With three town council members supporting recommendations made by the wind advisory committee, it's likely that an Iberdrola Renewables-built wind farm is not in the cards for the town.
A recent letter to the town board from an Iberdrola representative indicated that adoption of the committee-proposed real property value guarantee agreement would effectively kill the proposed 75-turbine Stone Church Wind Farm.
Written by Richard K. Champney, a Pulaski real estate attorney and wind committee member, the proposal calls for assurances from a wind developer that if a property owner cannot get at least the appraised value of a home at sale because of the presence of wind turbines, the wind company is required to make up the difference. The proposal also requires the company to buy out property owners opposed to living near turbines.
"In talking with many people around town, it seems to set their minds at ease," Councilman Douglas E. Delosh said of property value proposal. "If this industry does come, and it does affect property values, they have an out. This is tremendously important. People have a lot of money invested in their homes."
Read the entire article
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Put proper planning ahead of personal profit
For more than 10 years wind developers have bullying people around, lying when it suits their needs, and seriously dividing the town of Prattsburgh into factions that are often angry and yelling at each other. The last board meeting ( like many others in the past ) was a great example of this. There were pro- and anti- industrial wind energy groups that squared off, yelling back and forth, creating chaos and turning the meeting into a circus. The town supervisor, Al Wordingham tried to control things, but some people continued on.
Eventually, the supervisor asked for a motion on a road agreement to be voted on. The motion passed 3 to 2 and gives the wind developer Ecogen the right to go ahead with their project. Ironically, those people who have wanted this wind project all along began moaning, complaining, and yelling at the board for its action. One would think they would be happy it passed. However, the developer is now being put to the task of proving they have vested rights. According to Judge Ark's ruling, they now have 168 days to do that. Their claim has been that the town board and the highway supervisor, Chris Jensen have held them up, when in fact they still don't have all the leases they need to proceed.
Now it's time the town has a chance to say prove that you're ready and go for it.
All of us fortunate enough to live in this beautiful region of New York need to remember a few things. We are blessed with more fresh water than anywhere in the country, we have beautiful hills, valleys, creeks, rivers, and the finger lakes near by.
We moved here 27 years ago for these reasons, and we know others who've done the same. Ever since the possibility of industrial wind turbines, however, people have shied away and are waiting to see what's going to happen.We have friends waiting this out and we know other people with friends who aren't making any moves just yet.
The saddest part of this is that if the wind project goes ahead as planned, the
payment to the town through the pilot is around $145,000 if the developer makes the payments. Meanwhile, if wind turbines are not planned out well, and they are irresponsibly placed in and around our hilltops, they'll keep people from building new homes here. New homes increase the tax base and revenues to the town. More important than that is the money new residents spend on goods and services in the area they live. Town officials would be acting foolishly if they didn't keep that in mind . I believe our town board is working hard to help our town prosper, and to keep all its residents protected in all ways. That is part of their job as public servants.
Isn't it just common sense to do the proper planning, and if turbines are to happen, place them where they won't stifle the growth of this beautiful area.
David Snaith
Prattsburgh, NY
Eventually, the supervisor asked for a motion on a road agreement to be voted on. The motion passed 3 to 2 and gives the wind developer Ecogen the right to go ahead with their project. Ironically, those people who have wanted this wind project all along began moaning, complaining, and yelling at the board for its action. One would think they would be happy it passed. However, the developer is now being put to the task of proving they have vested rights. According to Judge Ark's ruling, they now have 168 days to do that. Their claim has been that the town board and the highway supervisor, Chris Jensen have held them up, when in fact they still don't have all the leases they need to proceed.
Now it's time the town has a chance to say prove that you're ready and go for it.
All of us fortunate enough to live in this beautiful region of New York need to remember a few things. We are blessed with more fresh water than anywhere in the country, we have beautiful hills, valleys, creeks, rivers, and the finger lakes near by.
We moved here 27 years ago for these reasons, and we know others who've done the same. Ever since the possibility of industrial wind turbines, however, people have shied away and are waiting to see what's going to happen.We have friends waiting this out and we know other people with friends who aren't making any moves just yet.
The saddest part of this is that if the wind project goes ahead as planned, the
payment to the town through the pilot is around $145,000 if the developer makes the payments. Meanwhile, if wind turbines are not planned out well, and they are irresponsibly placed in and around our hilltops, they'll keep people from building new homes here. New homes increase the tax base and revenues to the town. More important than that is the money new residents spend on goods and services in the area they live. Town officials would be acting foolishly if they didn't keep that in mind . I believe our town board is working hard to help our town prosper, and to keep all its residents protected in all ways. That is part of their job as public servants.
