The New York Power Authority, which is considering private-sector proposals to erect offshore wind turbines, has failed to fully respond to a legal request made two months ago by the Democrat and Chronicle for information about the proposals.
The authority is promoting construction of one or more wind farms in the New York waters of Lake Ontario or Lake Erie, an idea that has stirred considerable controversy in shoreline communities. Because of that controversy, local officials and activists have also expressed interest in obtaining the information sought in the request.
An authority lawyer is nearly four weeks overdue in answering an administrative appeal filed by the Democrat and Chronicle. The appeal seeks reversal of a decision by a different authority official to deny public access to any documents from the wind-farm proposals.
A spokeswoman for the Power Authority, Connie Cullen, said Tuesday that the Democrat and Chronicle's appeal "is still under review" by the authority's executive vice president and general counsel, Terryl Brown. The appeal was filed June 30 with an addendum the following day. Under a provision of the Freedom of Information law, Brown should have responded no later than July 16.
The authority said it received on June 1 five formal proposals for the wind farms from wind-energy developers, but it has declined to provide any details. The proposals are being considered behind closed doors, and Power Authority officials have said they would only reveal the winning proposal or proposals when the agency's trustees vote on the matter. They've said that likely would not occur until early next year.
Public 'very interested'
Releasing information about the proposals now would make it harder to negotiate a good deal and be unfair to the businesses involved, officials have maintained. In its appeal, the Democrat and Chronicle argued that revealing basic information about the proposals would not impede a contract award.
"It's clear that the public is very interested in this topic and has a right to know what has been proposed. We urge the Power Authority to release this information immediately," said Karen Magnuson, editor and vice president/news of the Democrat and Chronicle.
One fundamental element of the proposals that remains a mystery is where the developers have proposed to build their wind farms, which would feature groups of turbines towering more than 400 feet above the water. The proposed locations are the subject of much speculation on the part of opponents and shoreline residents, who continue to lobby elected officials on the topic.
Information needed
In recent weeks the town boards in Greece and Webster have voted unanimously to oppose the authority's project, and Monroe County legislators have been considering a resolution of their own.
"I didn't file an FOI, but I've requested information and not gotten any," said Ronald Nesbitt, town supervisor in Webster, where the Town Board cited the scarcity of details when it voted 5to0 last week to oppose the project.
In particular, he mentioned a rumor that Irondequoit Bay would be used as a construction staging area if turbines were built off the Monroe shoreline. No one knows if it's a pie-in-the-sky idea or a concrete proposal. Nesbitt said that rumor, and the town's inability to prove or disprove it, is largely what convinced board members to oppose the project.
"We need to read through concrete information. That's all I'm looking for," he said.
Nesbitt, citing his 15 years' experience in government, said he's learned to be wary of an agency that won't talk about a proposed project. Those are the agencies, he said, that want to "just ram it through and take it home."
"That's what some people are afraid of. I can see it. I know how processes work," Nesbitt said.
Al Isselhard, who lives on the Lake Ontario shoreline in Wolcott, Wayne County, and helped start an opposition group called Great Lakes Concerned Citizens, said he believes the authority has a self-serving reason for not releasing information about the proposals.
"They know that if they told people the potential locations the developers have picked ... there would be more organization specific to those areas to put up a fight against these locations," he said.
Isselhard filed his own FOI with the power authority late last year, a seemingly simple request for the sign-in sheets at a public meeting that he and dozens of other people had attended on the wind-farm project. He was given sheets, but information was blacked out and at least one sheet — the one that had his own name on it — was withheld.
"They have nothing but contempt for the FOIL law. That's from experience," Isselhard said.
Robert J. Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government, said he believes the authority has a legal obligation to make the documents public.
"If the deadline for submission of bids has been reached, in my opinion there is no way disclosure of the names of the bidders or basic details about the bids could impair the ability of the Power Authority to get the best deal for the taxpayer," he said. "In some instances, I would think that disclosure would enhance the ability of the government to make a better deal, not diminish their ability."
The Democrat and Chronicle's initial FOI law request was made June 10. It received no acknowledgment of the request within five business days, as required by the law. When no response was received by the end of the month, the Democrat and Chronicle made use of a part of the law that allows an administrative appeal to be filed if an agency ignores an FOI request.
Authority's position
The day after that appeal was sent via e-mail to the authority, the Democrat and Chronicle received an e-mailed response denying the initial request on the grounds that disclosure would "impair present or imminent contract awards." The authority's records access officer also said she had e-mailed an acknowledgment within the five-day window, though the Democrat and Chronicle had no record of receiving that response.
The Democrat and Chronicle then filed an addendum to its appeal, refuting the points made in the belated denial.
The FOI law doesn't provide for fines when public officials do not abide by the law. But the law does allow a party who challenges an appeal in court to seek attorney's fees and related costs when the agency had no "reasonable basis" for denying the request or "failed to respond to a request or appeal within the statutory time."
SORR@DemocratandChronicle.com
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Scientist Believes What You Can't Hear Can Hurt You
A wind turbine is a rotary device with a gigantic propeller whose span can be as big as a football field. That propeller turns in the wind to generate electricity. Although wind farms are more often found in Europe than in the United States, they’re rapidly becoming more popular here as a green energy source, which 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.
