involves the capture of kinetic energy from a tidal flow. The advantages of this approach are that placing turbines

within a flow is thought to have a more limited environmental impact due a smaller sea-bed footprint, and that the turbines are typically located away from estuarine waters (Gill, 2005). Furthermore, tidal-in-stream generation could potentially be employed in regions with a small tidal range where tidal-barrage generation would not be feasible. Tidal-in-stream generation is often considered to be analogous to wind and some hydro generation schemes. In some aspects, the
comparison is valid while in others it is inappropriate; the extraction mechanisms are virtually identical while the physics of the flows are dramatically different.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Tidal Energy Good – A2: Intermittency
Strategic placements of tidal generators solves intermittency problems Meisen et al ‘5 [Peter, Global Energy Network Institute, Tom Hammons, University of Glasgow Scotland, Peter O’Donnell, Senior Energy Specialist, Omar Siddiqui, EPRIsolutions, Andrew Mill, Managing Director, Mirko Previsic, Electric Power Research Institute, Anthony T Jones, Senior Oceanographer; “Harnessing the untapped energy potentials of the ocean”; 9-15-2005; http://www.ewh.ieee.org/cmte/ips/2005GM/oceans_2.pdf]
Regardless of the specific underwater construction, an on-shore tidal power facility would comprise a continuous control and

monitoring station, office, maintenance area, interpretive center, shrouded air turbines, sub-station and a few miles of underground cable to deliver this power to the grid. The following is useful when comparing tidal power to other renewable
energy resources: Benefits: • Tidal current is predictable and regular • Tidal power is independent of weather conditions and fuel purchases • Tidal power generation is not affected by climate change, lack of rain or snowmelt • The San Francisco Bay tidal resource could exceed 2,500MW • Environmental and physical impacts, and visual pollution, are expected to be small • Tidal power is ideally placed to support hydrogen production and desalination

Ocean technology is most predictable and solves intermittency Meisen et al ‘5 [Peter, Global Energy Network Institute, Tom Hammons, University of Glasgow Scotland, Peter O’Donnell, Senior Energy Specialist, Omar Siddiqui, EPRIsolutions, Andrew Mill, Managing Director, Mirko Previsic, Electric Power Research Institute, Anthony T Jones, Senior Oceanographer; “Harnessing the untapped energy potentials of the ocean”; 9-15-2005; http://www.ewh.ieee.org/cmte/ips/2005GM/oceans_2.pdf]
Predictability: As a renewable resource, tidal current flow is very predictable, to within 98% accuracy for decades. Tidal charts are accurate to within minutes, for years ahead. Tidal current is independent of prevailing weather conditions such as wind, fog, rain, and clouds that can impact other renewable generation forecasts. Solar generation is impacted by rain, clouds and fog. Wind turbines are impacted by calm weather, yet tidal cycles are as reliable as the rising of the moon. While

solar and wind are valuable renewable resources, neither can be plotted with the predictability of tidal energy, especially in a fiveyear forward contracts market. Thus, reliable amounts of tidal power can be forecast with confidence. This predictability is critical to successful integration of renewable resources into the electrical grid. As an
official from the California Dept. of Water Resources, familiar with power purchase contracts, said after reviewing a tidal power proposal: This expands our portfolio of renewable resources; we can always tell the ‘peaker’ plants when to turn on and turn off.

Tidal energy is generally reliable and doesn’t suffer from intermittency issues Wilmington ‘6 [Wilmington Publishing Limited; “Seoul Leads Tidal Breakthrough”; 10-23-2006; Water Power and Dam Construction; LEXIS]
The attractiveness of tidal energy compared to other forms of electricity generation is that it can be guaranteed. A lack
of sunshine or wind makes solar and wind power unreliable for core energy use unless and until economically and scientifically viable electricity storage is developed, but tides are more reliable. However, tides run according to the lunar clock, while demand for electricity is generally set by the sun. Consumption peaks during certain times of the day and year, whereas electricity is produced by tidal power plants at varying times of the day. As part of a wide generation mix this should not be a problem but could prevent tidal power ever becoming the mainstay of any country's generation stock.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Tidal Energy Good – A2: Sedentary Runoff
Normal flow of water ensures minimal sedentary displacement by tidal systems Meisen et al ‘5 [Peter, Global Energy Network Institute, Tom Hammons, University of Glasgow Scotland, Peter O’Donnell, Senior Energy Specialist, Omar Siddiqui, EPRIsolutions, Andrew Mill, Managing Director, Mirko Previsic, Electric Power Research Institute, Anthony T Jones, Senior Oceanographer; “Harnessing the untapped energy potentials of the ocean”; 9-15-2005; http://www.ewh.ieee.org/cmte/ips/2005GM/oceans_2.pdf]
HydroVenturi points out there will be no compression of water, simply an acceleration of water through the cube. Water speed before and after will be almost the same, though it must be noted that it is impossible to extract energy without taking something from the water speed. There may be minor sediment fall out on either sides of the cube in a bidirectional system, which is the planned design. There will be some sediment

displacement with the siting of the piers. However, as water can flow through the artificial reef of the cubes, there will also be benefit to marine creatures. There may be some minor scouring of sediment, depending on height from cubes to marine bottom, or none. Note, Dr. Ralph Cheng of the U.S. Geological Survey believes that there will be some site-specific impact on the tidal flow but no impact overall to Bay flow velocities.
Certainly with several installations sited, the Bay will be monitored for sedimentation impacts. The system modularity makes environmental impact one of HydroVenturi’s strongest suites. Given the cube-law of power from water moving at a given velocity, one can extract a great deal of power with a very small effect on water speed.

New tidal energies allow varying depth installation – solves run-off and biodiversity arguments
"There is still some way to go before the Osprey is fully commissioned and starts to generate electricity for the national grid," said Cooke. "But if, as we envisage it will, the Osprey performs successfully, it could play a key role in providing a simple 24-7 green power system—possibly in conjunction with a simplified version of our original OHEG concept." With the advantage of having the

gearbox and generator above the water level, the technology operates effectively in variable depths to maximize the efficiency of the power available through the tidal cycle, or in differing river heights. It is also environmentally friendly and will not interfere with marine or river life, can be mounted on the sea bed or suspended on pontoons, is bidirectional and will turn the same way in a flooding or ebbing tide. Due to its modular design, a bank of Osprey turbines can
be built up and added to in order to generate more power. "We already have a patent application in place and plan to build a full size prototype by the Autumn," said Cooke. "If this is successful, as we are confident it will be, we intend to manufacture a range of small units for river applications, followed by a range of cross flow turbines for conventional micro hydro plants."

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Tidal Energy Good – A2: Too Expensive
Investment in tidal energy is key to lowering cost problems through technological advances Wilmington ‘6 [Wilmington Publishing Limited; “Seoul Leads Tidal Breakthrough”; 10-23-2006; Water Power and Dam Construction; LEXIS]
Nevertheless, tidal power production costs have remained so high precisely because so few commercial schemes have been developed. As with all other forms of renewable energy, increased investment will yield technological advances, which in turn will help to lower costs. The South Korean government's decision to place tidal power at the heart of its renewable energy strategy and its plan to turn the country into a centre of renewable energy research and development indicates that enthusiasm for tidal power is once again on the rise. There are other examples of new tidal energy investment around the world. China's first ever tidal power plant was brought on stream in Zhejiang province in January. With generating capacity of just 40kW, the project is largely experimental in focus and was developed by Harbin Engineering University and Daishan Technology Bureau. A second 150kW Chinese project has secured funding from the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and a raft of other ventures are being considered, as part of the Chinese government's new found enthusiasm for renewable energy.

Research in tidal energy will considerably reduce the cost of tidal power Slaven ‘4 [Kevin, Engineer at Malcolm Pirnie and Environmental Services Consultant; “Final Paper on The Process of Making Tidal Energy and its Feasibility for the Future”; 6-9-2004; http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/fieldcourses04/PapersMarineEcologyArticles/FinalPaperonThe ProcessofM.html]
The future of tidal energy seems to be leaning towards open water turbines; which by not using a barrage, tidal energy does not have the initial upfront costs of building the damn and avoids some of the environmental impacts that are associated with barrages. Blue Energy Canada, Inc. has started using technology know as a vertical-axis tidal turbine to collect energy from ocean currents. This technology is supposed to get one hundred and ninety times the kWh per unit of fluid value of wind power (Maser, 2004). Also, Dr. Bahaj of the University of Southampton, reports for the Sustainable Energy Research Group that they estimate that tidal turbines have the potential, for the races of the Channel Islands site, to produce the same amount of electricity as three Sizewell B nuclear power stations (equal to 3GW) (Maser, 2004). Also, a 2002 feasibility report on tidal current energy in British Columbia by Triton Consultants for BC Hydro stated, Future energy costs are expected to reduce considerably as both

existing and new technologies are developed over the nest few years. Assuming that maximum currents larger than 3.5 m/s can be exploited and present design developments continue, it is estimated that future tidal current energy costs between $.05 and $.07 per kWh are achievable (Maser, 2004).

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Tidal Energy Good – A2: Emissions
Tidal energy offsets carbon emissions Meisen et al ‘5 [Peter, Global Energy Network Institute, Tom Hammons, University of Glasgow Scotland, Peter O’Donnell, Senior Energy Specialist, Omar Siddiqui, EPRIsolutions, Andrew Mill, Managing Director, Mirko Previsic, Electric Power Research Institute, Anthony T Jones, Senior Oceanographer; “Harnessing the untapped energy potentials of the ocean”; 9-15-2005; http://www.ewh.ieee.org/cmte/ips/2005GM/oceans_2.pdf]
Air quality impacts: Since no combustion occurs in tidal power projects, there are no emissions. Every MWh of electricity generated by a tidal power project offsets the equivalent of 500 -1,000kg. carbon dioxide, up to seven kilograms of sulfur and nitrogen oxides and particulates, 0.1 kilogram of trace metals (e.g., mercury), and more than 200kg. of solid waste pollution.

Tidal energy has no emissions and outweigh environmental problems associated with construction Slaven ‘4 [Kevin, Engineer at Malcolm Pirnie and Environmental Services Consultant; “Final Paper on The Process of Making Tidal Energy and its Feasibility for the Future”; 6-9-2004; http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/fieldcourses04/PapersMarineEcologyArticles/FinalPaperonThe ProcessofM.html]
Tidal energy will have some negative environmental impacts on selected areas where the technology is implemented, but I believe the positives of no emissions, no pollution and no fossil fuels outweigh these negative impacts. Tidal energy is a renewable clean energy source that will improve our environment as a whole. Tidal energy will replace our dependence on fossil fuels along with reducing nuclear waste by utilizing tidal energy. Some estimated savings for switching to tidal
energy; are 3 million barrels of oil, three hundred and thirty tons of coal and ninety-one tons of uranium saved each year (Brown, 1997). Tidal energy can be produced 24 hours a day and can operate 365 days a year producing energy. Tidal currents are very predictable, regular and flows peak at different times and different sites so power can be phased into grids continuously (Maser, 2004). The ÒfuelÓ, water, for tidal energy is free and abundant. Tidal energy has a higher efficiency than coal and oil: coal/oil

efficiency = 30%, tidal power efficiency = 80%. Therefore more energy can be produced from the same amount of inputs (Brown, 1997).

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Tidal Energy Good – Now is the Key Time
Now is the time – tidal energy must be expanded now or growth will be stifled Meisen et al ‘5 [Peter, Global Energy Network Institute, Tom Hammons, University of Glasgow Scotland, Peter O’Donnell, Senior Energy Specialist, Omar Siddiqui, EPRIsolutions, Andrew Mill, Managing Director, Mirko Previsic, Electric Power Research Institute, Anthony T Jones, Senior Oceanographer; “Harnessing the untapped energy potentials of the ocean”; 9-15-2005; http://www.ewh.ieee.org/cmte/ips/2005GM/oceans_2.pdf]
As the marine energy industry progresses from its current fledgling state to a mature commercial industry there is a need for appropriate regulation to be developed. The current designs and models built draw on standards and codes from other industries not always the most appropriate or indeed cost effective. If the industry does not

address the needs then the other stakeholders such as investors, financiers and government will impose their regulation. Potentially this will result in over regulation stifling the growth of the industry. Other
industries have introduced regulation part way through their development resulting in conflict between stakeholders and different country’s approaches. It is an essential part of the industry’s development to build confidence and to reduce the risk to the investors and insurers. Only then will the industry secure the funding for commercial project development. The industry has already suffered a number of failures more are inevitable as the industry matures. Through the controls of verification and certification the industry can build the mechanism to ensure that these experiences are minimized and that confidence is gained.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Tidal Energy Bad – Costly
Increased levels of funding increases the cost of tidal power Atwater ‘8 [Joel, B.A.Sc. The University of British Colombia; “Limitations on Tidal-In-Stream Power Generation in a Strait”; March 2008; https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/2429/635/1/ubc_2008_spring_joel_atwater.pdf]
Tidal flow in a strait is driven by the difference in sea-level along the channel and is impeded by friction; the interplay between
the driving and resistive forces determines the flow rate and thus the extractible power. The use of kinetic energy flux, previously employed as a metric for extractible power, is found to be unreliable as it does not account for the increased resistance the turbines provide in retarding the flow. The limits on extraction from a channel are dependent on the relationship between head loss and velocity. If head loss increases with the square of the velocity, a maximum of 38% of the total fluid power may be extracted; this maximum decreases to 25% if head loss increases linearly with velocity. Using these values, the estimated power potential of BC’s Inside Passage is 477MW, 13% of previous assessments. If a flow has the ability to divert through a parallel channel around the installed turbines, there are further limits on production. The magnitude of this diversion is a function of the relative resistance of impeded and diversion channels. As power extraction increases, the flow will slow from its natural rate. This reduction in

velocity precipitously decreases the power density the flow, requiring additional turbine area per unit of power. As such, the infrastructure costs per watt may rise five to eight times as additional turbines are installed. This places significant economic limitations on utility scale tidal energy production.

Tidal energy is more expensive than fossil fuels and construction costs are staggering Slaven ‘4 [Kevin, Engineer at Malcolm Pirnie and Environmental Services Consultant; “Final Paper on The Process of Making Tidal Energy and its Feasibility for the Future”; 6-9-2004; http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/fieldcourses04/PapersMarineEcologyArticles/FinalPaperonThe ProcessofM.html]
There are still problems that face tidal energy; tidal energy is still more expensive that fossil fuels per unit of energy output (coal/oil = $.06kWh; tidal $.10kWh) (OÕMara, 1999). For tidal energy to be possible there needs to be about a 7-meter differential between low tides and high tides to produce a sufficient amount of flow to produce energy when using the barrage process. Another economical problem is that tidal barrages have a very expensive upfront cost to be built across a basin, and can take up to ten years to build (POEMS, 2003). Also, the technology still needs improvements to generate more energy at a cheaper price before it will become more widely used. Finally, all environmental impacts are unknown, further research needs to be performed to know the extent of the environmental impacts associated with the production of tidal energy.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Tidal Energy Bad – Lack of Suitable Locations
The requirements of tidal power make suitable locations extremely limited Renewable Energy Development ‘8 [RED, New projects in solar energy, wind power, geothermal energy, biomass, wave power and tidal energy; “Tidal Energy”; Last updated Spring 2008; http://renewableenergydev.com/red/tidal-energy/]
When there’s a substantial amount of water that rushes in and out of some rivers and inlets it’s possible to harness the energy created to drive generators to produce electricity. To tap this energy a barrage is built across the mouth of the river. Water turbines sit in the barrage wall and as the water rushes through, the turbines generate electricity. The effectiveness of the installation to

produce significant levels of electricity depends entirely on the range of the tide and the volume of water that is pushed through the barrage. In order to make the process worthwhile the tidal range must be at least 4 metres. There are only a handful of places in the world where the conditions are suited to a tidal system that generates sustainable power. One of these is the Bay of Fundy in Canada which has the largest tidal range in the world with an annual average of 10.8 metres. Appropriate sites for building a tidal power plant are scarce globally, particularly sites with a nearby requirement for electricity which would save on transport or storage costs.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Tidal Energy Bad – Biodiversity
Tidal energy creates excess silt run-off damaging biodiversity Renewable Energy Development ‘8 [RED, New projects in solar energy, wind power, geothermal energy, biomass, wave power and tidal energy; “Tidal Energy”; Last updated Spring 2008; http://renewableenergydev.com/red/tidal-energy/]
Tidal power can have a significant effect on local biodiversity just as a large dam across a river does with the possibility of significant silt build up because of the reduced tidal flow. Cost of Tidal Power The cost of setting up a tidal power station can be very high, although once in place the operating costs are low. As an example of the cost of setting up, a proposed 8000 MW tidal power plant and barrage system on the Severn Estuary in the UK has been estimated to cost US$15 billion, while another in the San Bernadino strait which would produce 2,200 MW as a tidal fence in the Philippines will cost
an estimated US$3 billion. (Source: Australian Institute of Energy) Tidal Power By the Numbers There are 2 large commercial scale tidal power sites in operation around the world. The first is a 240 MW bulb turbine at the mouth of La Rance estuary in France. That site powers a city of 300,000 people. The second is the previously mentioned Bay of Fundy plant in Canada which generates 16 MW powering around 4500 houses in the area.

Tidal energy generation facilities hold severe ramifications on the environment and damage marine ecology Atwater ‘8 [Joel, B.A.Sc. The University of British Colombia; “Limitations on Tidal-In-Stream Power Generation in a Strait”; March 2008; https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/2429/635/1/ubc_2008_spring_joel_atwater.pdf]
Tidal-barrage schemes typically involve building a dam across the entrance to a bay. A control structure allows seawater to
move into the bay on the flood tide. At high tide, the control structure is closed, trapping the water in the bay as the outside water level drops. The head difference between the inside and outside of the bay then drives flow through turbines which in turn drives generators, producing electricity. There are a number of facilities in operation; the largest is in La Rance, France with an installed capacity of approximately 240MW (Garrett and Cummins, 2004). In Canada, a tidal-barrage plant operates in Annapolis, Nova Scotia with an installed capacity of 18MW (Hammons, 1993). Additionally smaller facilities have been constructed in Russia and China (Tidmarsh, 1983). There are several issues with tidal-barrage schemes that have likely made it politically impractical for new developments in North America. The primary concern is environmental. Dramatic changes in tidal flushing within a bay

have massive ecological implications in often biologically sensitive estuarine regions; silt infiltration into the bay, detrimental effects to migratory marine life, increases in suspended solids, increased scour, difficulty with flood control and potential salination of on-shore groundwater are also of concern (Tidmarsh, 1983). Furthermore, the high capital costs associated with the construction of dams, control structures and turbines make tidal-barrages of somewhat limited economic viability.

Tidal barrages cause flooding and alterations that severely damage the environment – Bay of Fundy proves Western Morning News ‘8 [Western Morning News (Plymouth); “Doubts Raised on Impacts of Tidal Barrages”; 2-16-2008; LEXIS]
Professor Simon Haslett, head of geography at Bath Spa University, briefed the conference on the proposals for the Severn Barrage. He said the Canadian scientists claimed the barrage would be inefficient because it could only work on the ebb tide, saying it would pose serious dangers through flooding and silting and that it could threaten marine wildlife. Prof
Haslett said other technologies, such as tidal stream turbines which work like underwater windmills, would be a better idea: "The Canadians have been experimenting with tidal power generation in the Bay of Fundy for many years. “The consequences have

convinced them that building a barrage is inefficient, has many undesirable environmental impacts, and is unsightly."For the Canadians the idea of a barrage is now history and doesn't even get raised as an option during tidal power
debates. It's so old hat they are amazed the UK is even considering it. "If the Canadians are right we shouldn't even waste any time and millions of pounds of taxpayers' money considering a barrage." Roger Hull, a member of the Severn Tidal Power Group, said tidal stream turbines could also work alongside a barrage. Doubts raised on impact of tidal barrage. "We must take on board what the Canadians say but it's important to remember that we have different circumstances here." he said. "Different rivers carry different amounts of sediment and it's wrong to draw too many parallels, especially when there is a very successful tidal barrage, which can operate on both ebb and flow tides, in La Rance in France. As to whether we should be using tidal stream as well, the answer is that it is not a matter of one or the other." Wildlife campaigners have repeatedly called for the Government to think again on the project, fearing the damage to vital habitats will far outweigh any benefits from generating green electricity. Lisa Schneidau from

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
Somerset Wildlife Trust said there were "significant concerns" about proposals for a Severn Barrage. "While we fully support renewable energy generation as part of the UK's action to tackle climate change, the wildlife trusts are not convinced that a barrage is the most sustainable, cost-effective or desirable way to harness the tidal power of the Severn estuary," she said. "The Severn estuary is an internationally important wildlife site, which would be irreparably damaged by the construction of a Barrage. Such a

huge doubts raised on impact of tidal barrage structure would also be hugely expensive and would encourage other damaging and carbon-hungry development in the area."

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Tidal Energy Bad – Biodiversity
Tide power causes erosions, storm surges, destruction of benthic ecosystems and pollutants
Peter Clark et al 03 (“Tidal Energy”;Cause 2003: Final Project, Pg. 34 B.A. (Hons.), Natural Sciences (Geological Sciences), Queens' College, Cambridge University, 1992 (M.A., 1995). D.Phil., Earth Sciences, Exeter College, Oxford University, 1997.Certificate in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Newcastle University, 1999.; http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:oMKu4JkUS7gJ:www.ems.psu.edu/~elsworth/courses/cause2003/finalprojects/ca nutepaper.pdf+Ocean+current+tidal+energy+ecosystem+economy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us) Although tidal barrage and tidal current schemes do not emit pollutants, they may cause changes in tidal patterns, vertical

mixing, sedimentation, and water salinity and temperature (Rieser et al 24). Increased sedimentation requires more frequent dredging, but may be counterbalanced by erosion. Erosion is a major concern in itself for citizens of Maine’s beaches: sand dunes that were protected tooth and nail are a t risk for major erosion, and coastal dwellings are at risk for major storm surges if this erosion is increased by a tidal barrage scheme (United States Cong. S. Hrg. 98-223 270). Drainage basins and groundwater sources might be at risk for saltwater intrusion, which must be controlled as part of the tidal power plant’s daily operations (Watson and Adkins.)
Another major concern is the boundary layer stresses of water flow in a tidal scheme: shear stresses at peak flow

simulate friction against a wall, and disturb the benthos, or ocean floor (White 45). Until recently, the benthos was too deep to be examined closely by instrumentation, so changes in these environments over time could not be ascertained. We now have underwater rovers to scan the ocean floor, so we must note carefully the existing condition of such areas as a baseline to compare future natural or man-made changes to the benthic ecosystem (Boudreau). One possible concern with tidal pattern disruption by barrage schemes is that pollutants that would normally be carried away by the tide may lodge in the ocean floor and concentrate in higher levels than would be expected (Boudreau).
The complexity of these benthic systems still cannot be modeled, however, and the changes that may result in the ecosystem may be caused by factors other than a tidal barrage (National Research Council 76).

Red Tide destroys ecosystems
Peter Clark et al 03 (“Tidal Energy”;Cause 2003: Final Project, Pg. 35 B.A. (Hons.), Natural Sciences (Geological Sciences), Queens' College, Cambridge University, 1992 (M.A., 1995). D.Phil., Earth Sciences, Exeter College, Oxford University, 1997.Certificate in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Newcastle University, 1999.; http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:oMKu4JkUS7gJ:www.ems.psu.edu/~elsworth/courses/cause2003/finalprojects/ca nutepaper.pdf+Ocean+current+tidal+energy+ecosystem+economy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us)

Red tide has been a problem around the Bay of Fundy area, an ideal site for tidal power that has been proposed for development since 1910. “Red tide” is the common name for harmful algal blooms which form under certain oceanic or freshwater conditions. Single-cell algae species overrun the waters and reduce dissolved oxygen levels, sometimes resulting in a mass suffocation of fish. These organisms produce toxic poisons that do not affect primary producers, but collect in the digestive tracts of fish, and the meat of shellfish. Larger marine mammals and humans may eat these shellfish and become sick with paralytic shellfish poisoning, and even die. Red tide was a particular problem in the Bay of Fundy even before any tidal barrages were constructed, possibly due to the vulnerability of its native organisms, and the tides which carry and diffuse algae species throughout the region (Offshore/Inshore Fisheries Development and Technologies).

Tidal generators alter inter-tidal zones – that kills biodiversity
Peter Clark et al 03 (“Tidal Energy”;Cause 2003: Final Project, Pg. 35 B.A. (Hons.), Natural Sciences (Geological Sciences), Queens' College, Cambridge University, 1992 (M.A., 1995). D.Phil., Earth Sciences, Exeter College, Oxford University, 1997.Certificate in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Newcastle University, 1999.; http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:oMKu4JkUS7gJ:www.ems.psu.edu/~elsworth/courses/cause2003/finalprojects/ca nutepaper.pdf+Ocean+current+tidal+energy+ecosystem+economy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us)

Inter-Tidal zones would also be affected by a proposed barrage scheme: some of these schemes would raise the water level to make the tidal range always above sea-level. Presently, the Bay of Fundy ranges from around 26 feet below sea level to 25 feet above sea level. The proposed Minas Basin energy scheme would constrain the range to 1 foot above sea level to 25 feet above sea level. Diverse organisms that function in the inter-tidal zone would be “swept away” and this unique ecosystem would change in ways that we cannot predict.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
A Tidal barrage will just destroy the fragile estuary ecosystem- alternatives must further be studied before we choose to act Bristol Evening Post 07 (“It’s time for action”, Pg.21; Lexis)

The balance has shifted so much that the Severn Tidal Power Group reckons that if the Government was to see the project through the planning process, the barrage could be constructed and run on a commercial basis with no additional taxpayer subsidy. In any scheme on this scale there are bound to be drawbacks. The most obvious one is that a barrage will change the

ecosystem in the estuary. Certain sorts of wildlife have thrived on the very particular environment created by a tidal estuary and they might find the altered habitat less suitable. Furthermore, we need to ensure that the character of the estuary is not ruined by inappropriate or excessive development. There is also the issue of the impact of a barrage on commercial shipping and ports. A variety of alternative schemes have been proposed which would also generate renewable energy, but on a smaller scale and with less environmental impact. Tidal lagoons would also generate tidal power but
would not involve major constructions across the whole estuary. Another idea is underwater turbines. We urgently need to resolve these competing claims one way or another. The Government has asked its Sustainable Development Commission to come back with a report on the feasibility of tidal power. It was due last month but has been put back to the autumn. I believe that work needs to start now. We urgently need an independent assessment based on the latest scientific, environmental, economic and

legal advice of the relative merits of each of the main alternatives.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Tidal Energy Bad - Biodiversity
Tidal barrage destroys the environment- U.K. proves Beament 07 (Emily “ Green Campaigners Warn of Barrage’s ‘Massive’ Impact”, Press Association Newsfile; PA Environment
Correspondent; September 25, lexis)

Environmental groups today criticised Government plans to launch a study on the feasibility of building a Severn barrage to generate up to 5% of the UK's electricity.Campaigners said a dam across the Severn estuary could have massive environmental impacts and called on the Government to look at alternative ways of harnessing the river's massive tidal power.The estuary, which has one of the largest tidal ranges in the world, provides mudflats, saltmarshes, rocky islands and food for some 65,000 birds in winter.In August the Government sought to designate the
estuary a Special Area of Conservation, but did not rule out proposals for a tidal barrage across the Severn. Business and Enterprise Secretary John Hutton announced the multi-million pound feasibility study, which could result in one of the world's biggest civil engineering projects, in a speech to Labour's annual conference in Bournemouth today.The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT), whose Slimbridge Wetland Centre is on the banks of the River Severn, said the Government must give full

consideration to the wildlife in the estuary.Chief executive Martin Spray said: ``WWT fully backs a shift toward low-carbon energy sources and recognises the potential benefits of harnessing the power of the massive movement of water in and out of the Severn Estuary each day.``However the construction of a huge dam across the estuary could have a massive environmental

impact on this delicate ecosystem and the wildlife that depends on it.``There are alternative methods of harnessing that tidal power and WWT is calling for fair and balanced assessment of all the options and implications for the estuary's international conservation importance so the best deal can be struck for people and wildlife.''The RSPB said thousands of birds and fish would be put at risk and a number of sites protected by UK, international and European law would be damaged by a tidal barrage.Dr Mark Avery, RSPB conservation director, said: ``The Severn Estuary is one of the UK's most important sites for water birds. A barrage would do enormous damage and its layers of legal protection are there for good reason.``There could be much better ways of harnessing the Severn's power and the feasibility
study should examine tidal lagoon and tidal stream schemes which could cost less, do less damage and generate more energy.``Renewable energy is hugely important and the Government should be choosing options that provide long term benefit and, just as importantly, safeguard the natural environment.''Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Neil Crumpton said the environmental group favoured a series of ``tidal lagoons'' which could harness the estuary's energy without damaging the environment. The lagoons, around a mile offshore, would generate electricity from tidal water flowing through turbines as the tide went in and out.Mr Crumpton criticised the Government for announcing the study into the Severn barrage before the green energy watchdog, the Sustainable Development Commission, published its report on tidal power options. ``It's unhelpful to a proper debate about the subject,'' he said. ``We think that tidal lagoons would be a much better option environmentally, economically, in terms of generation costs and shipping access and because lagoons have great energy storage potential. ``It's a great pity the Labour Government seems to be closing down what should be healthy and open debate about tidal technologies, particularly lagoons as distinct from the Severn barrage.'' He also said the lagoons could be combined with a smaller barrage, the Shoots barrage, situated just below the second Severn Crossing, which could provide rail links to Wales, rather than the road proposals suggested as part of the barrage scheme.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Tidal Energy Bad – Biodiversity Turns Case
Destruction of the environment makes permitting process for tidal generators impossible
Michael B. Walsh 08 (“A rising tide in renewable energy: the future of tidal in-stream energy conversion (TISEC)”, Villanova Environmental Law Journal, 19 Vill. Envtl. L.J. 193; senior fellow at Villanova University of engineering)

Barrage tidal power plants operate by damming incoming tidal water at high tide and then letting it back out through a

turbine. n125 These vast structures create sweeping changes that affect navigation, recreation, and the environment in their coastal areas. n126 Since most previous tidal barrage systems were built in estuaries, they had an effect on the breeding zones and migratory paths for many aquatic creatures. n127 The main reason barrage tidal systems did not become widespread was because of the extensive amount of area required in the estuary to hold the necessary amount of water. n128 The dramatic effect on waterfowl as well as the logistics of finding a large enough area to construct the barrage system kept the system from being practical. n129 Tidal barrage systems have such a large impact on the environment that today it would be nearly impossible to get the permits needed to construct them. n130 For example, a proposed commercial scale tidal barrage project planned for the Bay of Fundy in Canada would have altered the tides as far away as Boston. n131

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Tidal Energy Bad – Fishing
Tidal generators interfere with fish migration – this kills the fishing industry
Peter Clark et al 03 (“Tidal Energy”;Cause 2003: Final Project, Pg. 35 B.A. (Hons.), Natural Sciences (Geological Sciences), Queens' College, Cambridge University, 1992 (M.A., 1995). D.Phil., Earth Sciences, Exeter College, Oxford University, 1997.Certificate in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Newcastle University, 1999.; http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:oMKu4JkUS7gJ:www.ems.psu.edu/~elsworth/courses/cause2003/finalprojects/ca nutepaper.pdf+Ocean+current+tidal+energy+ecosystem+economy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us)

Fish migration is also affected heavily by tidal barrages: diadromous fish such as the American shad and salmon must migrate from saltwater to freshwater to spawn. If tidal barrages by their design do not make it impossible for these fish to migrate, the fish may be killed by passing through the turbines sometimes multiple times in their lifespan (United States Cong. S. Hrg. 98-233 181). Designs are in the works which are fish-friendly, with wider gaps between the blades of the turbines, but any impact on the fishing industry is met with hostility by the communities where the potential for tidal energy is greatest, because the fisheries constitute their livelihood (United States Cong. S. Hrg. 98-233 268). Marine mammal migration may also be affected in some regions, one example being seal migration off the coast of Scotland in the area of a proposed tidal current energy scheme.

Fish stocks are key to the economy Greenpeace ‘6 [New Internationalist Magazine, Greenpeace, global environmentalist group; “Tuna trouble: European fishing boats encourage extinction”; Republished on April 1, 2006; http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-115503093.html”]
Kiribati--a nation of islands strung across hundreds of kilometres of the Pacific Ocean--has an Exclusive Economic Zone over 3.6 million square kilometres in size. In 2002, Kiribati earned $32.5 million from access fees, which is estimated to be over 30 per cent of its GDP. But to do this, Kiribati 'rents' its oceans out to 393 fishing vessels. A bilateral agreement--in force since 2002--gives Kiribati $44.45 for each tonne fished out by a European Union fishing vessel. Yet world markets are paying up to $800 for Skipjack tuna and $1,100 for Yellowfin. The increase in the scale and number of boats, the use of high-tech fishing equipment, like the aerial spotting of tuna schools, and the catch of juvenile fish are all causing problems for the four main tuna species that we eat. Overfishing is the result. Just as happened in Canada when cod fisheries collapsed in the early 1990s--with catches of North Atlantic cod going from over four million tonnes to zero in two years--anecdotal evidence abounds that the Pacific fisheries face a similar threat. A 2003 scientific stock take confirms Big Eye Tuna are at extreme risk of being exploited beyond the point of no return. Yellowfin are also at risk. The tuna catch in the Pacific has more than quadrupled in the last 30 years. And--with the collapse of fishing grounds around the world--more and more fishing vessels are being steered into the Pacific. The stark reality for Pacific countries is that if the trends continue, then within three to five years all stocks may be critically overfished.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Tidal Energy Bad – Untested
Tidal Power is untested in the U.S. – we must default to other studies and research before we act, otherwise, we compromise safety, investment and the environment Electric Utility Week 07 (“FERC tries to foster tidal power projects while also guarding against ‘site banking’”; Federal Policy:
pg. 8; February 26, sophisticated package of information, insight and perspective judiciously designed to put you in the company of key players who need to know the status and outlook for this challenging industry, lexis) The technologies for tidal power are emerging, but they "present some challenges relating to reliability, environmental and safety implications, and commercial viability," Kelliher said. "Our action today announcing an interim policy while seeking comment on alternative approaches shows that we are dedicated to demonstrating regulatory flexibility with respect to development of these promising new hydroelectric technologies." Commissioners said they hoped the NOI would not dampen enthusiasm for the emerging technologies, but they added that the commission needs to figure out how such projects fit in FERC's regulation of hydropower projects. The NOI says estimates of the power potential for wave and tidal power projects could be more than 350,000 GWh annually, which would more than double current hydropower production. Unlike other renewable sources of power that are intermittent, tidal power is predictable, speakers told FERC at the technical conference in December. In addition, because many projects would be submerged or barely visible in the forms of buoys or similar devices, there is less likelihood of dealing with local "not in my backyard" protests, they said. Yet questions still remain as to how the projects

would affect marine life and other ecosystems. Because the technologies are untested in the US, there is only information from temporary testing activities and environmental impact studies based on research and comparisons of similar technologies. "The commission anticipates further exploration of how these technologies can fit within the national
energy infrastructure in terms of the amount of potential energy that can be developed, its reliability, environmental and safety implications, and its commercial viability. The commission wants to reduce regulatory barriers to the development of new technologies, where possible, and has exhibited the maximum flexibility permitted by law in regulating these projects," according to the NOI.

Tide power is only in the prototype stage, installation and maintenance is more expensive than any other type of renewable or alternative energy - it’s an unviable solution Global Power Report 07
Pg.1, November 22, lexis) "There have been a lot of ideas looking for money, a few ideas funded, but no one has come up with a commercial idea yet," (“Despite green power bloom, wave/tidal projects still lag solar and wind in commercial viability”,

said Edwin Feo, co-chair of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy's global power, energy and utilities group. Today in the tidal and wave world there are "guys building custom machines, trying to make them work," said Feo. He noted that the
machines are mechanical energy converters, not chemical or biological in nature. "Its not like the technology is way off in the future, like hydrogen," he said, "and the costs are not that bad. We are not at a point of trying to figure how to get these machines to convert energy, but rather how to get them to survive the elements they have to perform in." There are different companies with different approaches, "but everyone is looking for what will work, what won't get destroyed out in the water." Although he

acknowledges that setting a cost/kWh for wave or tidal power is like estimating the costs of "building a car in your garage," Feo said that at about 25 cents/kWh wave and tidal power is considerably more expensive than solar, which is in the 14 cents/kWh to 16 cents/kWh range, and far from more expensive than conventional renewable resources like biomass (6 to 9 cents/kWh), geothermal (5 to 6 cents/kWh), and wind (5 cents/kWh). Alla Weinstein,
who was instrumental in developing the AquaBuoy, does not disagree with FEO's estimates, but believes it is premature to discuss costs. One of the factors keeping prices high, she said, is the lack of economies of scale in the manufacture of equipment

to capture and convert tidal and wave energy. Right now, project developers are also serving as equipment suppliers and vice versa. To better understand the cost of hydrokinetic power, Weinstein says it is useful to look at the break-down of
capital costs for wave and tidal projects. She cited a Carbon Trust analysis that broke down the capital costs for a wave project as follows: 49% for mechanical and electrical parts, 27% for the structure, 13% for installation, 5% for mooring, 4% for grid connection, and 2% for project management. For tidal projects that use a submerged turbine and generator, Carbon Trust put the cost of the mechanical and electrical components at 39%, the structure at 39%, 13% for the grid connection, 7% for project management, and only 2% for installation. "There will be a huge drop in price with installed capacity, but until there is installed capacity, there are just projections of costs," said Weinstein. Meanwhile, there are costs to bear just to test the equipment.

Verdant Power has spent $9 million so far on its East River project, $3 million from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and $6 million from family and friends, according to Trey Taylor, the Arlington, Virginia, company's president and head of market development. In addition, billionaire commodity trader Paul Tudor Jones has invested an additional $7 million in Verdant to move it along on the "path to commercialization," said Taylor. Taylor noted that $2 million of the $9 million cost of the East River project has been for equipment to monitor the project's
impact on fish and diving birds. Based on his experience of actually installing a working hydrokinetic project, Taylor now puts Verdant's installed cost at $2,400/kW with an operation and maintenance cost of 7 to 9 cents/kWh.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

OTEC Good – Global Warming
OTEC reverses global warming and displaces massive amounts of carbon Barry 7-1-08 [Christopher, P.E. Christopher D. Barry is a naval architect and co-chair of the Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers ad hoc panel on ocean renewable energy. He has worked in design agencies, shipyards and manufacturers in the marine industry and in offshore oil exploration and currently works for the Coast Guard, but is not associated with any OTEC program.; “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and CO2

Sequestration”; Renewable Energy World; 7-1-2008; http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/ate/story?id=52762]
In a recent issue of Nature, Lovelock and Rapley suggested using wave-powered pumps to bring up water from the deeps to sequester carbon. But OTEC also brings up prodigious amounts of deep water and can do the same thing. In one design, a thousand cubic meters of water per second are required to produce 70 MW of net output power. We can make estimates of fertility enhancement and sequestration, but a guess is that an OTEC plant designed to optimize nutrification might produce 10,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestration per year per MW. The recent challenge by billionaire Sir Richard Branson is to sequester one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year in order to halt global warming, so an aggressive OTEC program, hundreds of several hundred MW plants might meet this. In economic terms, optimistic guesses at OTEC plant costs are in the range of a million dollars per MW. Since a kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity generated by coal produces about a kilogram of carbon dioxide, a carbon tax of one to two cents per kWh might cover the capital costs of an OTEC plant in carbon credits alone. The equivalent in gasoline tax would be ten to twenty cents per gallon. With gasoline above three dollars per gallon and electricity above ten cents per kilowatt, these are not entirely unreasonable charges.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

OTEC Good – Market Potential
OTEC has extreme market potential and could generate sustainable amounts of electricity Vega ’99 [L.A., Ph. D. @ Hawaii; “OTEC”; Copyrighted 1999; http://www.otecnews.org/articles/vega/03_otec_env.html]
In considering the economics of OTEC, it is appropriate to determine if multiple-product systems, e.g., electricity, desalinated water, mariculture, and air conditioning (AC) systems yield higher value by, for example, decreasing the equivalent cost of electricity. Because mariculture operations, as in the case of AC systems, can only use a relatively minute amount of the seawater required for the thermal plants they should be evaluated independent of OTEC. For example, the cold water available from a 1 MW OTEC plant could be used for daily exchanges of twenty-five 100 m x 100 m x 1 m mariculture ponds, requiring more than 25 Ha of land. Therefore, it is recommended that

OTEC be considered for its potential impact in the production of electricity and desalinated water and that mariculture and AC systems, based in the use of deep ocean water, be considered decoupled from OTEC.

OTEC could tap thermal energy and sustain energy needs but lack of funding prevents benefits Tanner ’95 [D.; “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion : current overview and future outlook”; Copyright 1995; Abstract; GOOGLE SCHOLAR]
A NASA report published in 1972(1) predicted that by using OTEC to tap the thermal energy of the Gulf Stream, the electricity needs of the US could be 'provided for. However, despite over one hundred years of research and development activity around the world, OTEC has not yet been commercialised. The research associated with this paper was conducted out of a curiosity as to why this remains so. Either OTEC is one of a long list of technologies, full of potential in theory, but in reality impractical, or there are other reasons why OTEC has not lived up to its often stated potential. The main purpose of the paper is to come to a conclusion as to the expected future of OTEC, and offer some suggestions as to how its development could be facilitated. A conclusion of this

project that the viability of OTEC could be increased by a greater attention to the needs and conditions present in the intended markets. New energy technologies inherently face barriers in their acceptance by the energy industry, so it is important to ensure a realistic and commercial strategy is adopted in their development. Another conclusion of this paper
is that one of the most promising market for OTEC as an energy generation source, in the short term, appears to be the Republic of China (Taiwan). The combination of geographic suitability, recent environmental awareness, lack of natural energy resources, and economic prosperity make it an ideal candidate for OTEC development.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

OTEC Good – A2: Biodiversity
OTEC plants create pens of desalinated water that sustains food, clean water, and biodiversity Guardian ‘8 [The Guardian, Robert Booth; “Energy islands could use power of tropics, says innovator: How it might work Producing electricity, clean water and food: Architect of Cameron's green makeover launches ambitious new plan”; 1-8-2008; LEXIS]
At the heart of each island is an ocean thermal energy conversion plant which can create electricity from sea water where the difference between the temperature of the surface water and the deep is 20C or more. The warm sea water is pressurised to transform it into vapour which drives a turbine. The vapour is condensed against a surface cooled by water from the deep, to produce desalinated water. The energy from this technology, which was originally invented in 1881 by a French engineer, would be supplemented by wind turbines and a "power tower" which captures energy from the sun by using mirrors to focus solar rays on a central "furnace". "Each energy island would operate in a similar way to an oil rig, with about 25 people living there to operate the energy systems and food farms," said Alex Michaelis. "Teams of workers would spend six weeks on the island and six weeks off. The islands can be linked together so if you wanted a bigger power output you could simply build a bigger settlement. In the future these energy islands could be linked together to become eco-tourism attractions." According to the designs, the

"energy islanders" could farm sea food in pens beneath the deck and vegetables could be grown in shaded patches on the platform using some of the cold, desalinated water produced by the plant. The
islands are also designed to act as ports for supertankers to transport the 300,000 litres of desalinated water which will be produced each day. Sir Terry Farrell, the architect, has proposed that similar artificial islands should be built in the Thames estuary to provide a new port for London. The Michaelis team intends to pilot the energy island in waters off the British Virgin Islands or in the Indian Ocean in the coming year.

OTEC plants create an environment for plankton and fish and produces fresh water for the rest of the world Michaelis et al ‘8 [Dominic, architect and engineer, Alex Michaelis, developing the energy island concept and Dominic’s son, Trevor Cooper-Chadwick, Southampton University; “Could sea power solve the energy crisis? As Gordon Brown steers Britain towards a nuclear future, Dominic Michaelis, Alex Michaelis and Trevor Cooper-Chadwick suggest we turn to the oceans instead”; 1-8-2008; The Daily Telegraph; LEXIS]
The energy islands would mainly be built from reinforced concrete, using corrosion-resistant metals, but they would come in different sizes and with different functions: some would be simple energy-generating platforms, while others would be larger
installations, linked to the land by cable, along which the electricity could be distributed (this would involve superconductors, materials that lose all resistance to electricity when cooled, minimising energy loss in transmission). And energy generation would not be their only function. Larger islands could support fish farms that used the plankton pumped up along with the cold

seawater, as well as pods for heliports, greenhouses, accommodation and maintenance areas, facilities for producing sea salt and harbours and mooring for supertankers. These tankers would collect the desalinated water or the hydrogen produced by electrolysis, which could both be shipped to energy- and water-scarce parts of the world, just as
natural gas is piped from Siberia to Western Europe. These hydrogen fuel cells could soon be used to power cars, trucks, boats, factories and aircraft, helping to establish a clean hydrogen economy. A model for this is Iceland, where hydrogen for fuel cells is being generated by electrolysis using cheap geothermal energy. On this basis, Iceland expects to become emissions-free by 2020. We also have a clear idea where to build these powerful islands. For the system to function, the gap between the surface and the depths must be at least 20C. Maps of the oceans show which waters contain the necessary temperature gradients -and China, India and Brazil, the three countries projected to have the greatest economic and population growth this century, and therefore the most pressing energy requirements, all have OTEC potential. In April in New York, international agencies, national and state governments, environmental groups and industry associations are sponsoring the most substantive global conference on renewable marine power for years. Here is one fact that should help delegates to focus minds on what is possible: 50,000 energy islands could meet the all world's energy requirement while providing two tons of fresh water per person per day for its six billion inhabitants. That would be a legacy of which Georges Claude could be proud.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

OTEC Bad – Zooplankton – Food Chain
OTEC plants impinge zooplankton and other aquatic organisms through filters Vega ’99 [L.A., Ph. D. @ Hawaii; “OTEC”; Copyrighted 1999; http://www.otecnews.org/articles/vega/03_otec_env.html]
Organisms impinged by an OTEC plant are caught on the screens protecting the intakes. Impingement is fatal to the organism. An entrained organism is drawn into and passes through the plant. Entrained organisms may be exposed to biocides, and temperature and pressure shock. Entrained organisms may also be exposed to working fluid and trace constituents (trace
metals and oil or grease). Intakes should be designed to limit the inlet flow velocity to minimize entrainment and impingement. The inlets need to be tailored hydrodynamically so that withdrawal does not result in turbulence or recirculation zones in the immediate vicinity of the plant. Many, if not all, organisms impinged or entrained by the intake waters may be damaged or killed. Although experiments suggest that mortality rates for phytoplankton and zooplankton entrained by the warm-water intake may be less than 100 percent, in fact only a fraction of the phytoplankton crops from the surface may be killed by entrainment. Prudence suggests that for the purpose of assessment, 100 percent capture and 100 percent mortality upon capture should be assumed unless further evidence exists to the contrary. Metallic structural elements (e.g., heat exchangers, pump impellers, metallic piping) corroded or eroded by seawater will add trace elements to the effluent. It is difficult to predict whether metals released from a plant will affect local biota. Trace elements differ in their toxicity and resistance to corrosion. Few studies have been conducted of tropical and subtropical species. Furthermore, trace metals released by OTEC plants will be quickly diluted with great volumes of water passing through the plant. However, the sheer size of an OTEC plant circulation system suggests that the aggregate of trace constituents released from the plant or redistributed from natural sources could have long-term significance for some organisms.

Zooplankton is key to marine food chain Monga Bay ‘6 [Monga Bay, world's most popular environmental science and conservation news sites; “Scientists discover Zooplankton species key to ocean food chain”; 5-4-2006; http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0504-coml.html]
Census of Marine Life scientists trawled rarely explored tropical ocean depths between the southeast US coast and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge to inventory and photograph the variety and abundance of zooplankton – small sea "bugs" that form a vital link in the ocean food chain – and other life forms. Though relatively few in number compared with the uppermost ocean layer, scientists were amazed by the variety of tiny animals found at depths of 1 to 5 km (0.6 to 3 miles). Among thousands captured, 500 species have been catalogued, 220 of them DNA sequenced at sea revealing a number of new species. The 20-day cruise, completed April 30, is part of an ambitious global inventory of zooplankton by 2010 (dubbed the Census of Marine Zooplankton, CMarZ), a Census of Marine Life initiative that sheds life on some important global ecosystem processes, including the ocean's function as Earth's largest carbon sink and the impact ocean acidification may have on life in the seas. While helping moderate climate, zooplankton species also

provide a fundamental link in the food chain between ocean plant life and predators from fish to whales. Scientists are puzzling out the types, abundances, ranges and roles within nature of these thousands of tiny animal species. Sequencing the DNA at sea, they telescoped into just three weeks what would normally represent years of laboratory work, an experience that may revolutionize the way biological research at sea is conducted.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

OTEC Bad – Zooplankton – Fish Stocks
Plankton sustain fish stocks around the globe Monga Bay ‘6 [Monga Bay, world's most popular environmental science and conservation news sites; “Scientists discover Zooplankton species key to ocean food chain”; 5-4-2006; http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0504-coml.html]
The plankton captured includes tail-kicking shrimp-like creatures (copepods and ostracods), swimming worms, flying snails (pteropods), and pulsing jellyfish. With experts glued to their microscopes for three weeks, the cruise captured and identified an astonishing fraction of the species diversity known in the Atlantic Ocean. All of these specimens are in the queue for DNA

barcoding: •
• •

hundreds of species of the tiny shrimp-like animals, called copepods, that sustain commercial fish stocks throughout the world ocean;
nearly half (65 of 140 species) of all Atlantic species of ostracods – another shrimp relative – plus six species thought to be new to science; half (24 of 48 species) of all known shelled pteropods (swimming snails)

OTEC construction and operation devastates commercial fishing ability and supply Vega ’99 [L.A., Ph. D. @ Hawaii; “OTEC”; Copyrighted 1999; http://www.otecnews.org/articles/vega/03_otec_env.html]
OTEC plant construction and operation may affect commercial and recreational fishing. Fish will be attracted to the plant, potentially increasing fishing in the area. Enhanced productivity due to redistribution of nutrients may improve fishing. However, the losses of inshore fish eggs and larvae, as well as juvenile fish, due to impingement and entrainment and to the discharge of biocides may reduce fish populations. The net effect of OTEC operation on aquatic life will depend on the balance
achieved between these two effects. Through adequate planning and coordination with the local community, recreational assets near an OTEC site may be enhanced.

Fish stocks are key to the economy Greenpeace ‘6 [New Internationalist Magazine, Greenpeace, global environmentalist group; “Tuna trouble: European fishing boats encourage extinction”; Republished on April 1, 2006; http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-115503093.html”]
Kiribati--a nation of islands strung across hundreds of kilometres of the Pacific Ocean--has an Exclusive Economic Zone over 3.6 million square kilometres in size. In 2002, Kiribati earned $32.5 million from access fees, which is estimated to be over 30 per cent of its GDP. But to do this, Kiribati 'rents' its oceans out to 393 fishing vessels. A bilateral agreement--in force since 2002--gives Kiribati $44.45 for each tonne fished out by a European Union fishing vessel. Yet world markets are paying up to $800 for Skipjack tuna and $1,100 for Yellowfin. The increase in the scale and number of boats, the use of high-tech fishing equipment, like the aerial spotting of tuna schools, and the catch of juvenile fish are all causing problems for the four main tuna species that we eat. Overfishing is the result. Just as happened in Canada when cod fisheries collapsed in the early 1990s--with catches of North Atlantic cod going from over four million tonnes to zero in two years--anecdotal evidence abounds that the Pacific fisheries face a similar threat. A 2003 scientific stock take confirms Big Eye Tuna are at extreme risk of being exploited beyond the point of no return. Yellowfin are also at risk. The tuna catch in the Pacific has more than quadrupled in the last 30 years. And--with the collapse of fishing grounds around the world--more and more fishing vessels are being steered into the Pacific. The stark reality for Pacific countries is that if the trends continue, then within three to five years all stocks may be critically overfished.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

OTEC Bad – Costly
OTEC is simply a theory – reality is both economically and environmentally costly Harvard Political Review 06 (“An alternative source heats up- Examining the future of Ocean Thermal Energy conversion”,
Becca Friedman America’s preeminent undergraduate journal of politics and public policy. Since its inception, the HPR has presented balanced, insightful analysis of domestic and international issues. Published quarterly by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics, HPR writers analyze the current and future political climatehttp://hprsite.squarespace.com/an-alternative-source-heats-up/ ) Despite the sound science, a fully functioning OTEC prototype has yet to be developed. The high costs of building even a model pose the main barrier. Although piecemeal experiments have proven the effectiveness of the individual components, a

large-scale plant has never been built. Luis Vega of the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research estimated in an OTEC summary presentation that a commercial-size five-megawatt OTEC plant could cost from 80 to 100 million dollars over five years. According to Terry Penney, the Technology Manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the combination of cost and risk is OTEC’s main liability. “We’ve talked to inventors and other constituents over the years, and it’s still a matter of huge capital investment and a huge risk, and there are many [alternate forms of energy] that are less risky that could produce power with the same certainty,” Penney told the HPR. Moreover, OTEC is highly vulnerable to the elements in the marine environment. Big storms or a hurricane like Katrina could completely disrupt energy production by mangling the OTEC plants. Were a country completely dependent on oceanic energy, severe weather could be debilitating. In addition, there is a risk that the salt water surrounding an OTEC plant would cause the machinery to “rust or corrode” or “fill up with seaweed or mud,” according to a National Renewable Energy Laboratory spokesman. Even environmentalists have impeded OTEC’s development. According to Penney, people do not want to see OTEC plants when they look at the ocean. When they see a disruption of the pristine marine landscape, they think pollution. Given the risks, costs, and uncertain popularity of OTEC, it seems unlikely that federal support for OTEC is forthcoming. Jim Anderson, co-founder of Sea Solar Power Inc., a company specializing in OTEC technology, told the HPR, “Years ago in the ’80s, there was a small [governmental] program for OTEC and it was abandoned…That philosophy has carried forth to this day. There are a few people in the Department of Energy who have blocked government funding for this. It’s not the Democrats, not the Republicans. It’s a bureaucratic issue.”OTEC is not completely off the government’s radar, however. This
past year, for the first time in a decade, Congress debated reviving the oceanic energy program in the energy bill, although the proposal was ultimately defeated. OTEC even enjoys some support on a state level. Hawaii ’s National Energy Laboratory, for example, conducts OTEC research around the islands. For now, though, American interests in OTEC promise to remain largely academic. The Naval Research Academy and Oregon State University are conducting research programs off the coasts of Oahu and Oregon , respectively.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Offshore Wind Good – Empirical Solvency
Offshore wind technology has empirical solvency in Europe Meisen et al ‘5 [Peter, Global Energy Network Institute, Tom Hammons, University of Glasgow Scotland, Peter O’Donnell, Senior Energy Specialist, Omar Siddiqui, EPRIsolutions, Andrew Mill, Managing Director, Mirko Previsic, Electric Power Research Institute, Anthony T Jones, Senior Oceanographer; “Harnessing the untapped energy potentials of the ocean”; 9-15-2005; http://www.ewh.ieee.org/cmte/ips/2005GM/oceans_2.pdf]
Offshore wind capacity has taken off in the European market since 2002. Currently, Europe is the only region in the world with any operational capacity and is expected to have 88 percent of the new capacity over the coming five years. Installed
capacity has increased more than five-fold within the last year alone (Fig. 3). Over the next five years, installation of 5,820 MW is projected (Fig. 4), predominantly in European waters. Within Europe, Germany and the United Kingdom are the two most important countries in terms of capital expenditures. The five-year market (to 2008) is projected to be $9.5 billion, growing from $257

million in 2004 to $2.9 billion in 2008. Germany is poised to lead the market, and is expected to overtake Denmark and the United Kingdom in terms of total installed capacity by 2007.

