State Approves Wind Farm near Wildlife Refuge

By John Murawski

State officials have approved a proposed 49-turbine wind farm in Eastern North Carolina that critics worry could kill migrating birds from the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge nearby.

The N.C. Utilities Commission said Thursday that it had no legal authority to reject the Pantego Wind Energy Facility, which would spread over 11,000 acres in Beaufort County. But the state commission said the wind farm can’t move ahead until it receives state and federal environmental permits and meets other strict conditions.

As it is, the wind project is delayed by one year, with the earliest possible date it could be operating and generating electricity now put back to late 2013.

The project, proposed by Chicago-based Invenergy, would feature turbines reaching nearly 500 feet into the air to the tip of the blade. The blades could achieve rotational speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour in air space congested with birds and bats – a chief concern to naturalists and environmentalists who wanted more research on bird flight patterns before allowing the project to proceed.

At risk are several species, including some 100,000 tundra swans that migrate to the wildlife refuge each winter and forage on nearby farms, an annual spectacle and tourist attraction.

Read the rest at the Raleigh News & Observer

32 Responses to State Approves Wind Farm near Wildlife Refuge

  1. NEILIO March 10, 2012 at 1:33 am #

    I am not an environmentalist but I do shudder to think of all the birds and bats who will meet their end on the end of a turbine blade if this is approved. I actually am hoping that the environmental impact studies doom this project. I am not a proponent of wind energy so I would not get any heartburn if this project gets scrapped. I think that if this project is greenlighted that the bird and bat blood will be on the hands of environmentalists. And I say that without any glee.

    • Drewski March 21, 2012 at 5:41 am #

      It has been estimated that power lines kill 20,000 times (twenty thousand) times more birds than wind generators and house windows 10,000 times more. And that was when the turbines were the older smaller types that had faster spinning blades. The whole issue is just a nonsense.

      • Rob N. Hood March 22, 2012 at 11:24 am #

        thanks bro

  2. Rob N. Hood March 10, 2012 at 8:34 am #

    Those studies have been done and show little effect on birds, etc. And if was so potentially bad the environmentalists would be protesting vigorously. Plus if it turned oub to be deadly they could simply re/move it. It’s not a full fledged power plant for crying out loud.

    • NEILIO March 10, 2012 at 3:37 pm #

      Well this will be one to keep our eyes on then. Neilio out! Next!

    • NEILIO March 10, 2012 at 3:37 pm #

      This will be one to keep our eys on then.

      • NEILIO March 10, 2012 at 3:38 pm #

        Arrrrg! I reposted the comment because it was not there a second ago. DOH!

  3. Rob N. Hood March 15, 2012 at 2:25 pm #

    Twin Creeks, a solar power startup that emerged from obscurity, has apparently developed a way of creating photovoltaic cells that are half the price of today’s cheapest cells, and thus within reach of challenging the fossil fuel hegemony. Now if a “job creator” would help to create the factory to make these in the USA instead of China, that would really be great.

  4. joe March 15, 2012 at 9:11 pm #

    I bet it would. Just like Solyndra. Assume Obama is sending him our check?

    • Drewski March 21, 2012 at 5:49 am #

      Solyndra failed because the Chines are dumping cheaper (and cheaply made) panels onto the American market and the ignorant public does not know how to make an informed choice when it comes to solar panels. However the industry, as a whole, is going gang busters and the estimate is that PV solar will be making electricity as cheaply as oil generated electricity by 2018 and as cheaply as coal generated power by 2021. Why do you think there is so much misinformation put out about renewable energy? It is because the fossil fuel electricity companies are beginning to see real competition in the near future.

      • Rob N. Hood March 22, 2012 at 11:25 am #

        thanks again guy! (or gal!)

  5. Rob N. Hood March 16, 2012 at 11:47 am #

    Yes, joe… Obama is sending out OUR checks to China as we speak. NOT to the MIC, no…

  6. Rob N. Hood March 16, 2012 at 3:00 pm #

    The rise in gas prices has almost nothing to do with energy policy. It has everything to do with America’s continuing failure to adequately regulate Wall Street. But don’t hold your breath waiting for Republicans to tell the truth.

    Oil supplies aren’t being squeezed. Over 80 percent of America’s energy needs are now being satisfied by domestic supplies. In fact, we’ve started to become an energy exporter. Demand for oil isn’t rising in any event. Demand is down in the U.S. compared to last year at this time, and global demand is still moderate given the economic slowdowns in Europe and China.

    But Wall Street is betting on higher oil prices in the future — and that betting is causing prices to rise. The Street is laying odds that unrest in Syria will spill over into other countries or that tensions with Iran will affect the Persian Gulf, and that global demand will pick up as American consumers bounce back to life.

    These bets are pushing up oil prices because Wall Street firms and other big financial players now dominate oil trading.

  7. joe March 18, 2012 at 12:14 am #

    You are re-stating Obama’s B.S. I assume you received his “talking points?” Most “kneeler’s”and BOHICA’s (Bend over here it comes again) Never changes does it. “Conservatives are bad and the left is right”. Isn’t that a contradiction? It is simply called supply and demand. More energy independence the better our country will be not worrying about middle east crises that controls our present destiny. By the way, Obama claims more oil produced since his election. True, but not true. Suggest you check further?. The statement is folly not fact. The man simply has no facts behind him. He’s “all yack and no shack” as we used to say in college. Say whatever you believe the ignorant one’s will believe without fact checking. Suggest you research further before you speak further on the subject? I can see the left wing rant forthcoming. We are impatiently awaiting your normal usual response. Bring it on.

