First Wind of Boston is proposing the largest industrial wind project to date for Maine's western mountains. It will stretch more than 25 miles, from Bingham to Parkman.
The 64 500-foot turbines First Wind plans for that remote stretch of the Maine Woods will be highly intrusive and visible to large sections of the Appalachian Trail, from the Bigelow Preserve to Katahdin, including the wildest section of the Appalachian Trail, known as the “100 mile wilderness.”
The Expedited Wind Energy Act, passed in 2008 by the heavily lobbied and “gifted” Legislature, sets an 8-mile visual impact zone, which this string of turbines is beyond. Yet, the red flashing lights, shadow flicker, and noise pollution from the bird- and bat-killing turbines will completely industrialize the region.
The project area is also designated as critical habitat needed for the Atlantic salmon restoration efforts. This project will destroy the vegetation along the banks of 34 perennial streams critical for salmon recovery.
Mainers are being taken to the cleaners by First Wind of Boston. It has no concerns about the ecological impacts or the fact that these industrial wind “pig farms” are ruining the “wild” brand that defines Maine and attracts tourists, hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts.
First Wind’s application to the Maine DEP states that “the purpose of the project is to create a commercially viable low impact wind energy project.” I cannot agree.
It is common knowledge that mountaintop industrial wind is not commercially feasible. The subsidies from local (TIFs), state (Pine Tree zones), and federal (production tax credits) governments are the only reason industrial wind projects are economically viable. In addition, the cost of electricity has risen and will continue to rise as a direct result of mountaintop industrial wind.
When those subsidies stop, you can count on First Wind disappearing with the public's tax dollar-generated profits, leaving behind a severely impoverished industrialized landscape.
It is a scam being perpetrated on the people of Maine by well-funded industrial wind lobbyists, a few quasi-environmental groups who refuse to get their heads out of the sand and others who refuse to stop taking the bribe money the wind corporations enjoy passing out.
The application also claims that a “wind power project like Bingham Wind Project addresses ... greenhouse gases impact on the environment, climate and the health of Maine citizens.” I disagree.
Every scientific study I have been able to review comes to exactly the opposite conclusion. Because wind is intermittent, it is necessary to back it up with conventional power plants.
Since these fossil fuel plants need to be ramped up and down to accommodate the intermittency, they end up using more fuel and putting out more greenhouse gases. It is like driving a vehicle in stop and go traffic. Vehicles use more fuel and put out more pollution due to engines running inefficiently.
When the greenhouse gases generated by construction and the consumption of large amounts of power needed to run the turbines (power not from the turbines), the thousands of gallons of regularly changed lubricants, the destructive mining of rare earth metals in Mongolia, the shipment of turbines, the plastics used in the composites — that so called “clean energy” is pretty darn dirty.
Add to that the loss of forest carbon sequestration due to the clearcutting of forests for turbine pads, roads and power lines, and mountaintop industrial wind doesn’t look so green.
Finally, First Wind claims that the Bingham Wind project is in the best interest of the “health of Maine citizens.” What about the Mainers who have had to move out of their homes because of the noise pollution or pernicious impact of infrasound — a sound used often as a torture technique around the world?
Mainers are now being treated with anti-depressants, blood pressure and insomnia medications as a direct result of industrial wind turbines. Yet First Wind has the gall to state that mountaintop wind power is good for the “health of Maine citizens.” It is only good for its financial bottom line.
One thing that I have learned during the past five years, and it was a hard fact to face, is that just because something is renewable doesn’t make it de facto clean and green.
First Wind is leaching taxpayer money to build turbines that are dividing communities, blasting off mountaintops, clear-cutting forests, killing birds and bats, forcing people out of their homes, negatively impacting the health of Mainers, and destroying the visual beauty of wild Maine.
Those actions are antithetical to Maine values.
It is truly a sad day for Maine if First Wind’s rampage of trashing Maine is allowed to continue.
Source
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Saturday, August 10, 2013
Man Files $5M Suit For Noisy Wind Turbines
A year ago, Dan Williams moved from his home near Ione’s Willow Creek wind farm to Walterville, Ore. He said he couldn’t take the noise of whipping turbine blades any longer.
“It’s hard to explain it to people unless you experience it,” Williams said. “There’s the actual noise that wakes you, but there’s also the infrasound you can’t hear but your body feels. The best I can describe it is like a train or an airplane coming and going.”
Williams filed a lawsuit Friday against Invenergy, the Illinois-based company behind the wind farm, for non-economic losses up to $5 million, as well as economic losses — mostly related to property value depreciation — for $170,000.
Since Invenergy began construction on the 50 wind turbines at Willow Creek in 2008, it has fought in the courts over noise compliance.
First, the fight was over the actual noise limits. Invenergy said the Morrow County noise limit of 50 dBa was acceptable, Williams and a few neighbors argued that the wind farm had to comply with the state limit of 36 dBa.
Although neither enforced it, both the county and the state upheld the 36 dBa limit in seven different court findings.
“I’m extremely disappointed that county and state of Oregon both agree that there’s violations but won’t do anything about them,” Williams said.
After a 2009 noise study conducted on Williams’ property by Invenergy showed turbine noise levels reaching 42 dBa, the wind company embarked on an effort to comply with the noise levels through methods such as triggering turbine shut-downs at certain noise levels. Williams is also claiming the current technology takes too long to shut down after the noise limits are reached.
In the complaint filed Friday, Williams claims “emotional distress, deteriorating physical and emotional health, dizziness, inability to sleep, drowsiness, fatigue, headaches, difficulty thinking, irritation and lethargy” as a result of the turbines’ noise and flickering glare.
In a statement issued Friday, Invenergy said it wasn’t aware of any alleged health impacts to Williams until he filed the lawsuit and would “vigorously defend” itself against his claims.
“Notwithstanding the non-specific nature of these claims, it’s important to reiterate that numerous rigorous studies … have found no evidence to support a link between adverse health effects and sound emitted from wind turbines,” the company stated.
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a noise level of 40 dBA is equal to a running stream or refrigerator humming, 30 dBa is a whisper and 50 to 60 dBa is a quiet office.
But Williams’ attorney, Jim McClandish, who did not want to talk specifically about the case, argued new research shows low-frequency wind turbine noise could be dangerous. While “wind turbine syndrome” was once pure speculation, recent studies show the low-frequency infrasound can cause symptoms such as the dizziness and nausea Williams said he experienced.
“The reverberation at low frequencies affects people’s inner ears. It impacts their ability to sleep, their concentration,” McClandish said.
The lawsuit is expected to take at least a year to make its way through the courts. Williams still owns his Ione home. He said even though he has left the property, he has no plans to stand down.
“What other option do I have?” Williams said. “I was there first. This was forced upon me. I’m a human being with strong convictions.”
Contact Natalie Wheeler at nwheeler@eastoregonian.com or 541-564-4536.
This story originally appeared in East Oregonian.
Source
“It’s hard to explain it to people unless you experience it,” Williams said. “There’s the actual noise that wakes you, but there’s also the infrasound you can’t hear but your body feels. The best I can describe it is like a train or an airplane coming and going.”
Williams filed a lawsuit Friday against Invenergy, the Illinois-based company behind the wind farm, for non-economic losses up to $5 million, as well as economic losses — mostly related to property value depreciation — for $170,000.
Since Invenergy began construction on the 50 wind turbines at Willow Creek in 2008, it has fought in the courts over noise compliance.
First, the fight was over the actual noise limits. Invenergy said the Morrow County noise limit of 50 dBa was acceptable, Williams and a few neighbors argued that the wind farm had to comply with the state limit of 36 dBa.
Although neither enforced it, both the county and the state upheld the 36 dBa limit in seven different court findings.
