The Energy Information Administration (EIA), in preparing projections for the Annual Energy Outlook 2007 (AEO2007), evaluated a wide range of trends and issues that could have major implications for U.S. energy markets between today and 2030. This overview focuses on one case, the reference case, which is presented and compared with the Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (AEO2006) reference case (see Table 1).
Readers are encouraged to review the full range of alternative cases included in AEO2007 when the complete report is released in early 2007. As in previous editions of the AEO, the reference case assumes that current policies affecting the energy sector remain unchanged throughout the projection period. Some possible policy changes—notably, the adoption of policies to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions—could change the reference case projections significantly.
(Click to read entire article)
Monday, May 07, 2007
WIND PUFFERY: WIND SALESMEN'S TALKING POINTS AND THE FACTS THAT REFUTE THEM
Wind salesmen mimic the memes of environmentalism to sell their industry, often in ways so deceptive or contrary as to mock the very movement they claim to promote. You will often hear wind salesmen, and politicians who want to look ‘green,’ make the following claims:
Claim: Windplants will reduce oil consumption and lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
Facts: Only about 3% of total electricity consumption comes from oil, so windplants (which produce electricity) will not reduce oil consumption or lessen foreign dependence in any meaningful sense.
In 2004, 53% of the electricity in the US was generated from coal, 22% from nuclear fission, and 13.5% from natural gas. Oil is used mainly to power engines, motor vehicles and heating furnaces, not to produce electricity. Wind power provided 0.4%. "Annual Energy Outlook 2006," Energy Information Administration. More efficient engines and conservation measures will reduce oil consumption, but wind turbines will not. Wind Turbines Have No Effect...
The US Energy Information Administration sees little change from 2004 to 2030: about 7% more from coal, 5.5% less from nuclear fission, 1% less from oil, 0.5% less from natural gas, and 0.5% more from renewables. Wind power's contribution is projected to rise from 0.4% to 1.2% if current incentives and subsidies remain in place.
(Click to read entire article)
Claim: Windplants will reduce oil consumption and lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
Facts: Only about 3% of total electricity consumption comes from oil, so windplants (which produce electricity) will not reduce oil consumption or lessen foreign dependence in any meaningful sense.
In 2004, 53% of the electricity in the US was generated from coal, 22% from nuclear fission, and 13.5% from natural gas. Oil is used mainly to power engines, motor vehicles and heating furnaces, not to produce electricity. Wind power provided 0.4%. "Annual Energy Outlook 2006," Energy Information Administration. More efficient engines and conservation measures will reduce oil consumption, but wind turbines will not. Wind Turbines Have No Effect...
The US Energy Information Administration sees little change from 2004 to 2030: about 7% more from coal, 5.5% less from nuclear fission, 1% less from oil, 0.5% less from natural gas, and 0.5% more from renewables. Wind power's contribution is projected to rise from 0.4% to 1.2% if current incentives and subsidies remain in place.
(Click to read entire article)
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Turbine noise raises concern by Kevin Miller
State regulators indicated Wednesday that they plan to pay closer attention to potential noise levels generated by wind farms proposed within the Unorganized Territory.
Members of the Land Use Regulation Commission said the state should learn from the noise concerns that have arisen since a wind farm in the Aroostook County town of Mars Hill became operational earlier this year.
LURC currently has three wind farm applications pending: a 38-turbine operation in northern Washington County and two proposals in the western Maine mountains. The Washington County proposal, located on Stetson Mountain, has been submitted by the same company that built the Mars Hill wind farm.
(Click to read entire article)
Members of the Land Use Regulation Commission said the state should learn from the noise concerns that have arisen since a wind farm in the Aroostook County town of Mars Hill became operational earlier this year.
LURC currently has three wind farm applications pending: a 38-turbine operation in northern Washington County and two proposals in the western Maine mountains. The Washington County proposal, located on Stetson Mountain, has been submitted by the same company that built the Mars Hill wind farm.
(Click to read entire article)
Free as the Wind
As we shift to different sources of energy, property rights will need to be clearly defined:
Who Owns the Wind?, by Sebastian Knauer, Spiegel: It's ... a major problem for the German legal system, including a court in Leipzig that is currently hearing a case involving a dispute between the operators of two wind turbine facilities. Who owns the wind? The parties in the dispute are the owner of a wind farm ... and a businessman, who wants to set up a bigger wind farm in the immediate vicinity.
The crux of the case is earnings. When two wind turbines are located too close to one another ... "This wind theft naturally affects profits," Leipzig lawyer Martin Maslaton says, justifying his client's complaint ... According to the plaintiff's own calculations, there has been a 15 percent drop in income.
In recent years wind turbines have become a new fixture in German courts, with legal disputes over issues such as the shadows cast by the turbines, the noise or the destruction of the landscape. But the current dispute over the ownership of wind is even more fundamental.
Who Owns the Wind?, by Sebastian Knauer, Spiegel: It's ... a major problem for the German legal system, including a court in Leipzig that is currently hearing a case involving a dispute between the operators of two wind turbine facilities. Who owns the wind? The parties in the dispute are the owner of a wind farm ... and a businessman, who wants to set up a bigger wind farm in the immediate vicinity.
The crux of the case is earnings. When two wind turbines are located too close to one another ... "This wind theft naturally affects profits," Leipzig lawyer Martin Maslaton says, justifying his client's complaint ... According to the plaintiff's own calculations, there has been a 15 percent drop in income.
In recent years wind turbines have become a new fixture in German courts, with legal disputes over issues such as the shadows cast by the turbines, the noise or the destruction of the landscape. But the current dispute over the ownership of wind is even more fundamental.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Scientists: Wind farms need closer government scrutiny by Margot Roosevelt
A National Academy of Sciences report Thursday criticized "the lack of any truly coordinated planning" in the rapid growth of wind farms across the U.S., and called on federal, state and local governments to pay more attention to the effects of turbines on wildlife and scenic landscapes.
