It would be hard to beat the sad gullibility with which the media last week reported the plans of Lord Mandelson and our Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband to cover our countryside and sea with 10,000 more huge wind turbines. According to one newspaper, it would need "an area of only 70 square miles to generate Britain's total power requirements".
Well, no, actually. To meet our peak demand of 56 gigawatts of electricity would require 112,000 turbines covering 11,000 square miles, or an eighth of Britain's entire land area.
Another newspaper solemnly reported that a new study shows that "a well-placed turbine could make enough energy to power 825,000 homes". Well, no, actually. The figure for a single 2 megawatt turbine would be just 825 homes, meaning that the newspaper was only 100,000 per cent wrong.
Even more alarming than the media's credulity is that of the ministers themselves, in seriously trying to pretend that their £100 billion dream of building three giant turbines every day between now and 2020 has the faintest practical hope of being realised, let alone that it would serve any useful purpose to do so.
Most alarming of all, however, in the desperation to reach EU "renewables" target, is the setting up of a new Infrastructure Planning Commission to force through thousands of these absurd objects over the wishes of local people and councils, who are now to be robbed of any right of appeal. Last week a Government inspector threw out a highly unpopular scheme for seven turbines in Shropshire which would have generated £43 million in subsidies alone for its owners over the next 25 years. The surrounding community was delighted. From next March, however, thanks to Lord Mandelson's all-powerful new Commission, such inquiries will be a thing of the past, thrown onto the scrapheap of history along with much of the rest of our democracy, We will no longer have any right to oppose this tsunami of lunacy, until our countryside is ruined to no rational purpose whatever.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Living next to a wind turbine
Phil Bloomstein of Freedom, Maine provides a gripping image of what his life is like living next to an industrial wind facility.
We have the distinct "privilege" of living 1,000 feet from tower T3 of the Beaver Ridge Wind Project. Freedom residents on both sides of Beaver Ridge live almost as close but none as close as my family and me. We have tower T3 literally staring us right in the face winter and summer.
In the summer the tower and blades almost disappear when you are by the house, but the tower and blades still hang above the house as you walk in our lower gardens. And, you can view the wind turbine from many other spots on our land. As disturbing as the visual presence of a nearly 400-foot wind turbine is, and its occasional hours of turbine-blade flicker, all that pales in comparison to the noise the turbines often produce. I would dare say we live in one of the noisiest neighborhoods in Waldo County.
Let's get one thing straight. I'm not claiming my life has been ruined. I'm not looking for sympathy. I'm sure many of you have suffered personal tragedies much worse than having a wind turbine built next to you. What I am asking for is the truth and some justice.
I want to present you with a credible picture of the turbine's effects on the quality of our family's home life. I also want you to understand that the town of Freedom's planning and permitting of the Beaver Ridge Wind Project was extremely flawed. It was marked by deceptions, poor planning, and small-town politics at its worst. In my opinion, the project has proven that many good folks in the town of Freedom were outwitted by CES now Beaver Ridge Wind. Many community members were so pro green they were susceptible to the developer's deceptive practices and failed to be responsible to us and our neighbors.
My challenge is to convince you that I am telling the truth. And that others, including my neighbors, the folks in Mars Hill and as far away as the Midwest, are also telling the truth about the disturbing noise created by these machines. Living next to a wind turbine is, to say the least, a very unpleasant experience.
Good-meaning people write me and say; "We just don't get it". They tell me they have visited the Beaver Ridge turbines several times in different wind conditions, and it just doesn't seem that bad. I also visited wind turbines. I visited them with the knowledge that one was going to be built very close to my house. I came away thinking living next to one was going to be somewhat annoying but that it probably was going to be OK.
I was encouraged by the promises of Beaver Ridge Wind (then called CES). The very same promises that were never kept.
What my neighbors and I have experienced has been much more negative than we had ever imagined.
What is it really like living next to the turbines? There are "good days," but there are way too many bad ones. Although the noise is almost always there, it is not constant in its intensity or type of sound.
In minutes it can turn from an almost tolerable drone to a pulsating nightmare so oppressive that any outdoor activity is challenging. The noise also penetrates into the house. On many nights, as soon as you turn off the TV or stereo you immediately hear them. At least four to eight times a month they are very loud. The night noise can be especially disturbing. Some nights there is a loud pulsating noise that lasts right into the morning, on those days we get discouraged. We think that this can't be good for our health and we might as well give up and sell out.
The wind industry, often in concert with well-meaning government officials and environmental activists, uses all its power to diminish complaints and convince the general public that "wind farms" are quiet and that most folks don't mind living next to them.
When CES (now called Beaver Ridge Wind) came to Freedom, they assured us the turbines would be quiet. During the permitting process, they presented a study showing the noise level at our home would hardly ever be above 45 dBa. When all was said and done, the noise levels exceeded the promised levels (often twice as loud). When I asked Beaver Ridge Wind what they were going to do about the noise, they looked me right in the eyes and said they never really exactly promised us that.
The developer's clever promises and use of wind industry propaganda made it easy for the townspeople to support the project even though the setbacks in Freedom were among the weakest in the country. The setbacks were even below manufacturer's suggested distances at property lines. It is my intent to show how the townspeople were misled. But for now, understand the developers presented a wind study they commissioned saying the sound levels at my house would rarely exceed 45 decibels. The truth is, sound levels are regularly over the promised level, and on many windy nights, can be twice as loud.
Victims of poorly planned wind turbine developments from Mars Hill, Maine to the Midwest are not believed. Fine citizens with the highest of motives dismiss these folks as whiners or less than credible.
I have heard people say, you'll get used to it. You don't. There are many contributing factors to this. A few are that the noise changes with wind speed, the types of noise produced, wind direction and atmospheric pressure. The developers should have considered the fact that our home is on a side of a hill downwind from the prevailing wind. Documents can be found and downloaded on the Beaver Ridge Wind web site that explain, "in some hilly terrain where residents are located in sheltered dips or hollows downwind from the turbines, turbine sounds may carry further and be more audible."
Why was this not considered in our case?
There is the classic wind-energy comparison of a turbine's noise level to your refrigerator. First of all, at my house, the turbines are much louder and more annoying than my refrigerator. But let's assume the turbines do sound like my refrigerator. I ask you to imagine your fridge is always running and that also, you have one on your deck, in your garden, by the compost, next to the garage, three or four in your backyard, several well placed down your driveway, one at each door, one next to the grandkids' swing set, and don't forget the ones hanging outside your bedroom window.
Get the idea? I think you might find even your fridge noise a little annoying.
Then there are the possible negative health effects. Remember, the tower is almost 400-feet tall at the tip of the blades and we are 1,060 feet from the middle of the base. So at times, the tips of the blades are about 930 feet away. After a night of pulsating turbine noise that continues right into the morning, (no matter what studies prove) I feel as if this can't be good for my family. I can only imagine what it would be like if one were predisposed to headaches, depression or a sleep disorder.
Perhaps you are thinking, well someone has to suffer for the good of humanity, it might as well be the Bloomsteins. Maybe you are right, but does that give the developers and the wind-energy industry the right to lie about the impact? Beaver Ridge Wind and other projects in Maine are not municipal projects, these wind turbines are for profit. I might be less angry if they had said, OK your life is going to change and not in a good way. There will be a negative impact, you will be sacrificing the quiet rural life you once had for the good of the environment.
But no, they don't do that. They lie and tell your town you'll barely hear them and it will be like being in a quiet room or a library. They could be honest and tell you that it will be noisy at your home. Beaver Ridge Wind could have mentioned the fact that other people have chosen to sell out rather than live close to a wind turbine. Instead they show videos and PowerPoint slideshows with misleading and deceptive statements.
For us the damage is done. The turbines are up, and most likely, they are not coming down for a long time. So the question for my family and me is: What do we do? We have lived and worked on our property for the past 34 years. Do we leave the house we built, the gardens we've planted, the place my children and their children love? Or, do we stay and learn to deal with the noise, worry about unknown health hazards, keep windows closed at night in the summer, sleep with earplugs on loud nights - whatever it takes to stay sane?
We know our home will never be the same. If we do leave, what about the value of our house?
The industry will tell you house values go up or stay the same, but there are many studies which show quite the opposite.
No matter what we do our family now must fight for our rights. No one comes up to us and offers a solution. Oh, Beaver Ridge Wind might tell you they are working with us and in fact they are: but not until we approached them with our concerns. Beaver Ridge Wind never did a sound study after the turbines went into operation. Their basic approach is to say nothing, do nothing and only respond when the Bloomsteins or other neighbors complain, but not until then.
It has become evident to us that trying to be reasonable, open-minded and pro green has been rewarded by deceptive practices, small-town politics at its worst and a radically negative change to our lifestyle.
We struggle to figure out what to do. We want the truth to be known. We want to be believed. We seek justice in the form of adequate compensation. We also hope in some small way we can prevent others from suffering a similar fate.
Please don't be so zealous in your support of alternative energy that you allow an industry, even a green one, to avoid any reasonable regulations. They need to be held accountable. No company out for profit should be given a free pass.
My family and other families in similar situations should not be forced to seek compensation in the courts or make deals under conditions of confidentiality.
Maine needs to grow up when it comes to wind development. There is no need to repeat the mistakes that were made in Freedom and Mars Hill.
We have the distinct "privilege" of living 1,000 feet from tower T3 of the Beaver Ridge Wind Project. Freedom residents on both sides of Beaver Ridge live almost as close but none as close as my family and me. We have tower T3 literally staring us right in the face winter and summer.
In the summer the tower and blades almost disappear when you are by the house, but the tower and blades still hang above the house as you walk in our lower gardens. And, you can view the wind turbine from many other spots on our land. As disturbing as the visual presence of a nearly 400-foot wind turbine is, and its occasional hours of turbine-blade flicker, all that pales in comparison to the noise the turbines often produce. I would dare say we live in one of the noisiest neighborhoods in Waldo County.
Let's get one thing straight. I'm not claiming my life has been ruined. I'm not looking for sympathy. I'm sure many of you have suffered personal tragedies much worse than having a wind turbine built next to you. What I am asking for is the truth and some justice.
I want to present you with a credible picture of the turbine's effects on the quality of our family's home life. I also want you to understand that the town of Freedom's planning and permitting of the Beaver Ridge Wind Project was extremely flawed. It was marked by deceptions, poor planning, and small-town politics at its worst. In my opinion, the project has proven that many good folks in the town of Freedom were outwitted by CES now Beaver Ridge Wind. Many community members were so pro green they were susceptible to the developer's deceptive practices and failed to be responsible to us and our neighbors.
My challenge is to convince you that I am telling the truth. And that others, including my neighbors, the folks in Mars Hill and as far away as the Midwest, are also telling the truth about the disturbing noise created by these machines. Living next to a wind turbine is, to say the least, a very unpleasant experience.
