CAPE VINCENT — A restrictive zoning law would eliminate BP Alternative Energy's proposed wind farm here, a company spokesman warned the Town Council Thursday night.
James H. Madden, BP's project manager working on the Cape Vincent Wind Farm, had encouraging figures for a law allowing 50 decibels at the property line, which was proposed during a wind committee work session May 1.
Permitting 50 decibels at the property line would allow the full 124 megawatts, which leads to $28.3 million in a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement, $31.5 million in construction and operations and $26.2 million in landowner payments.
Based on the recently approved Galloo Island Wind Farm PILOT, the town would receive $4.3 million of the total.
"When you put stricter regulations on noise and other setbacks, it has a direct effect on the number of turbines, which has a direct impact on the economic benefits to the community," Mr. Madden said.
Towns that have a zoning law based on sound requirements can choose an absolute number or a relative number above ambient levels. In New York, 22 towns have chosen to use 50 decibels or higher as their sound requirements in zoning laws on wind farms. A guideline from the state Department of Environmental Conservation says introduced noise up to six decibels above ambient is not objectionable to most people.
Different studies have put the ambient noise levels in Cape Vincent as low as 20 decibels on quiet nights to an average of 44 decibels during summer days.
If the law restricted noise to 47 decibels, that would cut the project to 97 megawatts and a $23.8 million PILOT, $26.5 million in construction and operations and $21 million in landowner payments, he said.
And if the law allowed noise only up to 42 decibels at the property line, the project would drop to 36 megawatts and an $8.2 million PILOT, $9.1 million in construction and operations and $9.3 million in lease payments.
A project smaller than 100 megawatts wouldn't be built.
"At 36 megawatts, the project is not economically feasible at our end at all and would not be built at all," Mr. Madden said.
BP does want a zoning law, he said, because it creates clarity for developers and uniformity for landowners.
At the request of Supervisor Urban C. Hirschey, former Councilman Clifford J. Schneider conducted a demonstration in which the 50 members of the public who attended the meeting heard the difference between ambient levels and adding 3, 5, 10, 15 and 20 decibels of wind turbine noise on top of that.
"It's not just the sound level — it's the difference," Mr. Schneider said. "If it's higher, a lot of people are going to find it's annoying. Hopefully, with lower levels, there would be less disturbance."
He asked the council to keep a clause that would allow developers to plan for noise up to 50 decibels at neighboring property lines if the nonparticipating landowners were paid easements.
"It would allow them to negotiate with the developer to raise the level on their property and bring more money into the town," Mr. Schneider said.
Mr. Hirschey decided to form a committee that will look at the economics behind wind power. Mr. Madden, Assessor Robert V.R. Barnard and Faye C. Waterman, president and chief executive officer of Citizens Bank of Cape Vincent, have agreed to be on the committee with Mr. Hirschey.
The group will have a few meetings and give a summary or report to the Town Council before the council continues discussions on a zoning law.
"The economic issue is before us," Mr. Hirschey said.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Galloo lines focus of suit
Henderson's legal arguments in opposition to the Galloo Island Wind Farm, which focus primarily on the project's transmission lines, will be rendered moot if the line location shifts.
Henderson filed state Supreme Court action in February asking a judge to annul the town of Hounsfield Planning Board's site plan approval for the proposed Galloo Island Wind Farm. The action also named the project's developer, Upstate NY Power Corp., Seneca, and the state Department of Environmental Conservation.
Henderson claimed, among other things, that DEC, as lead agency on the project under the state Environmental Quality Review Act, failed to take the requisite "hard look" at numerous environmental concerns covered by the act.
When Henderson filed the action, the preferred route for the transmission lines hit landfall in Henderson and ran south through the town, then through Ellisburg, Sandy Creek and Pulaski to a National Grid line in Mexico.
Since then, however, the focus of the route has shifted in a different direction, to landfall in Hounsfield and along Route 12F to an electric substation on Outer Coffeen Street.
In oral arguments Thursday, Henderson's attorney, Wendy A. Marsh, Syracuse, told Judge Joseph D. McGuire that the town contends that DEC "improperly segmented" the transmission lines from the wind turbines during the SEQR process. DEC attorney Morgan A. Costello, Albany, countered that the transmission lines are the domain of the state Public Service Commission and that the lines are not part of any SEQR review.
Ms. Marsh said the commission had sent a letter to the Hounsfield Planning Board in January 2008 informing it that the commission expected DEC to consider the environmental impact of the lines, but Ms. Costello maintains that Ms. Marsh misinterpreted the written comments. She said DEC did consider the "cumulative impact" of the lines and the turbine project, but did not deem that a full environmental review of the lines was necessary.
There are 71/2 miles of transmission lines proposed to traverse Henderson from the Galloo Island project if that route is chosen.
The Henderson Town Council also opposes the wind energy project for aesthetic reasons, claiming the turbines will affect the Lake Ontario viewshed, which could negatively affect tourism and property values in the town.
Ms. Costello said the town lacks the legal authority to bring the action on behalf of its residents and cannot spend municipal funds on such an action. She said that town residents could raise legal issues over such things as the noise produced by the turbines, but that the town lacks standing to do so.
Ms. Costello and Hounsfield's attorney, Dennis G. Whelpley, also maintain that minutes of Henderson's town board meetings do not show where the board ever approved starting litigation in the matter.
Ms. Marsh said Henderson Supervisor Raymond A. Walker has provided an affidavit to the court saying the vote was made during the board's January meeting, but Mr. Whelpley countered that no effort has been made to correct the omission in the board's meeting minutes. He said Mr. Walker made the motion at the board's February meeting to approve the January meeting minutes, but no mention was made that the vote to start litigation was missing.
Judge McGuire reserved decision on the matter.
