According to Invenergy, and Orangeville Town Attorney Dave DiMatteo, Invenergy’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was signed by the lead agency (the Orangeville Town Board) on July 6, 2011, at 6:40 p.m. We were ushered out of the Orangeville Town Hall following the meeting at 7 p.m. and informed by DiMatteo that this was Day No. 1 of the review period.
Mr. DiMatteo said the FEIS would be at the Town Hall during business hours, in the Attica and Warsaw libraries on July 7, 2011, and posted online on July 8, 2011. With Day No. 1 already behind us, we immediately began searching to get a hold of the FEIS, so we could read this 2,000-plus page document, and make comments. The Town Hall is only open Tuesday evenings and Saturday mornings, giving citizens a few measly hours to access the document — if they can make it during those times. Both library copies have sections stating “this section is available at the town hall.” It just so happens that the Town Hall is closed most of the week.
The Warsaw Library gave us a copy of the sign-in time of the FEIS as July 8, 2011, by Town Supervisor Susan May. The Attica Library got their copy on July 11, 2011, as they are closed on Fridays. The online version was partially posted on July 8, 2011, and changed two more times that same day.
So according to DiMatteo, the 10-day comment period has gone by, but as of today — July 18, 2011 — the FEIS is still not completely posted. We believe that any person in their right mind will agree that the comment period can not begin until the FEIS is complete, and posted as such.
Obviously, the citizens of Orangeville who wish to comment on Invenergy’s FEIS have in no way been given ample time or opportunity to read this massive, technical document that is still not posted completely.
It is vividly clear that the Orangeville Town Board — “public servants” who have made a mockery of “due diligence,” aided and abetted by DiMatteo — are nothing less than Invenergy’s accomplices in this crime against the citizens of Orangeville.
All law-abiding New York State citizens should be as disgusted as we are in the self-serving arrogance being displayed by Orangeville board members seeking to profit at their neighbors’ expense.
Cathi Orr
Orangeville
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
T. Boone’s Windy Misadventure And the Global Backlash Against Wind Energy
Three years ago this month, T. Boone Pickens launched a multi-million dollar crusade to bring more wind energy to the US. “Building new wind generation facilities,” along with energy efficiency and more consumption of domestic natural gas, the Dallas billionaire claimed, would allow the US to “replace more than one-third of our foreign oil imports in 10 years.”
Those were halcyon times for the wind industry. These days, Pickens never talks about wind. He’s focused instead on getting a fat chunk of federal subsidies so he can sell more natural gas to long-haul truckers through his company, Clean Energy Fuels.
(Pickens and his wife, Madeleine, own about half of the stock of Clean Energy, a stake worth about $550 million.) While the billionaire works the halls of Congress seeking a subsidy of his very own, he's also trying to find a buyer for the $2 billion worth of wind turbines he contracted for back in 2008. The last news report that I saw indicated that he was trying to foist the turbines off onto the Canadians.
Being dumped by Pickens is only one of a panoply of problems facing the global wind industry. Among the issues: an abundance of relatively cheap natural gas, a growing backlash against industrial wind projects due to concerns about visual blight and noise, increasing concerns about the murderous effect that wind turbines have on bats and birds, the extremely high costs of offshore wind energy, and a new study which finds that wind energy’s ability to cut carbon dioxide emissions have been overstated.
Yeah, that’s a long list of things. But the mainstream media rarely casts a critical eye on the wind industry. So bear with me for a few minutes. And in doing so, consider how the backlash against industrial wind is playing out in Wales, where, on May 27, the BBC reports that some 1,500 protesters descended on the Welsh assembly, demanding that a massive wind project planned for central Wales be halted.
Earlier this month, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. came out with another broadside (this one in the Wall Street Journal) against the Cape Wind project off Cape Cod, not far from the Kennedy clan’s place in Hyannisport. Kennedy says New England shouldn’t put 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound, instead, it should import hydropower from Canada. He neglected to say that Cape Wind likely won’t ever get built because the Department of Energy is withholding its financing of the project.
Over the past few days, protesters in Denmark have been camping on a wooded tract in Northern Jutland in order to prevent the clearing of a protected forest where the government plans to build a test center that aims to install a series of wind turbines 250 meters high.
The increasing opposition to industrial wind projects – opposition that’s coming from grassroots organizations all over the world – should be a wake up call for advocates of renewable energy. Instead, the wind industry’s apologists continue to claim that they are victims of a conspiracy, and that they are under attack from the “fossil fuel industry.” That’s been the typical response from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and its hirelings, who prefer to use character assassination rather than engage in factual debate.
Here’s the reality: the wind industry is under a full-blown attack from market forces. Those markets are economic, political, social, and environmental. And the wind scammers are losing on nearly all fronts.
Read the entire article
Those were halcyon times for the wind industry. These days, Pickens never talks about wind. He’s focused instead on getting a fat chunk of federal subsidies so he can sell more natural gas to long-haul truckers through his company, Clean Energy Fuels.
(Pickens and his wife, Madeleine, own about half of the stock of Clean Energy, a stake worth about $550 million.) While the billionaire works the halls of Congress seeking a subsidy of his very own, he's also trying to find a buyer for the $2 billion worth of wind turbines he contracted for back in 2008. The last news report that I saw indicated that he was trying to foist the turbines off onto the Canadians.
Being dumped by Pickens is only one of a panoply of problems facing the global wind industry. Among the issues: an abundance of relatively cheap natural gas, a growing backlash against industrial wind projects due to concerns about visual blight and noise, increasing concerns about the murderous effect that wind turbines have on bats and birds, the extremely high costs of offshore wind energy, and a new study which finds that wind energy’s ability to cut carbon dioxide emissions have been overstated.
Yeah, that’s a long list of things. But the mainstream media rarely casts a critical eye on the wind industry. So bear with me for a few minutes. And in doing so, consider how the backlash against industrial wind is playing out in Wales, where, on May 27, the BBC reports that some 1,500 protesters descended on the Welsh assembly, demanding that a massive wind project planned for central Wales be halted.
Earlier this month, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. came out with another broadside (this one in the Wall Street Journal) against the Cape Wind project off Cape Cod, not far from the Kennedy clan’s place in Hyannisport. Kennedy says New England shouldn’t put 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound, instead, it should import hydropower from Canada. He neglected to say that Cape Wind likely won’t ever get built because the Department of Energy is withholding its financing of the project.
Over the past few days, protesters in Denmark have been camping on a wooded tract in Northern Jutland in order to prevent the clearing of a protected forest where the government plans to build a test center that aims to install a series of wind turbines 250 meters high.
The increasing opposition to industrial wind projects – opposition that’s coming from grassroots organizations all over the world – should be a wake up call for advocates of renewable energy. Instead, the wind industry’s apologists continue to claim that they are victims of a conspiracy, and that they are under attack from the “fossil fuel industry.” That’s been the typical response from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and its hirelings, who prefer to use character assassination rather than engage in factual debate.
Here’s the reality: the wind industry is under a full-blown attack from market forces. Those markets are economic, political, social, and environmental. And the wind scammers are losing on nearly all fronts.
Read the entire article
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Clayton’s wind law not strict enough, Jefferson County Planning Board says
Taking a position championed by a prominent wind farm development critic, the Jefferson County Planning Board urged the town of Clayton to include stricter regulations on sound levels in the town’s proposed amendment for wind development.
In the current law, sound cannot exceed 50 decibels at non-participating residences and public buildings, which the proposed amendment does not change. An amendment forwarded in 2010 that failed to pass the Town Council capped sound at 5 decibels above ambient noise in either the audible or inaudible range at non-participating residents’ property lines, a strict relative standard that mirrors state Department of Environmental Conservation guidelines for projects in general.
“They should follow the guidelines used by the state right now,” board member Clifford J. Schneider said. “The state of New York and DEC have guidelines for that and most communities should be following those guidelines.”
Other members agreed, and though the board voted to say the amendment is of local concern, the board will send comments to the town to beef up the sound regulations and clarify other areas.
Read the entire article
In the current law, sound cannot exceed 50 decibels at non-participating residences and public buildings, which the proposed amendment does not change. An amendment forwarded in 2010 that failed to pass the Town Council capped sound at 5 decibels above ambient noise in either the audible or inaudible range at non-participating residents’ property lines, a strict relative standard that mirrors state Department of Environmental Conservation guidelines for projects in general.
“They should follow the guidelines used by the state right now,” board member Clifford J. Schneider said. “The state of New York and DEC have guidelines for that and most communities should be following those guidelines.”
Other members agreed, and though the board voted to say the amendment is of local concern, the board will send comments to the town to beef up the sound regulations and clarify other areas.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Power Authority CEO steps down
Richie Kessel, the CEO of the New York Power Authority, stepped down from his post during a meeting of the authority’s trustees today, according to Brian Amaral of the Watertown Daily Times.