Lack of U.S. federal incentives in the context of offshore wind development prevents expansion – only a committed project solves Meisen et al ‘5 [Peter, Global Energy Network Institute, Tom Hammons, University of Glasgow Scotland, Peter O’Donnell, Senior Energy Specialist, Omar Siddiqui, EPRIsolutions, Andrew Mill, Managing Director, Mirko Previsic, Electric Power Research Institute, Anthony T Jones, Senior Oceanographer; “Harnessing the untapped energy potentials of the ocean”; 9-15-2005; http://www.ewh.ieee.org/cmte/ips/2005GM/oceans_2.pdf]
Ultimately, the United States government will determine the rate of progress for offshore wind. Mixed signals concerning subsidies and tax incentives have created an uncertain atmosphere for developers. With structured and targeted development plans based around real renewables targets, offshore wind in the US could receive the boost it needs. Currently, the planning system in the United States is too fragmented to support a large-scale expansion in offshore wind. The muchdelayed Energy Policy Bill is causing friction. Despite 2003 being a record year for onshore wind in the United States, the failure to secure production tax credits for next year will crash the market. Although offshore should be viewed as a separate entity, cross-market issues, such as financing, are at play. For the offshore wind industry to grow, the US needs to establish a

comprehensive offshore management system with clear procedures, because at present there is no set precedent for applications. As previously mentioned, the success or failure of the early projects, especially Cape Wind, will dictate the terms by
which future projects will be judged. Interestingly, several small coastal communities are initiating small-scale offshore wind projects using a single turbine. GE Wind is one company pursuing such schemes.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Offshore Wind Good – Competitiveness
Wind spurs competiveness - Texas Proves National Public Radio 07
(“Wind Power Project Stirs Up Debate”; Show: Talk of the Nation: Science Friday; Anchor- IRA Flatow; Ben Kroposki, engineer and senior project manager in the Electric Systems Center at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden; Jim Gordon, president of Cape Wind Associates in Boston and in Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts, Lexis) FLATOW: Well, Texas has built the biggest offshore wind farm in the country. Mr. GORDON: Texas is the cradle of America's energy industry and they recognize that oil and gas are finite resources, and they are moving as swiftly as possible to try to capture the offshore wind industry. And that's why Massachusetts and New York and the East Coast really have to get going, because we don't want to follow so far behind the Europeans by - the European Union says that by 2030 there's going to be over 40,000 megawatts of offshore wind in Europe. They're really moving quickly and making it a major component of their energy future. FLATOW: Well, I don't think there's a day goes by when I don't read about a new, you know, a new wind farm that's going up some place around the world.

Wind power makes hydrogen competitive with transportation National Public Radio 07
(“Wind Power Project Stirs Up Debate”; Show: Talk of the Nation: Science Friday; Anchor- IRA Flatow; Ben Kroposki, engineer and senior project manager in the Electric Systems Center at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden; Jim Gordon, president of Cape Wind Associates in Boston and in Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts, Lexis)

Mr. GORDON: Ira, I think the work that Ben and DOE are doing is fantastic and urgent. But here's a another thing: With land-based

wind turbines and offshore wind turbines you could actually use the existing electric grid infrastructure and use that to fuel plug-in hybrid automobiles, and the equivalent cost of that would be like one third the price of gasoline. So there's a real opportunity not only to produce hydrogen, to desalinate water, but also to fuel plug in hybrids, to try to make them as carbon-free automotive transportation, as possible.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Offshore Wind Good – A2: Fishing
Offshore wind farms create an area that fosters fish spawn AWEA ‘7 [American Wind Energy Association; “Wind Web Tutorial”; Last Updated 2007; http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_offshore.html]
Given the relatively small area of seabed that is required there is no evidence to suggest that total fish catch will decline as a result of wind farm developments; if anything the opposite is true. Fish stocks have been in decline for many years due to overfishing. Many environmental groups believe that wind farms will provide welcome sanctuary for fish spawning as well as refuge from intensive fisheries activity. The wind industry is working actively with the fishing industry to ensure, as
the oil and gas industry has done before it, that the fishing industry is not disadvantaged by the growth of offshore wind farms.

Fisherman support Offshore Wind and are hired to develop them- they are an opportunity not a threat PR Newswire 08 (“Fisherman Respond to New Jersey BPU offshore Wind Solicitation”; Public Interest Services; State Editors; March 4, Lexis)
FERN is a community-based offshore wind developer, and was organized to enable the New Jersey commercial fishing industry to take the lead in development of offshore wind energy. "With fishermen as principal developers, a key opposition to offshore wind is removed," said Daniel Cohen, president of FERN and president and principal shareholder of Atlantic Capes Fisheries, one of the leading harvesters and processors of sea scallops in New Jersey. "The U.S. fishing industry has historically opposed offshore wind development due to negative impacts on the fishing industry. While we remain very concerned about siting, construction, and cumulative effects of offshore wind farms, we believe that in our hands and with the focus that we as fishermen will place on these issues, we can solve them," said Cohen. "Meanwhile FERN and its fishing industry supporters and investors have chosen to view offshore energy as an opportunity, rather than as a threat. FERN intends to be the agent for change, instead of a victim of changes going on around it." Cohen emphasized that fishermen are best positioned to develop offshore wind facilities. "Aside from our access to capital, commercial fishermen are husbanders of sustainable marine resources; we know how to handle heavy machinery in high winds and rough seas; we control key upland docks, boats and water access, and we have hundreds of employees who work year-round in the extreme seasonal conditions in waters off New Jersey's coast. We know the waters and the ocean bottom so we start with a real leg-up on how siting of wind farms can be optimized."

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Offshore Wind Good – A2: Sedentary Run-off
Offshore wind farms don’t cause sedentary run-off – Denmark proves and permitting process checks AWEA ‘7 [American Wind Energy Association; “Wind Web Tutorial”; Last Updated 2007; http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_offshore.html]
Any proposed wind farm project will involve a full investigation of wave and coastal processes prior to construction. However, the turbine structures and distance offshore are such that it is very unlikely they would significantly affect the seabed or wave patterns. There is no evidence from the Danish experience with offshore wind farms of any detrimental effects on coastal processes. The coastal erosion effects of higher sea levels and more extreme weather patterns due to global warming are
already scientifically recognized, and far outweigh the potential effects of offshore wind farms.

Wind farms are built on permitted sites that have steady soil that prevents soil erosion and increases efficiency Patent Storm ‘5 [US Patent 6891280 - Method for operating offshore wind turbine plants based on the frequency of their towers; 5-10-2005; http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6891280/description.html]
Wind power plants, which at present are largely installed on land, are founded on foundation soil of varying strength. If the soil has an adequate bearing capacity flat foundations of concrete are adequate for static and dynamic requirements. If the surface area has inadequate bearing capacities, piles are introduced into the underlying load bearing layers in order to introduce into the soil the wind power plant loads. A deign criterion for the structural dimensioning of the tower ad foundation
parts are the lowest tower natural bending frequencies. The exciting frequencies of the rotor must in operation of the plant always have a certain spacing from the aforementioned tower natural frequencies, because otherwise there are dynamic superelevation of the structural loading leading to premature component fatigue failure. The exciting frequencies are the rotor speed and the blade multiple thereof. These dynamic superelevations as a result of resonances must be avoided, in order to achieve the intended mathematical service life of the load-transferring components of a wind power plant. Thus, through the structural dimensioning

of the tower and the foundation of land-supported plants, the initial tower natural frequency is conventionally interpreted in such a way that under all operating conditions the exciting frequency must be adequately spaced from the tower natural frequencies. In the mathematical interpretation of the necessary natural frequencies, account must be taken of
the characteristics of the surrounding soil. These soil cha\racteristics influence the rigidity of the foundation fixing and therefore the natural frequencies. In the case of land-supported supported plants in a first approximation there is no change over a period of time in the fixing rigidities of the foundation. Thus, the natural frequencies of the plant also remain roughly constant over the service life.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Offshore Wind Good – A2: Tourism
Offshore wind will not harm the scenery and people will embrace them- Europe proves National Public Radio 07
(“Wind Power Project Stirs Up Debate”; Show: Talk of the Nation: Science Friday; Anchor- IRA Flatow; Ben Kroposki, engineer and senior project manager in the Electric Systems Center at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden; Jim Gordon, president of Cape Wind Associates in Boston and in Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts, Lexis) LATOW: Jim, there are other offshore wind projects being talked about – Long Island - usually the first reaction you get from people is it's going to wreck the view. What would you see for either - let's say off for Cape, if you're living in Massachusetts? Mr. GORDON: Well, I think that the aesthetics is very subjective. There are some people that think wind turbines are

beautiful and graceful, interacting with the natural environment, a symbol of hope in the future. And there are other people that don't like the looks of wind turbines. But one of the things Cape Wind is doing is taking them miles from the nearest beach, so that if you were looking at the horizon - and it would have to be a very clear day for you to see these wind turbines - they would appear about a half inch off the horizon. Now, offshore wind turbines have been located off of beautiful seaside communities in Europe and it has not harmed tourism, property values. In fact, the communities have embraced them and they have become tourist attractions.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Offshore Wind Good – A2: Biodiversity
Operational periods of offshore wind farms have no impacts on marine life – permitting process checks AWEA ‘7 [American Wind Energy Association; “Wind Web Tutorial”; Last Updated 2007; http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_offshore.html]
There are three significant stages of a wind farm from the point of view of marine life: construction, operation and decommissioning. Construction and decommissioning have the potential to generate the most amount of disturbance, and the wind industry, as well as several marine conservation groups, is currently investigating these impacts on marine life. However, it is important that such impacts be considered in the context of other marine activities such as fishing, shipping, oil and gas extraction, etc. Also, it should

be noted that the duration of the construction and decommissioning will be about 6 months only. For the 20-year operational period there are no known impacts on marine life. It has been suggested that the noise from wind turbines will travel underwater and could disturb sea life. But studies carried out on the impact of noise from existing offshore turbines note that the noise is very low frequency, and many species are actually unable to hear it. As with any other local impact issues, these concerns will be addressed while a wind farm project is going through the permitting process.

Offshore wind farms don’t affect birds – Scotland proves Bill Jacobs 07
(“Wind farms: An offshore revolution?”; The Scotsman Publications Ltd. ; Pg.1 : December 10, evening news politics columnist westminster)

Nigel Hawkins of the countryside charity the John Muir Trust said: "We welcome the development of offshore wind farms rather

than those in beautiful parts of Scotland. "It could be good that there will not be too many too close to our coastline in terms of wild birds, but we remain very concerned about the development of wind farms in some of our most beautiful places. Tourism is a major Scottish industry and people come to see our beautiful countryside which we do not wish to see disfigured by wind turbines. David Bruce, chairman of Views of Scotland, a pressure group dedicated to preserving the Scottish landscape, said: "We already have 250 to 300 applications in Scotland for onshore wind farms. We understand that there are the same number in the pre-planning process. "The risk is that Scotland will end up looking like a hedgehog with wind turbines all over some of our most beautiful areas." A spokesman for the Scottish Renewables Forum, the body responsible for the renewable-energy industry in Scotland, said: "The UK and Scottish governments are entirely right to exclude most of Scotland's territorial waters as the topography of the country, with large mountains, makes it very difficult to develop reliable inshore wind farms. "There is little point in hiding a wind farm in the shadow of a mountain when you can build one on the top of it. "There is great potential for deep-water offshore wind farms – especially in the North Sea where oil companies are very interested in terms of not just supplying electricity to the UK but to Europe. This is being driven by the market." So far there are five offshore wind farms operating in England and Wales, six under construction and a further six with planning consent. In Scotland, there is the Beatrice demonstrator deep-water wind farm, off the North-east coast, and plans for inshore wind farms at Robin Rigg in the Solway Firth - which will supply Cumbria in England - and in Aberdeen Bay. The proposals were given a qualified welcome by environmental groups. John Sauven,
executive director for Greenpeace, said they amounted to a "wind-energy revolution" but insisted premium prices needed to be guaranteed for clean electricity. "If we are finally to exploit the massive energy resources we have available to us on this

windy island, there will now need to be a revolution in thinking in Whitehall, where the energy dinosaurs have prevailed for too long," he said. "And Labour needs to drop its obsession with nuclear power, which could only ever reduce emissions by about 4 per cent at some time in the distant future."

Animals avoid wind blades – alt causalities to avian deaths National Public Radio 07
(“Wind Power Project Stirs Up Debate”; Show: Talk of the Nation: Science Friday; Anchor- IRA Flatow; Ben Kroposki, engineer and senior project manager in the Electric Systems Center at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden; Jim Gordon, president of Cape Wind Associates in Boston and in Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts, Lexis) FRANCES: Hi. I have a question. I don't understand how wind energy can be promoted as though it is without environmental impact. With the huge scope of wind energy planned it seems to me there's great danger to birds and especially migrating birds. My understanding is that the scope of their vision does not allow them to perceive descending blades, even slowly moving ones. Mr. KROPOSKI: Well Frances, we need to put this in context. First of all, scientists say that the greatest threats to birds and

wildlife is global warming and climate change. With rising sea levels, we could be wiping out important bird habitat, animals may have to migrate to different regions without the right food sources. Fossil fuel burning has a terrible impact on wildlife. So every energy project has some impact. There is no perfect energy solution. But with the new multi-megawatt wind turbines that revolve very slowly we have seen - and particularly in the extensive avian research that we've done on Cape Wind - that there's significant bird avoidance. They just really avoid the blades. And if you

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
site the project where there are not a lot of birds, that's another plus. So I think when you look - put it into context, I think that wind power is probably a very friendly technology to wildlife.
FRANCES: Well, can I ask a question - is there no way to either use sound or light to alert the birds that migrate mainly at night that this is an obstacle that they need to navigate? Mr. GORDON: Well, I can tell you that a recent study came out from the Danish

government on years of operating experience from the Nysted Offshore Wind Farm and the Horns Rev Offshore Wind Farm, which have been, you know, fairly large offshore wind farms, and they have shown that the bird mortality has been insignificant - very few birds - and they don't have sound on there. They really do avoid the blades.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Offshore Wind Good – A2: Cost
Offshore wind farms create jobs and a new economic sector – Britain proves Bill Jacobs 07
(“Wind farms: An offshore revolution?”; The Scotsman Publications Ltd. ; Pg.1 : December 10, evening news politics columnist westminster) Friends of the Earth renewable-energy campaigner Nick Rau said the potential for wind power was "enormous",

adding: "Making Britain a world leader in this form of energy will create jobs, boost the economy and help put Britain at the forefront in the battle to combat climate change." Michael Rea, of Carbon Trust, said: "Offshore wind is set for huge growth but this will require substantial investment before it can be realised at this scale. Cost reduction is now the name of the game." A spokeswoman for the Scottish
Government welcomed the move, saying: "Harnessing the potential of offshore wind in Scotland is one of a number of ways we can use renewable energy and oppose the use of nuclear power."

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Offshore Wind Good – A2: Intermittency
Offshore wind solves for intermittency – offshore creates consistent wind speed The Boston Globe 07
(“Wind Farm productive on hottest days, firm says- Critics of turbines say report faulty”; Felicia Mello Globe Correspndent; June 28, Metro; Pg.B3, Lexis)

But project developer Cape Wind Associates released a report yesterday suggesting that offshore winds continued even as city dwellers sweltered on the region's top 10 power-usage days."Our study shows that Cape Wind will be producing significant power at the very times that the electric grid is under greatest stress and needs the power the most," said Mark Rodgers, a spokesman for Cape Wind. Wind farms only produce power when the wind is blowing at the right speed and in the right direction, and opponents often cite that as one of the biggest drawbacks of the farms. "Ironically, the peak demand for

electricity in New England comes as those dog days of summer cause air conditioners to operate at full throttle," Glenn Wattley, an energy consultant for the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, has written on the organization's website. "Yet, as any sailor knows, those sultry days in August are precisely when the wind is not blowing on Nantucket Sound." But Cape Wind says wind speeds measured by its data tower in the sound tell the opposite story.The company tracked weather conditions on the 10 highest-ever demand
days, as identified by the Independent System Operator, which oversees New England's wholesale electricity market. All occurred in summers since 2005. On those days,the wind would have been strong enough, according to the company, to produce 310 megawatts of power, compared with the wind farm's estimated average daily output of 182 megawatts. Ernie Corrigan, a spokesman for the alliance, criticized the company for only releasing 10 days of data from the tower, rather than a full record, which the company says it is not legally required to do. Those numbers might show a more varied picture, he said."It's a selective thing they've done," he said. "You've got 52 cards, and I pull out one card and say I've

got a great hand here. Well, maybe you do, and maybe you don't." While there are only a few offshore wind farms worldwide, energy analysts say ocean breezes could make such installations more reliable

than those on land. A 2005 study commissioned by New York officials estimated that offshore windmills in that state would be three times more likely to help meet peak energy needs than onshore developments.Wind power's reliability in peak times may be less important than how it complements other

energy sources such as natural gas and coal, said Ryan Wiser, a staff scientist with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory with an expertise in renewable energy. "While it is certainly true that wind projects

will not always be fully available during times of system peak, that does not mean they're not providing useful services to the grid, by reducing fuel usage, and potentially fuel costs,as well," Wiser said.

Intermittency isn’t a problem- wind energy can be effectively developed into hydrogen and used for fuel National Public Radio 07
(“Wind Power Project Stirs Up Debate”; Show: Talk of the Nation: Science Friday; Anchor- IRA Flatow; Ben Kroposki, engineer and senior project manager in the Electric Systems Center at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden; Jim Gordon, president of Cape Wind Associates in Boston and in Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts, Lexis) FLATOW: One criticism of wind power, Ben Kroposki, is that it's intermittent. You only get it when the wind is blowing. And you're working on a project at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory that solves this problem that has found or is experimenting with a way to store up the electricity that is in excess. Tell us about that. Mr. KROPOSKI: That's right, Ira. The project that we have

is a small pilot project where we're integrating wind turbines to hydrogen generators - which are called electrolyzers which take the electricity from the wind turbines and split the water into hydrogen and oxygen. We then store that hydrogen – we actually compress it, store it and the use that hydrogen in our project to generate electricity during peak demand periods. So what we're doing is basically using the hydrogen to store the wind energy for use when the actual electrical demand is high.Now another key aspect to that is that we can actually - since we are just storing the hydrogen, if we had, for example, vehicles that needed hydrogen, for example, fuel cell cars, you could then use clean renewable technologies like wind to produce that hydrogen for the cars to replace the - as a transportation fuel.
FLATOW: And how far - and what do you aim - what will be success? What would you clarify success in your experimental program? Mr. KROPOSKI: Well in our particular project we want - what we're trying to do is optimize the complete system from wind to

hydrogen generation, then to storage, and then back into electricity. And so what we're doing is just making sure that we can get all of those components working together in the most efficient manner. What we plan to do as a next step and what we would consider a success for the project is that utilities would then see the opportunity here and look at scaling this up to the larger megawatt, multi-megawatt wind farm sizes so that they could use this technology for three large-scale wind farms that are going in through the Midwest. FLATOW: And you're in partnership with Xcel, with Xcel Energy,
which makes a lot of these wind farms. Mr. KROPOSKI: That's right. So a key partnership on this is with Xcel Energy, and they are

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
becoming one of the premiere utilities that are integrating wind into their system. I think they have on plans by next year to be the largest installer of wind energy onto their electrical power system.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Offshore Wind Good – A2: Radars
U.S. Coast Guard authorizes offshore wind mill placement – solves interference turns AWEA ‘7 [American Wind Energy Association; “Wind Web Tutorial”; Last Updated 2007; http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_offshore.html]
Developers intentionally site wind turbines outside of established shipping lanes, thereby avoiding conflicts with routine traffic. Should a ship inadvertently go off course, its radar will readily detect the wind turbines, which are excellent radar reflectors. Wind turbines are also equipped with warning devices to alert ships in foul weather. The U.S. Coast Guard authorizes wind turbine

locations for navigational concerns and determines the markings, lights, and fog signals needed.

Radar can be pre-empted with safety amendments- U.K. proves The Boston Globe 05
(“Safety is the issue on Wind Farms”; December 25; Letters; Pg. K10)

SNEAK attack on wind farm" (editorial, Dec. 17) alleging an attempt to scuttle the Cape Wind project via a congressional

amendment was so heavily focused on politics that it missed the point of the amendment human safety. Any evaluation of the project must include assessment of the safety risks associated with putting 130 steel turbines each over
400 feet tall and 16 feet in diameter at the base in close proximity to established ferry routes and a main shipping channel. Research in the United Kingdom has established that wind turbine arrays present radar interference for ships at sea unlike anything presented by offshore oil rigs. The UK has therefore set standards for safe separation between ship routes and

wind turbine arrays. The amendment to restrict placement of towers within 1.5 nautical miles of shipping traffic is a safety amendment, not a political ploy. It begins to set appropriate guidelines for a new industry that should build upon what has been learned overseas. The amendment should be applauded by all who look forward to an offshore wind energy industry that brings renewable energy and protects the public.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Offshore Wind Bad – Radars
Wind mills nullify radar signals and threaten national security Linklater and Kennedy ‘8
[Magnus and Dominic, staff writers for The Times; “Wind farms ‘a threat to national security’”; The Times; February 4, 2008; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3300814.ece] Ambitious plans to meet up to a third of Britain’s energy needs from offshore wind farms are in jeopardy because the Department

of Defence objects that the turbines interfere with its radar. The DoD has lodged last-minute objections to at least four onshore wind farms in the line of sight of its stations on the east coast because they make it impossible to spot aircraft, The Times has learnt. The same objections are likely to apply to wind turbines in the North Sea, part of the massive
renewable energy project announced by John Hutton, the Energy Secretary, barely two months ago. They would be directly in line with the three principal radar defence stations, Brizlee Wood, Saxton Wold and Trimingham on the Northumberland, Yorkshire and Norfolk coasts. Giving evidence to a planning inquiry last October, a senior DoD expert said that the turbines create a hole in radar coverage so that aircraft flying overhead are not detectable. In written evidence, Squadron Leader Chris Breedon said: “This obscuration occurs regardless of the height of the aircraft, of the radar and of the turbine.” He described the discovery as alarming. The findings were the result of trials carried out in 2004 and 2005 but the DoD appears to have toughened its

stance more recently. It now objects to almost all wind farms in the line of sight of its radar stations.

And, U.S. airpower dominance key to hegemony and national security Hazdra ‘1
[Richard J., USAF Major; “The Key to United States National Security Strategy”; August 2001; Fairchild Press; Page 1-2]

Air mobility is the key to unlocking the strength of United States (US) airpower because it performs rapid

global mobility. US military forces have relied on this capability since World War II, and it has always been there. Combatant commanders increasingly rely on air mobility to transport forces quickly into their theaters to head off potential crises, and Air Mobility Command (AMC) always responds enthusiastically with the necessary assets. When the National Command Authorities (NCA) task the Department of Defense (DOD) to achieve any objective, it relies on AMC to achieve rapid global mobility requirements. Consequently, mobility air forces have a remarkable reputation for getting the job done
for DOD and combatant commanders. Since AMC has always achieved its objectives, neither the US Air Force (USAF) nor DOD has conducted a thorough examination to determine if air mobility capabilities will suffice in the future. However, the time has come to review the force structure of AMC to determine if it can realistically continue to meet national security requirements. Air mobility is the key that unlocks the national security strategy (NSS); and, consequently, AMC’s force structure is crucial for the United States to implement its NSS. This study examines the force structure of AMC, which is based on a model for two major theater wars. However, the NSS requires US military forces to perform duties over a range of operations worldwide; and, in fact, DOD has increasingly deployed military forces toward those ends. This study asks the question: Can a force structure based on the possibility of fighting two major theater wars satisfy the requirements for steady-state operations? AMC’s force structure is the key to the NSS because it ultimately determines how far and how fast the USAF can achieve its vision of global engagement. Air mobility

provides the quickest mode of transportation to move military forces into an area where US interests are at stake, whether for peaceful engagement or for combat operations. For more than 50 years, the United States has employed air mobility assets to advance US interests and policies—often without employing combat operations. The Berlin airlift— where aircraft supplied an entire city from June 1948 to August 1949—is probably the most famous
example of airpower used in a peaceful context. In contrast, airlift over The Himalayas to supply US Army Air Forces operations in China during World War II demonstrates the use of air mobility to supply combat operations.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Offshore Wind Bad – Intermittency
Offshore Wind is economically unreliable- there is a huge internal link missing from their advantage Business and Money 06
(“Blazing coal As Britain faces up to an energy crisis in nine years; time and nuclear power and wind farms seem unlikely to provide the answers, the unfashionable fossil fuel could be the new black if it manages to clean up its act”; Newspaper Publishing PLC; November 12; Pg.6; Tim Webb, associate writer at The Observer, lexis) Of course, other types of generation are also being planned. In the next seven years, says the National Grid, 20GW of new plants mainly wind farms and gas - could come on stream. But such forecasts are notoriously unreliable. One industry planner

says: "Guessing how much new capacity will be on the grid in five years' time is a bit like sticking your finger in the wind." The economics, particularly of offshore wind, are not proven and there is no guarantee that developers will press ahead with these projects.

Intermittency and high capital costs makes offshore wind particularly uneconomical
Ainul Abedin 06 (“Expensive Wind Energy Projects”; Business Recorder (Karachi) General Manager (Mechanical). Real Estate Management Corporation) Wind energy is, as yet, not economical both because of high capital costs as well as intermittency, resulting in very low load factors. Recent findings of conference board of Canada are real eye-openers. Their study and confirmation of experience in Denmark and Germany (the countries that have most heavily invested in wind) have shown that electricity from on-shore wind is uneconomic in comparison with traditional alternatives and off-shore wind energy would cost over double compared with gas or nuclear projects. They further confirm that while Denmark and Germany have invested the most into wind power, it remains uneconomic in both markets.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Offshore Wind Bad – Cost
The benefits of offshore wind are overestimated and cost upwards 200 billion dollars NewsQuest - June 25, 2008
South Wales Argus; Lexis) The massive increase in wind power planned by the Government is not the answer to meeting a looming (“ Wind power not answer to energy problem”; NewsQuest Media Group Limited;

energy gap or renewable power targets set for the UK, a report claimed today. A study published by the Centre for Policy Studies said wind was an unreliable and expensive source of electricity and the plans for a 20-fold increase in power production were over-ambitious and impractical. The report comes ahead of
the Government's renewable energy strategy which is to be published on Thursday, and which is expected to propose a huge increase in offshore wind power as part of a bid to meet the EU target of sourcing 15% of all energy from renewables by 2020. According to a leak of the document, the push for a green energy revolution will cost something in the region of L100 billion. Today's report from the Centre for Policy Studies warned that Britain faced a 32GW energy gap by 2015 as older coal and nuclear power stations are paid off. But the report's author Tony Lodge urged that rather than pursuing wind to fill the gap, the UK should develop nuclear and clean coal which he said were cheaper, more reliable options for providing electricity. He said the high costs of

offshore wind, because of problems such as access to the grid and maintenance, would mean energy suppliers would be looking tobuild onshore - where turbines had negative consequences for the environment and local residents.

Offshore wind is inexpensive when we consider it as an alternative to fossil fuels and when used in conjunction with dependable transmission Space Daily 07
(“Wind Power Explored fof California’s Coast”; December 13, Staff Writers)

The third study area the researchers looked at was a specific area in Northern California off Cape Mendocino. They found that a

wind park at this site would supplant about 5 percent of California's electricity coming from carbon-emitting sources, Dvorak said. When combined with offshore wind energy at several other sites, it may be possible to produce between at least a quarter-and potentially all-of California's electricity. Unfortunately, most transmission lines available to
deliver power are in the southern part of the state, where winds are not as strong. But Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is looking into ocean wave-energy projects in Northern California, which also would require new transmission lines."There's a chance the wind and wave-energy projects could dovetail together and lower the transmission costs for both projects," Dvorak said. A recent study authored by Archer and Jacobson and published in the November Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology

examined ways to link wind farms to further exploit economies of scale and thereby reduce the cost of wind energy. Interconnecting multiple parks can offset the intermittent nature of wind and make it a more dependable source of energy, the authors said. And, like the wave-energy project, it would be cheaper to have an integrated set of transmission lines instead of separate connectors to each wind park.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Offshore Wind Bad – Biodiversity
Offshore Wind causes soil erosion from installation hinges and has negative effects on both avian and marine ecosystems
Victoria Sutton and Nicole Tomich 05 (“Harnessing Wind is Not by nature environemtnally firendly” ; Pace University Environmental Law Review; 22 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 91; Victoria Sutton, Visiting Lecturer Yale University, Professor of Law, Texas Tech University, Ph.D. in Environmental Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas and J.D., magna cum laude, American University. Nicole Tomich, J.D., cum laude, Texas Tech University School of Law , Lexis) Increased human activity in the vicinity of turbines for construction and maintenance will cause ecosystem disturbance. A prime example is new road construction in undisturbed areas, which has the potential to cause soil erosion, water pollution, and disruption of surrounding habitats. n43 Ecosystem impact occurs in two primary manners: (1) indirect habitat loss (i.e. making a [*98] habitat less desirable); and (2) direct habitat loss (e.g. building upon or physically altering a particular habitat). n44 Indirect habitat loss will be of great significance to local species that rely on a specific area for sustenance. n45 Such species often have access to a particular "resource in only one area and unless they abandon historical breeding or wintering grounds, [it will] be unlikely to find a replacement for the resource." n46 Indirect losses may also effect migratory populations that use a specific area as a staging ground. n47 "Staging is the period before a large migration where birds gather in flocks and put on extra fat reserves." n48 Direct loss of habitat from new construction is an ecological impact that some species could potentially adapt to. However, wind turbine-created direct habitat loss may pose some extreme dangers. For instance, a wind turbine creates a new perch, but the ability of birds to perch on turbines is naturally associated with a high risk of rotor collision. n49 Furthermore, offshore wind farms have the potential to cause direct habitat loss through underwater vibrations and electromagnetic impulses that may disturb fish populations. n50 Offshore wind energy facilities encompass unique problems such as damage to the ocean floor. n51 Seafloor disturbance from wind tower installation hinges on the type of foundation constructed at a particular site (determined by water depth and benthic conditions), and has varying effects on the surrounding ocean habitat. n52 The placement of turbines in sandbanks could cause accretion, lowering the suitability of the benthic sand eels, a primary food source for many seabirds. n53 Total area, spatial arrangement, disturbance to shore and local marine conditions,
such as the tide and currents, will also have varying environmental impacts. n54 The emerging regulatory framework for the review of proposed wind energy facilities must consider negative ecosystem and [*99] wildlife habitat impacts, as well as create mitigation standards and techniques to be implemented throughout the industry.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Offshore Wind Bad – Empirical Evidence
An offshore wind farm is economically and socially unviable- Britain Proves The Daily Telegraph June 26, 08
(“Answer may be blowing in the wind Britain aims to meet an ambitious EU target on renewable power- a huge business opportunity, but also a major cost”; Telegraph Group Limited; Appointments; Pg.11, Roland Gribben, Lexis) The wind rush has already provoked considerable controversy from people unhappy at the prospect of a wind farm on their doorstep and economists questioning the strategy. Tony Lodge, a political and energy analyst, weighed in yesterday with a paper published by the Centre for Policy Studies arguing that wind power is unreliable and expensive and is not the answer to Britain's

energy problems. He maintains the programme is too ambitious and says Britain does not have the capability to build the equivalent of 3,000 new offshore wind farms to provide the new generating capacity and argues that the National Grid will be unable to cope with the enormous new strains imposed by wind power. He points to considerable public opposition and says an increase in electricity prices needed to finance wind power will leave 6m households facing fuel poverty. Using leaked figures, he says the cost of wind power will reach pounds 100bn, equivalent to more than pounds 4,000 a household, and says Britain should concentrate on developing nuclear power, clean coal or other renewable supplies, particularly tidal power, with wind power relegated to a negligible role.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Good- A2 Health Turn
No health impacts from turbines
Van den Berg et. Al. Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Groningen, Eja Pedersen, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Göteborg University, Jelte Bouma, Science Shop for Medicine & Public Health, University Medical Centre Groningen, Roel Bakker, Northern Centre for Health Care Research, University Medical Centre Groningen. June 3, 2008, “Project WINDFARM perception Visual and acoustic impact of wind turbine farms on residents” University of Groningen. http://www.windaction.org/documents/16255

There is no indication that the sound from wind turbines had an effect on respondents' health, except for the interruption of sleep. At high levels of wind turbine sound (more than 45 dBA) interruption of sleep was more likely than at low levels. Higher levels of background sound from road traffic also increased the odds for interrupted sleep. Annoyance from wind turbine sound was related to difficulties with falling asleep and to higher stress scores. From this study it cannot be concluded whether these health effects are caused by annoyance or vice versa or whether both are related to another factor.

Turbine noise doesn’t affect anything
First Wind 7/7/08 “FAQs” http://www.firstwind.com/community/faqs.cfm

Today, an operating wind farm at a distance of 750 to 1,000 feet emits sounds at a level comparable to a kitchen refrigerator or a moderately quiet room. Wind turbines make a whooshing sound as the blades travel through the air. When standing directly under a wind turbine, you may hear a hum made by the generator and/or gearbox. Because wind turbines only produce sound when appropriate wind conditions are experienced, the wind makes sound as well, and the sound of an operating wind turbine is masked more than 800-900 feet away. Thus, with appropriate setbacks enacted through local regulatory authorities, wind turbine sound emissions should not affect neighboring residents. Sources: New York State Energy Research and Development Authority Wind Toolkit / University of Massachusetts, Renewable Energy Research Laboratory / American Wind Energy Association

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Good- A2 Raptor Turn
Alt causes: shooting, pesticides, and trapping.
San Diego Earth Times, February 1995, “Raptors: Maintaining Nature’s balance.” Carolyn Chase. http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0295/et0295s4.html

As with all wildlife, loss of habitat is the most significant problem facing raptors. While raptors are able to migrate and some can adapt in certain urban environments, the continued loss of areas to human use is putting pressure on many species. Thousands of raptors die each year because of illegal shooting, trapping and poisoning. Raptors are protected by federal and state government and the penalty for shooting a raptor can be as high as a $10,000 fine plus a year in jail. A third threat comes indirectly, from man's attempts at "pest" control by use of poison. Poisoning of mice, prairie dogs, feral (wild) dogs and coyotes can be eaten has been proven to kill raptors. Many pesticides can cause ongoing problems.

All their evidence cites Altamont---which was a rare instance
American Wind Energy Association 2003. “Putting Wind Power’s Effect on birds in perspective” http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html

After dozens of studies spanning nearly two decades, we now know that the Altamont Pass situation is unusual in the U.S. The high raptor mortality there was the result of a convergence of factors, some of which were due to the bad siting in the local ecosystem while others were due to the wind turbine and tower technology used at the time. In fact, a very different situation exists not far away at the San Gorgonio Pass Wind Farms near Palm Springs. A 1986 study found that 69 million birds flew though the San Gorgonio Pass during the Spring and Fall migrations. During both migrating seasons, only 38 dead birds were found during that typical year, representing only 0.00006% of the migrating population. A report recently prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration in the Northwest U.S. states that "raptor mortality has been absent to very low at all newer generation wind plants studied in the U.S. This and other information regarding wind turbine design and wind plant/wind turbine siting strongly suggests that the level of raptor mortality observed at Altamont Pass is quite unique.

Claims of avian mortality are speculative
Ryunosuke Kikuchi, Department of Exact Sciences and the Environment (CERNAS), ESAC - Polytechnical Institute of Coimbra, Bencanta, 3040-316 Coimbra, Portugal, February 5 2008. (“Journal for Nature Conservation, Volume 16, Issue 1, 17 March 2008, Pages 44-55)

The Altamont Pass is a mountain pass in California (USA) about 90 km east of San Francisco, and this pass is known as the largest wind energy facility (wood & Thelander, 2004). The wildlife risk in terms of turbine-caused fatalities in this area is reported as follows: a bird mortality of 0.05 deaths per wind turbine per year (Howell & Didonato, 1991) and a raptor mortality of 0.03 deaths per wind turbine per year (Howell, 1997). Considering these data, wildlife impacts of wind power generation may be minimal. Another observation was conducted at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center located along the Appalachian plateau in West Virginia, and the results show a bat mortality of 38 deaths per turbine for the 6-week study period (Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC), 2004). It is estimated that 1356–1980 bats were killed by 44 wind turbines in this 6-week period (BWEC, 2004). As seen above, mortality rates per turbine are variable because collision probability depends on a range of factors such as bird or bat species, numbers, behaviour, weather conditions, topography and the nature of the wind farm itself (Drewitt & Langston, 2006). Europe is the world leader in wind energy; a few years ago, Europe accounted for some 75% of the global market (DWIA, 2006). With installed capacity, Europe accounts for more than 50% of the world’s new wind power capacity (DWIA, 2006). Table 1 shows the mean avian mortality rate by collision at some wind farms in Europe. The mortality rates shown in Table 1 are calculated mainly from observations in spring and autumn, originally expressed as birds per turbine per day; the rates over a year-long period could be lower.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Good- A2 Raptor Turn
New studies show birds avoid newer turbines---cost benefit analysis shows turbines are better The Buffalo Sunday News May 9, 2004 “Wind Turbines and Birds” 
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~insrisg/nature/nw04/0509Windmills.htm

Fortunately birds simply avoid the blades of the newer wind turbines. Studies at more recently designed wind farms tell us that bird mortality at windmills is very low. A summary indicates that the average number of birds killed annually across North America is between one and two per turbine. Arguably the best of the intensive studies was carried out by Canadian Ross James. His year-long field work at a Toronto wind turbine sited in the middle of a fall migration route turned up three birds killed. He also watched birds change course to avoid the turbine blades, an observation shared by many other observers. His final conclusion: "The greatest threat to all wildlife is still loss and/or degradation of habitat." Against this data we have scare statements like one from a dedicated hawkwatcher in the Chautauqua town of Ripley: "If a bird doesn't get killed in Ripley, he may get killed in Rochester, if not there then at Derby Hill, Prince Edward Island, Toronto...." Statements like this together with intensive lobbying by such deeply concerned birders is deterring the development of wind farms. But consider what development at Ripley would mean. Over 20,000 hawks, vultures and eagles pass that location each spring to say nothing of passerine migrants. If 35 wind turbines were erected there (more than the number contemplated), the national average would suggest annual deaths of about 60 birds of all species, an infinitesimal fraction of the total number traversing that region. There is clearly a trade-off here but I believe that a cost-benefit analysis comes down on the side of the wind turbines. I join my birding colleagues in their concern for the death or injury of any bird, but I suggest that wind turbines represent the least of their worries. For example, a single feral cat kills more birds in a week than the average wind turbine kills in over three years.

Bird and bat deaths are just an excuse American Wind Energy Association 2003

“Ask an Expert: Putting Wind Power’s effect on birds in perspective” http://www.renewwisconsin.org/wind/Toolbox-Fact%20Sheets/Birds.pdf

Over the past fifteen years, a number of reports have appeared in the popular press about wind turbines killing birds. Some writers have gone so far as to dub wind generators "raptor-matics" and "cuisinarts of the sky". Unfortunately, some of these articles have been used as "evidence" to stop the construction of a wind generator in someone's back yard. The reports of dead birds create a dilemma. Do wind generators really kill birds? If so, how serious is the problem? A confused public oftentimes does not know what to believe. Many people participate in the U.S.'s second

largest past time, bird watching. Other's are truly concerned about the environment and what they perceive as yet another assault on our fragile ecosystem. Unwittingly, they rally behind the few ill-informed obstructionists who have realized that the perception of bird mortality due to wind turbines is a hot button issue, with the power to bring construction to a halt. Birds live a tenuous existence. There are any number of things that can cause their individual deaths or collective demise. For example, bird collisions with objects in nature are a rather common occurrence, and young birds are quite clumsy when it comes to landing on a perch after flight. As a result, about 30% of total first-year bird deaths are attributed to natural collisions. By far, the largest causes of mortality among birds include loss of habitat due to human infringement, environmental despoliation, and collisions with man-made objects. Since wind turbines fall into the last category, it is worthwhile to examine other human causes of avian deaths and compare these to mortality from wind turbines.

Alt causes to bird deaths- human infrastructure kills 4 million birds per dayAmerican Wind Energy Association 2003 “Ask an Expert: Putting Wind Power’s effect on birds in perspective” http://www.renewwisconsin.org/wind/Toolbox-Fact%20Sheets/Birds.pdf

Utility transmission and distribution lines, the backbone of our electrical power system, are responsible for 130 to 174 million bird deaths a year in the U.S.1 Many of the affected birds are those with large wingspans, including raptors and waterfowl. While attempting to land on power lines and poles, birds are sometimes electrocuted when their wings span between two hot wires. Many other birds are killed as their flight paths intersect the power lines strung between poles and towers. One report states that: "for some types of birds, power line collisions appear to be a significant source of mortality."2 Collisions with automobiles and trucks result in the deaths of between 60 and 80 million birds annually in the U.S.3 As more vehicles share the roadway, and our automotive society becomes more pervasive, these numbers will only increase. Our dependence on oil has taken its toll on birds too. Even the relatively high incidence of bird kills

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
at Altamont Pass (about 92 per year) pales in comparison to the number of birds killed from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. In fact, according to author Paul Gipe, the Altamont Pass wind farm would have to operate for 500 to 1000 years to "achieve" the same mortality level as the Exxon Valdez event in 1989. Tall building and residential house windows also claim their share of birds. Some of the five million tall buildings in U.S. cities have been documented as being a chronic mortality problem for migrating birds. There are more than 100 million houses in the U.S. House windows are more of a problem for birds in rural areas than in cities or towns. While there are no required ongoing studies of bird mortality due to buildings or house windows, the best estimates put the toll due collisions with these structures at between 100 million and a staggering 1 billion deaths annually.4 Lighted communication towers turn out to be one of the more serious problems for birds, especially for migratory species that fly at night. One study began its conclusion with, "It

is apparent from the analysis of the data that significant numbers of birds are dying in collisions with communications towers, their guy wires, and related structures."5 Another report states, "The main environmental problem we are watching out for with telecommunication towers are the deaths of birds and bats."6 This is not news, as bird collisions with lighted television and radio towers have been documented for over 50 years. Some towers are responsible for very high episodic fatalities. One television transmitter tower in Eau Claire, WI, was responsible for the deaths of over 1,000 birds on each of 24 consecutive nights. A "record 30,000 birds were estimated killed on one night" at this same tower.7 In Kansas, 10,000 birds were killed in one night by a telecommunications tower.8 Numerous large bird kills, while not as dramatic as the examples cited above, continue to occur across the country at telecommunication tower sites. The number of telecommunication towers in the U.S. currently exceeds 77,000, and this number could easily double by 2010. The rush to construction is being driven mainly by our use of cell phones, and to a lesser extent by the impending switch to digital television and radio. Current mortality estimates due to telecommunication towers are 40 to 50 million birds per year.9 The

proliferation of these towers in the near future will only exacerbate this situation. Agricultural pesticides are "conservatively estimated" to directly kill 67 million birds per year.10 These numbers do not account for avian mortality associated with other pesticide applications, such as on golf courses. Nor do they take into consideration secondary losses due to pesticide use as these toxic chemicals travel up the food chain. This includes poisoning due to
birds ingesting sprayed insects, the intended target of the pesticides. Cats, both feral and housecats, also take their toll on birds. A Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) report states that, "recent research suggests that rural free ranging domestic cats in Wisconsin may be killing between 8 and 217 million birds each year. The most reasonable estimates indicate that 39 million birds are killed in the state each year."11 There are other studies on the impacts of jet engines, smoke stacks, bridges, and any number of other human structures and activities that threaten birds on a daily basis. Together, human infrastructure and industrial activities are responsible for one to four million bird deaths per day!

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Good- A2 Raptor Turn
When predator populations decline, predatory redundancy results in an increase in competing predators, which maintains prey levels. G A Bradshaw, Oregon State University Department of Forest Science, P A, Marquet, University of Chile Center for Advanced Studies of Ecology and Biodiversity, Kathryn L Ronnenberg, editor, 2003, (“How Landscapes Change (Ecological Studies 162)”)
14 How Much Functional Redundancy Is Out There, or, Are We Willing to Do Away with Potential Backup Species? F.M. Jaksic

14.1 The Issue One of the major consequences of habitat fragmentation is the loss of species biodiversity. Inasmuch as species have a degree of functional redundancy, such biodiversity losses may be tolerable to the extent that they do not seriously compromise ecosystem function (Walker 1992). By definition, guilds of resource users are composed of species with a high degree of functional redundancy (Jaksic et al. 1996). Root (1967) coined the term guild as “a group of species that exploit the same class of environmental resources in a similar way.” He also pointed out that “this term groups together species, without regard to taxonomic positions, that overlap significantly in their niche requirements.” Without realizing it, Root opened the debate on species redundancy in ecosystems (Jaksic 1981; Walker 1992). That is, if any guild member (a given focal species) declines or even disappears, its guild-mate (a presumably redundant species) may respond numerically by increasing its abundance. In this case, there would be a smooth takeover of functional roles by guild-mates, or a shifting balance of consumer abundances depending on how exactly resources fluctuate (e.g.,Wiens 1990a,b). 14.2 Soft Evidence for Redundancy The idea that some vertebrate species may be functionally redundant has been lurking in the literature for quite a while. My chief expertise is on predator ecology, and thus I will make my points with reference to the literature with which I am most familiar. Errington (1932,1933) showed that the diets of several raptors were almost identical in intensively studied areas of southern Wisconsin, red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) and great horned owls (Bubo virginianus) used habitat features and prey resources in an almost indistinguishable manner, except for the hawk being diurnal and the owl being nocturnal. Jaksic (1982) computed food-niche overlaps among entire sets of sympatric raptors – both diurnal and nocturnal – and found that in southern Michigan, southern Wisconsin, northern Utah, southern Spain, and central Chile,the overlap values among synchronous (diurnal and nocturnal) raptors were statistically indistinguishable from those among asynchronous raptors (diurnal versus nocturnal). That is, some owls overlapped more with some hawks than with their respective synchronous mates. Carothers and Jaksic (1984) and Jaksic (1988) proposed that interference competition kept these two sets of predators temporally apart. Marti et al. (1993) updated and discussed this issue at length. My conclusion is that some raptor species pairs, trios or even larger groupings appear to be redundant at least in their use of food resources, regardless of where and when they hunt for prey. It is interesting that the same conclusion was reached by Huey and Pianka (1983), in a study of food-niche overlaps among insectivorous lizards.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Good- A2 Pests Turn
New studies prove pests would die off
Craig Idso et al, founder and former President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and former Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy, 2008 [Sherwood Idso, former Research Physicist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service and former adjunct professor in the Departments of Geology, Geography, and Botany and Microbiology at Arizona State University, and Keith Idso, adjunct associate in plant biology at Arizona State University, CO2 Science, Agricultural Crops, the Herbivorous Pests that Feed on Them, and the Bigger Omnivorous Bugs that Eat the Pests, 3/26/08, Volume 11, Number 13, http://co2science.org/articles/V11/N13/B1.php] Victor Reference Coll, M. and Hughes, L. 2008. Effects of elevated CO2 on an insect omnivore: A test for nutritional effects mediated by host plants and prey. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 123: 271-279.

In what they describe as "the first study that measured the effect of global atmospheric change on an omnivorous consumer," the authors explored the impacts of elevated atmospheric CO2 on the behavior and performance of an omnivorous bug (Oechalia schellenbergii, Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) and its prey, a polyphagous chewing herbivorous pest (Helicoverpa armigera; Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), feeding on pea (Pisum sativum) foliage grown in controlled-environment cabinets
What was done. maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of either 360 or 700 ppm. What was learned Coll and Hughes report that the H. armigera pests that fed on the elevated CO2-grown pea plants were significantly smaller than those that fed on the ambient CO2-grown pea plants, and that the bigger O. schellenbergii bugs that fed on them "performed best when fed larvae from the elevated-CO2 treatment," because the prey of that treatment "were smaller and thus easier to subdue." In fact, only 13.3% of the predation attempts made on the larvae that were fed ambient-CO2-grown foliage were successful, as compared to 78.2% for the larvae that were fed elevated-CO2-grown foliage. What it means In light of their findings,

researchers concluded that "elevated CO2 may benefit generalist predators through increased prey vulnerability, which would put pest species under higher risk of predation." Consequently, and "since omnivory is widespread in agroecosystems," they argue that "yield loss to most pest species will be lower under elevated atmospheric CO2 levels, compared to the current condition," which is good news for agriculture and great news for the people who depend upon it for their survival, which is nearly all of us.
the two

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Good- A2 Bat Turn
Alt causes: pesticides and habitat destruction
American Wind Energy Association 2003 http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/ms_bats_0302.html

Bat populations are endangered by human activities in general. Disturbing or awakening hibernating bats disrupts their metabolism, often leading to starvation over winter. Pesticides in the insects that bats prey upon can accumulate in the fats that bats depend upon for over-wintering or migration, resulting in massive bat die-offs. Finally, loss of habitat threatens bats similarly to the way that bird species are endangered. But do wind turbines in particular threaten bats? The interaction of bats with wind turbines is, like many other behaviors that bats exhibit, not well understood. While there have been numerous studies centered around birds and wind turbines, relative few of these studies have included bats. The ones that have been done, however, suggest that wind turbines do not pose a significant threat to bat populations. One of these studies, "Synthesis and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor Nesting, and Mortality Information from Proposed and Existing Wind Developments," by WEST, Inc., released December, 2002, concludes that "bat collision mortality during the breeding season is virtually non-existent, despite the fact that relatively large numbers of bat species have been documented in close proximity to wind plants. These data suggest that wind plants do not currently impact resident breeding populations where they have been studied in the U.S."

(more answers in AT: Biodiversity turn)

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Good- A2 Biodiversity Turn
Turbines have no impact on wildlife
GAO (United States Government Accountability Office) September 2005. “WIND POWER: Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife” http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05906.pdf

In the context of other sources of avian mortalities, it does not appear that wind power is responsible for a significant number of bird deaths. While we do not know a lot about the relative impacts of bat mortality from wind power relative to other sources, significant bat mortality from wind power has occurred in Appalachia. However, much work remains before scientists have a clear understanding of the true impacts to wildlife from wind power. Scientists, in particular, are concerned about the potential cumulative impacts of wind power on species populations if the industry expands as expected. Such concerns may be well-founded because significant development is proposed in areas that contain large numbers of species o rare believed to be migratory flyways. Concerns are compounded by the fact that the regulation of wind power varies from location-to-location and some state and local regulatory agencies we reviewed generally had little experience or expertise in addressing the environmental and wildlife impacts from wind power. In addition, given the relatively narrow regulatory scope of state and local agencies, it appears that when new wind power facilities are permitted, no one is considering the impacts of wind power on a regional or “ecosystem” scale—a scale that often spans governmental jurisdictions. FWS, in its responsibility for protecting wildlife, is the appropriate agency for such a task and in fact does monitor the status of species populations, to the extent possible. However, because wildlife, federally protected birds in particular, face a multitude of threats, many of which are better understood than wind power, FWS officials told us that they generally spend a very small portion of their time assessing the impacts from wind power. Nonetheless, FWS has taken some steps to reach out to the wind power industry by, among other things, issuing voluntary guidelines to encourage conservation and mitigation actions at new wind power facilities. In addition, FWS and the U.S. Geological Survey are initiating some studies to capture data on migratory flyways to help determine where the most potential harm from wind power might occur and to gather data for use in assessing wind power’s cumulative impacts on species. Although these are valuable steps in educating industry and improving science, FWS has conducted only limited outreach to state and local regulators about minimizing impacts from wind power on wildlife and informing them about species that may be particularly vulnerable to impacts from wind power. Such outreach is important because these are the entities closest to the day-to-day decisions regarding where wind power will be allowed on nonfederal land.

Alt causes: human activities
GAO (United States Government Accountability Office) September 2005. “WIND POWER: Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife” http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05906.pdf

But wind power is not alone in its impacts on wildlife. Millions, or perhaps billions, of wildlife are killed every year in the United States through a myriad of human activities. While sources of bat mortality are not as well known, FWS estimates that some of the leading sources of bird mortality, per year, are collisions with building windows—97 million to 976 million bird deaths, collisions with communication towers—4 million to 50 million bird deaths, poisoning from pesticides—at least 72 million birds, and attacks by domestic and feral cats—hundreds of millions of bird deaths. Human activities also result in the destruction or modification of wildlife habitat; habitat loss and fragmentation are leading threats to the continued survival of many species.

Benefits outweigh the risks
First Wind 7/7/08 “FAQs” http://www.firstwind.com/community/faqs.cfm

First Wind conducts extensive, multi-season environmental reviews of each potential project site to determine its impact on local wildlife. While we make every effort to minimize the impact of our wind turbines on birds and bats, it is impossible to ensure no bird or bat will be affected. When compared to other causes of death to bird and bats, however, we believe the benefits to the overall wildlife environment outweighs the risk. In fact, recent data shows wind turbines account for less than 0.003% of all annual bird fatalities in the U.S. Many studies on the subject are ongoing, and most remain inconclusive on the full impact of wind power on wildlife. First Wind closely monitors research in this area as part of its environmental reviews. The National Research Council, in a comprehensive review of wind power, recently offered this perspective.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Good- A2 Ice Turn
Wind turbines shut down during icy conditions
First Wind 7/7/08 “FAQs” http://www.firstwind.com/community/faqs.cfm

Wind turbines shut down during icing events due to either imbalance detection or the control anemometer icing (the control anemometer tells the turbine how fast the wind is moving). Any ice buildup tends to shed while the turbine is at rest or while it is starting up (that is, moving at slower than operational speed). Due to this, and the fact that the ice sheds in thin, non-aerodynamic pieces that break apart as they fall, current turbine setbacks from roads and residences should be sufficient to protect the public from ice shed. To date, there has not been any insurance claim for injury due to ice shed from a wind turbine. Sources: Energy Insurance Brokers / South Bay Risk Management and Insurance Services / Garrad Hassan

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Good- Studies Prove
Not enough research has been done----their evidence isn’t based off scientific studies
GAO (United States Government Accountability Office) September 2005. “WIND POWER: Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife” http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05906.pdf

The impact of wind power facilities on wildlife varies by region and by species. Specifically, studies show that wind power facilities in northern California and in Pennsylvania and West Virginia have killed large numbers of raptors and bats, respectively. Studies in other parts of the country show comparatively lower levels of mortality, although most facilities have killed at least some birds. However, many wind power facilities in the United States have not been studied, and, therefore, scientists cannot draw definitive conclusions about the threat that wind power poses to wildlife in general. Further, much is still unknown about migratory bird flyways and overall species population levels, making it difficult to determine the cumulative impact that the wind power industry has on wildlife species. Notably, only a few studies exist concerning ways in which to reduce wildlife fatalities at wind power facilities.

Turbines generate community value and create jobs
First Wind 7/7/08 “FAQs” http://www.firstwind.com/community/faqs.cfm

A wind farm may generate value for a local community, including: Revenues to Towns: Property taxes or payments in lieu of taxes. Revenues to Farming and Ranching Landowners: Lease payments may provide stable revenue to local farmers and ranchers. Short Term Construction Benefits: Taken as an example, the construction of 50 wind turbines will produce roughly 60 full and part time jobs and create a significant demand for local construction materials and services. It is First Wind’s policy to subcontract locally for construction to the greatest extent possible. Long Term Operations and Maintenance: Operation and maintenance of 50 wind turbines will produce approximately 4-6 long term service jobs. It is First Wind’s policy to hire and train locally to the greatest extent possible. Electricity Supply: America’s energy demand continues to increase and wind energy provides a way to meet a portion of this increase without the drawbacks of other types of power generation: Coal plants produce significant amounts of pollutants including carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas), SO2 (acid rain), NOx (acid rain and smog), particulate matter (asthma and other air pollution related illnesses), carbon monoxide, and mercury (contamination of fish and water supplies). Natural gas-fired plants, while cleaner than coal and oil, are often not cost competitive due to large and sudden fuel price increases. Large-scale hydroelectric projects have significant human and natural environmental impacts from the flooding of large areas of land.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- States CP Solvency
States solve
GAO (United States Government Accountability Office) September 2005. “WIND POWER: Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife” http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05906.pdf

Regulating wind power facilities is largely the responsibility of state and local governments. In the six states GAO reviewed, wind power facilities are subject to local- or state-level processes, such as zoning ordinances to permit the construction and operation of wind power facilities. As part of this process, some agencies require environmental assessments before construction. However, regulatory agency officials do not always have experience or expertise to address environmental and wildlife impacts from wind power. The federal government plays a minimal role in approving wind power facilities, only regulating facilities that are on federal lands or have some form of federal involvement, such as receiving federal funds. In these cases, the wind power project must comply with federal laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as any relevant state and local laws.

States control wind power
GAO (United States Government Accountability Office) September 2005. “WIND POWER: Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife” http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05906.pdf

State and/or local governments regulate the development and operation of wind power facilities on nonfederal lands. The primary permitting jurisdiction for wind power facilities in many states is a local planning commission, zoning board, city council, or county board of supervisors or commissioners. Typically, these local jurisdictional entities regulate wind projects under zoning ordinances and building codes. In some states, one or more state agencies play a role in regulating wind power development, such as natural resource and environmental protection agencies, state historic preservation offices, industrial development and regulation agencies, public utility commissions, or siting boards. In addition, some states have environmental laws that impose requirements on many types of construction and development, including wind power,that state and local agencies must follow. The regulatory scheme for wind power in the six states we reviewed included all of these scenarios (see table 1).