Robert W. Burgdorf, an attorney for Upstate NY Power, said earlier this month that litigation already has contributed to a year's delay in starting construction on the Galloo Island project.
Henderson filed state Supreme Court action in February asking a judge to annul the town of Hounsfield Planning Board's site plan approval for the proposed Galloo Island Wind Farm. The action also named the project's developer, Upstate NY Power Corp., Seneca, and the state Department of Environmental Conservation.
Henderson claimed, among other things, that DEC, as lead agency on the project under the state Environmental Quality Review Act, failed to take the requisite "hard look" at numerous environmental concerns covered by the act.
When Henderson filed the action, the preferred route for the transmission lines hit landfall in Henderson and ran south through the town, then through Ellisburg, Sandy Creek and Pulaski to a National Grid line in Mexico.
Since then, however, the focus of the route has shifted in a different direction, to landfall in Hounsfield and along Route 12F to an electric substation on Outer Coffeen Street.
In oral arguments Thursday, Henderson's attorney, Wendy A. Marsh, Syracuse, told Judge Joseph D. McGuire that the town contends that DEC "improperly segmented" the transmission lines from the wind turbines during the SEQR process. DEC attorney Morgan A. Costello, Albany, countered that the transmission lines are the domain of the state Public Service Commission and that the lines are not part of any SEQR review.
Ms. Marsh said the commission had sent a letter to the Hounsfield Planning Board in January 2008 informing it that the commission expected DEC to consider the environmental impact of the lines, but Ms. Costello maintains that Ms. Marsh misinterpreted the written comments. She said DEC did consider the "cumulative impact" of the lines and the turbine project, but did not deem that a full environmental review of the lines was necessary.
There are 71/2 miles of transmission lines proposed to traverse Henderson from the Galloo Island project if that route is chosen.
The Henderson Town Council also opposes the wind energy project for aesthetic reasons, claiming the turbines will affect the Lake Ontario viewshed, which could negatively affect tourism and property values in the town.
Ms. Costello said the town lacks the legal authority to bring the action on behalf of its residents and cannot spend municipal funds on such an action. She said that town residents could raise legal issues over such things as the noise produced by the turbines, but that the town lacks standing to do so.
Ms. Costello and Hounsfield's attorney, Dennis G. Whelpley, also maintain that minutes of Henderson's town board meetings do not show where the board ever approved starting litigation in the matter.
Ms. Marsh said Henderson Supervisor Raymond A. Walker has provided an affidavit to the court saying the vote was made during the board's January meeting, but Mr. Whelpley countered that no effort has been made to correct the omission in the board's meeting minutes. He said Mr. Walker made the motion at the board's February meeting to approve the January meeting minutes, but no mention was made that the vote to start litigation was missing.
Judge McGuire reserved decision on the matter.
Robert W. Burgdorf, an attorney for Upstate NY Power, said earlier this month that litigation already has contributed to a year's delay in starting construction on the Galloo Island project.
Clayton wind vote rejected safety findings
This letter is to bring to the forefront an injustice that has occurred. On April 26, Clayton Town Supervisor Justin Taylor and Councilman Don Turcotte voted to reject the new town law regarding wind turbines. They rejected not only the findings of the independent, unbiased firm they hired to review the original local law, but also the recommendations of their citizens' wind committee.
The independent firm of Tocci and Cavanaugh reviewed the original law regarding sound and setbacks of wind turbines, concluding the setbacks in the original law were not sufficient nor were the sound limits acceptable in protecting surrounding residences. They gave specific recommendations on how to change the law to prevent future problems.
The citizens wind committee, represented by residents of the town, reviewed the original local law and after extensive scientific research, recommended that changes be made to the law. Both of these recommendations agree with the Department of Environmental Conservation and the World Health Organization on sound regarding safety. These recommendations were accepted by the town board last fall.
A good analogy to illustrate what transpired is if you went shopping for a used car. Suppose the salesman told you the car was safe and reliable. Being a fair and systematic person, you took the car to your mechanic for an inspection. He said it was unsafe and posed a potential threat. Consumer Reports confirmed the same problems, and the state inspection failed. You decide to reject the experts' advice and believe the car salesman. This is exactly what Justin and Don did. They chose to believe the salespeople at Iberdrola, the company which is selling wind to Clayton, over reputable scientific evidence.
Justin said residents would have to learn to deal with the wind turbines and that the wind project would be eliminated based on the recommendations. He is partly right. The recommendations would eliminate the current project, but it doesn't deny the potential to still have a wind project. If wind is truly what the town wants, why not pursue it further, but with safer standards that scientific experts are advocating? Why hire a firm to review the law and implement a citizen's panel only to reject their findings and recommendations? The recommendations of the wind companies are not protective and are based on maximizing profit.
I applaud Councilmen George Kittle, Lance Peterson and Bobby Cantwell on their willingness to stand up and vote based on the protection of their constituents and not for monetary gain. Unfortunately, our town supervisor and Councilman Turcotte are willing to sacrifice our safety for potential profit.
John Jepma
LaFargeville
The independent firm of Tocci and Cavanaugh reviewed the original law regarding sound and setbacks of wind turbines, concluding the setbacks in the original law were not sufficient nor were the sound limits acceptable in protecting surrounding residences. They gave specific recommendations on how to change the law to prevent future problems.
The citizens wind committee, represented by residents of the town, reviewed the original local law and after extensive scientific research, recommended that changes be made to the law. Both of these recommendations agree with the Department of Environmental Conservation and the World Health Organization on sound regarding safety. These recommendations were accepted by the town board last fall.