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.
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.
Alec Salt, PhD, a researcher at Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine who is supported by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) 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.”
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.
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.
Alec Salt, PhD, a researcher at Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine who is supported by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) 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.”
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Some who created wind-power fast track now questioning the goals they set
The Wind Energy Act of 2008, which gave developers a fast track for putting up wind turbines on some of the state’s treasured high ground, was a piece of legislation passed at the time in the name of jobs, energy independence and climate change.
“There is tremendous potential for Maine to become a leader in clean, renewable energy, including wind energy,” said Gov. John Baldacci, who appointed the task force whose report led to the bill. “This kind of investment would create jobs and help to expand Maine’s economy.”
But now, two years after the law was championed by Baldacci, some members of the task force who supported the Wind Energy Act are questioning whether the goals they set for wind power can or even should be achieved.
Critics and even some one-time supporters say the proponents of the law were swept up in a tidal wave of enthusiasm for a technology that turns out to require significant sacrifice from the state, but has little to offer Maine in return.
That issue was faced head-on recently when the state Land Use Regulation Commission was asked to rule on a TransCanada wind project in western Maine.
LURC Commissioner Ed Laverty summed up the problem with the bill: “Our job is to protect the resources in these high mountain areas given the fragile nature, and the rich nature of the resources in these areas, we have to ask ourselves, to what extent can these benefits really outweigh the long-term costs?
Chris O’Neil, a former state legislator who now works as a public affairs consultant to groups opposing wind power development in Maine’s mountains, said that the governor’s vision was fundamentally flawed.
“To fulfill the charge of making Maine a leader in wind power development and to simultaneously protect Maine’s quality of place is impossible,” O’Neil said. The bill constituted one of the most significant changes in the state’s land use laws in a generation: • It weakened long-standing rules that would have required wind turbines “to fit harmoniously into the landscape.” LURC director Catherine Carroll said, “That’s a huge change.”
• The bill cut off a layer of appeal for those protesting state permits for wind power.
• It set ambitious goals for the development of wind power that could result in 1,000 to 2,000 turbines being constructed along hundreds of miles of Maine’s landscape, including the highly prized mountaintops where wind blows hard and more consistently.
• It opened every acre of the state’s 400 municipalities to fast-track wind development.
Baldacci said all this could be done without hurting Maine’s landscape or the tourism industry.
The legislation was based on the report of the Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power Development, whose members all publicly favored wind power development and who, likewise, asserted that their blueprint for wind power development would return substantial rewards and could be pursued without sacrifice.
“Maine can become a leader in wind power development, while protecting Maine’s quality of place and natural resources and delivering meaningful benefits to our economy, environment and Maine people,” task force members wrote.
Now, as wind turbines are sprouting on Maine’s mountains accompanied by heavy machinery, roads, transmission lines, substations, wells and concrete plants, that certainty is yielding to doubt for some. “I think people didn’t have a good appreciation of this, including us, for what the whole thing entails,” said Maine Audubon’s Jody Jones, a biologist who served on the task force. “This process was another step to better environmental policy, but there were clearly flaws.”
And members of LURC have recently indicated they’ll turn down TransCanada’s wind power development in an ecologically sensitive, high-elevation region near the Canadian border. The move was widely seen as a rebuke to the idea that wind power should be developed at all costs and enraged the developer and wind power promoters.
Momentum slipping
That the unanimity behind the wind power law is breaking down does not surprise Jones.
“People live near them, projects have been built, we can touch and feel them in a way that’s not theoretical. There isn’t the momentum for wind power at all costs that there was when the task force did its work,” Jones said.
That momentum may have papered over some significant differences among task force members that are now becoming more obvious.
As they neared completion of their report on wind power development in December 2007, Baldacci made the unusual move of sending his senior policy adviser Karin Tilberg to press task force members to issue a unanimous set of recommendations.
They did as Baldacci asked, and that unanimity, from a group whose members represented prominent environmental groups as well as wind power developers, set the stage for the bill’s unanimous passage through a legislative committee.
Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers didn’t debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, said legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met — the number is likely to be at least 1,000 and perhaps as high as 2,000.
Instead, they got carried along in the wave of enthusiasm that emerged from the administration, the legislative committee, wind power developers and the governor’s task force.
“Wind power was exciting,” said Pingree. “I think legislators had a sense we wanted to be bold and have the state be a real leader in this area — they may not have known how many turbines or the challenges of siting that many turbines.”
Proponents of the bill’s goals say that it addressed significant problems with Maine law that hindered the development of what could be a powerful source of economic development in the state. Law professor Orlando Delogu told the task force that streamlining the regulatory burden on wind power to promote the industry in Maine could mean billions of dollars of investment and employment in the state:
“This energy source, this industry, has the capacity to infuse somewhere between $2-3 billion dollars of new capital investment into [the] Maine economy,” Delogu wrote in a paper included in the task force’s final report to the governor. “By historic standards these are staggering numbers but at the same time this is a level of investment that is clearly within reach — Maine has the critically necessary wind resource.”
