Dear Editors at The Batavia Daily News,
I am writing in regard to the 1/25/11 Letter to the Editor, "The dangers associated with windmills" (Link).
The word "satire" is defined:
1.) a literary work in which vices, follies, stupidities, abuses, etc. are held up to ridicule and contempt
2.) the use of ridicule, sarcasm, irony, etc. to expose, attack or deride vices, follies, etc.
So by its very definition, the author of this "satire" (and apparently the Daily News by its printing of this attack) considers anyone who speaks out against industrial wind to be "a folly, stupidity, or abuse, that should be held up for public ridicule and sarcastic attacks." The story's the same as it's always been -- When they don't have the facts, they resort to personal attacks.
How has printing this sarcastic attack helped to further an educated, civil discussion on the wind issue? How does printing what is nothing more than a sarcastic, completely false, negative attack against (1) those who are suffering through the negative effects themselves, (2) those still embroiled in litigation in their respective towns, and (3) the many of us who have actually spent countless hours doing the research on the issue - help to foster good feelings and/or, a better understanding of the issue based on sound, unbiased information and investigative news reporting?
I have painstakingly documented sources in the letters I have sent in on the issue over the years - ever since the "Good Doctor" from North Dakota (an obvious Big Wind affiliate) attacked my position on industrial wind many years ago now. I know that the sources I, and others, have cited in our letters have been checked by your editors. I'm sure that had one of us printed such an insulting, totally false satirical letter, it most definitely would NOT have been published -- as it shouldn't have been! I guess I should be happy you printed this "satire", since it makes all wind proponents look bad. Unfortunately, knowingly printing such lies makes the Daily News look bad, too.
The only people who still blindly support wind energy are those with personal financial motivations, and/or those who have not done a lick of research on the issue themselves. If they had, they would know beyond a shadow of a doubt that industrial wind is NOT technically, economically, or environmentally sound energy policy for a number of reasons, including:
1.) wind can not, and will not replace oil or coal,
2.) over 100,000 turbines later worldwide, and wind has not reduced CO2 and/or reduced Global Warming,
3.) it is the American taxpayers & ratepayers that are footing the bill for this energy scam (originated by ENRON, and bought up by GE when ENRON was going down), and
4.) this "green", "political agenda" only serves to enrich the multi-national corporations who will continue to leech off all of us as long as they can.
As a supporter of Clear Skies Over Orangeville (and all groups fighting this energy scam), I am very well aware of letters (including one by me) that have been sent in to the Daily News in recent weeks, that have yet to be published. I do hope that in the interest of relating both sides of the story, we will be seeing these letters in the Daily News in the days to come.
Also, in the interest of furthering the education of everyone about the truth behind industrial wind, I have pasted several recent articles below (the first is very disturbing, especially considering that 4000 lbs. of rare earth elements are used in each turbine), and attached a couple good articles from the Energy Advocate for you to read.
As Robert Bryce, author of Power Hungry: The Myths of Green Energy & the Real Fuels of the Future, has stated as to why wind won't work, "It's simply a matter of physics". Regarding the physics, it is important to realize that wind power is proportional to the *cube* of wind speed. If the wind blows at 20 mph and drops to 10 mph, the power output drops by 87.5%. This is not a matter of engineering, but entirely related to the properties of the moving air. Because of the violent fluctuations of wind power, there must always be backup running at 50% of full power to compensate for both increases and decreases in wind power. Ramping our conventional power sources up and down to accommodate wind on the grid actually causes their CO2 emissions to increase. (documented in The Colorado/Texas Bentek studies, and http://www.stopillwind.org/downloads/Overblown.pdf )
I do hope you can take a few minutes to read some of these enlightening articles.
Thank you very much for your consideration of my thoughts about this unfortunate occurrence, and of the included information,
Mary Kay Barton
Silver Lake, NY
585-813-8173
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
China is dying for the sins of our “clean, green” wind turbines (UK)
“The true cost of the clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale”
·
This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what’s left behind after making the magnets for Britain’s [plus the rest of the world's] latest wind turbines, and is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem”
—Simon Parry in China & Ed Douglas in Scotland, The DailyMail (1/29/11)
On the outskirts of one of China’s most polluted cities, an old farmer stares despairingly out across an immense lake of bubbling toxic waste covered in black dust. He remembers it as fields of wheat and corn.
Yan Man Jia Hong is a dedicated Communist. At 74, he still believes in his revolutionary heroes, but he despises the young local officials and entrepreneurs who have let this happen.
‘Chairman Mao was a hero and saved us,’ he says. ‘But these people only care about money. They have destroyed our lives.’
Vast fortunes are being amassed here in Inner Mongolia; the region has more than 90 per cent of the world’s legal reserves of rare earth metals, and specifically neodymium, the element needed to make the magnets in the most striking of green energy producers, wind turbines.
Live has uncovered the distinctly dirty truth about the process used to extract neodymium: it has an appalling environmental impact that raises serious questions over the credibility of so-called green technology.
The reality is that, as Britain flaunts its environmental credentials by speckling its coastlines and unspoiled moors and mountains with thousands of wind turbines, it is contributing to a vast man-made lake of poison in northern China. This is the deadly and sinister side of the massively profitable rare-earths industry that the ‘green’ companies profiting from the demand for wind turbines would prefer you knew nothing about.
Hidden out of sight behind smoke-shrouded factory complexes in the city of Baotou, and patrolled by platoons of security guards, lies a five-mile wide ‘tailing’ lake. It has killed farmland for miles around, made thousands of people ill and put one of China’s key waterways in jeopardy.
This vast, hissing cauldron of chemicals is the dumping ground for seven million tons a year of mined rare earth after it has been doused in acid and chemicals and processed through red-hot furnaces to extract its components.