A good analogy to illustrate what transpired is if you went shopping for a used car. Suppose the salesman told you the car was safe and reliable. Being a fair and systematic person, you took the car to your mechanic for an inspection. He said it was unsafe and posed a potential threat. Consumer Reports confirmed the same problems, and the state inspection failed. You decide to reject the experts' advice and believe the car salesman. This is exactly what Justin and Don did. They chose to believe the salespeople at Iberdrola, the company which is selling wind to Clayton, over reputable scientific evidence.
Justin said residents would have to learn to deal with the wind turbines and that the wind project would be eliminated based on the recommendations. He is partly right. The recommendations would eliminate the current project, but it doesn't deny the potential to still have a wind project. If wind is truly what the town wants, why not pursue it further, but with safer standards that scientific experts are advocating? Why hire a firm to review the law and implement a citizen's panel only to reject their findings and recommendations? The recommendations of the wind companies are not protective and are based on maximizing profit.
I applaud Councilmen George Kittle, Lance Peterson and Bobby Cantwell on their willingness to stand up and vote based on the protection of their constituents and not for monetary gain. Unfortunately, our town supervisor and Councilman Turcotte are willing to sacrifice our safety for potential profit.
John Jepma
LaFargeville
Perry kills Dairy Hills project application
PERRY -- The proposed Dairy Hills wind farm application has been declared null and void.
The Town Board voted 4-1 on Wednesday to stand by the deadline set at its March meeting. The board also voted unanimously to enact a 12-month moratorium to revisit its wind energy law.
A public hearing on the moratorium has been set for 7:30 p.m. June 2. Location has been tentatively set for the Perry Firemen's Building in the Village Park.
Horizon Wind Energy announced in October it was freezing the Dairy Hills State Environmental Quality Review process due to uncertainty over the project.
The Town Board set a 30-day deadline at its March meeting, asking the developer to state in writing if it wished to continue the SEQR process. The company replied at the last minute that it wished to keep the project on hold.
The moratorium will allow the town to re-examine and potentially change its wind energy law, Town Supervisor James Brick said. That could include new height limitations if the town chooses.
Councilman Gerald Sahrle said the moratorium could also be extended if necessary. He and his wife Valary were founding members of Citizens for a Healthy Rural Neighborhood, which opposed the project.
The nullification of Horizon's application is the latest step in an often-grueling, five-year process which has caused much controversy in the town. But board members were reluctant to say it's the end.
"You've got to give us some time, I think, to digest it," said Councilwoman Tracy Rozanski when asked for her reaction. "And I don't know if it's faded away."
"Maybe we should have set a time limit to begin with, but who knows?" Sahrle added. "It's hindsight."
Brick said the Town Board felt it should be in control of the process and not Horizon. He said the DEIS is a town document.
Brick was the single Town Board member to vote against nullifying Horizon's application. He said this morning that he favored leaving the project in abeyance if Horizon wanted.
Towers weren't being put up, and maybe something could have been worked out in the future which would have allowed some sort of wind farm option, Brick said. He believes the nullification is pushing Horizon out.
"If they want to leave, they can leave, but this way we're driving them out, and I don't agree with that," he said.
The Dairy Hills Wind Farm was proposed in 2005. It was subject to a major revision last year which reduced its size from 60 to 38 turbines.
Horizon officials said they were just learning of the Town Board's decision this morning and were not in a position to comment.
The Town Board voted 4-1 on Wednesday to stand by the deadline set at its March meeting. The board also voted unanimously to enact a 12-month moratorium to revisit its wind energy law.
A public hearing on the moratorium has been set for 7:30 p.m. June 2. Location has been tentatively set for the Perry Firemen's Building in the Village Park.
Horizon Wind Energy announced in October it was freezing the Dairy Hills State Environmental Quality Review process due to uncertainty over the project.
The Town Board set a 30-day deadline at its March meeting, asking the developer to state in writing if it wished to continue the SEQR process. The company replied at the last minute that it wished to keep the project on hold.
The moratorium will allow the town to re-examine and potentially change its wind energy law, Town Supervisor James Brick said. That could include new height limitations if the town chooses.
Councilman Gerald Sahrle said the moratorium could also be extended if necessary. He and his wife Valary were founding members of Citizens for a Healthy Rural Neighborhood, which opposed the project.
The nullification of Horizon's application is the latest step in an often-grueling, five-year process which has caused much controversy in the town. But board members were reluctant to say it's the end.
"You've got to give us some time, I think, to digest it," said Councilwoman Tracy Rozanski when asked for her reaction. "And I don't know if it's faded away."
"Maybe we should have set a time limit to begin with, but who knows?" Sahrle added. "It's hindsight."
Brick said the Town Board felt it should be in control of the process and not Horizon. He said the DEIS is a town document.
Brick was the single Town Board member to vote against nullifying Horizon's application. He said this morning that he favored leaving the project in abeyance if Horizon wanted.
Towers weren't being put up, and maybe something could have been worked out in the future which would have allowed some sort of wind farm option, Brick said. He believes the nullification is pushing Horizon out.
"If they want to leave, they can leave, but this way we're driving them out, and I don't agree with that," he said.
The Dairy Hills Wind Farm was proposed in 2005. It was subject to a major revision last year which reduced its size from 60 to 38 turbines.
Horizon officials said they were just learning of the Town Board's decision this morning and were not in a position to comment.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Wind turbines not welcome in Evans
“Not in my backyard, especially if that backyard is Lake Erie.”
That is the message officials of the Town of Evans has made in response to a proposal that wind towers be built in Lake Erie.
The Evans Town board is so opposed to the idea that they passed a resolution opposing a New York Power Authority proposal to construct wind towers in Lake Erie at their meeting last Wednesday (May 5) night.
