More than 120 people squeezed in to the Burke Town hall Thursday night to air their opinions about the town of Burke's draft of the proposed wind law, and attorney CJ Madonna proposed a moratorium on the proposed wind law as a stop-gap measure in case of any changes.
The town council voted unanimously to place the 90-day moratorium. Town councilman Jim Otis made the motion and David Vincent seconded it.
Extra chairs were brought out to accommodate, but people were still standing along the back wall when the meeting came to order. The public was then allowed to present 3-minute long comments, starting with Burke residents and moving on to out-of-towners.
Some residents were in favor of the wind turbines. For instance, Bill Wood said property taxes in Churubusco had been reduced 32 percents and then another 10 percent recently due to the wind turbines.
"Like it or not, you will all benefit from a stabilized tax rate," Wood said.
Martin Vincent, who works for Noble Power, pointed to the jobs created by the wind turbines.
"It's great to have a job here 10 miles from home," Vincent said.
Others were strongly opposed to the wind turbines. Calvin Martin of Malone read a letter from Ken Tacy's attorney, Cathi L. Radner of Miller, Mannix, Schachner and Hafner, LLL of Glen Falls. It asked that members of the board with an alleged conflict of interest in the law governing wind power recuse themselves from the voting process.
Radner said that David Vincent would allegedly receive easements from Noble Power, and Arnold Lobdell would allegedly receive easements from Jericho Rise Wind Farm.
Then Radner requested that Vincent and Lobdell as well as any conflicted members of the zoning board abstain from any further votes concerning the wind energy law.
Malone town councilman Jack Sullivan read a statement from the Malone town board requesting that no wind turbines be sited within a mile of any Malone resident.
Wind Pros & Cons
Burke residents turned out in force to air their opinions about the town of Burke's draft of the proposed wind law in a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Thursday. Several of the points made by both sides were met with heavy applause.
Some of the points made by people in favor of wind turbines were that they:
create jobs
offer clean, renewable power
are less dangerous than nuclear power
are less environmentally damaging than coal
would bring money into town
would bring farmers to make use of disused lands
would help preserve the environment for future generations
would help to lower the local tax rate
and would not hurt the local bird population.
Some of the points made by people opposed to wind turbines were that:
they would create unpleasant amounts of noise
they could pose health risks
they would create light flicker
they would damage roads
they would leave thick power cables in public view
they would disrupt the scenic views, are ugly
they would be costly to remove
a law exists banning further tax credits for wind power, meaning possible abandonment of the turbines
members deciding legislation allegedly are directly benefiting from the turbines
they would lead to problems reselling homes and lead to lower property values.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Monks gain support in fight over wind project by BRIAN NEARING
JORDANVILLE -- The sky above this rolling Mohawk Valley farmland is a battleground between golden onion-shaped domes of the nation's largest Russian Orthodox monastery and sweeping wind turbine towers intended to harvest clean power.
On Friday, a statewide historic preservation group sided with Holy Trinity Monastery of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, where monks fear a proposed wind farm a mile away will disturb contemplative religious life.
"The monastery is of extraordinary historic, religious and cultural significance, but it is currently threatened," said Jay DiLorenzo, President of the Preservation League of New York State. The group named the monastery as one of its seven historic sites statewide in need of protection.
If built, the Jordanville Wind Project, located about 85 miles west of Albany, could have as many as 49 wind turbines on private land that would generate enough power for up to 60,000 homes.
Last month, state Supreme Court Justice Donald Greenwood blocked the project because the towns of Stark and Warren issued approval permits without adequately considering potential environmental impacts.
Father Luke Murianka, deputy abbott for the monastery, in a press statement called the site "a place of immeasurable importance" for the church. A message left at the monastery seeking comment was not returned.
Russian-speaking monks, along with seminary students and lay workers, run a publishing house, an icon-painting studio, a library and a historical museum with pre-Russian Revolution artifacts.
Turning rotor blades will "cause the sunlight to flicker, and the hub of the turbine will make a high-pitched whine. At night, 24 blinking red lights will fill the sky facing the monastery, and the serenity that the monks and pilgrims have long sought will be gone, quite literally, with the wind," said Tania Werbizky, league regional director of Technical and Grant Programs for western New York.
Wind power advocates say opponents are overblowing the impact of windmills on the 80-year-old religious community.
Paul Copleman, a spokesman for project developer Iberdrola Renewable Energies USA & Community Energy, said six proposed wind turbines were voluntarily removed from the project.