Bill sponsor Sen. Phil Bartlett, a member of the wind power task force and a strong advocate of wind energy development in Maine, said in a recent interview that New England has growing power needs and new regulations that require the production of renewable power such as wind. Maine, said Bartlett, has the wind to meet that demand. But the state needed regulations that could help it feed that market swiftly.
“Maine is in a unique position because we have so much wind power potential. We’re in a position to capitalize on that to help Maine people in the region,” Bartlett said.
Task force members roundly praised their chairman, Alec Giffen, for forging unanimity on the report that led to the legislation. They said that Maine is better off with a law that creates regulatory certainty for wind rather than the muddle of old regulations that led to expensive battles over siting projects. And they said that addressing, through the legislation, what the NRCM’s Pete Didisheim called the “crisis” of climate change is critical.
But an investigation by the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting of the workings of the wind power task force through numerous interviews and a review of relevant documents reveals a number of problems with the law and its development:
• Appointing wind power supporters to the task force and rushing the legislation through the Legislature failed to address public skepticism about the state’s wind power policy. Issues that may have been aired through a State House debate continue to be raised by a growing number of critics of wind power, who doubt the policy’s premises that wind power brings widespread economic benefits, moves Maine off fossil fuels or can be developed without compromising the quality of Maine’s landscape.
• Members of LURC, who review proposals for wind power development in the unorganized territory, have expressed consternation about the contradictory and perhaps unachievable goals of the Wind Power Act — to promote wind power development, ensure communities get benefits from the development and protect the very parts of the Maine landscape where wind power turbines are likely to be built.
• The designation of “expedited wind power zones” along some of the state’s wildest mountaintops has raised the value of that real estate, since it is now a target for wind power development. That had the unintended effect of creating competition for conservationists who want to protect that land.
• The task force ignored the need for massive new transmission line construction to move wind energy from turbines to market, which could be costly to ratepayers, disrupt habitat and landscape and engender significant opposition from towns and conservation groups.
• At least one significant task force recommendation — to allow the DEP commissioner to modify permits if wind turbines made too much noise — was left out of the governor’s bill that became the wind power law. • One of the most crucial discussions held by the task force — what lands to open to expedited wind power development — is not in the public record. There were no minutes taken or produced for those final two meetings of the task force.
Baldacci a believer
Gov. Baldacci remains steadfast in his support of wind power. He and Tilberg refused to grant the center an interview in person, but Baldacci responded to questions in writing:
“I believe that reducing reliance on fossil fuels for energy in Maine and the region will greatly increase Maine’s quality of place by reducing carbon emissions, slowing climate change from greenhouse gases (which affects our forests, watersheds, oceans and fisheries, agriculture, wildlife and other natural resources), pushing natural gas off the margins in the bid stack and thereby reducing electricity costs, promoting energy security and self-reliance, and keeping Maine citizens’ dollars circulating in Maine and not being sent to other jurisdictions.
“For many people including myself, quality of place includes living in a manner that does not push environmental or safety risks to other places and people.”
Land-based wind power development is certainly not derailed in Maine. But the wind power bandwagon that came roaring out of the State House in 2008 is encountering obstacles that are slowing it down.
“Call it the bloom off the rose, call it the emperor being exposed as having no clothes,” said O’Neil. “As the public learns the truth about the impacts and the benefits of this sort of development, the public is losing its interest in industrial scale wind.”
“There is tremendous potential for Maine to become a leader in clean, renewable energy, including wind energy,” said Gov. John Baldacci, who appointed the task force whose report led to the bill. “This kind of investment would create jobs and help to expand Maine’s economy.”
But now, two years after the law was championed by Baldacci, some members of the task force who supported the Wind Energy Act are questioning whether the goals they set for wind power can or even should be achieved.
Critics and even some one-time supporters say the proponents of the law were swept up in a tidal wave of enthusiasm for a technology that turns out to require significant sacrifice from the state, but has little to offer Maine in return.
That issue was faced head-on recently when the state Land Use Regulation Commission was asked to rule on a TransCanada wind project in western Maine.
LURC Commissioner Ed Laverty summed up the problem with the bill: “Our job is to protect the resources in these high mountain areas given the fragile nature, and the rich nature of the resources in these areas, we have to ask ourselves, to what extent can these benefits really outweigh the long-term costs?
Chris O’Neil, a former state legislator who now works as a public affairs consultant to groups opposing wind power development in Maine’s mountains, said that the governor’s vision was fundamentally flawed.
“To fulfill the charge of making Maine a leader in wind power development and to simultaneously protect Maine’s quality of place is impossible,” O’Neil said. The bill constituted one of the most significant changes in the state’s land use laws in a generation: • It weakened long-standing rules that would have required wind turbines “to fit harmoniously into the landscape.” LURC director Catherine Carroll said, “That’s a huge change.”
• The bill cut off a layer of appeal for those protesting state permits for wind power.
• It set ambitious goals for the development of wind power that could result in 1,000 to 2,000 turbines being constructed along hundreds of miles of Maine’s landscape, including the highly prized mountaintops where wind blows hard and more consistently.
