MARS HILL, Maine — Wendy Todd acknowledged Tuesday afternoon that she and her husband, Perrin Todd, knew that wind towers likely would be erected behind their property before they started building their home on the east side of Mars Hill in late 2005.
“We knew it was likely,” she said. “But we had educated ourselves about the project. We attended at least two informational meetings before the project began and another meeting before the permit for the project was approved.
“During all of these meetings,” she continued, “We were told that noise would not be an issue, that the windmills were ‘gentle giants.’ We were told that you would have to be within 500 feet to hear anything, and that the visual aspect of the project would be the hardest thing to get over. We felt that we could get past that, so we believed we were all set.”
That, Todd said Tuesday, was wrong. And now the Todds are joining with others who live near the windmills to try to rectify the situation.
The family and 16 neighbors have recently filed a civil suit in Aroostook County Superior Court in Caribou against First Wind, two construction firms and the town of Mars Hill.
Peter Kelley, the attorney for the group, said Tuesday that his clients have seen the quality of life they experienced before the windmills were constructed slip from their grasp. He said his clients are alleging that they were not properly notified about all that the construction process entailed.
Noise, which Wendy Todd said Tuesday was not supposed to be an issue, continues to reverberate from the wind farm. Headaches and frayed nerves are now a problem, according to Todd, and property values among the homes allegedly affected by the project have diminished.
Kelley said his clients want compensation for their alleged loss of peace, enjoyment and quality of life, the reported drop in their property values, and the emotional and physical stresses they are dealing with since the wind farm became operational.
Massachusetts-based First Wind also goes by the name Evergreen Wind Power in Maine. The 28 turbines in Mars Hill began spinning late in 2006. First Wind also operates industrial wind energy facilities on Stetson Mountain in northern Washington County and has several other projects in the pipeline.
Todd said she and her husband were initially in favor of the project because of the economic benefits and the positive environmental effects of renewable energy. At all of the meetings she and her family attended, Todd stressed, they were told by those involved that noise “would not be an issue.”
“As soon as they turned on the first windmill, I knew they were wrong,” she recalled. “People here were just flabbergasted. We had already dealt with the noise of them blasting and clearing land, and then we heard the windmills. We knew we had made a mistake.”
The Todds described hearing a “phfoop ... phfoop ... phfoop” noise when the first windmill was turned on. Noise issues were taken to town officials in January 2007.
“The noise has gotten worse,” said Todd. “Our neighbors have complained of having headaches and having trouble sleeping.”
The couple has taken steps to protect their three children.
“They live in rooms that are farthest away from the noise,” she said. “They have never shown any physical symptoms, but they have complained that the noise scares them.”
Todd said one of the biggest problems is that no one “realized the depth of the project.” She added that residents in the town had no idea what the sounds and size of the towers and the visual effects of them would be like because they had nothing to compare them to.
“Nothing like it had ever happened here,” she added.
Before the lawsuit, the Todds talked with officials from the town and First Wind, and met with legislators at home and in Augusta. They also attended legislative committee meetings in Augusta.
“But nothing seemed to happen,” said Todd.
The Mars Hill resident said she and others have contemplated moving, and the Todds have talked to noise experts about soundproofing the home.
“But even then, I do not think it would be mitigated,” she added.
First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne said Tuesday afternoon that he could not comment on pending litigation. He stressed, however, that others in Mars Hill are happy with the project and that the company completed all the necessary steps in order to construct the wind farm. The Mars Hill project underwent a detailed process with the state Department of Environmental Protection. He added that the windmills also brought jobs and environmental and financial benefits to the town.
Mars Hill town officials could not be reached for comment late Tuesday.
Todd said she wants stricter rules in place for the establishment of wind farms in the state as well as a way to improve the situation in Mars Hill.
In the meantime, she said Tuesday, “our lives are on hold.”
“Do we leave a home we love?” she asked. “And what will the long-term effects of exposure to the windmills be? There are so many questions.”
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Rush to renewables threatens to blow another bubble
Meet the “renewables bubble”, the successor to the dotcom and other bubbles that have popped in recent years, demolishing the dreams and job prospects of a large swathe of the world’s population.
At least, that is the term coined by a research team from Spain’s Rey Juan Carlos University, which has produced the first in-depth study of the effects of government green-energy subsidies on employment.
The researchers analysed Spain’s experience with renewable energy, which encompasses solar and wind power, and small-scale hydroelectricity. Strictly speaking, their findings pertain to a local phenomenon they have termed “the Spanish renewables bubble”.
Yet some US economic thinkers are drawing parallels with their own country’s situation and with the green energy policies adopted by the governments of other developed nations.
The authors of the Spanish study, headed by Dr Gabriel Calzada Alvarez, intended this. “Europe’s current policy and strategy for supporting so-called green jobs or renewable energy dates back to 1997 and has become one of the principal justifications for the US green jobs proposals,” they wrote.
Unfortunately for “green jobs” lobbyists in the US and elsewhere, the study also found the “European model” for renewable energy development, which Spain has adopted more aggressively than any other EU nation, to be economically counterproductive.
It found that for every job created in the country’s renewable energy sector, 2.2 had been lost in industries that were harmed by higher electricity costs. Moreover, Spain had spent €571,138 (Dh2.9 million) to create each green job.
“These costs do not appear to be unique to Spain’s approach, but instead are largely inherent in schemes to promote renewable energy,” the authors wrote. They argued this left the industry vulnerable to bubble-like collapse during an economic crisis, characterised by loss of capital, facilities closures and mass staff cuts.
That is now happening in Spain, where unemployment at nearly 18 per cent is the highest in Europe. The problem is with viewing green technology principally as a jobs creation programme rather than one meant to achieve long-term social and economic good.
The development in Spain has clear implications for countries such as the US that are considering adopting the European model as a template for their own energy-security and climate change policies.
“Cut off the flow of massive public subsidies and the alternative energy industrial revolution would grind to a halt tomorrow – as the European experience already bears out,” write Michael Economides and Peter Glover, the editor-in-chief and European associate editor of the magazine Energy Tribune.
Those authors contend that “green politicians and eco-lobbyists” expect to create a green jobs revolution based on an industry sector that is “appallingly inefficient” and will probably remain so, precisely because it is subsidised.
Of course, it has often been argued that subsidies are needed only during the early, “incubator” stage of deployment, and that as the technology improves it can be phased out.
The trouble is, subsidies become entrenched in the cultures that adopt them. They come to be regarded as a right rather than a temporary bridge to a greater good, and end up harming the constituencies they were supposed to strengthen.
Another problem is that too many countries, including the US, most western European nations, Australia, Japan, China and South Korea, are competing for what may remain a limited global supply of green collar jobs. The renewable-energy employment pie may be growing, but not fast enough for all the hungry diners now rushing to the table to grab a big slice. Some early comers could even find their customary slices diminished.
It is likely, for instance, that most of the manufacturing jobs in solar panel and wind turbine factories will end up in China, which has the lowest production costs and is closest to the world’s biggest market for renewable energy equipment and services – its own. For a while, manufacturing pioneers such as Germany may hold an edge in quality and reliability, but even that will be eroded over time.
It is already happening.
Another recent study, by Samuel Sherraden and Jason Peuquet of the New America Foundation, a public policy institute in Washington found that America’s balance of trade in “green goods” had swung from a US$14.4 billion (Dh52.85bn) surplus in 1997 to an $8.9bn deficit last year, with an especially pronounced deterioration in the renewable energy trade balance since 2004.
“With Asia, we run a large and growing deficit in wind generating sets and photovoltaic cells,” the US study said.
That trend has caught the attention of Jeff Immelt, the chairman and chief executive of General Electric, the US technology and services conglomerate that has recently formed a partnership with the UAE’s clean energy flagship company, Masdar.
“Do we [the US] want to win the race to lead the next great global industry, clean energy?” he asked in a recent article with the venture capitalist John Doerr in The Washington Post. “We are clearly not in the lead today. That position is held by China.”
It is interesting that Mr Immelt refers to a “race”, which must have winners and losers.
One of the risks for US and European clean energy companies is that they could be forced to occupy niches – prestigious niches, but niches all the same. That will not replace the millions of jobs already lost in their manufacturing sectors.
China, on the other hand, shows what the winning formula might be.
At least, that is the term coined by a research team from Spain’s Rey Juan Carlos University, which has produced the first in-depth study of the effects of government green-energy subsidies on employment.