Kessel made the announcement at NYPA’s meeting today in White Plains, but his future had been the source of speculation as he’s come under investigation for grants given to organizations during his time at NYPA and the Long Island Power Authority.
NYPA oversees 17 power facilities across the state, and is the largest public power organization in the country. Kessel has served in the CEO post since September 2008.
Gil Quinoes Quiniones, the chief operating officer of NYPA, will take over on an interim basis, according to Amaral’s report. Kessel resignation takes effect the day after Labor Day.
Kessel made the announcement at NYPA’s meeting today in White Plains, but his future had been the source of speculation as he’s come under investigation for grants given to organizations during his time at NYPA and the Long Island Power Authority.
NYPA oversees 17 power facilities across the state, and is the largest public power organization in the country. Kessel has served in the CEO post since September 2008.
Gil Quinoes Quiniones, the chief operating officer of NYPA, will take over on an interim basis, according to Amaral’s report. Kessel resignation takes effect the day after Labor Day.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Teletubbies turn to wind power
A controversial windfarm in the Welsh countryside has brought in a secret weapon - The Teletubbies.
BBC chiefs have given permission for the children's favourites to be used as the face of a scheme to provide electricity for more than 1,500 homes in west Wales.
Tinky-Winky, Laa-Laa, Dipsy and Po stand in front of a spinning windmill in their TV shows.
And now the company behind the scheme hope their image will help win over opponents against the windfarm.
Children know that the programme often features windmills in the background
Awel Aman Tawe, a non-profit making company developing the scheme, said the Teletubbies brainwave came when it took children to visit another windfarm.
Project spokesman Dan McCallum said: "It put a smile on everyone's face when they came on our coach visit to see the wind farm.
"As they approached the windfarm, all the children looked out of the window and shouted: "Look it's the Teletubbies'."
"They all know that the programme often features windmills in the background."
'Blot on landscape'
Postcards of the Teletubbies are being handed out at displays and exhibitions promoting the project at Mynydd Uchaf near at Tairgwaith, near Ammanford.
Opponents fear the four giant turbines will be a blot on the country landscape.
The company claims the scheme would supply electricity to some 1,500 homes at the top end of the Amman and Swansea Valleys - and also create up to 50 jobs.
The Department of Trade and Industry has committed nearly £65,000 to help AAT carry out an in-depth consultation with residents.
Mr McCallum added: "The children seemed less bothered about the visual impact of wind turbines than some adults - the Teletubbies may have familiarised them with the look of them.
"We will be giving a Teletubbies postcard to each child as a souvenir of their visit and also giving them out at displays and other events."
Thursday, July 21, 2011
A New Study Takes The Wind Out Of Wind Energy
Facts are pesky things. And they're particularly pesky when it comes to the myths about the wind energy business.
For years, it's been an article of faith among advocates of renewables that increased use of wind energy can provide a cost-effective method of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The reality: wind energy's carbon dioxide-cutting benefits are vastly overstated. Furthermore, if wind energy does help reduce carbon emissions, those reductions are too expensive to be used on any kind of scale.
Those are the findings of an exhaustive new study, released today, by Bentek Energy, a Colorado-based energy analytics firm. Rather than rely on computer models that use theoretical emissions data, the authors of the study, Porter Bennett and Brannin McBee, analyzed actual emissions data from electric generation plants located in four regions: the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Bonneville Power Administration, California Independent System Operator, and the Midwest Independent System Operator. Those four system operators serve about 110 million customers, or about one-third of the U.S. population.
Bennett and McBee looked at more than 300,000 hourly records from 2007 through 2009. Their results show that the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and other wind boosters have vastly overstated wind's ability to cut sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide.
Indeed, the study found that in some regions of the country, like California, using wind energy doesn't reduce sulfur dioxide emissions at all. But the most important conclusion from the study is that wind energy is not "a cost-effective solution for reducing carbon dioxide if carbon is valued at less than $33 per ton." With the U.S. economy still in recession and unemployment numbers near record levels, Congress cannot, will not, attempt to impose a carbon tax, no matter how small.
AWEA claims that every megawatt-hour of electricity produced by wind turbines cuts carbon dioxide emissions by 0.8 tons. But the Bentek study shows that in California, a state that relies heavily on natural gas-fired generation, the carbon dioxide reduction from wind energy was just 0.3 tons of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour. Further, the study found that in the area served by the Bonneville Power Administration, which uses a large amount of hydropower, the carbon dioxde reduction was just 0.1 ton of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour.
To be clear, the Bentek study found that in the region served by the Midwest Independent System Operator, which relies heavily on coal-fired generation, the carbon dioxide reduction benefits of wind are actually greater (1.0 ton of carbon saved) than what AWEA claims. But when it came to reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide in the Midwest, Bentek found that, again, the claims made by AWEA were overstated.
What about Texas, the state that has some 10,000 megawatts of installed wind generation capacity, more than any other state? Again, the Bentek study found that AWEA's claims were exaggerated. Texas relies heavily on natural gas-fired generation. Therefore, when wind gets deployed within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Bentek found that it cuts sulfur dioxide emissions by 1.2 pounds per megawatt-hour, far less than the 5.7 pounds claimed by AWEA. Similarly, the reduction in nitrous oxide was 0.7 pounds rather than AWEA's 2.3 pounds, and carbon dioxide emissions were reduced by 0.5 tons per megawatt-hour, not the 0.8 tons claimed by AWEA.
The Bentek report provides yet more bad news for the subsidy-dependent wind business, which is already on its heels. Low natural gas prices, the economic downturn, and uncertainty about the continuation of federal subsidies have left the wind industry in tatters. In 2010, total U.S. wind generation capacity grew by 5,100 megawatts, about half as much capacity as was added in 2009. During the first quarter this year, new wind installations totaled just 1,100 megawatts, indicating that this year will likely be even worse than 2010.
The wind industry's prospects are so bad that T. Boone Pickens, long one of the sector's loudest advocates, has given up on the U.S. market. Pickens, the billionaire self-promoter who famously placed an order for some $2 billion worth of wind turbines back in 2008, is now trying to find a home for those turbines in Canada.
In addition, the wind industry faces increasingly vocal opposition in numerous countries around the world. The European Platform Against Windfarms now has 485 signatory organizations from 22 European countries. In the UK, where fights are raging against industrial wind projects in Wales, Scotland, and elsewhere, some 250 anti-wind groups have been formed. In Canada, the province of Ontario alone has more than 50 anti-wind groups. The U.S. has about 170 anti-wind groups.
While many factors are hurting the wind industry, the Bentek report, which was released today, undercuts the sector's primary reason for existing. The Global Wind Energy Council, one of the industry's main lobby groups, claims that reducing the amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere "is the most important environmental benefit from wind power generation." For its part, the American Wind Energy Association insists that the wind business "could avoid 825 million tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2030."
But if wind energy doesn't significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions, then critics can easily challenge the industry's hefty subsidies, which include the federal production tax credit of $0.022 for each kilowatt-hour of electricity. That amounts to a subsidy of $6.44 per million BTU of energy produced. For comparison, in 2008, the Energy Information Administration reported that subsidies to the oil and gas sector totaled $1.9 billion per year, or about $0.03 per million BTU of energy produced. In other words, subsidies to the wind sector are more than 200 times as great as those given to the oil and gas sector on the basis of per-unit-of-energy produced.
If those fat subsidies go away, then the U.S. wind sector will be stopped dead in its tracks. And for consumers, that should be welcome news.
The wind energy business is the electric sector's equivalent of the corn ethanol scam: it's an over-subsidized industry that depends wholly on taxpayer dollars to remain solvent while providing an inferior product to consumers that does little, if anything, to reduce our need for hydrocarbons or cut carbon dioxide emissions. The latest Bentek study should be required reading for policymakers. It's a much-needed reminder of how the pesky facts about wind energy have been obscured by the tsunami of hype about green energy.
For years, it's been an article of faith among advocates of renewables that increased use of wind energy can provide a cost-effective method of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The reality: wind energy's carbon dioxide-cutting benefits are vastly overstated. Furthermore, if wind energy does help reduce carbon emissions, those reductions are too expensive to be used on any kind of scale.
Those are the findings of an exhaustive new study, released today, by Bentek Energy, a Colorado-based energy analytics firm. Rather than rely on computer models that use theoretical emissions data, the authors of the study, Porter Bennett and Brannin McBee, analyzed actual emissions data from electric generation plants located in four regions: the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Bonneville Power Administration, California Independent System Operator, and the Midwest Independent System Operator. Those four system operators serve about 110 million customers, or about one-third of the U.S. population.
Bennett and McBee looked at more than 300,000 hourly records from 2007 through 2009. Their results show that the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and other wind boosters have vastly overstated wind's ability to cut sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide.