The resolution reads as follows:
“While the Town of Evans council members encourage and welcome job-creating economic development projects, business expansions, and new businesses in the township that are consistent with our community values, enhanced quality of life, and present no harm to the unique characteristics of this township that we all cherish, however; we feel this project is inconsistent with our community goals and so we strongly oppose the New York Power Authority plan for the placement of wind turbines in the East Basin of Lake Erie.”
“Our future lies in that lake and the beaches that accompany it,” said Supervisor Francis Pordum. “We do not want wind turbines out there.”
The proposed project is to be between 120 and 500 megawatts, and will also include a landing site and on-land transmission lines to a NYISO Transmission System interconnection.
Resident Tom Marks spoke out in opposition of the proposed turbines, presenting a list of 21 cons of the wind towers, including negative impact on property value, tourism and taxes, to the board.
“They are not what we need in the Great Lakes, especially Lake Erie,” Marks said. “I hope very strongly you will oppose this proposal and pass this resolution.”
The town would receive no financial benefit from this proposal because all facilities involved would be exempt from local and real property taxes. The board went on to state they feel the construction of these turbines would have a negative impact on tourism destinations and the farming community.
“In an economy where people are losing their jobs and schools are closing, they want to spend money on alternative energy when we have it right in our backyard (Niagara Falls)?” asked Councilman Keith Dash.
District 12 Erie County Legislator Lynne Dixon spoke on the potential negative impact on fisheries in the area as well as the mating habits of Lake Erie fish.
Not everyone in attendance was against the idea of wind turbines in Lake Erie.
“Now, I’m neither for them nor against them honestly,” said resident Dick Hammer. “Before we go so far as to really turn them down, we should really take a look at the pro sides of them in our community.”
This proposed project would be the first fresh-water, off-shore based wind project in the country.
That is the message officials of the Town of Evans has made in response to a proposal that wind towers be built in Lake Erie.
The Evans Town board is so opposed to the idea that they passed a resolution opposing a New York Power Authority proposal to construct wind towers in Lake Erie at their meeting last Wednesday (May 5) night.
The resolution reads as follows:
“While the Town of Evans council members encourage and welcome job-creating economic development projects, business expansions, and new businesses in the township that are consistent with our community values, enhanced quality of life, and present no harm to the unique characteristics of this township that we all cherish, however; we feel this project is inconsistent with our community goals and so we strongly oppose the New York Power Authority plan for the placement of wind turbines in the East Basin of Lake Erie.”
“Our future lies in that lake and the beaches that accompany it,” said Supervisor Francis Pordum. “We do not want wind turbines out there.”
The proposed project is to be between 120 and 500 megawatts, and will also include a landing site and on-land transmission lines to a NYISO Transmission System interconnection.
Resident Tom Marks spoke out in opposition of the proposed turbines, presenting a list of 21 cons of the wind towers, including negative impact on property value, tourism and taxes, to the board.
“They are not what we need in the Great Lakes, especially Lake Erie,” Marks said. “I hope very strongly you will oppose this proposal and pass this resolution.”
The town would receive no financial benefit from this proposal because all facilities involved would be exempt from local and real property taxes. The board went on to state they feel the construction of these turbines would have a negative impact on tourism destinations and the farming community.
“In an economy where people are losing their jobs and schools are closing, they want to spend money on alternative energy when we have it right in our backyard (Niagara Falls)?” asked Councilman Keith Dash.
District 12 Erie County Legislator Lynne Dixon spoke on the potential negative impact on fisheries in the area as well as the mating habits of Lake Erie fish.
Not everyone in attendance was against the idea of wind turbines in Lake Erie.
“Now, I’m neither for them nor against them honestly,” said resident Dick Hammer. “Before we go so far as to really turn them down, we should really take a look at the pro sides of them in our community.”
This proposed project would be the first fresh-water, off-shore based wind project in the country.
Investigation into Fenner windmill collapse focuses on turbine foundations
As experts hone in on what caused a 187-ton windmill to collapse in a Fenner cornfield last year, developers are moving forward with a plan to get the rest of the wind farm’s 19 turbines safely spinning as early as mid-July.
Turbine 18 fell to the ground in the early hours of Dec. 27, shocking neighbors who have lived among the windmills for nearly a decade and industry experts who called the failure unprecedented.
In the weeks after the accident, Enel North America officials launched a comprehensive investigation to determine what led to the collapse: the turbine’s design, construction or conditions over time.
While the final cause has not yet been determined, forensic engineers have been able eliminate the theory that the failure was caused by construction materials or methods.
“We are confident that the foundations were constructed right in the first place,” project manager Steve Pike said Wednesday night during a meeting attended by about two dozen people who packed a small room in Fenner Town Hall.
Teams of experts called in after the incident have spent the past five months analyzing samples from Turbine 18’s 87-ton concrete foundation, reinforced steel beams and soil base.
The consultants also have studied the bases of the wind farm’s other 19 turbines, which were turned off in the aftermath of the collapse.
“We had to assume the worst — that the other turbines were seconds away from having the same problem,” Pike said. “We stopped generating at great expense because public safety and understanding why the turbine failed was the most important thing.”
While the engineers continue to dig into the tower’s design and historic loads, work crews will begin reinforcing the foundations of the remaining 19 windmills, excavating soil in early June and pouring additional concrete that will be tied to the existing foundations with steel dowels.
“While some look the same as the day we put them in, some have degradation that has started,” Pike said of the foundations of the remaining windmills. “The conditions vary. The first step in getting the park back online is to move forward with strengthening the other foundations.”
The turbines are expected to come back online in batches, with the first blades spinning by mid-summer and the park completely operational by early fall.
Pike said the developer is also considering replacing Turbine 18 with a newer model that could possibly tie into efforts to create a solar power farm in Fenner.