Good-meaning people write me and say; "We just don't get it". They tell me they have visited the Beaver Ridge turbines several times in different wind conditions, and it just doesn't seem that bad. I also visited wind turbines. I visited them with the knowledge that one was going to be built very close to my house. I came away thinking living next to one was going to be somewhat annoying but that it probably was going to be OK.
I was encouraged by the promises of Beaver Ridge Wind (then called CES). The very same promises that were never kept.
What my neighbors and I have experienced has been much more negative than we had ever imagined.
What is it really like living next to the turbines? There are "good days," but there are way too many bad ones. Although the noise is almost always there, it is not constant in its intensity or type of sound.
In minutes it can turn from an almost tolerable drone to a pulsating nightmare so oppressive that any outdoor activity is challenging. The noise also penetrates into the house. On many nights, as soon as you turn off the TV or stereo you immediately hear them. At least four to eight times a month they are very loud. The night noise can be especially disturbing. Some nights there is a loud pulsating noise that lasts right into the morning, on those days we get discouraged. We think that this can't be good for our health and we might as well give up and sell out.
The wind industry, often in concert with well-meaning government officials and environmental activists, uses all its power to diminish complaints and convince the general public that "wind farms" are quiet and that most folks don't mind living next to them.
When CES (now called Beaver Ridge Wind) came to Freedom, they assured us the turbines would be quiet. During the permitting process, they presented a study showing the noise level at our home would hardly ever be above 45 dBa. When all was said and done, the noise levels exceeded the promised levels (often twice as loud). When I asked Beaver Ridge Wind what they were going to do about the noise, they looked me right in the eyes and said they never really exactly promised us that.
The developer's clever promises and use of wind industry propaganda made it easy for the townspeople to support the project even though the setbacks in Freedom were among the weakest in the country. The setbacks were even below manufacturer's suggested distances at property lines. It is my intent to show how the townspeople were misled. But for now, understand the developers presented a wind study they commissioned saying the sound levels at my house would rarely exceed 45 decibels. The truth is, sound levels are regularly over the promised level, and on many windy nights, can be twice as loud.
Victims of poorly planned wind turbine developments from Mars Hill, Maine to the Midwest are not believed. Fine citizens with the highest of motives dismiss these folks as whiners or less than credible.
I have heard people say, you'll get used to it. You don't. There are many contributing factors to this. A few are that the noise changes with wind speed, the types of noise produced, wind direction and atmospheric pressure. The developers should have considered the fact that our home is on a side of a hill downwind from the prevailing wind. Documents can be found and downloaded on the Beaver Ridge Wind web site that explain, "in some hilly terrain where residents are located in sheltered dips or hollows downwind from the turbines, turbine sounds may carry further and be more audible."
Why was this not considered in our case?
There is the classic wind-energy comparison of a turbine's noise level to your refrigerator. First of all, at my house, the turbines are much louder and more annoying than my refrigerator. But let's assume the turbines do sound like my refrigerator. I ask you to imagine your fridge is always running and that also, you have one on your deck, in your garden, by the compost, next to the garage, three or four in your backyard, several well placed down your driveway, one at each door, one next to the grandkids' swing set, and don't forget the ones hanging outside your bedroom window.
Get the idea? I think you might find even your fridge noise a little annoying.
Then there are the possible negative health effects. Remember, the tower is almost 400-feet tall at the tip of the blades and we are 1,060 feet from the middle of the base. So at times, the tips of the blades are about 930 feet away. After a night of pulsating turbine noise that continues right into the morning, (no matter what studies prove) I feel as if this can't be good for my family. I can only imagine what it would be like if one were predisposed to headaches, depression or a sleep disorder.
Perhaps you are thinking, well someone has to suffer for the good of humanity, it might as well be the Bloomsteins. Maybe you are right, but does that give the developers and the wind-energy industry the right to lie about the impact? Beaver Ridge Wind and other projects in Maine are not municipal projects, these wind turbines are for profit. I might be less angry if they had said, OK your life is going to change and not in a good way. There will be a negative impact, you will be sacrificing the quiet rural life you once had for the good of the environment.
But no, they don't do that. They lie and tell your town you'll barely hear them and it will be like being in a quiet room or a library. They could be honest and tell you that it will be noisy at your home. Beaver Ridge Wind could have mentioned the fact that other people have chosen to sell out rather than live close to a wind turbine. Instead they show videos and PowerPoint slideshows with misleading and deceptive statements.
For us the damage is done. The turbines are up, and most likely, they are not coming down for a long time. So the question for my family and me is: What do we do? We have lived and worked on our property for the past 34 years. Do we leave the house we built, the gardens we've planted, the place my children and their children love? Or, do we stay and learn to deal with the noise, worry about unknown health hazards, keep windows closed at night in the summer, sleep with earplugs on loud nights - whatever it takes to stay sane?
We know our home will never be the same. If we do leave, what about the value of our house?
The industry will tell you house values go up or stay the same, but there are many studies which show quite the opposite.
No matter what we do our family now must fight for our rights. No one comes up to us and offers a solution. Oh, Beaver Ridge Wind might tell you they are working with us and in fact they are: but not until we approached them with our concerns. Beaver Ridge Wind never did a sound study after the turbines went into operation. Their basic approach is to say nothing, do nothing and only respond when the Bloomsteins or other neighbors complain, but not until then.
It has become evident to us that trying to be reasonable, open-minded and pro green has been rewarded by deceptive practices, small-town politics at its worst and a radically negative change to our lifestyle.
We struggle to figure out what to do. We want the truth to be known. We want to be believed. We seek justice in the form of adequate compensation. We also hope in some small way we can prevent others from suffering a similar fate.
Please don't be so zealous in your support of alternative energy that you allow an industry, even a green one, to avoid any reasonable regulations. They need to be held accountable. No company out for profit should be given a free pass.
My family and other families in similar situations should not be forced to seek compensation in the courts or make deals under conditions of confidentiality.
Maine needs to grow up when it comes to wind development. There is no need to repeat the mistakes that were made in Freedom and Mars Hill.
Noise? What noise?
PRATTSBURGH — The noise you can hear may be a problem for some individuals living near wind farms, according to Rochester- based acoustician Seth Waltz.
But the noise you can't hear may be more troublesome and difficult to predict, Waltz, of avi designs, inc., told the Prattsburgh town board recently.
"There is no way to guarantee you won't have a problem," Waltz told board members.
Prattsburgh board members hope to craft a wind law using information from sound consultants to protect residents from the severe noise problems at the First Wind project reported by residents in the neighboring town of Cohocton last February. The First Wind project in Cohocton became operational in January and has 50 turbines.
Wind farm-generated noise has become a concern at other sites in Steuben County, with the Town of Hartsville enacting a year-long moratorium last February on industrial wind development to study noise and other issues.
Town of Bath board members recently proposed a sixmonth moratorium in order to set regulations, including noise, in the event a wind farm is ever proposed there.
Prattsburgh is the site of two proposed wind farms, with developers First Wind and Ecogen planning projects in the town.
While First Wind is on hiatus because of the economy, Ecogen officials said earlier this year the firm was ready to break ground for 16 turbines in Prattsburgh. Ecogen maintains its Siemens turbines will not produce the same noise generated by the GE turbines in Cohocton.
So far, the Prattsburgh board has heard widely differing views on noise from experts.
Ecogen's sound consultant, Peter H. Guldberg, of Waltham, Mass., told residents in April the firm's turbine will make less noise, adding the project falls within guidelines set by the state Department of Environmental Conservation. Ecogen is now looking at technology to muffle noise caused by exhaust fans at the base of the towers.
Guldberg promised Prattsburgh residents they would not have "sleepless nights."
But acoustical engineer Rick James, of Michigan, hired by some town residents, told the board in May the development will turn the town into an industrial zone, with intrusive noise on a constant basis.James warned the board about the detrimental effects of both high and low frequency sounds, and recommended setbacks of 0.5 miles to .75 miles depending on the surroundings.
During his initial meeting with the Prattsburgh board two weeks ago, Waltz warned the board any wind facilities law based only on decibel levels would likely outlaw other sounds falling in the same range.DEC guidelines are based on averages recorded during set periods of time and don't account for peaks and valleys in noise levels, Waltz said.
"(DEC) guidelines give more allowance to be noisy," Waltz told the board.
But while the DEC is concerned with high frequencies measured in decibels, low frequency sounds are more likely to be disruptive and are more difficult to predict, Waltz told the board.
He said the lower sound ranges can't be heard but are responsible for rattling windows in homes or in some cases, physical problems including vomiting.
Predicting the effect of the undetected sounds is extremely difficult, and depends on bedrock and water near a turbine site, Waltz said. Both are extremely good conductors of low frequency noise which builds up intensity until it strikes another object.
The tall, hollow turbines with their shifting blades are likely to cause problems, he said.
"There's going to be bad units," he said. "There's got to be bad units."
Waltz is expected to report to the Prattsburgh board Tuesday on his firm's sound studies in the area and propose a fee for continued services.
Prattsburgh Town Supervisor Harold McConnell said Friday the board contacted Waltz to help them design a wind law and provide some specifications.
"Noise is only one of the issues," he said. "And, to tell you the truth, I don't know where we'll get the money from. We don't have the money."
McConnell said he supposed there is always a possibility of low level noise occurring as a result of any wind farm.
"I don't know that it's a special concern," McConnell said.
But the noise you can't hear may be more troublesome and difficult to predict, Waltz, of avi designs, inc., told the Prattsburgh town board recently.
"There is no way to guarantee you won't have a problem," Waltz told board members.
Prattsburgh board members hope to craft a wind law using information from sound consultants to protect residents from the severe noise problems at the First Wind project reported by residents in the neighboring town of Cohocton last February. The First Wind project in Cohocton became operational in January and has 50 turbines.
Wind farm-generated noise has become a concern at other sites in Steuben County, with the Town of Hartsville enacting a year-long moratorium last February on industrial wind development to study noise and other issues.
Town of Bath board members recently proposed a sixmonth moratorium in order to set regulations, including noise, in the event a wind farm is ever proposed there.
Prattsburgh is the site of two proposed wind farms, with developers First Wind and Ecogen planning projects in the town.
While First Wind is on hiatus because of the economy, Ecogen officials said earlier this year the firm was ready to break ground for 16 turbines in Prattsburgh. Ecogen maintains its Siemens turbines will not produce the same noise generated by the GE turbines in Cohocton.
So far, the Prattsburgh board has heard widely differing views on noise from experts.
Ecogen's sound consultant, Peter H. Guldberg, of Waltham, Mass., told residents in April the firm's turbine will make less noise, adding the project falls within guidelines set by the state Department of Environmental Conservation. Ecogen is now looking at technology to muffle noise caused by exhaust fans at the base of the towers.