Indeed, the study found that in some regions of the country, like California, using wind energy doesn't reduce sulfur dioxide emissions at all. But the most important conclusion from the study is that wind energy is not "a cost-effective solution for reducing carbon dioxide if carbon is valued at less than $33 per ton." With the U.S. economy still in recession and unemployment numbers near record levels, Congress cannot, will not, attempt to impose a carbon tax, no matter how small.
AWEA claims that every megawatt-hour of electricity produced by wind turbines cuts carbon dioxide emissions by 0.8 tons. But the Bentek study shows that in California, a state that relies heavily on natural gas-fired generation, the carbon dioxide reduction from wind energy was just 0.3 tons of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour. Further, the study found that in the area served by the Bonneville Power Administration, which uses a large amount of hydropower, the carbon dioxde reduction was just 0.1 ton of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour.
To be clear, the Bentek study found that in the region served by the Midwest Independent System Operator, which relies heavily on coal-fired generation, the carbon dioxide reduction benefits of wind are actually greater (1.0 ton of carbon saved) than what AWEA claims. But when it came to reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide in the Midwest, Bentek found that, again, the claims made by AWEA were overstated.
What about Texas, the state that has some 10,000 megawatts of installed wind generation capacity, more than any other state? Again, the Bentek study found that AWEA's claims were exaggerated. Texas relies heavily on natural gas-fired generation. Therefore, when wind gets deployed within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Bentek found that it cuts sulfur dioxide emissions by 1.2 pounds per megawatt-hour, far less than the 5.7 pounds claimed by AWEA. Similarly, the reduction in nitrous oxide was 0.7 pounds rather than AWEA's 2.3 pounds, and carbon dioxide emissions were reduced by 0.5 tons per megawatt-hour, not the 0.8 tons claimed by AWEA.
The Bentek report provides yet more bad news for the subsidy-dependent wind business, which is already on its heels. Low natural gas prices, the economic downturn, and uncertainty about the continuation of federal subsidies have left the wind industry in tatters. In 2010, total U.S. wind generation capacity grew by 5,100 megawatts, about half as much capacity as was added in 2009. During the first quarter this year, new wind installations totaled just 1,100 megawatts, indicating that this year will likely be even worse than 2010.
The wind industry's prospects are so bad that T. Boone Pickens, long one of the sector's loudest advocates, has given up on the U.S. market. Pickens, the billionaire self-promoter who famously placed an order for some $2 billion worth of wind turbines back in 2008, is now trying to find a home for those turbines in Canada.
In addition, the wind industry faces increasingly vocal opposition in numerous countries around the world. The European Platform Against Windfarms now has 485 signatory organizations from 22 European countries. In the UK, where fights are raging against industrial wind projects in Wales, Scotland, and elsewhere, some 250 anti-wind groups have been formed. In Canada, the province of Ontario alone has more than 50 anti-wind groups. The U.S. has about 170 anti-wind groups.
While many factors are hurting the wind industry, the Bentek report, which was released today, undercuts the sector's primary reason for existing. The Global Wind Energy Council, one of the industry's main lobby groups, claims that reducing the amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere "is the most important environmental benefit from wind power generation." For its part, the American Wind Energy Association insists that the wind business "could avoid 825 million tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2030."
But if wind energy doesn't significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions, then critics can easily challenge the industry's hefty subsidies, which include the federal production tax credit of $0.022 for each kilowatt-hour of electricity. That amounts to a subsidy of $6.44 per million BTU of energy produced. For comparison, in 2008, the Energy Information Administration reported that subsidies to the oil and gas sector totaled $1.9 billion per year, or about $0.03 per million BTU of energy produced. In other words, subsidies to the wind sector are more than 200 times as great as those given to the oil and gas sector on the basis of per-unit-of-energy produced.
If those fat subsidies go away, then the U.S. wind sector will be stopped dead in its tracks. And for consumers, that should be welcome news.
The wind energy business is the electric sector's equivalent of the corn ethanol scam: it's an over-subsidized industry that depends wholly on taxpayer dollars to remain solvent while providing an inferior product to consumers that does little, if anything, to reduce our need for hydrocarbons or cut carbon dioxide emissions. The latest Bentek study should be required reading for policymakers. It's a much-needed reminder of how the pesky facts about wind energy have been obscured by the tsunami of hype about green energy.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Support Shown For Revised Wind Law At Hammond Public Hearing
Support for the revised Hammond wind law was overwhelming as the majority of speakers and written comments at Tuesday’s public hearing praised the efforts of the Town Council and wind committee, but it was a letter not read aloud causing the biggest stir at the hearing’s conclusion.
“I’m curious why he read every other letter and not mine,” said Michele W. McQueer, a member of the most recent wind committee and leaseholder with Iberdrola Renewables, a wind company interested in a Hammond project. “I have a land-based protest petition containing 197 signatures, representing nearly 15,000 acres of Hammond property.”
Mrs. McQueer said her petition was protesting Local Law No. 1 of 2010, passed by the current town board on Jan. 11, 2010. That law, according to town Supervisor Ronald W. Bertram, allows the town board to enforce land-use regulations with a majority vote, rather than with a supermajority.
“They need a supermajority,” Mrs. McQueer said after Tuesday’s hearing.
Read the entire article
“I’m curious why he read every other letter and not mine,” said Michele W. McQueer, a member of the most recent wind committee and leaseholder with Iberdrola Renewables, a wind company interested in a Hammond project. “I have a land-based protest petition containing 197 signatures, representing nearly 15,000 acres of Hammond property.”
Mrs. McQueer said her petition was protesting Local Law No. 1 of 2010, passed by the current town board on Jan. 11, 2010. That law, according to town Supervisor Ronald W. Bertram, allows the town board to enforce land-use regulations with a majority vote, rather than with a supermajority.
“They need a supermajority,” Mrs. McQueer said after Tuesday’s hearing.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Nantucket's Wind Power Rip-off
BY ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.
Someone needs to tell the politicians in Boston and Washington that Cape Wind, the long-stalled plan to cover 25 square miles of pristine Nantucket Sound with 130 massive steel windmill-turbine towers, is a rip-off. That someone is most likely to be the newly enlightened electricity ratepayers—and voters—of Massachusetts.
In the past few months it has become clearer than ever how much this giveaway of public property is going to cost them if Cape Wind is ever built. The numbers are staggering.
Vermont wants to take its nuclear plant off line and replace it with clean, green power from HydroQuebec—power available ...
Read the entire article
Someone needs to tell the politicians in Boston and Washington that Cape Wind, the long-stalled plan to cover 25 square miles of pristine Nantucket Sound with 130 massive steel windmill-turbine towers, is a rip-off. That someone is most likely to be the newly enlightened electricity ratepayers—and voters—of Massachusetts.
In the past few months it has become clearer than ever how much this giveaway of public property is going to cost them if Cape Wind is ever built. The numbers are staggering.
Vermont wants to take its nuclear plant off line and replace it with clean, green power from HydroQuebec—power available ...
Read the entire article
Monday, July 18, 2011
Be upfront on wind turbines in Lake Ontario
Apparently the wind's gone out of the sails of the push to place wind turbines off the shores of Lake Ontario.
But there's no official word, and who can be surprised, given the secrecy with which the New York Power Authority has operated this project all along.
At its July 26 board meeting, NYPA trustees should publicly assure shoreline communities that there's little to worry about. After all, a recent NYPA timeline had promised a decision by June. In the last year or so, elected leaders in Greece, Irondequoit and Webster and the Monroe County Legislature have anxiously signed onto non-binding resolutions against the turbines.
Their fears were stoked by a close-mouthed NYPA that refused to release even basic information about the five proposals under consideration for Lake Ontario or Lake Erie.
Town boards were skeptical that NYPA President Richard Kessel meant what he said, that turbines wouldn't go where they were not wanted.
NYPA board chairman Mike Townsend, a Perinton lawyer, told this page that the board has directed NYPA staff to significantly scale down what's been contemplated due to economic concerns; the staff report is due in September. But if trustees know that putting turbines in the lakes is too costly given the return on investment, they should just say so now.
The outcome of the lakes project shouldn't deter efforts to utilize wind as an alternative energy source where it makes economic sense.
Meanwhile, signs are pointing to Gov. Andrew Cuomo replacing Kessel. He should pick a leader who is committed to transparency. Kessel isn't.
But there's no official word, and who can be surprised, given the secrecy with which the New York Power Authority has operated this project all along.
At its July 26 board meeting, NYPA trustees should publicly assure shoreline communities that there's little to worry about. After all, a recent NYPA timeline had promised a decision by June. In the last year or so, elected leaders in Greece, Irondequoit and Webster and the Monroe County Legislature have anxiously signed onto non-binding resolutions against the turbines.
Their fears were stoked by a close-mouthed NYPA that refused to release even basic information about the five proposals under consideration for Lake Ontario or Lake Erie.
Town boards were skeptical that NYPA President Richard Kessel meant what he said, that turbines wouldn't go where they were not wanted.