Turbine 18 fell to the ground in the early hours of Dec. 27, shocking neighbors who have lived among the windmills for nearly a decade and industry experts who called the failure unprecedented.
In the weeks after the accident, Enel North America officials launched a comprehensive investigation to determine what led to the collapse: the turbine’s design, construction or conditions over time.
While the final cause has not yet been determined, forensic engineers have been able eliminate the theory that the failure was caused by construction materials or methods.
“We are confident that the foundations were constructed right in the first place,” project manager Steve Pike said Wednesday night during a meeting attended by about two dozen people who packed a small room in Fenner Town Hall.
Teams of experts called in after the incident have spent the past five months analyzing samples from Turbine 18’s 87-ton concrete foundation, reinforced steel beams and soil base.
The consultants also have studied the bases of the wind farm’s other 19 turbines, which were turned off in the aftermath of the collapse.
“We had to assume the worst — that the other turbines were seconds away from having the same problem,” Pike said. “We stopped generating at great expense because public safety and understanding why the turbine failed was the most important thing.”
While the engineers continue to dig into the tower’s design and historic loads, work crews will begin reinforcing the foundations of the remaining 19 windmills, excavating soil in early June and pouring additional concrete that will be tied to the existing foundations with steel dowels.
“While some look the same as the day we put them in, some have degradation that has started,” Pike said of the foundations of the remaining windmills. “The conditions vary. The first step in getting the park back online is to move forward with strengthening the other foundations.”
The turbines are expected to come back online in batches, with the first blades spinning by mid-summer and the park completely operational by early fall.
Pike said the developer is also considering replacing Turbine 18 with a newer model that could possibly tie into efforts to create a solar power farm in Fenner.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Google goofs with wind farm investment fiasco
In a botched attempt to do the right thing by joining the growing community of green energy users, Google has recently invested in propeller-style wind farms.
Wildlife and bird experts have long condemned the wind industry for its erroneous claims to be both efficient and environmentally friendly.
In fact, not only is wind highly in-efficient as an energy source, but both the wind turbines themselves and the extensive infrastructure associated with them are absolutely devastating to sensitive crucial habitats for endangered plant and animal species. Add to that the mounting evidence of risks to human health associated with proximity to wind turbines, and the entire industry (complete with elaborate cover-ups and misinformation) becomes suspect.
The following letter to Google executives from raptor and migratory-bird expert Jim Wiegand, printed below in its entirety, illustrates the gravity of the problem:
Hello, I am contacting your company because of the recent news that Google has just announced a major (38 million) wind farm investment.
I am one of the foremost experts in the world on the subject of birds of prey and there is a very real problem with your investment that you should be made aware of.
I am writing to tell you that the propeller style Wind turbine that you have invested in is a mass killer of birds and bats. I know that your company has enough savvy to realize that one cannot always believe what you read. This has never been more evident than with the information and studies put out by the wind industry. I suggest that you watch the YouTube video . It will help you understand how millions of birds world wide are slaughtered each year. Most are protected species.
You should also know that the bird populations all over Europe have been plummeting for years. This includes many of migratory species that travel from Africa. One of the main reasons for these declines is the propeller style wind turbines. After crossing the Mediterranean these birds are met with a gauntlet of wind turbines starting at Tarifa, Spain. Then they must then travel the wind currents of Europe that are choked with many more thousands of the turbines. Then they must fly the gauntlet again to return home.
Please take a ride on your Google Earth and scan the ridgelines of Europe to see what I am talking about.
With the rapid expansion of wind farms in America similar declines are now coming thanks in part to the many ignorant investors like Google. In So Cal. the Condors must be manipulated with feeding stations to keep them from flying off into the prop wind turbines in the vicinity of Tejon Ranch. They will never fly free in this area until the prop wind turbines are removed. The small Whooping Crane population is declining rapidly and the Red Kite population in Germany and Italy is in dire trouble. These declines are because of the prop wind turbine and this is just the beginning of what is to come.
If your company wants to be progressive and at the same time really help the world then please invest in the development of some of the newer wind turbine designs that do not KILL. If you choose not to believe me then by all means erect 24 hour surveillance cameras including night vision and thermal imaging on you new wind farms to find out the truth. And once you do find out the truth..........Will Google choose to cover up the mortality as most other wind farms in America have for the last 25 years?
-- Jim Wiegand
It should also be noted that individuals and land-owners negatively impacted by wind farms installed near their homes or property, have not only experienced serious health and environmental consequences, but have received threats to keep quiet about the problems. Not surprisingly it’s been difficult to publicize these issues when the victims are too afraid to speak out publicly, for fear of reprisals.
The Price of Wind
The ferocious opposition from Massachusetts liberals to the Cape Wind project has provided a useful education in green energy politics. And now that the Nantucket Sound wind farm has won federal approval, this decade-long saga may prove edifying in green energy economics too: Namely, the price of electricity from wind is more than twice what consumers now pay.
On Monday, Cape Wind asked state regulators to approve a 15-year purchasing contract with the utility company National Grid at 20.7 cents per kilowatt hour, starting in 2013 and rising at 3.5% annually thereafter. Consumers pay around nine cents for conventional power today. The companies expect average electric bills to jump by about $1.59 a month, because electricity is electricity no matter how it is generated, and Cape Wind's 130 turbines will generate so little of it in the scheme of the overall New England market.
Still, that works out to roughly $443 million in new energy costs, and that doesn't count the federal subsidies that Cape Wind will receive from national taxpayers. It does, however, include the extra 6.1 cents per kilowatt hour that Massachusetts utilities are mandated to pay for wind, solar and the like under a 2008 state law called the Green Communities Act. Also under that law, at least 15% of power company portfolios must come from renewable sources by 2020.
