Skip to main content

Sierra Club Sues Pentagon Over Wind Farms

From AFP:
The Sierra Club filed a federal lawsuit in San Francisco charging the US Department of Defense (DOD) with blocking the construction of wind power plants.

The environmental group accused the Pentagon of essentially creating a nationwide moratorium on new wind farms by barring their construction within the line of sight of military radar.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the DOD failed to complete a congressionally-mandated study to determine whether windmills actually interfered with radar, the suit maintained.

"While the Defense Department drags its feet studying if wind farms are a threat to national security, Americans are missing out on cleaner, cheaper energy," said Sierra Club attorney Kristin Henry.

"If the military can have windmills and effective radar at Guantanamo, why can't we have both in the Midwest?"
For more on this story, take a look at SEJ's Tip Sheet. And for more on those wind turbines at Guantanamo, click here.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

David Bradish said…
If the Sierra Club sues the DOD for hindering new wind farms, is it game for the nuclear industry to sue Sierra Club or other environmental groups who try to hinder new nukes?
Jim Hopf said…
Yeah. If I understand their complaint, its about some organization blocking needed and desireable facilities over bogus "issues", for possibly cynical reasons/motivations.

Sound familiar? All I would say to the Sierra Club is, "see how it feels?"
FuturePundit said…
The DOD is dragging its feet abot wind power on behalf Teddy Kennedy and other powerful Senators and Reps. They are the ones who stick the stuff in appropriations bills that make the DOD the obstacle.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…