The researchers analysed Spain’s experience with renewable energy, which encompasses solar and wind power, and small-scale hydroelectricity. Strictly speaking, their findings pertain to a local phenomenon they have termed “the Spanish renewables bubble”.
Yet some US economic thinkers are drawing parallels with their own country’s situation and with the green energy policies adopted by the governments of other developed nations.
The authors of the Spanish study, headed by Dr Gabriel Calzada Alvarez, intended this. “Europe’s current policy and strategy for supporting so-called green jobs or renewable energy dates back to 1997 and has become one of the principal justifications for the US green jobs proposals,” they wrote.
Unfortunately for “green jobs” lobbyists in the US and elsewhere, the study also found the “European model” for renewable energy development, which Spain has adopted more aggressively than any other EU nation, to be economically counterproductive.
It found that for every job created in the country’s renewable energy sector, 2.2 had been lost in industries that were harmed by higher electricity costs. Moreover, Spain had spent €571,138 (Dh2.9 million) to create each green job.
“These costs do not appear to be unique to Spain’s approach, but instead are largely inherent in schemes to promote renewable energy,” the authors wrote. They argued this left the industry vulnerable to bubble-like collapse during an economic crisis, characterised by loss of capital, facilities closures and mass staff cuts.
That is now happening in Spain, where unemployment at nearly 18 per cent is the highest in Europe. The problem is with viewing green technology principally as a jobs creation programme rather than one meant to achieve long-term social and economic good.
The development in Spain has clear implications for countries such as the US that are considering adopting the European model as a template for their own energy-security and climate change policies.
“Cut off the flow of massive public subsidies and the alternative energy industrial revolution would grind to a halt tomorrow – as the European experience already bears out,” write Michael Economides and Peter Glover, the editor-in-chief and European associate editor of the magazine Energy Tribune.
Those authors contend that “green politicians and eco-lobbyists” expect to create a green jobs revolution based on an industry sector that is “appallingly inefficient” and will probably remain so, precisely because it is subsidised.
Of course, it has often been argued that subsidies are needed only during the early, “incubator” stage of deployment, and that as the technology improves it can be phased out.
The trouble is, subsidies become entrenched in the cultures that adopt them. They come to be regarded as a right rather than a temporary bridge to a greater good, and end up harming the constituencies they were supposed to strengthen.
Another problem is that too many countries, including the US, most western European nations, Australia, Japan, China and South Korea, are competing for what may remain a limited global supply of green collar jobs. The renewable-energy employment pie may be growing, but not fast enough for all the hungry diners now rushing to the table to grab a big slice. Some early comers could even find their customary slices diminished.
It is likely, for instance, that most of the manufacturing jobs in solar panel and wind turbine factories will end up in China, which has the lowest production costs and is closest to the world’s biggest market for renewable energy equipment and services – its own. For a while, manufacturing pioneers such as Germany may hold an edge in quality and reliability, but even that will be eroded over time.
It is already happening.
Another recent study, by Samuel Sherraden and Jason Peuquet of the New America Foundation, a public policy institute in Washington found that America’s balance of trade in “green goods” had swung from a US$14.4 billion (Dh52.85bn) surplus in 1997 to an $8.9bn deficit last year, with an especially pronounced deterioration in the renewable energy trade balance since 2004.
“With Asia, we run a large and growing deficit in wind generating sets and photovoltaic cells,” the US study said.
That trend has caught the attention of Jeff Immelt, the chairman and chief executive of General Electric, the US technology and services conglomerate that has recently formed a partnership with the UAE’s clean energy flagship company, Masdar.
“Do we [the US] want to win the race to lead the next great global industry, clean energy?” he asked in a recent article with the venture capitalist John Doerr in The Washington Post. “We are clearly not in the lead today. That position is held by China.”
It is interesting that Mr Immelt refers to a “race”, which must have winners and losers.
One of the risks for US and European clean energy companies is that they could be forced to occupy niches – prestigious niches, but niches all the same. That will not replace the millions of jobs already lost in their manufacturing sectors.
China, on the other hand, shows what the winning formula might be.
Turbine catches fire - Investigators will return to Kent Hills site today to determine cause
One of the 32 wind turbines operating at the Kent Hills wind farm caught fire over the weekend.
Elgin Fire Department and Employees of TransAlta, the power generation company that runs the farm, responded to the fire at about 9 a.m. Saturday and contained it.
Jason Edworthy, a spokesman for the Alberta-based company, said that three TransAlta employees who work on site were alerted by the turbine's sensor that there was a problem.
They went to the scene but saw no fire and returned to their office, only to receive another automated message, which prompted them to return to the turbine again.
Edworthy said a passer-by saw smoke and called the fire department
Officials haven't been able to confirm the cause of the fire yet.
Vestas, the company that supplies the turbines, will have a team on site today to try and determine what happened."Apparently, this is the first time this has ever happened on this particular model of turbine, so they're obviously quite concerned," said Edworthy.
Fire Departments from Riverview and Salisbury also responded to the call.
A single turbine is estimated to cost between $4 million and $5 million dollars.
The wind farm was commissioned in Dec. 31, 2008.
The turbine closest to the burned unit will be shut down as a precaution, but the rest of the farm will remain operating, Edworthy said.
No one was injured in the fire.
Planning Board weighs in on wind law
CLAYTON — Planning Board members and alternates have a wide range of views on what shape a wind development zoning law should take.
The town-appointed Wind Committee submitted its recommendations on a zoning law April 22.
Planning Board members and alternates submitted comments on those recommendations in July.
The committee recommended:
■ Background noise and low-frequency noise be measured before construction by an independent acoustic engineering firm.
■ Noise from turbines shouldn't exceed ambient levels in both audible and low-frequency ranges by more than 5 decibels at nonparticipating residents' property lines.
■ Noise should never exceed 50 decibels at any public building or private dwelling, including participating property owners' homes.
■ Turbines be placed at least 4,500 feet from the mean high-water mark of the St. Lawrence and Chaumont rivers, downstream of Depauville, as well as from the village of Clayton boundary and the Depauville Lighting District boundary.
■ Turbines be placed at least 500 feet from state-regulated wetlands and tower height plus 10 percent from above-ground utilities.
■ Turbines be placed at least 2.5 times the height of the turbine from a participating residence and 3.5 times the height from a nonparticipating residence or road.
■ Nonparticipating property owners could sign easements to allow levels or distances similar to those of participating property owners.
■ Shadow flicker should not be allowed at road intersections.
Planning Board alternate Duane C. Hazelton defended the committee's recommendations. He was on the Wind Committee.
"I can assure you that the wind committee worked long and hard getting educated on this subject and did not make these recommendations based on supposition, anecdotes, rumors or gut feelings," he wrote. "I feel that the recommendations put forth by the Clayton wind committee should stand as presented."
Though in general agreement, Planning Board member John W. Kehoe questioned the need for setbacks of 4,500 feet from the Chaumont River and Depauville.
Chairman Roland A. "Bud" Baril questioned the different setbacks from nonparticipating residents' property lines and participating residents' houses.
"It would be much easier to have a standard setback that does not appear to discriminate," he said.
Several asked for lesser setbacks from roads. Member Preston L. Lowe suggested twice the height of the turbine and member Paul E. Heckmann wrote, "Let the sound standards dictate setbacks."
Several members discounted the call for a shadow flicker provision. They also wrote questions and concerns about the sound requirements.
"The database required to have an enforceable base ambient sound level would be very large and complex with so many variables that it would be almost impossible to enforce," Mr. Heckmann wrote. "Why not just have a not to exceed level of 40, 45, or 50 decibels measured at the exterior of the house?"
The Town Council will discuss the recommendations at its meeting at 5 p.m. Aug. 26 at the Depauville Free Library and Community Center on County Route 179.
The town-appointed Wind Committee submitted its recommendations on a zoning law April 22.
Planning Board members and alternates submitted comments on those recommendations in July.
The committee recommended:
■ Background noise and low-frequency noise be measured before construction by an independent acoustic engineering firm.
■ Noise from turbines shouldn't exceed ambient levels in both audible and low-frequency ranges by more than 5 decibels at nonparticipating residents' property lines.
■ Noise should never exceed 50 decibels at any public building or private dwelling, including participating property owners' homes.