Two weeks ago, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar approved Cape Wind, placing it in the vanguard of "a clean energy revolution." A slew of environmental and political outfits have since filed multiple lawsuits for violations of the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, certain tribal-protection laws, the Clean Water Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act.
There's comic irony in this clean energy revolution getting devoured by the archaic regulations of previous clean energy revolutions. But given that taxpayers will be required to pay to build Cape Wind and then required to buy its product at prices twice normal rates, opponents might have more success if they simply pointed out what a lousy deal it is.
On Monday, Cape Wind asked state regulators to approve a 15-year purchasing contract with the utility company National Grid at 20.7 cents per kilowatt hour, starting in 2013 and rising at 3.5% annually thereafter. Consumers pay around nine cents for conventional power today. The companies expect average electric bills to jump by about $1.59 a month, because electricity is electricity no matter how it is generated, and Cape Wind's 130 turbines will generate so little of it in the scheme of the overall New England market.
Still, that works out to roughly $443 million in new energy costs, and that doesn't count the federal subsidies that Cape Wind will receive from national taxpayers. It does, however, include the extra 6.1 cents per kilowatt hour that Massachusetts utilities are mandated to pay for wind, solar and the like under a 2008 state law called the Green Communities Act. Also under that law, at least 15% of power company portfolios must come from renewable sources by 2020.
Two weeks ago, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar approved Cape Wind, placing it in the vanguard of "a clean energy revolution." A slew of environmental and political outfits have since filed multiple lawsuits for violations of the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, certain tribal-protection laws, the Clean Water Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act.
There's comic irony in this clean energy revolution getting devoured by the archaic regulations of previous clean energy revolutions. But given that taxpayers will be required to pay to build Cape Wind and then required to buy its product at prices twice normal rates, opponents might have more success if they simply pointed out what a lousy deal it is.
First Wind appoints new board member
Source: Datamonitor)First Wind, an independent wind energy company focused on the development, financing, construction, ownership and operation of wind projects, has appointed Pat Wood III to its board of directors.
Mr Wood served as chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from 2001 to 2005 and the Public Utility Commission of Texas from 1995 to 2001, and is involved with a number of private companies and projects to increase clean power generation, independent power transmission and natural gas facilities.
Mr Wood also serves as a strategic advisor to Natural Gas Partners, a private equity firm, and is an independent director of five infrastructure companies including SunPower, Quanta Services, Xtreme Power Solutions, Range Fuels and TPI Composites.
Mr Wood is a member of the National Petroleum Council and is on the board of the American Council on Renewable Energy.
Paul Gaynor, CEO of First Wind, said: "Pat's remarkable list of achievements is matched with his strong advocacy for competitive sources of clean energy, which aligns well with our business model of developing, building and operating independent US-based wind energy projects."
Mr Wood served as chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from 2001 to 2005 and the Public Utility Commission of Texas from 1995 to 2001, and is involved with a number of private companies and projects to increase clean power generation, independent power transmission and natural gas facilities.
Mr Wood also serves as a strategic advisor to Natural Gas Partners, a private equity firm, and is an independent director of five infrastructure companies including SunPower, Quanta Services, Xtreme Power Solutions, Range Fuels and TPI Composites.
Mr Wood is a member of the National Petroleum Council and is on the board of the American Council on Renewable Energy.
Paul Gaynor, CEO of First Wind, said: "Pat's remarkable list of achievements is matched with his strong advocacy for competitive sources of clean energy, which aligns well with our business model of developing, building and operating independent US-based wind energy projects."
Demonstrators Protest Against Wind Power Measure In Cape Vincent
Cape Vincent's wind power law has yet to take effect, but it already has protesters rallying.
For months, the town board has been trying to pass an amendment that would put wind turbines in a zoning category of their own.
The intent is to give clearer guidelines for turbine developers.
However, some residents say that's not strict enough and they don't like the way the "Wind Law" is progressing.
The two main things causing controversy over wind power in the town of Cape Vincent continue to be where the turbines will be built and how much noise they will be allowed to generate.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
WIND TURBINES
From Goldhawk Fights Back, Dr. Lu Lombardi warns us about the health effects of noise and low frequency sound on human beings caused by wind turbines.
(Click to listen to the radio broadcast)
(Click to listen to the radio broadcast)
More doubts
An abrupt change in construction schedule for the Galloo Island Wind Farm wipes out the primary justification for the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency's rush to approve a project-specific payment-in-lieu-of-taxes plan for the venture.
Upstate NY Power Corp. does not intend to begin construction this year, contrary to what was claimed time and again in the rancorous debate over the PILOT plan approved by the town of Hounsfield, Sackets Harbor School District and the Jefferson County Legislature. The developer and JCIDA repeatedly pressed for swift action so construction could start this year to be eligible for a 30-percent federal subsidy of the project.
Now, Upstate attorney Robert W. Burgdorf said recently, it appears the federal credits will be extended for another year. Construction could start in 2011 but even that is just "a goal," so the schedule could slip even further. So much for that all-important deadline at the root of the debate over Upstate obtaining additional benefits beyond what it was already entitled to.
However, that is not the only uncertainty surrounding the project to emerge since the county board gave the final go-ahead in February.
The developer could have trouble lining up investors since Upstate has yet to secure a power-purchasing agreement guaranteeing the sale price of 246 megawatts of electricity generated by the wind farm. Such revenue assurances are a key element in obtaining financing.
The New York Power Authority dashed hopes for one possible source of contracts when it decided against buying any wind-generated power from any project in Jefferson County. Its action followed the county Legislature's rejection of a NYPA plan to place wind turbines off Jefferson County in Lake Ontario.
But the developer does not know yet how it will get the electricity from the island to the downstate power grid.