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- Politics Links
Wind power is controversial in congress Associated Press 6/4/08 “Push for tougher rules on wind industry” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19025853/
Birds and bats have a powerful advocate in the new Congress, and he is making the wind energy industry nervous. Rep. Nick Rahall, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, is pushing legislation that would more strictly regulate wind energy to protect birds, bats and other wildlife killed when they fly into the giant turbines. Wind energy advocates say the bill could significantly cripple the burgeoning industry and they brand the measure as "anti-wind." A release from the American Wind Energy Association last month said Rahall's plan could "essentially outlaw" the generation of electricity from new wind power plants in the United States. Political debate over wind projects has intensified as the industry has seen major growth in recent years. According to the association, wind power is growing 25 percent to 30 percent annually. Congress has encouraged this renewable energy as oil prices have skyrocketed, creating incentives for the industry and promoting its benefits. But some lawmakers are concerned about the effects on wildlife. Rahall's proposal, included in a larger energy bill, would direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to publish standards for siting, construction and monitoring of wind projects so that they do not harm wildlife. Violators could go to prison. Throwing out the haystack After opposition from some members of his committee, Rahall has said he will revisit the legislation. The wind provisions are "not locked in stone," he said. Still, Rahall, D-W.Va., believes more regulation would be a good idea. "I suspect that wind projects are on a regular basis in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act, yet no enforcement action is being taken," he said at a recent hearing on the issue.

Wind and solar power are controversial
Calgary Herald 7/1/08 “Enmax pushes province for 50-year energy plan; Alberta Energy cool to utility's proposals”

Three weeks ago, Enmax released a lengthy discussion paper examining some of the ideas Holden advocates, which include encouraging generation closer to load to forego increasingly expensive new transmission projects, cultivating the use of solar and wind power through pricing methodologies and moving forcefully toward widespread and widely available coal gasification for use by industry. While many of Holden's concepts are intriguing and appear logical, they have created controversy in the industry and helped to cement Enmax's reputation in the sector as a rebel or even, perhaps, a pariah. They would have the impact of not only remaking the power industry, but the direction of government's regulatory oversight, both of which are well-entrenched.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- Housing Market Turn
Wind turbines crash the housing market---a 26% drop in value would occur
Protect Illinois’s Environment 12/4/07 http://www.protectillinoisenvironment.com/

Opponents of industrial farms have long known that property values decline when wind turbines are erected. Strong evidence now exists that allowing the construction of industrial wind turbines near residential properties causes a decrease in the value of said property. According to a survey taken by the Lincoln Township (WI) Moratorium Committee, 74% of survey respondents said they would not build or buy within one quarter mile of wind turbines; 61% stated they would not build or buy within one half mile of wind turbines, and 41% of survey respondents said they would have to be two or more miles away from any wind turbines in order to build or buy residential properties. Sales within one mile away from the turbines prior to construction in this area were at 104% of assessed value. Properties selling in the same area after construction of the turbines sold at 78% of assessed value. Nothing changed in the area except the construction of the turbines, so it is reasonable to believe that the 26% drop in value was due to turbine construction alone.

Housing crises causes economic collapse Fraser, 12/9/07 (Steve, writer and editor and author of "Wall Street: America's Dream Palace" to be published by Yale University Press, p. LA Times)
No one wants to utter the word "depression." But the truth of the matter is that the American economy may be entering a state of free fall. Every day brings more bad news about the sub-prime mortgage debacle, about
home foreclosures, construction industry slowdowns, a credit drought for consumers and businesses, oil price shocks and the openended devaluation of the dollar. Where is it all leading? Together with the debacle in Iraq and the political implosion of the Republican Party, this economic collapse could make the presidential election of 2008 a turning point in American political history. Conservatism first triumphed over New Deal liberalism thanks in part to the same deadly combination in the late 1970s: a lost war and an economic crisis. The Vietnam War plus stagflation and deindustrialization gave us Ronald Reagan. Now history is returning the favor, as the free-market conservative political order of the last generation faces a systemic crisis from which there is no easy escape. Even the soberest economy watchers, pundits with doctorates -- whose dismal record in predicting anything tempts me not to mention this -- are prophesying dark times ahead. A depression, or a slump so deep it's not worth quibbling about the difference, appears to be on the way, if indeed it is not already underway. Start with the confidence game being run out of Wall Street. The sub-prime mortgage crisis occupies newspaper front pages day after outrageous day. Certainly, these tales of greed and financial malfeasance are numbingly familiar. Yet precisely that sense of deja vu -- of Enron revisited, of an endless cascade of scandalous, irrational behavior affecting the central

financial institutions of our world -- suggests just how dire things have become.

US economic collapse kills heg and causes nuclear war with Russia and China NYQUIST 05 [Jeffrey Nyquist, regular geopolitical columnist for Financial Sense and WorldNetDaily and expert in foreign policy and geopolitics, 2/4/05, “The Political Consequences of a Financial Crash”, Financial Sense, http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2005/0204.html]
Should the United States experience a severe economic contraction during the second term of President Bush, the American people will likely support politicians who advocate further restrictions and controls on our market economy – guaranteeing its strangulation and the steady pauperization of the country. In Congress today, Sen. Edward Kennedy supports nearly all the economic dogmas listed above. It is easy to see, therefore, that the coming economic contraction, due in part to a policy of massive credit expansion, will have serious political consequences for the Republican Party (to the benefit of the Democrats). Furthermore, an economic contraction will encourage the formation of anti-capitalist majorities and a turning away from the free market system. The danger here is not merely economic. The political left openly favors the collapse of America’s strategic position abroad. The withdrawal of the United States from the
Middle East, the Far East and Europe would catastrophically impact an international system that presently allows 6 billion people to live on the earth’s surface in relative peace. Should anti-capitalist dogmas overwhelm the global market and trading system that evolved under American leadership, the planet’s economy would contract and untold millions would die of starvation. Nationalistic totalitarianism, fueled by a politics of blame, would once again bring war to Asia and Europe. But this time the war would be waged with mass destruction weapons and the United States would be blamed because it is the center of global capitalism. Furthermore, if the anti-capitalist party gains power in Washington, we can expect to see policies of appeasement and unilateral disarmament enacted.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
American appeasement and disarmament, in this context, would be an admission of guilt before the court of world opinion. Russia and China, above all, would exploit this admission to justify aggressive wars, invasions and mass destruction attacks. A

future financial crash, therefore, must be prevented at all costs.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- Heart Turn
Wind turbines cause health problems including stress and depression
Daily Telegraph 1/25/04 “Wind Farm make people sick who live up to a mile away” Catherine Miller http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/display Printable.j html?xml= /news/2004/ 01/ 25/ nwind25.xml&site=5

Onshore wind farms are a health hazard to people living near them because of the low- frequency noise that they emit, according to new medical studies. Doctors say that the turbines - some of which are taller than Big Ben - can cause headaches and depression among residents living up to a mile away. One survey found that all but one of 14 people living near the Bears Down wind farm at Padstow, Cornwall, where 16 turbines were put up two years ago, had experienced increased numbers of headaches, and 10 said that they had problems sleeping and suffered from anxiety. Dr Amanda Harry, a local GP who did the research, said: "People demonstrated a range of symptoms from headaches, migraines, nausea, dizziness, palpitations and tinnitus to sleep disturbance, stress, anxiety and depression. These symptoms had a knock-on effect in their daily lives, causing poor concentration, irritability and an inability to cope."

Depression and stress causes heart disease and heart attacks
Leo Pozuelo, M.D., Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, 7/6/08, Cleveland Clinic “Depression and Heart Disease” http://my.clevelandclinic.org/heart/prevention/stress/depressionandheart.aspx

Studies have shown that mental stress has a negative effect on a person’s heart health. In particular: Unmanaged stress can lead to high blood pressure, arterial damage, irregular heart rhythms, and a weakened immune system. For people with heart disease, depression increases the risk for an adverse cardiac event such as a heart attack or blood clots. For people who do not have heart disease, depression increases the risk of heart attack and coronary disease. One in six patients who have had a heart attack suffer from clinical depression. In one study, the continued presence of depression after recovery increased the risk of death (mortality rate) to 17% within six months after a heart attack (versus 3% mortality in heart attack patients who didn’t suffer from depression). During recovery from cardiac surgery, depression can intensify pain, cause worsened fatigue and sluggishness, or cause a person to withdraw into social isolation. Patients who have had coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and have untreated depression after surgery also have an increased morbidity and mortality rate. Patients with heart failure and depression have an increased risk of being readmitted to the hospital within three months to one year after their hospitalization. Negative lifestyle habits associated with depression - such as smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, lack of exercise, poor diet, and lack of social support – interfere with the treatment for heart disease.

Heart disease is the number one cause of death in the United States
American Heart Association 2004, “Heart Attack and Angina Statistics” http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4591 Final 2004 statistics for the United States show that coronary heart disease (CHD) is the single leading cause of death in America. CHD causes heart attack and angina. Mortality — 451,326 deaths in the United States in 2004 (one of every five deaths). Incidence — 1,200,000 new and recurrent coronary attacks per year. (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Atherosclerotic Risk in Communities [ARIC] Study and Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). About 38 percent of people who experience a coronary attack in a given year die from it. Prevalence — 16,000,000 victims of angina (chest pain due to coronary heart disease), heart attack and other forms of coronary heart disease are still living (8,700,000 males and 7,300,000 females). From 1994 to 2004 the death rate from coronary heart disease declined 33 percent, but the actual number of deaths declined only 18 percent. Estimates are that 9,100,000 people in the United States suffer from angina. An estimated 500,000 new cases of stable angina occur each year. (Framingham Heart Study, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute) The estimated age-adjusted prevalence of angina in women age 20 and older was 3.9 percent for non-Hispanic white women, 4.3 percent for non-Hispanic black women and 3.3 percent for MexicanAmerican women. Rates for men in these three groups were 4.8, 3.4 and 2.3 percent, respectively.* Among adults in the United States age 20 and older, the estimated age-adjusted prevalence of coronary heart disease for non-Hispanic whites is 9.4 percent for men and 6.0 percent for women; for non-Hispanic blacks, 7.1 percent for men and 7.8 percent for women; and for MexicanAmericans, 5.6 percent for men and 5.3 percent for women.* *Based on the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 1999–2004), National Center for Health Statistics and NHLBI.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- Heart Turn- Health Extension
Irritating noise pollution and health problems
George W. Kamperman (Kamperman Associates, Inc.) and Richard R. James(E-Coustic Solutions) 4/29/08 “Simple Guidelines for siting wind turbines to prevent health risks” http://www.windaction.org/documents/16257

Industrial scale wind turbines are a familiar part of the landscape in Europe, U.K. and other parts of the world. In the U.S. similar wind energy developments are just beginning operation. This will increase given the push by the Federal and State Governments to promote renewable energy sources through tax incentives and other forms of economic and political support. States and local governments in the U.S. are promoting very lenient rules for how industrial wind farms can be located in communities which are predominantly quiet and rural. Studies already completed and currently in progress describe significant health effects associated with living in the vicinity of industrial grade wind turbines. This paper reviews a number of sites with known health problems and the sound studies conducted by consultants for governments, the wind turbine owner, or the local residents. The purpose is determine if a set of simple guidelines using dBA and dBC sound levels can serve as the ‘safe' siting guidelines. Findings of the review and recommendations for sound limits will be presented. A discussion of how the proposed limits would have affected the existing sites where people have demonstrated pathologies apparently related to wind turbine sound will also be presented. A relatively new source of community noise is spreading rapidly across the rural U.S. countryside. Industrial grade wind turbines, a common sight in many European countries, are now being promoted by Federal and State governments as the way to minimize coal powered electrical energy and its effects on global warming. But, the initial developments using the newer 1.5 to 3 MWatt wind turbines here in the U.S. has also led to numerous complaints from residents who find themselves no longer in the quiet rural communities they were living in before the wind turbine developments went on-line. Questions have been raised about whether the current siting guidelines being used in the U.S. are sufficiently protective for the people living the closest to the developments. Research being conducted into the health issues using data from established wind turbine developments is beginning to appear that leaves open the possibility that there is a basis for the health concerns. Other research into the computer modeling and other methods used for determining the layout of the industrial wind turbine developments and the distances from residents in the adjacent communities are showing that the output of the models should not be considered accurate enough to be used as the sole basis for making the siting decisions.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- Raptors Turn
Turbines kill raptors Wired 10/14/05 “Unexpected Downside of Wind Power” http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/10/69177
A 2004 report by the California Energy Commission found that 880 to 1,300 raptors are killed at Altamont every year, such as red-tailed hawks and the federally protected golden eagle. Altamont isn't the only scene of a showdown. Environmental groups have already blocked a proposed wind-power facility in the Mojave Desert, and opponents of another project, in Nantucket Sound, have cited wildlife concerns in their lobbying efforts. A recent government report found that sites in other regions could pose a threat to bats

Raptors key to maintain ecosystems
San Diego Earth Times, February 1995, “Raptors: Maintaining Nature’s balance.” Carolyn Chase. http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0295/et0295s4.html

We revere them in our symbols and our songs. They are on our money and on our uniforms. But what about the genuine article? Have you ever marveled at the beauty of a soaring hawk or eagle? These majestic birds, called raptors, are among the most beautiful creatures on Earth. These birds are also very easy to see and enjoy in nature - you can find them in many types of habitats including some urban environments. There are ten different families of raptors. They are: buteos, accipiters, eagles, falcons, vultures, osprey, harriers, kites and two families of owl. The bald eagle is the most well-known of raptors, while kites and harriers are probably the least known. Different types of hawks are members of the buteo or accipiter families. Raptors have large, powerful feet with sharp curved talons, hooked upper beaks and sharp eyesight. Raptors are important because they help control animal populations and are an integral part of keeping natural systems in balance. If raptor prey such as mice, rabbits, rats and prairie dogs become too abundant, they can damage crops and lands and transmit diseases to humans, domestic livestock and pets. Raptors help to prevent prey population explosions that can lead to habitat problems. Raptors are also important environmental barometers. Since raptors feed at the top of nature's food pyramid, their population provides a good indicator of the underlying health of natural ecosystems. Like the canaries kept in coal mines to indicate poisonous air-quality for miners, eagles and other raptor populations provided the first indication that pesticides were entering food and reproductive cycles in damaging ways. Raptor populations have increased when the use of particular toxins is curtailed.

Collapse of ecosystems leads to extinction
Coyne and Hoekstra, 07 - *professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago AND ** Associate Professor in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University (Jerry and Hopi, The New Republic, “The Greatest Dying,” 9/24, http://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatest-dying)

Aside from the Great Dying, there have been four other mass extinctions, all of which severely pruned life's diversity. Scientists agree that we're now in the midst of a sixth such episode. This new one, however, is different - and, in many ways, much worse. For, unlike earlier extinctions, this one results from the work of a single species, Homo sapiens. We

are relentlessly taking over the planet, laying it to waste and eliminating most of our fellow species. Moreover, we're doing it much faster than the mass extinctions that came before. Every year, up to 30,000 species disappear due to human activity alone. At this rate, we could lose half of Earth's species in this century. And, unlike with previous extinctions, there's no hope that biodiversity will ever recover, since the cause of the decimation - us - is here to stay.

To scientists, this is an unparalleled calamity, far more severe than global warming, which is, after all, only one of many threats to biodiversity. Yet global warming gets far more press. Why? One reason is that, while the increase in temperature is easy to document, the decrease of species is not. Biologists don't know, for example, exactly how many species exist on Earth. Estimates range widely, from three million to more than 50 million, and that doesn't count microbes, critical (albeit invisible) components of ecosystems. We're not certain about the rate of extinction, either; how could we be, since the vast majority of species have yet to be described? We're even less sure how the loss of some species will affect the ecosystems in which they're embedded, since the intricate connection between organisms means that the loss of a single species can ramify unpredictably. But we do know some things. Tropical rainforests are disappearing at a rate of 2 percent per year. Populations of most large fish are down to only 10 percent of what they were in 1950. Many primates and all the great apes - our closest relatives - are nearly gone from the wild. And we know that extinction and global warming act synergistically. Extinction exacerbates global warming: By burning rainforests, we're not only polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (a major greenhouse gas) but destroying the very plants that can remove this gas from the air. Conversely, global warming increases extinction, both directly (killing corals) and indirectly (destroying the habitats of Arctic and Antarctic animals). As extinction increases, then, so does global warming, which in turn causes more extinction - and so on, into a downward spiral of destruction. Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start with the most celebrated case: the rainforests. Their loss will worsen global warming - raising temperatures, melting icecaps, and flooding coastal cities. And, as the forest habitat shrinks, so begins the inevitable contact between organisms that have not evolved together, a scenario played out many times, and one that is never good. Dreadful diseases have successfully jumped species boundaries, with humans as prime recipients. We have gotten aids from apes, sars from civets, and Ebola from fruit bats. Additional worldwide plagues from unknown microbes are a very real possibility. But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the

world over provide hidden services like waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification, and oxygen production.

Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet, through both intention and accident, humans have introduced exotic species that turn biodiversity into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels in North America's Great Lakes and have damaged harbors and

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by single species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. Thanks to these developments, soils will erode and become unproductive - which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural yields. Meanwhile,with increased pollution and runoff, as well

as reduced forest cover, ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water; and a shortage of clean water spells disaster. In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates major predators, while polluted and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans depend, will be a fond memory. As

phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperiling coral reefs - a major problem since these reefs have far more than recreational value: They provide tremendous amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. In fact, the global value of "hidden" services provided by ecosystems - those services, like waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace - has been estimated to be as much as $50 trillion per year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined. And that doesn't include tangible goods like fish and timber. Life as we know it would be impossible if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its current pace.Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote swamps of French Guiana goes extinct? Well, those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just this one species of worm: Its wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anticancer agent), decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors), and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are pharmaceutical gold mines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug highly effective against ovarian and breast cancer), and aspirin. More than a quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anticancer drug that saved the life of one of our friends. Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 percent have been screened for pharmaceutical properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given current extinction rates, it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years. Our arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained, especially in Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that there are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, simple morality and intellectual values that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what could be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins, and realizing that we all got here by the same simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the genetic kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience - not necessarily religious, but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the soul. But, whether or not one is moved by such concerns, it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth extinction. We are creating a world in which exotic

diseases flourish but natural medicinal cures are lost; a world in which carbon waste accumulates while food sources dwindle; a world of sweltering heat, failing crops, and impure water. In the end, we must accept the possibility that we ourselves are not immune to extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain, scratching out a grubby existence on a devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a secondary problem when humanity finally faces the consequences of what we have done to nature: not just another Great Dying, but perhaps the greatest dying of them all.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- Raptors Turn Extensions- India Proves
Decline of raptor populations wreak havoc on ecosystems- India proves
By Emily Dugan 30 April 2008 " http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/dead-as-a-dodo-whyscientists-fear-for-the-future-of-of-the-asian-vulture-818059.html", Dead as a dodo? Why scientists fear for the future of of the Asian vulture)
Oriental white-backs are not the only vultures under threat from diclofenac. The population of long-billed and slender-billed vultures has also declined by 97 per cent since 1992, leaving their numbers at approximately 45,000 and 1,000 respectively. All three species of vulture are now classified as “critically endangered” by the World Conservation Union, which is the highest risk category short of being extinct in the wild. The research published today was based on a survey of almost 19,000km of roads in northern and central India last year. Many of these roads were near protected areas, so vulture numbers may be even lower than the report estimates. Conservationists are setting up breeding programmes in captivity to try to ensure the species is not wiped out altogether. So far, three of these centres have been set up in India, but altogether they house fewer than 200 vultures, and conservationists say this is not nearly enough. A further two centres have recently become operational in Nepal and Pakistan, but these are similarly too small to tackle what has become an urgent issue. The urgency comes not just from concern at the loss of another species, but the devastation its absence is already causing to the ecosystem the bird once dominated. In the past, millions of vultures would use their 7ft wingspan to patrol India’s skies, keeping a watchful eye for dead or dying animals. Yet beneath the macabre image of circling scavengers was an invaluable service to India’s living. The health consequences of the vultures’ exit from a vital place in the ecosystem have reverberated across the country. Dr Andrew Cunningham, principal investigator and co-author of the study, explains: “These vultures were the main scavengers in the Indian ecosystem. They removed all the carcasses of livestock and wildlife very effectively. They would strip an adult cow of its flesh within an hour or so, leaving nothing but bones to be bleached in the sun. But that’s no longer happening. “Indian society had evolved to rely on the vultures to be their disposal units for carcasses. But within the past 10 years, this disposal system has been switched off, so you’ve got large numbers of carcasses building up. “Other scavengers have moved in and taken advantage of the newly available food. But these interlopers – stray dogs and rats, among others – aren’t as effective as the vultures. What’s more, they bring with them disease. “When a rat or a dog eats a carcass, they don’t remove all the flesh, meaning piles of rotting meat are left behind which can contaminate water. Farmers – who were previously unaccustomed to dealing with carcasses – have not been quick to adapt to the change. They have tried to burn or bury the remains, but they lack the equipment, money or experience to get rid of the bodies efficiently. ”India’s Zoroastrian community – known as Parsis – are also feeling the loss of the once-abundant birds. For centuries they have relied on the vultures to dispose of their dead, leaving bodies out in the open to be consumed by the birds. It is against the Parsis’ faith to bury, burn or submerge their dead in water, which means vultures provided them with a hygienic solution. An entire human carcass can be consumed to the bone within a matter of hours by a large group of vultures. But now that their numbers are dwindling, half-eaten bodies can be left for days, leaving the community susceptible to disease. These are not the only catastrophic consequences for human health. Previously, if a cow died of anthrax, its flesh would be quickly consumed by vultures, so the deadly spores would not have time to spread. The rate of consumption by dogs or rats is not nearly so fast. As the number of vultures declines, the number of feral dogs in India has risen dramatically, thanks to the extra food available. These stray dogs are increasingly hunting in packs, thus posing a threat to humans as well as wildlife. Diseases such as rabies are on the increase: India now has the highest rate of human rabies in the world, partly due to the increase in feral dogs .Dr Cunningham says the crisis in vulture numbers would be noticeable even to a passing tourist in India. “They used to be almost like pigeons – you’d see them gathered on rooftops in Delhi. But they’ve all gone now. ”He thinks the true fall-out from the loss of these birds is yet to be seen. “Who knows what more effects there could be further down the line?” he asks. “When you take out such an important part of an ecosystem there will be long-term consequences which we may not even be able to imagine. ”The bird that was killed by Western civilization The dodo’s rapid demise in the mid to late 17th century was predominantly due to human contact. The three-foot tall flightless birds once waddled around the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius free from predators. It is possible they had been living there for millions of years, until the late sixteenth century when Portuguese sailors and Dutch colonists landed. The birds were so unaccustomed to humans that they simply walked straight up to them. Exactly how many of the birds existed when sailors first arrived on the island is unclear, but it was this foolish curiosity that got many of them killed. It is said to have earned the birds, which resembled oversized pigeons, the name “dodo”, meaning “simpleton” in Portuguese. Not only did they become an easy-to-catch food for the settlers, the birds also fell victim to changes in their previously untouched habitat. Forest clearing by the settlers destroyed the birds’ natural home. Species brought in by the settlers, such as pigs, goats and rats became competitors to the birds, as well as predators. All this, plus, as recent archaeological research suggests, flash floods on the island, finally killed the bird off. It became extinct so quickly after its discovery that for generations it was believed that the dodo was an entirely mythical creature.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- Raptors Bioterrorism Turn
Wind turbines kill raptors USA Today 1/5/05 “Wind Turbines taking toll on birds of prey”
04-windmills-usat_x.htm The big turbines that stretch for miles along these rolling, grassy hills have churned out clean, renewable electricity for two decades in one of the nation's first big wind-power projects. But for just as long, massive fiberglass blades on the more than 4,000 windmills have been chopping up tens of thousands of birds that fly into them, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls and other raptors. After years of study but little progress reducing bird kills, environmentalists have sued to force turbine owners to take tough corrective measures. The companies, at risk of federal prosecution, say they see the need to protect birds. "Once we finally realized that this issue was really serious, that we had to solve it to move forward, we got religion," says George Hardie, president of G3 Energy. The size of the annual body count — conservatively put at 4,700 birds — is unique to this sprawling, 50-square-mile site in the Diablo Mountains between San Francisco and the agricultural Central Valley because it spans an international migratory bird route regulated by the federal government. The low mountains are home to the world's highest density of nesting golden eagles. Scientists don't know whether the kills reduce overall bird populations but worry that turbines, added to other factors, could tip a species into decline. "They didn't realize it at the time, but it was just a really bad place to build a wind farm," says Grainger Hunt, an ecologist with the Peregrine Fund who has studied eagles at Altamont. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-

Raptors keep rodent populations in check Çagan H. Sekercioglu, Gretchen C. Daily, and Paul R. Ehrlich, Center for Conservation Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, October 28, 2004 (“Ecosystem Consequences of bird declines”, www.stanford.edu/~cagan/Sekercioglu_etal_PNAS_2004.pdf)
[Adapted from Table 1. Ecological and economical contributions of avian functional groups] Functional group: Raptors Ecological process: Predation on vertebrates Ecosystem service and economical beneits: Regulation of rodent populations; secondary dispersal Negative consequences of loss of functional group: Rodent pest outbreaks; trophic cascades; indirect effects

Decline in raptor population leads to an increase in small rodent populations Erkki Korpimaki and Kai Norrdahl, 1998, (“Experimental Reduction of Predators Reverses the Crash Phase of Small-Rodent Cycles”, Ecological Society for America, Ecology, Vol. 79, No. 7 (Oct., 1998), pp. 2448-2455)
There are two general approaches to studying factors regulating animal populations: the density-dependent and mechanistic paradigms (Krebs 1995). Using the density-dependant approach, researchers search for factors affecting birth and death rates that are related to population density. These factors are then assumed to regulate or at least limit population densities (Sinclair 1989, Murdoch 1994). Ample evidence exist that preditation-caused morality in small-rodent populations is directly (Korpimäki and Norrdahl 1989c, 1991a, Korpimäki 1993) or belatedly (Erlinge et al. 1983, Korpimäki et al. 1991, Jedrezejwski et al. 1996) related to prey density, but these correlational data cannot be regarded as firm evidence for the regulation of vole populations by predation. With the mechanistic approach, researchers study experimentally the effects of specific factors on population densities. If manipulation of a factor alters population density substantially, one may infer that this factor is sufficient to regulate population densities, provided that other plausible factor(s) affecting population densities have also been studied

Tularemia is spread through infected rodent populations CDC, [accessed 7/9/08], (“Can Tularemia Be Used As a Weapon”, www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/tularemia/facts.asp)
Disease: Tularemia Agent: Bacteria Rodent(s) Involved: Wild rodents, including muskrats, ground squirrels and beavers How the Disease Spreads: Handling infected animal carcasses, Being bitten by an infected tick, deerfly or other insect, Eating or drinking contaminated food or water, Breathing in the bacteria, F. tularensis Where the Disease Occurs: Worldwide

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
Tularemia infected rats are effective bioweapons Pravda, 05.02.2005, (http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/14923_tularemia.html, “Soviet Army used 'rat weapon' during WWII”)
The microbe was discovered in 1911 during an outburst of rabbit fever, when the disease killed a large number ground squirrels in the area of Tulare Lake in California. The lake gave the name to the disease – tularemia. Scientists determined that tularemia could be dangerous to humans: a human being may catch the infection after contacting an infected animal. The ailment soon became frequent with hunters, cooks and agricultural workers. Pathogenic organisms penetrate into a body through damaged skin and mucous membranes. The disease has a very fast and acute beginning. A patient suffers from headache, fatigue, dizziness, muscle pains, loss of appetite and nausea. Face and eyes redden and become inflamed. Inflammation proceeds to lymphadenitis, fever and gland suppuration, which eventually develops life-threatening complications. An epidemic of tularemia broke out in the spring of 2000 in Kosovo. About 650 people fell ill with rabbit fever by the beginning of May. Kosovo's water pipelines were destroyed with the bombing – the region was suffering from the shortage of fresh water, and it was impossible to stop the epidemic. As it turned out later, tularemia was a respiratory-transmissible disease. An American man caught the infection in 2000, when his lawn-mower ran into an infected rabbit. The problem became a lot more important for the USA in 2001, when tularemia obtained a potential biological threat. Francisella tularensis was a perfect example of biological weapon for terrorists. The microbe possesses a large infecting capacity, which results in a high death rate. In addition, only a microscopic amount of the bacteria will be enough to trigger a massive epidemic. It goes without saying that secret services were conducting scientific researches of so-called “rat weapons.” The USSR used it during WWII against Friedrich von Paulus's army. The Soviet government did not risk to infect fascists with plague or ulcer – they chose tularemia. Rats spread the disease in German troops very quickly. The effect was astonishing: Paulus had to take a break in his offensive on Stalingrad. According to archive documents, about 50 percent of German prisoners, who were taken captive after the battle of Stalingrad, were suffering from classic symptoms of tularemia. Unfortunately, every action leads to a counteraction. The use of infected rats against the Nazi army had an inverse effect too: the disease came over the front line, and infected a lot of Soviet soldiers. Soviet scientists continued their research with the tularemia microbe after the end of WWII. Military biologists brought the bacteria to perfection at the end of the 1970s, having increased its destructive capacity.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- Raptors Bioterrorism Turn Extensions
Tularemia is highly infectious and can be used as a weapon CDC, [accessed 7/9/08], (“Can Tularemia Be Used As a Weapon”, www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/tularemia/facts.asp)
Francisella tularensis is very infectious. A small number (10-50 or so organisms) can cause disease. If F. tularensis were used as a weapon, the bacteria would likely be made airborne for exposure by inhalation. People who inhale an infectious aerosol would generally experience severe respiratory illness, including life-threatening pneumonia and systemic infection, if they are not treated. The bacteria that cause tularemia occur widely in nature and could be isolated and grown in quantity in a laboratory, although manufacturing an effective aerosol weapn would require considerable sophistication.

Epizootics like Tularemia could be the next West Nile Virus, used for devastating biological attacks on agriculture and livestock populations which can be conducted without any specialized knowledge or technology. Animal vector attack is the most likely scenario for bioweapony.

J.P. Dudley Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1999-2001 Diplomacy Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), & M.H. Woodford, Chairman of the Office International des Epizooties Working Group on Wildlife Diseases, Rev, 2002, (sci. tech.Off. int. Epiz., 21 (1), 125-137 “Bioweapons, bioterrorism and biodiversity: potential impacts of biological weapons attacks on agricultural and biological diversity“)
Of even greater concern is the fact that bioweapon attacks against agriculture do not require access to specialised knowledge, sophisticated technologies or laboratory disease cultures. The use of biological weapons for sabotage against livestock populations could have devastating effects on national livestock industries and national economies of developed and developing countries around the world, with potentially disastrous spill-over effects on susceptible wildlife and endangered species populations (5, 10). Many of the currently available bioweapons are broad-spectrum diseases capable of causing mass mortality among humans, domestic animals and wildlife (Fig. 1). Bubonic plague infects rodents as well as humans, and is transmitted by rat fleas. Efforts to contain epidemics from plague bioweapons even within urban areas will need to take into account the eradication of the animal reservoirs and flea vectors once the initial outbreak among human victims has been contained (‘the rat factor’) (K. Alibek, personal communication). Animal diseases cultivated and tested specifically for use against livestock, such as rinderpest, could have particularly devastating spill-over effects on susceptible wildlife species. The rinderpest epizootic which occurred in Africa a century ago provides a useful model for predicting the effects of the proliferation of highly virulent and contagious bioweapon diseases – such as rinderpest and FMD – on susceptible wildlife and livestock species. Rinderpest virus was accidentally introduced into Africa in 1889 through Eurasian cattle imported to Abyssinia (now Ethiopia) to supply an invading colonial army. The resulting rinderpest epizootic left a swath of death stretching over 7,000 km, sweeping southwards from the Horn of Africa to the southern Cape in less than a decade. This represents an effective rate of travel of about 3 km/day in a pre- automobile and pre-aircraft era. Naïve, susceptible populations of cattle and wild ungulates throughout most of East and Southern Africa suffered mortality rates as high as 95% during the early stages of the rinderpest outbreak (10). Rinderpest killed 95% of the Cape buffalo (Syncerus caffer), wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) and domestic cattle in British East Africa within two years of its first appearance, and caused the extirpation of Cape buffalo from large parts of its range in Southern and East Africa. Despite intensive control efforts, rinderpest is still enzootic within East Africa, with periodic outbreaks among livestock and the presence of susceptible wildlife populations throughout the region (16, 30). The recent emergence and ongoing proliferation of West Nile virus in eastern North America illustrates the immense difficulties entailed in identifying and controlling novel or newly introduced diseases within and among human and wildlife populations. West Nile virus is a mosquito-transmitted disease of birds and mammals that causes high rates of mortality in some host species, including humans (41). Although West Nile virus is primarily a disease of birds, mammals are common secondary hosts and infections have been reported among numerous species of mammals (e.g. humans, horses, cats, bats, chipmunks, skunks, squirrels, domestic rabbits and raccoons) (8). Current indications are that West Nile virus has become firmly established in eastern North America and is proliferating (8). It now appears probable that migrating birds will spread the disease into many other areas of the Western Hemisphere, including the Caribbean, Central and South America.

Epizootic bioweapons unleashed spill over into wildlife populations, threatening all life on earth J.P. Dudley Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1999-2001 Diplomacy Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), & M.H. Woodford, Chairman of the Office International des Epizooties Working Group on Wildlife Diseases, Rev, 2002, (sci. tech.Off. int.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
Epiz., 21 (1), 125-137 “Bioweapons, bioterrorism and biodiversity: potential impacts of biological weapons attacks on agricultural and biological diversity“)
There appears to be little possibility for preventing bioweapon attacks against domesticated animals, and for preventing the subsequent spill-over of weaponised livestock diseases into wildlife populations. Bioterrorist attacks against livestock do not require access to weaponised disease strains or laboratory cultures. Natural diseases that can cause catastrophic epizootics, and are easily acquired and transported, are common and widely distributed within many countries around the world. The current ease and rapidity of international transport of potential human and animal vectors, coupled with the increasing virulence and variety of human-selected and genetically engineered disease organisms, are setting the stage for plague scenarios that may well equal and surpass those of any known precedents within recorded human history. While it is one of the missions of the OIE to inform national governments of the occurrence and course of economically important animal diseases throughout the world and of ways to control them, the capability for early detection and prompt reporting of diseased animals, both wild and domestic, needs to be further developed. This is the reason why the OIE is implementing a new animal disease information system which includes an active approach in the search for information on the occurrence of diseases and a new electronic warning system for the international community (51). Our ability to understand and control the spread of diseases within and among human and animal populations is increasing, but is still insufficient to counter the existing threats presented by bioweapons and a growing number of newly recognised and highly virulent emerging infectious diseases, such as Ebola and Marburg fever, as well as less devastating but nonetheless still potentially fatal diseases of both humans and animals such as the West Nile virus. Interdisciplinary and international efforts to increase the surveillance, identification and reporting of disease pathogens, and to better understand the dynamics of disease transmission within and among human and animal populations in both industrialised- and developing- country settings, will greatly enhance our ability to combat the effects of bioweapons and emerging diseases on biotas and biodiversity. Improved mechanisms for interagency and intergovernmental communication, co-operation and collaboration will be necessary to effectively combat and control the threats of bioweapon disease outbreaks. Failures in the prevention, reporting, detection, control and containment of bioweapon disease outbreaks could result in the erosion of genetic diversity in wild and domestic animal species, the extinction of endangered wildlife populations, the extirpation of indigenous peoples and the destruction of traditional human livelihoods and cultures.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- Raptors Bioterrorism Turn Extensions
Tularemia can be aerosolized with byproducts of infected organisms Lisa Hodges, Infectious Diseases Section, Department of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, and Robert L. Penn, Department of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Sunday, May 28, 2006 (Springer US, “Tularemia and Bioterrorism”)
The largest recorded outbreak of airborne tularemia occurred in 1966–1967 in a rural farming area in Sweden. More than 600 people were infected with a type B strain, previously known as F. tularensissubspecies palearctica, which was aerosolized during the sorting and transporting of rodent-infested hay (Syrjalaet al., 1985). There have been two reported outbreaks of pneumonic tularemia in the United States, both occurring on Martha’s Vineyard (Feldmanet al., 2001; Teutschet al., 1979). Two of the eight cases in the 1978 outbreak occurred in gardeners (Teutschet al.,1979). A case-control study of the 2000 outbreak revealed an association with mowing and brush-cutting activities (Feldman et al., 2001). A serosurvey of 132 landscapers in the area conducted during the summer of 2001 demonstrated a tularemia seroprevalence of 9.1%, compared with 0.3% of resident controls (Feldmanet al., 2003). Positive tularemia serologies were more common in persons who used a power blower and in those who worked more hours mowing and weed whacking, and thus were at greater risk for airborne exposures (Feldman et al.,2003).

Aerosolizes release of only 50 kg would incapacitate a major city University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Center for Biosecurity, November 19, 2007, “Francisella tularensis (Tularemia)”
Of the various ways that F. tularensis could be used as a weapon, an aerosol release would cause the greatest adverse medical and public health consequences. A World Health Organization (WHO) expert committee reported in 1970 that if 50 kg of virulent F. tularensis was dispersed as an aerosol over a metropolitan area with a population of 5 million, there would be an estimated 250,000 incapacitating casualties, including 19,000 deaths. Tularemia poses a serious concern as a biological weapon mainly because it is one of the most infectious pathogenic bacteria known —inhalation of as few as 10 organisms can cause disease—and it has substantial capacity to cause serious illness and death.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- Raptors Bioterrorism Turn Extensions- A2 Redundancy
Determining true predatory redundancy is impossible due to our limited understanding of ecosystem functions. G A Bradshaw, Oregon State University Department of Forest Science, P A, Marquet, University of Chile Center for Advanced Studies of Ecology and Biodiversity, Kathryn L Ronnenberg, editor, 2003, (“How Landscapes Change (Ecological Studies 162)”)
14.4 How Will We Know What Is Redundant? The old paradigm that no two species may use the same resources without one driving the other to competitive exclusion – and maybe extinction – has not exactly been demolished. Nevertheless, Schoener (1974) delivered a heavy blow to that belief when recognizing that similarities in one niche dimension may be compensated by differences in another: the hypothesis of complementarity among niche dimensions. A crippling blow came from Wiens (1977), when he convincingly argued that competition may be a sporadic phenomenon and that resource abundance may be the usual condition, at least in some ecosystems. In retrospect, Root’s (1967) coining of the term guild recognized that two or more species may indeed be so similar to each other as to play essentially the same ecological role in communities. Although the connection of guild structure with ecosystem function is still fuzzy (e.g., Fuentes et al. 1995), it should not come as a surprise if such a connection is demonstrated. If indeed guilds are collections of species that play essentially the same functional role, then they may be considered as redundant ecological systems (Walker 1992). At least with reference to the two long-term studies discussed above (Aucó and Fray Jorge), the apparent absence of changes in ecosystem function suggests that these systems might continue to function with fewer redundant predatory species. Nevertheless, what is the relationship between dietary opportunism (well demonstrated above, I hope) and functional redundancy? That is,if predator species respond opportunistically to prey availability, then their diets overlap and thus they form recognizable guilds. In that case, those species are bound to be gauged as functionally redundant. However, this may be more an illusion than reality, as the same species may diverge during conditions of prey scarcity, and redundancy then disappears (Wiens, pers. comm.). Indeed, this was an important point in Jaksic et al.’s paper (1996): the inability to classify species as redundant or nonredundant due to temporal fluctuations (Naeem, pers. comm.). How shall we recognize redundancy when we see it? What is meant by ecosystem function? Of course, the first answer depends on what we come up with for the second. The major problem with Walker’s (1992) redundancy hypothesis lies in defining in just what ecosystem functions the species are redundant.This issue is complicated, not only by the multiple functional roles of species in ecosystems – for example, a species may belong to several guilds defined by different criteria, but also by thresholds in biodiversity loss (Naeem et al. 1994). A certain level of redundancy may be necessary for system resilience, and only beyond that is apparent redundancy truly redundant (Wiens, pers. comm.). I will pursue this argument below.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- Raptors Bioterrorism Turn Extensions- Turbines
The avian deaths from wind power are comparable to oil spills
Robert L. Bradley Jr., president of the Institute for Energy Research and expert on energy policy and its relation to the environment., August 27, 1997 (Why Renewable Energy Is Not Cheap and Not Green”, “http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html”)

The universal rationale for this massive public commitment to wind power is that it is environmentally benign. But wind power has at least one major environmental problem -- the massive destruction of bird populations -- that has begun to draw serious concern from mainstream environmentalists. Wind blades have killed thousands of birds in the United States and abroad in the last decade, including endangered species, which is a federal offense subject to criminal prosecution.105 While bird kills are not considered a problem by everyone, it is a problem for some environmental groups who lobbied to put the laws on the books, made cost assessments for dead birds and other wildlife pursuant to the Valdez accident, and vilify petroleum extraction activity on the North Slope of Alaska as hazardous to wildlife.106 While such groups as the Sierra Club and the National Audubon Society have criticized wind power's effects on birds, many ecoenergy planners have ignored the problem in their devotion to wind power. There have been numerous mentions of the "avian mortality" problem in the wind power literature (the Sierra Club labeled wind towers "the Cuisinarts of the air").107 An article in the March 29-April 4, 1995, issue of SF Weekly was particularly telling. The cover story in the San Francisco newspaper was no less than an expose, written not by a free-market critic but by an author sympathetic with the environmentalist agenda. The article concerns the world's largest wind power farm, the 625-megawatt Altamont Pass project, owned by independent developers with long-term purchase contracts with Pacific Gas and Electric. Some major points of the article follow.108 * "It now appears that windmills are annually killing thousands of birds worldwide [including] . . . red-tailed hawks, American kestrels, turkey vultures, assorted owls--and federally protected species like Aquila chrysaetos, the golden eagle. And it turns out that the Bay Area . . . is the windmill bird-death capital of America." * The National Audubon Society has called for a moratorium on new wind farms until the bird kill problem is solved, a position that the wind industry opposes.

Wind farms pose an especially dangerous risk to avian raptors
Robert L. Bradley Jr., president of the Institute for Energy Research and expert on energy policy and its relation to the environment., August 27, 1997 (Why Renewable Energy Is Not Cheap and Not Green”, “http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html”) The avian mortality problem of wind power is different from bird mortality from stationary objects. Explained one study: "Wind farms have been documented to act as both bait and executioner -- rodents taking shelter at the base of turbines multiply with the protection from raptors, while in turn their greater numbers attract more raptors to the farm."110 "How many dead birds equal a dead fish equals an oil spill?" Ten thousand cumulative bird deaths111 from 1,731 MW of installed U.S. capacity is the equivalent of 4.4 million bird deaths across the entire capacity of the United States electric market (approximately 770 gigawatts). A 20 percent share of U.S. capacity, a figure that the American Wind Energy Association put forward some years ago in congressional hearings (see above), would equate to 880,000 cumulative bird deaths. Calculated on an average operating basis, the number would rise severalfold. Not every potential wind farm would be an Altamont Pass, which was sited to be near existing transmission systems with little thought as to bird activity, but the mortality-per-megawatt ratio of existing capacity should give pause. A 1992 study commissioned by the California Energy Commission (CEC) "conservatively" estimated that 39 golden eagles were being killed at Altamont Pass each year, a significant figure given a total population of 500 breeding pairs.112 On a percentage basis, the mortality rate per year at Altamont Pass under that estimate is eight times greater than the bald eagle kill from the Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound in 1989.113 American kestrels and red-tailed hawks were also considered to be at risk from Altamont Pass, according to the CEC study. While these facts could be ignored by the prowind power community, the National Audubon Society's call for a moratorium on wind power projects in bird-sensitive areas (a position spearheaded by Audubon's San Francisco chapter) cannot. Jan Beyea, Audubon's vice president for science policy, explained the national chapter's stand:

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
Avian Biodiversity is more important than wind development
Robert L. Bradley Jr., president of the Institute for Energy Research and expert on energy policy and its relation to the environment., August 27, 1997 (Why Renewable Energy Is Not Cheap and Not Green”, “http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html”)

We do not want to see the wrong types of wind turbines built, nor do we want to see them built in the wrong places. That is why I, and some Audubon chapters, have called for a moratorium on new wind developments in important bird areas. This has gotten some of our environmental friends worried and some in industry very angry. The National Audubon Society is not taking such a strong position because of a concern for individual bird kills; rather, we are concerned about possible impacts on populations in the decades ahead when wind turbines may be all over the country.114 Beyea elsewhere expressed specific concern about "golden eagles in California and the situation with the Griffon Vulture in Spain. We are also wondering what's going to happen to cranes and ducks that migrate through Nebraska, Kansas and the Dakotas."115 With opposition from local Audubon chapters in Maine, Oregon, and Washington, Beyea warned that "wind power could face the same fate as low-head hydro, which was dropped from the environmentalist agenda and from significant government support, even though, in fact, there may have been a middle ground that could have been located through dialogue."116 The problem of avian mortality is not unique to the United States. Windpower Monthly reported that the largest wind farm in Europe was "wreaking havoc with the natural order of raptor life on two continents."117 The feature story added: The data collected so far include telling photographs of decapitated vultures that collided with some of the site's 269 wind turbines [and that were] . . . either killed on impact or by electrocution on power cables. All of the species are protected by Spanish and European Union law.118

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- Bats Turn
Turbines kill bats
Jason W. Horn et. al. Center for Ecology and Conservation Biology, Boston University, Department of Biology, EDWARD B. ARNETT, Bat Conservation International, THOMAS H. KUNZ, Center for Ecology and Conservation Biology, Boston University, Department of Biology. 2008. The Journal of Wildlife Management. “Behavioral Responses of Bats to Operating Wind Turbines” http://www.bu.edu/cecb/wind/video/Horn_et_al_2008.pdf

Wind power is one of the fastest growing sectors of the energy industry. Recent studies have reported large numbers of migratory tree-roosting bats being killed at utility-scale wind power facilities, especially in the eastern United States. We used thermal infrared (TIR) cameras to assess the flight behavior of bats at wind turbines because this technology makes it possible to observe the nocturnal behavior of bats and birds independently of supplemental light sources. We conducted this study at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center in Tucker County, West Virginia, USA, where hundreds of migratory tree bats have been found injured or dead beneath wind turbines. We recorded nightly 9-hour sessions of TIR video of operating turbines from which we assessed altitude, direction, and types of flight maneuvers of bats, birds, and insects. We observed bats actively foraging near operating turbines, rather than simply passing through turbine sites. Our results indicate that bats 1) approached both rotating and nonrotating blades, 2) followed or were trapped in blade-tip vortices, 3) investigated the various parts of the turbine with repeated fly-bys, and 4) were struck directly by rotating blades. Blade rotational speed was a significant negative predictor of collisions with turbine blades, suggesting that bats may be at higher risk of fatality on nights with low wind speeds.

Pest prevention and crop protection is dependent on bats
Myanmar Times 9/8/05 “Joint bats project shows rewards of collaboration” http://www.myanmar.gov.mm/myanmartimes/no260/MyanmarTimes13-260/n011.htm

“The role of bats in the ecosystem is often underrated,” Dr Bates said. He said fruit-eating species help to regenerate growth by dispersing seeds. They also play a critical role in pollination. Dr Bates said more that 200 tree species in East Asia are pollinated by fruit bats. They include commercial varieties such as durian, mangoes, figs, guavas and cashew nuts. Some species of trees flower only at night, when fruit bats are active. Dr Bates said bats also help to control insect pests, including those were a threat to agricultural crops. ‘’You don’t need to pay them to do it. They do it naturally,” he said.

Decreased crop yields lead to World War Three Calvin 2 (William H, Univ Washington, A Brain For All Seasons,

http://faculty.washington.edu/wcalvin/BrainForAllSeasons/NAcoast.htm) The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields will cause some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands – if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, will go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries will attempt to use their armies, before they fall apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This will be a worldwide problem – and could easily lead to a Third World War – but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- Biodiversity Turn
Turbines destroy wildlife and kill biodiversity
National Wind Watch, [accessed 7/9/08], http://www.wind-watch.org/about.php

Promoters of industrial wind power try to justify these threats to birds and bats with the claim that they are actually saving even more birds by cleaning the air and reversing global warming. They are wrong in that belief, because wind power does not replace other sources of electricity. They also try to divert attention by emphasizing the hazards posed by office tower windows, cars, and housecats, as if two wrongs make a right. And wind power is unique in its threat to raptors (hawks,eagles,falcons,owls,and vultures) — many of them already endangered — and other large birds such as ducks, geese, swans, and cranes. The threat to bats has turned out to be a problem for the industry. FPL Energy ended access to its facilities after independent researches determined that thousands of bats were killed in just a couple of months at one location and that this mortality pattern was also being seen at other sites. As with birds and bats, there are no reliable studies of the effect of industrial wind turbine facilities on other animals. The installing of such large structures in wild areas, along with supporting roads and transmission infrastructure and the clearing of trees on mountain ridges is bound to have a negative effect, if only because of the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat, especially ecologically vital interior forest. The turbines also move (producing noise and vibration) and are lit by strobes day and night, adding to the distressing impact they likely have. Until good studies are done, we have anecdotal evidence such as the following about the effect of a wind facility on Backbone Mountain, West Virginia: "I looked around me, to a place where months before had been prime country for deer, wild turkey, and black bear, to see positively no sign of any of the animals about at all. This alarmed me, so I scouted in the woods that afternoon. All afternoon, I found no sign, sight, or peek of any animal about

Loss of biodiversity causes extinction
The Straits Times, Nirmal Ghosh, Thailand Correspondent, November 16, 2007

They concluded that more than 16,000 are in danger of becoming extinct - 188 more than listed last year. Extinction is a part of evolution, but studies clearly show human activity is accelerating the process. The figures are based on what we know. We are certainly losing species without ever knowing they existed somewhere in the food chain of which we are a part. The GEO4 report identifies loss of biodiversity as a critical environmental challenge if we are to survive as a species ourselves. The reason is every species lost is a brick yanked out of a wall. Sometimes, one brick dislodges others. The 'infrastructure' of life is affected, and mankind's food and medicine base narrows. Asia is a critical frontline in this battle - which the GEO4 authors say has yet to be seriously joined in terms either of policy or its
implementation. Subsequent to the GEO4 report, Hong Kong's Ocean Park Conservation Foundation released findings of research which showed 79 species of freshwater turtles - a full 80 per cent of the turtle family in Asia - are endangered. And at last month's meeting of the IUCN's Primate Specialist Group, Asia appeared as home - or what is left of it - to more endangered primates than any other continent. Asia has 11 endangered primates, including the Sumatran orang utan, Siau Island tarsier and Hainan black-crested gibbon. Vietnam alone has four of the 25 most endangered species worldwide. They include some of the most beautiful life forms on the planet, like the golden-headed langur - down from thousands of animals some two human generations ago to only 65 today. In field research, Mr Ben Rawson - a primatologist with Conservation International in Hanoi - and his colleagues often find that populations thought to be doing fine are actually in dire straits. There are small candles of hope - like the recent discovery of a population of the highly endangered primate, the grey-shanked douc. But, generally speaking, 'the more we find out, the worse the situation seems to be', Mr Rawson says. Sometimes, large patches of forest have no primates left because they have been hunted out; other times,

. The drivers of this rapid and widespread loss of biodiversity, with entire species in the air, on land, in freshwater and in our seas and oceans dwindling and disappearing, are a complex mix which triggers a domino effect. They include land use change from forest and open grassland and wetland to agriculture, industry and towns; the replacement of natural forest with low-diversity plantations; changing the geography and hydrology of river systems with dams and reservoirs; and simply direct exploitation of natural resources for food and commercial trade with little real accountability. Says Dr Johnsingh, currently scientific adviser to the Worldwide Fund for Nature in India: 'When the population of a species goes below a certain level it (extinction) can happen very quickly.' The answer is not just to legislate more protected areas - which especially in terms of the marine environment is grossly inadequate at less than 1 per cent of total marine area globally. In the Vietnam example, which is by no means unique in Asia, protected areas remain underfunded and understaffed, and not highly effective at protecting biodiversity, says Mr Rawson . Biodiversity is undervalued at the policy level, the GEO4 authors argue. 'The values of biodiversity are insufficiently recognised by political and market systems,' says the report. 'Losses of biodiversity, such as the erosion of genetic variability in a population, are often slow or gradual, and are often not seen or fully recognised until it is too late.'
small patches of forest have remnant populations with nowhere to go

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- Biodiversity Turn Extensions
Turbines kill keystone birds and bats National Wind Watch, [accessed 7/9/08], “http://www.wind-watch.org/about.php”
Do birds nest on wind turbines? Modern turbines have solid instead of latticed towers, so birds can't rest or nest on them. They can, however, still perch on the nacelle (the bus-sized generator housing at the top of the tower). Is the lower rpm of modern wind turbines safer for birds and bats? Modern utility-scale wind turbines turn at a much lower rpm than older models. Because the blades are so long and are moving 150 to 200 mph at the tips, depending on the model, the impact on birds and bats remains substantial. What studies have been done on the impact of wind turbines on birds and bats? Few studies have been done to determine the true effect of industrial wind turbines on birds and bats, and fewer studies still that have been done independently of the wind companies' control. The evidence is clear, though, that wind turbines present yet another threat to the lives of birds and bats. The risk appears to be much greater in some areas than in others. The first-year study of the "Maple Ridge" facility on the Tug Hill plateau of New York estimated that 2,000 to 4,000 birds and bats were killed by 120 turbines during the 5-month study period in 2006 (click here for the report; click here for May 1, 2007, testimony to the U.S. House Natural Resources subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans). What does the US Fish & Wildlife Service think about wind power? The US Fish & Wildlife Service is concerned about the danger to birds. They have issued siting guidelines which recommend that wind turbines should not be installed near wetlands, on mountain ridges, near shorelines, or in other locations known as concentration areas for wildlife or at sites subject to frequent fog or low-lying clouds during spring and fall migrations. How do wind turbines affect birds? Mountain ridges and coastal areas, where industrial turbines are often installed, are features of the landscape that concentrate many birds. Songbirds mostly migrate at night and low enough to collide with the blades of large wind turbines. The presence of large wind turbines may cause birds to avoid the site, thus losing a foraging resource and requiring extra energy to fly around it. The cumulative effect of multiple facilities could have a serious toll on bird populations. The activities of prairie birds, including mating and nesting, are easily disturbed -- even at a great distance -- by the construction and continuing operation of an industrial wind power facility, which can spread over hundreds, often thousands, of acres. Are raptors threatened by industrial wind turbines? Wind power is a unique threat to raptors (hawks, eagles, falcons, owls, and vultures) -- many of them already rare -- and other large birds, such as ducks, geese, swans, and cranes. The risk of collision not only threatens individual birds but also augments existing threats to their populations. The cumulative effect of multiple facilities may threaten the viable breeding of several species already in decline. Do wind turbines kill more birds and bats than other human activities? Promoters of industrial wind power often try to divert attention to the carnage wrought by office tower windows, cars, and housecats, as if two wrongs make a right. Even using the scant data inconsistently compiled by consultants hired by the wind power developers, it is clear that industrial wind turbines kill many more birds and bats per unit than these other causes, particularly raptors (such as eagles and hawks) and migrating bats and songbirds. Is the impact to birds and bats justified? Promoters of industrial wind power try to justify the threats to birds and bats with the claim that they are actually saving even more birds by cleaning the air and reversing global warming. They are wrong in that self-serving belief, because wind power does not replace other sources of electricity (see the "Output" FAQ). Do wind turbines kill bats? The threat to bats has turned out to be a problem the industry can't deny. FPL Energy ended access to its facilities after independent research documented that thousands of bats were killed in just a couple of months at one location and that this pattern of mortality was being seen at other sites as well. To divert attention from this outrage and their lack of action to remedy it, FPL Energy announced in January 2006 that it would fund some bat conservation projects. That effort will not, however, mitigate the harm they are causing, let alone justify or reduce it.