After an 18-month state environmental quality review, the towns of Warren and Stark, Herkimer County and State of New York Public Service Commission approved the project without noting any potential impacts to the monastery, he said.
Brian Nearing can be reached at 454-5094 or by e-mail at bnearing@timesunion.com.
On Friday, a statewide historic preservation group sided with Holy Trinity Monastery of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, where monks fear a proposed wind farm a mile away will disturb contemplative religious life.
"The monastery is of extraordinary historic, religious and cultural significance, but it is currently threatened," said Jay DiLorenzo, President of the Preservation League of New York State. The group named the monastery as one of its seven historic sites statewide in need of protection.
If built, the Jordanville Wind Project, located about 85 miles west of Albany, could have as many as 49 wind turbines on private land that would generate enough power for up to 60,000 homes.
Last month, state Supreme Court Justice Donald Greenwood blocked the project because the towns of Stark and Warren issued approval permits without adequately considering potential environmental impacts.
Father Luke Murianka, deputy abbott for the monastery, in a press statement called the site "a place of immeasurable importance" for the church. A message left at the monastery seeking comment was not returned.
Russian-speaking monks, along with seminary students and lay workers, run a publishing house, an icon-painting studio, a library and a historical museum with pre-Russian Revolution artifacts.
Turning rotor blades will "cause the sunlight to flicker, and the hub of the turbine will make a high-pitched whine. At night, 24 blinking red lights will fill the sky facing the monastery, and the serenity that the monks and pilgrims have long sought will be gone, quite literally, with the wind," said Tania Werbizky, league regional director of Technical and Grant Programs for western New York.
Wind power advocates say opponents are overblowing the impact of windmills on the 80-year-old religious community.
Paul Copleman, a spokesman for project developer Iberdrola Renewable Energies USA & Community Energy, said six proposed wind turbines were voluntarily removed from the project.
After an 18-month state environmental quality review, the towns of Warren and Stark, Herkimer County and State of New York Public Service Commission approved the project without noting any potential impacts to the monastery, he said.
Brian Nearing can be reached at 454-5094 or by e-mail at bnearing@timesunion.com.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Glenn Schleede's comment on - Terence Blacker: Nimbyism should be applauded, not despised
Ladies & Gentlemen:
Who deserves to be labeled as a "NIMBY"?
Terrence Blacker's comments on "nimbyism" in the January 4, 2008, issue of The Independent are well taken but there is another way to look at the issue.
Let's start by accepting Mr. Blacker's definition; i.e., "...nimbyism is the placing of selfish individual wants before the common good."
In the US, the NIMBY term is often applied to people who oppose "wind farms," other electric generating plants, transmission lines, a variety of other facilities, and the adverse environmental, scenic, and property value impact associated with these facilities.
But who are the people that most often apply the "NIMBY" label to their opponents?
Again, in the US, it seems that those most likely to apply the term are:
a. Developers and prospective owners of the "wind farm," other generating plant, transmission line, etc. who expect to profit from the facility,
b. Lobbyists, publicists, trade associations representing the above,
c. Government officials that take up the cause being pursued by the above,.
d. A wide variety of "non-government," "non-profit," or other organizations -- some of whom are serving as "fronts" for developers and owners, some who are self-appointed advocates for causes selected by their leaders, AND.
e. Potentially most important (and most annoying), those people who want the PRODUCT or SERVICE offered by the proposed facilities BUT do not want the facility and associated adverse environmental, scenic or property value impacts anywhere near them.
In the case of "wind farms," other generating plants and transmission lines, this latter group (e, above) is likely to include (i) residents of cities and surrounding suburbs -- particularly higher income areas, (ii) self-styled "environmentalists," and/or (iii) local government officials and politicians who wish to be seen as "environmentally concerned." Examples that come to mind include:
1. People in California (including political leaders) who oppose building of generating plants IN California but who have been quite willing to import electricity produced by coal-fired generating plants in other states.
2. Political leaders in large cities such as New York who are quite willing to see their economies grow, their citizens' lifestyles improved, and their electricity demand grow -- AND WHO LOOK TO THE PEOPLE IN MORE RURAL AREAS to accept without objection the construction of "wind farms," other generating plants and transmission lines in THEIR backyards, front yards, scenic areas, and OR most any place considered necessary to satisfy the desires for reliable electricity by people and businesses in the highly populated areas.
3. The growing number of local government officials who engage in pseudo-environmentalism by using their constituents' tax dollars to pay premium prices for so-called "green energy" (i.e., electricity allegedly produced from wind and other "renewable" energy sources so that they can appear to be "environmentally concerned" -- but who do so without regard to the environmental, ecological, scenic, or property value damage that "wind farms," and other "renewable" facilities AND transmission lines are imposing on others.