NYPA board chairman Mike Townsend, a Perinton lawyer, told this page that the board has directed NYPA staff to significantly scale down what's been contemplated due to economic concerns; the staff report is due in September. But if trustees know that putting turbines in the lakes is too costly given the return on investment, they should just say so now.
The outcome of the lakes project shouldn't deter efforts to utilize wind as an alternative energy source where it makes economic sense.
Meanwhile, signs are pointing to Gov. Andrew Cuomo replacing Kessel. He should pick a leader who is committed to transparency. Kessel isn't.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Bloodstained Wind Turbines
a) The non-contest, "Bloodstained Wind Turbines"
1. To encourage a critical and creative stance to be taken in favour of the movement against the large industrial wind farms that are disfiguring our countryside, ruining our environment, and placing our very health at risk, and not only in our country, the Edizioni Montaonda publishing house (Tuscany, Italy) is announcing an open invitation to all artists and graphic designers (without restrictions on nationality), amateurs included. The aim is to compile selected images that are to illustrate a book on the wind turbine industry, to be published, printed and sold by said publishing house, this autumn 2011.
2. The artwork (cf. below, paragraph 2, comma 3) must be received by and not any later than August 31, 2011.
3.The twelve illustrations that are selected will be printed in the book and will be compensated, not with a prize (insofar as the nature of the event is not a contest) but with a contract for publication, consisting in an advance of €130 each (to this sum, the royalties of each sale, regardless of the form the publication may take (book, magazine, internet, etc.), will be added upon signature of the author-editor contract). The editor reserves the right to eventually publish, in a separate section of the book, other particularly valid illustrations (these artists will also receive royalties from book sales but will not receive an advance). The book will be sold using the usual channels that the publishing house has at its disposal. Furthermore, the editor anticipates creating an e-book and an English version of the book.
4. In launching this initiative, the editor invites associations and subjects of any and all kinds to back the initiative and to give their sponsorship (more specifically, this request is not to be understood as a request for financial support but a request that those giving their support publicise and communicate their support of the initiative and also send a copy of their logo to the editor).
b) Title and object of the invitation
1.The artwork is to be inspired, with no other prerequisite than the title, by the unpublished written work by Mimmo Calmo, L'incubo delle pale insanguinate/The nightmare of bloodstained wind turbines, which will constitute the central part of the book and which will be supplied by the publishing house to all those who are interested and who request a copy N.B. The written piece is 7 folders long. To receive the materials (via internet only) please write to: info@edizionimontaonda.it
2.Calmo’s piece will be accompanied by several informative documents (provided together with the text, and which will not necessarily be published in the book): the documents will contain enough information to communicate to the participant which are the primary impacts of industrial wind farms on man and animal.
3.The artwork must consist in one single image, for which the original may be produced using whatever material or in whatever format desired so long as it is created in respect of its subsequent publication in book format, with characteristics that are suited to a black, white and red reproduction. Each work must be sent exclusively in electronic format, in high definition (HD, scanning at 300dpi); no artwork sent through the postal service will be accepted. The artwork will remain the personal property of the artist, with the exception that the rights to publication will be granted to Edizioni Montaonda. The act of sending the artwork to Edizioni Montaonda will be considered, to all effects, as giving full consent to the rules and regulations of the publication of the artwork according to the conditions indicated above.
c) other
The proceeds that the editor receives from the sale of the book, if and once the expenses of the contest, the publishing, and administrative costs have been covered, will be donated to the fight against industrial wind farms in Italy (CNP). The selection will be made by a group of experts, the function of which will be that of a jury, and of which the editor will make public in due time; the group will be made up of graphic designers, journalists and representatives of the movement against industrial wind power. Once the selection has been made, an event will be organised to give importance to the initiative, on a date and location to yet be established, but that will coincide with the presentation of the book to the general public and to the press.
To sign up and receive the texts relative to the contest, and for any additional information: info@edizionimontaonda.it For more information on the fight against industrial wind farms, the following websites are suggested: www.viadalvento.org, www.epaw.org Montaonda, July 12, 2011 Luca Vitali Edizioni Montaonda Via Montaonda 133, 50060 San Godenzo, Firenze ITALY
1. To encourage a critical and creative stance to be taken in favour of the movement against the large industrial wind farms that are disfiguring our countryside, ruining our environment, and placing our very health at risk, and not only in our country, the Edizioni Montaonda publishing house (Tuscany, Italy) is announcing an open invitation to all artists and graphic designers (without restrictions on nationality), amateurs included. The aim is to compile selected images that are to illustrate a book on the wind turbine industry, to be published, printed and sold by said publishing house, this autumn 2011.
2. The artwork (cf. below, paragraph 2, comma 3) must be received by and not any later than August 31, 2011.
3.The twelve illustrations that are selected will be printed in the book and will be compensated, not with a prize (insofar as the nature of the event is not a contest) but with a contract for publication, consisting in an advance of €130 each (to this sum, the royalties of each sale, regardless of the form the publication may take (book, magazine, internet, etc.), will be added upon signature of the author-editor contract). The editor reserves the right to eventually publish, in a separate section of the book, other particularly valid illustrations (these artists will also receive royalties from book sales but will not receive an advance). The book will be sold using the usual channels that the publishing house has at its disposal. Furthermore, the editor anticipates creating an e-book and an English version of the book.
4. In launching this initiative, the editor invites associations and subjects of any and all kinds to back the initiative and to give their sponsorship (more specifically, this request is not to be understood as a request for financial support but a request that those giving their support publicise and communicate their support of the initiative and also send a copy of their logo to the editor).
b) Title and object of the invitation
1.The artwork is to be inspired, with no other prerequisite than the title, by the unpublished written work by Mimmo Calmo, L'incubo delle pale insanguinate/The nightmare of bloodstained wind turbines, which will constitute the central part of the book and which will be supplied by the publishing house to all those who are interested and who request a copy N.B. The written piece is 7 folders long. To receive the materials (via internet only) please write to: info@edizionimontaonda.it
2.Calmo’s piece will be accompanied by several informative documents (provided together with the text, and which will not necessarily be published in the book): the documents will contain enough information to communicate to the participant which are the primary impacts of industrial wind farms on man and animal.
3.The artwork must consist in one single image, for which the original may be produced using whatever material or in whatever format desired so long as it is created in respect of its subsequent publication in book format, with characteristics that are suited to a black, white and red reproduction. Each work must be sent exclusively in electronic format, in high definition (HD, scanning at 300dpi); no artwork sent through the postal service will be accepted. The artwork will remain the personal property of the artist, with the exception that the rights to publication will be granted to Edizioni Montaonda. The act of sending the artwork to Edizioni Montaonda will be considered, to all effects, as giving full consent to the rules and regulations of the publication of the artwork according to the conditions indicated above.
c) other
The proceeds that the editor receives from the sale of the book, if and once the expenses of the contest, the publishing, and administrative costs have been covered, will be donated to the fight against industrial wind farms in Italy (CNP). The selection will be made by a group of experts, the function of which will be that of a jury, and of which the editor will make public in due time; the group will be made up of graphic designers, journalists and representatives of the movement against industrial wind power. Once the selection has been made, an event will be organised to give importance to the initiative, on a date and location to yet be established, but that will coincide with the presentation of the book to the general public and to the press.
To sign up and receive the texts relative to the contest, and for any additional information: info@edizionimontaonda.it For more information on the fight against industrial wind farms, the following websites are suggested: www.viadalvento.org, www.epaw.org Montaonda, July 12, 2011 Luca Vitali Edizioni Montaonda Via Montaonda 133, 50060 San Godenzo, Firenze ITALY
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Say no to Bowers Mountain wind project
The Grand Lakes of Down East Maine are a national treasure. They are under assault from First Wind. First Wind, doing business as Champlain Wind, LLC, has proposed installing 27, 428-foot industrial turbines on Bowers Mountain and Dill Ridge, which rise up at the headwaters of the Downeast Lakes Watershed.
The Downeast Lakes Watershed is one of the largest undeveloped tracts of lakes in the lower 48 states. The Downeast Lakes region includes some two dozen lakes, many of which are connected by navigable waterways. This watershed includes more Class 1A and 1B lakes than anywhere else in Maine.
First Wind having already built Stetson I and II and just completing Rollins Mountain will continue expanding the industrial wind carnage around the Grand Lakes with the development of Bowers Mountain.
This world-renowned sporting region, with its pristine setting and incredible rare dark night sky will be ruined forever. It is time to put the brakes on — and say enough is enough. No more industrial wind mountain destruction!
Recently, I paddled through the Downeast Lakes Watershed — visiting Pleasant, Scraggly, Junior, Pocumcus and Sysladobsis lakes. I can tell you, having canoed and kayaked much of Maine and many places beyond, this watershed is a national treasure.
I would need several pages to detail the abundance of wildlife we encountered on our trip — from lunar moths to beavers to eagles to turtles to a host of duck species. At night with a sky only illuminated by the stars, the cacophony of the loons was ineffable. To desecrate this land with an industrial wind facility would be a crime against nature.