Wind provides less than 1 percent of the nation's electricity, but it is one of the fastest-growing alternatives to fossil fuel-produced power, a major source of global warming.
Wind provides less than 1 percent of the nation's electricity, but it is one of the fastest-growing alternatives to fossil fuel-produced power, a major source of global warming.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
As wind energy development continues to expand, federal, state and local agencies should adopt a consistent approach to evaluating the planning, regulation, and location of wind-energy projects. This National Research Council report proposes a framework that can help in evaluating tradeoffs between the benefits of new wind-energy projects and risks of adverse environmental impacts before projects begin.
This report brief was prepared by the National Research Council based on the committee’s report. For more information or copies, contact the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology at (202) 334-3060 or visit http://nationalacademies.org/best Copies of Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001; (800) 624-6242; www.nap.edu.
This report brief was prepared by the National Research Council based on the committee’s report. For more information or copies, contact the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology at (202) 334-3060 or visit http://nationalacademies.org/best Copies of Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001; (800) 624-6242; www.nap.edu.
Guide for Evaluating Wind-Energy Projects
Some elements to consider in policy, planning, and public relations
1. Have mechanisms been established to provide necessary information to interested and affected parties, and to seek meaningful input from them as wind-energy projects are planned and implemented? Are developers required to provide early notification of their intent to develop wind energy?
2. Are procedures—including policies and regulations—in place for evaluating the impacts of wind-energy projects that cross jurisdictional boundaries?
3. Is guidance available to developers, regulators, and the public about what kinds of information are needed for review, what degrees of adverse and beneficial effects of proposed wind-energy developments should be considered critical in evaluating a proposed project, and how competing costs and benefits of a proposed project should be weighed with regard to that proposal only, or by comparison with likely alternatives?
4. Are regional planning documents available that provide guidance on the quality of wind resources, capacity of transmission options,potential markets, major areas of concern, and tradeoffs that should be considered?
Legal and Regulatory Considerations
1. Are wind-energy guidelines and regulations issued by different federal agencies compatible, are those guidelines and regulations aligned with other federal regulating rules and regulations, and do the guidelines and regulations follow acceptable scientific principles when establishing data requirements?
2. Does the review process include steps that explicitly address the cumulative impacts of wind-energy projects over space and time; that is, by reviewing each new project in the context of other existing and planned projects in the region?
Evaluation of Impacts
1. Are the biological, aesthetic, cultural, and socioeconomic attributes of the region sufficiently well known to allow an accurate assessment of the environmental impacts of the wind-energy project, and to distinguish among the potential sites considered during the site selection process? Are there species, habitats, recreational areas, or cultural sites of special interest or concern that will be
affected by the project? Are there key gaps in the needed information that should be addressed with further research before a project is approved or to guide the operation of an approved project?
Environmental Impacts
1. What environmental mitigation measures will be taken and how will their effectiveness be measured? Are there any legal requirements for such measures (e.g., habitat conservation plans)? Are any listed species at risk from the proposed facility?
2. How and by whom will the environmental impacts be evaluated once the project is in operation? If these evaluations indicate needed changes in the operation of the facility, how will such a decision be made and how will their implementation be assured?
3. What pre-siting studies for site selection and pre-construction studies for impact assessment and mitigation planning are required?
4. What post-construction studies, with appropriate controls, are required to evaluate impacts, modify mitigation if needed, and improve future planning?
Impacts on Human Health and Well-Being
1. Have pre-construction noise surveys been conducted to determine the background noise levels? Will technical assessments of the operational noise levels be conducted? Is there an established process to resolve complaints from the operation of the turbines?
2. Is there a process in place to address complaints of shadow flicker and does the operator use the best software programs to minimize any flicker?
Aesthetic Impacts
1. Has the project planning involved professional assessment of potential visual impacts, using established techniques such as those recommended by the U.S. Forest Service or U.S. Bureau of Land Management?
2. How have the public and the locally affected inhabitants been involved in evaluating the potential aesthetic and visual impacts?
Cultural Impacts
1. Has there been expert consideration of the possible impacts of the project on recreational opportunities and on historical, sacred, and archeological sites?
Economic and Fiscal Impacts
1. Have the direct economic impacts of the project been accurately evaluated, including the types and pay scales of the jobs produced during the construction and operational phases, the taxes that will be produced, and costs to the public?
2. Has there been a careful explication of the indirect economic costs and benefits, including opportunity costs and the distribution of monetary and non-monetary benefits and costs?
3. Are the guarantees and mitigation measures designed to fit the project and address the interests of the community members and the local jurisdictions?
Electromagnetic Interference
1. Has the developer assessed the possibility of radio, television, and radar interference?
Cumulative Effects
1. How will cumulative effects be assessed, and what will be included in that assessment (i.e., the effects only of other wind-energy installations, or of all other electricity generators, or of all other anthropogenic impacts on the area)? Have the spatial and temporal scales of the cumulative-effects assessment been specified?
1. Have mechanisms been established to provide necessary information to interested and affected parties, and to seek meaningful input from them as wind-energy projects are planned and implemented? Are developers required to provide early notification of their intent to develop wind energy?
2. Are procedures—including policies and regulations—in place for evaluating the impacts of wind-energy projects that cross jurisdictional boundaries?
3. Is guidance available to developers, regulators, and the public about what kinds of information are needed for review, what degrees of adverse and beneficial effects of proposed wind-energy developments should be considered critical in evaluating a proposed project, and how competing costs and benefits of a proposed project should be weighed with regard to that proposal only, or by comparison with likely alternatives?
4. Are regional planning documents available that provide guidance on the quality of wind resources, capacity of transmission options,potential markets, major areas of concern, and tradeoffs that should be considered?