■ Turbines be placed at least 4,500 feet from the mean high-water mark of the St. Lawrence and Chaumont rivers, downstream of Depauville, as well as from the village of Clayton boundary and the Depauville Lighting District boundary.
■ Turbines be placed at least 500 feet from state-regulated wetlands and tower height plus 10 percent from above-ground utilities.
■ Turbines be placed at least 2.5 times the height of the turbine from a participating residence and 3.5 times the height from a nonparticipating residence or road.
■ Nonparticipating property owners could sign easements to allow levels or distances similar to those of participating property owners.
■ Shadow flicker should not be allowed at road intersections.
Planning Board alternate Duane C. Hazelton defended the committee's recommendations. He was on the Wind Committee.
"I can assure you that the wind committee worked long and hard getting educated on this subject and did not make these recommendations based on supposition, anecdotes, rumors or gut feelings," he wrote. "I feel that the recommendations put forth by the Clayton wind committee should stand as presented."
Though in general agreement, Planning Board member John W. Kehoe questioned the need for setbacks of 4,500 feet from the Chaumont River and Depauville.
Chairman Roland A. "Bud" Baril questioned the different setbacks from nonparticipating residents' property lines and participating residents' houses.
"It would be much easier to have a standard setback that does not appear to discriminate," he said.
Several asked for lesser setbacks from roads. Member Preston L. Lowe suggested twice the height of the turbine and member Paul E. Heckmann wrote, "Let the sound standards dictate setbacks."
Several members discounted the call for a shadow flicker provision. They also wrote questions and concerns about the sound requirements.
"The database required to have an enforceable base ambient sound level would be very large and complex with so many variables that it would be almost impossible to enforce," Mr. Heckmann wrote. "Why not just have a not to exceed level of 40, 45, or 50 decibels measured at the exterior of the house?"
The Town Council will discuss the recommendations at its meeting at 5 p.m. Aug. 26 at the Depauville Free Library and Community Center on County Route 179.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Wind Moratorium in Town of Cape Vincent
August 7 2009
Mr. Thomas Reinbeck, Supervisor
Town of Cape Vincent
PO Box 680
1964 NYS Rt 12E
Cape Vincent, NY 13618
Re: Wind Moratorium in Town of Cape Vincent
Dear Mr. Reinbeck,
Save The River respectfully submits the following comments regarding the establishment of the one-year moratorium on wind energy development in the Town of Cape Vincent. In short, Save The River urges the Town to enact a one-year moratorium throughout the entire Town, for all projects currently under development and future projects for one full year. Additionally, we recommend that a moratorium should not be lifted until additional study is completed on the potential ecological impacts of wind development in the Town and until a regional or state-wide process exists to examine cumulative regional impacts of wind energy development.
Save The River is supportive of alternative energy development but projects must be properly sited to minimize ecological damage and appropriate ecological impact studies must be fully completed. We remain very concerned about the lack of depth and breadth of the environmental studies conducted for both the Acciona and BP projects proposed in the Town of Cape Vincent, as well as the overall site review process.
As a result, Save The River urges the Town to implement a one-year moratorium on all wind energy development (current and future) or until the following conditions are met:
•Regional study and review process in place and active - The many wind energy projects proposed along the St. Lawrence River valley represent the largest industrial development in the region since the building of the St. Lawrence Seaway and related hydropower facilities. As with the Seaway, the ecological impacts of wind energy development are not constrained by political boundaries. A regional or state process must be put in place to review and assess potential areas that may be appropriate as well as potential areas that may not be appropriate for turbine placement. Additionally, a process must be in place for evaluating and making recommendations regarding the cumulative ecological impact of these facilities. Until a strong system is in place to evaluate and review regional impacts of these energy projects, it is irresponsible to move forward.
•Rigorous SEQR and EIS study and review - Over the past few years, Save The River has raised serious concerns about the limited nature of the ecological studies conducted as part of the environmental impact statements required by the SEQR review of projects proposed in the Town of Cape Vincent. To date, these concerns have not been addressed. Additionally, the reviews conducted by the SEQR process fail to show what the significant adverse environmental impacts might be and do not contain information necessary to evaluate project alternatives. Because the SEQR process has not been applied in a more rigorous nature and full scientific studies have not been conducted on the potential ecological impacts of the wind projects, the Town does not have enough information and data to move forward with decision-making about placement of wind energy facilities.
We encourage the Town of Cape Vincent to take the additional time necessary to review the potential environmental impacts of wind energy development in the Town by implementing a full, one-year moratorium. It is anticipated that wind energy facilities will be in operation for 20-30 years. Taking a relatively short amount of time to study, understand, and plan for the mitigation of any potential impacts will have long-term benefits in ensuring that this development has limited impact on the environment of our region.
Sincerely,
Jennifer J. Caddick
Executive Director & Upper St. Lawrence Riverkeeper
Mr. Thomas Reinbeck, Supervisor
Town of Cape Vincent
PO Box 680
1964 NYS Rt 12E
Cape Vincent, NY 13618
Re: Wind Moratorium in Town of Cape Vincent
Dear Mr. Reinbeck,
Save The River respectfully submits the following comments regarding the establishment of the one-year moratorium on wind energy development in the Town of Cape Vincent. In short, Save The River urges the Town to enact a one-year moratorium throughout the entire Town, for all projects currently under development and future projects for one full year. Additionally, we recommend that a moratorium should not be lifted until additional study is completed on the potential ecological impacts of wind development in the Town and until a regional or state-wide process exists to examine cumulative regional impacts of wind energy development.
Save The River is supportive of alternative energy development but projects must be properly sited to minimize ecological damage and appropriate ecological impact studies must be fully completed. We remain very concerned about the lack of depth and breadth of the environmental studies conducted for both the Acciona and BP projects proposed in the Town of Cape Vincent, as well as the overall site review process.
As a result, Save The River urges the Town to implement a one-year moratorium on all wind energy development (current and future) or until the following conditions are met:
•Regional study and review process in place and active - The many wind energy projects proposed along the St. Lawrence River valley represent the largest industrial development in the region since the building of the St. Lawrence Seaway and related hydropower facilities. As with the Seaway, the ecological impacts of wind energy development are not constrained by political boundaries. A regional or state process must be put in place to review and assess potential areas that may be appropriate as well as potential areas that may not be appropriate for turbine placement. Additionally, a process must be in place for evaluating and making recommendations regarding the cumulative ecological impact of these facilities. Until a strong system is in place to evaluate and review regional impacts of these energy projects, it is irresponsible to move forward.
•Rigorous SEQR and EIS study and review - Over the past few years, Save The River has raised serious concerns about the limited nature of the ecological studies conducted as part of the environmental impact statements required by the SEQR review of projects proposed in the Town of Cape Vincent. To date, these concerns have not been addressed. Additionally, the reviews conducted by the SEQR process fail to show what the significant adverse environmental impacts might be and do not contain information necessary to evaluate project alternatives. Because the SEQR process has not been applied in a more rigorous nature and full scientific studies have not been conducted on the potential ecological impacts of the wind projects, the Town does not have enough information and data to move forward with decision-making about placement of wind energy facilities.
We encourage the Town of Cape Vincent to take the additional time necessary to review the potential environmental impacts of wind energy development in the Town by implementing a full, one-year moratorium. It is anticipated that wind energy facilities will be in operation for 20-30 years. Taking a relatively short amount of time to study, understand, and plan for the mitigation of any potential impacts will have long-term benefits in ensuring that this development has limited impact on the environment of our region.
Sincerely,
Jennifer J. Caddick
Executive Director & Upper St. Lawrence Riverkeeper
Wind developer slingin' more of the same "Bull" by Mary Kay Barton
Former Perry Supervisor, now Horizon salesperson, Anne Humphrey's ad in last week's Perry Shopper was just more of the same typical of Big Wind sales pitches. Bless her heart, Ms. Humphrey is only saying what she needs to say to keep her job.
We found it particularly amusing that Ms. Humphrey said, "It's not all about the money," yet, that's ALL she talked about. She said "it's about what is right for the environment," yet didn't say a single word to substantiate how so.
To validate her claim, especially since it is the very reason the industry exists and is subsidized to the tune of up to 80% by we taxpayers & ratepayers in the first place, we're sure Ms. Humphrey will be glad to answer for us the same question we've been asking for years now: What independent, transparent measurement has been done anywhere in the world demonstrating that wind projects have actually offset significant levels of CO2 throughout an electricity grid system?