Turbines destroy biodiversity U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, October-November 2005 “Wind Power and Birds”
http://www.fws.gov/news/tipsheet/oct-nov-2005/story031.html Windpower’s environment-friendly technology makes it an attractive renewable energy resource. However, windpower projects can be hazardous to wildlife. Birds and bats are killed or injured when they collide with windtowers and blades. Windpower project construction also may destroy important wildlife habitat or affect wildlife during breeding, feeding or migration. The best place for a wind power project is often in an area that is equally attractive to migrating birds. The season and weather conditions affect when and where the migratory path will go. Birds and bats may converge along distinct landforms that are either barriers or aids to migration. Some birds congregate along the shore of large water bodies as they migrate. Some songbirds and soaring birds, like eagles and hawks, migrate along Appalachian Mountain ridge lines. Thermal updrafts along the ridges provide lift, allowing the birds to conserve energy. Inclement weather often forces birds to fly lower than usual, where they can collide with human-made structures. Fighting storms or coping with obstacles causes an increase in energy expenditure, reducing the birds’ lifespan and ability to reproduce.

Turbines impact habitats NWCC (National Wind Coordinating Collaborative) May 2008. “Wind and Wildlife Key Research topics” http://www.nationalwind.org/pdf/NWCC_ResearchPriorities.pdf

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
There is concern that impacts to habitat, and some species’ ability to use affected habitats, from wind energy development may cumulatively pose a population threat to birds, bats, and other wildlife. Particular concerns include: abandonment or avoidance of habitat due to disturbances produced at wind energy facilities (e.g. noise, visual, etc); diminished quality of habitat; diminished quantity of habitat; and habitat fragmentation resulting from scattered development in traditionally contiguous habitat areas. The Wildlife Society has said that, “[u]ltimately, the greatest habitat-related impact to wildlife may result from disturbance and avoidance of habitat. Because direct habitat loss appears to be relatively small for wind power projects, the degree to which this disturbance results in habitat fragmentation depends on the behavioral response of animals to turbines and human activity within the wind facility”

Destroy wildlife
GAO (United States Government Accountability Office) September 2005. “WIND POWER: Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife” http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05906.pdf

Wind power is considered a “green” technology because, unlike fossil fuel power plants, it does not produce harmful emissions, such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and particulate matter, which can pose human health and environmental risks such as acid rain. However, it is now recognized that wind power facilities can adversely affect the environment in other ways, specifically in impacting wildlife such as birds and bats. Wind power facilities located in migratory pathways or important habitats may harm the wildlife living or passing through the area by killing or injuring them or by disrupting feeding or breeding behaviors.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- Ecosystems
Wind farms kill millions of raptors and other birds, disrupt migration patterns and have unnatural effects of ecosystems
Ryunosuke Kikuchi, Department of Exact Sciences and the Environment (CERNAS), ESAC - Polytechnical Institute of Coimbra, Bencanta, 3040-316 Coimbra, Portugal, February 5 2008. (“Journal for Nature Conservation, Volume 16, Issue 1, 17 March 2008, Pages 44-55)

Wind power is a fast-growing energy source for electricity production, and some environmental impacts (e.g. noise and bird collision) are pointed out. Despite extensive land use (2600–6000 m2/MW), it is said that most of these impacts have been resolved by technological development and proper site selection. The results in this paper suggest that: (i) wind farms kill millions of birds yearly around the world, and the high mortality of rare raptors is of particular concern; (ii) wind farms on migration routes are particularly dangerous, and it is difficult to find a wind power site away from migration routes because there is no guarantee that migration routes will not vary; (iii) according to the presented model of collision probability, the rotor speed does not make a significant difference in collision probability; the hub is the most dangerous part, and large birds (e.g. raptors) are at great risk; and, (iv) based on the field observation of squirrels’ vocalisation (i.e. anti-predator behaviour), there are behavioural differences between squirrels at the wind turbine site and those at the control site. Noise from wind turbines (when active) may interfere with the lives of animals beneath the wind turbines. US Government guidelines and the Bern Convention’s report have described adverse impacts of wind energy facilities on wildlife and have put forward recommendations. In addition to these documents, the following points derived from the discussion in this paper should be noted for the purpose of harmonising wind power generation with wildlife conservation: (i) engineers need to develop a turbine form to reduce the collision risk at the hub; (ii) institute long-term monitoring, including a comparison between bird mortality before and after construction; and (iii) further evaluate impacts of turbine noise on anti-predator wildlife vocalizations.

Wind farms disrupt ecosystems through avian mortality and turbine related noise
Ryunosuke Kikuchi, Department of Exact Sciences and the Environment (CERNAS), ESAC - Polytechnical Institute of Coimbra, Bencanta, 3040-316 Coimbra, Portugal, February 5 2008. (“Journal for Nature Conservation, Volume 16, Issue 1, 17 March 2008, Pages 44-55)

Discussion and recommendations Wind energy is being presented as a strategy for addressing problems associated with the emission of greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2) and high energy dependence, thus, wind energy has a favourable image. However, the extensive land use required for wind farms (2600–6000 m2/MW) causes negative impacts on nature conservation. It is reported that wind farms kill millions of birds yearly around the world, and many of them are eagles, swans, geese, storks and other protected species (Duchamp, 2004) (also see Table 1). According to data published in Europe (DWIA, 2006): Spain has the largest capacity of wind power in Europe, with approximately 10,000 MW installed at present; Portugal is the third largest market of wind power in Europe, and the target for wind power is France, the installed capacity (390 MW) in 2005 was about three times that in 2004. Considering the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) and the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) of the European Union (EU), these European countries in particular should be attentive to adverse impacts of wind power on wildlife. For example, the following points are made in the Birds Directive: no further population decline of EU bird species; more species to have a favourable conservation status; the share of longdistance migrants (161 species) with favourable conservation status is increased from 35% (current level) to at least 50% by 2010; and the population trend of declining farmland birds is reversed by 2010. Guidelines (Ref. no. FWS/DEPA/BFA, May 2003) from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and a report by the standing committee of the Bern Convention (Birdlife International, 2003) have clarified adverse impacts of wind energy facilities on wildlife and stated recommendations for impact abatement; the US guidelines and the Convention report should be referred to for detailed information. In addition to these recommendations, the following points derived from the discussion in this paper are advisable to harmonise wind power generation with wildlife conservation from an environmental viewpoint: (i) Turbine blades currently rotate more slowly than those of earlier design (WRA, 2005), but this measure does not contribute to effectively reducing the collision risk (see Figure 4b). Though the rotor’s tip moves fast, the hub is the most dangerous part. Engineers should develop a turbine form (e.g. spiral type) to reduce the collision risk at the hub. (ii) Correct selection of appropriate sites for wind farms can minimise the environmental effect of wind-generated electricity (WRA, 2005). The problem of how to select proper sites remains because migration routes may vary from one year to another (see the section Perception and collision). Short-term research would be insufficient to confirm that a pro- posed location is not potentially dangerous. Long-term monitoring, including a comparison between bird mortality before and after construction, is necessary. (iii) The sounds emitted by modern wind turbines are usually masked by other natural sounds in the area (OEERE, 2005; WRA, 2005), but there is a strong possibility that turbine-related noise (see Figure 5a) may interfere with the lives of animals (e.g. squirrels) beneath the turbines (see Table 2). In terms of assessing whether it is necessary to reduce turbine noise from the current level, it is necessary to conduct further research on the behavioural impacts of turbine noise on wildlife possessing vocalisation ability for alerting others to the presence of a predator; i.e. this subject implies how to set the permissible noise levels on the basis of wildlife conservation. Conclusions Wind energy is rapidly growing as a renewable source of electricity production; consequently, it can be considered that potential hazards to wildlife from wind farms are becoming more serious. It is reported that technological development has already resolved most impacts of wind power on the environment (OEERE, 2005), but this paper shows that some adverse impacts remain, and their magnitudes may increase if no measures are taken. The potential harm to wildlife should be carefully evaluated at both current and proposed wind farm sites; local administrators should ensure public access to the completed assessments. It is preferable to carry out future research rather than to criticize current impacts because further information will be useful for harmonising wind power generation with nature conservation. Ultimately, one of the keys to realizing sustainable development is utilization of renewable energy without any negative influence on the environment (Kazim, 2006).

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- Ice Shedding
Ice shedding and throw---resulting in injuries
GE Energy April, 2006 “Ice Shedding and Ice Throw- Risk and Mitigation” http://www.windaction.org/documents/9922 The Accumulation of ice is highly dependent on local weather conditions and the turbine's operational state. Any ice that is accumulated may be shed from the turbine due to both gravity and the mechanical forces of the rotating blades. An increase in ambient temperature, wind, or solar radiation may cause sheets or fragments of ice to loosen and fall, making the area directly under the rotor subject to the greatest risks. In addition, rotating turbine blades may propel ice fragments some distance from the turbine -up to several hundred meters if conditions are right. Falling ice may cause damage to structures and vehicles, and injury to site personnel and the general public, unless adequate measures are put in place for protection.

Turbines shed ice
Henry Seifert et. al. DEWI, Deutsches Windenergie-Institut GmbH, Annette Westerhellweg, DEWI, Deutsches Windenergie-Institut GmbH, Jürgen Kröning, DEWI-OCC Offshore and Certification Centre GmbH. April 2003. “RISK ANALYSIS OF ICE THROW FROM WIND TURBINES” http://web1.msue.msu.edu/cdnr/icethrowseifertb.pdf

Wind turbines are normally erected far away from houses, industry, etc., as the wind conditions are not favourable in the vicinity of large obstacles. Furthermore, with regard to acoustic noise emission and shadow flicker certain distances are required by national regulations, when wind farms are planned in the neighbourhood of residential areas. Thus, wind turbines should not cause risks as far as ice throw is concerned. However, the turbines are erected close to roads or agricultural infrastructure in order to avoid long and expensive access roads for erection and maintenance. This induces a risk for persons passing by the wind turbines, cars passing the streets if ice fragments fall down from a turbine. Especially in the mountainous sites or in the northern areas icing may occur frequently and any exposed structure - also wind turbines - will be covered by ice under special meteorological conditions. This is also true if today’s Multi Megawatt turbines with heights from ground to the top rotor blade tip of more than 150 m can easily reach lower clouds with super cooled rain in the cold season, causing icing if it hits the leading edge.

Ice shedding
Henry Seifert et. al. DEWI, Deutsches Windenergie-Institut GmbH, Annette Westerhellweg, DEWI, Deutsches Windenergie-Institut GmbH, Jürgen Kröning, DEWI-OCC Offshore and Certification Centre GmbH. April 2003. “RISK ANALYSIS OF ICE THROW FROM WIND TURBINES” http://web1.msue.msu.edu/cdnr/icethrowseifertb.pdf

If a wind turbine operates in icing conditions which are described in [1], two types of risks may occur if the rotor blades collect ice. The fragments from the rotor are thrown off from the operating turbine due to aerodynamic and centrifugal forces or they fall down from the turbine when it is shut down or idling without power production. It depends upon the weather and especially the wind conditions, on the instrumentation of the wind turbine’s control system, and on the strategy of the control system itself.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- Environment
Environmental costs of constructing and operating wind farms are ignored in cost benefit analysis
Robert L. Bradley Jr., 1997 president of the Institute for Energy Research. He is an expert on energy policy and its relation to the environment., Why Renewable Energy Is Not Cheap and Not Green”, “http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html”

A distinct air emission problem of wind capacity is created when a new project is built where there is surplus electric generating capacity. Since large wind farms require thousands of tons of materials, virtually all of the air emissions associated with the electricity used to make these materials (such as cement or steel) must be counted against the air emissions "saved" once the farm comes on line and displaces fossil fuel-generated output. For example, a recently announced Zond wind farm of 40 to 45 effective megawatts is composed of 150 wind turbines weighing 35 tons each or just over 10 million pounds. The entire electricity requirement for these materials (cement, steel, fiberglass, etc.) must be estimated before assigning an air emission factor. To calculate a net emission savings, that factor must be subtracted from the air emission reduction once the wind project comes online. If there is no surplus capacity, on the other hand, the calculation would include only the incremental emissions associated with constructing a wind facility instead of a fossil-fuel facility. While not calculated here, the air emissions associated with the construction of wind capacity that is either surplus to the needs of the area or that displaces a much smaller gas plant equivalent is substantial enough to create an environmental externality from the viewpoint of its proponents. In fact, air emission values for carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides have been assigned to wind in an externality analysis done in 1995 by the European Commission.122 Wind power's land disturbance, noise and unsightly turbines present environmental drawbacks also, at least from the perspective of some, if not many, mainstream environmentalists. Yet at least one well known environmental group has a double standard when considering wind power versus other energy options. In testimony before the California Public Utilities Commission, Ralph Cavanagh of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) argued against opening up the electric industry to competition and customer choice because of the development of significant new transmission and distribution lines to link buyers and sellers of power. In addition to the visual blight of additional power lines on the landscape, these corridors can displace threatened or endangered species.123 Christopher Flavin of Worldwatch Institute applies the same rigorous standard to gas development that "at least for a time, mars the landscape with drilling rigs, pipelines, and other equipment."124 Yet Altamont Pass's 7,000 turbines (located near Cavanagh's San Francisco office) have a record of sizable avian mortality, large land-use requirements, disturbing noise and "visual blight."125 The irony of visual blight was not lost on environmental philosopher Roderick Nash who, referring to the Santa Barbara environmentalists, asked, "If offshore rigs offend, can a much greater number of windmills be any better?"126 Wind (like solar) "mars" the landscape all the time, not "at least for a time."127 Environmentalists have raised concerns over erosion from service roads cut into slopes (an important problem for California where mud slides are a hazard),128 "fugitive dust" from unpaved roads,129 flashing lights and red-and-white paint required by the FAA on tall towers,130 rushed construction for tax considerations,131 fencing requirements,132 oil leakage133 and abandoned turbines.134 The "NIMBY" (not in my back yard) problem of wind turbines may seem a trivial nuisance for urbanites, but for rural inhabitants, who "choose to live in such locations . . . primarily because the land is unsuitable for other urban uses,"135 there is an environmental cost. The ancillary environmental problems are not minor, even to wind power's leading proponents. Paul Gipe, author of Wind Power for Home & Business and Wind Energy Comes of Age, in an October 15, 1996, letter to the chairman of the California Energy Commission, called for a moratorium on new wind subsidies until the problems of previous construction were addressed.

Wind farms require too much land
Robert L. Bradley Jr., president of the Institute for Energy Research and expert on energy policy and its relation to the environment., August 27, 1997 (Why Renewable Energy Is Not Cheap and Not Green”, “http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html”)

I am a longtime advocate of wind energy in California and my record in support of the industry is well known. I have chronicled the growth of California's wind industry for more than 12 years. It therefore pains me greatly to urge the Commission to ... recommend to the legislature that no funds from the [California Competition Transition Charge] be distributed to existing or future wind projects in the state. Funds that were destined for this purpose should instead be deposited in a wind energy cleanup fund to be administered by the Commission. Money from this fund could then be used to control erosion from plants in California, to remove abandoned and nonoperating wind turbines littering our scenic hillsides, and to mitigate other environmental impacts from the state's wind industry.136 As Gipe has reminded his audience elsewhere, "the people who build wind farms are not environmentalists."137 The Union of Concerned Scientists has also been quick to point out its "environmental concerns" with wind power, stemming from "not only avian issues, but also . . .the effects of road construction, tree felling and visual impacts."138 Another problem of wind farms appears to be fire and smoke. One article pointed that "Wind farm operators are feeling the heat from the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection over blazes in Altamont Pass. Causes range from electrical shorts to exposed wires to flaming birds." 139 Wind farms also fail the land-use test compared to fossil fuel. A wind farm requires as much as 85 times more space than a conventional gas-fired power plant.140 Paul Gipe estimates the range to be between 10 and 80 acres per megawatt -- from 30 to over 200 times more space than gas plants.141 Wide spacing (a 50 megawatt farm can require anywhere between two and 25 square

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
miles) is necessary to avoid wake effects between towers. 142 The world's 5,000-megawatt (nameplate) wind power capacity as of 1995 consisted of 25,000 turbines143 -- little bang for the visual blight buck.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- General
Wind power is not currently economically or environmentally feasible − seven reasons. Fazil Mihlar, former Director of Regulatory Studies at the Fraser Institute, B.A in Economics from Fraser
University, M.A. in Public Administration from Carleton University and a Marketing Diploma from the Chartered Institute of Marketing in London, author of several environmental and economic studies, November 1, 2002, (National Post's Financial Post & FP Investing: Friday National Edition, “The hot air in wind power”)
TransAlta Corp., a conventional power company, made a surprising announcement this week: It plans to invest up to $2-billion over the next decade to develop wind power. This decision is bound to make a lot of environmentalists happy. But does it make economic or environmental sense? The proponents of wind power argue that it is an inexhaustible source of fuel and is environmentally friendly. But wind power's advantages are far outweighed by its many disadvantages. First, to produce the same amount of energy as a conventional gas-fired power plant (about 300 megawatts), would require 1,200 wind turbines encompassing a land area of about 75,000 square kilometres. That is a lot of land that is made unavailable for a variety of purposes, including habitat protection. Second, wind power has a devastating impact on bird populations, including many endangered species. Third, while wind energy does not produce much pollution, it certainly creates quite a bit of noise pollution and is an eyesore. Fourth, before anyone gets too excited about the prospect of clean power from wind, they should understand that wind power plants will require a back-up system that is mainly powered by fossil fuels. Fifth, the supply of wind power is intermittent, thus making it an unreliable source of energy for cold winter nights and hot summer days. Sixth, since turbines operate only when wind is blowing and typically produce about one-third of the electricity it is capable of producing, it is clearly an inefficient way of generating power. Seventh, wind power is at least twice or three times as costly as conventionally produced electricity and many consumers are not willing to pay a premium for it. Given this reality, why would any energy company consider investing in wind power? Part of the answer is that federal, state and provincial governments in both the United States and Canada are cheerleading, mandating and throwing hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies at wind power producers. In the United States, state governments in Arizona and Pennsylvania are requiring that electricity utilities produce a certain percentage of their energy from "renewables", including wind power. The U.S. department of energy's electricity plan calls for generating 5% of the country's power needs from wind from the current 0.5% over the next several years. Even President George W. Bush's energy plan includes billions of dollars in tax breaks for wind energy producers. In this country, the federal government has launched a $260-million subsidy program to increase the availability of wind power by 500% over the next five years from the less than 1% we produce now. With the Kyoto Protocol coming up for ratification in the House of Commons soon, there are bound to be more subsidies on the way. Expect more companies to line up and lap up Ottawa's largesse, courtesy of taxpayers. To make matter worse, the reality is Canada does not need cleaner sources of power. This country already produces a majority of its electricity from relatively clean technologies at a very good price. About 60% of our electricity comes from hydro and 13% is generated from nuclear, both relatively clean technologies. Only about 26% of our power comes from the burning of so-called dirty fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas. There, too, the technological breakthroughs are helping to reduce the amount of harmful emissions they spew out. And all of these sources of power come into our homes, factories and offices at prices two to three times lower than wind power. None of this evidence seems to convince the folks advocating wind power to give their crusade a rest. They, in fact, continue to think people will be willing to pay a much higher price if they know that the energy they are consuming is environmentally friendly. Ronald Bailey, the science correspondent for the Reason Foundation in California, points out there is no evidence to suggest consumers would be willing to pay double the rate for electricity if it comes from cleaner sources. A recent study from the Cato Institute in Washington D.C. is instructive in this regard. It surveyed 80 utilities in 28 states that offered an energy package produced by clean renewable sources. Primarily due to higher costs, only 1.5% of retail customers signed up for a clean energy package. There is nothing to suggest that Canadians will behave any differently. So should we waste scarce resources on a technology that is not economically viable and not so environmentally friendly? Or should we focus our attention on cleaning up conventional energy sources such as gas, oil and coal? At this point, letting the wind blow aimlessly and focusing on conventional sources of power is the sensible thing to do for both governments and corporations like TransAlta. Unfortunately, common sense is in short supply when it comes to so-called clean energy sources such as wind power.

Wind energy causes more harm than good Cooler Heads Coalition, April 1, 2003, (“Wind Power: Bad Economics, Bad for Environment”)
Radnor Township in Pennsylvania has announced with great fanfare "that it will purchase 62 percent of its electricity from pollutionfree, wind-generated electricity, making it the nations leading wind energy purchaser among municipalities" (PRNewswire, February 26, 2003). The Township will purchase 1,400,000 kilowatt hours per year over three years from a wind farm near Mt. Storm, West Virginia.

But according to renewable energy expert Glenn Schleede, the officials of Radnor Township have been hoodwinked. Wind energy entails significant environmental costs, with little environmental gain, and significant economic costs that hurt customers, but serve to line the pockets of wind farm owners. The amount of electricity that will be purchased by Radnor Township is insignificant. It will represent 1/1000 of 1 percent of the total electricity sold by electric utilities in Pennsylvania in 2001. "Any claim of favorable air quality impact is specious at best," says Schleede. "Wind farms adversely affect a wide variety of environmental, ecological, scenic and property values." The electricity would come from FPL Energy-owned wind farms that are planned for scenic West
Virginia. One proposed wind farm would be located "along 14 miles of the picturesque high mountains near Canaan Valley National

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
Wildlife Refuge, Canaan Valley State Park, Blackwater Falls State Park, the Monongahela National Forest which includes Dolly Sods and Dolly Sods Wilderness Area." The wind farm would consist of 200 very tall (300 to 400 ft.) wind mills spread over thousands of acres.

The real impetus behind the construction of wind farms is not the environmental or economic benefits to customers, but massive government subsidies. One proposed wind farm in West Virginia, would cost $300,000,000 to build, but would recover those costs and then some through various tax shelters and subsidies equaling $325,434,600. In many cases, the profit from this government largesse exceeds the income generated from electricity sales. Wind farm owners enjoy windfall profits at taxpayer expense. Schleede makes an interesting comparison and offers some advice to the citizens of Radnor Township. "If each household substituted two 27-watt energy efficient light bulbs for two 100watt incandescent bulbs that are used an average of 4 hours per day, the people of Radnor Township would avoid the use of 2,131,600 kWh of electricity each year, or about 50 percent more than the 1,400,000 kWh that is substituted in the electricity-from-wind purchase scheme." The cost? $100,000!

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- General
Incentivizing the use of wind power ultimately back fires- 3 scenarios
Robert L. Bradley Jr., president of the Institute for Energy Research and expert on energy policy and its relation to the environment., August 27, 1997 (Why Renewable Energy Is Not Cheap and Not Green”, “http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html”)

Despite its revered status within the orthodox environmental community, wind power poses several major dilemmas. First, wind remains uneconomic despite heavy subsidies from ratepayers and taxpayers over the last two decades. Second, from an environmental viewpoint, wind farms are noisy, land intensive, unsightly, and hazardous to birds, including endangered species. With the National Audubon Society calling for a moratorium on new wind development in bird-sensitive areas, and an impending electricity industry restructuring that could force all generation resources to compete on a marginal cost basis, wind power is a problematic choice for future electricity generation without a new round of government subsidies and preferences. Because of the precarious economics of acceptable renewable energy, eco-energy planners have turned to taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies for energy conservation as an alternative way to constrain the use of fossil fuels. Yet fundamental problems exist here as well. Multi-billion-dollar taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies over two decades have resulted in severely diminished returns for future subsidized (and even nonsubsidized) conservation investments. The potential reduction of electricity prices due to the introduction of electricity industry restructuring threatens to lengthen the payout period of energy conservation investments and consequently worsen the problem.

Wind power fails due to inefficiency and high prices, leading to harmful opposition
Cooler Heads Coalition, September 17, 2002, (“New York Wind Farms a Bad Decision; Full Expensing of Capital Will Reduce Carbon Intensity”, http://www.globalwarming.org/node/44)

In August, New York Governor George Pataki announced a $17 million aid package to four private companies to develop wind farms in various parts of the state. But, according to Glenn Schleede, president of Energy Market & Policy Analysis, New Yorkers should be wary of the environmental claims of wind power. The New York Energy Plan estimates that the eight wind farms, with a combined 250 wind turbines, would produce approximately 900,000 kilo-watt hours (kWh) of electricity per year. But this is a drop in the bucket compared to the states total electricity demand. For example, this amount equals 58/100 of 1 percent of the total electricity imported into New York in 2000. It is only 15 percent of the energy that will be produced from a single gas-fired combined cycle plant that is scheduled to come online in Athens, NY in 2003. The wind power industry often claims that "electricity generated by the wind turbines will displace on a kWh for kWh basis electricity that would be generated by fossil-fuel generating units and any associated emissions." But that simply is not true, says Schleede. "Such claims are generally exaggerated. For example, they do not take into account that any fossil-fueled generating unit that is kept available to back up the intermittent electricity from the wind farm will be giving off emissions while it is running at less than peak efficiency or in spinning reserve mode. Nor do they take into account the fact that other alternatives for reducing emissions are likely to be far more cost-effective." New Yorkers should also be aware that there is growing opposition to wind farms wherever they are proposed, in Europe, Australia and in nearly every state in the U.S., says Schleede. "Opposition is due to a variety of reasons including scenic and property value impairment, noise, bird kills, flicker effects of spinning blades after sunrise and before sunset, potential safety hazards from blade and ice throws, interference with telecommunications, and higher costs of electricity."

Wind power has major downsides--- massacre birds and bats, and key locations are unavailable for development Matthew S. Carr, December 26, 2005 (“BLM Plans to Ignite Western Wind Energy Boom”,
Natural Gas Week”)
The American Wind Energy Association estimates the US has the wind energy potential to produce 10,777 billion kWh annually -more than twice the electricity generated in 2004 and in stark contrast to the mere 17.7 billion kWh of electricity generated in 2005 by wind energy. Wind energy is the fastest growing renewable source, with development increasing at an annual rate of 28% between 1999 and 2003. Over the last five years, the BLM has issued 86 wind energy permits, compared with four issued in the previous five years. "The majority of development will continue to be on private land because BLM land isn't necessarily in areas of the most viable load growth," said Taylor . "When generating power you typically want to be closer to your demand areas. And though there are places in Wyoming , North Dakota and Montana that are really windy and power could be produced very cost-effectively, there's no load to

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
support development." But Taylor said he would expect significant development in states like Nevada and California where the BLM controls choice lands that could be used for generation. Michele Barlow of the Wyoming Outdoor Council said she hopes the new plan sparks wind energy development in Wyoming , with the state exporting the resource in much the same way it does natural gas. "Our market is still outside the state," said Barlow. "We're currently making a significant sacrifice to provide the nation with natural gas when it's more efficient to invest in renewable energy." Strangely, wind power has been dogged by environmental concerns and for endangering migratory birds. One estimate maintains that between 10,000 and 40,000 birds and another several thousand bats are killed each year by wind farms, moving one Sierra Club representative to refer to wind turbines as " Cuisinarts of the Air." There are also concerns about noise pollution, air pollution and even ground vibrations disrupting local habitats and communities. Taylor said that he felt the one unintended benefit of the EIS was that it documented the potential impacts wind farms have on the environment, proving that they're relatively benign. He said that on average, a single turbine probably kills two birds a year. A report by Western Ecosystems in 2001 estimated that between 98 million and 980 million birds are killed each year by colliding with buildings.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- General
The creation of wind farms is irresponsible and creates national resistance Lydia DePillis, (09/24/2007) Greenwire (“Turbine foes try to forge national opposition movement”, “http://www.eenews.net.proxy.lib.umich.edu/Greenwire/2007/09/24/archive/4”)
Wind-farm developers accustomed to encountering neighbors who want to keep towering turbines away from their backyard are now meeting more organized, national opposition. Two groups -- Industrial Wind Action (IWA) and National Wind Watch (NWW) -- are taking the movement beyond its NIMBY origins. They're using Web sites to link farflung communities and groups that oppose wind projects and spread the word about the threats such projects pose to natural resources and the quality of rural life. "Of most immediate concern for communities targeted for wind power facilities is their huge size, unavoidable noise, and strobe lights day and night, with the consequent loss of amenity and, in many cases, health," NWW says on its Web site. "For people concerned with the environment, the adverse impacts of the
giant machines and their supporting infrastructure on bird, bats, beneficial insects, and other wildlife -- both directly and by degrading, fragmenting, and destroying habitat -- are a growing concern," it continues. "With these and other adverse impacts, the construction of industrial wind energy facilities in most places cannot be justified." IWA founder Lisa Linowes said wind promoters have mischaracterized her group as fear mongers bankrolled by fossil fuel interests. "A lot of people think that opposition is born out of fear of change," she said. "That is so far from the truth." (Click here for IWA's Web site.) Frank Maisano, a Washington energy lobbyist, said national wind opponents are not influential but are capable of stirring up local opposition in areas that have scant experience with turbine farms. "It's not very hard to be successful in shutting down wind projects where there are none," he said. "These groups have played on ... fears very well." Christine Real de Azua, spokeswoman for American Wind Energy Association, the industry trade group, maintains that most successful wind ventures don't face significant opposition. And Ed Cherian, the northeastern U.S. development director for the Spanish wind-power company, Iberdrola, said a total of three people spoke in public meetings this summer against a 12-turbine farm the company plans to build in Lempster, N.H. -- and one was IWA's Linowes, who is a New Hampshire resident. "To call that an organized group of opponents is probably an overstatement," Cherian said. "[Linowes] has decided, for one reason or another, to make it her life's work to oppose any wind power."

The cost, ecological damage, siting problems and other problems with wind power outweigh any benefits Greenwire, “a leader in energy and environmental policy news”, 11/06/2007 (Proposed wind farm under scrutiny, “http://www.eenews.net.proxy.lib.umich.edu/Greenwire/2007/11/06/archive/”
The future of a proposed offshore wind farm in Delaware is uncertain as developers respond to criticism that the plan is too economically risky.The farm, which would be built 11.7 miles off the coast of Rehoboth Beach, is touted as an environmentally friendly way to avoid the volatile natural gas and coal markets by locking in a price for electricity. But a report by the Public Service Commission staff said the company's latest proposal included too much cost variability. The PSC staff said the problem arose because of "escalators" added into the cost, allowing the price of wind power to increase during the years between the time the contract is signed and parts are delivered. As a result, customers would pay more as the price of commodities like steel increase, and as the dollar weakens. "There's just too much price uncertainty here for us to make a recommendation that these talks should go forward any longer. Our interest is in protecting the public interest," PSC Executive Director Bruce Burcat said. In response, Bluewater Wind LLC announced its plan to submit a revised proposal sometime in the next week, according to company spokesman Jim Lanard. "Bluewater Wind agrees that the worst-case scenario evaluated by the PSC staff is not acceptable. We never imagined in our evaluations outcomes that were so expensive," he said. "We are going to propose caps to make sure that those unacceptable outcomes cannot be realized. "The PSC staff recommended that Delmarva Power end negotiations with Bluewater Wind and seek renewable energy through a different long-term planning process. But there is still strong public support for offshore wind farms, and environmental groups have also said the state needs to give the wind farm another chance. Willett Kemptom, a University of Delaware researcher, called the wind bid a "no-brainer," criticizing the PSC staff report for not adequately considering health impacts, global warming and increased fossil fuel costs. The PSC staff will meet with three other state agencies Nov. 20 and could decide then on the next course of action (Aaron Nathans, The News Journal).At-risk migratory birds may halt windmill development Tens of thousands of waterfowl may be in harm's way if an energy company's plans to install windmills in Michigan's Lake Township proceed, according to the township's leaders and environmental activists. The area is part of a stopover site for swans and other waterfowl as they migrate during the spring and fall, said Caleb Putnam, Important Bird Area coordinator in Grand Rapids for the National Audobon Society. Putnam said Audubon supports wind power as a way to curb global warming emissions from coal-fired power plants. But he said siting was important and studies should be done before windmills are put in. "Only bad things could happen if you put turbines in these birds' way," Putnam said of the swans. "Specifically, whenever you have a large concentration of birds at one site, they are more susceptible to large losses. "For the moment, DTE Energy officials just want to measure the wind before studying wildlife impacts, said Trevor Lauer, a vice president at DTE. "If the wind doesn't have the right qualities, then you don't have to worry about the other issues, because you wouldn't put a turbine there anyway," he said. Community leaders have so far denied the company's request to install a meteorological tower to study the wind. The proposed windmills would be on 200-foot-tall towers with blades as wide as the wingspan of a 747 airliner. Valerie McCallum, township clerk and Planning Commissioner member, and Tim Lalley, a member of the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals, are heading the effort to stop the plan. McCallum is collecting information that says the township is not a good location for the windmills, including a 2003 Fish and Wildlife Service report stating that no turbines be located within 3 miles of a Great Lakes shoreline, within 5 miles of bald eagle nests or between refuges and known feeding areas of migratory birds and waterfowl. She said most of the township is within 3 miles of the shoreline, and there are eagle nests near the border. Lauer agrees with the importance of siting but said the closer the windmills are to the Great Lakes, the better the wind is. "At the end of the day, DTE's interest is to develop in the most economical and efficient manner so it costs

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
customers the least amount," he said.The windmills divided community leaders, with some saying the windmills would create muchneeded income for farmers and that the impact on the birds would not be severe (Jeff Kart, Bay City Times, Nov. 2).Wash. windmill farm project under attack More than 30 people gathered this weekend to oppose a proposed windmill farm on Rattlesnake Mountain that would install 35-50 turbines at the base. The group consisted of landowners, conservationists and other critics of the project. "It's important that we act quickly on this matter regarding the proposed use of wind power on Rattlesnake Mountain," meeting organizer Patrick Guettner said. "They are not a fit way to use that mountain. "The group plans to meet every two weeks to try to find ways to stop the project in its early stages. Concerns over the project include being a danger to wildlife, especially the roughly 238 bird species documented in the area. "Wildlife needs some kind of solitude, a place that is theirs," Rick Leaumont, chairman of the Audobon Society's conservation committee, said. "Any location on the mountain would be a problem. "Others worry about the negative impact the windmills would have on the landscape and the overall success of windmills in providing enough energy to justify their presence. Windmills might be cleaner, but the bottom line is that economically, they are not a smart source of power," said John Becker, project manager for ELR Consulting in Kennewick. "When I worked in California [in the 1970s] lots of these windmill farms went up and they were eventually taken back down because didn't prove to be cost effective" (Dori O'Neal, Tri-City Herald, Nov. 4).

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- Competition
The comparable cost of wind power makes it wildly uncompetitive and inefficient
Luke Harding in Berlin, the Guardian's Moscow correspondent, John Vidal, the Guardian's environment editor, and Alok Jha, the Guardian's science correspondent., February 26, 2005 ("Report doubts future of wind power", http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/26/sciencenews.renewableenergy)

Wind farms are an expensive and inefficient way of generating sustainable energy, according to a study from Germany, the world's leading producer of wind energy. The report, which may have ramifications for the UK's rapidly growing wind farm industry, concludes that instead of spending billions on building new wind turbines, the emphasis should be on making houses more energy efficient. Drawn up by the German government's energy agency, it says that wind farms prove a costly form of reducing greenhouse gases. It costs €41-€77 (£28-£53) to avoid emitting a tonne of carbon dioxide by using wind energy, the report says. The study is likely to feed the bitter debate on whether Britain should continue to emulate Germany and dramatically expand its wind farm programme. Germany has the largest number of wind farms in the world, producing more wind energy than Denmark, Spain and the US put together. The UK's wind power movement is the fastest growing in the world, with up to £10bn expected to be invested in the next five years, attracting government subsidies of roughly £1bn. But more than 100 national and local groups, led by some of Britain's most prominent environmentalists, including David Bellamy, Sir Crispin Tickell, and James Lovelock, have argued that wind power is inefficient, destroys the countryside and makes little difference to Britain's soaring carbon emissions. "At last. This report confirms what we have been saying," said Angela Kelly, director of Country Guardian, an umbrella group for the anti-wind-power lobby. "Wind power is three times more expensive than conventional electricity. It is a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money." The report comes when the British government is promoting wind power as a means of getting 10% of energy need from renewables by 2010. The German report estimates that it will cost €1.1bn to link Germany's existing wind farms to the national grid if it is to meet its target of producing 20% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015. About 800 miles of cables will have to be laid or upgraded, and power plants will have to be replaced or adapted to cope with the large fluctuations in wind-derived energy. This programme will cost each German household €16 a year, it says. "Wind energy is expensive. That's true. You can't dispute it," Stephan Kohler, the head of Germany's energy agency told the Guardian. "Conventional methods are cheaper. But you have to do both." In the past 15 years Germany has constructed more than 15,000 turbines, half of them in the past five years. The number is due to double again by the end of the decade. In November British and German ministers announced plans for cooperation on alternative energy development. The 1,034 big turbines now running in Britain produce about 700MW of electricity - about as much as one conventional power station - but in the next seven years more than 7,000MW of generating power will be installed on 73 new farms. Last year 22 onshore wind farms with a capacity of 475MW were built, but developers are increasingly moving to shallow water off the coasts. Altogether, 9,000MW of new wind power is planned to be installed by 2010, enough to meet the government's targets. Critics of wind energy in Germany said it would be cheaper and more environmentally efficient to insulate old houses or to renew existing power stations. "The problem with wind farms is that you have to build them in places where you don't need electricity. The electricity then has to be moved somewhere else," Klaus Lippold, a Christian Democrat opposition MP, said. "There is growing resistance in Germany to wind farms, not least because of the disastrous effect on our landscape."

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
Renewable technologies are uncompetitive Robert L. Bradley Jr., president of the Institute for Energy Research and expert on energy policy and its relation to the environment., August 27, 1997 (Why Renewable Energy Is Not Cheap and Not Green”, “http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html”)
A multi-billion-dollar government crusade to promote renewable energy for electricity generation, now in its third decade, has resulted in major economic costs and unintended environmental consequences. Even improved new generation renewable capacity is, on average, twice as expensive as new capacity from the most economical fossil-fuel alternative and triple the cost of surplus electricity. Solar power for bulk generation is substantially more uneconomic than the average; biomass, hydroelectric power, and geothermal projects are less uneconomic. Wind power is the closest to the double-triple rule. The uncompetitiveness of renewable generation explains the emphasis pro-renewable energy lobbyists on both the state and federal levels put on quota requirements, as well as continued or expanded subsidies. Yet every major renewable energy source has drawn criticism from leading environmental groups: hydro for river habitat destruction, wind for avian mortality, solar for desert overdevelopment, biomass for air emissions, and geothermal for depletion and toxic discharges. Current state and federal efforts to restructure the electricity industry are being politicized to foist a new round of involuntary commitments on ratepayers and taxpayers for politically favored renewables, particularly wind and solar. Yet new government subsidies for favored renewable technologies are likely to create few environmental benefits; increase electricity-generation overcapacity in most regions of the United States; raise electricity rates; and create new "environmental pressures," given the extra land and materials (compared with those needed for traditional technologies) it would take to significantly increase the capacity of wind and solar generation.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Wind Power Bad- Offshore Turbines
Cost and difficulty of energy transportation make off shore turbines an unrealistic energy solution
Jim Green et al. , Amy Bowen, Lee Jay Fingersh, Yih-Huei Wan, for the National Renwable Energy Laboratory, A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, May 3, 2007 (Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, “Electrical Collection and Transmission Systems for Offshore Wind Power”)

The electrical systems needed for offshore wind farms to collect power from wind turbines—and transmit it to shore— will be a significant cost element of these systems. This paper describes the development of a simplified model of the cost and performance of such systems. The performance prediction accounts for losses as a function of the power produced in the wind farm and the length and size of the cables. The cost prediction is flexibly formulated so wind farm configurations can be evaluated by parameters such as the number of wind turbines, wind turbine size, turbine array configuration and spacing, and distance from shore. The collection system—the medium-voltage electrical grid within the wind farm, and the transmission system—the high-voltage electrical connection to an on-shore transmission line—are treated independently in the model. Data sources for the model and limitations of the data are discussed, and comparison is made to costs reported by others. The choice of transmission system technology is also addressed. This electrical system model is intended for integration into a more comprehensive model of offshore wind farm design, cost, and performance that will be used for parametric studies and optimization of wind farm configurations. Because some concepts for future offshore wind installations in deep water use floating platforms, this paper briefly discusses the application of submarine cable technology to nonfixed termination points, a departure from current practice.

Offshore turbines would be expensive and are riddled with theoretical problems
Jim Green et al., Amy Bowen, Lee Jay Fingersh, Yih-Huei Wan, for the National Renwable Energy Laboratory, A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, May 3, 2007 (Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, “Electrical Collection and Transmission Systems for Offshore Wind Power”)

The NREL [National Renewable Energy Laboratory] NWTC in Golden, Colorado, has undertaken a series of concept studies to evaluate the cost and performance of offshore wind farms. This paper reports on one of these concept studies that focused on the costs and losses in wind farm electrical power collection and transmission systems. We believe the cost and performance data reported here are well suited for parametric studies of wind farm size and configuration. However, we recommend some caution about the use of these data for estimating absolute costs. Uncertainties in absolute cost arise from factors such as changing commodity prices, changing foreign exchange rates, changing levels of demand for goods and service in this industry, and the impact of project-specific design parameters. Also, losses in submarine cables appear to depend on the specific cable design and, perhaps, the manufacturer. Submarine power cables are highly customized for each application, so generalizations about cost and performance are estimates at best. This study was limited to electrical system components— submarine cables, the offshore substation, and transformers— that contribute the most to system cost. Devices we have not addressed, including switches, circuit protection, and compensation devices, have much lower costs, but are nonetheless important to wind farm operation. Our cost model can be improved with further research of the cost and performance of these devices. Our model also needs data about losses in high-voltage transmission cables, which were not available from manufacturers during our study. Our studies illustrate how wind farm layout affects collection system cable losses and cost. Changes in cable size will move cable cost and performance in opposite directions. These tradeoffs between configuration, cost, and performance point to the importance of performing parametric studies of the entire system to seek optimum configurations. The comparisons we made of our transmission system cost data to published data for wind farms showed that our costs matched very well. One critical research need for offshore wind farm electrical systems is technology for nonstatic power cable terminations. Submarine power cable technology is vulnerable to fatigue failures. Fatigue-resistant cable technology must be developed if floating platforms are to be used for offshore wind farms in deep water.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Geothermal Energy GoodEnvironmentally Benign
Enhanced geothermal systems are the most environmentally benign form of energy production – this card will smoke them Tester 6 [Jefferson W., H.P. Meissner Professor of Chemical Engineering @ Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century,” http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/egs_technology.html ]
When examining the full life cycle of geothermal energy developments, their overall environmental impacts are markedly lower than conventional fossil-fired and nuclear power plants. In addition, they may have lower impacts in comparison to other renewables such as solar, biomass, and wind on an equivalent energy-output basis. This is primarily because a geothermal energy source is contained underground, and the surface energy conversion equipment is relatively compact, making the overall footprint of the entire system small. EGS geothermal power plants operating with closed-loop circulation also provide environmental benefits by having minimal greenhouse gas and other emissions. Being an indigenous resource, geothermal – like other renewable resources – can reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels. As it provides dispatchable base-load capacity, geothermal – even at high levels of penetration – would have no storage or backup-power requirements. With geothermal energy, there is no need to physically mine materials from a subsurface resource, or to modify the earth’s surface to a significant degree as, for example, in strip mining of coal or uranium. Unlike fossil and biomass fuels, geothermal energy is not processed and transported over great distances (an energy-consuming and potentially environmentally damaging process), there are minimal discharges of nitrogen or sulfur oxides or particulate matter resulting from its use, and there is no need to dispose of radioactive materials. However, there still are impacts that must be considered and managed if this energy resource is to be developed as part of a more environmentally sound, sustainable energy portfolio for the future. The major environmental issues for EGS are associated with ground-water use and contamination, with related concerns about induced seismicity or subsidence as a result of water injection and production. Issues of noise, safety, visual impacts, and land use associated with drilling and production operations are also important but fully manageable. As geothermal technology moves away from hydrothermal and more toward larger EGS developments, it is likely that environmental impacts and risks will be further reduced relative to those associated with hydrothermal systems. For example, EGS plants should only rarely have a need for abatement of hydrogen sulfide (H2S), ammonia (NH3), and other chemical emissions.

Geothermal energy is reliable, flexible and green – answers back all of their feasibility, pollution and intermittency arguments Grimsson 7 [Olafur Ragnar, President of Iceland, “A Clean Energy Future for the United States: The Case of Geothermal Power,” address given to the US Senate, September 26, 2007, energy.senate.gov/public/_files/testimony.pdf ]
I will also show that geothermal energy is a reliable, flexible and green energy resource which can supply significant amounts of power to households and industry. Furthermore, it uses land economically, gives social returns and it is cost-effective. It is reliable because it provides base-load power 24 hours a day and is available throughout peak hours. It is flexible and can be tailored to needs accordingly. This is a clear shift from the public debate, which has been preoccupied by “big solutions” in the field of energy, centred on coal, oil and nuclear programmes. In many places, geothermal energy can provide a “big” solution, but in many others it can serve a single city, large industries, a small town or as little as a single household. This flexibility can bring significant advantages. It is green: When coal is used to produce an equivalent amount of energy, the CO2 emissions are 35 times greater, according to information from the NREL. Emissions from geothermal power plants contain mostly water vapour and they do not emit particulates, hydrogen sulphide or nitrogen oxides. It uses land economically: Geothermal plants require by far the least land for electricity production per energy unit compared with all other available renewable sources. It gives social returns: Many more jobs are created through the harnessing of geothermal energy than by developing other types of renewable energy resources. And it is cost effective: The cost of electricity produced with geothermal energy in the US is expected to be between five and eight cents per kWh. This is more expensive than the cost of our geothermal power in Iceland which is closer to two or three cents, but according to a new market report from Glitnir Bank it is still far lower than the cost of energy from solar or other renewable sources. This would represent a significant saving for individuals and communities.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Geothermal Energy Good- Economy
Geothermal energy can redirect the economy - solves oil price fluctuation – Iceland empirically proves King 7 [Dr. Byron, J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, cum laude graduate of Harvard University, “Geothermal Power in Iceland is A Model for United States,” October 31st, 2007, http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/geothermal-power/2007/10/31/ ]
Thus, Iceland is the world’s leading nation in terms of exploiting its local geothermal power resources. In Iceland, the insiders refer to the process of extracting geothermal energy as “heat-mining,” and they are getting rich from the effort. Recently, the president of Iceland, Olafur Grimsson, visited the U.S. to speak at a number of events and testify before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

In a speech delivered at Harvard on Sept. 26, President Grimsson emphasized the importance of geothermal power to the economy and society of Iceland. He stated that Iceland has undergone a “radical transformation” from dependence on coal and oil in the past 30 years. As recently as the 1970s, Iceland was among the poorest countries within what was then known as the European Common Market (now called the European Union). That is, by most measures of gross domestic product and other economic output, Iceland was an economic laggard.
But then Iceland made a conscious, strategic commitment to develop its domestic geothermal power resources. From large industrial projects down to the level of family housing, Iceland focused its public and private energy investment on making a geothermal energy vision into an energy reality. Now, according to what President Grimsson told his Harvard audience, Iceland is one of the most affluent nations in the world. Fully 100% of Iceland’s electricity now comes from renewable sources, geothermal and hydroelectric, and almost all buildings in Iceland are heated with geothermal energy. On the whole, about 72% of Iceland’s total energy usage is tied to geothermal power sources, which eliminates essentially all carbon emissions and dramatically reduces reliance on imported fossil fuels of any type. According to President Grimsson, Iceland has “turned this [geothermal power production] into an extremely profitable business.” For example, electricity is so inexpensive in Iceland that there is a booming business on the island that imports bauxite from the Caribbean area for the purposes of refining aluminum, a highly energy-intensive process.

Geothermal Energy is great for the economy – the savings it creates are enormous Grimsson 7 [Olafur Ragnar, President of Iceland, “A Clean Energy Future for the United States: The Case of Geothermal Power,” address given to the US Senate, September 26, 2007, energy.senate.gov/public/_files/testimony.pdf ]
4.3 Benefits of using geothermal heat instead of oil

The economic benefits of the policy of increasing the utilization of geothermal energy can be seen when the total payments for hot water used for space heating are compared to the consumer costs of oil. Direct annual savings stood at a peak level from 1980 to 1983, about $200 million per year. They rose above $200 million in 2000, and savings continue to climb as oil prices increase. In 2000, the present value of the total savings between 1970 and 2000 was estimated at $8,200 million or more than three times Iceland’s national budget in 2000. The economic savings garnished by using geothermal energy are substantial, and have contributed significantly to Iceland’s prosperity.  Assuming that geothermal energy used for heating homes in 2003 was equivalent to the heat obtained from the burning of 646,000 tons of oil, the use of geothermal energy reduced the total release of CO2 in the country by roughly 37%.  Besides the economic and environmental benefits, the development of geothermal resources has had a desirable impact on social life in Iceland.
People have preferred to live in areas where geothermal heat is available, in the capital area and in rural villages where thermal springs can be exploited for heating dwellings and greenhouses, schools, swimming pools and other sports facilities, tourism and smaller industries. Statistics show improved health of the inhabitants of these regions.  The significant fluctuations of oil prices caused by political unrest in key oil- producing regions should encourage governments to focus on indigenous energy sources to meet their basic energy requirements.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Geothermal Energy Good- Economy
Geothermal energy can create millions of jobs, and stimulate the economy via investment
Kagel 6 [Alyssa, Geothermal Energy Association, “A Handbook on the Externalities, Employment, and Economics of Geothermal Energy,” October 2006, www.geo­energy.org/publications/reports/Socioeconomics%20Guide.pdf ]

  Geothermal provides 5% of California’s electricity, only a small percentage of the known, developable potential. This potential could contribute much-needed electricity to areas where the population is on the rise and blackouts have already occurred. In California, geothermal is expected to contribute more jobs to the state than any other renewable sector. The table on the following page shows the number of both construction and operational person-years that will likely be generated over the lifetimes of the plants built in California, producing electricity for California, from 2003-2017.

Most industries measure employment through both direct and indirect employment impacts. While indirect impacts are somewhat difficult to quantify, they help capture an industry’s overall employment. According to a report by the Western Governors Association (WGA), development of the near term geothermal potential of 5,600 MW of geothermal energy would result in the creation of almost 100,000 new power plant, manufacturing and construction jobs. If the USGS estimate of 125,000 MW of geothermal potential is developed, millions of quality jobs will be created. The table on the following page shows employment and resulting economic output estimates based on WGA’s near-term estimates.

Geothermal Energy is price-competitive – it is cheaper than natural gas and competitive with coal
Kagel 6 [Alyssa, Geothermal Energy Association, “A Handbook on the Externalities, Employment, and Economics of Geothermal Energy,” October 2006, www.geo­energy.org/publications/reports/Socioeconomics%20Guide.pdf ]

The California Energy Commission (CEC) estimates the levelized generation costs from new geothermal plants 4.5 to 7.3 cents per kWh, which over the lifetime of the plant can be competitive with a variety of technologies. Recent EIA analysis places geothermal energy at a lower levelized cost than natural gas combined-cycle, wind, open-loop biomass nuclear, solar thermal, and photovoltaic (with costs increasing in the order in which they are listed). However, two points should be considered regarding these estimates. First, it is important to keep in mind the different prices associated with competitiveness in different markets (wholesale vs. retail). Second, the lower-end price figures cited for geothermal likely rely on lower than average upfront financing agreements (see Financing), or consider only new projects that are built as expansions of existing projects. Expansion projects typically forgo many of the construction, resource risk, and transmission costs associated with new plants. In fact, most geothermal developers contend that the cost for new projects is more accurately reflected in a range of 5.5 to 7.5 cents per kWh. Even so, the current price for geothermal expansion projects can be competitive with coal-fired plants, and Greenfield projects can be competitive with natural gas. At current fossil fuel market prices, natural gas costs the equivalent of 8 to 9 cents per kWh (2005 $).

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Geothermal Energy Good- A2 Thermal Pollution
No risk of thermal pollution – geothermal plants just compensate with larger cooling towers Tester 6 [Jefferson W., H.P. Meissner Professor of Chemical Engineering @ Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century,” http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/egs_technology.html ]
Although thermal pollution is currently not a specifically regulated quantity, it does represent an environmental impact for all power plants that rely on a heat source for their motive force. Heat rejection from geothermal plants is higher per unit of electricity production than for fossil fuel plants or nuclear plants, because the temperature of the geothermal stream that supplies the input thermal energy is much lower for geothermal power plants. Considering only thermal discharges at the plant site, a geothermal plant is two to three times worse than a nuclear power plant with respect to thermal pollution, and the size of the waste heat rejection system for a 100 MW geothermal plant will be about the same as for a 500 MW gas turbine combined cycle (DiPippo, 1991a). Therefore, cooling towers or air-cooled condensers are much larger than those in conventional power plants of the same electric power rating. The power conversion systems for EGS plants will be subject to the same laws of thermodynamics as other geothermal plants, but if higher temperature fluids can be generated, this waste heat problem will be proportionally mitigated.

No thermal pollution – their internal link is specific to thermal pollution of water – water-free air-cooling towers solve this Tester 6 [Jefferson W., H.P. Meissner Professor of Chemical Engineering @ Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century,” http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/egs_technology.html ]
Cooling water for heat rejection. Cooling water is generally used for condensation of the plant working fluid. The waste heat can be dissipated to the atmosphere through cooling towers if makeup water is available. Water from a nearby river or other water supply can also serve as a heat sink. There are opportunities for recovering heat from these waste fluids (and possibly from the brine stream) in associated activities such as fish farms or greenhouses. An alternative to water-cooling is the technique of air-cooling using electric motor-driven fans and heat exchangers. This approach is particularly useful where the supply of fresh water is limited, and is currently used mainly for binary power plants (see Chapter 7). While air-cooled condensers eliminate the need for fresh makeup water that would be required for wet cooling towers, they occupy large tracts of land owing to the poor heat transfer properties of air vs. water. This greatly increases the land area needed for heat rejection compared to a plant of the same power rating that uses a wet cooling tower. For example, in the case of the 15.5 MW bottoming binary plant at the Miravalles field in Costa Rica, a design comparison between a water-cooling tower and an air-cooled condenser showed that the air-cooled condenser would cost more than three times as much, weigh more than two-and-a-half times as much, cover about three times as much surface area, and consume about three times more fan power than a water-cooling tower (Moya and DiPippo, 2006). 8-11The environmental impacts of waste heat rejection into the atmosphere or water bodies can be minimized through intelligent design and the use of well-developed technologies; but the amount of heat that must be dissipated is controlled by the laws of thermodynamics. 

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Geothermal Energy Good- A2 Heavy Metals
There is virtually no chance of solid discharges from geothermal plants Tester 6 [Jefferson W., H.P. Meissner Professor of Chemical Engineering @ Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century,” http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/future_geothermal.html ]
There is practically no chance for contamination of surface facilities or the surrounding area by the discharge of solids per se from the geofluid. The only conceivable situation would be an accident associated with a fluid treatment or minerals recovery system that somehow failed in a catastrophic manner and spewed removed solids onto the area. There are no functioning mineral recovery facilities of this type at any geothermal plant – although one was piloted for a short time near the Salton Sea in southern California – and it is not envisioned that any such facility would be associated with an EGS plant. Precautions, however, would need to be in place should the EGS circulating fluid require chemical treatment to remove dissolved solids, which could be toxic and subject to regulated disposal and could plug pathways in the reservoir.

Heavy metals are not a problem: geothermal plants can filter out heavy metals and sell them for a profit www.Exergy.se 8 [Swedish environmental website, “Geothermal Energy,” accessed July 9, 2008, http://www.exergy.se/goran/cng/alten/proj/98/geotermal/geo.htm#_Toc492881527]
Geothermal water contains a high amount of dissolved corrosive salts that can be dangerous for the environment. One way of solving this problem is to separate the salt from the water. This can be done through a process where the salts are crystallized.

The solid by-products by these power plants often contain just enough heavy metals to require special disposal. The plants produce as much as 45 kg of solids per megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity generated, but recent technical advances are greatly reducing the amount requiring disposal. Some plants are now able to dewater the by-products and rinse them to remove the heavy metals. The rinse water can then be injected back into the reservoir, and the remaining solids, mostly silica, are used as filler in concretes for building roads and buildings. In another process the heavy metals are removed from the solid by-products by using microbes. Many of the metals are valuable and their recovery and sale may improve plant economics.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Geothermal Energy Good- A2 Earthquakes
Ground subsidence not a problem – continuous pressure form the plant keeps rocks in place Tester 6 [Jefferson W., H.P. Meissner Professor of Chemical Engineering @ Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century,” http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/egs_technology.html ]
If geothermal fluid production rates are much greater than recharge rates, the formation may experience consolidation, which will manifest itself as a lowering of the surface elevation, i.e., this may lead to surface subsidence. This was observed early in the history of geothermal power at the Wairakei field in New Zealand where reinjection was not used. Subsidence rates in one part of the field were as high as 0.45 m per year (Allis, 1990). Wairakei used shallow wells in a sedimentary basin. Subsidence in this case is very similar to mining activities at shallow depths where raw minerals are extracted, leaving a void that can manifest itself as subsidence on the surface. After this experience, other geothermal developments adopted actively planned reservoir management to avoid this risk. Most of EGS geothermal developments are likely to be in granitic-type rock formations at great depth, which may contain some water-filled fractures within the local stress regime at this depth. After a geothermal well is drilled, the reservoir is stimulated by pumping high-pressure water down the well to open up existing fractures (joints) and keep them open by relying on the rough surface of the fractures. Because the reservoir is kept under pressure continuously, and the amount of fluid in the formation is maintained essentially constant during the operation of the plant, the usual mechanism causing subsidence in hydrothermal systems is absent and, therefore, subsidence impacts are not expected for EGS systems.