Isn't it just common sense to do the proper planning, and if turbines are to happen, place them where they won't stifle the growth of this beautiful area.
David Snaith
Prattsburgh, NY
Saturday, April 09, 2011
Notice to ALL Oneida and Herkimer County Residents
Listen to living with wind turbines audio message
The Litchfield Wind Ordinance Committee's Final Draft is Here!
After many months of hard work and time spent away from their families, the Litchfield Wind Ordinance Committee has completed and presented their proposed Ordinance to the Litchfield Town Board for their review. The proposed Ordinance can be found here.
Please take the time to review the complete document, as well as all of the factual supporting documentation, which can be found here.
The Committee did a fantastic job, and SSVV supports approval of the Ordinance in its' entirety!
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PROPOSED LITCHFIELD ORDINANCE:
1) PROTECTS RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORS ALIKE
2) DRAFTED WITH THE PROPOSED 500' TOWERS, NOT THE 250' TOWERS OF THE PAST
3) RESIDENTS HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE HOW CLOSE THEY WANT TO BE TO INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES
4) PARTICIPATING LANDOWNERS & DEVELOPERS HAVE FLEXIBILITY ON TURBINE PLACEMENTS IF ALL AGREE
5) LESS RESTRICTIONS ON "PERSONAL WINDMILLS"
6) PRO LANDOWNER, PRO DEVELOPER, PRO NEIGHBOR
7) ASK YOURSELF THIS
8) LET YOUR TOWN BOARD KNOW HOW YOU FEEL
The Litchfield Wind Ordinance Committee's Final Draft is Here!
After many months of hard work and time spent away from their families, the Litchfield Wind Ordinance Committee has completed and presented their proposed Ordinance to the Litchfield Town Board for their review. The proposed Ordinance can be found here.
Please take the time to review the complete document, as well as all of the factual supporting documentation, which can be found here.
The Committee did a fantastic job, and SSVV supports approval of the Ordinance in its' entirety!
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PROPOSED LITCHFIELD ORDINANCE:
1) PROTECTS RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORS ALIKE
2) DRAFTED WITH THE PROPOSED 500' TOWERS, NOT THE 250' TOWERS OF THE PAST
3) RESIDENTS HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE HOW CLOSE THEY WANT TO BE TO INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES
4) PARTICIPATING LANDOWNERS & DEVELOPERS HAVE FLEXIBILITY ON TURBINE PLACEMENTS IF ALL AGREE
5) LESS RESTRICTIONS ON "PERSONAL WINDMILLS"
6) PRO LANDOWNER, PRO DEVELOPER, PRO NEIGHBOR
7) ASK YOURSELF THIS
8) LET YOUR TOWN BOARD KNOW HOW YOU FEEL
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Report Questions Wind Power’s Ability to Deliver Electricity When Most Needed
Stuart Young Consulting, with support from the John Muir Trust, has released a report studying the ability of wind power to make a significant contribution to the UK's energy supply. It concludes that the average power output of wind turbines across Scotland is well below the rates often claimed by industry and government.
Indeed, for numerous extended periods of time all the wind turbines in Scotland linked to the National Grid muster less than 20MW of energy - that's enough power for a mere 6,667 households to boil their kettles for a cup of tea.
Helen McDade, head of policy at the John Muir Trust, the U.K.’s leading wild land conservation charity, said: "This report is a real eye opener for anyone who's been wondering just how much power Scotland is getting from the fleet of wind turbines that have taken over many of our most beautiful mountains and hillsides. The answer appears to be not enough, and much less than is routinely claimed.”
Stuart Young, author of the report, said, “Over the two-year period studied in this report, the metered windfarms in the U.K. consistently generated far less energy than wind proponents claim is typical. The intermittent nature of wind also gives rise to low wind coinciding with high energy demand. Sadly, wind power is not what it's cracked up to be and cannot contribute greatly to energy security in the UK."
Mr. Young said: "It was a surprise to find out just how disappointingly wind turbines perform in a supposedly wind-ridden country like Scotland. Based on the data, for one third of the time wind output is less than 10% of capacity, compared to the 30% that is commonly claimed.
At the end of the period studied, the connected capacity of wind power was over 2500MW so the expectation is that the wind network will produce, on average, 750MW of energy. In fact, it's delivering far less than everyone's expectations. The total wind capacity metered now is 3226MW but at 3a.m. on Monday 28th March, the total output was 9MW.”