Guldberg promised Prattsburgh residents they would not have "sleepless nights."
But acoustical engineer Rick James, of Michigan, hired by some town residents, told the board in May the development will turn the town into an industrial zone, with intrusive noise on a constant basis.James warned the board about the detrimental effects of both high and low frequency sounds, and recommended setbacks of 0.5 miles to .75 miles depending on the surroundings.
During his initial meeting with the Prattsburgh board two weeks ago, Waltz warned the board any wind facilities law based only on decibel levels would likely outlaw other sounds falling in the same range.DEC guidelines are based on averages recorded during set periods of time and don't account for peaks and valleys in noise levels, Waltz said.
"(DEC) guidelines give more allowance to be noisy," Waltz told the board.
But while the DEC is concerned with high frequencies measured in decibels, low frequency sounds are more likely to be disruptive and are more difficult to predict, Waltz told the board.
He said the lower sound ranges can't be heard but are responsible for rattling windows in homes or in some cases, physical problems including vomiting.
Predicting the effect of the undetected sounds is extremely difficult, and depends on bedrock and water near a turbine site, Waltz said. Both are extremely good conductors of low frequency noise which builds up intensity until it strikes another object.
The tall, hollow turbines with their shifting blades are likely to cause problems, he said.
"There's going to be bad units," he said. "There's got to be bad units."
Waltz is expected to report to the Prattsburgh board Tuesday on his firm's sound studies in the area and propose a fee for continued services.
Prattsburgh Town Supervisor Harold McConnell said Friday the board contacted Waltz to help them design a wind law and provide some specifications.
"Noise is only one of the issues," he said. "And, to tell you the truth, I don't know where we'll get the money from. We don't have the money."
McConnell said he supposed there is always a possibility of low level noise occurring as a result of any wind farm.
"I don't know that it's a special concern," McConnell said.
Bath schedules wind farm hearing
BATH - The public will have a chance to weigh in on a moratorium on commercial wind development in the town of Bath on Aug. 10.
The public hearing was set Monday by the Bath Town Board after approving a draft of the six-month ban on commercial wind turbines.
The measure is precautionary since there are no known plans by an energy company to build a commercial wind farm in the town.
If approved by the Bath board next month, the moratorium will allow a three-person committee time to study what other municipalities have done to regulate electricity generating wind tubines. The committee will eventually propose guidelines for Bath.
There was little comment Monday night by Bath councilmen on the proposed ban, except for Councilman William Glossick's request the moratorium specifically exempt the smaller, residential wind turbines.
The moratorium would prevent the construction of wind towers or related facilities until a local wind law is adopted by the board.
A number of wind projects are in various stages of development in the western portion of Steuben County and one wind farm is currently operating in the town of Cohocton.
Bath is considering regulating wind development in response to problems experienced this year in the nearby towns of Cohocton and Prattsburgh, Town Super-visor Fred Muller said.
In Cohocton, the 50-turbine First Wind project ran into problems in February when residents began to complain about jet-engine-like noise. Many of the turbines, which started up in January, had to be repaired.
Alarmed by the reports from Cohocton, town officials in Prattsburgh attempted to delay any construction by two developers, First Wind and Ecogen, until they received more information and enact laws regulating the projects.
The Prattsburgh board is now taking steps to enact a wind tower permit law.
"I think it's safe to say we're looking around at those towns, and we don't want it to happen here," Muller said.
Other reports before the board included:
* Planning Board Chairman Jim Emo said Griffith Energy is undergoing a site review of property located at 7388 State Route 54 and expects to move its offices from its location at 7324 State Route 54.
Griffith plans on using one house on the property for offices and demolishing a second building.
The company also will use the sit for storage and aboveground gas tanks, Emo said.
* Highway Supervisor Patrick Muller said grading work on town roads is expected to be completed with two weeks. Plans for a salt barn shared with the village are nearly finished and construction should begin next month, Patrick Muller said.
The public hearing was set Monday by the Bath Town Board after approving a draft of the six-month ban on commercial wind turbines.
The measure is precautionary since there are no known plans by an energy company to build a commercial wind farm in the town.
If approved by the Bath board next month, the moratorium will allow a three-person committee time to study what other municipalities have done to regulate electricity generating wind tubines. The committee will eventually propose guidelines for Bath.
There was little comment Monday night by Bath councilmen on the proposed ban, except for Councilman William Glossick's request the moratorium specifically exempt the smaller, residential wind turbines.
The moratorium would prevent the construction of wind towers or related facilities until a local wind law is adopted by the board.
A number of wind projects are in various stages of development in the western portion of Steuben County and one wind farm is currently operating in the town of Cohocton.
Bath is considering regulating wind development in response to problems experienced this year in the nearby towns of Cohocton and Prattsburgh, Town Super-visor Fred Muller said.
In Cohocton, the 50-turbine First Wind project ran into problems in February when residents began to complain about jet-engine-like noise. Many of the turbines, which started up in January, had to be repaired.
Alarmed by the reports from Cohocton, town officials in Prattsburgh attempted to delay any construction by two developers, First Wind and Ecogen, until they received more information and enact laws regulating the projects.
The Prattsburgh board is now taking steps to enact a wind tower permit law.
"I think it's safe to say we're looking around at those towns, and we don't want it to happen here," Muller said.
Other reports before the board included:
* Planning Board Chairman Jim Emo said Griffith Energy is undergoing a site review of property located at 7388 State Route 54 and expects to move its offices from its location at 7324 State Route 54.
Griffith plans on using one house on the property for offices and demolishing a second building.
The company also will use the sit for storage and aboveground gas tanks, Emo said.
* Highway Supervisor Patrick Muller said grading work on town roads is expected to be completed with two weeks. Plans for a salt barn shared with the village are nearly finished and construction should begin next month, Patrick Muller said.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Wind farm foes describe the noise
NO PEACE AND QUIET: Effect of 50 turbines 'almost unbearable'
CLAYTON — "At times, it is almost unbearable."
Cohocton Wind Farm leaseholder Hal E. Graham told north country residents Wednesday night about the noise and other effects the 50-turbine wind farm has had on his and his neighbors' lives.
Mr. Graham has one turbine on his property, 2,000 feet from his house. A neighbor has one 1,050 feet away from Mr. Graham's house.
The developer, First Wind, Newton, Mass., assured Mr. Graham and his wife they would not hear anything louder than the sound of a refrigerator 900 feet away, he said.
Instead, the noise makes the windows on his house rattle and he hears some turbines a mile away in his living room. On the walk to his mailbox, it can reach nearly 100 decibels.
"They never intended for us to have the peace and quiet they promised," he said.
Mr. Graham was joined by fellow panelists Gail Kenney, a nonparticipating resident on Wolfe Island and a founding member of opposition group Wolfe Island Residents for the Environment, and Stephen Trude, a nonparticipating resident in Cohocton and president of opposition group Cohocton Wind Watch.
The session was organized by groups of local citizens opposed to unregulated wind turbine placement, including the Wind Power Ethics Group in Cape Vincent and Concerned Residents of Hammond. More than 150 people attended the session at Thousand Islands High School.
The three told stories of neighbors and residents who have difficulties because of seizure disorders, or developed anxiety attacks, learning disorders or other ailments after the turbines started turning.
"This is not about electricity production," Mr. Trude said. "This is about installed capacity — this is about money."
Cohocton Wind Farm has 50 turbines rated at 2.5 megawatts. One turbine was placed 1,500 feet behind Mr. Trude's house, higher on a ridge.
When the turbines started spinning in December, he began hearing and feeling that turbine and three others across a ridge in front of his house. Low-frequency noise creates a vibration he can feel in his chest, he said.
"They're noisy in the wintertime," he said. "It sounds like Kennedy airport."
He said he wakes up at least once a night and has to turn on the television to have some white noise to allow him to sleep. Noise measurements regularly hit 58 decibels at his property lines and 68 decibels at the property line of his neighbor, who is closer to another turbine.
Cohocton's zoning law is supposed to limit noise to 50 decibels at the property line and 45 decibels in a house.
Despite the turbines spinning, Mr. Trude said, the wind farm is not selling into the grid. Cohocton Wind Farm, UPC Wind and First Wind are not listed as generators that sell into the grid on the Web site of the New York Independent System Operator, which operates the state's electric grid system.
Because of that, the town has not gotten its money yet, Mr. Trude said. Mr. Graham added that leaseholders also have not seen a cent.
Mrs. Kenney, a 47-year resident of Wolfe Island, said the construction wreaked havoc on the island community.
"You're going to be affected one way or another even if it is just the change in your viewscape," she said.
During that project's construction, she said, the problems included the number of workers, the amount of heavy equipment and need for additional fuel supplies, road damage, dust and air pollution, destruction of hedgerows, a 1,500-gallon oil spill and lengthening workdays to remain on schedule.
"There's definitely blasting involved in the construction, and we were told there wouldn't be," Mrs. Kenney said.
Wolfe Island Wind Project is operated by Canadian Renewable Energy Corp., a subsidiary of Canadian Hydro Developers Inc., Calgary, Alberta. The developers used 2.3-megawatt turbines that are 410 feet tall with carbon blades 150 feet long.
Now that the turbines are installed, she said, the lights are far brighter than residents expected.
"We were told the lights would be the best, newest and softest of lights," she said.
The three implored the local residents to work with town officials to fight turbine installation or have stricter turbine zoning.
Mr. Graham said, "If we knew what would happen, never would we have signed a contract that puts our friends and neighbors through this."
CLAYTON — "At times, it is almost unbearable."
Cohocton Wind Farm leaseholder Hal E. Graham told north country residents Wednesday night about the noise and other effects the 50-turbine wind farm has had on his and his neighbors' lives.
Mr. Graham has one turbine on his property, 2,000 feet from his house. A neighbor has one 1,050 feet away from Mr. Graham's house.
The developer, First Wind, Newton, Mass., assured Mr. Graham and his wife they would not hear anything louder than the sound of a refrigerator 900 feet away, he said.
Instead, the noise makes the windows on his house rattle and he hears some turbines a mile away in his living room. On the walk to his mailbox, it can reach nearly 100 decibels.
"They never intended for us to have the peace and quiet they promised," he said.
Mr. Graham was joined by fellow panelists Gail Kenney, a nonparticipating resident on Wolfe Island and a founding member of opposition group Wolfe Island Residents for the Environment, and Stephen Trude, a nonparticipating resident in Cohocton and president of opposition group Cohocton Wind Watch.
The session was organized by groups of local citizens opposed to unregulated wind turbine placement, including the Wind Power Ethics Group in Cape Vincent and Concerned Residents of Hammond. More than 150 people attended the session at Thousand Islands High School.