• It opened every acre of the state’s 400 municipalities to fast-track wind development.
Baldacci said all this could be done without hurting Maine’s landscape or the tourism industry.
The legislation was based on the report of the Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power Development, whose members all publicly favored wind power development and who, likewise, asserted that their blueprint for wind power development would return substantial rewards and could be pursued without sacrifice.
“Maine can become a leader in wind power development, while protecting Maine’s quality of place and natural resources and delivering meaningful benefits to our economy, environment and Maine people,” task force members wrote.
Now, as wind turbines are sprouting on Maine’s mountains accompanied by heavy machinery, roads, transmission lines, substations, wells and concrete plants, that certainty is yielding to doubt for some. “I think people didn’t have a good appreciation of this, including us, for what the whole thing entails,” said Maine Audubon’s Jody Jones, a biologist who served on the task force. “This process was another step to better environmental policy, but there were clearly flaws.”
And members of LURC have recently indicated they’ll turn down TransCanada’s wind power development in an ecologically sensitive, high-elevation region near the Canadian border. The move was widely seen as a rebuke to the idea that wind power should be developed at all costs and enraged the developer and wind power promoters.
Momentum slipping
That the unanimity behind the wind power law is breaking down does not surprise Jones.
“People live near them, projects have been built, we can touch and feel them in a way that’s not theoretical. There isn’t the momentum for wind power at all costs that there was when the task force did its work,” Jones said.
That momentum may have papered over some significant differences among task force members that are now becoming more obvious.
As they neared completion of their report on wind power development in December 2007, Baldacci made the unusual move of sending his senior policy adviser Karin Tilberg to press task force members to issue a unanimous set of recommendations.
They did as Baldacci asked, and that unanimity, from a group whose members represented prominent environmental groups as well as wind power developers, set the stage for the bill’s unanimous passage through a legislative committee.
Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers didn’t debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, said legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met — the number is likely to be at least 1,000 and perhaps as high as 2,000.
Instead, they got carried along in the wave of enthusiasm that emerged from the administration, the legislative committee, wind power developers and the governor’s task force.
“Wind power was exciting,” said Pingree. “I think legislators had a sense we wanted to be bold and have the state be a real leader in this area — they may not have known how many turbines or the challenges of siting that many turbines.”
Proponents of the bill’s goals say that it addressed significant problems with Maine law that hindered the development of what could be a powerful source of economic development in the state. Law professor Orlando Delogu told the task force that streamlining the regulatory burden on wind power to promote the industry in Maine could mean billions of dollars of investment and employment in the state:
“This energy source, this industry, has the capacity to infuse somewhere between $2-3 billion dollars of new capital investment into [the] Maine economy,” Delogu wrote in a paper included in the task force’s final report to the governor. “By historic standards these are staggering numbers but at the same time this is a level of investment that is clearly within reach — Maine has the critically necessary wind resource.”
Bill sponsor Sen. Phil Bartlett, a member of the wind power task force and a strong advocate of wind energy development in Maine, said in a recent interview that New England has growing power needs and new regulations that require the production of renewable power such as wind. Maine, said Bartlett, has the wind to meet that demand. But the state needed regulations that could help it feed that market swiftly.
“Maine is in a unique position because we have so much wind power potential. We’re in a position to capitalize on that to help Maine people in the region,” Bartlett said.
Task force members roundly praised their chairman, Alec Giffen, for forging unanimity on the report that led to the legislation. They said that Maine is better off with a law that creates regulatory certainty for wind rather than the muddle of old regulations that led to expensive battles over siting projects. And they said that addressing, through the legislation, what the NRCM’s Pete Didisheim called the “crisis” of climate change is critical.
But an investigation by the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting of the workings of the wind power task force through numerous interviews and a review of relevant documents reveals a number of problems with the law and its development:
• Appointing wind power supporters to the task force and rushing the legislation through the Legislature failed to address public skepticism about the state’s wind power policy. Issues that may have been aired through a State House debate continue to be raised by a growing number of critics of wind power, who doubt the policy’s premises that wind power brings widespread economic benefits, moves Maine off fossil fuels or can be developed without compromising the quality of Maine’s landscape.
• Members of LURC, who review proposals for wind power development in the unorganized territory, have expressed consternation about the contradictory and perhaps unachievable goals of the Wind Power Act — to promote wind power development, ensure communities get benefits from the development and protect the very parts of the Maine landscape where wind power turbines are likely to be built.
• The designation of “expedited wind power zones” along some of the state’s wildest mountaintops has raised the value of that real estate, since it is now a target for wind power development. That had the unintended effect of creating competition for conservationists who want to protect that land.
• The task force ignored the need for massive new transmission line construction to move wind energy from turbines to market, which could be costly to ratepayers, disrupt habitat and landscape and engender significant opposition from towns and conservation groups.
• At least one significant task force recommendation — to allow the DEP commissioner to modify permits if wind turbines made too much noise — was left out of the governor’s bill that became the wind power law. • One of the most crucial discussions held by the task force — what lands to open to expedited wind power development — is not in the public record. There were no minutes taken or produced for those final two meetings of the task force.