“I’m extremely disappointed that county and state of Oregon both agree that there’s violations but won’t do anything about them,” Williams said.
After a 2009 noise study conducted on Williams’ property by Invenergy showed turbine noise levels reaching 42 dBa, the wind company embarked on an effort to comply with the noise levels through methods such as triggering turbine shut-downs at certain noise levels. Williams is also claiming the current technology takes too long to shut down after the noise limits are reached.
In the complaint filed Friday, Williams claims “emotional distress, deteriorating physical and emotional health, dizziness, inability to sleep, drowsiness, fatigue, headaches, difficulty thinking, irritation and lethargy” as a result of the turbines’ noise and flickering glare.
In a statement issued Friday, Invenergy said it wasn’t aware of any alleged health impacts to Williams until he filed the lawsuit and would “vigorously defend” itself against his claims.
“Notwithstanding the non-specific nature of these claims, it’s important to reiterate that numerous rigorous studies … have found no evidence to support a link between adverse health effects and sound emitted from wind turbines,” the company stated.
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a noise level of 40 dBA is equal to a running stream or refrigerator humming, 30 dBa is a whisper and 50 to 60 dBa is a quiet office.
But Williams’ attorney, Jim McClandish, who did not want to talk specifically about the case, argued new research shows low-frequency wind turbine noise could be dangerous. While “wind turbine syndrome” was once pure speculation, recent studies show the low-frequency infrasound can cause symptoms such as the dizziness and nausea Williams said he experienced.
“The reverberation at low frequencies affects people’s inner ears. It impacts their ability to sleep, their concentration,” McClandish said.
The lawsuit is expected to take at least a year to make its way through the courts. Williams still owns his Ione home. He said even though he has left the property, he has no plans to stand down.
“What other option do I have?” Williams said. “I was there first. This was forced upon me. I’m a human being with strong convictions.”
Contact Natalie Wheeler at nwheeler@eastoregonian.com or 541-564-4536.
This story originally appeared in East Oregonian.
Source
Wednesday, August 07, 2013
Maine environmental commissioner denies First Wind’s proposal for Bowers Mountain
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection on Monday officially denied First Wind’s application to build a 16-turbine wind farm on Bowers Mountain in eastern Penobscot County.
In a letter signed by DEP Commissioner Patricia Aho, the department rejected the proposed wind farm because it would have “an unreasonable adverse effect on the scenic character and existing uses related to scenic character” in the area, which includes eight lakes deemed Scenic Resources of State or National Significance within eight miles of the project site.
The official denial comes less than a week after the DEP staff recommended that the project be denied.
The 16-turbine wind farm would be located in Carroll Plantation and Kossuth Township. It was proposed by Champlain Wind LLC, a subsidiary of First Wind.
“We are disappointed in the decision by the DEP,” John Lamontagne, First Wind’s spokesman, said in a statement sent to the Bangor Daily News. “We believe the Bowers project is a well-sited project that will bring significant economic benefits for Maine and the region and it enjoys widespread support from nearly all of the state’s environmental organizations.”
Commissioner Aho was not available for a comment on Tuesday, but Mark Bergeron, who is in charge of land resources regulation at the DEP, backed up her decision.
“The department reviews each wind-power application thoroughly, making its permitting decisions within the context of the state’s environmental standards,” Bergeron said in a statement. “Our licensing staff reviews all wind power projects on a case-by-case basis and found that the proposed Bowers Wind Project would have an unreasonable adverse effect on the scenic character and existing uses on the eight interconnected great ponds located within the project area.
“In addition, while the project area is designated as part of the expedited permitting area for wind energy projects, the great ponds are primarily located in the only area in southern and eastern Maine that is not designated as a wind expedited area, which is the Downeast Lakes Region,” he said.
This is the second time First Wind has been denied a permit to construct a wind farm on Bowers Mountain. The now-defunct Land Use Regulation Commission denied the company’s first proposal, which was for 27 turbines, in April 2012. The company reduced the number of turbines to 16 for its second attempt, which it submitted to the DEP in October.
First Wind does have the opportunity to appeal Aho’s decision to the Board of Environmental Protection.
The appeal process did work for another developer, Passadumkeag Wind Park LLC, which wants to build a 14-turbine wind farm on Passadumkeag Mountain in Penobscot County.
In November, Aho rejected Passadumkeag Wind Park’s plans to build its wind farm because of the potential impacts it would have on scenic views in the area. It was the first time Aho had rejected a wind farm developer’s application for a permit.
However, Passadumkeag Wind Park appealed Aho’s decision to the BEP, which in March reversed her decision and allowed the project to move forward.
Lamontagne said First Wind “will review the decision and determine whether or not we wish to appeal the decision to the BEP.”
Gary Campbell, president of the Partnership for the Preservation of the Downeast Lakes Watershed, cheered Aho’s decision to reject First Wind’s proposal.
“We are extremely pleased with Commissioner Aho’s decision to deny First Wind a permit for the Bowers Mountain Wind Project based on its unreasonable adverse scenic impact,” Campbell said in a statement. “This denial reaffirms the wisdom of [the] LURC denial reached last April. The DEP and staff spent many months studying this project and the proposed site. They concluded, and the commissioner confirmed, that this project does not comply with the scenic standard spelled out in the Wind Energy Act.”
First Wind currently operates five wind farms in Maine: Mars Hill Wind in Aroostook County, Rollins Wind in Penobscot County, Bull Hill Wind in Hancock County, and Stetson Wind I & II in Washington County.
Source
In a letter signed by DEP Commissioner Patricia Aho, the department rejected the proposed wind farm because it would have “an unreasonable adverse effect on the scenic character and existing uses related to scenic character” in the area, which includes eight lakes deemed Scenic Resources of State or National Significance within eight miles of the project site.
The official denial comes less than a week after the DEP staff recommended that the project be denied.
The 16-turbine wind farm would be located in Carroll Plantation and Kossuth Township. It was proposed by Champlain Wind LLC, a subsidiary of First Wind.
“We are disappointed in the decision by the DEP,” John Lamontagne, First Wind’s spokesman, said in a statement sent to the Bangor Daily News. “We believe the Bowers project is a well-sited project that will bring significant economic benefits for Maine and the region and it enjoys widespread support from nearly all of the state’s environmental organizations.”
Commissioner Aho was not available for a comment on Tuesday, but Mark Bergeron, who is in charge of land resources regulation at the DEP, backed up her decision.
“The department reviews each wind-power application thoroughly, making its permitting decisions within the context of the state’s environmental standards,” Bergeron said in a statement. “Our licensing staff reviews all wind power projects on a case-by-case basis and found that the proposed Bowers Wind Project would have an unreasonable adverse effect on the scenic character and existing uses on the eight interconnected great ponds located within the project area.
“In addition, while the project area is designated as part of the expedited permitting area for wind energy projects, the great ponds are primarily located in the only area in southern and eastern Maine that is not designated as a wind expedited area, which is the Downeast Lakes Region,” he said.
This is the second time First Wind has been denied a permit to construct a wind farm on Bowers Mountain. The now-defunct Land Use Regulation Commission denied the company’s first proposal, which was for 27 turbines, in April 2012. The company reduced the number of turbines to 16 for its second attempt, which it submitted to the DEP in October.
First Wind does have the opportunity to appeal Aho’s decision to the Board of Environmental Protection.
The appeal process did work for another developer, Passadumkeag Wind Park LLC, which wants to build a 14-turbine wind farm on Passadumkeag Mountain in Penobscot County.
In November, Aho rejected Passadumkeag Wind Park’s plans to build its wind farm because of the potential impacts it would have on scenic views in the area. It was the first time Aho had rejected a wind farm developer’s application for a permit.
However, Passadumkeag Wind Park appealed Aho’s decision to the BEP, which in March reversed her decision and allowed the project to move forward.
