Golisano Firm Touts Wind Power In Chautauqua Co

Thursday, November 9, 2006 09:14 AM - WBEN Newsroom

Buffalo, NY (WBEN) - A company bankrolled by Buffalo Sabres owner B. Thomas Golisano met with residents in Westfield Wednesday night to present an overview of the ways wind farms could fuel economic dreams there.

At the invitation of Chautauqua County Executive Greg Edwards, Golisano's Empire State Wind Energy Co. unveiled themeselves to the public as a possible developer of southern tier windmills.
To hear more from the meeting, click on the audio link above for a report from WBEN's Steve Cichon

Golisano helps push new wind energy plan

Jan. 9--The Lake Ontario Town of Somerset, which passed two laws governing windmills last year, will hear about an unusual kind of wind energy proposal tonight.

Sabres owner Tom Golisano is one of the founders of Empire State Wind Energy, whose business model calls for cooperation with the host community, which would have the opportunity to eventually take control of the wind turbines.

We're in the business to make some money, but our objective and our focus does not revolve around that," said Keith Pitman, a co-founder and president and chief executive officer.

"The gist of what we're trying to do is capture that money that is made in the future [from wind-generated power production] and give as much as possible to the communities that host our projects."

Empire State Wind Energy proposes to do that by accepting the large up-front costs of developing a windmill -- typically $2 million to $3 million to build and install -- and entering into profit-sharing agreements with host communities once they are up and running.

Golisano originally opposed wind power, but Pitman said Golisano's opinion evolved.

"There was a lot of money we're going to be investing, a lot of the landscape that would be changed, yet what was anyone in this area going to have to show for it"" Pitman said.

That evolution was one of the reasons Golisano helped found the company, he said.

"Instead of simply complaining [about out-of-state involvement], he decided to invest in it and promote a solution."

Pitman said there are a few differences between his plan and others.

One, he said, is that the up-front costs are being assumed by a state company, and the ultimate benefits will be enjoyed by state residents.

Secondly, host towns would have the opportunity to take control of the projects. And third, host communities are involved from the beginning.

"It's always been [with other developers], "Here's my project, now will you approve it"' instead of "What project would you like to host in your community"' " he said.

Pitman's presentation is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. in Town Hall, 8700 Haight Road.

International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise

Description: 2nd International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise, to be held in Lyon, France on 20-22 September 2007.

This is the mailing list for this conference and is open for anyone to join. However only the organisers and moderators can post to this list.

A Problem With Wind Power by Eric Rosenbloom

Wind power promises a clean and free source of electricity. It will reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels and reduce the output of greenhouse gases and other pollution. Many governments are therefore promoting the construction of vast wind "farms," encouraging private companies with generous subsidies and regulatory support, requiring utilities to buy from them, and setting up markets for the trade of "green credits" in addition to actual energy.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) aims to see 5% of our electricity produced by wind turbine in 2010. Energy companies are eagerly investing in wind power, finding the arrangement quite profitable. A little research, however, reveals that wind power does not in fact live up to the claims made by its advocates [see part I], that its impact on the environment and people's lives is far from benign [see part II], and that with such a poor record and prospect the money spent on it could be much more effectively directed [see part III]. Links to aid the reader's own research are provided throughout this paper as well as at the end [see Links; off-site links will open to a new window]. Click here for an abbreviated version of this paper. Click here for an even briefer version (a handy model for letters). This paper is also available as a 7-page typeset PDF file (156 KB) -- click here.

Problems associated with wind turbines by Mr. Monfils, Lincoln Town Board Chairman

To Whom It May Concern:

One lesson learned from our experience with the process of the request for locating wind turbines in the Town of Lincoln in Kewaunee County, was never to assume that what the Utilities or their private supporters tell you about the project is accurate. They put out information, which was beneficial to them and the project and downright wrong.