Induced seismicity can be overcome by studying reservoirs beforehand, and the other environmental benefits of geothermal outweigh Tester 6 [Jefferson W., H.P. Meissner Professor of Chemical Engineering @ Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century,” http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/egs_technology.html ]
In all aspects, with the exception of possible effects caused by induced seismicity, geothermal plants are the most environmentally benign means of generating base-load electricity. Overall, EGS plants would have comparable impact to hydrothermal binary plants operating with closed-loop circulation. The only potential area of concern, induced seismicity (which is somewhat unique to EGS), can be mitigated, if not overcome, using modern geoscientific methods to thoroughly characterize potential reservoir target areas before drilling and stimulation begin. Continuous monitoring of microseismic noise will serve not only as a vital tool for estimating the extent of the reservoir, but also as a warning system to alert scientists and engineers of the possible onset of a significant seismic event. On balance, considering all the technologies available for generating large amounts of electric power and their associated environmental impacts, EGS is clearly the best choice.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Geothermal Energy Good- A2 Other Pollutants
There is little chance for liquid discharges – safety measures have been developed Tester 6 [Jefferson W., H.P. Meissner Professor of Chemical Engineering @ Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century,” http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/egs_technology.html ]
Liquid streams from well drilling, stimulation, and production may contain a variety of dissolved minerals, especially for hightemperature reservoirs (>230°C). The amount of dissolved solids increases significantly with temperature. Some of these dissolved minerals (e.g., boron and arsenic) could poison surface or ground waters and also harm local vegetation. Liquid streams may enter the environment through surface runoff or through breaks in the well casing. Surface runoff is controlled by directing fluids to impermeable holding ponds and by injection of all waste streams deep underground. To guard against fluids leaking into shallow fresh-water aquifers, well casings are designed with multiple strings to provide redundant barriers between the inside of the well and the adjacent formation. Nevertheless, it is important to monitor wells during drilling and subsequent operation, so that any leakage through casing failures can be rapidly detected and managed. In principle, EGS operations are subject to the same possibility for subsurface contamination through casing defects, but there is little chance for surface contamination during plant operation because all the produced fluid is reinjected. Of course, a catastrophic failure of a surface pipeline could lead to contamination of a limited area until isolation valves are activated and seal off the affected pipeline.

Enhanced geothermal systems emit virtually zero gases – much less than the fossil fuel alternatives Tester 6 [Jefferson W., H.P. Meissner Professor of Chemical Engineering @ Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century,” http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/egs_technology.html ]
Gaseous emissions result from the discharge of noncondensable gases (NCGs) that are carried in the source stream to the power plant. For hydrothermal installations, the most common NCGs are carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S), although species such as methane, hydrogen, sulfur dioxide, and ammonia are often encountered in low concentrations. In the United States, emissions of H2S–distinguished by its “rotten egg” odor and detectable at 30 parts per billion – are strictly regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to avoid adverse impacts on plant and human life. We expect that for most EGS installations, there will be lower amounts of dissolved gases than are commonly found in hydrothermal fluids. Consequently, impacts would be lower and may not even require active treatment and control. Nonetheless, for completeness, we review here the situation encountered today for managing gaseous emissions from hydrothermal plants. Emissions are managed through process design. In steam and flash plants, naturally occurring NCGs in the production fluid must be removed to avoid the buildup of pressure in the condenser and the resultant loss in power from the steam turbine (see Figures 7.5 and 7.6). The vent stream of NCGs can be chemically treated and/or scrubbed to remove H2S, or the NCGs can be recompressed and injected back into the subsurface with the spent liquid stream from the power plant. Both of these solutions require power, thereby increasing the parasitic load and reducing the plant output and efficiency. Binary plants avoid this problem because such plants only recover heat from the source fluid stream by means of a secondary working fluid stream. The source geofluid stream is reinjected without releasing any of the noncondensables. The selection of a particular H2Scleanup process from many commercially available ones will depend on the specific amounts of contaminants in the geofluid stream and on the established gaseous emissions standards at the plant site. So far in the United States, there are no standards to be met for the emission of CO2 because the United States has not signed the Kyoto agreement. Nevertheless, geothermal steam and flash plants emit much less CO2 on an electrical generation basis (per megawatthour) than fossil-fueled power plants, and binary plants emit essentially none. The concentrations of regulated pollutants – nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)–in the gaseous discharge streams from geothermal steam and flash plants are extremely minute. Table 8.1 shows a comparison of typical geothermal plants with other types of power plants (Kagel et al., 2005). The data indicate that geothermal plants are far more environmentally benign than the other conventional plants. It should be noted that the NOx at The Geysers comes from the combustion process used to abate H2Sin some of the plants; most geothermal steam plants do not rely on combustion for H2Sabatement and therefore emit no NOx at all. 8-5

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Geothermal Energy Bad- Transmission Lines Turn
Transmission lines need to be built to connect geothermal resources to population centers AlternativeEnergyStocks.com 8 [“No New Transmission Means Little Renewable Energy,” January 20, 2008, http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2008/01/no_new_transmission_means_little_renewable_energy_1. html
I'm a fan of investing in electricity transmission, both because the grid in the US is in a sad state of repair, and because considerable expansions to the grid will be needed to take large scale renewable energy (especially concentrating solar and wind) from the lightly inhabited areas with renewable energy resources to population and demand centers. Unfortunately, the need for new transmission can put renewable energy advocates at odds with more traditional environmentalists, who are concerned about the local damage to views and habitat caused by new transmission lines. Cases in point are opposition which looks like it will prevent a proposed new line in West Virginia, and opposition to the "Green Path" transmission line which was proposed to allow geothermal, solar, and wind development in the Salton Sea area of Southern California.

Transmission lines threaten ecosystems by fragmenting habitats
Temple 96 [Stanley, professor of wildlife ecology @ UW-Madison, “Ecological Principles, Biodiversity, and the Electric Utility Industry,” Environmental Management (journal), November 1996, http://www.springerlink.com/content/pw22505v2l21j855/ ]

The electric utility industry often engages in activities that are related to the problems of habitat fragmentation. Transmission lines are a ubiquitous feature of the American landscape. They frequently transect natural ecosystems as they carry electrical power from generation points to population centers. When they cross natural areas, utility corridors inevitably subdivide the habitat and create many miles of edge, resulting in negative impacts on some elements of biological diversity that are intolerant to fragmentation, especially edge-sensitive species. By contributing to habitat fragmentation, the utility industry threatens biological diversity. How serious is the problem of habitat fragmentation caused by electric transmission lines? When a cleared right-of-way passes through a forest, for example, the impacts on some species, especially edge-sensitive forest-interior species, can be severe. William E. Ades and I assessed the extent of the problem caused by utility corridors that transect forested natural areas in Wisconsin (Ades 1993). We identified 599 forested natural areas that are considered to be important enough to warrant recognition by the Wisconsin Natural Heritage Program and to receive some sort of protection by the federal government (e.g., as national forests and national wildlife refuges), by the State of Wisconsin (e.g., as state natural areas, wildlife areas, and state parks), and by The Nature Conservancy (e.g., as preserves and bioreserves). Of the 599 protected natural areas, 54 (9%) are transected by transmission-line rights-of-way, and another 13 are likely to be transected by planned corridors. In 29 of these cases the fragmentation caused by the corridors had significant negative impacts on the ability of the protected natural areas to provide habitat for edge-sensitive species of plants and animals. Trans- mission lines also passed near 209 of the protected natural areas, and in some instances the routes had been diverted from a straight-line path to skirt the preserves rather than transect them, suggesting that the value of these intact natural areas had been considered when making decisions on routing.

Ecosystem damage risks extinction The Guardian 2000 (“Comment & Analysis: Clones in a cul-de-sac”, October 10, L/N)
That scientists may be able to recreate "lost" life is interesting but quite irrelevant to the real problems facing the conservation of animal life. More sober scientists agree that nature is even now in free fall. We are witnessing the approach of what could be the greatest global extinction of biodiversity - the full variety of nature - since the end of the dinosaurs 200m years ago. There are, it is thought, somewhere between 7m and 70m species, of which only 1.7m have been named. No one has a clue what we have lost in the past 50 years, but at a conservative guess the rate of extinction is 100 to 1,000 times what is normal. Mankind's present destruction of generic and species diversity is known as the "sixth great extinction" and is, say leading scientists like EO Wilson, a process as damaging as any full-scale thermo-nuclear war, one that will take at least 10m years to correct.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Geothermal Energy Bad- Transmission Lines Turn Extensions
Geothermal power can only be generated in specific areas – huge webs of transmission lines need to be built to convey electricity to where it’s needed – California proves Christian Science Monitor 7 [Daniel B. Wood, staff writer, “Green power may ruin pristine land in California,” Christian Science Monitor, Pg, 2, April 24, 2007, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0424/p02s01wogi.html ]
geothermal electric power produced in the rural reaches of the state must be somehow be transported to faraway cities - meaning some transmission lines must cut through national forests, wildlife refuges, and other treasured land areas.
But to do that difficult decisions need to be made. Wind, solar, and Solar panels require the expanse and cloudless climes of desert areas, wind requires the funneling effect of mountain passes, and geothermal power is derived from hot or steamed water underground.

But how does the city get the energy to where it's needed without spoiling the pristine environments that it's trying to preserve? "The fact of the matter is that renewable resources are from remote areas ... and that is the challenge
now facing California," says Stephanie McCorkle, spokeswoman for the California Independent Systems Operator. "We are trying to green the grid, and there are deadlines looming, Transmission lines are the missing link. Where do we put them? That is what we have to decide."
It's all part of the "California greenin' " vision being trumpeted loudly and often by officials from Sacramento to Los Angeles. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has put the state in the forefront of developing alternative energy resources while Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa wants to make America's second-largest city "the greenest and cleanest city in America." "The governor and the legislature have put in place new visions for California and that is greener power," says Mike Niggli, COO for San Diego Gas and Electric, which is studying routes for transmission lines from San Diego west through mountains and deserts to the Salton Sea near the Arizona border. "That is creating the tough policy

decisions on land use that come with it and a shift of emphasis to supply more environmentally friendly power across long distances ... which disrupt communities and wide-open spaces to boot."
California is fast-tracking several big alternative-energy projects in the southernmost quarter of the state costing $4 billion. A proposal to build power lines, substations, and transmission towers through a national forest, two wildlife preserves, and a rural village used in TV and cinema westerns has provoked the ire of environmental groups even as authorities say no final decisions have been made. Three others, further along, are forcing communities from San Diego to Santa Clarita to come to grips with the trade-offs and sacrifices necessary to meet the power demands and new green standards - for a state growing by 500,000 people a year. Then, two weeks ago, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) announced that it plans to build an 80-mile-long "green path" corridor to bring solar and geothermal power from southeastern California to connecting lines just northeast of Los Angeles.

Some environmental groups are up in arms over the project. "There is absolutely no reason to go through the best wild lands and wild views of a national forest and private conservancy lands," says Justin Augustine of the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental organization. He and other environmentalists offer alternative options, including following existing corridors, promoting more conservation in urban centers, and deriving more renewable energy nearby and within urban areas. "This is another example of public representatives and the LADWP not understanding the sensitivity of the desert and making uninformed unilateral decisions," says April Sall of Wildlands Conservancy, which also oversees lands in the path of the proposed lines.

For its part, the LADWP says the agency is committed to designing a corridor with the least possible environmental impact, but that the city must make tough choices. Much of Los Angeles is surrounded by national forest and some of the existing transmission corridors are not wide enough to
accommodate the new lines, says LADWP Commission president David Nahai. [It is] ... a 'greater-good issue,' which means the society and the city have to balance all the advantages and disadvantages to make the aggressive step to move away from the filthiest of fuels, which is coal," he says.

Today, Los Angeles gets 47 percent of its energy from coal from Utah and Nevada, 7 percent from hydroelectric power, 8 percent from renewables (up from 3 percent just 18 months ago), and 9 percent from nuclear plants. Resistance is high to building more nuclear plants, Nahai says. Other state officials say conservation and urban-based solar projects are also a priority. The state's "flex your power" campaign, put in place after the 2001 brownouts, save an average of 1,000 megawatts on a peak afternoon - the production of about two medium-sized power plants, according to Ms. McCorkle. The California Solar Initiative is spending $2.5 billion over 10 years to generate another 3,000 megawatts from urban roof tops, says Sean Gallagher, energy division director for the California Public Utilities Commission.

"We wish we could generate more renewable power closer to where it is needed," he says. "But renewables are located where they are, and getting the power to where it is needed is no free lunch. People on both sides are realizing more and more that responsibility for the planet requires
sacrifices by those on all sides."

Geothermal Energy is localized – requires construction of a new series of transmission lines
Kagel 6 [Alyssa, Geothermal Energy Association, “A Handbook on the Externalities, Employment, and Economics of Geothermal Energy,” October 2006, www.geo­energy.org/publications/reports/Socioeconomics%20Guide.pdf ]

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
Because geothermal resources cannot be transported distances over a few miles, geothermal power plants must be built at the site of the reservoir and must rely upon transmission systems to bring their power to the regional power grid. Sometimes transmission infrastructure does not exist where a geothermal resource is located, and additional power lines must be built, adding to project costs. Geothermal developers pay the direct costs to connect their plant to the grid, and in some cases incur additional transmission related costs. These additional costs could include the construction of new lines, upgrading existing lines or new transformers and substations.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Geothermal Energy Bad- Thermal Pollution Turn
Geothermal plants cause three times as much thermal pollution as fossil-fueled or nuclear plants DiPippo 07, Ronald. Professor of Natural resource sciences at Dartmouth University. ‘Geothermal Power Plants’ pg. 406

Although thermal pollution is currently not a specifically regulated quantity, it does represent an environmental impact for all power plants that rely on a heat source for their motive force. As was discussed in sect. 5.4.6. heat rejection from geothermal plants is higher per unit of electricity production than for fossil-fueled or nuclear plants. Figure 19.13 shows a comparison between a geothermal single flash plant and several alternative cycles, For example, using a reservoir fluid temperature of 220 degrees C. the flash plant rejects about three times as much heat per unit of useful electrical generation as an ideal Carnot cycle operating between the reservoir emperature and the assumed condensing temperature of 52 degrees C. The other practical cycles all reject far less heat per unit of generation than the flash plant.

Thermal pollution collapses ecosystems
Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP Thermal Pollution The Argonne National Laboratory has documented how power plants have withdrawn hundreds of millions of gallons of water each day for cooling purposes and then discharged the heated water back to the same or a nearby water body. This process of “oncethrough” cooling presents potential environmental impacts by impinging aquatic organisms in intake screens and by affecting aquatic ecosystems by discharge effluent that is far hotter than the surrounding surface waters.259 Drawing water into a plant often kills fish and other aquatic organisms, and the extensive array of cooling towers, ponds, and underwater vents used by most plants have been documented to severely damage riparian environments. In some cases, the thermal pollution from centralized power plants can induce eutrophication—a process where the warmer temperature alters the chemical composition of the water, resulting in a rapid increase of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous. Rather than improving the ecosystem, such alterations usually promote excessive plant growth and decay, favoring certain weedy species over others and severely reducing water quality. In riparian environments, the enhanced growth of choking vegetation can collapse entire ecosystems. This form of thermal pollution has been known to decrease the aesthetic and recreational value of rivers, lakes, and estuaries and complicate drinking water treatment.260 // pg. 97-100

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Geothermal Energy Bad- Thermal Pollution Turn
Ecosystem collapse causes extinction Coyne and Hoekstra, 07 - *professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago AND ** Associate Professor in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University (Jerry and Hopi, The New Republic, “The Greatest Dying,” 9/24, http://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatest-dying)
Aside from the Great Dying, there have been four other mass extinctions, all of which severely pruned life's diversity. Scientists agree that we're now in the midst of a sixth such episode. This new one, however, is different - and, in many ways, much worse. For, unlike earlier extinctions, this one results from the work of a single species, Homo sapiens. We are relentlessly taking over the planet, laying it to waste and eliminating most of our fellow species. Moreover, we're doing it much faster than the mass extinctions that came before. Every year, up to 30,000 species disappear due to human activity alone. At this rate, we could lose half of Earth's species in this century. And, unlike with previous extinctions, there's no hope that biodiversity will ever recover, since the cause of the decimation - us - is here to stay. To scientists, this is an unparalleled calamity, far more severe than global warming, which is, after all, only one of many threats to biodiversity. Yet global warming gets far more press. Why? One reason is that, while the increase in temperature is easy to document, the decrease of species is not. Biologists don't know, for example, exactly how many species exist on Earth. Estimates range widely, from three million to more than 50 million, and that doesn't count microbes, critical (albeit invisible) components of ecosystems. We're not certain about the rate of extinction, either; how could we be, since the vast majority of species have yet to be described? We're even less sure how the loss of some species will affect the ecosystems in which they're embedded, since the intricate connection between organisms means that the loss of a single species can ramify unpredictably. But we do know some things. Tropical rainforests are disappearing at a rate of 2 percent per year. Populations of most large fish are down to only 10 percent of what they were in 1950. Many primates and all the great apes - our closest relatives - are nearly gone from the wild. And we know that extinction and global warming act synergistically. Extinction exacerbates global warming: By burning rainforests, we're not only polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (a major greenhouse gas) but destroying the very plants that can remove this gas from the air. Conversely, global warming increases extinction, both directly (killing corals) and indirectly (destroying the habitats of Arctic and Antarctic animals). As extinction increases, then, so does global warming, which in turn causes more extinction and so on, into a downward spiral of destruction. Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start with the most celebrated case: the rainforests. Their loss will worsen global warming raising temperatures, melting icecaps, and flooding coastal cities. And, as the forest habitat shrinks, so begins the inevitable contact between organisms that have not evolved together, a scenario played out many times, and one that is never good. Dreadful diseases have successfully jumped species boundaries, with humans as prime recipients. We have gotten aids from apes, sars from civets, and Ebola from fruit bats. Additional worldwide plagues from unknown microbes are a very real possibility. But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the world over provide hidden services like waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification, and oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet, through both intention and accident, humans have introduced exotic species that turn biodiversity into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels in North America's Great Lakes and have damaged harbors and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by single species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. Thanks to these developments, soils will erode and become unproductive which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural yields. Meanwhile,with increased pollution and runoff, as well as reduced forest cover, ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water; and a shortage of clean water spells disaster. In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates major predators, while polluted and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperiling coral reefs - a major problem since these reefs have far more than recreational value: They provide tremendous amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. In fact, the global value of "hidden" services provided by ecosystems - those services, like waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace - has been estimated to be as much as $50 trillion per year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined. And that doesn't include tangible goods like fish and timber. Life as we know it would be impossible if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its current pace. Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote swamps of French Guiana goes extinct? Well, those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
clots. And it's not just this one species of worm: Its wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anticancer agent), decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors), and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are pharmaceutical gold mines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug highly effective against ovarian and breast cancer), and aspirin. More than a quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anticancer drug that saved the life of one of our friends. Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 percent have been screened for pharmaceutical properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given current extinction rates, it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years. Our arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained, especially in Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that there are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, simple morality and intellectual values that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what could be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins, and realizing that we all got here by the same simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the genetic kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience - not necessarily religious, but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the soul. But, whether or not one is moved by such concerns, it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth extinction. We are creating a world in which exotic diseases flourish but natural medicinal cures are lost; a world in which carbon waste accumulates while food sources dwindle; a world of sweltering heat, failing crops, and impure water. In the end, we must accept the possibility that we ourselves are not immune to extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain, scratching out a grubby existence on a devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a secondary problem when humanity finally faces the consequences of what we have done to nature: not just another Great Dying, but perhaps the greatest dying of them all.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Geothermal Energy Bad- Thermal Pollution Turn Extensions
Thermal pollution leads to warming Nordell 03, Bo. Professor of water resources engineering at the Lule University of Technology, Sweden. ‘hermal pollution causes global warming’. 3 September 2003 Over longer time-scales there is no net heat inflow to Earth since incoming solar energy is re-emitted at exactly the same rate. To maintain Earth's thermal equilibrium, however, there must be a net outflow equal to the geothermal heat flow. Performed calculations show that the net heat outflow in 1880 was equal to the geothermal heat flow, which is the only natural net heat source on Earth. Since then, heat dissipation from the global use of nonrenewable energy sources has resulted in additional net heating. In, e.g. Sweden, which is a sparsely populated country, this net heating is about three times greater than the geothermal heat flow. Such thermal pollution contributes to global warming until the global temperature has reached a level where this heat is also emitted to space. Heat dissipation from the global use of fossil fuels and nuclear power is the main source of thermal pollution. Here, it was found that one third of current thermal pollution is emitted to space and that a further global temperature increase of 1.8 °C is required until Earth is again in thermal equilibrium. Geothermal plants disrupt ecosystems – thermal pollution McKinney & Schoch 3 [Michael L., professor of evolutionary biology and environmental science at the University of Tennessee, Dr. Robert M., Ph.D., professor of geophysics at Boston University, “Environmental science: systems and solutions,” p 209-210, 2003, http://books.google.com/books?id=xBGffKNfsq8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=mckinney+schoch+environme ntal+science+solutions&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U06yqs4jkCJYjJ2AUvM_birXUIP3g#PPA97,M1]
Although geothermal energy production is often considered relatively clean compared to traditional fossil fuels, it is not without environmental hazards. By its nature, it tends to expel excessive quantities of heat into the environment that may cause thermal pollution, killing plants and animals and disrupting natural ecosystems. Some of the hot underground water contains dissolved salts, other minerals, and heavy metals that are toxic pollutants on the surface. Hydrogen sulfide and other dangerous gases may be released from vents. Tons of hydrogen sulfide are released daily at the Geysers, despite the efficient scrubbers used at the plants to minimize air pollution. Furthermore, sludge is produced by the scrubbers and by the condensation of the vented steam. Some sludge contains such high concentrations of heavy metals that it must be treated as a hazardous waste. Such waste could potentially be reinjected underground, but care must be taken to avoid contaminating freshwater aquifers. Geothermal operations also require large quantities of water. Geothermal power plants currently in operation use water as a cooling and condensing agent, and hot dry rock techniques will also utilize considerable quantities of water.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Geothermal Energy Bad- Heavy Metals Turn
Geothermal plants pollute: they dispel heavy metals in wastewater Kristmannsdóttir and Ármannsson 03, Hrefna and Halldór. Professors of natural resource sciences at the University of Akureyri, Iceland. ‘Environmental aspects of geothermal energy utilization’. 15 August 2003
Chemical pollution in geothermal utilization is a result of the discharge of chemicals into the atmosphere via steam; the spent
liquid may also contain dissolved chemicals of potential harm to the environment. Spray, which constitutes a problem mainly in the testing period, could damage vegetation in the surrounding area. The main pollutant chemicals in the liquid fraction are hydrogen sulfide (H2S), arsenic (As), boron (B), mercury (Hg) and other

heavy metals such as lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), iron (Fe), zinc (Zn) and manganese (Mn). Lithium (Li) and ammonia (NH3), as well
as aluminium (Al), may also occur in harmful concentrations. Some geothermal fluids are brines, whose excessive salt concentrations can cause direct damage to the environment

.

Methods of reducing pollution from geothermal plants fail and emit heavy metals – this subsumes their evidence Brower 08, Michael. ‘Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Technologies’. Union of Concerned Scientists. 06/19/08
Scrubbers reduce air emissions but produce a watery sludge high in sulfur and vanadium, a heavy metal that can be toxic in high concentrations. Additional sludge is generated when hydrothermal steam is condensed, causing the dissolved solids to precipitate out. This sludge is generally high in silica compounds, chlorides, arsenic, mercury, nickel, and other toxic heavy metals. One costly method of waste disposal involves drying it as thoroughly as possible and shipping it to licensed hazardous waste sites. Research under way at Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York points to the possibility of treating these wastes with microbes designed to recover commercially valuable metals while rendering the waste nontoxic.

Heavy metals negatively impact biodiversity Hernández and Pastor 08. Department of Ecology at the University of Madrid, Spain. ‘Relationship between plant
biodiversity and heavy metal bioavailability in grasslands overlying an abandoned mine’. 2 February 2008

Abandoned metal mines in the Sierra de Guadarrama, Madrid, Spain, are often located in areas of high ecological value. This is true of an abandoned barium mine situated in the heart of a bird sanctuary. Today the area sustains grasslands, interspersed with oakwood formations of Quercus ilex and heywood scrub (Retama sphaerocarpa L.), used by cattle, sheep and wild animals. Our study was designed to establish a relationship between the plant biodiversity of these grasslands and the bioavailability of heavy metals in the topsoil layer of this abandoned mine. We conducted soil chemical analyses and performed a greenhouse evaluation of the effects of different soil heavy metal concentrations on biodiversity. The greenhouse bioassays were run for 6 months using soil samples obtained from the mine polluted with heavy metals (Cu, Zn, Pb and Cd) and from a control pasture. Soil heavy metal and Na concentrations, along with the pH, had intense negative effects on plant biodiversity, as determined through changes in the Shannon index and species richness. Numbers of grasses, legumes, and composites were reduced, whilst other species (including ruderals) were affected to a lesser extent. Zinc had the greatest effect on biodiversity, followed by Cd and Cu. When we compared the sensitivity of the biodiversity indicators to the different metal content variables, pseudototal metal concentrations determined by X-ray fluorescence (XRF) were the most sensitive, followed by available and soluble metal contents. Worse correlations between biodiversity variables and metal variables were shown by pseudototal contents obtained by plasma emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES). Our results highlight the importance of using as many different indicators as possible to reliably assess the response shown by plants to heavy metal soil pollution.

(Insert the biodiversity impact from the transmission lines turn or the thermal pollution turn)

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Geothermal Energy Bad- Earthquakes Turn
Geothermal plants fracture rocks and interrupt balance beneath the surface of the earth, leading to earthquakes Lepisto 7 [Christine, staff writer for TreeHugger.com, “Geothermal Power Plant Triggers Earthquake in Switzerland,” January 21st, 2007, p. 2, Business & Politics, http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/geothermal_powe.php ]
Even environmentally friendly alternative technologies can have negative impacts which are difficult to predict. The citizens of Basel learned this first-hand as they were shaken by an earthquake of magnitude 3.4 on the Richter scale, followed by 60 lesser aftershocks, including a quake of magnitude 2.5 a week after the initial quake, and another tremor of 3.1 as recently as 6 January, attributed to changes as underground pressures at the now discontinued project site return to normal. The engineers and officials of Geopower did inform the authorities and the public that the proposed Deep Heat Mining project posed a risk of triggering small tremors. Quakes of the magnitude actually experienced, however, were not anticipated. The public is also questioning whether the communication of this risk, by a brief statement buried in a press release, was sufficient to prepare residents. The Geopower Deep Heat Mining project is the first commercial application of the so-called hot fractured rock technique, which allows recovery of heat from dry rock. The Geopower engineers intended to use the 200C temperatures at 5000 meters to heat injected water which is then pumped back to the surface for recovery. The technique relies on the fracturation of existing pores and crevices by injection of cold water. The fracturation creates a path for water to cycle through the hard granite, so that the heated water can be brought back to the surface through a separate borehole a distance away from the injection hole. Most geothermal power projects tap into reservoirs of heated water rather than dry rock. However, recent reports suggest that earthquakes caused by mankind are not uncommon. Christian D. Klose of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, reports that over 200 quakes can be attributed to mankind's activity in National Geographic. The most severe example was a quake of magnitude 5.6 in Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, an area not prone to seismic activity. The quake hit on December 28, 1989, killing 13 people, injuring 160, and causing US$3.5 billion in damages--more than the entire value of the coal mined over the life of the Newcastle operation. Klose suggests that similar activity could be caused by CO2 sequestration, the process of pumping CO2 into deep underground reservoirs. Unlike Newcastle, Basel experiences dozens of tremors every year, 3 or 4 of which may hit the 3.4 magnitude similar to the Geopower triggered quake. Experts suggest that the recent quake was percieved as much worse because it was triggered from only 5000 meters below the surface. Residents fears are also compounded by the fact that Basel sits directly over a fault to which the worst earthquake ever to hit Europe is attributed. The quake, estimated to have been about a 6.5 on the Richter scale, occurred in 1356, toppling medieval castles and church towers. Experts indicate that a similar quake today would bring down about 4% of existing buildings, cause SFf80 billion ($66.3 billion) in damages, and threaten public safety due to the chemical and nuclear industries active in the area.

Earthquakes disrupt precariously balanced aquatic ecosystems Wilkinson 2 [Ian, member of the British geological survey, “Environmental catastrophes and recoveries in the Holocene: environmental instability and the Holocene ecosystem of Lake Sevan, Armenia,” Spetermber 2, 2002, http://atlas-conferences.com/c/a/i/q/87.htm ]
Lake Sevan, Armenia, is an ancient lake. There is evidence of lacustrine conditions in the Sevan Basin since the late Miocene, although the modern lake evolved into its present form only in the Holocene. Earthquakes have had a major impact on this large lacustrine ecosystem during throughout that time. Many variables must be taken into account when considering the influence of earthquakes on large lacustrine ecosystems and a large database has been created that includes regular statistical data from a number of sources in Armenia, including Lake Sevan. The database extends back to the 19th century, but more detailed data (hydrological, chemical, biological etc) has been gathered since 1927 and the database of strong earthquakes in the region can be extended back to ancient times and the pre-Christian era. High energy earthquakes and strong ground motion influence this aquatic ecosystem in a number of ways. They cause changes in the water chemistry and pH of the lake and consequently the chemical and biological processes in the lake bed sediments. Analysis of historical and prehistorical earthquakes shows their influence on the organic carbon in the sediments, the changes of the lake dynamics and variations in the proportions of organisms at the base of the food chain (bacteria, phytoplankton and zooplankton) which has a knock-on affect in terms of the trophic web.

(Insert the biodiversity impact from the transmission lines turn or the thermal pollution turn)

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

Geothermal Energy Bad- Biodiversity
Geothermal plants explode Kristmannsdóttir and Ármannsson 03, Hrefna and Halldór. Professors of natural resource sciences at the University of Akureyri, Iceland. ‘Environmental aspects of geothermal energy utilization’. 15 August 2003
Lowering of the groundwater table may cause mixing of fluids between aquifers and an inflow of corrosive water. It may also cause the disappearance of springs and fumaroles or changes in surface activity ([Glover et al., 2000]). Lowering of the groundwater table can also lead to the formation or accelerated growth of a steam pillow and subsequent boiling and degassing of the field. Such a development may induce major explosions that have in the past killed a number of people ([Hunt, 2001 and Goff & Goff, 1997]). The effects of fluid withdrawal can to a large extent be overcome by injecting the spent fluid back into the reservoir.

Geothermal plants cause pollution: steam changes cloud patterns and wastewater alters lake composition, hurting biodiversity Kristmannsdóttir and Ármannsson 03, Hrefna and Halldór. Professors of natural resource sciences at the University of Akureyri, Iceland. ‘Environmental aspects of geothermal energy utilization’. 15 August 2003
Heat-thermal effects and even pollution will normally accompany production from geothermal fields. The heat efficiency of power production is low, so a considerable amount of energy is wasted. Waste water causes problems for the environment. Excess heat emitted in the form of steam may affect cloud formation and change the weather locally, and waste water piped into streams, rivers, lakes or local groundwaters may seriously affect the biology and ecological system. Cooling in ponds can be achieved successfully and may even be beneficial to the environment, as in the case of the Blue Lagoon in Svartsengi, but it is generally not considered a good solution as the ponds tend to increase in size and may cause chemical pollution in the environment as well. Reinjection of spent fluid will save a considerable part of the waste heat. Multiple use of the resource is also a means of reducing the heat wastage. As demonstrated in the Lindal diagram, there are uses for the heat down to low temperatures ([Lindal, 1973. Líndal, B., 1973. Armstead, H.C.H. (Ed.), Industrial and Other Applications of Geothermal Energy. UNESCO, Paris, pp. 135–148.Lindal, 1973]). Such multi-purpose plants have been designed and even put into operation in a number of areas. In cold regions like Iceland electricity and hot water are successfully co-generated and the heat is used for snow melting and ground heating after being used for house heating. In warm countries the excess heat could be used for air-cooling by means of heat pumps.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

SOLAR GOOD - GENERAL
SOLAR POWER IS PLENTIFUL, CHEAP, EFFICIENT, AND PROVEN
Leitner -consultant and RDI Consulting with a PhD in superconductor physics- 02 (Arnold Leitner, “Fuel From the Sky: Solar Power’s Potential for Western Energy Supply”, July, 2002, http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS89346)

Just like for wind, California was the birthplace of solar power. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a remarkable U.S.-Israeli consortium built 354 MW of thermal parabolic trough solar power in the Mojave Desert (see “The 354-MW SEGS Power Plants”). Over the last decade these units have delivered reliable power to Southern California Edison and have demonstrated the commercial practicality of solar power generation. Two power tower demonstration projects, Solar One and Solar Two, were also built during that time period and during their demonstration period verified the power tower concept and the effectiveness of molten-salt heat storage. During the same time period, dish Stirling solar power systems have quietly accumulated thousands of operating hours at various experimental sites in the Southwest. Over the past couple of years, there has been renewed interest in solar generating technologies. Companies interested in utility-scale solar generation realized that CSP, which includes dish Stirling, parabolic trough, power tower, and CPV, was the only currently practical means of generating electricity from the sun. Flat panel PV, aka solar cells, are neither efficient nor costeffective enough for large-scale power generation and are not expected to be so for a while. Inspired by visions of a cleaner world and motivated by the stunning success of wind power, these companies and the Department of Energy have recently decided to start a new initiative for solar power. Our analysis finds that solar energy is a good match for electricity load shapes in the West and that the available solar energy resources are double the current energy demand in the West. In the section, “The Solar Energy Potential,” we provide an overview of the sun as an energy resource and present an estimate of western solar energy resource potential. Thermal solar generating technologies, including parabolic trough, power tower, and dish Stirling plants are likely to play a dominant role, because of their high efficiency, low cost, and track record. In addition, parabolic trough and power towers have the ability to store solar energy as heat and thus can avoid a great deal of the intermittence issues that are a challenge for wind power and other forms of solar generation. In addition, hybridization with fossil fuels is possible for all thermal solar power plants, allowing around-the-clock generation. From an operational point of view, solar power appears to be the preferred renewable energy source in the Southwest. Solar power output is generally correlated with daily and seasonal loads, while—except in a few places—wind generation is essentially random. In addition, the Southwest has better solar resources than wind resources. If space were the only consideration, solar plants in premium solar resources areas can produce 3.5 times more energy per square mile than a wind power plant located in the highest wind resource class. Of course, land use underneath a wind farm can continue undisturbed while a solar farm requires all the land, but at the same time solar resources are almost always located in deserts. From a transmission point of view, solar resources are also preferred because some of the best solar resources are located close to load centers—cities such as Phoenix and Las Vegas. The much lower visibility of solar plants compared to the hundreds-of-feet-tall wind turbines also makes it easier to site these plants close to urban areas. For all these reasons, energy from solar power appears to be the preferred renewable energy source in the Southwest. Western states that do not have good solar resources are fortuitously endowed with plenty of wind resources. Solar power and wind energy are found—except in a few fortunate places—in different locales in the West.

PV SYSTEMS PROVIDE CHEAP, EASY, AND RELIABLE ENERGY
Bradford - President and Founder of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development- 06 (Travis Bradford, “Solar Revolution: The Economic Transformation of the Global Energy Economy”, 2006)

Photovoltaics can be applied cost-effectively at any scale, from handheld gadgets to utility-scale generation. Each application has a unique character, but there are natural groupings. The first and most familiar type is using solar cells without any kind of battery solution and usually at small scale. Applications of this type include solar calculators, irrigation pumps, and freshwater distillers that operate only while the sun is shining. More complex systems include those that store excess photovoltaic electricity in batteries for use at night. For example, homeowners can buy photovoltaic yard lights that charge a battery during the day and glow after sundown until the battery runs out. Area lighting, highway construction signage, and roadside emergency phones are other examples. Together, these two types of PV application- small-scale, single-function systems with or without battery storage-comprise about 15 percent of the PV capacity installed annually worldwide. 19 Another primary market for solar cells is providing power to homes that do not have access to electricity in other forms. The economics of these off-grid applications are compelling and are discussed more fully in the following chapters but solar photovoltaics are often a cost-effective solution in the absence of alternative off-grid energy solutions. Unlike gasoline-powered generators, which are the traditional alternative for off-grid power, solar cells require no fuel deliveries, operate silently, and never refuse to start. The system equipment includes the solar modules themselves as well as some form of mounting that can be either stationary or can track the sun on one or two axes to maximize the sun collected. Solar cells also typically require a lead-acid battery storage solution to provide power in hours when the sun is unavailable. A specific form of leadacid battery called a deep-cycle battery usually works best for these applications because they last longer than traditional twelve-volt car batteries. These off-grid solar applications can be found in industrialized countries where there homes and businesses are located outside the range of the existing grid but more commonly are found in the developing world where access to reliable and consistent grid power is not available. Combined, these off-grid applications represent some 18 percent of the total PV installed worldwide on an annual basis.

SOLAR SOLVES ECONOMY, POVERTY TRADE POLLUTION, WARMING, WATER SCARCITY AND OTHER RENEWABLES

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
Bradford - President and Founder of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development- 06 (Travis Bradford, “Solar Revolution: The Economic Transformation of the Global Energy Economy”, 2006)

Through worldwide economic growth, the switch to solar power will improve energy security and balance of trade, deliver massive direct-wealth creation to less developed countries that are solar-rich but infrastructure-poor, and create indirect wealth effects for their trading partners. The transition to solar would also limit pollution and lessen the risks posed by global climate change by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions over today's fossil-fuel based energy sources. In addition, cheaper local energy sources would help accelerate the transition to electric- or hydrogen-powered vehicles. Wide deployment of inexpensive distributed energy would help reduce the cost of drinking water through desalination and provide cheaper water and fertilizer for agriculture. All these changes are crucial to sustaining 9 to 10 billion people on the planet by the middle of the twenty first century. While these social benefits are worth noting, none have been assumed because they are not necessary to the conclusion that a transition to direct solar energy is inevitable. As mentioned earlier, energy consumers-who ultimately drive economics-usually make decisions based on immediate concerns such as cash in versus cash out. To assume that such decisions will be made on altruistic grounds would skew estimates of the times, places, and extent of the impending changes. Many of these noneconomic benefits are discussed in later chapters because they are integral to understanding the evolving energy situation, but they will not alter the inevitable outcome. Awareness of benefits can accelerate or decelerate the transition but only at the margin. The only necessary condition for a transition to solar energy to occur is that those who use or produce energy will act in their own self-interest, a reasonably safe assumption.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

SOLAR GOOD - AVAILABLE
SOLAR POWER POTENTIAL IS ENORMOUS; THE SOUTHWEST US HAS THE BEST SOLAR POWER IN THE WORLD
Leitner -consultant and RDI Consulting with a PhD in superconductor physics- 02 (Arnold Leitner, “Fuel From the Sky: Solar Power’s Potential for Western Energy Supply”, July, 2002, http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS89346)

Hydro, wind, and solar are the important renewable energy resources in the West. Hydro’s generating potential is fully developed and is thus limited to the current generation of 199,400 GWh, or one-fifth of western electric energy needs. Because the source of water in the West is primarily snowpack that melts in the spring, hydro generation exhibits an uneven pattern of generation over the course of a year, being highest in the spring and early summer. To meet one-fifth of western energy requires almost complete use of western hydro potential and comes with significant environmental costs. There may be opportunities for small hydro generation development, but those projects would add only minimal amounts of capacity to western generating capacity. For both solar and wind, RDI Consulting conducted a detailed resource assessment that is described in the sections, “Wind” and “The Solar Energy Potential.” Data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and a geographic information system (GIS) were used to estimate the western wind and solar potential. The GIS analysis discounted 90% to 99% of potentially available wind and solar resources, which already excludes urbanized areas, national parks and other areas not available for wind or solar power plants. We find that wind could provide, ideally, 85% of western energy needs, while solar has the potential to produce twice the amount of electricity consumed in the West in 2001. This surprising result supports the view that solar power may be the preferred renewable energy source in the Southwest, where, based on our analysis, wind resources are much smaller than the solar resources. Western solar resources are potentially the best in the world and are almost exclusively found in the Southwest—with Arizona being the hot spot of solar power. Western solar resources are enormous. According to our analysis, 1,051,466 GWh could be generated by premium solar resources alone and would be commensurate with total western energy demand of 1,092,160 GWh (see Exhibit 24). Premium solar resource areas have the potential of over 480,000 MW of power, yet would occupy only about 0.2 % of western lands.

SOLAR RESOURCES ARE ABUNDANT AND UNDERUTILIZED; PROXIMITY TO METROPOITAN AREAS MAKES SOUTHWEST SOLAR DEVELOPMENT IDEAL
Leitner -consultant and RDI Consulting with a PhD in superconductor physics- 02 (Arnold Leitner, “Fuel From the Sky: Solar Power’s Potential for Western Energy Supply”, July, 2002, http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS89346)

In order to assess the role that solar power can play in western energy supply, it is important to know how much solar resource is available. Why invest time and effort in a renewable energy technology if it can only provide a small fraction of our energy needs? Geothermal power plants are an important source of renewable energy, but the potential exists in only a few places. So, how much solar energy falls on a patch of western land, and is there enough land for large-scale solar generation? The answer to this last question is: Yes. Solar energy is an abundant and underutilized energy source in the West. Solar resources are optimal in the Desert Southwest and—given the geographic and climatic conditions—potentially the best in the world. Not only are there hundreds of square miles that could be used for solar generation, this land is also close to some major western metropolitan areas where large quantities of electricity are consumed. Our analysis shows that western solar energy resources are commensurate with current electricity demand in the West.

SOLAR ENERGY IS PLENTIFUL AND IS FUTURE OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY St. Petersburg Times 6 (Tim Carter, “Solar energy is becoming more practical and affordable,” 7-82006, Homes; pg.8F, http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true &risb=21_T4083146168&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T408314617 3&cisb=22_T4083146172&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=11063&docNo=9)
Would you consider solar energy if you were building a new home? What kind of system? What are the pluses and minuses? The time for solar energy has arrived. It is the belle of the ball when it comes to long-term solutions for many of the energy needs of the typical residential home. There is no doubt in my mind that solar-energy systems will one day be as common as balloons at a child's birthday party. Solar energy makes sense for a number of reasons. Natural resources - oil, coal and natural gas - are being used faster than they can be created by natural geologic processes. Meanwhile, the sun's energy output is constant or nearly so every day. Clouds can block sunlight, and the change of seasons creates a varying amount of available sunlight on any given day. But we can count on the sun. When the sun is shining on south-facing lots, massive amounts of energy can be captured. You might capture more than you need so you can send it back through the power lines to neighboring houses. There have been significant advancements in solarenergy technology. The biggest may be the consistently decreasing costs for photovoltaic cells and panels and other equipment. While solar energy is still expensive, these lower costs translate to faster payback periods. There are different residential active solarenergy systems. One uses photovoltaic panels and cells to transform sunlight into electricity by a natural process common to certain

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
crystals. If extra electricity is produced, it is stored in batteries. If the batteries get fully charged, you can arrange with your local utility company to send the electricity back downstream into the power grid. Another solar-energy system captures radiant heat from the sun. You can use this heat to raise the temperature of air or water in your home. A solar energy water-heating system that uses the sun's radiant heat can be open- or closed-looped. An open-loop system sends the water to the solar heating device. This system works best in areas where temperatures never fall below freezing. An open-loop system could easily freeze up on a cold winter night. Closed-loop systems contain an unfreezable liquid in the piping system. This liquid is heated by the sun, then transfers the heat to the home's water-supply lines via a simple heat exchanger. I intend to use one of these closed-loop systems in a home I am planning to build in New Hampshire. I also intend to install a photovoltaic system to help lower my dependence on the electrical grid. Smart architecture also can help capture solar energy. Passive solar-energy practices allow you to capture the strong solar rays that can heat up interior surfaces in your home during daylight hours. Dark natural stone flooring or other dense materials that can absorb solar heat work very well. As the sun sets, these heat repositories then slowly release the stored energy back into your home. Mother Nature gives freely of her solar energy, so be sure not to waste what comes your way. The biggest negative issues for solar energy are the financial ones. These systems are more costly than conventional heating systems. You need to calculate when you will earn back the extra money a solar energy system will cost. Federal and state governments are helping to reduce the initial financial pain via healthy tax credits. These vary, and they expire at different times. Be careful about trusting the advice of a solar-energy salesperson when it comes to these tax credits. Get information directly from the Internal Revenue Service and your state government. Obtain the facts in writing, and keep the circulars along with all receipts in a file. If you are ever audited, these documents will help you if your deduction is questioned. Some solar-energy systems need periodic maintenance. The solar panels may have to be cleaned regularly to ensure peak performance. The tilt of certain panels may have to be adjusted several times a year to get the maximum benefit from the sun's rays. You also may have to check batteries to ensure you have power when the sun is not shining.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

SOLAR GOOD: A2 INTERMITTENCY
SUNNY DAYS ARE ABUNDANT AND MORE THAN ADEQUATE
Leitner -consultant and RDI Consulting with a PhD in superconductor physics- 02 (Arnold Leitner, “Fuel From the Sky: Solar Power’s Potential for Western Energy Supply”, July, 2002, http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS89346) Radiation levels are affected by both weather conditions and the position of the sun above the horizon. The angle of the sun’s rays relative to the Earth’s surface changes during the day and with the seasons. In the winter, the sun is lower in the sky and less energy reaches the ground. In the summer, the sun is overhead and sunshine is stronger. In the Desert Southwest, toward the fall and winter, cloud cover increases and often shields the sun. For solar power generation using CSP, the annual average amount of solar energy reaching the ground needs to be 6.0 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day (kWh/m2/day) or higher. This is the case in many regions of the West (see “The Solar Energy Potential”). In premium solar resource areas, the average annual solar radiation exceeds 7.0 kWh/m2/day. Using the most efficient solar generating technology (dish Stirling), an area the size of an NBA basketball court located in a premium solar resource would generate 60,740 kWh of electricity a year. To generate the same amount of electric energy, natural gas equivalent to 60 barrels of oil would have to be burned in a combined cycle power plant. Exhibit 20 displays this energy and shows that solar radiation is a concentrated form of power. Current technology can capture large amounts of this energy and convert it to electricity—indefinitely, domestically, and with no pollution or price volatility.

STORAGE SYSTEMS SOLVE FOR INTERMMITENCY
Dartmouth 97 (Dartmouth experimental study, “Theoretical analysis of long-term solar energy storage systems for the low to medium temperature range”, http://www.dieter-ulber.de/solarh.htm)

The sun emits radiation that can be received at a power density of about 1 kW/m2. It can be used for residential heating, hot water or swimming pool heating, for example. The disadvantage of solar energy is its low power density and intermittency. Mostly solar thermal energy for residential heating is needed during the winter months, when the insolation and receiver efficiencies are low. This discrepancy of the availability of solar energy and its demand could be resolved by the design of a seasonal storage system. Usual short-term storage systems include phase-change materials (PCM), e.g. fluoride salts, salt hydrates, paraffin wax, or other fluids with a high latent heat of fusion or high heat capacity, e.g. water, oil. Heat losses make them unusable for storage periods longer than a couple of days depending on the volume to surface ratio of the storage vessel.

POWER CAN BE TRANSFERRED FROM SUNNY AREAS TO CLOUDY AREAS; AT NIGHT SOME OFFSUN GENERATION MAY BE NEEDED
Leitner -consultant and RDI Consulting with a PhD in superconductor physics- 02 (Arnold Leitner, “Fuel From the Sky: Solar Power’s Potential for Western Energy Supply”, July, 2002, http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS89346)

Solar’s intermittence due to weather conditions can be dealt with by dispersing solar power plants across the West. Premium solar resource areas are found in six western states, and excellent and good solar resources areas are found in 11 states. A robust transmission grid would allow the transfer of solar power across the West—transmitting electricity from where the sun shines to where it does not. To a limited degree, the existing transmission grid of the Western Systems Coordinating Council (WSCC) can already perform this function. Research in Denmark on wind, which faces similar weather-related intermittence problems, has shown that a penetration of wind power as high as 10% poses few problems to the reliability of the bulk power supply, even if wind capacity is not backed up by conventional power sources. And the better the wind forecast, the smaller the problem—which is why the Danish system operator is investing in its wind forecasting abilities. For solar power, weather-related intermittence is even less of a problem, because sunshine is easier to forecast than wind. Further, sunshine in top solar resource areas is very consistent. The challenges stemming from the weather-related intermittence of wind and solar resources may often be overstated. While geographic diversity can address weather-related intermittence, the nightly setting of the sun requires some form of off-sun generation. For thermal solar power plants, heat storage or fossil fuel hybridization provides means to produce power even after the sun has set or when clouds move in. In the Desert Southwest, the problem of the daily cycle is further reduced by the fact that during the summer—when power is needed the most—nights are short and only about one-third of the electricity is consumed between dusk and dawn. At the same time, however, demand continues to be relatively high for a few hours into the night, which suggests that off-sun generation, either with fossil fuels or heat energy storage, would be beneficial for solar power plants.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

SOLAR GOOD – LAND USE
SOLAR DISH COLLECTORS UTILIZE LAND BETTER THAN CONVENTIONAL POWER PLANTS
Leitner -consultant and RDI Consulting with a PhD in superconductor physics- 02 (Arnold Leitner, “Fuel From the Sky: Solar Power’s Potential for Western Energy Supply”, July, 2002, http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS89346)

With noontime direct normal radiation levels as high as 1,050 W/m2in many areas of the Desert Southwest, solar radiation can be very strong during midday. Nevertheless, the sun does not shine year round with the same intensity, and, during its path across the sky, the sun’s intensity changes. In addition, weather conditions, such as clouds or haze, can change the level of direct normal solar radiation received by the collectors of a solar power plant. The amount of solar energy that a solar power plant can convert to electricity depends on the technology. For example, dish Stirling systems produce more energy per acre than power tower plants. Here, for the purpose of comparing the land requirements of solar power plants to conventional plants, we used typical performance values of CSP plants. In order to estimate the energy production, we used engineering data and hourly annual solar radiation data from Las Vegas, a premium solar resource area—defined as an area that has radiation levels in excess of 7.0 kWh/m2/day. Not all areas of the Desert Southwest are premium solar resource areas. But, initial development of large-scale solar power plants would likely occur in premium resource areas and, as we will show later, premium solar resources are abundant in the Desert Southwest.

SOLAR DISHES PUT OUT MORE POWER PER ACRE THAN ANY OTHER SOURCE OF ENERGY
American Energy Independence 8 (American Energy Independence, activist group for energy, “America’s Solar Energy Potential”, May 14 2008, http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/solarenergy.html)

All of California's electricity can be produced from 200 square miles of sunshine; 128,000 acres of desert land. Lake Mead, behind Hoover Dam, covers more than 200 square miles. Given an area the size of Lake Mead, for the production of electricity from solar energy, California would be energy independent. CSP plants seem to use a lot of land, but in reality, they use less land than hydroelectric dams for generating an equivalent electricity output, if the size of the lake behind the dam is considered. The same is true for coal plants. A CSP plant will not use any more land than a coal power plant if the amount of land required for mining and excavation of the coal is taken into consideration. If the sunshine radiating on the surface of an area 100 miles wide by 100 miles long would provide all of the electricity that America needs, every day, why would Americans hesitate to use it? There are millions of open acres in the deserts of America, where the sun’s energy does nothing more than heat rocks and sand every day. The U.S. Government wants to open over 9 million acres in Alaska for oil development. The same area of land in the U.S. deserts could yield more energy from solar power than Alaska can produce from oil.

Solar uses less land than coal – can get the same yield from a piece of land year after year.
Lipow in 08 (Gar Lipow, environmental activist and alternative energy technical specialist, “Solar Land Use: Less Than Coal”, 26 May 2008, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/25/124622/152)

Every now and then, one hears complaints about solar energy: "But it takes too much land!" "An entire Idaho!" "Three Californias!" Nevada Solar One takes up about 400 acres, mostly for mirrors and heat engines. You would have to mine about 5,300 acres to feed a coal-fired powered plant producing the same amount of electricity. Even acre for acre, I'll take Solar One's pleasant campus over a coal mine. Math below the fold. The 400-acre Nevada Solar One produces around 134,000,000 kWh per year. About three quarters of this is mirrors and heat engines, the rest support services and access. This pencils out to 7.69 kWh per square foot per year, or slightly less than 154 kWh over the course of 20 years. According to the EIA, one ton of coal produces about 2,000 kWh of electricity. Per acre yields for coal vary a lot, but in Appalachia it appears that mountaintop removal produces about 10,000 tons of coal per acre. So a coal plant produces around 11.5 kWh of electricity per square foot consumed in a single year. And then you need to consume a second square foot the next year. So producing the 154 kWh per square foot that Solar One produces over the course of 20 years would require mining 13.4 square feet. Ignoring everything after the decimal point (this kind of calculation is not that precise, in any case), for coal to produce the same electricity Nevada Solar One will provide over the course of 20 years would require 13 times that 400 acres, or 5,300 acres.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

SOLAR GOOD – HYBRIDIZATION GOOD
FOSSIL FUELS ARE AN ECONOMIC BACKUP TO SOLAR POWER; POWER PLANTS ARE COMPATIBLE WITH BOTH
Leitner -consultant and RDI Consulting with a PhD in superconductor physics- 02 (Arnold Leitner, “Fuel From the Sky: Solar Power’s Potential for Western Energy Supply”, July, 2002, http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS89346)

All thermal solar power plants have the option of hybridization with fossil fuels, because heat is what generates electricity in dish Stirling systems, parabolic trough plants, and power towers. Hybridization is possible for all three technologies. The ease of hybridization for trough and tower plants stems from the fact that the boiler is an entirely separate component, while for dish Stirling systems the hybridization needs to be an integral part of the design—and that has proven to be more difficult to design and implement. Hybridization with fossil fuels allows around-the-clock generation. The supplemental firing can be used at night, during cloud cover, or to even out seasonal variations in sunshine. When running on natural gas, a parabolic trough plant or power tower becomes an ordinary steam plant. The heat rate (efficiency) in this operating mode can, in theory, approach 9,000 Btu/kWh at best, which is 30% less efficient than a modern combined cycle plant. Despite the poor efficiency, operating on natural gas remains a reasonable economic choice for the plant, because it increases the dispatch of the plant, provided the cost of producing power with natural gas is lower than what the plant can earn in the wholesale market. A parabolic trough plant in hybrid mode running on natural gas produces power at higher emissions and at a higher fuel cost than a combined cycle plant, because of its lower efficiency and poorer environmental controls. Despite the higher fuel consumption compared to a combined cycle plant, the levelized cost of hybridization is reasonable because hybridization uses equipment that otherwise would be idle (except for the boiler, which is only built for use in hybridization mode). The reason for considering hybridization for off-sun generation is that it is less capital intensive than heat storage. However, it forgoes the advantages of zero emissions and continues to expose a portion of the plant’s energy production to the price volatility of natural gas.

HYBRIDIZATION IS GOOD FOR EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMICS Huayan New Energy Project 6 (Huayan New Energy Project Co., “Solar Parabolic Trough”, 2006, http://www.hyne.cn/english/trough/trough5.htm)
Hybridization with a fossil fuel offers a number of potential benefits to solar plants including: reduced risk to investors, improved solar-to-electric conversion efficiency, and reduced levelized cost of energy from the plant [14]. Furthermore, it allows the plant to provide firm, dispatchable power. Since fossil fuel is currently cheap, hybridization of a parabolic trough plant is assumed to provide a good opportunity to reduce the average cost of electricity from the plant. Hybridizing parabolic trough plants has been accomplished in a number of ways. All of the existing SEGS plants are hybrid solar/fossil designs that are allowed to take up to 25% of their annual energy input to the plant from fossil fuel. Fossil energy can be used to superheat solar generated steam (SEGS I), fossil energy can be used in a separate fossil-fired boiler to generate steam when insufficient solar energy is available (SEGS II-VII), or fossil energy can be used in an oil heater in parallel with the solar field when insufficient solar energy is available (SEGS VIII-IX). The decision on type of hybridization has been primarily an economic decision. However, it is clear from the SEGS experience that hybridization of the plants has been essential to the operational success of the projects.