PERHAPS IT'S TIME TO INSIST THAT PEOPLE LIVING IN CITIES AND SUBURBS ACCEPT THE CONSTRUCTION OF GENERATING PLANTS IN THEIR IMMEDIATE AREA.
In fact, state of the art generating units (particularly gas-fired) have relatively few adverse environmental impacts and may present effective ways of redeveloping blighted areas in or close to cities. Furthermore, having generating units close to centers of electricity demand is technically advantageous to grid management, reduces or eliminates the need for building more transmission lines, AND reduces the loss of electricity that occurs when it is transmitted over long distances.
Glenn Schleede
Who deserves to be labeled as a "NIMBY"?
Terrence Blacker's comments on "nimbyism" in the January 4, 2008, issue of The Independent are well taken but there is another way to look at the issue.
Let's start by accepting Mr. Blacker's definition; i.e., "...nimbyism is the placing of selfish individual wants before the common good."
In the US, the NIMBY term is often applied to people who oppose "wind farms," other electric generating plants, transmission lines, a variety of other facilities, and the adverse environmental, scenic, and property value impact associated with these facilities.
But who are the people that most often apply the "NIMBY" label to their opponents?
Again, in the US, it seems that those most likely to apply the term are:
a. Developers and prospective owners of the "wind farm," other generating plant, transmission line, etc. who expect to profit from the facility,
b. Lobbyists, publicists, trade associations representing the above,
c. Government officials that take up the cause being pursued by the above,.
d. A wide variety of "non-government," "non-profit," or other organizations -- some of whom are serving as "fronts" for developers and owners, some who are self-appointed advocates for causes selected by their leaders, AND.
e. Potentially most important (and most annoying), those people who want the PRODUCT or SERVICE offered by the proposed facilities BUT do not want the facility and associated adverse environmental, scenic or property value impacts anywhere near them.
In the case of "wind farms," other generating plants and transmission lines, this latter group (e, above) is likely to include (i) residents of cities and surrounding suburbs -- particularly higher income areas, (ii) self-styled "environmentalists," and/or (iii) local government officials and politicians who wish to be seen as "environmentally concerned." Examples that come to mind include:
1. People in California (including political leaders) who oppose building of generating plants IN California but who have been quite willing to import electricity produced by coal-fired generating plants in other states.
2. Political leaders in large cities such as New York who are quite willing to see their economies grow, their citizens' lifestyles improved, and their electricity demand grow -- AND WHO LOOK TO THE PEOPLE IN MORE RURAL AREAS to accept without objection the construction of "wind farms," other generating plants and transmission lines in THEIR backyards, front yards, scenic areas, and OR most any place considered necessary to satisfy the desires for reliable electricity by people and businesses in the highly populated areas.
3. The growing number of local government officials who engage in pseudo-environmentalism by using their constituents' tax dollars to pay premium prices for so-called "green energy" (i.e., electricity allegedly produced from wind and other "renewable" energy sources so that they can appear to be "environmentally concerned" -- but who do so without regard to the environmental, ecological, scenic, or property value damage that "wind farms," and other "renewable" facilities AND transmission lines are imposing on others.
PERHAPS IT'S TIME TO INSIST THAT PEOPLE LIVING IN CITIES AND SUBURBS ACCEPT THE CONSTRUCTION OF GENERATING PLANTS IN THEIR IMMEDIATE AREA.
In fact, state of the art generating units (particularly gas-fired) have relatively few adverse environmental impacts and may present effective ways of redeveloping blighted areas in or close to cities. Furthermore, having generating units close to centers of electricity demand is technically advantageous to grid management, reduces or eliminates the need for building more transmission lines, AND reduces the loss of electricity that occurs when it is transmitted over long distances.
Glenn Schleede
Terence Blacker: Nimbyism should be applauded, not despised
There are certain well-used contemporary clichés which are more than lazy verbal shortcuts. They represent clichés of the mind and the heart. Substitutes for thought, they are weapons used by the spin-merchants of commerce and politics. They simplify complexity and smother debate.
A perfect example lies in that brutally neat little word, "nimby". No definition is now required. We all know that nimbyism is the placing of selfish individual wants before the common good. While the world is warming up and jobs are needed, the nimbies crouch down behind their privet hedges, shouting "Not in my back yard!". Comfortable, middle-class and blinkered, they fret about their view, their quality of life, the value of their property. It's just me-me-me with that lot. Irresponsible and self-protective, they are enemies of progress – sometimes enemies of the very planet on which we live.
