Posted with the permission of The Naples Record, originally published Wednesday August 5, 2009
To the editor:
On Tuesday evening, July 28 a board meeting was held at the Prattsburgh Town Hall. The purpose was to decide whether or not to hire an independent noise expert to measure wind turbine noise and the effects of that noise on the residents of Prattsburgh.
There seems have been two issues here:
1) The cost of hiring this sound expert;
2) The value of the data this person could provide.
It was brought out by one board member that the town has the money available to hire this expert. However if the town didn't want to finance this effort two individuals said they would pay for this study. That should have dealt with issue number one. In the end the measure was defeated with Harold McConnell, Sharon Quigley and Stacy Botonni voting no. A few minutes later Mr. McConnell was asked how he intended to deal with the noise concern. He said, "I don't know, I need to get more advice before I can answer." Board member Chuck Schick reminded Mr McConnell that he just voted down an excellent source of advice, a independent sound expert. A verbal tug of war then ensued between one board member ad the Prattsburgh conflict of interest town attorney. This meeting showed little progress and less cooperation.
At the risk of sounding repetitious, the mental attitude of several Prattsburgh town board members is "Don't confuse me with the facts."
Tom Sullivan, Cook School Road, Prattsburgh
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Keep turbines out - Wind towers threaten 'Hill Where the Lord Hides'
Posted with the permission of The Naples Record, originally published Wednesday August 5, 2009
To the editor:
My name is Bill Barker. My wife, Malla, and I have a home at 505 Chapman Road, off of Olney Road, which sits in the shadow of the proposed Industrial Wind Tower Incentive Zone on Clute Road. Like so many concerned Italy town resi¬dents, we'd like to voice our strong and telling opposition to the Ecogen Incentive Wind Energy Zone application. I would briefly cite five specific concerns:
1. The presence of flickering top-lighting from the very tall industrial towers would constitute a constant unsightly intrusion in the Italy area. This concern is not hypothetical as it is already apparent among the 20-plus IWTs in the Cohocton area readily visible travelling out of Italy en route to Naples, where one literally 'cannot see the forest for the wind towers.'
2. Well described noise emitted from the operating IWTs will deeply impact not only those of us in the immediate proximity, but others in Italy Valley.
3. There will be inevitable irretrievable decline in the complex of natural scenery that constitute the much-hailed beauty and serenity of Italy township. It is not insignificant that world-renowned composer Chuck Mangione's signature trumpet piece, "Hill Where The Lord Hides" was written while he was a guest of previous owners of our property, referencing the very land where IWTs would be located in the Wind Energy Incentive Zone. Such words would ring hollow if the proposed application is approved.
4. My application - and likely others — applying for Conservation Preservation Easement status with the Finger Lakes Land Trust is likely to be made a mockery if Industrial Wind Towers are installed next door. This has serious financial as well as philosophical implications.
5. The piecemeal town-by-town development of IWT sites in New York State, of which Italy would become another instance, is not part of a well-thought-out proven strategy for alternative energy, but rather a mechanism whereby developers/investors reap the benefits of extraordinary tax credits with virtually no risk to themselves.
Our town is a mere pawn in this money-driven game - a money-driven game all too reminiscent of the obscene manner in which so-called financial service industries have made fortunes in the real estate, health care and other sectors of the economy at the expense of the rest of us, bringing on the recession now effecting county, country and world.
No amount of amenities can begin to offset the profound negative impacts of an Industrial Wind Farm on the special quality of life and environment in the Town of Italy. My family and I urge our elected representatives not to accept the proposed Wind Incentive Zone application.
Bill Barker, Chapman Road, Italy
To the editor:
My name is Bill Barker. My wife, Malla, and I have a home at 505 Chapman Road, off of Olney Road, which sits in the shadow of the proposed Industrial Wind Tower Incentive Zone on Clute Road. Like so many concerned Italy town resi¬dents, we'd like to voice our strong and telling opposition to the Ecogen Incentive Wind Energy Zone application. I would briefly cite five specific concerns:
1. The presence of flickering top-lighting from the very tall industrial towers would constitute a constant unsightly intrusion in the Italy area. This concern is not hypothetical as it is already apparent among the 20-plus IWTs in the Cohocton area readily visible travelling out of Italy en route to Naples, where one literally 'cannot see the forest for the wind towers.'
2. Well described noise emitted from the operating IWTs will deeply impact not only those of us in the immediate proximity, but others in Italy Valley.
3. There will be inevitable irretrievable decline in the complex of natural scenery that constitute the much-hailed beauty and serenity of Italy township. It is not insignificant that world-renowned composer Chuck Mangione's signature trumpet piece, "Hill Where The Lord Hides" was written while he was a guest of previous owners of our property, referencing the very land where IWTs would be located in the Wind Energy Incentive Zone. Such words would ring hollow if the proposed application is approved.
4. My application - and likely others — applying for Conservation Preservation Easement status with the Finger Lakes Land Trust is likely to be made a mockery if Industrial Wind Towers are installed next door. This has serious financial as well as philosophical implications.
5. The piecemeal town-by-town development of IWT sites in New York State, of which Italy would become another instance, is not part of a well-thought-out proven strategy for alternative energy, but rather a mechanism whereby developers/investors reap the benefits of extraordinary tax credits with virtually no risk to themselves.
Our town is a mere pawn in this money-driven game - a money-driven game all too reminiscent of the obscene manner in which so-called financial service industries have made fortunes in the real estate, health care and other sectors of the economy at the expense of the rest of us, bringing on the recession now effecting county, country and world.
No amount of amenities can begin to offset the profound negative impacts of an Industrial Wind Farm on the special quality of life and environment in the Town of Italy. My family and I urge our elected representatives not to accept the proposed Wind Incentive Zone application.
Bill Barker, Chapman Road, Italy
Wind opposition swirling in Perry
PERRY -- As a public hearing approaches on the proposed Dairy Hill Wind Farm's environmental study, a group of residents is again raising concerns.
Their issue isn't so much with the project's Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement, compared to the project itself.
They believe the planned wind farm would be inappropriate for the area, and that the town would ultimately be short-shrifted, despite any compensation sponsor Horizon Wind Energy is promising.
"Shadow flicker's a very annoying thing for the people that have to endure it, but people get off on these tangents with a specific impact on a locality," said Colleen Green, one of several residents who met last week at the home of Valary and Gerry Sahrle, who helped found Citizens for a Healthy Rural Neighborhood.
"The vast majority of people don't care so long as they're not affected," she continued. "So our major objection to these projects has always been financial."
The proposed Dairy Hills Wind Farm would include 38 wind turbines in Perry and Covington, which officials have said would produce up to 79.8 megawatts of electricity.
A public hearing on the project's supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be conducted 7 p.m. Monday at Perry High School Auditorium
The document outlines changes to the project representing a scaled-down version of what was originally proposed four years ago by Horizon Wind Energy. A total of 60 turbines had originally been proposed.
The SDEIS found that -- often through the project's physically reduced size -- anticipated noise, shadow flicker, and land impacts would be significantly reduced.
But the opponents last week maintain the town and its residents would still come up short.
Colleen and her husband, Dick Green, argue that the tax credits, subsidies and other incentives offered to wind developers such as Horizon far outweigh any financial compensation the host community and its residents will receive.
"Since our land is crucial to their project, shouldn't the town and its citizens get half of the revenue that is generated from the project?" Colleen Green said.
"Some people will allege this is greedy, but what is really greedy is a foreign-owned corporation exploiting a town for its own enrichment, and giving little in return for it," she continued. "In my opinion the Town Board is completely justified in turning down this project because Horizon and its foreign owners don't want to fairly compensate the town for hosting this project."
Horizon is a fully-owned subsidiary of Energias de Portugal, a major Portuguese utility.
She also alleges the Town Board has been treated unfairly, essentially being asked by the company to read massive documents in short periods of time. She maintains the smaller project is just a way for Horizon to "get its foot in the door" for future development of the original project goal of at least 120 megawatts.
She maintains allowing the reduced project would set a legal precedent for future proposals.
Dick Green said the couple was open-minded when it attended Horizon's first landowners meeting, but found the company's promises misleading, and questioned whether Payments-In-Lieu-Of-Taxes for such projects will ever end.
"To anybody who's not living in the area, the PILOT money sounds good," he said. "You can buy a new fire truck and whatever, but in reality, when these turbines are valued at something like $3 million apiece ..."
If a private property owner wanted to build a $3 million home but only wanted to pay a fraction of its taxes, the public would be upset, he said.
"I think people would be up in arms," he said. "But because of the magnitude of the project and the number of turbines involved, the money sounds good, and it's not. It's unfair, really, to the people.
"The devil is in the details," he continued. "I like the Wind Tamer turbine on Route 246. I like wind power. I don't like the industrial installations in a populated area. I think even (notable wind energy supporter) T. Boone Pickens has decided he's going to halt construction of his project."
Pickens has suspended his project, which was once much-publicized, noting a lack of transmission lines and a decrease in the price of natural gas as an energy source, not to mention ongoing economic slowdown.
But he has also noted his continued support for wind energy development, and is reportedly pursuing smaller projects.
Green noted the state -- despite its support for wind energy -- hasn't proposed such projects for public land, such as parks and otherwise.
He said he's likewise opposed aesthetically, noting the effect on landscapes such as near Sheldon and Wethersfield. He said he likes small turbines, solar arrays, and similar technology, believing the monetary benefits wouldn't be worth the visual pollution.