Not only would the Bowers Mountain industrial wind project visually assault the Downeast Lakes Watershed, but the blasting and leveling would cause irreversible damage to soils, hydrological flows and the unique assemblages of plants and animals. Thousands of bats and birds would be killed and many species of wildlife, including bear, moose and deer will be forced to flee from the massive ground vibrations and the pulsating of high and low frequency noise.
The ecological damage, in and of itself, is enough to say no to Bowers Mountain. However, in addition, this industrial wind project will not reduce greenhouse gases, will produce at most only two permanent jobs after the construction phase, will raise electric rates, devastate property values and undermine the economic benefits of Maine’s number one industry — tourism and recreation.
To add insult to injury, not only would this project be heavily subsidized by your tax dollars, but all the unreliable and intermittent power will be exported out of Maine. In the final analysis, we get to subsidize the destruction of our mountains so that we can be stripped of property wealth and pay higher electric rates! Meanwhile, First Wind of Boston makes tens of millions. What a great deal for Mainers!
At the public hearings at the end of June, 80 percent of those testifying were opposed to the project. Almost without exception, those in favor, including Maine Audubon, have or will benefit financially from First Wind’s predatory and destructive industrial wind development in Maine.
I am hopeful that the LURC board, having now witnessed the problems at other industrial wind sites, will be more resolute in defending the integrity of the unorganized territories. Mountaintop industrial wind is not a harmonious fit with wild Maine. It does cause undue adverse effects to the land, wildlife and the inhabitants of rural Maine.
The first sentence of the legislative findings in the Maine Expedited Wind Energy Act states that wind development should be sited “where appropriate.” There is no conceivable way that any rational person could conclude that erecting 27 massive industrial turbines in the heart of the Grand Lakes Watershed is appropriate.
Mainers have already lost several mountain tops to the mountain slayers and profiteers. We must stop them from unleashing their bulldozers and excavators on the slopes of Bowers Mountain.
LURC has the ability to curtail the gold rush of wind developers, feeding at the trough of federal and state subsidies, before Maine is transformed from a wild and bucolic paradise to an industrial wind wasteland. For the magic of the mountains, let’s hope they do their job.
The Downeast Lakes Watershed is one of the largest undeveloped tracts of lakes in the lower 48 states. The Downeast Lakes region includes some two dozen lakes, many of which are connected by navigable waterways. This watershed includes more Class 1A and 1B lakes than anywhere else in Maine.
First Wind having already built Stetson I and II and just completing Rollins Mountain will continue expanding the industrial wind carnage around the Grand Lakes with the development of Bowers Mountain.
This world-renowned sporting region, with its pristine setting and incredible rare dark night sky will be ruined forever. It is time to put the brakes on — and say enough is enough. No more industrial wind mountain destruction!
Recently, I paddled through the Downeast Lakes Watershed — visiting Pleasant, Scraggly, Junior, Pocumcus and Sysladobsis lakes. I can tell you, having canoed and kayaked much of Maine and many places beyond, this watershed is a national treasure.
I would need several pages to detail the abundance of wildlife we encountered on our trip — from lunar moths to beavers to eagles to turtles to a host of duck species. At night with a sky only illuminated by the stars, the cacophony of the loons was ineffable. To desecrate this land with an industrial wind facility would be a crime against nature.
Not only would the Bowers Mountain industrial wind project visually assault the Downeast Lakes Watershed, but the blasting and leveling would cause irreversible damage to soils, hydrological flows and the unique assemblages of plants and animals. Thousands of bats and birds would be killed and many species of wildlife, including bear, moose and deer will be forced to flee from the massive ground vibrations and the pulsating of high and low frequency noise.
The ecological damage, in and of itself, is enough to say no to Bowers Mountain. However, in addition, this industrial wind project will not reduce greenhouse gases, will produce at most only two permanent jobs after the construction phase, will raise electric rates, devastate property values and undermine the economic benefits of Maine’s number one industry — tourism and recreation.
To add insult to injury, not only would this project be heavily subsidized by your tax dollars, but all the unreliable and intermittent power will be exported out of Maine. In the final analysis, we get to subsidize the destruction of our mountains so that we can be stripped of property wealth and pay higher electric rates! Meanwhile, First Wind of Boston makes tens of millions. What a great deal for Mainers!
At the public hearings at the end of June, 80 percent of those testifying were opposed to the project. Almost without exception, those in favor, including Maine Audubon, have or will benefit financially from First Wind’s predatory and destructive industrial wind development in Maine.
I am hopeful that the LURC board, having now witnessed the problems at other industrial wind sites, will be more resolute in defending the integrity of the unorganized territories. Mountaintop industrial wind is not a harmonious fit with wild Maine. It does cause undue adverse effects to the land, wildlife and the inhabitants of rural Maine.
The first sentence of the legislative findings in the Maine Expedited Wind Energy Act states that wind development should be sited “where appropriate.” There is no conceivable way that any rational person could conclude that erecting 27 massive industrial turbines in the heart of the Grand Lakes Watershed is appropriate.
Mainers have already lost several mountain tops to the mountain slayers and profiteers. We must stop them from unleashing their bulldozers and excavators on the slopes of Bowers Mountain.
LURC has the ability to curtail the gold rush of wind developers, feeding at the trough of federal and state subsidies, before Maine is transformed from a wild and bucolic paradise to an industrial wind wasteland. For the magic of the mountains, let’s hope they do their job.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
National Grid seeks OK for power line
National Grid and Emera Inc. subsidiary Bangor Hydro Electric are seeking a key federal approval for a 220-mile underground transmission line that would run from northern Maine to Massachusetts. The $2 billion, 1,100-megawatt cable would mostly carry electricity from wind farms developed by Boston-based First Wind.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Town mulls zoning changes
CLAYTON — Zoning law amendments to increase the distance wind turbines are allowed from neighboring property will be considered this week by the Town Council.
The council will hold a public hearing at 6 p.m. Wednesday on the proposed amendments.
The amendments do not reach the setbacks proposed by the town's Wind Committee. Those recommendations were considered in April 2010. Town Supervisor Justin A. Taylor was the deciding vote against adopting the committee's recommendations.
The current law establishes setbacks of 500 feet from property lines and public highways and 1,250 feet from nonparticipating residences and public buildings.
The proposed amendment would require 1,250-foot setbacks from the property lines of nonparticipants, leaving participating property owners with a 500-foot setback from their boundaries.
Read the entire article
The council will hold a public hearing at 6 p.m. Wednesday on the proposed amendments.
The amendments do not reach the setbacks proposed by the town's Wind Committee. Those recommendations were considered in April 2010. Town Supervisor Justin A. Taylor was the deciding vote against adopting the committee's recommendations.
The current law establishes setbacks of 500 feet from property lines and public highways and 1,250 feet from nonparticipating residences and public buildings.
The proposed amendment would require 1,250-foot setbacks from the property lines of nonparticipants, leaving participating property owners with a 500-foot setback from their boundaries.
Read the entire article
Monday, July 11, 2011
Agenda 21 in New York State – Home Rule and Article X
Agenda 21 in New York State - Home Rule and Article X
Numerous critics condemn the insidious nature of Agenda 21. Usually the arguments are based upon the intrusion of the United Nations to mismanage the planet and reduce people to a sinister petri dish experiment. Their reach and methods used by this octopus that is strangling the globe, include specific actions that force their agenda down the throats of government entities. The recent passage of Article X in New York State illustrates a direct assault on the treasured principle of Home Rule. Connecting the dots and tying the links together forecast a grim reality that is ready to explode into a vicious turf fight.
The United Nations publication for Sustainable Development describes their objectives and announcements.
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.
Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.
The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session.
The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002.
The video Agenda 21 For Dummies is an excellent background overview.
New York State is a "Home Rule" jurisdiction, dating back to 1923. New York Municipal Home Rule - Article 2 - § 10 General Powers of Local Governments to Adopt and Amend Local Laws, provides the authority for the cherished prerogative of communities to control their destinies. The stark conflict of local self-determination and the arbitrary imposition of bureaucratic fiats outlined in Agenda 21 are self-evident. Under the guise of streamlining energy siting and land use, New York State has jumped to the tune of the globalist marching band orders. In the darkness of midnight in a closed room, the new governor Andrew Cuomo pushed a secret version of Article X, and the legislature voted approval for the Power NY Act.
NY Senator Patricia Ritchie's opposition explains the violation on Home Rule. Assembly representative Sean Hanna passionate argument against this attempt to diminish Home Rule, echoes the sentiment. But, when it comes to lining the pockets of the latest robber barons, the role of corporatist power broker law firms, like Albany's Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP, is quite evident.