Or so the cliché goes, propagated unquestioningly by politicians and the press alike. This week Labour's official environmental lobby group Sera wheeled it out while complaining about what it believes is impeding the spread of wind turbine developments across the country. The problem was caused by "nimby councillors" who opposed planning permission, said Sera.
Perhaps it is time to look beyond the cliché and ask, in the manner of the old Persil ads: what is a nimby? The truth is that the values a nimby defends were, until very recently, those which most environmentally-minded people would support. The nimby believes that to contribute to a better world a person should start with the one area over which he or she can have some influence: the local community and landscape.
That influence might involve litter, vandalism, transport, the use of land. At its core is the idea that the local should be balanced against the national. Action in a person's own area is rarely glamorous – it involves work and application – but, the nimby believes, it is worth more than any number of warm words about the state of Planet Earth. The nimby protects the small against the big.
Those with a threatened "back yard" (a sneering phrase which can be used to describe most of Britain) will know just how powerful the outside forces of profit, politics and populism now are. I had written around the subject in the past but until last year, when an industrial wind turbine development was proposed on a site between four nearby villages, I had little idea how much emotion and venom it provoked.
Something truly strange has happened, I discovered. The sort of people whose environmental values I thought I shared were now enthusiastic supporters of a policy which, if applied in this back yard, would violate a stretch of countryside that down the centuries has provided pleasure for humans and habitat for wildlife. Even more bizarrely, the new hero of the hour was the developer, a large and wealthy firm, openly and frankly motivated by the massive potential profits offered by public subsidies. Lastly, in this most selfish of ages, it was those arguing that an enormous development affecting the lives of those living in local villages was a wasteful and wrong-headed approach to climate change who were demonised. These were the selfish ones – the nimbies.
The tell-tale clichés of the moment are now all around us. They are drummed into the heads of our schoolchildren. We should each "do our bit" because "every little bit helps". These simple-minded and usefully vague invocations remove any need to think and plan sensibly around renewable energy, offering instead a crude emotionalism.
When big business and big politics are trying to discredit anyone impertinent enough to question their motives, there are more crooked clichés. Opposition, it is said, comes from "a vocal minority of local people". Any planning department that dares to question whether an area should be transformed is described as "sluggish" or "clogged up".
In the face of this prejudice and propaganda, it takes courage to be a nimby. The qualities of a particular area will seem insignificant beside the fate of the earth. Set against big, sexy statistics concerning the future of mankind, the future of a moorland, a wood, some fields, a village, will seem puny. But it is not. It is in these places that a nation's soul resides; they are too important to be obliterated in a mood of emotion and anxiety for some nebulous, ill-defined national interest.
These things have been known in the past and, although they are currently drowned out by dishonest clichés, will probably be understood in the future. In the meantime, anyone brave enough to speak up for them around the country deserves gratitude not sneers. The nimby is one of the unsung heroes of these very odd times.
terblacker@ aol.com
A perfect example lies in that brutally neat little word, "nimby". No definition is now required. We all know that nimbyism is the placing of selfish individual wants before the common good. While the world is warming up and jobs are needed, the nimbies crouch down behind their privet hedges, shouting "Not in my back yard!". Comfortable, middle-class and blinkered, they fret about their view, their quality of life, the value of their property. It's just me-me-me with that lot. Irresponsible and self-protective, they are enemies of progress – sometimes enemies of the very planet on which we live.
Or so the cliché goes, propagated unquestioningly by politicians and the press alike. This week Labour's official environmental lobby group Sera wheeled it out while complaining about what it believes is impeding the spread of wind turbine developments across the country. The problem was caused by "nimby councillors" who opposed planning permission, said Sera.
Perhaps it is time to look beyond the cliché and ask, in the manner of the old Persil ads: what is a nimby? The truth is that the values a nimby defends were, until very recently, those which most environmentally-minded people would support. The nimby believes that to contribute to a better world a person should start with the one area over which he or she can have some influence: the local community and landscape.
That influence might involve litter, vandalism, transport, the use of land. At its core is the idea that the local should be balanced against the national. Action in a person's own area is rarely glamorous – it involves work and application – but, the nimby believes, it is worth more than any number of warm words about the state of Planet Earth. The nimby protects the small against the big.
Those with a threatened "back yard" (a sneering phrase which can be used to describe most of Britain) will know just how powerful the outside forces of profit, politics and populism now are. I had written around the subject in the past but until last year, when an industrial wind turbine development was proposed on a site between four nearby villages, I had little idea how much emotion and venom it provoked.