The other members object for similar reasons.
Resident Dennis Jason likewise favors arguably more-efficient and productive investments such as "clean coal" technology, as opposed to the proposed wind farm in a residential area.
He also noted the tax breaks and other subsidies such projects receive.
Valary Sahrle worries about the project's effect on property values. She said the few residents stuck in the project area who aren't receiving benefits could be stuck with the negative effects.
She said she and her husband's home represents their life's investment, and questions what would happen if they want to sell their home due to noise, flicker, or any other ill effects, but can't find a buyer.
"If Horizon can put up a project worth $160 million to $180 million, they can afford to insure or bond our homes for the present-day assessment value, so if we want to sell our home and we can't, let them pay," she said.
"If you had a choice of buying a home in the viewshed of a turbine, or the chance of buying a home in a town without the view of the turbines, which would you choose?" she continued. "It only makes common sense."
She and the other opponents worry about endless PILOTs, and the loss of income to local tax rolls.
They also cite the problems the town of Gainesville, village of Silver Springs and Letchworth Central School District encountered when Indeck's PILOT expired for its co-generation plant. The company then protested its assessment, setting up a long and frustrating legal process for the municipalities and school district.
Their issue isn't so much with the project's Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement, compared to the project itself.
They believe the planned wind farm would be inappropriate for the area, and that the town would ultimately be short-shrifted, despite any compensation sponsor Horizon Wind Energy is promising.
"Shadow flicker's a very annoying thing for the people that have to endure it, but people get off on these tangents with a specific impact on a locality," said Colleen Green, one of several residents who met last week at the home of Valary and Gerry Sahrle, who helped found Citizens for a Healthy Rural Neighborhood.
"The vast majority of people don't care so long as they're not affected," she continued. "So our major objection to these projects has always been financial."
The proposed Dairy Hills Wind Farm would include 38 wind turbines in Perry and Covington, which officials have said would produce up to 79.8 megawatts of electricity.
A public hearing on the project's supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be conducted 7 p.m. Monday at Perry High School Auditorium
The document outlines changes to the project representing a scaled-down version of what was originally proposed four years ago by Horizon Wind Energy. A total of 60 turbines had originally been proposed.
The SDEIS found that -- often through the project's physically reduced size -- anticipated noise, shadow flicker, and land impacts would be significantly reduced.
But the opponents last week maintain the town and its residents would still come up short.
Colleen and her husband, Dick Green, argue that the tax credits, subsidies and other incentives offered to wind developers such as Horizon far outweigh any financial compensation the host community and its residents will receive.
"Since our land is crucial to their project, shouldn't the town and its citizens get half of the revenue that is generated from the project?" Colleen Green said.
"Some people will allege this is greedy, but what is really greedy is a foreign-owned corporation exploiting a town for its own enrichment, and giving little in return for it," she continued. "In my opinion the Town Board is completely justified in turning down this project because Horizon and its foreign owners don't want to fairly compensate the town for hosting this project."
Horizon is a fully-owned subsidiary of Energias de Portugal, a major Portuguese utility.
She also alleges the Town Board has been treated unfairly, essentially being asked by the company to read massive documents in short periods of time. She maintains the smaller project is just a way for Horizon to "get its foot in the door" for future development of the original project goal of at least 120 megawatts.
She maintains allowing the reduced project would set a legal precedent for future proposals.
Dick Green said the couple was open-minded when it attended Horizon's first landowners meeting, but found the company's promises misleading, and questioned whether Payments-In-Lieu-Of-Taxes for such projects will ever end.
"To anybody who's not living in the area, the PILOT money sounds good," he said. "You can buy a new fire truck and whatever, but in reality, when these turbines are valued at something like $3 million apiece ..."
If a private property owner wanted to build a $3 million home but only wanted to pay a fraction of its taxes, the public would be upset, he said.
"I think people would be up in arms," he said. "But because of the magnitude of the project and the number of turbines involved, the money sounds good, and it's not. It's unfair, really, to the people.
"The devil is in the details," he continued. "I like the Wind Tamer turbine on Route 246. I like wind power. I don't like the industrial installations in a populated area. I think even (notable wind energy supporter) T. Boone Pickens has decided he's going to halt construction of his project."
Pickens has suspended his project, which was once much-publicized, noting a lack of transmission lines and a decrease in the price of natural gas as an energy source, not to mention ongoing economic slowdown.
But he has also noted his continued support for wind energy development, and is reportedly pursuing smaller projects.
Green noted the state -- despite its support for wind energy -- hasn't proposed such projects for public land, such as parks and otherwise.
He said he's likewise opposed aesthetically, noting the effect on landscapes such as near Sheldon and Wethersfield. He said he likes small turbines, solar arrays, and similar technology, believing the monetary benefits wouldn't be worth the visual pollution.
The other members object for similar reasons.
Resident Dennis Jason likewise favors arguably more-efficient and productive investments such as "clean coal" technology, as opposed to the proposed wind farm in a residential area.
He also noted the tax breaks and other subsidies such projects receive.
Valary Sahrle worries about the project's effect on property values. She said the few residents stuck in the project area who aren't receiving benefits could be stuck with the negative effects.
She said she and her husband's home represents their life's investment, and questions what would happen if they want to sell their home due to noise, flicker, or any other ill effects, but can't find a buyer.
"If Horizon can put up a project worth $160 million to $180 million, they can afford to insure or bond our homes for the present-day assessment value, so if we want to sell our home and we can't, let them pay," she said.
"If you had a choice of buying a home in the viewshed of a turbine, or the chance of buying a home in a town without the view of the turbines, which would you choose?" she continued. "It only makes common sense."
She and the other opponents worry about endless PILOTs, and the loss of income to local tax rolls.
They also cite the problems the town of Gainesville, village of Silver Springs and Letchworth Central School District encountered when Indeck's PILOT expired for its co-generation plant. The company then protested its assessment, setting up a long and frustrating legal process for the municipalities and school district.
Windpower in Vermont: Corporate colonialism and a wrecked landscape
As a writer and photographer, my mission is to promote knowledge and understanding about the earth and its natural history through words, images and ideas that convey a passion for nature and a sense of wonder about our planet. My most recent book is Wild New England, a Celebration of Our Region’s Natural Beauty. My next book, to be released this spring, is Thoreau’s New England. That’s the Thoreau of Walden fame, who wrote: “In wildness is the preservation of the world.”
Notice that he didn’t say, “In transforming the last scattered remnants of wildness into giant corporate industrial wind factories for the sole benefit of General Electric, Goldman Sachs, NRG Systems, Catamount Energy, etc. and their investors is the preservation of the world.”
Like many Vermonters I am an avid skier, hiker, snowshoer, paddler, hunter, fisherman, and road and mountain biker. And, like many of my fellow outdoor recreationalists who are adamantly opposed to giant corporate industrial wind, but who don’t dare speak out, I was hesitant when this magazine’s editor, Kate Carter, asked me to write this. Like meek lambs we have been silenced by an industry that has cynically but effectively co-opted the “green” mantle, portraying itself as “eco-friendly.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. As one Northeast Kingdom resident put it recently, the wind industrialists are “venture capitalists masquerading as environmentalists. There is only one reason these projects are planned in Vermont and that is financial gain. I might add at our pain.”
Right on. There is one reason these corporations exist, and only one reason: to make money for their investors. Period. Despite their rhetoric, they are not in business to make the world a better place. They are in business to make a profit. The only “green” thing about giant corporate industrial wind is the money flowing into their coffers (largely thanks to lavish government subsidies, i.e. your taxes and mine). No wonder the Catamount Energy website proclaims, “Business is brisk.”
And what do we get out of it? The usual benefits of corporate colonialism: a wrecked landscape. Ruined communities. State and local economies in tatters. Slaughtered wildlife. A special place destroyed.
A friend who is actually a wind developer in Idaho told me recently, “We expect to lose the first two or three rounds when communities resist us. But by the fourth or fifth round we wear out the opposition and we end up winning.” This is the same friend who jokes, “Money is the answer. Now, what was the question?”
Please see here to learn about the catastrophic costs of giant corporate industrial wind. The giant corporate industrial wind lobby wants you to think that by turning our mountaintops into industrial parks we will cut greenhouse emissions. That is not true. Giant wind turbines produce an occasional trickle of electricity, something Vermont currently obtains from non-greenhouse-gas-producing sources. Vermont produces the least CO2 of any state in the union. What CO2 you and I do produce mainly comes out of the tailpipes of our cars—something we can address without destroying our mountains.
Vermont currently obtains about 75 percent of its electricity from non-CO2-emitting Vermont Yankee and Hydro Quebec. The remainder comes from a variety of non-CO2-producing sources, such as local hydro and wood. Another 20-30 percent of our electricity could come from existing non-CO2-producing hydro plants on the Connecticut River that are currently sending the power to Massachusetts. However, this surplus is likely unnecessary as Vermont officials estimate that we can easily reduce our current electric usage by 30 percent through efficiency programs.
So any additional electricity that giant corporate industrial wind managed to squeeze out of our mountaintops would merely be excess power added to the New England grid, where it would end up fueling the wretched excess of our consumer culture: big box stores, suburban sprawl, the ghastly concrete and glass auto-centric wastelands in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Another thing that giant corporate industrial wind doesn’t want you to know is that even if you covered the Green Mountains with Boeing 747-sized turbines from Massachusetts to Quebec, or the entire Appalachians from Alabama to Newfoundland, you would not replace a single conventional power plant because wind power is so intermittent, unreliable, inefficient, and has no base-load capacity. You can’t store it, and you can’t depend upon it. Every kilowatt generated by wind must be backed up by a conventional source. In Germany, where there are no fewer than 14,500 industrial wind turbines, not a single fossil-fuel power station has been decommissioned.
The biggest energy source we can tap in Vermont is conservation. We do not need more electric energy sources. We do need to use all our resources more efficiently. We do not need to adopt giant corporate industrial wind’s attitude that we live in disposable communities in disposable landscapes. We do need to: Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. Restore. It’s an old-fashioned idea that still works.
Vermont was recently ranked by the National Geographic Society as 6th among the world’s most desirable destinations, selected for its unspoiled attractiveness, distinctive cultural character, and environmental stewardship. If those of us who live, work, and recreate here want to keep it this way, we need to speak out loudly against the powerful interests that threaten to destroy our home for absolutely no environmental or social benefit.
“In wildness is the preservation of the world.”
Stephen Gorman
Notice that he didn’t say, “In transforming the last scattered remnants of wildness into giant corporate industrial wind factories for the sole benefit of General Electric, Goldman Sachs, NRG Systems, Catamount Energy, etc. and their investors is the preservation of the world.”
Like many Vermonters I am an avid skier, hiker, snowshoer, paddler, hunter, fisherman, and road and mountain biker. And, like many of my fellow outdoor recreationalists who are adamantly opposed to giant corporate industrial wind, but who don’t dare speak out, I was hesitant when this magazine’s editor, Kate Carter, asked me to write this. Like meek lambs we have been silenced by an industry that has cynically but effectively co-opted the “green” mantle, portraying itself as “eco-friendly.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. As one Northeast Kingdom resident put it recently, the wind industrialists are “venture capitalists masquerading as environmentalists. There is only one reason these projects are planned in Vermont and that is financial gain. I might add at our pain.”
Right on. There is one reason these corporations exist, and only one reason: to make money for their investors. Period. Despite their rhetoric, they are not in business to make the world a better place. They are in business to make a profit. The only “green” thing about giant corporate industrial wind is the money flowing into their coffers (largely thanks to lavish government subsidies, i.e. your taxes and mine). No wonder the Catamount Energy website proclaims, “Business is brisk.”
And what do we get out of it? The usual benefits of corporate colonialism: a wrecked landscape. Ruined communities. State and local economies in tatters. Slaughtered wildlife. A special place destroyed.
A friend who is actually a wind developer in Idaho told me recently, “We expect to lose the first two or three rounds when communities resist us. But by the fourth or fifth round we wear out the opposition and we end up winning.” This is the same friend who jokes, “Money is the answer. Now, what was the question?”
Please see here to learn about the catastrophic costs of giant corporate industrial wind. The giant corporate industrial wind lobby wants you to think that by turning our mountaintops into industrial parks we will cut greenhouse emissions. That is not true. Giant wind turbines produce an occasional trickle of electricity, something Vermont currently obtains from non-greenhouse-gas-producing sources. Vermont produces the least CO2 of any state in the union. What CO2 you and I do produce mainly comes out of the tailpipes of our cars—something we can address without destroying our mountains.
Vermont currently obtains about 75 percent of its electricity from non-CO2-emitting Vermont Yankee and Hydro Quebec. The remainder comes from a variety of non-CO2-producing sources, such as local hydro and wood. Another 20-30 percent of our electricity could come from existing non-CO2-producing hydro plants on the Connecticut River that are currently sending the power to Massachusetts. However, this surplus is likely unnecessary as Vermont officials estimate that we can easily reduce our current electric usage by 30 percent through efficiency programs.
So any additional electricity that giant corporate industrial wind managed to squeeze out of our mountaintops would merely be excess power added to the New England grid, where it would end up fueling the wretched excess of our consumer culture: big box stores, suburban sprawl, the ghastly concrete and glass auto-centric wastelands in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Another thing that giant corporate industrial wind doesn’t want you to know is that even if you covered the Green Mountains with Boeing 747-sized turbines from Massachusetts to Quebec, or the entire Appalachians from Alabama to Newfoundland, you would not replace a single conventional power plant because wind power is so intermittent, unreliable, inefficient, and has no base-load capacity. You can’t store it, and you can’t depend upon it. Every kilowatt generated by wind must be backed up by a conventional source. In Germany, where there are no fewer than 14,500 industrial wind turbines, not a single fossil-fuel power station has been decommissioned.
The biggest energy source we can tap in Vermont is conservation. We do not need more electric energy sources. We do need to use all our resources more efficiently. We do not need to adopt giant corporate industrial wind’s attitude that we live in disposable communities in disposable landscapes. We do need to: Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. Restore. It’s an old-fashioned idea that still works.
Vermont was recently ranked by the National Geographic Society as 6th among the world’s most desirable destinations, selected for its unspoiled attractiveness, distinctive cultural character, and environmental stewardship. If those of us who live, work, and recreate here want to keep it this way, we need to speak out loudly against the powerful interests that threaten to destroy our home for absolutely no environmental or social benefit.
“In wildness is the preservation of the world.”
Stephen Gorman
Cape ZBA declares wind turbine illegal
CAPE VINCENT — Personal wind turbines taller than 35 feet are illegal, the town's Zoning Board of Appeals decided Monday.
The ZBA voted unanimously at its monthly meeting that Roger D. Alexander's 92-foot-tall residential wind turbine is in violation of the town's zoning law.
"It is theoretically a turbine, but we have nothing in the zoning laws to do with that," ZBA Chairman Edward P. Bender said. "So we're going to treat it as an accessory structure."
Section 585 of the zoning law, which deals with accessory structures on individual lots, limits the height of accessory structures to 35 feet.
However, the structure is not categorized as an accessory on Mr. Alexander's permit. The permit was issued by the town's zoning enforcement officer, Alan N. Wood, in May and was renewed in July.
"I don't know what I'm going to do," said Mr. Alexander, who erected a personal wind turbine in May next to his residence on County Route 7.
Mr. Alexander, owner of the Lazy Acres Mobile Home Park, said he spent several thousand dollars to build the turbine hoping it would reduce his utility bill. He did not receive any state rebates or tax breaks for the turbine and "every cent" came out of his own pocket, Mr. Alexander said.
To keep the turbine, Mr. Alexander will have to apply for a variance.
"I might have to hire a good lawyer," he said.
Mr. Wood said he asked both the zoning and planning boards if there was anything in the town's law stopping Mr. Alexander from putting up a residential wind tower. At that time, he was told there were no rules for setbacks and heights for residential wind turbines in the zoning ordinance.
Mary C. Grogan, Mr. Alexander's neighbor who filed a complaint with the ZBA, said she was pleased with the outcome of the ZBA meeting and hopes the turbine will be taken down.
"I'm glad they determined it's in violation," she said. "It's a big step."
Ms. Grogan, County Route 7, sent two letters to the town's ZBA arguing that Mr. Alexander's turbine is too tall and too close to her residence. The turbine is 108 feet from Ms. Grogan's property line, according to Mr. Wood.
Ms. Grogan said she also might hire a lawyer if the ZBA refuses to order Mr. Alexander to get rid of his turbine.
The ZBA will hold a hearing for Ms. Grogan and Mr. Alexander at its next meeting, at 7 p.m. Sept. 14 at the town offices on Route 12E.
The ZBA voted unanimously at its monthly meeting that Roger D. Alexander's 92-foot-tall residential wind turbine is in violation of the town's zoning law.
"It is theoretically a turbine, but we have nothing in the zoning laws to do with that," ZBA Chairman Edward P. Bender said. "So we're going to treat it as an accessory structure."
Section 585 of the zoning law, which deals with accessory structures on individual lots, limits the height of accessory structures to 35 feet.
However, the structure is not categorized as an accessory on Mr. Alexander's permit. The permit was issued by the town's zoning enforcement officer, Alan N. Wood, in May and was renewed in July.
"I don't know what I'm going to do," said Mr. Alexander, who erected a personal wind turbine in May next to his residence on County Route 7.
Mr. Alexander, owner of the Lazy Acres Mobile Home Park, said he spent several thousand dollars to build the turbine hoping it would reduce his utility bill. He did not receive any state rebates or tax breaks for the turbine and "every cent" came out of his own pocket, Mr. Alexander said.
To keep the turbine, Mr. Alexander will have to apply for a variance.
"I might have to hire a good lawyer," he said.
Mr. Wood said he asked both the zoning and planning boards if there was anything in the town's law stopping Mr. Alexander from putting up a residential wind tower. At that time, he was told there were no rules for setbacks and heights for residential wind turbines in the zoning ordinance.
Mary C. Grogan, Mr. Alexander's neighbor who filed a complaint with the ZBA, said she was pleased with the outcome of the ZBA meeting and hopes the turbine will be taken down.
"I'm glad they determined it's in violation," she said. "It's a big step."
Ms. Grogan, County Route 7, sent two letters to the town's ZBA arguing that Mr. Alexander's turbine is too tall and too close to her residence. The turbine is 108 feet from Ms. Grogan's property line, according to Mr. Wood.
Ms. Grogan said she also might hire a lawyer if the ZBA refuses to order Mr. Alexander to get rid of his turbine.
The ZBA will hold a hearing for Ms. Grogan and Mr. Alexander at its next meeting, at 7 p.m. Sept. 14 at the town offices on Route 12E.
NYPA: Power to upstate will be topic of hearings
Proposed contract extensions for the continued sale by the New York Power Authority ]of low-cost hydropower from the authority’s Niagara and St. Lawrence-Franklin D. Roosevelt power projects to three upstate utilities will be the subject of public hearings in September in Lewiston and Syracuse.
The NYPA Trustees last week approved the hearings in connection with the continued sale of 455 megawatts of firm power and 360 megawatts of firm peaking power through December 2010. The power, sold at cost-based rates, is provided to National Grid, New York State Electric and Gas, and Rochester Gas and Electric for their residential and small farm customers, under the state Public Authorities law.
Firm power is defined as power intended to be available at all times, while firm peaking power is generation to satisfy demand for electricity during hours of greatest usage.
The hydropower is provided to the utilities at rates typically 75 percent less than market prices, with the benefits passed onto the residential and small farm customers. The power is among the least-cost in the country.
In June 2008, the NYPA trustees extended the contracts with the utilities through December 2009. This followed contract extensions in 2007.
The proposed contract extensions, from Jan. 1 through Dec. 31, will be submitted to Gov. David A. Paterson for his consideration following the hearings. The hearings will be held at 2 p.m. Sept. 1 at the Niagara Power Project Power Vista at 5777 Lewiston Road in Lewiston and on Sept. 2 at Syracuse City Hall.
The proposed agreements are available on NYPA’s Web site at www.nypa.gov by clicking onto the link “September Public Hearings on Hydro Contracts.”
The NYPA Trustees last week approved the hearings in connection with the continued sale of 455 megawatts of firm power and 360 megawatts of firm peaking power through December 2010. The power, sold at cost-based rates, is provided to National Grid, New York State Electric and Gas, and Rochester Gas and Electric for their residential and small farm customers, under the state Public Authorities law.
Firm power is defined as power intended to be available at all times, while firm peaking power is generation to satisfy demand for electricity during hours of greatest usage.
The hydropower is provided to the utilities at rates typically 75 percent less than market prices, with the benefits passed onto the residential and small farm customers. The power is among the least-cost in the country.
In June 2008, the NYPA trustees extended the contracts with the utilities through December 2009. This followed contract extensions in 2007.
The proposed contract extensions, from Jan. 1 through Dec. 31, will be submitted to Gov. David A. Paterson for his consideration following the hearings. The hearings will be held at 2 p.m. Sept. 1 at the Niagara Power Project Power Vista at 5777 Lewiston Road in Lewiston and on Sept. 2 at Syracuse City Hall.
The proposed agreements are available on NYPA’s Web site at www.nypa.gov by clicking onto the link “September Public Hearings on Hydro Contracts.”
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
State Energy Planning Process - Public Hearing Schedule now available
Please be advised that the Public Hearing Schedule for the 2009 Draft New York State Energy Plan is now available on the State Energy Plan website http://www.nysenergyplan.com
Nine public hearings will be held across the State, including three held during evening hours and one scheduled for a Saturday. Each hearing will be four hours in length. Members of the Public wishing to address the Board are encouraged to pre-register through the link on the homepage of the website; however, walk-ins will be allowed to speak as long as there is time remaining in the hearing time frame.
Prior to the start of each hearing, a brief address will be given to provide general information and hearing rules. General public hearing rules include:
* Upon arrival, speakers are required to sign-in, indicating whether they have pre-registered.
* Each speaker will be given 5 minutes to address the Board. After all speakers have had a chance to address the Board, repeat speakers may be afforded another five minutes.
* Formal presentations (PowerPoint, etc) will not be allowed.
* As this is a "statement hearing", the Planning Board will not entertain substantive questions about the Draft Energy Plan.
* Speakers can submit written comments via the State Energy Plan website, and Planning Board staff will accept written comments at the hearings so long as the comments are relevant to the State Energy Plan.
The Planning Board anticipates releasing the Draft New York State Energy Plan documents on August 10, 2009 through the Planning website. An email will go out announcing the release.
Nine public hearings will be held across the State, including three held during evening hours and one scheduled for a Saturday. Each hearing will be four hours in length. Members of the Public wishing to address the Board are encouraged to pre-register through the link on the homepage of the website; however, walk-ins will be allowed to speak as long as there is time remaining in the hearing time frame.
Prior to the start of each hearing, a brief address will be given to provide general information and hearing rules. General public hearing rules include:
* Upon arrival, speakers are required to sign-in, indicating whether they have pre-registered.
* Each speaker will be given 5 minutes to address the Board. After all speakers have had a chance to address the Board, repeat speakers may be afforded another five minutes.
* Formal presentations (PowerPoint, etc) will not be allowed.
* As this is a "statement hearing", the Planning Board will not entertain substantive questions about the Draft Energy Plan.
* Speakers can submit written comments via the State Energy Plan website, and Planning Board staff will accept written comments at the hearings so long as the comments are relevant to the State Energy Plan.
The Planning Board anticipates releasing the Draft New York State Energy Plan documents on August 10, 2009 through the Planning website. An email will go out announcing the release.
Group challenges wind permit claiming pressure from state
LINCOLN, Maine -- The Friends of Lincoln Lakes will argue on Thursday that political pressure from the Baldacci administration forced the Maine Department of Environmental Protection to issue a permit far too soon for the proposed $130 million Rollins Mountain wind farm, its attorney said.
Bar Harbor lawyer Lynne Williams, a Maine Green Independent Party candidate for governor in 2010, said she and her clients believe DEP officials ignored "a lot of really important evidence" in their rush to comply with new state laws that fast-track industrial wind site proposals.
"What I am going to do is argue Thursday that there is such pressure from the administration in Augusta being put on the DEP to approve these projects quickly that they, in the process of approving this, ignored a lot of really important evidence," Williams said Monday.
Under the state law, such projects can be reviewed in as little as 185 days. The project proposed by First Wind of Massachusetts to build 40 1 1/2 -megawatt wind turbines on Rollins Mountain ridgelines in Burlington, Lee, Lincoln and Winn was submitted Oct. 30 and approved April 21, Williams said.
"If they were to hold a public hearing, the period of time allotted is 270 days, and they denied us a public hearing," Williams said. "Public hearings can be held if credible, conflicting scientific or technical evidence exists. The commissioner 1/8of DEP3/8 wrote us a letter saying that there’s none, and there’s tons.
"There is a lot of scientific information that suggests that siting facilities near residential homes can impact health of people in the homes," she said.
The appeal is the first in Maine of a permit granted an industrial wind-to-energy site. With Burlington having approved a tax increment financing agreement with First Wind on Saturday, the project lacks only an approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and financial backing that would pay for its construction, said John Lamontagne, a spokesman for the company.
Proponents have praised First Wind as a conscientious creator of wind power, saying the Lincoln Lakes project would create as much as 60 megawatts of pollution-free electricity in peak winds.
The Friends group contends that the turbines would lower land values and threaten human and animal health with light flicker and low-decibel sound, disrupt the pastoral nature of Rollins and typically generate a fraction of their capacity.
"The issue isn’t loudness. The issue is low-frequency vibrations from the noise. They ignored that," Williams said of the DEP.
In its 64-page report approving the project, DEP reviewers found "that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed project will provide significant tangible benefits to the host community and surrounding area."
The agency largely dismissed the group’s argument for lack of evidence. Of the two nonproject dwellings that will be affected by light flicker, according to the DEP report, one would see less than 17 hours of flicker a year. The second would get 40 hours annually "if no reductions occurred due to cloud cover, fog, wind direc-tion, or vegetation."
EnRad Consulting, a third-party evaluator the DEP hired to review First Wind’s noise assessment, found that the company’s work "is essentially reasonable and technically correct according to standard engineering practices" and state regulations. It "yields reasonably conservative estimates for hourly sound levels," the depart-ment’s report states.
EnRad rejected Friends arguments that turbine sounds and subsonic vibrations would disrupt sleep, saying that the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention "finds no evidence in peer-reviewed medical and public health literature of adverse health effects from the kinds of noise and vibrations associated with wind tur-bines other than occasional reports of annoyances."
The Lincoln-based property owners’ group will argue before the Board of Environmental Protection at 1 p.m. Thursday at the Holiday Inn-Ground Round conference center on Community Drive in Augusta, said Cindy Bertocci, an executive analyst for the board.
The board consists of 10 residents appointed by the governor to hear appeals of DEP permits and decisions, Bertocci said.
"They are not taking testimony from the general public. The board will hear from the Friends, 1/8and3/8 the licensee in response to the issues raised. The board will ask questions of the parties," she said. "The department staff will make recommendation and the board will deliberate and vote."
The vote likely will occur on Thursday.
Bar Harbor lawyer Lynne Williams, a Maine Green Independent Party candidate for governor in 2010, said she and her clients believe DEP officials ignored "a lot of really important evidence" in their rush to comply with new state laws that fast-track industrial wind site proposals.
"What I am going to do is argue Thursday that there is such pressure from the administration in Augusta being put on the DEP to approve these projects quickly that they, in the process of approving this, ignored a lot of really important evidence," Williams said Monday.
Under the state law, such projects can be reviewed in as little as 185 days. The project proposed by First Wind of Massachusetts to build 40 1 1/2 -megawatt wind turbines on Rollins Mountain ridgelines in Burlington, Lee, Lincoln and Winn was submitted Oct. 30 and approved April 21, Williams said.
"If they were to hold a public hearing, the period of time allotted is 270 days, and they denied us a public hearing," Williams said. "Public hearings can be held if credible, conflicting scientific or technical evidence exists. The commissioner 1/8of DEP3/8 wrote us a letter saying that there’s none, and there’s tons.
"There is a lot of scientific information that suggests that siting facilities near residential homes can impact health of people in the homes," she said.
The appeal is the first in Maine of a permit granted an industrial wind-to-energy site. With Burlington having approved a tax increment financing agreement with First Wind on Saturday, the project lacks only an approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and financial backing that would pay for its construction, said John Lamontagne, a spokesman for the company.
Proponents have praised First Wind as a conscientious creator of wind power, saying the Lincoln Lakes project would create as much as 60 megawatts of pollution-free electricity in peak winds.
The Friends group contends that the turbines would lower land values and threaten human and animal health with light flicker and low-decibel sound, disrupt the pastoral nature of Rollins and typically generate a fraction of their capacity.
"The issue isn’t loudness. The issue is low-frequency vibrations from the noise. They ignored that," Williams said of the DEP.
In its 64-page report approving the project, DEP reviewers found "that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed project will provide significant tangible benefits to the host community and surrounding area."
The agency largely dismissed the group’s argument for lack of evidence. Of the two nonproject dwellings that will be affected by light flicker, according to the DEP report, one would see less than 17 hours of flicker a year. The second would get 40 hours annually "if no reductions occurred due to cloud cover, fog, wind direc-tion, or vegetation."
EnRad Consulting, a third-party evaluator the DEP hired to review First Wind’s noise assessment, found that the company’s work "is essentially reasonable and technically correct according to standard engineering practices" and state regulations. It "yields reasonably conservative estimates for hourly sound levels," the depart-ment’s report states.
EnRad rejected Friends arguments that turbine sounds and subsonic vibrations would disrupt sleep, saying that the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention "finds no evidence in peer-reviewed medical and public health literature of adverse health effects from the kinds of noise and vibrations associated with wind tur-bines other than occasional reports of annoyances."
The Lincoln-based property owners’ group will argue before the Board of Environmental Protection at 1 p.m. Thursday at the Holiday Inn-Ground Round conference center on Community Drive in Augusta, said Cindy Bertocci, an executive analyst for the board.
The board consists of 10 residents appointed by the governor to hear appeals of DEP permits and decisions, Bertocci said.
"They are not taking testimony from the general public. The board will hear from the Friends, 1/8and3/8 the licensee in response to the issues raised. The board will ask questions of the parties," she said. "The department staff will make recommendation and the board will deliberate and vote."
The vote likely will occur on Thursday.
Wind Turbine Syndrome: Living Near Wind Farms May Be Hazardous to Your Health
Here’s some more fodder for the Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) crowd: A doctor says she’s conducted research that suggests that people living close to wind turbines are susceptible to what she calls Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS), an illness with symptoms including sleep disorders, heart disease, panic attacks and headaches, the Independent reports this weekend. So literally, a wind turbine in your backyard could be hazardous to your health.
Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician based in New York, studied 10 families who lived close to wind farms, and says eight out of the 10 ended up moving away from their homes because of WTS-related illnesses. That’s a small survey sample, but it’s a continuation of research done by other scientists in the field. Pierpont recommends that wind turbines should be built at least 2 kilometers (a little over a mile) away from people’s homes, and she tells the Independent that: “It is irresponsible of the wind turbine companies — and governments — to continue building wind turbines so close to where people live until there has been a proper epidemiological investigation of the full impact on human health.”
The problem, according to Pierpont, is that the wind farms emit a constant low-frequency vibration and noise, which human beings are sensitive to (not unlike fish’s sensitivity to noise in the water) and the wind farm vibrations can disrupt the inner ear’s vestibular system (responsible for balance and spatial orientation). Over a sustained period of time, people living too close to the wind farms can develop a disorder related to the inner ear disruption, WTS, which can cause nervousness, heart disorders, nightmares, problems and even cognitive development issues in small children.
Other researchers, from Salford University and UK government agencies, have previously said that noise and vibrations from wind turbines do not cause health problems, says the Independent, so it will be interesting to see how the scientific community responds to Pierpont’s latest research. While Pierpont’s research sounds plausible, her reactionary comparisons, do her a disservice:
The wind industry will try to discredit me and disparage me, but I can cope with that. This is not unlike the tobacco industry dismissing health issues from smoking.
The tobacco industry covering up cancer from smoking, one of the biggest causes of preventable death in the world, is a slightly larger problem (yes, that’s sarcastic) than an industry just learning about the possibility of panic attacks caused by wind turbines. But if the research is reproduced and backed up by further studies, it could actually have a big effect on the siting and zoning of wind farms — a 2-kilometer buffer between wind farms and buildings is substantial. It’s not like we needed more reasons to slow down the installation of clean power, but if there’s merit to the findings, they should be taken seriously.
Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician based in New York, studied 10 families who lived close to wind farms, and says eight out of the 10 ended up moving away from their homes because of WTS-related illnesses. That’s a small survey sample, but it’s a continuation of research done by other scientists in the field. Pierpont recommends that wind turbines should be built at least 2 kilometers (a little over a mile) away from people’s homes, and she tells the Independent that: “It is irresponsible of the wind turbine companies — and governments — to continue building wind turbines so close to where people live until there has been a proper epidemiological investigation of the full impact on human health.”
The problem, according to Pierpont, is that the wind farms emit a constant low-frequency vibration and noise, which human beings are sensitive to (not unlike fish’s sensitivity to noise in the water) and the wind farm vibrations can disrupt the inner ear’s vestibular system (responsible for balance and spatial orientation). Over a sustained period of time, people living too close to the wind farms can develop a disorder related to the inner ear disruption, WTS, which can cause nervousness, heart disorders, nightmares, problems and even cognitive development issues in small children.
Other researchers, from Salford University and UK government agencies, have previously said that noise and vibrations from wind turbines do not cause health problems, says the Independent, so it will be interesting to see how the scientific community responds to Pierpont’s latest research. While Pierpont’s research sounds plausible, her reactionary comparisons, do her a disservice:
The wind industry will try to discredit me and disparage me, but I can cope with that. This is not unlike the tobacco industry dismissing health issues from smoking.
The tobacco industry covering up cancer from smoking, one of the biggest causes of preventable death in the world, is a slightly larger problem (yes, that’s sarcastic) than an industry just learning about the possibility of panic attacks caused by wind turbines. But if the research is reproduced and backed up by further studies, it could actually have a big effect on the siting and zoning of wind farms — a 2-kilometer buffer between wind farms and buildings is substantial. It’s not like we needed more reasons to slow down the installation of clean power, but if there’s merit to the findings, they should be taken seriously.
In response to the migration of slag
Editor:
Response to Supervisor John Knab on migration of slag to Orangeville:
At what point does it become a matter of personal responsibility to stand up and speak out to preserve the priceless beauty and health of a God-given resource that once irreversibly damaged by corporate and political greed can never be replaced?
Since questions have been raised at a Sheldon July 2009 Town meeting regarding some of the taxpaying citizens of Orangeville, questioning the movement of industrial Waste -- "slag" (and or materials that have been in contact with the slag) --- from former Bethlehem Steel brownfield Lackawanna site dumped into Sheldon agricultural farmfields and recently moved to the Town of Orangeville.
Since the same corporate giant Invenergy is currently attempting to pursue a project in Orangeville despite much local opposition, as evidenced by the well-documented evidence provided to the Town Board at the Orangeville public hearing May 7, 2009, showing negative environmental impacts, alarms were raised in Orangeville, on subsequent witnessing of material from Sheldon access turbine sites being moved to two different sites in Orangeville on Hermitage Road by a local contractor. The controversy over this "slag" from the Bethlehem Steel brownfield site of Lackawanna being moved by Invenergy into Sheldon being well publicized in the fall of 2008.
Orangeville's sister town of Sheldon to the west once shared the pristine beauty that many of us in Orangeville are now zealously protecting after seeing the careless way it was thrown to the corporate wolves for a few pieces of silver by some government bureaucrats and some financially vested landowners. Now after the introduction of industrial-scale wind turbines and high voltage switchyards and transformers to Sheldon, and the dumping of thousands of tons of industrial waste from the 100 year-old industrial steel site into the agricultural fields where food is grown or cattle graze ... we, who wish to preserve the rural character of Orangeville and who value our health, safety and welfare, choose to exercise our rights as a democratic society and therefore stand up and speak out as necessary to preserve this land that is the Orangeville that we love. Because you do not agree with our stance Mr. Supervisor Knab, it does not make good political sense for you to label us as troublemakers at your public meeting for making inquiries from the proper channels, the Department of Environmental Conservation. Consider this: According to Buffalo News article dated July 6, 2009, DEC targets Lackawanna sludge, "Forty pockets of contamination on the site of the former Bethlehem Steel Corp. in Lackawanna are being targeted by the State Department of Environmental Conservation .... According to the DEC, contaminants were found near the former coke plant and the fuel storage and 'Slag Fill' areas, where wastes from steel making operations were spilled or disposed of for many years by Bethlehem Steel. ... "
So you see why concerned Orangeville taxpayers would wonder ... when and where did the DEC clean up and sort through the material from Bethlehem Steel that was mixed together with the topsoil, gravel and slag in the fields of Sheldon ... usually gravel is trucked to special sites for cleaning and acid-washing before being approved for uses ... since the Orangeville local contractor was seen by many people having this material loaded in Sheldon from landowner turbine access road sites, into his labeled company trucks and dumped in two different places that our people observed in Orangeville on Hermitage Road and one being his private acreage site back through a wooded road where the storage is not visible in Orangeville? Is this contractor registered or certified to haul hazardous waste or to conduct environmental clean-ups?
What does he intend to do with this mix? Is he hoping to re-use this questionable material for a possible Orangeville wind project with the same company Invenergy that is attempting to do business in Orangeville? Or will it end up as fill around the area at excavation sites, used as driveways or possibly for fill in some unsuspecting property owner's farm or backyard? Would he be willing to have a full panel of heavy metal testing and for 27 possible contaminants at his expense with an independent firm of the people's choice? And would he open his doors for an environmental audit and disclose where he intends to dump materials obtained from these Sheldon turbine sites?
Cathi Orr and concerned Orangeville taxpayers and property owners Orangeville
Response to Supervisor John Knab on migration of slag to Orangeville:
At what point does it become a matter of personal responsibility to stand up and speak out to preserve the priceless beauty and health of a God-given resource that once irreversibly damaged by corporate and political greed can never be replaced?
Since questions have been raised at a Sheldon July 2009 Town meeting regarding some of the taxpaying citizens of Orangeville, questioning the movement of industrial Waste -- "slag" (and or materials that have been in contact with the slag) --- from former Bethlehem Steel brownfield Lackawanna site dumped into Sheldon agricultural farmfields and recently moved to the Town of Orangeville.
Since the same corporate giant Invenergy is currently attempting to pursue a project in Orangeville despite much local opposition, as evidenced by the well-documented evidence provided to the Town Board at the Orangeville public hearing May 7, 2009, showing negative environmental impacts, alarms were raised in Orangeville, on subsequent witnessing of material from Sheldon access turbine sites being moved to two different sites in Orangeville on Hermitage Road by a local contractor. The controversy over this "slag" from the Bethlehem Steel brownfield site of Lackawanna being moved by Invenergy into Sheldon being well publicized in the fall of 2008.
Orangeville's sister town of Sheldon to the west once shared the pristine beauty that many of us in Orangeville are now zealously protecting after seeing the careless way it was thrown to the corporate wolves for a few pieces of silver by some government bureaucrats and some financially vested landowners. Now after the introduction of industrial-scale wind turbines and high voltage switchyards and transformers to Sheldon, and the dumping of thousands of tons of industrial waste from the 100 year-old industrial steel site into the agricultural fields where food is grown or cattle graze ... we, who wish to preserve the rural character of Orangeville and who value our health, safety and welfare, choose to exercise our rights as a democratic society and therefore stand up and speak out as necessary to preserve this land that is the Orangeville that we love. Because you do not agree with our stance Mr. Supervisor Knab, it does not make good political sense for you to label us as troublemakers at your public meeting for making inquiries from the proper channels, the Department of Environmental Conservation. Consider this: According to Buffalo News article dated July 6, 2009, DEC targets Lackawanna sludge, "Forty pockets of contamination on the site of the former Bethlehem Steel Corp. in Lackawanna are being targeted by the State Department of Environmental Conservation .... According to the DEC, contaminants were found near the former coke plant and the fuel storage and 'Slag Fill' areas, where wastes from steel making operations were spilled or disposed of for many years by Bethlehem Steel. ... "
So you see why concerned Orangeville taxpayers would wonder ... when and where did the DEC clean up and sort through the material from Bethlehem Steel that was mixed together with the topsoil, gravel and slag in the fields of Sheldon ... usually gravel is trucked to special sites for cleaning and acid-washing before being approved for uses ... since the Orangeville local contractor was seen by many people having this material loaded in Sheldon from landowner turbine access road sites, into his labeled company trucks and dumped in two different places that our people observed in Orangeville on Hermitage Road and one being his private acreage site back through a wooded road where the storage is not visible in Orangeville? Is this contractor registered or certified to haul hazardous waste or to conduct environmental clean-ups?
What does he intend to do with this mix? Is he hoping to re-use this questionable material for a possible Orangeville wind project with the same company Invenergy that is attempting to do business in Orangeville? Or will it end up as fill around the area at excavation sites, used as driveways or possibly for fill in some unsuspecting property owner's farm or backyard? Would he be willing to have a full panel of heavy metal testing and for 27 possible contaminants at his expense with an independent firm of the people's choice? And would he open his doors for an environmental audit and disclose where he intends to dump materials obtained from these Sheldon turbine sites?
Cathi Orr and concerned Orangeville taxpayers and property owners Orangeville
Clean-energy windmills a 'dirty business' for farmers in Mexico
The windmills stand in rows like an army of Goliaths, steel towers taller than the Statue of Liberty and topped with blades as long as a jetliner's wing. The blades whoosh through the humid air, carving energy from a wind that rushes across Mexico's Isthmus of Tehuantepec on its journey from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. Nearly every day, another tower rises out of the countryside.
The isthmus — Mexico's narrowest point — is becoming the Saudi Arabia of alternative energy as U.S. and European companies, emboldened by new technology and high oil prices, rush to stake their claims in one of the world's windiest places. The Mexican government wants the isthmus to produce 2,500 megawatts within three years, a goal that will require thousands of windmills and would catapult Mexico into the top 12 producers of wind energy.
"This is one of the finest wind areas in the world, and they are being very ambitious about developing it," said Martin Pasqualetti, an expert on renewable energy at Arizona State University who has studied the region. "They're trying to do in five years what California took 35 years to do."
But the energy gold rush has also brought discord, as building crews slice through irrigation canals, divide pastures and cover crops with dust. Some farmers complain they were tricked into renting their land for as little as $46 an acre annually.
(Click to read entire article)
The isthmus — Mexico's narrowest point — is becoming the Saudi Arabia of alternative energy as U.S. and European companies, emboldened by new technology and high oil prices, rush to stake their claims in one of the world's windiest places. The Mexican government wants the isthmus to produce 2,500 megawatts within three years, a goal that will require thousands of windmills and would catapult Mexico into the top 12 producers of wind energy.
"This is one of the finest wind areas in the world, and they are being very ambitious about developing it," said Martin Pasqualetti, an expert on renewable energy at Arizona State University who has studied the region. "They're trying to do in five years what California took 35 years to do."
But the energy gold rush has also brought discord, as building crews slice through irrigation canals, divide pastures and cover crops with dust. Some farmers complain they were tricked into renting their land for as little as $46 an acre annually.
(Click to read entire article)
Monday, August 03, 2009
Steuben wind developers agree to ethical code
ALBANY— A new Wind Industry Ethics Code is now in place in New York, with a total of 16 wind companies agreeing to abide by the document drawn up by Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo office.
The code calls for oversight through an advisory task force and "unprecedented transparency" to deter improper relationships between wind development companies and local government officials, according to a press release issued by Cuomo's office Wednesday.
Developers with projects in Steuben County agreeing to the new ethics code include First Wind (towns of Cohocton and Prattsburgh), Ecogen Wind, LLC (Town of Prattsburgh), E.on Climate and Renewables North America, Inc. (Town of Hartsville), and Everpower Wind Holdings, Inc. (Town of Howard).
Pattern Energy Group Holdings, which now finances Ecogen, also signed the ethics code.
"Wind power has enormous environmental and economic potential for New York and it is critical that this industry continues to grow without the suspicion or shadow of public corruption or anything else outside the law," Cuomo said, in a prepared statement.
The code: • Bans wind companies from hiring municipal employees or their relatives, giving gifts of more than $10 during a one-year period, or providing any other form of compensation that is contingent on any action before a municipal agency
• Prevents wind companies from soliciting, using, or knowingly receiving confidential information acquired by a municipal officer in the course of his or her official duties
• Requires wind companies to establish and maintain a public Web site to disclose the names of all municipal officers or their relatives who have a financial stake in wind farm development
• Requires wind companies to submit in writing to the municipal clerk for public inspection, and to publish in the local newspaper, the nature and scope of the municipal officer's financial interest
• Mandates that all wind easements and leases be in writing and filed with the County Clerk
• Dictates that within sixty days of signing the Wind Industry Ethics Code, companies must conduct a seminar for employees about identifying and preventing conflicts of interest when working with municipal employees
The ethics code was the result of growing concerns regarding the industry's ethics in the state, especially in dealing with largely rural communities without zoning ordinances.
First Wind, formerly known as UPC and GlobalWinds Harvest, was one of two developers cited by Cuomo's office late last year for alleged ethical violations. First Wind operates a wind farm in the town of Cohocton, and has a 50-turbine project slated for the town of Prattsburgh..
The second developer cited by the AG last year, Noble Environmental Power, LLC, was the subject of an investigation by Franklin County District Attorney Derek P. Champagne.
Champagne is a member of the task force charged with monitoring whether the code is adhered to by developers. Other members of the task force include district attorneys from Monroe and Wyoming counties, and the executive directors of county and town associations.
Both First Wind and Noble signed the document earlier this year.
All four local developers have been the subject of numerous lawsuits filed by residents alleging improper conduct.
A spokesman for the Attorney General's office said investigations into any allegations is ongoing.
Among concerns raised by residents is the state's willingness to act against wind developers, given the mandates by both Republican Gov. George Pataki and Democratic Governor David Paterson to build wind facilities in the state.
The New York State Energy Research Development Authority estimates that wind power has the potential to provide 20 percent of the state's electricity demand and a 2005 report by the state
Comptroller's Office estimates the industry could add 43,000 jobs in New York by 2013.
Locally, developers have estimated each wind farm will hire two or three permanent workers.
The code calls for oversight through an advisory task force and "unprecedented transparency" to deter improper relationships between wind development companies and local government officials, according to a press release issued by Cuomo's office Wednesday.
Developers with projects in Steuben County agreeing to the new ethics code include First Wind (towns of Cohocton and Prattsburgh), Ecogen Wind, LLC (Town of Prattsburgh), E.on Climate and Renewables North America, Inc. (Town of Hartsville), and Everpower Wind Holdings, Inc. (Town of Howard).
Pattern Energy Group Holdings, which now finances Ecogen, also signed the ethics code.
"Wind power has enormous environmental and economic potential for New York and it is critical that this industry continues to grow without the suspicion or shadow of public corruption or anything else outside the law," Cuomo said, in a prepared statement.
The code: • Bans wind companies from hiring municipal employees or their relatives, giving gifts of more than $10 during a one-year period, or providing any other form of compensation that is contingent on any action before a municipal agency
• Prevents wind companies from soliciting, using, or knowingly receiving confidential information acquired by a municipal officer in the course of his or her official duties
• Requires wind companies to establish and maintain a public Web site to disclose the names of all municipal officers or their relatives who have a financial stake in wind farm development
• Requires wind companies to submit in writing to the municipal clerk for public inspection, and to publish in the local newspaper, the nature and scope of the municipal officer's financial interest
• Mandates that all wind easements and leases be in writing and filed with the County Clerk
• Dictates that within sixty days of signing the Wind Industry Ethics Code, companies must conduct a seminar for employees about identifying and preventing conflicts of interest when working with municipal employees
The ethics code was the result of growing concerns regarding the industry's ethics in the state, especially in dealing with largely rural communities without zoning ordinances.
First Wind, formerly known as UPC and GlobalWinds Harvest, was one of two developers cited by Cuomo's office late last year for alleged ethical violations. First Wind operates a wind farm in the town of Cohocton, and has a 50-turbine project slated for the town of Prattsburgh..
The second developer cited by the AG last year, Noble Environmental Power, LLC, was the subject of an investigation by Franklin County District Attorney Derek P. Champagne.
Champagne is a member of the task force charged with monitoring whether the code is adhered to by developers. Other members of the task force include district attorneys from Monroe and Wyoming counties, and the executive directors of county and town associations.
Both First Wind and Noble signed the document earlier this year.
All four local developers have been the subject of numerous lawsuits filed by residents alleging improper conduct.
A spokesman for the Attorney General's office said investigations into any allegations is ongoing.
Among concerns raised by residents is the state's willingness to act against wind developers, given the mandates by both Republican Gov. George Pataki and Democratic Governor David Paterson to build wind facilities in the state.
The New York State Energy Research Development Authority estimates that wind power has the potential to provide 20 percent of the state's electricity demand and a 2005 report by the state
Comptroller's Office estimates the industry could add 43,000 jobs in New York by 2013.
Locally, developers have estimated each wind farm will hire two or three permanent workers.
Is it dangerous to live close to wind turbines?
Northern Ireland’s potential to lead the way on green power could be threatened by fears of health dangers to people living near wind turbines.
Renewable energy experts have pointed out that Northern Ireland is ideally placed to capitalise on wind and wave energy, cutting its heavy reliance on imported power — but the race to go green could be held up by damning new research from a leading New York paediatrician.
Dr Nina Pierpoint has warned that living too close to wind turbines can cause heart disease, tinnitus, vertigo, panic attacks, migraines and sleep deprivation in groundbreaking research due to be published later this year.
Following studies of people living near wind turbines in the US, UK, Italy, Ireland and Canada for the past five years, she has identified a new health risk called wind turbine syndrome (WTS).
She says the disruption of the inner ear’s vestibular system by low-frequency noise from the turbines is causing problems ranging from internal pulsation and quivering to nervousness, fear, a compulsion to flee, chest tightness and increased heart rate.
To date, the Government and wind companies have denied any health risks associated with powerful noise and vibration produced by wind turbines, backed by recent research by acousticians at Salford University, who argue that earlier claims by Dr Pierpont are “imaginary”.
Scientific orthodoxy has been overturned by the discovery that like fish, humans are affected by vibrations through their ear bones, Dr Pierpont claimed.
“It has been gospel among acousticians for years that if a person can’t hear a sound, it’s too weak for it to be detected or registered by any other part of the body. But this is no longer true,” she said.
“Humans can hear through the bones. This is amazing. It would be heretical if it hadn’t been shown in a well-conducted experiment.”
It will be of concern to the Government which has plans for around 4,000 new wind turbines across the UK. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has made wind power a central part of his green policy to encourage renewable energy sources. Another 3,000 are planned offshore.
Northern Ireland’s Environment Minister Edwin Poots is also in favour of exploring more sources of renewable energy, and experts in the industry have tipped the province as ideally situated to take advantage of the global move towards green power.
At present, Northern Ireland imports more than 98% of its energy but has the potential to derive a lot more grid energy from wind and wave power. Dr Pierpont has recommended at least a 2km set-back distance between potential wind turbines and people’s homes.
“It is irresponsible of the wind turbine companies — and governments — to continue building wind turbines so close to where people live until there has been a full epidemiological investigation of the full impact on human health,” she said.
“What I have shown in my research is that many people — not all — who have been living close to a wind turbine running near their homes display a range of health illnesses and that when they move away, many of these problems go away.”
The British Wind Energy Association said there is no scientific research to suggest that wind turbines are in any way harmful.
“Noise from wind farms is a non-problem and we need to move away from this unproductive and unscientific debate, and focus on our targets on reducing carbon emissions,” a spokesman said.
Renewable energy experts have pointed out that Northern Ireland is ideally placed to capitalise on wind and wave energy, cutting its heavy reliance on imported power — but the race to go green could be held up by damning new research from a leading New York paediatrician.
Dr Nina Pierpoint has warned that living too close to wind turbines can cause heart disease, tinnitus, vertigo, panic attacks, migraines and sleep deprivation in groundbreaking research due to be published later this year.
Following studies of people living near wind turbines in the US, UK, Italy, Ireland and Canada for the past five years, she has identified a new health risk called wind turbine syndrome (WTS).
She says the disruption of the inner ear’s vestibular system by low-frequency noise from the turbines is causing problems ranging from internal pulsation and quivering to nervousness, fear, a compulsion to flee, chest tightness and increased heart rate.
To date, the Government and wind companies have denied any health risks associated with powerful noise and vibration produced by wind turbines, backed by recent research by acousticians at Salford University, who argue that earlier claims by Dr Pierpont are “imaginary”.
Scientific orthodoxy has been overturned by the discovery that like fish, humans are affected by vibrations through their ear bones, Dr Pierpont claimed.
“It has been gospel among acousticians for years that if a person can’t hear a sound, it’s too weak for it to be detected or registered by any other part of the body. But this is no longer true,” she said.
“Humans can hear through the bones. This is amazing. It would be heretical if it hadn’t been shown in a well-conducted experiment.”
It will be of concern to the Government which has plans for around 4,000 new wind turbines across the UK. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has made wind power a central part of his green policy to encourage renewable energy sources. Another 3,000 are planned offshore.
Northern Ireland’s Environment Minister Edwin Poots is also in favour of exploring more sources of renewable energy, and experts in the industry have tipped the province as ideally situated to take advantage of the global move towards green power.
At present, Northern Ireland imports more than 98% of its energy but has the potential to derive a lot more grid energy from wind and wave power. Dr Pierpont has recommended at least a 2km set-back distance between potential wind turbines and people’s homes.
“It is irresponsible of the wind turbine companies — and governments — to continue building wind turbines so close to where people live until there has been a full epidemiological investigation of the full impact on human health,” she said.
“What I have shown in my research is that many people — not all — who have been living close to a wind turbine running near their homes display a range of health illnesses and that when they move away, many of these problems go away.”
The British Wind Energy Association said there is no scientific research to suggest that wind turbines are in any way harmful.
“Noise from wind farms is a non-problem and we need to move away from this unproductive and unscientific debate, and focus on our targets on reducing carbon emissions,” a spokesman said.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Revealed: Living near a wind farm could seriously damage your health
Living too close to wind turbines can cause heart disease, tinnitus, vertigo, panic attacks, migraines and sleep deprivation, according to new research by a leading American doctor.
Dr Nina Pierpont, a top New York paediatrician, has been studying the effects of living near wind turbines in the UK, US, Canada, Ireland and Italy for more than five years.
She has identified a new health risk - wind turbine syndrome (WTS) - causing a wide range of problems ranging from internal pulsation, quivering, nervousness, fear, chest tightness and tachycardia – increased heart rate.
Turbine noise can also cause nightmares and other disorders in children as well as harm development in the young, she claims, but points out that not all people living near turbines are at a high risk of developing problems.
Dr Pierpont's studies indicate that humans are affected by low-frequency noise and vibrations from wind turbines through their ear bones, similar to fish and other amphibians.
'It has been gospel among acousticians for years that if a person can't hear a sound, it's too weak for it to be detected or registered by any other part of the body,' she said. 'But this is no longer true. Humans can hear through the bones. This is amazing. It would be heretical if it hadn't been shown in a well-conducted experiment.'
In the UK, Dr Christopher Hanning, founder of the British Sleep Society, who has also backed her research, said: 'Dr Pierpont's detailed recording of the harm caused by wind turbine noise will lay firm foundations for future research. It should be required reading for all planners considering wind farms.
'Like so many earlier medical pioneers exposing the weaknesses of current orthodoxy, Dr Pierpont has been subject to much denigration and criticism and ... it is tribute to her strength of character and conviction that this important book is going to reach publication,' he added.
Until now, the Government and the wind companies have rejected any health risks associated with the powerful noises and vibrations from wind turbines. They have argued that claims by Dr Pierpont are "imaginary" and are likely to argue against her latest findings.
The American added that the wind turbine companies constantly argue that the health problems are "imaginary, psychosomatic or malingering". But she said their claims are "rubbish" and that medical evidence supports that the reported symptoms are real.
'The wind industry will try to discredit me and disparage me, but I can cope with that. she added. 'This is not unlike the tobacco industry dismissing health issues from smoking. The wind industry, however, is not composed of clinicians, nor is it made up of people suffering from wind turbines.'
Lord May, the former chief scientific adviser to the UK government, describes her research as "impressive, interesting and important".
Dr Nina Pierpont, a top New York paediatrician, has been studying the effects of living near wind turbines in the UK, US, Canada, Ireland and Italy for more than five years.
She has identified a new health risk - wind turbine syndrome (WTS) - causing a wide range of problems ranging from internal pulsation, quivering, nervousness, fear, chest tightness and tachycardia – increased heart rate.
Turbine noise can also cause nightmares and other disorders in children as well as harm development in the young, she claims, but points out that not all people living near turbines are at a high risk of developing problems.
Dr Pierpont's studies indicate that humans are affected by low-frequency noise and vibrations from wind turbines through their ear bones, similar to fish and other amphibians.
'It has been gospel among acousticians for years that if a person can't hear a sound, it's too weak for it to be detected or registered by any other part of the body,' she said. 'But this is no longer true. Humans can hear through the bones. This is amazing. It would be heretical if it hadn't been shown in a well-conducted experiment.'
In the UK, Dr Christopher Hanning, founder of the British Sleep Society, who has also backed her research, said: 'Dr Pierpont's detailed recording of the harm caused by wind turbine noise will lay firm foundations for future research. It should be required reading for all planners considering wind farms.
'Like so many earlier medical pioneers exposing the weaknesses of current orthodoxy, Dr Pierpont has been subject to much denigration and criticism and ... it is tribute to her strength of character and conviction that this important book is going to reach publication,' he added.
Until now, the Government and the wind companies have rejected any health risks associated with the powerful noises and vibrations from wind turbines. They have argued that claims by Dr Pierpont are "imaginary" and are likely to argue against her latest findings.
The American added that the wind turbine companies constantly argue that the health problems are "imaginary, psychosomatic or malingering". But she said their claims are "rubbish" and that medical evidence supports that the reported symptoms are real.
'The wind industry will try to discredit me and disparage me, but I can cope with that. she added. 'This is not unlike the tobacco industry dismissing health issues from smoking. The wind industry, however, is not composed of clinicians, nor is it made up of people suffering from wind turbines.'
Lord May, the former chief scientific adviser to the UK government, describes her research as "impressive, interesting and important".
Leading article: Wind power – a cautionary word
All new technologies carry risk. That is true of benign new technologies as well as the old industrial sort. This paper's report on the potential health hazards of wind turbines, generators of eco-friendly wind power, will be unwelcome for many environmentalists and indeed for the Government, which for entirely creditable reasons is committed to a great increase in their number. But a new book by a New York paediatrician, Dr Nina Pierpont, on which our report is based and which draws on international studies, ought not to be ignored.
This paper is in favour of wind turbines. But Dr Pierpont suggests that the vibrations and low-level subsonic noise that is emitted can cause a range of health problems, including sleep disorders, and may aggravate more serious underlying conditions. She attributes this to the fact that the human ear is far more sensitive to vibrations, not merely audible noise, than we have assumed. And the disruption to the ear's vestibular system – directly linked to our sense of balance – caused by vibrations and low-level noise from turbines is a factor that the British Government has not, so far, taken into account in assessing whether to commission wind farms. For the sake of public reassurance, it should.
This newspaper believes that Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy, ought to study these findings, as indeed should the Department for Health. And we do so as firm supporters of the principle that Britain must take its environmental responsibilities seriously, and as a supporter of Mr Miliband's radical White Paper on energy. It is not incompatible with support for green issues to suggest that the move towards renewable energy sources should take account of human health concerns. Indeed, the Government stands a far greater chance of winning public support for reducing carbon emissions if it shows it is receptive to new scientific findings. Public health issues and eco-sensitivity must not be mutually exclusive if people are to be won over to the larger project of changing our patterns of energy consumption.
We hope, therefore, that Mr Miliband will not simply dismiss Dr Pierpont's book, which will be published in October, simply as ammunition for what he describes as "socially unacceptable" opposition to wind power. Dr Pierpont's research was self-funded, and she is not personally opposed to wind turbines. Only last week, we saw the consequences of a cavalier attitude to health in the decommissioning of the steelworks at Corby, which resulted in some children conceived at the time being born with deformities. If the Government were to continue to commission and site wind farms without regard for these new scientific findings, ministers, or their successors, may be laying the taxpayer open to the possibility of large claims for compensation. More importantly, they may be exposing innocent members of the public, including children, to avoidable health problems.
The obvious recommendations that flow from the new research about the effects of wind turbines on a range of health issues – effects that also flow, to a lesser extent, from reflected light off the blades – are actually relatively modest. Foremost, there is an urgent need for credible official research into the health effects of the turbines. Then there is a prudential argument for postponing the commissioning of land-based wind farms until they are shown to be safe. At the very least, they should be treated like electricity pylons, and houses should not be built close by – the French government allows a radius of 1.5km for residential developments near wind turbines, while Dr Pierpont recommends a radius of 2km.
This approach may seem contrary to a vigorous commitment to greener energy, but it need not be. Additionally, wind power is just one of several good options. It may seem perverse just now, given the weather, to argue for solar energy, but the German government has made huge strides in the past decade in promoting the production and use of solar energy panels. It has set a useful example, which the White Paper seeks to emulate, in encouraging citizens to generate solar energy for sale to the national grid. Japan too, has embraced solar energy. There is also wave power, a potentially vast source of energy, which should be explored further.
In any event, Dr Pierpont has made an important contribution to a debate about wind turbines that should be conducted not between champions and opponents of renewable energy, but within the community of those who want this country to behave in an environmentally responsible way. That we can and should do.
This paper is in favour of wind turbines. But Dr Pierpont suggests that the vibrations and low-level subsonic noise that is emitted can cause a range of health problems, including sleep disorders, and may aggravate more serious underlying conditions. She attributes this to the fact that the human ear is far more sensitive to vibrations, not merely audible noise, than we have assumed. And the disruption to the ear's vestibular system – directly linked to our sense of balance – caused by vibrations and low-level noise from turbines is a factor that the British Government has not, so far, taken into account in assessing whether to commission wind farms. For the sake of public reassurance, it should.
This newspaper believes that Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy, ought to study these findings, as indeed should the Department for Health. And we do so as firm supporters of the principle that Britain must take its environmental responsibilities seriously, and as a supporter of Mr Miliband's radical White Paper on energy. It is not incompatible with support for green issues to suggest that the move towards renewable energy sources should take account of human health concerns. Indeed, the Government stands a far greater chance of winning public support for reducing carbon emissions if it shows it is receptive to new scientific findings. Public health issues and eco-sensitivity must not be mutually exclusive if people are to be won over to the larger project of changing our patterns of energy consumption.
We hope, therefore, that Mr Miliband will not simply dismiss Dr Pierpont's book, which will be published in October, simply as ammunition for what he describes as "socially unacceptable" opposition to wind power. Dr Pierpont's research was self-funded, and she is not personally opposed to wind turbines. Only last week, we saw the consequences of a cavalier attitude to health in the decommissioning of the steelworks at Corby, which resulted in some children conceived at the time being born with deformities. If the Government were to continue to commission and site wind farms without regard for these new scientific findings, ministers, or their successors, may be laying the taxpayer open to the possibility of large claims for compensation. More importantly, they may be exposing innocent members of the public, including children, to avoidable health problems.
The obvious recommendations that flow from the new research about the effects of wind turbines on a range of health issues – effects that also flow, to a lesser extent, from reflected light off the blades – are actually relatively modest. Foremost, there is an urgent need for credible official research into the health effects of the turbines. Then there is a prudential argument for postponing the commissioning of land-based wind farms until they are shown to be safe. At the very least, they should be treated like electricity pylons, and houses should not be built close by – the French government allows a radius of 1.5km for residential developments near wind turbines, while Dr Pierpont recommends a radius of 2km.
This approach may seem contrary to a vigorous commitment to greener energy, but it need not be. Additionally, wind power is just one of several good options. It may seem perverse just now, given the weather, to argue for solar energy, but the German government has made huge strides in the past decade in promoting the production and use of solar energy panels. It has set a useful example, which the White Paper seeks to emulate, in encouraging citizens to generate solar energy for sale to the national grid. Japan too, has embraced solar energy. There is also wave power, a potentially vast source of energy, which should be explored further.
In any event, Dr Pierpont has made an important contribution to a debate about wind turbines that should be conducted not between champions and opponents of renewable energy, but within the community of those who want this country to behave in an environmentally responsible way. That we can and should do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)