FENNER — Engineers probing the collapse of a 190-ton turbine in rural Madison County have a lot of work ahead of them because the type of crash that occurred at Fenner Wind Farm appears to be unprecedented, officials from the wind farm operator said.
The turbine that crashed at about 4 a.m. Dec. 27, 2009, on the wind farm located northeast of Cazenovia became dislodged from its foundation.
That’s an unusual situation, said Hank Sennott, a spokesman for Enel North America, the company that operates the farm. Other documented crashes have occurred when turbines have spun out of control and split closer to the center hub of the turbine, he said.
“As far as we know, it’s never occurred anywhere else,” Sennott said of the type of collapse recorded in Fenner. “This is significant in terms of the impact it’s going to have on this industry.”
Enel North America’s most recent efforts to discover what caused the collapse include testing the soil surrounding the base of the fallen turbine as well as testing the concrete and steel found in its foundation.
Those samples were sent to labs several weeks ago to be compared against similar samplings taken from some of the other 19 turbines that remain intact at the wind farm. Officials are awaiting the results, Sennott said.
Last week, a team of engineers also began selectively inspecting the other turbines at the farm to compare them to what was found at the crash site. Temporary fencing will be erected around other turbines as they are testing as a safety precaution, and the engineers will not be climbing inside the turbines, which have remained out of service since the accident.
“We’re being abundantly cautious here,” Sennott said.
Officially originally predicted that the cause of the crash would be determined by the end of January, however, it’s now unknown when a report will be complete.
Data found in the collapsed turbine’s computer showed that the turbine was operating normally before it crashed, and its blades did not spin out of control.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Obama administration colluded with 'windmill welfare queens' to rebut European 'green job' studies
"Windmill welfare queens" -- the corporations who stand to benefit from carbon regulation, and who already benefit from massive subsidies -- are telling Americans that they can "have their cake and eat it too" when it comes to emissions controls and so-called "green jobs." A FOIA request now reveals that as the Obama administration scrambled to respond last year to strong evidence that "green jobs" are a massive an economic drain, costing 570,000 Euros apiece, Department of Energy officials relied heavily on Big Wind and its monied backers.
Writes Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute:
As candidate and president, on eight separate occasions Barack Obama instructed Americans to “think about what’s happening in countries like Spain [and] Germany” if they wanted to know what successful “green jobs” policies look like, and if they wanted to know what we should expect here in the U.S. from his agenda.
Some European economists took a look. In March, a research team from Madrid’s King Juan Carlos University produced a detailed, substantive, heavily sourced, two-method paper: “Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.” The paper concluded that Spain’s “green jobs” program was an economic failure, in fact costing Spain many jobs.
...[T]he Spanish study embarrassed the White House, prompting substantial media attention and even questioning at a press conference, Obama swapped out Denmark for Spain for later references to an enacted “green jobs” program.
Soon, Denmark produced a study (“Wind Energy: The Case of Denmark“) through the think-tank CEPOS. This paper also revealed tremendous costs, and that Obama’s claim about Denmark’s “renewables” experience was also steeped in mythology.
...Back in the U.S., the American Wind Energy Association — the lobby for “Big Wind” in Washington, D.C., which includes a few Spanish wind giants — also attacked the publication of the Spanish paper. Soon, the Obama administration published a five-page talking points memo assailing the economic assessment — written by two young, non-economist, pro-wind activists from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Boulder, Colorado...drafted in often personal terms.
It's well worth reading the whole thing to understand the relationship between the Left in government and the rent-seeking corporations who make their money not by producing anything, but by putting their hands in the next guy's pocket.
Writes Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute:
As candidate and president, on eight separate occasions Barack Obama instructed Americans to “think about what’s happening in countries like Spain [and] Germany” if they wanted to know what successful “green jobs” policies look like, and if they wanted to know what we should expect here in the U.S. from his agenda.
Some European economists took a look. In March, a research team from Madrid’s King Juan Carlos University produced a detailed, substantive, heavily sourced, two-method paper: “Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.” The paper concluded that Spain’s “green jobs” program was an economic failure, in fact costing Spain many jobs.
...[T]he Spanish study embarrassed the White House, prompting substantial media attention and even questioning at a press conference, Obama swapped out Denmark for Spain for later references to an enacted “green jobs” program.
Soon, Denmark produced a study (“Wind Energy: The Case of Denmark“) through the think-tank CEPOS. This paper also revealed tremendous costs, and that Obama’s claim about Denmark’s “renewables” experience was also steeped in mythology.
