I was asked to share this by Save Our Sound and Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. They would like for all to call in and voice their opposition to this project. Please email to those that you think might have time to help.
NPR: Cape Wind Talk Show http://shar.es/mcm9s
CALL IN TODAY 800-989-8255 at 2pm to voice opposition.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/ (They may talk briefly about cars, first).
AWEA's Bode will be on the show.
Thanks in advance!
Cynthia Wadsworth
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Visual and sound impacts from the Wolfe Island wind project on residents of Tibbetts Point Road, Cape Vincent, NY
This report outlines the acoustic and visual impacts of the Wolfe Island Wind Project on residents 2 miles (3.2 km) across the St. Lawrence River along the Tibbetts Point Road, Cape Vincent. Sound levels measured in January-February 2010, when the wind farm was operating, were 3 to 4 dBA greater than background sound levels measured in 2008, prior to construction of the wind farm. A mail-questionnaire was sent to 43 residents of the Tibbetts Point Road to assess their reaction to noise and visual impacts from the Wolfe Island Wind Project. Twenty-seven questionnaires were returned for a 63% response rate. Most respondents did not notice wind turbine noise, but at times, 38% were annoyed by the wind turbine sound. For the level of sound increase over background levels, respondents were more annoyed than New York DEC noise policy predicted.
Those respondents that heard the turbines described the noise as a low frequency/low pitched sound that is louder on summer evenings when winds were weak or non-existent. This supports other research linking annoyance with wind turbine noise and atmospheric stability. Far more respondents (88%) were annoyed by the change in landscape view than with noise. Ninety-two percent said these changes were for the worst and the blinking lights at night were especially disturbing; some comparing them with a commercial airport. Policy makers should know that visual and acoustic impacts for non-participating, waterfront residents are likely more negative than they may have initially thought. Furthermore, current NYSDEC noise guidelines may not adequately predict human response to wind turbine sound levels. (Note respondent comments in Appendix A)
Download File(s):
Visual and Sound Impact Final.pdf (356.13 kB)
Those respondents that heard the turbines described the noise as a low frequency/low pitched sound that is louder on summer evenings when winds were weak or non-existent. This supports other research linking annoyance with wind turbine noise and atmospheric stability. Far more respondents (88%) were annoyed by the change in landscape view than with noise. Ninety-two percent said these changes were for the worst and the blinking lights at night were especially disturbing; some comparing them with a commercial airport. Policy makers should know that visual and acoustic impacts for non-participating, waterfront residents are likely more negative than they may have initially thought. Furthermore, current NYSDEC noise guidelines may not adequately predict human response to wind turbine sound levels. (Note respondent comments in Appendix A)
Download File(s):
Visual and Sound Impact Final.pdf (356.13 kB)
April 28, 2010 Letter to State of Maine AG Mills regarding Kurt Adams and First Wind
April 28, 2010
Attorney General Janet Mills
6 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333
Dear Ms. Mills,
We are writing on behalf of the Citizens Task Force on Wind Power in asking for your office to conduct a full investigation into the matter of Kurt Adams accepting a grant of "units of equity" from his future employer First Wind, while still acting as head of Maine PUC, which was revealed in reporter Naomi Shalit's piece in the Bangor Daily News and the Sun Journal on April 22, 2010 (enclosed). The timing of these grants, apparently a month prior to Adams leaving PUC to go to work for First Wind, raises serious questions about Adam's impartiality in dealing with wind power issues while still employed as a Maine PUC Commissioner. It also raises questions of whether his conduct violated 17-A M.R.S.A. §605 (improper gifts to public servants") or 5 M.R.S.A. §19 (financial disclosure by executive employees).
We are particularly disturbed by the public statements attributed to Mr. Adams purporting to justify the receipt of "units of equity" while serving as PUC Chair on grounds that the stock interest "had no value at all" at the time. The stock interest clearly was a "pecuniary benefit" by any definition of the term, as used in the criminal statute, and, based on the information in the news article, might well qualify as "income" within the meaning of the disclosure statute. The disclaimer by Mr. Adams, at a minimum, shows insensitivity to the clear appearance of a conflict that invites further investigation.
A thorough review of PUC matters related to wind power under Mr. Adams' tenure is warranted, because his conversations with First Wind about employment no doubt preceded the award of stock options. Typically in employment contracts such as Mr. Adams entered into with First Wind there is extensive fine print, with terms of employment, including job description, performance review and potential for promotion and particulars about compensation and bonuses requiring significant time and back and forth, negotiations and review by attorneys, etc.
We believe it is important to know when Mr. Adams began discussing employment opportunities with First Wind, and what, if any PUC matters involving First Wind, such as the approval of an agreement between First Wind at Rollins and CMP for the purchase of future wind generated electricity at rates much higher than current day ahead or real time market rates in Maine, came under review during this time. It is also important to know what other matters involving wind power energy came under his jurisdiction when he had a relationship with First Wind or its predecessor, even if it did not involve First Wind.
We are aware of requests for an investigation of First Wind by Hampton Mitchell and also by attorney Lynne Williams, due to concerns about potential improper dealings with government officials in Maine. We are aware that the Attorney General in New York investigated First Wind (then called UPC Wind), for improper dealings with local officials which resulted in the creation of a special Code of Ethics for wind companies in New York.
The questions raised by Adams' acceptance of stock options while still employed by the state of Maine can only be answered by an impartial and thorough investigation by your office. We hope you agree that this is a potentially serious matter, which at a minimum creates the appearance of conflict of interest and thereby undermines the trust of citizens in the government.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Monique Aniel, MD
Steve Thurston
co-chairs, Citizens Task Force on Wind Power.
Citizens Task Force on Wind Power
PO Box 345
Oquossoc, Me 04964
Attorney General Janet Mills
6 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333
Dear Ms. Mills,
We are writing on behalf of the Citizens Task Force on Wind Power in asking for your office to conduct a full investigation into the matter of Kurt Adams accepting a grant of "units of equity" from his future employer First Wind, while still acting as head of Maine PUC, which was revealed in reporter Naomi Shalit's piece in the Bangor Daily News and the Sun Journal on April 22, 2010 (enclosed). The timing of these grants, apparently a month prior to Adams leaving PUC to go to work for First Wind, raises serious questions about Adam's impartiality in dealing with wind power issues while still employed as a Maine PUC Commissioner. It also raises questions of whether his conduct violated 17-A M.R.S.A. §605 (improper gifts to public servants") or 5 M.R.S.A. §19 (financial disclosure by executive employees).
We are particularly disturbed by the public statements attributed to Mr. Adams purporting to justify the receipt of "units of equity" while serving as PUC Chair on grounds that the stock interest "had no value at all" at the time. The stock interest clearly was a "pecuniary benefit" by any definition of the term, as used in the criminal statute, and, based on the information in the news article, might well qualify as "income" within the meaning of the disclosure statute. The disclaimer by Mr. Adams, at a minimum, shows insensitivity to the clear appearance of a conflict that invites further investigation.
A thorough review of PUC matters related to wind power under Mr. Adams' tenure is warranted, because his conversations with First Wind about employment no doubt preceded the award of stock options. Typically in employment contracts such as Mr. Adams entered into with First Wind there is extensive fine print, with terms of employment, including job description, performance review and potential for promotion and particulars about compensation and bonuses requiring significant time and back and forth, negotiations and review by attorneys, etc.