Legal and Regulatory Considerations
1. Are wind-energy guidelines and regulations issued by different federal agencies compatible, are those guidelines and regulations aligned with other federal regulating rules and regulations, and do the guidelines and regulations follow acceptable scientific principles when establishing data requirements?
2. Does the review process include steps that explicitly address the cumulative impacts of wind-energy projects over space and time; that is, by reviewing each new project in the context of other existing and planned projects in the region?
Evaluation of Impacts
1. Are the biological, aesthetic, cultural, and socioeconomic attributes of the region sufficiently well known to allow an accurate assessment of the environmental impacts of the wind-energy project, and to distinguish among the potential sites considered during the site selection process? Are there species, habitats, recreational areas, or cultural sites of special interest or concern that will be
affected by the project? Are there key gaps in the needed information that should be addressed with further research before a project is approved or to guide the operation of an approved project?
Environmental Impacts
1. What environmental mitigation measures will be taken and how will their effectiveness be measured? Are there any legal requirements for such measures (e.g., habitat conservation plans)? Are any listed species at risk from the proposed facility?
2. How and by whom will the environmental impacts be evaluated once the project is in operation? If these evaluations indicate needed changes in the operation of the facility, how will such a decision be made and how will their implementation be assured?
3. What pre-siting studies for site selection and pre-construction studies for impact assessment and mitigation planning are required?
4. What post-construction studies, with appropriate controls, are required to evaluate impacts, modify mitigation if needed, and improve future planning?
Impacts on Human Health and Well-Being
1. Have pre-construction noise surveys been conducted to determine the background noise levels? Will technical assessments of the operational noise levels be conducted? Is there an established process to resolve complaints from the operation of the turbines?
2. Is there a process in place to address complaints of shadow flicker and does the operator use the best software programs to minimize any flicker?
Aesthetic Impacts
1. Has the project planning involved professional assessment of potential visual impacts, using established techniques such as those recommended by the U.S. Forest Service or U.S. Bureau of Land Management?
2. How have the public and the locally affected inhabitants been involved in evaluating the potential aesthetic and visual impacts?
Cultural Impacts
1. Has there been expert consideration of the possible impacts of the project on recreational opportunities and on historical, sacred, and archeological sites?
Economic and Fiscal Impacts
1. Have the direct economic impacts of the project been accurately evaluated, including the types and pay scales of the jobs produced during the construction and operational phases, the taxes that will be produced, and costs to the public?
2. Has there been a careful explication of the indirect economic costs and benefits, including opportunity costs and the distribution of monetary and non-monetary benefits and costs?
3. Are the guarantees and mitigation measures designed to fit the project and address the interests of the community members and the local jurisdictions?
Electromagnetic Interference
1. Has the developer assessed the possibility of radio, television, and radar interference?
Cumulative Effects
1. How will cumulative effects be assessed, and what will be included in that assessment (i.e., the effects only of other wind-energy installations, or of all other electricity generators, or of all other anthropogenic impacts on the area)? Have the spatial and temporal scales of the cumulative-effects assessment been specified?
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
This free executive summary is provided by the National Academies as part of our mission to educate the world on issues of science, engineering, and health. If you are interested in reading the full book, please visit us online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11935.html . You may browse and search the full, authoritative version for free; you may also purchase a print or electronic version of the book. If you have questions or just want more information about the books published by the National Academies Press, please contact our customer service department toll-free at 888-624-8373.
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
Antitrust Complaint Update - Brad Jones
Just wanted to clarify that you were not accurate in your note describing the recent Antitrust Complaint as "just a letter" to the Department of Justice.
It was not a letter. It was a formal 22 page Antitrust Complaint filed by 94 citizens of New York, Vermont, California, and Maryland alleging numerous intentional violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. These violations are serious and obvious (the Act calls them "per se" violations), and cannot be easily refuted. The Complaint was accepted by the DOJ and referred for review. If they decide to move forward, the FBI will conduct the investigation.
Since the filing, we have had calls from Illinois, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Maine, and we anticipate that additional Complaints will be filed over the next few weeks.
If this was "just a letter", why would I now have requests from wind energy law firms (including Alston and Bird) for copies of the Complaint? They did not ask for a "copy of the letter", they asked for a "copy of the Complaint". If Alston and Bird is taking this seriously perhaps UPC should as well.
You just may want to check with an attorney to determine if you might have any personal liability regarding this matter. As you saw in the Press Release, violators of the Sherman Antitrust Act can receive both fines and jail terms. Better to be safe than sorry.
It is our understanding (see the Department of Justice website) that the Department will treat more leniently individuals who report their own involvement in antitrust violations, in exchange for their full cooperation. Here is a direct quote from DOJ:
"Under the Antitrust Division's amnesty program, companies and individuals may approach the Division and apply for a pass from criminal prosecution if they are the first to come forward and fully cooperate."
Who will be the "first to come forward""? Will this lucky person be from Everpower, Ecogen, UPC, BP Alternative Energy, Babcock and Brown, Community Energy, Goldman Sachs, Invenergy AES, Evergreen, Clipper, Global, or Horizon? What about all of the Lead Agencies, the crooked town officials, and the hundreds of consultants? So many possibilities, but only one Get Out Of Jail Free Card, for the first to come forward.
There are other conditions associated with Amnesty Applicants as well. Your personal attorney would be the proper person to advise you on such matters.
Or you could send any questions regarding liability to askDOJ@usdoj.gov, or simply call them at 1-888-647-3258. They are very helpful people. They are also very committed and dedicated people who take allegations such as ours quite seriously.
Brad Jones
PerformancePlus Business Consultants
3996 Donley Road
Naples NY 14512
585 233 8539 (Cell)
585 374 2627 (Office)
It was not a letter. It was a formal 22 page Antitrust Complaint filed by 94 citizens of New York, Vermont, California, and Maryland alleging numerous intentional violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. These violations are serious and obvious (the Act calls them "per se" violations), and cannot be easily refuted. The Complaint was accepted by the DOJ and referred for review. If they decide to move forward, the FBI will conduct the investigation.