Rusting pipelines meander for miles from factories processing rare earths in Baotou out to the man-made lake where, mixed with water, the foul-smelling radioactive waste from this industrial process is pumped day after day. No signposts and no paved roads lead here, and as we approach security guards shoo us away and tail us. When we finally break through the cordon and climb sand dunes to reach its brim, an apocalyptic sight greets us: a giant, secret toxic dump, made bigger by every wind turbine we build.
The lake instantly assaults your senses. Stand on the black crust for just seconds and your eyes water and a powerful, acrid stench fills your lungs.
For hours after our visit, my stomach lurched and my head throbbed. We were there for only one hour, but those who live in Mr Yan’s village of Dalahai, and other villages around, breathe in the same poison every day.
Retired farmer Su Bairen, 69, who led us to the lake, says it was initially a novelty – a multi-coloured pond set in farmland as early rare earth factories run by the state-owned Baogang group of companies began work in the Sixties.
‘At first it was just a hole in the ground,’ he says. ‘When it dried in the winter and summer, it turned into a black crust and children would play on it. Then one or two of them fell through and drowned in the sludge below. Since then, children have stayed away.’
As more factories sprang up, the banks grew higher, the lake grew larger and the stench and fumes grew more overwhelming.
‘It turned into a mountain that towered over us,’ says Mr Su. ‘Anything we planted just withered, then our animals started to sicken and die.’
People too began to suffer. Dalahai villagers say their teeth began to fall out, their hair turned white at unusually young ages, and they suffered from severe skin and respiratory diseases. Children were born with soft bones and cancer rates rocketed.
Official studies carried out five years ago in Dalahai village confirmed there were unusually high rates of cancer along with high rates of osteoporosis and skin and respiratory diseases. The lake’s radiation levels are ten times higher than in the surrounding countryside, the studies found.
Since then, maybe because of pressure from the companies operating around the lake, which pump out waste 24 hours a day, the results of ongoing radiation and toxicity tests carried out on the lake have been kept secret and officials have refused to publicly acknowledge health risks to nearby villages.
There are 17 ‘rare earth metals’ – the name doesn’t mean they are necessarily in short supply; it refers to the fact that the metals occur in scattered deposits of minerals, rather than concentrated ores. Rare earth metals usually occur together, and, once mined, have to be separated.
Read the entire article
Friday, January 28, 2011
UPC Renewables China Closes Financing Round
UPC Renewables China Ltd., a Hong Kong and Beijing-based developer of wind projects, has completed its financing round with a total investment of $60 million. CIAM Group Ltd. and Global Environment Fund participated in the second closing, adding to existing investments from Macquarie Bank Ltd. and DB Masdar Clean Tech Fund LP announced in December 2010.
The funds will be used by UPC to construct more wind projects and further develop the company's wind power portfolio in China. UPC is currently completing construction and commencing operations on 150 MW of wind projects. The company recently signed an agreement with China Guodian Corp. to jointly develop seven wind power projects with capacity exceeding 1,075 MW in total.
SOURCE: UPC Renewables China Ltd.
The funds will be used by UPC to construct more wind projects and further develop the company's wind power portfolio in China. UPC is currently completing construction and commencing operations on 150 MW of wind projects. The company recently signed an agreement with China Guodian Corp. to jointly develop seven wind power projects with capacity exceeding 1,075 MW in total.
SOURCE: UPC Renewables China Ltd.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Does America Need Wind Energy?
Jan 26, 2011
- 6:37 -
American Wind Energy Association CEO Denise Bode on the push to get the U.S. running on wind energy.
- 6:37 -
American Wind Energy Association CEO Denise Bode on the push to get the U.S. running on wind energy.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
“There is a measurable and significant loss of [property] values within 2 to 3 miles”
I am writing regarding the Ian Hanna case being heard presently in Ontario, and to offer a little more information and insight than was described in Lee Greenberg’s article today (1-24-11).
My expertise is not in health issues, but there is a direct relationship between those impacts and my proffesional studies of real estate impacts.
For example, numerous families have been forced to abandon their homes due to the factual impacts to health, sleep disturbances and the like, which the Canadian Wind Energy Association and the American Wind Energy Association prefer to dismiss as “concerns.” Many others have been unable to sell their homes due to the presence of nearby turbines, and which a growing list of realtors and estate agents report as being the deciding factor in would-be buyer’s decisions to look elsewhere.
There is a measurable and significant loss of values within 2 to 3 miles, and noise impacts have been broadcast as far as 5 miles or more, in some instances, with 1 to 2 miles being commonplace. Value losses have been measured at 20% to 40%, with a total loss of equity in some instances.
Wind developers have been known to buy out the most vocal neighbors who refuse to roll over and play dead when they are initially ignored, and then turn around and sell those same homes for 60% to 80% below the appraised value—thus confirming value losses by their own actions.
Other developers have avoided future liability by bulldozing the purchased homes.
In fact, wind developers and the existing Canadian setback are even inadequate to protect neighbors from ice throw or from sections of turbine blades, which are documented as occurring up to half a mile from the turbines, and I have personally heard of a blade throw (piece) that went about 1 mile.
Regardless of these facts, the wind industry often tries to convince the siting decision makers that safety issues are satisfied by setbacks of 1.1 X the height of turbines (550 meters in Canada), as if preventing a toppling turbine from landing on a neighbors house is the correct standard.
It is obvious what is happening here: The wind industry is playing a numbers game, under the assumption or actuarial calculations that it is less costly for them to fight a number of lawsuits from citizens who do not have deep pockets, than it is to buy out the property they need to create huge projects.
The solution is simple, also: Mandate that all property they seek to encompass with industrial overlays be purchased outright, so people have an option as to whether they choose to live in a large, noisy industrial setting.