We believe it is important to know when Mr. Adams began discussing employment opportunities with First Wind, and what, if any PUC matters involving First Wind, such as the approval of an agreement between First Wind at Rollins and CMP for the purchase of future wind generated electricity at rates much higher than current day ahead or real time market rates in Maine, came under review during this time. It is also important to know what other matters involving wind power energy came under his jurisdiction when he had a relationship with First Wind or its predecessor, even if it did not involve First Wind.
We are aware of requests for an investigation of First Wind by Hampton Mitchell and also by attorney Lynne Williams, due to concerns about potential improper dealings with government officials in Maine. We are aware that the Attorney General in New York investigated First Wind (then called UPC Wind), for improper dealings with local officials which resulted in the creation of a special Code of Ethics for wind companies in New York.
The questions raised by Adams' acceptance of stock options while still employed by the state of Maine can only be answered by an impartial and thorough investigation by your office. We hope you agree that this is a potentially serious matter, which at a minimum creates the appearance of conflict of interest and thereby undermines the trust of citizens in the government.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Monique Aniel, MD
Steve Thurston
co-chairs, Citizens Task Force on Wind Power.
Citizens Task Force on Wind Power
PO Box 345
Oquossoc, Me 04964
Wind law changes in Clayton rejected
CLAYTON — Proposed wind zoning amendments, which called for stricter regulations on wind development in the town, were rejected by the Town Council Wednesday night with two "no" votes — by Supervisor Justin A. Taylor and Councilman Donald I. Turcotte.
By rejecting the proposed changes, which were based on the Clayton Wind Committee's recommendations calling for expanded setbacks and a stricter cap on noise levels, the town is keeping its current law — which includes setbacks of 1,250 feet from residences and 500 feet from public roads and nonparticipating property lines. The law would allow 56 turbines to be erected in the wind overlay district. Under the changes, only three or four turbines would have been allowed.
The decision came despite a majority vote in support of amendments to the existing zoning law — by councilmen Robert W. "Bobby" Cantwell III, Lance L. Peterson and George E. Kittle — because a supermajority vote was required to pass the changes because of a protest petition filed by Supporters of Horse Creek Wind Farm.
Mr. Taylor said the town has verified that the petition included signatures from property owners of more than 50 percent of the land in the 11,095-acre overlay district.
Under Town Law Article 16, Section 265, a zoning change must be passed by a supermajority, or four out of five votes, if a petition contains the signatures of the owners of 20 percent of the land affected by the proposed change.
"The visual acceptability of these machines would be something new that we must deal with. But we all must deal with change during our lives," Mr. Taylor said, comparing wind development to the introduction of power lines and cell phone towers to the community which were also contested by the public in the past.
He said a recent review by the Jefferson County Planning Department found that the proposed zoning amendments "would eliminate the entire proposed project."
"Personally, I see more positives than negatives," he said, arguing that the proposed wind farm project would create jobs locally and that it would bring millions of dollars to the town, fire districts, school and county through a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes plan.
The outcome of Wednesday's vote was upsetting to those who have for years opposed wind development in the town.
Cindy L. Grant said she attended numerous town meetings to convince the council that wind development was not right for Clayton and that she was "disappointed" with Mr. Taylor and Mr. Turcotte.
"Maple Ridge isn't getting their money, what makes you think we will?" she said. "Zoning laws are developed for protection of public health, safety and individual property rights. Zoning laws are not intended to provide accommodation or preferential treatment to individuals or businesses."
Mr. Taylor said the town could adopt laws that would require wind companies to reimburse town residents if they are unable to sell their properties at assessed value and additional laws to penalize wind developers for other issues.
Mr. Kittle, who voted in favor of the zoning changes, said he doubts that the town would be able to protect its residents from the acts of international corporations.
"I feel our community and the entire Thousand Islands region would be harmed beyond belief and that the short-term financial gain would not compensate for the negatives generated if we allow a project of this magnitude go through," he said.
The "small wind" zoning law, which deals with non-industrial wind turbines, was unanimously rejected Wednesday. Mr. Kittle said the council should take its time to develop a more comprehensive law that would protect residents who wish to erect personal turbines, as well as their neighbors.
By rejecting the proposed changes, which were based on the Clayton Wind Committee's recommendations calling for expanded setbacks and a stricter cap on noise levels, the town is keeping its current law — which includes setbacks of 1,250 feet from residences and 500 feet from public roads and nonparticipating property lines. The law would allow 56 turbines to be erected in the wind overlay district. Under the changes, only three or four turbines would have been allowed.
The decision came despite a majority vote in support of amendments to the existing zoning law — by councilmen Robert W. "Bobby" Cantwell III, Lance L. Peterson and George E. Kittle — because a supermajority vote was required to pass the changes because of a protest petition filed by Supporters of Horse Creek Wind Farm.
Mr. Taylor said the town has verified that the petition included signatures from property owners of more than 50 percent of the land in the 11,095-acre overlay district.
Under Town Law Article 16, Section 265, a zoning change must be passed by a supermajority, or four out of five votes, if a petition contains the signatures of the owners of 20 percent of the land affected by the proposed change.
"The visual acceptability of these machines would be something new that we must deal with. But we all must deal with change during our lives," Mr. Taylor said, comparing wind development to the introduction of power lines and cell phone towers to the community which were also contested by the public in the past.
He said a recent review by the Jefferson County Planning Department found that the proposed zoning amendments "would eliminate the entire proposed project."
"Personally, I see more positives than negatives," he said, arguing that the proposed wind farm project would create jobs locally and that it would bring millions of dollars to the town, fire districts, school and county through a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes plan.
The outcome of Wednesday's vote was upsetting to those who have for years opposed wind development in the town.
Cindy L. Grant said she attended numerous town meetings to convince the council that wind development was not right for Clayton and that she was "disappointed" with Mr. Taylor and Mr. Turcotte.
"Maple Ridge isn't getting their money, what makes you think we will?" she said. "Zoning laws are developed for protection of public health, safety and individual property rights. Zoning laws are not intended to provide accommodation or preferential treatment to individuals or businesses."
Mr. Taylor said the town could adopt laws that would require wind companies to reimburse town residents if they are unable to sell their properties at assessed value and additional laws to penalize wind developers for other issues.
Mr. Kittle, who voted in favor of the zoning changes, said he doubts that the town would be able to protect its residents from the acts of international corporations.
"I feel our community and the entire Thousand Islands region would be harmed beyond belief and that the short-term financial gain would not compensate for the negatives generated if we allow a project of this magnitude go through," he said.
The "small wind" zoning law, which deals with non-industrial wind turbines, was unanimously rejected Wednesday. Mr. Kittle said the council should take its time to develop a more comprehensive law that would protect residents who wish to erect personal turbines, as well as their neighbors.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
First U.S. offshore wind farm gets green light
BOSTON (Reuters) - U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar gave the green light for the 130-turbine, 420-megawatt Cape Wind project in Horseshoe Shoal, Nantucket Sound, subject to certain conditions designed to project offshore waters.
"This project fits with the tradition of sustainable development in the area," Salazar said at a news conference in Boston.
German conglomerate Siemens AG will provide the turbines.
The decision to approve Cape Wind is expected to face legal challenges, but Salazar said he was confident that the approval would stand.
