Cape Gazette, 01/26/2007, Page 19

Citizens of Delaware

We need to act now to meet our needs and save the earth.  NRG's ads are misleading and have neglected important information.

Please take the time to read the following:

 

NRG fails to point out that:

·       They will continue and in fact increase the extraction and transportation of coal causing continuous, serious damage to the environment.

·       They will continue to emit SOX, NOX, mercury, and other pollutants into our air. They will continue to be "dirty".

·       They will increase the release of C02 into the air, causing global warming and acidification of the ocean.

·       They will continue to release fine particulate matter which, according to Dr. James Rivera, Director DE Department of Health", shortens the lives of 95 Delaware residents each year.”

·       They will continue to run the current polluting coal stacks which, if a new one is added, will make Indian River one of the two biggest polluters in the state.

·       They will not have developed a system for capturing, transporting and storing all the C02, a future carbon tax for consumers and a future catastrophe for the earth.

 

Wind is supported because:

·       Wind is safe, clean, renewable and quiet.

·       Wind is free for use: no polluting extraction or export needed.

·       Wind turbines cause only minimal injury to birds according to a Denmark wind study in November 2006; and no injury to humans.

·       Wind is not harmful to the environment.

·       Wind is nearly constant 6-8 miles out; over supply can be fed into the grid to offset peak period lulls.

·       Wind development will create a wide variety of new jobs in Delaware.

·       Wind is the only choice that is healthy for our future generations.

 

Endorsed by: Citizens for Clean Power, Citizens for a Better Sussex (CBS), Delaware Audubon Society, Unitarian Universalists of Southern Delaware, Coalition for Climate Change Study and Action, Coastal-Georgetown American Association of University Women and hundreds of concerned citizens.

January 27, 2007 Powered by Q Content Copyright (c) 2007 Cape Gazette

http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2007/feb/wind020107.html

CapeGazette.com - Covering Delaware's Cape Region 302.645.7700.

1/26/07   

University of DE study shows that DELAWAREANS support wind power plan

 

By Rachel Swick, Cape Gazette staff

"A statewide survey asked Delaware residents if they would support wind power as an energy source.

 

The answer found by University of Delaware researchers was a resounding yes.

 

“When asked to select from a variety of sources to help the state increase its energy supply, more than 90 percent of the 949 Delaware residents responding to the survey supported an offshore wind option—in which whirling wind turbines as tall as 40-story buildings would be erected off the coast to generate electricity—even if wind power were to add between $1 and $30 per month to their electric bills,” reads the report. “Fewer than 10 percent voted for an expansion of coal or natural gas power at current prices.”

 

The team, including University of Delaware marine policy scientists Willett Kempton and Jeremy Firestone and doctoral student Andrew Krueger, worked for months to survey Delaware residents.

 

The report was released earlier this month, and Kempton talked about the results during a Jan. 18 meeting at Epworth Church, sponsored by the Coastal-Georgetown branch of American Association of University Women.

 

Kempton was joined by University of Delaware professor Chad Tolman, who is leading the Coalition for Climate Change Study and Action.

 

In a separate question posed to people who don’t live in the coastal area, the study found that 78 percent of Delawareans support wind as an energy source, while 4 percent opposed wind and 18 percent were unsure, Kempton said.

 

Residents living along the ocean and bay were separated from the overall results because they are likely to be the most affected by an offshore wind farm. Kempton found 65 percent of beach residents supported wind, while 20 percent opposed it and 16 percent were unsure.

 

The Delaware survey included photo simulations showing what a wind farm at sea would look like at various distances from shore, including six miles offshore, closer than any currently proposed plans.

 

Bluewater Wind, which originally submitted three wind farm options to Delmarva Power, but recently withdrew one.

 

Of the remaining options, one would be about 7 miles off the Bethany Beach coast and the second option would be about 12 miles off Rehoboth Beach.

 

Wind popular in Delaware

Kempton said he was surprised to find overwhelming support for wind power.

 

The last wind survey he did, in Massachusetts, showed great opposition to offshore wind power and eventually the proposal of Cape Wind Associates in Massachusetts was shot down.

 

Delaware shows great promise for wind, said Kempton, because while on land there is little reliable wind resource, offshore wind is very powerful and blows most of the time.

 

Their research was supported by a Green Energy Fund grant from the Delaware Energy Office in the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and by the college.

 

“This study was done before the power bids went out,” said Kempton.

 

“We simply asked what people preferred; wind versus coal or natural gas and 95 percent said they preferred wind.”

 

Competing bids

There has been a lot of talk about wind since Delmarva Power requested bids for a new energy source for Delaware. The bids that came back were for a new NRG Energy-operated integrated coal gasification system in Millsboro, a new natural gas plant by Conectiv in Wilmington and an offshore wind farm, proposed by Bluewater Wind.

 

Kempton said the survey also asked people how much more they would be willing to pay to have wind as a power source. The surveys varied, some asking if people would pay $1 more per month, and others asking higher amounts up to $30 more per month for three years.

 

After that question, 91 percent still preferred wind, said Kempton.

 

“We could save 17 lives per year by turning off 18 percent of the polluting plants,” said Kempton. “Isn’t that worth an additional cost?”

 

Current data shows that about 95 people die each year in Delaware as a result of health problems caused by pollution from coal-fired power plants.

 

“Now is the time to speak your mind,” said Kempton. “It’s happening in the next six weeks in Dover.”

 

Conservation

Not all environmentalists support the wind power project, however. Mike Tyler of the Citizens Coalition spoke out last week, stating that Delaware is not the right place for wind.

 

“Our precious oceans are not the venue for wind power,” said Tyler. “Generators should be on land.”  Tyler said the wind turbines would cause too much disturbance in the ocean, which is already faced with stress from pollution.

 

“Power is not the issue. The issue is lifestyle. We need to conserve. We need to stop producing such high demands for energy,” said Tyler.

 

“Drive down Route 1 at night and look at all the lights in the outlets needlessly burning lamps and lighting signs. How many Delawareans recycle? Stop wasting power. Forget wind for Delaware and focus on conservation and preserving our environment.”

 

Nation debates energy

U.S. Rep. Mike Castle also has recently become interested in the idea of alternative energy sources. With more and more information about global warming and the pollution and greenhouse gases emitted by coal-fired power plants, decision makers and politicians are becoming more interested in alternatives to coal.

 

Castle supports the Clean Energy Act, stating that oil and gas subsidies and leasing royalties received by the oil and gas industries should be put into a reserve account to pay for research on alternative energy and conservation. The royalties total $13 billion.

 

“With the world’s biggest oil companies reporting combined $111 billion in profits in 2005 and $94 billion in the first three quarters of 2006, it is clear that they are awash in cash. They certainly do not need billions of dollars in subsidies to encourage domestic production — it is already happening,” said Castle. “This is not a tax increase, as some may lead you to believe, it is sensible governing. I opposed legislation authorizing the subsidies in the first place and this is why I strongly support directing this money towards conservation and investment in the development alternative sources of energy.”

 

Contact Rachel Swick at rswick@capegazette.com"

 

For more see  http://abettersussex.com/Lobbyists.html