When dealing with the utilities or private companies, try to deal with one or two persons in charge. This avoids having to repeat your concerns and helps to avoid problems about who said what and who promised this or that about your concerns about the project. Get their promises in writing with guarantees about what they are promising. If their promises are not met, written penalties of appropriate, but substantial size must be provided and enforced. Written conditions and penalties are mandatory if you plan to accept the wind farm project.

Problems that are of strong concern, and problems that we had warned the utilities about but were assured that they would not occur are as follows: interference with T V reception, Microwave reception interference, depreciating property values, flashing red lights (FAA) interfering with nearby homes, wind turbine NOISE which interferes with neighbors sleep and their mental health, increased traffic, road damage, cattle being scared from rotating shadows cascading from the blades in a setting sun, rotating shadows in nearby homes, concerns about stray voltage, concerns about increased lightening strikes, environmental damage to birds, etc. etc. etc. But the proponents for wind energy will dismiss all of these concerns and tell you that they will not occur. THEY ARE WRONG. Ask the neighbors who are not property owners reimbursed by the utilities through lease agreements on their property or people who want to lease in the future. They will verify these problems.

If a town has zoning, establish written conditions with penalties to ensure that the utilities and companies follow the regulations of the local town zoning. Also, look into the establishment of a moratorium on the project so more time can be used to collect or research information about the concerns voiced in areas like Kewaunee County. These concerns are about the public health and safety of our residents and this grand idea of "sticking" these huge towers in near by residents is not a proven success story. It's a trial by ERROR! Only time will tell what the effects of this "EXPERIMENT" will be. This is especially true with the issues of noise, its effect on the neighbors, their mental health related to the noise and its disturbance, the effect of stray voltage on the nearby cattle, as well as other safety issues. Other concerns like the distractions of drivers from the rotating blades, increased lightening strikes in the areas of the towers (not to the towers directly because they are grounded), and other public health and safety issues need to be analyzed on into the future.

Once again, let me stress the importance of taking your time and asking the questions and researching the answers. Forget about deadlines, don't be intimidated by the attorneys of the utilities, their deadlines are their problem and don't make them yours. Once the turbines are up and operating the wind turbine noise will be there. It will not be constant and it may not be above the decibel level that they establish as a maximum, but it will be irritating, at any time of day or night and will vary in its intensity with the wind direction and speed. It violates the very basis of what a zoning ordinance is meant to protect - the welfare of the people who already live in that community. The responsibility of your zoning board and your town board is to protect the residents of your community. Further, these elected or appointed people are supposed to represent the will of the people. You the electorate must demand no less than that, and the town board and the zoning board must vote accordingly.

The Pentagon's Cautious Tilt On Windmills - Washington Post January 29, 2007

Excerpts from "77w Effect of Windmill Farms on Military Readiness,*a report to congression­al defense committees from the of­fice of the director of defense re­search and engineering:

The Department of Defense strongly supports the development of renewable energy sources and is a recognized leader in the use of wind energy. As one of the largest consum­ers of energy, the Department is keenly aware of the budgetary pres­sures that recent increases in the cost of energy have created for all Amer­icans and continues to invest in the development of alternative energy sources. However, the Department is also mindful of its responsibility to Bigmtem its capabilities to defend the nation.

Consequently, the Department, as a result of this study, makes the fol­lowing conclusions and recommen­dations regarding the challenges and areas for further attention, in coordi­nation with other Federal agencies, to allow for construction of wind tur­bines while maintaining defense readiness capabilities:...

• Wind turbines in close proximity tomilitary training, testing, and devel­opment sites and ranges can adverse­ly impact the "train and equip" mis­sion of the Department. Existingprocesses to include engagementwith local and regional planningboards and development approval au­thorities should be employed to miti­gate such potential impacts.

• Wind turbines located in closeproximity to Comprehensive lestBan Treaty monitoring sites can ad­versely impact their ability to per­form this mission by increasing ambi­ent seismic noise levels. Appropriateoffset distance criteria should be de­veloped to mitigate such potentialimpacts....