Lamontagne said First Wind “will review the decision and determine whether or not we wish to appeal the decision to the BEP.”
Gary Campbell, president of the Partnership for the Preservation of the Downeast Lakes Watershed, cheered Aho’s decision to reject First Wind’s proposal.
“We are extremely pleased with Commissioner Aho’s decision to deny First Wind a permit for the Bowers Mountain Wind Project based on its unreasonable adverse scenic impact,” Campbell said in a statement. “This denial reaffirms the wisdom of [the] LURC denial reached last April. The DEP and staff spent many months studying this project and the proposed site. They concluded, and the commissioner confirmed, that this project does not comply with the scenic standard spelled out in the Wind Energy Act.”
First Wind currently operates five wind farms in Maine: Mars Hill Wind in Aroostook County, Rollins Wind in Penobscot County, Bull Hill Wind in Hancock County, and Stetson Wind I & II in Washington County.
Source
Tuesday, August 06, 2013
Maine DEP rejects First Wind's proposal for Bowers Mountain
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection has rejected First
Wind's proposal for a wind farm on Bowers Mountain, citing its harmful
impact on the local scenery.
Commissioner Patricia Aho signed off on the decision by DEP staff to deny scaled-down proposal for 16 turbines by Maine's largest wind energy developer. The Land Use Regulation Commission denied First Winds' original proposal for 27 turbines in Carroll Plantation, Penobscot County, and Kossuth Township, Washington County.
DEP spokeswoman Jessamine (JESS'-uh-mine) said Tuesday that the revised proposal was rejected because of "scenic impacts."
Maine is New England's wind power leader with up to 500 megawatts of capacity. First Winds' proposal called for turbines producing between 62 megawatts to 48 megawatts of electricity.
Source
Commissioner Patricia Aho signed off on the decision by DEP staff to deny scaled-down proposal for 16 turbines by Maine's largest wind energy developer. The Land Use Regulation Commission denied First Winds' original proposal for 27 turbines in Carroll Plantation, Penobscot County, and Kossuth Township, Washington County.
DEP spokeswoman Jessamine (JESS'-uh-mine) said Tuesday that the revised proposal was rejected because of "scenic impacts."
Maine is New England's wind power leader with up to 500 megawatts of capacity. First Winds' proposal called for turbines producing between 62 megawatts to 48 megawatts of electricity.
Source
Saturday, August 03, 2013
Letter: Orangeville controversy continues
Many readers are aware of the controversy that has gripped the
town of Orangeville for the past five years. An unsolicited
multi-national corporation decided that it wanted to use the wind
resource in our town and turn the township into a platform for profits.
To add insult to injury, much of the profit will come from our taxes in
the form of government subsidies and handouts. For the past five years a
citizens’ group has fought hard to preserve the rural and local nature
of Orangeville that attracted many to Orangeville in the first place.
Many legitimate issues were raised about the effects of a wind project
in the town both on local residents and on residents of surrounding
townships including Warsaw and Attica.
But big money is now turning Orangeville into a “company-owned town.” Who can miss the caravan of cement trucks that are busily filling in our special places? Who can miss the caravan of other trucks carrying crushed stone for the access roads that cover once pristine countryside? Just look at the numbers: Each foundation for each wind turbine requires over 300 cubic yards of concrete. With nearly 60 turbines, the amount of concrete being poured into Orangeville soil will be well in excess of 18,000 cubic yards of non-native concrete. This requires 1,800 round-trips of cement trucks of 10 cubic yard capacity. And more truckloads still for the access roads. Who is keeping track of the damage to state and county roads as this onslaught continues? Importantly, who will pay for the damage to surrounding townships?
How will we go about repairing the damage to half
the towns-peoples’ lives and property losses?
How will we protect our health, safety and welfare?
Previous actions of the Town Board provide no comfort here. The current and previous Town Board acted more as agents for big business than as civil representatives of the residents who elected them in the first place. Therefore, it is safe to assume that we will receive no help or sympathy from the very people who crafted the zoning laws that brought this Invenergy project into our town.
It is time for Orangeville managers to stand up and take a bow ... Susan May, Tom Schabloski, Andrew Flint, James Hermann and Hans Boxler (who already has benefited from Invenergy L.L.C.’s wind project in Sheldon).
Additionally, these Town Board members passed a resolution that raises a hurdle and a barrier to any taxpayer who wishes to have a complaint heard ... even problems of health and noise damage. We will have to pay a sizable amount to an arbitrator to even have our complaints heard. Conflicts of interest used to be illegal ... for these reasons — and more — we all must vote in mass numbers against these people during elections later this year.
So where do we go from here?
What is happening in Orangeville is not limited to Orangeville. Pilots and airfields in the neighboring townships of Attica and Warsaw are being adversely affected. The integrity of the Wyoming County emergency broadcast tower is being affected. Local wells and the Attica Reservoir may be at risk of becoming polluted. Roadways are deteriorating in surrounding townships. The view of the night sky is being reduced to an industrial complex of blinking red lights.
But inaction of the Wyoming County Board of Supervisors aside, many residents are not “rolling over and playing dead” in response to this destruction of our town of Orangeville and our lives. A group of citizens have already contacted Richard Lippes (winning attorney of Love Canal fame, and currently defending homeowners against corporate greed in the town of Attica). This group of thoughtful individuals is growing by leaps and bounds and has already formally put landowners on notice of their intent to seek legal remedies for any damages caused by the coming 43-story high industrial turbines.
The current Town Board is an accomplice in setting the stage for these potential lawsuits by minimizing the required distance between citizens and these behemoth machines. The coming turbines will sweep an area nearly 50 percent larger than anything that we have seen to date in neighboring Sheldon, Bliss or Wethersfield.
As the destruction and damage to Orangeville continues to unfold, it is important that we take back the leadership of any township that would willingly destroy itself for short-term profit. Profit for the few at the expense of the many.
If the current situation distresses you, a good next move is to contact “Where to go from Here,” P.O. Box 308, Warsaw, NY 14569; or phone (585) 786-2733 and we’ll get your message to those concerned.
Cathi Orr
Orangeville
Source
But big money is now turning Orangeville into a “company-owned town.” Who can miss the caravan of cement trucks that are busily filling in our special places? Who can miss the caravan of other trucks carrying crushed stone for the access roads that cover once pristine countryside? Just look at the numbers: Each foundation for each wind turbine requires over 300 cubic yards of concrete. With nearly 60 turbines, the amount of concrete being poured into Orangeville soil will be well in excess of 18,000 cubic yards of non-native concrete. This requires 1,800 round-trips of cement trucks of 10 cubic yard capacity. And more truckloads still for the access roads. Who is keeping track of the damage to state and county roads as this onslaught continues? Importantly, who will pay for the damage to surrounding townships?
How will we protect our health, safety and welfare?
Previous actions of the Town Board provide no comfort here. The current and previous Town Board acted more as agents for big business than as civil representatives of the residents who elected them in the first place. Therefore, it is safe to assume that we will receive no help or sympathy from the very people who crafted the zoning laws that brought this Invenergy project into our town.
It is time for Orangeville managers to stand up and take a bow ... Susan May, Tom Schabloski, Andrew Flint, James Hermann and Hans Boxler (who already has benefited from Invenergy L.L.C.’s wind project in Sheldon).
Additionally, these Town Board members passed a resolution that raises a hurdle and a barrier to any taxpayer who wishes to have a complaint heard ... even problems of health and noise damage. We will have to pay a sizable amount to an arbitrator to even have our complaints heard. Conflicts of interest used to be illegal ... for these reasons — and more — we all must vote in mass numbers against these people during elections later this year.
So where do we go from here?