The three told stories of neighbors and residents who have difficulties because of seizure disorders, or developed anxiety attacks, learning disorders or other ailments after the turbines started turning.
"This is not about electricity production," Mr. Trude said. "This is about installed capacity — this is about money."
Cohocton Wind Farm has 50 turbines rated at 2.5 megawatts. One turbine was placed 1,500 feet behind Mr. Trude's house, higher on a ridge.
When the turbines started spinning in December, he began hearing and feeling that turbine and three others across a ridge in front of his house. Low-frequency noise creates a vibration he can feel in his chest, he said.
"They're noisy in the wintertime," he said. "It sounds like Kennedy airport."
He said he wakes up at least once a night and has to turn on the television to have some white noise to allow him to sleep. Noise measurements regularly hit 58 decibels at his property lines and 68 decibels at the property line of his neighbor, who is closer to another turbine.
Cohocton's zoning law is supposed to limit noise to 50 decibels at the property line and 45 decibels in a house.
Despite the turbines spinning, Mr. Trude said, the wind farm is not selling into the grid. Cohocton Wind Farm, UPC Wind and First Wind are not listed as generators that sell into the grid on the Web site of the New York Independent System Operator, which operates the state's electric grid system.
Because of that, the town has not gotten its money yet, Mr. Trude said. Mr. Graham added that leaseholders also have not seen a cent.
Mrs. Kenney, a 47-year resident of Wolfe Island, said the construction wreaked havoc on the island community.
"You're going to be affected one way or another even if it is just the change in your viewscape," she said.
During that project's construction, she said, the problems included the number of workers, the amount of heavy equipment and need for additional fuel supplies, road damage, dust and air pollution, destruction of hedgerows, a 1,500-gallon oil spill and lengthening workdays to remain on schedule.
"There's definitely blasting involved in the construction, and we were told there wouldn't be," Mrs. Kenney said.
Wolfe Island Wind Project is operated by Canadian Renewable Energy Corp., a subsidiary of Canadian Hydro Developers Inc., Calgary, Alberta. The developers used 2.3-megawatt turbines that are 410 feet tall with carbon blades 150 feet long.
Now that the turbines are installed, she said, the lights are far brighter than residents expected.
"We were told the lights would be the best, newest and softest of lights," she said.
The three implored the local residents to work with town officials to fight turbine installation or have stricter turbine zoning.
Mr. Graham said, "If we knew what would happen, never would we have signed a contract that puts our friends and neighbors through this."
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Pitman: ‘Alfred wind project progressing’
Alfred, N.Y.
There seems to be no major barriers to an Alfred wind project.
Gradual progress is being made, Keith Pitman, president and chief executive officer of Empire State Wind Energy of Oneida, told seven people attending an Alfred wind project update meeting Tuesday night.
Pitman said he met with 15 people who own land near the Alfred State College Farm Laboratory off State Route 244 earlier in the day about the possibility of leasing or buying land in the area, and said data from a recently-erected test wind tower is positive, but not conclusive yet.
“It’s way too early to declare anything terribly intelligent about the data because we are looking for seasonal patterns and stuff like that ... I would characterize what I have seen of it, and we have not done any extensive analysis yet, as being in line with what computer models predict,” said Pitman.
“I see no reason to suspect that we are not getting enough readings for a project,” he said.
Alfred village officials —Trustee Virginia Rasmussen and Mayor Craig Clark — and town officials — Trustee Phil Curran and Jeanne Cartwright, — attended the meeting, as well as a couple of town residents.
Pitman said his company is really looking at seasonal variations because the value of power production is at its highest at these times. This means more power is consumed on the hottest day of the summer and coldest day of the winter, so energy is more profitable then. Since the tower went up in April, there is no data in this area yet.
Pitman said he has not encountered opposition to the project.
“We found the majority of folks thought it would be a good idea,” said Pitman. He described the meeting as positive and said his company protects the privacy of potential landowners. He asked government officials to not get involved with private land negotiations.
Research into the power grid, soil and topography maps and environmental impact information and reports has turned up no “red flags” according to Pitman. He said his company is currently working on a long-term wind turbine supplier and expects to buy models that do not generate much noise. Pitman said the topography in Alfred region is unique and characterized it as “jagged land” which he said he thinks will create more turbulent winds.
Rasmussen questioned Tom Golisano’s commitment to the area on the heels of news he will be moving to Florida and has taken steps to declare residency there. Empire Wind was co-founded by Golisano and he is the chairman of the company.
“There is no change in commitment or his level whatsoever,” said Pitman.
Pitman said officials — particularly town officials — should be working on preliminary road agreements and considering what type of payment arrangements they want. He told them a lot can be learned by researching the Town of Cohocton’s arrangements and suggested they obtain documents there. He also said no turbines will be erected within village boundaries.
Clark, also a dean at Alfred State College’s Wellsville campus, said he think there is no problem with residents wishing to be placed on a daily email list that sends the test tower’s data. He said he will check with ASC President John Anderson for permission and those wishing to receive updates should contact him or Cartwright.
The meeting concluded with Pitman and the group agreeing a bi-monthly newsletter or email list should be compiled to keep residents aware of the project’s status. Cartwright agreed to be the contact for this and she can be reached at (607) 587-8524 or by email at www.hi-tech-ceramics.com.
There seems to be no major barriers to an Alfred wind project.
Gradual progress is being made, Keith Pitman, president and chief executive officer of Empire State Wind Energy of Oneida, told seven people attending an Alfred wind project update meeting Tuesday night.
Pitman said he met with 15 people who own land near the Alfred State College Farm Laboratory off State Route 244 earlier in the day about the possibility of leasing or buying land in the area, and said data from a recently-erected test wind tower is positive, but not conclusive yet.
“It’s way too early to declare anything terribly intelligent about the data because we are looking for seasonal patterns and stuff like that ... I would characterize what I have seen of it, and we have not done any extensive analysis yet, as being in line with what computer models predict,” said Pitman.
“I see no reason to suspect that we are not getting enough readings for a project,” he said.
Alfred village officials —Trustee Virginia Rasmussen and Mayor Craig Clark — and town officials — Trustee Phil Curran and Jeanne Cartwright, — attended the meeting, as well as a couple of town residents.
Pitman said his company is really looking at seasonal variations because the value of power production is at its highest at these times. This means more power is consumed on the hottest day of the summer and coldest day of the winter, so energy is more profitable then. Since the tower went up in April, there is no data in this area yet.
Pitman said he has not encountered opposition to the project.
“We found the majority of folks thought it would be a good idea,” said Pitman. He described the meeting as positive and said his company protects the privacy of potential landowners. He asked government officials to not get involved with private land negotiations.
Research into the power grid, soil and topography maps and environmental impact information and reports has turned up no “red flags” according to Pitman. He said his company is currently working on a long-term wind turbine supplier and expects to buy models that do not generate much noise. Pitman said the topography in Alfred region is unique and characterized it as “jagged land” which he said he thinks will create more turbulent winds.
Rasmussen questioned Tom Golisano’s commitment to the area on the heels of news he will be moving to Florida and has taken steps to declare residency there. Empire Wind was co-founded by Golisano and he is the chairman of the company.
“There is no change in commitment or his level whatsoever,” said Pitman.
Pitman said officials — particularly town officials — should be working on preliminary road agreements and considering what type of payment arrangements they want. He told them a lot can be learned by researching the Town of Cohocton’s arrangements and suggested they obtain documents there. He also said no turbines will be erected within village boundaries.
Clark, also a dean at Alfred State College’s Wellsville campus, said he think there is no problem with residents wishing to be placed on a daily email list that sends the test tower’s data. He said he will check with ASC President John Anderson for permission and those wishing to receive updates should contact him or Cartwright.
The meeting concluded with Pitman and the group agreeing a bi-monthly newsletter or email list should be compiled to keep residents aware of the project’s status. Cartwright agreed to be the contact for this and she can be reached at (607) 587-8524 or by email at www.hi-tech-ceramics.com.
NYSERDA's Dr. Thorndike's July 16, 2009 response to Mary Kay Barton
July 16, 2009
Dear Mary Kay,
I have been intensively involved with other matters recently and am just getting caught up on e-mail, so I apologize for the delayed response to your message of July 1 regarding further questions and references as follow up on the NYSERDA wind energy forum of June 16.
With all due respect to the views of yourself and your colleagues and the selectively chosen references you have provided as examples of "sound scientific solutions", they should not be put on a par with those of a committee report of the National Academy of Sciences, the premier scientific organization in the U.S., or with those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), sponsored by the World Health Organization and the UN Environment Program, which has involved over two thousand of the world's leading scientists for more than 20 years in an extensive research and peer review process to understand the global climate change phenomenon, its impacts, and options to reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels.
I did find the reference you made to the American Physical Society Report on Energy Future. You are quite correct that it does not address wind power, as the report states at the outset that its focus is entirely on energy efficiency in transportation and buildings and that it does not address any other aspects of energy generation and use. Rest assured that NYSERDA is very much engaged with support for energy efficiency r & d as it relates to electric energy.
I tracked some of the other references you sent and they are blogs or reports from organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Reason magazine and other sources that have consistently been climate change skeptics. For example, Vincent Gray is a coal chemist from New Zealand who has written a lot in opposition to the IPCC. In the same article you referenced that quotes Jack Steinberger, the Nobel laureate who is enthusiastic about solar energy and down on wind, there is reference to Burton Richter of Stanford, another Nobel laureate, who also supported the solar technology, but stated that there was still a place for wind.
Mary Kay, I cannot speak for the enormously well-qualifed and competent NYSERDA staff, but I can tell you that in my own 30 years of volunteer public service on NYS boards and councils, I have never seen a group of staff over the past two years spend more time on one issue, responding to questions of you and your colleagues, organizing a special forum on the topic, preparing a revised website section, etc. I understand that you are unalterably opposed to wind energy, as your e-mails indicate. I am sorry that most of our responses remain unsatisfactory to you.
To repeat what I wrote to Mr. Bowers last month after the forum: As we continue to develop wind resources in NYS, part of a comprehensive portfolio to address our compelling need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, we should do a better job of defining the natural and scenic resources of significant value where wind turbines are not appropriate, as well as where they are suitable; and we should address siting issues related to major residential densities. Our goal should be to examine the best ways to do that, where possible, through greater state oversight about what is actually being proposed, given the state's responsibility for its natural resources. At the same time we need to balance the state's role with the significant roles of local governments in local decision-making. A tall order, but not insurmountable, and absolutely essential. I hope we can count on concerned citizens like you to be part of the solution.
Sincerely,
Liz Thorndike
(Click to read original letter from Mary Kay Barton)
Dear Mary Kay,
I have been intensively involved with other matters recently and am just getting caught up on e-mail, so I apologize for the delayed response to your message of July 1 regarding further questions and references as follow up on the NYSERDA wind energy forum of June 16.