The new Article X also makes provision for post decision challenges and imposes procedural and substantive limits on potential claims. The bill prohibits the use of intervenor funds for litigation purposes. It also provides that aggrieved parties must seek rehearing at the Siting Board before approaching the courts. Judicial challenges must be brought in the courts of the Appellate Division, bypassing the trial court level, within 30 days from the issuance of the Board's decision on the application for rehearing. The bill also provides for deferential review under the "substantial evidence" standard. Finally, the new law largely divests the state courts of jurisdiction to determine any cases that seek to stop or delay construction of a generation facility that has received a certificate from the Siting Board.
The video of developer Ecogen's Testimony before the NYS Public Service Commission clearly demonstrate how citizen participation is surgically removed from the rush to rape the land and bury the serfs under the cover of a green canopy. This example of a bogus Agenda 21 corporate welfare scheme to defraud the public and feed the greed of foreign plutocrats stands squarely against the property rights of individuals and local communities.
The Wind Power Law Blog identifies salient elements in the legislation.
The famous (or infamous depending on one's point of view) Article X, which provided for the streamlined siting of power plants, expired in 2003. The old Article X covered plants with 80MW or more of generational capacity. The new law should permit much faster siting of power plants of only 25MW or greater capacity. It passed both the Assembly and Senate with overwhelming margins.
Governor Cuomo styles the new law as "An Investment to Create More Power in New York"
Streamline the permitting process for power plants greater than 25 megawatts by creating a "one-stop" multi-agency siting board that will make siting decisions
Empower communities to participate in the process by requiring power plant applicants to provide "intervenor funding" for the community affected by the proposed plant to hire experts and lawyers
Improve the environment and public health by requiring the siting board to determine whether a proposed facility will create a disproportionate environmental impact in a community and, if so, requires applicant to minimize or avoid those impacts
The Community Environmental legal Defense Fund recognizes the inherent conflict in fast tracking unbridled and reckless land development exploration for inefficient energy projects.
We believe that we are in the midst of an escalating ecological crisis, and that the crisis is the result of decisions made by a relatively few people who run corporations and government. In doing so, communities must challenge and overturn legal doctrines that have been concocted to eliminate their right to self-government, including the doctrines of corporate constitutional rights, preemption, and limitations on local legislative authority. Inseparable from the right to local self-government - and its sole limitation - are the rights of human and natural communities; they are the implicit and enumerated premises on which local self-government must be built.
Article X has another deceptive purpose. Hydrofracking drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale region of NYS is the immediate underlying motive to obviate Home Rule. A Frack Alert video from the Home Rule Forum makes the case for the danger of losing local control of land use. Citizen community indignation is brewing up all over the state. Watch the reaction and outrage from ordinary people, who are in danger of being forced off their land. When the potable water from the aquifer is no longer fit for human use, because of chemical pollution from the fracking process, who will adjudicate relief?
Another legislative appeal why the State Should Respect "Home Rule" On Drilling, comes from State Senator James L. Seward:
"The topic of drilling in the Marcellus Shale has elicited an overwhelming response with varied opinions on all sides of the issue. One thing that cannot be discounted moving forward is the desire of local residents," said Senator Seward. "That is why I am co-sponsoring legislation (S.3472) that would empower local governments and allow them to regulate natural gas drilling through local planning and zoning."
If the political intrigue in New York State does not move you to action for protecting your own homestead, maybe you should focus upon the linkage that this brutal policy of usurping local authority, has within the Agenda 21 plans for all of us. Tom DeWeese identifies, Who is behind it?
ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide "local" community plans, software, training, etc. Addition groups include American Planning Council, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive the process.
The entire substructure of alphabet soup, state and federal agencies, are on notice to facilitate and implement the systematic purging of local independence. Governor Cuomo left out the true meaning of the Power NY Act. "An Investment to Create More Power in New York" is designed to consolidate central planning under the control of Agenda 21 dictates. This bill has little to do with fostering cheap dependable energy, but has everything to do with neutering your local town board. This policy is not about energy. Look into why New York State rejected the low cost guaranteed electricity proposal from Canada.
"New York backed out of a long term contract with Hydro Quebec - a contract that was needed to justify the construction of the "project of the century," the James Bay II project. As a consequence, Hydro Quebec put its planned James Bay development "sur la glace" ("on ice") and activists celebrated the victory and moved on to other issues."
The Wall Street criminal syndicate lusts for their cap and trade mandates so that the next financial bubble can start the next cycle of fleecing the public. Remember that your own local government is viewed as an impediment to the Agenda 21. Soon your town board will be inoperative, iced in the same manner as economical energy from O Canada . . .
James Hall - July 10, 2011
Numerous critics condemn the insidious nature of Agenda 21. Usually the arguments are based upon the intrusion of the United Nations to mismanage the planet and reduce people to a sinister petri dish experiment. Their reach and methods used by this octopus that is strangling the globe, include specific actions that force their agenda down the throats of government entities. The recent passage of Article X in New York State illustrates a direct assault on the treasured principle of Home Rule. Connecting the dots and tying the links together forecast a grim reality that is ready to explode into a vicious turf fight.
The United Nations publication for Sustainable Development describes their objectives and announcements.
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.
Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.
The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session.
The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002.
The video Agenda 21 For Dummies is an excellent background overview.
New York State is a "Home Rule" jurisdiction, dating back to 1923. New York Municipal Home Rule - Article 2 - § 10 General Powers of Local Governments to Adopt and Amend Local Laws, provides the authority for the cherished prerogative of communities to control their destinies. The stark conflict of local self-determination and the arbitrary imposition of bureaucratic fiats outlined in Agenda 21 are self-evident. Under the guise of streamlining energy siting and land use, New York State has jumped to the tune of the globalist marching band orders. In the darkness of midnight in a closed room, the new governor Andrew Cuomo pushed a secret version of Article X, and the legislature voted approval for the Power NY Act.
NY Senator Patricia Ritchie's opposition explains the violation on Home Rule. Assembly representative Sean Hanna passionate argument against this attempt to diminish Home Rule, echoes the sentiment. But, when it comes to lining the pockets of the latest robber barons, the role of corporatist power broker law firms, like Albany's Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP, is quite evident.
The new Article X also makes provision for post decision challenges and imposes procedural and substantive limits on potential claims. The bill prohibits the use of intervenor funds for litigation purposes. It also provides that aggrieved parties must seek rehearing at the Siting Board before approaching the courts. Judicial challenges must be brought in the courts of the Appellate Division, bypassing the trial court level, within 30 days from the issuance of the Board's decision on the application for rehearing. The bill also provides for deferential review under the "substantial evidence" standard. Finally, the new law largely divests the state courts of jurisdiction to determine any cases that seek to stop or delay construction of a generation facility that has received a certificate from the Siting Board.
The video of developer Ecogen's Testimony before the NYS Public Service Commission clearly demonstrate how citizen participation is surgically removed from the rush to rape the land and bury the serfs under the cover of a green canopy. This example of a bogus Agenda 21 corporate welfare scheme to defraud the public and feed the greed of foreign plutocrats stands squarely against the property rights of individuals and local communities.
The Wind Power Law Blog identifies salient elements in the legislation.
The famous (or infamous depending on one's point of view) Article X, which provided for the streamlined siting of power plants, expired in 2003. The old Article X covered plants with 80MW or more of generational capacity. The new law should permit much faster siting of power plants of only 25MW or greater capacity. It passed both the Assembly and Senate with overwhelming margins.
Governor Cuomo styles the new law as "An Investment to Create More Power in New York"
Streamline the permitting process for power plants greater than 25 megawatts by creating a "one-stop" multi-agency siting board that will make siting decisions
Empower communities to participate in the process by requiring power plant applicants to provide "intervenor funding" for the community affected by the proposed plant to hire experts and lawyers
Improve the environment and public health by requiring the siting board to determine whether a proposed facility will create a disproportionate environmental impact in a community and, if so, requires applicant to minimize or avoid those impacts
The Community Environmental legal Defense Fund recognizes the inherent conflict in fast tracking unbridled and reckless land development exploration for inefficient energy projects.
We believe that we are in the midst of an escalating ecological crisis, and that the crisis is the result of decisions made by a relatively few people who run corporations and government. In doing so, communities must challenge and overturn legal doctrines that have been concocted to eliminate their right to self-government, including the doctrines of corporate constitutional rights, preemption, and limitations on local legislative authority. Inseparable from the right to local self-government - and its sole limitation - are the rights of human and natural communities; they are the implicit and enumerated premises on which local self-government must be built.
Article X has another deceptive purpose. Hydrofracking drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale region of NYS is the immediate underlying motive to obviate Home Rule. A Frack Alert video from the Home Rule Forum makes the case for the danger of losing local control of land use. Citizen community indignation is brewing up all over the state. Watch the reaction and outrage from ordinary people, who are in danger of being forced off their land. When the potable water from the aquifer is no longer fit for human use, because of chemical pollution from the fracking process, who will adjudicate relief?