Members of the Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe of Martha's Vineyard have vowed to sue to stop Cape Wind from being built, saying it would interfere with sacred rituals and desecrate tribal burial sites. Others opposed to the project on environmental grounds also have said they'll sue.
Salazar said he understood those concerns but had to weigh them against the nation's need for new renewable sources of energy.
Cape Wind says it can generate power by 2012 and aims to eventually supply three-quarters of the power on Cape Cod, which has about 225,000 residents. Cape Wind officials say it will provide green jobs and a reliable domestic energy source, while offshore wind advocates are hoping it can jump-start the U.S. industry.
America's onshore wind industry is the world's largest, but higher upfront costs, tougher technological challenges and environmental concerns have held back the development of offshore wind farms.
Denmark installed the world's first offshore wind turbine 20 years ago. China has built its first commercial wind farm off Shanghai and plans several other projects.
The U.S. Department of Energy envisions offshore wind farms accounting for 4 percent of the country's electric generating capacity by 2030.
Major U.S. proposals include a project in Texas state waters, but most are concentrated along the East Coast north of Maryland, including projects in Delaware and New Jersey.
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick has been an enthusiastic backer of Cape Wind, pushing it as key to the state's efforts to increase its use of renewable energy. The lead federal agency reviewing the project, the Minerals Management Service, issued a report last year saying the project posed no major environmental problems.
Critics say the project endangers wildlife and air and sea traffic, while marring historic vistas. The late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy fought Cape Wind, calling it a special interest giveaway. The wind farm would be visible from the Kennedy family compound in Hyannisport.
Democrat U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, who represents Cape Cod, said allowing the project to move forward will open "a new chapter of legal battles and potential setbacks" for the wind power industry.
"Cape Wind is the first offshore wind farm to be built in the wrong place, in the wrong way, stimulating the wrong economies," Delahunt said Wednesday.
Home to some of the best-known beaches in the Northeast, Cape Cod has long been a destination for summer vacations and is famous for its small towns and homes in its namesake architectural style.
The project is about five miles off Cape Cod at its closest proximity to land and 14 miles off Nantucket at the greatest distance. According to visual simulations done for Cape Wind, on a clear day the turbines would be about a half-inch tall on the horizon at the nearest point and appear as specks from Nantucket.
The developers are being required to configure the wind farm to reduce visual effects on the outer cape and Nantucket Island, Salazar said.
Opponents also said the power from the pricey Cape Wind project, estimated to cost at least $2 billion, would be too expensive.
U.S. Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, a Republican, said the project will jeopardize tourism and affect aviation safety and the rights of the Native American tribes.
"Nantucket Sound is a national treasure that should be protected from industrialization." Brown said.
Although small in terms of its total energy production -- the $1 billion facility would produce enough electricity to power about 400,000 houses -- its approval raises hopes that other offshore wind projects will follow.
Several projects that could power hundreds of thousands of customers have already been proposed for the East Coast and the Great Lakes.
Supporters have argued that wind farms represent a giant push for renewable energy efforts in the United States and fit well with the Obama administration's energy strategy.
Cape Wind was subject to years of environmental review and political maneuvering, including adamant opposition from the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, whose six-acre family compound in Hyannis Port overlooks Nantucket Sound.
"This project fits with the tradition of sustainable development in the area," Salazar said at a news conference in Boston.
German conglomerate Siemens AG will provide the turbines.
The decision to approve Cape Wind is expected to face legal challenges, but Salazar said he was confident that the approval would stand.
Members of the Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe of Martha's Vineyard have vowed to sue to stop Cape Wind from being built, saying it would interfere with sacred rituals and desecrate tribal burial sites. Others opposed to the project on environmental grounds also have said they'll sue.
Salazar said he understood those concerns but had to weigh them against the nation's need for new renewable sources of energy.
Cape Wind says it can generate power by 2012 and aims to eventually supply three-quarters of the power on Cape Cod, which has about 225,000 residents. Cape Wind officials say it will provide green jobs and a reliable domestic energy source, while offshore wind advocates are hoping it can jump-start the U.S. industry.
America's onshore wind industry is the world's largest, but higher upfront costs, tougher technological challenges and environmental concerns have held back the development of offshore wind farms.
Denmark installed the world's first offshore wind turbine 20 years ago. China has built its first commercial wind farm off Shanghai and plans several other projects.
The U.S. Department of Energy envisions offshore wind farms accounting for 4 percent of the country's electric generating capacity by 2030.
Major U.S. proposals include a project in Texas state waters, but most are concentrated along the East Coast north of Maryland, including projects in Delaware and New Jersey.
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick has been an enthusiastic backer of Cape Wind, pushing it as key to the state's efforts to increase its use of renewable energy. The lead federal agency reviewing the project, the Minerals Management Service, issued a report last year saying the project posed no major environmental problems.
Critics say the project endangers wildlife and air and sea traffic, while marring historic vistas. The late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy fought Cape Wind, calling it a special interest giveaway. The wind farm would be visible from the Kennedy family compound in Hyannisport.
Democrat U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, who represents Cape Cod, said allowing the project to move forward will open "a new chapter of legal battles and potential setbacks" for the wind power industry.
"Cape Wind is the first offshore wind farm to be built in the wrong place, in the wrong way, stimulating the wrong economies," Delahunt said Wednesday.
Home to some of the best-known beaches in the Northeast, Cape Cod has long been a destination for summer vacations and is famous for its small towns and homes in its namesake architectural style.
The project is about five miles off Cape Cod at its closest proximity to land and 14 miles off Nantucket at the greatest distance. According to visual simulations done for Cape Wind, on a clear day the turbines would be about a half-inch tall on the horizon at the nearest point and appear as specks from Nantucket.
The developers are being required to configure the wind farm to reduce visual effects on the outer cape and Nantucket Island, Salazar said.
Opponents also said the power from the pricey Cape Wind project, estimated to cost at least $2 billion, would be too expensive.
U.S. Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, a Republican, said the project will jeopardize tourism and affect aviation safety and the rights of the Native American tribes.
"Nantucket Sound is a national treasure that should be protected from industrialization." Brown said.
Although small in terms of its total energy production -- the $1 billion facility would produce enough electricity to power about 400,000 houses -- its approval raises hopes that other offshore wind projects will follow.
Several projects that could power hundreds of thousands of customers have already been proposed for the East Coast and the Great Lakes.
Supporters have argued that wind farms represent a giant push for renewable energy efforts in the United States and fit well with the Obama administration's energy strategy.
Cape Wind was subject to years of environmental review and political maneuvering, including adamant opposition from the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, whose six-acre family compound in Hyannis Port overlooks Nantucket Sound.
JCIDA and Upstate NY Power to give briefing to area businesses about proposed Galloo Island Wind Farm
The Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency and Upstate NY Power Corporation will present a Contractors, Vendors and Suppliers Informational Briefing on Friday May 7th, 1 pm at the Watertown Elks Club, 728 Bradley Street, Watertown. This event, open to all companies in the region, is being held to encourage local employers—small and large— to learn more about possible participation in one or more of the many aspects of the proposed Galloo Island Wind Farm.
This is not for job seekers but rather a business to business outreach. Job information and job fairs for the project will come at a later time.
The project developer will need to be supplied with everything from food to gasoline, from steel to land and water transportation, from cement to rock crushing, from doors and windows to roofing material. In addition to the wind energy facilities, this project will also be in need of every service and product required to build a small community from scratch, including a 24 unit condominium facility, and related infrastructure for the full time workers.