...Back in the U.S., the American Wind Energy Association — the lobby for “Big Wind” in Washington, D.C., which includes a few Spanish wind giants — also attacked the publication of the Spanish paper. Soon, the Obama administration published a five-page talking points memo assailing the economic assessment — written by two young, non-economist, pro-wind activists from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Boulder, Colorado...drafted in often personal terms.
It's well worth reading the whole thing to understand the relationship between the Left in government and the rent-seeking corporations who make their money not by producing anything, but by putting their hands in the next guy's pocket.
FOIA Docs Show Obama Asked George Soros and Wind Energy Lobbyists to Hide European Wind Energy Program Failures
The Blog Prof links to Chris Horner's article at Pajamas Media that details how Barack Obama, George Soros, and wind energy lobbyists colluded to hide the details of two economic studies that showed the wind energy programs in Spain and Denmark didn't help the economy and create jobs as the president said they did. I'm only including a small portion of Chris's article, but it's chock full of very interesting nuggets of information about how the Obama administration tried to undermine the credibility of the two studies:
After two studies refuted President Barack Obama's assertions regarding the success of Spain's and Denmark's wind energy programs, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request reveals the Department of Energy turned to George Soros and to wind industry lobbyists to attack the studies.
Via the FOIA request, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has learned that the Department of Energy -- specifically the office headed by Al Gore's company's former CEO, Cathy Zoi -- turned to George Soros' Center for American Progress and other wind industry lobbyists to help push Obama's wind energy proposals.
The FOIA request was not entirely complied with, and CEI just filed an appeal over documents still being withheld. In addition to withholding many internal communications, the administration is withholding communications with these lobbyists and other related communications, claiming they constitute "inter-agency memoranda." This implies that, according to the DoE, wind industry lobbyists and Soros's Center for American Progress are -- for legal purposes -- extensions of the government.
This is a defense commonly employed against FOIA requests when seeking to withhold certain communications with, for example, paid consultants.
As candidate and president, on eight separate occasions Barack Obama instructed Americans to "think about what's happening in countries like Spain [and] Germany" if they wanted to know what successful "green jobs" policies look like, and if they wanted to know what we should expect here in the U.S. from his agenda.
Some European economists took a look. In March, a research team from Madrid's King Juan Carlos University produced a detailed, substantive, heavily sourced, two-method paper: "Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources." The paper concluded that Spain's "green jobs" program was an economic failure, in fact costing Spain many jobs.
So the green jobs initiatives in Europe were deemed a failure. That didn't deter Barack Obama from trying to foist his massive green jobs initiative on the rest of us. He launched his own effort to "hide the decline," the economic decline that green jobs created in Europe from the American people.
Now, I am not by any means an expert on wind energy, but The Blog Prof is. He is an Associate Professor of Engineering at Oakland University and teaches a class about wind turbines and says this:
Now let me preface this post by saying that I am actually a fan of wind power. I mean - I do teach the subject after all at the university. What I am against is government pushing the technology which has led to an artificial spike in demand and has raised corresponding prices, in essence created a wind turbine bubble that will soon pop when the demand comes back down to where it was supposed to be all along. In addition, there is little if any environmental benefit to wind turbines as many, especially in the media and political classes, ignore completely the raw material, energy and manufacturing that goes into each. It's far from 'green.' Europe is at least learning the former lesson as its push for wind turbines is not having the beneficial economic effect that it was purported to have... I have posted a couple of times on the Spanish 'green' jobs or lack thereof, including this post - The True Cost of "Green Jobs"- with the conclusion that each green job displaced 2.2 conventional jobs. Denmark found a similar disaster afoot.
Which is why Obama called on Soros and his merry band of wind energy lobbyists to do what they could to hide the reality that wind energy does not create jobs, but kills them instead. As the president's team did their best to undermine the reports, President Obama battled forward and continued with his narrative that a green economy is a more prosperous economy even though he knew the truth. To hell with the negative economic impact his green jobs initiative will have on America's already weak economy. To this day Obama continues to push his environmental agenda no matter how bad it will be economically for our nation because it, just like his health care reform agenda, is the vehicle that will bring the American people under the control of the federal government.
The Washington Examiner has more in an editorial here.
After two studies refuted President Barack Obama's assertions regarding the success of Spain's and Denmark's wind energy programs, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request reveals the Department of Energy turned to George Soros and to wind industry lobbyists to attack the studies.