The report, Analysis of UK Wind Generation, is the result of detailed analysis of windfarm output in Scotland over a 26-month period between November 2008 to December 2010 using data from the BMRS (Balancing Mechanism Reporting System). It's the first report of its kind, and drew on data freely available to the public. It challenges five common assertions made regularly by wind industry and the Scottish Government:
1. 'Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year'
In fact, the average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.
2. 'The wind is always blowing somewhere'
On 124 separate occasions from November 2008 to December 2010, the total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW (a fraction of the 450MW expected from a capacity in excess of 1600 MW). These periods of low wind lasted an average of 4.5 hours.
3. 'Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.'
Actually, low wind occurred every six days throughout the 26-month study period. The report finds that the average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.
4. 'The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.'
At each of the four highest peak demand points of 2010, wind output was extremely low at 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.
5. 'Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.'
The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.
Read the Executive Summary or downloaded the Full Report.
Indeed, for numerous extended periods of time all the wind turbines in Scotland linked to the National Grid muster less than 20MW of energy - that's enough power for a mere 6,667 households to boil their kettles for a cup of tea.
Helen McDade, head of policy at the John Muir Trust, the U.K.’s leading wild land conservation charity, said: "This report is a real eye opener for anyone who's been wondering just how much power Scotland is getting from the fleet of wind turbines that have taken over many of our most beautiful mountains and hillsides. The answer appears to be not enough, and much less than is routinely claimed.”
Stuart Young, author of the report, said, “Over the two-year period studied in this report, the metered windfarms in the U.K. consistently generated far less energy than wind proponents claim is typical. The intermittent nature of wind also gives rise to low wind coinciding with high energy demand. Sadly, wind power is not what it's cracked up to be and cannot contribute greatly to energy security in the UK."
Mr. Young said: "It was a surprise to find out just how disappointingly wind turbines perform in a supposedly wind-ridden country like Scotland. Based on the data, for one third of the time wind output is less than 10% of capacity, compared to the 30% that is commonly claimed.
At the end of the period studied, the connected capacity of wind power was over 2500MW so the expectation is that the wind network will produce, on average, 750MW of energy. In fact, it's delivering far less than everyone's expectations. The total wind capacity metered now is 3226MW but at 3a.m. on Monday 28th March, the total output was 9MW.”
The report, Analysis of UK Wind Generation, is the result of detailed analysis of windfarm output in Scotland over a 26-month period between November 2008 to December 2010 using data from the BMRS (Balancing Mechanism Reporting System). It's the first report of its kind, and drew on data freely available to the public. It challenges five common assertions made regularly by wind industry and the Scottish Government:
1. 'Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year'
In fact, the average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.
2. 'The wind is always blowing somewhere'
On 124 separate occasions from November 2008 to December 2010, the total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW (a fraction of the 450MW expected from a capacity in excess of 1600 MW). These periods of low wind lasted an average of 4.5 hours.
3. 'Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.'
Actually, low wind occurred every six days throughout the 26-month study period. The report finds that the average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.
4. 'The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.'
At each of the four highest peak demand points of 2010, wind output was extremely low at 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.
5. 'Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.'
The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.
Read the Executive Summary or downloaded the Full Report.
Official: wind farms are totally useless
Before I take my break, I cannot resist drawing your attention to a new report on wind farms - perhaps the most damning I have ever read. What makes it even more significant is that it has been sponsored by an environmental charity. Normally the people most busily pushing these bird-chomping, bat-crunching, taxpayer-fleecing monstrosities on our magnificent landscape are those who claim, ludicrously, to be “green.” Thank you, John Muir Trust, for reminding as that being “green” doesn’t necessarily have to include economically suicidal schemes to destroy perhaps our greatest national asset: the British countryside.
Here’s its summary:
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS in respect of analysis of electricity generation from all the U.K. windfarms which are metered by National Grid, November 2008 to December 2010. The following five statements are common assertions made by both the wind industry and Government representatives and agencies. This Report examines those assertions.
“Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year.”
“The wind is always blowing somewhere.”
“Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.”
“The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.”
“Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.”
This analysis uses publicly available data for a 26 month period between November 2008 and December 2010 and the facts in respect of the above assertions are:
Average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.
There were 124 separate occasions from November 2008 till December 2010 when total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW. (Average capacity over the period was in excess of 1600MW).
The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.
At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.
The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.
Here’s its summary:
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS in respect of analysis of electricity generation from all the U.K. windfarms which are metered by National Grid, November 2008 to December 2010. The following five statements are common assertions made by both the wind industry and Government representatives and agencies. This Report examines those assertions.
“Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year.”
“The wind is always blowing somewhere.”
“Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.”
“The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.”
“Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.”
This analysis uses publicly available data for a 26 month period between November 2008 and December 2010 and the facts in respect of the above assertions are:
Average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.
There were 124 separate occasions from November 2008 till December 2010 when total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW. (Average capacity over the period was in excess of 1600MW).
The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.
At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.
The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.
Wind farm efficiency queried by John Muir Trust study
Wind farms are much less efficient than claimed, producing below 10% of capacity for more than a third of the time, according to a new report.
The analysis also suggested output was low during the times of highest demand.
The report, supported by conservation charity the John Muir Trust, concluded turbines "cannot be relied upon" to produce significant levels of power generation.
However, industry representatives said they had "no confidence" in the data.
The research, carried out by Stuart Young Consulting, analysed electricity generated from UK wind farms between November 2008 to December 2010
Statements made by the wind industry and government agencies commonly assert that wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year, it said.
But the research found wind generation was below 20% of capacity more than half the time and below 10% of capacity over one third of the time.
'Different manner'
It also challenged industry claims that periods of widespread low wind were "infrequent".
The average frequency and duration of a "low wind event" was once every 6.38 days for 4.93 hours, it suggested.
The report noted: "Very low wind events are not confined to periods of high pressure in winter.
"They can occur at any time of the year."
During each of the four highest peak demands of 2010, wind output reached just 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity, according to the analysis.
It concluded wind behaves in a "quite different manner" from that suggested by average output figures or wind speed records.
The report said: "It is clear from this analysis that wind cannot be relied upon to provide any significant level of generation at any defined time in the future.
"There is an urgent need to re-evaluate the implications of reliance on wind for any significant proportion of our energy requirement."
However, Jenny Hogan, director of policy for Scottish Renewables, said no form of electricity worked at 100% capacity, 100% of the time.
She said: "Yet again the John Muir Trust has commissioned an anti-wind farm campaigner to produce a report about UK onshore wind energy output.
"It could be argued the trust is acting irresponsibly given their expertise lies in protecting our wild lands and yet they seem to be going to great lengths to undermine renewable energy which is widely recognised as one of the biggest solutions to tackling climate change - the single biggest threat to our natural heritage.
"We have yet to hear the trust bring forward a viable alternative to lower emissions and meet our growing demand for safe, secure energy."
The analysis also suggested output was low during the times of highest demand.
The report, supported by conservation charity the John Muir Trust, concluded turbines "cannot be relied upon" to produce significant levels of power generation.
However, industry representatives said they had "no confidence" in the data.
The research, carried out by Stuart Young Consulting, analysed electricity generated from UK wind farms between November 2008 to December 2010
Statements made by the wind industry and government agencies commonly assert that wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year, it said.
But the research found wind generation was below 20% of capacity more than half the time and below 10% of capacity over one third of the time.
'Different manner'
It also challenged industry claims that periods of widespread low wind were "infrequent".
The average frequency and duration of a "low wind event" was once every 6.38 days for 4.93 hours, it suggested.
The report noted: "Very low wind events are not confined to periods of high pressure in winter.
"They can occur at any time of the year."
During each of the four highest peak demands of 2010, wind output reached just 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity, according to the analysis.
It concluded wind behaves in a "quite different manner" from that suggested by average output figures or wind speed records.
The report said: "It is clear from this analysis that wind cannot be relied upon to provide any significant level of generation at any defined time in the future.
"There is an urgent need to re-evaluate the implications of reliance on wind for any significant proportion of our energy requirement."
However, Jenny Hogan, director of policy for Scottish Renewables, said no form of electricity worked at 100% capacity, 100% of the time.
She said: "Yet again the John Muir Trust has commissioned an anti-wind farm campaigner to produce a report about UK onshore wind energy output.
"It could be argued the trust is acting irresponsibly given their expertise lies in protecting our wild lands and yet they seem to be going to great lengths to undermine renewable energy which is widely recognised as one of the biggest solutions to tackling climate change - the single biggest threat to our natural heritage.
"We have yet to hear the trust bring forward a viable alternative to lower emissions and meet our growing demand for safe, secure energy."
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Wind farms 'do not match claims'
Wind farms produce far less energy than previously claimed, according to a new report.
Wind-energy output at wind farms metered by the national grid was less than 10% capacity for one third of the time during the two-year study. Low output also sometimes coincided with periods of peak demand.
The report, supported by Scottish conservation charity the John Muir Trust, said wind "cannot be relied upon" to provide any significant level of energy generation at any defined time in the future.