Since the filing, we have had calls from Illinois, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Maine, and we anticipate that additional Complaints will be filed over the next few weeks.
If this was "just a letter", why would I now have requests from wind energy law firms (including Alston and Bird) for copies of the Complaint? They did not ask for a "copy of the letter", they asked for a "copy of the Complaint". If Alston and Bird is taking this seriously perhaps UPC should as well.
You just may want to check with an attorney to determine if you might have any personal liability regarding this matter. As you saw in the Press Release, violators of the Sherman Antitrust Act can receive both fines and jail terms. Better to be safe than sorry.
It is our understanding (see the Department of Justice website) that the Department will treat more leniently individuals who report their own involvement in antitrust violations, in exchange for their full cooperation. Here is a direct quote from DOJ:
"Under the Antitrust Division's amnesty program, companies and individuals may approach the Division and apply for a pass from criminal prosecution if they are the first to come forward and fully cooperate."
Who will be the "first to come forward""? Will this lucky person be from Everpower, Ecogen, UPC, BP Alternative Energy, Babcock and Brown, Community Energy, Goldman Sachs, Invenergy AES, Evergreen, Clipper, Global, or Horizon? What about all of the Lead Agencies, the crooked town officials, and the hundreds of consultants? So many possibilities, but only one Get Out Of Jail Free Card, for the first to come forward.
There are other conditions associated with Amnesty Applicants as well. Your personal attorney would be the proper person to advise you on such matters.
Or you could send any questions regarding liability to askDOJ@usdoj.gov, or simply call them at 1-888-647-3258. They are very helpful people. They are also very committed and dedicated people who take allegations such as ours quite seriously.
Brad Jones
PerformancePlus Business Consultants
3996 Donley Road
Naples NY 14512
585 233 8539 (Cell)
585 374 2627 (Office)
Wind Farms May Not Lower Air Pollution, Study Suggests by MATTHEW L. WALD
Building thousands of wind turbines would probably not reduce the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain, but it would slow the growth in emissions of heat-trapping gases, according to a study released Thursday by the National Academy of Sciences.
The study found, however, that officials who will decide whether to build the turbines have few tools to measure the devices’ impact on air quality, on animals like birds and bats, and on wilderness preservation.
In fact, making good decisions about wind energy may be difficult, said David J. Policansky, the study director, because negative effects occur locally while benefits are probably regional or national.
(Click to read entire article)
The study found, however, that officials who will decide whether to build the turbines have few tools to measure the devices’ impact on air quality, on animals like birds and bats, and on wilderness preservation.
In fact, making good decisions about wind energy may be difficult, said David J. Policansky, the study director, because negative effects occur locally while benefits are probably regional or national.
(Click to read entire article)
Energy from wind farms comes with cost to bats and birds by RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
Wind farms could generate as much as 7 percent of U.S. electricity in 15 years, but scientists want to spend more time studying the threat those spinning blades pose to birds and bats.
The towers appear most dangerous to night-migrating songbirds, bats and some hunting birds such as hawks and eagles. The risk is not well enough known to draw conclusions, a panel of the National Research Council said Thursday in a study requested by Congress.
"The human impacts of wind farms can be both positive and negative," said Paul G. Risser, chairman of the committee that prepared the report.
Clearly the farms provide jobs and in some cases they can even be a recreational attraction, he said. But there can also be an effect on property values and reflections off the rotor blades can be distracting to some people, said Risser, of the University of Oklahoma and current acting director of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.
Wind has powered sailing ships for thousands of years and has long been important to turn windmills that move water and grind grain. Only in recent years had the potential of the wind to generate electricity been tapped.
Wind farms generate electricity by using the wind to turn giant blades that rotate turbines to make power. The blades have diameters ranging from 230 to 295 feet and are mounted on towers between 197 and 295 feet tall. Some farms contain hundreds of towers. The one at Altamont Pass , Calif. , has more than 5,000.
Growing from almost nothing in 1980, wind powered turbines generated 11,605 megawatts of electricity in the United States in 2006, though that was still less than 1 percent of the national power supply.
Wind farms now operate in 36 states. The report says estimates are that this source could generate from 2 percent to 7 percent of the nation's electricity within 15 years.
"There is a great diversity of opinion on how much there is going to be a ramping up of wind energy," said report co-author Mary English of the University of Tennessee .
By reducing the need to generate electricity from by burning fossil fuels the turbines have been welcomed as a boon to the environment. Others worry about the danger to birds and bats, impacts on wildlife habitat and what some see as a blight on the scenery.
Overall, the report noted, the benefits of wind-energy development such as reductions in air pollutants benefit wide areas, while the environmental costs, such as effects on the ecology and increased mortality of birds and bats, occur locally.
The Research Council, as arm of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that:
-By the year 2020 wind generators could offset as much as 4.5 percent of emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from electricity production. The savings would be less in the mid-Atlantic states where there is less regular wind.
-Wind generation in the mid-Atlantic highlands - elevated regions of Virginia , West Virginia , Maryland and Pennsylvania - is unlikely to reduce emissions of nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide because current and upcoming regulation will limit those emissions in eastern states.
-In the mid-Atlantic highlands, preliminary studies indicate that more bats are killed than expected based on experience with bats in other regions. There is not enough information to determine whether the number of bats killed will have overall effects on populations. However, there has been a region-wide decline in several species of bats in the eastern states, so the possibility of population effects is significant.
-Turbines placed on ridges, as many are in the mid-Atlantic highlands, appear to have a higher probability of causing bat fatalities than those at many other sites
-At current levels of use, there is no evidence that fatalities caused by wind turbines result in measurable demographic changes to bird populations nationwide, with the possible exception of raptor fatalities in the Altamont Pass area. However, data are lacking for a many facilities.
-While aesthetic concerns often are the most heard about proposed wind-energy projects, few decision processes adequately address them.