Another legislative appeal why the State Should Respect "Home Rule" On Drilling, comes from State Senator James L. Seward:
"The topic of drilling in the Marcellus Shale has elicited an overwhelming response with varied opinions on all sides of the issue. One thing that cannot be discounted moving forward is the desire of local residents," said Senator Seward. "That is why I am co-sponsoring legislation (S.3472) that would empower local governments and allow them to regulate natural gas drilling through local planning and zoning."
If the political intrigue in New York State does not move you to action for protecting your own homestead, maybe you should focus upon the linkage that this brutal policy of usurping local authority, has within the Agenda 21 plans for all of us. Tom DeWeese identifies, Who is behind it?
ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide "local" community plans, software, training, etc. Addition groups include American Planning Council, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive the process.
The entire substructure of alphabet soup, state and federal agencies, are on notice to facilitate and implement the systematic purging of local independence. Governor Cuomo left out the true meaning of the Power NY Act. "An Investment to Create More Power in New York" is designed to consolidate central planning under the control of Agenda 21 dictates. This bill has little to do with fostering cheap dependable energy, but has everything to do with neutering your local town board. This policy is not about energy. Look into why New York State rejected the low cost guaranteed electricity proposal from Canada.
"New York backed out of a long term contract with Hydro Quebec - a contract that was needed to justify the construction of the "project of the century," the James Bay II project. As a consequence, Hydro Quebec put its planned James Bay development "sur la glace" ("on ice") and activists celebrated the victory and moved on to other issues."
The Wall Street criminal syndicate lusts for their cap and trade mandates so that the next financial bubble can start the next cycle of fleecing the public. Remember that your own local government is viewed as an impediment to the Agenda 21. Soon your town board will be inoperative, iced in the same manner as economical energy from O Canada . . .
James Hall - July 10, 2011
Thursday, July 07, 2011
Thunderstorm damages wind turbines in Lincoln County
Worthington, Minn. — Friday's severe thunderstorm damaged at least six wind turbines in Lincoln County.
The storm produced strong winds, hail and a small tornado in the southwest region of Minnesota
The storm damaged wind turbines near the town of Lake Benton. said Lincoln County Emergency Management Director Jeanna Sommers. She says one machine appears a total loss.
"One-third of the top of it is bent down," Sommers said. "Blades are completely off of it."
Sommers says the storm damaged other nearby turbines as well. Some are missing blades. On others, strong winds tore from the top of the tower the hood that protects the turbine and electronic equipment housed inside.
The same storm also damaged farms and power lines. It also produced a tornado which caused at least minor damage for two-thirds of the houses in the town of Tyler. The county board is asking for a federal disaster declaration to help them deal with the storm damage.
The storm produced strong winds, hail and a small tornado in the southwest region of Minnesota
The storm damaged wind turbines near the town of Lake Benton. said Lincoln County Emergency Management Director Jeanna Sommers. She says one machine appears a total loss.
"One-third of the top of it is bent down," Sommers said. "Blades are completely off of it."
Sommers says the storm damaged other nearby turbines as well. Some are missing blades. On others, strong winds tore from the top of the tower the hood that protects the turbine and electronic equipment housed inside.
The same storm also damaged farms and power lines. It also produced a tornado which caused at least minor damage for two-thirds of the houses in the town of Tyler. The county board is asking for a federal disaster declaration to help them deal with the storm damage.
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
State regulators hear more testimony about Bowers Mountain wind project
BANGOR, Maine (NEWSCENTER) --The company planning to put wind turbines atop Bowers Mountain near Lincoln went before state regulators again on Wednesday. Opponents to the project also weighed in as the Land Use Regulation Commission held another day of public hearings on First Wind's proposed Bowers Mountain Wind Project.
The hearing was at the Spectacular Events Center in Bangor. On Wednesday, testimony was held as a question and answer session where stakeholders could question state officials from the various agencies that have been studying some of the environmental issues.
David Corrigan, a guide, and internet blogger who runs the website "Real Wind Info for ME" asked several pointed questions about the depth of research state officials did about the proposed projects impacts to wildlife.
"the major concerns today are about impacts to lynx which are federally threatened, impacts to three species of bats which are being fast tracked for federal endangered species listings and impacts to water quality in the area especially considering this is one of the largest fisheries in the state of maine," Corrigan explained.
A spokesperson for First Wind countered that state officials have a rigorous permitting process in place that has found no adverse impacts.
"i'd say so far it's going the way we expected it. The agencies are confirming what they confirmed to us earlier. That they don't see any major environemental issues in terms of ground water in terms of rare endangered species and in terms of visibility," said Neil Kiely, First Wind's director of development for the New England region.
The Land Use Regulation Commission says it expects to accept public comments for the next few weeks before closing the public comment period.
It hopes to have a final decision on the project later this fall
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
“Explicit cautionary notice to those responsible for Wind Turbine Siting decisions”
Officials from Federal, State and Local Government, and Bureaucrats in Relevant Departments
This notice is intended “Specifically Directors of Wind Developers, Publicly Elected
—The Waubra Foundation, Australia (6/29/11)
Be advised that, as a result of information gathered from the Waubra Foundation’s own field research, and from the clinical and acoustic research available internationally, the following serious medical conditions have been identified in people living, working, or visiting within 10km of operating wind turbine developments.
The onset of these conditions corresponds directly with the operation of wind turbines:
» chronic severe sleep deprivation;
» acute hypertensive crises;
» new onset hypertension;
» heart attacks (including Tako Tsubo episodes);
» worsening control of preexisting and previously stable medical problems such as angina, hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes, migraines, tinnitus, depression, and post traumatic stress disorder;
» severe depression, with suicidal ideation;
» development of irreversible memory dysfunction, tinnitus, and hyperacusis.
Other symptoms include those described by medical practitioners such as Dr Amanda Harry, and Dr Nina Pierpont in her landmark Case Series Crossover Peer Reviewed Study (submission No 13 to the Australian Federal Senate Inquiry into Rural Wind Farms) and published in Dr Pierpont’s book entitled “Wind Turbine Syndrome, A Report on a Natural Experiment,” 2009, published by K-Selected Books, Santa Fe.
These serious health problems were also identified by Australian General Practitioner Dr David Iser in 2004. Dr Iser formally notified the Victorian Government of the time after his patients became unwell following the start up of the Toora wind project. His warnings were ignored without being properly investigated by the authorities and politicians.
All this and supportive material has been made available to the boards of the major developers, State Ministers for Health and Planning and senior health bureaucrats. The time for denial, and of using the Clean Energy Council to shoulder the increasingly difficult task of denying the link between adverse health and operating wind turbines, is over.
At the Toora and Waubra wind projects, some seriously ill affected residents have been bought out by the developers, but only after they signed confidentiality agreements specifically prohibiting them from speaking about their health problems. This buy-out activity would support a conclusion that developers are aware of the health problems.
Meanwhile, wind developments have continued, with developers asserting that their projects meet acceptable standards, and thereby implying that they cannot be causing health problems.
The Foundation is also concerned that Vibro-acoustic Disease (VAD), as recorded and described by Professor Mariana Alves-Pereira’s team from Portugal, will develop in people chronically exposed to wind turbines. The disease has already been identified in the occupants of a house with levels of infrasound and low frequency noise identical to levels the Foundation is recording in the homes of affected residents in Australia.
The Foundation is aware of over 20 families in Australia who have abandoned their homes because of serious ill health experienced since the turbines commenced operating near their homes. Most recently, five households from Waterloo in South Australia have relocated, where the larger 3 MW turbines have had a devastating impact on the health of these residents. Some of these people have walked away from their only financial asset, to live in a shed or a caravan on someone else’s land.
The Foundation notes the mid-2010 advice from the National Health and Medical Research Council that a “precautionary approach” be followed. We are not aware that either industry or planning authorities have adopted this exceedingly valuable and important advice.
The Foundation’s position, as the most technically informed entity in Australia upon the effects of wind turbines on human health, is this: Until the recommended studies are completed, developers and planning authorities will be negligent if human health is damaged as a result of their proceeding with, or allowing to proceed, further construction and approvals of turbines within 10km of homes. It is our advice that proceeding otherwise will result in serious harm to human health.
We remind those in positions of responsibility for the engineering, investment and planning decisions about project and turbine siting that their primary responsibility is to ensure that developments cause no harm to adjacent residents. And, if there is possibility of any such harm, then the project should be re-engineered or cancelled. To ignore existing evidence by continuing the current practice of siting turbines close to homes is to run the dangerous risk of breaching a fundamental duty of care, thus attracting grave liability.
Enquiries: Dr Sarah Laurie, Medical Director, 0439 865 914
Email address: sarah@waubrafoundation.com.au
This notice is intended “Specifically Directors of Wind Developers, Publicly Elected
—The Waubra Foundation, Australia (6/29/11)
Be advised that, as a result of information gathered from the Waubra Foundation’s own field research, and from the clinical and acoustic research available internationally, the following serious medical conditions have been identified in people living, working, or visiting within 10km of operating wind turbine developments.