Companies will be able to register their business with the developer and position themselves to be ready to make competitive bids on services they can offer after the General Contractor is selected. They will be briefed on the scope of the project and the anticipated timing of the construction phase.
For a more comprehensive list of products and services that will be required visit www.jcjdc.net, or call the JCIDA office at 315-782-5865. Reservations are not required.
This is not for job seekers but rather a business to business outreach. Job information and job fairs for the project will come at a later time.
The project developer will need to be supplied with everything from food to gasoline, from steel to land and water transportation, from cement to rock crushing, from doors and windows to roofing material. In addition to the wind energy facilities, this project will also be in need of every service and product required to build a small community from scratch, including a 24 unit condominium facility, and related infrastructure for the full time workers.
Companies will be able to register their business with the developer and position themselves to be ready to make competitive bids on services they can offer after the General Contractor is selected. They will be briefed on the scope of the project and the anticipated timing of the construction phase.
For a more comprehensive list of products and services that will be required visit www.jcjdc.net, or call the JCIDA office at 315-782-5865. Reservations are not required.
Cape wind farm ruling coming today
U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will today announce his decision on the controversial and much-debated wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound off Cape Cod.
Salazar will make his announcement at noon today in Boston at the State House along with Gov. Deval Patrick, a supporter of the project, Salazar's office said this morning.
Salazar's plan to announce the decision with Patrick bodes well for advocates of Cape Wind, as the governor has been a supporter of the project. Cape Wind wants to build a 130-turbine wind farm in Nantucket Sound.
A live Webcast of Salazar's press conference will be available here on Cape Cod Online as an embedded video beginning at noon.
Cape Wind has scheduled a 2:15 p.m. press conference at the Park Plaza Hotel in Boston. A live broadcast of the press conference may be available at Cape Wind's website: www.capewind.org.
There is no official word yet on plans today by wind farm foe Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.
Today's announcement also comes as Salazar's boss and Patrick's good friend, President Barack Obama, makes a two-day, three-state Midwestern trip, focusing on his economic and clean-energy programs as job creators. Yesterday, the president toured an Iowa company that makes blades for wind turbines and is set to supply turbines for the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm.
Cape Wind aims to begin generating electricity in 2012 and supply three-quarters of the Cape's power. Cape Wind officials say it will provide green jobs and a reliable domestic energy source, while offshore wind advocates are hoping it can jump-start an industry that's lagging behind Europe and now China.
Opponents wanted the project moved out of Nantucket Sound, saying it would endanger marine life and maritime traffic, while defacing historic vistas, including the view from the Kennedy family compound in Hyannisport.
The late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy fought Cape Wind, calling it a special-interest giveaway, and he also complained that the 400-foot-tall turbines — spread over 25 miles of federal waters — would mar a pristine landscape.
Opponents also say the power from the pricey Cape Wind project, estimated to cost at least $2 billion, would be too expensive.
Cape Wind appeared close to final approval in January 2009 when the lead federal agency reviewing the project, the Minerals Management Service, issued a report saying the project posed no major environmental problems.
But two Wampanoag tribes claimed the project would ruin an ancient ritual that requires an unblocked view of the sunrise, and could disturb long-submerged tribal burial grounds.
Early this month, a federal historic council backed tribal claims and recommended Salazar reject the project, citing its "destructive" effects on views from dozens of historic sites.
Yesterday, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry said he would support the project if Salazar gives his approval.
"I have said this is the first siting of anywhere in the country, (so it's) very important for the process to work its way forward," Kerry said. "I favor a wind project somewhere in Massachusetts, and I've said, again and again, if the process decides that this is the one that it should be, I support moving forward."
Obama has pushed renewable energy, and his recent decision to expand offshore drilling indicates a willingness to tap ocean-based energy sources. But Obama, who was close to Kennedy, has never spoken publicly about Cape Wind.
The president is also close to Patrick and recently urged his re-election this fall.
Salazar will make his announcement at noon today in Boston at the State House along with Gov. Deval Patrick, a supporter of the project, Salazar's office said this morning.
Salazar's plan to announce the decision with Patrick bodes well for advocates of Cape Wind, as the governor has been a supporter of the project. Cape Wind wants to build a 130-turbine wind farm in Nantucket Sound.
A live Webcast of Salazar's press conference will be available here on Cape Cod Online as an embedded video beginning at noon.
Cape Wind has scheduled a 2:15 p.m. press conference at the Park Plaza Hotel in Boston. A live broadcast of the press conference may be available at Cape Wind's website: www.capewind.org.
There is no official word yet on plans today by wind farm foe Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.
Today's announcement also comes as Salazar's boss and Patrick's good friend, President Barack Obama, makes a two-day, three-state Midwestern trip, focusing on his economic and clean-energy programs as job creators. Yesterday, the president toured an Iowa company that makes blades for wind turbines and is set to supply turbines for the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm.
Cape Wind aims to begin generating electricity in 2012 and supply three-quarters of the Cape's power. Cape Wind officials say it will provide green jobs and a reliable domestic energy source, while offshore wind advocates are hoping it can jump-start an industry that's lagging behind Europe and now China.
Opponents wanted the project moved out of Nantucket Sound, saying it would endanger marine life and maritime traffic, while defacing historic vistas, including the view from the Kennedy family compound in Hyannisport.
The late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy fought Cape Wind, calling it a special-interest giveaway, and he also complained that the 400-foot-tall turbines — spread over 25 miles of federal waters — would mar a pristine landscape.
Opponents also say the power from the pricey Cape Wind project, estimated to cost at least $2 billion, would be too expensive.
Cape Wind appeared close to final approval in January 2009 when the lead federal agency reviewing the project, the Minerals Management Service, issued a report saying the project posed no major environmental problems.
But two Wampanoag tribes claimed the project would ruin an ancient ritual that requires an unblocked view of the sunrise, and could disturb long-submerged tribal burial grounds.
Early this month, a federal historic council backed tribal claims and recommended Salazar reject the project, citing its "destructive" effects on views from dozens of historic sites.
Yesterday, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry said he would support the project if Salazar gives his approval.
"I have said this is the first siting of anywhere in the country, (so it's) very important for the process to work its way forward," Kerry said. "I favor a wind project somewhere in Massachusetts, and I've said, again and again, if the process decides that this is the one that it should be, I support moving forward."
Obama has pushed renewable energy, and his recent decision to expand offshore drilling indicates a willingness to tap ocean-based energy sources. But Obama, who was close to Kennedy, has never spoken publicly about Cape Wind.
The president is also close to Patrick and recently urged his re-election this fall.
First Wind flap casts breeze on Ken Salazar
Only days away from making a historic decision on the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar earlier this week was palling around with executives from another Boston wind firm at the center of a controversy over the hiring of one of its key managers.
Salazar, who is expected to make a decision this week on the Cape Wind project, was in Utah inspecting a separate wind farm built by Boston’s First Wind.
Executives at First Wind gave Salazar and other Interior officials a tour of the Milford Wind Corridor, according to a company press release.
The Bangor Daily News reported late last week that one of First Wind’s new executives had accepted an ownership stake while he was still the state of Maine’s chief utilities regulator. Kurt Adams, former head of the Maine Public Utilities Commission, was awarded about $1.2 million in shares of First Wind just prior to quitting his Maine job to join the firm in May 2008, according to the Daily News and SEC filings reviewed by the Herald.