-Other potential human impacts include effects on cultural resources such as historic, sacred, archaeological and recreation sites and the potential for electromagnetic interference with television and radio broadcasting, cellular phones and radar.
-Building wind farms requires clearing land and soil disruption and has the potential for erosion and noise.
-Regulation of wind farms is a developing area and better technical guidance to the costs and benefits needs to be made available. This guidance could be developed by state and local governments working with groups composed of wind-energy developers and non-governmental
organizations representing all views of wind energy, the committee said.
The National Academy is an independent organization chartered by Congress to advise the government on scientific matters.
---
National Research Council: http://www.nationalacademies.org/nrc
The towers appear most dangerous to night-migrating songbirds, bats and some hunting birds such as hawks and eagles. The risk is not well enough known to draw conclusions, a panel of the National Research Council said Thursday in a study requested by Congress.
"The human impacts of wind farms can be both positive and negative," said Paul G. Risser, chairman of the committee that prepared the report.
Clearly the farms provide jobs and in some cases they can even be a recreational attraction, he said. But there can also be an effect on property values and reflections off the rotor blades can be distracting to some people, said Risser, of the University of Oklahoma and current acting director of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.
Wind has powered sailing ships for thousands of years and has long been important to turn windmills that move water and grind grain. Only in recent years had the potential of the wind to generate electricity been tapped.
Wind farms generate electricity by using the wind to turn giant blades that rotate turbines to make power. The blades have diameters ranging from 230 to 295 feet and are mounted on towers between 197 and 295 feet tall. Some farms contain hundreds of towers. The one at Altamont Pass , Calif. , has more than 5,000.
Growing from almost nothing in 1980, wind powered turbines generated 11,605 megawatts of electricity in the United States in 2006, though that was still less than 1 percent of the national power supply.
Wind farms now operate in 36 states. The report says estimates are that this source could generate from 2 percent to 7 percent of the nation's electricity within 15 years.
"There is a great diversity of opinion on how much there is going to be a ramping up of wind energy," said report co-author Mary English of the University of Tennessee .
By reducing the need to generate electricity from by burning fossil fuels the turbines have been welcomed as a boon to the environment. Others worry about the danger to birds and bats, impacts on wildlife habitat and what some see as a blight on the scenery.
Overall, the report noted, the benefits of wind-energy development such as reductions in air pollutants benefit wide areas, while the environmental costs, such as effects on the ecology and increased mortality of birds and bats, occur locally.
The Research Council, as arm of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that:
-By the year 2020 wind generators could offset as much as 4.5 percent of emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from electricity production. The savings would be less in the mid-Atlantic states where there is less regular wind.
-Wind generation in the mid-Atlantic highlands - elevated regions of Virginia , West Virginia , Maryland and Pennsylvania - is unlikely to reduce emissions of nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide because current and upcoming regulation will limit those emissions in eastern states.
-In the mid-Atlantic highlands, preliminary studies indicate that more bats are killed than expected based on experience with bats in other regions. There is not enough information to determine whether the number of bats killed will have overall effects on populations. However, there has been a region-wide decline in several species of bats in the eastern states, so the possibility of population effects is significant.
-Turbines placed on ridges, as many are in the mid-Atlantic highlands, appear to have a higher probability of causing bat fatalities than those at many other sites
-At current levels of use, there is no evidence that fatalities caused by wind turbines result in measurable demographic changes to bird populations nationwide, with the possible exception of raptor fatalities in the Altamont Pass area. However, data are lacking for a many facilities.
-While aesthetic concerns often are the most heard about proposed wind-energy projects, few decision processes adequately address them.
-Other potential human impacts include effects on cultural resources such as historic, sacred, archaeological and recreation sites and the potential for electromagnetic interference with television and radio broadcasting, cellular phones and radar.
-Building wind farms requires clearing land and soil disruption and has the potential for erosion and noise.
-Regulation of wind farms is a developing area and better technical guidance to the costs and benefits needs to be made available. This guidance could be developed by state and local governments working with groups composed of wind-energy developers and non-governmental
organizations representing all views of wind energy, the committee said.
The National Academy is an independent organization chartered by Congress to advise the government on scientific matters.
---
National Research Council: http://www.nationalacademies.org/nrc
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Turbine noise raises concern
State regulators indicated Wednesday that they plan to pay closer attention to potential noise levels generated by wind farms proposed within the Unorganized Territory.
Members of the Land Use Regulation Commission said the state should learn from the noise concerns that have arisen since a wind farm in the Aroostook County town of Mars Hill became operational earlier this year.
LURC currently has three wind farm applications pending: a 38-turbine operation in northern Washington County and two proposals in the western Maine mountains. The Washington County proposal, located on Stetson Mountain, has been submitted by the same company that built the Mars Hill wind farm.
Some neighbors of the Mars Hill farm said they accepted the impact the nearly 400-foot-tall turbines would have on their views. But they never expected that noise from the turbines would be so loud as to disrupt sleep and affect their quality of life.
The wind farm’s operator, Evergreen Wind Power LLC, is studying the noise issues.
On Wednesday, LURC board member Stephen Wight said the commission had heard plenty of concern expressed about wind farms’ impacts on the environment and scenery. But the Mars Hill project’s noise issues were "a real surprise to everybody," Wight said.
"We should learn from every project that goes into the state," he said.
Current policy requires that landowners within 1,000 feet of a property be notified in order to address possible impacts. Commission member Edward Laverty suggested that LURC staff and project applicants may want to "liberally interpret" the notification laws to ensure that any affected landowners are informed because of the potential of wind noise.
Representatives for UPC Wind Management, the parent company of Evergreen Wind Power, have said that the Stetson Mountain site is ideal for a new wind farm because it is so isolated.
Stetson Mountain is a rural ridgeline that runs along Route 169 between the communities of Danforth and Springfield. The nearest residential structure — a seasonal cabin — is more than 2,500 feet from a turbine.