Despite all this, the JCIDA pushed the PILOT as a must-do plan as it sidestepped the Legislature's initial directive to draft a uniform PILOT for this and future wind projects.
The Legislature should now hold JCIDA accountable. Lawmakers now have plenty of time to revisit the tax benefit package and the IDA's failure to develop a uniform countywide PILOT.
Upstate NY Power Corp. does not intend to begin construction this year, contrary to what was claimed time and again in the rancorous debate over the PILOT plan approved by the town of Hounsfield, Sackets Harbor School District and the Jefferson County Legislature. The developer and JCIDA repeatedly pressed for swift action so construction could start this year to be eligible for a 30-percent federal subsidy of the project.
Now, Upstate attorney Robert W. Burgdorf said recently, it appears the federal credits will be extended for another year. Construction could start in 2011 but even that is just "a goal," so the schedule could slip even further. So much for that all-important deadline at the root of the debate over Upstate obtaining additional benefits beyond what it was already entitled to.
However, that is not the only uncertainty surrounding the project to emerge since the county board gave the final go-ahead in February.
The developer could have trouble lining up investors since Upstate has yet to secure a power-purchasing agreement guaranteeing the sale price of 246 megawatts of electricity generated by the wind farm. Such revenue assurances are a key element in obtaining financing.
The New York Power Authority dashed hopes for one possible source of contracts when it decided against buying any wind-generated power from any project in Jefferson County. Its action followed the county Legislature's rejection of a NYPA plan to place wind turbines off Jefferson County in Lake Ontario.
But the developer does not know yet how it will get the electricity from the island to the downstate power grid.
Despite all this, the JCIDA pushed the PILOT as a must-do plan as it sidestepped the Legislature's initial directive to draft a uniform PILOT for this and future wind projects.
The Legislature should now hold JCIDA accountable. Lawmakers now have plenty of time to revisit the tax benefit package and the IDA's failure to develop a uniform countywide PILOT.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Residents Weigh In On NYPA Offshore Wind Project
MAYVILLE - Chautauqua County is at a Dickensian crossroads, according to Doug Champ.
As chairman of the annual Chautauqua County Energy Conference, Champ sees opportunity in developing offshore wind power locally.
During the County Legislature's April 28 meeting, Champ asked lawmakers to consider the future - using the phrase "a tale of two counties."
Champ wants local officials to be fully educated the potential for a local wind power project. The opportunity, he said, is one which can create jobs and development in the county as well as address the nation's energy issues.
The New York Power Authority has identified Lake Erie and Lake Ontario as possible sites for turbines and is expected to name a developer for its Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project in early 2011.
"Offshore wind is coming," Champ said. "If we choose to ignore it and its potential, it will shift somewhere else."
In asking legislators to support the development of wind technology locally, Champ mentioned both the recent coal mine accident in West Virginia and the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
"The impact of those have yet to be found," Champ said. "Undoubtedly they will have tremendous impacts on the environment and they will continue to be a problem associated with fossil fuels."
Champ said he stands willing to educate legislators and the public about the alternative energy source, possibly chairing a committee on the subject.
"I believe this county can step forward and compose itself a plan," Champ said. "If we do not step forward with this kind of promotion for this county to utilize all its resources, we will be a tale of two counties - the one with and the one without. I suggest that you think about its future. Utilize the potential alternative energy and job creation and development that exists."
Champ's comments were followed immediately by an opposing viewpoint, given by Tom Marks, New York Director of the Great Lakes Sport Fishing Counsel.
Critical of industrial-sized wind turbines, Marks said the machines are not green and alleged that developers cannot promise delivery of their product.
"They have to be backed up by coal, nuclear, hydro or some other dependable source of energy," Marks said. "Wind is green, but on a smaller scale - if you put it on a house or a building. ... We can have wind energy, but not on the industrial scale."
Marks went on to criticize putting turbines in the Great Lakes and claimed that such turbines will cause property values to drop.
"The Great Lakes is not a place to put wind turbines," Marks said. "These are national treasures. They don't need to be disgraced with wind turbines. Our sunsets, our view - there is an economic and environmental value to that. It encourages tourism. It will represent a tremendous loss of property value and this can be argued and challenged all you want, but believe me, when people have a view of an industrial site behind their house, the value is going to decline. The rest of us in the county will have to pick up that tab because the assessments will drop, so it's going to cost everybody in the county money."
Marks questioned how turbines will benefit local residents, claiming that the state will be the real beneficiary. Additionally, he claimed that the developers hired will likely be foreign companies already familiar with the technology.
"We can't let businesses come in here from overseas with no risk at all, taking our tax dollars to erect these structures," Marks said. "Once the incentives are finished, 10 to 15 years down the road, these businesses won't be able to stand on their own and they'll collapse. What will we do then with those wind turbines out in the lake? We'll foot the bill either to keep them running or tear them down. If they're not profitable, we'll end up tearing them down."
Later in the meeting, the legislature approved a motion opposing such projects.
The motion was initially sponsored by Dunkirk Democrats Shaun Heenan and Keith Ahlstrom as well as George Borrello, R-Irving.
The motion opposes the New York Power Authority developing wind-generating projects in the New York waters of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. The three legislators are calling on local, state and federal elected officials to question NYPA on its proposal.
As chairman of the annual Chautauqua County Energy Conference, Champ sees opportunity in developing offshore wind power locally.
During the County Legislature's April 28 meeting, Champ asked lawmakers to consider the future - using the phrase "a tale of two counties."
Champ wants local officials to be fully educated the potential for a local wind power project. The opportunity, he said, is one which can create jobs and development in the county as well as address the nation's energy issues.
The New York Power Authority has identified Lake Erie and Lake Ontario as possible sites for turbines and is expected to name a developer for its Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project in early 2011.