What is happening in Orangeville is not limited to Orangeville. Pilots and airfields in the neighboring townships of Attica and Warsaw are being adversely affected. The integrity of the Wyoming County emergency broadcast tower is being affected. Local wells and the Attica Reservoir may be at risk of becoming polluted. Roadways are deteriorating in surrounding townships. The view of the night sky is being reduced to an industrial complex of blinking red lights.
But inaction of the Wyoming County Board of Supervisors aside, many residents are not “rolling over and playing dead” in response to this destruction of our town of Orangeville and our lives. A group of citizens have already contacted Richard Lippes (winning attorney of Love Canal fame, and currently defending homeowners against corporate greed in the town of Attica). This group of thoughtful individuals is growing by leaps and bounds and has already formally put landowners on notice of their intent to seek legal remedies for any damages caused by the coming 43-story high industrial turbines.
The current Town Board is an accomplice in setting the stage for these potential lawsuits by minimizing the required distance between citizens and these behemoth machines. The coming turbines will sweep an area nearly 50 percent larger than anything that we have seen to date in neighboring Sheldon, Bliss or Wethersfield.
As the destruction and damage to Orangeville continues to unfold, it is important that we take back the leadership of any township that would willingly destroy itself for short-term profit. Profit for the few at the expense of the many.
If the current situation distresses you, a good next move is to contact “Where to go from Here,” P.O. Box 308, Warsaw, NY 14569; or phone (585) 786-2733 and we’ll get your message to those concerned.
Cathi Orr
Orangeville
Source
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Letter: Push for renewables based on fear, not facts
The fact that the Batavia Daily News printed the Global Alarmism rantings of an out-of-stater that pushes for “the transfer of energy to environmentally favored sources” in their hard-copy edition — while not allowing local New York state citizens the same courtesy regarding current Albany and Washington, D.C., “renewable” energy policies that are having devastating impacts on local citizens’ lives and communities (as per The Daily News staff decision in early 2013), is both perplexing and disturbing.
Source
The Daily News’ double-standard aside, the facts do not bear out Mr.
Farnham’s global warming alarmist hyperbole. Climate swings have been happening
since the beginning of time — long before man came on the scene and started
thinking that he could somehow start controlling everything. (Humans can’t even
control themselves, let alone the weather!) Anyone who has done any research at
all on the United Nations’, Obama’s, Cuomo’s and Bloomberg’s ‘green’ energy
fantasies knows — power, control and money are the drivers behind today’s push
for all things “green.”
Furthermore, it’s easy for an out-of-stater to push for something that he will not have to pay for.
Billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s $20 billion proposal — which Mr. Farnham’s letter was fawning over — will cost average New York City residents over $3,000 per household (http://bit.ly/134jGRa). People are already leaving New York because of excessive taxes and regulations here. We can not afford any more.
Neither do the facts bear out Mr. Farnham’s push for his favored “renewables.” Besides all the notable failures, like Solyndra, let’s consider the results to date of the billions of dollars that taxpayers and ratepayers have been forced to fork over to the green-enthusiasts’ favored (dare I say the black-listed word?) “wind power” sector. With approximately 200,000 industrial wind turbines installed world-wide today, CO2 emissions have not been significantly reduced, nor have any conventional power plants been shuttered thanks to industrial wind turbines — anywhere. To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world’s electricity from wind power today is zero. That’s right — zero.
Meanwhile, the coal Mr. Farnham does not want us to use is being shipped to China, where they are building another coal plant every week, unencumbered by the same environmental regulations we have here. In Europe, because of the same kind of pressure from “green” enthusiasts there, some of Europe’s coal-burning power plants are switching to wood. Since Europe doesn’t have enough forests to chop for fuel — and in those it does have, many restrictions apply — Europe’s power plants are devouring wood from Mr. Farnham’s state of North Carolina, where forests are bigger and restrictions fewer. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324082604578485491298208114.html)
Spending billions more on failed “green” technologies is not going to change a thing that Mr. Farnham is worrying about. However, it will most certainly drive more businesses and people out of New York, and put more New York state residents into energy poverty.
Our energy problems will never be solved by the perpetuation of fear-mongering and one-sided reporting. Instead, we need to stick to the facts, encourage rational discussions, and base our energy decisions on sound scientific, economic and environmental standards.
Should we be concerned and involved regarding our environment and energy matters today? You bet! If we wish to maintain reliable, affordable power for all Americans, an educated electorate is our only defense against cronyism and corporate hucksters in this “anything for a buck” world we live in today. We do not need an “all of the above” energy policy — we need an “all of the sensible” energy policy.
Visit the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions website at: http://wiseenergy.org. Other good,
science-based sites include: The Science & Public Policy Institute at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/; The Cornwall Alliance at www.cornwallalliance.org/?; The Climate Depot at http://www.cfact.org/tag/climate-depot/; and the free-market energy blog, MasterResource.org.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Mary Kay Barton
Silver Lake
Furthermore, it’s easy for an out-of-stater to push for something that he will not have to pay for.
Billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s $20 billion proposal — which Mr. Farnham’s letter was fawning over — will cost average New York City residents over $3,000 per household (http://bit.ly/134jGRa). People are already leaving New York because of excessive taxes and regulations here. We can not afford any more.
Neither do the facts bear out Mr. Farnham’s push for his favored “renewables.” Besides all the notable failures, like Solyndra, let’s consider the results to date of the billions of dollars that taxpayers and ratepayers have been forced to fork over to the green-enthusiasts’ favored (dare I say the black-listed word?) “wind power” sector. With approximately 200,000 industrial wind turbines installed world-wide today, CO2 emissions have not been significantly reduced, nor have any conventional power plants been shuttered thanks to industrial wind turbines — anywhere. To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world’s electricity from wind power today is zero. That’s right — zero.
Meanwhile, the coal Mr. Farnham does not want us to use is being shipped to China, where they are building another coal plant every week, unencumbered by the same environmental regulations we have here. In Europe, because of the same kind of pressure from “green” enthusiasts there, some of Europe’s coal-burning power plants are switching to wood. Since Europe doesn’t have enough forests to chop for fuel — and in those it does have, many restrictions apply — Europe’s power plants are devouring wood from Mr. Farnham’s state of North Carolina, where forests are bigger and restrictions fewer. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324082604578485491298208114.html)
Spending billions more on failed “green” technologies is not going to change a thing that Mr. Farnham is worrying about. However, it will most certainly drive more businesses and people out of New York, and put more New York state residents into energy poverty.
Our energy problems will never be solved by the perpetuation of fear-mongering and one-sided reporting. Instead, we need to stick to the facts, encourage rational discussions, and base our energy decisions on sound scientific, economic and environmental standards.
Should we be concerned and involved regarding our environment and energy matters today? You bet! If we wish to maintain reliable, affordable power for all Americans, an educated electorate is our only defense against cronyism and corporate hucksters in this “anything for a buck” world we live in today. We do not need an “all of the above” energy policy — we need an “all of the sensible” energy policy.
Visit the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions website at: http://wiseenergy.org. Other good,
science-based sites include: The Science & Public Policy Institute at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/; The Cornwall Alliance at www.cornwallalliance.org/?; The Climate Depot at http://www.cfact.org/tag/climate-depot/; and the free-market energy blog, MasterResource.org.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Mary Kay Barton
Silver Lake
Source
Monday, July 29, 2013
State permits 18 more First Wind turbines in Hancock County
First Wind has received final approval from the state to erect 18 more turbines in northeastern Hancock County.
Maine Department of Environmental Protection issued its approval for the Hancock Wind project on July 22. The project will abut First Wind’s Bull Hill Wind project in Township 16, which was constructed last year. Four of the 18 turbines approved for Hancock Wind will be on the eastern slope of Bull Hill in Township 16 while the rest will be erected on Schoppe and Spectacle Pond ridges in Township 22.
Each of the 18 turbines is expected to have a generating capacity of 3 megawatts for a total project capacity of 54 megawatts, according to the order signed last week by DEP Commissioner Patricia Aho. The turbines are expected to be approximately 500 feet tall at the highest point of the rotating blades. The total cost of the project is expected to be $110 million.
According to information in the order provided by the company, the construction phase of the project is expected to create approximately 100 full-time jobs while ongoing maintenance and operation of the turbines is expected to create three to six permanent jobs. First Wind predicts the turbines will have an average annual output of 150,000 megawatt-hours, which is enough to power about 24,000 homes, according to the document.
The project is expected to use existing logging roads in the area, including some that were upgraded during construction of the Bull Hill project, but additional clearing will be needed for other road upgrades and power line installation. The company also plans to erect two meteorological towers and to construct an operations and maintenance building in the adjacent town of Aurora, the document indicates.
A First Wind spokesman did not immediately reply Monday morning to a email requesting comment on the project’s approval.
Source
Maine Department of Environmental Protection issued its approval for the Hancock Wind project on July 22. The project will abut First Wind’s Bull Hill Wind project in Township 16, which was constructed last year. Four of the 18 turbines approved for Hancock Wind will be on the eastern slope of Bull Hill in Township 16 while the rest will be erected on Schoppe and Spectacle Pond ridges in Township 22.
Each of the 18 turbines is expected to have a generating capacity of 3 megawatts for a total project capacity of 54 megawatts, according to the order signed last week by DEP Commissioner Patricia Aho. The turbines are expected to be approximately 500 feet tall at the highest point of the rotating blades. The total cost of the project is expected to be $110 million.
According to information in the order provided by the company, the construction phase of the project is expected to create approximately 100 full-time jobs while ongoing maintenance and operation of the turbines is expected to create three to six permanent jobs. First Wind predicts the turbines will have an average annual output of 150,000 megawatt-hours, which is enough to power about 24,000 homes, according to the document.
The project is expected to use existing logging roads in the area, including some that were upgraded during construction of the Bull Hill project, but additional clearing will be needed for other road upgrades and power line installation. The company also plans to erect two meteorological towers and to construct an operations and maintenance building in the adjacent town of Aurora, the document indicates.
A First Wind spokesman did not immediately reply Monday morning to a email requesting comment on the project’s approval.
Source
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Wind Turbine Blade Falls in Sheldon
In December of 2009, an entire wind turbine collapsed at the Fenner Wind Farm.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Tranquility of family land in Orangeville
Dear Editor:
It was an unusually peaceful morning on the front porch in Warsaw. It was July 4, a day to celebrate the freedoms our ancestors fought bravely to establish.
Wecould actually talk without the loud rumbling cement and gravel trucks racing up and down the West Hill to the Orangeville Wind Farm, as Invenergy gave crews a day off.They also gave anyone living on Route 19, Route 20A and Curtis Road/Liberty Street - and the neighbors of the adjoining work sites - a day off
I recently attended a family gathering at one ofthe adjoining properties, owned by the Nevinger family in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. Over the past 49 years, Mary and Jim transformed that beautiful 50 acres into an awesome retreat from the hectic whirlwind of everyday life.
Their artistic and architectural skills shine as you break over the crest ofthe hill and head toward their cabin. Amowed trail leads around the pond to the woods.Jim's hand-crafted bridges carry you over streams. Mary's flower beds decorate the landscape.
At the cabin, the family assembles as it has so many times. Shirley, Dave and Jeff are honoring their parents' 50th wedding anniversary with family portraits made at the family's spiritual center.
All the kids, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are there to honor Mary and Jim and because the place means so much to each ofthem. As young ones, they remember the fun they had outside the cabin: swimming, canoeing, hunting, fishing, sitting by a bonfire, watching meteor showers on summer nights.
The photographer walks the property looking for just the right spot and returns in awe of the sheer beauty of the place. The perfect spot includes the pond, Mary's flowers, the cabin, the woods in the background, and the family... most importantly, the family and all of the treasured memories of the peace and tranquility oftheir carved-out piece of paradise.
In the background, the usual sound ofbirds is replaced by unnatural sounds of gravel trucks dumping their loads for a nearby wind-turbine access road. Truck after truck ... and those annoying beeps: ...beep, beep, beep. Then, a thump, thump, thump as machines put gravel downtomake the road.
The vibration is felt by some. Not much is said. No one wants to spoil the moment, the hour, the day set aside to honor two people who created this special place. Everyone there knows this is the beginning ofthe end.
Four 43-story wind machines will tower over their property. Four sets of blinking lights will break up the night's dark sky.There will be constant rumble of blades rotating as they send out vibrations through air and underground.
Mary and Jim did not ask for this. They know they are losing many of the qualities they so dearly love about their home. They know that reduced property taxes will never compensate for all that they are losing.
They know their story represents only one of many in Orangeville. They never asked for this.
JEAN AND DAVE BASSETT WARSAW
It was an unusually peaceful morning on the front porch in Warsaw. It was July 4, a day to celebrate the freedoms our ancestors fought bravely to establish.
Wecould actually talk without the loud rumbling cement and gravel trucks racing up and down the West Hill to the Orangeville Wind Farm, as Invenergy gave crews a day off.They also gave anyone living on Route 19, Route 20A and Curtis Road/Liberty Street - and the neighbors of the adjoining work sites - a day off
I recently attended a family gathering at one ofthe adjoining properties, owned by the Nevinger family in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. Over the past 49 years, Mary and Jim transformed that beautiful 50 acres into an awesome retreat from the hectic whirlwind of everyday life.
Their artistic and architectural skills shine as you break over the crest ofthe hill and head toward their cabin. Amowed trail leads around the pond to the woods.Jim's hand-crafted bridges carry you over streams. Mary's flower beds decorate the landscape.
At the cabin, the family assembles as it has so many times. Shirley, Dave and Jeff are honoring their parents' 50th wedding anniversary with family portraits made at the family's spiritual center.
All the kids, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are there to honor Mary and Jim and because the place means so much to each ofthem. As young ones, they remember the fun they had outside the cabin: swimming, canoeing, hunting, fishing, sitting by a bonfire, watching meteor showers on summer nights.
The photographer walks the property looking for just the right spot and returns in awe of the sheer beauty of the place. The perfect spot includes the pond, Mary's flowers, the cabin, the woods in the background, and the family... most importantly, the family and all of the treasured memories of the peace and tranquility oftheir carved-out piece of paradise.
In the background, the usual sound ofbirds is replaced by unnatural sounds of gravel trucks dumping their loads for a nearby wind-turbine access road. Truck after truck ... and those annoying beeps: ...beep, beep, beep. Then, a thump, thump, thump as machines put gravel downtomake the road.
The vibration is felt by some. Not much is said. No one wants to spoil the moment, the hour, the day set aside to honor two people who created this special place. Everyone there knows this is the beginning ofthe end.
Four 43-story wind machines will tower over their property. Four sets of blinking lights will break up the night's dark sky.There will be constant rumble of blades rotating as they send out vibrations through air and underground.
Mary and Jim did not ask for this. They know they are losing many of the qualities they so dearly love about their home. They know that reduced property taxes will never compensate for all that they are losing.
They know their story represents only one of many in Orangeville. They never asked for this.
JEAN AND DAVE BASSETT WARSAW
Friday, July 12, 2013
Another Step Forward on Offshore Wind for New York State
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kkennedy/another_step_forward_on_offsho.html
NOTE the author - Kit Kennedy’s Blog (She is the lawyer that was confronted in Rochester when Cuomo was AJ)
The strong ocean winds blowing off the Atlantic coast could power more than ten million American homes with clean, renewable power. This electricity would be free of air and water pollution. And, importantly, it would be generated close to where it’s needed—the dense urban corridor that runs from Boston to New York to Philadelphia—all the way to Washington D.C.
While America’s first offshore wind project has yet to be built, a number of states are vying to be first in the water. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick’s strong renewable energy policies could help bring about, by the end of this year, the start of construction for Cape Wind–the first offshore wind project approved by the federal government. Rhode Island has put policies in place to support the development of a five-turbine demonstration project off Block Island; approvals for this project are near final and construction is slated to begin in 2015. New Jersey has forward-looking legislation to support offshore wind, and a small project proposed there by Fishermen’s Energy could move ahead soon. Maryland enacted similar legislation earlier this year as well, and Virginia and North Carolina are showing interest. New York, though, despite its strong renewable energy program, has been slower to take action to harness the power of offshore wind.
That has begun to change. And today, the New York State Department of State released a long-awaited study that maps out wind, wildlife and environmental conditions in New York’s ocean waters. As my colleague Sarah Chasis writes , this study will allow offshore wind projects to be sited in ways that are “smart from the start”—that avoid potential conflicts with wildlife and other marine uses. Ensuring that these projects are sustainably sited will also speed the process of approving and building them – a very important result.
What are the next steps to make offshore wind a reality off New York City and Long Island?
First, as I explained in January, New York State should commit to move forward on an offshore wind proposal by a public-private collaborative partnership involving the New York Power Authority, the Long Island Power Authority and Con Edison. The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), which regulates offshore wind projects in federal waters, is considering whether to grant a lease for this project. The project would be located in federal waters eleven miles south of Long Beach, Long Island, and would generate at least 350 megawatts (MW) of electricity for Long Island and New York City, with the ability to expand to as much as 700 MW. That’s enough electricity to power an estimated 245,000 homes. The proposed lease area is approximately 127 square miles.
BOEM is checking to see if a competitive auction is necessary for the lease for this site. If so, BOEM will hold an auction, in which NYPA should participate. If not, BOEM will offer to lease the site to NYPA. Either way, NYPA and its partners should continue to work to secure the lease, submit a site assessment plan to learn more about wind and environmental conditions and would then propose a specific project and an exact site. A full environmental review process would then follow. Other promising offshore wind projects have also been proposed for New York waters, including two large projects proposed by Deepwater Wind – one north of Montauk on the tip of Long Island and one off New York Harbor. New York State should adopt an ambitious offshore wind goal and put in place the necessary policies to make this goal a reality.
Today’s New York State marine planning study brings New York one step closer to clean, renewable offshore wind. The issuance of a lease to the NYPA project would be another important step. To help bring projects like these all the way to fruition, New York State also needs targeted investment policies that facilitate financing and contain costs. Such policies should be relatively easy to implement. Already, New Jersey and Maryland are putting into practice financial models used successfully overseas. My colleague Doug Sims authored a whitepaper that offers practical guidance on state financial strategies for supporting offshore wind. As Doug reports, New York could “combine the revenue policies outlined in the paper with low-cost financing from Governor Cuomo’s recently announced Green Bank and the BOEM federal lease to deliver exceptional offshore wind value for money.”
In 1881, the Empire State made history by harnessing the majestic power of Niagara Falls to produce renewable hydropower. Let’s make history again, now, by combining smart siting policies with smart financing strategies to harness the power of offshore wind.
NOTE the author - Kit Kennedy’s Blog (She is the lawyer that was confronted in Rochester when Cuomo was AJ)
The strong ocean winds blowing off the Atlantic coast could power more than ten million American homes with clean, renewable power. This electricity would be free of air and water pollution. And, importantly, it would be generated close to where it’s needed—the dense urban corridor that runs from Boston to New York to Philadelphia—all the way to Washington D.C.
While America’s first offshore wind project has yet to be built, a number of states are vying to be first in the water. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick’s strong renewable energy policies could help bring about, by the end of this year, the start of construction for Cape Wind–the first offshore wind project approved by the federal government. Rhode Island has put policies in place to support the development of a five-turbine demonstration project off Block Island; approvals for this project are near final and construction is slated to begin in 2015. New Jersey has forward-looking legislation to support offshore wind, and a small project proposed there by Fishermen’s Energy could move ahead soon. Maryland enacted similar legislation earlier this year as well, and Virginia and North Carolina are showing interest. New York, though, despite its strong renewable energy program, has been slower to take action to harness the power of offshore wind.
That has begun to change. And today, the New York State Department of State released a long-awaited study that maps out wind, wildlife and environmental conditions in New York’s ocean waters. As my colleague Sarah Chasis writes , this study will allow offshore wind projects to be sited in ways that are “smart from the start”—that avoid potential conflicts with wildlife and other marine uses. Ensuring that these projects are sustainably sited will also speed the process of approving and building them – a very important result.
What are the next steps to make offshore wind a reality off New York City and Long Island?
First, as I explained in January, New York State should commit to move forward on an offshore wind proposal by a public-private collaborative partnership involving the New York Power Authority, the Long Island Power Authority and Con Edison. The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), which regulates offshore wind projects in federal waters, is considering whether to grant a lease for this project. The project would be located in federal waters eleven miles south of Long Beach, Long Island, and would generate at least 350 megawatts (MW) of electricity for Long Island and New York City, with the ability to expand to as much as 700 MW. That’s enough electricity to power an estimated 245,000 homes. The proposed lease area is approximately 127 square miles.
BOEM is checking to see if a competitive auction is necessary for the lease for this site. If so, BOEM will hold an auction, in which NYPA should participate. If not, BOEM will offer to lease the site to NYPA. Either way, NYPA and its partners should continue to work to secure the lease, submit a site assessment plan to learn more about wind and environmental conditions and would then propose a specific project and an exact site. A full environmental review process would then follow. Other promising offshore wind projects have also been proposed for New York waters, including two large projects proposed by Deepwater Wind – one north of Montauk on the tip of Long Island and one off New York Harbor. New York State should adopt an ambitious offshore wind goal and put in place the necessary policies to make this goal a reality.
Today’s New York State marine planning study brings New York one step closer to clean, renewable offshore wind. The issuance of a lease to the NYPA project would be another important step. To help bring projects like these all the way to fruition, New York State also needs targeted investment policies that facilitate financing and contain costs. Such policies should be relatively easy to implement. Already, New Jersey and Maryland are putting into practice financial models used successfully overseas. My colleague Doug Sims authored a whitepaper that offers practical guidance on state financial strategies for supporting offshore wind. As Doug reports, New York could “combine the revenue policies outlined in the paper with low-cost financing from Governor Cuomo’s recently announced Green Bank and the BOEM federal lease to deliver exceptional offshore wind value for money.”
In 1881, the Empire State made history by harnessing the majestic power of Niagara Falls to produce renewable hydropower. Let’s make history again, now, by combining smart siting policies with smart financing strategies to harness the power of offshore wind.
Monday, July 08, 2013
An open letter to the Residents of the Town of Orangeville and surrounding Townships and Communities
An
unsolicited multi-national corporation decided that it wanted to use the wind
resource in our Town and turn the township into a platform for profits. For the
past five years a citizens' group has fought hard to preserve the rural and
local nature of Orangeville. Many legitimate issues were raised ...But big
money is now turning Orangeville into a "Company-Owned Town'.
July 7, 2013 by Cathi Orr,
President Clear Skies Over Orangeville in Warsaw Penny Saver
An open letter to the Residents of the
Town of Orangeville and surrounding Townships and Communities
Many readers are aware of the controversy that has gripped the Town of Orangeville for the past 5 years.
An unsolicited multi-national corporation decided that it wanted to use the wind resource in our Town and turn the township into a platform for profits. To add insult to injury, much of the profit will come from our taxes in the form of government subsidies and hand-outs. For the past five years a citizens' group has fought hard to preserve the rural and local nature of Orangeville that attracted many to Orangeville in the first place. Many legitimate issues were raised about the effects of a wind project in the Town both on local residents and on residents of surrounding townships including Warsaw and Attica.
But big money is now turning Orangeville into a "Company-Owned Town': Who can miss the caravan of cement trucks that are busily filling in our special places? Who can miss the caravan of other trucks carrying crushed stone for the access roads that cover once pristine countryside? Just look at the numbers: each foundation for each wind turbine requires over 300 cubic yards of concrete. With nearly 60 turbines, the amount of concrete being poured into Orangeville soil will be well in excess of 18,000 cubic yards of non-native concrete. This requires 1800 round-trips of cement trucks of 10 cubic yard capacity .... And more truckloads still for the access roads. Who is keeping track of the damage to state and county roads as this onslaught continues? Importantly, who will pay for the damage to surrounding townships?
How will we go about repairing the damage to half the towns-peoples' LIVES and PROPERTY LOSSES?
How will we protect our HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE???
Previous actions of the Town Board provide no comfort here. The current and previous Town Board acted more as agents for big business than as civil representatives of the residents who elected them in the first place. Therefore, it is safe to assume that we will receive no help or sympathy from the very people who crafted the zoning laws that brought this Invenergy project into our town.
It is time for Orangeville managers to stand up and take a bow ... Susan May, Tom Schabloski, Andrew Flint, James Hermann, and Hans Boxler (who already has benefited from Invenergy L.L.C:s wind project in Sheldon).
Additionally, these Town board members passed a resolution that raises a hurdle and a barrier to any taxpayer who wishes to have a complaint heard ... even problems of health and noise damage. We will have to pay a sizable amount to an arbitrator to even have our complaints heard. Conflicts of interest used to be illegal. ... .for these reasons - and more - we all must vote in mass numbers against these people during elections later this year.
So where do we go from here???
What is happening in Orangeville is not limited to Orangeville. Pilots and airfields in the neighboring townships of Attica and Warsaw are being adversely affected. The integrity of the Wyoming County emergency broadcast tower is being affected. Local wells and the Attica Reservoir may be at risk of becoming polluted. Roadways are deteriorating in surrounding townships. The view of the night sky is being reduced to an industrial complex of blinking red lights.
But inaction of the Wyoming County Board of Supervisors aside, many residents are not "rolling over and playing dead" in response to this destruction of our town of Orangeville and our lives. A group of citizens have already contacted Richard Lippes (winning attorney of Love Canal fame, and currently defending homeowners against corporate greed in the Town of Attica). This group of thoughtful individuals is growing by leaps and bounds and has already formally put landowners on notice of their intent to seek legal remedies for any damages caused by the corning 43-story high industrial turbines.
The current Town Board is an accomplice in setting the stage for these potential lawsuits by minimizing the required distance between citizens and these behemoth machines. The corning turbines will sweep an area nearly 50% larger than anything that we have seen to date in neighboring Sheldon, Bliss or Wethersfield.
As the destruction and damage to Orangeville continues to unfold, it is important that we take back the leadership of any township that would willingly destroy itself for short-term profit. ... Profit for the Few at the Expense of the Many.
If the current situation distresses you, a good next move is to contact:
Where to go from Here,
P.O.Box 308, Warsaw, NY 14569,
or phone 786-2733 and we'll get your message to those concerned.
See Page 33 at the web link:
Look carefully at wind-farm windfalls
I can’t help but be amused at periodic news stories about some New York representative gushing about a wind energy deal. As they regurgitate the sales pitch they’ve been fed, it’s clear that the developer has succeeded in appealing to the second oldest human frailty: greed. “We will be getting $10 million over 10 years” is a frequent rationale. Since they have been easily duped by the allure of money, they believe that most of their constituents should be likewise susceptible.
How many of our legislators convey the true picture to citizens? Haven’t they ever heard that there’s no free lunch? Yes, they have been offered a financial deal, but the rest of the story includes numerous other aspects like:
— The “windfall” money is coming from taxpayers and ratepayers.
— The deal is premised on an enormous property tax giveaway that no other citizen gets.
— None of the figures conveyed to the public are net.
— Property values near this development will depreciate: Who compensates those citizens for their loss?
— Some proximate residents will experience negative health effects: Who compensates them for their illnesses?
— It’s proven that there will be agricultural losses up to 15 miles away: Who pays for those?
— There are several major adverse environmental impacts, yet this is marketed as helping the environment.
— The claim that this project “will power 10,000 homes” is totally dishonest.
— The claims that this project will replace imported oil, or some polluting coal facility, are also false.
— Fact: There are zero scientifically-proven net societal benefits for wind energy. Zero.
So listen carefully when representatives explain about a proposed wind project. In many instances they are assuming that you are too dumb to understand the details, that you don’t care anyway, and that the inducement of some unguaranteed future payoffs will insure that you start drooling (so you won’t pay attention to the realities).
On the other hand, real representatives will give you an honest, complete, and objective explanation about the whole situation. You decide which is acceptable.
John Droz Jr.
Brantingham Lake
Source
How many of our legislators convey the true picture to citizens? Haven’t they ever heard that there’s no free lunch? Yes, they have been offered a financial deal, but the rest of the story includes numerous other aspects like:
— The “windfall” money is coming from taxpayers and ratepayers.
— The deal is premised on an enormous property tax giveaway that no other citizen gets.
— None of the figures conveyed to the public are net.
— Property values near this development will depreciate: Who compensates those citizens for their loss?
— Some proximate residents will experience negative health effects: Who compensates them for their illnesses?
— It’s proven that there will be agricultural losses up to 15 miles away: Who pays for those?
— There are several major adverse environmental impacts, yet this is marketed as helping the environment.
— The claim that this project “will power 10,000 homes” is totally dishonest.
— The claims that this project will replace imported oil, or some polluting coal facility, are also false.
— Fact: There are zero scientifically-proven net societal benefits for wind energy. Zero.
So listen carefully when representatives explain about a proposed wind project. In many instances they are assuming that you are too dumb to understand the details, that you don’t care anyway, and that the inducement of some unguaranteed future payoffs will insure that you start drooling (so you won’t pay attention to the realities).
On the other hand, real representatives will give you an honest, complete, and objective explanation about the whole situation. You decide which is acceptable.
John Droz Jr.
Brantingham Lake
Source
Sunday, July 07, 2013
Fears over 'widespread' EU fraud involving the Mafia
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blog/show?id=4401701%3ABlogPost%3A49190&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post
'A gift'
The Structural Fund money is given out by the European Commission in Brussels. The EU-wide budget for Structural Funds is 350bn euros (£295bn) for the latest seven-year period (2007-2013), distributed across 650,000 programmes in 27 countries.
Nicholas Ilett says Olaf has no powers to prosecute if it discovers fraud
The Commission itself estimates that across the EU's 27 member stat..., which represents a 100% rise on the previous year.
On the Italian island of Sicily, one recently-defected Mafia boss revealed just how some of this money was channelled into Mafia hands.
Not wanting to be seen speaking to the BBC in public, Antonio Birrittella agreed to a meeting in a private room in a backstreet hotel in the island's capital Palermo.
"All these funds from the EU were seen as a gift to the Mafia, easy pickings, especially the development of wind farms and renewable energy," he said.
Although now co-operating with the police and other Italian authorities, Birrittella admits to being a former key player in the infamous local Mafia, the Cosa Nostra.
With previous "responsibility" for extortion in neighbouring Trapani, he claims the modern Mafia has reinvented itself as a "white collar" organisation which has siphoned off millions in EU funds, through a combination of shell companies and the infiltration of regional bodies which distribute the subsidies.