•The National Weather Service (NWS) has the primary responsibili­ty to provide accurate weather fore­casting services for the nation. The Department defers to the NWS re-- garding identification of impacts wind farms may have on weather ra­dars and development of appropriate mitigation measures. The Depart­ment stands prepared to work with the NWS in this area on NWS identi­fied mitigation measures that have the potential to benefit Department systems....

Howard New York Informational meeting on Windfarms

Howard meeting - February 7, 2007 7:00 PM at Howard Community Center

BISHOP WIND FARM PPM ATLANTIC REST IN PEACE

It has now been publicly acknowledged that the Bishop Wind Farm has been laid to rest (hopefully perpetual rest). A suitable monument would be welcome in any Town's historic cemeteries. This huge threat to our environment has been at least temporally defeated. However, the fact that a major battle has been won is ho guarantee that the this war is over.

SPC is committed to continued vigilance, but most importantly, we wish to thank all those who offered moral and financial support, attending critical meetings and Town Board Public Hearings, put signs in their yard, wrote letters and voted for a write in candidate, who probably would have been elected except for gross irregularities at the polls. THANK YOU.

Clearly, no thanks are due to the three members of the Town Board who turned a deaf ear to hundreds of Town property owners, in spite of majority opposition to the proposed wind factory. In the future, we hope the Town Board would be more responsive to town residents.

In the process of taking on the wind farm issue, SPG could not avoid running into a number of blatantly obvious problems in our community; lack of enforcement of the few local laws that exist; lack of any long term planning, vacant and unboarded buildings; lack of maintenance of Town owned property; lack of communication with citizens by the Town Supervisor, to name some of the obvious.

SPC will continue to remain ready to fight any new wind factory proposals. In the interim we will attempt to address other issues to the best of our ability. We know not everyone will agree on everything, but believe that if all work together, Springwater can improve; that we can be an even better place to live and a stronger, vibrant community, but it will not happen without citizen involvement.

SPRINGWATERPRESERVATION COMMITTEE
P.O. BOX 128,
SPRINGWATER, NY

Construction of a wind energy facility on Mars Hill, Maine, a UPC project

Reply to letter from UPC Vermont Wind

Around Halloween, Leila LaRosa, the local face for UPC Vermont Wind, sent a letter to Sheffield and Sutton residents. UPC wants to erect 16 420-feet-high wind turbines, their blades each sweeping a vertical area of 1.9 acres, on ridges between Sutton and Sheffield and overlooking Crystal Lake in Barton. The letter was an attempt to refute worries about such industrialization of otherwise protected ridges and to assert that the project's value is worth the sacrifice.

"They ... ARE effective and they DO reduce our dependence on oil, gas and fossil uels.

"Effective? The only measure of success the industry presents is that they are built. They have never been able to show that wind energy on the grid actually reduces the use of other fuels. This is not surprising, because the variable, intermittent, and unpredictable wind energy only makes the rest of the grid work harder to balance it.

The letter insists that UPC will not limit access to the project area. They need to publicize the leases if anyone is to believe them. All the leases I've seen are indeed restrictive and make the landowner a caretaker to the wind company's control of the land.

The letter takes issue with the charge that miles of new roads will have to be built by saying that, yes, miles, of new roads will have to be built: 5.5 miles of them. These won't be logging tracks but heavy-duty roads that can bear 50- or 60-ton loads and accomodate 160-ft trailers. What will be the effect on the watershed? Flooding and erosion are likely. "Revegetation" is far from restoration, and in fact the roads would have to be kept usable for delivering new rotor blades and gearboxes, which fail quite frequently.

On taxpayer subsidies, The letter cites (very incorrectly) only one subsidy, the 1.9-cent per kWh production tax credit. There are also 5-year double declining accelerated depreciation and the ratepayer-supported market for renewable energy credits. In all, federal subsidies generally cover two-thirds of the developer's cost, and state subsidies may cover another 10%. Crucially, the subsidies do not require evidence of a reduction of other fuels, that is, an actual benefit to justify moving so much public money into private bank accounts.