Additionally, UPC officials said Wednesday that the ridge already has established logging roads that provide ready access to the top and that no significant wildlife or environmental issues have been identified so far.
Dave Cowan, vice president of Environmental Affairs for UPC, said the company is now trying to get the message out about the low-impact project.
"It’s a gem of a site," Cowan said.
LURC staff members are just beginning the formal review of the application. On Wednesday, the commission authorized the staff to set a date for a public hearing and to begin contacting potential intervenors in the review process.
UPC is seeking to rezone approximately 4,800 acres for the project. If constructed as proposed, the project would generate an estimated 57 megawatts of electricity, which is enough to power roughly 27,500 homes.
Each turbine would stand roughly 400 feet tall from the base to the highest point of the rotating blades.
For more information on the Stetson Mountain or other wind farm projects, go to http://www.maine.gov/doc/lurc and click on the links at the bottom of the page.
Members of the Land Use Regulation Commission said the state should learn from the noise concerns that have arisen since a wind farm in the Aroostook County town of Mars Hill became operational earlier this year.
LURC currently has three wind farm applications pending: a 38-turbine operation in northern Washington County and two proposals in the western Maine mountains. The Washington County proposal, located on Stetson Mountain, has been submitted by the same company that built the Mars Hill wind farm.
Some neighbors of the Mars Hill farm said they accepted the impact the nearly 400-foot-tall turbines would have on their views. But they never expected that noise from the turbines would be so loud as to disrupt sleep and affect their quality of life.
The wind farm’s operator, Evergreen Wind Power LLC, is studying the noise issues.
On Wednesday, LURC board member Stephen Wight said the commission had heard plenty of concern expressed about wind farms’ impacts on the environment and scenery. But the Mars Hill project’s noise issues were "a real surprise to everybody," Wight said.
"We should learn from every project that goes into the state," he said.
Current policy requires that landowners within 1,000 feet of a property be notified in order to address possible impacts. Commission member Edward Laverty suggested that LURC staff and project applicants may want to "liberally interpret" the notification laws to ensure that any affected landowners are informed because of the potential of wind noise.
Representatives for UPC Wind Management, the parent company of Evergreen Wind Power, have said that the Stetson Mountain site is ideal for a new wind farm because it is so isolated.
Stetson Mountain is a rural ridgeline that runs along Route 169 between the communities of Danforth and Springfield. The nearest residential structure — a seasonal cabin — is more than 2,500 feet from a turbine.
Additionally, UPC officials said Wednesday that the ridge already has established logging roads that provide ready access to the top and that no significant wildlife or environmental issues have been identified so far.
Dave Cowan, vice president of Environmental Affairs for UPC, said the company is now trying to get the message out about the low-impact project.
"It’s a gem of a site," Cowan said.
LURC staff members are just beginning the formal review of the application. On Wednesday, the commission authorized the staff to set a date for a public hearing and to begin contacting potential intervenors in the review process.
UPC is seeking to rezone approximately 4,800 acres for the project. If constructed as proposed, the project would generate an estimated 57 megawatts of electricity, which is enough to power roughly 27,500 homes.
Each turbine would stand roughly 400 feet tall from the base to the highest point of the rotating blades.
For more information on the Stetson Mountain or other wind farm projects, go to http://www.maine.gov/doc/lurc and click on the links at the bottom of the page.
Judith Hall May 3, 2007 letter to the Cohocton Planning Board
May 3, 2007
Dear Planning Board Members,
We have all heard much emotional comment from impacted neighbors of the wind project this past month. I’ve watched your faces as you realized most of the impacted residents are very upset with the current plan UPC is proposing.
Most would concede wind energy is not a bad thing. But WE, we being all residents of Cohocton including the Boards, leaseholders and impacted residents, need to also agree there is a proper place for industrial turbines.
You do not need to be pressured by UPC to permit a bad plan. Cohocton will better help the world by doing this correctly. Law suits into the next decade will not help anyone. Proper siting , away from residences will. Why can’t UPC buy all the land they need as other wind companies are doing to protect the town? The noise issue is real, the health risks are real, the insurance and property value issues are real.
Jack and Wayne have a noble goal, sacrificing Cohocton for the greater good. But there don’t need to be any sacrificial lambs slaughtered in the process. You are our front line of reason. A poorly done project will hurt all future projects as well as Cohocton. Please take the time to site these turbines correctly and you will be the real life heroes of Cohocton, the Finger Lakes and all of New York.
Cordially,
Judi Hall
Dear Planning Board Members,
We have all heard much emotional comment from impacted neighbors of the wind project this past month. I’ve watched your faces as you realized most of the impacted residents are very upset with the current plan UPC is proposing.
Most would concede wind energy is not a bad thing. But WE, we being all residents of Cohocton including the Boards, leaseholders and impacted residents, need to also agree there is a proper place for industrial turbines.
You do not need to be pressured by UPC to permit a bad plan. Cohocton will better help the world by doing this correctly. Law suits into the next decade will not help anyone. Proper siting , away from residences will. Why can’t UPC buy all the land they need as other wind companies are doing to protect the town? The noise issue is real, the health risks are real, the insurance and property value issues are real.
Jack and Wayne have a noble goal, sacrificing Cohocton for the greater good. But there don’t need to be any sacrificial lambs slaughtered in the process. You are our front line of reason. A poorly done project will hurt all future projects as well as Cohocton. Please take the time to site these turbines correctly and you will be the real life heroes of Cohocton, the Finger Lakes and all of New York.
Cordially,
Judi Hall
Cynthia Cole letter about UPC Prattsburgh
Dear Global Wind, etc.
We received the review of your approved windfarm for Prattsburgh. http://www.prattsburghwind.com/about-rr-feis.php. Certainly we are tired of fighting and in that you developers and few landowners and politicians win. Hopefully others will continue the awareness to fight against large scale industrial wind development in Upstate NY. YOU obviously have the current politicians and IDA in your pockets. How did you do that so well?
