CLAYTON — Time's up for Horse Creek Wind Farm.
The joint village and town Planning Board, meeting Thursday night, balked at a third year of inactivity on Iberdrola Renewables' proposed 62-turbine project, which was in the middle of its state environmental quality review.
If Iberdrola wishes to build the wind power project now, the company will have to submit a new application and start the environmental review process over.
"Last year, I sat at this table and said I wouldn't vote for another extension," board member Paul E. Heckmann said. "They've been screwing around for two years."
Members voted 5-2 against the third extension.
Chairman Roland A. "Bud" Baril and member John W. Kehoe voted for it. They said they wanted to see the town maintain control of the environmental review process, something that could be challenged if the developer started from square one.
"The drawback is that you would start the SEQR over, which is potentially a more complicated process now than a year ago," town attorney Joseph W. Russell said.
Planning Board alternate Duane C. Hazelton said he had called the state Department of Environmental Conservation in Albany and officials there had said they don't want to take over a SEQR process on the project.
"There may be some interest at the local level for DEC to be lead agency and it does open the issue up again on who is lead agency," Mr. Russell said. "Granting the extension has no downside other than you have a pending application that would, at some point, be stale and probably need some changes."
If Iberdrola returned with an application, other involved agencies again must consent to have Clayton's Planning Board lead the environmental review.
"We need our local input," Mr. Kehoe said.
Mr. Baril said, "I'm a 'yes,' only because I'm a little leery about lead agency status."
But the other board members said they were tired of Iberdrola's delays and a late request to extend the suspension. A second one-year suspension that the board extended the project ended May 15, but Mr. Baril received an e-mail Monday and a letter Wednesday from Jenny L. Burke, business developer with Iberdrola, on the request. Mr. Baril read the letter during the meeting.
"I want to stop this," Mr. Heckmann said.
Member Ronald N. Duford said, "It needs to be started again."
Mr. Hazelton said, "I'm not concerned about losing local control."
Member Twyla Webb said, "Enough has transpired that they really should start over with a new application."
Board member Preston L. Lowe added, "I'm a definite 'no' because they didn't bother filing their request in time."
The first suspension was requested so Iberdrola could investigate the project's effects on Indiana bats, a federally listed endangered species that also is suffering from the mysterious "white nose syndrome" fungal infection that has decimated bat species in the Northeast.
As things stand, Iberdrola doesn't know if it will be required to have permits from DEC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for damaging Indiana bats or if the effects on bats would require project changes, the letter said.
"The applicant has also been considering a modification of the project," she wrote.
She asked that the suspension continue through May 1 while Iberdrola continues "to investigate the impacts on the Indiana bat population."
Mr. Baril said the project must be changed to address Indiana bats and wetlands, but Iberdrola also had suggested taller turbines.
"They still have an awful lot of work to do before they would come back," he said.
Friday, June 04, 2010
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
AG Clears Adams in Conflict of Interest Probe
Maine Attorney General Janet Mills says the investigation by her office was prompted by a published report that called into question a potential conflict of interest by Kurt Adams, and by a request from the Citizens Task Force on Wind Power and from Adams himself.
"We simply wanted to document the timeline: What decisions were made when, and did he disqualify himself appropriately on certain issues? And we found that he did," Mills says. "What's also interesting for the public to know, I think, is that the PUC really has no jurisdiction over windpower."
The attorney general's office reviewed emails, corporate documents, employent contracts, PUC and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pleadings and the record relating to a company associated with First Wind. Staff, commissioners and Adams were also interviewed.
Ironically, Mills says the story begins when Central Maine Power met with the PUC in 2007 to discuss a proposal to expand transmission lines in Maine. When Adams looked at alternative routes for the lines, he discovered that one of them would lead directly behind his residence. So he hired an attorney to advise him whether he might have a conflict of interest presiding over the proceedings.
Adams' attorney found there was "no basis" to disqualify himself from the case, but "his own attorney advised him that he should at least ask the attorney general for a follow up and whether or not he should disclose the potential conflict to the public at large and to the parties to the case, and he was advised that he ought to disclose that interest," Mills says.
Mills says Adams did pursue that advice. But while he waited for an answer, he decided to seek employment with an energy developer not regulated by the PUC. He initially reached out to First Wind. He interviewed with the company in December, 2007 and was offered a job sometime around February of 2008. But Adams turned it down in an email, in which he wrote: "I look forward to watching your company thrive in Maine and elsewhere."
A month later Chief Deputy Attorney General Linda Pistner issued an opinion about Adams and the CMP case. She also concluded that he did not have an actual conflict, but advised Adams to disclose his interest at the outset of the case proceedings. Instead, Adams called First Wind back and said he would take the job.
"We're really pleased that Attorney General Mills and her staff conducted a very thorough review that concluded that both First Wind and Kurt Adams acted appropriately," says John LaMontagne, a spokesman for First Wind. Adams could not be reached for comment.
"Kurt operates under the highest ethical standards and I know that he would do anything possible to try to be as open and transparent as possible," LaMontagne says. "So I'm sure he's very pleased that this is behind us."
One major question in the investigation centered on benefits offered by First Wind. When Adams signed a contract for employment with the company in April of 2008, part of the agreement involved the transfer of 1,200,000 unvested Series B units in the company to him. That's a technical term for shares in the company that do not have a monetary value until the company has a public stock offering and until the employee has been vested for a year.
The Citizens Task Force on Wind Power called Adams' acceptance of those so-called "units of equity" into question. And while group spokesman Brad Blake is grateful for the attorney general's review, he says the public should remain skeptical about industrial wind and its political connections in Maine.
"We believe it's important for the public to understand that this is just another example of the way politicians and public officials work with private enterprise and they get rewarded for it," Blake says.
Blake says the wind industry wouldn't exist without heavy government subsidies and preferential treatment. He says his group has done "due diligence" in bringing Kurt Adams' potential conflict of interest to the attorney general's office. Now, he says, the issue to be investigated is whether wind development should be embraced as good public policy in Maine.
"We simply wanted to document the timeline: What decisions were made when, and did he disqualify himself appropriately on certain issues? And we found that he did," Mills says. "What's also interesting for the public to know, I think, is that the PUC really has no jurisdiction over windpower."
The attorney general's office reviewed emails, corporate documents, employent contracts, PUC and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pleadings and the record relating to a company associated with First Wind. Staff, commissioners and Adams were also interviewed.
Ironically, Mills says the story begins when Central Maine Power met with the PUC in 2007 to discuss a proposal to expand transmission lines in Maine. When Adams looked at alternative routes for the lines, he discovered that one of them would lead directly behind his residence. So he hired an attorney to advise him whether he might have a conflict of interest presiding over the proceedings.
Adams' attorney found there was "no basis" to disqualify himself from the case, but "his own attorney advised him that he should at least ask the attorney general for a follow up and whether or not he should disclose the potential conflict to the public at large and to the parties to the case, and he was advised that he ought to disclose that interest," Mills says.
Mills says Adams did pursue that advice. But while he waited for an answer, he decided to seek employment with an energy developer not regulated by the PUC. He initially reached out to First Wind. He interviewed with the company in December, 2007 and was offered a job sometime around February of 2008. But Adams turned it down in an email, in which he wrote: "I look forward to watching your company thrive in Maine and elsewhere."