Via the FOIA request, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has learned that the Department of Energy -- specifically the office headed by Al Gore's company's former CEO, Cathy Zoi -- turned to George Soros' Center for American Progress and other wind industry lobbyists to help push Obama's wind energy proposals.
The FOIA request was not entirely complied with, and CEI just filed an appeal over documents still being withheld. In addition to withholding many internal communications, the administration is withholding communications with these lobbyists and other related communications, claiming they constitute "inter-agency memoranda." This implies that, according to the DoE, wind industry lobbyists and Soros's Center for American Progress are -- for legal purposes -- extensions of the government.
This is a defense commonly employed against FOIA requests when seeking to withhold certain communications with, for example, paid consultants.
As candidate and president, on eight separate occasions Barack Obama instructed Americans to "think about what's happening in countries like Spain [and] Germany" if they wanted to know what successful "green jobs" policies look like, and if they wanted to know what we should expect here in the U.S. from his agenda.
Some European economists took a look. In March, a research team from Madrid's King Juan Carlos University produced a detailed, substantive, heavily sourced, two-method paper: "Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources." The paper concluded that Spain's "green jobs" program was an economic failure, in fact costing Spain many jobs.
So the green jobs initiatives in Europe were deemed a failure. That didn't deter Barack Obama from trying to foist his massive green jobs initiative on the rest of us. He launched his own effort to "hide the decline," the economic decline that green jobs created in Europe from the American people.
Now, I am not by any means an expert on wind energy, but The Blog Prof is. He is an Associate Professor of Engineering at Oakland University and teaches a class about wind turbines and says this:
Now let me preface this post by saying that I am actually a fan of wind power. I mean - I do teach the subject after all at the university. What I am against is government pushing the technology which has led to an artificial spike in demand and has raised corresponding prices, in essence created a wind turbine bubble that will soon pop when the demand comes back down to where it was supposed to be all along. In addition, there is little if any environmental benefit to wind turbines as many, especially in the media and political classes, ignore completely the raw material, energy and manufacturing that goes into each. It's far from 'green.' Europe is at least learning the former lesson as its push for wind turbines is not having the beneficial economic effect that it was purported to have... I have posted a couple of times on the Spanish 'green' jobs or lack thereof, including this post - The True Cost of "Green Jobs"- with the conclusion that each green job displaced 2.2 conventional jobs. Denmark found a similar disaster afoot.
Which is why Obama called on Soros and his merry band of wind energy lobbyists to do what they could to hide the reality that wind energy does not create jobs, but kills them instead. As the president's team did their best to undermine the reports, President Obama battled forward and continued with his narrative that a green economy is a more prosperous economy even though he knew the truth. To hell with the negative economic impact his green jobs initiative will have on America's already weak economy. To this day Obama continues to push his environmental agenda no matter how bad it will be economically for our nation because it, just like his health care reform agenda, is the vehicle that will bring the American people under the control of the federal government.
The Washington Examiner has more in an editorial here.
Eric Massa on Glenn Beck and Larry King tonight Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Eric Massa will not only be on Glenn Beck at 5:00 PM but also on Larry King Live tonight Tuesday on CNN at 9:00 PM.
Monday, March 08, 2010
Massa To Sit Down With Glenn Beck Tomorrow 3/9/10 5:00 PM
Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY), who is set to resign today at 5 p.m. ET after being dogged by allegations of sexual misconduct, will sit down with Glenn Beck for a full hour tomorrow.
Rep. Massa Blast Dems: He Was Set Up…Hoyer Lied…May Rescind Resignation
"When I voted against the cap and trade bill, the phone rang and it was the chief of staff to the president of the United States of America, Rahm Emanuel, and he started swearing at me in terms and words that I hadn't heard since that crossing the line ceremony on the USS New Jersey in 1983," Massa said. "And I gave it right back to him, in terms and words that I know are physically impossible."
Editor's note: In another section of the interview Massa hints that he may rescind his resignation: “I’m not going to be a Congressman as of 5 o’clock [Monday] afternoon. The only way to stop that is for me to rescind my resignation. That’s the only way to stop it. And the only way that’s going to happen is if this becomes a national story.”
Courts to decide wind farm fight
PRATTSBURGH
The Prattsburgh Town Board will face wind developer Ecogen in court, despite divided public opinion about that decision.
The board voted 4-1 in favor of court action Tuesday night after a special meeting held by the new town board to gauge residents’ reaction to a lawsuit filed by wind developer Ecogen.
Town Supervisor Al Wordingham and council members Steve Kula Anneke Radin-Snaith and Chuck Shick voted to proceed with court action. Councilwoman Stacey Bottoni voted against the court action.