"Offshore wind is coming," Champ said. "If we choose to ignore it and its potential, it will shift somewhere else."
In asking legislators to support the development of wind technology locally, Champ mentioned both the recent coal mine accident in West Virginia and the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
"The impact of those have yet to be found," Champ said. "Undoubtedly they will have tremendous impacts on the environment and they will continue to be a problem associated with fossil fuels."
Champ said he stands willing to educate legislators and the public about the alternative energy source, possibly chairing a committee on the subject.
"I believe this county can step forward and compose itself a plan," Champ said. "If we do not step forward with this kind of promotion for this county to utilize all its resources, we will be a tale of two counties - the one with and the one without. I suggest that you think about its future. Utilize the potential alternative energy and job creation and development that exists."
Champ's comments were followed immediately by an opposing viewpoint, given by Tom Marks, New York Director of the Great Lakes Sport Fishing Counsel.
Critical of industrial-sized wind turbines, Marks said the machines are not green and alleged that developers cannot promise delivery of their product.
"They have to be backed up by coal, nuclear, hydro or some other dependable source of energy," Marks said. "Wind is green, but on a smaller scale - if you put it on a house or a building. ... We can have wind energy, but not on the industrial scale."
Marks went on to criticize putting turbines in the Great Lakes and claimed that such turbines will cause property values to drop.
"The Great Lakes is not a place to put wind turbines," Marks said. "These are national treasures. They don't need to be disgraced with wind turbines. Our sunsets, our view - there is an economic and environmental value to that. It encourages tourism. It will represent a tremendous loss of property value and this can be argued and challenged all you want, but believe me, when people have a view of an industrial site behind their house, the value is going to decline. The rest of us in the county will have to pick up that tab because the assessments will drop, so it's going to cost everybody in the county money."
Marks questioned how turbines will benefit local residents, claiming that the state will be the real beneficiary. Additionally, he claimed that the developers hired will likely be foreign companies already familiar with the technology.
"We can't let businesses come in here from overseas with no risk at all, taking our tax dollars to erect these structures," Marks said. "Once the incentives are finished, 10 to 15 years down the road, these businesses won't be able to stand on their own and they'll collapse. What will we do then with those wind turbines out in the lake? We'll foot the bill either to keep them running or tear them down. If they're not profitable, we'll end up tearing them down."
Later in the meeting, the legislature approved a motion opposing such projects.
The motion was initially sponsored by Dunkirk Democrats Shaun Heenan and Keith Ahlstrom as well as George Borrello, R-Irving.
The motion opposes the New York Power Authority developing wind-generating projects in the New York waters of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. The three legislators are calling on local, state and federal elected officials to question NYPA on its proposal.
Wind company has not been forthright with the community
Several years ago, our small community was targeted by representatives of the wind company, Iberdrola Renewables, cleverly disguised as environmentalists. They quietly scoped out our farmers and large landowners, promising them large incomes, lower taxes and community gain. For a long time they appeared to have kept their plans under wraps; this prevented the rest of the community from knowing what was in the works during the early stages. Now that this intrigue has unfolded, our once close-knit community has been left in ruins before the approval of even one wind turbine has taken place.
The company now apparently intends to open an office in Hammond, creating the façade of an honorable business environment. Even this simple event seems rife with rumors, denials and accusations. Iberdrola Renewables will not respond to questions by the media, even regarding opening an office, unless in the form of an e-mail. Employees of Iberdrola have refused to have an open forum with our citizens. They have attended our Wind Advisory Committee meetings but would not answer questions unless presented in writing prior to the meeting. I do not hold these representatives personally responsible, since they are but the hired hands of the foreign wind company, doing their job as directed. It would appear that the direction is to be vague, avoid direct answers and spread information that ignores much of the real science behind the industry. Destroying relationships in our town is merely collateral damage.
I say to Iberdrola, you are not guests in our community. You did not approach our townspeople with an open meeting to present your agenda, fielding questions and inviting the community to participate in any plans. I believe you are here to make money at the expense of the people you purport to be helping. You have shown yourselves to be evasive and secretive. Doing business with any other company that behaves in this manner would be unacceptable even to the most gullible consumer, but you have insinuated yourselves with promises of big money and environmental commitment. Even the best among us have been taken in. I urge our citizens to see you as you truly are, and encourage you to go elsewhere, leaving us to clean up the wreckage your well-planned assault has left behind.
Brooke Stark
Hammond
The company now apparently intends to open an office in Hammond, creating the façade of an honorable business environment. Even this simple event seems rife with rumors, denials and accusations. Iberdrola Renewables will not respond to questions by the media, even regarding opening an office, unless in the form of an e-mail. Employees of Iberdrola have refused to have an open forum with our citizens. They have attended our Wind Advisory Committee meetings but would not answer questions unless presented in writing prior to the meeting. I do not hold these representatives personally responsible, since they are but the hired hands of the foreign wind company, doing their job as directed. It would appear that the direction is to be vague, avoid direct answers and spread information that ignores much of the real science behind the industry. Destroying relationships in our town is merely collateral damage.
I say to Iberdrola, you are not guests in our community. You did not approach our townspeople with an open meeting to present your agenda, fielding questions and inviting the community to participate in any plans. I believe you are here to make money at the expense of the people you purport to be helping. You have shown yourselves to be evasive and secretive. Doing business with any other company that behaves in this manner would be unacceptable even to the most gullible consumer, but you have insinuated yourselves with promises of big money and environmental commitment. Even the best among us have been taken in. I urge our citizens to see you as you truly are, and encourage you to go elsewhere, leaving us to clean up the wreckage your well-planned assault has left behind.
Brooke Stark
Hammond
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)