    • Drewski March 21, 2012 at 5:58 am #

      I have checked and the real reasons for the price rise is that extracting oil is becoming more expensive and it is more difficult to find and recover — 3 mile ocean depths, Arctic conditions and energy intensive tar sands. PLUS there are 1 billion more middle class citizens in the world today than there were in the year 2000 and another billion more by 2020 and they are all competing for the same resource. PLUS the 13 % extra oil that the Obama administration that has been created on American soil under Obama’s watch has been largely exported by our patriotic oil mega companies to those billions of extra new consumers. PLUS oil companies are making obscene profits.

  8. Rob N. Hood March 18, 2012 at 7:40 am #

    It’s called reality. It’s a thing that’s sometimes (often) more complicated than the talking points generated by right-wing think tanks and spread like manure upon our society via corporate controlled media.

  9. Rob N. Hood March 18, 2012 at 7:42 am #

    Also- why do you not mention conversancy as another powerful method for more energy independence? Too boring for ya? What? And why would you be “impatient” to hear a “normal” response? That’s not logical, but then again neither is much of what you post. You think it is but, sorry, it’s just not.

  10. Rob N. Hood March 18, 2012 at 10:27 am #


  11. joe March 18, 2012 at 10:58 pm #

    I must say your spell check was suspect similar to your comment. Have no problem with new energy. Things change daily. Thomas Edison never had a focus group on the light bulb did he but it worked and we use it to this day until GE and others got involved. Why? He invented what people wanted and could afford to purchase and made their life better and were willing to pay the small price to “see the light.” No pun intended. Very simple economics 101. That is “logic”, not talking points from Obama.

  12. Rob N. Hood March 19, 2012 at 7:26 am #

    Tesla actually invented the superior electricity, and Edison tried to beat him out using mainly under-handed corporate-type techniques, of which are much in use today. AC won out due to it’s superiority, but Edison still managed to “win the race”, again by being the bigger corporate-minded jerk.

  13. Rob N. Hood March 19, 2012 at 7:27 am #

    That is FACT not talking points from the wing nut think tanks.

  14. Rob N. Hood March 19, 2012 at 1:46 pm #

    Your spell check is indeed impeccable Joe. It would sadden me, though, to base my self-esteem on that… or to bother to comment on it, or even take time to worry about it at all. There’s a term for that kind of minutae obsession.

  15. joe March 20, 2012 at 9:50 pm #

    Oh, Tesla! Nice car if you want a $100,000 “brick.” If you have no knowledge of what I mean you haven’t investigated. Suggest you do. I will not get personal as to “self-esteem.” Somewhat seems lacking in my humble opinion.

  16. Rob N. Hood March 21, 2012 at 7:02 am #

    uhhh, joe…? We were talking about electiricty- the kind that runs thru wires, above and below the ground…? My self-esteem remains intact. My faith in humanity however is sorely lacking more than ever.

  17. Joe March 25, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

    Electricity powers electric cars. Am I not correct?

  18. Rob N. Hood March 26, 2012 at 12:53 pm #

    YES- you are correct sir! Ding Ding Ding!! What prize has this contestant won today? A NEW CAR! Just send me $200 for shipping and handling…

  19. Joe March 26, 2012 at 10:45 pm #

    Oops, forgot that coal is the generator as well as nuclear for electricity. Forgot that the leader will attempt to ban at least coal? He’s temporarily changed his mind in election time on nuclear?

  20. Rob N. Hood March 27, 2012 at 7:03 am #

    Yes, J/joe… you are onto him and us. We plan to turn the lights out, and create a communist mecca, albeit a dark one, called USSA. United Soviet States of America. Please don’t tell anyone.

  21. Rob N. Hood March 27, 2012 at 9:48 am #

    Except there’s this:

    National oil production, which declined steadily to 4.95 million barrels a day in 2008 from 9.6 million in 1970, has risen over the last four years to nearly 5.7 million barrels a day. The Energy Department projects that daily output could reach nearly seven million barrels by 2020. Some experts think it could eventually hit 10 million barrels — which would put the United States in the same league as Saudi Arabia.

  22. Rob N. Hood March 29, 2012 at 2:40 pm #

    By a nearly party-line vote of 51-47, the U.S. Senate failed to get the 60 votes needed to eliminate $24 billion in taxpayer subsidies for the five richest oil companies…I wonder what party was the 51, any guesses???

    -All you need to know about the US Senate, and those who own them.

  23. Rob N. Hood March 30, 2012 at 3:22 pm #

    No comments? (lonely wind sounds… tumbleweed rolls on by… the chirp of a cricket) Ghost town.

  24. Rob N. Hood April 2, 2012 at 7:07 am #

    You are people of anger and intolerance, and of no real depth or substance. Except an unceasing support of those who you feel an inexplicable allegiance to, in spite of all illogical evidence to the contrary.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.