“We take this issue extremely seriously and are reviewing matters to confirm our understanding that Kurt’s hiring was proper,” First Wind said in a statement.
Adams, who could not be reached for comment, and First Wind have said they had previously disclosed, to Maine’s governor, Adams’ intent to join the firm and that he had recursed himself from all regulatory duties associated with the firm. He said he was awarded the shares after his disclosures, the Daily News reported.
First Wind has built two wind farms in Maine and has two more in development.
A spokeswoman for Salazar declined comment.
Salazar, who is expected to make a decision this week on the Cape Wind project, was in Utah inspecting a separate wind farm built by Boston’s First Wind.
Executives at First Wind gave Salazar and other Interior officials a tour of the Milford Wind Corridor, according to a company press release.
The Bangor Daily News reported late last week that one of First Wind’s new executives had accepted an ownership stake while he was still the state of Maine’s chief utilities regulator. Kurt Adams, former head of the Maine Public Utilities Commission, was awarded about $1.2 million in shares of First Wind just prior to quitting his Maine job to join the firm in May 2008, according to the Daily News and SEC filings reviewed by the Herald.
“We take this issue extremely seriously and are reviewing matters to confirm our understanding that Kurt’s hiring was proper,” First Wind said in a statement.
Adams, who could not be reached for comment, and First Wind have said they had previously disclosed, to Maine’s governor, Adams’ intent to join the firm and that he had recursed himself from all regulatory duties associated with the firm. He said he was awarded the shares after his disclosures, the Daily News reported.
First Wind has built two wind farms in Maine and has two more in development.
A spokeswoman for Salazar declined comment.
This blog has moved
This blog is now located at http://cohoctonwindwatch.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.
For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://cohoctonwindwatch.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Town Of Italy Prohibits Industrial Wind Turbines
This May Prevent Prattsburgh From Having An Ecogen Wind Project
Brad Jones, the Town of Italy Town Supervisor says that the Town of Italy Board adopted by a 3 to 2 roll-call vote resolution that deletes two Wind Energy Incentive Zones from the Zoning Law and restores in the Zoning Law and Comprehensive Plan strict prohibitions against industrial wind turbines in all districts within the Town.
This latest move may prevent the neighboring Steuben County Town of Prattsburgh from going forward with their Ecogen wind project. Prattsburgh is near Italy, and Ecogen was going to be using the Italy sub-station for the Prattsburgh project.
Jones also says that The Town of Italy continues to fight the lawsuit that was filed by Ecogen last November after the Board rejected their Application for an industrial-scale wind project, and that Italy will be filing a Motion For Dismissal on April 28.
Brad Jones, the Town of Italy Town Supervisor says that the Town of Italy Board adopted by a 3 to 2 roll-call vote resolution that deletes two Wind Energy Incentive Zones from the Zoning Law and restores in the Zoning Law and Comprehensive Plan strict prohibitions against industrial wind turbines in all districts within the Town.
This latest move may prevent the neighboring Steuben County Town of Prattsburgh from going forward with their Ecogen wind project. Prattsburgh is near Italy, and Ecogen was going to be using the Italy sub-station for the Prattsburgh project.
Jones also says that The Town of Italy continues to fight the lawsuit that was filed by Ecogen last November after the Board rejected their Application for an industrial-scale wind project, and that Italy will be filing a Motion For Dismissal on April 28.
Energy consumption in wind facilities
Large wind turbines require a large amount of energy to operate. Other electricity plants generally use their own electricity, and the difference between the amount they generate and the amount delivered to the grid is readily determined. Wind plants, however, use electricity from the grid, which does not appear to be accounted for in their output figures. At the facility in Searsburg, Vermont, for example, it is apparently not even metered and is completely unknown [click here].* The manufacturers of large turbines -- for example, Vestas, GE, and NEG Micon -- do not include electricity consumption in the specifications they provide.
Among the wind turbine functions that use electricity are the following:†s
* yaw mechanism (to keep the blade assembly perpendicular to the wind; also to untwist the electrical cables in the tower when necessary) -- the nacelle (turbine housing) and blades together weigh 92 tons on a GE 1.5-MW turbine
* blade-pitch control (to keep the rotors spinning at a regular rate)
* lights, controllers, communication, sensors, metering, data collection, etc.
* heating the blades -- this may require 10%-20% of the turbine's nominal (rated) power
* heating and dehumidifying the nacelle -- according to Danish manufacturer Vestas, "power consumption for heating and dehumidification of the nacelle must be expected during periods with increased humidity, low temperatures and low wind speeds"
* oil heater, pump, cooler, and filtering system in gearbox
* hydraulic brake (to lock the blades in very high wind)
* thyristors (to graduate the connection and disconnection between generator and grid) -- 1%-2% of the energy passing through is lost
* magnetizing the stator -- the induction generators used in most large grid-connected turbines require a "large" amount of continuous electricity from the grid to actively power the magnetic coils around the asynchronous "cage rotor" that encloses the generator shaft; at the rated wind speeds, it helps keep the rotor speed constant, and as the wind starts blowing it helps start the rotor turning (see next item); in the rated wind speeds, the stator may use power equal to 10% of the turbine's rated capacity, in slower winds possibly much more
* using the generator as a motor (to help the blades start to turn when the wind speed is low or, as many suspect, to maintain the illusion that the facility is producing electricity when it is not,‡ particularly during important site tours) -- it seems possible that the grid-magnetized stator must work to help keep the 40-ton blade assembly spinning, along with the gears that increase the blade rpm some 50 times for the generator, not just at cut-in (or for show in even less wind) but at least some of the way up towards the full rated wind speed; it may also be spinning the blades and rotor shaft to prevent warping when there is no wind§
It may be that each turbine consumes more than 50% of its rated capacity in its own operation. If so, the plant as a whole -- which may produce only 25% of its rated capacity annually -- would be using (for free!) twice as much electricity as it produces and sells. An unlikely situation perhaps, but the industry doesn't publicize any data that proves otherwise; incoming power is apparently not normally recorded.
Is there some vast conspiracy spanning the worldwide industry from manufacturers and developers to utilities and operators? There doesn't have to be, if engineers all share an assumption that wind turbines don't use a significant amount of power compared to their output and thus it is not worth noting, much less metering. Such an assumption could be based on the experience decades ago with small DC-generating turbines, simply carried over to AC generators that continue to metastasize. However errant such an assumption might now be, it stands as long as no one questions it. No conspiracy is necessary -- self-serving laziness is enough.
Whatever the actual amount of consumption, it could seriously diminish any claim of providing a significant amount of energy. Instead, it looks like industrial wind power could turn out to be a laundering scheme: "Dirty" energy goes in, "clean" energy comes out. That would explain why developers demand legislation to create a market for "green credits" -- tokens of "clean" energy like the indulgences sold by the medieval church. Ego te absolvo.
(One need only ask utilities to show how much less "dirty" electricity they purchase because of wind-generated power to see that something is amiss in the wind industry's claims. If wind worked and were not mere window dressing, the industry would trot out some real numbers. But they don't. One begins to suspect that they can't.)
*There is also the matter of reactive power (VAR). As wind facilities are typically built in remote areas, they are often called upon to provide VAR to maintain line voltage. Thus much of their production may go to providing only this "energy-less" power.