It cited an "urgent need" to re-evaluate the implications of a reliance on wind for any significant proportion of Scotland's energy requirement.
The study found that for numerous extended periods of time all the wind turbines linked to the National Grid muster less than 20MW of energy: enough power for 6,667 households to boil their kettles for a cup of tea.
It also called into question common assertions made by industry such as that wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year. It found that average output from wind was just 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010.
Stuart Young, author of the report, said: "It was a surprise to find out just how disappointingly wind turbines perform in a supposedly wind-ridden country like Scotland. Based on the data, for one third of the time wind output is less than 10% of capacity, compared to the 30% that is commonly claimed."
The study analysed electricity generation from all UK wind farms which are metered by National Grid between November 2008 and December 2010. All were in Scotland until three in England were added to the study in July 2010.
Helen McDade, head of policy at the John Muir Trust, the UK's leading wild land conservation charity, said: "This report is a real eye-opener for anyone who's been wondering just how much power Scotland is getting from the fleet of wind turbines that have taken over many of our most beautiful mountains and hillsides.
"The answer appears to be not enough, and much less than is routinely claimed."
Wind-energy output at wind farms metered by the national grid was less than 10% capacity for one third of the time during the two-year study. Low output also sometimes coincided with periods of peak demand.
The report, supported by Scottish conservation charity the John Muir Trust, said wind "cannot be relied upon" to provide any significant level of energy generation at any defined time in the future.
It cited an "urgent need" to re-evaluate the implications of a reliance on wind for any significant proportion of Scotland's energy requirement.
The study found that for numerous extended periods of time all the wind turbines linked to the National Grid muster less than 20MW of energy: enough power for 6,667 households to boil their kettles for a cup of tea.
It also called into question common assertions made by industry such as that wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year. It found that average output from wind was just 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010.
Stuart Young, author of the report, said: "It was a surprise to find out just how disappointingly wind turbines perform in a supposedly wind-ridden country like Scotland. Based on the data, for one third of the time wind output is less than 10% of capacity, compared to the 30% that is commonly claimed."
The study analysed electricity generation from all UK wind farms which are metered by National Grid between November 2008 and December 2010. All were in Scotland until three in England were added to the study in July 2010.
Helen McDade, head of policy at the John Muir Trust, the UK's leading wild land conservation charity, said: "This report is a real eye-opener for anyone who's been wondering just how much power Scotland is getting from the fleet of wind turbines that have taken over many of our most beautiful mountains and hillsides.
"The answer appears to be not enough, and much less than is routinely claimed."
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Sunday, April 03, 2011
WINDFALL
View the Video
The 360 | 365 George Eastman House Film Festival captures both the birthplace of the art form and its cutting edge evolution.
The Film Festival is an annual spring celebration that grew out of the very successful Rochester/High Falls International Film Festival, bringing the finest in independent motion pictures, and film and new media artists to Rochester and Western New York audiences. It’s a film festival built for everyone, the avid movie fan, aspiring and established filmmakers, and those that just want to explore.
Over the course of the Festival, features, documentaries, shorts, children’s and young adult programs are presented, along with student filmmaking competitions and the winners of our year-round Shorts Contest. Honoring our past, the Festival focuses a portion of its programming on the achievements of women in all aspects of filmmaking. But the 360 | 365 George Eastman House Film Festival expands that programming with a wide range of films appealing to both sexes, all age ranges, and personal tastes.
Panel discussions and master classes presented by prominent industry professionals give our filmmaking audience unique access to advance their own talents in all aspects of filmmaking. Public parties, private receptions, and informal “Coffee With” events provide casual networking opportunities with visiting filmmakers.
Films from past Festivals have gone on to win Academy Awards®, Golden Globe Awards® and recognition at other festivals, from Sundance to Berlin.
Our guests have included:
Lynn Redgrave, Rita Moreno, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Christine Lahti, Bill Pullman, Angela Bassett, Robert Forster, Mira Nair, Jane Alexander, Candice Bergen, Joan Allen, Gordy Hoffman, Famke Janssen, Faith Hubley, Stuart Craig, Diane Ladd, John Curran, CCH Pounder, Leslie Stahl, Celeste Holm, Lainie Kazan, Sally Kellerman, voice-over actress Nancy “Bart Simpson” Cartwright, producer Lauren Shuler Donner, Richard Donner, Agnieszka Holland, and Shrek director Vicky Jenson.
The 360 | 365 George Eastman House Film Festival captures both the birthplace of the art form and its cutting edge evolution.
The Film Festival is an annual spring celebration that grew out of the very successful Rochester/High Falls International Film Festival, bringing the finest in independent motion pictures, and film and new media artists to Rochester and Western New York audiences. It’s a film festival built for everyone, the avid movie fan, aspiring and established filmmakers, and those that just want to explore.
Over the course of the Festival, features, documentaries, shorts, children’s and young adult programs are presented, along with student filmmaking competitions and the winners of our year-round Shorts Contest. Honoring our past, the Festival focuses a portion of its programming on the achievements of women in all aspects of filmmaking. But the 360 | 365 George Eastman House Film Festival expands that programming with a wide range of films appealing to both sexes, all age ranges, and personal tastes.
Panel discussions and master classes presented by prominent industry professionals give our filmmaking audience unique access to advance their own talents in all aspects of filmmaking. Public parties, private receptions, and informal “Coffee With” events provide casual networking opportunities with visiting filmmakers.
Films from past Festivals have gone on to win Academy Awards®, Golden Globe Awards® and recognition at other festivals, from Sundance to Berlin.
Our guests have included:
Lynn Redgrave, Rita Moreno, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Christine Lahti, Bill Pullman, Angela Bassett, Robert Forster, Mira Nair, Jane Alexander, Candice Bergen, Joan Allen, Gordy Hoffman, Famke Janssen, Faith Hubley, Stuart Craig, Diane Ladd, John Curran, CCH Pounder, Leslie Stahl, Celeste Holm, Lainie Kazan, Sally Kellerman, voice-over actress Nancy “Bart Simpson” Cartwright, producer Lauren Shuler Donner, Richard Donner, Agnieszka Holland, and Shrek director Vicky Jenson.
Saturday, April 02, 2011
First Wind misses critical 'Big Wind' project deadline
First Wind, the developer for a proposed 200-megawatt wind farm on Molokai, missed the March 18 deadline to show the Public Utilities Commission that they had secured the land needed for the project, according to Kekoa Kaluhiwa, director of external affairs for First Wind.
The project is part of the proposed “Big Wind” project, designed to bring 200 mw of wind energy from Molokai and 200 mw of wind energy from Lanai to Oahu through an undersea cable. The energy could account for about 25 percent of Oahu’s energy needs, and the total cost of the project is roughly estimated at $3 billion.
Hawaiian Electric Co. officials have told PBN in the past that if Molokai's part of the project fell through then all 400 mw could be developed on Lanai, where Castle & Cooke is the developer for that proposed wind farm.
No other developer is permitted to try and develop the wind farm on Molokai, according to First Wind executives. If Hawaiian Electric Co. executives were to try to go with another developer on the project for Molokai, Kaluhiwa said that there potentially could be litigation brought by First Wind. A company spokesman told PBN there are no plans to file litigation at this time.
HECO spokesman Peter Rosegg said that “we are working through these issues now and hope to be able to provide more details in the coming weeks.” Rosegg said that he couldn’t comment further at this time.
Meanwhile, Peter Nicholas, CEO of Molokai Ranch, the property that was designated for the proposed Molokai wind farm, has been collaborating with another wind developer, San Francisco-based Pattern Energy on developing the project for the past several weeks. Nicholas told PBN that Molokai Ranch had been approached by a number of other wind developers about the project and had decided that Pattern Energy was the desired developer if the project were to come about.
David Parquet of Pattern Energy told PBN that “Pattern has been identified by Molokai Ranch as the preferred choice of wind developer should a wind project be developed on ranch property.”
Pattern Energy representatives held three public meetings laying out their proposal for the project during the first week of March. According to Parquet, Pattern Energy’s plans include about 90 wind turbines on 11,000 acres of land.
Discussions with Pattern Energy executives follow what Nicholas said were failed negotiations with First Wind. Nicholas said First Wind had presented two proposals for purchasing acreage on the Molokai Ranch for the project but they were both rejected. He said the last proposal was rejected in June of last year and since November there were no discussions with First Wind “in any shape or form.”
However, Kaluhiwa said as late as February that First Wind executives were still hoping to submit another proposal following the rejection.
Nicholas said that the reason for the rejection was that “First Wind never sought community input [on the project] despite us urging them to do that.” He said Pattern Energy representatives were already doing a much better job in talking with the community on Molokai.
Kaluhiwa said that First Wind planned to issue a response to the criticism in the near future.
The wind project has sparked heated controversy on Lanai and Molokai. Neither of the electric grids on the small islands can tolerate the high penetration of energy, meaning the residents will have to bear the effects of dozens of wind turbines on their islands. All the energy would be transported to Oahu. On Lanai, the 200 mw wind farm could cover a fifth of the island. If Lanai receives all 400 mw of wind energy it’s not immediately clear how much this would enlarge the wind farm’s footprint. Residents have expressed concerns that the wind farm could disrupt hunting and fishing practices, as well as disturb cultural and archeological sites.
Butch Gima, of Lanaians for Sensible Growth, a community advocacy organization, told PBN last September that “it’s tough to get an appreciation of how this will affect our island. Even residents have a hard time conceptualizing it. When we presented a 3-D model, people were just flabbergasted. People on Oahu need to understand that out-of-sight, out-of-mind does not relieve them of the responsibility to address this issue.”
Hawaiian Electric representatives have acknowledged in the past the significant sacrifice that residents of the islands would be making for allowing the wind farms. A community benefits package has been negotiated with Lanai residents by Hawaiian Electric and Castle & Cooke, but negotiations never developed that far on Molokai.
The “Big Wind” project has been pursued aggressively by Hawaiian Electric, and the state energy office and is seen as important for the utility in reaching renewable energy benchmarks as laid out in the 2008 Clean Energy Initiative. The state will fine the utility if goals aren’t reached, though commissioners at the Public Utilities Commission, which regulates the utility, can make allowances if the utility shows it had made a good faith effort to reach targets.
The project is part of the proposed “Big Wind” project, designed to bring 200 mw of wind energy from Molokai and 200 mw of wind energy from Lanai to Oahu through an undersea cable. The energy could account for about 25 percent of Oahu’s energy needs, and the total cost of the project is roughly estimated at $3 billion.
Hawaiian Electric Co. officials have told PBN in the past that if Molokai's part of the project fell through then all 400 mw could be developed on Lanai, where Castle & Cooke is the developer for that proposed wind farm.
No other developer is permitted to try and develop the wind farm on Molokai, according to First Wind executives. If Hawaiian Electric Co. executives were to try to go with another developer on the project for Molokai, Kaluhiwa said that there potentially could be litigation brought by First Wind. A company spokesman told PBN there are no plans to file litigation at this time.
HECO spokesman Peter Rosegg said that “we are working through these issues now and hope to be able to provide more details in the coming weeks.” Rosegg said that he couldn’t comment further at this time.
Meanwhile, Peter Nicholas, CEO of Molokai Ranch, the property that was designated for the proposed Molokai wind farm, has been collaborating with another wind developer, San Francisco-based Pattern Energy on developing the project for the past several weeks. Nicholas told PBN that Molokai Ranch had been approached by a number of other wind developers about the project and had decided that Pattern Energy was the desired developer if the project were to come about.
David Parquet of Pattern Energy told PBN that “Pattern has been identified by Molokai Ranch as the preferred choice of wind developer should a wind project be developed on ranch property.”
Pattern Energy representatives held three public meetings laying out their proposal for the project during the first week of March. According to Parquet, Pattern Energy’s plans include about 90 wind turbines on 11,000 acres of land.
Discussions with Pattern Energy executives follow what Nicholas said were failed negotiations with First Wind. Nicholas said First Wind had presented two proposals for purchasing acreage on the Molokai Ranch for the project but they were both rejected. He said the last proposal was rejected in June of last year and since November there were no discussions with First Wind “in any shape or form.”
However, Kaluhiwa said as late as February that First Wind executives were still hoping to submit another proposal following the rejection.
Nicholas said that the reason for the rejection was that “First Wind never sought community input [on the project] despite us urging them to do that.” He said Pattern Energy representatives were already doing a much better job in talking with the community on Molokai.
Kaluhiwa said that First Wind planned to issue a response to the criticism in the near future.
The wind project has sparked heated controversy on Lanai and Molokai. Neither of the electric grids on the small islands can tolerate the high penetration of energy, meaning the residents will have to bear the effects of dozens of wind turbines on their islands. All the energy would be transported to Oahu. On Lanai, the 200 mw wind farm could cover a fifth of the island. If Lanai receives all 400 mw of wind energy it’s not immediately clear how much this would enlarge the wind farm’s footprint. Residents have expressed concerns that the wind farm could disrupt hunting and fishing practices, as well as disturb cultural and archeological sites.
Butch Gima, of Lanaians for Sensible Growth, a community advocacy organization, told PBN last September that “it’s tough to get an appreciation of how this will affect our island. Even residents have a hard time conceptualizing it. When we presented a 3-D model, people were just flabbergasted. People on Oahu need to understand that out-of-sight, out-of-mind does not relieve them of the responsibility to address this issue.”
Hawaiian Electric representatives have acknowledged in the past the significant sacrifice that residents of the islands would be making for allowing the wind farms. A community benefits package has been negotiated with Lanai residents by Hawaiian Electric and Castle & Cooke, but negotiations never developed that far on Molokai.
The “Big Wind” project has been pursued aggressively by Hawaiian Electric, and the state energy office and is seen as important for the utility in reaching renewable energy benchmarks as laid out in the 2008 Clean Energy Initiative. The state will fine the utility if goals aren’t reached, though commissioners at the Public Utilities Commission, which regulates the utility, can make allowances if the utility shows it had made a good faith effort to reach targets.
Friday, April 01, 2011
Wind turbines as cigarettes?
(April 1- New York) In a move sure to unsettle some residents, the Town of Marlboor, New York has approved a wind farm project with turbines made to look like cigarettes.
“These are not real cigarettes. These are electronic cigarettes,” said Town Supervisor Joe Kahmle. “We are not advocating pollution of any kind.”
In a bid to raise money for town coffers, the town agreed to allow the turbines to be painted to resemble electronic cigarettes made by the NoSmokeSmokes Corp.
Company representative Simone Barsinister indicated that she saw the project as a win-win-win-win. “Look,” she said, “We paid the town a lump sum; people will stop bringing into their lungs smoke from cigarettes and smokestacks; and if folks are smart about this, they will recharge their smokeless smokes at night when the turbines are spinning fast. I’m surprised more towns aren’t jumping at the opportunity.”
Representatives of NYISO were unavailable for comment as to what impact on the grid the mass plugging in of electronic cigarettes may have.
NoSmokeSmokes estimates that for every 10MW of power generated, the ingestion of 10M mg of tar will be avoided.
Photo simulation of the “Cigarette Turbine” project submitted as part of the town’s environmental due diligence
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Take the NCNow Survey
Large wind farms have been proposed in the Parishville-Hopkinton area as well as Hammond. “Are you in favor of wind farms in St. Lawrence County?”
Take the NCNow Survey
Take the NCNow Survey
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Trend-spotting and a success story in the fight against Big Wind
The little town of Brimfiled Massachusetts (that could) had a fight on their hands. First Wind came to their rural community intent to install 8-10 wind turbines. They didn't know with whom they were messing. Citizens galvanized and on foot traveled through town to tape informational flyers on each and every mailbox. They were determined to defend the character of Brimfield against the industrial blight planned by First Wind.
At Public Hearing, an unprecedented 200 residents rallied and appeared prepared to fight First Wind. One wore a tee-shirt that read, "Mafia Go Home!". Others told First Wind they had picked the wrong town. The Board took notice and so did the developer.
First Wind withdrew their plans for Brimfield citing insufficient wind speed.
A tip of the hat goes to the fiesty folks from Brimfield, Massachusetts.
At Public Hearing, an unprecedented 200 residents rallied and appeared prepared to fight First Wind. One wore a tee-shirt that read, "Mafia Go Home!". Others told First Wind they had picked the wrong town. The Board took notice and so did the developer.
First Wind withdrew their plans for Brimfield citing insufficient wind speed.
A tip of the hat goes to the fiesty folks from Brimfield, Massachusetts.
Town wind panel wants multiyear ban
The town's Wind Committee is recommending a three- to five-year moratorium on industrial wind development in a report issued Monday to the Town Council.
"It would be prudent to allow for adequate and scientifically staffed radar, sonar, and other data collection and analysis to be completed to address questions regarding potential bird, bat, and other wildlife impacts," the committee's report says. "This extended time could also be used to evaluate industrial wind development's consequences for property values of adjacent lands."
A moratorium on wind development approved last year expires in late July.
The 10-member Hammond Wind Advisory Committee was appointed by the Town Council in February 2010 and first met that March. The committee has met 31 times since, its work culminating in proposed changes to the town's wind law.
Read the entire article
"It would be prudent to allow for adequate and scientifically staffed radar, sonar, and other data collection and analysis to be completed to address questions regarding potential bird, bat, and other wildlife impacts," the committee's report says. "This extended time could also be used to evaluate industrial wind development's consequences for property values of adjacent lands."
A moratorium on wind development approved last year expires in late July.
The 10-member Hammond Wind Advisory Committee was appointed by the Town Council in February 2010 and first met that March. The committee has met 31 times since, its work culminating in proposed changes to the town's wind law.
Read the entire article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)