NYSERDA's 6/16/09 Environmental Stakeholders' Meeting - Part II

Dear Dr. Thorndike,

As one of the attendees of NYSERDA's 6/16/09 Environmental Stakeholders' Meeting specific to wind power, I am writing to thank you for having the meeting, and to follow-up on some remaining issues.

It was acknowledged at the meeting that we would be provided with a copy of the meeting's attendee list, including the various panel members, as we have also received at the previous Environmental Stakeholder meetings. Can you tell me when we can expect to receive a copy of that list? We are hoping to receive it as soon as possible so that we can pursue follow-up questions with the correct individuals.

Mr. Bert Bowers shared the response he received from you in which you suggested he speak to meeting attendees to verify that our concerns had been addressed. As I voiced in my second of only two question opportunities I was allowed at the meeting that day, my questions were not answered and I left the meeting with just as many unanswered questions as when I arrived.

As a matter of fact, the same questions we've been asking for several years now, still remain unanswered - most notably:

What independent, transparent measurement has been done anywhere in the world demonstrating that wind projects have actually offset significant levels of CO2 throughout an electricity grid system?

With some 60,000 industrial wind turbines in the world today, the proof to verify this claim - which is the very basis for the existence of the industrial wind industry, should be very easy to come by. However, what we received at the meeting that day were "Assumptions" based on studies done by GE - one of the largest wind developers in the world, and presentations from industry promoter, Truewind. This is hardly independent, objective, unbiased information that NYSERDA claims to pride itself on.

When I reitterated to you at the end of the meeting that no PROOF had been provided to back up the claim of CO2 emissions reductions, you assured me that it did indeed exist, and that this information would be included on the website. We anxiously look forward to seeing it.

While some speakers offered commentary on a few of the Citizens' Questions, our questions were by no means "addressed" from the perspective of providing full and unbiased answers. There were a few speakers (i.e.- Dr. Jan Storm, Dan Driscoll & Tom Brown) who acknowledged the numerous existing problems and gross inadequacies with what's going on in NYS relative to industrial wind developement, but no potential solutions were offered to the problems they mentioned by any NYSERDA or attending State agency representatives. Hopefully, NYSERDA's written answers to our questions will solve these omissions.

We very much appreciate your commitment to having all of the Citizens' Questions posted on NYSERDA's newly revamped website, along with complete and technically-accurate answers to each. Since we are now five years into the RPS program, it would seem that answers to all of our Citizens' Questions would be at the tip of NYSERDA's proverbial tongue, and that they could be provided within a very few days.

I hate to dispute the assertions of such an experienced person, Dr. Thorndike, but the "the role of wind energy as a renewable to replace part of fossil fuel use/emissions is one that is now being promoted by every scientific organization," is not a factual statement.

The American Physical Society, which is most certainly a scientific organization (is it not?), released a comprehensive white paper called, Energy = Future: Think Efficiency, addressing what we need to do to fix our energy situation. Industrial wind power was NOT a part of it.

Professor Jack Steinberger, a Nobel prize-winning scientist, stated, "Wind is NOT the future," at the 5/26/09 symposium of Nobel laureates at the Royal Society in Europe. Steinberger said "wind represented an illusory technology -- a cul-de-sac that would prove uneconomic and a waste of resources in the battle against climate change." (Read Link)

Furthermore, there are "multiple perspectives" held by many scientists who are in direct opposition to the political agendas currently being doled out, who argue that the debate on climate change is not over. Here are just a few recent articles addressing this very issue:

1.) The Triumph of DoubleSpeak explains some of the political (i.e. non-scientific) goings-on behind the scenes regarding the IPCC and their Global Warming policy, written by an expert (Dr. Vincent Gray) who was there: (Read Link) ,

2.) A Princeton Physicist’s view about CO2 (note that Al Gore fired him for expressing it) (Read Link) ,

3.) An MIT PhD’s views are stifled by the EPA, as being “against policy”: (Read Report)
- Report itself: (Read Link)

As you said, industrial wind is being heavily promoted as a political solution by NY and Washington politicians. However, we are advocating sound scientific solutions. Doesn't it only stand to reason that proposed ideas to solve our technical problems should be subjected to scientific methodology? Or, does NYSERDA now believe that pursuing corporate-political agendas supercedes the pursuit of sound scientific solutions?

We continue to get obfuscation when asking for the scientific basis for this enormous expenditure of time and money. The best that anyone could do at the meeting was to cite a NAS report that was just released - the value of which is certainly in question for a number of reasons. Independent Energy Expert, Glenn Schleede, was asked to review the draft by the NAS, though he ended up refusing to do so officially. You can read his 12/08 report, "Can the National Academies Produce an Objective Report?", at (Read Link) .

We have written to the Union of Concerned Scientists and Pace, and have received zero scientific information supporting the validity of wind power being a meaningful or cost-effective reducer of CO2 emissions. While we anxiously await the written answers to be posted on NYSERDA's website, if you have this information at your disposal, could you please provide it to us immediately?

Maybe you can also cite for me, with urls, the independent, objective scientific reports that existed to support the RPS program (and wind power) in 2004, or thereabouts? That would very quickly clear up the question as to whether this started out as a political foray, or began as an effort firmly grounded in science.

The people for whom NYSERDA is employed as a "public benefit" agency to serve - ALL NYS citizens, taxpayers, and ratepayers, thank you for your efforts to address all of our Citizens' Questions as soon as possible. (To refresh your memory, I've listed several more of those still-unanswered questions below.)

Sincerely,

Mary Kay Barton, lifelong NYS resident & environmental activist for Sound Scientific Solutions