A month later Chief Deputy Attorney General Linda Pistner issued an opinion about Adams and the CMP case. She also concluded that he did not have an actual conflict, but advised Adams to disclose his interest at the outset of the case proceedings. Instead, Adams called First Wind back and said he would take the job.
"We're really pleased that Attorney General Mills and her staff conducted a very thorough review that concluded that both First Wind and Kurt Adams acted appropriately," says John LaMontagne, a spokesman for First Wind. Adams could not be reached for comment.
"Kurt operates under the highest ethical standards and I know that he would do anything possible to try to be as open and transparent as possible," LaMontagne says. "So I'm sure he's very pleased that this is behind us."
One major question in the investigation centered on benefits offered by First Wind. When Adams signed a contract for employment with the company in April of 2008, part of the agreement involved the transfer of 1,200,000 unvested Series B units in the company to him. That's a technical term for shares in the company that do not have a monetary value until the company has a public stock offering and until the employee has been vested for a year.
The Citizens Task Force on Wind Power called Adams' acceptance of those so-called "units of equity" into question. And while group spokesman Brad Blake is grateful for the attorney general's review, he says the public should remain skeptical about industrial wind and its political connections in Maine.
"We believe it's important for the public to understand that this is just another example of the way politicians and public officials work with private enterprise and they get rewarded for it," Blake says.
Blake says the wind industry wouldn't exist without heavy government subsidies and preferential treatment. He says his group has done "due diligence" in bringing Kurt Adams' potential conflict of interest to the attorney general's office. Now, he says, the issue to be investigated is whether wind development should be embraced as good public policy in Maine.
Private equity firm Global Environment Fund announces investment in UPC
Private equity firm Global Environment Fund (GEF) announces the completion of an investment of $30 million in UPC Renewables China Holdings Ltd. (UPC, the Company), an independent renewable energy producer with specific focus in wind energy development. The investment will be dedicated to wind power development in China, where the Company has 150 MW in construction and more than 3 GW of pipeline projects.
GEF is the only outside investor and holds two seats on the Board of Directors of the Company. "UPC has been working in China since 2006, and we have seen this market go from a standing start to one of the largest in the world for wind energy. We expect to see sustained long term growth in the wind market in China, and UPC, with support from GEF, is looking forward to participating fully in this market," said Brian Caffyn, CEO and Chairman of UPC. "We are pleased to be partnering with UPC in its ambitious plans for China. This is a tremendous opportunity to support a world-class wind developer in one of the world's best clean energy markets," said Jeffrey Leonard, CEO of GEF. "GEF has known the international sponsors of UPC for many years and we believe that their global experiences, combined with a strong local team of highly skilled Chinese professionals, positions the company well for this market." 2010 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)
GEF is the only outside investor and holds two seats on the Board of Directors of the Company. "UPC has been working in China since 2006, and we have seen this market go from a standing start to one of the largest in the world for wind energy. We expect to see sustained long term growth in the wind market in China, and UPC, with support from GEF, is looking forward to participating fully in this market," said Brian Caffyn, CEO and Chairman of UPC. "We are pleased to be partnering with UPC in its ambitious plans for China. This is a tremendous opportunity to support a world-class wind developer in one of the world's best clean energy markets," said Jeffrey Leonard, CEO of GEF. "GEF has known the international sponsors of UPC for many years and we believe that their global experiences, combined with a strong local team of highly skilled Chinese professionals, positions the company well for this market." 2010 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)
Lake Erie Wind Farm to be First Freshwater Offshore Project in U.S.
The first step in an ambitious project to generate 1,000 megawatts of electricity from offshore wind turbines in Lake Erie was taken this week with an order to General Electric for five massive turbines.
The Lake Erie Energy Development Corp., a Cleveland-based nonprofit, said the direct-drive turbines will provide 4 MW each of electricity and would be operational by the end of 2012, generating enough electricity to power 6,000 homes.
“Ohio’s greatest potential for creating wind energy is offshore in Lake Erie, and this partnership marks a significant step forward,” said state governor Ted Strickland.
The Lake Erie project, the first freshwater offshore wind farm in the U.S., will use GE’s next-generation wind turbine, the largest in its product line, designed specifically for offshore deployment. It will incorporate direct-drive technology from ScanWind, a Norwegian company acquired by GE last year, and will feature GE’s advanced loads controls and aero-elastically tailored blade technology.
The first turbines will be located 6 miles north of Cleveland Browns’ stadium, according to LEEDCo officials. The initial phase will cost between $80 million and $100 million.
The announcement, made at the American Wind Energy Association’s Windpower 2010 conference, came less than a month after the Obama administration approved the Cape Wind project for a wind farm offshore from Cape Cod.
The New York Power Authority in December put out a request for proposals for an offshore wind farm in Lake Ontario or Lake Erie. The deadline for the New York Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project proposals is June 1.
Under the Ohio agreement, GE will build and maintain the initial 20-megawatt wind farm. The Fairfield, Connecticut-based company will also work with LEEDCo to create a strategic plan to identify cost reductions that can help make offshore wind energy in the Great Lakes economically viable.
“Together, we aim to develop a cost-effective approach for installing and maintaining offshore wind turbines with the highest possible availability,” said LEEDCo president Lorry Wagner. “We are confident that as the GE product line develops and our methodologies mature, the combination will promote a self-sustaining and growing market for offshore wind in Lake Erie and the Great Lakes.”
The Lake Erie Energy Development Corp., a Cleveland-based nonprofit, said the direct-drive turbines will provide 4 MW each of electricity and would be operational by the end of 2012, generating enough electricity to power 6,000 homes.
“Ohio’s greatest potential for creating wind energy is offshore in Lake Erie, and this partnership marks a significant step forward,” said state governor Ted Strickland.
The Lake Erie project, the first freshwater offshore wind farm in the U.S., will use GE’s next-generation wind turbine, the largest in its product line, designed specifically for offshore deployment. It will incorporate direct-drive technology from ScanWind, a Norwegian company acquired by GE last year, and will feature GE’s advanced loads controls and aero-elastically tailored blade technology.
The first turbines will be located 6 miles north of Cleveland Browns’ stadium, according to LEEDCo officials. The initial phase will cost between $80 million and $100 million.
The announcement, made at the American Wind Energy Association’s Windpower 2010 conference, came less than a month after the Obama administration approved the Cape Wind project for a wind farm offshore from Cape Cod.
The New York Power Authority in December put out a request for proposals for an offshore wind farm in Lake Ontario or Lake Erie. The deadline for the New York Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project proposals is June 1.
Under the Ohio agreement, GE will build and maintain the initial 20-megawatt wind farm. The Fairfield, Connecticut-based company will also work with LEEDCo to create a strategic plan to identify cost reductions that can help make offshore wind energy in the Great Lakes economically viable.
“Together, we aim to develop a cost-effective approach for installing and maintaining offshore wind turbines with the highest possible availability,” said LEEDCo president Lorry Wagner. “We are confident that as the GE product line develops and our methodologies mature, the combination will promote a self-sustaining and growing market for offshore wind in Lake Erie and the Great Lakes.”