Ecogen is asking the state Supreme Court to allow a previous settlement in December to stand, effectively allowing the developer to begin construction of a 16-turbine wind farm in the town. Critics said the settlement took away the town’s right to home rule, and the current board rescinded the agreement in January.
Nearly 200 people crowded into the town hall basement, with roughly 46 residents taking two hours to speak out on whether the town should fight the Ecogen lawsuit.
Of those speaking, 32 supported fighting the lawsuit, while 14 said the town should settle with Ecogen.
The tally of written responses collected since Saturday was closer, with 134 favoring a legal fight and 123 telling the board to give up. The total opposing a court battle included 62 signatures on petitions submitted to the board, with many questionable signatures, according to Councilman Steve Kula.
The board also threw out more than 40 supportive letters from people living outside of Prattsburgh.
Before the comment period, Supervisor Al Wordingham said an attempt to meet Thursday with Ecogen failed because the developer would not, in turn, give the town more time to respond in court.
The town has one week to submit detailed paperwork, with a hearing set for mid-March. At the beginning of the comment period, Wordingham told residents the board would not be billed by its legal firm of Bond Schoeneck and King until January 2011.
Wordingham also talked about the potential effect the lawsuit might have on the 2011 tax levy.
A hypothetical legal cost of $100,000 passed on to taxpayers would result in a $.95 cent per $1,000 increase in the 2011 levy, Wordingham said. The current town tax rate is $7.70 per $1,000.
“That means if you have a $100,000 house, it will cost you $95,” he said.
Former town bookkeeper Dolores Billings said the town’s fund balance would not pay for legal costs this year, and warned an extended court fight would “put the town in debt for the first time in 20 years.”
But Judith Hall, a Prattsburgh property owner, told the board $20,000 has been pledged since a town hall meeting Saturday to help pay the town’s legal costs. Hall said she expects to raise $50,000.
The long-range economic effect of losing the wind farm industry concerned a number of residents. Local businessman Robert Underhill opposed a court battle, saying the town has lost industries and farms in recent years while property taxes continue to increase.
Underhill also addressed concerns about noise, saying people in other areas learn to live near noisy airports and interstate highways and railroads.
But others said the low- and high-frequency sound of the turbines threaten the health and safety of residents and require greater setbacks than current limits.
For many property owners, fighting the lawsuit was a matter of principle. Residents were concerned about control issues, such as eminent domain, while others charged Ecogen was trying to bully the town into submission.
Others asked the board to settle, simply to restore peace in the town.
“This adversarial nature is sickening,” one man told the board.
Tom McAllister said new members of the board had been elected in November by a substantial majority of the voters and had the confidence of those voters to act in the town’s best interest.
“I want you to continue to fight, but that’s just myopinion,” McAllister said. “Act on the knowledge you have … show us you are great leaders.”
After the board vote in favor of opposing Ecogen in court, Wordingham said the town board will set up a way to collect donations at their regularly scheduled meeting March 15.
The Prattsburgh Town Board will face wind developer Ecogen in court, despite divided public opinion about that decision.
The board voted 4-1 in favor of court action Tuesday night after a special meeting held by the new town board to gauge residents’ reaction to a lawsuit filed by wind developer Ecogen.
Town Supervisor Al Wordingham and council members Steve Kula Anneke Radin-Snaith and Chuck Shick voted to proceed with court action. Councilwoman Stacey Bottoni voted against the court action.
Ecogen is asking the state Supreme Court to allow a previous settlement in December to stand, effectively allowing the developer to begin construction of a 16-turbine wind farm in the town. Critics said the settlement took away the town’s right to home rule, and the current board rescinded the agreement in January.
Nearly 200 people crowded into the town hall basement, with roughly 46 residents taking two hours to speak out on whether the town should fight the Ecogen lawsuit.
Of those speaking, 32 supported fighting the lawsuit, while 14 said the town should settle with Ecogen.
The tally of written responses collected since Saturday was closer, with 134 favoring a legal fight and 123 telling the board to give up. The total opposing a court battle included 62 signatures on petitions submitted to the board, with many questionable signatures, according to Councilman Steve Kula.
The board also threw out more than 40 supportive letters from people living outside of Prattsburgh.
Before the comment period, Supervisor Al Wordingham said an attempt to meet Thursday with Ecogen failed because the developer would not, in turn, give the town more time to respond in court.