THE GRID FUNCTIONS AS A BATTERY FOR BACKUP SUPPLY OF POWER
Bradford 06 (Travis Bradford, President and Founder of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development, “Solar Revolution: The Economic Transformation of the Global Energy Economy”, 2006)

More importantly, many grid-connected homes worldwide (particularly in Japan and Germany) have already elected this option through grid-connected PV systems. Grid-connecting a PV system eliminates the need to store daytime power for nighttime use, overcoming the inherent limitation that solar electricity generates electricity only during daylight hours. Grid-tied solar electricity is generated when the sun is shining, and the excess is stored by sending it back into the utility grid supply. At night, users purchase conventionally generated power from the grid as needed. The grid itself functions as a huge storage battery that is available for backup power and eliminates the need for system owners to install expensive equipment to provide storage and backup electricity services. For both utilities and end users, the economic rationale for making the switch to grid-connected solar electricity will be reached in different markets with different applications at different times.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

SOLAR GOOD – A2: EXPENSIVE
SOLAR POWER CAN BE COST EFFECTIVE WITH LITTLE HELP FROM THE FEDS
Leitner -consultant and RDI Consulting with a PhD in superconductor physics- 02 (Arnold Leitner, “Fuel From the Sky: Solar Power’s Potential for Western Energy Supply”, July, 2002, http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS89346)

It is our view that, in the near term, energy from solar power plants could be marketed into green energy programs, which already exist in many parts of the country and are popular. Individual customers can purchase energy from renewables through a surcharge on their electricity bills. Today, the renewable energy in these programs typically comes from wind. Customers appear willing to pay 2 to 3 cents more for every kWh produced by a renewable, non-polluting energy source. After accounting for the cost of administering these programs, we assumed that solar plants could receive an additional 2 ¢/kWh (20 $/MWh) for their solar-electric energy. We applied this green energy premium over the entire life of the project, which reduces the power cost of all solar technologies by a flat 20 $/MWh, except for the parabolic trough hybrid—where only half the output qualifies as green energy and the cost reduction is thus only half that—10 $/MWh. After applying these incentives, an electric power service provider would view the cost of power for a 100MW dish Stirling as 134 $/MWh and for the lowest cost parabolic trough plant as 78 $/MWh. However, whether such a green energy premium can be obtained for the entire 15 years of the project life is not certain because wind power is becoming so cost effective that it will soon be able to provide cost-competitive green energy without the premium (and possibly without the production tax credit [PTC] as well). This puts solar energy at a disadvantage in a green energy portfolio offering. The development of solar power, it appears, will require a mandated percentage in a green power portfolio or renewable energy standard.

SOLAR POWER WILL BE COST COMPETITIVE BY 2015
Plumb 08 (Tierney Plumb, Writer for the Washington Business Journal, “Solar Power Becoming More Cost Effective”, June 17 2008, http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2008/06/16/daily26.html)

The U.S. could generate 10 percent of its electricity through solar sources by 2025, suggests a new study released by Clean Edge and Co-op America. "As capital and fuel costs have doubled or tripled for coal, natural gas, and nuclear power over the past few years, solar power costs are coming down," said Alisa Gravitz, executive director of D.C.-based Co-op America. "For the first time in history, cost-competitive solar power is now within the planning horizon of every utility in the nation." The study, based on interviews with more than 30 solar, utility, financial, and policy experts, gives a comprehensive roadmap for utilities, solar companies, and regulators to reach 10 percent of electricity from solar sources by 2025 -- a $26 billion to $33 billion-per-year investment. For the first time, solar power is beginning to reach cost parity with conventional energy sources, says the study. As solar prices decline and the capital and fuel costs for coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants rise, the U.S. will reach a crossover point by around 2015. "One of the big takeaways from this report is that, in many ways, the future of solar is in the hands of utilities," said Ron Pernick, co-founder of Clean Edge. "Reaching 10 percent of our electricity from solar sources by 2025 will require the active participation of utilities along with the support and participation of regulators and solar technology companies." Some utilities and solar companies unveiled large-scale solar power projects this year, including Duke Energy's stated goal of investing $100 million in rooftop solar and Pacific Gas & Electric's announcements to invest in thousands of megawatts of concentrating solar power in California's deserts.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

SOLAR GOOD - ECONOMY
DIVERSIVIFYING ENERGY SOURCES HEDGES AGAINST HIGH FUEL COSTS
Leitner -consultant and RDI Consulting with a PhD in superconductor physics- 02 (Arnold Leitner, “Fuel From the Sky: Solar Power’s Potential for Western Energy Supply”, July, 2002, http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS89346)

Today, the western states obtain 68% of their electric energy from fossil fuels. In 2001, this was equal to 741,830 GWh, which is equivalent to 727 million barrels of oil. Of this portion, 24% was natural gas (and some oil) and 44% of this energy was derived from coal. Over two-thirds of western energy depends on the price of two fuels. In this report we have indicated that, in our view, future volatility of natural gas prices may be higher than has been experienced historically due to the increasing competition for natural gas to fuel generating units. If western states want to hedge against fuel price volatility, then a diversification of energy sources is essential. Renewable energies with no fuel cost, such as wind and solar, can play a fundamental role in hedging against volatility. Portfolio theory clearly shows that even higher cost resources such as renewables can result in lower long-run energy costs at the same risk level. An energy policy with a long-term strategy of reducing dependence on fossil fuels should not tie the revenues of renewable electricity to current prices for fossil fuels. Instead, such a policy should provide incentives that will generate sufficient revenues for emerging renewable technologies, to ensure that such technologies can enter the marketplace regardless of the price levels of fossil fuels. If an energy policy does not proactively work to encourage renewable technologies and instead relies on tying renewable revenues to fossil fuel prices, the price signals from fossil fuels will only attract investment in renewable power when it is too late. With low fossil fuel prices, the demand for fossil fuel will increase, which in turn might accelerate the fossil fuel price, in some cases rapidly. The time is then too short to construct renewable technology to use instead of the now expensive fossil fuel. An example is the low natural gas prices of the late 1990s, which attracted hundreds of thousands of megawatts of natural gas-fired generation, which then resulted in increased demand for this commodity, and finally the natural gas price spikes seen in 2001.

SOLAR IS IDEALLY SUITED TO COINCIDE WITH PEAK DEMAND
Bradford - President and Founder of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development- 06 (Travis Bradford, “Solar Revolution: The Economic Transformation of the Global Energy Economy”, 2006)

Though it will be some time before solar electricity is competitive with the centralized utility-scale generators of hydro, coal, and nuclear power that run constantly, solar is already competitive with a large part of the energy generation infrastructure that is used only during high-priced, high demand hours. One of solar power's great attractions for utilities-apart from zero fuel costs and low maintenance requirements-is that consumer electricity demand and the power that utilities must provide throughout a typical day neatly track the daily and seasonal energy cycle from the sun. The times when energy demand is the highest coincides with those when the sun shines more brightly, including part of the electricity demand that is directly tied to the sun's availability, such as summer air conditioning. Utilities call the electricity needed to meet this part-time demand intermediate-load electricity, as opposed to the base-load electricity that is needed twenty-four hours a day. Intermediate-load electricity is relatively expensive to generate because it comes from generators that, by definition, are used only for a portion of the day, making the electricity they generate more expensive as the cost of the generator is spread over less output. By its nature, solar power provides intermediate-load electricity. To be economic for utilities, therefore, solar-power technology needs to become a competitive producer of intermediateload electricity, which represents 30 to 50 percent of total electric demand and is disproportionately supplied today by natural-gas generators.20 Utilities are also beginning to realize that installing intermediate-load solar generators on the consumer side of the grid can offset the cost of upgrading transmission lines and equipment in many instances. But utilities are not the only potential adopters of solar electricity generation. Today, distributed end users (including home and business owners) can elect to generate their own electricity with PV, but they will do so when installing solar generators on their side of the electricity grid, on a home or commercial building, becomes less expensive than buying electricity through the grid. This decision point is not hypothetical. Millions of households worldwide that are not currently connected to any grid (or are connected to an unreliable grid) find PV electricity the most cost-effective electricity solution because it represents the only viable form of modern energy available to them.

USE OF SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES IS BENEFICIAL TO A COMPANY’S IMAGE
Bradford - President and Founder of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development- 06 (Travis Bradford, “Solar Revolution: The Economic Transformation of the Global Energy Economy”, 2006)

Businesses, too, can receive image and marketing benefits that do not show up in direct cost comparisons of energy. Many businesses in Europe and America use their clean-energy programs for corporate promotion or as advertising to attract customers and employees-for example, the green DeutschePost building in Bonn and the BP Beyond Petroleum advertising campaign. Many of these early adopters have been willing to pay a premium for renewable energy because managers at these organizations perceive ancillary benefits from pro-active adoption of clean energy programs, and they factor these noncash benefits into their decision making. Not unlike the shift by cosmetic companies to selling products that were not animal tested, large corporations are beginning to find that environmental awareness is beneficial to their image and may similarly end up as a normative and required cost of doing business. People and organizations that share these values comprise a group of early PV technology adopters that are currently installing PV systems on their locations, including many retail and consumer-product organizations in the United States, such as Whole Foods, Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, and Frito Lay.3 Pressures to increase attention on the environmental effects of corporate practices are also coming from the major banks that provide loans to these corporations. In 2005, three of the world's largest lenders Citigroup,

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
Bank of America, and JP Morgan/Chase-instituted environmental reviews of loans on industrial projects that were designed to determine the effects these projects have in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions and other environmental pollutants.4 These new loan-review policies reflect a growing awareness by lenders that corporate clients that do not adequately consider the potential effects of future environmental legislation and market trends risk a loss of competitiveness and credit worthiness compared to companies that do.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

SOLAR GOOD - POPULAR
SOLAR ENERGY IS POPULAR WITH THE PUBLIC
Leitner -consultant and RDI Consulting with a PhD in superconductor physics- 02 (Arnold Leitner, “Fuel From the Sky: Solar Power’s Potential for Western Energy Supply”, July, 2002, http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS89346)

When people are asked to name a renewable energy source they usually reply “solar” or “wind.” Yet the information citizens have about these energy sources is often marginal. Solar power is usually identified with PV cells, and the use of solar power for large-scale power production is considered a utopian dream. Virtually unknown is the fact that thermal solar power plants can produce large amounts of reliable power today. Our research suggests that western policy makers are likely to find their citizens ready to embrace energy from solar power. Green energy programs, which sell power generated from renewable energies at a premium to customers, have been successful and in some areas up to 5% of consumers have switched to “green” energy.5Most of these programs are running short on green capacity and thus have had to cut back on their marketing. With better education of the public about the sources of power and the choices they have in today’s deregulating energy markets, and with larger-scale deployment of renewables, the penetration of green energy programs is likely to be even higher. Until recently, consumers paid little attention to the source of electricity. But the California energy crisis changed the public’s understanding of the issue dramatically. If one good thing can be gleaned from the crisis, it is that Americans now know that power does not originate in the outlet but is produced by power plants. Difficult choices have to be made as to the future sources of electric power. A recent poll conducted by eight utilities in Texas showed that 49% of retail customers prefer to obtain their power from renewable energy sources. Only 14% prefer fossil fuel—assuming the cost for conventional power and power from renewables is the same—and many customers indicated they would be willing to pay a premium for green energy. It is likely that citizens will become even more involved in issues surrounding power generation. We anticipate a cultural transformation in America’s approach to energy issues, similar to what has already occurred in Europe. American society could demand renewable energy not just as a special product in a utility’s energy offering, but as an important part of a comprehensive power supply strategy. Chances are that solar power would be a popular, if not the preferred, choice of renewable energy by the citizens of the Southwest.

SOLAR TECHNOLOGY IS RAPIDLY INCREASING POPULARITY
Ransford -Writer for Popular Science - 8 (Matt Ransford, “Of Circles and Solar Cells”, April 16 2008, http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-04/circles-and-solar-cells)

Hardly a week goes by these days without a new solar panel technology development in the news. You would think the country was plastered in solar sheets with all the work currently being done. Let's hope the stories soon turn to how we're going to make this all affordable enough to support widespread installations. In the meantime, today's innovation. If you've been following our recent series of articles on solar cells, you've likely noticed the focus falls roughly into two categories: how to make the panels thinner, lighter and more flexible; and how to make the cells more efficient.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

SOLAR GOOD - ZERO EMISSIONS
THERE ARE NO EMISSIONS FROM SOLAR POWER
Leitner -consultant and RDI Consulting with a PhD in superconductor physics- 02 (Arnold Leitner, “Fuel From the Sky: Solar Power’s Potential for Western Energy Supply”, July, 2002, http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS89346)

Solar power plants, at least the ones that do not use hybridization with fossil fuel for off-sun generation during cloud cover or at night, produce no air emissions. Zero-emission solar generation after dark or during cloudy days can be achieved with heat storage. Solar power plants emit no pollutants such as NOx, which causes ozone. The “ozone season” spans May to September, a period when sunlight and heat convert NOxand volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into ground-level ozone, which is harmful to humans and animals. It is for that reason that generation from fossil fuels in California is limited during this time period. At the same time, output from solar plants peaks. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers SO2to be a precursor of haze, and haze compliance start dates are likely to be coordinated with those for PM 2.5—small pollutant emissions from fossil fuel power plants, mainly coal plants. SO2 is also the primary source of acid rain. Coal combustion also releases mercury, a toxic heavy metal. Energy from pure solar power produces no emissions, can improve local air quality, and can help western states meet the goals of the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP)7to reduce haze in our national parks and restore the acclaimed vistas of the West. In addition, solar technologies without fossil fuel hybridization produce no CO2and thus do not contribute to global climate change.

AND NO IMPACT EMISSIONS ARE THE ROOT CAUSE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Lougheed and Hermann - Owners of Boyd Solar Corporation - 08 (Sean Lougheed and Erhard Hermann, “A Proposal for Microgeneration in Alberta’s Energy Mix”, June 24 2008, http://www.erhardselectric.com/Boydproposalposted.htm)

Solar No impact: No sound, no emissions, no integration issues, safe, no recycling issues. Electrical code already covers integration issues. Do we even need development permits for solar? Or other legislation for approval? No, not if a higher legislation outlines the limits to solar installation. For example: any solar installation within the dimensions of a present roof, and no higher than say 1 foot above the peak would need no approval. This is rational since nobody’s view is changed and the footprint of the building is staying the same, within the legal limits set out under local regulation. Since solar does not add considerable weight, present building structure is also satisfactory. All other concerns are presently covered by code.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

SOLAR GOOD – COMPETITIVENESS
AN INCREASE IN RENEWABLE ENERGY WOULD MEND RELATIONS WITH OTHER NATIONS The Denver Post 04 (“U.S. Failing on Climate Policy”, October 6 2004, http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1006-27.htm)
By signing the Kyoto treaty, Russian President Vladimir Putin put the global warming pact into effect and placed the United States in a diplomatic pickle. U.S. refusal to support the treaty stirred blistering criticism from abroad. However, President Bush correctly calculated that - unlike the Russia Duma, which is certain to support Putin's decision to ratify the pact - the U.S. Senate simply will not ratify the Kyoto treaty as written. But international dismay with Bush on the global-warming issue doesn't just center on the Kyoto treaty; it's really about Bush's decision not to take up the issue in any other way. The United States has failed to take any of several steps to slow the rate at which it emits carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Most scientists now believe that by burning fossil fuels, humans add to global warming - much of the scientific debate today centers on how much humans influence the pace of climate change. Global warming thus is linked to fuel efficiency and use of renewable energy. Although Americans account for only 5 percent of the world's population, we generate about 25 percent of the world's annual greenhouse gas emissions. That's earned the United States the label of the world's worst polluter (although the moniker ignores strides our nation has made on other environmental issues). Still, in 2002, the United States spewed more than 5.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, about a third more than the 3.8 million metric tons emitted by 28 industrialized Western European nations combined. Russia, the former USSR and several former Eastern bloc countries (all of which have old and heavily polluting factories and power plants) together emitted about 3 million metric tons in 2002, according to U.S. Department of Energy figures. Yet U.S. law on automobile fuel efficiency, called Corporate Average Fuel Economy, remains stuck at the 27.5 miles per gallon set in 1986. If the United States stiffened the requirement to 40 mpg, the nation would reduce its carbon emissions by about 400 metric tons annually, according to the National Environmental Trust. Bush also chose not to support the Climate Stewardship Act, sponsored by U.S. Sens. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat. The plan calls for the United States to cut greenhouse gas emissions back to 2000 levels by 2010. The plan failed 55-43 earlier this year, but McCain has been pushing for a second vote. The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere also can be reduced by creating "carbon sinks." The most effective systems are large swaths of native forests. Yet administration policy is to clear-cut our country's largest temperate rainforest, the Tongass in Alaska, a decision that makes no sense from forest-management or global-warming perspectives. It's Bush's overall inaction on global warming, not just his opposition to the Kyoto treaty, that's earned the United States so much international criticism.

SOLAR MARKETS REPRESENT A NEW WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY FOR U.S. COMPETITIVENESS
Bradford - President and Founder of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development- 06 (Travis Bradford, “Solar Revolution: The Economic Transformation of the Global Energy Economy”, 2006)

The rapidly maturing solar-power industry needs to transform the discussion from one based on environmental doomsday scenarios (which most pro-renewable-energy arguments center on) to one focused on the wealth that can be generated by accelerating the shift to solar energy. Greed trumps fear, which early movers in Germany and Japan are already learning as billions of dollars of global wealth are created through stock market initial public offerings (IPOs) in 2005 alone.24 The United States, in particular, has a small window of opportunity to become a world leader in these technologies and to reap the resulting rewards, but inaction in this decade may relegate the United States to follower status in the new paradigm. In the process of replacing an economy founded on fossil fuels with one founded on a renewable, sustainable energy, the world does not have the time or money to try every possible alternative. The disciplines of research necessitate a broad and open mind, but deployment requires a focus on determining and pursuing the best course of action. Facing limited time and money, we must assess where evolving economics will ultimately arrive and focus available efforts on accelerating and therefore benefiting from that inevitable change. Good public policies, research money, and professional talent should be directed to the dispersal of practical, profitable solutions whenever and wherever they are available. This book analyzes the solar-energy industry and identifies where the opportunities lay as tectonic shifts in energy economics began to affect the landscape now and for decades to come. This analysis clarifies the most likely avenues for early solar adoption along with the accompanying obstacles. By examining the components of the nascent solar economy- including what drives the solar market-individuals, businesses, and governments can commit resources where they will be most effective and profitable.

THE SOLAR ERA WILL BE USHERED IN BY A NEW SILICON REVOLUTION; THIS ONE WILL BE EVEN MORE PROSPEROUS THAN THE LAST
Bradford - President and Founder of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development- 06 (Travis Bradford, “Solar Revolution: The Economic Transformation of the Global Energy Economy”, 2006)

The driving lesson of this book is to think of solar energy as an industry and economic reality rather than as a philosophical goal, encouraging a new generation of professionals to be involved. Under current reasonable scenarios, the solar industry is expected to grow by 20 to 30 percent each year for the next forty years, which alone should be incentive to attract the world's best and brightest to the challenge.2s To become fully functional, though, the solar industry needs to develop all he usual institutional underpinnings, including installer networks, training, standardizations, certifications, and relationships with bankers, financiers, and trade groups. Experience in other industries shows that the faster these institutional underpinnings are put in place, the more quickly an industry can develop. The coming shift toward solar energy mirrors other recent technological shifts that nearly everyone has experienced.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
Beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, the shift from centralized mainframe computing to distributed microcomputing created dramatic economic benefits to the end user and ushered in the personal computer, the Internet, and broadband information. More recently, similar transformations have occurred in telecommunications as land-line-based networks are supplemented by (or in the case of developing countries, are passed over in favor of) mobile telephony that does not require expensive land-based grid networks to deliver servIces. In comparison, at present the dominant technology for making solar cells involves the manufacture of silicon chips that are nearly identical to the computer chips used in the semiconductor and telecommunications industry. The properties of silicon semiconductors, which so greatly altered the world in a few decades by powering the information technology and communication revolution, is set to do the same in the energy sector. The silicon revolution changed industries radically and quickly in the 1980s and 1990s because the new way of doing things was a better way of doing things. Increasingly inexpensive, fast, capacious, and secure information-handling tools were put directly into users' hands. These tools were hard to invent but easy to use: they packed the results of decades of arcane research in basic science into tools that anybody could plug in, turn on, and operate. The world today stands on the edge of a new silicon revolution that will provide cleaner, safer, more affordable energy directly to users through the mass production of sophisticated devices that require little sophistication to use. The independence conferred by solar energy is one of the intangible, unquantifiable reasons that this revolution is inevitable. Given a choice between otherwise equal options, most people would prefer to be in control of the resources on which their lives and livelihoods depend. Like the first silicon revolution, the next one will see industries transformed and massive wealth created. Solar millionaires and billionaires will emerge, and markets may even experience a bubble or two of speculative excitement. However, in the end-undoubtedly within our lifetime- we will arrive at a world that is safer, cleaner, and wealthier for industrialized economies and developing ones and in which solar energy will playa dominant role in meeting our collective energy needs.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

SOLAR GOOD – WATER CONSERVATION
SOLAR USES 99 % LESS WATER THAN CONVENTIONAL POWER PLANTS
Leitner -consultant and RDI Consulting with a PhD in superconductor physics- 02 (Arnold Leitner, “Fuel From the Sky: Solar Power’s Potential for Western Energy Supply”, July, 2002, http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS89346)

Because of the high operating temperature and high efficiency of the Stirling motor, air cooling can be used with little compromise on overall solar-to-electric conversion efficiency. The only water requirements for PV and dish Stirling are for occasional washing of mirrors and glass surfaces. This accounts for less than five gallons of water per megawatt-hour of power produced. This total water consumption is one-100th of the water requirements of conventional power plants and makes PV and dish Stirling true water misers. This is especially important in the Desert Southwest where water resources are scarce. Only wind power requires less water per megawatt-hour for the occasional turbine blade wash.

Even the most efficient coal plants use enough water to supply 9,000 households.
The Associated Press in 07 (“Critics claim coal fired power plant’s water use is excessive”, July 30 2007, The Associated Press, http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096415474)

The Navajo Nation has been working for decades to settle a dispute over rights to San Juan River water, but environmentalists say they're concerned the tribe could use the water rights under a settlement pending in Congress to feed a proposed coal-fired power plant on the reservation. ''This water should be for the Navajo people, not a massive energy project,'' Dailan Long, a member of Dine' Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, said July 20. ''... If the [Navajo] Nation is planning on handing the people's water over to the energy industry, we need to know now.'' Dine' CARE and other environmental groups have been working to stop the $3 billion Desert Rock Energy Project from being built on tribal land in northwestern New Mexico. The plant, a joint venture between Houstonbased Sithe Global Power and the tribe's Dine' Power Authority, would be the third coal-fired plant in San Juan County. Navajo officials have said the project will mean new jobs and millions of dollars in revenue for the tribe. A spokesman for Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr. said both Desert Rock and the water rights settlement are ''critical'' to the future of the tribe but that they are separate issues. ''It's not responsible to suggest that water people need to drink is going to go to Desert Rock,'' said George Hardeen, Shirley's spokesman. With as many as half of the people living on the Navajo reservation without running water and the nearby city of Gallup worried it will run out of water, New Mexico's two U.S. senators have been pushing legislation that would put the settlement in place. The agreement, which could cost the federal government $1 billion over 15 to 20 years, calls for a pipeline to serve the Navajos and other communities in western New Mexico. It also would create a water rights settlement fund in the federal treasury to pay for it and future Indian water agreements. Shirley told Navajo delegates this week that many Navajos who haul water would be affected by the settlement. ''Although construction of the project will not eliminate all water hauling on our land, this project will deliver water to tens of thousands of people who don't have it now,'' he said. Mike Eisenfeld of the San Juan Citizens Alliance, another group that opposes Desert Rock, said he's concerned because the legislation pending before Congress doesn't prohibit the tribe from using San Juan water for the plant. The San Juan Citizens Alliance and Dine' CARE filed a request with the BIA under the Freedom of Information Act for documents related to Desert Rock's proposed water use. They are seeking lease agreements between the tribe and developers as well as information on alternative sources of water for the plant. ''We call on Congress to put this legislation on hold at least until the BIA releases the agreements being approved between the Navajo Nation and Desert Rock,'' Eisenfeld said. ''We need to get to the bottom of this.'' Desert Rock developers argue that the information on water availability would have been included in the BIA's draft environmental impact statement had opponents not blocked drill crews from the proposed site in December of 2006. Frank Maisano, a spokesman for Sithe Global Power, said crews have since drilled one test well and are working on a second one, and the results are what company officials had expected. ''I can't say it any more clear. We're confident we've got the water that we need,'' Maisano said. Desert Rock was designed as a dry-cooled plant, which Maisano said trims water use over traditional plants by 85 percent. Most of that would go toward pollution controls, he said. Desert Rock would use about 4,500 acre-feet of water each year, he said. An acrefoot, about 326,000 gallons, can meet the annual water needs of one to two U.S. households.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

SOLAR GOOD – RAPID TRANSITION
CONSTRUCTION TIME FOR A PLANT IS LESS THAN 12 MONTHS – IT BYPASSES MOST PAPERWORK AND PRODUCTION COMMENSES IMMEDIETLY
Leitner -consultant and RDI Consulting with a PhD in superconductor physics- 02 (Arnold Leitner, “Fuel From the Sky: Solar Power’s Potential for Western Energy Supply”, July, 2002, http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS89346)

Solar power plants can be built quickly and can thus follow demand growth more closely than most conventional power projects. Capacity can be built within one to two years—start to finish. This is primarily because solar plants have short development and construction times. The long lead times of many types of conventional power projects, especially those of coal and nuclear plants, combined with their large size, which is dictated by economies of scale, causes significant lumpiness in supply additions. During such a long lead time, market fundamentals that originally justified the investment may have changed substantially, putting the economic viability of the project into question. Therefore, fast permitting and construction times are key competitive factors for any power generator. Pure solar power plants, such as dish Stirling systems, PV, and power towers and parabolic trough plants without fossil fuel hybridization, do not have to apply for air permits. This lengthy permitting process can take up considerable time in the development of a fossil fuel plant. Further, because dish Stirling systems and PV by design do not require cooling water, another regulatory hurdle can be bypassed. Another advantage of PV, dish Stirling, and power tower plants is the fact that very little or no toxic or combustible chemicals are part of the plant design. This eliminates most local permitting issues related to fire hazards or surface water run-off containment requirements under the Clean Water Act. Also, dish systems or PV have a lower visual impact than wind power plants, which stand as tall as 300 feet. The size of the wind turbines also requires a detailed geological study to guarantee the stability of the turbine foundation. For dishes, which are also mounted on a pedestal, such studies are simpler because of the much smaller size of the structure and because dishes avoid instead of seek wind loads, which wind turbines encounter by virtue of their location and operation. And finally, because the ideal locations for solar power plants are desert areas, acquiring these lands, obtaining zoning, and performing environmental impact studies will typically be a more rapid process than with urban and suburban areas targeted by conventional plants. Nevertheless, because of fire hazards, the land on which the collectors of a parabolic trough plant are located needs to be kept clear of vegetation at all times; this may cause problems under the Endangered Species Act or state wildlife protection laws. The small footprints of PV and the pedestal of dish Stirling cause a small impact on the land. Because of the aforementioned reasons, solar power plants should have one of the shortest permitting and development times of any power technology. Overall project lead time is further improved by the short construction time of solar plants. However, differences exist among the technologies in terms of manufacture and construction, as the example of parabolic trough and dish Stirling shows: The power island of a parabolic trough plant is essentially a steam plant, which is connected to the solar field through a heat exchanger, where the heat transfer fluid of the collectors produces the steam for the turbine. Thus, the construction period of a parabolic trough plant is comparable to that of a simple steam plant, which is estimated to be 12 months for a 100-MW power island. The solar field can be built concurrently and, because of the modular nature of the collectors, as quickly as desired. Dish Stirling systems are entirely prefabricated and, once the foundation is set, can be erected and electrically interconnected in less than four hours, assuming that the necessary transmission interconnection has been completed. Since the units are self-contained, a dish can, in principle, produce power immediately. Initially installed units can thus offset some of the interest during construction with energy sales. While hybridization with fossil fuels is possible, in the near term, dish Stirling systems will likely not use hybridization. For this reason, no fuel lines need to be constructed to the dishes, which further simplifies construction. Dish Stirling power plants can be built within weeks. An entire 100-MW dish Stirling solar plant comprising 4,000 units can be assembled in a few months. The current power plant construction boom in the U.S., with over 48,000 MW of new power plants built in 2001 and 57,000 MW expected in 2002, has all but exhausted engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractor capacity in North America. It is for this reason that the developers of new parabolic trough plants will face difficulties finding an EPC contractor in the near term. In addition, RDI Consulting’s research shows that in 2001 almost every large power project was delayed by months. Large-scale dish Stirling power plants do not require an experienced EPC contractor; thus no delays or difficulties in the construction of these solar plants are expected. Such fast construction times reduce the cost of financing and provide better matching of supply to demand growth.

THE INEVITABLE TRANSITION TO SOLAR WILL OCCUR RAPIDLY
Bradford - President and Founder of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development- 06 (Travis Bradford, “Solar Revolution: The Economic Transformation of the Global Energy Economy”, 2006)

Generally, though, this book shows that the transition to solar energy and electricity technology will happen much faster than most people imagine, faster even than most experts commonly predict. This transition will occur not because well meaning governments force solar panels on reluctant markets to capture environmental benefits (although such efforts would help to accelerate the rate of global PV adoption) but rather because solar power will increasingly be the cheapest way to do what people want to do anyway-light spaces, manufacture goods, cook, travel, compute, and watch TV. Even with solar power's current low market penetration and consequent lack of economies of scale, it is rapidly crossing over into cost effectiveness in certain major markets. As its world market share in the energy mix climbs from less than 1 percent of new annual electricity generating capacity and less than .05 percent of total electricity generated to hundreds of times its current level over the next half century, it will progress along its experience curve to become significantly less expensive. Solar installation will occur increasingly at the time of construction for sites and buildings, which reduces the cost of installing these systems from today's primarily retro-fit installations through the efficient use of installation labor and the offset roofing and glass that PV systems replace. In addition, with so much of the cost of PV electricity in the up-front cost of the systems, improvements in financing (including wrapping PV systems into the standard mortgages of home and office buildings) will dramatically improve PV economics from today's levels. In the end, the real cost of capital to finance distributed PV systems in this way will be far cheaper than that available to utilities or any other centralized generator.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP
SOLAR TECHNOLOGY HAS THE UTILITY TO MAKE INSTALLATION AND USE EASY
Bradford - President and Founder of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development- 06 (Travis Bradford, “Solar Revolution: The Economic Transformation of the Global Energy Economy”, 2006)

Solar electricity provides other economic advantages beyond cost effectiveness that are important but often difficult to quantify. Two of the most important are modularity and simplicity. Thanks to modularity, solar-cell installations can be precisely sized to any given application simply by installing only as many panels as are needed. Large solar installations can be brought on-line in stages, panel by panel, unlike large conventional power plants that generate no electricity during the many years they take to build.22 Solar panels can be serviced piecemeal, too, while the remaining panels in the array continue to make electricity uninterrupted. Solar power's physical simplicity means low training costs for users, while solar's lack of moving parts translates into high reliability and low maintenance. Long module life, on average thirty years or more, also adds to the inherent cost advantage of solar cells. As the economic playing field levels, market choices in electricity will increasingly be driven by these types of inherent advantages.

UMICH 08 7 WK JNRS.- CHKP

SOLAR GOOD - INEVITABLE
A TRANSITION TO SOLAR ENERGY IS INEVITABLE
Bradford - President and Founder of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development- 06 (Travis Bradford, “Solar Revolution: The Economic Transformation of the Global Energy Economy”, 2006)

For reasons that this book explores in full, solar energy will inevitably become the most economic solution for most energy applications and the only viable energy option for many throughout the world. Currently, sunlight is the only renewable-energy source that is ubiquitous enough to serve as the foundation of a global energy economy in all of the locations where energy will be required, from the industrialized world to the developing one. The evolving economics of energy reveals that electricity from solar sources has certain projected cost advantages compared to other forms of generating electricity that ensure its major role in meeting the world's energy challenge. Looking at the gap between the amount of direct solar energy being harnessed today and the amount of energy that will be required to meet increasing energy demand and replace dwindling fossil-fuel sources over the next fifty years hints at the likelihood for unprecedented growth in the solar-energy industry. Obviously, the world will never be powered entirely by direct solar sources. Energy will always be supplied by a portfolio of technologies, including those traditionally harnessed from fossil fuels. Increasingly and dramatically over the next few decades, however, consumers will turn directly to the sun for their energy. This will happen not because solar power is clean and green but because basic economic and political reasons compel us to make this choice. At the point that the out-of-pocket real cash cost of solar electricity drops below the costs of current conventional energy alternatives (a situation already occurring in the Japanese residential electricity market), the adoption speed of solar energy will rival nearly every technological leap in history, even the rapid and transformative adoption of computers, information technology, and telecommunications in the late twentieth century. Eventually, solar energy will become a major portion of the electricity infrastructure (both the utility grid and local distributed generation) and contribute substantially to energy used in the transportation infrastructure.

GERMANY AND JAPAN HAVE ALREADY INSTITUTED A WIDESPREAD TRANSITION TO SOLAR AND IT’S WORKING
Bradford - President and Founder of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development- 06 (Travis Bradford, “Solar Revolution: The Economic Transformation of the Global Energy Economy”, 2006)

Over the last ten years and underneath the radar within the broader conventional and renewable-energy industry, solar energy has emerged to make a third attempt at mass commercialization. This time, the opportunity is due almost exclusively to the efforts and programs of the national governments of Japan and Germany, which have led the way in promoting these industries. Although these two countries do not have a naturally high amount of sunlight, their lack of alternative fuel sources has created a dependence on expensive external sources of energy and therefore motivated them to develop less expensive, local, and renewable- energy alternatives. Japan's sunshine program and Germany's 100,000 solar roofs program, which have used various types of subsidies to stimulate robust domestic solar-energy industries, now account for 69 percent of the world market for PV. 16 In these markets and geographies, the current renaissance of interest in solar energy is finding its opportunity, and the cost reductions these markets have experienced have stimulated surprisingly powerful momentum and growth in the last decade. With the global PV market growing from 85 MW in 1995 to over 1.1 GW in 2005 (a 29 percent annual growth rate), the cost of producing PV systems has dropped from $11 per watt to as low as $5 per watt over the same period and continues to fall by 5 to 6 percent per annum.

OPPONENTS OF SOLAR ENERGY ARE WRONG – INCORRECT HISTORICAL ANALYSIS
Bradford - President and Founder of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development- 06 (Travis Bradford, “Solar Revolution: The Economic Transformation of the Global Energy Economy”, 2006) Many people in government, economics, and ecology might initially find this claim difficult to accept. Conventional thought is dominated by the view that solar energy is still a long way from being cost-effective or efficient and will be doomed for decades to play catch-up with cheaper alternatives such as wind, nuclear, and biomass energies. But these assumptions rely on the traditional framework of energy cost analysis and embedded assumptions about the future that are derived by extrapolating historical trends incorrectly. Such analyses are examined in detail later in this book and shown to be incorrect and incomplete. Understanding the nature of this transformation toward dramatically increased use of solar energy requires clear definitions of the terms of the discussion.

Renewables Good/Bad Michigan

SOLAR GOOD – A2: FOOD PRICES TURN
FOOD PRICES ARE GOING TO INCREASE ANYWAY – 8 REASONS
Strain in 08 (Jeffrey Strain, professional cost analyst, “Eight Reasons Food Prices Will Keep Rising”, July 7 2008, http://www.mainstreet.com/eight-reasons-food-prices-will-keep-rising?puc=msgoogle&cm_ven=MSGoogle)

Be prepared -- food is going to become more expensive, even if oil prices stabilize. Agriculture tends to be heavily dependent on energy for fueling tractors and field equipment, as well as having a heavy reliance on petroleum-based fertilizers and herbicides. But what most people don't realize is that even if oil prices level off, food prices are likely to continue to rise. Here are some reasons food prices will continue to increase.

Bees
The number of bees has been dramatically declining over the last few years. In 2006, Colony Collapse Disorder wiped out 30% to 90% of beekeeper hives. The losses continued last year through this year with over 30% of hives being destroyed in both 2007 and 2008. The exact cause of Colony Collapse Disorder is not known. Since roughly 75% of flowering plants rely on pollination to help them reproduce, bees are an important link in the chain that produces much of the food that we eat. Without bees to pollinate crops, the crops can't bear fruit, causing crop yields to drop. The end result is higher prices in the supermarket for these foods.

Hoarding
A growing number of countries have sharply curbed food exports in order to ensure an adequate supply of food at affordable prices for their country. While this trend is a much bigger problem for poor countries that rely heavily on imported food than the U.S., it also puts pressure on world food prices including those foods being imported to the U.S. To make matters worse, the hoarding creates the perception of food shortages, which can lead to more hoarding and further increases food prices.

World Demand for Food
There is a growing demand for food around the world with the emergence of a middle class in such places as China, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. With more disposable income, these people demand more and a greater variety of food. These middle classes will likely continue to increase, placing more pressure on world food prices.

The Lowly Dollar
The dollar has fallen against other world currencies over the past year. When the dollar goes down in value against other currencies, any dollar-denominated commodity tends to go up in price. Part of the huge increase in oil prices can be attributed to the fall of the value of the dollar against other currencies. In the same way, most major food commodities are traded in dollars, which makes foreign-produced food more expensive.

Hidden Price Increases
Normally, food manufacturers would be hard-pressed to increase food prices further if they had already raised prices with their increased costs from oil. There is always fear among food manufacturers when they must raise prices that doing so will cause a decline in the amount they can sell. One way around this that manufacturers have been using is that instead of raising the price marked on the product, they simply place less into the package. Many people don't notice the change so they don't lose as much in sales. Having done this, food manufacturers still have room to raise the actual prices where they would have been much more reluctant to do so if they had previously raised prices the same way.

Weather
Recent flooding in the Midwest and Corn Belt has prevented farmers from planting soybeans and damaged the corn crop, which had recently been planted. Analysts have estimated that there may be a shortfall of 15% or more in grain produced this year compared to last year due to the flooding. The bad weather hasn't been limited to the U.S. Poor weather has reduced overall global food production from Canada, the European Union and Eastern Europe over the last couple of years. A drought has resulted in a major Australian wheat decline. This has tightened world food stocks, which has contributed to rising food prices.

Speculation
Speculation's role in increased food prices is hotly debated, but it appears that investors have taken an interest in food prices and are playing a larger role in the commodity markets. As food supplies tighten, there is a good chance that speculators will increase in the hope of making a quick buck, further increasing food prices.

Ethanol Production
With the rise of oil prices, U.S. ethanol production has greatly increased. It's expected that over 30% of the U.S. corn crop will go toward ethanol production this year. With such a large portion of the corn crop going to ethanol production, there will be increased competition for the food in other uses, such as feed for cattle and dairy cows, manufactured foods like cereals and foods sweetened with corn syrup. All indications are that food will get more expensive and you should be preparing for these coming increases. While cutting food prices isn't necessarily difficult, it does take practice and time to learn to take advantage of the money saving tricks out there. It's time to adopt grocery money-saving strategies, stock up your pantry, use coupons and watch out for the ways stores trick you into spending more than you planned.

-132-

Renewables Good/Bad Michigan

SOLAR GOOD – A2: FOOD PRICES TURN
A DECREASE IN CHINA’S GRAIN PRODUCTION DOESN’T HURT ITS FOOD SUPPLY.
Xinhua News Agency in 03 (Xinhua News Agency, “Abundant Food Supply Despite Falling Grain Production”, September 24 2003, http://www.china.org.cn/english/2003/Sep/75886.htm)

China has managed to maintain adequate food supplies despite a downturn in grain production over years, research by the State Food and Nutrition Consultative Commission (SFNCC) shows. China's self-supporting level of food supply, measured by the proportion of general food production to consumption, was close to the world average, said Lu Liangshu, SFNCC president. The research shows most food categories in China, including fruit, meat and aquatic products, but excluding dairy produce, had outpaced domestic demand and were produced for export. Though lower than the general level of the developed nations, China's average food grain and meat production per capita ranked above most of the developing countries, reveals the research. Lu said China was gradually increasing grain reserves, which was regarded as an efficient way to supplement the falling rice production which lagged behind demand. Ministry of Agriculture figures show the growth of grain consumption exceeded that of production in the three years from 2000 to 2002. Last year's grain production went up marginally over the previous year, but was still behind consumption. Output was almost certain to drop again this year, as a growing number of farmers had switched to more cash crops such as fruits and fresh vegetables, said a ministry spokesman. The gap between grain output and consumption averaged 2.5 million to 3.5 million tons annually from 2000-2002, with demand projected to grow by one percent to 489 million tons this year, available statistics from the State Council Development Research Center (SCDRC) show. But experts acknowledged that less cultivated land acreage and harvests over the past three years did not mean that China's food security was threatened. China has historically kept large food grain stockpiles. The dual grain reserves of both the government and individual farmers helped ensure the food security. "Thanks to huge grain stocks, China's overall supplies still outstrip domestic demand," said Han Jun, a senior expert with the SCDRC. Nevertheless, Lu cited, among other factors, distribution problem, inferior quality of grain reserves for years, aging warehouses and other outdated storage facilities as potential threats. With a noticeable number of needy farmers in outlying, mountainous areas in China's midwestern regions, food shortage among low-income families and individuals should be taken seriously in a bid to maintain food security of the entire country, Lu said.

-133-

Renewables Good/Bad Michigan

SOLAR BAD – SILICON SHORTAGE
Silicon shortages are delaying solar power programs International Herald Tribune 8 (Eva kuehnen,“Solar deals are delayed by a shortage in silicon,” Reuters, 6-6-2008, http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/05/business/invest06.php)
ZURICH: Record high oil prices offer a golden opportunity for the solar industry, but analysts say long-awaited takeovers could be delayed before an expected jump in silicon supply that will affect prices and valuations. Growth in the industry has been capped by a shortage in solar-grade silicon, which the industry expects to ease next year as suppliers lift production. Semiconductor makers like Samsung Electronics and engineering companies like General Electric and Siemens are among those seen as possible investors in the sector as renewable energy becomes unavoidable. Silicon-based technology for solar is not a huge leap for chip makers, and the sector's stellar growth prospects make it especially attractive as demand in other chip sectors slows. Applied Materials, the world's top supplier of chip-making equipment, now supplies the solar industry, while Qimonda, a memory-chip unit of Infineon, has teamed up with Centrosolar to build a solar cell plant. "What you will see in the years ahead is that semiconductor companies will do a lot of takeovers, at least in the field of process technologies," said Thiemo Lang, senior portfolio manager at Sustainable Asset Management in Zurich. Prospects about the potential for takeovers were raised this week as the auto parts maker Robert Bosch surprised the market with an offer for ersol Solar Energy, a German solar company. The ersol deal is a vote of confidence in the future of the industry, said Michael McNamara, an analyst at Jefferies Bank. "I don't think anyone had Bosch as their first port of call," he said, "but clearly there are more companies yet to come that could invest in solar." Bosch's offer, €1.08 billion, or about $1.67 billion, is over 21 times Ersol's projected 2009 earnings per share, according to Reuters Estimates, and produced a rally in sector shares. Bosch's bid was a 63 percent premium to Ersol's closing price last Friday. "This may be one of many indications that competition in the sector is growing," said Robert Schramm, an analyst with Commerzbank. "We don't see a huge wave of consolidation setting in now." With solar-growth expectations lifting company valuations, some analysts say one barrier to mergers is the view that it is cheaper to set up your own production facilities than buy into others. "I think it's too early," said Didier Laurens, an analyst at Société Générale. "If you look at the valuation, it's a bit expensive. It is cheaper to set up your own business." The global photovoltaic market grew by 41 percent in 2007 and is expected to grow 62 percent this year, according to the European Photovoltaic Association. Yet this growth has produced problems of its own, with a shortage in solar-grade silicon prompting a shift toward thin-film technology, which uses little silicon or none at all. That shortage is now expected to ease next year, lifting production volumes but increasing pressure on prices while making it difficult to see how companies will adapt. Further strain comes as Germany, the world's largest photovoltaic market, prepares to adopt a new renewable energy law that could cut support by 8 percent in each of the next two years and by 9 percent in 2011. The industry had feared deeper cuts, but doubts remain over how the sector will cope with the new standards. "Valuations in the sector are too high against the background of potential risks," said Peter Wirtz, an analyst at WestLB. "The long-term story is right, but not for all players." Yet low barriers to entry and high profit margins have attracted new participants, increasingly from China, as high oil prices bring increased demand for green energy and government support programs spread worldwide. "Like in any other capital goods business, size will matter," said Laurnes, the Société Générale analyst. Smaller companies like the solar-module makers Solon, Phoenix Solar and Aleo Solar are seen as attractive targets. Q-Cells, which is based in Germany and is the world's largest maker of solar cells, and the Norwegian solar group Renewable Energy, trade at about 20 times or more 2009 earnings per share. The smaller companies look inexpensive by comparison, with Aleo Solar trading at 10, Solon at about 11, and Phoenix Solar at 16.

-134-

Renewables Good/Bad Michigan

SOLAR BAD - INTERMITTENCY
SOLAR ENERGY IS INEFFICIENT; THERE’S NO WAY TO STORE THE POWER
Weekend Australian 7 (Keith Orchison, “Sticky point of clean energy is storage,” 6-16-2007, REVIEW; Resources; Pg. 18) IN the ongoing debate about the role renewable electricity can play in combating global warming, energy storage is the gamechanger. At present the curse word for wind and solar power systems is ''intermittency''. Calm days and variable wind patterns blight the market expansion of wind farms, as do night and dull days for solar arrays, not least because of the strains that unpredictable supply places on high-voltage transmission networks. If the power gathered when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining can be ''bottled'' in a commercially viable way, the role of wind farms and solar arrays takes on a whole new importance in an increasingly carbon-constrained energy supply environment. Because the chief expense of these renewable systems is the initial capital cost, with low marginal costs of actually generating power, access to storage can make a substantial change to their market contribution.

-135-

Renewables Good/Bad Michigan
SOLAR ENERGY HAS YET TO OVERCOME INTERMITTENCY; THERE IS NO WAY TO STORE AND TRANSPORT POWER
Weekend Australian 8 (Keith Orchison, “Wind beating solar in race of renewables,” 4-26-2008, Clean Energy – Special Report, Review, Pg. 4)

STORING SUN'S ENERGY TWO major issues associated with solar energy are storage and transport. Intermittency remains the fundamental road block for the wider uptake of both solar and wind power -- and Australia's CSIRO is in the international forefront of research to resolve both problems. In one project, the CSIRO is developing technology to combine solar energy with natural gas. This will create a product containing 25 per cent solar energy which can be stored and transported. In another, the CSIRO is developing small-scale solar thermal systems suitable for contributing to the heating, cooling and electricity loads of buildings such as shopping centres. The government research agency is also developing a battery-based storage solution for solar and wind power. When connected to solar photovoltaic systems, the battery will enable the energy generated to be consumed when needed. * THE magic number for the solar industry is 1366. This is the average number of watts per square metre of solar energy reaching the Earth every hour. It is, solar advocates say, enough to satisfy energy demands of all humanity for a year.

SOLAR BAD - A2: SOLAR INEVITABLE
SOLAR ENERGY IS NOT INEVITIBLE; WIND POWER WILL SURPASS IT IN THE RACE FOR CLEAN ENERGY Weekend Australian 8 (Keith Orchison, “Wind beating solar in race of renewables,” 4-26-2008, Clean Energy – Special Report, Review, Pg. 4)

-136-

Renewables Good/Bad Michigan
Wind is winning the race for the best-value renewable energy source, writes Keith Orchison REWIND to the oil crisis years of the 1970s, and the talk in energy research circles was about the potential of wind and solar power. Fast-forward to 2008, with oil sitting at $100 per barrel, and the wind industry has more than 75,000 megawatts of installed capacity, with the prospect of doubling its participation in the next 25 years -- while the solar sector is still the wistful wannabe of the global power business with just 3000 MW of installed capacity. For all the talk of future prospects -- with the current solar spin claiming it could be delivering 10 per cent of world electricity consumption by the middle of the century -- the harsh reality for the sector is that it is still a tortoise battling its way through the research and demonstration phase while wind farmers have hared off to claim multi-billion rewards in an ever-growing number of countries. In Australia, with a new federal government committed to introducing both emissions trading and a greatly enlarged mandatory renewable energy target, solar still cannot look forward to a major surge in its standing. Research undertaken for the petroleum industry by consultants CRA International predicts that the wind sector will continue to be the big winner here in the race for a green power market share. CRA modelling suggests the twin incentives will drive five times more benefits for the the wind sector in the national power market than for solar energy -- predicting that wind farms will be delivering almost 44,000GWh a year in 2020 versus just over 8000GWh for solar power. Solar is also in danger of being run over by hot rock geothermal energy in the race for Australian power sales -- the geothermal industry believes that it can deliver about a tenth of national electricity needs, or some 36,000GWh a year, by 2030 from the Cooper Basin and other heat mining sites. The reason that solar power has not made more substantial inroads into the energy market around the world is that it is more expensive than just about every other way of producing electricity. In the US, for example, recent studies show that solar photovoltaic power costs consumers at least 25 cents per kilowatt hour versus under 19 cents for mainstream supplies from coal-fired and nuclear power stations. Rooftop solar panels cost about $US2.50 per watt -- a figure that needs to drop to about $US1 per watt to be really commercially viable. The buzzword for renewable energy advocates is ``grid parity'' -- becoming price competitive with conventional fossil fuels. The Australian geothermal power industry sees national emissions trading from 2010 at $20 to $40 per tonne of carbon dioxide as providing it with the means of challenging fossil fuel suppliers of baseload power. The wind sector will need both trading and the MRET subsidy to make it viable. The solar sector needs all this and more -- it also wants electricity retailers to be forced to pay a subsidy for excess energy that buildings with rooftop solar arrays can sell into the power grid. At the same time it continues to need substantial research and development support from the taxpayer. Under a scheme introduced by the Howard Government, the solar business is being supported by a $75 million ``Solar Cities'' program while its single biggest Australian venture -- a power plant to be developed at Mildura at a cost of $420 million -- is receiving almost $80 million from the federal Government and $50 million from the Victorian Government. The Rudd Government has also promised to spend $489 million on installing solar panels on the roofs of Australian schools. Internationally, governments in Germany, Italy, Spain and South Korea allow solar power producers higher wholesale prices -subsidised by customers -- while in the biggest government effort of all, China has been using solar cells to help drive its electrification of small towns and villages in the sunlight-rich western regions. The Chinese ``Brightness Program'' aims to deliver electricity to 23 million people currently without power by 2010. China's photovoltaic manufacturing capacity was tripled in 2006 and doubled again last year. However, with an installed capacity estimated at 80 megawatts -- compared with the national total of 713,000MW, 14 times bigger than Australian generation capacity -- China's solar industry remains minuscule. Despite its lowly global status, the solar industry sees a bright future in the medium and long term, driven by the willingness of governments around the world to embrace renewable energy, high and still rising conventional energy prices and continued progress in cutting solar manufacturing costs and improving power performance. One of the world's largest investor-owned power companies, the Virginiabased AES Corporation, which has 43,000 MW of generation capacity in 28 countries, announced last month that it was setting up a $US1 billion joint venture for solar power development in Europe and Asia. Paul Hanrahan, chief executive of AES, which sources a fifth of its power production already from wind, hydro-electricity and biomass, says the project with American private equity firm Riverstone Holdings will build solar plants ranging in size from two to 50 megawatts to feed energy into high voltage networks. It is, he adds, part of a $US10 billion investment by the company over 5-10 years in renewable energy. Investments like this demonstrate that solar power has come a long way since the world was gripped by energy fears in the 1970s -- but the sector needs to look to the horizon to see how far its strongest green competitor, wind energy, has raced in the same time frame.