I am quite certain any of your staff can confirm my factual comments by simply driving to any number of projects and counting the abandned and for sale homes, talking with a few remaining neighbors, etc. Maybe start with the Clear Creek project, where a dozen homes are reported abandoned, due to proximity of about 3 dozen turbines. The list will grow as large as time devoted to research of this issue will allow.
Like most other people, I initially assumed that wind energy would be a good trend. Unlike most people, I have expended something on the order of 2,000 hours looking into it, and my findings are quite contrary to the “positions” of the wind industry and their lobbyists. However, even the wind industry’s counterpart to my profession, Mr. Ben Hoen, has now gone on record saying that Property Value Guarantees should be used for nearby homeowners, and that “if wind developers won’t guarantee that, then they really don’t have a leg to stand on.”
Your publication can do much to bring the truth to public view, and I am available to answer any questions you may have. Also, you have my permission to publish this letter as you see fit.
Incidentally, if you Google my name + Adams County, Illinois, you will find a lengthier report which provides more details of property value impacts, along with public documents on buyouts made by Canadian Hydro of turbine neighbors homes.
Respectfully,
Michael S. McCann
McCann Appraisal, LLC
500 North Michigan Avenue, Suite # 300
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Real Estate Appraisal & Consulting
Fax: (312) 644-9244
Cell: (312) 961-1601
mikesmccann@comcast.net
My expertise is not in health issues, but there is a direct relationship between those impacts and my proffesional studies of real estate impacts.
For example, numerous families have been forced to abandon their homes due to the factual impacts to health, sleep disturbances and the like, which the Canadian Wind Energy Association and the American Wind Energy Association prefer to dismiss as “concerns.” Many others have been unable to sell their homes due to the presence of nearby turbines, and which a growing list of realtors and estate agents report as being the deciding factor in would-be buyer’s decisions to look elsewhere.
There is a measurable and significant loss of values within 2 to 3 miles, and noise impacts have been broadcast as far as 5 miles or more, in some instances, with 1 to 2 miles being commonplace. Value losses have been measured at 20% to 40%, with a total loss of equity in some instances.
Wind developers have been known to buy out the most vocal neighbors who refuse to roll over and play dead when they are initially ignored, and then turn around and sell those same homes for 60% to 80% below the appraised value—thus confirming value losses by their own actions.
Other developers have avoided future liability by bulldozing the purchased homes.
In fact, wind developers and the existing Canadian setback are even inadequate to protect neighbors from ice throw or from sections of turbine blades, which are documented as occurring up to half a mile from the turbines, and I have personally heard of a blade throw (piece) that went about 1 mile.
Regardless of these facts, the wind industry often tries to convince the siting decision makers that safety issues are satisfied by setbacks of 1.1 X the height of turbines (550 meters in Canada), as if preventing a toppling turbine from landing on a neighbors house is the correct standard.
It is obvious what is happening here: The wind industry is playing a numbers game, under the assumption or actuarial calculations that it is less costly for them to fight a number of lawsuits from citizens who do not have deep pockets, than it is to buy out the property they need to create huge projects.
The solution is simple, also: Mandate that all property they seek to encompass with industrial overlays be purchased outright, so people have an option as to whether they choose to live in a large, noisy industrial setting.
I am quite certain any of your staff can confirm my factual comments by simply driving to any number of projects and counting the abandned and for sale homes, talking with a few remaining neighbors, etc. Maybe start with the Clear Creek project, where a dozen homes are reported abandoned, due to proximity of about 3 dozen turbines. The list will grow as large as time devoted to research of this issue will allow.
Like most other people, I initially assumed that wind energy would be a good trend. Unlike most people, I have expended something on the order of 2,000 hours looking into it, and my findings are quite contrary to the “positions” of the wind industry and their lobbyists. However, even the wind industry’s counterpart to my profession, Mr. Ben Hoen, has now gone on record saying that Property Value Guarantees should be used for nearby homeowners, and that “if wind developers won’t guarantee that, then they really don’t have a leg to stand on.”
Your publication can do much to bring the truth to public view, and I am available to answer any questions you may have. Also, you have my permission to publish this letter as you see fit.
Incidentally, if you Google my name + Adams County, Illinois, you will find a lengthier report which provides more details of property value impacts, along with public documents on buyouts made by Canadian Hydro of turbine neighbors homes.
Respectfully,
Michael S. McCann
McCann Appraisal, LLC
500 North Michigan Avenue, Suite # 300
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Real Estate Appraisal & Consulting
Fax: (312) 644-9244
Cell: (312) 961-1601
mikesmccann@comcast.net
Giacalone takes 'pro-resident' approach
His critics call him anti-development and an obstructionist, and he has found himself on the losing end of some high-profile cases. But attorney Arthur Giacalone says he knows - and more important, his clients know - for what he stands.
Though he has spent much of his 34-year career fighting for the rights of residents against corporations, cities and counties - passing up a more-lucrative legal practice in the process - Giacalone wouldn't have it any other way.
Sitting in a modest office in the front of his East Aurora home, he doesn't look like a man who was just handed a bitter defeat in a headline-grabbing case. In fact, just days after losing a bid to block Verizon from building a 1 million-square-foot data center across the street from his client's farm, he remains passionate about why he should have won the case yet reflective on "David vs. Goliath" battles that he has often finds himself involved in.
Read the entire interview
Though he has spent much of his 34-year career fighting for the rights of residents against corporations, cities and counties - passing up a more-lucrative legal practice in the process - Giacalone wouldn't have it any other way.
