Going “green” is not going well. The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s 2010 forecast predicts fossil fuels will “continue to provide most of the energy consumed in the United States…” Only 6 percent of the “energy consumed by 2035 will be replaced by renewable fuel sources.” They will be principally wind and solar, for electricity and home heating, respectively, but with oil as our energy mainstay.
Today, nearly half of voters favor continued deepwater drilling in spite of the oil rig disaster that brought such serious environmental damage to Gulf of Mexico shorelines. “Some 80 percent of voters nationwide support offshore oil drilling…closer to shore,” a June 30 Rasmussen Poll reported.
President Obama’s ideologically-based decision to substitute alternative, green energy for oil is a romantic political choice which America will not see fulfilled for a more than a generation, if ever. But the President’s determination to drive toward other energy sources is seen in his decision to appeal Federal District Court of New Orleans’ ruling against the Administration’s six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf. As columnist Charles Krauthammer noted: “We haven’t run out of easily accessible sources of oil. We’ve been run off them by environmentalists. They prefer to dream green instead.”
Wind power has been hoisted up by Obama Administration wishful thinking as a major alternative power source despite its anemic potential. Take General Electric Company’s plan to build wind turbines on Lake Erie. “Projects like this would never get off the ground if it weren’t for massive tax breaks and government subsidies,” said a Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial blog. “But even then, wind power would be so costly that [the electric power company] wouldn’t touch it if it weren’t for the legal requirement that Ohio utilities buy 12.5 percent of their energy from ‘renewable resources,’ like wind, by 2025. The main argument for wind is that it is ‘green.’ It is not. Because wind blows irregularly, turbines run only about 30 percent of the time…. windpower will make money for companies like General Electric on the backs of taxpayers and ratepayers.”
Government subsidies for windmills and for GE come naturally to Obama. He and GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt are buddies. Immelt is a presidential adviser. His company was likely the beneficiary of billions in green projectsas a major wind turbine maker. Immelt wrote his stockholders in 2009, the Obama Administration will be a profitable “financier” and “key partner.” According to the Washington Examiner in March 4, 2009, an item in Obama’s budget for fiscal 2010 labeled ‘climate revenues’ and totaling $646 billion, inspired confidence in Immelt. On page 115 of Obama’s fiscal 2010 budget a chart showed forecasts, beginning in 2012, of billions of dollars a year in “climate revenues….by forcing companies to pay for the right to emit greenhouse gases (and GE could benefit as possibly the only ‘secondary market trader of the credits). It would all be in the workings of “Cap and Trade” legislation passed by the House June 26, 2009. The legislation would place limits on greenhouse gases and require a massive switch to cleaner energy. The bill appears dead in the Senate. But, like ObamaCare–pronounced dead early this year–it, too, could rise from its political grave, and quite possibly will in a new form.
GE and Vestas Wind Systems are the world’s two largest suppliers of wind turbines, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). There are hundreds off thousands of turbines throughout the country, serving electricity to millions of homes Wind power in the U.S. nearly doubled between 2006 nd 2008, mainly because of huge subsidies. Still, in 2008, wind generated only 1.3 percent of total electricity production. Besides being an unreliable source, windmills can be bad for one’s health. Dr. Nina Pierpont of Malone, N.Y., conducted lengthy research on what she terms “wind turbine syndrome” for a “constellation of symptoms experienced by many” living near industrial wind turbines. Health problems range from headaches to anxiety, insomnia, and nausea. While the nightly news rarely fails to show a dying pelican completely coated in oil from British Petroleum’s evil spill in the Gulf, migratory birds and eagles, purportedly protected by the law, are killed by the thousands by environmentalists’ favorite green energy source—politically correct wind farms.
The American Wind Energy Association optimistically predicts 20 percent of electricity will be produced by wind by 2030 with most of the increase coming in the decade between 2020 an 2030. Wind project developers were offered a 30 percent tax credit from the approximately $800 billion stimulus package. That 2009 law also gave the Department of Energy (DOE) $118 million for wind research and development. And the President’s 2010 budget provided 75 million for the DOE wind program. As for jobs, the AWEA website claims only 150,000 jobs will be created for those working directly on the windmills.
It says 85,000 people are presently employed. AWEA is currently making a big push for a “Renewable Electricity Standard (RES).” Under RES, AWEA says, if all our states adopted it, 25 percent of electricity would come from renewable sources, including solar, biomass, geothermal, and, of course, wind. An “aggressive near-term target, such as 10 percent by 2012 is called for. By no coincidence, this is the “Obama-Biden New Energy for America plan.”
This was an ambitious scheme put forth just before Obama and Joe Biden took office. It called for spending $150 billion to “build a clean energy future, put one million Hybrid cars on the road by 2015, ensure that 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025,” and, surprise, of all things, “promote responsible domestic production of oil and natural gas.”
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Friday, July 09, 2010
A serious problem worthy of further study
Dr. Carl V. Phillips, an expert in epidemiology and related health sciences, submitted this important testimony to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission in reference to the Commission's effort to establish siting standards for large-scale wind turbines.
His testimony is significant in light of the report released by the American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations that asserted that "the number and uncontrolled nature of existing case reports of adverse health effects alleged to be associated with wind turbines are insufficient to advocate for funding further studies."
Following Dr. Phillips' detailed review of existing literature, he arrived at a very different conclusion:
There is substantial evidence to support the hypothesis that wind turbines have important health effects on local residents. If forced to draw a conclusion based on existing evidence alone, it would seem defensible to conclude that there is a problem. It would certainly make little sense to conclude that there is definitely no problem, and those who make this claim offer arguments that are fundamentally unscientific. But there is simply no reason to draw a conclusion based on existing evidence alone; it is quite possible to quickly gather much more useful information than we have.
I admit to being new to this controversy and my studies have been on the content and quality of the reported science, and so there may be something hidden or political that escapes me. I have witnessed other researchers naively wandering into fields I have studied for many years, and being tricked into believing the political propaganda rather than the science. Thus I am aware of the potential limitations of understanding when someone is new to a subject matter. But as someone who specializes in trying to sort out competing epidemiology-related policy claims, I find it difficult to see how the evidence could fail to be adequate to suggest that there is a serious problem worthy of further study. The only apparent scenario that would lead to a different conclusion would be if much of the reported evidence of health problems were basically manufactured (subjects or researchers were overtly lying, or subjects were so intent on being negative that talked themselves into having diseases). But since such a scenario could only be established with further research, so even such a story leaves it impossible to justify the call to avoid further research, other than for the most cynical of motives: trying to suppress unwanted discoveries.
Dr. Phillips' full written testimony can be accessed at this link. The information he provided orally to the Commission can be viewed here.
His testimony is significant in light of the report released by the American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations that asserted that "the number and uncontrolled nature of existing case reports of adverse health effects alleged to be associated with wind turbines are insufficient to advocate for funding further studies."
Following Dr. Phillips' detailed review of existing literature, he arrived at a very different conclusion:
There is substantial evidence to support the hypothesis that wind turbines have important health effects on local residents. If forced to draw a conclusion based on existing evidence alone, it would seem defensible to conclude that there is a problem. It would certainly make little sense to conclude that there is definitely no problem, and those who make this claim offer arguments that are fundamentally unscientific. But there is simply no reason to draw a conclusion based on existing evidence alone; it is quite possible to quickly gather much more useful information than we have.
I admit to being new to this controversy and my studies have been on the content and quality of the reported science, and so there may be something hidden or political that escapes me. I have witnessed other researchers naively wandering into fields I have studied for many years, and being tricked into believing the political propaganda rather than the science. Thus I am aware of the potential limitations of understanding when someone is new to a subject matter. But as someone who specializes in trying to sort out competing epidemiology-related policy claims, I find it difficult to see how the evidence could fail to be adequate to suggest that there is a serious problem worthy of further study. The only apparent scenario that would lead to a different conclusion would be if much of the reported evidence of health problems were basically manufactured (subjects or researchers were overtly lying, or subjects were so intent on being negative that talked themselves into having diseases). But since such a scenario could only be established with further research, so even such a story leaves it impossible to justify the call to avoid further research, other than for the most cynical of motives: trying to suppress unwanted discoveries.
Dr. Phillips' full written testimony can be accessed at this link. The information he provided orally to the Commission can be viewed here.
Power authority should share information on wind turbine bids
The unknown often causes unwarranted fears, and that seems to be the case when it comes to putting wind turbines in Lake Ontario.
It doesn't have to be that way, if the New York Power Authority would release basic information about proposals it is reviewing.
Right now, all the public knows is that the authority received five proposals from wind developers to put turbines in the New York waters of Lake Ontario or Lake Erie.
The authority is analyzing the bids and plans to announce selections by the end of 2010 or in early 2011. Until then, the authority says it won't release any information in order to evaluate the bids objectively and fairly.
Consequently, shoreline residents, environmentalists, wind proponents and opponents are needlessly left in the dark. It's reasonable to expect the authority to keep certain information, such as financial data, secret in a competitive bid situation. But at a minimum, the authority could release the names of the bidders, the areas of the lakes the bids target, and the number of turbines. State law would not prevent that.
An authority spokeswoman said that body doesn't want to be influenced by the public in making its selection, which is followed by a two-year review process. To its credit, the authority has promised to have even more opportunities for public input than the law requires.
Meanwhile, a Wayne County citizens group already is lobbying Monroe legislators to take a position against the turbines. That's way premature until bids are selected and more information is known. Monroe legislative leaders have smartly agreed. It could be, of course, that none of the bidders is even targeting the shoreline off Monroe County.
More information could allay unwarranted fears, or give citizens notice to start educating themselves on the issue. Opening up the process now would add credibility in the long run.
It doesn't have to be that way, if the New York Power Authority would release basic information about proposals it is reviewing.
Right now, all the public knows is that the authority received five proposals from wind developers to put turbines in the New York waters of Lake Ontario or Lake Erie.
The authority is analyzing the bids and plans to announce selections by the end of 2010 or in early 2011. Until then, the authority says it won't release any information in order to evaluate the bids objectively and fairly.
Consequently, shoreline residents, environmentalists, wind proponents and opponents are needlessly left in the dark. It's reasonable to expect the authority to keep certain information, such as financial data, secret in a competitive bid situation. But at a minimum, the authority could release the names of the bidders, the areas of the lakes the bids target, and the number of turbines. State law would not prevent that.
An authority spokeswoman said that body doesn't want to be influenced by the public in making its selection, which is followed by a two-year review process. To its credit, the authority has promised to have even more opportunities for public input than the law requires.
Meanwhile, a Wayne County citizens group already is lobbying Monroe legislators to take a position against the turbines. That's way premature until bids are selected and more information is known. Monroe legislative leaders have smartly agreed. It could be, of course, that none of the bidders is even targeting the shoreline off Monroe County.
More information could allay unwarranted fears, or give citizens notice to start educating themselves on the issue. Opening up the process now would add credibility in the long run.
Study Outlines Wind Turbine Concerns Dr. Pierpont: 14% Of Residential Dwellings Will Be Adversely Affected
HAMMOND - The author of "Wind Turbine Syndrome: a Report on a Natural Experiment" told the Hammond Wind Committee on Monday that 14 percent of the town's residential dwellings will be adversely affected if the entire wind overlay zone is filled with wind turbines.
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD, a Malone physician who received her master's degree from John Hopkins University and a doctorate in population biology from Princeton University, told the committee, "I was specifically trained to do research on free-living, uncontrolled animal populations, including methods for structuring observations to turn the observations into quantitative and analyzable data.
"I used this research training in my study of wind turbine health effects to structure and analyze the information I gathered from affected people. I used my classical medical training from John Hopkins to actually gather the information.
"A good patient history, we were taught, and my experience has borne out, provides a doctor with about 80 percent of the information he needs to diagnose a problem. I conducted thorough, structural clinical interviews of all my study subjects, directly interviewing all adults and older teens, and interviewing the parents of all child subjects," she said.
According to Wikipedia's website, "Dr. Nina Pierpont, a New York pediatrician, has said that noise can be an important disadvantage of wind turbines, especially when building the wind turbines very close to urban environments. She says that wind turbines may produce sounds that affect the mood of people and may cause physiological problems such as insomnia, headaches, tinnitus, vertigo and nausea."
Critics have suggested that Dr. Pierpont's research, theories, and self-published book are unscientific and included only a handful of study subjects, while others agree that wind turbines actually do have adverse effects on the health of people living in proximity to them.
The predictions she made for the Hammond community, along with a map she constructed outlining 2010 residential dwellings within 1,500 meters of the wind overlay zone and recorded wind leases, contained some eye-openers.
* "You can estimate that 152 households in Hammond Township would be affected in the wind overlay zone and the 1,500 meter buffer, assuming the entire wind overlay zone had turbines in it."
* "Using the number of 2 percent of households likely to have to move away from the turbines, you can estimate 21 out of the 152 affected households having to move, and estimate the monetary costs to these households and to your town. From your population number of 2635, all ages, you can estimate 316 are highly likely to be affected on the basis of 12 percent of Americans having migraine disorder."
* "Children do not have to be excluded from this number because they, too, have inherited migraine tendencies. In my study, I found that the children of adults with migraine were affected like the adults with migraine in terms of their susceptibility to headaches around wind turbines."
* "You can also see that you have a population of 766 over age 55, and a population of 146 age 5 and under, both groups likely to have higher numbers of affected people."
Attempts to contact several members of the wind committee for comment or reaction to Dr. Pierpont's presentation were unsuccessful.
The wind committee meets next on July 21 at 6:30 p.m. at Hammond Central School. David B. Duff, committee facilitator, says representatives from Iberdrola Renewables Inc. will be in attendance for a presentation.
Subjects to be discussed, according to Mr. Duff, include the development process, permitting, interconnection, engineering, potential sound issues, and issues related to real property taxes.
A "roundtable" discussion is to follow Iberdrola's presentation, Mr. Duff said, with several local agencies and groups participating, including representatives from the St. Lawrence County Planning Office, St. Lawrence County Industrial Development Agency, St. Lawrence County Real Property Tax Office, Hammond Central School and Concerned Residents of Hammond, as well as from the Hammond town and planning boards.
"The intent of such a forum will be to develop a clear understanding of the developer's plans, as well as to further determine the role and interaction of the town, county, and school district and/or others involved in this process," Mr. Duff said.
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD, a Malone physician who received her master's degree from John Hopkins University and a doctorate in population biology from Princeton University, told the committee, "I was specifically trained to do research on free-living, uncontrolled animal populations, including methods for structuring observations to turn the observations into quantitative and analyzable data.
"I used this research training in my study of wind turbine health effects to structure and analyze the information I gathered from affected people. I used my classical medical training from John Hopkins to actually gather the information.
"A good patient history, we were taught, and my experience has borne out, provides a doctor with about 80 percent of the information he needs to diagnose a problem. I conducted thorough, structural clinical interviews of all my study subjects, directly interviewing all adults and older teens, and interviewing the parents of all child subjects," she said.
According to Wikipedia's website, "Dr. Nina Pierpont, a New York pediatrician, has said that noise can be an important disadvantage of wind turbines, especially when building the wind turbines very close to urban environments. She says that wind turbines may produce sounds that affect the mood of people and may cause physiological problems such as insomnia, headaches, tinnitus, vertigo and nausea."
Critics have suggested that Dr. Pierpont's research, theories, and self-published book are unscientific and included only a handful of study subjects, while others agree that wind turbines actually do have adverse effects on the health of people living in proximity to them.
The predictions she made for the Hammond community, along with a map she constructed outlining 2010 residential dwellings within 1,500 meters of the wind overlay zone and recorded wind leases, contained some eye-openers.
* "You can estimate that 152 households in Hammond Township would be affected in the wind overlay zone and the 1,500 meter buffer, assuming the entire wind overlay zone had turbines in it."
* "Using the number of 2 percent of households likely to have to move away from the turbines, you can estimate 21 out of the 152 affected households having to move, and estimate the monetary costs to these households and to your town. From your population number of 2635, all ages, you can estimate 316 are highly likely to be affected on the basis of 12 percent of Americans having migraine disorder."
* "Children do not have to be excluded from this number because they, too, have inherited migraine tendencies. In my study, I found that the children of adults with migraine were affected like the adults with migraine in terms of their susceptibility to headaches around wind turbines."
* "You can also see that you have a population of 766 over age 55, and a population of 146 age 5 and under, both groups likely to have higher numbers of affected people."
Attempts to contact several members of the wind committee for comment or reaction to Dr. Pierpont's presentation were unsuccessful.
The wind committee meets next on July 21 at 6:30 p.m. at Hammond Central School. David B. Duff, committee facilitator, says representatives from Iberdrola Renewables Inc. will be in attendance for a presentation.
Subjects to be discussed, according to Mr. Duff, include the development process, permitting, interconnection, engineering, potential sound issues, and issues related to real property taxes.
A "roundtable" discussion is to follow Iberdrola's presentation, Mr. Duff said, with several local agencies and groups participating, including representatives from the St. Lawrence County Planning Office, St. Lawrence County Industrial Development Agency, St. Lawrence County Real Property Tax Office, Hammond Central School and Concerned Residents of Hammond, as well as from the Hammond town and planning boards.
"The intent of such a forum will be to develop a clear understanding of the developer's plans, as well as to further determine the role and interaction of the town, county, and school district and/or others involved in this process," Mr. Duff said.
Wind energy faces debate
JEFFERSON COUNTY, N.Y. -- Protesters overrun a public informational meeting held by a Canadian wind project developer. The North Country group Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent and the Thousand Islands walked into the gathering at the Cape Vincent Elementary School, protesting the Trillium Power Wind Corporation project.
The wind farm would be built in the Canadian waters of Lake Ontario adjacent to Main Duck Island. The protest shows just how debatable the issue of wind energy has become in the North Country.
"We are of the opinion that wind is a good part of our energy future and we want to put them in, what we feel, is the best area to put them, out of sight, out of mind, away from people who may have concerns," said Martin Parker, Chief Development Officer of Trillium Power Wind Corporation.
"We're still opposed to populating the lake, one of our greatest natural resources, with inefficient generation of energy that requires back-up power," said Robert Aliasso, Co-chair of the Golden Crescent Coalition.
The 138 turbines would make this one of the largest offshore projects in the Great Lakes Region.
The wind farm would be built in the Canadian waters of Lake Ontario adjacent to Main Duck Island. The protest shows just how debatable the issue of wind energy has become in the North Country.
"We are of the opinion that wind is a good part of our energy future and we want to put them in, what we feel, is the best area to put them, out of sight, out of mind, away from people who may have concerns," said Martin Parker, Chief Development Officer of Trillium Power Wind Corporation.
"We're still opposed to populating the lake, one of our greatest natural resources, with inefficient generation of energy that requires back-up power," said Robert Aliasso, Co-chair of the Golden Crescent Coalition.
The 138 turbines would make this one of the largest offshore projects in the Great Lakes Region.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Italy: Arrests made in wind farm probe
Italian businessman Flavio Carboni was taken to a Rome prison on Thursday following his arrest by police in the Italian capital on corruption charges. Investigators allege he was involved in graft over the awarding of permits to construct wind farms power plants on the island of Sardinia.
Seventy-eight year-old Carboni's lawyer said he will appeal his client's detention.
Pasquale Lombardi, a former member the defunct Christian Democrat party and ex-mayor of a town near the southern city of Naples also arrested, as was builder and former Naples city councillor, Arcangelo Martino.
Regional president of Sardinia Ugo Cappellacci is under investigation for the wind-farm scandal, Italian media reported in May. The ally of prime minister Silvio Berlusconi is accused of abuse of office following telephone intercepts .
At the time of Cappellacci's arrest, police searched Sardinia's regional environmental protection office, which has the power to award construction permits for wind farms, according to Italian daily La Repubblica.
Denis Verdini, national coordinator of Italy's ruling People of Liberty party, has also been cited in the probe.
Carboni and former Rome mafia boss Ernesto Diotallevi were convicted and later acquitted in 2007 on appeal for involvement in the murder in the death of Italian banker Roberto Calvi during the 1980s.
Dubbed "God's Banker", Calvi was found hanging from London's Blackfriar's bridge in 1982 following the collapse of Italian bank Banco Ambrosiano, of which he was chairman.
Seventy-eight year-old Carboni's lawyer said he will appeal his client's detention.
Pasquale Lombardi, a former member the defunct Christian Democrat party and ex-mayor of a town near the southern city of Naples also arrested, as was builder and former Naples city councillor, Arcangelo Martino.
Regional president of Sardinia Ugo Cappellacci is under investigation for the wind-farm scandal, Italian media reported in May. The ally of prime minister Silvio Berlusconi is accused of abuse of office following telephone intercepts .
At the time of Cappellacci's arrest, police searched Sardinia's regional environmental protection office, which has the power to award construction permits for wind farms, according to Italian daily La Repubblica.
Denis Verdini, national coordinator of Italy's ruling People of Liberty party, has also been cited in the probe.
Carboni and former Rome mafia boss Ernesto Diotallevi were convicted and later acquitted in 2007 on appeal for involvement in the murder in the death of Italian banker Roberto Calvi during the 1980s.
Dubbed "God's Banker", Calvi was found hanging from London's Blackfriar's bridge in 1982 following the collapse of Italian bank Banco Ambrosiano, of which he was chairman.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Pierpont to the Hammond (NY) Wind Committee
Presentation to the Hammond (NY) Wind Committee
BY
NINA PIERPONT, MD (JOHNS HOPKINS)
PHD (PRINCETON: POPULATION BIOLOGY)
MS (PRINCETON: POPULATION BIOLOGY)
BA (YALE: BIOLOGY)
Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Former Assistant Clinical Professor of Pediatrics
College of Physicians & Surgeons, Columbia University, NY
July 5, 2010
My name is Nina Pierpont. I am a physician in Malone, NY, and author of a book called Wind Turbine Syndrome: a Report on a Natural Experiment, published in December 2009.
My M.D. is from the Johns Hopkins University. My PhD, in population biology, is from Princeton University. Population biology has extensive overlap with epidemiology. In fact, one of my doctoral committee members, Robert May, is a prominent theoretical epidemiologist, who subsequently became president of the Royal Society of London and scientific advisor to the Queen of England. He pronounced my Wind Turbine Syndrome study to be "impressive, interesting, and important."
A PhD in science is a research degree. I was specifically trained to do research on free-living, uncontrolled animal populations, including methods for structuring observations to turn the observations into quantitative and analyzable data. I used this research training in my study of wind turbine health effects, to structure and analyze the information I gathered from affected people. I used my classical medical training from Johns Hopkins to actually gather the information. A good patient history, we were taught (and my experience has borne out), provides a doctor with about 80% of the information he needs to diagnose a problem. I conducted thorough, structured clinical interviews of all my study subjects, directly interviewing all adults and older teens, and interviewing the parents of all child subjects.
My bachelors degree, also in biology, is from Yale University. I am a board-certified pediatrician and have had postgraduate training in behavioral medicine. I have been a clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University School of Physicians and Surgeons.
Wind turbine syndrome. I introduced this term in testimony before the Energy Committee of the New York State Assembly in 2006. The National Academy of Sciences cited my testimony in their 2007 report, Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects, and asked for more information about the physical effects I described.
A syndrome, medically, is a consistent collection of signs and symptoms. This is what I observed in people exposed to large, 1.5 to 3 MW wind turbines constructed since 2004. The first purpose of my study was to document the consistency of symptoms or problems among affected people, and to show, by a simple, practical method, that these symptoms are due to wind turbines. I will come back to this in a moment. The second purpose was to examine why, given the same exposure, some people are more affected than others.
I did not, and could not given my limited resources, study what proportion of people are affected or how much exposure is needed to affect people. However, I have some preliminary data on proportion of people affected.
I called my study a case series. I knew it was more than a case series, however, and described what else I did with regard to subject selection and data gathering. Recently an interested epidemiologist has provided the terminology for what I actually did. I chose families who had at least one severely affected adult family member, and who had done two things: first, they had gone away from their homes and the wind turbines and seen their symptoms go away, and had come back and seen the symptoms return, generally several times. In epidemiology this is called a "case-crossover" design. It's very useful in situations like this one when both the exposure and the disease are transitory.
Second, I chose families who had spent or lost a lot of money to get away from the turbines, by selling their homes for reduced amounts, renting or buying a second home, renovating their homes in an attempt to keep out the noise, or outright abandoning their homes. I know of active legal cases in at least three states and two provinces in which the homeowner, after home abandonment, is suing either the wind turbine company or a state regulatory agency for recompense. In epidemiology, this is called a "revealed preference measure." The people who are suffering show by their actions that their health problem is worth more than the many thousands of dollars they have lost in trying to escape the exposure, and thus distinguishes their experiences from what might be dismissed as subjective or fakery.
My study had 38 subjects, in 10 families located in the US, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Italy. I have interviewed further families in the US and Canada and have a larger case-crossover study paper in preparation.
The symptoms caused by turbine exposure are as follows:
1. Sleep disturbance, with a special kind of awakening in a state of high alarm. This applies to both adults and children. Severe sleep deprivation.
2. Headaches. Exacerbations of migraines, brought on by either noise or by light flicker. This refers to the strobe-like effect in rooms when turbine blade shadows repetitively pass over a window. People without a history of migraine also got severe headaches from turbine exposure.
3. Pressure and pain in ears and eyes. Tinnitus or ringing in the ears. Distortions of hearing. Buzzing inside the head.
4. Dizziness, vertigo, unsteadiness, and nausea, essentially seasickness on land.
5. Sensations of internal pulsation or movement, in the chest or abdomen, associated with panic-like episodes, in people who had no previous episodes of panic. These episodes occurred while awake or asleep, awakening the affected people from sleep.
6. Problems with memory and concentration. Irritability and loss of energy and motivation. School and behavior problems in children. Increased aggression in both adults and children.
In the book, I document these symptoms for all study subjects, in 66 pages of structured, before-during-after accounts divided for each subject into organ systems or functions, such as sleep, headache, cognition, mood, balance and equilibrium, ears and hearing, eyes and vision, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, respiratory, etc.—before-during-after for each category. It is critical that I interviewed people as much about their past medical history as about their current symptoms, to distinguish which symptoms were actually due to the exposure, and to identify the subjects’ risk factors for experiencing certain symptoms.
I then examined the relationships between medical factors before exposure and the tendency of subjects to have certain symptoms during the exposure, using simple and straightforward statistics. This was one of the reasons that I collected information on all family members, not just the most affected, so that I would have some equally exposed but less affected people in the sample, who had been gathered according to a consistent rule (collect data on all family members without regard to symptoms present or absent).
I found strong and statistically significant relationships:
1. Between the panic-internal pulsation symptoms and pre-existing motion sensitivity,
2. Between severe headaches during exposure and pre-existing migraine disorder, and
3. Between tinnitus during exposure and previous inner ear damage from noise or chemotherapy.
Equally as significant, I found no statistical association between pre-existing mental health disorder and the tendency to get panic-like episodes during exposure.
From these results I hypothesize about physiologic mechanisms for the effects, using an extensive review of the literature on low-frequency noise effects and on the neurophysiology of the balance system. This part, on how the wind turbines may be exerting their effects, is hypothetical. It is a proposal that inner ear specialists find it very interesting, but it is still hypothetical.
What is not hypothetical is that the turbines cause the symptoms (case-crossover design) and that the degree of illness caused is of such magnitude that people spend or forfeit many thousands of dollars to avoid the exposure (revealed preference data).
To get a preliminary idea of the proportion of people who may be affected, local affected residents around the Waubra wind farm in Victoria, Australia counted the numbers of households with affected people who had made their symptoms publicly known, the numbers of households that had abandoned their homes, and the total number of households within a radius of 3.5 km, the maximum distance at which there were affected people in this setting.
There were 153 total households. Two households had moved completely and a third was staying elsewhere because of their symptoms, or about 2% of households moved. An additional 19 households, another 12%, were affected but remained in their homes despite their chronic insomnia, etc.
My study has attracted attention. The American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations published a critique without reading the study, since its paper was released within days of my book’s publication. The British Wind Energy Association has also issued a critique.
Carl V. Phillips, a Harvard-trained PhD in public policy and epidemiology, states that these and other industry-commissioned critiques "don’t represent proper scientific reading" of the evidence that there is a problem, my study among them. Quoting from his testimony last week before the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, "The reports that I have read that claim there is no evidence that there is a problem seem to be based on a very simplistic understanding of epidemiology and self-serving definitions of what does and what does not count as evidence." He explains in a more detailed written report "why these claims, which probably seem convincing to most readers" at first glance, "don’t represent proper scientific reading." He points out that "the conclusions of the reports don’t even match their own analyses. The reports themselves actually concede that there are problems, and then somehow manage to reach the conclusion that there is no evidence that there are problems."
One industry critiques states that people become ill around wind turbines by power of suggestion, and that I was the person doing the suggesting. I was not: people became ill, made their decisions, and temporarily left their homes or moved out or renovated their houses before I ever found them. I found them because they had in some way made public what they had done. When I found myself interviewing people who had not connected certain symptoms to the turbines and had not spent significant time away from their homes, I did not offer interpretations or advice or persist in questioning in those areas, nor did I include these families in the study.
The adults in the 10 families in my study are all practical, regular people. There are three fishermen, two teachers, two nurses, a physician, a home health aide, a farmer, a professional gardener, a computer programmer, a milk truck driver, and a number of homemakers. There were several retired disabled people. People like this don't disrupt their lives and spend or forfeit thousands of dollars for imaginary illness. Again, the “revealed preference measure” shows us what is not purely subjective or fakery in the accounts of illness.
With regard to my mechanistic proposals, these have been taken up by the cochlear physiology laboratory at Washington University in St. Louis, MO. Professors Alec Salt and Timothy Hullar have just published a paper in the journal Hearing Research regarding physiologic mechanisms by which the low-frequency noise affects the inner ear, both the cochlea (hearing organ) and the vestibular (balance) organs. One possible mechanism is by low-frequency noise inducing endolymphatic hydrops, or increased pressure and distortion of membrane positions and tension within the inner ear (as in Meniere’s disease). There are also differences in the functioning of inner and outer hair cells in the cochlea that may prevent us from hearing low-frequency noise that is indeed having a physiological effect on the ear. Dr. Salt had already found effects of low-frequency noise on the inner ear experimentally, and explicitly incorporates references to wind turbine low-frequency noise and to my research in his paper. This being an area of active research and new findings, one cannot rely on the out-of-date assumption that if people can’t hear a sound, it cannot have any other effect on them—one of the premises wind industry consultants rely on to assert that the low frequency noise produced by wind turbines is at too low a level to have any physiological effects. This premise is out of date.
BY
NINA PIERPONT, MD (JOHNS HOPKINS)
PHD (PRINCETON: POPULATION BIOLOGY)
MS (PRINCETON: POPULATION BIOLOGY)
BA (YALE: BIOLOGY)
Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Former Assistant Clinical Professor of Pediatrics
College of Physicians & Surgeons, Columbia University, NY
July 5, 2010
My name is Nina Pierpont. I am a physician in Malone, NY, and author of a book called Wind Turbine Syndrome: a Report on a Natural Experiment, published in December 2009.
My M.D. is from the Johns Hopkins University. My PhD, in population biology, is from Princeton University. Population biology has extensive overlap with epidemiology. In fact, one of my doctoral committee members, Robert May, is a prominent theoretical epidemiologist, who subsequently became president of the Royal Society of London and scientific advisor to the Queen of England. He pronounced my Wind Turbine Syndrome study to be "impressive, interesting, and important."
A PhD in science is a research degree. I was specifically trained to do research on free-living, uncontrolled animal populations, including methods for structuring observations to turn the observations into quantitative and analyzable data. I used this research training in my study of wind turbine health effects, to structure and analyze the information I gathered from affected people. I used my classical medical training from Johns Hopkins to actually gather the information. A good patient history, we were taught (and my experience has borne out), provides a doctor with about 80% of the information he needs to diagnose a problem. I conducted thorough, structured clinical interviews of all my study subjects, directly interviewing all adults and older teens, and interviewing the parents of all child subjects.
My bachelors degree, also in biology, is from Yale University. I am a board-certified pediatrician and have had postgraduate training in behavioral medicine. I have been a clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University School of Physicians and Surgeons.
Wind turbine syndrome. I introduced this term in testimony before the Energy Committee of the New York State Assembly in 2006. The National Academy of Sciences cited my testimony in their 2007 report, Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects, and asked for more information about the physical effects I described.
A syndrome, medically, is a consistent collection of signs and symptoms. This is what I observed in people exposed to large, 1.5 to 3 MW wind turbines constructed since 2004. The first purpose of my study was to document the consistency of symptoms or problems among affected people, and to show, by a simple, practical method, that these symptoms are due to wind turbines. I will come back to this in a moment. The second purpose was to examine why, given the same exposure, some people are more affected than others.
I did not, and could not given my limited resources, study what proportion of people are affected or how much exposure is needed to affect people. However, I have some preliminary data on proportion of people affected.
I called my study a case series. I knew it was more than a case series, however, and described what else I did with regard to subject selection and data gathering. Recently an interested epidemiologist has provided the terminology for what I actually did. I chose families who had at least one severely affected adult family member, and who had done two things: first, they had gone away from their homes and the wind turbines and seen their symptoms go away, and had come back and seen the symptoms return, generally several times. In epidemiology this is called a "case-crossover" design. It's very useful in situations like this one when both the exposure and the disease are transitory.
Second, I chose families who had spent or lost a lot of money to get away from the turbines, by selling their homes for reduced amounts, renting or buying a second home, renovating their homes in an attempt to keep out the noise, or outright abandoning their homes. I know of active legal cases in at least three states and two provinces in which the homeowner, after home abandonment, is suing either the wind turbine company or a state regulatory agency for recompense. In epidemiology, this is called a "revealed preference measure." The people who are suffering show by their actions that their health problem is worth more than the many thousands of dollars they have lost in trying to escape the exposure, and thus distinguishes their experiences from what might be dismissed as subjective or fakery.
My study had 38 subjects, in 10 families located in the US, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Italy. I have interviewed further families in the US and Canada and have a larger case-crossover study paper in preparation.
The symptoms caused by turbine exposure are as follows:
1. Sleep disturbance, with a special kind of awakening in a state of high alarm. This applies to both adults and children. Severe sleep deprivation.
2. Headaches. Exacerbations of migraines, brought on by either noise or by light flicker. This refers to the strobe-like effect in rooms when turbine blade shadows repetitively pass over a window. People without a history of migraine also got severe headaches from turbine exposure.
3. Pressure and pain in ears and eyes. Tinnitus or ringing in the ears. Distortions of hearing. Buzzing inside the head.
4. Dizziness, vertigo, unsteadiness, and nausea, essentially seasickness on land.
5. Sensations of internal pulsation or movement, in the chest or abdomen, associated with panic-like episodes, in people who had no previous episodes of panic. These episodes occurred while awake or asleep, awakening the affected people from sleep.
6. Problems with memory and concentration. Irritability and loss of energy and motivation. School and behavior problems in children. Increased aggression in both adults and children.
In the book, I document these symptoms for all study subjects, in 66 pages of structured, before-during-after accounts divided for each subject into organ systems or functions, such as sleep, headache, cognition, mood, balance and equilibrium, ears and hearing, eyes and vision, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, respiratory, etc.—before-during-after for each category. It is critical that I interviewed people as much about their past medical history as about their current symptoms, to distinguish which symptoms were actually due to the exposure, and to identify the subjects’ risk factors for experiencing certain symptoms.
I then examined the relationships between medical factors before exposure and the tendency of subjects to have certain symptoms during the exposure, using simple and straightforward statistics. This was one of the reasons that I collected information on all family members, not just the most affected, so that I would have some equally exposed but less affected people in the sample, who had been gathered according to a consistent rule (collect data on all family members without regard to symptoms present or absent).
I found strong and statistically significant relationships:
1. Between the panic-internal pulsation symptoms and pre-existing motion sensitivity,
2. Between severe headaches during exposure and pre-existing migraine disorder, and
3. Between tinnitus during exposure and previous inner ear damage from noise or chemotherapy.
Equally as significant, I found no statistical association between pre-existing mental health disorder and the tendency to get panic-like episodes during exposure.
From these results I hypothesize about physiologic mechanisms for the effects, using an extensive review of the literature on low-frequency noise effects and on the neurophysiology of the balance system. This part, on how the wind turbines may be exerting their effects, is hypothetical. It is a proposal that inner ear specialists find it very interesting, but it is still hypothetical.
What is not hypothetical is that the turbines cause the symptoms (case-crossover design) and that the degree of illness caused is of such magnitude that people spend or forfeit many thousands of dollars to avoid the exposure (revealed preference data).
To get a preliminary idea of the proportion of people who may be affected, local affected residents around the Waubra wind farm in Victoria, Australia counted the numbers of households with affected people who had made their symptoms publicly known, the numbers of households that had abandoned their homes, and the total number of households within a radius of 3.5 km, the maximum distance at which there were affected people in this setting.
There were 153 total households. Two households had moved completely and a third was staying elsewhere because of their symptoms, or about 2% of households moved. An additional 19 households, another 12%, were affected but remained in their homes despite their chronic insomnia, etc.
My study has attracted attention. The American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations published a critique without reading the study, since its paper was released within days of my book’s publication. The British Wind Energy Association has also issued a critique.
Carl V. Phillips, a Harvard-trained PhD in public policy and epidemiology, states that these and other industry-commissioned critiques "don’t represent proper scientific reading" of the evidence that there is a problem, my study among them. Quoting from his testimony last week before the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, "The reports that I have read that claim there is no evidence that there is a problem seem to be based on a very simplistic understanding of epidemiology and self-serving definitions of what does and what does not count as evidence." He explains in a more detailed written report "why these claims, which probably seem convincing to most readers" at first glance, "don’t represent proper scientific reading." He points out that "the conclusions of the reports don’t even match their own analyses. The reports themselves actually concede that there are problems, and then somehow manage to reach the conclusion that there is no evidence that there are problems."
One industry critiques states that people become ill around wind turbines by power of suggestion, and that I was the person doing the suggesting. I was not: people became ill, made their decisions, and temporarily left their homes or moved out or renovated their houses before I ever found them. I found them because they had in some way made public what they had done. When I found myself interviewing people who had not connected certain symptoms to the turbines and had not spent significant time away from their homes, I did not offer interpretations or advice or persist in questioning in those areas, nor did I include these families in the study.
The adults in the 10 families in my study are all practical, regular people. There are three fishermen, two teachers, two nurses, a physician, a home health aide, a farmer, a professional gardener, a computer programmer, a milk truck driver, and a number of homemakers. There were several retired disabled people. People like this don't disrupt their lives and spend or forfeit thousands of dollars for imaginary illness. Again, the “revealed preference measure” shows us what is not purely subjective or fakery in the accounts of illness.
With regard to my mechanistic proposals, these have been taken up by the cochlear physiology laboratory at Washington University in St. Louis, MO. Professors Alec Salt and Timothy Hullar have just published a paper in the journal Hearing Research regarding physiologic mechanisms by which the low-frequency noise affects the inner ear, both the cochlea (hearing organ) and the vestibular (balance) organs. One possible mechanism is by low-frequency noise inducing endolymphatic hydrops, or increased pressure and distortion of membrane positions and tension within the inner ear (as in Meniere’s disease). There are also differences in the functioning of inner and outer hair cells in the cochlea that may prevent us from hearing low-frequency noise that is indeed having a physiological effect on the ear. Dr. Salt had already found effects of low-frequency noise on the inner ear experimentally, and explicitly incorporates references to wind turbine low-frequency noise and to my research in his paper. This being an area of active research and new findings, one cannot rely on the out-of-date assumption that if people can’t hear a sound, it cannot have any other effect on them—one of the premises wind industry consultants rely on to assert that the low frequency noise produced by wind turbines is at too low a level to have any physiological effects. This premise is out of date.
Saturday, July 03, 2010
First Wind details new project
Maine’s largest wind power developer is asking state regulators to reclassify nearly 700 acres of timberland in northern Washington County where the company hopes to build part of a 25-turbine wind farm.
Continuing its focus on the region east of Lincoln, First Wind LLC plans to file an application with state regulators this fall for a wind power facility in the area of Bowers Mountain in Carroll Plantation and Kossuth Township.
The proposed 25-turbine facility would be located just south of Route 6 and about eight miles south of First Wind’s 55-turbine Stetson Mountain wind power facilities.
But first, the Massachusetts-based company wants all of the land in question included in the state’s “expedited permitting area” for wind power projects.
Such a designation means First Wind will have to submit only a single application under the state’s streamlined — but controversial — permitting process that policymakers put in place in order to encourage wind power development.
On Wednesday, the Land Use Regulation Commission will consider whether to begin a rule-making process to add 695 acres in Kossuth Township to the expedited permitting area. The adjacent acreage in Carroll Plantation already is designated an appropriate location for expedited processing of wind power permits.
The meeting is slated for 9:30 a.m. at the Spectacular Event Center in Bangor.
In documents filed with LURC, the First Wind subsidiary — Champlain Wind — proposing to develop the site states that seven of the turbines likely would be located in Kossuth Township in Washington County while 18 will be just across the Penobscot County border in Carroll Plantation.
The maximum energy output at any given time of the facility would be 57 megawatts, although actual electricity production depends on wind speed and other factors, and critics contend that large wind farms rarely produce their maximum rated output.
First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne noted Friday that the final project design is dependent on the company’s petition to expand the expedited permitting zone. But Lamontagne wrote in an e-mail that the reception to the project thus far has been “very friendly” in part because people in the area are familiar with the Stetson facility.
“We believe that Carroll [Plantation] residents understand that a project like this can generate tax revenues for the community and a good amount of economic activity in the area, while generating clean, renewable energy for Maine and New England,” Lamontagne wrote.
As with other large-scale wind power projects, however, First Wind’s Bowers Mountain proposal and the petition to LURC are generating some opposition.
A LURC memo accompanying the petition stated that staff has received comments raising concerns about the project’s effects on scenic views, wildlife, water quality and erosion. Comments also expressed concerns about the potential conflict of erecting industrial wind turbines near residences.
Among those who have voiced similar thoughts to LURC are Steven and Diane Neil, a Camden couple who purchased a lot in nearby Lakeville about three years ago where they plan to build a house.
In addition to effects on their view, the couple is concerned about wildlife and the “big picture” question of whether industrial wind power projects such as this are worth the cost considering the amount of energy they produce.
In a letter to LURC, the Neils also questioned whether such development is appropriate near land zoned for conservation.
“I’m not anti-green energy,” Steven Neil said Friday in an interview. “I just think it has to be thought through very carefully because this can change our state.”
LURC staff is recommending that commissioners hold hearings on the Bowers project, but after they complete their work on a similar pending request from another wind power developer in western Maine.
That developer, TransCanada, is seeking to add more turbines in an area near its Kibby Mountain wind power facility in western Maine.
In addition to the Stetson project, First Wind built Maine’s first large wind farm in Mars Hill and is in the permitting process for facilities outside of Lincoln and Oakfield.
Continuing its focus on the region east of Lincoln, First Wind LLC plans to file an application with state regulators this fall for a wind power facility in the area of Bowers Mountain in Carroll Plantation and Kossuth Township.
The proposed 25-turbine facility would be located just south of Route 6 and about eight miles south of First Wind’s 55-turbine Stetson Mountain wind power facilities.
But first, the Massachusetts-based company wants all of the land in question included in the state’s “expedited permitting area” for wind power projects.
Such a designation means First Wind will have to submit only a single application under the state’s streamlined — but controversial — permitting process that policymakers put in place in order to encourage wind power development.
On Wednesday, the Land Use Regulation Commission will consider whether to begin a rule-making process to add 695 acres in Kossuth Township to the expedited permitting area. The adjacent acreage in Carroll Plantation already is designated an appropriate location for expedited processing of wind power permits.
The meeting is slated for 9:30 a.m. at the Spectacular Event Center in Bangor.
In documents filed with LURC, the First Wind subsidiary — Champlain Wind — proposing to develop the site states that seven of the turbines likely would be located in Kossuth Township in Washington County while 18 will be just across the Penobscot County border in Carroll Plantation.
The maximum energy output at any given time of the facility would be 57 megawatts, although actual electricity production depends on wind speed and other factors, and critics contend that large wind farms rarely produce their maximum rated output.
First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne noted Friday that the final project design is dependent on the company’s petition to expand the expedited permitting zone. But Lamontagne wrote in an e-mail that the reception to the project thus far has been “very friendly” in part because people in the area are familiar with the Stetson facility.
“We believe that Carroll [Plantation] residents understand that a project like this can generate tax revenues for the community and a good amount of economic activity in the area, while generating clean, renewable energy for Maine and New England,” Lamontagne wrote.
As with other large-scale wind power projects, however, First Wind’s Bowers Mountain proposal and the petition to LURC are generating some opposition.
A LURC memo accompanying the petition stated that staff has received comments raising concerns about the project’s effects on scenic views, wildlife, water quality and erosion. Comments also expressed concerns about the potential conflict of erecting industrial wind turbines near residences.
Among those who have voiced similar thoughts to LURC are Steven and Diane Neil, a Camden couple who purchased a lot in nearby Lakeville about three years ago where they plan to build a house.
In addition to effects on their view, the couple is concerned about wildlife and the “big picture” question of whether industrial wind power projects such as this are worth the cost considering the amount of energy they produce.
In a letter to LURC, the Neils also questioned whether such development is appropriate near land zoned for conservation.
“I’m not anti-green energy,” Steven Neil said Friday in an interview. “I just think it has to be thought through very carefully because this can change our state.”
LURC staff is recommending that commissioners hold hearings on the Bowers project, but after they complete their work on a similar pending request from another wind power developer in western Maine.
That developer, TransCanada, is seeking to add more turbines in an area near its Kibby Mountain wind power facility in western Maine.
In addition to the Stetson project, First Wind built Maine’s first large wind farm in Mars Hill and is in the permitting process for facilities outside of Lincoln and Oakfield.
We are afraid of BP's wrath? Are they serious? Have they noticed how BP has ruined our entire Gulf coastline and waters?
At the last working meeting on wind, the Lyme Town Council passed a resolution to redo the wind survey with a citizen's committee to determine the questions. The council had agreed at that meeting that this was too important an issue to decide amongst themselves.
Now, the town council (with the exception of Boo Harris) believes the survey about wind power should have only one question asking if you favor it or if you favor it. Yes, you read that correctly. They are giving the town taxpayers the "choice" to either have turbines or to have turbines. They are not going to ask people if they are in favor of turbines in Lyme or not. They are only going to ask if you favor a restrictive law or a less restrictive law. Scott Aubertine proposed this at a "work session" where public input was not allowed. Boo Harris wanted to rephrase the question as either in favor of wind turbines or not in favor and was rebuffed. She told the council that they really didn't want to know what their constituents wanted if they didn't ask that question. The vote was three to one in favor of this survey. Scott Aubertine, Warren Johnson, and Don Bourquin all voted in favor and Boo Harris voted against. Unfortunately, Mike Countryman was not in attendance (Mike had favored a referendum to the people but felt a survey would suffice).
Scott Aubertine's lame reason for this change was that he was afraid that exclusionary zoning laws would be challenged. Most zoning laws ARE exclusionary. That is the point of zoning laws! Incidentally, if the survey showed the majority of the public wanted exclusionary zoning, that would be sufficient to stay any lawsuits.
This is not the democratic way. Hiding behind fears that BP might sue them if they decide to have an exclusionary zoning law, they are forcing turbines in our town and industrializing this beautiful small town without regard for public opinion. Zoning laws are put in place to benefit the health and well-being of all citizens and not to favor a specific company or group.
We are afraid of BP's wrath? Are they serious? Have they noticed how BP has ruined our entire Gulf coastline and waters?
I urge the town council to reconsider their decision and ask the town's taxpayers if they want turbines in their town, yes or no. If they favor the turbines, then ask a question about a more or less restrictive law. If not, then an exclusionary zoning law should be enacted.
Stand up and be counted by attending our next town meeting on July 14 at the Lyme Municipal Building and let them know how angry you are.
Scott Discount
Three Mile Bay
Now, the town council (with the exception of Boo Harris) believes the survey about wind power should have only one question asking if you favor it or if you favor it. Yes, you read that correctly. They are giving the town taxpayers the "choice" to either have turbines or to have turbines. They are not going to ask people if they are in favor of turbines in Lyme or not. They are only going to ask if you favor a restrictive law or a less restrictive law. Scott Aubertine proposed this at a "work session" where public input was not allowed. Boo Harris wanted to rephrase the question as either in favor of wind turbines or not in favor and was rebuffed. She told the council that they really didn't want to know what their constituents wanted if they didn't ask that question. The vote was three to one in favor of this survey. Scott Aubertine, Warren Johnson, and Don Bourquin all voted in favor and Boo Harris voted against. Unfortunately, Mike Countryman was not in attendance (Mike had favored a referendum to the people but felt a survey would suffice).
Scott Aubertine's lame reason for this change was that he was afraid that exclusionary zoning laws would be challenged. Most zoning laws ARE exclusionary. That is the point of zoning laws! Incidentally, if the survey showed the majority of the public wanted exclusionary zoning, that would be sufficient to stay any lawsuits.
This is not the democratic way. Hiding behind fears that BP might sue them if they decide to have an exclusionary zoning law, they are forcing turbines in our town and industrializing this beautiful small town without regard for public opinion. Zoning laws are put in place to benefit the health and well-being of all citizens and not to favor a specific company or group.
We are afraid of BP's wrath? Are they serious? Have they noticed how BP has ruined our entire Gulf coastline and waters?
I urge the town council to reconsider their decision and ask the town's taxpayers if they want turbines in their town, yes or no. If they favor the turbines, then ask a question about a more or less restrictive law. If not, then an exclusionary zoning law should be enacted.
Stand up and be counted by attending our next town meeting on July 14 at the Lyme Municipal Building and let them know how angry you are.
Scott Discount
Three Mile Bay
Friday, July 02, 2010
Wind turbines in Lake Michigan
Professor Elizabeth Wheatley
Department of Sociology
Grand Valley State University
1 Campus Drive
Allendale, MI 49401-9401
June 14, 2010
Dear Professor Wheatley,
You wrote to me, inquiring about infrasound and low frequency noise (ILFN) impacts from a large array of wind turbines proposed for Lake Michigan. Impacts, that is, on people living on shore four miles away, and impacts on fish.
Your concerns are well-founded. First, a crash course on “noise.” Noise propagation models are based on the spherical movement of sound waves and the dispersion of their power. In these models, sound loses its power rapidly.
Sound waves over water, however, present a special case. The issue over water is that instead of having an absorptive surface, the way trees and vegetation and houses might absorb sound—you now have a reflective surface. Basically, you’re dealing with half of a sphere; the power of the sound is concentrated because the whole bottom of the sphere is reflected back into the top of the sphere.
The other thing that occurs over water is that there are different layers of air under different weather conditions (for instance, either cool & still over the water, or certain kinds of cloud cover). By “layered” I mean the air has different densities or temperatures or wind conditions. The boundary between air layers likewise acts as a reflective surface.
Hence, it is not uncommon to have the reflective surface of the water and a reflective surface of layered atmosphere above it (at the boundary of this layered atmosphere, such as cloud cover). The upshot being that both of these reflective surfaces (the water and the air layer boundary) will reflect the sound back into the same layer where the sound travels.
This means that sound energy, instead of dispersing in a sphere, disperses in a flat layer, more like a two-dimensional circle—a pancake or, if you prefer, a frisbee. Bottom line, the sound energy is heavily concentrated and travels much farther.
When you understand that infrasound and low frequency noise travel farther than higher frequency noise, this “channeling” of noise—reflective surface of the water below, air layer boundary above—becomes pronounced and, in this wind turbine case, alarming.
In summary, you are correct to be alarmed about ILFN reaching land from these lake-based turbines.
Now consider what happens under water. Sound propagates even more efficiently through water than through air. And water is, of course, defined by boundary conditions: (a) the surface between water and air is a boundary that tends to reflect sound back into water, and (b) different layers of water (varying in temperature, density, and current)—the boundaries between these different layers of water also act as reflective surfaces. Hence, you can get channels through water where ILFN travels very far, because it’s concentrated by these two reflective surfaces.
By the way, everything I have said about noise propagation above and within fresh water is true, as well, for oceans, with the added element of salt. In oceans, layers are also defined by salinity, which of course affects water density.
What about the fish in Lake Michigan (or Nantucket Sound, for that matter)? Fish, we know, are acutely sensitive to infrasound and respond to it with fear and avoidance. Hence, the turbines and the noise they make have the potential to change patterns of (a) fish movement, (b) fish migration, and (c) breeding behavior.
If breeding behavior is changed, fish populations can crash. (My PhD is in population biology/behavioral ecology, from Princeton University.)
A few more words about ocean environments. Crustaceans also avoid ILFN. Whales are known to beach and die in response to Navy sonar—which by definition is in the ILFN range. And there is information about seal rookery problems—rookery failure—in the UK.
Birds. Birds on Lake Michigan and over the ocean are at risk insofar as they are not used to encountering obstacles as they fly over water. Turbines in the Great Lakes could have a disastrous impact on bird migrations when turbines are located within the great migratory highways (flyways).
On the matter of water-borne ILFN, keep in mind that we’re talking about vibrations coming off the supporting structures under the water, propagated directly into the water, in addition to ILFN traveling above water. In other words, ILFN skimming across the surface and below the surface.
Lastly, it has been demonstrated that large turbines produce more ILFN than smaller ones. The bigger they are, the bigger the ILFN load. If you’re talking about 5 and 10 MW turbines in Lake Michigan, this spells big trouble.
I hope this is helpful.
Sincerely,
Nina Pierpont, MD (Johns Hopkins), PhD (Princeton)
Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Department of Sociology
Grand Valley State University
1 Campus Drive
Allendale, MI 49401-9401
June 14, 2010
Dear Professor Wheatley,
You wrote to me, inquiring about infrasound and low frequency noise (ILFN) impacts from a large array of wind turbines proposed for Lake Michigan. Impacts, that is, on people living on shore four miles away, and impacts on fish.
Your concerns are well-founded. First, a crash course on “noise.” Noise propagation models are based on the spherical movement of sound waves and the dispersion of their power. In these models, sound loses its power rapidly.
Sound waves over water, however, present a special case. The issue over water is that instead of having an absorptive surface, the way trees and vegetation and houses might absorb sound—you now have a reflective surface. Basically, you’re dealing with half of a sphere; the power of the sound is concentrated because the whole bottom of the sphere is reflected back into the top of the sphere.
The other thing that occurs over water is that there are different layers of air under different weather conditions (for instance, either cool & still over the water, or certain kinds of cloud cover). By “layered” I mean the air has different densities or temperatures or wind conditions. The boundary between air layers likewise acts as a reflective surface.
Hence, it is not uncommon to have the reflective surface of the water and a reflective surface of layered atmosphere above it (at the boundary of this layered atmosphere, such as cloud cover). The upshot being that both of these reflective surfaces (the water and the air layer boundary) will reflect the sound back into the same layer where the sound travels.
This means that sound energy, instead of dispersing in a sphere, disperses in a flat layer, more like a two-dimensional circle—a pancake or, if you prefer, a frisbee. Bottom line, the sound energy is heavily concentrated and travels much farther.
When you understand that infrasound and low frequency noise travel farther than higher frequency noise, this “channeling” of noise—reflective surface of the water below, air layer boundary above—becomes pronounced and, in this wind turbine case, alarming.
In summary, you are correct to be alarmed about ILFN reaching land from these lake-based turbines.
Now consider what happens under water. Sound propagates even more efficiently through water than through air. And water is, of course, defined by boundary conditions: (a) the surface between water and air is a boundary that tends to reflect sound back into water, and (b) different layers of water (varying in temperature, density, and current)—the boundaries between these different layers of water also act as reflective surfaces. Hence, you can get channels through water where ILFN travels very far, because it’s concentrated by these two reflective surfaces.
By the way, everything I have said about noise propagation above and within fresh water is true, as well, for oceans, with the added element of salt. In oceans, layers are also defined by salinity, which of course affects water density.
What about the fish in Lake Michigan (or Nantucket Sound, for that matter)? Fish, we know, are acutely sensitive to infrasound and respond to it with fear and avoidance. Hence, the turbines and the noise they make have the potential to change patterns of (a) fish movement, (b) fish migration, and (c) breeding behavior.
If breeding behavior is changed, fish populations can crash. (My PhD is in population biology/behavioral ecology, from Princeton University.)
A few more words about ocean environments. Crustaceans also avoid ILFN. Whales are known to beach and die in response to Navy sonar—which by definition is in the ILFN range. And there is information about seal rookery problems—rookery failure—in the UK.
Birds. Birds on Lake Michigan and over the ocean are at risk insofar as they are not used to encountering obstacles as they fly over water. Turbines in the Great Lakes could have a disastrous impact on bird migrations when turbines are located within the great migratory highways (flyways).
On the matter of water-borne ILFN, keep in mind that we’re talking about vibrations coming off the supporting structures under the water, propagated directly into the water, in addition to ILFN traveling above water. In other words, ILFN skimming across the surface and below the surface.
Lastly, it has been demonstrated that large turbines produce more ILFN than smaller ones. The bigger they are, the bigger the ILFN load. If you’re talking about 5 and 10 MW turbines in Lake Michigan, this spells big trouble.
I hope this is helpful.
Sincerely,
Nina Pierpont, MD (Johns Hopkins), PhD (Princeton)
Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Lessons for Sheffield: Experiences with UPC/First Wind and Clipper in Cohocton, New York
The names are the same. UPC. First Wind. Clipper Liberty. Josh Bagnato. Lawrence Mott.
Residents of Cohocton, New York are living with it. Residents of Sheffield and Sutton, Vermont are still trying to stop it. Why? A recent visit to UPC/First Wind’s utility scale wind project in Cohocton NY provides this cautionary tale for Vermonters.
UPC Wind, as it was known at the time, began development of utility scale wind projects in Cohocton NY and Sheffield VT at about the same time. The Cohocton project took three years to build, and has been in operation since 2008. The Sheffield project was permitted by Vermont regulators in 2007. In 2009, the Vermont Supreme Court upheld its Certificate of Public Good. Now the project’s stormwater construction permit is under appeal to Environmental Court. UPC Wind changed its name to First Wind in 2008.
Both projects use or plan to use 2.5 MW Liberty turbines made by California-based Clipper Windpower, which has a manufacturing plant in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
On my first visit to Cohocton outside project building in April 2009, 15 of the 50 turbine says CLIPPER were not working. A year later, one turbine was not working.
Vermonters have a lot of questions about wind companies and utility scale wind turbines. The questions have been asked numerous times at public forums. Some of the answers are available in Cohocton. Here is what I learned on my recent trip to Cohocton and two “big wind” turbine sites in Pennsylvania:
Are tourists coming to see the Cohocton turbines? I saw no evidence that the turbines are a tourist attraction.
Is there a visitors center for tourists? There is no visitors center, no office in town, no sign anywhere identifying whose project it is, not even at the entrance to the project’s maintenance building. The only signage was the word “Clipper” on one of the mailboxes and a faded “Firstwind” sign unreadable from the road on a post next to a parking place in front of the building. The public face of the Bear Creek, PA wind project was similar, a dented mailbox and uninviting signs.
How many jobs are there? Cohocton residents say there are about 5 local employees for the 50 turbines. This matches what an Iberdrola employee told me at Locust Ridge, Pennsylvania: there are 6-7 local employees for 63 turbines, or about 1 job for every 10 turbines. Besides temporary construction and routine maintenance jobs, local residents do not seem to be employed by these projects, which require specialized workers.
Has the project been a boon to the economy? I saw no evidence of economic vitality in Cohocton. To the contrary, in the areas where turbines are located, I talked to people who are abandoning homes or hoping to sell out to First Wind.
How much money has the town gotten? What was it used for? Residents told me that it is generally known that the Town of Cohocton has received more than $1 million in payments from First Wind or one of its LLC subsidiaries. However, according to the Cohocton residents with whom I spoke, there has been no public accounting of the money, or what it was used for.
It may be that some people in town know exactly what the money has been used for, but the wind project has divided the community in a manner similar to what we are seeing happen in Lowell, VT, where wind supporters are aligned with town government and those who oppose the project are now “outsiders”.
How much money has the school district received? Similarly, residents I spoke with cited a lack of transparency regarding payments to the school district. They say a recent report on the school district budget does not contain an accounting of income from First Wind or its subsidiary LLCs.
Have the leaseholders been paid? Leaseholders have received the minimum payment amount, about $2400 per year.
Was it the amount promised? According to two landowners I talked to in 2009 who had signed leases, leaseholders expected payments of at least $5000 per turbine per year, a combination of the minimum payment plus an amount based on the electricity produced.
Has the project impacted the area real estate market? Are houses selling? According to residents, there have been no home sales in the areas around wind turbines in Cohocton in two years.
Are realtors taking listings of houses near turbines? No. Residents told me that realtors refuse to list properties near wind turbines in Cohocton. As I drove around all the roads where the turbines are located in May, I did not see any “For Sale” signs.
Are property values affected? There have been no sales, so there is no way to evaluate the project’s impact on property values. However, while driving around this year, I asked our local tour guide about each house. Who lives there, what’s their position on the turbines, are they bothered, etc.? The answers painted a sobering picture. Leaseholders cannot talk because their agreements contain gag orders. Some of the nicer homes next to leaseholders are empty, or rented to the few First Wind employees who maintain the project. Next to leaseholders are homeowners who hate the turbines. I got the impression of a town and landscape taken over by a technology and a corporation. One homeowner I talked to asked to speak “off the record” because of an upcoming meeting with First Wind to discuss buying the property due to noise and vibration issues.
What about the noise? Noise is a problem for many Cohocton residents, even a mile away. Clipper turbines are noisy, not just the usual “thump, thump, thump” but also they make mechanical noises. A resident describes them: “Many strange noises, when the nacelles are moving there is a moaning noise. We also get metal on metal screeching noise and every so often a loud thunder type noise comes out! There is the usual generator noise we hear all the time.”
Can people who live near the turbines sleep? Some people living in homes near turbines report serious problems with sleep deprivation. Hal Graham is a leaseholder who favored the project initially and has spoken on videos posted on YouTube about the problems he is having with the turbines near his home. He regrets having signed a lease, and says that UPC/First Wind promised there would be no noise. Other Cohocton residents brought up the same point when discussing the turbines, saying sadly, “they promised no noise.”
Do houses vibrate? Yes, people report that their homes affected by vibrations. First Wind is negotiating to buy out some people.
Do the Clipper wind turbines used by UPS/First Wind have any design or structural problems? Yes. A blog contains postings by former and current Clipper employees about the failed design of the Clipper Liberty turbines (www.topix.com/forum/energy/wind-energy/TPJF1TPVC4K7KU286). Here is a typical post by a former worker:
The Clipper Gear Box is a Quantum Drive it has 4 generators instead of just one, which means the gearbox is much larger and contains more gears and ratios, timing is essential and very hard to achieve, what happens is the gears end up getting chewed up fairly quick, plus the vibration from this unit has and does cause major oil leaks. Clippers blades come from Brazil as does their base, hub and gearbox castings. The blades are broke by the time they reach the port of Houston, part of the cause is Clippers design, so they only get partial warranty, so they are really eating allot of expense on repairs and warranty, with issues they just can’t clear up. The product is old school, the reason nobody uses this design would be for all these reasons.
These are the same turbines that First Wind is planning to use in Sheffield.
The Clipper employee blog includes postings by current employees who claim Clipper is resolving the blade and gearbox issues, and attributes those problems to start-up growing pains. Former employees seem skeptical that the design flaws can be or have been fixed. United Technologies Corp. (UTC) recently purchased a major interest in Clipper Windpower, bringing gearbox and blade expertise to the company, but it remains to be seen if UTC can fix the flawed design.
Since the Cohocton project came online in 2008, the blades have been taken down and repaired and put back up.
Are blade failures unique to Clipper turbines? No. On the same trip, I visited Iberdrola’s Locust Ridge project north of Mahanoy City in Pennsylvania which uses Gamesa 2 MW turbines. I witnessed a turbine blade being delivered and learned from the driver that it came from Texas (even though Gamesa has a manufacturing plant in Pennsylvania). In all, five blades were being replaced on the Gamesa turbines, which went into service in 2009.
The Iberdrola worker said that turbine blades come with a two year warranty, and it costs more for a longer warranty.
A recent report projects operation and maintenance costs for wind turbines are likely to “spiral” as warranties expire.
Do turbines leak oil? Yes. I saw oil coming from the nacelles in Cohocton. The Clipper former employee blog says:
The turbines do have an oil heating element that enables them to operate in cold climates. If the oil is leaking out of the turbine nacelle that means that a major failure has occurred. The turbines have splash decks to catch oil, If the oil is overflowing these . . . nuff said.
According to data on file with Vermont’s PSB, each Clipper Liberty turbine gearbox contains 110 gallons of hydraulic and lubricating oil. 500 gallons of mineral oil are used in each turbine’s transformer.
How much dynamite was used to build the roads? In Cohocton, none. Unlike Vermont, the landscape is rolling hills where it is easy to drive heavy equipment onto farm fields.
In Lempster NH, where Iberdrola erected twelve 2 MW Gamesa turbines, one million pounds of explosives were used for the road construction and preparation of turbine sites, according to the landowner. The terrain in Lempster is nowhere near as rugged as sites proposed for Vermont, including Sheffield.
Were roads damaged during construction? Did First Wind pay promptly to fix damage to roads? During construction, residents described the destruction to Cohocton area roads as horrible. The Town discussed suing First Wind to get the roads fixed after First Wind did not keep agreements.
Are there any other problems? Local workers have disclosed to Cohocton residents that they are concerned about the possibility of concrete base failures. Cohocton residents are seeing a lot of dirt dumped at the base of one turbine, where workers say the turbine was built on a wet spot and no matter how much dirt they pour into it, water keeps surfacing.
Are the turbines making a difference to New York’s electricity needs, and are they contributing to reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Residents question whether the turbines are actually generating electricity that is going into the grid, especially after the leaseholders received only minimum payments with no additional payment for electricity generation.
If there are problems, is the company quick to respond? Not according to the people I talked to. Complaints about noise, sleeplessness, and house vibrations have been ignored or ridiculed for more than a year. Anybody who wants to sell out to First Wind must sign a gag order.
Can residents hold the company accountable for problems? The people who live in Cohocton that I talked to feel they are now living in a town under a corporation’s control, where nobody is responding to the problems residents are living with.
What about the view? Wind turbines dominate the view in Cohocton. They are prominently visible from most roads and homes.
Will it be any different in Sheffield?
—Annette Smith, Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment, 2010 Mid-year Report
Residents of Cohocton, New York are living with it. Residents of Sheffield and Sutton, Vermont are still trying to stop it. Why? A recent visit to UPC/First Wind’s utility scale wind project in Cohocton NY provides this cautionary tale for Vermonters.
UPC Wind, as it was known at the time, began development of utility scale wind projects in Cohocton NY and Sheffield VT at about the same time. The Cohocton project took three years to build, and has been in operation since 2008. The Sheffield project was permitted by Vermont regulators in 2007. In 2009, the Vermont Supreme Court upheld its Certificate of Public Good. Now the project’s stormwater construction permit is under appeal to Environmental Court. UPC Wind changed its name to First Wind in 2008.
Both projects use or plan to use 2.5 MW Liberty turbines made by California-based Clipper Windpower, which has a manufacturing plant in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
On my first visit to Cohocton outside project building in April 2009, 15 of the 50 turbine says CLIPPER were not working. A year later, one turbine was not working.
Vermonters have a lot of questions about wind companies and utility scale wind turbines. The questions have been asked numerous times at public forums. Some of the answers are available in Cohocton. Here is what I learned on my recent trip to Cohocton and two “big wind” turbine sites in Pennsylvania:
Are tourists coming to see the Cohocton turbines? I saw no evidence that the turbines are a tourist attraction.
Is there a visitors center for tourists? There is no visitors center, no office in town, no sign anywhere identifying whose project it is, not even at the entrance to the project’s maintenance building. The only signage was the word “Clipper” on one of the mailboxes and a faded “Firstwind” sign unreadable from the road on a post next to a parking place in front of the building. The public face of the Bear Creek, PA wind project was similar, a dented mailbox and uninviting signs.
How many jobs are there? Cohocton residents say there are about 5 local employees for the 50 turbines. This matches what an Iberdrola employee told me at Locust Ridge, Pennsylvania: there are 6-7 local employees for 63 turbines, or about 1 job for every 10 turbines. Besides temporary construction and routine maintenance jobs, local residents do not seem to be employed by these projects, which require specialized workers.
Has the project been a boon to the economy? I saw no evidence of economic vitality in Cohocton. To the contrary, in the areas where turbines are located, I talked to people who are abandoning homes or hoping to sell out to First Wind.
How much money has the town gotten? What was it used for? Residents told me that it is generally known that the Town of Cohocton has received more than $1 million in payments from First Wind or one of its LLC subsidiaries. However, according to the Cohocton residents with whom I spoke, there has been no public accounting of the money, or what it was used for.
It may be that some people in town know exactly what the money has been used for, but the wind project has divided the community in a manner similar to what we are seeing happen in Lowell, VT, where wind supporters are aligned with town government and those who oppose the project are now “outsiders”.
How much money has the school district received? Similarly, residents I spoke with cited a lack of transparency regarding payments to the school district. They say a recent report on the school district budget does not contain an accounting of income from First Wind or its subsidiary LLCs.
Have the leaseholders been paid? Leaseholders have received the minimum payment amount, about $2400 per year.
Was it the amount promised? According to two landowners I talked to in 2009 who had signed leases, leaseholders expected payments of at least $5000 per turbine per year, a combination of the minimum payment plus an amount based on the electricity produced.
Has the project impacted the area real estate market? Are houses selling? According to residents, there have been no home sales in the areas around wind turbines in Cohocton in two years.
Are realtors taking listings of houses near turbines? No. Residents told me that realtors refuse to list properties near wind turbines in Cohocton. As I drove around all the roads where the turbines are located in May, I did not see any “For Sale” signs.
Are property values affected? There have been no sales, so there is no way to evaluate the project’s impact on property values. However, while driving around this year, I asked our local tour guide about each house. Who lives there, what’s their position on the turbines, are they bothered, etc.? The answers painted a sobering picture. Leaseholders cannot talk because their agreements contain gag orders. Some of the nicer homes next to leaseholders are empty, or rented to the few First Wind employees who maintain the project. Next to leaseholders are homeowners who hate the turbines. I got the impression of a town and landscape taken over by a technology and a corporation. One homeowner I talked to asked to speak “off the record” because of an upcoming meeting with First Wind to discuss buying the property due to noise and vibration issues.
What about the noise? Noise is a problem for many Cohocton residents, even a mile away. Clipper turbines are noisy, not just the usual “thump, thump, thump” but also they make mechanical noises. A resident describes them: “Many strange noises, when the nacelles are moving there is a moaning noise. We also get metal on metal screeching noise and every so often a loud thunder type noise comes out! There is the usual generator noise we hear all the time.”
Can people who live near the turbines sleep? Some people living in homes near turbines report serious problems with sleep deprivation. Hal Graham is a leaseholder who favored the project initially and has spoken on videos posted on YouTube about the problems he is having with the turbines near his home. He regrets having signed a lease, and says that UPC/First Wind promised there would be no noise. Other Cohocton residents brought up the same point when discussing the turbines, saying sadly, “they promised no noise.”
Do houses vibrate? Yes, people report that their homes affected by vibrations. First Wind is negotiating to buy out some people.
Do the Clipper wind turbines used by UPS/First Wind have any design or structural problems? Yes. A blog contains postings by former and current Clipper employees about the failed design of the Clipper Liberty turbines (www.topix.com/forum/energy/wind-energy/TPJF1TPVC4K7KU286). Here is a typical post by a former worker:
The Clipper Gear Box is a Quantum Drive it has 4 generators instead of just one, which means the gearbox is much larger and contains more gears and ratios, timing is essential and very hard to achieve, what happens is the gears end up getting chewed up fairly quick, plus the vibration from this unit has and does cause major oil leaks. Clippers blades come from Brazil as does their base, hub and gearbox castings. The blades are broke by the time they reach the port of Houston, part of the cause is Clippers design, so they only get partial warranty, so they are really eating allot of expense on repairs and warranty, with issues they just can’t clear up. The product is old school, the reason nobody uses this design would be for all these reasons.
These are the same turbines that First Wind is planning to use in Sheffield.
The Clipper employee blog includes postings by current employees who claim Clipper is resolving the blade and gearbox issues, and attributes those problems to start-up growing pains. Former employees seem skeptical that the design flaws can be or have been fixed. United Technologies Corp. (UTC) recently purchased a major interest in Clipper Windpower, bringing gearbox and blade expertise to the company, but it remains to be seen if UTC can fix the flawed design.
Since the Cohocton project came online in 2008, the blades have been taken down and repaired and put back up.
Are blade failures unique to Clipper turbines? No. On the same trip, I visited Iberdrola’s Locust Ridge project north of Mahanoy City in Pennsylvania which uses Gamesa 2 MW turbines. I witnessed a turbine blade being delivered and learned from the driver that it came from Texas (even though Gamesa has a manufacturing plant in Pennsylvania). In all, five blades were being replaced on the Gamesa turbines, which went into service in 2009.
The Iberdrola worker said that turbine blades come with a two year warranty, and it costs more for a longer warranty.
A recent report projects operation and maintenance costs for wind turbines are likely to “spiral” as warranties expire.
Do turbines leak oil? Yes. I saw oil coming from the nacelles in Cohocton. The Clipper former employee blog says:
The turbines do have an oil heating element that enables them to operate in cold climates. If the oil is leaking out of the turbine nacelle that means that a major failure has occurred. The turbines have splash decks to catch oil, If the oil is overflowing these . . . nuff said.
According to data on file with Vermont’s PSB, each Clipper Liberty turbine gearbox contains 110 gallons of hydraulic and lubricating oil. 500 gallons of mineral oil are used in each turbine’s transformer.
How much dynamite was used to build the roads? In Cohocton, none. Unlike Vermont, the landscape is rolling hills where it is easy to drive heavy equipment onto farm fields.
In Lempster NH, where Iberdrola erected twelve 2 MW Gamesa turbines, one million pounds of explosives were used for the road construction and preparation of turbine sites, according to the landowner. The terrain in Lempster is nowhere near as rugged as sites proposed for Vermont, including Sheffield.
Were roads damaged during construction? Did First Wind pay promptly to fix damage to roads? During construction, residents described the destruction to Cohocton area roads as horrible. The Town discussed suing First Wind to get the roads fixed after First Wind did not keep agreements.
Are there any other problems? Local workers have disclosed to Cohocton residents that they are concerned about the possibility of concrete base failures. Cohocton residents are seeing a lot of dirt dumped at the base of one turbine, where workers say the turbine was built on a wet spot and no matter how much dirt they pour into it, water keeps surfacing.
Are the turbines making a difference to New York’s electricity needs, and are they contributing to reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Residents question whether the turbines are actually generating electricity that is going into the grid, especially after the leaseholders received only minimum payments with no additional payment for electricity generation.
If there are problems, is the company quick to respond? Not according to the people I talked to. Complaints about noise, sleeplessness, and house vibrations have been ignored or ridiculed for more than a year. Anybody who wants to sell out to First Wind must sign a gag order.
Can residents hold the company accountable for problems? The people who live in Cohocton that I talked to feel they are now living in a town under a corporation’s control, where nobody is responding to the problems residents are living with.
What about the view? Wind turbines dominate the view in Cohocton. They are prominently visible from most roads and homes.
Will it be any different in Sheffield?
—Annette Smith, Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment, 2010 Mid-year Report
Epidemiologist testifies on wind turbine related health effects
Carl V. Phillips MPP, PhD, an Epidemiologist formerly from the University of Alberta School of Public Health provided this powerful testimony before the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
NYPA seeks federal license for offshore wind farm
The New York Power Authority on Wednesday said it would apply with federal regulators for a lease to build one of the nation's first offshore wind power
projects in the Atlantic Ocean, off Long Island.
The wind group wants to build a 350 to 700 megawatt wind farm by 2016, the NYPA, which would hold the lease, said in a release.
NYPA said the proposed wind farm would help the city and state meet tough renewable energy goals and reduce carbon emissions in its fight against global warming, but could not say how much the project would cost.
The company estimated the cost just to upgrade the transmission system to support a wind farm alone would cost about $415 million for a 350-MW project, or $821 million for a 700-MW project, NYPA spokeswoman Connie Cullen told Reuters in an email.
There are currently no offshore wind farms in the United States in part because it costs about twice as much to build offshore than on land. There are however several U.S. offshore wind farms under development, see FACTBOX [ID:nN30249210]
The Long Island Power Authority, one of the members of the wind group, killed plans to build a 140-MW offshore wind farm in 2007 because the project's cost estimates soared to about $811 million from an initial bid of about $356 million.
Industry sources estimate it would cost about $4 million per megawatt to build wind turbines offshore versus less than $2 million a megawatt on shore.
In addition to the state-owned NYPA and LIPA, the wind group includes New York City's power company Consolidated Edison Inc (ED.N), the City of New York, and other state and city government agencies.
NYPA said it will apply with the Federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOE), formerly known as the Minerals Management Service (MMS), for a 25-year lease on 64,500 acres of land beneath the Atlantic Ocean about 13 to 15 miles off the Long Island coast.
Offshore property within the first three miles of the coast falls within a state's jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction extends from three miles to 200 miles offshore. BOE is the bureau within the U.S. Department of Interior responsible for granting leases for offshore facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf.
NYPA said the wind group would negotiate with BOE over annual rent for the project during development and construction, expected to be about $3 an acre, or about $200,000 a year. Once the project is operating, NYPA said BOE would receive a portion of the revenue generated from energy sales as payment for the lease.
(Reporting by Scott DiSavino; Editing by Sofina Mirza-Reid
projects in the Atlantic Ocean, off Long Island.
The wind group wants to build a 350 to 700 megawatt wind farm by 2016, the NYPA, which would hold the lease, said in a release.
NYPA said the proposed wind farm would help the city and state meet tough renewable energy goals and reduce carbon emissions in its fight against global warming, but could not say how much the project would cost.
The company estimated the cost just to upgrade the transmission system to support a wind farm alone would cost about $415 million for a 350-MW project, or $821 million for a 700-MW project, NYPA spokeswoman Connie Cullen told Reuters in an email.
There are currently no offshore wind farms in the United States in part because it costs about twice as much to build offshore than on land. There are however several U.S. offshore wind farms under development, see FACTBOX [ID:nN30249210]
The Long Island Power Authority, one of the members of the wind group, killed plans to build a 140-MW offshore wind farm in 2007 because the project's cost estimates soared to about $811 million from an initial bid of about $356 million.
Industry sources estimate it would cost about $4 million per megawatt to build wind turbines offshore versus less than $2 million a megawatt on shore.
In addition to the state-owned NYPA and LIPA, the wind group includes New York City's power company Consolidated Edison Inc (ED.N), the City of New York, and other state and city government agencies.
NYPA said it will apply with the Federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOE), formerly known as the Minerals Management Service (MMS), for a 25-year lease on 64,500 acres of land beneath the Atlantic Ocean about 13 to 15 miles off the Long Island coast.
Offshore property within the first three miles of the coast falls within a state's jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction extends from three miles to 200 miles offshore. BOE is the bureau within the U.S. Department of Interior responsible for granting leases for offshore facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf.
NYPA said the wind group would negotiate with BOE over annual rent for the project during development and construction, expected to be about $3 an acre, or about $200,000 a year. Once the project is operating, NYPA said BOE would receive a portion of the revenue generated from energy sales as payment for the lease.
(Reporting by Scott DiSavino; Editing by Sofina Mirza-Reid
No Action Taken On Moratorium Hollisters Erupt At Public Hearing
HAMMOND - While the Hammond Town Board tabled action on the proposed one-year wind moratorium, Robert G. and Kent Hollister provided plenty of it following a public hearing held Tuesday at Hammond Central School.
"Another illegal meeting," yelled Robert G., husband of former town supervisor, Janie G. Hollister, as he exited the gymnasium at the hearing's closure.
"You called the last board illegal, but this is another god**** illegal meeting," he said, brandishing a fist at another member of the public as he left.
Mr. Hollister's son, Kent, then joined his father in leaving, adding a middle finger to his profanity laced departure. Kent Hollister also challenged others in attendance to settle things outside.
The Hollisters felt the meeting was illegal because it had been advertised as a public hearing only, they said.
"Some people just don't understand that any public hearing is also a town board meeting," said Supervisor Ronald W. Bertram following the distasteful display by the Hollister men.
The proposed one-year moratorium was the topic as 21 citizens spoke before a crowd of about 75 to 100.
Only three speakers, including Robert Hollister, Mary Lu Sequin and Larry Sequin, spoke in opposition to the moratorium.
Mr. Hollister presented the board with a petition that he said had been signed by 176 citizens also opposed to the board-proposed moratorium.
"We're sick and tired of the games. We're sick and tired of the lies. And we're sick and tired of the CROHs. This is discrimination against the mass land owners in Hammond," Mr. Hollister said.
Eighteen other speakers, including Susan Wood, Sid Quarrier, David B. Duff, James Boyle, Valerie Johnson, Brooke Stark, Pamela Winchester, Mary D. Hamilton, Rosemary Demick, Howard W. Demick, Kathy Stevenson, Peter Mills, Thomas Chapman, Erica Demick, Del Hamilton, Jay Benton, Robert Pandina, and Mike Stock, voiced their support.
Mr. Bertram then read an additional 16 letters that had been sent to the board prior to the hearing, with 15 of those also being in support of the moratorium.
The supervisor also reported that a pile of form letters, in opposition to the moratorium, had been dropped on the town board's table as the public hearing began. Mr. Bertram said that unofficially, 146 signatures were contained within the letters in opposition.
Following the conclusion of the hearing and the antics from the Hollisters, four remaining members of the town board unanimously voted to table a vote on the wind moratorium until the next regular board meeting, which is to occur at 7:15 p.m. in the town hall on July 12.
"The actual vote will take place at that meeting," Mr. Bertram said.
"Another illegal meeting," yelled Robert G., husband of former town supervisor, Janie G. Hollister, as he exited the gymnasium at the hearing's closure.
"You called the last board illegal, but this is another god**** illegal meeting," he said, brandishing a fist at another member of the public as he left.
Mr. Hollister's son, Kent, then joined his father in leaving, adding a middle finger to his profanity laced departure. Kent Hollister also challenged others in attendance to settle things outside.
The Hollisters felt the meeting was illegal because it had been advertised as a public hearing only, they said.
"Some people just don't understand that any public hearing is also a town board meeting," said Supervisor Ronald W. Bertram following the distasteful display by the Hollister men.
The proposed one-year moratorium was the topic as 21 citizens spoke before a crowd of about 75 to 100.
Only three speakers, including Robert Hollister, Mary Lu Sequin and Larry Sequin, spoke in opposition to the moratorium.
Mr. Hollister presented the board with a petition that he said had been signed by 176 citizens also opposed to the board-proposed moratorium.
"We're sick and tired of the games. We're sick and tired of the lies. And we're sick and tired of the CROHs. This is discrimination against the mass land owners in Hammond," Mr. Hollister said.
Eighteen other speakers, including Susan Wood, Sid Quarrier, David B. Duff, James Boyle, Valerie Johnson, Brooke Stark, Pamela Winchester, Mary D. Hamilton, Rosemary Demick, Howard W. Demick, Kathy Stevenson, Peter Mills, Thomas Chapman, Erica Demick, Del Hamilton, Jay Benton, Robert Pandina, and Mike Stock, voiced their support.
Mr. Bertram then read an additional 16 letters that had been sent to the board prior to the hearing, with 15 of those also being in support of the moratorium.
The supervisor also reported that a pile of form letters, in opposition to the moratorium, had been dropped on the town board's table as the public hearing began. Mr. Bertram said that unofficially, 146 signatures were contained within the letters in opposition.
Following the conclusion of the hearing and the antics from the Hollisters, four remaining members of the town board unanimously voted to table a vote on the wind moratorium until the next regular board meeting, which is to occur at 7:15 p.m. in the town hall on July 12.
"The actual vote will take place at that meeting," Mr. Bertram said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)