The town has one week to submit detailed paperwork, with a hearing set for mid-March. At the beginning of the comment period, Wordingham told residents the board would not be billed by its legal firm of Bond Schoeneck and King until January 2011.
Wordingham also talked about the potential effect the lawsuit might have on the 2011 tax levy.
A hypothetical legal cost of $100,000 passed on to taxpayers would result in a $.95 cent per $1,000 increase in the 2011 levy, Wordingham said. The current town tax rate is $7.70 per $1,000.
“That means if you have a $100,000 house, it will cost you $95,” he said.
Former town bookkeeper Dolores Billings said the town’s fund balance would not pay for legal costs this year, and warned an extended court fight would “put the town in debt for the first time in 20 years.”
But Judith Hall, a Prattsburgh property owner, told the board $20,000 has been pledged since a town hall meeting Saturday to help pay the town’s legal costs. Hall said she expects to raise $50,000.
The long-range economic effect of losing the wind farm industry concerned a number of residents. Local businessman Robert Underhill opposed a court battle, saying the town has lost industries and farms in recent years while property taxes continue to increase.
Underhill also addressed concerns about noise, saying people in other areas learn to live near noisy airports and interstate highways and railroads.
But others said the low- and high-frequency sound of the turbines threaten the health and safety of residents and require greater setbacks than current limits.
For many property owners, fighting the lawsuit was a matter of principle. Residents were concerned about control issues, such as eminent domain, while others charged Ecogen was trying to bully the town into submission.
Others asked the board to settle, simply to restore peace in the town.
“This adversarial nature is sickening,” one man told the board.
Tom McAllister said new members of the board had been elected in November by a substantial majority of the voters and had the confidence of those voters to act in the town’s best interest.
“I want you to continue to fight, but that’s just myopinion,” McAllister said. “Act on the knowledge you have … show us you are great leaders.”
After the board vote in favor of opposing Ecogen in court, Wordingham said the town board will set up a way to collect donations at their regularly scheduled meeting March 15.
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Wind power the worst kind of mirage
Wind energy is an engineer's nightmare. To begin with, the energy density of flowing air is miserably low. Therefore, you need a massive contraption to catch one megawatt at best, and a thousand of these to equal a single gas-or coal-fired power plant.
If you design them for a wind speed of 34 miles per hour, they are useless at wind speeds below 22 mph and extremely dangerous at 44 mph, unless feathered in time. Remember, power is proportional to the cube of the wind speed. Old-fashioned Dutch windmills needed a two-man crew on 12-hour watch, seven days a week, because a runaway windmill first burnt its bearings, then its hardwood gears, then the entire superstructure.
This was the nightmare of millers everywhere in the "good" old days. And what did these beautiful antiques deliver? Fifteen horsepower at best, in favourable winds, about what a power lawn mower does these days. No wonder the Dutch switched to steam-powered pumping stations as soon as they could, in the late 19th century.
Since the power generated by modern wind turbines is so unpredictable, conventional power plants have to serve as back-ups. These run at less than half power most of the time. That is terribly uneconomical -- only at full power do they have good thermal efficiency and minimal CO2 emissions per kWh delivered.
Think also a moment of the cable networks needed: not only a fine-maze distribution network at the consumer end, but also one at the generator end. And what about servicing? How do you get a repair crew to a lonely hillside? Especially when you decided to put the wind park at sea? Use helicopters -- now that is green!
For that matter, would you care to imagine what happens to rotor blades in freezing rain? Or how the efficiency of laminar-flow rotor blades decreases as bugs and dust accumulate on their leading edges?
Or what did happen in Germany more than once? German legislation gives wind power absolute priority, so all other forms of generating electricity have to back off when the wind starts blowing. This creates dangerous, almost uncontrollable instabilities in the high-voltage network. At those moments, power plant operators all over Europe sweat blood, almost literally. The synchronization of the system is also a scary job: alternating currents at 100,000 volts or more cannot be out of phase more than one degree or so, else circuit breakers pop everywhere and a brownout all over Europe starts.
One application might be attractive, though. Suppose you fill a water basin in the hills nearby using wind power when it blows, and turn the water turbines on when emergency power is needed for one reason or another (a power plant failure, a cold winter night).
Wind power is a green mirage of the worst kind. It looks green to simple souls but it is a technical nightmare. Nowhere I have been, be it Holland, Denmark, Germany, France or California, have I seen wind parks where all turbines were operating properly. Typically, 20% stand idle, out of commission, broken down. Use Google Videos to find examples of wind turbine crashes, start meditating and reach your own conclusions.