Something truly strange has happened, I discovered. The sort of people whose environmental values I thought I shared were now enthusiastic supporters of a policy which, if applied in this back yard, would violate a stretch of countryside that down the centuries has provided pleasure for humans and habitat for wildlife. Even more bizarrely, the new hero of the hour was the developer, a large and wealthy firm, openly and frankly motivated by the massive potential profits offered by public subsidies. Lastly, in this most selfish of ages, it was those arguing that an enormous development affecting the lives of those living in local villages was a wasteful and wrong-headed approach to climate change who were demonised. These were the selfish ones – the nimbies.
The tell-tale clichés of the moment are now all around us. They are drummed into the heads of our schoolchildren. We should each "do our bit" because "every little bit helps". These simple-minded and usefully vague invocations remove any need to think and plan sensibly around renewable energy, offering instead a crude emotionalism.
When big business and big politics are trying to discredit anyone impertinent enough to question their motives, there are more crooked clichés. Opposition, it is said, comes from "a vocal minority of local people". Any planning department that dares to question whether an area should be transformed is described as "sluggish" or "clogged up".
In the face of this prejudice and propaganda, it takes courage to be a nimby. The qualities of a particular area will seem insignificant beside the fate of the earth. Set against big, sexy statistics concerning the future of mankind, the future of a moorland, a wood, some fields, a village, will seem puny. But it is not. It is in these places that a nation's soul resides; they are too important to be obliterated in a mood of emotion and anxiety for some nebulous, ill-defined national interest.
These things have been known in the past and, although they are currently drowned out by dishonest clichés, will probably be understood in the future. In the meantime, anyone brave enough to speak up for them around the country deserves gratitude not sneers. The nimby is one of the unsung heroes of these very odd times.
terblacker@ aol.com
Against The Wind
Anti-wind farm mini-doc originally for fourdocs to counter our pro-wind farm piece "Into The Wind" to show the audience both sides of the debate about wind turbines.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Wind farm a 'black hole' for endangered eagles by Sabra Lane
An Australian bird expert has labelled the country's biggest wind farm a "black hole" for endangered wedge-tailed eagles.
The Woolnorth farm in north-west Tasmania has 62 wind turbines and is one of the largest wind farms in the Southern Hemisphere, but the group Birds Tasmania says the farm could already have killed 18 endangered eagles.
The company that runs the wind farm says it is doing everything it can to minimise the danger to the birds.
The Woolnorth farm was fully commissioned last May.
Birds Tasmania chairman Dr Eric Woehler says the estimates for eagle deaths since then vary.
"The proponents [of the wind farm] say 11 birds have been killed by wind farms [but] we believe the number might be slightly higher, possibly as high as 18 birds," he said.
He says he describes the area as a "black hole" area for these birds because the wind farm area overlaps several territories of eagles.
"With every death it allows an opening - if you like - for a bird from an adjacent area looking for a territory to move in," he said.
"These birds then are essentially naive to the area - they don't recognise the turbines and they then in turn get killed.
"So essentially what's happening is that you're killing birds, drawing birds in from surrounding areas, those birds get killed, and so for the foreseeable future we would expect to see - as I've used the phrase elsewhere - 'a black hole' for the eagles.
"It's a one-way trip into Woolnorth - they don't come out."
Too fast
Dr Woehler says although eagles can see the turbine blades, they have evolved over time in a landscape without wind farms.
"The tips of some of the very large blades are 45 metres long, and some of these are travelling at approximately 300 kilometres an hour - it's just too fast for the birds to avoid," he said.
There are less than 1,500 Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagles left.
In hindsight, Dr Woehler says maybe the wind farm should not have been placed in such an ecologically sensitive area of Tasmania.
But he acknowledges the company running the farm, the Roaring 40s, is trying to do the right thing.
Roaring 40s managing director Mark Kelleher says it has introduced measures that turn off the machines at identified high-risk times.
"There's certain directions and speeds of winds that seem to attract the eagles closer to the turbines," he said.
"So we have shut down times during those periods of time."
However, the Roaring 40s disputes Dr Woehler's figures, with Mr Kelleher saying the turbines have only killed 11 of the eagles.
But he says the company is investigating other options to protect the endangered birds.
"We've had people looking overseas and looking for devices, say radar-type things that will detect when an eagle's coming along, and either shut the wind farm down or be able to scare the bird off with a loud noise or something," he said.
"We're hopeful those sort of activities will have a further benefit."