We are relieved that you will not be putting turbines between Burke Rd. and Rte 53 near our home on Rte 53. That particular turbine would have LOOMED over our place by being just up the hill and would have totally interfered with the sunrise and moonrise there. The turbine's flicker affect and flashing lights would have ruined one of our property's strongest features even though the site was on a neighboring property on Burke Rd. That is how critical the impact of the turbine placement is and yet is so ignored. We know that we are extremely fortunate and the site change is strictly due to factors having nothing to do with the impact on our place. Sadly, it is hard to say "thank you".
We have our place for sale. We have an interested buyers who will NOT buy if the turbine was sited there. We have had other interested parties back out due to the windfarm plans here. We know of 2 buyers who backed out of offers on a Dillenbeck Rd.property (original offers of $225,000. and 230,000.) and 1 successful buyer on that same property for $185,000.00 (due to the wind farm impacting views). No value on viewshed? We beg to differ. Thank you developers and Steuben IDA! People came and built the lovlier homes and get-a-ways because it is so beautiful here. Too bad the town of Prattsburgh couldn't work harder on enforcing junk car and property laws - instead they just add wind turbines. Now thats some real "vision" for you!
Feedback from buyers and tourists is mostly negative due to the size and concentration of the turbine area in the region. Most (some are just adamantly opposed to windfarms period) were ok with smaller turbines in smaller windfarms (up to 20 like Fenner or 7 like Weathersfield). The opposition is that the county area will be covered with 100s of turbines making it an industrial area rather than a residential/recreational area. People buying trailer homes or low income properties seem unaffected. Buyers of "nicer" homes and properties are very off-put by the size of the Prattsburgh, ohocton, Italy windfarm area. Its not the green energy - its the way you are doing it. Geo-thermal and solar have their place as well - and maybe better choices in areas where tourism is the fastest growing "industry" and where migratory birds are in such abundance, variety and will be at risk.
Over the years, our town supervisor Harold McConnell, Jim Sherron from the IDA and the representatives of Global UPC and Ecogen repeatedly told us that there would only be 1 smaller windfarm due to the ability of the power grid to handle them. Lies, lies, lies. Now we have 2 approved windfarms for Prattsburgh with turbine sites over 100 in phase one. As if the IDA didn't know - right. Randy Kuhl told us we are "home ruled" in the state of NY. That is supposed to mean that the towns determine what they want or don't want. Lies, lies, lies. If that were true we could have voted on a referendum in Prattsburgh (they did for adult book stores and booze). If that were true, the Town of Italy wouldn't be fighting the law suit by Ecogen - who proudly badgers with big law guns to force the town to allow the windfarm and substation. Why is this allowed? Will business developers seize our lands under imminent domain for windfarms, strip malls or other projects that "those who know best" determine while stuffing their pockets with pork?
With consideration of the PILOT programs(payment in lieu of taxes HA! HA!) - one wonders just where the tax revenues will come from in the future. The windfarms cannot afford to pay taxes, the low income properties pay little or subsidized taxes, as well as the farmers are subsidized by tax dollars as well. The "nicer" properties (well kept family homes, retirement homes, recreational) support the tax base for the towns by paying a disproportionate share. Will the landowners loose their leased land in 15 years when they run out of payments and didn't use innovation and work to solve their money problems to pay taxes?
Oddly, many of us with improved properties received yet another increase in our share of the taxes, as well as increases pending for NYSEG electric (to support the windfarms). This formula for tax and revenue to the county of Steuben is flawed. It does not take a brain bigger than a walnut to see that the "green" is still tax money siphoning away to developers and political entities like our IDA's.
Lately, Congressman Kuhl "helped" an Ontario County bowling alley with a subsidized government loan (thank you taxpayers!) to help keep the business afloat. Like farming - what happened to good adaptable business practice or loose?. Since when are Americans just a bunch of politically supported free-loaders due to lack of sound innovation and solid business sense?
The same applies to our towns. If they can't survive by growth, innovation and adapting to change, why should a few landowners and developers cover our region with turbines that won't produce enough electric to pay for themselves?
Eventually, more NY residents will leave the state of disaster and you have helped make it that way by playing on rural ignorance, opportunists and desperation. YOU developers could have proposed smaller windfarms with better returns and better science for our area instead of being greedy for 100s of them here! YOU IDA's could consider just more than ways to keep your agencies from extinction due to lack of value. YOU supervisors should think of life here after your terms of office.
Thanks for the idea of wind energy - no thanks for shoving it down our throats in an area that should be preserved from such flawed science and huge negative impact. Sure, there are buyers for our properties that will come forward that are not offended by your plans, but we think that those of us who have had the blessing of living here without your turbines will have the best memories of all - beautiful hillsides, flocks of migrating birds and dark nights with the only twinkles coming from stars.
We are moving as soon as we successfully sell our home of 25 years and our tourist lodging will be gone. All due to the windfarms? no, there are other factors and include lousy politics, high energy costs and taxes. We would tough it out but there are better opportunities for us eslewhere - maybe Ontario County or even out to a well-managed state - out of NY. There is a long list and NYS is at the bottom. Why? If you aren't part of the solution - you are part of the problem. We really hope people vote out their poorly performing incumbents next election. They blew it last year.
As residents since 1973, we will finally, definitely and sadly, put Steuben County, and Prattsburgh - "In the Rear View Mirror".
Warm Regards,
Richard & Cynthia Cole
Riders' Rest - Falling Waters
"A Heartfelt Place to Connect in the Heart of Finger Lakes Wine Country"
E-mail: ridersrest@empacc.net
Phone: (607) 522-6100
Web: www.RidersRest.com
We received the review of your approved windfarm for Prattsburgh. http://www.prattsburghwind.com/about-rr-feis.php. Certainly we are tired of fighting and in that you developers and few landowners and politicians win. Hopefully others will continue the awareness to fight against large scale industrial wind development in Upstate NY. YOU obviously have the current politicians and IDA in your pockets. How did you do that so well?