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Wind farm expansion opposed in Orangeville
A 50-family coalition of Wyoming County citizens will continue to fight a plan to expand a wind farm in the Town of Orangeville.
State Supreme Court Justice Patrick H. NeMoyer recently gave the green light to the project by Invenergy, the largest independent wind developer in the United States. The company wants to expand its High Sheldon Wind Farm.
Gary A. Abraham, attorney for the Clear Skies Over Orangeville group, said he hopes the five-judge Appellate Division of State Supreme Court will hear the case by late summer. He wants the justices to grant his group’s plea to order the town to re-examine the noise level generated by the project.
NeMoyer heard arguments in Buffalo in March, months after Wyoming County judges recused themselves from the unincorporated association’s court action.
In a 31-page ruling, NeMoyer held that the Town Board properly took “a hard look” at the project’s environmental impact on the township, including “detailed attention” paid to the issue of noise.
He noted a Sept. 23, 2009, change to the town’s zoning law that keeps wind turbines at least 700 feet from the property lines of residents and 1,320 feet from dwellings or public buildings.
The judge also rejected accusations that board members had personal or family land holdings that would be affected by leasing land for the wind farm expansion.
Abraham said the citizens group does not oppose the wind farm’s expansion off Route 20A but is concerned about what he contends is the unacceptably loud noise the town is authorizing for the dozens of turbines planned for the expansion next year.
The attorney said the citizens group hired an acoustics expert, who found that present background sound levels in the area earmarked for the wind farm expansion are currently about 25 decibels. He wants the appellate court to order the Town Board to hire its own acoustics expert to re-examine the noise limit.
Daniel A. Spitzer, the Buffalo attorney representing Invenergy, could not be reached to comment.
Steve Moultrup, a Clear Skies Over Orangeville member, said the expansion should come under closer scrutiny by the state Department of Environmental Conservation, the U. S. Fish&Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Those agencies should ensure that the project has accounted for the impact on bald eagles and other birds and whether wetlands and the Attica Reservoir face harm as a result of clear-cutting, blasting and road-building for the project.
State Supreme Court Justice Patrick H. NeMoyer recently gave the green light to the project by Invenergy, the largest independent wind developer in the United States. The company wants to expand its High Sheldon Wind Farm.
Gary A. Abraham, attorney for the Clear Skies Over Orangeville group, said he hopes the five-judge Appellate Division of State Supreme Court will hear the case by late summer. He wants the justices to grant his group’s plea to order the town to re-examine the noise level generated by the project.
NeMoyer heard arguments in Buffalo in March, months after Wyoming County judges recused themselves from the unincorporated association’s court action.
In a 31-page ruling, NeMoyer held that the Town Board properly took “a hard look” at the project’s environmental impact on the township, including “detailed attention” paid to the issue of noise.
He noted a Sept. 23, 2009, change to the town’s zoning law that keeps wind turbines at least 700 feet from the property lines of residents and 1,320 feet from dwellings or public buildings.
The judge also rejected accusations that board members had personal or family land holdings that would be affected by leasing land for the wind farm expansion.
Abraham said the citizens group does not oppose the wind farm’s expansion off Route 20A but is concerned about what he contends is the unacceptably loud noise the town is authorizing for the dozens of turbines planned for the expansion next year.
The attorney said the citizens group hired an acoustics expert, who found that present background sound levels in the area earmarked for the wind farm expansion are currently about 25 decibels. He wants the appellate court to order the Town Board to hire its own acoustics expert to re-examine the noise limit.
Daniel A. Spitzer, the Buffalo attorney representing Invenergy, could not be reached to comment.
Steve Moultrup, a Clear Skies Over Orangeville member, said the expansion should come under closer scrutiny by the state Department of Environmental Conservation, the U. S. Fish&Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Those agencies should ensure that the project has accounted for the impact on bald eagles and other birds and whether wetlands and the Attica Reservoir face harm as a result of clear-cutting, blasting and road-building for the project.
Proposed Case Definition:Adverse Health Effects And Industrial Wind Turbines
People are reporting adverse health effects associated with the onset of industrial wind turbine operations. The symptoms described are consistent globally.
The complexities of adverse health effects and industrial wind turbines and the methodological problems associated with its study indicate the need for a comprehensive, systematic, and integrated study of populations and victims.
Epidemiological and clinical evaluation is required including sleep studies of victims.
The Society for Wind Vigilance proposes this case definition to assist clinicians in the assessment of patients presenting with a complex set of symptoms related to industrial wind turbine operations.
As more knowledge is gained, this case definition will be modified.
Click here to download the Proposed Case Definition:Adverse Health Effects And Industrial Wind Turbines
The complexities of adverse health effects and industrial wind turbines and the methodological problems associated with its study indicate the need for a comprehensive, systematic, and integrated study of populations and victims.
Epidemiological and clinical evaluation is required including sleep studies of victims.
The Society for Wind Vigilance proposes this case definition to assist clinicians in the assessment of patients presenting with a complex set of symptoms related to industrial wind turbine operations.
As more knowledge is gained, this case definition will be modified.
Click here to download the Proposed Case Definition:Adverse Health Effects And Industrial Wind Turbines
Lake turbine plan hits rough seas
A Canadian company's plan to place hundreds of wind turbines in Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie has more than a few people on both sides of the border up in arms.
Lynn Kotwicki is one of them. The Royal Oak resident has raced sailboats on Lake St. Clair for years and can't understand why anyone would think it was the right place to generate electricity from wind.
"We've had three races canceled in the last 10 days," she said. "And each time, it was because there was no wind."
The lake's sailing community is just one of the factions lining up to oppose plans from SouthPoint Wind to put turbines in the lakes in Canadian waters. Opponents have expressed concerns over the wind farms' impact on everything from property values to recreational boating to wildlife.
But even though the turbines would be easily seen from communities like St. Clair Shores and the Grosse Pointes, residents there and others who use the lake are finding they have little recourse in combating the project.
SouthPoint Wind is based in Leamington, Ontario, and the company describes itself as a "developer of green energy." Legislation passed in recent years has cleared the way for companies to pursue clean energy projects and SouthPoint has proposals to put turbines in Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie that can produce up to 1400 megawatts of electricity.
For Lake St. Clair, that would mean three groupings of turbines with more than 55 of the 400-foot tall generators in each.
"A U.S. citizen who doesn't like the way the wind farm looks across the lake can't just go into Canadian court and sue to try and stop it," said Nick Schroeck, an adjunct professor at Wayne State and executive director of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center.
SouthPoint declined to provide a comment and directed those looking for information on the project to the company's website. Documentation there provides the company's rationale for proposing to site three wind farms just more than a mile off-shore.
"The location was specifically chosen in order to capitalize on the most profitable areas with shallow water depth, high average wind speed and proximity to the grid connection point," SouthPoint's project description reads.
Aside from the aesthetics of placing wind farms in Lake St. Clair, there are practical issues for area residents. Jennifer Hoover of Beverly Hills owns a home in Canada along the southern shore of Lake St. Clair and isn't happy about the plan.