Baldacci a believer
Gov. Baldacci remains steadfast in his support of wind power. He and Tilberg refused to grant the center an interview in person, but Baldacci responded to questions in writing:
“I believe that reducing reliance on fossil fuels for energy in Maine and the region will greatly increase Maine’s quality of place by reducing carbon emissions, slowing climate change from greenhouse gases (which affects our forests, watersheds, oceans and fisheries, agriculture, wildlife and other natural resources), pushing natural gas off the margins in the bid stack and thereby reducing electricity costs, promoting energy security and self-reliance, and keeping Maine citizens’ dollars circulating in Maine and not being sent to other jurisdictions.
“For many people including myself, quality of place includes living in a manner that does not push environmental or safety risks to other places and people.”
Land-based wind power development is certainly not derailed in Maine. But the wind power bandwagon that came roaring out of the State House in 2008 is encountering obstacles that are slowing it down.
“Call it the bloom off the rose, call it the emperor being exposed as having no clothes,” said O’Neil. “As the public learns the truth about the impacts and the benefits of this sort of development, the public is losing its interest in industrial scale wind.”
Noise Study May Be Hammond's Next Step
HAMMOND - After four months of meetings, the Hammond Wind Advisory committee made its first recommendation to the Hammond Town Board: to ask for funding for an ambient noise study to be conducted throughout the proposed wind overlay district for the town.
Wind committee facilitator, David B. Duff, told the town board that his committee was struggling to decide between relative noise standards and fixed noise standards. He said the committee was "confused" as to precisely what the ambient - or existing, background noise - sound level was in Hammond. Mr. Duff also said that the committee, as a whole, had not yet decided between setting site specific noise and setback standards or "average" noise standards that could be used as a blanket policy for the town.
Mr. Duff said that ambient sound levels throughout Hammond would "vary depending on location."
Supervisor Ronald W. Bertram said his research showed that sound studies could be very expensive, to which Mr. Duff countered with another proposal.
"I anticipated the board's answer," Mr. Duff said, "and took it upon myself to make some inquiries."
According to Mr. Duff, two sound specialists, Charles Ebbing and Clif Schneider - who have each made presentations to the wind committee - have offered their courtesy assistance in undertaking such a sound study.
"They are willing to loan us an instrument (to measure ambient sound), and to train committee members on how best to conduct such a study," Mr. Duff said, noting that, "while there is nothing scientific about it, it is a freebie."
Mr. Duff said the pair are willing to set a date and time to meet representatives of the committee in Clayton - and anyone else from the community who is interested in either learning more or assisting the wind committee in conducting the study - for a couple hours of sound measuring education.
Mr. Bertram instructed Mr. Duff to take the discussion back to the wind committee.
"We'll see where it goes from there," Mr. Bertram said.
The sound study endeavor, Mr. Bertram said, might be a good way to get wind committee applicants who were not selected onto the committee involved in the process. Applicants not selected to the committee included Sonja Kocan, Nancy Chase, Jay Benton, Steven White, Ann Root, Thomas Chapman, Jim Misenko, Mary Hamilton, Howard Demick, Larry Fuller, and Kelly Rogers.
The wind committee, composed of Leonard Bickelhaupt, Allan P. Newell, Frederick A. Proven, Dr. Stephen D. Sarfaty, Michele W. McQueer, Richard Champany, Don A. Ceresoli Jr., Merritt V. Young, Ronald Papke, and Rudolph Schneider, will meet again on Monday at 7 p.m. in the village hall.
Wind committee facilitator, David B. Duff, told the town board that his committee was struggling to decide between relative noise standards and fixed noise standards. He said the committee was "confused" as to precisely what the ambient - or existing, background noise - sound level was in Hammond. Mr. Duff also said that the committee, as a whole, had not yet decided between setting site specific noise and setback standards or "average" noise standards that could be used as a blanket policy for the town.
Mr. Duff said that ambient sound levels throughout Hammond would "vary depending on location."
Supervisor Ronald W. Bertram said his research showed that sound studies could be very expensive, to which Mr. Duff countered with another proposal.
"I anticipated the board's answer," Mr. Duff said, "and took it upon myself to make some inquiries."
According to Mr. Duff, two sound specialists, Charles Ebbing and Clif Schneider - who have each made presentations to the wind committee - have offered their courtesy assistance in undertaking such a sound study.
"They are willing to loan us an instrument (to measure ambient sound), and to train committee members on how best to conduct such a study," Mr. Duff said, noting that, "while there is nothing scientific about it, it is a freebie."
Mr. Duff said the pair are willing to set a date and time to meet representatives of the committee in Clayton - and anyone else from the community who is interested in either learning more or assisting the wind committee in conducting the study - for a couple hours of sound measuring education.
Mr. Bertram instructed Mr. Duff to take the discussion back to the wind committee.
"We'll see where it goes from there," Mr. Bertram said.