-137-

Renewables Good/Bad Michigan

SOLAR BAD - EXPENSIVE
SOLAR ENERGY IS TOO EXPENSIVE; IT WON’T BE ABLE TO COMPETE WITH OTHER ENERGY SOURCES WSJ 6-30 (Yuliya Chernova, “Shedding Light on Solar,” 6-30-2008, Page R6, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121432258309100153.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The idea of solar power sounds so simple. And it seems like it should be cheap compared to other sources of energy. After all, the sun is there, and it's free. But despite federal and some state government subsidies that have helped push up demand, solar power still accounts for less than 1% of power generation in the U.S. That's because even with subsidies, solar power remains expensive compared with energy based on traditional fuels like coal and natural gas. Why is solar power so expensive? And what's being done to bring down the costs? Here are some answers for the befuddled. Q: Let's start with the basics: How much will it cost to put a solar panel on my home? A: The average cost of a rooftop solar system, also known as a photovoltaic, or PV, system, is roughly $8.25 per watt installed, based on companies' listed selling prices and conversations with industry executives and analysts. What does that mean in English? Well, depending on the size of the system, the price before government subsidies and reimbursements might range anywhere from $8,250 for a one-kilowatt system to more than $40,000 for a five-kilowatt one. The amount of electricity the system produces also varies, depending on factors such as the placement of the panels on the roof and the consistency of the sun in the region where the home is located. In sunny California, a four-kilowatt residential solar system -- a typical size for many homes -would produce about 5,500 to 6,500 kilowatt-hours of electricity annually, more than 80% of the electricity needs of the average ratepayer there, according to utility PG&E Corp., the utility serving the San Francisco Bay area. In New Jersey, where the sun is less consistent, it would take a larger, 5.1-kilowatt system to produce as much electricity. Q: Where does all that money go? A: The solar panel itself usually constitutes less than half of the total price of installing a residential system. Distributors, installers and manufacturers of components needed to attach the panel to the roof and to connect it to the electricity grid account for the rest. This may be more than you want to know, but the $8.25-per-watt cost breaks down roughly as follows: $1.50 for polysilicon, 75 cents to create wafers from the polysilicon, 75 cents to create solar cells from wafers and another 75 cents to complete the solar panel. Installation costs consist of 50 cents for inverters that convert the current of the solar modules to the alternating current used by the home's appliances, 75 cents for racks, wires and other installation equipment, $1.25 for labor and $2 for installers' overhead. Q: If computer chips keep getting cheaper, why are solar chips so expensive? A: Computer chips are getting exponentially smaller in size, and, therefore, require less material to produce the same output. Solar panels, however, must capture the sun's irradiation with their surface, so they can't be reduced to microscopic proportions. "You can either make [the solar panel] thinner, or make it capture light better, but you can't be endlessly shrinking the circuitry," says Rob Stone, managing director and senior research analyst at Cowen & Co. There are higher-efficiency panels on the market designed to extract more power from the same surface area. Some of the most efficient panels in production, from Sunnyvale, Calif.-based SunPower Corp., can yield about 220 watts of power from one square meter when 1,000 watts of sunlight is shone on it, up from 140 watts to 150 watts for the average panel five years ago. Still, the rate of improvement in efficiency is nowhere near that found in the chip industry, and prices for solar panels haven't declined in the past five years because most manufacturers are paying multiple times more for raw materials than they were in 2002. The vast majority of solar
modules are made of polysilicon, a material processed out of sand in big chemical plants. Ever since Germany implemented large incentives for solar installations in 2003, the demand for polysilicon has outstripped supply, allowing manufacturers to charge anywhere from $70 per kilogram for polysilicon under long-term contracts to more than $400 per kilogram on the spot market, even though it costs them only about $40 per kilogram to make. Industry watchers expect the supply of polysilicon to improve dramatically over the next two years because new companies are entering the market and established players are expanding production. That should result in a dramatic decline in the price of solar cells and modules, they say. A much cheaper alternative already exists: solar panels made of various nonsilicon semiconductor materials that are typically spread on a sheet of glass or stainless steel. These so-called thin-film panels are easier to make, so it doesn't cost as much to produce them. First Solar Inc. of Phoenix makes thin-film solar panels for about $1.14 per watt, which is about two times less than the average cost of making a polysilicon panel. The problem with thin film is that it captures less of the sun's energy per square meter than polysilicon, so it takes a larger panel to generate the same amount of energy. As a result, thin-film panels usually are too large to fit on residential rooftops and are used more often in power-plant applications. Q: Will manufacturing get any cheaper? A: To create solar panels, manufacturers typically cast polysilicon into large slabs, then slice those into thin, wafer-like disks, then add semiconductor junctions, coating and grid wires. These cells are then wired together into a panel encased in a weather-tight package. Module makers are trying to reduce the amount of polysilicon they use by cutting thinner wafers, decreasing the amount of powder that results from wafer sawing, and by mixing in recycled polysilicon. Several companies have reduced the amount of polysilicon in wafers to between six and eight grams per watt, compared with the industry average of about 12 grams only a couple of years ago. Some companies also are experimenting with wafers made from less expensive raw materials such as metallurgical-grade polysilicon. Q: What about installation? A: As the efficiency of solar panels increases, installation costs should fall, because the amount of surface area needed to generate the same amount of power shrinks. Companies are working on other improvements, too. Some are reducing the number of parts needed to mount rooftop panels. A new panel designed by Akeena Solar[MFA] Inc., of Los Gatos, Calif., can be installed with 70% fewer components than a traditional panel. Although installation is faster and less labor intensive, Akeena charges a 5% premium for the Andalay panels because demand for them is high and the panels, which have fewer seams, are more attractive. Inverter prices, meanwhile, are hovering at about 50 cents per watt, but some companies are incorporating components that previously required separate purchase

and installation. Q: I understand there are subsidies available. How much are they? A: Homeowners can get a one-time federal tax credit of as much as $2,000 on an installation, but that is scheduled to expire this year. A proposed extension, now under deliberation in the Congress, would extend the credit's cap to as much as $4,000 and open it up to individuals who make enough money to qualify for the alternative minimum tax. Some states, such as California, New York and Connecticut, have their own subsidies. California, for example, offers a subsidy for residential solar of as much as $2.50 per installed watt, depending on a system's expected performance. Some states, however, have no incentives for solar power. Q: Do I have to pay the full price at the time of installation? A: No. Loans are available, and some banks and other lenders have special programs designed for solar-energy systems. Several installers in California, for example, have formed partnerships with financial firms such as Morgan Stanley and Sun Run Generation LLC to offer homeowners leasing deals. Homeowners make an up-front payment that is significantly less than the cost of installing a solar system and then buy the power they use without ever purchasing the solar equipment itself. Customers lock in a fixed electricity price -- 13.5 cents per kilowatt-hour in the case of Sun Run and its installer partners in California, which is about three cents cheaper than PG&E's average rate. Sun Run, however, says its average customer pays about 24 cents per kilowatt-hour for grid-supplied electricity. Solar users typically have larger homes than average utility customers and pay higher rates in California because of higher usage. Q: When will we see a significant drop in solar costs? A: Many module makers predict their selling prices will decline 10% to 20% next year, mostly because of the rush of new polysilicon supply that is expected to be produced. "We're in the process of a dramatic readjustment of system prices in the next couple of years," said Julie Blunden, vice president of public policy at SunPower. David Chen, head of clean technology investment banking at Morgan Stanley in California, predicts the industry will reach grid parity -- the point at which the cost of solar energy is competitive with conventional grid-supplied electricity without subsidies -- by 2012,

-138-

Renewables Good/Bad Michigan
"which will open up the floodgates for vendors that can price competitively." While panel prices may fall in the next year or two, consumers won't necessarily benefit by putting off a switch to solar, some in the industry argue. They say a substantial portion of what a consumer pays for a system today is reduced by government subsidies, and those subsidies are designed to decline as the cost of solar power approaches grid parity. Nat Kreamer, president of Sun Run, says that for homeowners interested in leasing deals, the sooner they get solar panels installed, the sooner they can lock in the price of power. The price that Sun Run and others charge for electricity in two years may be much higher than it is today, he says. Q: After all this, how much money can I expect to save on my electric bill, and how long will it take to recoup my investment? A: The rate of payback depends on where the homeowner lives and how the installation was financed. Tax credits and solar incentives vary by state, as do utility rates, so residents living in a place like California, where solar rebates are hefty and utility rates are high, may get a quicker payback than homeowners living in other parts of the country. In addition, solar systems in regions with consistent sunshine will produce more power, thus cut a homeowner's electricity bill more quickly. In some states, if a system produces more electricity than is required by the household, homeowners can use the surplus as a credit toward the cost of power purchased on cloudy days or at night, a process known as net metering. In California, a state with hefty rebates, the average payback time for a residential PV system purchased by a homeowner is seven to 10 years, according to the California Energy Commission. It could be twice as long in states without local incentives or consistently sunny weather.

SOLAR BAD - EXPENSIVE
SOLAR ENERGY IS COSTLY AND INEFFICIENT Moran 8 director, deregulation, at the Institute of Public Affairs (Alan Moran, “Why a solar system still lacks power,” The Age 5-14, 2008, BUSINESS; Pg. 14)
The fractured push towards solar power is costly and mostly driven by politics, writes Alan Moran IN THE range of energy supply systems designed to reduce greenhouse gases, the most expensive is photovoltaic cells, or solar panels. Engineering firm SKM has estimated that rooftop solar power is eight to 12 times more costly than regular electricity. The panels also cost three to five times more than the inefficient wind turbines that, on the back of subsidies, are increasingly dotting the landscape. The Howard government provided grants for half the cost of the installation of rooftop solar panels, up to $8000 a house. Like some other state governments, the Victorian Government also requires electricity retailers to buy back surplus energy from the panels at 60¢ per kilowatt-hour. While ostensibly 60¢ is "only" fourfold, the true electricity price is virtually zero. The cost of this buyback is hidden in consumers' bills. So we have a capital grant to promote an uncompetitive source of energy compounded by an additional hidden subsidy from other consumers. Yet the promoters of these panels want more. They want the subsidy paid for the electricity generated from rooftops also to be paid when it is used in the house itself. That is like promoting commuting to work by horseback, having the government pay half the horse's purchase price and requiring other commuters to pick up four-fifths of its upkeep. At least the Brumby Government, in what it claimed was compassion towards "working families", rejected these even more extreme claims for handouts by the industry and environmental zealots. As well as allegedly doing its bit to save the world, according to the photovoltaic (PV) cell supporters, a subsidy will father a new industry. Sustained employment growth based on such subsidies never works in Australia. Solar power cells are part of a galaxy of Victorian Government electricity-focused regulations that will add costs to consumers. New-home buyers, already obliged to install more insulation than they need, are to be slugged with additional requirements. And Victoria has its own energy efficiency target starting in January that will force energy retailers to incur new costs in buying energy from high-cost sources and pass them on in customer bills. All this is despite greenhouse policy being unambiguously within the federal, not state, government sphere. The previous excuse the Victorian Government gave for state meddling was that the Liberals in Canberra had refused to implement an appropriate national emission reduction program. The Rudd ascendancy has made no difference. There is a persistence of fragmented state government policies being introduced. Not only do these lack a Gordon Ramsay finesse in mixing ingredients but they are a superfluous tier on the heralded federal emission trading scheme. Nevertheless, the people of Victoria may be fortunate in having an ALP rather than a Liberal government taking decisions on this issue. Judging by the statements of the Opposition's spokesman, David Davis, the Liberals would add even greater consumer burdens to help the solar industry. Sadly, Victoria has seen the politics of pandering to pressure groups replacing judgements made in the interests of the wider public.

-139-

Renewables Good/Bad Michigan

SOLAR BAD - EXPENSIVE
SOLAR ENERGY IS COSTLY AND INEFFICIENT Moran 8 director, deregulation, at the Institute of Public Affairs (Alan Moran, “Why a solar system still lacks power,” The Age 5-14, 2008, BUSINESS; Pg. 14)
The fractured push towards solar power is costly and mostly driven by politics, writes Alan Moran IN THE range of energy supply systems designed to reduce greenhouse gases, the most expensive is photovoltaic cells, or solar panels. Engineering firm SKM has estimated that rooftop solar power is eight to 12 times more costly than regular electricity. The panels also cost three to five times more than the inefficient wind turbines that, on the back of subsidies, are increasingly dotting the landscape. The Howard government provided grants for half the cost of the installation of rooftop solar panels, up to $8000 a house. Like some other state governments, the Victorian Government also requires electricity retailers to buy back surplus energy from the panels at 60¢ per kilowatt-hour. While ostensibly 60¢ is "only" fourfold, the true electricity price is virtually zero. The cost of this buyback is hidden in consumers' bills. So we have a capital grant to promote an uncompetitive source of energy compounded by an additional hidden subsidy from other consumers. Yet the promoters of these panels want more. They want the subsidy paid for the electricity generated from rooftops also to be paid when it is used in the house itself. That is like promoting commuting to work by horseback, having the government pay half the horse's purchase price and requiring other commuters to pick up four-fifths of its upkeep. At least the Brumby Government, in what it claimed was compassion towards "working families", rejected these even more extreme claims for handouts by the industry and environmental zealots. As well as allegedly doing its bit to save the world, according to the photovoltaic (PV) cell supporters, a subsidy will father a new industry. Sustained employment growth based on such subsidies never works in Australia. Solar power cells are part of a galaxy of Victorian Government electricity-focused regulations that will add costs to consumers. New-home buyers, already obliged to install more insulation than they need, are to be slugged with additional requirements. And Victoria has its own energy efficiency target starting in January that will force energy retailers to incur new costs in buying energy from high-cost sources and pass them on in customer bills. All this is despite greenhouse policy being unambiguously within the federal, not state, government sphere. The previous excuse the Victorian Government gave for state meddling was that the Liberals in Canberra had refused to implement an appropriate national emission reduction program. The Rudd ascendancy has made no difference. There is a persistence of fragmented state government policies being introduced. Not only do these lack a Gordon Ramsay finesse in mixing ingredients but they are a superfluous tier on the heralded federal emission trading scheme. Nevertheless, the people of Victoria may be fortunate in having an ALP rather than a Liberal government taking decisions on this issue. Judging by the statements of the Opposition's spokesman, David Davis, the Liberals would add even greater consumer burdens to help the solar industry. Sadly, Victoria has seen the politics of pandering to pressure groups replacing judgements made in the interests of the wider public.

SOLAR ENERGY IS EXPENSIVE BECAUSE THE LACK OF TECHNOLOGY AND THE GOVERNMENT WON’T FUND IT Christian Science Monitor 8 (“The real price of solar power,” 6-26-2008, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0626/p08s01-comv.html)
An old Soviet joke serves as a reminder of the potential distorting hand of government in solving problems like energy: One Russian says to another, "Did you hear the whole world is now communist except New Zealand?" The other asks, "Why not New Zealand?" The answer: "We need some place to determine prices." Just this week, Barack Obama promised $150 billion for renewable energy. John McCain suggested a $330 million prize for a breakthrough in battery technology. These are examples of good government intentions to "create demand" for new energy sources by throwing money and regulations at research and markets. But at some point such carrots and sticks also risk creating price distortions that cloud judgments about the real value of intended solutions. For decades, it was assumed nuclear energy would be an inexpensive energy source. But in the 1970s, a physicist named Amory Lovins ran the numbers on how much taxpayers subsidize the industry – and would pay for the life-cycle burden of nuclear – setting the industry back on its heels. For oil and coal, too, the real cost of federal support for these industries is still being tallied – not only in tax breaks but in adjustments to global warming and the expensive process of weaning people off these polluting and now-expensive fuels. An essential part of the energy-policy debate must include the danger of nurturing new sources but then warping the invisible hand of the market's corrective forces as an industry grows. A good example is solar power, which is still a niche and heavily subsidized piece of the energy pie. In recent weeks, news of fickle government support for this clean energy source has rocked the industry. In the US, Congress has failed to renew solar tax credits that expire at the end of the year. In Germany, which commands nearly half of the world's solar-power installations because of heavy subsidies, the government reduced its support in May after much political debate. In Spain, another big solar player, high subsidies are also in doubt. Solar's market promise is being held hostage to volatility in governments hit by budget crises and competing interests. This has only made it difficult to know the long-term price of solar. In Germany, electricity consumers must pay much more in order to support the industry's growth. When they balk at the cost, government reacts and sends the industry into a temporary tailspin. In the US, Congress is stuck on whether solar tax credits should now replace credits for oil drilling. Unsubsidized, solar energy still can't compete in most energy markets. The pay-back period is too long. Reports of more efficient solar panels are helping reduce costs but about half of the expense for solar is still borne by taxpayers. Some advocates want Congress to commit to $420 billion in solar subsidies – nearly the same cost to build the Interstate Highway System. This might allow solar to reach price parity with other major energy sources within a decade. But the recent lessons of fickle subsidies for solar, combined with modern regrets over past subsidies of nuclear, oil, and coal, suggest that governments should not let their support for new energy get too far ahead of market prices.

SWITCHING TO SOLAR POWER WILL MAKE ELECTRICITY MORE COSTLY AND HURT CONSUMERS Hobart Mercury (Australia) 6 (Clinton Porteous, Rocketing power costs Warning on clean sources, 1227-2006, Pg.4)
HOUSEHOLDERS should prepare themselves for electricity price hikes of up to 40 per cent as Australia switches to clean, green energy sources, federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane has warned. In a grim alert, Mr Macfarlane said it was inevitable there would be ''big jumps'' in power bills but said most people were unaware of the looming increases. ''I don't think the consumers fully

-140-

Renewables Good/Bad Michigan
understand the price tag associated with lower greenhouse gas emissions,'' he said. ''There is no doubt that if we are going to lower greenhouse gas emissions, then electricity is going to cost significantly more. For consumers it will be anywhere between 20 and 40 per cent.'' Mr Macfarlane said the price rise would occur over the next decade as the nation moved to cleaner -- but more expensive -energy sources such as clean coal technology. His estimate of a jump of up to 40 per cent in power bills is at the high end of industry expectations. Last month nuclear expert Ziggy Switkowski said the increase in power bills would probably ''not be noticeable'' for consumers. But Mr Macfarlane said the cost of electricity production from coal-fired stations would almost double from $35 a megawatt hour to more than $60 as gas emissions were cut. Coal is the main source of Australian electricity and delivers 90 per cent of Queensland's power. Labor's climate change spokesman, Peter Garrett, yesterday accused the Government of failing to take action on global warming and said it was impossible to make predictions about energy prices. ''In the absence of any targets, timelines and any certainty in greenhouse gas reductions, the Government effectively leaves the issue of prices up in the air,'' Mr Garrett said. Prime Minister John Howard has refused to ratify the Kyoto agreement which sets targets for cutting emissions but earlier this month set up a taskforce to examine a global emissions trading system. Mr Macfarlane rejected the accusation that the Government had failed to act and said that more than three years ago it had begun pursuing technology-based solutions. He said it was time for a detailed debate about the impact of cutting emissions and was highly critical of those who promoted wind and solar power as a potential solution to Australia's energy needs. He said that solar power was four to five times more expensive than electricity from coal and that wind power was twice as expensive -- even though it was heavily subsidised. ''While the energy source is free, converting that to electricity is expensive,'' he said of wind and solar power. The Government believes nuclear energy could be a future source of clean energy but Labor has ruled it out as too dangerous.

-141-

Renewables Good/Bad Michigan

SOLAR BAD - UNPOPULAR
SOLAR ENERGY HAS NO SUPPORT FROM THE GOVERNMENT NYT 7 (Andrew C. Revkin and Matthew L. Wald, “Solar Power Captures Imagination, Not Money,” 7-162007, The Energy Challenge, pg. 1, http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true &risb=21_T4083493760&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=126&resultsUrlKey=29_T4083493 771&cisb=22_T4083493770&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=6742&docNo=130)
The trade association for the nuclear power industry recently asked 1,000 Americans what energy source they thought would be used most for generating electricity in 15 years. The top choice? Not nuclear plants, or coal or natural gas. The winner was the sun, cited by 27 percent of those polled. It is no wonder solar power has captured the public imagination. Panels that convert sunlight to electricity are winning supporters around the world -- from Europe, where gleaming arrays cloak skyscrapers and farmers' fields, to Wall Street, where stock offerings for panel makers have had a great ride, to California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's ''Million Solar Roofs'' initiative is promoted as building a homegrown industry and fighting global warming. But for all the enthusiasm about harvesting sunlight, some of the most ardent experts and investors say that moving this energy source from niche to mainstream -last year it provided less than 0.01 percent of the country's electricity supply -- is unlikely without significant technological breakthroughs. And given the current scale of research in private and government laboratories, that is not expected to happen anytime soon. Even a quarter century from now, says the Energy Department official in charge of renewable energy, solar power might account for, at best, 2 or 3 percent of the grid electricity in the United States. In the meantime, coal-burning power plants, the main source of smokestack emissions linked to global warming, are being built around the world at a rate of more than one a week. Propelled by government incentives in Germany and Japan, as well as a growing number of American states, sales of solar panels made of silicon that convert sunlight directly into electricity, known as photovoltaic cells, have taken off, lowering manufacturing costs and leading to product refinements. But Vinod Khosla, a prominent Silicon Valley entrepreneur who focuses on energy, said the market-driven improvements were not happening fast enough to put solar technology beyond much more than a boutique investment. ''Most of the environmental stuff out there now is toys compared to the scale we need to really solve the planet's problems,'' Mr. Khosla said. Scientists long ago calculated that an hour's worth of the sunlight bathing the planet held far more energy than humans worldwide could use in a year, and the first practical devices for converting light to electricity were designed more than half a century ago. Yet research on solar power and methods for storing intermittent energy has long received less spending, both in the United States and in other industrialized countries, than energy options with more political support. Indeed, there are few major programs looking for ways to drastically reduce the cost of converting sunlight to energy and -- of equal if not more importance -- of efficiently storing it for when the sun is not shining. Scientists are hoping to expand the range of sunlight's wavelengths that can be absorbed, and to cut the amount of energy the cells lose to heat. One goal is to make materials to force photons to ricochet around inside the silicon to give up more of their energy. For decades, conventional nuclear power and nuclear fusion received dominant shares of government energy-research money. While venture capitalists often support the commercialization of new technologies, basic research money comes almost entirely from the federal government. These days, a growing amount of government money is headed to the farm-state favorite, biofuels, and to research on burning coal while capturing the resulting carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping smokestack gas. In the current fiscal year, the Energy Department plans to spend $159 million on solar research and development. It will spend nearly double, $303 million, on nuclear energy research and development, and nearly triple, $427 million, on coal, as well as $167 million on other fossil fuel research and development. Raymond L. Orbach, the under secretary of energy for science, said the administration's challenge was to spread a finite pot of money to all the technologies that will help supply energy without adding to global warming. ''No one source of energy that we know of is going to solve it,'' Dr. Orbach said. ''This is about a portfolio.'' In the battle for money from Washington, solar lobbyists say they are outgunned by their counterparts representing coal, corn and the atom. ''Coal and nuclear count their lobbying budgets in the tens of millions,'' said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. ''We count ours in the tens of thousands.'' Government spending on energy research has long been shaped by political constituencies. Nuclear power, for example, has enjoyed consistent support from the Senate Energy Committee no matter which party is in power -- in large part because Senators Jeff Bingaman and Pete V. Domenici, the Democratic chairman and the ranking Republican, are both from New Mexico, home to Los Alamos National Laboratory and a branch of the Sandia National Laboratories. Biofuels, mostly ethanol and biodiesel, have attracted lawmakers who support farm subsidies. Last year an impromptu coalition established a goal of producing 25 percent of the country's energy, including vehicle fuel, from renewable sources by 2025. Legislation to that effect attracted 34 senators and 69 representatives as co-sponsors; the resolutions are pending in both houses. Most of the measure's supporters are from agricultural areas. For the moment, the strongest government support for solar power is coming from the states, not Washington. But there, too, the focus remains on stimulating markets, not laboratory research. The federal government is proposing more spending on solar research now, but not enough to set off a large, sustained energy quest, many experts say. ''This is not an arena where private energy companies are likely to make the breakthrough,'' said Nathan S. Lewis, head of a solar-research laboratory at the California Institute of Technology. Many environmental organizations are pushing for tax credits for people who buy solar equipment, which helps manufacturing but not research. Still, some experts say government-financed research efforts often go awry. And several government officials defended the current effort, saying an outsize investment in solar research is not needed because the industry is already in high gear. Bush administration officials say they are committed to making power from photovoltaic technology as well as ''solar thermal'' systems competitive with other sources by 2015. Alexander Karsner, the lead Energy Department official for renewable energy technology and efficiency, said the expanded use of photovoltaic cells could have its greatest impact by substantially reducing the energy thirst of new buildings. To be sure, there are some promising signs in solar energy. Big arrays of mirrors that concentrate sunlight to run turbines, which first emerged in the early 1980s, are resurgent in sun-baked places like the

-142-

Renewables Good/Bad Michigan
American Southwest, Spain and Australia. Some developers say this solar thermal technology is competitive now with power generated by natural gas when demand, and prices, hit periodic peaks. With more research, the solar thermal method might allow for storing energy. Currently, all solar power is hampered by a lack of storage capability. ''The scale on which things actually have to happen on energy is not fully either appreciated or transmitted to the public,'' said Dr. Lewis of Caltech. ''You have to find a really cheap way to capture that light, for the price of carpet or paint, and also convert it efficiently into something humans can use for energy.'' After more than two decades in which research on converting solar power to electricity largely lapsed, the Bush administration and lawmakers in Congress are now discussing more money for the field. Dr. Orbach said the Energy Department's proposed research plan for 2008 to 2012 includes $1.1 billion for solar advances, more than the $896 million going toward fusion. But many scientists, perhaps seasoned by past energy cycles, doubt that the new burst of interest is sufficient to lure the best young minds in chemistry and physics. After encouraging 346 research groups last year to seek grants for surmounting hurdles to harnessing solar power, the Energy Department this year ended up awarding $22.7 million over three years to 27 projects -- hardly the stuff of an energy revolution, several scientists said. ''There is plenty of intellectual firepower in the U.S.,'' said Prashant V. Kamat, an expert in the chemistry of solar cells at the University of Notre Dame, who has some Energy Department financing. ''But there is limited encouragement to take up the challenge.''

SOLAR BAD – LONG TIMEFRAME
SOLAR POWER HARMS WILDLIFE; THE US IS PUTTING A HOLD ON SOLAR POWER UNTIL RESEARCH HAS BEEN COMPLETED Commondreams.org 8 (Catharine Ellsworth, “US Halts Solar Energy Projects Over Environment Fears,” 628-2008, http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/28/9949/)
LOS ANGELES - The US government is putting a hold on new solar energy projects on public land for two years so it can study the environmental impact of sun-driven plants. The Bureau of Land Management says the moratorium on solar proposals is needed to determine how a new generation of large-scale projects could affect plants and wildlife on the land it manages. The move has angered some solar energy proponents who argue it could hold up the industry at a vital juncture, given the pressing need to secure alternative energy sources at a time of soaring oil prices. “This technology has been around for nearly three decades. If there is an environmental concern, that can be addressed without putting a halt to this technology and helping to impact our greenhouse gas emissions and the environmental degradation from coal-fired and natural gas plants,” said Brad Collins, executive director of the American Solar Energy Society. He said the review appeared to be an arbitrary “road block” that contradicted “the stated goals of both presidential candidates, the stated goals of Congress and the American public.” The Bureau of Land Management, which looks after 258 million acres of federal land, much of it flat, sun-baked terrain in the western US considered ideal for solar energy development, says the study is required by law and backed by environmental groups. “Obviously the footprint from solar development is significant,” said Celia Boddington, a BLM spokeswoman. “(The solar plants) cover thousands of acres potentially, and we need to determine what the environmental consequences are of that, look at what it means when you spray the land with herbicides or remove vegetation.” She said the BLM’s solar programme was “completely new” and required a framework to be established. The environmental assessment was being “fast-tracked”. During the study, the BLM will not accept any new applications to lease public land for solar developments. But it insists it is “not holding industry up” and will continue to process 150 existing applications for roughly one million acres of federal land considered to have the best potential for solar development. Together the proposed projects could produce as much as 70 billion watts of electricity, enough energy to power 20 million homes. Most of the applications were received during the past year and a half, Ms Boddington said. “So it’s still very, very new. The potential is there but we want to make sure we do it properly because the environmental impacts are potentially significant. This is exciting, it’s a great opportunity but solar development has not yet been established commercially on a large scale.” Mr Collins argued the analysis could halt recent momentum in the domestic solar industry that has seen “a large number of international, large-scale players move their operations and headquarters” to the US and impact the growing field of “green collar jobs”. “It would be an example of taking a new

-143-

Renewables Good/Bad Michigan
industry and arbitrarily placing road blocks in the way to a transition to the safe, sustainable energy economy that everybody says they want.”

SOLAR POWER HAS A MINIMUM OF DECADE BEFORE IT CAN COMPETE WITH CURRENT ENERGY Environmental Protection 8 (“Real Solar Power May be a Decade Away,” 4-23-2008, http://www.eponline.com/articles/61068/)
It may take at least 10 or more years of intensive research and development to reduce the cost of solar energy to levels competitive with petroleum, according to an authority on the topic. "Solar can potentially provide all the electricity and fuel we need to power the planet," said Harry Gray, Ph.D. Gray was scheduled to at the 235th American Chemical Society meeting. Gray is the Arnold O. Beckman Professor of Chemistry and Founding Director of the Beckman Institute at the California Institute of Technology. He is the principal investigator in a National Science Founation-funded Phase I Chemical Bonding Center – a Caltech/MIT collaboration – and a principal investigator at the Caltech Center for Sustainable Energy Research (CCSER). "The Holy Grail of solar research is to use sunlight efficiently and directly to 'split' water into its elemental constituents – hydrogen and oxygen – and then use the hydrogen as a clean fuel," Gray said. This research has the goal of transforming the industrialized world from one powered by fossil fuels to one powered by sunlight. The CBC research focuses on converting sunlight to chemical fuels while research in the CCSER focuses on generating electricity from sunlight and developing fuel cells. Gray cited the vast potential of solar energy, noting that more energy from sunlight strikes the Earth in one hour than all of the energy consumed on the planet in one year. The single biggest challenge, Gray said, is reducing costs so that a large-scale shift away from coal, natural gas, and other non-renewable sources of electricity makes economic sense. Gray estimated the average cost of photovoltaic energy at 35 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour. By comparison, other sources are considerably less expensive, with coal and natural gas hovering around 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour. Because of its other advantages – being clean and renewable, for instance – solar energy need not match the cost of conventional energy sources, Gray indicated. The breakthrough for solar energy probably will come when scientists reduce the costs of photovoltaic energy to about 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, he added. "Once it reaches that level, large numbers of consumers will start to buy in, driving the per-kilowatt price down even further. I believe we are at least 10 years away from photovoltaics being competitive with more traditional forms of energy." Major challenges include developing cheap solar cells that work without deterioration and reducing the amounts of toxic materials used in the manufacture of these cells. But producing low-cost photovoltaics is only a step in the right direction. Chemists also need to focus on the generation of clean fuels at costs that can compete with oil and coal. Gray emphasized this point: "The pressure is on chemists to make hydrogen from something other than natural gas or coal. We’ve got to start making it from sunlight and water."

SOLAR ENERGY IS NOT COMPETITIVE ENOUGH WITH CURRENT ENERGY; IT’S UNLIKELY SOLAR WILL REPLACE COAL Weekend Australian 6 (Joseph Kerr, “Solar’s fast-track attacked over cost,” 10-28-2006, NSW Country Edition, Local, Pg.4)
HYSTERICAL solutions to climate change, such as solar power quickly replacing all coal-fired power stations in Australia, are being touted as part of a bidding war for the green vote. As the federal Government and Opposition prepare for next year's election, they have begun an environmental contest that has sparked fears it could prompt rash expenditure decisions. Experts attacked the notion put forward this week that solar could quickly replace coal in Australia, saying existing coal facilities cost as little as $12 to $15 per megawatt hour to run but that solar power stations could cost more than three times that to build and run. The Government announced this week a $75 million subsidy for a Victorian company to set up one of the world's largest solar power plants, prompting debate about alternative energies replacing Australia's heavy reliance on fossil fuels. Pressed during an interview this week, Environment Minister Ian Campbell agreed that if solar energy were cheaper than coal, renewable technologies being touted by the Government could replace Australia's coal industry. He said Australia would ''be mad not to'' replace its coal-fired power stations with 178 solar power stations on the Victorian model, ''if the sums add up''. Opposition environment spokesman Anthony Albanese has talked about renewable energy projects providing 20 per cent of Denmark's power needs, creating 30,000 jobs and massive exports. But the view that Australia could replace its coal stations with solar has been criticised as ''a very economically expensive thing to do.'' An energy analyst at ACIL-Tasman, Mike Hitchens, said ''you wouldn't replace the existing assets until such time as they're ready to be replaced''. ''Early retirement of a good asset is a very economically expensive thing to do,'' he said. ''Once you've built a station, be it a coal station or gas or (any fuel source), once they're built the capital is a sunk cost. ''It's impossible to believe (in) a new power station that's cheaper than an existing station. The economics of that doesn't make sense... That question's just a nonsense question.'' Institute of Public Affairs executive director John Roskam said the current debate was partly being driven by the severity of the drought, which prompted people to ask ''what's happening, have we brought it on ourselves?'' Senator Campbell said yesterday he would be very surprised if solar energy replaced coal.

-144-

Renewables Good/Bad Michigan

SOLAR BAD – LONG TIMEFRAME
BUILDINGS DON’T WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY ON SOLAR POWER, AND IT CAN TAKE UP TO FIFTEEN YEARS TO REAP THE BENEFITS NYT 7 (J. Alex Tarquinio, “The cost of saving energy,” 7-15-2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/realestate/15cov.html)
NEW YORKERS have often been told that they use less energy than most Americans, partly because they live in the most densely populated city in the country. And that’s true, up to a point. Sure, New Yorkers have the benefit of an extensive mass-transit system, which means lower auto emissions, but the city’s residential buildings are less energy-efficient than those in many other places in the country, particularly in eco-friendly states like California and Vermont. “The main reason that New Yorkers use much less electricity is that our apartments are so much smaller” than homes in other cities, said Rohit Aggarwala, the director of the Long-Term Planning and Sustainability Office, part of the Mayor’s Office of Operations. In fact, most big New York buildings, both commercial and residential, are wasting thousands of dollars a year on energy, the city says. Energy use by buildings accounts for almost 80 percent of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions, and residential buildings for about a third of that. These gases are released in creating the energy used to heat, cool and light the buildings, as well as to run myriad household appliances and gadgets. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has created a blueprint, called PlaNYC, to control future development in the city, with a goal of reducing total greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 by 30 percent, compared with 2005 levels. While some reductions can be accomplished by toughening the requirements for new construction, about 85 percent of the buildings that will exist in the city in 2030 are already standing. And those buildings need to go on an energy diet. There are a number of relatively inexpensive things that residential buildings could do that would immediately lower their energy costs and that would reduce their “carbon footprints,” the emissions these buildings are responsible for, Mr. Aggarwala said. The easiest, and cheapest, is to install energy-efficient light bulbs in all common areas. More expensive plans — the costs of which can often be offset by loans and grants from New York State — include replacing old inefficient boilers with more efficient modern ones and installing solar panels on the roof. Ashok Gupta, a senior energy economist and the director of the air and energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental group in New York, said many buildings start with the least expensive measures with the biggest immediate payoff — buying fluorescent bulbs for about $4 each, for example, or thermostatic radiator valves for about $90 each. But that is where a lot of buildings stop, and Mr. Gupta said he would like to see them reach a bit further, to measures whose costs could be recouped in two to five years. The next step, for example, might be installing motion sensors that would dim the lights by 50 percent when the hallways and stairwells were not in use. In a 60,000-square-foot building with 40 apartments, hiring an electrician to install motion sensors might cost $11,000, according to estimates produced by Optimal Energy Inc., a consulting company in Bristol, Vt., that has done regional energy-efficiency studies for New York State and Con Edison. The building could save that much in lower electricity bills over two years, assuming that it was already using fluorescent bulbs, and the sensors alone would reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by about 40 metric tons per year, the company said. That would be the equivalent of driving a car that gets 25 miles per gallon for 110,250 miles, according to Dr. Stuart Gaffin, an associate research scientist at the Center for Climate Systems Research at Columbia University. As you would expect, it would take longer to recoup the costs of the more expensive measures. Optimal Energy estimates, for example, that it would cost about $20,000 to weatherize that 60,000-square-foot apartment building, which could be paid for by five years of lower heating bills. Weatherizing would include sealing gaps around windows, exterior doors, and interior pipes and wiring. Some residential buildings might also consider installing solar panels on the roof, to provide a nonpolluting source of electricity to light the hallways and run the elevators. Experts recommend doing this only after more glaring energy inefficiencies have been addressed, because in a large apartment house, solar panels are not going to produce enough energy to replace Con Edison. Solar requires patience. It could take up to 15 years to break even on $19,000 spent on solar panels, and that is after subsidies and tax breaks offered by the state and federal governments. Mayor Bloomberg has proposed an additional subsidy for installing solar panels on buildings in New York City. Mr. Gupta of the Natural Resources Defense Council contends that environmentalists often sell themselves short by focusing too much on payback periods. “Nobody asks what the payback period is for a marble lobby,” he said. But if a lot of large commercial and residential buildings installed solar panels, he said, that could go a long way toward reducing the city’s overall impact on global warming. “From a societal perspective, the benefits are huge,” Mr. Gupta said. As it stands, very few apartment buildings in New York have taken the first step and hired energy consultants. The first step most consultants suggest is to switch to fluorescent bulbs (a cheap fix), and then to solve the heating problems (to keep residents from being uncomfortable). The Towers Cooperative, an eight-building complex with 111 apartments in Jackson Heights, Queens, last year hired Power Concepts, an energy auditor in Manhattan. Once the audit was done, Bobbi Turner, the building’s manager, sat down with the board. They decided to start with the fixes that their in-house maintenance staff could do — for example, installing fluorescent bulbs as the old incandescents burned out. Ms. Turner said the electricity bills for the common areas were 7 percent lower last year than in 2005. For now, Ms. Turner and the board have decided to forgo many costlier measures that were recommended, including installing separate boilers for hot water and heat to cut down on the fuel the co-op uses in the warm weather when residents need hot water but not heat. It would have cost $86,000 to do this in all eight buildings, with a payback period of five and a half years. But the buildings’ staff did implement other suggested improvements to the heating system, which included installing thermostatic radiator valves in all apartments. “Our job is to make sure that we are doing things as efficiently as possible,” Ms. Turner said. The co-op did not have a maintenance increase this year, and Ms. Turner attributes this largely to the cost savings from the efficiency measures that have been implemented so far. Other buildings have needed to take more extensive measures to solve more complicated problems. At 395 Riverside Drive, a 15-story co-op at the corner of 112th Street, the apartments on the west side of the building were often cold because of wintertime blasts of wind off the Hudson River. If the heat was turned up to offset the cold, apartments on the east side of the building got too hot. The board at 395 Riverside Drive ordered an energy audit from the Association for Energy Affordability, based in Manhattan, which recommended installing additional heat sensors and upgrading the computer that regulated the heat. These changes were made last fall, at a cost of almost $8,000. The building paid $8,500 less on fuel bills, a decrease of nearly 16 percent, from December 2006 to April 2007, despite a spike in heating oil prices, according to the building’s management company. And the residents were more comfortable, said Dr. Eric Linden, a periodontist who is a former vice president of the co-op board. The building also replaced the bulbs in the hallways with fluorescents, although, as at the co-op in

-145-

Renewables Good/Bad Michigan
Queens, the in-house staff replaced them gradually. Dr. Linden credits these changes with keeping a lid on maintenance. The monthly fees, which range from $500 to $2,200, depending on the size of the apartment, rose 3 percent this spring. “But we might have had to raise them 4 to 6 percent if the energy costs had gotten completely out of control,” Dr. Linden said. Remarkably, the age of a building seems to have no correlation with how energy efficient or inefficient it is. Some of New York City’s most efficient are old brick-and-mortar buildings “that just have amazingly good maintenance staff,” said Michael Colgrove, a senior project manager at New York State Energy Research Authority, whose goal is to make multifamily buildings more efficient. On the flip side, Mr. Colgrove said, owners in condominiums built 5 or 10 years ago should not be complacent. “Almost all new construction in this city can easily improve their energy efficiency by 20 percent,” he said. Daniel M. Krainin, a lawyer who is the president of a Brooklyn co-op, had an energy audit done for his building, a converted brownstone with eight apartments in Park Slope. F. L. Andrew Padian, the director of multifamily services at Steven Winter Associates, an architecture and engineering firm in Norwalk, Conn., that performed the audit, recommended five measures. So far, the co-op has acted on only one, installing a mixing valve on the boiler for $550. Mr. Krainin said that this cut the building’s oil bill by more than $400 in the last year. Sometimes, Mr. Padian said, cutting fuel use is simply a matter of recalibrating some controls. “When I can walk in with a screwdriver and cut energy bills by 40 percent, people are really happy,” he said. “In other buildings, the old boiler is responsible for 85 percent of the energy waste.” The four other measures that he recommended for the building would cost about $30,000 in all: replacing the old boiler with an efficient unit, replacing the old beat-up windows with new double-paned windows, insulating the roof and installing motion sensors on the lights in the basement. “Thirty thousand dollars would be a lot of money for a co-op our size,” Mr. Krainin said. After reading the audit report, residents voiced their reservations until they learned that the co-op could finance the work with a below-market loan subsidized by the state. “Now everyone is sold on the idea that if we can do it without increasing the maintenance fees, then it makes sense,” Mr. Krainin said. “But I think we might have had more objections if we’d gotten to the point that it would cost people money in the form of higher maintenance fees or a surcharge.” That may be the sentiment of many co-op and condo boards now, but energy-efficiency experts say that attitudes are changing fast. Jonathan F. P. Rose, a New York developer who specializes in energy-efficient construction, said the public is much more aware of environmental issues like global warming than it was a few years ago. Developers are racing to build new condominiums that can be marketed as “green

-146-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad

SOLAR BAD – EXPENSIVE ENERGY TURN
TURN - EXPENSIVE ENERGY KILLS MILLIONS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
The Toronto Sun 7 (Lorrie Goldstein, “Power plan dooms world’s poor,” 5-10-2007, Editorial/Opinion, pg.20) Environmentalists keep telling us they love humanity. So apparently it's just people a lot of them have trouble with. This tendency is being noted with alarm even by former environmental crusaders, as the hysteria over global warming escalates. In the British documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, describes many in the environmental movement today as "anti-human", adding they tend to see people as "scum." Moore says that's why they think "it's OK to have hundreds of millions of them go blind or die" and in particular why "the environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries." Paul Driessen, a former environmental campaigner and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death notes in the same film: "My big concern with global warming is that the policies being pushed to supposedly prevent global warming are having a disastrous effect on the world's poorest people." He means that if environmentalists succeed in their campaign to have developing countries abandon fossil fuels to produce electricity, and to substitute unreliable and expensive wind and solar power, it will doom the world's poorest to permanent poverty. RISKS Without affordable, reliable electricity, human society is condemned to low productivity and to disease, famine and early death. Driessen complains global warming crusaders always talk about the speculative risks of using fossil fuels in terms of climate change, never about the known risks of not using them. African economist James Shikwati, also featured in the film, describes First World environmentalists descending on Africa urging it not to use its coal and oil resources, as effectively counselling Africans to commit "suicide." James Lovelock, a founder of the global green movement, criticizes selfish, ill-informed, affluent environmental radicals in his book, The Revenge of Gaia, for condemning millions of people living in the developing world to death from malaria because of their overly hysterical campaign against the pesticide DDT. Richard Tren, director of Africa Fighting Malaria, makes the same point in "The Human Cost of the Anti-pesticide Movement" in the April edition of the Fraser Forum. In his bestseller The Weather Makers, scientist/conservationist Tim Flannery discusses in a chapter titled "2084: The Carbon Dictatorship?" the possibility of an Earth Commission for Thermostatic Control (ECTC) one day zeroing in on the major cause of man-made global warming -- "the total number of people on the planet." With that, he writes, the ECTC "will have transformed itself into an Orwellian-style world government with its own currency, army and control over every person and every inch of our planet." To be clear, Flannery is not advocating such a body, merely speculating on what could happen if we don't take action against man-made global warming in time. TOO MANY PEOPLE But this idea that the major problem with the Earth's environment is that there are too many people is common in the environmental movement. Of course, the more people you have, the more pollution there is. But that's not the issue. The issue is what do you do about it, and, as Moore, Driessen and others warn us, that's where the thinking of many environmentalists gets scary. Not because they set out to kill people, but because their low regard for humanity causes them to overlook, or to never see, the unintended consequences of their actions.

-147-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad

-148-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad

SOLAR BAD – INCENTIVES FAIL
SOLAR ENERGY INCENTIVES WON’T WORK, AND THEY AREN’T ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE NYT 8 (Peter Maloney, “Pay for the Power, Not the Panels ,” 3-26, 2008, Section SPG; Column 0; TheBusinessOfGreen; Pg. 1)
INNOVATION is driving a boom in solar power, but some of the most compelling advances are taking place in financial engineering rather than photovoltaic technology. Solar power is simple, clean and easily installed, but manufacturing solar panels is expensive, which is why this energy source is out of reach for many residences and businesses. Lately, however, solar power companies have discovered that they can attract more buyers if they act as financial intermediaries as well as suppliers of equipment and systems used to generate electricity from sunlight. The new financial techniques allow the solar companies to separate the capital expense of the systems they sell and the tax benefits that accrue to the buyer from the final costs of the electricity produced. In doing so, the solar companies have made it possible for more corporations and even some homeowners to kill two birds with one stone: doing good for the environment while cutting the cost of the power they consume. Creative financing ''tears down the Berlin Wall of capital-cost barriers and opens up a floodgate of installations,'' said Julie Blunden, vice president for public policy and communications at the one of the solar equipment manufacturers that has taken on the techniques. ''If a company is looking at putting a system on more than one roof, they don't have to worry about installation costs or the expiration of tax incentives. All they have to look at is the energy cost.'' The new financial methods are propelling the recent surge in photovoltaic solar power installations. Some 148 megawatts of solar capacity came online in 2007, up 46.5 percent from the 101 megawatts installed the previous year, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, a Washington trade group. Including isolated solar installations -- that is, those not connected to the power grid -- the 2007 total was 190 megawatts, a 35 percent increase over the 141 megawatts of solar power installed in 2006. Using a ''power-purchase agreement'' model, or P.P.A., companies like SunEdison L.L.C. and SunPower take on the cost of installing solar panels on customers' roofs. In return, customers pay the solar power company for the panels' output, generally at a lower rate than they would otherwise pay. SunEdison first used the P.P.A. model, also called a solar power service agreement, in March 2004 when it installed solar panels on the roof of a building in Edgewater, N.J., occupied by a Whole Foods Market. Since then, it has installed 93 systems, most for large retailers, using the agreements. The power purchase model is also attracting bankers. In November, Morgan Stanley agreed to provide $190 million to finance solar projects being developed by SunPower. In January, SunPower struck a deal with G.E. Energy Financial Services that requires G.E. to buy five solar power projects in California for about $50 million. ''The lesson,'' said Thomas H. Werner, SunPower's chief executive, ''is there is a very competitive market for financing systems in the United States with lots of high-quality investors looking to participate.'' Goldman Sachs is also financing solar power, as are Wells Fargo and MMA Renewable Ventures, a unit of Municipal Mortgage and Equity, which says it has arranged financing for $300 million worth of solar energy projects. ''The P.P.A. model is becoming the dominant model,'' said Edward Levin, vice president for global capital markets at Morgan Stanley. ''It is no longer a plausible business model for a solar developer to sell panels to a property owner or corporation.'' The market for commercial solar power installations is not based solely on environmental concerns. Solar power is exploding because of ''pure economics,'' said Barry Neal, director of environmental finance at Wells Fargo. Companies like Wal-Mart and Kohl's are turning to solar power because ''they can actually reduce their electricity costs, particularly in states like California and New Jersey,'' where electricity rates are high and rising, Mr. Neal said. Those states, which also offer generous incentives, account for about 85 percent of solar installations in the country. California's Million Solar Roofs program includes incentives that could translate into an $8,000 rebate for a typical home solar system. New Jersey's solar incentive program has been so popular -- the state went from six solar installations in 2001 to 2,712 at the end of 2007 -- that it has run out of money. It is moving from cash rebates to rebates in the form of certificates that can be bought and sold to help companies meet required emission reduction levels. Besides state incentives, there is a federal investment tax credit worth up to 30 cents on the dollar. For bankers involved in solar power, these credits make the deals more profitable than cash returns alone would. Mark McLanahan, vice president for marketing and strategy at MMA Renewable Ventures, said that the credits mean that companies like his can charge less for electricity under the power purchase contracts. Credit quality issues make the residential market harder to crack than the commercial market. SunPower works with home builders to install solar panels on new homes and with New Resource Bank in San Francisco to offer second mortgages to finance solar installations on existing homes. But credit issues must be resolved before this market can take off, executives say. There are several possible solutions. One being watched is a city-run program developed by Berkeley, Calif. Under the plan, Berkeley pays homeowners to install solar systems and then recoups the cost through a 20-year addition to their property tax bills. But repackaging risk does not eliminate it. Under the solar power purchase agreements, the buyer -- the retailer, the homeowner -- takes the risk. ''They are making a big bet'' that the price of conventional power stays high, said Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California Energy Institute. Photovoltaic solar power is ''incredibly expensive,'' he said. ''It isn't economic, and you can't make it economic through financial engineering.'

-149-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad

-150-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad

SOLAR BAD – INCENTIVES FAIL
SOLAR ENERGY INCENTIVES FAIL, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH OF A PROFIT NYT 6 (Andrew C. Revkin, “Budgets falling in race to fight global warming,”10-30-2006, http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/30/business/web.1030energy.php?page=4)
California, following models set in Japan and Germany, is trying to help solar energy with various incentives. But such initiatives mainly pull existing technologies into the market, experts say, and do little to propel private research toward the next big advances. Even Vinod Khosla, a leading environment-oriented venture capitalist who invests heavily in ethanol and other alternative energy projects, said in an interview that he was not ready to back solar power because it did not appear able to show a profit without subsidies. The Role of Leadership At the federal level, the Bush administration was criticized by Republican and Democratic lawmakers at several recent hearings on climate change. Connaughton, the lead White House official on the environment, said most critics are not aware of how much has been done. "This administration has developed the most sophisticated and carefully considered strategic plan for advancing the technologies that are a necessary part of the climate solution," he said. He added that the administration must weigh tradeoffs with other pressing demands like health care. Since 2001, when Bush abandoned a campaign pledge to limit carbon dioxide from power plants, he has said that too little is known about specific dangers of global warming to justify hard targets or mandatory curbs for the gas. He has also asserted that any solution will lie less in regulation than in innovation. "My answer to the energy question also is an answer to how you deal with the greenhouse-gas issue, and that is new technologies will change how we live," he said in May. But critics, including some Republican lawmakers, now say that mounting evidence for risks including findings that administration officials have tried to suppress of late - justifies prompt, more aggressive action to pay for or spur research and speed the movement of climate-friendly energy options into the marketplace. Martin I. Hoffert, an emeritus professor of physics at New York University, said that what was needed was for a leader to articulate the energy challenge as President John F. Kennedy made his case for the mission to the moon. President Kennedy said they were imperative, "not because they are easy, but because they are hard." In a report on competitiveness and research released last year, the National Academies, the country's top science advisory body, urged the government to substantially expand spending on long-term basic research, particularly on energy. The report, titled "Rising Above the Gathering Storm," recommended that the Energy Department create a research-financing body similar to the 48-year-old Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or Darpa, to make grants and attack a variety of energy questions, including climate change. Darpa, created after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, was set up outside the sway of Congress to provide advances in areas like weapons, surveillance and defensive systems. But it also produced technologies like the Internet and the global positioning system for navigation. Connaughton said it would be premature to conclude that a new agency was needed for energy innovation. But many experts, from oil-industry officials to ecologists, agree that the status quo for energy research will not suffice. The benefits of an intensified energy quest would go far beyond cutting the risks of dangerous climate change, said Roger H. Bezdek, an economist at Management Information Systems, a consulting group. The world economy, he said, is facing two simultaneous energy challenges beyond global warming: the end of relatively cheap and easy oil, and the explosive demand for fuel in developing countries. Advanced research should be diversified like an investment portfolio, he said. "The big payoff comes from a small number of very large winners," he said. "Unfortunately, we cannot pick the winners in advance." Ultimately, a big increase in government spending on basic energy research will happen only if scientists can persuade the public and politicians that it is an essential hedge against potential calamity. That may be the biggest hurdle of all, given the unfamiliar nature of the slowly building problem - the antithesis of epochal events like Pearl Harbor, Sputnik and 9/11 that triggered sweeping enterprises. "We're good at rushing in with white hats," said Bobi Garrett, associate director of planning and technology management at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. "This is not a problem where you can do that."

-151-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad

-152-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad

SOLAR BAD - INCONVENIENT
SOLAR INTERMITTENCY IS NOT BEING FUNDED AND IT WILL TAKE YEARS FOR THE RIGHT TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE SOLAR POWER TO BE ABLE TO COMPETE WITH OTHER ENERGY NYT 7 (Andrew C. Revkin and Matthew L. Wald, “The Energy Challenge Solar Power Wins Enthusiasts but Not Money,” 7-16-2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16solar.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1)
The trade association for the nuclear power industry recently asked 1,000 Americans what energy source they thought would be used most for generating electricity in 15 years. The top choice? Not nuclear plants, or coal or natural gas. The winner was the sun, cited by 27 percent of those polled. It is no wonder solar power has captured the public imagination. Panels that convert sunlight to electricity are winning supporters around the world — from Europe, where gleaming arrays cloak skyscrapers and farmers’ fields, to Wall Street, where stock offerings for panel makers have had a great ride, to California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “Million Solar Roofs” initiative is promoted as building a homegrown industry and fighting global warming. But for all the enthusiasm about harvesting sunlight, some of the most ardent experts and investors say that moving this energy source from niche to mainstream — last year it provided less than 0.01 percent of the country’s electricity supply — is unlikely without significant technological breakthroughs. And given the current scale of research in private and government laboratories, that is not expected to happen anytime soon. Even a quarter century from now, says the Energy Department official in charge of renewable energy, solar power might account for, at best, 2 or 3 percent of the grid electricity in the United States. In the meantime, coal-burning power plants, the main source of smokestack emissions linked to global warming, are being built around the world at a rate of more than one a week. Propelled by government incentives in Germany and Japan, as well as a growing number of American states, sales of solar panels made of silicon that convert sunlight directly into electricity, known as photovoltaic cells, have taken off, lowering manufacturing costs and leading to product refinements. But Vinod Khosla, a prominent Silicon Valley entrepreneur who focuses on energy, said the market-driven improvements were not happening fast enough to put solar technology beyond much more than a boutique investment. “Most of the environmental stuff out there now is toys compared to the scale we need to really solve the planet’s problems,” Mr. Khosla said. Scientists long ago calculated that an hour’s worth of the sunlight bathing the planet held far more energy than humans worldwide could use in a year, and the first practical devices for converting light to electricity were designed more than half a century ago. Yet research on solar power and methods for storing intermittent energy has long received less spending, both in the United States and in other industrialized countries, than energy options with more political support. Indeed, there are few major programs looking for ways to drastically reduce the cost of converting sunlight to energy and — of equal if not more importance — of efficiently storing it for when the sun is not shining. Scientists are hoping to expand the range of sunlight’s wavelengths that can be absorbed, and to cut the amount of energy the cells lose to heat. One goal is to make materials to force photons to ricochet around inside the silicon to give up more of their energy. For decades, conventional nuclear power and nuclear fusion received dominant shares of government energy-research money. While venture capitalists often support the commercialization of new technologies, basic research money comes almost entirely from the federal government.

-153-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad

SOLAR BAD – NO FUNDING
FUNDING FOR OTHER LESS EXPENSIVE ENERGY TRADES OFF WITH SOLAR POWER; IT’S NOT POPULAR ENOUGH NYT 7 (Andrew C. Revkin and Matthew L. Wald, “The Energy Challenge Solar Power Wins Enthusiasts but Not Money,” 7-16-2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16solar.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1)
These days, a growing amount of government money is headed to the farm-state favorite, biofuels, and to research on burning coal while capturing the resulting carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping smokestack gas. In the current fiscal year, the Energy Department plans to spend $159 million on solar research and development. It will spend nearly double, $303 million, on nuclear energy research and development, and nearly triple, $427 million, on coal, as well as $167 million on other fossil fuel research and development. Raymond L. Orbach, the under secretary of energy for science, said the administration’s challenge was to spread a finite pot of money to all the technologies that will help supply energy without adding to global warming. “No one source of energy that we know of is going to solve it,” Dr. Orbach said. “This is about a portfolio.” In the battle for money from Washington, solar lobbyists say they are outgunned by their counterparts representing coal, corn and the atom. “Coal and nuclear count their lobbying budgets in the tens of millions,” said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. “We count ours in the tens of thousands.” Government spending on energy research has long been shaped by political constituencies. Nuclear power, for example, has enjoyed consistent support from the Senate Energy Committee no matter which party is in power — in large part because Senators Jeff Bingaman and Pete V. Domenici, the Democratic chairman and the ranking Republican, are both from New Mexico, home to Los Alamos National Laboratory and a branch of the Sandia National Laboratories. Biofuels, mostly ethanol and biodiesel, have attracted lawmakers who support farm subsidies. Last year an impromptu coalition established a goal of producing 25 percent of the country’s energy, including vehicle fuel, from renewable sources by 2025. Legislation to that effect attracted 34 senators and 69 representatives as co-sponsors; the resolutions are pending in both houses. Most of the measure’s supporters are from agricultural areas. For the moment, the strongest government support for solar power is coming from the states, not Washington. But there, too, the focus remains on stimulating markets, not laboratory research. The federal government is proposing more spending on solar research now, but not enough to set off a large, sustained energy quest, many experts say. “This is not an arena where private energy companies are likely to make the breakthrough,” said Nathan S. Lewis, head of a solar-research laboratory at the California Institute of Technology. Many environmental organizations are pushing for tax credits for people who buy solar equipment, which helps manufacturing but not research. Still, some experts say government-financed research efforts often go awry. And several government officials defended the current effort, saying an outsize investment in solar research is not needed because the industry is already in high gear. Bush administration officials say they are committed to making power from photovoltaic technology as well as “solar thermal” systems competitive with other sources by 2015. Alexander Karsner, the lead Energy Department official for renewable energy technology and efficiency, said the expanded use of photovoltaic cells could have its greatest impact by substantially reducing the energy thirst of new buildings. To be sure, there are some promising signs in solar energy. Big arrays of mirrors that concentrate sunlight to run turbines, which first emerged in the early 1980s, are resurgent in sun-baked places like the American Southwest, Spain and Australia. Some developers say this solar thermal technology is competitive now with power generated by natural gas when demand, and prices, hit periodic peaks. With more research, the solar thermal method might allow for storing energy. Currently, all solar power is hampered by a lack of storage capability. “The scale on which things actually have to happen on energy is not fully either appreciated or transmitted to the public,” said Dr. Lewis of Caltech. “You have to find a really cheap way to capture that light, for the price of carpet or paint, and also convert it efficiently into something humans can use for energy.” After more than two decades in which research on converting solar power to electricity largely lapsed, the Bush administration and lawmakers in Congress are now discussing more money for the field. Dr. Orbach said the Energy Department’s proposed research plan for 2008 to 2012 includes $1.1 billion for solar advances, more than the $896 million going toward fusion. But many scientists, perhaps seasoned by past energy cycles, doubt that the new burst of interest is sufficient to lure the best young minds in chemistry and physics. After encouraging 346 research groups last year to seek grants for surmounting hurdles to harnessing solar power, the Energy Department this year ended up awarding $22.7 million over three years to 27 projects — hardly the stuff of an energy revolution, several scientists said. “There is plenty of intellectual firepower in the U.S.,” said Prashant V. Kamat, an expert in the chemistry of solar cells at the University of Notre Dame, who has some Energy Department financing. “But there is limited encouragement to take up the challenge.”