Ms. Humphrey swears that the admittedly temporary jobs will be filled by local hires. Yet, we recall Cohocton iron workers having to picket when they were NOT given the jobs.
Ms. Humphrey argues that these temporary 6-month jobs, and the possibility of a handful of permanent jobs, is an acceptable business plan somehow worth forever destroying our beautiful area and many of our fellow citizens' lives - all for an industry that can NOT do what they claim.
Others long-invested in wind tell the real story. Spain concluded in a recent study that 9 out of 10 jobs created in the wind industry are temporary, and for every job created, 2.2 jobs were lost in the rest of the economy. The price of their electricity has "skyrocketed", and their emissions have gone up by 50% since 2000.
Ms. Humphrey and her employer simply ignore the requirement of addressing alternatives. Perhaps Horizon is hoping nobody is paying attention to creative solutions like the local entrepeneur making Wind Tamers - a product that keeps the power and the money where it belongs - right here.
Ms. Humphrey's industry chooses to ignore the fact that the Department of Energy admitted when these machines were being developed that they were intended for placement in the remote, unpopulated areas of the Midwest, and offshore - not amongst rural/residential areas like that of WNY.
Ms. Humphrey says the average life expectancy of a turbine is 20-25 years. Yet, according to North American Wind Power, her industry's publication, the life-expectancy of these things is 13 years (Vol. 2: No. 12; Jan., 2006, p. 30). Even that is a stretch, considering the fact that Lackawanna's Steel Winds turbines were down and dismantled for repair/replacement for the second time in less than two years this summer.
Ms. Humphrey and her cohorts like to leave out pesky little facts like, "THE LANDOWNER WILL BE LIABLE!" (Attorney Daniel Spitzer)
Ms. Humphrey's employer still proposes 50 dBA as an acceptable sound level, despite the fact that 50 dBA DOUBLES our current night-time ambient noise levels of 25 dBA, and the NYS DEC clearly states in their "Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts" report, that an increase of 20 dBA will be "INTOLERABLE".
Most importantly, you'll never hear Ms. Humphrey & Horizon discuss the facts that Industrial Wind:
- has virtually NO Capacity Value;
- is NOT reliable or dispatchable;
- needs constant "shadow capacity", and therefore,
- can NOT replace any fossil fuel power plants.
The result: "Wind is simply an additional capital cost which proves to be more than twice as expensive for the ratepayer." (See "Calculating Wind Power's Environmental Benefits", by Tom Hewson & David Pressman)
So when wind industry reps take to slinging their "BULL" about the supposed wonders of wind, folks need to ask themselves (and their local, state, and federal politicians!):
- If wind power has no significant impact on the problem of CO2 emissions;
- If wind power causes electricity prices to "skyrocket," costing us 2-3 times as much as conventional energy sources;
- If wind power kills at least twice as many jobs as it creates;
- If wind power also has extraordinary additional costs due to significant adverse environmental, ecological, scenic, and personal health and property value impacts --
Why would any person in their right mind agree to this madness?
We found it particularly amusing that Ms. Humphrey said, "It's not all about the money," yet, that's ALL she talked about. She said "it's about what is right for the environment," yet didn't say a single word to substantiate how so.
To validate her claim, especially since it is the very reason the industry exists and is subsidized to the tune of up to 80% by we taxpayers & ratepayers in the first place, we're sure Ms. Humphrey will be glad to answer for us the same question we've been asking for years now: What independent, transparent measurement has been done anywhere in the world demonstrating that wind projects have actually offset significant levels of CO2 throughout an electricity grid system?
Ms. Humphrey swears that the admittedly temporary jobs will be filled by local hires. Yet, we recall Cohocton iron workers having to picket when they were NOT given the jobs.
Ms. Humphrey argues that these temporary 6-month jobs, and the possibility of a handful of permanent jobs, is an acceptable business plan somehow worth forever destroying our beautiful area and many of our fellow citizens' lives - all for an industry that can NOT do what they claim.
Others long-invested in wind tell the real story. Spain concluded in a recent study that 9 out of 10 jobs created in the wind industry are temporary, and for every job created, 2.2 jobs were lost in the rest of the economy. The price of their electricity has "skyrocketed", and their emissions have gone up by 50% since 2000.
Ms. Humphrey and her employer simply ignore the requirement of addressing alternatives. Perhaps Horizon is hoping nobody is paying attention to creative solutions like the local entrepeneur making Wind Tamers - a product that keeps the power and the money where it belongs - right here.
Ms. Humphrey's industry chooses to ignore the fact that the Department of Energy admitted when these machines were being developed that they were intended for placement in the remote, unpopulated areas of the Midwest, and offshore - not amongst rural/residential areas like that of WNY.
Ms. Humphrey says the average life expectancy of a turbine is 20-25 years. Yet, according to North American Wind Power, her industry's publication, the life-expectancy of these things is 13 years (Vol. 2: No. 12; Jan., 2006, p. 30). Even that is a stretch, considering the fact that Lackawanna's Steel Winds turbines were down and dismantled for repair/replacement for the second time in less than two years this summer.
Ms. Humphrey and her cohorts like to leave out pesky little facts like, "THE LANDOWNER WILL BE LIABLE!" (Attorney Daniel Spitzer)
Ms. Humphrey's employer still proposes 50 dBA as an acceptable sound level, despite the fact that 50 dBA DOUBLES our current night-time ambient noise levels of 25 dBA, and the NYS DEC clearly states in their "Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts" report, that an increase of 20 dBA will be "INTOLERABLE".
Most importantly, you'll never hear Ms. Humphrey & Horizon discuss the facts that Industrial Wind:
- has virtually NO Capacity Value;
- is NOT reliable or dispatchable;
- needs constant "shadow capacity", and therefore,
- can NOT replace any fossil fuel power plants.
The result: "Wind is simply an additional capital cost which proves to be more than twice as expensive for the ratepayer." (See "Calculating Wind Power's Environmental Benefits", by Tom Hewson & David Pressman)
So when wind industry reps take to slinging their "BULL" about the supposed wonders of wind, folks need to ask themselves (and their local, state, and federal politicians!):
- If wind power has no significant impact on the problem of CO2 emissions;
- If wind power causes electricity prices to "skyrocket," costing us 2-3 times as much as conventional energy sources;
- If wind power kills at least twice as many jobs as it creates;
- If wind power also has extraordinary additional costs due to significant adverse environmental, ecological, scenic, and personal health and property value impacts --
Why would any person in their right mind agree to this madness?
Further investigation of wind issues needed
I would like to share the following comments I made to the Hammond Town Board at the public hearing on the revised wind law on July 27.
I am a north country native and have lived on the riverside of Route 12 in Hammond for 18 years. I am opposed to this Wind Energy Facilities Law in its present form.
My involvement in this process started last August when I attended the first public hearing on the wind law. Since that time, the learning process related to the industrial wind turbine issue has not stopped. The information available on this complex subject is astounding, whether you agree or disagree with the concept.
For the record, I am in favor of people being able to gain monetarily from the use of their land, but not at the expense of their neighbor's health and welfare. I am in favor of wind development that is responsible, but not when 500-foot turbines are placed 500 feet from a highway that is frequently traveled by the public, including children riding school buses. I am in favor of wind development that is reasonable, but not when turbines are placed 500 feet from a property line rendering a nonparticipant's land unusable. I am in favor of wind development that is regulated, but not when turbines are placed 1,500 feet from a school building filled with innocent children whose learning capabilities and general health could be impacted.
The proposed revision maintains a 45dBA noise level which the DEC considers objectionable. As a school psychologist, I know a large number of students with learning disabilities have auditory and/or vestibular challenges. In addition, many residents have vertigo issues and stand to be impacted by the rotating turbine blades and shadow flicker.
The revisions in this law were made by the attorney and are basically cosmetic. There have been no significant changes to any area, particularly the important health and safety issues like setbacks and noise levels. In addition, when you read the law, the town planning board has the authority to make any modification to any part of the law that doesn't fit the wind developer's wishes.
The importance of this document cannot be overstated. The ramifications will live on into the next generations and yet it is being revised by three board members, barely a majority. The appropriate way to proceed would have been to reinstate the moratorium, reappoint a new, impartial wind committee and charge them with the task of issuing a report after reinvestigating all of the wind issues. You still have time to do that, and I urge you to take that course of action.