The sound study endeavor, Mr. Bertram said, might be a good way to get wind committee applicants who were not selected onto the committee involved in the process. Applicants not selected to the committee included Sonja Kocan, Nancy Chase, Jay Benton, Steven White, Ann Root, Thomas Chapman, Jim Misenko, Mary Hamilton, Howard Demick, Larry Fuller, and Kelly Rogers.
The wind committee, composed of Leonard Bickelhaupt, Allan P. Newell, Frederick A. Proven, Dr. Stephen D. Sarfaty, Michele W. McQueer, Richard Champany, Don A. Ceresoli Jr., Merritt V. Young, Ronald Papke, and Rudolph Schneider, will meet again on Monday at 7 p.m. in the village hall.
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Saturday, August 07, 2010
Webster rejects wind turbine plan
Joining their counterparts from Greece, members of the Webster Town Board have come out in opposition to plans for offshore wind turbines in Lake Ontario or Lake Erie.
Despite the Webster vote and others like it, the New York Power Authority, which is pushing the plan for offshore wind farms, will make no immediate decision on where the farms might be built, a spokeswoman said Friday.
"The Power Authority is keeping its options open concerning the project location in order to listen to the greatest amount of public input possible and to give the many different facets of the general public an opportunity to be heard, including individual citizens, municipal officials and business, environmental, recreational, academic and civic groups," said spokeswoman Connie Cullen.
The Webster board voted 5to0 Thursday night to oppose the authority's proposal for electricity-generating offshore wind farms. The authority has been considering proposals from private wind-energy developers.
"We wanted to side on the side of being cautious, because there's not enough information out there yet. The Power Authority has not provided us with any information," Webster Supervisor Ron Nesbitt said Friday. "If in the future they came forward with information that is more appealing, we could change our position."
The Greece Town Board passed a similar nonbinding resolution two weeks ago. County lawmakers in Wayne, Oswego, Jefferson and Chautauqua counties have come out against the plan. The Niagara County Legislature has endorsed the plan.
"The Webster Town Board listened and acted in the best interests of its residents," said Al Isselhard, a shoreline resident in Wolcott, Wayne County, and a leader of Great Lakes Concerned Citizens.
The group lobbied in Greece and Webster for the resolutions of opposition. Isselhard said the focus shifts to Irondequoit.
A Monroe County legislator from Greece, Republican Rick Antelli, has written a nonbinding resolution of opposition as well. There will be no formal vote, and the period during which other county lawmakers may sign Antelli's resolution has just begun.
The Power Authority said it received five wind-farm proposals on June 1, but it has not revealed any information about them, including where the private-sector developers involved would like to erect their turbines.
A study done for the authority identified five technically suitable areas for wind farms, including a stretch of water in Lake Ontario from Greece on the west to Ontario, Wayne County, on the east, and another off the eastern half of Wayne County. Turbines, which likely would be more than 400 feet tall, would be in clusters two to five miles from the shoreline.
Offshore locations are attractive because winds blow harder and most consistently over water.
Opponents, however, have raised concern about possible aesthetic impact, harm to fishing, boating and tourism, and impact on shoreline property values.
Despite the Webster vote and others like it, the New York Power Authority, which is pushing the plan for offshore wind farms, will make no immediate decision on where the farms might be built, a spokeswoman said Friday.
"The Power Authority is keeping its options open concerning the project location in order to listen to the greatest amount of public input possible and to give the many different facets of the general public an opportunity to be heard, including individual citizens, municipal officials and business, environmental, recreational, academic and civic groups," said spokeswoman Connie Cullen.
The Webster board voted 5to0 Thursday night to oppose the authority's proposal for electricity-generating offshore wind farms. The authority has been considering proposals from private wind-energy developers.
"We wanted to side on the side of being cautious, because there's not enough information out there yet. The Power Authority has not provided us with any information," Webster Supervisor Ron Nesbitt said Friday. "If in the future they came forward with information that is more appealing, we could change our position."
The Greece Town Board passed a similar nonbinding resolution two weeks ago. County lawmakers in Wayne, Oswego, Jefferson and Chautauqua counties have come out against the plan. The Niagara County Legislature has endorsed the plan.
"The Webster Town Board listened and acted in the best interests of its residents," said Al Isselhard, a shoreline resident in Wolcott, Wayne County, and a leader of Great Lakes Concerned Citizens.
The group lobbied in Greece and Webster for the resolutions of opposition. Isselhard said the focus shifts to Irondequoit.
A Monroe County legislator from Greece, Republican Rick Antelli, has written a nonbinding resolution of opposition as well. There will be no formal vote, and the period during which other county lawmakers may sign Antelli's resolution has just begun.
The Power Authority said it received five wind-farm proposals on June 1, but it has not revealed any information about them, including where the private-sector developers involved would like to erect their turbines.
A study done for the authority identified five technically suitable areas for wind farms, including a stretch of water in Lake Ontario from Greece on the west to Ontario, Wayne County, on the east, and another off the eastern half of Wayne County. Turbines, which likely would be more than 400 feet tall, would be in clusters two to five miles from the shoreline.
Offshore locations are attractive because winds blow harder and most consistently over water.