The Woolnorth farm in north-west Tasmania has 62 wind turbines and is one of the largest wind farms in the Southern Hemisphere, but the group Birds Tasmania says the farm could already have killed 18 endangered eagles.
The company that runs the wind farm says it is doing everything it can to minimise the danger to the birds.
The Woolnorth farm was fully commissioned last May.
Birds Tasmania chairman Dr Eric Woehler says the estimates for eagle deaths since then vary.
"The proponents [of the wind farm] say 11 birds have been killed by wind farms [but] we believe the number might be slightly higher, possibly as high as 18 birds," he said.
He says he describes the area as a "black hole" area for these birds because the wind farm area overlaps several territories of eagles.
"With every death it allows an opening - if you like - for a bird from an adjacent area looking for a territory to move in," he said.
"These birds then are essentially naive to the area - they don't recognise the turbines and they then in turn get killed.
"So essentially what's happening is that you're killing birds, drawing birds in from surrounding areas, those birds get killed, and so for the foreseeable future we would expect to see - as I've used the phrase elsewhere - 'a black hole' for the eagles.
"It's a one-way trip into Woolnorth - they don't come out."
Too fast
Dr Woehler says although eagles can see the turbine blades, they have evolved over time in a landscape without wind farms.
"The tips of some of the very large blades are 45 metres long, and some of these are travelling at approximately 300 kilometres an hour - it's just too fast for the birds to avoid," he said.
There are less than 1,500 Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagles left.
In hindsight, Dr Woehler says maybe the wind farm should not have been placed in such an ecologically sensitive area of Tasmania.
But he acknowledges the company running the farm, the Roaring 40s, is trying to do the right thing.
Roaring 40s managing director Mark Kelleher says it has introduced measures that turn off the machines at identified high-risk times.
"There's certain directions and speeds of winds that seem to attract the eagles closer to the turbines," he said.
"So we have shut down times during those periods of time."
However, the Roaring 40s disputes Dr Woehler's figures, with Mr Kelleher saying the turbines have only killed 11 of the eagles.
But he says the company is investigating other options to protect the endangered birds.
"We've had people looking overseas and looking for devices, say radar-type things that will detect when an eagle's coming along, and either shut the wind farm down or be able to scare the bird off with a loud noise or something," he said.
"We're hopeful those sort of activities will have a further benefit."
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Monday, December 31, 2007
The Twelve Days of Christmas
On the first day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
A false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the second day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the third day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
Three Watching Halls,
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the fourth day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
Four empty hearings,
Three Watching Halls,
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the fifth day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
No PILOT agreements,
Four empty hearings,
Three Watching Halls,
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the sixth day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
Jack and Wayne crowing,
No PILOT agreements,
Four empty hearings,
Three Watching Halls,
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the seventh day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
SCIDA sidestepping,
Jack and Wayne crowing,
No PILOT agreements,
Four empty hearings,
Three Watching Halls,
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the eighth day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
UPC still lying,
SCIDA sidestepping,
Jack and Wayne crowing,
No PILOT agreements,
Four empty hearings,
Three Watching Halls,
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the ninth day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
Ninety holes a-digging,
UPC still lying,
SCIDA sidestepping,
Jack and Wayne crowing,
No PILOT agreements,
Four empty hearings,
Three Watching Halls,
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the tenth day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
Ten towers arising,
Ninety holes a-digging,
UPC still lying,
SCIDA sidestepping,
Jack and Wayne crowing,
No PILOT agreements,
Four empty hearings,
Three Watching Halls,
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the eleventh day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
Taxpayers paying,
Ten towers arising,
Ninety holes a-digging,
UPC still lying,
SCIDA sidestepping,
Jack and Wayne crowing,
No PILOT agreements,
Four empty hearings,
Three Watching Halls,
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the twelfth day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
Twelve lawsuits building,
Taxpayers paying,
Ten towers arising,
Ninety holes a-digging,
UPC still lying,
SCIDA sidestepping,
Jack and Wayne crowing,
No PILOT agreements,
Four empty hearings,
Three Watching Halls,
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
Money love sent to me
A false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the second day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the third day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
Three Watching Halls,
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the fourth day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
Four empty hearings,
Three Watching Halls,
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the fifth day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
No PILOT agreements,
Four empty hearings,
Three Watching Halls,
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the sixth day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
Jack and Wayne crowing,
No PILOT agreements,
Four empty hearings,
Three Watching Halls,
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the seventh day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
SCIDA sidestepping,
Jack and Wayne crowing,
No PILOT agreements,
Four empty hearings,
Three Watching Halls,
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the eighth day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
UPC still lying,
SCIDA sidestepping,
Jack and Wayne crowing,
No PILOT agreements,
Four empty hearings,
Three Watching Halls,
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the ninth day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
Ninety holes a-digging,
UPC still lying,
SCIDA sidestepping,
Jack and Wayne crowing,
No PILOT agreements,
Four empty hearings,
Three Watching Halls,
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the tenth day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
Ten towers arising,
Ninety holes a-digging,
UPC still lying,
SCIDA sidestepping,
Jack and Wayne crowing,
No PILOT agreements,
Four empty hearings,
Three Watching Halls,
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the eleventh day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
Taxpayers paying,
Ten towers arising,
Ninety holes a-digging,
UPC still lying,
SCIDA sidestepping,
Jack and Wayne crowing,
No PILOT agreements,
Four empty hearings,
Three Watching Halls,
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
On the twelfth day of Christmas,
Money love sent to me
Twelve lawsuits building,
Taxpayers paying,
Ten towers arising,
Ninety holes a-digging,
UPC still lying,
SCIDA sidestepping,
Jack and Wayne crowing,
No PILOT agreements,
Four empty hearings,
Three Watching Halls,
Two doting Towners,
And a false prophet named Mr. Swartley.