He claims to have detailed knowledge of how the scams worked:
"It started with arson on their premises or building sites, burning their trucks and machinery. That was followed up with threatening phone calls. At that point they usually got what they wanted."
Money-laundering
With Sicily due to receive a further 6.5bn euros in European structural funding over the next seven-year financial period, there is growing concern about a lack of safeguards to protect the additional money if the region's renewable energy sector continues to attract sizeable subsidies.
Some of the wind farms which dominate the hills in the farming region of Camporeale
Forty kilometres (25 miles) from Palermo, the farming region of Camporeale is dominated by rows of large wind turbines which dot the surrounding volcanic ridges.
According to the regional anti-Mafia prosecutor Roberto Scarpinato, some of the wind farms here were developed by the Mafia using EU subsidies, which were then used to fund a money-laundering empire.
By rotating the millions in EU funds through different front companies, the organisations appeared to be operating legitimately and so attracted further EU grants.
"They took the same amount of money, and they moved it around as if each company had access to its own existing capital. They performed this same trick many times, and every time they received public funds," he said.
Many of the wind farms have since been sold on to genuine energy companies completely unconnected to the Mafia.
Details of the sums involved are slowly starting to emerge. The Italian authorities recently seized a record 1.5bn euros' worth..., which included 43 wind and solar energy companies.
'Tolerate criminality'
Back in Brussels, Olaf's director general Nicholas Ilett says the structural funds do have built-in checks and balances.
Bill Newton Dunn, Liberal Democrat MEP for the East Midlands who served on the EU's Budgetary Control Committee, praises Olaf for some of its work, but complains that the "tiny and under-resourced" service has no power to prosecute when it finds evidence of fraud.
And with just 18 investigators looking at the distribution of the entire Structural Fund budget, Nicholas Ilett says the ultimate responsibility for preventing fraud lies with each member state:
"We have done a lot of detailed work on areas subject to Mafia influence, but fighting serious organised crime is not a matter for an administrative service based in Brussels, but for the police and judiciary in the country in question."
However, German MEP Inge Grassle argues the member states are themselves part of the problem:
"We have member states which actively block Olaf and have no interest in really having fraud cases detected.
"At the moment, I'm sorry to say only 7% of cases [highlighted by Olaf] are picked up by the member states. This means that 93% of cases are thrown in the paper basket.
"Therefore we have an investigation unit which is not really effective because after the investigation nothing happens. This means we tolerate criminality. I think that this is really bad news."
'A gift'
The Structural Fund money is given out by the European Commission in Brussels. The EU-wide budget for Structural Funds is 350bn euros (£295bn) for the latest seven-year period (2007-2013), distributed across 650,000 programmes in 27 countries.
Nicholas Ilett says Olaf has no powers to prosecute if it discovers fraud
The Commission itself estimates that across the EU's 27 member stat..., which represents a 100% rise on the previous year.
On the Italian island of Sicily, one recently-defected Mafia boss revealed just how some of this money was channelled into Mafia hands.
Not wanting to be seen speaking to the BBC in public, Antonio Birrittella agreed to a meeting in a private room in a backstreet hotel in the island's capital Palermo.
"All these funds from the EU were seen as a gift to the Mafia, easy pickings, especially the development of wind farms and renewable energy," he said.
Although now co-operating with the police and other Italian authorities, Birrittella admits to being a former key player in the infamous local Mafia, the Cosa Nostra.
With previous "responsibility" for extortion in neighbouring Trapani, he claims the modern Mafia has reinvented itself as a "white collar" organisation which has siphoned off millions in EU funds, through a combination of shell companies and the infiltration of regional bodies which distribute the subsidies.
He claims to have detailed knowledge of how the scams worked:
Listen to the Programme
File on 4 is on BBC Radio 4 on Tuesday 30 November at 2000 GMT
"First the Mafia had an interest in many of the companies which obtained public funds, and they owned many of the companies which won the contracts to build wind farms, and finally they claimed fake transactions and issued double payment invoices."
He says the organisation used intimidation to obtain the plots of land it needed to build the wind farms, and threatened any construction firms who refused to pay its extortion fees."It started with arson on their premises or building sites, burning their trucks and machinery. That was followed up with threatening phone calls. At that point they usually got what they wanted."
Money-laundering
With Sicily due to receive a further 6.5bn euros in European structural funding over the next seven-year financial period, there is growing concern about a lack of safeguards to protect the additional money if the region's renewable energy sector continues to attract sizeable subsidies.
Some of the wind farms which dominate the hills in the farming region of Camporeale
Forty kilometres (25 miles) from Palermo, the farming region of Camporeale is dominated by rows of large wind turbines which dot the surrounding volcanic ridges.
According to the regional anti-Mafia prosecutor Roberto Scarpinato, some of the wind farms here were developed by the Mafia using EU subsidies, which were then used to fund a money-laundering empire.
By rotating the millions in EU funds through different front companies, the organisations appeared to be operating legitimately and so attracted further EU grants.
"They took the same amount of money, and they moved it around as if each company had access to its own existing capital. They performed this same trick many times, and every time they received public funds," he said.
Many of the wind farms have since been sold on to genuine energy companies completely unconnected to the Mafia.
Details of the sums involved are slowly starting to emerge. The Italian authorities recently seized a record 1.5bn euros' worth..., which included 43 wind and solar energy companies.
'Tolerate criminality'
Back in Brussels, Olaf's director general Nicholas Ilett says the structural funds do have built-in checks and balances.
Bill Newton Dunn, Liberal Democrat MEP for the East Midlands who served on the EU's Budgetary Control Committee, praises Olaf for some of its work, but complains that the "tiny and under-resourced" service has no power to prosecute when it finds evidence of fraud.
And with just 18 investigators looking at the distribution of the entire Structural Fund budget, Nicholas Ilett says the ultimate responsibility for preventing fraud lies with each member state:
"We have done a lot of detailed work on areas subject to Mafia influence, but fighting serious organised crime is not a matter for an administrative service based in Brussels, but for the police and judiciary in the country in question."
However, German MEP Inge Grassle argues the member states are themselves part of the problem:
"We have member states which actively block Olaf and have no interest in really having fraud cases detected.
"At the moment, I'm sorry to say only 7% of cases [highlighted by Olaf] are picked up by the member states. This means that 93% of cases are thrown in the paper basket.
"Therefore we have an investigation unit which is not really effective because after the investigation nothing happens. This means we tolerate criminality. I think that this is really bad news."
File on 4 was produced in conjunction with The Bureau for Investigative Journalism and is on BBC Radio 4 on Tuesday 30 November at 2000 GMT. Or listen via the BBC iPlayer or download the podcast.
Friday, July 05, 2013
It's Official: Jasper To Have Wind Project
JASPER, NY - Industrial Development Agency officials say that wind company In-venergy is going forward with their wind project for Jasper.
It's called the Marsh Hill Wind Farm.
Source
Wednesday, July 03, 2013
Jim Griffin: For Wind To Happen In Hornellsville, It Has To Happen In Hartsville First
HORNELLSVILLE, NY - Industrial Development Agency Leaders Jamie Johnson and Jim Griffin met with Hornellsville Town officials at a special meeting held Tuesday evening. Johnson said that the best wind is in Hartsville and Hornellsville, but that several wind companies were discouraged from moving forward.
Johnson also stated that the main focus now for Everpower Wind, is Cohocton and Wayland. The SCIDA Director said that wind companies will focus their efforts in the path of least resistance.
Jim Griffin explained to the officials present that the Town of Hartsville has to come on board or nothing would happen for a Hornellsville wind project. "They're going to gravitate to towns that want them, they won't go to the enemy," Griffin said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)