Opponents, however, have raised concern about possible aesthetic impact, harm to fishing, boating and tourism, and impact on shoreline property values.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Wind turbines make their way to Herkimer County
A caravan of wind turbines was making its way through the streets of Utica on Wednesday afternoon.
Three trucks were carrying the, on average, 160 foot long turbines, to Herkimer County.
The delivery was still on its way to the Town of Fairfield Wednesday evening, where the site of the new and controversial wind farm is being constructed.
37 turbines are being put up, and a lot of construction activity has already begun on Hardscrabble Road. The project managers estimate that the 37 windmills will be built by December.
There has been discussions with the developer, Iberdrola Renewables since about 2006, said Town of Fairfield Supervisor Richard Souza. Now that the deal is finalized, turbines will soon be in motion generating power and revenue for the Town of Fairfield.
"With the money condition we are in, we need it. If not for this, the taxes next year would almost double," Souza said.
According to the supervisor, the town will see $170,000 per year for 20 years, from the deal.
"What we will start doing this year in our budget is earmarking that money for certain expenditures," Souza said. "So what were doing in the long-run is saving and also not raising taxes."
Despite all the positives Souza says the windmills will bring into the town financially, there are still some who oppose putting windmills in Fairfield.
Carol Riesel says she still hates the thought of windmills in her backyard and her neighbors do to so much so that they are trying to sell their homes before the project is complete.
"Everybody is against it (on her road). I think one of the primary concerns is there was a never a vote. No one ever asked us how we felt about it," Riesel said.
Three trucks were carrying the, on average, 160 foot long turbines, to Herkimer County.
The delivery was still on its way to the Town of Fairfield Wednesday evening, where the site of the new and controversial wind farm is being constructed.
37 turbines are being put up, and a lot of construction activity has already begun on Hardscrabble Road. The project managers estimate that the 37 windmills will be built by December.
There has been discussions with the developer, Iberdrola Renewables since about 2006, said Town of Fairfield Supervisor Richard Souza. Now that the deal is finalized, turbines will soon be in motion generating power and revenue for the Town of Fairfield.
"With the money condition we are in, we need it. If not for this, the taxes next year would almost double," Souza said.
According to the supervisor, the town will see $170,000 per year for 20 years, from the deal.
"What we will start doing this year in our budget is earmarking that money for certain expenditures," Souza said. "So what were doing in the long-run is saving and also not raising taxes."
Despite all the positives Souza says the windmills will bring into the town financially, there are still some who oppose putting windmills in Fairfield.
Carol Riesel says she still hates the thought of windmills in her backyard and her neighbors do to so much so that they are trying to sell their homes before the project is complete.
"Everybody is against it (on her road). I think one of the primary concerns is there was a never a vote. No one ever asked us how we felt about it," Riesel said.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
JCIDA: all jurisdictions must agree to PILOTs
Jefferson County could see repeats of the rancor that accompanied the Galloo Island Wind Farm payment-in-lieu-of-taxes approval at the county Legislature after changes made Tuesday morning.
A payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for any wind power project will need approval from all of the involved taxing jurisdictions, agreed members of the governance committee of the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency.
The committee is updating its uniform tax-exempt policy, which normally allows PILOTs to be approved only by the agency board unless they fall outside of the set policy. The Galloo Island PILOT had exceptions to the current policy, so three taxing jurisdictions were required to approve it.
"I think those communities should run their own shop," board member John Doldo Jr. said. "They ought to have the option of using or not using it."
He wanted to see the approval required on all PILOTs.
"Can a project get to the PILOT stage without approval of the townships?" asked board member Michelle D. Pfaff.
Agency Chief Executive Officer Donald C. Alexander said a project couldn't and he encouraged the board to think about the ramifications on development by leaving every PILOT approval up to the whims of local boards.
"A uniform policy gives developers a notion to talk to their finance people," he said. "It gives them a fixed notion of their cost."
Chairman Urban C. Hirschey agreed with Mr. Doldo on wind power projects.
"There is potential for irreversible damage," he said. "The towns must be trusted to control their own destiny."
Mr. Hirschey referred to the track of development in Cape Vincent, where he is town supervisor, and talked about the potential for conflicts of interest for Town Council and Planning Board members there.
Board member Kent D. Burto said the agency board needs to avoid getting involved in town politics.
"What I see is unfortunately a town that doesn't have control because of the mix of the board and because of that, there are fears and because of those fears, they are looking to the IDA board to resolve them," he said. "That's not the role of the IDA board. We need to look at countywide issues."
The Galloo Island Wind Farm's PILOT was approved by the county Legislature after months of intense pressure. Some members of the county Board of Legislators didn't want to face the same pressures after the Galloo Island vote.
Legislator Michael J. Docteur, R-Cape Vincent, attended the meeting and said he wants to see approval votes on each PILOT instead of passing a uniform tax-exempt policy that would negate the need for taxing jurisdictions to vote.
"Our board did not vote by resolution to charge this group to come up with a UTEP that would overrule the local vote," he said.
"What are you going to do when two taxing jurisdictions support it and one doesn't, which is somewhat likely to happen?" asked attorney W. James Heary. "You will put yourself in a position where if one taxing jurisdiction says, 'No,' you can't do the deal."