"It's frustrating -- you pay a premium for the land because it sits on the water and then you pay those taxes each year," said the 46-year-old, who works as a property manager. "And they can just come in and, on their own whim, decide to throw 50 windmills out in front of our homes."
Schroeck said that while U.S. citizens may be largely shut out of the debate, Canadian groups are likely to test SouthPoint's proposals in court once the permitting process is under way. At least one group has formed to challenge SouthPoint over its interest in Lake Erie. The Citizens Against Lake Erie Wind Turbines has moved from circulating petitions to creating a legal defense fund to battle the company.
Lynn Kotwicki is one of them. The Royal Oak resident has raced sailboats on Lake St. Clair for years and can't understand why anyone would think it was the right place to generate electricity from wind.
"We've had three races canceled in the last 10 days," she said. "And each time, it was because there was no wind."
The lake's sailing community is just one of the factions lining up to oppose plans from SouthPoint Wind to put turbines in the lakes in Canadian waters. Opponents have expressed concerns over the wind farms' impact on everything from property values to recreational boating to wildlife.
But even though the turbines would be easily seen from communities like St. Clair Shores and the Grosse Pointes, residents there and others who use the lake are finding they have little recourse in combating the project.
SouthPoint Wind is based in Leamington, Ontario, and the company describes itself as a "developer of green energy." Legislation passed in recent years has cleared the way for companies to pursue clean energy projects and SouthPoint has proposals to put turbines in Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie that can produce up to 1400 megawatts of electricity.
For Lake St. Clair, that would mean three groupings of turbines with more than 55 of the 400-foot tall generators in each.
"A U.S. citizen who doesn't like the way the wind farm looks across the lake can't just go into Canadian court and sue to try and stop it," said Nick Schroeck, an adjunct professor at Wayne State and executive director of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center.
SouthPoint declined to provide a comment and directed those looking for information on the project to the company's website. Documentation there provides the company's rationale for proposing to site three wind farms just more than a mile off-shore.
"The location was specifically chosen in order to capitalize on the most profitable areas with shallow water depth, high average wind speed and proximity to the grid connection point," SouthPoint's project description reads.
Aside from the aesthetics of placing wind farms in Lake St. Clair, there are practical issues for area residents. Jennifer Hoover of Beverly Hills owns a home in Canada along the southern shore of Lake St. Clair and isn't happy about the plan.
"It's frustrating -- you pay a premium for the land because it sits on the water and then you pay those taxes each year," said the 46-year-old, who works as a property manager. "And they can just come in and, on their own whim, decide to throw 50 windmills out in front of our homes."
Schroeck said that while U.S. citizens may be largely shut out of the debate, Canadian groups are likely to test SouthPoint's proposals in court once the permitting process is under way. At least one group has formed to challenge SouthPoint over its interest in Lake Erie. The Citizens Against Lake Erie Wind Turbines has moved from circulating petitions to creating a legal defense fund to battle the company.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Comments aired at wind plan hearing
RIPLEY - Town of Ripley residents - and some from Westfield as well - were given the opportunity to let their opinions regarding the proposed Pattern Energy Ripley-Westfield wind farm be heard at a recent public meeting.
Held at Meeder's Restaurant in Ripley, a number of community members expressed their concerns, opinions and beliefs to Town of Ripley board members.
First to speak was Arthur Giacalone, an attorney from East Aurora who was representing a group of concerned citizens. Giacalone said there was inadequate time to review the project's draft environmental impact statement, and he urged residents to approach the DEIS with "healthy skepticism" as it contained what he called slanted information.
"If you take the time to closely examine it, there is example after example of where this is happening," Giacalone said.
This slanted information, according to information provided by Giacalone, included misinformation regarding shadow flicker caused by the turbines, the sound produced, the complaint resolution process and potential health impacts.
Giacalone said he found numerous studies which argued opposite points than those found in the project's DEIS.
Meanwhile, Westfield resident Paul Coran expressed his concerns with possible groundwater contamination caused by the amount of concrete for the project and the washing off of the trucks which delivered the cement.
"That's got to go somewhere," Coran said, "maybe in someone's well."
Coran also said he was concerned with the impact a wind farm would have on birds, noise and area property values, which, he said, could go down if such a project is constructed.
"What types of impacts are we able to handle," he asked.
Another concerned resident, Keith Fowler, said such a wind project, if it was around prior to his moving to the area, would have been a red flag.
"We moved here a year ago, and if we knew this was going to be here, we would not have moved here," he said. "The only thing I can hope for is that the Ripley and Westfield town boards vote this down."
Fowler said he has worked in the energy business and found wind turbines to be unreliable and to have a negative impact on property taxes.
"It's going to be a continuing downward spiral," he said.
Toby Hanks, a Ripley resident, said he had issues with the size the turbines and the location of the project.
"We're going to be looking at these things for the rest of our lives," he said. "I don't think there is anything in this project for the residents of these towns. There's just nothing there for us. I just don't see it."
However, there were members of the audience who were supportive of the proposed wind project.
"Think about the impact on our environment if we do nothing," said Larry Borowski. "We need to build these windmills today. I see them as fingers of hope and life for our future."
Phil Knight, a Ripley resident, said such a project would help future generations of people.
"We need to do something now," he said. "Somebody has to do something for our kids and our grandkids and their grandkids. I think our future needs to look at this."
Ripley resident Bob Bentley, who was not speaking for the Ripley Central School Board of Education of which he presides, said he personally believed a wind project would bring money and jobs to the area.
"This isn't a perfect situation," he said. "Somewhere, we have to start making some changes in this area. Sooner or later we need to step forward into the future."
Stephen Howes, who said windmills are proposed to be installed near his property, said the Ripley Town Board would regret the decision to allow the project to be constructed.
"These windmills are ugly. They're a machine. They're not pretty," he said. "You're going to hate these things. You're going to hate these things with a passion."
Howes said the project's developers are misleading the public.
"They're all telling you things you want to hear and not the real deal," he said.
However, Dan Scriven of Ripley said the project was needed in the area because taxes could decrease, jobs could be created and businesses may be enticed to move to the region.
"Unless somebody does something to lower the taxes, people are going to keep exiting the state," Scriven said.
According to information provided by representatives of Pattern Energy, the proposed project would consists of 54 to 79 turbines spread out evenly in both the Towns of Ripley and Westfield. The power generated, the information said, would be enough to power 43,000 homes each year. The company is currently looking at two different types of turbines which would be more than 300 feet tall from their base to the tips of their blades.
Copies of the Environmental Impact Statement can be found at various locations, including Eason Hall and the Patterson Library in Westfield.
Residents may mail or e-mail their comments to either the Town of Westfield or the Town of Ripley. Written comments must be received by 5 p.m. on Monday, May 17. For more information, individuals are asked to contact either the Town of Westfield at 326-3211, the Town of Ripley at 736-6881 or by visiting www.ripleywestfieldwind.ene.com.
"We appreciate all of your comments," said Town of Ripley Supervisor Pete Ryan. "Everything said here will be in the DEIS."
Held at Meeder's Restaurant in Ripley, a number of community members expressed their concerns, opinions and beliefs to Town of Ripley board members.
First to speak was Arthur Giacalone, an attorney from East Aurora who was representing a group of concerned citizens. Giacalone said there was inadequate time to review the project's draft environmental impact statement, and he urged residents to approach the DEIS with "healthy skepticism" as it contained what he called slanted information.
"If you take the time to closely examine it, there is example after example of where this is happening," Giacalone said.
This slanted information, according to information provided by Giacalone, included misinformation regarding shadow flicker caused by the turbines, the sound produced, the complaint resolution process and potential health impacts.
Giacalone said he found numerous studies which argued opposite points than those found in the project's DEIS.
Meanwhile, Westfield resident Paul Coran expressed his concerns with possible groundwater contamination caused by the amount of concrete for the project and the washing off of the trucks which delivered the cement.
"That's got to go somewhere," Coran said, "maybe in someone's well."
Coran also said he was concerned with the impact a wind farm would have on birds, noise and area property values, which, he said, could go down if such a project is constructed.
"What types of impacts are we able to handle," he asked.
Another concerned resident, Keith Fowler, said such a wind project, if it was around prior to his moving to the area, would have been a red flag.
"We moved here a year ago, and if we knew this was going to be here, we would not have moved here," he said. "The only thing I can hope for is that the Ripley and Westfield town boards vote this down."
Fowler said he has worked in the energy business and found wind turbines to be unreliable and to have a negative impact on property taxes.
"It's going to be a continuing downward spiral," he said.
Toby Hanks, a Ripley resident, said he had issues with the size the turbines and the location of the project.
"We're going to be looking at these things for the rest of our lives," he said. "I don't think there is anything in this project for the residents of these towns. There's just nothing there for us. I just don't see it."
However, there were members of the audience who were supportive of the proposed wind project.
"Think about the impact on our environment if we do nothing," said Larry Borowski. "We need to build these windmills today. I see them as fingers of hope and life for our future."
Phil Knight, a Ripley resident, said such a project would help future generations of people.
"We need to do something now," he said. "Somebody has to do something for our kids and our grandkids and their grandkids. I think our future needs to look at this."
Ripley resident Bob Bentley, who was not speaking for the Ripley Central School Board of Education of which he presides, said he personally believed a wind project would bring money and jobs to the area.
"This isn't a perfect situation," he said. "Somewhere, we have to start making some changes in this area. Sooner or later we need to step forward into the future."
Stephen Howes, who said windmills are proposed to be installed near his property, said the Ripley Town Board would regret the decision to allow the project to be constructed.
"These windmills are ugly. They're a machine. They're not pretty," he said. "You're going to hate these things. You're going to hate these things with a passion."
Howes said the project's developers are misleading the public.
"They're all telling you things you want to hear and not the real deal," he said.
However, Dan Scriven of Ripley said the project was needed in the area because taxes could decrease, jobs could be created and businesses may be enticed to move to the region.
"Unless somebody does something to lower the taxes, people are going to keep exiting the state," Scriven said.
According to information provided by representatives of Pattern Energy, the proposed project would consists of 54 to 79 turbines spread out evenly in both the Towns of Ripley and Westfield. The power generated, the information said, would be enough to power 43,000 homes each year. The company is currently looking at two different types of turbines which would be more than 300 feet tall from their base to the tips of their blades.
Copies of the Environmental Impact Statement can be found at various locations, including Eason Hall and the Patterson Library in Westfield.
Residents may mail or e-mail their comments to either the Town of Westfield or the Town of Ripley. Written comments must be received by 5 p.m. on Monday, May 17. For more information, individuals are asked to contact either the Town of Westfield at 326-3211, the Town of Ripley at 736-6881 or by visiting www.ripleywestfieldwind.ene.com.
"We appreciate all of your comments," said Town of Ripley Supervisor Pete Ryan. "Everything said here will be in the DEIS."
Sunday, May 30, 2010
This man’s family can’t sleep
This man’s family often can’t sleep. They get nauseous, they get headaches, and they’ve been forced to rent an apartment in town. They and their neighbors are suing the wind company.
The following is quoted from a newspaper article describing the terms of the lawsuit. It’s worth reading—Editor.
Count I: Private nuisance
In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim they have property rights and privileges with respect to the use and enjoyment of their property, and the defendants interfered with those rights by creating, through the operation of the wind farm, “significant and material intrusions upon the plaintiffs’ property.”
Intrusions detailed in the lawsuit include:
• Low frequency noise and subaudible infrasound and/or impulse noise created by and emitted from the wind turbines, which range as close as 1,100 and 1,700 feet away from each plaintiff’s home.
• Sustained and highly disturbing audible noise created by the wind turbines.
• Amplitude modulation in both audible and sub-audible frequency ranges emitted from the turbines.
• A flicker/strobe light effect that covers the plaintiffs’ properties when sunlight passes through the rotating turbine blades.
The lawsuit states the interference and invasions caused by the conduct of the wind energy companies was either intentional and unreasonable, or unintentional and negligent conduct.
“The intrusions caused by the turbines in the wind farm cause plaintiffs actual physical discomforts and would cause such physical discomfort to a person of ordinary sensibilities,” the lawsuit states.
Physical harm and negative health effects listed in the lawsuit included: Inability to sleep and repeated awakening during sleep, headaches, dizziness, stress and tension, extreme fatigue, diminished ability to concentrate, nausea, and other physiological and cognitive effects.
The lawsuit notes the symptoms experienced by David and Marilyn Peplinski’s family forced them to rent an apartment away from the wind farm in order to avoid the adverse health effects.
“Despite the conditions caused by the continued operation of the wind farm and the resulting health conditions suffered by the plaintiffs, John Deere, John Deere Renewables and Michigan Wind I continue to operate and/or profit from the wind farm,” the lawsuit states.
Count II: Public nuisance
“Based on the aforementioned allegations, the actions of (the defendants) constitute an unreasonable interference with a common right enjoyed by the general public, including plaintiffs,” the lawsuit states. “Said actions resulted in the existence or creation of a dangerous condition to plaintiffs and other members of the general public and further resulted in significant harm to plaintiffs.”
In the portion of the lawsuit alleging the local wind park is a public nuisance, the lawsuit states the plaintiffs suffered harm and personal injuries different from the harm suffered by the general public, specifically, the increased harm to their health and well being that resulted from the close proximity of the turbines to their primary residences.
“The actions of (the defendants) further created a nuisance in fact, which was either intentional or negligent, by causing a hazardous or dangerous situation,” the lawsuit states.
Count III: Negligent design of wind farm
The lawsuit claims the wind companies had a duty to use reasonable care in the design and construction of the wind farm, specifically in relation to selecting turbine locations.
That duty was breached by the defendants, the lawsuit claims, because the companies ignored available data regarding the probability of negative health effects associated with placing the turbines in close proximity to the plaintiffs’ homes.
Also, the lawsuit references a noise assessment included in the project’s site plan review application that estimated only audible noise levels within the dBA range, and did not consider low frequency noise or impulse noise.
The lawsuit cites portions of the noise assessment stating, “in general, it is undesirable for any home, particularly that of a non-participant, to be on or inside a 45 dBA contour,” and “the probability of complaints from any project opponent exposed to this project noise level would be extremely high.”
Turbine noise measured at four of the plaintiffs’ homes ranged from 45 to 51 dBA, according to results from a noise study paid for by John Deere last fall that are included in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit claims the wind companies “negligently, carelessly and recklessly” sited the wind turbines in a way that increased the negative health effects and other damages. Other allegations state the wind companies negligently, carelessly and recklessly failed to construct the turbines at a safe distance from the plaintiffs’ residences, and to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unsafe condition and unreasonable risk of harm.
Count IV: Negligent misrepresentation
The lawsuit claims the wind companies made false representations in board of commissioner and planning commissioner meetings and public hearings when company representatives said the wind farm’s operations would not result in a noise nuisance or cause adverse health effects to adjacent landowners.
“(The defendants) were negligent in making these misrepresentations because, as the parties seeking approval to construct a wind turbine farm in Huron County, they had a duty to use reasonable care to provide Huron County and its citizens with both accurate and complete information,” the lawsuit states.
The plaintiffs claim the wind companies provided inaccurate and/or incomplete information about the audible turbine noise levels, and no information about low frequency noise, infrasound and/or impulse noise emitted from the turbines.
Huron County relied on the information from the wind companies when approving the project, the lawsuit states.
“(The defendants) should have known that the information it supplied to Huron County would directly impact the residents of Huron County, including plaintiffs,” the lawsuit adds.
The following is quoted from a newspaper article describing the terms of the lawsuit. It’s worth reading—Editor.
Count I: Private nuisance
In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim they have property rights and privileges with respect to the use and enjoyment of their property, and the defendants interfered with those rights by creating, through the operation of the wind farm, “significant and material intrusions upon the plaintiffs’ property.”
Intrusions detailed in the lawsuit include:
• Low frequency noise and subaudible infrasound and/or impulse noise created by and emitted from the wind turbines, which range as close as 1,100 and 1,700 feet away from each plaintiff’s home.
• Sustained and highly disturbing audible noise created by the wind turbines.
• Amplitude modulation in both audible and sub-audible frequency ranges emitted from the turbines.
• A flicker/strobe light effect that covers the plaintiffs’ properties when sunlight passes through the rotating turbine blades.
The lawsuit states the interference and invasions caused by the conduct of the wind energy companies was either intentional and unreasonable, or unintentional and negligent conduct.
“The intrusions caused by the turbines in the wind farm cause plaintiffs actual physical discomforts and would cause such physical discomfort to a person of ordinary sensibilities,” the lawsuit states.
Physical harm and negative health effects listed in the lawsuit included: Inability to sleep and repeated awakening during sleep, headaches, dizziness, stress and tension, extreme fatigue, diminished ability to concentrate, nausea, and other physiological and cognitive effects.
The lawsuit notes the symptoms experienced by David and Marilyn Peplinski’s family forced them to rent an apartment away from the wind farm in order to avoid the adverse health effects.
“Despite the conditions caused by the continued operation of the wind farm and the resulting health conditions suffered by the plaintiffs, John Deere, John Deere Renewables and Michigan Wind I continue to operate and/or profit from the wind farm,” the lawsuit states.
Count II: Public nuisance
“Based on the aforementioned allegations, the actions of (the defendants) constitute an unreasonable interference with a common right enjoyed by the general public, including plaintiffs,” the lawsuit states. “Said actions resulted in the existence or creation of a dangerous condition to plaintiffs and other members of the general public and further resulted in significant harm to plaintiffs.”
In the portion of the lawsuit alleging the local wind park is a public nuisance, the lawsuit states the plaintiffs suffered harm and personal injuries different from the harm suffered by the general public, specifically, the increased harm to their health and well being that resulted from the close proximity of the turbines to their primary residences.
“The actions of (the defendants) further created a nuisance in fact, which was either intentional or negligent, by causing a hazardous or dangerous situation,” the lawsuit states.
Count III: Negligent design of wind farm
The lawsuit claims the wind companies had a duty to use reasonable care in the design and construction of the wind farm, specifically in relation to selecting turbine locations.
That duty was breached by the defendants, the lawsuit claims, because the companies ignored available data regarding the probability of negative health effects associated with placing the turbines in close proximity to the plaintiffs’ homes.
Also, the lawsuit references a noise assessment included in the project’s site plan review application that estimated only audible noise levels within the dBA range, and did not consider low frequency noise or impulse noise.
The lawsuit cites portions of the noise assessment stating, “in general, it is undesirable for any home, particularly that of a non-participant, to be on or inside a 45 dBA contour,” and “the probability of complaints from any project opponent exposed to this project noise level would be extremely high.”
Turbine noise measured at four of the plaintiffs’ homes ranged from 45 to 51 dBA, according to results from a noise study paid for by John Deere last fall that are included in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit claims the wind companies “negligently, carelessly and recklessly” sited the wind turbines in a way that increased the negative health effects and other damages. Other allegations state the wind companies negligently, carelessly and recklessly failed to construct the turbines at a safe distance from the plaintiffs’ residences, and to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unsafe condition and unreasonable risk of harm.
Count IV: Negligent misrepresentation
The lawsuit claims the wind companies made false representations in board of commissioner and planning commissioner meetings and public hearings when company representatives said the wind farm’s operations would not result in a noise nuisance or cause adverse health effects to adjacent landowners.
“(The defendants) were negligent in making these misrepresentations because, as the parties seeking approval to construct a wind turbine farm in Huron County, they had a duty to use reasonable care to provide Huron County and its citizens with both accurate and complete information,” the lawsuit states.
The plaintiffs claim the wind companies provided inaccurate and/or incomplete information about the audible turbine noise levels, and no information about low frequency noise, infrasound and/or impulse noise emitted from the turbines.
Huron County relied on the information from the wind companies when approving the project, the lawsuit states.
“(The defendants) should have known that the information it supplied to Huron County would directly impact the residents of Huron County, including plaintiffs,” the lawsuit adds.
Friday, May 28, 2010
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.
Wind farm project gains final approval
Herkimer, N.Y.
Wind power generation is a reality in Herkimer County.
Representatives from the county Industrial Development Agency and Atlantic Wind, a subsidiary of Iberdrola Renewables, signed the closing documents for the Hardscrabble wind project Thursday.
“This is fantastic for the county of Herkimer,” said IDA Board of Directors Chairman John Piseck. “This project, over the course of its 20 years, will have a $26 to $30 million impact on our county, and that is fantastic news. I am proud to say that Herkimer County is now involved in wind power.”
“We are pleased with the level of cooperation we received throughout this five year process,” said Neil Habig, project developer for Atlantic Wind. “The PILOT agreement that we reached has a lot of moving parts, as it not only involved negotiations with the county, but with towns and school districts as well. In fact, over the course of those five years the West Canada Valley school district has lost its superintendent, the town of Fairfield elected a new supervisor, numerous board and council members have come and gone and regulations governing the project have changed. With all those factors considered, the level of cooperation that we have received has been consistent.”
With all of the documents now signed, Piseck said the construction phase can now begin.
“The stakes are in the ground and the wind turbines have been ordered,” he said, adding that the parts for the 37 windmills to be constructed in the towns of Fairfield and Norway will come from U.S. manufacturers. “This project puts our county on the map when it comes to our support of alternative energy. Not only that, this project will allow the county to provide relief to its taxpayers due to the financial benefits that we will receive, it will bring economic development to two towns and it will benefit two of our county’s school districts. The positive impact that this project will have will be tremendous and far-reaching, and that is why this is an exciting time to be in Herkimer County.”
Habig said he shared in Piseck’s excitement in seeing the project move on to the next phase.
“We are definitely excited to see this project move forward,” he said, adding that residents can expect to see components, equipment and materials rolling in over the coming weeks. “Things have changed over the five years that it took to get us to this point, and seemingly everything aligned in just the right manner so this project could become a reality. This is a great day.”
The county, under the 20-year payment in lieu of taxes agreement, accepted a prorated share of $8,000 per megawatt produced by the project’s 37 turbines. A cost of living adjustment was included for the payments, with a floor of 2.5 percent and a ceiling of five percent. The adjustments will commence this year, so that the January 2012 payment will be a minimum of $8,405 per megawatt, depending on the cost of living. The agreement also calls for a $400,000 construction impact payment to be made to the county within 60 days of the start of construction, and states that if future projects in Lewis and Jefferson counties receive higher per megawatt payment amounts from Iberdrola or a related developer during the three year period from the first per megawatt payment to the county, Herkimer County’s per megawatt amount will increase to the higher level.
In addition, Atlantic Wind has agreed to pay for repairs needed on county and local roads resulting from the construction phase of the project, and has agreed to remedy any interference of emergency 911 communications caused by the turbines.
Minneapolis-based Mortenson Construction has been selected by Iberdrola to construct the Hardscrabble wind project. According to a company announcement, Mortenson will erect 37 Gamesa 2.0 megawatt wind turbines to generate a total of 74 megawatts. The project, according to the announcement, represents one of the first major installations of 100-meter towers in North America. In addition, Mortenson will also build access roads, turbine foundations, an operations building and a meteorological tower. The project is expected to become operational by December.
Wind power generation is a reality in Herkimer County.
Representatives from the county Industrial Development Agency and Atlantic Wind, a subsidiary of Iberdrola Renewables, signed the closing documents for the Hardscrabble wind project Thursday.
“This is fantastic for the county of Herkimer,” said IDA Board of Directors Chairman John Piseck. “This project, over the course of its 20 years, will have a $26 to $30 million impact on our county, and that is fantastic news. I am proud to say that Herkimer County is now involved in wind power.”
“We are pleased with the level of cooperation we received throughout this five year process,” said Neil Habig, project developer for Atlantic Wind. “The PILOT agreement that we reached has a lot of moving parts, as it not only involved negotiations with the county, but with towns and school districts as well. In fact, over the course of those five years the West Canada Valley school district has lost its superintendent, the town of Fairfield elected a new supervisor, numerous board and council members have come and gone and regulations governing the project have changed. With all those factors considered, the level of cooperation that we have received has been consistent.”
With all of the documents now signed, Piseck said the construction phase can now begin.
“The stakes are in the ground and the wind turbines have been ordered,” he said, adding that the parts for the 37 windmills to be constructed in the towns of Fairfield and Norway will come from U.S. manufacturers. “This project puts our county on the map when it comes to our support of alternative energy. Not only that, this project will allow the county to provide relief to its taxpayers due to the financial benefits that we will receive, it will bring economic development to two towns and it will benefit two of our county’s school districts. The positive impact that this project will have will be tremendous and far-reaching, and that is why this is an exciting time to be in Herkimer County.”
Habig said he shared in Piseck’s excitement in seeing the project move on to the next phase.
“We are definitely excited to see this project move forward,” he said, adding that residents can expect to see components, equipment and materials rolling in over the coming weeks. “Things have changed over the five years that it took to get us to this point, and seemingly everything aligned in just the right manner so this project could become a reality. This is a great day.”
The county, under the 20-year payment in lieu of taxes agreement, accepted a prorated share of $8,000 per megawatt produced by the project’s 37 turbines. A cost of living adjustment was included for the payments, with a floor of 2.5 percent and a ceiling of five percent. The adjustments will commence this year, so that the January 2012 payment will be a minimum of $8,405 per megawatt, depending on the cost of living. The agreement also calls for a $400,000 construction impact payment to be made to the county within 60 days of the start of construction, and states that if future projects in Lewis and Jefferson counties receive higher per megawatt payment amounts from Iberdrola or a related developer during the three year period from the first per megawatt payment to the county, Herkimer County’s per megawatt amount will increase to the higher level.
In addition, Atlantic Wind has agreed to pay for repairs needed on county and local roads resulting from the construction phase of the project, and has agreed to remedy any interference of emergency 911 communications caused by the turbines.
Minneapolis-based Mortenson Construction has been selected by Iberdrola to construct the Hardscrabble wind project. According to a company announcement, Mortenson will erect 37 Gamesa 2.0 megawatt wind turbines to generate a total of 74 megawatts. The project, according to the announcement, represents one of the first major installations of 100-meter towers in North America. In addition, Mortenson will also build access roads, turbine foundations, an operations building and a meteorological tower. The project is expected to become operational by December.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Former FERC chairman joins First Wind
Wind developer First Wind has appointed a former FERC chairman as a member of its Board of Directors.
Pat Wood III chaired the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from 2001 to 2005, and before that the Public Utility Commission of Texas for six years.
Boston-based First Wind said Mr Wood’s expertise would be “beneficial” as the company develops new wind projects.
Pat Wood III chaired the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from 2001 to 2005, and before that the Public Utility Commission of Texas for six years.
Boston-based First Wind said Mr Wood’s expertise would be “beneficial” as the company develops new wind projects.
Smith and Corshen May 25, 2010 Letter to the Town of Lyme, NY
Lyme Town Board:
We are writing to express our concerns with respect to the Town Board's ongoing zoning process for situating Industrial Wind Turbines in the Town of Lyme. At the outset of this process, we were willing to support the original zoning law enacted by the town. The subsequent challenge to that law, set aside by a few property owners that had a financial incentive to oppose its reasonable setbacks, has made it abundantly clear that they and their corporate sponsors, BP Wind and Acciona, will not accept reasonable limits or setbacks. Given this, and recent press reports and anecdotal evidence compiled by local real estate companies, it is clear to us now that Industrial Wind Turbines will drastically reduce real estate values for most, if not all, Lyme homeowners, particularly waterfront properties, and that it would be utterly irresponsible for the Town Board to allow Industrial Wind Turbines to be built anywhere in Lyme.
Some residents have threatened to sell, even at depressed prices that even the possibility of Industrial Wind Turbines is now causing, if Industrial Wind Turbines are permitted. We are not sure how to proceed, but at this point are certain about one thing. With the cloud of uncertainty hanging over our town, we will not make any capital improvements to our property and the adjoining 86 acres, or otherwise invest in Lyme, until the Lyme Town Board makes clear that our town is not an appropriate location for Industrial Wind Turbines. That is the only prudent course of action, as it makes no economic sense for our family to make capital improvements to property that will, overnight, depreciate by as much as 40 to 60 percent if BP Wind and Acciona are permitted to destroy our town and erect wind turbines in the town footprint.
Some in the town and on the Town Board seem driven to build wind turbines in Lyme, no matter what the cost to the town at large, simply to enrich a few large landholders, at the expense of a majority of residents. The Town Board's evident plans to enact lesser setbacks than contained in the previous zoning law, however, has already had the chilling effect of causing us - and no doubt others - not to go forward with these projects, until and unless we are certain that the Town Board enacts a wind turbine zoning law that protects the essential scenic beauty and recreational nature of Lyme and ensures that our property values will not be diminished by irresponsible zoning decisions. That means essentially banning industrial wind turbines.
We built our home in 1999, with plans to gradually make improvements to our home and property over the ensuing years before our retirement to Lyme. Those capital improvements will NOT be made until we are certain that our investment in Lyme is safe. The Town Board should consider the immediate economic impact that this discussion has on its construction and other businesses, as we are certain others are proceeding with equal caution. We urge these local businesses to write the Town Board and express their opposition to any wind development in Lyme.
Finally, we concur with the May 24, 2010 letter written by Mr. Albert H. Bowers, III and believe that it is prudent and proper for Mr. Bourquin to recuse himself from any discussions, meetings or votes regarding industrial wind turbines proposals for Lyme.
Please feel free call us at 315-649-5375 or 703-527-5375 if you have any questions.
Sincerely
David C. Smith
Meryl P. Corshen
We are writing to express our concerns with respect to the Town Board's ongoing zoning process for situating Industrial Wind Turbines in the Town of Lyme. At the outset of this process, we were willing to support the original zoning law enacted by the town. The subsequent challenge to that law, set aside by a few property owners that had a financial incentive to oppose its reasonable setbacks, has made it abundantly clear that they and their corporate sponsors, BP Wind and Acciona, will not accept reasonable limits or setbacks. Given this, and recent press reports and anecdotal evidence compiled by local real estate companies, it is clear to us now that Industrial Wind Turbines will drastically reduce real estate values for most, if not all, Lyme homeowners, particularly waterfront properties, and that it would be utterly irresponsible for the Town Board to allow Industrial Wind Turbines to be built anywhere in Lyme.
Some residents have threatened to sell, even at depressed prices that even the possibility of Industrial Wind Turbines is now causing, if Industrial Wind Turbines are permitted. We are not sure how to proceed, but at this point are certain about one thing. With the cloud of uncertainty hanging over our town, we will not make any capital improvements to our property and the adjoining 86 acres, or otherwise invest in Lyme, until the Lyme Town Board makes clear that our town is not an appropriate location for Industrial Wind Turbines. That is the only prudent course of action, as it makes no economic sense for our family to make capital improvements to property that will, overnight, depreciate by as much as 40 to 60 percent if BP Wind and Acciona are permitted to destroy our town and erect wind turbines in the town footprint.
Some in the town and on the Town Board seem driven to build wind turbines in Lyme, no matter what the cost to the town at large, simply to enrich a few large landholders, at the expense of a majority of residents. The Town Board's evident plans to enact lesser setbacks than contained in the previous zoning law, however, has already had the chilling effect of causing us - and no doubt others - not to go forward with these projects, until and unless we are certain that the Town Board enacts a wind turbine zoning law that protects the essential scenic beauty and recreational nature of Lyme and ensures that our property values will not be diminished by irresponsible zoning decisions. That means essentially banning industrial wind turbines.
We built our home in 1999, with plans to gradually make improvements to our home and property over the ensuing years before our retirement to Lyme. Those capital improvements will NOT be made until we are certain that our investment in Lyme is safe. The Town Board should consider the immediate economic impact that this discussion has on its construction and other businesses, as we are certain others are proceeding with equal caution. We urge these local businesses to write the Town Board and express their opposition to any wind development in Lyme.
Finally, we concur with the May 24, 2010 letter written by Mr. Albert H. Bowers, III and believe that it is prudent and proper for Mr. Bourquin to recuse himself from any discussions, meetings or votes regarding industrial wind turbines proposals for Lyme.
Please feel free call us at 315-649-5375 or 703-527-5375 if you have any questions.
Sincerely
David C. Smith
Meryl P. Corshen
Wind-power plan for Ohio moves ahead
CLEVELAND - A Cleveland nonprofit development group racing to erect the first offshore wind turbine in the Great Lakes has reached an agreement with General Electric Co. to supply five turbines for a $100 million demonstration project in Lake Erie.
The Lake Erie Energy Development Corp., known as LEEDCo, and Gov. Ted Strickland are to announce the deal in Dallas today during the annual conference of the American Wind Energy Association.
The turbines would stand 300 feet above the lake and be clustered six miles or so off Cleveland's shore, northwest of the city's drinking water intake crib.
Each of the five colossal machines - at 225 tons apiece, the largest in the nation - would generate four megawatts.
The total generating capacity of 20 million watts, or 20 megawatts, is enough to power up to 16,000 homes, at least while the wind is blowing.
The plan is to have the turbines generating power at the end of 2012, said LEEDCo President Lorry Wagner.
"This is not just about making power, it's about creating jobs," Mr. Wagner said.
If the turbines are running by then, northern Ohio will have a chance to become the hub of an offshore wind power industry, LEEDCo and Lake Erie Energy Task Force officials say.
Both GE and LEEDCo see the project as the first step in standardizing and lowering the cost of building very large wind turbines in the Great Lakes.
Financing has to be worked out, but state and federal tax credits and possibly loans or grants would be needed.
The turbines would account for about half the project's costs. The rest would be in the purchase of the towers, foundations on the lake bottom, an underwater power line to the shore, and engineering expenses.
LEEDCo is interviewing finalists for a project developer this week and expects to select one within a month. Several of the contractors have global experience.
The Lake Erie Energy Development Corp., known as LEEDCo, and Gov. Ted Strickland are to announce the deal in Dallas today during the annual conference of the American Wind Energy Association.
The turbines would stand 300 feet above the lake and be clustered six miles or so off Cleveland's shore, northwest of the city's drinking water intake crib.
Each of the five colossal machines - at 225 tons apiece, the largest in the nation - would generate four megawatts.
The total generating capacity of 20 million watts, or 20 megawatts, is enough to power up to 16,000 homes, at least while the wind is blowing.
The plan is to have the turbines generating power at the end of 2012, said LEEDCo President Lorry Wagner.
"This is not just about making power, it's about creating jobs," Mr. Wagner said.
If the turbines are running by then, northern Ohio will have a chance to become the hub of an offshore wind power industry, LEEDCo and Lake Erie Energy Task Force officials say.
Both GE and LEEDCo see the project as the first step in standardizing and lowering the cost of building very large wind turbines in the Great Lakes.
Financing has to be worked out, but state and federal tax credits and possibly loans or grants would be needed.
The turbines would account for about half the project's costs. The rest would be in the purchase of the towers, foundations on the lake bottom, an underwater power line to the shore, and engineering expenses.
LEEDCo is interviewing finalists for a project developer this week and expects to select one within a month. Several of the contractors have global experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)