Sitting in a modest office in the front of his East Aurora home, he doesn't look like a man who was just handed a bitter defeat in a headline-grabbing case. In fact, just days after losing a bid to block Verizon from building a 1 million-square-foot data center across the street from his client's farm, he remains passionate about why he should have won the case yet reflective on "David vs. Goliath" battles that he has often finds himself involved in.
Read the entire interview
Monday, January 24, 2011
Judge sets Ecogen, Prattsburgh hearing
Prattsburgh, NY — A court hearing has been set for Jan. 27 to learn more details about the events behind a year-long lawsuit between the town of Prattsburgh and a wind farm developer.
The hearing will resolve some issues and lead to a final decision in the dispute between the town and the developer, Ecogen, according to state Supreme Court Justice John Ark.
Ark wants sworn testimony from former town officials, including Attorney John Leyden and Supervisor Harold McConnell, Ecogen representatives and other town officials.
Questions appear to pinpoint Ecogen’s contention that it has been ready to set up 16 turbines for more than two years and questions Ecogen’s claim it had “vested rights” by late 2008.
Ecogen also claims board members have stymied the builder’s efforts to proceed with the project.
“Which is funny, when they’re on record telling the Town of Italy, Prattsburgh has been very cooperative throughout,” said Prattsburgh’s attorney Ed Hourihan.
Hourihan said the town is pleased to see the judge has narrowed the issues to “specifically pin down Ecogen’s ever changing position. Since this litigation has started, Ecogen had changed its position so many times its hard to tell what is the truth.”
Hourihan said he will question the witnesses and can present evidence proving any testimony is incorrect.
Last fall Ark said he was close to a decision in the case, but urged Ecogen and the town to meet and find an out-of-court compromise.
Town officials offered to provide other sites for the proposed turbines, but Ecogen maintained the December 2009 agreement was binding and refused to compromise.
An offer to meet with Prattsburgh by Ecogen’s parent company, Pattern, apparently fell through last month, current town Supervisor Al Wordingham said.
Wordingham said he called Pattern representative John Galloway just before Christmas to follow up on several phone conferences and a plan to meet.
“He told me he had some internal issues to resolve,” Wordingham said.
Galloway has not returned his final call, Wordingham told residents at the town board meeting Monday night.
“And we still don’t have their final site map,” Wordingham said.
In related action, the board held a public hearing on extending their moratorium on tower construction another six months. Several residents said they supported the moratorium, although they thought six months was too long.
The board will vote on the moratorium during their regular Feb. 22 meeting.
The hearing will resolve some issues and lead to a final decision in the dispute between the town and the developer, Ecogen, according to state Supreme Court Justice John Ark.
Ark wants sworn testimony from former town officials, including Attorney John Leyden and Supervisor Harold McConnell, Ecogen representatives and other town officials.
Questions appear to pinpoint Ecogen’s contention that it has been ready to set up 16 turbines for more than two years and questions Ecogen’s claim it had “vested rights” by late 2008.
Ecogen also claims board members have stymied the builder’s efforts to proceed with the project.
“Which is funny, when they’re on record telling the Town of Italy, Prattsburgh has been very cooperative throughout,” said Prattsburgh’s attorney Ed Hourihan.
Hourihan said the town is pleased to see the judge has narrowed the issues to “specifically pin down Ecogen’s ever changing position. Since this litigation has started, Ecogen had changed its position so many times its hard to tell what is the truth.”
Hourihan said he will question the witnesses and can present evidence proving any testimony is incorrect.
Last fall Ark said he was close to a decision in the case, but urged Ecogen and the town to meet and find an out-of-court compromise.
Town officials offered to provide other sites for the proposed turbines, but Ecogen maintained the December 2009 agreement was binding and refused to compromise.
An offer to meet with Prattsburgh by Ecogen’s parent company, Pattern, apparently fell through last month, current town Supervisor Al Wordingham said.
Wordingham said he called Pattern representative John Galloway just before Christmas to follow up on several phone conferences and a plan to meet.
“He told me he had some internal issues to resolve,” Wordingham said.
Galloway has not returned his final call, Wordingham told residents at the town board meeting Monday night.
“And we still don’t have their final site map,” Wordingham said.
In related action, the board held a public hearing on extending their moratorium on tower construction another six months. Several residents said they supported the moratorium, although they thought six months was too long.
The board will vote on the moratorium during their regular Feb. 22 meeting.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
The Week In Green Energy: Mr. Hu Comes to America
In remarks published on the Huffington Post, Energy Secretary Steven Chu bluntly stated that when it comes to green energy, the U.S. has one goal: Beat China. “The United Sates is competing for leadership in energy innovation,” Chu wrote.
The U.S. might have ambitious goals in developing its renewable and cleantech industries, but right now , Beijing is is well ahead of Washington.
China’s renewable sector enjoys huge government subsidies, a seemingly endless demand for wind turbines and solar panels, and, most importantly, the ability to produce these turbines and panels at bargain basement prices. The numbers back up China’s position; last year renewable energy and cleantech investments into China topped to more than $51.1 billion, up 30 percent from 2009 levels. In fact, China accounted for 21 percent of all global green investments last year.
The U.S. only managed to attract $18 billion in investments to its own green energy sector in 2009. And largely because of lingering regulatory uncertainty and cheap natural gas, 2010 proved to be little better. According to the American Wind Energy Associations the third quarter was the slowest for the U.S. wind industry since 2007.
The investments flowing into China have helped create game-changing companies like solar panel makers (and World Cup sponsor) Yingli Solar and Suntech, which recently said it expected its panel shipments to jump by 50 percent this year. With a host of well capitalized Chinese companies looking to grow their market share both at home and abroad, U.S. companies are rightfully worried about potential competition from China.