†Much of this information comes from a Swedish graduate student specializing in hydrogen and wind power, as posted in a Yes2Wind discussion. Also see the Danish Wind Industry Association's guide to the technology. The rest comes from personal correspondence with other experts and from industry spec sheets.
‡An observer in Toronto, Ontario, points out that the blades of the turbines installed at the Pickering nuclear plant and Exhibition Place turn 90% of the time, even when there is barely a breeze and when the blades are not properly pitched -- in a region acknowledged to have low wind resource.
§"In large rotating power trains such as this, if allowed to stand motionless for any period of time, the unit will experience "bowing" of shafts and rotors under the tremendous weight. Therefore, frequent rotating of the unit is necessary to prevent this. As an example, even in port Navy ships keep their propeller shafts and turbine power trains slowly rotating. It is referred to as "jacking the shaft" to prevent any tendency to bow. Any bowing would throw the whole train out of balance with potentially very serious damage when bringing the power train back on line.
"In addition to just protecting the gear box and generator shafts and bearings, the blades on a large wind turbine would offer a special challenge with respect to preventing warping and bowing when not in use. For example, on a sunny, windless day, idle wind turbine blades would experience uneven heating from the sun, something that would certainly cause bowing and warping. The only way to prevent this would be to keep the blades moving to even out the sun exposure to all parts of the blade.
"So, the point that major amounts of incoming electrical power is used to turn the power train and blades when the wind is not blowing is very accurate, and it is not something the operators of large wind turbines can avoid.
"[In addition, there is] the likely need for a hefty, forced-feed lubricating system for the shaft and turbine blade assembly bearings. This would be a major hotel load. I can't imagine passive lubrication (as for the wheel bearings on your car) for an application like this. Maybe so, but I would be very surprised. Assuming they have to have a forced-feed lubrication system, given the weight on those bearings (40 tons on the bearing for the rotor and blades alone) a very robust (energy sucking) lubricating oil system would be required. It would also have to include cooling for the oil and an energy-sucking lube oil purification system too."
--Lawrence E. Miller, Gerrardstown, WV, an engineer with over 40 years of professional experience with large power train machinery associated with Navy ships.
Among the wind turbine functions that use electricity are the following:†s
* yaw mechanism (to keep the blade assembly perpendicular to the wind; also to untwist the electrical cables in the tower when necessary) -- the nacelle (turbine housing) and blades together weigh 92 tons on a GE 1.5-MW turbine
* blade-pitch control (to keep the rotors spinning at a regular rate)
* lights, controllers, communication, sensors, metering, data collection, etc.
* heating the blades -- this may require 10%-20% of the turbine's nominal (rated) power
* heating and dehumidifying the nacelle -- according to Danish manufacturer Vestas, "power consumption for heating and dehumidification of the nacelle must be expected during periods with increased humidity, low temperatures and low wind speeds"
* oil heater, pump, cooler, and filtering system in gearbox
* hydraulic brake (to lock the blades in very high wind)
* thyristors (to graduate the connection and disconnection between generator and grid) -- 1%-2% of the energy passing through is lost
* magnetizing the stator -- the induction generators used in most large grid-connected turbines require a "large" amount of continuous electricity from the grid to actively power the magnetic coils around the asynchronous "cage rotor" that encloses the generator shaft; at the rated wind speeds, it helps keep the rotor speed constant, and as the wind starts blowing it helps start the rotor turning (see next item); in the rated wind speeds, the stator may use power equal to 10% of the turbine's rated capacity, in slower winds possibly much more
* using the generator as a motor (to help the blades start to turn when the wind speed is low or, as many suspect, to maintain the illusion that the facility is producing electricity when it is not,‡ particularly during important site tours) -- it seems possible that the grid-magnetized stator must work to help keep the 40-ton blade assembly spinning, along with the gears that increase the blade rpm some 50 times for the generator, not just at cut-in (or for show in even less wind) but at least some of the way up towards the full rated wind speed; it may also be spinning the blades and rotor shaft to prevent warping when there is no wind§
It may be that each turbine consumes more than 50% of its rated capacity in its own operation. If so, the plant as a whole -- which may produce only 25% of its rated capacity annually -- would be using (for free!) twice as much electricity as it produces and sells. An unlikely situation perhaps, but the industry doesn't publicize any data that proves otherwise; incoming power is apparently not normally recorded.
Is there some vast conspiracy spanning the worldwide industry from manufacturers and developers to utilities and operators? There doesn't have to be, if engineers all share an assumption that wind turbines don't use a significant amount of power compared to their output and thus it is not worth noting, much less metering. Such an assumption could be based on the experience decades ago with small DC-generating turbines, simply carried over to AC generators that continue to metastasize. However errant such an assumption might now be, it stands as long as no one questions it. No conspiracy is necessary -- self-serving laziness is enough.
Whatever the actual amount of consumption, it could seriously diminish any claim of providing a significant amount of energy. Instead, it looks like industrial wind power could turn out to be a laundering scheme: "Dirty" energy goes in, "clean" energy comes out. That would explain why developers demand legislation to create a market for "green credits" -- tokens of "clean" energy like the indulgences sold by the medieval church. Ego te absolvo.
(One need only ask utilities to show how much less "dirty" electricity they purchase because of wind-generated power to see that something is amiss in the wind industry's claims. If wind worked and were not mere window dressing, the industry would trot out some real numbers. But they don't. One begins to suspect that they can't.)
*There is also the matter of reactive power (VAR). As wind facilities are typically built in remote areas, they are often called upon to provide VAR to maintain line voltage. Thus much of their production may go to providing only this "energy-less" power.
†Much of this information comes from a Swedish graduate student specializing in hydrogen and wind power, as posted in a Yes2Wind discussion. Also see the Danish Wind Industry Association's guide to the technology. The rest comes from personal correspondence with other experts and from industry spec sheets.
‡An observer in Toronto, Ontario, points out that the blades of the turbines installed at the Pickering nuclear plant and Exhibition Place turn 90% of the time, even when there is barely a breeze and when the blades are not properly pitched -- in a region acknowledged to have low wind resource.
§"In large rotating power trains such as this, if allowed to stand motionless for any period of time, the unit will experience "bowing" of shafts and rotors under the tremendous weight. Therefore, frequent rotating of the unit is necessary to prevent this. As an example, even in port Navy ships keep their propeller shafts and turbine power trains slowly rotating. It is referred to as "jacking the shaft" to prevent any tendency to bow. Any bowing would throw the whole train out of balance with potentially very serious damage when bringing the power train back on line.
"In addition to just protecting the gear box and generator shafts and bearings, the blades on a large wind turbine would offer a special challenge with respect to preventing warping and bowing when not in use. For example, on a sunny, windless day, idle wind turbine blades would experience uneven heating from the sun, something that would certainly cause bowing and warping. The only way to prevent this would be to keep the blades moving to even out the sun exposure to all parts of the blade.
"So, the point that major amounts of incoming electrical power is used to turn the power train and blades when the wind is not blowing is very accurate, and it is not something the operators of large wind turbines can avoid.