With all due respect to the views of yourself and your colleagues and the selectively chosen references you have provided as examples of "sound scientific solutions", they should not be put on a par with those of a committee report of the National Academy of Sciences, the premier scientific organization in the U.S., or with those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), sponsored by the World Health Organization and the UN Environment Program, which has involved over two thousand of the world's leading scientists for more than 20 years in an extensive research and peer review process to understand the global climate change phenomenon, its impacts, and options to reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels.
I did find the reference you made to the American Physical Society Report on Energy Future. You are quite correct that it does not address wind power, as the report states at the outset that its focus is entirely on energy efficiency in transportation and buildings and that it does not address any other aspects of energy generation and use. Rest assured that NYSERDA is very much engaged with support for energy efficiency r & d as it relates to electric energy.
I tracked some of the other references you sent and they are blogs or reports from organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Reason magazine and other sources that have consistently been climate change skeptics. For example, Vincent Gray is a coal chemist from New Zealand who has written a lot in opposition to the IPCC. In the same article you referenced that quotes Jack Steinberger, the Nobel laureate who is enthusiastic about solar energy and down on wind, there is reference to Burton Richter of Stanford, another Nobel laureate, who also supported the solar technology, but stated that there was still a place for wind.
Mary Kay, I cannot speak for the enormously well-qualifed and competent NYSERDA staff, but I can tell you that in my own 30 years of volunteer public service on NYS boards and councils, I have never seen a group of staff over the past two years spend more time on one issue, responding to questions of you and your colleagues, organizing a special forum on the topic, preparing a revised website section, etc. I understand that you are unalterably opposed to wind energy, as your e-mails indicate. I am sorry that most of our responses remain unsatisfactory to you.
To repeat what I wrote to Mr. Bowers last month after the forum: As we continue to develop wind resources in NYS, part of a comprehensive portfolio to address our compelling need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, we should do a better job of defining the natural and scenic resources of significant value where wind turbines are not appropriate, as well as where they are suitable; and we should address siting issues related to major residential densities. Our goal should be to examine the best ways to do that, where possible, through greater state oversight about what is actually being proposed, given the state's responsibility for its natural resources. At the same time we need to balance the state's role with the significant roles of local governments in local decision-making. A tall order, but not insurmountable, and absolutely essential. I hope we can count on concerned citizens like you to be part of the solution.
Sincerely,
Liz Thorndike
(Click to read original letter from Mary Kay Barton)
Scaled-down Perry wind farm project mitigates concerns
PERRY -- The revised Dairy Hills Wind farm would include significant reductions in noise, land conversion and other issues, according to the project's Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
The document outlines changes to the project representing a scaled-down version of what was originally proposed four years ago by Horizon Wind Energy.
The new project would include 38 turbines in Perry and Covington, instead of the 60 turbines originally proposed. It would be rated to generate up to 79.8 megawatts instead of the original 120 megawatts.
Each turbine would be 410 feet tall when blades are included. The town of Warsaw is no longer included in the revised project.
The study was conducted by Environmental Design Research of Syracuse.
Other findings include:
The study identifies significant reductions in permanent land conversions and vegetation clearing compared to the original project.
Shadow flicker would also be reduced, and the study indicates no projected situations with more than 30 hours per year at any residence, meeting town of Covington requirements.
Significant reductions would also include noise, which likewise wouldn't exceed 50 decibels, meeting Perry and Covington requirements.
The project would require 56 parcels of leased land covering 4,560 acres. That compares to the originally-proposed project including 96 parcels covering 7,300 acres.
A total of 12 miles of access roads would be required, compared to the original 21 miles. The project would likewise require 22 miles of buried cable, instead of the original 38 miles.
Instead of two project staging areas, a single location would be used near Route 246 south of LaGrange Road. It would cover 10 acres, compared to the 20 acres originally planned.
A one-story operations and maintenance building would be constructed north of Burke Hill Road. It would cover 5,000 to 8,000 square feet.
Road upgrades would be needed at six intersections including LaGrange Road and Route 246; LaGrange and Silver Lake roads; Silver Lake and Cowie roads; Cowie and Van Allen roads; Burke Hill and Brown roads; and Burke Hill and Perry roads.
Blasting may be required for some bedrock. Any such work would be monitored before and afterward; no significant impact is expected toward wells, foundations or septic systems.
A 35-foot clearing -- maintained as shrubs -- will be needed for underground cables. That compares to the original project which called for a 25-foot clearing, which would be allowed to redevelop as trees.
Officials decided to use a larger clearing and shrubs to prevent any damage to the cables by deep-growing tree roots.
Total wetland disturbance would be up to 2 acres, with total forested wetland conversion up to 2.5 acres. A total of 45 acres of wildlife habitat would be permanently lost, but the project notes the majority is in croplands, which are of limited wildlife habitat value anyway.
A total of 41 acres of forest would be maintained for the life of the project, and the study found overall cumulative habitat loss would be "not significant."
Positive benefits would include Payments-In-Lieu-Of-Taxes; community host-service agreements; individual lease payments; and the creation of 10 to 15 new jobs, with total wages described at $600,000 annually.
A total of 160 to 180 full time, short-term construction jobs would be created. The study predicts Perry's population loss will continue if the project does not go through.
If accepted, the SDEIS would pave the way for the Final Environmental Impact Statement, which could eventually lead to a decision on the project.
A public hearing to discuss the project's supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be conducted at 7 p.m. Aug. 10 in Perry High School Auditorium. Written comments are already being accepted through Aug. 31.
Compact discs and a set of study books are available for public review at the Town Hall, though it's requested people call for an appointment. A set of study books is also available at Perry Public Library.
The document outlines changes to the project representing a scaled-down version of what was originally proposed four years ago by Horizon Wind Energy.
The new project would include 38 turbines in Perry and Covington, instead of the 60 turbines originally proposed. It would be rated to generate up to 79.8 megawatts instead of the original 120 megawatts.
Each turbine would be 410 feet tall when blades are included. The town of Warsaw is no longer included in the revised project.
The study was conducted by Environmental Design Research of Syracuse.
Other findings include:
The study identifies significant reductions in permanent land conversions and vegetation clearing compared to the original project.
Shadow flicker would also be reduced, and the study indicates no projected situations with more than 30 hours per year at any residence, meeting town of Covington requirements.
Significant reductions would also include noise, which likewise wouldn't exceed 50 decibels, meeting Perry and Covington requirements.
The project would require 56 parcels of leased land covering 4,560 acres. That compares to the originally-proposed project including 96 parcels covering 7,300 acres.
A total of 12 miles of access roads would be required, compared to the original 21 miles. The project would likewise require 22 miles of buried cable, instead of the original 38 miles.
Instead of two project staging areas, a single location would be used near Route 246 south of LaGrange Road. It would cover 10 acres, compared to the 20 acres originally planned.
A one-story operations and maintenance building would be constructed north of Burke Hill Road. It would cover 5,000 to 8,000 square feet.
Road upgrades would be needed at six intersections including LaGrange Road and Route 246; LaGrange and Silver Lake roads; Silver Lake and Cowie roads; Cowie and Van Allen roads; Burke Hill and Brown roads; and Burke Hill and Perry roads.
Blasting may be required for some bedrock. Any such work would be monitored before and afterward; no significant impact is expected toward wells, foundations or septic systems.
A 35-foot clearing -- maintained as shrubs -- will be needed for underground cables. That compares to the original project which called for a 25-foot clearing, which would be allowed to redevelop as trees.
Officials decided to use a larger clearing and shrubs to prevent any damage to the cables by deep-growing tree roots.
Total wetland disturbance would be up to 2 acres, with total forested wetland conversion up to 2.5 acres. A total of 45 acres of wildlife habitat would be permanently lost, but the project notes the majority is in croplands, which are of limited wildlife habitat value anyway.
A total of 41 acres of forest would be maintained for the life of the project, and the study found overall cumulative habitat loss would be "not significant."
Positive benefits would include Payments-In-Lieu-Of-Taxes; community host-service agreements; individual lease payments; and the creation of 10 to 15 new jobs, with total wages described at $600,000 annually.
A total of 160 to 180 full time, short-term construction jobs would be created. The study predicts Perry's population loss will continue if the project does not go through.
If accepted, the SDEIS would pave the way for the Final Environmental Impact Statement, which could eventually lead to a decision on the project.
A public hearing to discuss the project's supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be conducted at 7 p.m. Aug. 10 in Perry High School Auditorium. Written comments are already being accepted through Aug. 31.
Compact discs and a set of study books are available for public review at the Town Hall, though it's requested people call for an appointment. A set of study books is also available at Perry Public Library.
County continues to be targeted for wind power transmission lines
Officials from northern Oswego County continue to work with representatives from Upstate NY Power Corp. in regard to placing transmission lines through the northern part of the county that would originate on Galloo Island located in the Jefferson County Town of Hounsfield.
Oswego County Legislature Chairman Barry Leemann said recently that he has arranged for former State Senator H. Douglas Barclay to represent him in negotiations.
“I signed Doug Barclay as my representative to discuss the whole process and to look out for the Pulaski, Sandy Creek, Richland area,” Leemann said. “He will be involved in the discussions on behalf of the legislature chairman.”
With negotiations with Entergy over the energy company’s payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement and other essential business currently in the legislature, Leemann said he does not have the time to devote to the power-line project.
“I am unable to attend many of the meetings myself and I have a keen interest in the outcome of this,” he noted.
So far, the involved parties have been meeting via conference calls, Leemann said.
According to Leemann, the route proposed for the power lines is “not one that we are happy with.”
Upstate Power, according to correspondence sent to Leemann July 6, is exploring some alternate routes. “While no solution is likely to be perfect for all parties involved, Upstate Power will continue to work with the Town of Richland and the Village of Pulaski to seek the best possible resolution,” wrote Robert Burgdorf of the law firm Nixon Peabody, LLP.
“As you may appreciate, siting a transmission line requires balancing many different interests, including environmental issues, agricultural issues, municipal needs and preferences, individual landowners’ needs and preferences, technical constraints, economic constraints, cultural and historic issues, and so forth,” Burgdorf wrote, adding that the concerns of the town, village, and county are important components of balancing the interests.
Oswego County Legislature Majority Leader Shawn Doyle is representing the town and village interests and has been involved in the meetings.
As reported in the March 15, 2008 issue of The Valley News, legislators had received telephone calls from angry constituents who received letters requesting the sale of right-of-ways or face eminent-domain proceedings.
Upstate NY Power, the company sending the letters, had applied to install 77 wind turbines in Jefferson County. Legislators said they were caught off guard by their constituents because, until their calls, they had no knowledge of the proposed project.
Since that time, Doyle said, meetings have been held and property owners who would be impacted have legal representation to assure they get a good price for the land for the right-of-ways.