As for the humble UPC company, who are its investors? What is their connection to the UPC Group of Italy?

On problems from low-frequency noise generated by giant wind turbines, the letter is exactly backwards. It is the denial of problems that is being challenged by the scientific community. The U.K. Noise Association and the French Academy of Medicine recommend that large wind turbines be no closer than one mile from any residence.

In addition, the audible noise will be at an unacceptable level for a rural environment. And the noise won't stop at night, when it will be carried farther.

At the same time that the letter tries to deny such negative impacts, it tries to divert attention to worse problems with other sources of energy, such as coal and nuclear. Nobody denies those serious problems. But it is a wind facility being proposed for Sheffield and Sutton. And wind energy does not reduce the use of other sources. It is not a choice between wind and something worse. Wind's negatives simply add to the negatives we already live with, and none are reduced.

UPC admonishes the people protecting their communities from a massive building project of doubtful value and obvious costs for "spreading misinformation." Again, they have it backwards. Misinformation is UPC's game.

Response to claims made by UPC Wind Partners by Eric Rosenbloom

UPC, the company proposing 26 400-foot-high wind energy machines in Sheffield and Sutton -- despite substantial opposition -- took out a full-page ad in the July 1 Caledonian-Record (page B4). This was in reponse to the 48 people that were not employees of UPC who testified at the June 26 Public Service Board hearing in Sutton -- all of them describing the project's many negative impacts and its lack of significant benefits. UPC's ad quotes Abraham Lincoln that a dog still has four legs even if you call the tail a leg. They then proceed to argue that the tail of their dog is indeed a leg. But, as Bill Clinton used to say, that dog don't hunt.

1. The Sheffield/Sutton wind energy facility will not help Vermont meet its energy needs. One third of the time, it will produce no energy at all. Another third of the time, it will produce at a rate well below its already low annual average of 20-30% of capacity. The largely unpredictable variability is in response to the wind rather than user demand. It is therefore mostly useless for meeting our energy needs.

2. Wind energy does not make the air cleaner. Because it is so variable, it does not displace the use of other fuels. Because it adds to the balancing burden on other sources, wind energy may even cause more pollution. No promoter has been able to show any evidence of reduced greenhouse gas emissions due to wind energy on the grid.

3. Property values and the tourist economy will obviously be affected. Twenty-six 420-ft-high machines -- turning, strobe-lit, and wump-wumping night and day -- are hard to ignore. A significant proportion of people with a choice will obviously buy or visit elsewhere. Every effort the industry has made to design surveys to show otherwise has been easily deflated.

4. Noisier than you think. Noise is the most common complaint from neighbors of giant wind turbines. It is an unnatural noise, compounded by a resonant aspect that can rattle windows and make some people ill. The noise is usually worse at night. While denying its significance, wind developers try to pay neighbors to sign "forbearance easements" to squelch complaints.

5. Green credits don't mean anything. The logic of renewable energy credits is sound for a more reliable source of energy. But wind does not displace other sources, so the companies are taking advantage of the extra revenue stream without having to show any actual benefit in return. There is no "New England 'green credits' program" as the UPC ad claims. Several states have renewable portfolio standards, whose requirements are met by showing green credits, but UPC can sell green credits, or tags, to anyone, anywhere. Vermont is, however, part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which is indeed a "cap and trade" system. If the Sheffield/Sutton facility would not be involved in it, as UPC and Washington Electric Co-op insist, that's because it would have no measurable effect on greenhouse gas emissions.

6. Who gets the big subsidies? UPC cites only one minor source of the many subsidies for industrial-scale wind energy. The industry's own seminars describe how taxpayers can pay for two-thirds to three-fourths of the cost of erecting giant wind turbines. That's potentially several million dollars per machine. It is true that other energy sources are also heavily subsidized. Other sources, however, unlike big wind, provide useful energy.