Why don't politicians listen to engineers? Why do engineers cave in to politically inspired financing? Merely to join the green daydreaming? I am an engineer; I want to be proud of my profession.
- Henk Tennekes is an aeronautical engineer and the former research director of KNMI, the Dutch National Weather Service. This article was published today by The Pielke Research Group at http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/
If you design them for a wind speed of 34 miles per hour, they are useless at wind speeds below 22 mph and extremely dangerous at 44 mph, unless feathered in time. Remember, power is proportional to the cube of the wind speed. Old-fashioned Dutch windmills needed a two-man crew on 12-hour watch, seven days a week, because a runaway windmill first burnt its bearings, then its hardwood gears, then the entire superstructure.
This was the nightmare of millers everywhere in the "good" old days. And what did these beautiful antiques deliver? Fifteen horsepower at best, in favourable winds, about what a power lawn mower does these days. No wonder the Dutch switched to steam-powered pumping stations as soon as they could, in the late 19th century.
Since the power generated by modern wind turbines is so unpredictable, conventional power plants have to serve as back-ups. These run at less than half power most of the time. That is terribly uneconomical -- only at full power do they have good thermal efficiency and minimal CO2 emissions per kWh delivered.
Think also a moment of the cable networks needed: not only a fine-maze distribution network at the consumer end, but also one at the generator end. And what about servicing? How do you get a repair crew to a lonely hillside? Especially when you decided to put the wind park at sea? Use helicopters -- now that is green!
For that matter, would you care to imagine what happens to rotor blades in freezing rain? Or how the efficiency of laminar-flow rotor blades decreases as bugs and dust accumulate on their leading edges?
Or what did happen in Germany more than once? German legislation gives wind power absolute priority, so all other forms of generating electricity have to back off when the wind starts blowing. This creates dangerous, almost uncontrollable instabilities in the high-voltage network. At those moments, power plant operators all over Europe sweat blood, almost literally. The synchronization of the system is also a scary job: alternating currents at 100,000 volts or more cannot be out of phase more than one degree or so, else circuit breakers pop everywhere and a brownout all over Europe starts.
One application might be attractive, though. Suppose you fill a water basin in the hills nearby using wind power when it blows, and turn the water turbines on when emergency power is needed for one reason or another (a power plant failure, a cold winter night).
Wind power is a green mirage of the worst kind. It looks green to simple souls but it is a technical nightmare. Nowhere I have been, be it Holland, Denmark, Germany, France or California, have I seen wind parks where all turbines were operating properly. Typically, 20% stand idle, out of commission, broken down. Use Google Videos to find examples of wind turbine crashes, start meditating and reach your own conclusions.
Why don't politicians listen to engineers? Why do engineers cave in to politically inspired financing? Merely to join the green daydreaming? I am an engineer; I want to be proud of my profession.
- Henk Tennekes is an aeronautical engineer and the former research director of KNMI, the Dutch National Weather Service. This article was published today by The Pielke Research Group at http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/
Friday, March 05, 2010
Residents say they don't want wind turbines in Lake Ontario
Pulaski, NY -- About 80 people who live on or near the shore of Lake Ontario in Oswego and Jefferson counties turned out Wednesday night in Pulaski to say they do not want New York Power Authority putting wind turbines in Lake Ontario.
The Joint Commission for the Preservation of Lake Ontario Communities and other area residents said the wind turbines would hurt tourism, a huge industry in Oswego County.
“There is no benefit to the wind turbines for us,” said Shawn Doyle, a commission co-chair, longtime Pulaski resident and Oswego County legislator representing the Pulaski-Richland area.
“Tourism and fishing we get from the lake and (Salmon and Oswego) rivers, then there’s Selkirk Shores state park and Brennan’s Beach has more than 1,500 camping sites,” Doyle said. “The turbines are going to disrupt any views and will be terribly disruptive to the fishermen, because they’re going to be blocked to get out of the lake.”
H. Douglas Barclay, of Pulaski, told residents they have to unite to do what’s right for the area. Bob Ashodian, treasurer of the Henderson Harbor Chamber of Commerce, said the turbines would essentially create a blockade, shutting off people who want to boat from Sodus and Oswego to points north.
Doyle said about 25 residents spoke at the meeting. Some said they are not against wind power, but are against this project because it would kill the economy of the area, which is heavily dependent on fishing and recreational boating.
The power authority late last year proposed putting 100 or so wind turbines just offshore in Lake Ontario or Lake Erie. The authority conducted meetings in various sites along both lakes, including Nov. 13 in Oswego, to discuss wind power.