According to correspondence sent to Doyle from Andrew Davis of the NYS Public Service Commission, “the application by Upstate NY Power Corp for an Article 7 license was found to be deficient in February, 2009. UNYPCo provided supplemental information in April, and the applicant is developing additional information to complete the application.”
Public hearings and informational meetings will eventually be scheduled.
Those representing the interests of the town, village, and county are scheduled to hold a conference-call meeting Friday. Doyle said he is hopeful that more information about the placement of lines will be available at that time.
Oswego County Legislature Chairman Barry Leemann said recently that he has arranged for former State Senator H. Douglas Barclay to represent him in negotiations.
“I signed Doug Barclay as my representative to discuss the whole process and to look out for the Pulaski, Sandy Creek, Richland area,” Leemann said. “He will be involved in the discussions on behalf of the legislature chairman.”
With negotiations with Entergy over the energy company’s payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement and other essential business currently in the legislature, Leemann said he does not have the time to devote to the power-line project.
“I am unable to attend many of the meetings myself and I have a keen interest in the outcome of this,” he noted.
So far, the involved parties have been meeting via conference calls, Leemann said.
According to Leemann, the route proposed for the power lines is “not one that we are happy with.”
Upstate Power, according to correspondence sent to Leemann July 6, is exploring some alternate routes. “While no solution is likely to be perfect for all parties involved, Upstate Power will continue to work with the Town of Richland and the Village of Pulaski to seek the best possible resolution,” wrote Robert Burgdorf of the law firm Nixon Peabody, LLP.
“As you may appreciate, siting a transmission line requires balancing many different interests, including environmental issues, agricultural issues, municipal needs and preferences, individual landowners’ needs and preferences, technical constraints, economic constraints, cultural and historic issues, and so forth,” Burgdorf wrote, adding that the concerns of the town, village, and county are important components of balancing the interests.
Oswego County Legislature Majority Leader Shawn Doyle is representing the town and village interests and has been involved in the meetings.
As reported in the March 15, 2008 issue of The Valley News, legislators had received telephone calls from angry constituents who received letters requesting the sale of right-of-ways or face eminent-domain proceedings.
Upstate NY Power, the company sending the letters, had applied to install 77 wind turbines in Jefferson County. Legislators said they were caught off guard by their constituents because, until their calls, they had no knowledge of the proposed project.
Since that time, Doyle said, meetings have been held and property owners who would be impacted have legal representation to assure they get a good price for the land for the right-of-ways.
According to correspondence sent to Doyle from Andrew Davis of the NYS Public Service Commission, “the application by Upstate NY Power Corp for an Article 7 license was found to be deficient in February, 2009. UNYPCo provided supplemental information in April, and the applicant is developing additional information to complete the application.”
Public hearings and informational meetings will eventually be scheduled.
Those representing the interests of the town, village, and county are scheduled to hold a conference-call meeting Friday. Doyle said he is hopeful that more information about the placement of lines will be available at that time.
Lobbyists boost D.C. spending
Despite the recession, Massachusetts companies and interest groups have sharply increased spending in Washington, D.C., to influence how federal officials distribute more than $1 trillion to revive the lagging economy.
In the first three months of the year, local firms spent $14.4 million to lobby the US government, according to federal records, 21 percent more than in the first quarter of 2008. Also, the number of Massachusetts companies hiring lobbyists increased 14 percent this year, to 320.
"That spending is up this year is a telling reminder that lobbying is a very different kind of industry," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors the influence of money in politics. "It may seem counterintuitive during an economic decline, but many companies feel it's a good way to maximize their chances at shaping legislation that will affect them."
Industry specialists gave several reasons for the increased spending on lobbying, including a change in presidential administration that brought new faces to the seats of power and a new bounty of government spending initiatives, most prominently the $787 billion stimulus package.
Companies and other parties that lobby the US government are required to disclose their activities quarterly to the US Senate. But the disclosure forms provide few details on the filer's interests, other than to indicate generally which areas of federal policy or certain proposed laws or rules they are lobbying on.
Still the forms show that some firms have nearly doubled their spending over last year, while others were compelled to hire lobbyists for the first time because of conditions in their sector.
First Wind Energy LLC, a Newton-based firm that runs wind farms nationwide, hired Washington lobbyists after the market for tax credits that finance its projects collapsed during the larger credit crisis last year, according to the records. First Wind spent $120,000 to get access to US lawmakers who were working on a proposal to revive the use of tax credits for renewable-energy projects.
"This is absolutely critical both to our company and to the growth of renewable energy across the country," said Carol Grant, vice president of external affairs for the company, which is seeking funding to build four wind farms in New England.
Grant said First Wind representatives met with lawmakers to discuss problems with the financial markets and ways to restore credit. The Obama administration is still developing guidelines for the energy incentives approved in the legislation.
In the first three months of the year, local firms spent $14.4 million to lobby the US government, according to federal records, 21 percent more than in the first quarter of 2008. Also, the number of Massachusetts companies hiring lobbyists increased 14 percent this year, to 320.
"That spending is up this year is a telling reminder that lobbying is a very different kind of industry," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors the influence of money in politics. "It may seem counterintuitive during an economic decline, but many companies feel it's a good way to maximize their chances at shaping legislation that will affect them."
Industry specialists gave several reasons for the increased spending on lobbying, including a change in presidential administration that brought new faces to the seats of power and a new bounty of government spending initiatives, most prominently the $787 billion stimulus package.
Companies and other parties that lobby the US government are required to disclose their activities quarterly to the US Senate. But the disclosure forms provide few details on the filer's interests, other than to indicate generally which areas of federal policy or certain proposed laws or rules they are lobbying on.
Still the forms show that some firms have nearly doubled their spending over last year, while others were compelled to hire lobbyists for the first time because of conditions in their sector.
First Wind Energy LLC, a Newton-based firm that runs wind farms nationwide, hired Washington lobbyists after the market for tax credits that finance its projects collapsed during the larger credit crisis last year, according to the records. First Wind spent $120,000 to get access to US lawmakers who were working on a proposal to revive the use of tax credits for renewable-energy projects.
"This is absolutely critical both to our company and to the growth of renewable energy across the country," said Carol Grant, vice president of external affairs for the company, which is seeking funding to build four wind farms in New England.
Grant said First Wind representatives met with lawmakers to discuss problems with the financial markets and ways to restore credit. The Obama administration is still developing guidelines for the energy incentives approved in the legislation.
NYSEG, RG&E seek to alter program
Each fall, hundreds of thousands of upstate New York households are given a choice in who provides their energy and whether to buy the energy at a fixed or fluctuating rate.
That may come to an end as New York State Electric & Gas Corp. and Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. seek state approval to fundamentally rework the Voice Your Choice program.
In a petition before the state Public Service Commission, NYSEG and RG&E say they want to quit offering fixed-rate options for energy after this year and to replace the five-year-old Voice Your Choice program with an ongoing open enrollment period.
Customers would either pay the utility company a variable rate or choose to go with an independent energy services company, which might still offer a fixed rate. Variable rates reflect the fluctuating wholesale price of electricity.
More than 189,000 RG&E and NYSEG customers are signed up for the utilities' fixed-price option, even though figures provided by RG&E this week show that the variable rate has proved more economical over the past four years. Some consumers prefer fixed rates because it makes their monthly bills more predictable.
Voice Your Choice and the fixed-price option always were intended to be part of the transition as New York switched to a competitive electricity supply market, said Robert Bergin, public affairs director for the two Rochester-based utilities. There are 57 different energy supply companies working as energy brokers in the RG&E and NYSEG service area, he said.
For the utilities, getting out of a fixed-price option could be a financial boon, according to the Retail Energy Supply Association, a trade group, as the recent swings of commodity prices create business risks for companies offering fixed rates.
The proposed changes to the Voice Your Choice program still need state approval. PSC spokesman James Denn couldn't say when the commission might act on the filing.
Separately, RG&E and NYSEG received state approval in May to make adjustments to utility bills this year. The adjustments involve fees known as non-bypassable charges - NBCs in industry lingo - that help utilities deal with the difference between the market price of electricity and the price in the companies' long-term supply contracts.
That may come to an end as New York State Electric & Gas Corp. and Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. seek state approval to fundamentally rework the Voice Your Choice program.
In a petition before the state Public Service Commission, NYSEG and RG&E say they want to quit offering fixed-rate options for energy after this year and to replace the five-year-old Voice Your Choice program with an ongoing open enrollment period.
Customers would either pay the utility company a variable rate or choose to go with an independent energy services company, which might still offer a fixed rate. Variable rates reflect the fluctuating wholesale price of electricity.
More than 189,000 RG&E and NYSEG customers are signed up for the utilities' fixed-price option, even though figures provided by RG&E this week show that the variable rate has proved more economical over the past four years. Some consumers prefer fixed rates because it makes their monthly bills more predictable.
Voice Your Choice and the fixed-price option always were intended to be part of the transition as New York switched to a competitive electricity supply market, said Robert Bergin, public affairs director for the two Rochester-based utilities. There are 57 different energy supply companies working as energy brokers in the RG&E and NYSEG service area, he said.
For the utilities, getting out of a fixed-price option could be a financial boon, according to the Retail Energy Supply Association, a trade group, as the recent swings of commodity prices create business risks for companies offering fixed rates.
The proposed changes to the Voice Your Choice program still need state approval. PSC spokesman James Denn couldn't say when the commission might act on the filing.
Separately, RG&E and NYSEG received state approval in May to make adjustments to utility bills this year. The adjustments involve fees known as non-bypassable charges - NBCs in industry lingo - that help utilities deal with the difference between the market price of electricity and the price in the companies' long-term supply contracts.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
A blot on the landscape?
It's a classic summer morning in Kingston -- the typical summer morning with clear blue skies, brilliant sunshine and a tantalizing sparkle off the water in the harbour. As I pen this missive I'm watching the eastern sun reflect off the Wolfe Island wind turbines. Sadly, the island, in appearance, seems more of an industrial wasteland rather than one of nature's more tranquil settings.
The presence of these overwhelming techno-energy giants brings to mind a science fiction novel by H. G. Wells. Seeing the wind turbines conjures up images of invading space creatures from his work War of the Worlds, with the turbines reaching like tentacles upward to the sky. They certainly tower above the natural treeline.
It's hard to see anything else. When I look towards the water, I don't see the natural beauty of Kingston's harbour anymore. I don't see Garden Island, Simcoe Island or even Wolfe Island, as my vision is drawn to these massive propellers waiting in rest or whirling away, depending on the breeze. If the daytime view isn't bad enough, the blinking red warning lights on the towers at night light up the sky like a runway at Pearson International Airport.