Electric transmission lines, eminent domain, and the consequences of vague and broadly worded laws - Part 3
The last two parts of this series have discussed how and why the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulation Commission (FERC) may declare a “geographic area” as a national interest electric transmission corridor and how that designation enables the FERC to overrule local regulators and issue construction permits under a very broad set of circumstances. Today’s discussion goes into the law of rights-of-way, easements, and the exercising of eminent domain by utilities who have been granted federal transmission line construction permits.
(Click the read entire article)
(Click the read entire article)
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Wind farm oil taints West Martinsburg well
Transformer Blast: DEC says tests show just one residential water supply affected by spill at wind farm
A mineral oil spill caused by an Independence Day transformer explosion at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm has apparently contaminated a residential well. However, it doesn’t appear to have affected neighboring wells according to state Department of Environmental Conservation officials.
The July 4 explosion at the wind farm substation up the hill from the hamlet on Rector Road – which caused a temporary shutdown of the facility – led to 491 gallons of oil leaking from the damaged transformer said DEC spokesman Steven W. Litwhiler.
“They reported the spill and they were quick-acting at commencing the cleanup” Mr. Litwhiler said.
However, a West Martinsburg resident in late November reported the presence of oil in his well water and tests ultimately determined that contaminant had the characteristics of oil used in the electrical transformers, he said. Wind farm officials have been notified of the findings which suggest the contaminants are remnants of the July 4 spill.
Neighboring wells were also tested for contaminants, with negative results, Mr. Litwhiler said.
We tested about 15 different homeowners’ wells in the area,” he said. “That was the only one that had a confirmed presence of oil.
Future testing is planned, he said.
DEC provided all residents with bottled water until confirming their wells were not contaminated, Mr. Litwhiler said. Agency officials are also working with the state Department of Health to determine potential long-term solutions like installation of a filtering system for the affected home he said.
DEC has taken no action against the wind farm, but the file on the spill hasn’t yet been closed. Wind farm officials have been cooperating thus far, Mr. Litwhiler said.
Tod W. Nash, the wind farm’s operations manager was unavailable for comment Friday afternoon.
Wind farm officials were planning soon to change the transformer that malfunctioned and had a replacement part on hand, PPM Atlantic Renewable’s William M. Moore who developed the 195-turbine wind farm in the towns of Martinsburg and Lowville said in July.
The transformers’ insulation system consists of insulating oil and cellulous materials and that mixture generates small amounts of combustible and non-combustible gases under normal use, Mr. Nash said last month in an e-mail.
According to Mr. Nash, wind farm officials – as part of their routine maintenance schedule – in August and September took oil samples from randomly selected transformers and found that some had higher-than-normal levels of gases and subsequently tested the rest of them. Less than one-third were identified as having above-normal levels.
While the July 4 explosion was caused by equipment failure, not gas build-up, wind farm officials still decided to implement a 17-day around-the-clock “de-gassing effort” to avoid any potential incidents, Mr. Nash said. Two tractor trailers were used to filter gases from oil in the targeted transformers.
Wind farm staff are “working with the transformer manufacturer and several consultants specializing in transformer construction testing and operation to determine the cause of the gases being generated,” Mr. Nash wrote. “Based on their results, all transformers are tested rather than portion to provide the earliest possible detection of any abnormal condition.”