Some Chinese companies are already moving in on U.S. companies’ turf. For example, GoldWind, a subsidiary of Urumqi, China-based Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology Co,recently hired First Wind CFO Tim Rosenzweig to oversee its U.S. expansion, including the development of the 104 megawatts Shady Oaks farm in Illinois.
GoldWind is serious about growing its U.S. revenues and is scouting for major office space in Chicago to house its North American subsidiary. Coincidentally, Chicago was also the only stop President Hu made outside Washington during his American sojourn.
The U.S. might have ambitious goals in developing its renewable and cleantech industries, but right now , Beijing is is well ahead of Washington.
China’s renewable sector enjoys huge government subsidies, a seemingly endless demand for wind turbines and solar panels, and, most importantly, the ability to produce these turbines and panels at bargain basement prices. The numbers back up China’s position; last year renewable energy and cleantech investments into China topped to more than $51.1 billion, up 30 percent from 2009 levels. In fact, China accounted for 21 percent of all global green investments last year.
The U.S. only managed to attract $18 billion in investments to its own green energy sector in 2009. And largely because of lingering regulatory uncertainty and cheap natural gas, 2010 proved to be little better. According to the American Wind Energy Associations the third quarter was the slowest for the U.S. wind industry since 2007.
The investments flowing into China have helped create game-changing companies like solar panel makers (and World Cup sponsor) Yingli Solar and Suntech, which recently said it expected its panel shipments to jump by 50 percent this year. With a host of well capitalized Chinese companies looking to grow their market share both at home and abroad, U.S. companies are rightfully worried about potential competition from China.
Some Chinese companies are already moving in on U.S. companies’ turf. For example, GoldWind, a subsidiary of Urumqi, China-based Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology Co,recently hired First Wind CFO Tim Rosenzweig to oversee its U.S. expansion, including the development of the 104 megawatts Shady Oaks farm in Illinois.
GoldWind is serious about growing its U.S. revenues and is scouting for major office space in Chicago to house its North American subsidiary. Coincidentally, Chicago was also the only stop President Hu made outside Washington during his American sojourn.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Bellying-up to the Corporate Welfare Bar Hurts Us All
Dear Editor,
After reading Invenergy's self-serving pontifications in their 1/13 article, "Invenergy and NYSERDA enter renewable energy credit purchase agreement", it seems we need to step back and take a look at the bigger picture here:
1.) I (and most citizens) agree we have environmental and energy issues, and
2.) I (and most citizens) agree that these technical matters should be solved using real science - not propaganda being put forth by corporate salesmen.
Real Science is not a collection of theorems, but is a PROCESS - the core process being the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method consists of a hypothesis (e.g. that wind energy is equivalent to our conventional power sources) being subjected to a: (1) comprehensive, (2) objective, (3) independent, (4) transparent, and (5) empirical-based assessment.
The fact is: This has NOT been done for wind energy - Anyplace!
Said in an another easy-to-understand way:
Since we are in agreement that we have energy and environmental issues, let's say that some entrepreneurs step forward and present us with a black box they claim holds a partial solution to these issues. Due to "confidentiality" reasons, they can't tell us what's in the box, but they assure us that it will work. Would we just say, "Great - Who do we make the $100 Billion Dollar check out to?" I think not.
We would say something like, "Thanks - that sounds good, but FIRST we need to see the PROOF that your product will be an effective cost-benefit solution BEFORE we mandate your product on citizens."
Again, this is exactly what has NOT been done for wind energy. All the Invenergy & NYSERDA propaganda puff-pieces in the world will not change this simple fact. As we've been asking for years now -- Show us the PROOF!
The fact is: Because industrial wind is NOT reliable, predictable, or dispatchable - it provides virtually NO Capacity Value (specified amounts of power on demand), and therefore, needs constant "shadow capacity" from our conventional power sources. Thus, wind has NOT, and can NOT replace our conventional power generators (i.e. - coal plants), and has NOT been proven to significantly reduce CO2 emissions anywhere.
The "economics" of wind are just as grim. (See) The direct grant program from the U.S. treasury worth 30% of the value of these industrial wind projects had been due to expire 12/31/10. However, thanks to politics in Washington, this very generous federal grant program (OUR money) was extended for another year when it was inserted at the last minute into in the recent federal tax compromise bill. We wouldn't even be talking about the Stony Creek project anymore if this "FREE taxpayer money handout program" had not been extended. This my friends, is corporate welfare!
Adding insult to injury, now NYSERDA is paying Invenergy for the "RECs" (Renewable Energy Credits) using ratepayer dollars that NYSERDA collects from us every month in our electric bills via the "Systems Benefit Charge" (SBC) - transferring even more of our money from our pockets to the international developers' pockets.
What part of "It's OUR money!" don't our political leaders get? Industrial wind salesmen offer to give communities back a mere pittance of their own money in return for permission to destroy the very environment they claim they wish to save. Those who are content to participate in this energy scam, drawing in dollars by bellying-up to the corporate welfare bar, are - unwittingly or not, hurting us all.
Environmental Activist for Sound Scientific Solutions,
Mary Kay Barton
CitizenPowerAlliance.org
After reading Invenergy's self-serving pontifications in their 1/13 article, "Invenergy and NYSERDA enter renewable energy credit purchase agreement", it seems we need to step back and take a look at the bigger picture here:
1.) I (and most citizens) agree we have environmental and energy issues, and
2.) I (and most citizens) agree that these technical matters should be solved using real science - not propaganda being put forth by corporate salesmen.
Real Science is not a collection of theorems, but is a PROCESS - the core process being the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method consists of a hypothesis (e.g. that wind energy is equivalent to our conventional power sources) being subjected to a: (1) comprehensive, (2) objective, (3) independent, (4) transparent, and (5) empirical-based assessment.
The fact is: This has NOT been done for wind energy - Anyplace!