"[In addition, there is] the likely need for a hefty, forced-feed lubricating system for the shaft and turbine blade assembly bearings. This would be a major hotel load. I can't imagine passive lubrication (as for the wheel bearings on your car) for an application like this. Maybe so, but I would be very surprised. Assuming they have to have a forced-feed lubrication system, given the weight on those bearings (40 tons on the bearing for the rotor and blades alone) a very robust (energy sucking) lubricating oil system would be required. It would also have to include cooling for the oil and an energy-sucking lube oil purification system too."
--Lawrence E. Miller, Gerrardstown, WV, an engineer with over 40 years of professional experience with large power train machinery associated with Navy ships.
Major wind project put 'on hold'
RUTLAND – Vermont Community Wind Farm announced Monday it had "no current plans to proceed" with building what would have been the state's largest wind farm in and around the small town of Ira in southeastern Vermont.
Spokesman Jeffrey Wennberg said the company was too uncertain about certain aspects of the permitting process to go forward, but that developer Per White-Hansen would hold onto leases associated with the project.
"There's a potential to bring the project back, but circumstances would have to change," Wennberg said. "He's not selling the leases."
Wennberg said the company was concerned with the way stormwater issues with other proposed projects in the state remained unresolved and with questions over habitat protection at Herrick Mountain, the site of the bulk of the project.
Wennberg said the habitat issue was not something that had been identified at the start of the process.
"It arose, very unexpectedly, late in the game," he said. "We said all along we did not want to proceed without (Vermont Agency of Natural Resources) support."
ANR Secretary Jonathan Wood said he was surprised to hear the news from a reporter late Monday afternoon.
"Our expectation was to be working with them for a while on these issues," he said.
Utility projects are exempt from Act 250, the state's land use development law, but go though a permit process before the Vermont Public Service Board in which ANR is a statutory party. Wood said ANR looks at specific animal habitats as well as "natural communities" — collections of interdependent species.
An ecologist from the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife notified VCWF late last year that the department found "rare and irreplaceable natural areas" in the project zone.
"What they are is unique habitats, unique types of communities, that occur in the forest," Wood said. "We have evaluated other projects in terms of these types of concerns and not found any issues. … You don't have much concern when there are one or two of these areas a developer can go around. Here, you have a number of them."
However, Wood said those concerns were not necessarily enough to scuttle the project, and that the agency generally works with developers to reconfigure projects in a way that would minimize impacts.
Wood also said that ANR has issued stormwater permits to two wind projects, though one of those is under appeal.
Since the project was announced just over a year ago, it has faced increasing public opposition in Ira. Complaints have included the destruction of scenic views, potential environmental impacts and supposed health effects of noise generated by spinning turbines.
Ira rewrote its town plan to discourage utility-scale wind turbines on ridgelines — the PSB is not bound by town plans but must give them "due consideration" — and voted at town meeting to support renewable energy development within those guidelines.
"I'm taking off my clothes right now," said Peter Cosgrove, one of the organizers of the opposition in Ira, upon hearing the news. "I'm going to run outside in the rain naked."
Cosgrove said he was delighted to hear the broad pressure brought by the community appeared to have paid off.
Word of the project traveled ahead of a formal announcement after residents in Middletown Springs stumbled into VCWF's webste last year. The project originally included potential sites in Ira, Middletown Springs, Poultney, Clarendon, Tinmouth and West Rutland, all located south of Rutland, though it was pared down repeatedly.
Clarendon's Selectsboard came out officially against the project. Though sites in Clarendon were eliminated one of the times the proposal was reconfigured, Chairman Michael Klopchin greeted the news favorably Monday.
"As far as I'm concerned, let them go up by Montpelier with all this green energy," he said. "Let them try it up there. … It seems like the little guy, the little communities in this state, have finally won one. It makes me happy."
Spokesman Jeffrey Wennberg said the company was too uncertain about certain aspects of the permitting process to go forward, but that developer Per White-Hansen would hold onto leases associated with the project.
"There's a potential to bring the project back, but circumstances would have to change," Wennberg said. "He's not selling the leases."
Wennberg said the company was concerned with the way stormwater issues with other proposed projects in the state remained unresolved and with questions over habitat protection at Herrick Mountain, the site of the bulk of the project.
Wennberg said the habitat issue was not something that had been identified at the start of the process.
"It arose, very unexpectedly, late in the game," he said. "We said all along we did not want to proceed without (Vermont Agency of Natural Resources) support."
ANR Secretary Jonathan Wood said he was surprised to hear the news from a reporter late Monday afternoon.
"Our expectation was to be working with them for a while on these issues," he said.
Utility projects are exempt from Act 250, the state's land use development law, but go though a permit process before the Vermont Public Service Board in which ANR is a statutory party. Wood said ANR looks at specific animal habitats as well as "natural communities" — collections of interdependent species.
An ecologist from the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife notified VCWF late last year that the department found "rare and irreplaceable natural areas" in the project zone.
"What they are is unique habitats, unique types of communities, that occur in the forest," Wood said. "We have evaluated other projects in terms of these types of concerns and not found any issues. … You don't have much concern when there are one or two of these areas a developer can go around. Here, you have a number of them."
However, Wood said those concerns were not necessarily enough to scuttle the project, and that the agency generally works with developers to reconfigure projects in a way that would minimize impacts.
Wood also said that ANR has issued stormwater permits to two wind projects, though one of those is under appeal.
Since the project was announced just over a year ago, it has faced increasing public opposition in Ira. Complaints have included the destruction of scenic views, potential environmental impacts and supposed health effects of noise generated by spinning turbines.
Ira rewrote its town plan to discourage utility-scale wind turbines on ridgelines — the PSB is not bound by town plans but must give them "due consideration" — and voted at town meeting to support renewable energy development within those guidelines.
"I'm taking off my clothes right now," said Peter Cosgrove, one of the organizers of the opposition in Ira, upon hearing the news. "I'm going to run outside in the rain naked."
Cosgrove said he was delighted to hear the broad pressure brought by the community appeared to have paid off.
Word of the project traveled ahead of a formal announcement after residents in Middletown Springs stumbled into VCWF's webste last year. The project originally included potential sites in Ira, Middletown Springs, Poultney, Clarendon, Tinmouth and West Rutland, all located south of Rutland, though it was pared down repeatedly.
Clarendon's Selectsboard came out officially against the project. Though sites in Clarendon were eliminated one of the times the proposal was reconfigured, Chairman Michael Klopchin greeted the news favorably Monday.
"As far as I'm concerned, let them go up by Montpelier with all this green energy," he said. "Let them try it up there. … It seems like the little guy, the little communities in this state, have finally won one. It makes me happy."
Wind Turbine Radio Interview - Carmen Krogh
From Goldhawk Fights Back: Carmen Krogh, of The Society for Wind Vigilance & a retired pharmacist talks about the ill effects of wind turbines.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Wind power is not needed
Due to the recession, conservation and efficiency, and people using less to save money, there is lower demand and an oversupply of electrical generation.
In March GMP and CVPS and Hydro Quebec announced agreement on new 26-year contracts to provide Vermont with clean renewable hydroelectric power.
TransCanada is asking for a reappraisal of its hydro dams on the Connecticut River. Cleve Kapala of TransCanada said, "I mean the plants are obviously worth less today than they were pre-recession and pre-oversupply of electricity."
Even without Vermont Yankee there is a glut of power in New England. The price of natural gas and wholesale price of electricity are lower than they've been in years and are predicted to remain low for the foreseeable future. So why destroy Vermont's mountains with inefficient, unreliable wind turbines?