A mineral oil spill caused by an Independence Day transformer explosion at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm has apparently contaminated a residential well. However, it doesn’t appear to have affected neighboring wells according to state Department of Environmental Conservation officials.
The July 4 explosion at the wind farm substation up the hill from the hamlet on Rector Road – which caused a temporary shutdown of the facility – led to 491 gallons of oil leaking from the damaged transformer said DEC spokesman Steven W. Litwhiler.
“They reported the spill and they were quick-acting at commencing the cleanup” Mr. Litwhiler said.
However, a West Martinsburg resident in late November reported the presence of oil in his well water and tests ultimately determined that contaminant had the characteristics of oil used in the electrical transformers, he said. Wind farm officials have been notified of the findings which suggest the contaminants are remnants of the July 4 spill.
Neighboring wells were also tested for contaminants, with negative results, Mr. Litwhiler said.
We tested about 15 different homeowners’ wells in the area,” he said. “That was the only one that had a confirmed presence of oil.
Future testing is planned, he said.
DEC provided all residents with bottled water until confirming their wells were not contaminated, Mr. Litwhiler said. Agency officials are also working with the state Department of Health to determine potential long-term solutions like installation of a filtering system for the affected home he said.
DEC has taken no action against the wind farm, but the file on the spill hasn’t yet been closed. Wind farm officials have been cooperating thus far, Mr. Litwhiler said.
Tod W. Nash, the wind farm’s operations manager was unavailable for comment Friday afternoon.
Wind farm officials were planning soon to change the transformer that malfunctioned and had a replacement part on hand, PPM Atlantic Renewable’s William M. Moore who developed the 195-turbine wind farm in the towns of Martinsburg and Lowville said in July.
The transformers’ insulation system consists of insulating oil and cellulous materials and that mixture generates small amounts of combustible and non-combustible gases under normal use, Mr. Nash said last month in an e-mail.
According to Mr. Nash, wind farm officials – as part of their routine maintenance schedule – in August and September took oil samples from randomly selected transformers and found that some had higher-than-normal levels of gases and subsequently tested the rest of them. Less than one-third were identified as having above-normal levels.
While the July 4 explosion was caused by equipment failure, not gas build-up, wind farm officials still decided to implement a 17-day around-the-clock “de-gassing effort” to avoid any potential incidents, Mr. Nash said. Two tractor trailers were used to filter gases from oil in the targeted transformers.
Wind farm staff are “working with the transformer manufacturer and several consultants specializing in transformer construction testing and operation to determine the cause of the gases being generated,” Mr. Nash wrote. “Based on their results, all transformers are tested rather than portion to provide the earliest possible detection of any abnormal condition.”
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Clipper Windpower misses production targets
Wind turbine maker Clipper Windpower has warned that profits will be below expectations after it missed production targets.
The Aim-listed company, which sells turbines to the US market but is considering investing in offshore UK wind, said it would produce just 125 turbines in 2007, a figure at the lower end of expectations. It said it would only recognise revenue from eight machines. An extra 35 turbines due this year will not be commissioned until 2008 due to work needed on blades. The company plans to spend $15m (£7.6m) reinforcing all blades on existing machines.
Shares in the company closed down just 2pc at 670p after chief executive James Dehlsen reaffirmed teething troubles at its production plant in the US had been sorted out and that monthly production rates were back on track. It expects to make at least 311 turbines in 2008.
Citi analyst Nick Williamson said: "While the 2008 guidance has been reaffirmed, management's track record in this regard is poor, and we would not expect the market to give it the full benefit of the doubt."
The company also announced a new order for 50 turbines in 2009. Mr Dehlsen said he would update the market on the expected total cost of remedial action and production rates in January.
The Aim-listed company, which sells turbines to the US market but is considering investing in offshore UK wind, said it would produce just 125 turbines in 2007, a figure at the lower end of expectations. It said it would only recognise revenue from eight machines. An extra 35 turbines due this year will not be commissioned until 2008 due to work needed on blades. The company plans to spend $15m (£7.6m) reinforcing all blades on existing machines.
Shares in the company closed down just 2pc at 670p after chief executive James Dehlsen reaffirmed teething troubles at its production plant in the US had been sorted out and that monthly production rates were back on track. It expects to make at least 311 turbines in 2008.
Citi analyst Nick Williamson said: "While the 2008 guidance has been reaffirmed, management's track record in this regard is poor, and we would not expect the market to give it the full benefit of the doubt."
The company also announced a new order for 50 turbines in 2009. Mr Dehlsen said he would update the market on the expected total cost of remedial action and production rates in January.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)