The Joint Commission for the Preservation of Lake Ontario Communities and other area residents said the wind turbines would hurt tourism, a huge industry in Oswego County.
“There is no benefit to the wind turbines for us,” said Shawn Doyle, a commission co-chair, longtime Pulaski resident and Oswego County legislator representing the Pulaski-Richland area.
“Tourism and fishing we get from the lake and (Salmon and Oswego) rivers, then there’s Selkirk Shores state park and Brennan’s Beach has more than 1,500 camping sites,” Doyle said. “The turbines are going to disrupt any views and will be terribly disruptive to the fishermen, because they’re going to be blocked to get out of the lake.”
H. Douglas Barclay, of Pulaski, told residents they have to unite to do what’s right for the area. Bob Ashodian, treasurer of the Henderson Harbor Chamber of Commerce, said the turbines would essentially create a blockade, shutting off people who want to boat from Sodus and Oswego to points north.
Doyle said about 25 residents spoke at the meeting. Some said they are not against wind power, but are against this project because it would kill the economy of the area, which is heavily dependent on fishing and recreational boating.
The power authority late last year proposed putting 100 or so wind turbines just offshore in Lake Ontario or Lake Erie. The authority conducted meetings in various sites along both lakes, including Nov. 13 in Oswego, to discuss wind power.
Activists see Cape Wind cost shocky Christine McConville
Report projects $10B for ‘green’ power system upgrades
The region’s electrical grid operator has determined that a $10 billion investment in transmission facilities would be needed to move energy from new wind farms to customers across New England.
ISO New England’s 60-page report - which put the price tag on a scenario for an additional 8,500 megawatts of wind power - is energizing critics of Cape Wind who contend the offshore project will shock ratepayers with skyrocketing bills.
“It’s another example of the huge cost of offshore wind,” said Audra Parker of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, the leading opponent of Cape Wind
But Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers said the report has nothing to do with the 130-turbine project that Cape Wind Associates has spent nine years trying to get built.
“It has no relevance for Cape Wind,” he said in an e-mailed statement. “Cape Wind will pay for all of the costs related to electric transmission from our facility to the Barnstable substation where we are connecting into the electric grid.”
Rodgers won’t reveal Cape Wind’s costs, but critics have put its price tag at $2.6 billion.
Cape Wind is now in talks with utility National Grid about buying energy from the project. The federal government is close to deciding whether Cape Wind may move forward.
Massachusetts Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles, a wind energy supporter, praised ISO New England’s report for providing hard-to-find data.
“Generally speaking, it is an academic exercise to help inform the debate,” he said.
The governors from the six New England states hired the grid operator to conduct the power system study as part of a long-running effort to identify new energy sources, and the cost of bringing them on line.
The region’s electrical grid operator has determined that a $10 billion investment in transmission facilities would be needed to move energy from new wind farms to customers across New England.
ISO New England’s 60-page report - which put the price tag on a scenario for an additional 8,500 megawatts of wind power - is energizing critics of Cape Wind who contend the offshore project will shock ratepayers with skyrocketing bills.
“It’s another example of the huge cost of offshore wind,” said Audra Parker of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, the leading opponent of Cape Wind
But Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers said the report has nothing to do with the 130-turbine project that Cape Wind Associates has spent nine years trying to get built.
“It has no relevance for Cape Wind,” he said in an e-mailed statement. “Cape Wind will pay for all of the costs related to electric transmission from our facility to the Barnstable substation where we are connecting into the electric grid.”
Rodgers won’t reveal Cape Wind’s costs, but critics have put its price tag at $2.6 billion.
Cape Wind is now in talks with utility National Grid about buying energy from the project. The federal government is close to deciding whether Cape Wind may move forward.
Massachusetts Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles, a wind energy supporter, praised ISO New England’s report for providing hard-to-find data.
“Generally speaking, it is an academic exercise to help inform the debate,” he said.
The governors from the six New England states hired the grid operator to conduct the power system study as part of a long-running effort to identify new energy sources, and the cost of bringing them on line.
Bertram To Name Wind Advisory Committee Mon
HAMMOND - The Hammond Wind Advisory Committee is to be made up of between seven and 12 residents of the town of Hammond and will be announced at Monday's town board meeting, according to Town Supervisor Ron W. Bertram.
The supervisor said Wednesday that although he has received additional applications, the committee will be selected from the 22 applicants that met the Feb. 22 deadline set previously by the town board.
"I expect to appoint people on Monday night," Mr. Bertram said, adding that he had been "diligently" reviewing the pool of resumes and letters that were presented to the board.
Being considered for the committee are Sonja Kocan, Nancy Chase, Lenny Bicklehaupt, Allan P. Newell, Fred Proven, Jay Benton, Steven White, David Duff, Steven Saferty, Michelle McQueer, Ann Root, Richard Champany, Thomas Chapman, Don Ceresoli Jr., Merritt Young, Jim Misenko, Ronald Papke, Rudolph Schneider, Mary Hamilton, Howard Demick, Larry Fuller, and Kelly Rogers.
"It is a Wind Advisory Committee to serve the Hammond Town Board, so I think it will be composed of residents of Hammond. I think we have enough qualified applicants that we won't need to go outside the town," he said.
Cuts will have to be made from the existing list of candidates.
"About half that size or less," Mr. Bertram said of the 22 interested, "I'm hovering between seven and twelve. Once you get over that, you reach a point where it becomes unproductive."
According to the supervisor, those selected will be facing the task of taking a hard look at the present law and addressing health and safety issues that have been raised by the public.
"I am going to stress to this committee to take 100 percent of the public comments. They are not to shrug off anyone or any issues," he said. "They will be asked to take that into consideration."
Mr. Bertram says the committee is a hot topic in Hammond.
"I've been approached by several people about who might be appointed," he said. "And we have some people who are 100 percent pro-wind law and others who are 100 percent anti-wind law."
"Ultimately," Mr. Bertram continued, "the decision to change the law is up to the town board. I would also stress that to the Wind Advisory Committee. The town board will make the final decisions."
Neither he nor any other town board will serve on the committee.
"All members of the town board will be encouraged to sit in on the meetings," Mr. Bertram said. "I will be at as many as I can get to. The goal is to get as much public input as possible."
"Before the election I was not anti-wind," he said. "I would never vote anti-wind. I would like to see decisions being made based on fact, but right now, I don't have that. This thing must have an end in sight, but we don't want to shut anyone out."
The time for action, however, is ticking.
"The moratorium ends in July," he said. "The committee will be charged with having their recommendations by then or at least with having shown some significant progress."
The supervisor said Wednesday that although he has received additional applications, the committee will be selected from the 22 applicants that met the Feb. 22 deadline set previously by the town board.
"I expect to appoint people on Monday night," Mr. Bertram said, adding that he had been "diligently" reviewing the pool of resumes and letters that were presented to the board.
Being considered for the committee are Sonja Kocan, Nancy Chase, Lenny Bicklehaupt, Allan P. Newell, Fred Proven, Jay Benton, Steven White, David Duff, Steven Saferty, Michelle McQueer, Ann Root, Richard Champany, Thomas Chapman, Don Ceresoli Jr., Merritt Young, Jim Misenko, Ronald Papke, Rudolph Schneider, Mary Hamilton, Howard Demick, Larry Fuller, and Kelly Rogers.
"It is a Wind Advisory Committee to serve the Hammond Town Board, so I think it will be composed of residents of Hammond. I think we have enough qualified applicants that we won't need to go outside the town," he said.
Cuts will have to be made from the existing list of candidates.
"About half that size or less," Mr. Bertram said of the 22 interested, "I'm hovering between seven and twelve. Once you get over that, you reach a point where it becomes unproductive."
According to the supervisor, those selected will be facing the task of taking a hard look at the present law and addressing health and safety issues that have been raised by the public.
"I am going to stress to this committee to take 100 percent of the public comments. They are not to shrug off anyone or any issues," he said. "They will be asked to take that into consideration."
Mr. Bertram says the committee is a hot topic in Hammond.
"I've been approached by several people about who might be appointed," he said. "And we have some people who are 100 percent pro-wind law and others who are 100 percent anti-wind law."
"Ultimately," Mr. Bertram continued, "the decision to change the law is up to the town board. I would also stress that to the Wind Advisory Committee. The town board will make the final decisions."
Neither he nor any other town board will serve on the committee.
"All members of the town board will be encouraged to sit in on the meetings," Mr. Bertram said. "I will be at as many as I can get to. The goal is to get as much public input as possible."
"Before the election I was not anti-wind," he said. "I would never vote anti-wind. I would like to see decisions being made based on fact, but right now, I don't have that. This thing must have an end in sight, but we don't want to shut anyone out."
The time for action, however, is ticking.
"The moratorium ends in July," he said. "The committee will be charged with having their recommendations by then or at least with having shown some significant progress."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)