SOLAR POWER LACKS FUNDING; BUSH’S PLAN TO INCREASE ARE NOT ENOUGH NYT 6 (Andrew C. Revkin, “Budgets falling in race to fight global warming,”10-30-2006, http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/30/business/web.1030energy.php?page=4)

-154-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad
DENVER : Cheers fit for a revival meeting swept a hotel ballroom as 1,800 entrepreneurs and experts watched a PowerPoint presentation of the most promising technologies for limiting global warming: solar power, wind, ethanol and other farmed fuels, energy-efficient buildings and fuel-sipping cars. "Houston," Charles Kutscher, chairman of the Solar 2006 conference, concluded in a twist on the line from Apollo 13, "we have a solution." Hold the applause. For all the enthusiasm about alternatives to coal and oil, the challenge of limiting emissions of carbon dioxide, which traps heat, will be immense in a world likely to add 2.5 billion people by midcentury, a host of other experts say. Moreover, most of those people will live in countries like China and India, which are just beginning to enjoy an electrified, air-conditioned mobile society. The challenge is all the more daunting because research into energy technologies by both government and industry has not been rising, but rather falling. In the United States, annual federal spending for all energy research and development - not just the research aimed at climate-friendly technologies - is less than half what it was a quarter-century ago. It has sunk to $3 billion a year in the current budget from an inflation-adjusted peak of $7.7 billion in 1979, according to several different studies. Britain, for one, has sounded a loud alarm about the need for prompt action on the climate issue, including more research. [A report commissioned by the British government and scheduled to be released today calls for spending to be doubled worldwide on research into low-carbon technologies; without it, the report says, coastal flooding and a shortage of drinking water could turn 200 million people into refugees.] President George W. Bush has sought an increase to $4.2 billion for 2007, but that would still be a small fraction of what most climate and energy experts say would be needed. Federal spending on medical research, by contrast, has nearly quadrupled, to $28 billion annually, since 1979. Military research has increased 260 percent, and at more than $75 billion a year is 20 times the amount spent on energy research. Internationally, government energy research trends are little different from those in the United States. Japan is the only economic power that increased research spending in recent decades, with growth focused on efficiency and solar technology, according to the International Energy Agency.

-155-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad

SOLAR BAD – NO FUNDING
DESPITE ITS GROWTH, SOLAR POWER WILL FAIL DUE TO LACK OF FEDERAL FUNDING International Herald Tribune 7 (Andreas Tzortzis, “'Solar valley' in a cloudy land,” 3-30-2007, http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/30/news/wbsolar.php)
FRANKFURT AN DER ODER, Germany: Until the green energy company Conergy came along, the empty shell of a silicon chip factory in

this city on the Polish border was just another monument to failed economic promises in Eastern Germany. Now the factory, left standing after a consortium including Intel and investors from Dubai pulled out, is humming with activity again. Blue-helmeted workers are adding a second floor and installing modern silicon cleaning machines. When it is completed in early summer, Conergy's newest solar wafer, cell and module production plant will also be one of the world's most modern. "It's like winning the lottery," said Martin Patzelt, the mayor here. "An absolute win-win." Although hardly famed for a sunny climate, Germany is currently the largest solar market in the world, accounting for 55 percent of global production of solar electricity, according to Solarbuzz, a research and consulting company. As a result, the country also is becoming home to a “solar valley" of green companies, spurred by a government subsidy program whose success has inspired copycat initiatives from France to Greece. German and foreign solar companies are setting up production facilities at a rapid pace to meet growing demand for solar panels and modules around the world. But some analysts are cautioning against euphoria surrounding an energy source that has yet to prove its cost-effectiveness without government support - especially in a cloudy country like Germany. "The consumers calculate sharply, and if it's not beneficial for their pocket anymore, then they won't do it," said Matthias Fawer, a sustainability analyst at Bank Sarasin in Zurich. The Renewable Energies Act, a landmark measure passed in 2000, committed Germany to doubling the percentage share of renewable energy in its total energy supply by 2010. It also created a market for such renewables as solar and wind power with the help of a generous pricing schedule. European Union funds aimed at economically distressed regions helped steer many of the new factories to the former East Germany. In the past five years, 21 solar cell production or research companies, including Germany-based global leaders like Q-Cells and SolarWorld, have established operations in the region - in areas known since reunification for their battles with unemployment, rightist violence and the flight of young workers to more prosperous environs. "Germany's law made it possible for us to have so much success, and now we were able to give something back," said Stefan Heyn, Conergy's project manager for the Frankfurt operation. Over all, the solar industry had sales of €3.8 billion, or $5 billion, in Germany last year, and is growing at a rate of about 20 percent a year. The industry employs more than 53,000 people in Germany and expects to add 5,000 new jobs this year, according to the German Solar Association. That makes solar, alongside the automotive and high-technology sectors, "definitely one of the bigger industries in the East," said Ralf Segeth, a renewable energies specialist at the Industrial Investment Council, which is financed by the six former East German states and the federal government. "It's certainly the fastest growing." Proximity to top technology research institutes like the Fraunhofer Institute, which has several offices in Eastern Germany, has helped lure businesses involved in the production of solar wafers, cells and modules, said Carsten Körnig, director of the German Solar Association. In the next two years, seven companies will set up production facilities in Brandenburg, Saxony and Berlin, generating thousands of new jobs in a country where the unemployment rate has hovered around 10 percent since 1994. Yet concerns remain about the long-term viability of solar power. Solar continues to be one of the more expensive forms of renewable energies, and bottlenecks in silicon production globally last year raised prices and reduced demand, according to a study by Bank Sarasin. "It was a bit of a disappointment in the last two years because everyone expected prices to go down," said Fawer, the analyst at Sarasin. Under the German law, electricity grid operators must pay the providers of solar energy, whether private households or solar farms, 50 cents a kilowatt hour. The cost is 30 cents above the price for traditional energy forms. A fixed tariff is guaranteed by the law until 2020, but it must come down 5 percent each year. Fawer said government pressure to bring solar energy closer to price parity with other energy forms will increase when lawmakers take another look at the act this year. But he and other industry analysts say they believe that there is little danger that the industry will lose the government support that has helped it grow. "Germany is a technology leader and there are jobs created, and from a political viewpoint, it's important," Fawer said. But solar companies in Germany, a country that had 1,780 hours of sunshine on average last year - compared with some 2,800 hours in Spain - are aware that their future may well lie abroad. SolarWorld, Q-Cells and other companies have been investing in smaller companies and production facilities in Southern Europe and the United States. But even as they expand outside of Germany, solar industry executives remain adamant that they will not be abandoning their production and research facilities in the east of the country. Conergy, which is based in Hamburg, will be joined in coming months in Frankfurt an der Oder by the U.S. company First Solar, based in Phoenix, Arizona, and a local company, Oder Sun. By the time the facilities are up and running, it is estimated that close to 1,500 jobs will have been created in a city with 5,645 people out of work. Patzelt, the mayor, said that there was too much at stake for the region to turn back. After the Intel project failed, he streamlined municipal processes like building permits and water connections, and formed an agency that responded directly to each investor's needs. "We told ourselves we needed to rely on our own strengths," Patzelt during an interview. "In order to react more quickly we had to reorganize." More than 2,000 people jammed the hall in which First Solar, Conergy and others set up shop during a job fair in Frankfurt an der Oder in December. An additional 3,000 waited outside. By the time it hits full capacity within the next year, the Conergy plant in Frankfurt will produce 1.2 million solar modules a year. The city, it seems, is already reaping the benefits. "There are many who are trying to get jobs here at the moment," said Sylvia Lehmann, a local resident recently hired by Conergy. "The atmosphere has improved greatly." Körnig, the German solar Association director, said there was reason to believe the good times would continue. "There are many different synergies in these solar clusters," he said "There will be a permanent exchange between them. What reasons should there be to leave?"

-156-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad

-157-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad

SOLAR BAD - DANGEROUS
SOLAR POWER IS DANGEROUS AND UNRELIABLE; PEOPLE PREFER NUCLEAR POWER Business Day 7 (Andrew Kenny, “Nuclear Cheaper,”2-1-2007, pg.20)
Your deputy editor, Robyn Chalmers, is right and your letter writers Jürgen Maier and Richard Worthington wrong on nuclear power, No longer a dirty word, nuclear a sensible choice in SA context (February 14) and Letters (February 19). Nuclear power is far cheaper and cleaner than solar or wind power. In Germany in 2004, wind power, despite vast investment and gigantic subsidies, contributed 4,2% of elec-tricity supply, very unreliably. Solar power contributed 0,08%. Nuclear contributed 27% at much lower costs and much higher reliability. Contrary to Worthington's claim, the levelised costs of nuclear power - which include capital, fuel, operations and maintenance - over the lifetime of the generating plant, are far lower than for wind or solar. The reasons for this are obvious. Nuclear energy is concentrated and reliable, requiring small amounts of materials to produce a kilowatt-hour of electricity. Solar and wind power are dilute and unreliable, requiring enormous amounts of materials to do the same. In the US, France and many other countries, nuclear is the cheapest source of electricity. Wind and solar power are more expensive, and only possible with massive operating subsidies. The subsidy for wind power in Germany is three times the total cost of nuclear power. Worthington is right to say we should consider the external costs of power generation - those not borne by the generator. But the external costs of solar and wind are far higher than those of nuclear. Solar photovoltaic units use a range of toxic materials such as lead and cadmium that remain dangerous forever. Wind turbines - gigantic structures - use vast amounts of resources per kilowatt-hour, lower property values and force other generators to incur costs as they have to ramp up and down to compensate for the violent and unpredictable fluctuations of wind power. For the sake of our children, our wallets and our countryside, we should embrace nuclear power.

-158-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad

SOLAR BAD – NON-COMPETITIVE
SOLAR POWER MAY BE A FAD NOW, BUT IT WON’T BE ABLE TO COMPETE IN THE ENERGY INDUSTRY LATER South China Morning Post 7 (Cameron Dueck, “Solar panel industry savours success but growth relies on government policy,” 11-12-2007, Business, pg.6)
The wild success of the mainland's solar panel manufacturing industry has set a high bar for other renewable sources of energy but the industry is firmly focused on exports and likely to remain so for the future. The country's solar power story is a reverse image of the wind power industry, as solar panel companies built mainland factories to cut costs while exporting nearly all their products. Wind turbine makers, on the other hand, have flocked to the mainland to build factories to serve the domestic market. "Making photovoltaic solar power is mostly like electronics manufacturing which can be mass-produced and China is the best place to mass-

-159-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad
produce something," said Bing Zhu, chief financial officer of Canadian Solar. The company is based in Canada and founded by a Canadian-Chinese entrepreneur but has its factory in the mainland. It raised $115US.5 million on the Nasdaq a year ago. The mainland has set a target of 300 megawatts of solar power by 2010, but focuses on wind power as solar power costs about two to three times as much as wind power. The local wind turbine industry got a kick-start from government concession projects, while the solar panel sector received help from European government policies. Germany in 2004 removed subsidy caps on solar power projects, instantly boosting demand and making it the biggest market for mainland solar cells. "Governments dictate solar [power] demand. If China were to introduce subsidies, they'd have solar demand but at the moment there are virtually no subsidies for solar power [in the mainland]," said Cyrus Mewawalla, analyst at Westhall Capital in London. "China has less than 1 per cent of global solar photovoltaic power demand, but they produce 30 per cent of the world's solar PV cells." Even predicting industry growth is subject to government policies overseas. Spain recently announced it was tripling its solar power capacity target to 1,200 MW by 2010. That rise in demand would take Europe's biggest factories a year to fill and insure future growth for mainland solar panel makers. Such growth has attracted hordes of investors and mainland companies have been minting money on the world's stock exchanges. Since December 2005, six mainland solar power companies have launched initial public offerings in the United States. Half of those have seen their share prices at least double in secondary trading from their offering valuations. However, competition may be blocking the rays of initial offering success in the future. "The ingot and cell manufacturing market has become highly competitive. Margins on the most common form of solar cell technology [crystalline silicon] are beginning to get squeezed as polysilicon prices climb to new heights. Once the polysilicon supply constraint eases, we may see more [offerings] in the sector," said Mr Mewawalla.

-160-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad

-161-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad

SOLAR BAD - INEFFICIENT
SOLAR POWER REQUIRES A VAST AMOUNT OF LAND AND IS VERY INEFFICIENT Edgar - a research associate with the Golden, Colorado-based Independence Institute – 3 (Matthew R., “Don’t Get Burned By Solar Power,” Environment & Climate News, 1-1-2003, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11311)
The Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Sierra Club has launched a new campaign to "promote energy generation and efficiency that minimizes harmful impacts on public health and the environment, while improving the state's economy." The group wants to require that 20 percent of all electricity in Colorado be generated by renewable energies by 2020. It also wants renewable energy to become 30 percent more efficient than it is currently. Impressive, but impossible. According to the Energy Information Agency (EIA)--the nonpartisan data collection branch of the Department of Energy--less than 1 percent of all electricity generation in Colorado currently comes from renewable energy (defined as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal). The EIA predicts that in the future, on a worldwide basis, renewable energies might increase their market share by a few percent. Is it realistic to expect that in just 18 years, renewable energy could increase its market share in Colorado by 1,800 percent? In other states where similar policies are in effect, the mandate has never been achieved. For example, Florida requires that 7.5 percent of energy generated in the state be produced by renewables, but the state has reached just 3 percent. An Inefficient Technology Whether the share of energy produced by renewables can be increased depends primarily on the efficiency of the technology. In this case, "efficiency" means how much of the energy source (be it wind or coal or solar) can actually be converted to electricity. For wind power, the theoretical maximum efficiency is 59 percent, but most windmills achieve about 50 percent efficiency with very good land and wind conditions. The efficiency of solar energy--how much heat can be converted to electricity--is approximately 35 percent. One reason wind and solar energy are so inefficient is because they require vast amounts of land. Wind power requires about 11 square feet of land to generate 4 watts of electricity--the amount needed to turn on a light bulb. To generate that same 4 watts of electricity, a natural gas plant requires 30 to 200 times less space. Solar energy consumes even more land than wind. Solar panels consist of photovoltaic (PV) cells. A single cell is about 10 centimeters in size and generates about 1 watt of power--enough for a pocket calculator, but not for a radio. A module of 40 PV cells can produce enough electricity to power a small light bulb. The modules can be combined into groups of 10 to form solar arrays. Ten to 20 PV arrays can power a single household, but for larger electrical needs, such as industrial factories, hundreds of arrays must be connected to generate enough power. The inefficiency of wind and solar power is a major obstacle to increasing the market share achievable by renewable energies. Moreover, the vast amounts of land required by wind and solar farms represent an obvious environmental drawback ... and a blight on the visual landscape renewable energy advocates claim they want to protect. The Sierra Club argues that if the government mandates the use of renewable energy, the efficiency of renewable energy will increase. But corporate welfare--either direct welfare, in the form of subsidies to firms producing renewable energy, or indirect welfare in the form of mandates that protect one form of energy over another--isn’t usually the best way to make a company more efficient. More typically, companies get more efficient because they must compete in the marketplace ... not because the government forces consumers to buy their products.

-162-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad

SOLAR BAD – UNSTABLE MARKET
SOLAR MARKET IS UNSTABLE AND CANNOT OPERATE WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT International Herald Tribune 8 (Holly Hubbard Preston, “Investments pour into solar energy, but the sector is scary,” 6-27-2008, http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/27/business/mwind.php?page=1)
When Rick Hanna and his fellow energy analysts at Morningstar in Chicago sat down recently to discuss solar energy stocks, the question on the table was this: Is solar the next Internet-style bubble? Given the volatile state of the solar energy sector, it's a valid query. During 2007, solar stocks shot through the ceiling, gaining on average some 200 percent in value, only to plummet during the first part of this year. First Solar, an industry stalwart, has traded from a low of $74 on Aug. 16, 2007, to a high of $317 on May 14 of this year. If that makes investing in solar energy sound scary, it should - though not for the same reasons investing in Internet stocks were in 2000. Last year's IPO hype aside, solar is an industry driven by commodities, not technology: Any declines in crude oil prices will be felt because such activity upsets the price competitiveness of solar energy. Then there are those ongoing shortages of polysilicon, the chief raw material used to make most solar panels. Despite recent announcements of capacity expansion, the sector is still jittery over supply. In May, Morningstar reported that spot prices for the raw material hit $500 per kilogram. Though contracted prices are still well below that level, continued supply restraints could cut into future gross margins, Hanna said. But much as these factors might mess with the minds of investors, the real nerve-rattler, Hanna said, is uncertainty over public policy. "This is a sector that depends on government subsidies, that can't yet stand on its own," he said. When governments tinker with their support of solar energy subsidies, it can send shock waves through the industry. After months of debate, Germany's Parliament passed a law in June

-163-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad
reducing customer subsidies on solar purchases - known as feed-in tariffs - by 10 percent. While that is better than the 25 percent the industry was bracing for, it was nonetheless unsettling given Germany's status as the world's largest solar market based on installations. "If you have situation where demand is on somewhat on shaky ground and a country that accounts for half the world's solar market is (debating) whether to renew a tariff, there's going to be speculation," said Hanna. The key to stock-picking in the current environment, said Hanna, is finding companies with "sustainable competitive advantages" as evidenced by a backlog of sales contracts, declining input costs, technology platforms that are scalable and cash on balance sheet. Find companies with that profile and settle in for what could be a "tremendous long growth trajectory," Hanna said. While the speculative nature of investing in solar energy will probably persist for the near term, the degree to which indeterminate energy policies feed that volatility could be short-lived. With oil and gas prices skyrocketing and output capacity for both peaking, the very real threat of energy security as well as affordability has finally arrived. This, coupled with mounting public concern over impact of carbon emissions, has public policy makers in a hot seat with little relief in sight. As Hanna put it, the world is, "hitting the pain threshold" where the opportunity costs associated with not supporting rigorous renewable energy programs far outweigh their upfront capital expenditures. And even if oil and gas prices do correct in the short-term - diminishing for a time the case for alternatives including renewables like solar energy mounting evidence shows that fossils fuels are in their twilight, for transport fuel and for power generation. In fact, while public attention is squarely focused on prices and availability at the pump, industry experts warn an even larger supply crisis is mounting around power generation. According to a published report from Exxon Mobil, the largest energy-consuming sector is not transportation or industry but power generation. By its own calculations, the U.S.-based oil and gas giant estimated some 35 percent of the world's total energy usage goes toward the production of electricity. Within two decades, global demand for electricity will skyrocket, fueled in large by rapid economic growth in developing markets where per-capita energy use is still relatively low. Compared with North America, developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region use an estimated one-tenth the level used in North America. Exxon Mobil projects that by 2030, global energy demand will be 40 percent higher than in 2005. In developing countries such as those in Asia-Pacific, per capita energy use is expected to soar by 70 percent by 2030. In the face of looming shortages, developing nations are jumping feet first into renewables. China, the world's biggest energy consumer after the United States and the biggest producer of greenhouse gases, is already running short on energy: The state Electricity Commission warned this month of chronic shortages this summer due, in part to depleted coal reserves. China, which passed a landmark renewable energy law in January 2007, has pledged to spend some $200 billion over the next 15 years on renewable energy. The goal: Achieve 20 percent total energy consumption from green fuel sources. China's interest in renewables has translated into a rapidly expanding base of at least a dozen publicly held domestic solar energy and wind energy concerns among them: Solarfun Power Holdings, Yingli Green Energy Holdings, JA Solar Holdings and Xinjiang Goldwind Sci & Tech. A recent alternative energy report from JP Morgan, citing data from the International Energy Agency, estimated that generating capacity by renewable energy across all categories - wind, solar, biomass and waste, geothermal, tide and wave, and hydro - will increase by 3.1 percent between 2004 and 2015, with most of the growth occurring in Europe. Increases in wind and solar capacity are forecast to be especially strong at 12 percent and 16 percent, respectively. One factor hindering growth, as pointed out in the report, is the high capital cost of most renewables. As the JP Morgan report noted, "The capital cost of biomass plants, offshore wind farms, and other renewable technologies, with the exception of hydropower, is far higher than the capital cost of coal generation, per megawatt of generating capacity." Looking ahead, it deemed solar, wind and biomass the "most attractive subsectors" of renewables, citing that all three were, "already commercial and benefit from a strong demand." Likewise, it noted technological advances and greater economies of scale are helping improving the fundamental economics associated with producing all three forms of renewable energy. Along those lines, IBM, a company with some 30 years invested in solar technology, announced in May a breakthrough in its photovoltaic research. Using so-called concentrators, IBM claimed it had found away to capture more sun energy in a smaller area, potentially improving economies of scale for manufacturers and customers alike. Whether because of developments such as this or rising fossil fuel costs or both, solar energy's value-to-cost ratio is starting to improve for energy service providers and their customers - a development that should encourage investors. Renewables aren't the only game in town, of course; cleaner, so -called advanced nuclear, coal and natural gas are also in the pipeline. But Jeffrey Segal, the founder of GreenChipStocks.com, an investor news and research portal, thinks renewables not only have the near-term power to supplement fossil fuels but supplant them. His favorite U.S. stocks are Aeena Solar, Western Wind Energy and Ormat Technologies. He also likes Gamesa Corporación Technologica of Spain, Vestas Wind Systems of Denmark and SolarFun Power Holdings of China. "The basic fundamentals of supply and demand dictate the success of renewables," said Segal. "All of our non-renewable resources will peak within the next 40 to 50 years. There is nothing that can fill the void besides renewables. The companies that can utilize these resources to generate electricity simply have a stronger long-term value."

-164-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad

SOLAR BAD – UNSTABLE MARKET
SOLAR ENERGY MARKETS FLUCTUATE CONSTANTLY BECAUSE THEY ARE DRIVEN BY THE PRICE OF CRUDE OIL Bloomberg 6 (Tom Cahill, “Around the Markets: Oil cycle goes against solar power,” 3-13-2006, http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/12/bloomberg/bxatm.php)
PARIS: Although Matthew Patsky's job is to study windmill and clean-coal technologies for Winslow Management, a U.S. money manager dedicated to environmentally friendly investments, his biggest concern right now is the price of oil. A 16 percent drop in the price of crude from its high in 2006 could portend further declines, reducing demand for renewable-energy equipment like solarpower cells from SolarWorld of Germany and wind-turbine generators from Suzlon Energy of India. Their shares soared when oil rose 40 percent in 2005. "There are cycles to oil prices that directly influence renewables," Patsky said. "While right now it's favorable, the situation could easily reverse. I do believe we will see $100-a-barrel oil. I just think we'll see $45 a barrel first." The Bloomberg world energy-alternative sources index, which tracks SolarWorld, Suzlon and 13 other stocks, has jumped 30.7 percent in 2006, reaching a record on March 3. At the same time, crude prices in New York this year have averaged $63.42 a barrel, up 32 percent from last year. SolarWorld shares are up 91 percent this year, the biggest gain in the alternate energy index. Suzlon has risen 43 percent, more than doubling since its initial stock sale in October. Among the competition, Ballard Power Systems, a Canadian fuel-cell maker that has not posted a profit since 1998, is up 40 percent this year. Evergreen Solar, a U.S. maker of solar cells, has climbed 47 percent. Companies in the index trade at an average of 58 times projected earnings and 6.6 times sales. Stocks globally sell for 18 times estimated earnings and 1.3 times sales, based on Morgan Stanley Capital International's world index. The MSCI benchmark is up 3.9 percent this year. The valuations indicate that investors have become too enthusiastic about alternative-energy stocks, said the hedge fund manager Andrew Abrams of Abrams Investment Partners in New York. "These can be very pie-in-the- sky stocks with lots of noise and very little actually being done," he said. "When they're in their cycle, which it looks like they are now, they get tremendously inflated. Nobody cares as soon as oil breaks back below $40 a barrel or so." Renewable energy accounts for just 5.5 percent of the primary fuel supplies used by the 26 member nations in the International Energy Agency. Among alternate energy stocks that have soared and later tumbled: AstroPower, a maker of electric solar-panel systems for homes and businesses whose shares traded as high as $36 in May 2001, filed for bankruptcy court protection in February 2004, and Plug Power, a maker of fuel cells, which trades at $4.59, against its May 2001 high of $35.40. The industry's shares are getting a lift from more than just the higher prices of oil and natural gas. Countries also are investing in alternative energy to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The International Energy Agency in Paris, an adviser to oil-importing nations, last month estimated that its members had spent $27.4 billion on renewable-energy research and development in the past 30 years to create a total of about 500 gigawatts of installed electric generation capacity. Still, Patsky said his firm's $220 million Winslow Green Growth Fund had reduced its holdings of alternate energy stocks to 20 percent from a high of 25 percent, anticipating a decline in the price of oil. The fund has returned an average of 11 percent a year the past five years, compared with 2.6 percent for the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index. The firm holds Fuel-Tech, a maker of pollution-control technologies; Evergreen Solar, a maker of solar cells; and Zoltec, a maker of carbon fibers used in windmill blades. "They are selling all they can make and are making money," Patsky said. Winslow also runs a $27 million hedge fund with short positions, or bets that shares will fall, in some alternate energy stocks that Patsky declined to identify.

THE SOLAR MARKET IS RAPIDLY DROPPING DUE TO LACK OF COMPETITION International Herald Tribune 6 (Yu-huay Sun, “Around the Markets: Competition dims solar cells' shine” 8-4-2006, http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/03/bloomberg/sxasia.php)
TAIPEI: Shares of Motech Industries of Taiwan and Solarworld of Germany soared in the past year as rising prices for oil and natural gas increased spending on renewable energy worldwide. Now they are coming down to earth as competition threatens profit growth for solar-cell makers. Taiwan's government is offering tax breaks to turn the island into a production center for solar panels, which use silicon wafers to convert sunlight into electricity. In Germany, at least four solar companies sold shares in the past two years. Bigger or more diversified companies, like BP in Britain and Sharp in Japan, are expanding output of solar cells. "As more and more companies enter the market, profit margins will decline," said Kuo Shou-ming, who oversees assets at SinoPac Securities Investment Trust in Taipei. He sold Motech shares for more than 200 Taiwan dollars, or $6, each after they tripled from his purchase price. "The surges in solar shares last year had already reflected the estimated growth in sales over the next 5 to 10 years," he said. Shares of Motech, which is based in Taipei and is the biggest maker of solar cells in Taiwan, and Solarworld, which is based in Bonn and bought

-165-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad
most of Royal Dutch Shell's solar business in June, have doubled in the past year. They are down 17 percent and 30 percent, respectively, from peaks set in May. The pattern has been similar for shares of Evergreen Solar in the United States, Suntech Power Holdings of China and Q-Cells, Conergy and Sunways of Germany. Taiwan companies started investing in solar cell manufacturing in 2005 and eight more, including the chip maker Mosel Vitelic, plan to do so this year, according to Taiwan's Bureau of Energy. The value of solar cells produced by Taiwan companies may rise almost eightfold to 40 billion dollars by 2010 from last year, the energy bureau said in June. Solar cell prices may fall 5 percent annually in the next two years as capacity increases 42 percent next year, according to Primasia Securities in Taipei. BP, the biggest European oil company, has said that it plans to double solar panel manufacturing capacity by the end of this year. Sharp plans to raise solar panel production capacity in coming years, depending on the availability of silicon and growth in global demand, a spokesman, Tetsuya Igarashi, said by phone. Sharp can currently produce as much as 500 megawatts, said Igarashi, who did not give details ofthe expansion plan. "Competition will intensify as newcomers join," said Hank Chenat ABN AMRO Asset Management Taiwan, which holds Motech shares. "They may lower prices to grab market share." At the same time, costs are rising for producers. Solar equipment makers are facing a shortage of polysilicon, an essential raw material. Demand will outstrip supply by 37 percent this year, Primasia said. The shortage of raw materials has the potential to limit supply as demand for solar cells soars. Global installation of solar panels will probably grow 23 percent annually through 2010, Taiwan's energy bureau said. California is spending $3.2 billion over the next decade to install equipment to provide 3,000 megawatts of solar energy. One megawatt is enough to power about 800 U.S. homes.Germany aims to produce one-fifth of its power with renewable energy by 2020. Competitors' shares in Japan may be better shielded because they are diversified in businesses, Chen at ABN AMRO said. Shares of Sharp, the world's biggest maker of solar panels, have fallen 10 percent since closing at a five-year high Feb. 1. The Osaka- based company, which also makes televisions and cellphones, controls a quarter of the market for solar cells, according to Taiwan's energy bureau. Now that the initial burst of enthusiasm is past, some investors realize that solar stocks can not live up to the expectations represented by their valuations in the market, said Michael On, who does not own any of the shares among the assets he oversees at Beyond Asset Management in Taipei. "The bubble of solar stocks has burst," On said. "They're too expensive."

-166-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad

SOLAR BAD – RAPID DEVELOPMENT BAD
THE AFF PLAN WILL INCREASE SOLAR POWER TOO QUICKLY; INCREASING THE USE OF SOLAR POWER NOW WILL CRUSH ITS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT International Herald Tribune 8 (Mark Landler, “Debate over solar energy in Germany lowers outlook,” 515-2008, http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/15/business/solar.php)
THALHEIM, Germany: This sad stretch of eastern Germany, with its deserted coal mines and corroded factories, epitomizes post-industrial

gloom. It is a place where even the clouds rarely seem to part. Yet the sun was shining here the other day - and nowhere more brightly than at Q-Cells, a German company that last year overtook Sharp, a Japanese company, to become the world's largest maker of photovoltaic solar cells. Q-Cells is the anchor tenant in a flowering cluster of solar start-ups here, known as Solar Valley. Thanks to its aggressive push into renewable energies, a cloud-wreathed Germany has become an unlikely world leader in the race to harness the sun's energy. It has by far the largest market for photovoltaic systems, which convert sunlight into electricity, with roughly half of the world's total installed capacity. And it is the third-largest producer of solar cells and modules, after China and Japan. Now, though, with so many solar panels on so many rooftops, critics say Germany has too much of a good thing. Even at a time of record oil prices, solar is encountering resistance from conservative lawmakers who want to pare back its generous state incentives. They say it is growing at an unhealthy pace, threatening to burden consumers with too many costs in the form of higher electricity bills. Solarenergy entrepreneurs warn that reducing these incentives would deprive Germany of its pole position in an industry of tomorrow. They liken Germany to the United States and Japan, which were both once solar stars but faded as their subsidies became less attractive. The debate over solar energy subsidies is a test of how an environmentally-minded country can move from nurturing a promising alternative energy to creating a mass-market industry that can compete, on its own footing, with conventional energy sources. It is a tricky transition, even with a sympathetic population. "Germany's law has basically been a turbocharger," said Anton Milner, the chief executive of Q-Cells. If the proposals being floated by the Christian Democratic Union, the party of Chancellor Angela Merkel, were adopted, he predicted, "you'd kill the industry." Germany's surging market has lured investors from Canada, Norway, and the United States. More than 40,000 people work in the photovoltaic industry, helping to revive blighted regions like this one. On Wednesday, Q-Cells reported a 63 percent jump in its first-quarter operating profit, showing the riches to be reaped from sunshine. Leading a visitor past gleaming rows of solar panels on the roof of the Q-Cells' headquarters, Milner, a British-born former executive at Royal Dutch/Shell, said Germany could not afford to blow this chance. Surely, he said, the naysayers are aware that the cost of electricity will spike along with the price of fossil fuels. Joachim Pfeiffer, a member of Parliament who is drafting the plan to cut incentives, said: "We don't want to slaughter the solar industry. We think photovoltaic technology will have a great future. But to have that future, we can't have overkill now." At the heart of the debate is the Renewable Energy Sources Act. It requires power companies to buy all the alternative
energy produced by these systems, at a fixed, above-market price, for 20 years. This mechanism, known as a feed-in tariff, gives entrepreneurs a powerful incentive to install solar panels because with a locked-in customer for their electricity, they can earn a reliable return on their investment. It worked: homeowners rushed to clamp solar panels on their roofs and farmers planted them in fields where sheep once grazed. The amount of electricity generated by these installations rose 60 percent in 2007 compared to 2006, faster than any other renewable energy (solar still generates just 0.6 percent of Germany's total electricity, compared with 6.4 percent for wind). With wind, bio-mass, and other alternative sources also growing, Germany derives 14.2 percent of its electricity from renewable energy. That puts it ahead of a European Union target for countries to generate 12.5 percent of electricity from alternative sources by 2010. Spain, France, Italy, and Greece have copied the law. In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger pushed a plan in which utilities pay rebates to customers with solar panels, though only up to the amount of electricity they would have otherwise used from conventional energy sources.

"Germany is a driving force worldwide," said Hermann Scheer, a member of Parliament who helped write the law. "It is very important that the driving force not become a lame duck." Christian Democrats, however, say the law has been too successful for its own good. Utilities, they note, are allowed to pass along the extra cost of buying renewable energy to rate-payers, and there is no cap on the capacity that can be installed - as exists in other countries - to prevent the subsidies from mushrooming. Solar energy now adds €1.01, or $1.56, per month to a typical home electricity bill, a modest surcharge that Germans are willing to pay. That will increase to €2.14 per month by 2014, according to the German Solar Energy Association. But with the volume of solar-generated energy rising much faster than originally predicted, critics contend that the costs will also soar. Pfeiffer said solar power could end up adding €8 to a monthly electricity bill, which would alienate even the most green-minded. With no change in the law, he says, the industry will soak up €120 billion in public support by 2015. The conservatives would like to accelerate the rate at which the feed-in tariff declines, now 5 percent a year. Under a draft proposal, it would fall 30 percent in 2009, and 9 percent a year after that. The law's term might also be shortened to 15 years from 20. Merkel, who prides herself on her green credentials, has yet to enter the debate. Her party must persuade its coalition partner, the Social Democratic Party, which might be tough, given that the law was strengthened in 2004 by the last government, led by the Social Democrats. Meanwhile, solar advocates are testifying before Parliament and publishing articles defending the law. Eicke Weber, a prominent physicist, said the estimate of €120 billion in subsidies was too high because it did not take into account the rising price of conventional electricity. That, plus a gradual decline in the cost of solar, will close the price gap between conventional and solar-generated electricity by 2014 or 2015, he predicted. The actual subsidy, Weber said, will be €40 billion to €60 billion, a third of what the German government is paying to prop up its superannuated coal industry. "If we're willing to burden the population with €180 billion of support for a dying industry, who do we worry about taking one-third of this to make Germany the world leader in photovoltaic technology?" said Weber, director of the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems in Freiburg. Defenders of solar energy see the hand of Germany's power companies behind the effort to change the law. Reducing incentives for solar would favor wind, which is a more natural fit for the utilities, because the cost of building wind farms is too high for the average homeowner with an empty roof and an urge to generate electricity. "Solar energy is more decentralized, so the industry sees more competition from solar than from wind," said Carsten Körnig, managing dirf fhfui7/ector of the German Solar Energy Association. In the former East Germany, where scores of state-subsidized industries were shuttered after reunification in 1990, the solar industry is a welcome tonic for a depressed region. Signet Solar, an American maker of photovoltaic modules that use thin-film technology, chose to build its first factory and research center near Dresden. "We decided right from the beginning to have our main R&D in Germany," said Gunter Ziegenbalg, Signet's managing director. Still, there are constant reminders of how quickly Germany could lose its status. Signet is building its next factory in Madras, India; Q-Cells is building one in Malaysia. Other German companies are exploring the Mediterranean markets, particularly Spain. With more sunny days a year, Spain is likely to have a competitive solar industry before Germany does. And now it has put in place its own German-style incentives. "To develop a technology, you've got to create an industry," Milner said of the German success story. "You can wait and wait and wait for costs to come down. But it takes too long."

-167-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad

-168-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad

SOLAR BAD – NO TECHNOLOGY
SOLAR POWER DOES NOT HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO SUCCEED NYT 6 (Andrew C. Revkin, “Budgets falling in race to fight global warming,”10-30-2006, http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/30/business/web.1030energy.php?page=4)
In the private sector, studies show that energy companies have a long tradition of eschewing long-term technology quests because of the lack of short-term payoffs. Still, more than four dozen scientists, economists, engineers and entrepreneurs interviewed by The New York Times said that unless the search for abundant non-polluting energy sources and systems became far more aggressive, the world would probably face dangerous warming and international strife as nations with growing energy demands compete for increasingly inadequate resources. Most of these experts also say existing energy alternatives and improvements in energy efficiency are simply not enough. "We cannot come close to stabilizing temperatures" unless humans, by the end of the century, stop adding more CO2 to the atmosphere than it can absorb, said W. David Montgomery of Charles River Associates, a consulting group, "and that will be an economic impossibility without a major R.& D. investment." A sustained push is needed not just to refine, test and deploy known low-carbon technologies, but also to find "energy technologies that don't have a name yet," said James A. Edmonds, a chief scientist at the Joint Global Change Research Institute of the University of Maryland and the Energy Department. At the same time, many energy experts and economists agree on another daunting point: To make any resulting "alternative" energy options the new norm will require attaching a significant cost to the carbon emissions from coal, oil and gas. "A price incentive stirs people to look at a thousand different things,' " said Henry D. Jacoby, a climate and energy expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. For now, a carbon cap or tax is opposed by President Bush, most American lawmakers and many industries. And there are scant signs of consensus on a long-term successor to the Kyoto Protocol, the first treaty obligating participating industrial countries to cut warming emissions. (The United States has not ratified the pact.) The next round of talks on Kyoto and an underlying voluntary treaty will take place next month in Nairobi, Kenya. Environmental campaigners, focused on promptly establishing binding limits on emissions of heat-trapping gases, have tended to play down the need for big investments seeking energy breakthroughs. At the end of "An Inconvenient Truth," former Vice President Al Gore's documentary film on climate change, he concluded: "We already know everything we need to know to effectively address this problem." While applauding Gore's enthusiasm, many energy experts said this stance was counterproductive because there was no way, given global growth in energy demand, that existing technology could avert a doubling or more of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide in this century. Gore has since adjusted his stance, saying existing technology is sufficient to start on the path to a stable climate. Other researchers say the chances of success are so low, unless something breaks the societal impasse, that any technology quest should also include work on increasing the resilience to climate extremes - through actions like developing more drought-tolerant crops - as well as last-ditch climate fixes, like testing ways to block some incoming sunlight to counter warming.

SOLAR POWER FAILS BECAUSE LACK OF RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, AS WELL AS DEPLOYMENT DUE TO LACK OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS NYT 6 (Andrew C. Revkin, “Budgets falling in race to fight global warming,”10-30-2006, http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/30/business/web.1030energy.php?page=4)
In the United States, the biggest effort along these lines is the 285-megawatt Futuregen power plant planned by the Energy Department, along with private and international partners, that was announced in 2003 by President Bush and is scheduled to be built in either Illinois or Texas by 2012. James L. Connaughton, the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the Bush administration was making this a high priority. "We share the view that a significantly more aggressive agenda on carbon capture and storage and zero-pollution coal is necessary," he said, adding that the administration has raised annual spending on storage options "from essentially zero to over $70 million." Europe is pursuing a suite of such plants, including one in China, but also well behind the necessary pace, several experts said. Even within the Energy Department, some experts are voicing frustration over the pace of such programs. "What I don't like about Futuregen," said Kutscher, an engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., "is the word 'future' in there." Beyond a Holding Action No matter what happens in the next decade or so, many experts say, the second and probably hardest phase of stabilizing the level of carbon dioxide will fall to the generation of engineers and entrepreneurs now in diapers, and the one after that. And those innovators will not have much to build on without greatly increased investment now in basic research. There is plenty of ferment. Current research ranges from work on algae strains that can turn sunlight into hydrogen fuel to the inkjet-style printing of photovoltaic cells - a technique that could greatly cut solarenergy costs if it worked on a large scale. One company is promoting high-flying kite-like windmills to harvest the boundless energy in the jet stream. But all of the small-scale experimentation will never move into the energy marketplace without a much bigger push not only for research and development, but for the lesser-known steps known as demonstration and deployment. In this arena, there is a vital role for government spending, many experts agree, particularly on "enabling technologies" - innovations that would never be pursued by private industry because they mainly amount to a public good, not a potential source of profit, said Christopher Green, an economist at McGill University. Examples include refining ways to securely handle radioactive waste from nuclear reactors; testing repositories for carbon dioxide captured at power plants; and, perhaps more important, improving the electricity grid so that it can manage large flows from intermittent sources like windmills and solar panels. "Without storage possibilities on a large scale," Green said, "solar and wind will be relegated to niche status." While private investors and entrepreneurs are jumping into alternative energy projects, they cannot be counted on to solve such problems, economists say, because even the most aggressive venture capitalists want a big payback within five years. Many scientists say the only real long-term prospect for significantly substituting for fossil fuels is a breakthrough in harvesting solar power. This has been understood since the days of Thomas Edison. In a conversation with Henry Ford and the tire tycoon Harvey Firestone in 1931, shortly before Edison died, he said: "I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that."

-169-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad

-170-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad

SOLAR BAD – FOOD PRICES TURN
A. FOOD CROPS TURN - SOLAR COMPANIES HURT THE ENVIROMENT- WASTE DUMPS IN CHINA ARE DESTROYING CROP PRODUCTION Ariana Eunjung Cha 3/9/08 *journalist based out of Shanghai covering finances in Asia. Studied at Princeton University and Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies*( “Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China” -Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595_pf.html)
GAOLONG, China -- The first time Li Gengxuan saw the dump trucks from the nearby factory pull into his village, he couldn't believe what happened. Stopping between the cornfields and the primary school playground, the workers dumped buckets of bubbling white liquid onto the ground. Then they turned around and drove right back through the gates of their compound without a word. This ritual has been going on almost every day for nine months, Li and other villagers said.
In China, a country buckling with the breakneck pace of its industrial growth, such stories of environmental pollution are not uncommon. But the Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology Co., here in the central plains of Henan Province near the Yellow River, stands out for one reason: It's a green energy company, producing polysilicon destined for solar energy panels sold around the world. But the byproduct of polysilicon production -- silicon tetrachloride -- is a highly toxic substance that poses environmental hazards. "The land where you dump or bury it will be infertile. No grass or trees will grow in the place. . . . It is like dynamite -- it is poisonous, it is polluting. Human beings can never touch it," said Ren Bingyan, a professor at the School of Material Sciences at Hebei Industrial University. The situation in Li's village points to the environmental trade-offs the world is making as it races to head off a dwindling supply of fossil fuels. Forests are being cleared to grow biofuels like palm oil, but scientists argue that the disappearance of such huge swaths of forests is contributing to climate change. Hydropower dams are being constructed to replace coal-fired power plants, but they are submerging whole ecosystems under water. Likewise in China, the push to get into the solar energy market is having unexpected consequences. With the prices of oil and coal soaring, policymakers around the world are looking at massive solar farms to heat water and generate electricity. For the past four years, however, the world has been suffering from a shortage of polysilicon -- the key component of sunlight-capturing wafers -- driving up prices of solar energy technology and creating a barrier to its adoption. With the price of polysilicon soaring from $20 per kilogram to $300 per kilogram in the past five years, Chinese companies are eager to fill the gap. In China, polysilicon plants are the new dot-coms. Flush with venture capital and with generous grants and low-interest loans from a central government touting its efforts to seek clean energy alternatives, more than 20 Chinese companies are starting polysilicon manufacturing plants. The combined capacity of these new factories is estimated at 80,000 to 100,000 tons -- more than double the 40,000 tons produced in the entire world today. But Chinese companies' methods for dealing with waste haven't been perfected. Because of the environmental hazard, polysilicon companies in the developed world recycle the compound, putting it back into the production process. But the high investment costs and time, not to mention the enormous energy consumption required for heating the substance to more than 1800 degrees Fahrenheit for the recycling, have discouraged many factories in China from doing the same. Like Luoyang Zhonggui, other solar plants in China have not installed technology to prevent pollutants from getting into the environment or have not brought those systems fully online, industry sources say. "The recycling technology is of course being thought about, but currently it's still not mature," said Shi Jun, a former photovoltaic technology researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Shi, chief executive of Pro-EnerTech, a start-up polysilicon research firm in Shanghai, said that there's such a severe shortage of polysilicon that the government is willing to overlook this issue for now. "If this happened in the United States, you'd probably be arrested," he said. An independent, nationally accredited laboratory analyzed a sample of dirt from the dump site near the Luoyang Zhonggui plant at the request of The Washington Post. The tests show high concentrations of chlorine and hydrochloric acid, which can result from the breakdown of silicon tetrachloride and do not exist naturally in soil. "Crops cannot grow on this, and it is not suitable for people to live nearby," said Li Xiaoping, deputy director of the Shanghai Academy of Environmental Sciences. Wang Hailong, secretary of the board of directors for Luoyang Zhonggui, said it is "impossible" to think that the company would dump large amounts of waste into a residential area. "Some of the villagers did not tell the truth," he said. However, Wang said the company does release a "minimal amount of waste" in compliance with all environmental regulations. "We release it in a certain place in a certain way. Before it is released, it has gone through strict treatment procedures." Yi Xusheng, the head of monitoring for the Henan Province Environmental Protection Agency, said the factory had passed a review before it opened, but that "it's possible that there are some pollutants in the production process" that inspectors were not aware of. Yi said the agency would investigate. In 2005, when residents of Li's village, Shiniu, heard that a new solar energy company would be building a factory nearby, they celebrated. The impoverished farming community of roughly 2,300, near the eastern end of the Silk Road, had been left behind during China's recent boom. In a country where the average wage in some areas has climbed to $200 a month, many of the village's residents make just $200 a year. They had high hopes their new neighbor would jump-start the local economy and help transform the area into an industrial hub. The Luoyang Zhonggui factory grew out of an effort by a national research institute to improve on a 50-year-old polysilicon refining technology pioneered by Germany's Siemens. Concerned about intellectual property issues, Siemens has held off on selling its technology to the Chinese. So the Chinese have tried to create their own. Last year, the Luoyang Zhonggui factory was estimated to have produced less than 300 tons of polysilicon, but it aims to increase that tenfold this year -- making it China's largest operating plant. It is a key supplier to Suntech Power Holdings, a solar panel company whose founder Shi Zhengrong recently topped the list of the richest people in China. Made from the Earth's most abundant substance -- sand -- polysilicon is tricky to manufacture. It requires huge amounts of energy, and even a small misstep in the production can introduce impurities and ruin an entire batch. The other main challenge is dealing with the waste. For each ton of polysilicon produced, the process generates at least four tons of silicon tetrachloride liquid waste. When exposed to humid air, silicon tetrachloride transforms into acids and poisonous hydrogen chloride gas, which can make people who breathe the air dizzy and can make their chests contract. While it typically takes companies two years to get a polysilicon factory up and running properly, many Chinese companies are trying to do it in half that time or less, said Richard Winegarner, president of Sage Concepts, a California-based

-171-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad
consulting firm. As a result, Ren of Hebei Industrial University said, some Chinese plants are stockpiling the hazardous substances in the hopes that they can figure out a way to dispose of it later: "I know these factories began to store silicon tetrachloride in drums two years ago." Pro-EnerTech's Shi says other companies -- including Luoyang Zhonggui -- are just dumping wherever they can. "Theoretically, companies should collect it all, process it to get rid of the poisonous stuff, then release it or recycle. Zhonggui currently doesn't have the technology. Now they are just releasing it directly into the air," said Shi, who recently visited the factory. Shi estimates that Chinese companies are saving millions of dollars by not installing pollution recovery. He said that if environmental protection technology is used, the cost to produce one ton is approximately $84,500. But Chinese companies are making it at $21,000 to $56,000a ton. In sharp contrast to the gleaming white buildings in Zhonggui's new gated complex in Gaolong, the situation in the villages surrounding it is bleak. About nine months ago, residents of Li's village, which begins about 50 yards from the plant, noticed that their crops were wilting under a dusting of white powder. Sometimes, there was a hazy cloud up to three feet high near the dumping site; one person tending crops there fainted, several villagers said. Small rocks began to accumulate in kettles used for boiling faucet water. Each night, villagers said, the factory's chimneys released a loud whoosh of acrid air that stung their eyes and made it hard to breath. "It's poison air. Sometimes it gets so bad you can't sit outside. You have to close all the doors and windows," said Qiao Shi Peng, 28, a truck driver who said he worries about his 1-year-old son's health. The villagers said most obvious evidence of the pollution is the dumping, up to 10 times a day, of the liquid waste into what was formerly a grassy field. Eventually, the whole area turned white, like snow. The worst part, said Li, 53, who lives with his son and granddaughter in the village, is that "they go outside the gates of their own compound to dump waste." "We didn't know how bad it was until the August harvest, until things started dying," he said. Early this year, one of the villagers put some of the contaminated soil in a plastic bag and went to the local environmental bureau. They never got back to him. Zhang Zhenguo, 45, a farmer and small businessman, said he has a theory as to why: "They didn't test it because the government supports the plant."

SOLAR BAD - FOOD PRICES TURN CONT.
B. CHINA IS A KEY PLAYER IN THE GLOBAL AGRICULTURAL SECTOR- PRODUCING 1/5TH OF THE WORLDS MAJOR CROPS
Rosamond Naylor 8/30/07 *professor at Stanford University, Institute for International Studies* (http://www.agci.org/publications/eoc95/sessionIII/Naylor.html “Elements of change- Aspen Global Change institute)

China was chosen as a special case study for this AGCI session because of its overwhelming importance in the world food economy, its extremely rapid rate of agricultural, urban and industrial growth, and its high level of dependence on soft coal for economic development. The combination of these factors serves as an excellent model for studying the dynamics of the MAP. Three questions are particularly interesting in considering the relation between China's MAPs and the world food economy:

what are the effects of urbanization and industrialization on agricultural productivity? how does the process of agricultural productivity growth itself contribute to changes in biogeochemical cycles, increased concentrations of photochemical oxidants, and resource depletion? and how do changes in agricultural productivity in China affect world food availability and prices? This set of issues is relevant to the ongoing debate over whether China will "starve the world" in the process of its economic development and income growth.
Both the socio-economic and the physical dimensions of these issues are of interest in this AGCI session. China plays a major role in the world food economy in terms of production as well as consumption. For example, it accounts for about 1/5 of the global output of rice, wheat, corn, soybeans, and peanuts, and it has substantially higher yields particularly in the case of cereals than the global average (Table 14.3). China also has an extremely limited arable land base per capita compared with the global average. Its per capita arable land base is small even compared with the average for Asia, which, as a region, is very densely populated. As a result, China has intensified its agricultural production by growing more crops per year per hectare and achieving higher yields per hectare for individual crops. This intensification process is characteristic of agricultural development for the world as a whole; during the past 35 years, over 90% of global production growth in cereals has been attributed to yield increases and less than 10% to area expansion. What happens in China in terms of grain production, consumption, and trade is important for the world food economy as a whole.

-172-

UMICH 08- CHKP 7 WK. Jnrs. Renewables Good/Bad
C. STABLE FARMING INDUSTRY IS KEY TO AFFORDABLE FOOD PRICES Kieth Smith 8/1/07 *Vice President for Ag. Admin* (“Columnist defends large farming operations” http://clark.osu.edu/ag/largeoperations.htm)
Let's begin by asking the question: "Why large farms?" The answer is: cheap food. The competition for your food dollar is global. With large ships, huge airplanes and new technology for preserving perishable commodities, our farmers must compete against producers around the world to sell you food. Many of these countries have a lower standard of living. Thus, two major cost inputs for producing food, land and labor, are much cheaper abroad, making their produce more competitive. The only way we can compete against them is through quality, technology and economies of scale, otherwise known as getting bigger. This global competition has driven down profit per unit in agriculture. In the 1970's farmers told me their realistic goal was to net $70 per acre raising field crops. Tuition at Ohio State University in 1975 was around $840 per year. Thus, in the 70's it required 12 acres of field crops to pay OSU. Today, farmers struggle to net $20 an acre (OSU budget figures) with 200 thousand-dollar combines and cash rents averaging $90 an acre. Tuition at OSU this year is $4200 per student. If my math is correct, OSU needs 210 acres for your son or daughter. Even at the net of $70 per acre it would still take 60 acres instead of 12. Beef, pork, milk, chicken, corn, wheat and soybeans are virtually the same commodity price as 25 years ago. What have cars, homes, land, machinery, college tuition, health care and everything else done? Ten fold increase in many and that alone is probably not enough. This is why 300 acres or 30 cows today are not enough to feed the kids, much else educate them.

D. EVEN A SLIGHT INCREASE IN FOOD PRICES COULD SPELL DISASTER FOR OVER 600 MILLION PEOPLE http://epiac1216.wordpress.com/2008/05/03/soaring-prices-and-food-scarcity-reaches-panama/
The United Nations Food Program has described soaring food prices as a “silent tsunami” that threatens to plunge more than 100 million people from every continent into poverty. Protests, strikes and riots have erupted in developing countries around the world after dramatic rises in the prices of wheat, rice, corn, oils and other essential foods that have made it difficult for poor people to make ends meet. Young children, who can face life-long health problems from undernourishment, as well as pregnant and nursing mothers, are among the most vulnerable groups in developing countries, where food crises also stand to trigger political unrest. Panama is also a victim of this international malaise. In this small tropical country located in Central America, food prices keep rising. In March, the average cost of the basic food basket rose to $246.79, according to a report issued by the Ministry of Economic and Finance (MEF).

-173-

CHKP 7 Week Juniors- UM 08 Renewables Good/Bad

SOLAR BAD - FOOD PRICES TURN – A2: U O/W L
THE CURRENT FOOD CRISIS ISN’T UNMANAGAEABLE- THE UN IS INITIATING PLAN TO HANDLE THE SITUATION Environment News Services 4/30/08 (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-3001.asp)
GENEVA, Switzerland, April 30, 2008 (ENS) - The United Nations aims to have a comprehensive plan to tackle the global food crisis in place by the beginning of June, "around which the institutions and leaders around the world can coalesce," a top UN official said at a news conference here today. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs John Holmes said that although the breadth and complexity of the issue must be recognized, there is no need to panic. "I think it is clear we can fix these problems. The solutions can be found; the solutions are there," he said. "They are very difficult, some of them, in the short term, but they can be done." Holmes is one of two coordinators, along with UN System Influenza Coordinator David Nabarro, of a new high-powered task force that was announced yesterday by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to organize responses to the global rise in food prices. The formation of this task force resulted from a two-day meeting of the UN Chief Executive Board, consisting of 27 heads of UN agencies, funds and programs chaired by the secretary-general in the Swiss city of Bern. The task force is chaired by the secretary-general and consists of the heads of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Food Programme, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the World Trade Organization, and other organizations which will be invited to join. The UN Chief Executive Board called on the international community to urgently provide $755 million in emergency funds needed for the UN to feed millions of hungry people worldwide, as the first of a series of concrete measures to be taken.

"We see mounting hunger and increasing evidence of malnutrition which has severely strained the capacities of humanitarian agencies to meet humanitarian needs, especially as promised funding has not yet materialized," Ban told a news conference in Bern on Tuesday. He warned that "without full funding of these emergency requirements, we risk again the spectre of widespread hunger, malnutrition and social unrest on an unprecedented scale." Protests and riots have broken out in some countries over the rising cost of basic foods, such as rice, wheat and corn.In 2007, the food price index calculated by the Food and Agriculture Organization rose by nearly 40 percent, compared with nine percent the year before, and in the first months of 2008 prices jumped again. Nearly every agricultural commodity is part of this rising price trend. Ban blamed escalating energy prices, lack of investment in agriculture, increasing demand, trade distortion subsidies and recurrent bad weather for the surge in prices. The food crisis "threatens to undo all our good work," Ban said later Tuesday in a lecture delivered in Geneva. "If not managed properly, it could touch off a cascade of related crises affecting trade, economic growth, social progress and even political security around the world," he said. But the UN chief said the situation is manageable. "I am confident that we can deal with the global food crisis. We have the resources. We have the knowledge. We know what to do. We should therefore consider this not only as a problem but also as an opportunity," he said. To address the crisis, Ban called on world leaders to attend the UN High-Level Conference on Food Security, to be held in Rome from June 3 to 5. In addition to the immediate priority of feeding the hungry, Ban emphasized the need to "ensure food for tomorrow," by giving small farmers the support they need to assure their next harvest.
UN agencies are already taking concrete measures to address the crisis. The Food and Agriculture Organization has proposed an emergency initiative to provide low-income countries with the seeds and inputs to boost production and is calling for $1.7 billion in funding. In addition, the International Fund for Agricultural Development is making available an additional $200 million to poor farmers in the most affected countries to boost food production. On the role of biofuel production in the current crisis, Holmes said, "It is something that needs a new look in present circumstances without wanting to fall in any sense into knee-jerk reactions of saying all biofuels are bad or good. We need to look at it in a careful, sophisticated and differentiated way, between different regions of the world and between different products."

-174-

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful