Several members of the Oswego County Legislature’s Economic Development and Planning Committee addressed the reasons they objected to the proposed Great Lakes offshore wind turbine project at the July 27 meeting.
While at a meeting held in regard to the project, Legislator Louella LeClair related that New York Power Authority Chief Executive Officer Richard Kessel said there were no advantages for the county to host the wind turbines.
“He said there was no benefit as far as taxing or anything else for the host community,” she said. “We would get no benefit for our county as far as tax dollars and we would get no benefit as far as rate reduction.”
LeClair said she also had concerns about the impact the project could have on the fishing industry.
“It could totally destroy our fishing industry that we rely on,” she said.
Legislator Shawn Doyle, who has been actively involved with the issue, said that there was no real economic benefit to hosting the wind turbines.
While the construction of the towers could bring a short-term economic boom, when the project is completed, the boom would end, he noted.
“It would be a boom and then it would go bust and it would be a big bust,” he said.
Because the work is highly specialized, few local residents would be employed during the construction process and Doyle said while the area will benefit from the short-term stay of the out-of-town employees, they will leave once the job is completed.
The legislature voted in March to oppose a New York Power Authority project that would locate dozens of wind turbines in Lake Ontario.
A proposal made by New York Power Authority called for the construction, siting and operation of wind-turbine facilities in Lake Erie and/or Lake Ontario’s eastern basin. The project would include inland transmission lines.
They thought the issue had ended until news reports suggested area officials may still be interested in hosting the project (see related story).
Legislators stressed that their decision is final and that they are not interested in bringing discussion back to the table.
LeClair mentioned the other counties that have opposed the project.
“How can all these counties be wrong?” she asked.
Doyle said the onshore wind project under development by British Petroleum in Cape Vincent has divided the community.
“It’s like colonialism all over again,” he said.
Legislator Barbara Brown brought up the Fenner wind project.
“Fenner wind power has taken away half the benefits they gave to the community,” she said. “They’ve also determined that the bases to the windmills weren’t big enough.”
Legislator Jacob Mulcahey asked if the legislators could have an opportunity to gather more information in regard to wind power.
Legislature Chairman Barry Leemann said that since Mulcahey is a member of the county’s Green Team, the issue could be explored more.
Mulcahey said he would like a primary meeting to be inclusive of only the Green Team and the legislature.
“Obviously we can’t throw the public out,” he added.
Leemann said sometime in the future the Green Team will entertain a wind developer and someone from an opposing citizen’s group. “We won’t be bringing them in together,” he added.
As for the Lake Ontario wind tower proposal, legislators said it will not be reconsidered.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Scientists challenge Big Wind’s claim that “What You Can’t Hear Won’t Hurt You” (National Institutes of Health, USA)
A wind turbine is a rotary device with a gigantic propeller as big as a football field that turns in the wind to generate electricity. Although wind turbines are more often found in Europe than in the United States, they’re rapidly becoming more popular here as a “green” energy source. Most people consider that a good thing, except the rotors of wind turbines also generate noise, particularly in the infrasound range, that some people claim makes them feel sick.
Since frequencies that low can’t be heard, many scientists who study hearing have assumed they can’t have any effect on the function of the ear. But a little known phenomenon related to the infrasound generated by wind turbines is making some scientists challenge the common wisdom that what we can’t hear won’t hurt us.
Infrasound is a subset of sound broadly defined as any sound lower than 20 Hertz (Hz), which is the lowest pitch that most people can hear. It’s all around us, even though we might only be barely able to hear a lot of it. The whoosh of wind in the trees, the pounding of surf, and the deep rumble of thunder are natural sources of infrasound. Whales and other animals use infrasound calls to communicate across long distances. There is also a wide range of manmade infrasounds, for example, the noise generated by industrial machinery, traffic, and heating and cooling systems in buildings.
Alec Salt, Ph.D., is an NIDCD-supported researcher at Washington University in St. Louis who studies the inner ear. For years, he and his group have been using infrasound as a way to slowly displace the structures of the inner ear so that their movement can be observed. In their experiments, infrasound levels as low as 5Hz had an impact on the inner ears of guinea pigs.
“We were doing lots of work with low-frequency tones,” says Salt, “and we were getting big responses.” What they were observing in the lab, however, didn’t jibe with the scientific literature about hearing sensitivity, which was in general agreement that the human ear doesn’t respond to anything as low as 5Hz. Since human ears are even more sensitive to low frequencies than guinea pig ears, that didn’t make sense.
Salt and a colleague conducted a literature search, focusing not on papers about hearing sensitivity, but on the basic physiology of the inner ear and how it responds to low-frequency sounds. During the search, Salt found anecdotal reports of a group of symptoms commonly called “wind turbine syndrome” that affect people who live close to wind turbines.
“The biggest problem people complain about is lack of sleep,” says Salt, but they can also develop headaches, difficulty concentrating, irritability and fatigue, dizziness, and pain and pressure in the ear.
Continuing his search, Salt began to see a way in which infrasound could impact the function of the inner ear, by the differences in how inner ear cells respond to low frequencies. In function, our ear acts like a microphone, converting sound waves into electrical signals that are sent to the brain. It does this in the cochlea, the snail-shaped organ in the inner ear that contains two types of sensory cells, inner hair cells (IHCs) and outer hair cells (OHCs). Three rows of OHCs and one row of IHCs run the length of the cochlea. When OHCs are stimulated by sound, special proteins contract and expand within their walls to amplify the vibrations. These vibrations cause hairlike structures (called stereocilia) on the tips of the IHCs to ripple and bend. These movements are then translated into electrical signals that travel to the brain through nerve fibers and are interpreted as sound.
Only IHCs can transmit this sound signal to the brain. The OHCs act more like mediators between sound frequencies and the IHCs. This wouldn’t matter if the OHC behaved the same way for all frequencies—the IHCs would respond to what the OHC amplified—but they don’t. It turns out that OHCs are highly sensitive to infrasound, but when they encounter it, their proteins don’t flex their muscles like they do for sound frequencies in the acoustic range. Instead they actively work to prevent IHC movement so that the sound is not detected. So, while the brain may not hear the sound, the OHC responses to it could influence function of the inner ear and cause unfamiliar sensations in some people.
Salt and his colleagues still aren’t sure why some people are sensitive to infrasound and others aren’t. It could be the result of anatomical differences among individual ears, or it could be the result of underlying medical conditions in the ear that cause the OHCs to be ultrasensitive to infrasound.
Regardless, it might not be enough to place wind turbines further away from human populations to keep them from being bothersome, since infrasound has the ability to cover long distances with little dissipation. Instead, Salt suggests wind turbine manufacturers may be able to re-engineer the machines to minimize infrasound production. According to Salt, this wouldn’t be difficult. “Infrasound is a product of how close the rotor is to the pole,” he says, “which could be addressed by spacing the rotor further away.”
Since frequencies that low can’t be heard, many scientists who study hearing have assumed they can’t have any effect on the function of the ear. But a little known phenomenon related to the infrasound generated by wind turbines is making some scientists challenge the common wisdom that what we can’t hear won’t hurt us.
Infrasound is a subset of sound broadly defined as any sound lower than 20 Hertz (Hz), which is the lowest pitch that most people can hear. It’s all around us, even though we might only be barely able to hear a lot of it. The whoosh of wind in the trees, the pounding of surf, and the deep rumble of thunder are natural sources of infrasound. Whales and other animals use infrasound calls to communicate across long distances. There is also a wide range of manmade infrasounds, for example, the noise generated by industrial machinery, traffic, and heating and cooling systems in buildings.
Alec Salt, Ph.D., is an NIDCD-supported researcher at Washington University in St. Louis who studies the inner ear. For years, he and his group have been using infrasound as a way to slowly displace the structures of the inner ear so that their movement can be observed. In their experiments, infrasound levels as low as 5Hz had an impact on the inner ears of guinea pigs.
“We were doing lots of work with low-frequency tones,” says Salt, “and we were getting big responses.” What they were observing in the lab, however, didn’t jibe with the scientific literature about hearing sensitivity, which was in general agreement that the human ear doesn’t respond to anything as low as 5Hz. Since human ears are even more sensitive to low frequencies than guinea pig ears, that didn’t make sense.
Salt and a colleague conducted a literature search, focusing not on papers about hearing sensitivity, but on the basic physiology of the inner ear and how it responds to low-frequency sounds. During the search, Salt found anecdotal reports of a group of symptoms commonly called “wind turbine syndrome” that affect people who live close to wind turbines.
“The biggest problem people complain about is lack of sleep,” says Salt, but they can also develop headaches, difficulty concentrating, irritability and fatigue, dizziness, and pain and pressure in the ear.
Continuing his search, Salt began to see a way in which infrasound could impact the function of the inner ear, by the differences in how inner ear cells respond to low frequencies. In function, our ear acts like a microphone, converting sound waves into electrical signals that are sent to the brain. It does this in the cochlea, the snail-shaped organ in the inner ear that contains two types of sensory cells, inner hair cells (IHCs) and outer hair cells (OHCs). Three rows of OHCs and one row of IHCs run the length of the cochlea. When OHCs are stimulated by sound, special proteins contract and expand within their walls to amplify the vibrations. These vibrations cause hairlike structures (called stereocilia) on the tips of the IHCs to ripple and bend. These movements are then translated into electrical signals that travel to the brain through nerve fibers and are interpreted as sound.
Only IHCs can transmit this sound signal to the brain. The OHCs act more like mediators between sound frequencies and the IHCs. This wouldn’t matter if the OHC behaved the same way for all frequencies—the IHCs would respond to what the OHC amplified—but they don’t. It turns out that OHCs are highly sensitive to infrasound, but when they encounter it, their proteins don’t flex their muscles like they do for sound frequencies in the acoustic range. Instead they actively work to prevent IHC movement so that the sound is not detected. So, while the brain may not hear the sound, the OHC responses to it could influence function of the inner ear and cause unfamiliar sensations in some people.
Salt and his colleagues still aren’t sure why some people are sensitive to infrasound and others aren’t. It could be the result of anatomical differences among individual ears, or it could be the result of underlying medical conditions in the ear that cause the OHCs to be ultrasensitive to infrasound.
Regardless, it might not be enough to place wind turbines further away from human populations to keep them from being bothersome, since infrasound has the ability to cover long distances with little dissipation. Instead, Salt suggests wind turbine manufacturers may be able to re-engineer the machines to minimize infrasound production. According to Salt, this wouldn’t be difficult. “Infrasound is a product of how close the rotor is to the pole,” he says, “which could be addressed by spacing the rotor further away.”
Germany’s first offshore wind park experiencing turbine failure
The rough patch has energy executives scurrying to reassure Berlin and banks scrutinizing their billions in offshore wind energy investments.
Less than two months after celebrating its opening, the Alpha Ventus test wind park in the North Sea is already running into problems. Intended to be the initial thrust in a plan that foresees dozens of new offshore wind parks off the German coast, shoddy building materials have caused two turbines to overheat and fail. An additional four turbines will need to be replaced.
Each of the struggling turbines was manufactured by the French firm Areva, which is responsible for half of the 12 turbines in the four-square-kilometer park (1.5 square miles), located about 45 kilometers (28 miles) north of the island of Borkum.
Areva said Friday that overheating was unforeseen and “not sufficiently considered” from the outset. As a result, the company will invest in a facility in Bremerhaven to test its turbines under full-load capacity before sending them out to sea.
The turbines, which had only been in operation for eight months, will be replaced by late summer, according to Areva.
Major Players Concerned
The wind park’s operators, European energy giants E.on, EWE and Vattenfall, played down the incident in a hurriedly called crisis meeting at the Environment Ministry in Berlin. Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen, for his part, is an enthusiastic supporter of the wind park and described the opening of Alpha Ventus as the “best day” of his tenure.
Still, the problems encountered by the €250 million park have instilled further doubts from its already lukewarm investors. As a result of the Alpha Ventus embarrassment, they are reviewing the billions of euros they have pledged for the development of other offshore wind parks.
The wind energy industry, however, doesn’t appear fazed by the Alpha Ventus mishap. The park is a sort of laboratory in which defects and shortcomings of offshore wind parks are to be identified and corrected. Moreover, the park’s problems may be a limited one: The other six turbines, which were manufactured by Hamburg-based Repower, have so far worked without a hitch.
High Expectations
The German wind energy industry is banking on Repower’s early results to parlay into future success. The industry believes that a quarter of Germany’s energy demands can be met with wind power by the end of the decade and that as much as 27 percent of energy consumption in the EU can come from wind by 2030.
The German industry still has a long way to go. So far, only 15 wind turbines have been installed off the German coast. But a further 1,600 are planned, the most among European countries.
Less than two months after celebrating its opening, the Alpha Ventus test wind park in the North Sea is already running into problems. Intended to be the initial thrust in a plan that foresees dozens of new offshore wind parks off the German coast, shoddy building materials have caused two turbines to overheat and fail. An additional four turbines will need to be replaced.
Each of the struggling turbines was manufactured by the French firm Areva, which is responsible for half of the 12 turbines in the four-square-kilometer park (1.5 square miles), located about 45 kilometers (28 miles) north of the island of Borkum.
Areva said Friday that overheating was unforeseen and “not sufficiently considered” from the outset. As a result, the company will invest in a facility in Bremerhaven to test its turbines under full-load capacity before sending them out to sea.
The turbines, which had only been in operation for eight months, will be replaced by late summer, according to Areva.
Major Players Concerned
The wind park’s operators, European energy giants E.on, EWE and Vattenfall, played down the incident in a hurriedly called crisis meeting at the Environment Ministry in Berlin. Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen, for his part, is an enthusiastic supporter of the wind park and described the opening of Alpha Ventus as the “best day” of his tenure.
Still, the problems encountered by the €250 million park have instilled further doubts from its already lukewarm investors. As a result of the Alpha Ventus embarrassment, they are reviewing the billions of euros they have pledged for the development of other offshore wind parks.
The wind energy industry, however, doesn’t appear fazed by the Alpha Ventus mishap. The park is a sort of laboratory in which defects and shortcomings of offshore wind parks are to be identified and corrected. Moreover, the park’s problems may be a limited one: The other six turbines, which were manufactured by Hamburg-based Repower, have so far worked without a hitch.
High Expectations
The German wind energy industry is banking on Repower’s early results to parlay into future success. The industry believes that a quarter of Germany’s energy demands can be met with wind power by the end of the decade and that as much as 27 percent of energy consumption in the EU can come from wind by 2030.
The German industry still has a long way to go. So far, only 15 wind turbines have been installed off the German coast. But a further 1,600 are planned, the most among European countries.
Planned wind farm in Cape is smaller
CAPE VINCENT — The proposed St. Lawrence Wind Farm may be two turbines smaller.
In an updated environmental impact statement delivered to the town Planning Board on Wednesday night, developer Acciona Wind Energy USA dropped the number of planned turbines to 51.
The Planning Board could choose to accept it as the final environmental impact statement three weeks from now.
One of the turbines was removed because of expected sound levels and the other because it was in habitat for a state-listed endangered species, Acciona representative Blayne Gunderman said during the meeting.
"There are some moves in other turbines," she said.
The reduced number of turbines means it would be a 76.5-megawatt project.
Three board members were present at the meeting to receive the statement.
"It's not going to be accepted — there's no vote or action tonight," Chairman Richard J. Edsall said.
The board will meet at 7 p.m. Aug. 18 at the Cape Vincent Recreation Park, 602 S. James St., to decide whether to accept the statement and deem it complete. If it is, the statement will be sent to other involved agencies and posted on Acciona's website.
Regardless, the two binders of documents will be available at the Cape Vincent Public Library, 157 N. Real St.; Lyme Free Library, 12165 Main St., Chaumont, and Cape Vincent town clerk's office, 1964 Route 12E, likely on Friday.
If the board deems the statement complete, it can complete its findings and end the environmental review after 10 days. The board has indicated that could happen on Sept. 15.
Acciona began the environmental review at the end of 2006 and submitted its draft environmental impact statement Jan. 10, 2007. That was followed with a supplemental statement on March 25, 2009.
The final statement includes updated studies, responses to comments on the earlier statements and mitigation plans.
In an updated environmental impact statement delivered to the town Planning Board on Wednesday night, developer Acciona Wind Energy USA dropped the number of planned turbines to 51.
The Planning Board could choose to accept it as the final environmental impact statement three weeks from now.
One of the turbines was removed because of expected sound levels and the other because it was in habitat for a state-listed endangered species, Acciona representative Blayne Gunderman said during the meeting.
"There are some moves in other turbines," she said.
The reduced number of turbines means it would be a 76.5-megawatt project.
Three board members were present at the meeting to receive the statement.
"It's not going to be accepted — there's no vote or action tonight," Chairman Richard J. Edsall said.
The board will meet at 7 p.m. Aug. 18 at the Cape Vincent Recreation Park, 602 S. James St., to decide whether to accept the statement and deem it complete. If it is, the statement will be sent to other involved agencies and posted on Acciona's website.
Regardless, the two binders of documents will be available at the Cape Vincent Public Library, 157 N. Real St.; Lyme Free Library, 12165 Main St., Chaumont, and Cape Vincent town clerk's office, 1964 Route 12E, likely on Friday.
If the board deems the statement complete, it can complete its findings and end the environmental review after 10 days. The board has indicated that could happen on Sept. 15.
Acciona began the environmental review at the end of 2006 and submitted its draft environmental impact statement Jan. 10, 2007. That was followed with a supplemental statement on March 25, 2009.
The final statement includes updated studies, responses to comments on the earlier statements and mitigation plans.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
The Dean Report: A Noise impact assessment of the Waubra Wind Farm
Mr and Mrs Noel Dean requested a Report providing an assessment of the potential for adverse effects due to activity from the Waubra wind farm while living in their residences and while working on their farms. Dr. Robert Thorne undertook the study. His full report can be accessed via the link at the bottom of this page. Below is a summary of Dr. Thorne's findings and conclusions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My research to date for this investigation indicates “ordinary” wind has a laminar or smooth infrasound and low-frequency flow pattern when analysed over short periods of time. Wind farm activity appears to create a “pulsing” infrasound and low-frequency pattern. These patterns are illustrated in sonograms in this Report. My hypothesis at this stage is that wind farm sound has an adverse effect on individuals due to this pulsing nature, as well as audible noise due to the wind turbines. These effects may be cumulative. Research into this hypothesis is described further in this Report.
It is concluded, from the information presented, that Mr Dean has been and is currently adversely affected by the presence and activity of the Waubra wind farm. The effects stated by Mr Dean as affecting his health and statutory declarations from his family and residents in the vicinity of the wind farm attest to adverse health effects. Adverse health effects such as sleep disturbance, anxiety, stress and headaches are, in my view, a health nuisance and are objectionable and unreasonable.
Windaction Editor's Notes:
[1] The Waubra wind energy facility is located near Ballarat, in western Victoria, Australia. It is the largest operating wind facility in the southern hemisphere consisting of 128-1.5 megawatt turbines for a total installed capacity of 192 megawatts. The turbines were first turned on in February 2009; the facility was fully operational by July 2009.
[2] Noel Dean and his family moved away from their farm in the spring of 2009 when the headaches and other symptoms worsened.
Special thanks to Dr. Thorne and Mr. Dean for providing us with the Dean report and permitting us to share it with our readers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My research to date for this investigation indicates “ordinary” wind has a laminar or smooth infrasound and low-frequency flow pattern when analysed over short periods of time. Wind farm activity appears to create a “pulsing” infrasound and low-frequency pattern. These patterns are illustrated in sonograms in this Report. My hypothesis at this stage is that wind farm sound has an adverse effect on individuals due to this pulsing nature, as well as audible noise due to the wind turbines. These effects may be cumulative. Research into this hypothesis is described further in this Report.
It is concluded, from the information presented, that Mr Dean has been and is currently adversely affected by the presence and activity of the Waubra wind farm. The effects stated by Mr Dean as affecting his health and statutory declarations from his family and residents in the vicinity of the wind farm attest to adverse health effects. Adverse health effects such as sleep disturbance, anxiety, stress and headaches are, in my view, a health nuisance and are objectionable and unreasonable.
Windaction Editor's Notes:
[1] The Waubra wind energy facility is located near Ballarat, in western Victoria, Australia. It is the largest operating wind facility in the southern hemisphere consisting of 128-1.5 megawatt turbines for a total installed capacity of 192 megawatts. The turbines were first turned on in February 2009; the facility was fully operational by July 2009.
[2] Noel Dean and his family moved away from their farm in the spring of 2009 when the headaches and other symptoms worsened.
Special thanks to Dr. Thorne and Mr. Dean for providing us with the Dean report and permitting us to share it with our readers.
Secretary Chu Announces Closing of $117 Million Loan Guarantee for Kahuku Wind Power Project
Washington D.C. --- Energy Secretary Steven Chu today announced that the Department of Energy has finalized a $117 million loan guarantee for Kahuku Wind Power, LLC, the owner and operator of the Kahuku Wind Power project. The project includes the development of an innovative 30 megawatt (MW) wind power plant that will supply electricity to approximately 7,700 households per year. According to company estimates, the project, located in Kahuku, Hawaii, will create over 200 jobs on the island of Oahu.
"This project is another example of America's leadership in the global clean energy economy," said Secretary Chu. "Through the Recovery Act, we are supporting innovative projects that are adding to our workforce in the short term while laying the foundation for additional job creation in the long term."
"This project represents what our national energy policy is attempting to accomplish: clean energy displacing imported oil in Hawaii to generate electricity, and in the process reducing our carbon output and creating green jobs," said Senator Daniel Inouye
"The Kahuku wind project will bring Hawaii 30 megawatts closer to energy independence," said Senator Daniel K. Akaka. "Reducing our reliance on imported oil will mean cleaner skies and more local jobs. This project is an important step forward."
"There is an urgent need to establish renewable energy sources in Hawaii and the state has mapped an ambitious plan to achieve this. The federal loan guarantee announced today boosts this effort," said Congresswoman Mazie K. Hirono. "The Kahuku Wind Project is the type of project that Hawaii needs to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and keep billions of dollars in our economy."
The project is expected to be the first to meet reliability requirements for wind and solar energy set by Hawaiian Electric Company, the only electric utility operating on Oahu. Successful integration of these new, clean energy technologies is expected to result in increased renewable energy generation and wind energy expansion in Hawaii.
The Kahuku wind power plant uses twelve 2.5 megawatt Liberty wind turbine generators manufactured by Clipper Windpower of Carpinteria, California and a 10 megawatt battery energy storage system (BESS) manufactured by Xtreme Power Inc. of Kyle, Texas. The BESS will modulate and smooth fluctuations in power output caused by changes in wind levels. When completed, Kahuku will produce the first-ever combined installation of Clipper wind turbines and Xtreme's battery energy storage system.
First Wind Holdings, LLC, the project sponsor and independent U.S.-based wind energy developer, successfully built and currently operates Hawaii's largest wind energy facility, the 30 megawatt Kaheawa Wind project in Maui. Kaheawa Wind serves nearly nine percent of Maui's annual electricity needs with clean, renewable energy.
Including this loan, the Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office has closed or offered conditional commitments for loan guarantees to support 13 clean energy projects.
"This project is another example of America's leadership in the global clean energy economy," said Secretary Chu. "Through the Recovery Act, we are supporting innovative projects that are adding to our workforce in the short term while laying the foundation for additional job creation in the long term."
"This project represents what our national energy policy is attempting to accomplish: clean energy displacing imported oil in Hawaii to generate electricity, and in the process reducing our carbon output and creating green jobs," said Senator Daniel Inouye
"The Kahuku wind project will bring Hawaii 30 megawatts closer to energy independence," said Senator Daniel K. Akaka. "Reducing our reliance on imported oil will mean cleaner skies and more local jobs. This project is an important step forward."
"There is an urgent need to establish renewable energy sources in Hawaii and the state has mapped an ambitious plan to achieve this. The federal loan guarantee announced today boosts this effort," said Congresswoman Mazie K. Hirono. "The Kahuku Wind Project is the type of project that Hawaii needs to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and keep billions of dollars in our economy."
The project is expected to be the first to meet reliability requirements for wind and solar energy set by Hawaiian Electric Company, the only electric utility operating on Oahu. Successful integration of these new, clean energy technologies is expected to result in increased renewable energy generation and wind energy expansion in Hawaii.
The Kahuku wind power plant uses twelve 2.5 megawatt Liberty wind turbine generators manufactured by Clipper Windpower of Carpinteria, California and a 10 megawatt battery energy storage system (BESS) manufactured by Xtreme Power Inc. of Kyle, Texas. The BESS will modulate and smooth fluctuations in power output caused by changes in wind levels. When completed, Kahuku will produce the first-ever combined installation of Clipper wind turbines and Xtreme's battery energy storage system.
First Wind Holdings, LLC, the project sponsor and independent U.S.-based wind energy developer, successfully built and currently operates Hawaii's largest wind energy facility, the 30 megawatt Kaheawa Wind project in Maui. Kaheawa Wind serves nearly nine percent of Maui's annual electricity needs with clean, renewable energy.
Including this loan, the Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office has closed or offered conditional commitments for loan guarantees to support 13 clean energy projects.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
STOP Great Lakes Wind Turbine Development - Sign the PETITION
On December 1st, 2009, The New York State Power Authority submitted a request for proposal to potentially build an industrial wind farm off the shores of Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, or both.
This proposal would see the construction of 40-166 450ft industrial wind turbines 2 miles off shore at depths not to exceed 150 feet, stretching through Parma, Greece, Rochester, Irondequoit and Webster with a possible power plant and storage facility location in Irondequoit Bay. There are several other potential projects targeting Niagara, Ontario, St Lawrence Counties, and the Town of Hamburg and Evans off Lake Erie.
The negative environmental aspects of these farms are too numerous to list here, but include:
An Experimental Project - never attempted in fresh water and all for 1% added to the power grid.
Winter ice storms could destroy turbine structures, crashing hundreds of tons of metal into the lake and spilling oil into our fresh water (~215 gallons/turbine with 40,000 gallons in electric service platforms.) Hardly clean energy! Will not reduce our reliance on foreign oil. Where does the used oil go? How are the oil changes done w/o leaks and spills? Who pays for it? Who supplies it? THESE ARE INDUSTRIAL TURBINES, NOT WINDMILLS!
Will negatively impact property values as the lake becomes devalued, esp. after turbines become disabled and rusted.
Noise pollution from turbines and fog horns will impact quality of life for humans and wildlife.
Flashing red lights all night on turbines will disrupt life far beyond the shoreline.
Recreational boating and the fishing industry will diminish as Coast Guard regulations prohibit boats from within at least 100ft.
Risk of boat collisions increase at night as depth perception is distorted on the water.
Serious impact on fish & Fowl, esp. to migratory birds crossing the lake. Lake Trout spawning grounds.
THESE TURBINES ARE PRIMARILY MANUFACTURED OVERSEAS, AND THAT IS WHERE YOUR TAX DOLLARS WILL GO! ANY LOCAL JOBS CREATED WOULD BE TEMPORARY. IS LAKE ONTARIO WORTH SACRIFICING FOR A SMALL AMOUNT OF INTERMITTENT ELECTRICITY FOR NYC RESIDENTS? THIS PROJECT IS ESTIMATED TO COST $1 BILLION! ASK YOUR LAWMAKERS WHERE THE MONEY WOULD GO!
Do YOUR Own Research
You may also visit the NYPA website to get more information on the project proposal. PLEASE NOTE, Their disclaimer is in bold:
The New York Power Authority(NYPA) "makes no guarantees concerning the accuracy or completeness of the information from technical studies made available by the Authority. Respondents are encouraged to verify the sources and methodologies employed in the technical studies made available by the Authority through independent means." www.nypa.gov
This proposal would see the construction of 40-166 450ft industrial wind turbines 2 miles off shore at depths not to exceed 150 feet, stretching through Parma, Greece, Rochester, Irondequoit and Webster with a possible power plant and storage facility location in Irondequoit Bay. There are several other potential projects targeting Niagara, Ontario, St Lawrence Counties, and the Town of Hamburg and Evans off Lake Erie.
The negative environmental aspects of these farms are too numerous to list here, but include:
An Experimental Project - never attempted in fresh water and all for 1% added to the power grid.
Winter ice storms could destroy turbine structures, crashing hundreds of tons of metal into the lake and spilling oil into our fresh water (~215 gallons/turbine with 40,000 gallons in electric service platforms.) Hardly clean energy! Will not reduce our reliance on foreign oil. Where does the used oil go? How are the oil changes done w/o leaks and spills? Who pays for it? Who supplies it? THESE ARE INDUSTRIAL TURBINES, NOT WINDMILLS!
Will negatively impact property values as the lake becomes devalued, esp. after turbines become disabled and rusted.
Noise pollution from turbines and fog horns will impact quality of life for humans and wildlife.
Flashing red lights all night on turbines will disrupt life far beyond the shoreline.
Recreational boating and the fishing industry will diminish as Coast Guard regulations prohibit boats from within at least 100ft.
Risk of boat collisions increase at night as depth perception is distorted on the water.
Serious impact on fish & Fowl, esp. to migratory birds crossing the lake. Lake Trout spawning grounds.
THESE TURBINES ARE PRIMARILY MANUFACTURED OVERSEAS, AND THAT IS WHERE YOUR TAX DOLLARS WILL GO! ANY LOCAL JOBS CREATED WOULD BE TEMPORARY. IS LAKE ONTARIO WORTH SACRIFICING FOR A SMALL AMOUNT OF INTERMITTENT ELECTRICITY FOR NYC RESIDENTS? THIS PROJECT IS ESTIMATED TO COST $1 BILLION! ASK YOUR LAWMAKERS WHERE THE MONEY WOULD GO!
Do YOUR Own Research
You may also visit the NYPA website to get more information on the project proposal. PLEASE NOTE, Their disclaimer is in bold:
The New York Power Authority(NYPA) "makes no guarantees concerning the accuracy or completeness of the information from technical studies made available by the Authority. Respondents are encouraged to verify the sources and methodologies employed in the technical studies made available by the Authority through independent means." www.nypa.gov
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Old Fort Niagara joins battle against NYPA wind turbine project
YOUNGSTOWN — The Old Fort Niagara Association board of directors has formally adopted a resolution opposing the Power Authority’s proposed offshore wind project.
Fort Niagara joins the Town of Porter as the only two Niagara County entities to publicly oppose the project, which could see more than 150 wind turbines erected along the shorelines of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario or both.
According to Power Authority documents, a section of Lake Ontario stretching from Youngstown — just in front of Fort Niagara — to Wilson has been earmarked as a favorable sight for a wind farm and could potentially feature hundreds of turbines, which are more than 400 feet in height.
Old Fort Niagara Director Robert Emerson said a wind farm would jeopardize the historical integrity and character of the fort and potentially having a significant economic impact on the tourism industry which supports Fort Niagara’s existence.
“One of Old Fort Niagara's unique attributes is its combination of original 18th century buildings set against a stunning view of Lake Ontario. Most readers will be surprised to learn that the French Castle is eight years older than Philadelphia's Independence Hall. The placement of massive, modern industrial wind turbines in the Lake would destroy the visual aesthetic of Old Fort Niagara's historic setting,” Emerson said.
The turbines which would be situated about two miles offshore would still impede the view of the Lake Ontario waterfront, Emerson said. The Power Authority has received requests for proposals from five companies, but will not discuss where the private developers plan to put the turbines. However, a map on the Power Authority Web site does note favorable locations.
Emerson stressed wind farms should be located out-of-sight of the Fort or not at all.
“I do not believe that wind energy is so imminent that the public should have little say in the matter, especially when it concerns compromising an internationally significant historical treasure. The Niagara Region is already generating a great deal of clean, sustainable energy with proven technologies,” he said. “The construction of wind turbines in Lake Ontario behind Old Fort Niagara would make the site much less attractive to heritage tourists, which is the vast majority of visitors to the Fort. Most visitors who know about this project are appalled that it is even being considered.”
The Town of Porter adopted a similar resolution last month stating the Town is opposed to the placement of windmills offshore in Lake Ontario. Niagara County, is the only county in New York state to adopt a formal resolution approving of the construction of offshore windmills by the New York Power Authority — something County Legislator Clyde Burmaster said he plans to change.
A resolution being proposed to county lawmakers Tuesday states that a wind turbine project would be in an environmentally and economically sensitive area, affecting scenic vistas, tourism, fishing and pleasure boating as well as impacting housing values to those living along the lake.
Burmaster said Thursday he is confident the resolution will pass.
The $1 billion project could meet the energy demands of up to 615,000 New Yorkers and quell the state’s dependency on coal and oil producing power plants.
Governments in Chatauqua, Wayne, Oswego and Jefferson counties have voted to oppose the project. It is expected the Village of Youngstown and Town of Wilson will also adopt resolutions in opposition to the project.
Fort Niagara joins the Town of Porter as the only two Niagara County entities to publicly oppose the project, which could see more than 150 wind turbines erected along the shorelines of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario or both.
According to Power Authority documents, a section of Lake Ontario stretching from Youngstown — just in front of Fort Niagara — to Wilson has been earmarked as a favorable sight for a wind farm and could potentially feature hundreds of turbines, which are more than 400 feet in height.
Old Fort Niagara Director Robert Emerson said a wind farm would jeopardize the historical integrity and character of the fort and potentially having a significant economic impact on the tourism industry which supports Fort Niagara’s existence.
“One of Old Fort Niagara's unique attributes is its combination of original 18th century buildings set against a stunning view of Lake Ontario. Most readers will be surprised to learn that the French Castle is eight years older than Philadelphia's Independence Hall. The placement of massive, modern industrial wind turbines in the Lake would destroy the visual aesthetic of Old Fort Niagara's historic setting,” Emerson said.
The turbines which would be situated about two miles offshore would still impede the view of the Lake Ontario waterfront, Emerson said. The Power Authority has received requests for proposals from five companies, but will not discuss where the private developers plan to put the turbines. However, a map on the Power Authority Web site does note favorable locations.
Emerson stressed wind farms should be located out-of-sight of the Fort or not at all.
“I do not believe that wind energy is so imminent that the public should have little say in the matter, especially when it concerns compromising an internationally significant historical treasure. The Niagara Region is already generating a great deal of clean, sustainable energy with proven technologies,” he said. “The construction of wind turbines in Lake Ontario behind Old Fort Niagara would make the site much less attractive to heritage tourists, which is the vast majority of visitors to the Fort. Most visitors who know about this project are appalled that it is even being considered.”
The Town of Porter adopted a similar resolution last month stating the Town is opposed to the placement of windmills offshore in Lake Ontario. Niagara County, is the only county in New York state to adopt a formal resolution approving of the construction of offshore windmills by the New York Power Authority — something County Legislator Clyde Burmaster said he plans to change.
A resolution being proposed to county lawmakers Tuesday states that a wind turbine project would be in an environmentally and economically sensitive area, affecting scenic vistas, tourism, fishing and pleasure boating as well as impacting housing values to those living along the lake.
Burmaster said Thursday he is confident the resolution will pass.
The $1 billion project could meet the energy demands of up to 615,000 New Yorkers and quell the state’s dependency on coal and oil producing power plants.
Governments in Chatauqua, Wayne, Oswego and Jefferson counties have voted to oppose the project. It is expected the Village of Youngstown and Town of Wilson will also adopt resolutions in opposition to the project.
The false promise of mountaintop industrial wind
In recent months, as I have studied the economic and ecological impacts of mountaintop industrial wind, I have been amazed at the distortions and misrepresentations of the wind developers which, unfortunately, have been accepted without question by many in the media.
As an environmentalist, I have for decades supported a move away from our addiction to oil to more eco-friendly, renewable energy, including wind. However, when I hear the developers spin the tragic Gulf oil spill to justify their desire to use our tax dollars to destroy Maine mountaintops, with as many as 1,800 400-foot turbines spread over 360 miles, I am appalled by how this “justification” is so disingenuous.
The truth is that only about 1 percent of the state’s electricity is generated by oil. In Maine, almost all of the oil consumption is used for heat and transportation. Generating 2,700 megawatts of mountaintop wind will not reduce oil consumption or prevent ecological disasters such as the spill in the Gulf.
Another favorite tactic of the developers is to promote mountaintop industrial wind as a panacea for climate change. While it may seem counter-intuitive, this also is a false promise.
There has never been a coal- or oil-fired power plant closed down due to wind generation.
Since wind is intermittent and not reliable, it is necessary to maintain back-up power or what is called “spinning reserve” to replace the wind power when the wind is not blowing. This has resulted in the need to build additional carbon-emitting power plants.
In China this has meant a new coal-fired plant coming online each week. When the wind is blowing, it is necessary to reduce power from conventional sources. It is simply not possible to just turn on and off the oil and coal power plants in response to constantly changing winds. They can be ramped down, but their efficiency is compromised and the amount of carbon emitted actually increases.
In the case of mountaintop industrial wind, it is necessary to add to the carbon calculation the loss of carbon-sequestering forests due to massive clear-cutting on ridgelines and the construction of roads and power lines.
If the 1,800 turbines were constructed, as much as 50,000 acres of carbon-sequestering forest would have to be clear-cut. In addition, the turbines require electricity to run, which does not come from the turbines and must be generated on site by diesel generators or brought in on separate power lines.
One study done in Colorado actually determined that wind power increased carbon emissions by 10 percent.
Finally, it is particularly disturbing to hear developers tout the economic benefits of mountaintop industrial wind. There is simply no way, in a cost-benefit analysis of mountaintop industrial wind, that it comes out as a good economic option.
The cost of wind generation is two to three times more expensive than conventional power. Our tax dollars in the form of huge subsidies are the only reason mountaintop wind, with its incredibly low efficiency, is being pursued.
It is ironic that public tax dollars are paying for mountaintop wind which will ultimately raise electric rates.
Developers like to tout the benefits of jobs and local and state tax revenues. Yes, it is true that during the mountaintop leveling and construction phase, several hundred temporary jobs are created, but after construction is complete, about one permanent job for each turbine is created. So 360 miles of destroyed mountaintop would ultimately generate about 150 jobs.
While local property taxes may decline, this has not been documented in any place in Maine where wind has been installed. What has been documented is that home values drop from 20 to 40 percent within a 2-mile radius of a wind turbine. People do not want to live near industrial wind plants with their noise and visual pollution.
State and county government may collect some tax dollars, but that will be more than offset by reduced tourism and declining recreational dollars. That is why North Carolina put a moratorium on mountaintop industrial wind. They realized that mountaintop industrial wind would destroy the economic engine fueled by their pristine mountains.
In the end, the only people who will benefit are the developers who will walk away with millions of our tax dollars. Mountaintop wind can be called nothing less than an economic scam, concocted by a few mountain-slayers and profiteers.
It would be far better to target the investment of the $5 billion in tax dollars earmarked for mountaintop wind toward conservation through efficiency and weatherization. That approach would actually decrease our oil consumption, reduce greenhouse gases and create thousands of permanent jobs and business opportunities — things that mountaintop wind simply does not come even close to accomplishing.
As an environmentalist, I have for decades supported a move away from our addiction to oil to more eco-friendly, renewable energy, including wind. However, when I hear the developers spin the tragic Gulf oil spill to justify their desire to use our tax dollars to destroy Maine mountaintops, with as many as 1,800 400-foot turbines spread over 360 miles, I am appalled by how this “justification” is so disingenuous.
The truth is that only about 1 percent of the state’s electricity is generated by oil. In Maine, almost all of the oil consumption is used for heat and transportation. Generating 2,700 megawatts of mountaintop wind will not reduce oil consumption or prevent ecological disasters such as the spill in the Gulf.
Another favorite tactic of the developers is to promote mountaintop industrial wind as a panacea for climate change. While it may seem counter-intuitive, this also is a false promise.
There has never been a coal- or oil-fired power plant closed down due to wind generation.
Since wind is intermittent and not reliable, it is necessary to maintain back-up power or what is called “spinning reserve” to replace the wind power when the wind is not blowing. This has resulted in the need to build additional carbon-emitting power plants.
In China this has meant a new coal-fired plant coming online each week. When the wind is blowing, it is necessary to reduce power from conventional sources. It is simply not possible to just turn on and off the oil and coal power plants in response to constantly changing winds. They can be ramped down, but their efficiency is compromised and the amount of carbon emitted actually increases.
In the case of mountaintop industrial wind, it is necessary to add to the carbon calculation the loss of carbon-sequestering forests due to massive clear-cutting on ridgelines and the construction of roads and power lines.
If the 1,800 turbines were constructed, as much as 50,000 acres of carbon-sequestering forest would have to be clear-cut. In addition, the turbines require electricity to run, which does not come from the turbines and must be generated on site by diesel generators or brought in on separate power lines.
One study done in Colorado actually determined that wind power increased carbon emissions by 10 percent.
Finally, it is particularly disturbing to hear developers tout the economic benefits of mountaintop industrial wind. There is simply no way, in a cost-benefit analysis of mountaintop industrial wind, that it comes out as a good economic option.
The cost of wind generation is two to three times more expensive than conventional power. Our tax dollars in the form of huge subsidies are the only reason mountaintop wind, with its incredibly low efficiency, is being pursued.
It is ironic that public tax dollars are paying for mountaintop wind which will ultimately raise electric rates.
Developers like to tout the benefits of jobs and local and state tax revenues. Yes, it is true that during the mountaintop leveling and construction phase, several hundred temporary jobs are created, but after construction is complete, about one permanent job for each turbine is created. So 360 miles of destroyed mountaintop would ultimately generate about 150 jobs.
While local property taxes may decline, this has not been documented in any place in Maine where wind has been installed. What has been documented is that home values drop from 20 to 40 percent within a 2-mile radius of a wind turbine. People do not want to live near industrial wind plants with their noise and visual pollution.
State and county government may collect some tax dollars, but that will be more than offset by reduced tourism and declining recreational dollars. That is why North Carolina put a moratorium on mountaintop industrial wind. They realized that mountaintop industrial wind would destroy the economic engine fueled by their pristine mountains.
In the end, the only people who will benefit are the developers who will walk away with millions of our tax dollars. Mountaintop wind can be called nothing less than an economic scam, concocted by a few mountain-slayers and profiteers.
It would be far better to target the investment of the $5 billion in tax dollars earmarked for mountaintop wind toward conservation through efficiency and weatherization. That approach would actually decrease our oil consumption, reduce greenhouse gases and create thousands of permanent jobs and business opportunities — things that mountaintop wind simply does not come even close to accomplishing.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
Delinquent $1.5 million tax bill lost in paper trail
WAILUKU - Taxpayers, include "concerned citizen" in your prayers tonight. He just added $1,529,506.94 to Maui County's strained treasury.
Every week, the county Real Property Tax Division updates its Internet posting of the 25 biggest delinquent taxpayers. According to Tax Division administrator Scott Teruya, the list doesn't change often. But it did last week, and an anonymous resident called The Maui News to wonder if Kaheawa Wind Power LLC, which held the top spot, was "out of money."
No, but the company didn't know it was behind on its taxes until a reporter called.
Kent Smith, president of Makana Nui Associates, which is a partner with First Wind in the farm, said telephone calls and e-mails were flying among company officials Wednesday and Thursday to figure out what happened.
Here, according to Smith and Teruya, is how the tax bill got overlooked for three years:
Kaheawa pays all expenses through a state lease, but when the farm went into operation in 2007, the state didn't send the lease and permit papers to the county.
"We knew there was a wind farm there," said Teruya, but there was no paperwork to process.
Kaheawa wasn't getting bills, so it wasn't aware it was delinquent.
Earlier this year, a county tax staffer looked into it more closely, decided taxes were due and sent a bill to the last-known address of the listed owner, UPC Wind in Newton, Mass.
However, between 2007 and now, UPC's interest was renamed First Wind and the offices were moved to Boston.
The bill eventually was returned as undeliverable.
"The state and the county never assessed us and never forwarded any bills," said Smith. "They didn't find any way of contacting the local wind company."
But Teruya said: "It's not our place to go find anyone."
It took about a day for Kaheawa to reconstruct what had happened, and Smith called Teruya on Thursday to assure him that First Wind's chief financial officer, Michael Alvarez, was preparing to wire the money by Tuesday.
"One hundred percent," said Smith by telephone Thursday from a golfing holiday in California.
It could be the harbinger of a big flow of tax revenue for the county. Kaheawa has 20 turbines, and the turbines account for much of the assessed value.
Kaheawa wants to expand by 14 units; Sempra is working on a wind farm of similar size in Ulupalakua; and Castle & Cooke and First Wind are projecting hundreds of turbines on Lanai and/or Molokai.
As of Thursday, Kaheawa still held first place in the list of top 25 delinquents, but Teruya was not concerned. "It seems like their intent is to pay. . . .
"It's good that people are looking at the list," he said.
Every week, the county Real Property Tax Division updates its Internet posting of the 25 biggest delinquent taxpayers. According to Tax Division administrator Scott Teruya, the list doesn't change often. But it did last week, and an anonymous resident called The Maui News to wonder if Kaheawa Wind Power LLC, which held the top spot, was "out of money."
No, but the company didn't know it was behind on its taxes until a reporter called.
Kent Smith, president of Makana Nui Associates, which is a partner with First Wind in the farm, said telephone calls and e-mails were flying among company officials Wednesday and Thursday to figure out what happened.
Here, according to Smith and Teruya, is how the tax bill got overlooked for three years:
Kaheawa pays all expenses through a state lease, but when the farm went into operation in 2007, the state didn't send the lease and permit papers to the county.
"We knew there was a wind farm there," said Teruya, but there was no paperwork to process.
Kaheawa wasn't getting bills, so it wasn't aware it was delinquent.
Earlier this year, a county tax staffer looked into it more closely, decided taxes were due and sent a bill to the last-known address of the listed owner, UPC Wind in Newton, Mass.
However, between 2007 and now, UPC's interest was renamed First Wind and the offices were moved to Boston.
The bill eventually was returned as undeliverable.
"The state and the county never assessed us and never forwarded any bills," said Smith. "They didn't find any way of contacting the local wind company."
But Teruya said: "It's not our place to go find anyone."
It took about a day for Kaheawa to reconstruct what had happened, and Smith called Teruya on Thursday to assure him that First Wind's chief financial officer, Michael Alvarez, was preparing to wire the money by Tuesday.
"One hundred percent," said Smith by telephone Thursday from a golfing holiday in California.
It could be the harbinger of a big flow of tax revenue for the county. Kaheawa has 20 turbines, and the turbines account for much of the assessed value.
Kaheawa wants to expand by 14 units; Sempra is working on a wind farm of similar size in Ulupalakua; and Castle & Cooke and First Wind are projecting hundreds of turbines on Lanai and/or Molokai.
As of Thursday, Kaheawa still held first place in the list of top 25 delinquents, but Teruya was not concerned. "It seems like their intent is to pay. . . .
"It's good that people are looking at the list," he said.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Greece Town Board strikes down turbine proposal
Greece, N.Y.
The New York Power Authority’s Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project (GLOW) was unanimously struck down at Tuesday’s Greece Town Board meeting.
The project, which would install wind turbines off the shores of Monroe County, came with much opposition from local residents.
Greece resident and member of the Great Lakes Concerned Citizen group Suszanne Albright of Edgemere Drive has opposed the project from the beginning, and after months of speaking out against the project, she says the decision Tuesday was “very exciting.”
Albright says her primary concern initially was the possibility of a decline in property value. But now, she says, it is about much more.
“This isn’t even about me anymore, it’s about the Great Lakes,” says Albright. “What would be left of our lake? It would become a mud pit. Our lake provides drinking water. What would happen to our drinking water?”
If the project were to be proposed miles from her home, Albright says she is ready to fight it.
“We need to do everything we can to protect it. Even if it were proposed in Lake Erie, I would still be fighting this fight.”
Monroe County Legislator in District 7, Rick Antelli, drafted a resolution against the project that was sent out July 12.
”I’ve done my homework and there are no economic benefit for the residents in Monroe County,” said Antelli.
Antelli says wind power energy is something that he believes is still in the development phase, with unclear benefits to the community.
“The Lakeshore Monroe County is something to be treasured, and should not be used as a location for an experimental project.”
It is unclear as to what the next steps will be after the Town Board’s decision to oppose the project.
“There is a lack of information out there. We don’t know what the process is going to be and it’s a big area of concern,” says Deputy Supervisor, Jeff McCann. “The power authority has said that they would not try to locate these turbines in communities that did not want them, we’re hopeful that they will be true to that word.”
The New York Power Authority’s Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project (GLOW) was unanimously struck down at Tuesday’s Greece Town Board meeting.
The project, which would install wind turbines off the shores of Monroe County, came with much opposition from local residents.
Greece resident and member of the Great Lakes Concerned Citizen group Suszanne Albright of Edgemere Drive has opposed the project from the beginning, and after months of speaking out against the project, she says the decision Tuesday was “very exciting.”
Albright says her primary concern initially was the possibility of a decline in property value. But now, she says, it is about much more.
“This isn’t even about me anymore, it’s about the Great Lakes,” says Albright. “What would be left of our lake? It would become a mud pit. Our lake provides drinking water. What would happen to our drinking water?”
If the project were to be proposed miles from her home, Albright says she is ready to fight it.
“We need to do everything we can to protect it. Even if it were proposed in Lake Erie, I would still be fighting this fight.”
Monroe County Legislator in District 7, Rick Antelli, drafted a resolution against the project that was sent out July 12.
”I’ve done my homework and there are no economic benefit for the residents in Monroe County,” said Antelli.
Antelli says wind power energy is something that he believes is still in the development phase, with unclear benefits to the community.
“The Lakeshore Monroe County is something to be treasured, and should not be used as a location for an experimental project.”
It is unclear as to what the next steps will be after the Town Board’s decision to oppose the project.
“There is a lack of information out there. We don’t know what the process is going to be and it’s a big area of concern,” says Deputy Supervisor, Jeff McCann. “The power authority has said that they would not try to locate these turbines in communities that did not want them, we’re hopeful that they will be true to that word.”
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Greece board: No to offshore wind
The Greece Town Board voted 5-0 Tuesday evening to oppose the New York Power Authority’s offshore wind project. The board becomes the first elected body in Monroe County, to my knowledge, to go on the record in opposition to the plan.
The resolution states that the board opposes the project “as currently proposed” because the authority hasn’t provided enough information about it, including possible locations and potential economic and other benefits.
A Monroe County legislator from Greece, Rick Antelli, is circulating a resolution opposing the project among his colleagues. Lawmakers in Wayne, Oswego, Jefferson and Chautauqua counties have voted to oppose the authority plan; their counterparts in Niagara County have endorsed it, though some are lobbying for a reversal of that endorsement.
The power authority, based in Westchester County, broached the idea of an offshore wind farm in the New York waters of Lake Ontario or Lake Erie more than a year ago. It solicited formal proposals from wind developers and reportedly received five of them on June 1. Since then, a cone of silence has descended over the authority, and officials there will say nothing about the proposals.
The Democrat and Chronicle filed a request for the proposals under the state Freedom of Information law in early June. The authority eventually denied the request, saying disclosure of any information about the proposals would impair the agency’s ability to award a contract. The newspaper filed an administrative appeal with the authority but has received no response.
Authority chief executive Richard Kessel has said in the past that the authority wouldn’t promote construction of a wind farm off the shoreline of any community that didn’t want them. But it’s not clear if he deems expressions of opinion such as that voiced by the Greece Town Board sufficient cause to site the turbines elsewhere.
One interesting sidelight: Like many Lake Ontario municipalities, the town of Greece has a Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, prepared in conjunction with federal and state coastal management programs. Unlike some others I’ve read, Greece’s plan places great emphasis on preserving the lake ”viewshed.” A survey of residents by the town consultant led to the conclusion that the characteristic they valued most about the waterfront was “a very serene natural setting.”
A lawyer once casually suggested to me that a municipality whose waterfront revitalization plan placed a high value on the viewshed could argue that offshore wind turbines didn’t comply with the plan, and thus the municipality might have standing to intervene in the siting process.
Whether any municipality tries this, and whether it succeeds, remains to be seen.
The resolution states that the board opposes the project “as currently proposed” because the authority hasn’t provided enough information about it, including possible locations and potential economic and other benefits.
A Monroe County legislator from Greece, Rick Antelli, is circulating a resolution opposing the project among his colleagues. Lawmakers in Wayne, Oswego, Jefferson and Chautauqua counties have voted to oppose the authority plan; their counterparts in Niagara County have endorsed it, though some are lobbying for a reversal of that endorsement.
The power authority, based in Westchester County, broached the idea of an offshore wind farm in the New York waters of Lake Ontario or Lake Erie more than a year ago. It solicited formal proposals from wind developers and reportedly received five of them on June 1. Since then, a cone of silence has descended over the authority, and officials there will say nothing about the proposals.
The Democrat and Chronicle filed a request for the proposals under the state Freedom of Information law in early June. The authority eventually denied the request, saying disclosure of any information about the proposals would impair the agency’s ability to award a contract. The newspaper filed an administrative appeal with the authority but has received no response.
Authority chief executive Richard Kessel has said in the past that the authority wouldn’t promote construction of a wind farm off the shoreline of any community that didn’t want them. But it’s not clear if he deems expressions of opinion such as that voiced by the Greece Town Board sufficient cause to site the turbines elsewhere.
One interesting sidelight: Like many Lake Ontario municipalities, the town of Greece has a Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, prepared in conjunction with federal and state coastal management programs. Unlike some others I’ve read, Greece’s plan places great emphasis on preserving the lake ”viewshed.” A survey of residents by the town consultant led to the conclusion that the characteristic they valued most about the waterfront was “a very serene natural setting.”
A lawyer once casually suggested to me that a municipality whose waterfront revitalization plan placed a high value on the viewshed could argue that offshore wind turbines didn’t comply with the plan, and thus the municipality might have standing to intervene in the siting process.
Whether any municipality tries this, and whether it succeeds, remains to be seen.
Wind turbines will pose certain health complications
To the editor:
Haldimand must join with the 58 municipalities throughout Ontario demanding a halt to industrial wind turbine developments until Queen's Park states there is absolutely no link between wind turbines and adverse health effects among people who live near them.
Debilitating health problems, ranging from sleep deprivation to heart palpitations, can arise from the audible noise and vibrations produced by the spinning blades of the wind turbine.
Such health claims are being denied by the wind turbine companies who argue that it is psychosomatic.
This appears to contradict what some British scientists have already concluded and that is the swishing sound caused by wind turbines can "annoy" some people, keeping them awake at night and even causing psychological problems because of stress.
If a person is laying in bed unable to escape listening to an unwanted noise, night after night, at the very least I would describe that as distressing and loss of sleep leads to a host of other illnesses.
Last October, Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound MPP Bill Murdock called for a province-wide moratorium on wind turbine projects which would have forced the provincial medical and environmental experts to conduct proper epidemiological investigations of the full impact on human health.
Mr. Murdock explained "The Liberal government moved quickly with the Green Energy agenda. Bill 150 was passed into law within a very short time, and as a result very many things got over looked." Although unsuccessful he did solicit a curious response from Dr. Arlene King, Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health.
The following statements are found in the hand outs provided by Samsung at the July 8 Open House. In collaboration with Dr. Ray Copes, from the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion, Dr. King stated "The literature review revealed that while there are anecdotal reports of symptoms such as sleep disturbance, headaches, dizziness, anxiety, concentration and learning problems, and tinnitus, there is no scientific evidence, to date, to demonstrate a casual association between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects."
Hello!?
Dictionary definition of anecdotal: "a brief account of any fact or happening." Todate, Dr. King, whetherornotyouhavescientificproofdoes not make these symptoms any less real.
The comment from Dr. Copes, who presented a scientific review of the potential health hazards of wind turbines in a "webinar", is best described as irresponsible.
He said "The review concluded that there is no evidence of noise-induced health effects emitted by wind turbines: sound produced by the turbines is sometimes found to be annoying to some people which may result in stress and sleep disturbance."
I suggest one person would be too many. Your agency has a mandate to protect us, not minimize ill health effects and by doing so you have set a poor example. Samsung is required to undertake an environmental assessment of the potential impacts of wind turbines on human health and ecosystems; a draft copy was made available for the public.
Of the eight project-specific issues that were identified, Public Health and Safety was at the bottom of the list and this indicates to me the lack of meaningful initiative for research into the potential risks of living in an industrial wind factory.
Ray, come out from behind your computer and take Arlene for a drive to experience, first hand with us receptors, the heart pounding effect of turbine "blade thump."
Stantec definition of receptor: "a person on the receiving end." Bring the Haldimand Health and Family Services Medical Officer with you.
Linda Bucsis
Haldimand must join with the 58 municipalities throughout Ontario demanding a halt to industrial wind turbine developments until Queen's Park states there is absolutely no link between wind turbines and adverse health effects among people who live near them.
Debilitating health problems, ranging from sleep deprivation to heart palpitations, can arise from the audible noise and vibrations produced by the spinning blades of the wind turbine.
Such health claims are being denied by the wind turbine companies who argue that it is psychosomatic.
This appears to contradict what some British scientists have already concluded and that is the swishing sound caused by wind turbines can "annoy" some people, keeping them awake at night and even causing psychological problems because of stress.
If a person is laying in bed unable to escape listening to an unwanted noise, night after night, at the very least I would describe that as distressing and loss of sleep leads to a host of other illnesses.
Last October, Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound MPP Bill Murdock called for a province-wide moratorium on wind turbine projects which would have forced the provincial medical and environmental experts to conduct proper epidemiological investigations of the full impact on human health.
Mr. Murdock explained "The Liberal government moved quickly with the Green Energy agenda. Bill 150 was passed into law within a very short time, and as a result very many things got over looked." Although unsuccessful he did solicit a curious response from Dr. Arlene King, Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health.
The following statements are found in the hand outs provided by Samsung at the July 8 Open House. In collaboration with Dr. Ray Copes, from the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion, Dr. King stated "The literature review revealed that while there are anecdotal reports of symptoms such as sleep disturbance, headaches, dizziness, anxiety, concentration and learning problems, and tinnitus, there is no scientific evidence, to date, to demonstrate a casual association between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects."
Hello!?
Dictionary definition of anecdotal: "a brief account of any fact or happening." Todate, Dr. King, whetherornotyouhavescientificproofdoes not make these symptoms any less real.
The comment from Dr. Copes, who presented a scientific review of the potential health hazards of wind turbines in a "webinar", is best described as irresponsible.
He said "The review concluded that there is no evidence of noise-induced health effects emitted by wind turbines: sound produced by the turbines is sometimes found to be annoying to some people which may result in stress and sleep disturbance."
I suggest one person would be too many. Your agency has a mandate to protect us, not minimize ill health effects and by doing so you have set a poor example. Samsung is required to undertake an environmental assessment of the potential impacts of wind turbines on human health and ecosystems; a draft copy was made available for the public.
Of the eight project-specific issues that were identified, Public Health and Safety was at the bottom of the list and this indicates to me the lack of meaningful initiative for research into the potential risks of living in an industrial wind factory.
Ray, come out from behind your computer and take Arlene for a drive to experience, first hand with us receptors, the heart pounding effect of turbine "blade thump."
Stantec definition of receptor: "a person on the receiving end." Bring the Haldimand Health and Family Services Medical Officer with you.
Linda Bucsis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)