We are relieved that you will not be putting turbines between Burke Rd. and Rte 53 near our home on Rte 53. That particular turbine would have LOOMED over our place by being just up the hill and would have totally interfered with the sunrise and moonrise there. The turbine's flicker affect and flashing lights would have ruined one of our property's strongest features even though the site was on a neighboring property on Burke Rd. That is how critical the impact of the turbine placement is and yet is so ignored. We know that we are extremely fortunate and the site change is strictly due to factors having nothing to do with the impact on our place. Sadly, it is hard to say "thank you".
We have our place for sale. We have an interested buyers who will NOT buy if the turbine was sited there. We have had other interested parties back out due to the windfarm plans here. We know of 2 buyers who backed out of offers on a Dillenbeck Rd.property (original offers of $225,000. and 230,000.) and 1 successful buyer on that same property for $185,000.00 (due to the wind farm impacting views). No value on viewshed? We beg to differ. Thank you developers and Steuben IDA! People came and built the lovlier homes and get-a-ways because it is so beautiful here. Too bad the town of Prattsburgh couldn't work harder on enforcing junk car and property laws - instead they just add wind turbines. Now thats some real "vision" for you!
Feedback from buyers and tourists is mostly negative due to the size and concentration of the turbine area in the region. Most (some are just adamantly opposed to windfarms period) were ok with smaller turbines in smaller windfarms (up to 20 like Fenner or 7 like Weathersfield). The opposition is that the county area will be covered with 100s of turbines making it an industrial area rather than a residential/recreational area. People buying trailer homes or low income properties seem unaffected. Buyers of "nicer" homes and properties are very off-put by the size of the Prattsburgh, ohocton, Italy windfarm area. Its not the green energy - its the way you are doing it. Geo-thermal and solar have their place as well - and maybe better choices in areas where tourism is the fastest growing "industry" and where migratory birds are in such abundance, variety and will be at risk.
Over the years, our town supervisor Harold McConnell, Jim Sherron from the IDA and the representatives of Global UPC and Ecogen repeatedly told us that there would only be 1 smaller windfarm due to the ability of the power grid to handle them. Lies, lies, lies. Now we have 2 approved windfarms for Prattsburgh with turbine sites over 100 in phase one. As if the IDA didn't know - right. Randy Kuhl told us we are "home ruled" in the state of NY. That is supposed to mean that the towns determine what they want or don't want. Lies, lies, lies. If that were true we could have voted on a referendum in Prattsburgh (they did for adult book stores and booze). If that were true, the Town of Italy wouldn't be fighting the law suit by Ecogen - who proudly badgers with big law guns to force the town to allow the windfarm and substation. Why is this allowed? Will business developers seize our lands under imminent domain for windfarms, strip malls or other projects that "those who know best" determine while stuffing their pockets with pork?
With consideration of the PILOT programs(payment in lieu of taxes HA! HA!) - one wonders just where the tax revenues will come from in the future. The windfarms cannot afford to pay taxes, the low income properties pay little or subsidized taxes, as well as the farmers are subsidized by tax dollars as well. The "nicer" properties (well kept family homes, retirement homes, recreational) support the tax base for the towns by paying a disproportionate share. Will the landowners loose their leased land in 15 years when they run out of payments and didn't use innovation and work to solve their money problems to pay taxes?
Oddly, many of us with improved properties received yet another increase in our share of the taxes, as well as increases pending for NYSEG electric (to support the windfarms). This formula for tax and revenue to the county of Steuben is flawed. It does not take a brain bigger than a walnut to see that the "green" is still tax money siphoning away to developers and political entities like our IDA's.
Lately, Congressman Kuhl "helped" an Ontario County bowling alley with a subsidized government loan (thank you taxpayers!) to help keep the business afloat. Like farming - what happened to good adaptable business practice or loose?. Since when are Americans just a bunch of politically supported free-loaders due to lack of sound innovation and solid business sense?
The same applies to our towns. If they can't survive by growth, innovation and adapting to change, why should a few landowners and developers cover our region with turbines that won't produce enough electric to pay for themselves?
Eventually, more NY residents will leave the state of disaster and you have helped make it that way by playing on rural ignorance, opportunists and desperation. YOU developers could have proposed smaller windfarms with better returns and better science for our area instead of being greedy for 100s of them here! YOU IDA's could consider just more than ways to keep your agencies from extinction due to lack of value. YOU supervisors should think of life here after your terms of office.
Thanks for the idea of wind energy - no thanks for shoving it down our throats in an area that should be preserved from such flawed science and huge negative impact. Sure, there are buyers for our properties that will come forward that are not offended by your plans, but we think that those of us who have had the blessing of living here without your turbines will have the best memories of all - beautiful hillsides, flocks of migrating birds and dark nights with the only twinkles coming from stars.
We are moving as soon as we successfully sell our home of 25 years and our tourist lodging will be gone. All due to the windfarms? no, there are other factors and include lousy politics, high energy costs and taxes. We would tough it out but there are better opportunities for us eslewhere - maybe Ontario County or even out to a well-managed state - out of NY. There is a long list and NYS is at the bottom. Why? If you aren't part of the solution - you are part of the problem. We really hope people vote out their poorly performing incumbents next election. They blew it last year.
As residents since 1973, we will finally, definitely and sadly, put Steuben County, and Prattsburgh - "In the Rear View Mirror".
Warm Regards,
Richard & Cynthia Cole
Riders' Rest - Falling Waters
"A Heartfelt Place to Connect in the Heart of Finger Lakes Wine Country"
E-mail: ridersrest@empacc.net
Phone: (607) 522-6100
Web: www.RidersRest.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)