Mary Hamilton
Hammond
I am a north country native and have lived on the riverside of Route 12 in Hammond for 18 years. I am opposed to this Wind Energy Facilities Law in its present form.
My involvement in this process started last August when I attended the first public hearing on the wind law. Since that time, the learning process related to the industrial wind turbine issue has not stopped. The information available on this complex subject is astounding, whether you agree or disagree with the concept.
For the record, I am in favor of people being able to gain monetarily from the use of their land, but not at the expense of their neighbor's health and welfare. I am in favor of wind development that is responsible, but not when 500-foot turbines are placed 500 feet from a highway that is frequently traveled by the public, including children riding school buses. I am in favor of wind development that is reasonable, but not when turbines are placed 500 feet from a property line rendering a nonparticipant's land unusable. I am in favor of wind development that is regulated, but not when turbines are placed 1,500 feet from a school building filled with innocent children whose learning capabilities and general health could be impacted.
The proposed revision maintains a 45dBA noise level which the DEC considers objectionable. As a school psychologist, I know a large number of students with learning disabilities have auditory and/or vestibular challenges. In addition, many residents have vertigo issues and stand to be impacted by the rotating turbine blades and shadow flicker.
The revisions in this law were made by the attorney and are basically cosmetic. There have been no significant changes to any area, particularly the important health and safety issues like setbacks and noise levels. In addition, when you read the law, the town planning board has the authority to make any modification to any part of the law that doesn't fit the wind developer's wishes.
The importance of this document cannot be overstated. The ramifications will live on into the next generations and yet it is being revised by three board members, barely a majority. The appropriate way to proceed would have been to reinstate the moratorium, reappoint a new, impartial wind committee and charge them with the task of issuing a report after reinvestigating all of the wind issues. You still have time to do that, and I urge you to take that course of action.
Mary Hamilton
Hammond
RECENT REPORT TIES WIND TURBINE NOISE TO POTENTIAL HEALTH PROBLEMS by Lynda Barry
"There can be no doubt that groups of industrial wind turbines ("wind farms") generate sufficient noise to disturb the sleep and impair the health of those living nearby," states Dr. Christopher Hanning in a recent report titled "Sleep Disturbance and Wind Turbine Noise."
Founder of the Leicester Sleep Disorders Service, which is the longest standing and largest service of its kind in Great Britain, Dr. Christopher Hanning's work in the area of sleep disorders has spanned thirty years. He currently chairs the advisory panel of the SOMNIA study, a major project investigating sleep quality in the elderly.
Dr. Hanning writes, "Sleep disturbance and impairment of the ability to return to sleep is not trivial, as almost all of us can testify."
He finds that wind turbine noise, even at levels that don’t fully awaken us, may nevertheless take us out of the most restful stage of sleep and disrupt critical sleep cycles. Hanning says, "This sleep, because it is broken, is unrefreshing, resulting in sleepiness, fatigue, headaches, poor memory and concentration."
These are the most common complaints from residents of industrial wind farms and Dr. Hanning believes they are tied to disrupted sleep.
He states that current government and industry-sponsored research on wind turbine noise and sleep disruption have only used recalled and reported full awakenings as an index of the effects of turbine noise on sleep.
Because most of the sleep disturbance does not result in full awakening and is not recalled, it can’t be reported. Dr. Hanning writes, "This approach seriously underestimates the effects of wind turbine noise on sleep."
Along with expected symptoms of fatigue, sleepiness and cognitive impairment, Dr. Hanning points to recent studies linking disrupted sleep to impaired glucose tolerance, increased risk of diabetes, increased risk of obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, cancer and depression. He adds, “Sleepy people also have an increased risk of traffic accidents.”
He cites research which found people are more easily annoyed by wind turbine noise at lower levels than that of aircraft, traffic or trains. "The noise of wind turbines has been likened to 'a passing train, which never passes,’ “ writes Hanning, “Which may explain why wind turbine noise is prone to cause sleep disruption,"
Hanning believes current research strongly indicates people can be negatively impacted by wind turbine noise at distances thought by the wind industry to be safe.
He cites a recent peer-reviewed study which follows ten families who have been so affected by wind turbine noise that they had to leave their homes, nine of them permanently.
"Of particular concern," writes Dr. Hanning, "were the observed effects on children, including toddlers and school and college aged children." The study found changes in sleep pattern, behavior and academic performance. Seven out of ten children in the study had a decline in school performance while exposed to wind turbine noise. School performance recovered after exposure ceased.
Dr. Hanning notes, "In total, 20 of 34 study subjects reported problems with concentration or memory".
American pediatrician, Dr. Nina Pierpont, who conducted the peer-reviewed study, now recommends a minimum setback of two kilometers or (about 1.25 miles) from homes, schools, and other inhabited structures.
George Kamperman, a distinguished American noise engineer and an industrial noise consultant with fifty years of experience, also identifies this setback. Says Kamperman, "The magnitude of the impact [of wind turbine noise] is far above anything I have seen before at such relatively low sound levels... we desperately need noise exposure level criteria."
Dr. Hanning also finds current calculated measures of wind turbine noise “woefully inadequate” and says he is unconvinced by what he terms, "badly designed industry and government reports which seek to show there is no problem”.
He writes, "In my expert opinion, from my knowledge of sleep physiology and a review of available research, I have no doubt that wind turbine noise emissions cause sleep disturbances and ill health, “
Rather than relying on theoretical approaches to calculating distance, Dr. Hanning recommends setbacks based on observations of the effects on real people who are now living in or near operating wind farms.
He says, "...The only mitigation for wind turbine noise is to place a sufficient distance between the turbines and places of human habitation."
"Calculations cannot measure annoyance and sleep disturbance," he writes. "Only humans can do so."
Founder of the Leicester Sleep Disorders Service, which is the longest standing and largest service of its kind in Great Britain, Dr. Christopher Hanning's work in the area of sleep disorders has spanned thirty years. He currently chairs the advisory panel of the SOMNIA study, a major project investigating sleep quality in the elderly.
Dr. Hanning writes, "Sleep disturbance and impairment of the ability to return to sleep is not trivial, as almost all of us can testify."
He finds that wind turbine noise, even at levels that don’t fully awaken us, may nevertheless take us out of the most restful stage of sleep and disrupt critical sleep cycles. Hanning says, "This sleep, because it is broken, is unrefreshing, resulting in sleepiness, fatigue, headaches, poor memory and concentration."
These are the most common complaints from residents of industrial wind farms and Dr. Hanning believes they are tied to disrupted sleep.
He states that current government and industry-sponsored research on wind turbine noise and sleep disruption have only used recalled and reported full awakenings as an index of the effects of turbine noise on sleep.
Because most of the sleep disturbance does not result in full awakening and is not recalled, it can’t be reported. Dr. Hanning writes, "This approach seriously underestimates the effects of wind turbine noise on sleep."
Along with expected symptoms of fatigue, sleepiness and cognitive impairment, Dr. Hanning points to recent studies linking disrupted sleep to impaired glucose tolerance, increased risk of diabetes, increased risk of obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, cancer and depression. He adds, “Sleepy people also have an increased risk of traffic accidents.”
He cites research which found people are more easily annoyed by wind turbine noise at lower levels than that of aircraft, traffic or trains. "The noise of wind turbines has been likened to 'a passing train, which never passes,’ “ writes Hanning, “Which may explain why wind turbine noise is prone to cause sleep disruption,"
Hanning believes current research strongly indicates people can be negatively impacted by wind turbine noise at distances thought by the wind industry to be safe.
He cites a recent peer-reviewed study which follows ten families who have been so affected by wind turbine noise that they had to leave their homes, nine of them permanently.
"Of particular concern," writes Dr. Hanning, "were the observed effects on children, including toddlers and school and college aged children." The study found changes in sleep pattern, behavior and academic performance. Seven out of ten children in the study had a decline in school performance while exposed to wind turbine noise. School performance recovered after exposure ceased.
Dr. Hanning notes, "In total, 20 of 34 study subjects reported problems with concentration or memory".
American pediatrician, Dr. Nina Pierpont, who conducted the peer-reviewed study, now recommends a minimum setback of two kilometers or (about 1.25 miles) from homes, schools, and other inhabited structures.
George Kamperman, a distinguished American noise engineer and an industrial noise consultant with fifty years of experience, also identifies this setback. Says Kamperman, "The magnitude of the impact [of wind turbine noise] is far above anything I have seen before at such relatively low sound levels... we desperately need noise exposure level criteria."
Dr. Hanning also finds current calculated measures of wind turbine noise “woefully inadequate” and says he is unconvinced by what he terms, "badly designed industry and government reports which seek to show there is no problem”.
He writes, "In my expert opinion, from my knowledge of sleep physiology and a review of available research, I have no doubt that wind turbine noise emissions cause sleep disturbances and ill health, “
Rather than relying on theoretical approaches to calculating distance, Dr. Hanning recommends setbacks based on observations of the effects on real people who are now living in or near operating wind farms.
He says, "...The only mitigation for wind turbine noise is to place a sufficient distance between the turbines and places of human habitation."
"Calculations cannot measure annoyance and sleep disturbance," he writes. "Only humans can do so."
Sleep disturbance and wind turbine noise - Dr. Christopher Hanning
This report centers on the effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep as this is the particular area of expertise of the author. It was prepared by Dr. Christopher Hanning who founded, and until retirement, ran the Leicester Sleep Disorders Service, one of the longest standing and largest services in the United Kingdom.
Hanningwind-turbine-noise-and-sleep%5B1%5D.pdf
Hanningwind-turbine-noise-and-sleep%5B1%5D.pdf
Health hazard fear over wind turbines
People living close to windfarms in Powys could face a health risk as campaigners claim turbines are being built too close to people’s homes.
It comes as Powys County Council is expected to receive planning applications for more than 500 wind turbines. Campaign group Cadwriaeth Ucheldir Powys say studies have revealed many householders living near turbines suffer headaches, sleep deprivation and dizziness.
They have now called on Government officials to take action.
A spokesman for the group said: “Research carried out by health officials in the USA has shown that many people who live too close to windfarms go onto suffer sleep disturbance and, in some cases, ill health.
“We believe that there should be a review into safe set backs of at least two kilometres in line with other European countries. This Government treats us with extraordinary cynicism by allowing wind energy companies to build as close as 400 metres from our homes.
“We believe it is vital that a proper independent study, which is non-industry backed or influenced, of existing wind farms throughout the UK including Powys, should be undertaken now and not when the greater number of windfarms are built.”
He added that if studies did go on to prove that windfarms did cause long-term health effects, people should be entitled to compensation.
He said: “It is not hard to imagine that once the gold rush into wind energy is over and the county and indeed the UK as a whole has thousands more wind turbines constructed that greater numbers of ill effects may become prevalent.
“This would be costly in human terms and perhaps see huge compensation claims against the Government.”
John Evans, Powys County Council spokesman, said: “There are three strategic windfarm search areas affecting Powys. Two, Carno North and Newtown South, are in the county.
“The council has so far received or is about to receive 23 applications, consisting of 548 turbines, with many set to get the go-ahead under Government guidance.”
It comes as Powys County Council is expected to receive planning applications for more than 500 wind turbines. Campaign group Cadwriaeth Ucheldir Powys say studies have revealed many householders living near turbines suffer headaches, sleep deprivation and dizziness.
They have now called on Government officials to take action.
A spokesman for the group said: “Research carried out by health officials in the USA has shown that many people who live too close to windfarms go onto suffer sleep disturbance and, in some cases, ill health.
“We believe that there should be a review into safe set backs of at least two kilometres in line with other European countries. This Government treats us with extraordinary cynicism by allowing wind energy companies to build as close as 400 metres from our homes.
“We believe it is vital that a proper independent study, which is non-industry backed or influenced, of existing wind farms throughout the UK including Powys, should be undertaken now and not when the greater number of windfarms are built.”
He added that if studies did go on to prove that windfarms did cause long-term health effects, people should be entitled to compensation.
He said: “It is not hard to imagine that once the gold rush into wind energy is over and the county and indeed the UK as a whole has thousands more wind turbines constructed that greater numbers of ill effects may become prevalent.
“This would be costly in human terms and perhaps see huge compensation claims against the Government.”
John Evans, Powys County Council spokesman, said: “There are three strategic windfarm search areas affecting Powys. Two, Carno North and Newtown South, are in the county.
“The council has so far received or is about to receive 23 applications, consisting of 548 turbines, with many set to get the go-ahead under Government guidance.”
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Is Texas a Wind-Power Success or Failure?
The Lone Star state famously leads the U.S., itself the world leader, in wind power. But how much wind power—really—does Texas have?
Less than one-tenth of its official tally of more than 8,000 megawatts, says Robert Bryce in the Energy Tribune. That’s because wind power is a lot more fickle than other power sources, such as natural gas, coal, or nuclear power.
The Texas electricity authority, ERCOT, figures the state’s wind power capacity is only 8.7%. That means for every 100 megawatts installed in a wind farm, power authorities can only count on seeing 8.7 megawatts of electricity produced. That’s a lot less than the standard line that wind power in the U.S. produces at about 30% or 35% of its nominal capacity.
Wind power is the biggest source of renewable energy (other than large hydroelectric projects) and it’s the great hope of clean-energy advocates. Wind power’s success in the heart of the oil patch has been, as Mr. Bryce notes, a talking point for local politicians, the Obama administration, and environmentalists alike. Are things really that grim?
Yes and no. Getting a handle on how much power wind farms actually produce is tricky business. ERCOT itself has danced between estimates at low as 3% and as high as 16% in recent years, before settling—temporarily—on the 8.7% figure. Temporarily, because the Texas Generation Adequacy Task Force is “concerned” with how ERCOT arrived at that figure and still aims to determine “the true capacity value of wind.”
The picture isn’t much different in the rest of the country. Electricity regulators and utilities have tried to get a handle on how much juice wind power actually produces, and estimates vary widely—from as low as 5% to as high as 30%. Last year’s NREL report has all the details.
The biggest problem is in measurement—should you count wind power’s production in the summer (not so windy) or winter (windier)? During the afternoon hours of peak demand, or all day? During a single year, or over a several-year period?
The bottom line is that wind power is neither quite the laggard that Mr. Bryce makes it out to be, even in Texas—nor the panacea that many clean-energy advocates hope it will become. Things to keep in mind as the debate over America’s clean-energy revolution keeps simmering.
Less than one-tenth of its official tally of more than 8,000 megawatts, says Robert Bryce in the Energy Tribune. That’s because wind power is a lot more fickle than other power sources, such as natural gas, coal, or nuclear power.
The Texas electricity authority, ERCOT, figures the state’s wind power capacity is only 8.7%. That means for every 100 megawatts installed in a wind farm, power authorities can only count on seeing 8.7 megawatts of electricity produced. That’s a lot less than the standard line that wind power in the U.S. produces at about 30% or 35% of its nominal capacity.
Wind power is the biggest source of renewable energy (other than large hydroelectric projects) and it’s the great hope of clean-energy advocates. Wind power’s success in the heart of the oil patch has been, as Mr. Bryce notes, a talking point for local politicians, the Obama administration, and environmentalists alike. Are things really that grim?
Yes and no. Getting a handle on how much power wind farms actually produce is tricky business. ERCOT itself has danced between estimates at low as 3% and as high as 16% in recent years, before settling—temporarily—on the 8.7% figure. Temporarily, because the Texas Generation Adequacy Task Force is “concerned” with how ERCOT arrived at that figure and still aims to determine “the true capacity value of wind.”
The picture isn’t much different in the rest of the country. Electricity regulators and utilities have tried to get a handle on how much juice wind power actually produces, and estimates vary widely—from as low as 5% to as high as 30%. Last year’s NREL report has all the details.
The biggest problem is in measurement—should you count wind power’s production in the summer (not so windy) or winter (windier)? During the afternoon hours of peak demand, or all day? During a single year, or over a several-year period?
The bottom line is that wind power is neither quite the laggard that Mr. Bryce makes it out to be, even in Texas—nor the panacea that many clean-energy advocates hope it will become. Things to keep in mind as the debate over America’s clean-energy revolution keeps simmering.
Friday, August 07, 2009
Discontent Of Mars Hill Residents Leads To Lawsuit Against First Wind
Wendy and Perrin Todd began building their dream house on family land on the east side of Mars Hill back in 2005. Talk of a wind farm development going up just behind their house was already in the air, but Wendy Todd says she and her husband were supportive of the project. "We thought it was fascinating. We thought, 'Wow, what a good idea!' We really did. We thought, the renewable energy, the job creation. I think we bought into the whole they're part of the answer to saving the planet."
But when the clearing and blasting began, soon followed by the erection of 28 turbines, each measuring nearly 400 feet tall, Todd says she began to wonder if she and her neighbors had been misled. "The visual devastation has just been really hard. When the turbines were first talked about I don't think any of us understood how large they were because there's nothing in Aroostook County that even comes close to relating to their size. And the mockups that were done at town meetings were all from three miles or better away. So it didn't give you the perspective of what it was going to be like to live beside them. It gave you a perspective of what they would look like as you were entering Mars Hill and different views from around Mars Hill."
Soon Todd says the intermittent sounds and shadow flicker from the turbines began to wear on her nerves. State regulations say the turbines are not to exceed 50 decibles at the project's property line, but Todd says sometimes the so-called "blade thump" is loud enough to be heard over her dishwasher and three children playing. At the time of this reporter's visit, the turbines were barely moving and could not be heard in or outside of her home. But Todd says turbines are loudest in the winter months.
"Turbine noise sounds like a jet, but it fills the air," Todd explains. "Now if you have anywhere from 24 hours to 3 to 5 days of bad turbine noise, symptoms start to appear. So with sleeplessness and edginess - because it wears on you and gets under your skin and it drives you crazy - so you start to get short with people and angry with people. Stress in the house is the best way to describe it for us."
Todd and 16 of her neighbors have recently filed a civil suit in Superior Court in Caribou against First Wind, two construction firms and the Town of Mars Hill. They allege that they were not properly notified of the construction, blasting, operation and planning of the wind turbines and they want compsensation for what they say is a resulting drop in their property values along with emotional and physical distress.
First Wind Spokesman John Lamontagne says he cannot comment on the suit, but says his company is proud of the development and the clean energy it generates. "It's currently delivering power to about 20,000 homes in New England. It's clean, renewable power. Second, this project in particular delivers half a million dollars to the town of Mars Hill every year. That's a pretty significant chunk of change to a town like Mars Hill and taxpayers have seen their tax bills drop because of this project."
Lamontagne says all First Wind's projects involve a lengthy review process with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and regular meetings with townspeople. "We strive to be a good partner in the communities where we locate. And we have many supporters in Mars Hill. I think there are a lot of folks who are happy with the project and happy with the work that we've done there. We've met several times with neighbors to hear their concerns and work with them. And again, we're proud of the project and we feel that a lot of folks in Mars Hill are very happy with it."
The Mars Hill Town Manager declined to comment on this story.
Most of the plaintiffs live within a half mile of the turbines and while most have filed a single suit as a group, three have filed individual suits. In addition to noise complaints, Wendy Todd says many of her neighbors suffer from insomnia, depression and headaches related to the presence of the wind turbines. She says she'd consider moving, but she says her property value has dropped by 30 percent and she doesn't think anyone would want to buy her house.
"Would we move? Yeah, I guess we'd move but we've lived here all our whole life. Where would we go? How would we start over? And most people at this point are trapped in their homes. I mean, you know you hear stories of other families who have abandoned their homes. I can understand that. And most people roll their eyes. No, it's real. It's true. I can understand why they feel they have no other choice but to pack their bags and abandon their homes."
It's an emotional subject for Todd, but she says she's not opposed to wind projects in general. She just wants the state to set stricter rules with regard to the siting of wind farms, miles from any home.
But when the clearing and blasting began, soon followed by the erection of 28 turbines, each measuring nearly 400 feet tall, Todd says she began to wonder if she and her neighbors had been misled. "The visual devastation has just been really hard. When the turbines were first talked about I don't think any of us understood how large they were because there's nothing in Aroostook County that even comes close to relating to their size. And the mockups that were done at town meetings were all from three miles or better away. So it didn't give you the perspective of what it was going to be like to live beside them. It gave you a perspective of what they would look like as you were entering Mars Hill and different views from around Mars Hill."
Soon Todd says the intermittent sounds and shadow flicker from the turbines began to wear on her nerves. State regulations say the turbines are not to exceed 50 decibles at the project's property line, but Todd says sometimes the so-called "blade thump" is loud enough to be heard over her dishwasher and three children playing. At the time of this reporter's visit, the turbines were barely moving and could not be heard in or outside of her home. But Todd says turbines are loudest in the winter months.
"Turbine noise sounds like a jet, but it fills the air," Todd explains. "Now if you have anywhere from 24 hours to 3 to 5 days of bad turbine noise, symptoms start to appear. So with sleeplessness and edginess - because it wears on you and gets under your skin and it drives you crazy - so you start to get short with people and angry with people. Stress in the house is the best way to describe it for us."
Todd and 16 of her neighbors have recently filed a civil suit in Superior Court in Caribou against First Wind, two construction firms and the Town of Mars Hill. They allege that they were not properly notified of the construction, blasting, operation and planning of the wind turbines and they want compsensation for what they say is a resulting drop in their property values along with emotional and physical distress.
First Wind Spokesman John Lamontagne says he cannot comment on the suit, but says his company is proud of the development and the clean energy it generates. "It's currently delivering power to about 20,000 homes in New England. It's clean, renewable power. Second, this project in particular delivers half a million dollars to the town of Mars Hill every year. That's a pretty significant chunk of change to a town like Mars Hill and taxpayers have seen their tax bills drop because of this project."
Lamontagne says all First Wind's projects involve a lengthy review process with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and regular meetings with townspeople. "We strive to be a good partner in the communities where we locate. And we have many supporters in Mars Hill. I think there are a lot of folks who are happy with the project and happy with the work that we've done there. We've met several times with neighbors to hear their concerns and work with them. And again, we're proud of the project and we feel that a lot of folks in Mars Hill are very happy with it."
The Mars Hill Town Manager declined to comment on this story.
Most of the plaintiffs live within a half mile of the turbines and while most have filed a single suit as a group, three have filed individual suits. In addition to noise complaints, Wendy Todd says many of her neighbors suffer from insomnia, depression and headaches related to the presence of the wind turbines. She says she'd consider moving, but she says her property value has dropped by 30 percent and she doesn't think anyone would want to buy her house.
"Would we move? Yeah, I guess we'd move but we've lived here all our whole life. Where would we go? How would we start over? And most people at this point are trapped in their homes. I mean, you know you hear stories of other families who have abandoned their homes. I can understand that. And most people roll their eyes. No, it's real. It's true. I can understand why they feel they have no other choice but to pack their bags and abandon their homes."
It's an emotional subject for Todd, but she says she's not opposed to wind projects in general. She just wants the state to set stricter rules with regard to the siting of wind farms, miles from any home.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Live Near A Wind Farm? You May Suffer From Wind Turbine Syndrome
Health Threat Pooh-poohed by Government, Big Wind
A soon-to-be released study of the health effects of living near wind turbines challenges the popular image of the graceful, benign windmill gently coaxing free megawatts from the passing zephyrs.
Dr. Nina Pierpont, a New York pediatrician, has studied subjects who live near windmills in the U.S., the U.K., Italy, Ireland and Canada for the last five years. She concludes that some, but not all, of the near-windmill dwellers show signs of a newly-identified health risk which she calls Wind Turbine Syndrome, or WTS.
Are wind farms a health risk? US scientist identifies ‘wind turbine syndrome’
[WTS] is the disruption or abnormal stimulation of the inner ear’s vestibular system by turbine infrasound and low-frequency noise, the most distinctive feature of which is a group of symptoms which she calls visceral vibratory vestibular disturbance, or VVVD*. They cause problems ranging from internal pulsation, quivering, nervousness, fear, a compulsion to flee, chest tightness and tachycardia – increased heart rate.** Turbine noise can also trigger nightmares and other disorders in children as well as harm cognitive development in the young, she claims.
*[A girl I dated once told me she had VVVD. She stuttered, too.]
**[I experienced symptoms of WTS during Obama's last televised press conference. Memo to self: Search for nearby wind turbine.]
Of course, the reaction of the U.K. Government and “Big Wind” are all too predictable:
Until now, the Government and the wind companies have denied any health risks associated with the powerful noises and vibrations emitted by wind turbines. Acoustic engineers working for the wind energy companies and the Government say that aerodynamic noise produced by turbines pose no risk to health…
[Dr. Pierpont:] “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 wind industry, however, is not composed of clinicians, nor is it made up of people suffering from wind turbines.”…
Dr. Pierpont 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.
At the heart of Dr. Pierpont’s findings is that humans are affected by low-frequency noise and vibrations from wind turbines through their ear bones, rather like fish and other amphibians. That humans have the same sensitivity as fish is based on new discoveries made by scientists at Manchester University and New South Wales last year. …
[Portuguese doctors found that low-frequency noise] exposure may also cause the rare illness, vibroacoustic disorder or VAD, which causes changes to the structure of certain organs such as the heart and lungs and may well be caused by vibrations from turbines. Another powerful side effect of turbines is the impact which the light thrown off the blades – known as flicker – has on people who suffer from migraines and epilepsy.
Is Dr. Pierpont just another anti-Big Wind eco-nut? Not according to Dr. Christopher Hanning, founder of the British Sleep Society:
“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.” [ellipsis in original]
My vestigal amphibian ear bones are picking up a low-frequency vibration or two about wind turbines. They’re telling me I don’t want to live near a wind farm: Not In My Back Yard! (Or in the South 40, for that matter!)
How can we be sure that the Obama Administration is not in the hip-pocket of Big Wind in their push for renewable energy?
Oh, wait! Maybe it’s vice-versa…
A soon-to-be released study of the health effects of living near wind turbines challenges the popular image of the graceful, benign windmill gently coaxing free megawatts from the passing zephyrs.
Dr. Nina Pierpont, a New York pediatrician, has studied subjects who live near windmills in the U.S., the U.K., Italy, Ireland and Canada for the last five years. She concludes that some, but not all, of the near-windmill dwellers show signs of a newly-identified health risk which she calls Wind Turbine Syndrome, or WTS.
Are wind farms a health risk? US scientist identifies ‘wind turbine syndrome’
[WTS] is the disruption or abnormal stimulation of the inner ear’s vestibular system by turbine infrasound and low-frequency noise, the most distinctive feature of which is a group of symptoms which she calls visceral vibratory vestibular disturbance, or VVVD*. They cause problems ranging from internal pulsation, quivering, nervousness, fear, a compulsion to flee, chest tightness and tachycardia – increased heart rate.** Turbine noise can also trigger nightmares and other disorders in children as well as harm cognitive development in the young, she claims.
*[A girl I dated once told me she had VVVD. She stuttered, too.]
**[I experienced symptoms of WTS during Obama's last televised press conference. Memo to self: Search for nearby wind turbine.]
Of course, the reaction of the U.K. Government and “Big Wind” are all too predictable:
Until now, the Government and the wind companies have denied any health risks associated with the powerful noises and vibrations emitted by wind turbines. Acoustic engineers working for the wind energy companies and the Government say that aerodynamic noise produced by turbines pose no risk to health…
[Dr. Pierpont:] “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 wind industry, however, is not composed of clinicians, nor is it made up of people suffering from wind turbines.”…
Dr. Pierpont 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.
At the heart of Dr. Pierpont’s findings is that humans are affected by low-frequency noise and vibrations from wind turbines through their ear bones, rather like fish and other amphibians. That humans have the same sensitivity as fish is based on new discoveries made by scientists at Manchester University and New South Wales last year. …
[Portuguese doctors found that low-frequency noise] exposure may also cause the rare illness, vibroacoustic disorder or VAD, which causes changes to the structure of certain organs such as the heart and lungs and may well be caused by vibrations from turbines. Another powerful side effect of turbines is the impact which the light thrown off the blades – known as flicker – has on people who suffer from migraines and epilepsy.
Is Dr. Pierpont just another anti-Big Wind eco-nut? Not according to Dr. Christopher Hanning, founder of the British Sleep Society:
“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.” [ellipsis in original]
My vestigal amphibian ear bones are picking up a low-frequency vibration or two about wind turbines. They’re telling me I don’t want to live near a wind farm: Not In My Back Yard! (Or in the South 40, for that matter!)
How can we be sure that the Obama Administration is not in the hip-pocket of Big Wind in their push for renewable energy?
Oh, wait! Maybe it’s vice-versa…
Study says that living close to turbines causes catalogue of health issues
MUCH debate over wind turbines at last week's Fenland Council meeting preceded a newly-published study by a New York paediatrician who reckons living too near to them can cause heart disease, tinnitus, vertigo, panic attacks, migraines and sleep deprivation.
Quite a catalogue of health issues, your diarist concluded, as he delved into the Independent on Sunday's research into the five year study by Dr Nina Pierpoint.
The good doctor looked at symptoms displayed by people living near wind turbines not only in America and Europe but also in the UK and her findings have led her to confirm a new health risk, wind turbine syndrome (WTS).
It comes about, she reckons, through the disruption or abnormal stimulation of the inner ear's vestibular system by turbine infrasound and low frequency noise, the most distinctive feature of which is a group of symptoms she calls visceral vibratory vestibular disturbance, or VVVD.
"They cause problems ranging from internal pulsation, quivering, nervousness, fear, a compulsion to flee, chest tightness, and tachycardia- increased heart rate," says the Independent's Margaret Pagano.
"Turbine noise can also trigger nightmares and other disorders in children as well as harm cognitive development in the young."
(Click to read entire article)
Quite a catalogue of health issues, your diarist concluded, as he delved into the Independent on Sunday's research into the five year study by Dr Nina Pierpoint.
The good doctor looked at symptoms displayed by people living near wind turbines not only in America and Europe but also in the UK and her findings have led her to confirm a new health risk, wind turbine syndrome (WTS).
It comes about, she reckons, through the disruption or abnormal stimulation of the inner ear's vestibular system by turbine infrasound and low frequency noise, the most distinctive feature of which is a group of symptoms she calls visceral vibratory vestibular disturbance, or VVVD.
"They cause problems ranging from internal pulsation, quivering, nervousness, fear, a compulsion to flee, chest tightness, and tachycardia- increased heart rate," says the Independent's Margaret Pagano.
"Turbine noise can also trigger nightmares and other disorders in children as well as harm cognitive development in the young."
(Click to read entire article)
What made Cape Vincent great will be gone
Cape Vincent is where I grew up, and has always been my favorite place. I don't think I am alone in this sentiment. However, the proposed wind farm will certainly ruin the reason that Cape Vincent is so sacred and unique to people. More importantly, our future generations will never experience the natural beauty that this area is known for. It will be changed to an industrial nightmare. Many will not want to live or retire here as a result, and hence the legacy of families that settled and built this town will be lost forever. I have tried to remain neutral regarding the turbines, but there comes a time when you have to stand up for your rights.
Why do our town officials value the wind companies more than the citizens they represent? Furthermore, it's hard to understand why so many people are indifferent about the issue. Many people say, "I don't care one way or another because I won't see them from my house or from the village. They won't affect me." To me this translated to I don't care what happens to my neighbors or my community.
People in this town used to care about the well-being of their neighbors. Why has this changed so much? It's time more people started standing up for what is right for this town. What will Cape Vincent gain aside from some easy money? Since when was easy money a good thing, anyway? Times are tough, but that doesn't give people the right to do things that will adversely affect their neighbors' health, happiness, and land values.
The town as a whole needs more time before a decision is made that will forever change Cape Vincent for everyone. A one-year moratorium is not a lot to ask of our town officials. This would give us time to work together instead of against one another. If you are indifferent on the issue, think about how it will affect the whole town, not just yourself. Do we really want Cape Vincent to look and sound like Wolfe Island?
Why do our town officials value the wind companies more than the citizens they represent? Furthermore, it's hard to understand why so many people are indifferent about the issue. Many people say, "I don't care one way or another because I won't see them from my house or from the village. They won't affect me." To me this translated to I don't care what happens to my neighbors or my community.
People in this town used to care about the well-being of their neighbors. Why has this changed so much? It's time more people started standing up for what is right for this town. What will Cape Vincent gain aside from some easy money? Since when was easy money a good thing, anyway? Times are tough, but that doesn't give people the right to do things that will adversely affect their neighbors' health, happiness, and land values.
The town as a whole needs more time before a decision is made that will forever change Cape Vincent for everyone. A one-year moratorium is not a lot to ask of our town officials. This would give us time to work together instead of against one another. If you are indifferent on the issue, think about how it will affect the whole town, not just yourself. Do we really want Cape Vincent to look and sound like Wolfe Island?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)