What got me thinking of our harbour's beauty was not only the view from my window but also two photographs that appeared in the Whig-Standard. Both were of boats plying the waters of Kingston Harbour. The first was our beloved tall ship, St. Lawrence II, and the other was a wee Optimist sailing dinghy. What struck me was that my eye was not drawn to the beauty of the vessel in each photo but rather to the towering wind turbines in the background. I just found it sad.
I am of mixed emotions as to whether these turbines are a source of pride for the local communities. Fair enough that this was a decision for the residents of Wolfe Island, as they own the property where these towering giants sit, but their decision has also affected the lives of those in Kingston and our neighbours to the south in northern New York State.
I've yet to encounter anyone who finds the wind turbines an attractive addition to the already beautiful landscape. In fact, most simply whisper about the project, as saying anything negative is tantamount to heresy. Dissenting opinions are shouted down as anti-progress, anti-change or anti-environment. For the most part, this isn't the case. Everyone's entitled to his or her opinion, and what I'm finding is that for better or worse, the folks I speak with on this side of the harbour don't think the turbines are attractive.
I don't know why the islanders voted to have the wind farm developed on their lands. That was their decision alone. Perhaps it was visceral in nature -- a longing to facilitate change in the world and reduce our carbine footprint through the development of alternative energy sources. The sacrifice of lands and natural beauty today could be well worth the protection of future generations. Alternatively, it's also possible the rise of these massive turbines was the result of a cash grab by those suffering from our flagging economy and seeing a sure bet for income. Who knows for certain?
I just can't seem to get excited by the wind farm and its whirling turbines. It's not that I'm against reducing our carbon footprint or searching for alternatives to fossil fuels. Rather, my concern is that the largest of the islands in the Thousand Islands region of the St. Lawrence River, one of creation's most beautiful vistas, has effectively been turned into a 30,000-acre money-producing platform. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the only reasons the company that built the wind turbines came to Wolfe Island were the consistent winds and the desire for profits. The equations are quite simple: For the landowners, the more turbines on their property, the more money in their pockets; and for the corporation driving the project, megawatts equal mega-dollars.
I've heard the term NIMBY (Not in my backyard) used all too often to describe those folks who oppose this and other wind projects. Shamefully, even our premier and local MPP have resorted to using this acronym for those whose opinions are differing from their own. I suppose our premier really doesn't need to be concerned, since if you live in Toronto you can't see the view in Kingston. Likewise for Canadian Hydro Developers Inc.'s corporate officers in Calgary.
Hopefully, when all the Wolfe Island whirlygigs are finally spinning freely they will be a welcome addition to the natural beauty for which the eastern end of Lake Ontario has always been known. At the moment however, I have my doubts.
David R. MacDonald Kingston
The presence of these overwhelming techno-energy giants brings to mind a science fiction novel by H. G. Wells. Seeing the wind turbines conjures up images of invading space creatures from his work War of the Worlds, with the turbines reaching like tentacles upward to the sky. They certainly tower above the natural treeline.
It's hard to see anything else. When I look towards the water, I don't see the natural beauty of Kingston's harbour anymore. I don't see Garden Island, Simcoe Island or even Wolfe Island, as my vision is drawn to these massive propellers waiting in rest or whirling away, depending on the breeze. If the daytime view isn't bad enough, the blinking red warning lights on the towers at night light up the sky like a runway at Pearson International Airport.
What got me thinking of our harbour's beauty was not only the view from my window but also two photographs that appeared in the Whig-Standard. Both were of boats plying the waters of Kingston Harbour. The first was our beloved tall ship, St. Lawrence II, and the other was a wee Optimist sailing dinghy. What struck me was that my eye was not drawn to the beauty of the vessel in each photo but rather to the towering wind turbines in the background. I just found it sad.
I am of mixed emotions as to whether these turbines are a source of pride for the local communities. Fair enough that this was a decision for the residents of Wolfe Island, as they own the property where these towering giants sit, but their decision has also affected the lives of those in Kingston and our neighbours to the south in northern New York State.
I've yet to encounter anyone who finds the wind turbines an attractive addition to the already beautiful landscape. In fact, most simply whisper about the project, as saying anything negative is tantamount to heresy. Dissenting opinions are shouted down as anti-progress, anti-change or anti-environment. For the most part, this isn't the case. Everyone's entitled to his or her opinion, and what I'm finding is that for better or worse, the folks I speak with on this side of the harbour don't think the turbines are attractive.
I don't know why the islanders voted to have the wind farm developed on their lands. That was their decision alone. Perhaps it was visceral in nature -- a longing to facilitate change in the world and reduce our carbine footprint through the development of alternative energy sources. The sacrifice of lands and natural beauty today could be well worth the protection of future generations. Alternatively, it's also possible the rise of these massive turbines was the result of a cash grab by those suffering from our flagging economy and seeing a sure bet for income. Who knows for certain?
I just can't seem to get excited by the wind farm and its whirling turbines. It's not that I'm against reducing our carbon footprint or searching for alternatives to fossil fuels. Rather, my concern is that the largest of the islands in the Thousand Islands region of the St. Lawrence River, one of creation's most beautiful vistas, has effectively been turned into a 30,000-acre money-producing platform. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the only reasons the company that built the wind turbines came to Wolfe Island were the consistent winds and the desire for profits. The equations are quite simple: For the landowners, the more turbines on their property, the more money in their pockets; and for the corporation driving the project, megawatts equal mega-dollars.
I've heard the term NIMBY (Not in my backyard) used all too often to describe those folks who oppose this and other wind projects. Shamefully, even our premier and local MPP have resorted to using this acronym for those whose opinions are differing from their own. I suppose our premier really doesn't need to be concerned, since if you live in Toronto you can't see the view in Kingston. Likewise for Canadian Hydro Developers Inc.'s corporate officers in Calgary.
Hopefully, when all the Wolfe Island whirlygigs are finally spinning freely they will be a welcome addition to the natural beauty for which the eastern end of Lake Ontario has always been known. At the moment however, I have my doubts.
David R. MacDonald Kingston
Dietrich walks out of meeting in protest
ARKWRIGHT - Arkwright Councilman Jeff Dietrich couldn't get a second to his motion Monday to have Horizon Wind Energy and the town sign with Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's ethical standards regarding wind energy development.
"I want to keep everyone honest," he said.
When he and Councilman Roger Cardot began discussing their opinions regarding this issue, Supervisor Fred Norton closed them down and called for a continuation of the meeting.
With that, Dietrich said a wise teacher once told him "Stand by your principles or stand alone; I guess I stand alone."
He then walked out of the meeting.
Norton responded to Elizabeth Booth's comments at the June board meeting asking that the board and Horizon sign the attorney general's ethics standards.
He noted that Noble Environmental Energy and First Windholdings, LLC have signed the ethics standard agreement.
Norton said these agreements were the result of investigations of the business practices of Noble and Windholdings in the development of wind energy farms elsewhere in the state.
"No other wind energy developer has signed such an agreement," he said.
Furthermore, Norton said, "Arkwright has its own ethics code established in 1970 and the town's ethic board oversees its implementation and the state's general municipal law," he said.
Both cover the same issues the attorney general's agreement covers, he added.
When there is a violation of the ethics code, whether it be the town's or the general municipal law, there is a possible penalty of the town official's vote being voided.
"In fact, any contract resulting could be made void. This could be much more serious to a developer than a fine," he said.
The town's ethics code and general municipal law cover gifts, compensation for services, contingent compensation, easements or leases and confidential information.
"In conclusion, we believe there is nothing to be gained in requiring the developer to enter into the attorney general's agreement in its present form," Norton said.
Further more, he said, "We already have an ethics code and the provisions of the general municipal law which meet or surpass the provisions of the attorney general's standards."
During the community comment portion of the meeting, Larry Wilcox, the co-chairman of NICE, an organization whose members promote the Arkwright wind farm, said he has never attended a municipal meeting where one of the members walked out.
"I think the attorney general's oversight of the wind farm development is just another Albany money grab and will cost the local municipalities," he said.
Horizon project manager Tom Stebbins said he knows of no complains leveled against his company for the Arkwright project.
Stebbins also said the final work on the Environmental Impact Statement is nearing completion.
This is one of a series of requirements Horizon must meet before the project can get underway.
Asked when the EIS would be presented to the Arkwright Town Board, Stebbins said, "As soon as possible."
In other business, the town board approved a resolution presented by Norton which calls for a referendum vote this fall to increase the supervisor's term of office from two years to four years.
If the referendum passes, the new term will take effect with the 2011 election.
Norton said this would bring the supervisor's term in line with the town's other office holders which are four year terms.
"I want to keep everyone honest," he said.
When he and Councilman Roger Cardot began discussing their opinions regarding this issue, Supervisor Fred Norton closed them down and called for a continuation of the meeting.
With that, Dietrich said a wise teacher once told him "Stand by your principles or stand alone; I guess I stand alone."
He then walked out of the meeting.
Norton responded to Elizabeth Booth's comments at the June board meeting asking that the board and Horizon sign the attorney general's ethics standards.
He noted that Noble Environmental Energy and First Windholdings, LLC have signed the ethics standard agreement.
Norton said these agreements were the result of investigations of the business practices of Noble and Windholdings in the development of wind energy farms elsewhere in the state.
"No other wind energy developer has signed such an agreement," he said.
Furthermore, Norton said, "Arkwright has its own ethics code established in 1970 and the town's ethic board oversees its implementation and the state's general municipal law," he said.
Both cover the same issues the attorney general's agreement covers, he added.
When there is a violation of the ethics code, whether it be the town's or the general municipal law, there is a possible penalty of the town official's vote being voided.
"In fact, any contract resulting could be made void. This could be much more serious to a developer than a fine," he said.
The town's ethics code and general municipal law cover gifts, compensation for services, contingent compensation, easements or leases and confidential information.
"In conclusion, we believe there is nothing to be gained in requiring the developer to enter into the attorney general's agreement in its present form," Norton said.
Further more, he said, "We already have an ethics code and the provisions of the general municipal law which meet or surpass the provisions of the attorney general's standards."
During the community comment portion of the meeting, Larry Wilcox, the co-chairman of NICE, an organization whose members promote the Arkwright wind farm, said he has never attended a municipal meeting where one of the members walked out.
"I think the attorney general's oversight of the wind farm development is just another Albany money grab and will cost the local municipalities," he said.
Horizon project manager Tom Stebbins said he knows of no complains leveled against his company for the Arkwright project.
Stebbins also said the final work on the Environmental Impact Statement is nearing completion.
This is one of a series of requirements Horizon must meet before the project can get underway.
Asked when the EIS would be presented to the Arkwright Town Board, Stebbins said, "As soon as possible."
In other business, the town board approved a resolution presented by Norton which calls for a referendum vote this fall to increase the supervisor's term of office from two years to four years.
If the referendum passes, the new term will take effect with the 2011 election.