The onset of these conditions corresponds directly with the operation of wind turbines:
» chronic severe sleep deprivation;
» acute hypertensive crises;
» new onset hypertension;
» heart attacks (including Tako Tsubo episodes);
» worsening control of preexisting and previously stable medical problems such as angina, hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes, migraines, tinnitus, depression, and post traumatic stress disorder;
» severe depression, with suicidal ideation;
» development of irreversible memory dysfunction, tinnitus, and hyperacusis.
Other symptoms include those described by medical practitioners such as Dr Amanda Harry, and Dr Nina Pierpont in her landmark Case Series Crossover Peer Reviewed Study (submission No 13 to the Australian Federal Senate Inquiry into Rural Wind Farms) and published in Dr Pierpont’s book entitled “Wind Turbine Syndrome, A Report on a Natural Experiment,” 2009, published by K-Selected Books, Santa Fe.
These serious health problems were also identified by Australian General Practitioner Dr David Iser in 2004. Dr Iser formally notified the Victorian Government of the time after his patients became unwell following the start up of the Toora wind project. His warnings were ignored without being properly investigated by the authorities and politicians.
All this and supportive material has been made available to the boards of the major developers, State Ministers for Health and Planning and senior health bureaucrats. The time for denial, and of using the Clean Energy Council to shoulder the increasingly difficult task of denying the link between adverse health and operating wind turbines, is over.
At the Toora and Waubra wind projects, some seriously ill affected residents have been bought out by the developers, but only after they signed confidentiality agreements specifically prohibiting them from speaking about their health problems. This buy-out activity would support a conclusion that developers are aware of the health problems.
Meanwhile, wind developments have continued, with developers asserting that their projects meet acceptable standards, and thereby implying that they cannot be causing health problems.
The Foundation is also concerned that Vibro-acoustic Disease (VAD), as recorded and described by Professor Mariana Alves-Pereira’s team from Portugal, will develop in people chronically exposed to wind turbines. The disease has already been identified in the occupants of a house with levels of infrasound and low frequency noise identical to levels the Foundation is recording in the homes of affected residents in Australia.
The Foundation is aware of over 20 families in Australia who have abandoned their homes because of serious ill health experienced since the turbines commenced operating near their homes. Most recently, five households from Waterloo in South Australia have relocated, where the larger 3 MW turbines have had a devastating impact on the health of these residents. Some of these people have walked away from their only financial asset, to live in a shed or a caravan on someone else’s land.
The Foundation notes the mid-2010 advice from the National Health and Medical Research Council that a “precautionary approach” be followed. We are not aware that either industry or planning authorities have adopted this exceedingly valuable and important advice.
The Foundation’s position, as the most technically informed entity in Australia upon the effects of wind turbines on human health, is this: Until the recommended studies are completed, developers and planning authorities will be negligent if human health is damaged as a result of their proceeding with, or allowing to proceed, further construction and approvals of turbines within 10km of homes. It is our advice that proceeding otherwise will result in serious harm to human health.
We remind those in positions of responsibility for the engineering, investment and planning decisions about project and turbine siting that their primary responsibility is to ensure that developments cause no harm to adjacent residents. And, if there is possibility of any such harm, then the project should be re-engineered or cancelled. To ignore existing evidence by continuing the current practice of siting turbines close to homes is to run the dangerous risk of breaching a fundamental duty of care, thus attracting grave liability.
Enquiries: Dr Sarah Laurie, Medical Director, 0439 865 914
Email address: sarah@waubrafoundation.com.au
Saturday, July 02, 2011
Farce of the wind farms: Power produced drops 6% after calmest year this century
Some of Britain's most beautiful landscapes are blighted by wind farms that will not generate enough electricity for the future.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has released figures which show a six per cent fall in the amount of electricity produced by Britain's onshore wind farms.
The department blames a drop in wind, revealing that 2010 was the calmest year this century, with onshore turbines producing only 1.9 per cent of all electricity in 2010, compared with two per cent the year before.
Some meteorologists believe that changes to the Atlantic jet stream could alter the pattern of winds over the next four decades, leading to uncertainty over the efficiency of wind power.
Dr David Brayshaw, a meteorologist from Reading University, says if wind speed lowers, it is obvious that less electricity will be generated by turbines.
But he adds, 'Predictions for long-term future changes in the North Atlantic jet stream are very uncertain, so average UK wind generation could go either up or down over this timeframe.'
A DECC spokesman said the wind speeds of 2010 had been 'unusually low'.
The annual average' load factor' for onshore wind in the UK is 27 per cent, meaning wind farms are operating at 27 per cent of their net capacity.
'This compares favourably to countries such as Germany, where the load factor is around 20 per cent,' said the spokesman.
'Even against a backdrop of the lowest average wind speeds this century in 2010 and the lowest rainfall since 2003, overall consumption of renewable energy in 2010 has risen significantly on the previous year.
'Offshore wind generation for example, increased by 75 per cent in 2010 on 2009 levels. And generation from on and off-shore wind farms combined was up 37 per cent in the first quarter of 2011 on the same period last year.'
EU targets dictate that 15 per cent of all energy, including transport and heat, is produced from renewable sources by 2020.
DECC called the EU target 'challenging' and said a soon-to-be-published report will show how the body will focus on overcoming barriers to utilising wind power and other technologies to deliver the 2020 targets.
But a damning report from conservation charity the John Muir Trust found that the UK’s wind farms were working at just 21 per cent of capacity last year.
Stuart Young, the author of the report, said: ‘Wind power is not what it’s cracked up to be.
'Over the two-year period studied, the wind farms in the UK consistently generated far less energy than wind proponents claim is typical.'
Developers of wind power have been accused of grossly exaggerating the amount of energy turbines will generate in order to get their hands on government subsidies.
Director of the Renewable Energy Foundation Dr John Constable said that even though wind farms had received subsidies of £5billion in the past nine years, they were failing to generate decent levels of power.
He said his calculations said subsidies will probably rise to £6billion a year by 2020 and even more in the following 10 years.
More than 3,600 turbines are expected to pop up throughout Britain over the next 10 years under plans by the Coalition government.
But many industry watchers are wondering why so much money is being thrown at wind farms in the UK - and whether vast swathes of the countryside should be set aside for more turbines.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has released figures which show a six per cent fall in the amount of electricity produced by Britain's onshore wind farms.
The department blames a drop in wind, revealing that 2010 was the calmest year this century, with onshore turbines producing only 1.9 per cent of all electricity in 2010, compared with two per cent the year before.
Some meteorologists believe that changes to the Atlantic jet stream could alter the pattern of winds over the next four decades, leading to uncertainty over the efficiency of wind power.
Dr David Brayshaw, a meteorologist from Reading University, says if wind speed lowers, it is obvious that less electricity will be generated by turbines.
But he adds, 'Predictions for long-term future changes in the North Atlantic jet stream are very uncertain, so average UK wind generation could go either up or down over this timeframe.'
A DECC spokesman said the wind speeds of 2010 had been 'unusually low'.
The annual average' load factor' for onshore wind in the UK is 27 per cent, meaning wind farms are operating at 27 per cent of their net capacity.
'This compares favourably to countries such as Germany, where the load factor is around 20 per cent,' said the spokesman.
'Even against a backdrop of the lowest average wind speeds this century in 2010 and the lowest rainfall since 2003, overall consumption of renewable energy in 2010 has risen significantly on the previous year.
'Offshore wind generation for example, increased by 75 per cent in 2010 on 2009 levels. And generation from on and off-shore wind farms combined was up 37 per cent in the first quarter of 2011 on the same period last year.'
EU targets dictate that 15 per cent of all energy, including transport and heat, is produced from renewable sources by 2020.
DECC called the EU target 'challenging' and said a soon-to-be-published report will show how the body will focus on overcoming barriers to utilising wind power and other technologies to deliver the 2020 targets.
But a damning report from conservation charity the John Muir Trust found that the UK’s wind farms were working at just 21 per cent of capacity last year.
Stuart Young, the author of the report, said: ‘Wind power is not what it’s cracked up to be.
'Over the two-year period studied, the wind farms in the UK consistently generated far less energy than wind proponents claim is typical.'
Developers of wind power have been accused of grossly exaggerating the amount of energy turbines will generate in order to get their hands on government subsidies.
Director of the Renewable Energy Foundation Dr John Constable said that even though wind farms had received subsidies of £5billion in the past nine years, they were failing to generate decent levels of power.
He said his calculations said subsidies will probably rise to £6billion a year by 2020 and even more in the following 10 years.
More than 3,600 turbines are expected to pop up throughout Britain over the next 10 years under plans by the Coalition government.
But many industry watchers are wondering why so much money is being thrown at wind farms in the UK - and whether vast swathes of the countryside should be set aside for more turbines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)