Said in an another easy-to-understand way:
Since we are in agreement that we have energy and environmental issues, let's say that some entrepreneurs step forward and present us with a black box they claim holds a partial solution to these issues. Due to "confidentiality" reasons, they can't tell us what's in the box, but they assure us that it will work. Would we just say, "Great - Who do we make the $100 Billion Dollar check out to?" I think not.
We would say something like, "Thanks - that sounds good, but FIRST we need to see the PROOF that your product will be an effective cost-benefit solution BEFORE we mandate your product on citizens."
Again, this is exactly what has NOT been done for wind energy. All the Invenergy & NYSERDA propaganda puff-pieces in the world will not change this simple fact. As we've been asking for years now -- Show us the PROOF!
The fact is: Because industrial wind is NOT reliable, predictable, or dispatchable - it provides virtually NO Capacity Value (specified amounts of power on demand), and therefore, needs constant "shadow capacity" from our conventional power sources. Thus, wind has NOT, and can NOT replace our conventional power generators (i.e. - coal plants), and has NOT been proven to significantly reduce CO2 emissions anywhere.
The "economics" of wind are just as grim. (See) The direct grant program from the U.S. treasury worth 30% of the value of these industrial wind projects had been due to expire 12/31/10. However, thanks to politics in Washington, this very generous federal grant program (OUR money) was extended for another year when it was inserted at the last minute into in the recent federal tax compromise bill. We wouldn't even be talking about the Stony Creek project anymore if this "FREE taxpayer money handout program" had not been extended. This my friends, is corporate welfare!
Adding insult to injury, now NYSERDA is paying Invenergy for the "RECs" (Renewable Energy Credits) using ratepayer dollars that NYSERDA collects from us every month in our electric bills via the "Systems Benefit Charge" (SBC) - transferring even more of our money from our pockets to the international developers' pockets.
What part of "It's OUR money!" don't our political leaders get? Industrial wind salesmen offer to give communities back a mere pittance of their own money in return for permission to destroy the very environment they claim they wish to save. Those who are content to participate in this energy scam, drawing in dollars by bellying-up to the corporate welfare bar, are - unwittingly or not, hurting us all.
Environmental Activist for Sound Scientific Solutions,
Mary Kay Barton
CitizenPowerAlliance.org
Ag commissioner’s ethics questioned
I am writing in response to the Batavia Daily News/Johnson News Service editorial (“Ag and Markets”) of Jan. 14, 2011, praising the appointment of Darrel Aubertine’s appointment by Gov. Cuomo.
Voters in the 48th State Senate District kicked out Darrel Aubertine in November’s election. His term as senator didn’t last long — from February 2008 to December 2010. Aubertine’s defeat comes mainly as a result of his advocacy with wind energy and his blatant conflicts of interest with wind developers. Now, like a bad penny, Gov. Cuomo has cursed New York State voters and hired Aubertine as commissioner of the state Department of Agriculture and Markets. So here’s Aubertine feeding again at the public trough after North Country voters just ousted him — bounced out of the Energy Valley of New York State by voters who understand the truth.
But Aubertine is still very much a conflicted state officer and should not have been appointed by Cuomo to this patronage position because of his conflicts of interest, integrity and ethics — well known by Mr. Cuomo from his AG days. His appointment is in direct violation of Public Officer’s Law §73 and §74 (See entire article at BewareNYWind, to read the blatant violations of the law by Aubertine). Aubertine, by his own admission, has wind contracts (See ).
Cuomo has reneged his position, violated his own ethics policies, and forced an unwanted, conflicted turbine-hugger back on the public payroll. And what has Cuomo done to deal with the corrupt municipal officials in Cape Vincent (and across New York State, for that matter) since starting his investigation — nothing! (See)
Aubertine, now a New York State officer who is being compensated by a wind developer that has leases with mainly agricultural lands in New York State. Aubertine is being investigated by the state’s AG. Aubertine’s New York State ag business would be directly involved and interface with rural land owners, farmers, etc., many of whom already have leases with wind energy companies or might soon sign leases. Wind leases are part of ag business — can anyone dispute that? Could anyone possibly think rural property owners wouldn’t want to discuss wind leases with Aubertine as he makes his rounds as ag commissioner? How would Aubertine respond? This is an unquestionable conflict of interest. How could Cuomo appoint Aubertine knowing Aubertine is conflicted and part of an ongoing investigation? Why would Cuomo taint his strong ethics/integrity stand by taking such controversial action thus making himself a certifiable hypocrite?
Alan Isselhard
Great Lakes Wind Truth
Great Lakes Concerned Citizens
Wolcott
Voters in the 48th State Senate District kicked out Darrel Aubertine in November’s election. His term as senator didn’t last long — from February 2008 to December 2010. Aubertine’s defeat comes mainly as a result of his advocacy with wind energy and his blatant conflicts of interest with wind developers. Now, like a bad penny, Gov. Cuomo has cursed New York State voters and hired Aubertine as commissioner of the state Department of Agriculture and Markets. So here’s Aubertine feeding again at the public trough after North Country voters just ousted him — bounced out of the Energy Valley of New York State by voters who understand the truth.
But Aubertine is still very much a conflicted state officer and should not have been appointed by Cuomo to this patronage position because of his conflicts of interest, integrity and ethics — well known by Mr. Cuomo from his AG days. His appointment is in direct violation of Public Officer’s Law §73 and §74 (See entire article at BewareNYWind, to read the blatant violations of the law by Aubertine). Aubertine, by his own admission, has wind contracts (See ).
Cuomo has reneged his position, violated his own ethics policies, and forced an unwanted, conflicted turbine-hugger back on the public payroll. And what has Cuomo done to deal with the corrupt municipal officials in Cape Vincent (and across New York State, for that matter) since starting his investigation — nothing! (See)
Aubertine, now a New York State officer who is being compensated by a wind developer that has leases with mainly agricultural lands in New York State. Aubertine is being investigated by the state’s AG. Aubertine’s New York State ag business would be directly involved and interface with rural land owners, farmers, etc., many of whom already have leases with wind energy companies or might soon sign leases. Wind leases are part of ag business — can anyone dispute that? Could anyone possibly think rural property owners wouldn’t want to discuss wind leases with Aubertine as he makes his rounds as ag commissioner? How would Aubertine respond? This is an unquestionable conflict of interest. How could Cuomo appoint Aubertine knowing Aubertine is conflicted and part of an ongoing investigation? Why would Cuomo taint his strong ethics/integrity stand by taking such controversial action thus making himself a certifiable hypocrite?
Alan Isselhard
Great Lakes Wind Truth
Great Lakes Concerned Citizens
Wolcott
First Wind TIF deal rejected
Commissioners in Somerset County recently voted against forming a tax-increment financing district proposed by Massachusetts-based wind farm developer First Wind.
The refusal to set up a TIF in Mayfield Township marks the first time a wind farm developer's TIF request has been turned down in the state, according to the Morning Sentinel. It's also the first time First Wind has seen a TIF request rejected for any of its projects in the country. In their decision, commissioners expressed concern over the environmental and tourism impacts of First Wind's proposal to build 52 turbines in the town of Bingham, Mayfield Township and the Piscataquis County town of Blanchard, with 32 of those planned for Mayfield. First Wind, operating as Bingham Wind Power LLC, plans to submit its permit applications this spring, and a company representative said the project will continue. The TIF decision for Mayfield will not impact any TIF arrangements in the other two towns.
The TIF would have funneled estimated additional tax revenue of $1.35 million, with an undetermined percentage going to First Wind and the rest used by county commissioners for economic development projects.
The refusal to set up a TIF in Mayfield Township marks the first time a wind farm developer's TIF request has been turned down in the state, according to the Morning Sentinel. It's also the first time First Wind has seen a TIF request rejected for any of its projects in the country. In their decision, commissioners expressed concern over the environmental and tourism impacts of First Wind's proposal to build 52 turbines in the town of Bingham, Mayfield Township and the Piscataquis County town of Blanchard, with 32 of those planned for Mayfield. First Wind, operating as Bingham Wind Power LLC, plans to submit its permit applications this spring, and a company representative said the project will continue. The TIF decision for Mayfield will not impact any TIF arrangements in the other two towns.
The TIF would have funneled estimated additional tax revenue of $1.35 million, with an undetermined percentage going to First Wind and the rest used by county commissioners for economic development projects.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Monroe Co. Rejects GLOW
Rochester, NY - Monroe County Republican legislators have passed a non-binding resolution opposing the GLOW (Great Lakes Offshore Wind) project being promoted by the New York Power Authority and Gov. Cuomo. The Republican majority in the legislature (16 to 13) is what passed the resolution while all 13 Democrats did nothing - voters will be reminded of this come November. This NO Glow resolution is a Memorializing Referral (resolution). So signatures "Lend Support" to this Monroe County opposition to the presence of wind turbines off the shores of Monroe County in Lake Ontario as part of the GLOW project. It's non-binding. The article in this morning's Rochester Democrat & Chronicle newspaper by Steve Orr is found below. Monroe County now joins Jefferson, Oswego, Wayne, Chautauqua counties in rejecting the NYPA's GLOW project or any other project seeking to industrialize the Great Lakes.
Legislator Rick Antelli of Greece, NY sponsored the resolution beginning last July after hearing members of the Great Lakes Concerned Citizens make a presentation in Greece to area residents on the problems an offshore wind farm would create. Originally Antelli's resolution could not gain enough votes to carry a majority but in November he recirculated the resolution and it finally did produce a majority vote. Another nail in NYPA's coffin!
A BIG thanks to Greece, NY legislator Rick Antelli!
On July 20 the Greece town board voted unanimously against GLOW. On July 22, representatives of the Great Lakes Concerned citizens made a presentation to the Webster town board and at their August 5 town board meeting they voted unanimously against the GLOW project. Our same group spoke to the Irondequoit town board on July 27 sharing the same anti-GLOW message and spoke again on October 19 at a packed Irondequoit TB meeting. At the Oct. 19 town board meeting after listening to numerous Great Lakes Concerned Citizens and many others in attendance speak against GLOW - the Irondequoit town board (including 2 Democrats) voted unanimously against the GLOW proposal. Greece, Webster and Irondequoit have now joined many other Great Lakes lakeside towns and counties in opposing the GLOW project after each municipality did their own independent research on GLOW and came to the same conclusions.
The heavily Democrat controlled city council of Rochester didn't care to listen to our anti-GLOW message when we approached them nor did former Rochester mayor, Democrat Bob Duffy - now Lt. Governor. We had just sent a letter offering to speak to Democrat Tom Richards who was made Rochester mayor after Duffy resigned to become NYS Lt. Governor 3 weeks ago but now Richards has resigned after only 3 weeks over problems involving the Hatch Act. Do you think Democrats have problems??
Unfortunately, the Niagara County legislature is still stalling on considering reversing their original vote to support GLOW and the Erie County legislature has their head in the sand. Several Great Lakes Concerned Citizens made their presentations at the Sept. 21 Niagara County legislature meeting in Lockport, NY and the legislature has taken no action since then which is unfortunate for their constituents and helpful to NYPA. NYPA is hardly a friend of Niagara County and several entities there have expressed their outrage to legislators over the possibility of wind turbines in Lake Ontario. Waiting for NYPA to announce the GLOW project location(s) is dangerous and helpful to NYPA and the developer(s) and not the county near where the project is located. Hasn't Erie County seen enough with the failed Steel Winds I project in Lackawanna, NY and failure to see even the start of Steel Winds II that was supposed to be completed in 2010? The cost & availability of natural gas has pulled the rug out from under wind energy, among many other things, and people are finally beginning to realize nuclear is an ever better non-polluting cost effective energy choice.
The November elections will see more wind advocates kicked out. Thanks to so many anti-GLOW committee members that have contributed to the fight against the GLOW project and the encouraging actions like the one just taken by the Monroe Co. Republican legislators is encouraging. We can and will defeat the GLOW project and any similar offshore wind project.
Al Isselhard
Great Lakes Concerned Citizens
Great Lakes Wind Truth
Wolcott, New York
Read the D&C Article
Legislator Rick Antelli of Greece, NY sponsored the resolution beginning last July after hearing members of the Great Lakes Concerned Citizens make a presentation in Greece to area residents on the problems an offshore wind farm would create. Originally Antelli's resolution could not gain enough votes to carry a majority but in November he recirculated the resolution and it finally did produce a majority vote. Another nail in NYPA's coffin!
A BIG thanks to Greece, NY legislator Rick Antelli!
On July 20 the Greece town board voted unanimously against GLOW. On July 22, representatives of the Great Lakes Concerned citizens made a presentation to the Webster town board and at their August 5 town board meeting they voted unanimously against the GLOW project. Our same group spoke to the Irondequoit town board on July 27 sharing the same anti-GLOW message and spoke again on October 19 at a packed Irondequoit TB meeting. At the Oct. 19 town board meeting after listening to numerous Great Lakes Concerned Citizens and many others in attendance speak against GLOW - the Irondequoit town board (including 2 Democrats) voted unanimously against the GLOW proposal. Greece, Webster and Irondequoit have now joined many other Great Lakes lakeside towns and counties in opposing the GLOW project after each municipality did their own independent research on GLOW and came to the same conclusions.
The heavily Democrat controlled city council of Rochester didn't care to listen to our anti-GLOW message when we approached them nor did former Rochester mayor, Democrat Bob Duffy - now Lt. Governor. We had just sent a letter offering to speak to Democrat Tom Richards who was made Rochester mayor after Duffy resigned to become NYS Lt. Governor 3 weeks ago but now Richards has resigned after only 3 weeks over problems involving the Hatch Act. Do you think Democrats have problems??
Unfortunately, the Niagara County legislature is still stalling on considering reversing their original vote to support GLOW and the Erie County legislature has their head in the sand. Several Great Lakes Concerned Citizens made their presentations at the Sept. 21 Niagara County legislature meeting in Lockport, NY and the legislature has taken no action since then which is unfortunate for their constituents and helpful to NYPA. NYPA is hardly a friend of Niagara County and several entities there have expressed their outrage to legislators over the possibility of wind turbines in Lake Ontario. Waiting for NYPA to announce the GLOW project location(s) is dangerous and helpful to NYPA and the developer(s) and not the county near where the project is located. Hasn't Erie County seen enough with the failed Steel Winds I project in Lackawanna, NY and failure to see even the start of Steel Winds II that was supposed to be completed in 2010? The cost & availability of natural gas has pulled the rug out from under wind energy, among many other things, and people are finally beginning to realize nuclear is an ever better non-polluting cost effective energy choice.
The November elections will see more wind advocates kicked out. Thanks to so many anti-GLOW committee members that have contributed to the fight against the GLOW project and the encouraging actions like the one just taken by the Monroe Co. Republican legislators is encouraging. We can and will defeat the GLOW project and any similar offshore wind project.
Al Isselhard
Great Lakes Concerned Citizens
Great Lakes Wind Truth
Wolcott, New York
Read the D&C Article
Ron Stephens ‘Why Wind Farms?’
WIND FARMS EXPOSED as a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT land grab and economic scheme based on carbon tax/credits, Wind Energy & U.N. Agenda 21 explained in a presentation by Ron Stephens at the ‘What is Truth Conference’ in Woodford, Ontario, Canada (19/12/2010)
Toronto Truth Seekers – http://www.torontotruthseekers.com
MORE VIDEO FOOTAGE of the Woodford Truth Conference COMING SOON…
Residents raise noise on windmills
Town of Allegany officials once again heard from local residents who are against a wind turbine farm in their community during a public hearing Tuesday at the Allegany Senior Center.
The public hearing was held to hear comments from residents regarding a requested increase for the noise level that would be emitted by an industrial wind turbine farm proposed for the Chipmonk and Knapp Creek area. A 29-turbine commercial wind farm has been proposed for the town by New York City-based EverPower Renewables. EverPower officials have requested that the noise level emitted by the wind turbines be raised to 40 decibels. The current town law allows for the noise level to be raised 3 decibels above the ambient level of 25 decibels.
Residents who have attended meetings and hearings in the past have generally opposed a wind turbine farm locating in the community. Their opposition to the proposal has included concerns that a wind turbine farm will create noise, aesthetic and environmental issues for the community.
The public hearing was held to hear comments from residents regarding a requested increase for the noise level that would be emitted by an industrial wind turbine farm proposed for the Chipmonk and Knapp Creek area. A 29-turbine commercial wind farm has been proposed for the town by New York City-based EverPower Renewables. EverPower officials have requested that the noise level emitted by the wind turbines be raised to 40 decibels. The current town law allows for the noise level to be raised 3 decibels above the ambient level of 25 decibels.
Residents who have attended meetings and hearings in the past have generally opposed a wind turbine farm locating in the community. Their opposition to the proposal has included concerns that a wind turbine farm will create noise, aesthetic and environmental issues for the community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)