Mr. Doldo said, "That community should resolve that problem."
Like the Galloo Island PILOT, the draft policy discussed would allow for agreements to run up to 20 years, instead of the previous 15.
The draft policy includes a separate clause for renewable energy PILOTs, which allows for a fixed base payment per megawatt, increasing each year, and supplemental payments based on high electricity prices. Exact figures would be included in a project development agreement.
In any case, a PILOT already can be approved only after the state environmental quality review and site plan review process is complete. For wind projects, the committee agreed to add that taxing jurisdictions must approve that a PILOT will occur and what the distribution of proceeds will be before the agency can begin collecting and disbursing money.
Normally, PILOT proceeds are disbursed according to the distribution of property taxes among the county, school district and municipality.
"We have to hold up the PILOT until there is agreement among the taxing jurisdictions," Mr. Hirschey said.
"We have used the threat of pro rata distribution to force the negotiations," Mr. Alexander said. "If pro rata is not going to be appealing to people, they will come to terms."
The committee also changed the policy so that all PILOT agreements must include requirements for local labor use and developers must comply with applicable ethics codes. In earlier drafts, that was required just for renewable energy projects.
The full agency board will consider the policy at its meeting at 9 a.m. Thursday in the conference room at 800 Starbuck Ave. If approved, it will be sent to every taxing jurisdiction in the county. They will have 60 days to comment before a public hearing and the agency board makes a final decision.
A payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for any wind power project will need approval from all of the involved taxing jurisdictions, agreed members of the governance committee of the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency.
The committee is updating its uniform tax-exempt policy, which normally allows PILOTs to be approved only by the agency board unless they fall outside of the set policy. The Galloo Island PILOT had exceptions to the current policy, so three taxing jurisdictions were required to approve it.
"I think those communities should run their own shop," board member John Doldo Jr. said. "They ought to have the option of using or not using it."
He wanted to see the approval required on all PILOTs.
"Can a project get to the PILOT stage without approval of the townships?" asked board member Michelle D. Pfaff.
Agency Chief Executive Officer Donald C. Alexander said a project couldn't and he encouraged the board to think about the ramifications on development by leaving every PILOT approval up to the whims of local boards.
"A uniform policy gives developers a notion to talk to their finance people," he said. "It gives them a fixed notion of their cost."
Chairman Urban C. Hirschey agreed with Mr. Doldo on wind power projects.
"There is potential for irreversible damage," he said. "The towns must be trusted to control their own destiny."
Mr. Hirschey referred to the track of development in Cape Vincent, where he is town supervisor, and talked about the potential for conflicts of interest for Town Council and Planning Board members there.
Board member Kent D. Burto said the agency board needs to avoid getting involved in town politics.
"What I see is unfortunately a town that doesn't have control because of the mix of the board and because of that, there are fears and because of those fears, they are looking to the IDA board to resolve them," he said. "That's not the role of the IDA board. We need to look at countywide issues."
The Galloo Island Wind Farm's PILOT was approved by the county Legislature after months of intense pressure. Some members of the county Board of Legislators didn't want to face the same pressures after the Galloo Island vote.
Legislator Michael J. Docteur, R-Cape Vincent, attended the meeting and said he wants to see approval votes on each PILOT instead of passing a uniform tax-exempt policy that would negate the need for taxing jurisdictions to vote.
"Our board did not vote by resolution to charge this group to come up with a UTEP that would overrule the local vote," he said.
"What are you going to do when two taxing jurisdictions support it and one doesn't, which is somewhat likely to happen?" asked attorney W. James Heary. "You will put yourself in a position where if one taxing jurisdiction says, 'No,' you can't do the deal."
Mr. Doldo said, "That community should resolve that problem."
Like the Galloo Island PILOT, the draft policy discussed would allow for agreements to run up to 20 years, instead of the previous 15.
The draft policy includes a separate clause for renewable energy PILOTs, which allows for a fixed base payment per megawatt, increasing each year, and supplemental payments based on high electricity prices. Exact figures would be included in a project development agreement.
In any case, a PILOT already can be approved only after the state environmental quality review and site plan review process is complete. For wind projects, the committee agreed to add that taxing jurisdictions must approve that a PILOT will occur and what the distribution of proceeds will be before the agency can begin collecting and disbursing money.
Normally, PILOT proceeds are disbursed according to the distribution of property taxes among the county, school district and municipality.
"We have to hold up the PILOT until there is agreement among the taxing jurisdictions," Mr. Hirschey said.
"We have used the threat of pro rata distribution to force the negotiations," Mr. Alexander said. "If pro rata is not going to be appealing to people, they will come to terms."
The committee also changed the policy so that all PILOT agreements must include requirements for local labor use and developers must comply with applicable ethics codes. In earlier drafts, that was required just for renewable energy projects.
The full agency board will consider the policy at its meeting at 9 a.m. Thursday in the conference room at 800 Starbuck Ave. If approved, it will be sent to every taxing jurisdiction in the county. They will have 60 days to comment before a public hearing and the agency board makes a final decision.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Legislators explain why they oppose offshore project
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)