7. UPC Wind Partners is a subsidiary of UPC Group, which is based in Italy. UPC Group was established by New Englanders, but in Italy. This dog of a project doesn't even bark convincingly. The Sheffield/Sutton project is, like all industrial wind facilities, a boondoggle whose only success will be the transfer of public money to private investors. The promoters cannot show any evidence to back up their claim of reducing greenhouse gases and pollution. That is the empty hat they are desperate to fill with full-page ads proclaiming "the truth." But their arguments are as puffs of air and don't have a leg to stand on.

Also see reply to letter from UPC, Nov. 2006 and clearance and construction at UPC's Mars Hill project.

Construction on Mars Hill, Maine

The tower height of these GE models is 262 feet, so it appears that the flat circle is at least 270 feet across -- almost the length of a football field -- or about 1.3 acres. The cut-and-filled area looks like another 3 times that, so the total physical footprint -- not counting the roads, transmission line rights of ways, and substation -- is at least 5 acres. This is repeated every 750 feet (about 7 per mile). The loss of interior forest habitat extends 250 feet farther from the edges, for a total loss of about 20 acres.

The loss of absorptive ground cover and the effects of roads is likely to cause severe run-off problems, including the silting up of brooks, a lowering of the water table, and even alteration of underground water flow -- serious problems where most people rely on wells for their water.

And that's just the surface. There's dozens of tons of concrete and rebar underneath the each tower, and, according to an Oct. 28, 2006, article in the Bangor Daily News, for the dozens of 2-1/2" rock anchor bolts holding the base of the tower "workers drilled 45 feet into the ground, made sure they had hit bedrock, grouted the bolts into the ledge, and then made sure they could withstand about 400,000 pounds of force."

The Mars Hill machines have a maximum generating capacity of 1.5 MW and a total height of 328 feet. The possible Clipper models now proposed for Sheffield and Sutton have a capacity of 2.5 MW and a total height of 418 feet. That means they will need even more space and more anchoring.

More pictures of Mars Hill can be seen at National Wind Watch.
Documentation of the destruction of Cefn Croes in Wales is also available.

Clipper Windpower Announces Sale of 200 MW of Liberty Wind Turbines To UPC Wind For Delivery In 2008

CARPINTERIA, CALIFORNIA (PRWEB) October 18, 2006 -- Clipper Windpower Plc today announced that it has completed a sales agreement with a subsidiary of UPC Wind for the supply of 200 MW of Clipper wind turbines to be delivered in 2008. Under the terms of the agreement, Clipper will deliver 80 of the company’s 2.5 MW Liberty wind turbines including wind turbine installation supervision, and provide operations and maintenance services for a period of five years.

(click to read entrire article)

Fenner Blade Failure January 28, 2007

"The photo is taken at Fenner Wind Farm on Sunday, January 28th at 2 p.m. Unfortunately it was snowing and visibility was bad. Half the wind turbines were turning, the rest were not. The only thing that drew my attention to the site was the crane. As I looked closer, the blade at 6 o'clock is sheared off, what appears to be either material failure, lightening, I don't know."

Nothing of this has been reported through web-based news sources. We do not know how far the broken piece was thrown from the turbine.

This image is remarkable similar to the Searsburg blade break which occurred in Spring 2006 during the severe wind storm in New England/New York. A photo can be found at http://www.windaction.org/pictures/2185.

Anti-wind groups cry foul by KRISTYN ECOCHARD

WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 (UPI) -- The American Wind Energy Association recently predicted large increases in wind-power capacity in its 2007 outlook, but industry buzz doesn't faze the many staunch wind opponents.

Groups like National Wind Watch, Stop Ill Wind, War Against Wind, We Oppose Wind Farms, Industrial Wind Energy Opposition and many others in the United States and internationally are trying to get their message out about the negative aspects and effects of wind energy.

(click to read entire article)