To fulfill arbitrary renewable energy use mandates, unachievable without reclassifying hydro as renewable.
And to allow wind developers to collect subsidies, tax credits, accelerated depreciation, RECs and direct grants, paid with our grandchildren's tax dollars.
Without these mandates and incentives, no one would consider building these useless monuments to gullibility and greed.
Wind turbines are unreliable and intermittent and nowhere have they have resulted in the decommissioning of an existing fossil fuel facility.
Wind projects divide communities, lower property values, will harm Vermonters' health, wildlife, tourist and second-home economy, and kill birds and now endangered bats.
Vermont has always promoted itself as a place to enjoy the beauty and serenity of our Green Mountains and clear night sky. A place people live and visit to escape urbanized sprawl.
We don't need to industrialize our mountains with 430 to 500 foot, loud, strobe-lit, environmentally destructive, quality of life-destroying industrial scale wind turbines.
How many of you would buy property or live near an industrial wind facility?
ROB PFORZHEIMER
Sutton
In March GMP and CVPS and Hydro Quebec announced agreement on new 26-year contracts to provide Vermont with clean renewable hydroelectric power.
TransCanada is asking for a reappraisal of its hydro dams on the Connecticut River. Cleve Kapala of TransCanada said, "I mean the plants are obviously worth less today than they were pre-recession and pre-oversupply of electricity."
Even without Vermont Yankee there is a glut of power in New England. The price of natural gas and wholesale price of electricity are lower than they've been in years and are predicted to remain low for the foreseeable future. So why destroy Vermont's mountains with inefficient, unreliable wind turbines?
To fulfill arbitrary renewable energy use mandates, unachievable without reclassifying hydro as renewable.
And to allow wind developers to collect subsidies, tax credits, accelerated depreciation, RECs and direct grants, paid with our grandchildren's tax dollars.
Without these mandates and incentives, no one would consider building these useless monuments to gullibility and greed.
Wind turbines are unreliable and intermittent and nowhere have they have resulted in the decommissioning of an existing fossil fuel facility.
Wind projects divide communities, lower property values, will harm Vermonters' health, wildlife, tourist and second-home economy, and kill birds and now endangered bats.
Vermont has always promoted itself as a place to enjoy the beauty and serenity of our Green Mountains and clear night sky. A place people live and visit to escape urbanized sprawl.
We don't need to industrialize our mountains with 430 to 500 foot, loud, strobe-lit, environmentally destructive, quality of life-destroying industrial scale wind turbines.
How many of you would buy property or live near an industrial wind facility?
ROB PFORZHEIMER
Sutton
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Revolving door the norm in D.C. but rare in Maine
It's nice to see a guy get a raise, but the compensation package offered to Maine's former Public Utilities Commission chairman by a wind developer raises a number of red flags.
According to a story Thursday by Naomi Schalit, of the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, former PUC Chairman Kurt Adams negotiated a pretty sweet deal for himself about a month before leaving the state's employ.
Adams accepted a vice-president's position at the Boston-based First Wind, a company seeking to develop a wind energy project in Maine.
A Securities and Exchange Commission filing says his first-year compensation at the firm totaled $1.3 million, which included $315,000 in salary, $658,000 in stock, $29,000 in "other" compensation and $315,000 in "non-equity compensation."
That's certainly a step up from his former position, which pays the current PUC chair, Sharon Reishus, a measly $164,278 per year. In fact, it's an eight-fold increase if the value of his stock is included.
And this is at a firm that has yet to turn a profit, according to a March 30 Boston Globe story.
The company had revenues of $47.1 million in 2009, but still had an operating loss of $57.1 million.
What's more, first wind is not a big company. According to the Globe, it has a total of 70 employees. And, according to the company's website, 10 of them are either chairmen, CEO, CFO or a vice president of one thing or another.
Compare that to some of Maine's top hospital CEOs, who also make about $1 million per year, but who supervise thousands of employees and produce hundreds of millions in revenue.
So, what does a company get when it pays $1.3 million for a former regulator from Maine?
Contacts. Knowledge of the regulatory process. Friends in high places. A big Rolodex — make that a deep Blackberry "contacts" list.
This is, of course, the kind of strategic hire that happens 100 times a day in Washington, but which we seldom see in Maine.
It's not illegal, but it's the familiar "revolving door" of politicians, soldiers and regulators moving seamlessly between government and industry that we've come to mistrust and despise about Washington.
But here's what should really concern us — the example Adams' hiring sets for other highly placed state employees.
Across Augusta, people buried in regulatory agencies must be asking themselves, "If he can do it, why can't I?"
Which raises an even more disturbing prospect called "regulatory capture."
It's a theory developed by Chicago School of Economics Professor George Joseph Stigler that regulators eventually identify with and aspire to join the well-heeled people they regulate.
And a regulator thinking about soon joining private industry probably isn't interested in offending prospective employers.
Of course, people do leave government. Adams' reason, a conflict of interest posed by Central Maine Power's efforts to expand transmission lines near his home, is a good one.
Still, we hope his example remains the exception rather than the rule for Maine.
According to a story Thursday by Naomi Schalit, of the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, former PUC Chairman Kurt Adams negotiated a pretty sweet deal for himself about a month before leaving the state's employ.
Adams accepted a vice-president's position at the Boston-based First Wind, a company seeking to develop a wind energy project in Maine.
A Securities and Exchange Commission filing says his first-year compensation at the firm totaled $1.3 million, which included $315,000 in salary, $658,000 in stock, $29,000 in "other" compensation and $315,000 in "non-equity compensation."
That's certainly a step up from his former position, which pays the current PUC chair, Sharon Reishus, a measly $164,278 per year. In fact, it's an eight-fold increase if the value of his stock is included.
And this is at a firm that has yet to turn a profit, according to a March 30 Boston Globe story.
The company had revenues of $47.1 million in 2009, but still had an operating loss of $57.1 million.
What's more, first wind is not a big company. According to the Globe, it has a total of 70 employees. And, according to the company's website, 10 of them are either chairmen, CEO, CFO or a vice president of one thing or another.
Compare that to some of Maine's top hospital CEOs, who also make about $1 million per year, but who supervise thousands of employees and produce hundreds of millions in revenue.
So, what does a company get when it pays $1.3 million for a former regulator from Maine?
Contacts. Knowledge of the regulatory process. Friends in high places. A big Rolodex — make that a deep Blackberry "contacts" list.
This is, of course, the kind of strategic hire that happens 100 times a day in Washington, but which we seldom see in Maine.
It's not illegal, but it's the familiar "revolving door" of politicians, soldiers and regulators moving seamlessly between government and industry that we've come to mistrust and despise about Washington.
But here's what should really concern us — the example Adams' hiring sets for other highly placed state employees.
Across Augusta, people buried in regulatory agencies must be asking themselves, "If he can do it, why can't I?"
Which raises an even more disturbing prospect called "regulatory capture."
It's a theory developed by Chicago School of Economics Professor George Joseph Stigler that regulators eventually identify with and aspire to join the well-heeled people they regulate.
And a regulator thinking about soon joining private industry probably isn't interested in offending prospective employers.
Of course, people do leave government. Adams' reason, a conflict of interest posed by Central Maine Power's efforts to expand transmission lines near his home, is a good one.
Still, we hope his example remains the exception rather than the rule for Maine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)