Norton said this would bring the supervisor's term in line with the town's other office holders which are four year terms.
Wind farms will be a monument to an age when our leaders collectively went off their heads
Let us be clear: Britain is facing an unprecedented crisis. Before long, we will lose 40 per cent of our generating capacity.
And unless we come up quickly with an alternative, the lights WILL go out. Not before time, the Confederation of British Industry yesterday waded in, warning the Government it must abandon its crazy fixation with wind turbines as a way of plugging this forthcoming shortfall and instead urgently focus on far more efficient ways to meet the threat of a permanent, nationwide black-out.
There are a few contenders for the title of the maddest thing that has happened in our lifetime.
But a front-runner must be the way in which politicians of all parties have been seduced by the La-La Land promises of the wind power lobby.
If you still haven't made your mind up about wind power, just consider some of the inescapable facts - facts which the Government and the wind industry do their best to hide from us all.
So far we have spent billions of pounds on building just over 2,000 wind turbines - and yet they contribute barely one per cent of all the electricity that we need.
The combined output of all those 2,000 turbines put together, averaging 700 megawatts, is less than that of a single, medium-sized conventional power station.
What's more, far from being 'free', this pitiful dribble of electricity is twice as expensive as the power we get from the nuclear, gas or coal-fired power stations which currently supply well over 90 per cent of our needs - and we all pay the difference, without knowing it, through our electricity bills.
But despite its best efforts to conceal the fact that wind turbines expensively and unreliably generate only a derisory amount of electricity, the Government keeps on telling us of its megalomaniac plans to build thousands more of them - at a cost of up to £100billion.
The prime reason for this is that we are legally obliged by the European Union to generate 32 per cent of our electricity from 'renewable' sources by 2020.
And with just 11 years to go until that deadline, we hope to meet the target by building highly-subsidised wind turbines.
But this is a farce. In fact, as the Government is privately well aware, there is not the faintest hope that we can do anything of the kind - even if we wanted to.
Gordon Brown talks airily of building 4,000 offshore turbines by our target date - plus another 3,000 onshore. But this would mean sticking two of these 2,000-ton monsters, each the height of Blackpool Tower, into the seabed every day for the next 11 years.
Nowhere in the world has it proved possible to install more than one of them a week. The infrastructure simply isn't there to build more than a fraction of that figure.
Furthermore, such are the weather conditions around Britain's coasts that it is only possible to work on these projects for a few months every summer.
Then there are the 3,000 promised onshore turbines - many of which are to be erected in the most beautiful stretches of Britain's countryside.
These are meeting with so much local hostility that the Government has continually had to bend the planning rules in order to force them through over the wishes of local communities and the democratic opposition of local councils.
But wind power is not just the pipedream of deluded politicians. As the CBI was trying to warn yesterday, the real disaster of this great wind fantasy is that it has diverted attention from the genuine energy crisis now hurtling towards us at breakneck speed.
For while the Government is trying to force a scattering of useless wind turbines through the planning offices, the truth is that the rest of us will lose 40 per cent of our power stations within as little as seven years.
If this happens, and we don't have an alternative, our kettles won't boil, our computers won't work and our country will face economic meltdown.
There is little hope now of an 11th hour reprieve. Eight of our nine nuclear power stations - which presently supply 20 per cent of our electricity needs - are so old they will have to close.
Nine more large coal and oil-fired power plants will also be forced to shut down under an EU anti-pollution directive.
But more alarming still is the astonishing naivete of almost all our politicians when it comes to working out how we are going to fill the 40 per cent shortfall left in their wake. Very belatedly, the Government has said that it wants to see a new generation of nuclear reactors.
Yet there is little hope that any of them can be up and running earlier than 2020. What's more, they will have to be built by foreign-owned companies because, as recently as October 2006, the Government sold off our last world-class nuclear construction company, Westinghouse, to the Japanese at a knockdown price.
At the same time, our Energy And Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, now says he will not allow any new coal-fired power stations to be built unless they have 'carbon capture' - piping off CO2 to bury it in holes in the ground.
This technology not only doubles the price of electricity but hasn't even yet been properly developed. And so the only hope of keeping the lights on will be to build dozens more gas-fired power stations - at a time when North Sea gas is fast running out.
And then we will be forced to rely on imports from politically unreliable countries such as Russia, at a time when gas prices are likely to be soaring.
In any event, over the past 20 years, our politicians have made an even more unholy shambles of Britain's energy policy than they have of our economy - and the cost, when the chickens come to roost in a few years' time, will be almost unimaginable.
The causes of Britain's impending energy crisis are manifold. Michael Heseltine's 1992 'dash for gas', when he closed down most of our remaining coal mines because North Sea gas was still cheap and abundant, and because its CO2 emissions were only half those of coal, was one of them.
But nothing has done more to take the politicians' eye off the ball, egged on by environmentalist groups such as Friends Of The Earth and Greenpeace, than their quite incomprehensible obsession with windmills.
For these white elephants can never produce more than a fraction of the electricity we need, and by no means always when we need it - as we saw last winter when, for weeks on end, they were scarcely turning at all.
Do politicians never look outside the windows of their centrally-heated offices to see how often the wind is not blowing?
The Government has now shovelled so much money in hidden subsidies into the pockets of the turbine companies that the 'wind bonanza', promoted on a host of fraudulent claims, has become one of the greatest scams of our age.
But if and when our lights do go out, it will be important to remember just why we got carried away by such a massive blunder.
Left with a land blighted with useless towers of metal, we shall look on those windmills as a monument to the age when the politicians of Britain and Europe collectively went completely off their heads.
And unless we come up quickly with an alternative, the lights WILL go out. Not before time, the Confederation of British Industry yesterday waded in, warning the Government it must abandon its crazy fixation with wind turbines as a way of plugging this forthcoming shortfall and instead urgently focus on far more efficient ways to meet the threat of a permanent, nationwide black-out.
There are a few contenders for the title of the maddest thing that has happened in our lifetime.
But a front-runner must be the way in which politicians of all parties have been seduced by the La-La Land promises of the wind power lobby.
If you still haven't made your mind up about wind power, just consider some of the inescapable facts - facts which the Government and the wind industry do their best to hide from us all.
So far we have spent billions of pounds on building just over 2,000 wind turbines - and yet they contribute barely one per cent of all the electricity that we need.
The combined output of all those 2,000 turbines put together, averaging 700 megawatts, is less than that of a single, medium-sized conventional power station.
What's more, far from being 'free', this pitiful dribble of electricity is twice as expensive as the power we get from the nuclear, gas or coal-fired power stations which currently supply well over 90 per cent of our needs - and we all pay the difference, without knowing it, through our electricity bills.
But despite its best efforts to conceal the fact that wind turbines expensively and unreliably generate only a derisory amount of electricity, the Government keeps on telling us of its megalomaniac plans to build thousands more of them - at a cost of up to £100billion.
The prime reason for this is that we are legally obliged by the European Union to generate 32 per cent of our electricity from 'renewable' sources by 2020.
And with just 11 years to go until that deadline, we hope to meet the target by building highly-subsidised wind turbines.
But this is a farce. In fact, as the Government is privately well aware, there is not the faintest hope that we can do anything of the kind - even if we wanted to.
Gordon Brown talks airily of building 4,000 offshore turbines by our target date - plus another 3,000 onshore. But this would mean sticking two of these 2,000-ton monsters, each the height of Blackpool Tower, into the seabed every day for the next 11 years.
Nowhere in the world has it proved possible to install more than one of them a week. The infrastructure simply isn't there to build more than a fraction of that figure.
Furthermore, such are the weather conditions around Britain's coasts that it is only possible to work on these projects for a few months every summer.
Then there are the 3,000 promised onshore turbines - many of which are to be erected in the most beautiful stretches of Britain's countryside.
These are meeting with so much local hostility that the Government has continually had to bend the planning rules in order to force them through over the wishes of local communities and the democratic opposition of local councils.
But wind power is not just the pipedream of deluded politicians. As the CBI was trying to warn yesterday, the real disaster of this great wind fantasy is that it has diverted attention from the genuine energy crisis now hurtling towards us at breakneck speed.
For while the Government is trying to force a scattering of useless wind turbines through the planning offices, the truth is that the rest of us will lose 40 per cent of our power stations within as little as seven years.
If this happens, and we don't have an alternative, our kettles won't boil, our computers won't work and our country will face economic meltdown.
There is little hope now of an 11th hour reprieve. Eight of our nine nuclear power stations - which presently supply 20 per cent of our electricity needs - are so old they will have to close.
Nine more large coal and oil-fired power plants will also be forced to shut down under an EU anti-pollution directive.
But more alarming still is the astonishing naivete of almost all our politicians when it comes to working out how we are going to fill the 40 per cent shortfall left in their wake. Very belatedly, the Government has said that it wants to see a new generation of nuclear reactors.
Yet there is little hope that any of them can be up and running earlier than 2020. What's more, they will have to be built by foreign-owned companies because, as recently as October 2006, the Government sold off our last world-class nuclear construction company, Westinghouse, to the Japanese at a knockdown price.
At the same time, our Energy And Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, now says he will not allow any new coal-fired power stations to be built unless they have 'carbon capture' - piping off CO2 to bury it in holes in the ground.
This technology not only doubles the price of electricity but hasn't even yet been properly developed. And so the only hope of keeping the lights on will be to build dozens more gas-fired power stations - at a time when North Sea gas is fast running out.
And then we will be forced to rely on imports from politically unreliable countries such as Russia, at a time when gas prices are likely to be soaring.
In any event, over the past 20 years, our politicians have made an even more unholy shambles of Britain's energy policy than they have of our economy - and the cost, when the chickens come to roost in a few years' time, will be almost unimaginable.
The causes of Britain's impending energy crisis are manifold. Michael Heseltine's 1992 'dash for gas', when he closed down most of our remaining coal mines because North Sea gas was still cheap and abundant, and because its CO2 emissions were only half those of coal, was one of them.
But nothing has done more to take the politicians' eye off the ball, egged on by environmentalist groups such as Friends Of The Earth and Greenpeace, than their quite incomprehensible obsession with windmills.
For these white elephants can never produce more than a fraction of the electricity we need, and by no means always when we need it - as we saw last winter when, for weeks on end, they were scarcely turning at all.
Do politicians never look outside the windows of their centrally-heated offices to see how often the wind is not blowing?
The Government has now shovelled so much money in hidden subsidies into the pockets of the turbine companies that the 'wind bonanza', promoted on a host of fraudulent claims, has become one of the greatest scams of our age.
But if and when our lights do go out, it will be important to remember just why we got carried away by such a massive blunder.
Left with a land blighted with useless towers of metal, we shall look on those windmills as a monument to the age when the politicians of Britain and Europe collectively went completely off their heads.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)